Post Vacation Open Thread

Hi guys! Sorry, went to San Diego for a few days. Del Mar and La Jolla are still heaven on Earth, even though they are in Commiefornia.

Anyways…

I think three days of rioting is “ok” in the sense that people won’t get too upset about it. Three weeks of rioting raises a lot of eyebrows. Three months of rioting…I think there could be massive reaction against it. Like a Trump 45 State landslide sort of reaction. I don’t know, of course: I am theorizing. Democrats seem convinced that chaos helps them: the implied threat is “vote Biden or this continues”. But Trump has his answer for that: sending in federal cops to arrest the BLM/Antifa types on federal charges (did you know merely spray painting a federal building can get you a year in jail?; the laws against vandalizing federal property have some teeth!). Trump is letting the American people know that their choice is him and peace or them and war. We’ll see how people decide: but I’m starting to run across deep blue people who have had enough.

Do keep in mind that we are already 2nd class citizens in our own country. That is an established fact: the St Louis couple who defended themselves have been charged with a felony while the rioters get their charges dropped. To be sure, the State AG is going to ride to the rescue, and that is good: but how many times will you and I be let off by liberal city politicians and how many times will the GOP AG ride to our rescue? We are the oppressed; not them. Their oppression is a made-up thing (so made up that they have to fake racist incidents) our oppression is real: our jobs and social standing is at grave risk merely for people finding out we’re Trump voters. Voting Trump is the only chance we’ve got to restore ourselves to full citizenship.

Kasich will speak at Biden’s convention. I think that Kasich will switch parties and run as a Democrat in 2024, myself. I think he also knows that Biden is doomed and he’s essentially going to build his brand as the man who can lead the Democrats out of the far left fever swamps starting in 2021. It won’t work: he doesn’t realize how much he’s despised by the left base of the Democrat party. Only a complete rejection of everything he’s ever stood for will be acceptable to them…and even then, they’ll just take the scalp and go with someone who has always been a true believer. Its not that Kasich isn’t willing to crawl…its that no one like a turncoat.

Planned Parenthood is ditching their founder, Margaret Sanger, over her support for eugenics. They won’t ditch the baby-killing, of course. After all, Hitler built the Autobahn…

This be ridiculous.

I don’t think teachers realize how much they are shooting themselves in the foot by insisting schools remain closed. Every ounce of goodwill they have is being wrecked. Kids don’t seem to catch the ‘Rona very much and they also don’t seem to transmit it very much. Meanwhile, store shelf stockers have been doing heroic work for months. My hope: this kills the very concept of public education.

170 thoughts on “Post Vacation Open Thread

  1. jdge1 July 22, 2020 / 12:48 am

    ”My hope: this kills the very concept of public education.”

    When they say God works in mysterious ways this very concept came to mind for public elementary, middle, high school and most colleges. This could be the beginning of the end for these indoctrination centers.

  2. jdge1 July 22, 2020 / 12:51 am

    My son alerted me to another distortion of the COVID count. In many instances if a person test positive they are requested to return several more times for repeat testing. In each additional test (3, 4, 5 or sometimes more) it is often being counted as a new positive test case when being reported in the states weekly / monthly totals, when it is in fact an existing case being counted multplei times at various intervals. Sometimes it boggles the mind just how many different ways information can be distorted.

    • lance1845 (@lance1845) July 22, 2020 / 12:25 pm

      Not true Jdge1 – your son got it wrong and perhaps was looking at it in a wrong way. There is no double counting – tests are individual and are not counted more than the initial time they are given since they are assigned to a person. Repeat tests aren’t counted.

      • Amazona July 22, 2020 / 12:40 pm

        lance, are you sure? Oh, I know that is the way it is SUPPOSED to work, but then people are only SUPPOSED to be listed as COVID-19 fatalities if the virus is the actual cause of death, and we know that is not what is happening. COVID fatality rates have been based on people who die FROM Covid, people who die of other causes but also WITH Covid, and people who might have had Covid because of exposure to people who have it. Yes, some locales are actually counting “probables” in their numbers. Who knows how many clinics in at least one state were only reporting positives?

        If each of those metrics can be ignored or distorted, I don’t see why the easier way of simply counting every test as a new test can’t be as well. Yes, if done correctly then every repeated test would be logged under the original number assigned to one person—but all a lab has to do is report the gross number of positive results it got on X number of tests and the end result is thrown off. Maybe someone who cared could dig down through the gross numbers to learn that some tests were repeats and shouldn’t be counted, etc but is anyone doing that? Given the pressure to have the highest possible number of claimed positives, I really doubt it.

      • bunkerboy15 July 22, 2020 / 7:13 pm

        lance, are you sure?

        If it is the case that the COVID-19 count is distorted by counting the same individuals multiple times, then you should be able to cite the evidence instead of relying on JDGE1’s brother’s word for it.

        It seems much more likely that the cases are being under-counted.

      • Amazona July 22, 2020 / 10:26 pm

        We already know, by their own admission, that some clinics were only reporting positives. We already know, from the statement made by a county sheriff, that a young man listed as a COVID fatality died in a motorcycle crash. We already know, from statements from many doctors and nurses over many weeks, that patients who died from other causes were listed as COVID fatalities if they even had the virus, even if it did not contribute to the deaths.

        But you give more credence to those voices in your head than to the testimony of a witness.

      • jdge1 July 22, 2020 / 8:51 pm

        “Not true jdge1” Oh, really? And you have some sort of crystal ball telling you all of the circumstance of how COVID is counted? My son is in the medical field and has first hand knowledge of this and the feedback from others also in the medical field that he trust. So I’m inclined to believe what he says as opposed to taking your word for it.

        Now, that’s not to say it happens in all cases, but it IS happening and as a result the count is being bloated leading to distorted perception.

      • Amazona July 22, 2020 / 10:57 pm

        jdge, we seem to have attracted some trolls—or enough attention for a troll to take the trouble to use several screen names. Basically it’s the same thing—-regurgitating the same old same old, pushing back at real information while they pump out their lies and slime.

        He/She/It/They are here to promote the whole lie that it is necessary to shut down the country because of the most deadly, lethal, dangerous, terrifying virus ever known to man, a virus that will not pass through a cloth covering that does allow respiration, does not enter the body through the exposed surface of the eye, is so easily contained that it simply cannot escape a loose mask of a person sneezes or coughs or speaks loudly, is so inevitably fatal that there is no common easily obtained therapy for it, a virus that can only be dealt with by hiding from it.

        Till after the election, anyway.

        But that’s their story and they’re sticking to it. Kind of, anyway. It’s getting harder to do that. For example, masks are essential and not only stop this plague in its tracks but prove moral and civic responsibility. Why, wearing a mask is like shouting “I LOVE PEOPLE MORE THAN YOU DO AND I AM A BETTER PERSON THAN YOU ARE”. Unless you are a politician in New York, or a rioter. Then it;s fine to not wear one. Plague numbers are going up because people are going to work and out to eat, but not because they are crammed up against each other screaming, with spittle flying and high-velocity virus droplets being propelled into the air. The ratio of severe presentations of the virus to the number of those testing positive is plummeting, as is the death rate, so they won’t talk about that. The figures are rigged to support this whole fraud, so they have to deny that.

        They’ve got a job to do, and they come here to try to do it.

      • bunkerboy15 July 22, 2020 / 10:47 pm

        We already know, by their own admission, that some clinics were only reporting positives.

        So provide the voluminous evidence. Anecdotes here and there aren’t impressive, and you know it.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 12:04 am

        No. We have gone over this at great length, we have provided links, and no one owes YOU a single thing. What I know is that there is voluminous evidence of all sorts of shenanigans regarding the testing and reporting of COVID-19 cases and deaths. You can pretend that if someone has not provided YOU with enough of the kind of information YOU decide is valid then it doesn’t matter, but that is meaningless because what you think is irrelevant. And besides, its’s not about what “you” think anyway, just what you are instructed to say on blogs like this.

      • lance1845 (@lance1845) July 22, 2020 / 11:04 pm

        Actually, I never advocated we shut down the whole country – i thought wearing masks and social distancing in most cases would be enough to mitigate the worst of the virus. I don’t know where you got the idea that I wanted us to shut down. Furthermore, your point jdge1 is that because your family is in the medical field, they must be more right than I – I get my data from Johns Hopkins and the CDC – i would say that the government organizations charged with data collection are probably not doing it anecdotally and are being accurate in their data collection. no offense, but you’re not a source, the CDC is.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 12:34 am

        “You” is a plural “you” meaning, in general, the Left.

        As for your data, it all comes down to GIGO. Go ahead and assume that the people at Johns Hopkins or the CDC fact check the sources of their statistics if you want, but basically they just report what they are told.

        As for the CDC, they have had a budget in the billions-with-a-b for years, and what have they done with it? This virus is not new, it’s part of a big family of corona viruses,, a family that has killed millions of people, yet they were completely blindsided by its emergence as a widespread problem in spite of its being known for a long time in China. Then they gave us conflicting information, after being unprepared to deal with a pandemic that supposedly had been on our horizon for years, according to the people who blame Trump for it.

        The CDC is a government agency run by bureaucrats. It is very naive to just accept everything that comes out of it as valid or important.

      • jdge1 July 22, 2020 / 11:57 pm

        Where do you think John Hopkins and the CDC get their info from? I never claimed to be a “source”. But you can be sure there are all kinds of inaccurate reporting, several examples have already been reported here and from various news outlets. So sorry if your “source” isn’t so accurate. I’ve already seen numerous times where the CDC has manipulated data and put out false information in a self-serving way. But you go ahead and continue believing them. After all, they’re a “government agency”, so they have to be trusted, right?

  3. Cluster July 22, 2020 / 8:48 am

    Voting Trump is the only chance we’ve got to restore ourselves to full citizenship.

    Voting Trump is the only chance we have to restore America. If Biden wins, even with a GOP Senate the Left will push through everything they want, open borders and unfettered immigration, universal healthcare, higher taxes, more regulations, abolishing fossil fuel, green new deal programs, etc, etc…. everything that will destroy this country economically and socially. Essentially what the Democrat plan is to reduce everyone but themselves to the lowest common denominator to the point we are all dependent on the good nature of our politicians … and that ain’t gonna happen.

    John Kasich is a complete fraud. Years ago I would look forward to his segments on the O’Reilly Factor. At that time Kasich was a former Congressman and had not yet run for the Governor of Ohio and he at least talked like a conservative back then. In fact pretty well, he articulated very well the positions and policies of conservatism. Evidently he was just a part time conservative much like Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, etc. It’s not east to swim against the DC current and weak people will fold.

    Black Lives Matter is a crime syndicate with blood on their hands.

  4. Cluster July 22, 2020 / 8:51 am

    “White Fragility” Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk Racism

    Has everyone heard of this piece of drivel?? I have no problem telling people with mental issues about their skin color to take their racism and shove it up their ass. No Fragility here.

    • Amazona July 22, 2020 / 11:34 am

      It’s hard for white people to talk racism because most of were not born with Race Goggles. We don’t have the nearly supernatural ability to see racism absolutely everywhere, We are limited by our other senses, so if we see someone squat and dump on a sidewalk and think “that’s just wrong” we don’t see that reaction as one based on the skin color of the dumper. To the contrary, we see evaluating this action based on skin as an example of racism but that’s just the white concept of judging by actions and character instead of melanin.

      If we see feces on the street, we just think “that should be cleaned up”—we don’t worry that it might have come out of a melanin-enhanced person and therefore that removing it might be an insult to his poo—“racism”. We haven’t sorted out which poo is good and which is bad based on who excreted it, which is another example of how we just plain struggle with how to talk about racism—we insist that words and conversations mean the same thing no matter how much skin pigment is involved.

      I think what it comes down to is the choice some people make. Ask a white guy to describe himself and he will probably say something like “male, Catholic, husband, father, accountant,…” Ask a black man the same question and you will probably get “black” as the first and definitely most important thing about him. That has nothing to do with white people. That is wholly the perspective of most American black people today. Ask a real African that question and he might start his personal description with a national identity—Somalian, for example—but not “black”.

      But just as if you are a hammer you see everything as a nail, if your entire worldview is based on skin color then everything you see is going to be run through that filter, especially if your skin color identity is associated with a sense of victimhood. Then “he cut me off in traffic because I am black“. “He stopped me for running the red light because I am black“. “He fired me for not showing up for work because I am black“. And so on. Well, every white person who has been cut off in traffic, has been stopped for running a red light, has been fired for not showing up for work, is going to have a hard time taking “racism” seriously as the reason dark skinned people have had these same experiences.

      If I have a “hard time talking about racism” in the context race-obsessed people mean, it is for the same reason I have a hard time talking about pixies or secret death rays that I can only defeat with a tinfoil hat. It’s because I don’t think it exists—except in the minds of those who choose to see it, and I can’t do anything about that.

  5. Cluster July 22, 2020 / 9:47 am

    If you pay attention, people do tell you who they are:

    Conservative columnist George Will says he’s voting for Joe Biden in November: “The most important thing is to clear the ground so we can start over with American-normal politics.”

    And there it is. ALL the DC swamp dwellers, with few exceptions, long for the days of just 4 years ago when conservatives could criticize Democrats but not really mean it and they would all get a good laugh at the weekend cocktail party before returning to Washington the next Monday to assume their roles. It was all theater, until Trump came along.

    • Amazona July 22, 2020 / 11:46 am

      Well, in a Will-centric world, “American normal politics” is an ideal. That was his world. He misses it. In that world, people cared about what he said. In that world, he was something. In the real world, not so much. He wants that world back. It would be so much easier for him than realigning his thought processes so he could relevant in the post-“normal” world. Where’s the fun in that?

      So what ARE “American normal politics”? All we can do is look at our examples. That would include: Constantly increasing federal control of what should be state issues; constantly increasing size and scope of federal agencies with unelected bureaucrats assuming legislative powers; unending military involvement around the world; decreasing international stature; disintegrating American infrastructure; high taxes; the death spiral of American “education” as it devolves into fantasies and carefully contrived ignorance; consolidation of power in the hands of a few elites; consolidation of corruption as it clusters around the center of power (in this case, Washington DC); career politicians who have never held real jobs and entered Congress poor and managed to acquire huge net worth while “serving” the nation. Judicial activism, legislating from the bench to implement and support increasingly Leftist policies. Bland acceptance of the Complicit Agenda Media as true purveyors of “news” and not active elements of Leftist propaganda.

      “Ah, yes”, muses George Will: “Good times”.

  6. Cluster July 22, 2020 / 12:37 pm

    Ask a black man the same question and you will probably get “black” as the first and definitely most important thing about him. That has nothing to do with white people. That is wholly the perspective of most American black people today. Ask a real African that question and he might start his personal description with a national identity—Somalian, for example—but not “black”.

    SPOT ON. The psychological damage the Left and the Democrats have inflicted upon black Americans is unforgivable.

    • Amazona July 22, 2020 / 12:46 pm

      And the thing is, it seems to be black AMERICANS. There is a sizable black population in South America and they don’t seem obsessed with finding and reacting to grievances.

      When a young man from South America was calling my little black dog Negra I explained to him how he had to be very very careful about what words he used in this country, because of the hyper sensitivity. When I was done he looked at me and said “I don’t understand. Don’t they KNOW they are black?”

      When a pretty sizable number of real Africans moved into a community where I lived, they were just happy to be there, and the result was that everyone was happy to have them. They got jobs, they worked hard, they got promotions, they were friendly, they fit right in. There was no question that if an equal number of “AFRICAN-AMERICANS” had moved in it would have been very different.

      • Cluster July 22, 2020 / 12:52 pm

        We need to drop the qualifiers – like “African American” I would wager to say that 98% of all black Americans who call themselves “African”, have never even been to Africa. Same with Hispanic Americans, etc.

        Let’s just be Americans

  7. Amazona July 22, 2020 / 1:21 pm

    This is a comment from the comments section on an article in the Daily Signal.

    Noah300g • 7 hours ago

    Adhering to practices such as “self-reliance,” “adherence to rigid time schedules,” “delayed gratification,” and commitment to the “nuclear family.” doesn’t make you ‘White’, it makes you a productive member of society, no matter what your race, creed, or color.

    A country is defined by borders, language, and culture. That’s why we have (and want better) walls at our borders. It’s why we speak a common language, and it’s why we have an ‘American’ culture.
    No human being is any better or worse than any other. We all have the same DNA and chemical makeup. However, there are cultures that have been shown to be better at advancing the human condition. Cultures that still practice slavery on the continent of Africa are not where I would want to live. Cultures that still practice genocide and religious persecution as in the Middle East and parts of Asia are not where I want to live. Cultures that still practice female genital mutilation Muslim dominated society) are not a society in which I want to live. America has its own culture based on freedom of the individual and limited power of government (granted only by consent of the governed). Many have come here to escape the culture/country they were born in so they can live in the most free society on the planet. That freedom, combined with a Capitalist economic system that encourages innovation, has freed billions of people around the world, saved countless lives from dictators and disease and hunger, has taken us to the moon and beyond, given us many scientific and medical breakthroughs that benefit mankind, and kept us safe from forces of evil throughout the world.

    If you don’t like that culture, I suggest you take advantage of the fact that our borders are not enforced to keep people here against their will. You are free to leave and go to any country with a culture that is more to your liking.

    • Cluster July 22, 2020 / 3:41 pm

      I am with Noah300g

  8. Cluster July 22, 2020 / 4:10 pm

    Just heard on MSNBC and no kidding. This from Nicole Wallace – “Donald Trump has decided to wage a war in his own country rather than in foreign countries as traditional Presidents do …”

    Hahahahahahaha “traditional Presidents” did wage needless wars in foreign countries to keep the Military Industrial Complex busy and the money rolling in and that’s exactly why Trump is President. Again if you listen closely, they tell you the truth and this also tells you that Democrats still have no clue why Trump was elected. They don’t know the American people anymore

  9. Retired Spook July 22, 2020 / 4:23 pm

    If sending federal law enforcement into riot areas doesn’t tell you how Trump views his primary duty to protect Americans from the forces of anarchy and lawlessness, then I don’t know what will. It would be to his advantage electorally to simply let the BLM and Antifa thugs burn down every large, Democrat-controlled city.

  10. Cluster July 22, 2020 / 4:48 pm

    Pay attention to the verbiage in this headline:

    MaddowBlog: Team Biden targets Ron Johnson over possible foreign influence scheme

    “targets” … interesting but it reveals the true intent. They are at war with us, make no mistake about that. Note to all progressives; when conservatives start to target, we don’t miss and we don’t use blanks.

    • Retired Spook July 22, 2020 / 4:54 pm

      MaddowBlog: Team Biden targets Ron Johnson over possible foreign influence scheme

      Rachel appears to have completely missed the irony in that statement.

  11. Retired Spook July 22, 2020 / 5:08 pm

    There have been so many letters to the editor in our local, left-wing paper asking how any good Christian could support Trump that I’ve lost count. Today someone finally answered them.

    There have been more than a few letters in the past four years chastising Christians for their support of President Donald Trump. The authors love to point out his many flaws.

    Some of these supposed flaws are falsehoods; some are grand, politically motivated exaggerations; and some are most likely true. but regardless of the validity of the claims, the accusations against Trump-supporting Christians are consistent: how can a person claim to be a Christian and continue to support such an ungodly man? Perhaps this will help.

    Trump is, in fact, ungodly, but in Christianity we all are. It’s part of the human condition. In Christianity, God doesn’t have a hierarchy of sins. They’re all bad. You can say what you like about Trump, but in God’s eyes, Trump is no better or worse than you, me or anyone else. And that’s OK. We’re not expected to choose a spiritual leader. (Can you imagine how that would go if we dared try?)

    We are given the freedom and privilege to choose the executive administrator of the entire country, charged with keeping it running properly, and protecting the rights of its citizens. His primary job is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The presidential campaign is a nationwide job interview for that position. As with any job interview, our primary concern should be, “Who is the most suitable candidate for this job?”

    I chose Trump over his opponent in 2016 based on that criterion. After hearing his current opponent’s positions, I’ll be making that same choice this November. I leave judgement on all other matters to a higher authority.

    I hope there are millions of Christians who get it as well as this guy does.

    • Cluster July 22, 2020 / 5:14 pm

      Can’t say it any better than that.

    • Amazona July 22, 2020 / 5:41 pm

      I also point out to these “Christians” who simply reject the concepts of redemption, salvation and forgiveness that when Christ was on Earth His chosen apostles were sinners, and He left His church in their hands.

    • bunkerboy15 July 22, 2020 / 10:57 pm

      Spook, this is really not very convincing. Maybe it has some Christians nodding in agreement, but for most of us, this is just a rationalization for supporting a corrupt individual with low character.

      First off, the fact that Christians need to justify why they voted for a man of such low moral character is telling in itself. Obviously you all are sensitive and not proud of this fact.

      Second, you all only decided that moral character and personal responsibility are not relevant to the leader of the free world when you decided to support Donald Trump. Before that, these were litmus test issues with you all. This is why Republicans impeached Bill Clinton, you might recall. All we heard about for years from conservatives was “moral relativism.” Now it is plastered on your forehead.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 12:23 am

        So if YOU don’t find something “very convincing” then it is, ipso facto, “not very convincing”. Yeah, right.

        Sorry, but your opinion is meaningless and your definition of “convincing” even less so. You are not here to discuss, you are here to be a blog vandal, merely taking up room and using the blog as a litter box.

        But it does not go unnoticed that you simply ignore what is said so you can go on another of your silly rants. What Spook quoted was the criterion for voting for a president: “Who is the most suitable candidate for this job?” And you, in your typical and despicable fashion, try to turn that into the claim that (1) he was saying moral character and personal responsibility are not relevant to the leader of the free world and (2) that you, of all people, are qualified to determine the morality or character of anyone else.

        The Left still idolizes John F. Kennedy, a man with reprehensible character in many ways. After listening to a book about his goals as president after he had been in office for a while, I can accept that he was not wholly immoral in every possible way, and even that there were aspects of his job as president that were honorable and deserving of respect. But as a man he was very immoral and his election was a textbook example of election fraud.

        Ditto for the character of Bill Clinton, with the exception of finding something in his presidency to admire or respect. Every step of his political career was corrupt and often criminal, and his personal character was (and is) vile. Just because Barack Obama managed to keep his zipper up does not mean he was an honorable or admirable person—he was always a stone-cold liar, he took a sacred oat of office with the intent from the beginning of breaking it, his associates made Paul Manafort et al look like choir boys, and all in all he was a thoroughly disreputable president who purposely did more to harm this nation than any president we have ever had.

        So spare us your smarmy posturing as someone who cares about character, much less someone who would recognize good character if he tripped over it. Every word of every post you dump here reeks of dishonesty and bad character, of lies and sheer nastiness, and the specter of you lecturing anyone about the character of ANYONE is the height—or depth—-of hypocrisy.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 1:51 am

        Before that, these were litmus test issues with you all. This is why Republicans impeached Bill Clinton, you might recall.

        No, only the profoundly ignorant or determinedly dishonest can “recall” something that never happened. Bill Clinton was impeached for committing perjury. Now you can try to dismiss lying under oath about something material to a legal matter as nothing more than a silly old “litmus test” but all that does is illustrate, once again, how little you respect this nation and its laws. But perjury is, in fact, a crime. And Bill Clinton was impeached, rightfully, for committing a crime while president of the United States.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 2:47 am

        I don’t know about Spook, or the man he quoted, but I know I am very proud of voting for Trump. I stood up for what was right for the nation, though at the time I was not a Trump fan. But I take my duty as a citizen very seriously, and that means voting for the person and the party that are most likely to preserve this nation and its rule of law. I am proud that I made the right choice, and I am proud of the president for standing up to a truly vile and vicious and thoroughly anti-American campaign to remove him from office.

        I find it disgusting to see people trivializing the decision of voting for the president by treating it as a some kind of frivolous popularity contest. As I said then and say now, I never wanted to date Trump, I wanted to hire him. And I was part of getting him hired and he has done a hell of a job under the most trying and nearly impossible circumstances, doing what I hired him to do.

        As for the Christian aspect of supporting Trump, Christianity is based on the tenets of redemption, salvation and forgiveness., yet we are always hearing from self-congratulatory “Christians” bragging about their refusal to make any of these three requirements part of their attitude toward Donald Trump. Our nation;s history is full of stories of men who led pretty awful lives, robber barons who cheated and stole and took advantage of others, who one day looked back at their lives and said “I don’t want to be that man any more” and went on to do great things for this country. In Donald Trump I see a man who appears to have gone through the same kind of epiphany, who has made major changes in his life and is now dedicating it to serving his country, and I have the deepest respect for him.

      • Retired Spook July 23, 2020 / 10:57 am

        First off, the fact that Christians need to justify why they voted for a man of such low moral character is telling in itself. Obviously you all are sensitive and not proud of this fact.

        First off, sport, I can think of lots of words to describe how I feel about having voted for and still supporting Trump, and “sensitive” isn’t one of them. “Sensitive” is more a word I associate with woke Progressives, which may be why you used it.

        Second, if the founders had included a morality clause to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, then a large number of previous presidents would have failed. Trump is a choir boy compared to Lyndon Johnson in the morality department. But since you seem to think that all Christians should be guided by morality in their decision as to whom to vote for, let’s look at the alternative in 2016 — Hillary Clinton. If you’re suggesting that she would have been the more moral choice for Christians, then, well excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor from LMAO.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 11:18 am

        Good points, Spook. I had forgotten about LBJ, one of the most thoroughly corrupt and disgusting presidents in our entire history. People get the vapors over Donald Trump’s alleged “vulgarity”—L:BJ walked around naked in front of his staff and had meetings in his bathroom while he defecated in his toilet, and his language was not only profane it was so racist it would have today’s fragile flowers of wokeness swooning. That doesn’t even get into his sordid past, one of financial corruption and murder.

        These pious protesters of Trump’s character wanted to elect a woman who enabled her husband’s serial sexual abuses, who flew with him on Epstein’s Lolita Express to at least one of his sex slave islands, who defied the law and destroyed evidence she had been ordered to protect, and who violated the Espionage Act and endangered national security—and that’s all AFTER she got into the White House.

        You’re right—-claiming to be offended by Trump while supporting Hillary—-or China Joe Biden for that matter, a man with no skills and no talent who entered politics poor and is now a multi-millionaire, along with his family, after years of documented graft and grifting—-is very funny. Or would be, if we didn’t know this is actually how they feel, and how they manage to ignore the hypocrisy.

      • bunkerboy15 July 23, 2020 / 11:38 am

        In Donald Trump I see a man who appears to have gone through the same kind of epiphany, who has made major changes in his life and is now dedicating it to serving his country, and I have the deepest respect for him.

        Do you really believe what you write? Good grief. Please, give us examples of where Donald Trump has gone through ANY kind of epiphany, and made ANY major changes in his life–any examples of where he is “now dedicating it to serving his country.”

        Nothing has changed. He was a fraudulent conman before he entered office. He still is. Everything he does is for the betterment of Donald J. Trump.

        But please, cite some examples to support your case. I eagerly await.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 12:19 pm

        You claim He still is. Everything he does is for the betterment of Donald J. Trump.

        But please, cite some examples to support your case. I eagerly await.

        Actually, I couldn’t care less what you come up with. I just wanted to send back that smarmy little nugget of “I eagerly await”. But—go for it. Examples. According to you, they are plentiful. “EVERYTHING HE DOES” covers a lot of ground, so why don’t you pick out half a dozen or so to get started? I’ll even help you out. Here is a partial list of what the president has done in his first term. Why don’t you tell us how they were “for the betterment of Donald J. Trump”. Remember, you said EVERYTHING HE DOES.

        Reshaped the federal judiciary
        Established the Space Force
        The First Step Act, reforming the criminal justice system
        Tax reform
        Defeated ISIS’s caliphate and taking out Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
        Enacted regulatory relief for community banks and credit unions
        Reformed the Medicare program
        Signed Right-To-Try legislation
        Signed VA Choice Act and VA Accountability Act
        Increased U.S. coal exports by 60 percent
        Moved U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem
        Replaced NAFTA
        Reduced the size, scope and power of federal agencies and their extra-Constitutional legislations
        Moved the BLM and Department of Agriculture out of D.C
        Increased southern border security

        Trump was accused of many questionable actions over few decades. I agree, he walked very close to the line sometimes and may even have crossed over a couple of times. But he was thoroughly investigated and never charged. He was also probably investigated more, and more thoroughly, by the IRS than any other citizen.

        But I have seen nothing in the past decade or so that resembles his old ways of doing business. And certainly since he announced his run for the presidency I have seen nothing to indicate a desire or effort to enrich himself or, as you so carefully phrase it, “for the betterment of Donald J. Trump”. I say “carefully phrase” because we all know he hasn’t done anything to add to his wealth, so you have to stick with the abstract and indefinable “for the betterment”.

        That’s the game you people play. So if Donald Trump negotiates a spectacular trade deal that brings ten thousand high paying jobs to the United States, enabling ten thousand families to improve their lives and adding the tax revenue from those ten thousand high paying jobs to our treasury, people like you cast this as merely being “for the betterment of Donald J. Trump” because it feeds his ego, or increases his chances of reelection, or some other self-serving motive.

        You people perfectly illustrate the saying that if you are determined to be offended you will never be disappointed. You will always find a way to twist, distort and alter anything to make it fit your hate-driven agenda.

      • bunkerboy15 July 23, 2020 / 11:41 am

        First off, sport, I can think of lots of words to describe how I feel about having voted for and still supporting Trump, and “sensitive” isn’t one of them. “Sensitive” is more a word I associate with woke Progressives, which may be why you used it.

        Clearly you are sensitive about it. That’s why you took the trouble to reproduce a letter from a Christian rationalizing his or her support of Trump. You know he’s a conman. We all do. I think deep down it actually does bother you, but you’ve made your peace with it.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 12:27 pm

        I think deep down it actually does bother you, but you’ve made your peace with it.

        If blog psychoanalysis is acceptable, then I think your frantic efforts to convince us of things that are not true really reflect your own inner awareness that you are driven by malignant internal issues and feel that if you can sway others to agree with you this will somehow legitimize and negate what you, deep down, recognize as serious emotional and character defects..

        OR…you are just full of crap. Not that the two are mutually exclusive. But to be “bothered” by something one first has to believe it is legitimate and real. When the claims made by the hate-driven and/or professional crap dispensers are dismissed as, well, the crap that they are, there is nothing to be “bothered” BY.

      • Retired Spook July 23, 2020 / 1:00 pm

        I think deep down it actually does bother you, but you’ve made your peace with it.

        I can’t improve on Amazona’s response, and I couldn’t care less what you think.

      • bunkerboy15 July 23, 2020 / 1:58 pm

        I can’t improve on Amazona’s response, and I couldn’t care less what you think.

        That’s fine. But you brought it up.

  12. Amazona July 22, 2020 / 5:42 pm

    I have a new advertising campaign for Red Bull. Forget “Red Bull gives you wings”. I’m going for “Red Bull gives you a spine”.

  13. bunkerboy15 July 22, 2020 / 7:15 pm

    So Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf says that federal law enforcement is “proactively” arresting individuals. Your opinion, Amazona: Does arresting someone in anticipation that they might break the law violate their Constitutional rights?

    • Amazona July 22, 2020 / 10:40 pm

      In my opinion, since you ask, Chad Wolf did not say that anyone was arrested before committing a crime. Unlike you, I am honest enough to look at his entire statement. Let’s do that, shall we?

      “The department, because we don’t have that local support, that local law enforcement support, are having to go out and proactively arrest individuals,” Wolf said. “And we need to do that because we need to hold them accountable. This idea that they can attack federal property and law enforcement officers and go to the other side of the street and say ‘you can’t touch me’ is ridiculous.”

      See how that changes the tone? When you realize he is talking about arresting people who have already committed crimes—attacking law enforcement officers, damaging federal property—-you realize that when he said “proactively” he did not mean arresting people in anticipation of them committing crimes.

      Quibble over the word all you want, nitpick and pull that sanctimonious crap you people like to pull, the fact is that (1) he was clearly talking about people who have committed crimes and (2) these criminals are protected by law enforcement officers who are violating their oaths of office, meaning that federal officers must be active in picking up the slack. If he misspoke and erroneously used the word “PROactive” to indicate being active, then get over it. But don’t simper and smirk and ask any more of those coy questions.

      The way you people whine and whimper about thugs and vandals and criminals being interviewed by law enforcement officers is insane. But then, that is the kind of thing you do. The entire history of the Left is one of violence, of inciting civil unrest, of rioting and intimidation. There is no surprise here, just disgust.

      You all keep recreating modern Kristallnachts in your black uniforms instead of brown shirts, and we’ll keep seeing you as Nazi-like thugs.

      And how many people are included in your singular pronoun “someone”? You go on to snivel about “THEIR” civil rights.

    • bunkerboy15 July 22, 2020 / 10:53 pm

      See how that changes the tone?

      That doesn’t change the tone at all. What do you think “proactively arrest individuals” means? It means arresting them before they commit a crime, under the assumption that they might commit a crime in the future. He didn’t say anything about arresting people that have already committed crimes. His meaning was clear.

      So are there any parts of the Constitution that would protect Americans from arrest on the theory that they might commit a crime? Or even on the theory that the might have committed a crime previously?

      This is Banana Republic stuff. And you guys worry about turning into Venezuela if a Democrat is elected president…

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 12:00 am

        Yes, Mr. Quibble, you just keep doing exactly what I said you would do. Naturally, no one has ever, in the course of an interview, said the wrong word. Because this is such an unheard-of and totally freakish thing to even think about, naturally it could not have happened. When I hear of someone being “proactive” my impression is that they are taking an energetic approach to something. Literally, the word means to act in advance, but as it is often used it does not always mean that.

        I do notice that you simply lie, in your determination to make this sound as awful as possible. You say “He didn’t say anything about arresting people that have already committed crimes.”. But yes, he did. And I quoted him. He talked about the need to arrest people who do things like attack law enforcement officers and federal property instead of just letting them run across the street “…and say ‘you can’t touch me’ i…” It’s right there, in italics to show it is a quote. It is what the man said. And as I said, any honest person would look up what he said and the context of the conversation.

        Naturally, that left you out.

        Then, after proving my prediction that you would quibble, you go on to once again engage in that smirky simpering coy question game. That is such a cheesy tactic, I am always surprised when someone drags it out. What is kind of funny here is that you are so intent on trying to make a point you blunder into stepping all over it. Yes, people ARE routinely arrested “on the theory ” that they committed a crime not witnessed by a law enforcement officer. It’s really very common. It’s basically the first step in the judicial process. Then the person is taken before a judge who determines if there is enough evidence to go to trial.. The trial is the determination of guilt or innocence. Up till then, it is just an accusation. You really need to pay more attention.

        What is even more common is people being taken to an official site, like a police department, and questioned about a crime and then released without being arrested. And I think that is what has happened to these whiny snot-nosed little thugs you are so worried about. Do you understand that “arrest” has a very specific meaning? Were any of these poor traumatized darlings booked, printed, photographed and formally accused of a crime? If not, then they were not arrested, so STFU.

        But good for you, fretting about “Banana Republic” kinds of antics. Maybe now that you are so woke about this concept, you’ll object if the House ever holds any more of its Star Chamber secret hearings in basements, with secret testimony from secret witnesses and transcripts withheld.

      • bunkerboy15 July 23, 2020 / 12:10 am

        Yes, Mr. Quibble, you just keep doing exactly what I said you would do. Naturally, no one has ever, in the course of an interview, said the wrong word.

        Well, first off, you are the queen of taking issue with words, so it’s pretty amusing to see you complain when you think someone else is doing it.

        Second, there is such a thing as probable cause and arrest warrants, none of which these federal officers are respecting. They’re just grabbing people and taking them off the streets. For someone who professes adherence to the Constitution, I guess I expected more from you.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 1:27 am

        As usual, you got my comment completely backwards, I was not “complaining” about someone using a word incorrectly, I was saying it happens all the time and is no big deal—at least not unless it is in a context that appeals to the jackals who are waiting to pounce on an innocent misuse of a word to try to turn it into one of your/their elaborate lies.

        there is such a thing as probable cause and arrest warrants, none of which these federal officers are respecting.

        Well, aren’t you just the little legal expert here! Except, well, no. There is your simple (or should I say simple minded) assertion that the federal officers are “not respecting” what you claim is the standard for arresting people. That’s just typical, silly, crystal-ball peeking into the thoughts of others. Then there is the nonsense that a warrant is required to arrest someone. And then there is your misstatement about “probable cause”.

        So what do REAL legal experts say?

        Back to the claim that arrests have been made, though it appears this is just another lie. But for the moment let’s pretend there have been arrests as described by binkie boy.

        What is probable cause Probable cause is defined as a reasonable belief that an individual has, is, or will commit a crime. This belief must be based on facts, not a hunch or suspicion. To determine if there was probable cause, the court must find that a person with reasonable intelligence would believe that a crime was being committed under the same circumstances. Probable cause requires stronger evidence than reasonable suspicion.

        In order to obtain a search or arrest warrant, a law enforcement agent must prove probable cause to a judge or magistrate. If a search or arrest is made without a warrant, the officer must prove that there was probable cause. Any evidence obtained without probable cause may be suppressed in court.

        There are four categories into which evidence may fall in establishing probable cause. These include observational, circumstantial, expertise, and information:

        Observational evidence is based on what the officer sees, smells, or hears. If an officer observes a suspicious person looking into car windows and carrying a baseball bat late at night, it would fall into this category.

        Circumstantial evidence is an accumulation of facts that, when looked at together implies, that a crime has been committed. This is not direct evidence.

        Therefore, if an officer had observational evidence, or circumstantial evidence that the person was involved in a crime he can make the arrest. Without a warrant. Even if he is running TOWARD a riot where buildings are being burned, carrying a can of gasoline.

        So that leads us to the next question: Back to your whine: Does arresting someone in anticipation that they might break the law violate their (sic) Constitutional rights?

        Well, we do need to know if anyone was ever actually ARRESTED because, as you whimper, “…anticipation that they might break the law ..” You won’t answer that question. The sniveling little thugs, vandals and criminals who are carrying on use that word, but is it accurate?

        That is important. From what I have been able to tell, from reports NOT coming from the aforementioned sniveling little thugs, vandals and criminals is that they were simply detained. Is THAT a violation of their Constitutional rights?

        Not according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

        The parameters for reasonable suspicion were set by the Supreme Court in a 1968 case. The court ruled that law enforcement officers can briefly detain a person if—based on the officer’s relevant training and experience—there is reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, is currently engaged in criminal activity or plans to commit a crime.

        The standard for reasonable suspicion is more specific than a hunch but broader than probable cause. Although reasonable suspicion is somewhat subjective, it must still be informed by the facts and circumstances at hand.

        There. Now will you STFU about what these federal officers are doing? It is legal, it is proper, and it is necessary.

      • Retired Spook July 23, 2020 / 11:29 am

        That doesn’t change the tone at all. What do you think “proactively arrest individuals” means?

        Glad you asked.

        proactive prō-ăk′tĭv►

        adj. Acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty; anticipatory.
        adj. Acting in advance to deal with an expected change or difficulty
        adj. (of a policy or person or action) controlling a situation by causing something to happen rather than waiting to respond to it after it happens (emphasis – mine)

        ie., arresting someone rushing toward a police car or federal building with a Molotov cocktail in his/her hand — BEFORE they torch the building of burn a police officer alive.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 11:50 am

        Exactly, Spook. And the Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, ruled: ……that law enforcement officers can briefly detain a person if—based on the officer’s relevant training and experience—there is reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, is currently engaged in criminal activity or plans to commit a crime.

        Other standards allow for an actual arrest if the standards for probable cause I cited are met, even if it is a crime not yet committed. Skulking through an alley in the middle of the night with burglary tools is probable cause for an arrest, even without the context of several other nighttime burglaries in the neighborhood.

        Precious Angels Biff and Buffy are both fully indoctrinated by their “education” and bored stiff, so rioting and looting seem like fun. They dress up in their Antifa costumes and join the mob. They howl, they call names, they throw things, they vandalize property, they set fires, they assault police officers, they help overturn police cars before burning them, they shoot explosives through the windows of public buildings—they are having the BEST TIME! And then when they are identified as probable participants in these crimes, by their dress and their apparent acceptance by the mob and their proximity to the various crime scenes, and they are approached, detained and interviewed they and the so-called “adults” responsible for making them the self-centered arrogant entitled imbeciles they are then pitch hissy fits because they have been treated—only to a very limited extent—like the criminal thugs they are.

        And then the trolls are mobilized, fed their scripts and sent out to infest blogs like this with the toxic nonsense and outright lies we see from them here.

    • bunkerboy15 July 23, 2020 / 11:46 am

      Here’s an example of so-called reasonable suspicion. Acting Deputy Director of DHS tweets out a photo of a gas mask and shield that was carried by a protestor, and says, “Not a sign with a slogan that someone expressing their first amendment rights might carry, but preparations for violence.”

      So a gas mask and a shield to protect oneself from being gassed and attacked by the federal police force is reason for arrest and/or detention. Got it.

      Meanwhile, the federal police force gassed and attacked protesting Moms. That will play well in suburbia.

      • bunkerboy15 July 23, 2020 / 11:48 am

        And by the way, this is the exact argument the Maduro government used in Venezuela to quell protests. Hey, we’re already Venezuela!

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 1:24 pm

        Hey, we’re already Venezuela!

        Then your work is done.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 1:14 pm

        First, can anyone explain why fertility is supposed to convey a license to break the law? The other day we saw a news piece about a “father” shot to death when he charged a police officer brandishing a box cutter. What did his prior state of fertility have to do with the fact that he attacked a policewoman with a deadly weapon? And now we are supposed to give “moms” a pass on criminal activity because…….because they reproduced? Explain that please.

        Next we come to the crime.

        A person commits “obstruction” when he or she — by using or threatening to use violence, force, or physical interference — knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the:

        enforcement of the penal law,
        preservation of peace,
        abatement of fire by a firefighter, or
        application of medical treatment or emergency assistance.

        OR…….

        The offence of hindering a police officer who is in the course of doing his duty (Police Act 1996 s 89). “Obstruction” includes any intentional interference , e.g. by physical force, threats, telling lies or giving misleading information, refusing to cooperate in removing an obstruction, or warning a person who has committed a crime so that he can escape detection (e.g. warning a speeding driver that there is a police trap ahead). (In the interest of honesty, I admit to having done the latter.)

        OR….

        A person can be convicted of felony obstruction when they knowingly and willfully resist, obstruct, or oppose any law enforcement officer, prison guard, correctional officer, community supervision officer, probation officer, or conservation officer in the lawful discharge of his or her official duties by offering or doing violence to the person. (This shows how a misdemeanor or smaller crime can escalate into a felony if a peace officer is threatened or injured by someone interfering with his or her discharge of duty,)

        SO……Mommies are breaking the law, trying to interfere with the law enforcement officers tasked with maintaining law and order, protecting federal property and detaining and/or arresting those committing crimes. This makes the mommies both guilty of obstruction of justice, obstruction or of hindering a police officer who is in the course of doing his duty and possibly, if threats of physical harm to those officers is included, felony obstruction of justice. Back to the question: Does being a mommy grant some kind of special magical permission to break the law?

        Forget the claim they were merely “protesting”. They and several of their spokesmen have admitted they were there to prevent law enforcement personnel from detaining or arresting their darling angels.

        There’s a line of women linking arms and protecting the protestors outside the Justice Center. Chants of, “Feds stay clear, moms are here!” and “Moms not Feds,” to resounding applause. pic.twitter.com/uiU4yp50b5

        The moms are chanting, “Leave our kids alone!” pic.twitter.com/uAoYkzzorV

        Over the weekend, a group of local moms started attending protests to form a human shield between protesters and federal agents, who have been dispatched to Oregon to help end the protests.

        In the YCMTSU category, we have “When you’re a mom you have this primal urge to protect kids, and not just your kids, all kids,” Wall of Moms organiser Jennie Vinson told The Washington Post. “When you’re a mom you have this primal urge to protect kids, and not just your kids, all kids, if they are lucky enough to make it through gestation and birth without being killed by their own moms” There—fixed.

        The gall of having a group which, given its obvious political bias is probably also equally passionate about protecting and promoting abortion, mouthing pious platitudes about the “primal urge” of “moms” to “protect all kids” is simply nauseating.

        But—back to the criminal activities of women who are actively trying to interfere with law enforcement officers, which BTW translates into being complicit in the crimes their precious angels are committing while mommies protect them: I believe the statutes refer to this as being “accessories after the fact”—unless they are protecting their sweet babies while the crimes are actually taking place. That would just make them accessories. NO, these mommies are not “protesting police brutality and racial inequality”. They are trying to keep Sebastian and Tiffany from being arrested for the crimes they are committing.

        One description, which I can’t find now, was of “teen aged Antifas” dancing around the moms, waving pieces of fence they had torn down. The moms must be so proud.

        I think using tear gas on these mobs of criminals is appropriate, but possibly politically unwise as the administration is being taunted and goaded into actions that can, and are, being used as propaganda. The option is to let them burn the city down.

        I would send in undercover people with cameras to record the crimes and get enough evidence to go back after the election and arrest everyone involved—mommies included—who broke the law, but in the meantime let the Dems OWN the destruction of their own cities. But I would make it clear that this is only because of the organized efforts of the Left to use human shields to encourage and protect lawbreakers, and the overt participation of the city and state officials. Get out, let it burn, and send them all to prison afterward. But admit we have been outplayed, and cut our own losses and get out, so the only future losses are of those who are complicit in the rioting.

        I would, however, make it clear that all of these people are breaking the law, mommies included, and that when a segment of society believes that it is entitled to take the law into its own hands this is a precursor to anarchy and a danger to the Republic. I would quote the laws on obstruction and make it very clear that anyone who did this committed a criminal act and might be held accountable for it in the future. Complicity of a parent in breaking the law is a sad commentary on the direction of the nation today.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 1:29 pm

        So a gas mask and a shield to protect oneself from being gassed and attacked by the federal police force is reason for arrest and/or detention. Got it.

        You coyly neglected to point out that the gassing and “attacks” by the federal law enforcement officers would occur, if they occurred at all, only in the face of violence from the mob. That violence could consist of rushing the officers or what they are protecting, or it could include the other ways the mobs have attacked law enforcement—-shooting gas bombs at them, shooting fireworks at them, firing various projectiles at them, throwing rocks at them and even charging them with weapons like bats, sticks, batons and even skateboards.

        You try to make it sound as if these sweet children are merely planning ahead, in case they are attacked without cause or provocation by those mean old feds. What a despicable liar you are.

      • Retired Spook July 23, 2020 / 1:52 pm

        Hey, we’re already Venezuela!

        I wouldn’t expect someone with your apparent limited mental capacity to see the glaring difference, so I’ll spell it out. In Venezuela people were rioting against a socialist takeover of the country. In the U.S. people are rioting FOR a socialist takeover of the country. Kind of sad in a pathetic sort of way that you don’t seem to see the difference, but it speaks volumes about your lack of moral clarity.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 3:30 pm

        So a gas mask and a shield to protect oneself from being gassed and attacked by the federal police force is reason for arrest and/or detention

        Did this actually happen? A photo of someone equipped this way used to illustrate preparations for violence” (which is obvious) is hardly proof that someone so equipped was actually arrested or detained because of it. That is just your assertion, and you are a known liar.

      • bunkerboy15 July 23, 2020 / 3:45 pm

        I wouldn’t expect someone with your apparent limited mental capacity to see the glaring difference, so I’ll spell it out.

        Spook, you’re missing the point. The United States federal government, at the behest of Donald J. Trump, is using the same tactics against its own citizens that the corrupt government of Venezuela uses against its. Same rationales.

      • bunkerboy15 July 23, 2020 / 3:47 pm

        Did this actually happen?

        The acting Deputy Secretary of DHS says, “Peaceful protestor? I don’t think so.” In other words, he doesn’t know, just speculates. That’s enough, apparently, to pick people up off the street.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 4:20 pm

        No, you moron. Not “did he say that?” but did someone get arrested merely for having a shield and some gas masks?

        What you said was So a gas mask and a shield to protect oneself from being gassed and attacked by the federal police force is reason for arrest and/or detention. I responded by quoting your comment and then asking if there really was an arrest, or even detention, for this.

        Did this actually happen? A photo of someone equipped this way used to illustrate preparations for violence” (which is obvious) is hardly proof that someone so equipped was actually arrested or detained because of it.

        So…..was someone actually arrested, or even detained, because he was seen with a shield and some gas masks? Because you apparently said he was. True, there is a little coyness in your comment, as you claim having a shield and some gas masks is “reason for arrest and/or detention” without actually saying it happened—-a typical Leftist ploy

        That’s enough, apparently, to pick people up off the street. Yep, it sure is.

        Yes, someone equipped like this in the middle of a riot CAN be detained for questioning. I cited the Supreme Court ruling on that. And yes, under some circumstances he CAN be arrested, though with the possibility that a judge will later dismiss the arrest on the grounds of inadequate probable cause.

        I then asked you if anyone had actually BEEN arrested or detained merely for having this equipment and you dodged the question. Or you didn’t read it carefully.

        What’s the matter? Trying to handle too many blogs at one time? Can’t keep up?

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 4:24 pm

        Well, you know, when you get into similar situations similar-appearing things tend to occur. There are only a few ways to break up a riot. But you go ahead and claim that any way used by more than one country means the reason and agenda behind its use are the same for both countries. It’s a patently silly argument, but then—consider the source.

        On the other hand, the tactics of Kristallnacht, with black uniforms instead of brown, is pretty much the same from Germany to Portland and Seattle, and for the same basic reason.

      • dbschmidt July 24, 2020 / 3:01 pm

        As an old saying goes “You can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride.” Oh and for an additional old saying that goes with that one. “You can’t outrun the radio.”

  14. Cluster July 23, 2020 / 8:00 am

    So I was just glancing thru the posts …. was binary boy actually questioning Christian motives? Of course a few of his comments revealed an extreme ignorance of Christianity but according to WOKE doctrine that apparently gives him the credibility to lob accusations. It also proves once again that institutionalized people still have no idea why Trump was elected. People who are still entrenched in the institutionalized dogma of R vs D are incapable of thinking outside of that paradigm but that again will be the reason why they lose again this November.

  15. Cluster July 23, 2020 / 8:08 am

    And now I know why binary was all flustered last night. He must have watched Joyless Reid last night on MSNBC, the following was on her show last night:

    The people of this country better be worried about what we’re seeing in Portland. We have these paramilitary police officers or whomever they are, they’re federal officers or agents of some kind that’s been organized by the President of the United States….Who are these people? Why did they have these kinds of uniforms on where they can’t be identified? We don’t know their names. We don’t have anything that identifies them. They have unmarked cars that have been pulling people off the street and throwing them into these cars and I want to tell you, Joy, this is what you see in countries where you have dictators, in third world countries with dictators who have paramilitary that they can call up….[I]t has been suggested that this is a trial run of the President of the United States who may be organizing to not accept what happens when we have the election if he’s not elected. Is he going to pull out? His military? Is he going to pull out his military? Is he going to engage us? He has already alluded to there may be a civil war if he’s not re-elected. This is dangerous. We are trying to find out more about it. We have set up information, you know, to the FBI, every place, asking all of these questions about who are these people, where did they come from, who’s paying them, and why is it being done in secret?

    You would think “journalists” could easily discover that these are DHS Federal officers who are charged with protecting federal buildings and other property around the country. Democrats certainly don’t have any interest in stopping inner city violence and murders so someone has to.

    But at this moment, Joey Scarborough is trying to clean up the mess WOKE pukes like binary boy got the Democrats into. Joey is doing his best now to claim Democrats DON”T want to defund the police. At this point, I don’t even think Democrats know what they want. They broke everything and now don’t know what to do.

    • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 10:34 am

      …who may be organizing to not accept what happens when we have the election if he’s not elected.

      Remember when they said the same thing about George W. Bush? I knew a couple of Libs who were frantic, convinced Bush would “refuse to leave the White House” and start some kind of military conflict within the country. They started in with this same nonsense within days of Trump being sworn in. As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly. The Left has its scripts and it goes back to the same ones, over and over.

    • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 11:06 am

      We have set up information, you know, to the FBI, every place, asking all of these questions about who are these people, where did they come from, who’s paying them, and why is it being done in secret?

      “who are these people”? Well, we know who these people are—their agencies have been identified to us and they wear identifying patches showing which agency they represent. “Where did they come from?” That’s a typically stupid question. They “came from” wherever they had been assigned before called to this duty. She should ask where the professional riot organizers came from. “Who’s paying them?” The federal government, of course. Them being, you know, FEDERAL officers and all. ” why is it being done in secret?” Not much of an effort to be “in secret”, is there? Driving around picking people up to interview isn’t very secretive and neither is going on TV shows to talk about who they are and what they are doing and why.

      These people are frantically trying to create a scary and sinister scenario to provide cover for the REAL scary and sinister scenario that is being acted out in major Democrat cities around the country. That is, lawlessness condoned and promoted by local government officials with the end goal of influencing the election. These people are freaking out by the president acting presidential and stepping in, in a very calm and orderly way without violence, to slow down and then end the attacks on our citizens, our property and our nation. It’s interfering with their script and it’s providing the nation with a contrast between savagery and civilization, between order and chaos, between law and anarchy, and those are contrasts the Left does not want the public to see and think about.

      Now they are tossing around the term “paramilitary” and tying it to their claim that Trump will refuse to leave office if defeated and use a personal military force to create a civil war. (“His military? Is he going to pull out his military? Is he going to engage us? He has already alluded to there may be a civil war if he’s not re-elected. “) Of course this is all just more proof of the panic on the Left. These law enforcement officers from various law enforcement agencies are not “paramilitary”—-another example of how the Left hijacks words and then uses them in ways that are not correct. They are not acting in any way like a military force. They are law enforcement officers acting as law enforcement officers in a crime-riddled environment populated by people committing crimes, and they are trying, in a very low-key way, to discourage further lawbreaking without making mass arrests.

      It is more and more obvious that the Left thinks these riots are helping them in their efforts to get rid of Trump, which is why they enable them, encourage them and go to such outrageous lengths to stop any effort by the government to rein them in.

    • Retired Spook July 23, 2020 / 11:11 am

      At this point, I don’t even think Democrats know what they want. They broke everything and now don’t know what to do.

      They can’t even say, “Oh, we condemned all the violence,” because most of them haven’t. It’s one of the most delicious examples of be-careful-what-you-wish-for karma I’ve ever seen. Democrats — the party of anarchy!! Democrats — the party of thuggery!! Democrats — the party of “burn the system down!!” Democrats — the party of abolish the police!! You want to “fundamentally transform the country,” vote Democrat!! The ads practically write themselves.

      And what’s especially entertaining is that the vast majority of Democrats don’t even realize what’s happening to them.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 11:34 am

        The ads practically write themselves.

        Oh, I hope so. I’m afraid the voters will be subjected to more of the same old same old in the local elections—-whiny voices talking about how bad the other guy is.. I think this is an election where we should pay less attention to the other guy and more to the system he represents.

        I’d like to see a nationally coordinated campaign going after Dems in general—riot photos saying “Is this what you want for your city? Elect another Democrat”.

  16. bunkerboy15 July 23, 2020 / 2:02 pm

    But please, cite some examples to support your case. I eagerly await.

    Actually, I couldn’t care less what you come up with. I just wanted to send back that smarmy little nugget of “I eagerly await”. But—go for it. Examples. According to you, they are plentiful.

    Awesome. Let’s start with… this morning.

    “A federal New York judge ordered Thursday that Michael Cohen must be released from prison because the Department of Justice threw him back behind bars in an act of “retaliation” over his forthcoming tell-all book about President Trump.”

    The judge said, “I’ve never seen such a clause in 21 years of being a judge and sentencing people and looking at terms of supervised release. Why would the Bureau of Prisons ask for something like this … unless there was a retaliatory purpose?”

    Of course that is why. Michael Cohen, one of the very fine people that President Trump chose as his personal lawyer, implicated the president in federal crimes. Can’t get away with that without punishing him. Just one example of how President Trump uses the federal government for his own purposes.

    On the other hand, if you remain silent with regard to Trump’s crimes, like Roger Stone did, than even if you are a convicted felon, you will have your sentence commuted.

    If any of this behavior was happening while a Democrat was president, you all would be howling.

    • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 2:40 pm

      Why would the Bureau of Prisons ask for something like this … unless there was a retaliatory purpose?” More crystal ball reading, assigning malignant motives to people to try to advance political agendas.

      So now you are back to the lie that Roger Stone covered up “crimes” of Donald Trump., And that Trump was also “implicated in federal crimes” by Cohen. Yet no one ever came up with anything that rose to the level of a crime, just some stuff that got the Left’s panties in a wad.

      But your obsession with Stone, aside from his blatantly prejudiced and shameful treatment when he was arrested and the slavering media circus surrounding his awful “crimes” a couple of questions do arise.

      How many people did he kill?
      How many people did he plan to kill with bombs placed to coincide with the highest number of police officers in a building?
      How many bombs did he build?
      How many bombs did he plant?
      Was he ever identified as a domestic terrorist?
      Was he ever on the FBI’s Most Wanted List?
      Was his wife?
      Was he ever part of a group dedicated to overthrowing the United States government?
      Did he ever brag that he was “guilty as hell and free as a bird”?
      Was Stone (or Cohen, for that matter, or even Manafort) ever indicted for
      fraudulently obtaining more than $10 million in loans for a pizza restaurant business?
      Were any of them ever charged with being involved in fraud schemes demanding payments from firms wanting work from the enormous Illinois teachers’ pension fund and from those wanting favorable rulings from a state board that regulates the building of new hospital facilities?
      Were any of them ever sentenced to ten and a half years for 16 federal corruption counts?

      Why don’t you evaluate the seriousness of the character (and legal) defects of close friends and supporters of our former president and weigh them against the minor and insignificant process “crimes” of Roger Stone and then don’t bother to get back to us because you will just have concocted another load of BS to dump here.

    • bunkerboy15 July 23, 2020 / 2:48 pm

      I see you completely ignore the corrupt nature of the Justice Department attempting to punish Michael Cohen.

      According to the judge, “I make the finding that the purpose of transferring Mr. Cohen from furlough and home confinement to jail is retaliatory,” the judge said. “And it’s retaliation because of his desire to exercise his First Amendment rights to publish a book and to discuss anything about the book or anything else he wants on social media and with others.”

      So not only was the Trump administration retaliating because Cohen implicated Trump in federal crimes, the administration was attempting to punish him for exercising his First Amendment rights. You remember the First Amendment, right Amazona? Or is this another case of situational ethics?

      As to your defense of Roger Stone, the fact that he didn’t kill anyone (that we know of) hardly excuses his crimes. Good grief.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 3:03 pm

        Excuse me—are you now piously objecting to the concept of the Justice Department PUNISHING SOMEONE? For POLITICAL REASONS? After the last four years of revelation of the Justice Department abusing its power to spy on and persecute a citizen and then the president of the United States? And NOW you are upset? And not by a fact, but by what you are hearing from the voices in your head?

        You people just never stop, do you? You are still claiming “Cohen implicated Trump in federal crimes,”. Such as? And stop with the weasel wording. Anyone can “implicate” anyone in anything. Did Cohen actually ACCUSE Trump of COMMITTING A FEDERAL CRIME? Or did he say Trump might have done some things you hyenas then defined as a federal crime? If he accused Trump of committing an actual federal crime, what happened? Was it investigated? Was a legal opinion given on whether “it” was a crime at all?

        I know the “crime” you are coyly avoiding identifying, and I surmise it is because you know it was such a flimsy effort on the part of people like you that you are much better off just making snide comments about some “implication” of some “federal crime” and letting it lie there like a turd in a punch bowl, hoping no one will realize it is fake.

        Now to your latest example of utter, profound and glaring stupidity. No, moron, I did NOT defend Roger Stone on the basis that he didn’t kill anyone. Good grief.

        I pointed out that while you were clutching your pearls and claiming that if a Democrat had associated with people as awful as a couple of old men caught in perjury traps we on the Right would be “howling” I was able to come up with, with no real effort at all, some examples of Saint Obama hanging out with domestic terrorists who either killed people or planned to kill people, etc. as well as working with and giving and receiving favors from someone convicted of several federal fraud charges.

        This whole thing either flew right over your head (what’s the problem? Ayers not in your script?) or you just decided to punt with your stupid stupid comment. Good grief.

    • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 2:49 pm

      If any of this behavior was happening while a Democrat was president, you all would be howling. We DID point out the issue of Obama being introduced to big-time politics by known domestic terrorists admittedly guilty of many heinous crimes, but you guys didn’t care. We also pointed out his affiliation and support of and by a racketeer indicted on several federal fraud charges (and eventually convicted and sentenced) and we did point out his long association with a church devoted to racism and hatred of the United States. You guys didn’t care about any of that either.

      (We don’t howl. There is quite a list of responses owned by the Left—lying, rioting, arson, vandalism, looting and so on, as well as howling, screeching, squealing, screaming and bellowing. You guys have all the hyper-emotive verbal violence things all firmly in your locker. We just point out facts and then go through processes to implement orderly change.)

    • bunkerboy15 July 23, 2020 / 3:02 pm

      Still nothing about using the Justice Department for President Trump’s personal vendettas? I mean, you asked me for examples!

      Okay, let’s go back all of two days ago for this breaking news:

      “LONDON — The American ambassador to Britain, Robert Wood Johnson IV, told multiple colleagues in February 2018 that President Trump had asked him to see if the British government could help steer the world-famous and lucrative British Open golf tournament to the Trump Turnberry resort in Scotland, according to three people with knowledge of the episode.

      The ambassador’s deputy, Lewis A. Lukens, advised him not to do it, warning that it would be an unethical use of the presidency for private gain, these people said. But Mr. Johnson apparently felt pressured to try. A few weeks later, he raised the idea of Turnberry playing host to the Open with the secretary of state for Scotland, David Mundell.”

      “An unethical use of the presidency for private gain.” Describes the Trump administration in a nutshell.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 3:19 pm

        Well, then, binkie, I guess you have no choice but to refuse to vote for Trump. Maybe you will be more ethically compatible with Ukraine Joe and his China scams.

        Trump got rich and then went into politics. His presidential opponent was poor and then went into politics and got rich. And his son got rich. And his brothers got rich. One example:

        The day the Bidens took over Paradigm Global Advisors was a memorable one.

        In the late summer of 2006 Joe Biden’s son Hunter and Joe’s younger brother, James, purchased the firm. On their first day on the job, they showed up with Joe’s other son, Beau, and two large men and ordered the hedge fund’s chief of compliance to fire its president, according to a Paradigm executive who was present.

        After the firing, the two large men escorted the fund’s president out of the firm’s midtown Manhattan office, and James Biden laid out his vision for the fund’s future. “Don’t worry about investors,” he said, according to the executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of retaliation. “We’ve got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden.”

        At the time, the senator was just months away from both assuming the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and launching his second presidential bid. According to the executive, James Biden made it clear he viewed the fund as a way to take money from rich foreigners who could not legally give money to his older brother or his campaign account. “We’ve got investors lined up in a line of 747s filled with cash ready to invest in this company,” the executive remembers James Biden saying.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 3:22 pm

        Were there any independent witnesses to this alleged effort by Trump to get the UK ambassador to ask if the British Open could be played at a Trump golf course?

        In your story, only Johnson allegedly had a conversation with Trump about this. His deputy apparently only heard about it from Johnson.

      • Retired Spook July 23, 2020 / 3:52 pm

        “An unethical use of the vice-presidency for private gain.” Describes Biden’s 8 years as VP in a nutshell. Fixed.

    • bunkerboy15 July 23, 2020 / 3:42 pm

      But please, cite some examples to support your case. I eagerly await.

      Going back further, the Mueller Investigation found that President Trump obstructed justice several times in his efforts to thwart investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The only reason they did not indict Trump is because of a Department of Justice opinion that the sitting president cannot be indicted of crimes.

      This is fun. Shall we keep going?

      • Retired Spook July 23, 2020 / 3:49 pm

        By all means. You’re on a roll — knock yourself out. Just keep in mind that Joe Biden has a well of 47 years of corrupt personal and professional behavior from which we can draw, and that’s not even counting his gaffes, a nearly endless list. And while you’re at it, don’t forget the first rule of holes.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 4:46 pm

        Shall we keep going? Why? Do you have more lies you want to peddle?

        Yes, Mueller, in a sad and pathetic effort to salvage some of the agenda he had been sent out to support, did make that claim, And it was promptly shot down by many legal analysts from both sides of the political aisle. And BTW, I believe the claim was that he MIGHT HAVE “attempted” to obstruct justice.

        Trump pointed out to Comey that there was no reason to go after Flynn for his discussions with Kislyak because this was within the scope of his job at the time. Comey spun this as an effort to pressure him into dropping a legitimate investigation. This happened before Trump learned what a snake Comey is, or he probably never would have talked to him as if he were a rational and decent man.

        He fired Comey. He learned that Mueller had conflicts of interest and discussed having him removed because of that. He asked his security agencies to explain that he had not had improper discussions with anyone in Russia. He told his aides not to make public some emails setting up a meeting with the Russian lawyer who said she wanted to talk about the issues around adopting children from Russia. He wanted Sessions to take over the sham investigation. And so on. All of it just efforts by Mueller to make something out of nothing, and even then all he could do was decline to take a stand on whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice and just hinted that he might have.

        The only reason they did not indict Trump is because of a Department of Justice opinion that the sitting president cannot be indicted of crimes. This is a lie. It is one suggestion made to explain why the weasel-worded hinting by Mueller never went anywhere, in an effort to imply that there really WERE crimes committed but gee golly, they just couldn’t do anything about them.

      • Retired Spook July 23, 2020 / 5:08 pm

        All of it just efforts by Mueller to make something out of nothing, and even then all he could do was decline to take a stand on whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice and just hinted that he might have.

        Mueller indicated that he was leaving the obstruction case up to Congress. In fact, the case for obstruction of justice was so weak that it was not included in the Democrats’ articles of impeachment.

      • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 8:17 pm

        Didn’t he have some weird weasel word semi-comment along the lines of how he couldn’t confirm there had been no obstruction, or something like that? Dropping the phrase but stopping short of saying it meant anything.

  17. fieldingclaymore July 23, 2020 / 2:11 pm

    Person.
    Woman.
    Man.
    Camera.
    TV.

    I’m smart like 45. LOL

  18. Amazona July 23, 2020 / 2:16 pm

    Looking at the success of the Left in demonizing any effort to control the rioters or protect people and property, I am coming to the belief that we should just walk away. We could poll the average citizen in Portland, for example, to find out if there is any support there for intervention, but even that would not help much.

    But what I WOULD do is this:

    (1) Inform the city and state governments that they will be billed by the federal government for the cost of repairing or rebuilding what has been destroyed on federal property. Inform them that the statues will be put back and the cost of repairing or replacing them will be billed to the states or cities. Wrap up the whole stinking mess and dump it right in their laps. And, of course, let the citizens know that their taxes will probably go up to pay for the political agendas of the people they elected.

    (2) Inform public officials that their actions will be investigated by the DOJ for possible violations of the Hatch Act.

    (3) Make it clear that while federal law enforcement is no longer going to try to enforce the law, to protect the safety and lives of people who might get hurt as they involve themselves in physical conflict with those officers, investigations will be ongoing and at some time in the future, when the violence has diminished, anyone with adequate evidence of participation in any crime during this period WILL be arrested, and charges WILL be brought. That is, withdrawal of federal law enforcement is in no way an indication that crimes will go unpunished. This applies to everyone involved in breaking the laws, including those who have been engaging in criminal obstruction of law enforcement officers.

    (4) Inform them that as long as they allow criminal activity to go unchecked in their states and their cities, all federal funding to them will cease. If they reject federal authority they also reject federal assistance.

    And then go home and start working on those campaign ads.

    • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 2:43 pm

      Thanks for posting that, Spook.

  19. dbschmidt July 23, 2020 / 8:54 pm

    Wondering what the “Blinkies” and “Bunkers” have to say about the handing out of them evil AK-15 weapons (Weapons of War) by the crying little wimp known as the “Warload” of CHOP.

    Just to help you–“double tap” is the correct answer. But that action by “warloard” violated all gun check for ownership rules including the BS you all claim still exist. Multiple felonies on top of what “warload” was already charged with.

    • Amazona July 23, 2020 / 11:02 pm

      The anti-gun nuts are always explaining to us that the only reason to have an AR-15 is to kill someone. Not target shooting, not hunting—only murder.

      Which is why they have become mute about these Weapons of War being handed out in the midst of their “peaceful PROTEST”.

    • bunkerboy15 July 24, 2020 / 10:38 am

      Assault rifles are designed to kill human beings as efficiently as possible. That is what they’re made for and it is their purpose. The fact that you can use them for other purposes doesn’t change that fact. People race lawnmowers, but that doesn’t mean that lawnmowers are designed for racing.

      As for “Warlord” handing out AK-15s, I would think you would be entirely supportive. I mean, here we have an actual living, breathing case of government tyranny and the populace is arming themselves in response. This is exactly what you all believe in. The only difference now is that you don’t like the people that are arming themselves. That’s it. Once again, your principles are found to be lacking.

      • Retired Spook July 24, 2020 / 10:48 am

        As for “Warlord” handing out AK-15s, I would think you would be entirely supportive. I mean, here we have an actual living, breathing case of government tyranny and the populace is arming themselves in response.

        That’s one of the funniest things I’ve heard recently — even funnier that you’re completely oblivious to the irony. Ever since you arrived here I pegged you as a worthless piece of sh*t, but you do have some entertainment value.

      • bunkerboy15 July 24, 2020 / 10:56 am

        Spook, I’m not sure whether to be hurt–you think I’m a “worthless piece of sh*t”–or heartened that you find entertainment value in me.

        But seriously, you all organize yourselves in pretend militias, arming yourselves in the event that government tyranny comes to your town. That’s exactly your reading of the Second Amendment. Now government tyranny comes to American towns and you complain that other Americans are arming themselves. The hypocrisy is just amazing, but completely predicable. I mean, let’s just say it plainly. To you, the only people who are allowed to have arms are middle American white people. That’s what your complaint is really about here.

        It’s also worth pointing out that you all have spent years gloating that you are the only ones who are armed, and that “the left,” whoever that is, stands no chance against you. Now you find out differently and you are outraged. Stifle the laughter.

      • Amazona July 24, 2020 / 11:50 am

        government tyranny comes to American towns in the form of an anti-government rabble intent on overthrowing the government, starting with taking over government buildings. uh-huh.

        I’m guessing one of the things Spook finds occasionally entertaining about your is your cheerful willingness to beclown yourself and say the most bizarre and utterly stupid things, in your scramble to try to make a point. As for me, I just find it annoying.

      • Amazona July 24, 2020 / 11:59 am

        To you, the only people who are allowed to have arms are middle American white people. That’s what your complaint is really about here.

        I wondered when you were going to realize you are backed into a corner and would have to reach back into your tightie whities and pull out a nugget or two of RACISM !!! It didn’t take long. And now your sad little turd is just lying there, looking like the desperate effort it represents.

        And then you dig yourself in a little deeper, with the Big-Eye confusion tactic. …“the left,” whoever that is, … as you looks around in evident bewilderment. “The Left?” What IS this “Left” of which you speak?

        You’re out of gas, son. Sputtering and hoping to find a hill you can roll down so you can pick up some speed. Sucks to be you, but that’s what happens when you are hired by the wrong side to make the wrong arguments in a losing battle.

      • Retired Spook July 24, 2020 / 11:11 am

        Spook, I’m not sure whether to be hurt–you think I’m a “worthless piece of sh*t”–or heartened that you find entertainment value in me.

        Since you seem to be confused, it wasn’t meant as a compliment.

        You also seem to be confused as to how the concept of cause and effect works. The rioters WERE NOT reacting to government tyranny. Other than the federal agents who are stationed in all major cities on a regular basis, the DHS agents and Federal Marshals who are responding to the riots came AFTER the fact. It’s OK; I don’t expect you to comprehend that.

      • Amazona July 24, 2020 / 12:09 pm

        The rioters WERE NOT reacting to government tyranny. The rioters were establishing tyranny. Armed tyranny.

      • Amazona July 24, 2020 / 11:45 am

        Actually, it was the tyrants arming themselves to further consolidate their power, but you just keep making up scenarios that you foolishly think will give you an arguing platform.

        The only difference now is that you don’t like the people that are arming themselves. That’s it. Once again, your principles are found to be lacking.

        Interesting, though convoluted, spin. I can see it took you a while to work out something you thought would let you sneer at our principles. And to a slight extent, you are right—we DON’T like those who were being armed, any more than we liked seeing federal agencies buy up hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition. Watching those in power assume even more power is never very pleasant. You can snigger at this and claim it is a defect in my principles, but then that is your job.

      • bunkerboy15 July 24, 2020 / 4:38 pm

        I wondered when you were going to realize you are backed into a corner and would have to reach back into your tightie whities and pull out a nugget or two of RACISM !!! It didn’t take long. And now your sad little turd is just lying there, looking like the desperate effort it represents.

        Racism? Really? Look, you guys are perfectly fine with middle America white men taking over state houses armed with their assault rifles, shutting down the state legislature, as happened a couple of months ago in Michigan.

        But the moment people you don’t like arm themselves because the federal government is using a secret police force to pick people up off the street “proactively,” then you completely change your tune.

        It is what it is. If you call that racism, then I suggest that you engage in some self-reflection.

      • Amazona July 24, 2020 / 6:47 pm

        Funny how you saw that little demonstration in Michigan as just “middle American white men” (was it because they wanted to go back to work that labeled them as white men?) and then of course you had to wipe off a little drool from your crystal ball to determine how I/we felt about something most of us didn’t even know about.

        And of course you have to distort the facts (what we call “lying”) and now you claim that the only reason the rioting thugs are arming themselves is self defense because, as you put it, the federal government is using a secret police force to pick people up off the street “proactively,” Which, of course, is so blatantly false I’m surprised that even you, a known liar, tried to get away with it.

        That whole “federal government secret police” thing is so darned tasty you you just have to keep bringing it back up to chew on it some more in a distinctly bovine fashion, and the word “proactively” just makes it all the more yummy. But the real facts are, there IS no “federal government secret police” force, just several sworn law enforcement officers from several known and legitimate federal agencies tasked to work together to help control these violent mobs of anarchists, vandals, arsonists and recreational rioters. Another fact is, as I cited for you, it is legal to pick up people for questioning if there is a reason to suspect they are either committing a crime, did commit a crime, or are planning to commit a crime.

        The federal officers are identified by their clothing, which is usually the uniforms they wear at their regular jobs though not always. (There is objection to this, of course, by the whimpering snowflakes who find the camo outfits too scawwy.) They are identified by their patches, which give the agencies for which they work, They are further identified by code numbers—additional information would put them and their families in danger, given the savagery of the rioter—but during questioning they do give their names if asked. After seeing thugs trying to burn cars with officers still in them, of course they are not going to drive marked vehicles.

        Fret about if you want. Fuss and whimper and complain about it. Whatever. But when people dress up as terrorists, act like terrorists, commit terrorist acts and break a variety of laws they are at great risk of being seen as people who either already broke laws, are in the process of breaking laws, or are getting ready to break laws. And this means they can be picked up, detained and questioned. They can even be arrested.

        Picking them up “off the street”is not only legal, it is prudent and legitimate and called-for.

  20. Amazona July 23, 2020 / 9:31 pm

    Several of us have been thinking the hysteria being pumped up now is a preemptive strike at the legitimacy of the election, which indicates an awareness they are going to lose and will need a narrative to feed the next collection of rioters.

    From Sistah Toldjah

    As I’ve said before, these conspiracy theories about Trump stealing the election from Democrats like failed 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman makes one think that they’re trying to preemptively discredit the election results in the event Trump does win. In fact, it’s almost as though the people pushing the idea that Trump will “steal” the election believe he’s got a real shot at winning, so they’re trying to delegitimize it ahead of time.

  21. Amazona July 23, 2020 / 10:54 pm

    I was thinking about binkie boy’s nonstop Trump bashing and his scorn for anyone who has a good thing to say about him, so I looked up a couple of things about Lyndon Johnson. Skipping over his adulteries and leapfrogging over the years before he got into the Senate, a period calling for a lot of research into his sordid history of mobster-like intimidation and many say murder as he clawed his way up through his radio station success and into politics, just starting with his time in the Senate we see quite a portrait of a truly vile man.

    Some Johnson quotes:

    These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.
    ……………………………

    “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for 200 years.”
    …………………………….
    In Senate cloakrooms and staff meetings, Johnson was practically a connoisseur of the word. According to Johnson biographer Robert Caro, Johnson would calibrate his pronunciations by region, using “nigra” with some southern legislators and “negra” with others. Discussing civil rights legislation with men like Mississippi Democrat James Eastland, who committed most of his life to defending white supremacy, he’d simply call it “the nigger bill.”
    …………………………

    Johnson explained his decision to nominate Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court rather than a less famous black judge by saying, “when I appoint a nigger to the bench, I want everybody to know he’s a nigger.”
    ………………………….

    According to Caro, Robert Parker, Johnson’s sometime chauffer, described in his memoir Capitol Hill in Black and White a moment when Johnson asked Parker whether he’d prefer to be referred to by his name rather than “boy,” “nigger” or “chief.” When Parker said he would, Johnson grew angry and said, “As long as you are black, and you’re gonna be black till the day you die, no one’s gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, nigger, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it. Just pretend you’re a goddamn piece of furniture.”
    …………………………..

    For two decades in Congress he was a reliable member of the Southern bloc, helping to stonewall civil rights legislation. As Caro recalls, Johnson spent the late 1940s railing against the “hordes of barbaric yellow dwarves” in East Asia. Buying into the stereotype that blacks were afraid of snakes (who isn’t afraid of snakes?) he’d drive to gas stations with one in his trunk and try to trick black attendants into opening it. Once, Caro writes, the stunt nearly ended with him being beaten with a tire iron.
    …………………………….

    Democrat Lyndon Johnson use to be a straight up racist when he was a Congressman in Texas. He supported the poll tax and he voted against anti-lynching laws. In 1967 when Dr. King spoke out against the Vietnam war, Johnson called Dr. King a God damn NIGGER preacher.
    ……………………………..

    When anyone stands up for Trump, binkie goes off on one of his rants. Well, take a look at how Barack Obama stood up for Johnson.

    “Now, like any of us, he was not a perfect man,” Obama said in his April 10, 2014, speech at the Civil Rights Summit at the LBJ Presidential Library. “His experiences in rural Texas may have stretched his moral imagination. But he was ambitious, very ambitious, a young man in a hurry to plot his own escape from poverty and to chart his own political career. And in the Jim Crow South, that meant not challenging convention.

    Hmmm. So all this means he was really just “not a perfect man”. My favorite phrase trying to rehabilitate Johnson’s well earned reputation is that he “…may have stretched his moral imagination…” We’ll have to remember that one the next time BB starts in on his whingeing about Trump. And this hard core racist was eulogized by Obama as someone who just didn’t challenge convention. Quite a backbone there. Obama is basically excusing Johnson’s virulent racism as just a harmless quirk necessary to fit in and move up.

    Obama did admit that Johnson flexed his racism muscles. “During his first 20 years in Congress,” Obama said, “he opposed every civil rights bill that came up for a vote, once calling the push for federal legislation a farce and a shame.”

    But the Left will still call Donald Trump the worst man to ever be president.

    • Retired Spook July 24, 2020 / 9:35 am

      Good summary. I’m guessing Basement Boy is reading a lot of that for the first time. It’s certainly not taught in any school in the United States. By any rational comparison, Trump is a saint.

      • bunkerboy15 July 24, 2020 / 10:33 am

        I’m guessing Basement Boy is reading a lot of that for the first time.

        Gosh. Golly. I’ve heard there’s this writer named Robert Caro that you might want to check out…

        I do find it rather amusing that, in her defense of Donald Trump, Amazona has to go back more than half a century in her attempt at whataboutism. That’s pretty funny.

        And by the way, let me say that you guys are just the cleverest when it comes to name-calling. So mature! I may have to create my own terms of endearment for you all. Let me think…

      • Amazona July 24, 2020 / 11:39 am

        I was merely engaging in a little history lesson, to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Left and, of course, you. The selective outrage of the Left—and, of course, you—is annoying. You carry on about Trump while blithely accepting the very deep and serious character defects of the Dems who preceded him.

        And BTW I didn’t “have to go back more than half a century” to find a far more despicable, yet accepted and honored, Dem. I chose Johnson because of his blatant racism, as the howl of RACISM!!! is the mark of the Left these days,

        But if it soothes you to dismiss it as “whataboutism” then you just go right ahead and comfort yourself.

      • Retired Spook July 24, 2020 / 11:04 am

        Lyndon Johnson was an icon of the racist, Democrat Party. He won the presidential election in 1964 with 486 electoral votes and over 61% of the popular vote, the highest percentage since James Monroe in 1824. Johnson epitomized what the Democrat was and still is all about. They hide their racism better today, but they really haven’t changed. They’re the party of slavery, the Klan, lynchings, Jim Crow, abortion/infanticide, destruction of the nuclear black family, high taxes, oppressive regulations, weaponizing government agencies against their political opponents, ends justify the means — this is fun; shall I go on?

      • Amazona July 24, 2020 / 12:03 pm

        And I only brought up Johnson in the context of racism. When they start in again on HE HAD SEX WITH A PORN STAR I have plenty on JFK and Bill Clinton, who make the occasional (though admittedly sordid) sexual forays of Donald Trump back in the day look like teenaged fumbling under the bleachers by comparison.

        The rest, of course, is part of their legacy, too.

      • bunkerboy15 July 24, 2020 / 5:01 pm

        this is fun; shall I go on?

        Hey, that’s my line! But knock yourself out.

        Lyndon Johnson was an icon of the racist, Democrat Party.

        So Lyndon Johnson was president over fifty years ago. Almost three generations ago. Do you think anything has changed since then? Or is your perception of politics stuck in the 1950s and 1960s?

        Let’s just grant for sake of argument that Johnson was a racist. The thing is, as Senate majority leader he led the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960. As president, he signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Today’s Democrats would do the same. Today’s Republicans absolutely would not.

        And what happened after that? White Americans left the Democratic party. White voters have favored the Republican candidate in every presidential election at least since 1976.

        In present times (as opposed to fifty years ago), we also see which party’s candidates and elected officials favor civil and voting rights and which do not. It is abundantly clear that Republicans as a whole do not. In fact, they favor rolling back civil and voting rights.

        So you can trot out your line that the Democratic party is the party of racists, but it so obviously hollow that I’m surprised that you would do so.

      • Amazona July 24, 2020 / 7:26 pm

        What was that Spook said to describe you? “Full of shit?” It must have been, because now it is overflowing.

        You people are the ones who refuse to get past the history of 200 years ago, so stop whining about bringing up a beloved Dem icon of only about 50 years ago. As presidential terms are for four years and some serve two terms, when talking about presidents it doesn’t take many presidents to get back that far. And if you don’t want us to remember Johnson, then stop carrying on about slavery, Jim Crow, the “Southern Solution” and your other antiquated complaints.

        You say Let’s just grant for sake of argument that Johnson was a racist and then you trot out things he did that you think were good, and seem to be implying that they outweigh and even compensate for the bad. But when anyone talks about the good things Trump is doing, all you people do is focus on his history.

        Then you just go off into the weeds, where you find a lie and wave it around. Speaking of the Civil Rights Act, you should know there was more than one. I would link to an article about that, but you probably wouldn’t read it, so I will paste part of it here, with my own highlighting.

        As the civil rights movement gained momentum in the 1950s and ’60s, the federal government passed a number of civil rights bills, four of which were named the Civil Rights Act.

        Of the four acts passed between 1957 and 1968, Republicans in both chambers of Congress voted in favor at a higher rate than Democrats in all but one case. Republicans often had fewer total votes in support than Democrats due to the substantial majorities Democrats held in both the House and Senate.

        During this period, the south was a Democratic stronghold that consistently resisted the civil rights movement. In 1956, many southern members of Congress signed the “Southern Manifesto,” voicing their opposition to the ruling in the 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which declared that segregated public schools were unconstitutional. Democrats were geographically divided on matters of civil rights, while Republicans largely represented non-southern states and were more unified.

        The most commonly cited of the Civil Rights Acts is the one passed in 1964. Shapiro told The Daily Caller News Foundation that he was referring to the 1964 act.

        Originally proposed in 1963 by former President John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, the bill ended segregation in public places and made employment discrimination illegal. The House passed the bill after 70 days of public hearings and testimony in a 290-130 vote. The bill received 152 “yea” votes from Democrats, or 60 percent of their party,and 138 votes from Republicans, or 78 percent of their party.

        These percentages include four vote categories – “yea,” “nay,” “present” and “not voting.”

        In the Senate, the bill faced strong and organized opposition from southern Democrats. Influential senators like Richard Russell, Strom Thurmond (who would soon switch to the Republican Party), Robert Byrd, William Fulbright and Sam Ervin joined together to launch a filibuster that lasted for 57 days. Russell, a Democrat from Georgia, at one point argued that the bill would lead to the destruction of the South’s “two different social orders” and result in the “amalgamation and mongrelization of our people.”

        After some changes were made to the bill and the filibuster ended, it passed the Senate with a 73-27 vote. About 82 percent of Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill, as did 69 percent of Democrats. The amended Senate bill was then sent back to the House where it passed with 76 percent support from Republicans and 60 percent support from Democrats.

        A number of powerful Democrats, such as President Lyndon B. Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, played important roles in getting the legislation passed.

        Prior to this, Congress had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first major civil rights legislation to be enacted in decades, that sought to protect the voting rights of black Americans. The bill passed the House in a 286-126 vote. Only 51 percent of Democrats voted in favor of the bill>/b>, or 119 of their 235 members, compared to 84 percent of Republicans, or 167 of their 199 members.

        The bill was then brought to the Senate where Thurmond, an ardent foe of integration, filibustered the vote for a total of 24 hours and 18 minutes in protest – the longest individual filibuster in history. Thurmond once said in a speech that “there’s not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the Negro race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches.”

        After the filibuster ended and a number of changes had been made, the bill passed in a 72-18 vote. The bill received 43 of 46 Republican votes, or 93 percent, and >b>29 of 49 Democratic votes, or 59 percent. The Senate version was sent back to the House, where it was approved after amendment in a 279-97 vote (75 percent of Republicans voting in favor and 55 percent of Democrats). The Senate agreed to the amendment, with support from 80 percent of Republicans and 46 percent of Democrats. Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Sept. 9, 1957.

        Congress also passed the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which further addressed the voting rights of black Americans and established penalties for those who tried to prevent people from voting. The bill passed the House on a 311-109 vote that garnered support from the majority of both parties. Roughly 87 percent of Republicans voted in favor of the act, as did 64 percent of Democrats.

        In the Senate, the bill was then amended and passed with similar levels of support – 83 percent of Republicans voted “yea” versus 65 percent of Democrats. The House approved the final bill in a 288-95 vote, with 81 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Democrats in favor.>

        Congress later passed the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act. It initially passed the House in a 327-93 vote, with 68 percent support from Democrats and 87 percent support from Republicans. It then went to the Senate, where it was amended and voted upon, passing in a 71-20 vote in which 42 Democrats (66 percent) and 29 Republicans (81 percent) voted in favor.

        The bill was then sent back to the House where it passed in a 250-172 vote. In this final vote, 61 percent of House Democrats voted in favor of the bill, compared to 53 percent of Republicans, marking the only time in all four of the Civil Rights Acts that Democrats voted in favor at a higher percentage than Republicans.

        As several Republicans supported this bill till it was amended it is obvious many did not agree with the amendment(s) and I didn’t follow up on that because it doesn’t matter.

        As Jonathon Moseley said this week in The American Thinker: The Republican Party was founded largely to fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence that “All Men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

        Republicans cannot represent who we are to the American people if we forget who we are and accept attempts to distort and change our history. Instead of sincerely apologizing, Democrats simply lie about Republicans.

        Including the conveniently sidelined Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Grand Old Party has actually led the way on civil rights, constitutional rights, and equality before the law. The Civil Rights Acts were important Republican accomplishments that we must not let the country forget.
        ………………
        We are told that racists from among Southern Democrats joined the Republican Party… Why? Well, um…. Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But…. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and of 1960. And a greater percentage Republicans voted for all those civil rights bills than Democrats. So both Republican and Democrat Presidents signed civil rights legislation. And that would make racists vote Republican…. why, exactly?

        You people just make up vicious lies, and this one—that “Today’s Republicans absolutely would not…” vote for the Civil Rights Acts is one of the worse. But you double down on it: You say “It is abundantly clear that Republicans as a whole do not favor civil and voting rights). (In fact, they favor rolling back civil and voting rights.” These comments are so patently false and so vile in their dishonesty, all they do is reflect the miserable sinkhole of your consciousness that accepts this kind of garbage enough to post it even if you don’t really believe it.

      • Amazona July 25, 2020 / 6:35 pm

        So you can trot out your line that the Democratic party is the party of racists, but it so obviously hollow that I’m surprised that you would do so.

        Except for the obvious fact that it is true. It always has been, and today while it hides behind the smarmy camouflage of “helping” black people that only thinly disguises the underlying conviction that black people NEED help—that on their own they simply cannot be expected to learn how to speak, write and spell well enough to function in today’s society, cannot be expected to meet the educational and professional standards of other races, cannot be expected to qualify themselves for admission to colleges but must have special lowered standards for them, and cannot be expected to take responsibility for their decisions and actions. Once the Democrat Party decided to shift gears and appear to support racial equality and got involved in “helping” black people the black family started to disintegrate, black culture became corrupted, black crime skyrocketed, black drug use did the same, black poverty became the norm, literacy became a thing of the past for a large number of black children, more black babies were killed in utero by their mothers than were allowed to be born alive and of them the vast majority were born out of wedlock, and black people started to define themselves by dependency, resentment and victimhood.

        The entire attitude of Democrats toward black people is condescending, while the party practices a particularly insidious form of emotional slavery, convincing black people that white people hate them and want to kill them, to keep them under the thumbs and emotional control of the party. Democrats do not see people as people, but as statistics in various demographics, which are to be manipulated to gain and retain power.

        Non-Democrats see people as people. Some have darker skin, some have lighter skin. There are a lot of cultural differences, some quite dramatic, but basically all people are to be judged by their characters and not by the color of their skin. In 2020, the Democrats reject the dream of Dr. King, while it is kept alive by the Right.

      • bunkerboy15 July 24, 2020 / 9:04 pm

        So President Johnson signed multiple civil rights acts? Such a racist.

        You people just make up vicious lies, and this one—that “Today’s Republicans absolutely would not…” vote for the Civil Rights Acts is one of the worse.

        You live in a delusional world.

    • Retired Spook July 24, 2020 / 12:21 pm

      I have plenty on JFK and Bill Clinton,

      You mean like when Slick pardoned Mark Rich while he was boffing Rich’s wife? Sleezy doesn’t begin to cover it. Not saying there haven’t been sleezy Republicans, but the GOP is pretty good at policing its own. Sleeze in the Donkey Party is a resume enhancement.

  22. Amazona July 24, 2020 / 12:39 pm

    This is interesting. It appears that the allegedly anti-racist Black Lives Matters movement is funded to a great extent by slavery.

    It receives billions of dollars from companies like Apple and Nike whose profits depend greatly on the slave labor used in China.

    China is enslaving Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs, ethnic Kyrgyz and members of other Muslim minority groups. Last night on Tucker Carlson he showed a video taken by a drone of Uighurs kneeling, shackled and blindfolded and then driven onto trains to be taken to forced labor camps.

    So while we are hammered with incessant virtue signaling here in the United States for once, two centuries ago, having some slaves in some parts of the country (ignoring the long bloody war fought to end this and the many legislative, social and cultural changes since then) we are also cheerfully buying products made by slave labor in China, and the allegedly anti-racism movement BLM is raking in money made on the backs of ethnically identified and enslaved minorities.

    Aside from the question of where that money goes, the big question now is where it comes from.

    (This is not even getting into the fawning, slavering and ankle-grabbing of the NBA.)

    Think of the irony of all the iPhone videos taken by BLM rioters to document their claims of racial discrimination.

    • Retired Spook July 24, 2020 / 2:30 pm

      The Left appears to not comprehend irony.

      • Amazona July 24, 2020 / 2:52 pm

        Time for Protest Divestment (Canceling) all investments in and buying products of companies selling products made by slave labor.

        Time for BLM to return all money donated by any of these companies.

        OR…..let the hypocrisy of the Left scream again, loud and clear.

  23. bunkerboy15 July 24, 2020 / 5:13 pm

    So a few days ago the Quinnipiac Poll reported that Biden leads Trump 45-44% in Texas. I doubt that Biden will win Texas, but it’s in play. And Texas will turn blue, if not in 2020, then not too long after that. I hear that Beto O’Rourke is employing an interesting strategy of registered Democratic voters who have moved to Texas from other states in recent years. Apparently there are 1.4 million such voters. To put that in perspective, Donald Trump handily won Texas by a margin of approximately 800,000 votes. So these recent Texas residents are enough to swing statewide elections.

    When Texas does turn blue it will instantly convert 38 electoral votes from the Republican candidate to the Democratic candidate. Around four million Republican voters will no longer be counted as Republican votes insofar as the electoral college is concerned.

    After this happens, I wonder how long it will take you all to decide that the electoral college is bad.

    • Amazona July 24, 2020 / 7:27 pm

      I’d say this is an interesting peek into the musings of a delusional troll—except it isn’t. But it seems to pleasure you, so keep at it. Just turn out the lights first.

      • bunkerboy15 July 24, 2020 / 9:02 pm

        You’ll instantly change your position to: the electoral college is good but the winner-take-all method that most states use is contrary to the principles of the founders.

    • Amazona July 24, 2020 / 7:35 pm

      I wonder if people who move to get out of Democrat states really do want to repeat the disastrous policies that drove them to move in the first place. I know some do—Colorado has been so Californicated many are now fleeing the state, myself included, because it has moved so far to the Left. But even so, it is still purple, and the overreach of its latest Democrat legislature may nudge it back to sanity.

      In the meantime we all have a front row seat to watch the inevitable outcome of Democrat governance—from crippling taxes and disintegrating infrastructure to third world conditions in what used to be one of the most beautiful cities in the world to the terrifying spectacle of nonstop riots , violence and anarchy to the prospect of living without local police, dependent on the federal government for what law enforcement it can provide. Basically, today you would have to be bone-deep stupid to vote for a Democrat, so we’ll see if the Dems can whip up enough Trump hatred to overcome the ugly reality of Dems in charge.

Comments are closed.