38 thoughts on “News/Politics 6-29-19”

  1. I am completely baffled about the story of the Salt Lake City girl who was murdered. So many things defy logic .
    On the girl’s part: She flies in from California to SLC. She gets a ride to a park. Not home, a park in the middle of the night. For not identifiable reason.
    She gets out of her ride and gets into another car.
    No one ever said why she did this. Initially, I thought it may have been a romantic rendezvous. But when I saw the pictures side by side, I think she could do better than this. So? For no identifiable reason, she gets into the car of a man who is going to kill her.
    None of that makes sense.

    On the man’s part: He drives to a park in the middle of the night and picks up a strange women whom, for no identifiable reason, he is going to kill.
    He has to know that a woman that age will have a phone with her.
    He has to know that those phones can be traced. even if it isn’t on.
    None of that event makes sense on any level.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. California is blaming Christians and other faiths for the suicides of mentally ill degenerates.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/27/ca-legislators-blame-religious-people-high-lgbt-suicide-rates/

    “CA Legislators Blame Religious People For High LGBT Suicide Rates

    There is no reputable, serious research showing people commit suicide because a particular religion refuses to embrace homosexuality. None.”

    “Legislators in California have discovered yet another way to make it clear that mainstream religions holding to the sexual teachings of their sacred texts have no business doing so in the Golden State. Why? Because these faiths, which billions of good people worldwide happily hold, do not embrace homosexuality. This includes the three largest: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

    In a resolution that recently passed the state assembly, “the Legislature calls upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance” of LGBT people. It singles out especially faith-motivated individuals and organizations.

    These legislators make a very ugly accusation against such people. California lawmakers are planning to spread the idea, with the power and moral authority of the state, that such religious beliefs actually kill people, including children. The text of this bill boldly states:

    WHEREAS, The stigma associated with being LGBT often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBT and questioning individuals…

    Note the absoluteness of their conclusions, particularly two words: create and cause. Stigma, created by religious groups, causes high rates of suicide.”

    Like

  4. A waste of time and money.

    https://hotair.com/archives/2019/06/28/tuition-fears-grow-with-tuition-debts/

    “Guess What, Colleges? Two-Thirds Of Your Grads Regret Their Diploma, Costs, Major”

    —————

    “A new poll of nearly a quarter-million Americans has found fully two-thirds of them have buyer’s remorse about their diploma, their major and the higher education experience in general. How much longer do you think folks are going to keep paying such fees that produce such dissatisfaction and unhappiness?

    Not surprisingly perhaps, the new survey found the top regret was incurring immense debts for that higher education, a debt whose payments run on for many years, causing postponed marriages and families.

    An estimated 70 percent of college graduates this year finished school with loans to repay averaging $33,000.

    Even older baby boomers are incurring college debts as they return to school for training in new areas not affected by automation and other labor-saving methods. The survey by PayScale found that even Americans over age 62 had some $86 billion in unpaid debts, theirs or their childrens’.

    The second largest graduate regret was their choice of college majors. Sen. Marco Rubio has noted in speeches that the occupational demand for Greek philosophers has not been good for about 2,000 years.

    Three-quarters of humanities graduates expressed regrets over their choice of study areas, tied to their difficulty finding employment in those areas at higher paying jobs enabling them to pay down the debt.

    Most satisfied were majors in math, science, tech and especially engineering. More than a third of computer science grads and four-in-ten engineering grads had no regrets about their area choice of studies.”

    Like

  5. Science (in many case junk) as a political weapon.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/06/28/science_as_political_orthodoxy_140663.html

    “There is an intellectual orthodoxy being imposed by the left, abetted by much of the news media. Certain viewpoints are forbidden — not simply regarded as wrong, but not permitted to be considered.

    We can observe this attitude at our colleges, where speakers who challenge leftist premises have been forcibly silenced. But it is most entrenched in discussions about global warming, in which non-orthodox views are treated the way religionists treat challenges to biblical dogma. A striking example is provided by a recent New York Times front-page story.

    The print-version headline reads: “In Climate Fight, Trump Will Put Science on Trial.” On the continuation page, the headline is even stronger: “. . . Put Science Itself on Trial.” (The online headline is not quite so aggressive: “Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science.”)

    The article presents what it calls the Trump administration’s “attack on science,” which will “undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests.” What exactly is being proposed? “[T]he U.S. Geological Survey … has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040 rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously.” Consequently, the reporter notes, “parts of the federal government will no longer be able to fulfill what scientists say is one of the most urgent jobs of climate science studies: reporting on the future effects of a rapidly warming planet.”

    The Times thus presents this as a conflict between those willing to learn about such future effects and those who aren’t — between the forces of science and the forces of anti-science.

    Yet the article itself quotes a spokesman who explains the new policy: “The previous use of inaccurate modeling that focuses on worst-case emissions scenarios, that does not reflect real-world conditions, needs to be thoroughly re-examined and tested if such information is going to serve as the scientific foundation of nationwide decision-making now and in the future.” That is, the changed policy reflects only a disagreement over the scientific validity of the projections being made 80 years into the future. The supporters of the new policy simply claim that current computer models aren’t accurate — and even then, their contention is only that the models cannot reliably predict the climate far beyond 2040. The computer programming is complex, and they want an honest re-evaluation of it. (I don’t mean to imply that President Trump, who is militantly oblivious to objective truth, is somehow committed to a search for facts, only that some of his policymakers might be.)

    Why then is there no examination of these claims? Shouldn’t the reporter investigate the computer models? How were they designed? What assumptions do they make? What has been their record of temperature forecasts over the past several decades? Are there credible objectors to the programming? Nowhere in the article are such questions pursued. Why not?

    Because the reporter, like many who warn about global warming, does not really regard it as a scientific issue, where evidence is objectively weighed, and challenges are welcomed and dispassionately assessed. Instead, it has simply become an article of faith that government must prevent the greedy oil companies from devastating our planet. It’s a belief not open to questioning, any more than the belief that government must provide welfare to the poor.

    And if some do question it, how are they to be answered? Not by factual refutation, but by scornful dismissal. They must be smeared. They must be portrayed as deluded enemies of science, whose views warrant no attention.”

    Like

  6. Chas,

    Word is she was looking for a Sugar Daddy. That’s where a young attractive woman plays concubine for a usually older, uglier man with a lot of money. He gets sex, she gets money and “free” stuff. Sadly it’s a thing now. Some women pay for college this way. It’s prostitution, with exclusivity.

    https://www.insideedition.com/was-missing-college-student-working-sugar-baby-54016

    “Since her disappearance, it’s been reported that the University of Utah student was dating multiple people through online dating sites and apps, The Daily Mail reported.

    Lueck was a self-proclaimed “sugar baby,” according to Facebook comments published by the paper.

    “Try tinder and be blunt about it. Mine says ‘I want a SD/SB relationship with a real connection.’ If [they] don’t know what a SD/SB is, tell them bluntly sugar daddy and sugar baby. But if they don’t know, they aren’t really worth your time,” read one of Lueck’s comments, which was reportedly posted in a private Facebook group.

    She also claimed to have two sugar daddies in another post.

    “I have some experience on seeking arrangements, online only, tinder, and currently have two lol,” she wrote three months ago in the group.

    Police said they are looking into Lueck’s social media and dating profiles.

    “In regards to her online activity, we are aware of this aspect and continue to look into all facets of her life for leads into her disappearance,” Assistant Police Chief Tim Doubt said. “

    Like

  7. @11:05: There it is, Chas’ common sense explained away once again … I want to live in Chas’ world.

    I was reflecting this morning on how much of a political bubble LA (and much of California) currently lives in. Yesterday’s council meeting was a case in point. City Hall — a grand, historic building, I’m always in awe of the architecture and beauty inside and out — was draped with pride flags (to be replaced by Muslim Heritage flags in July, presumably; I’m waiting for word that the El Camino mission bells lining the freeways need to come down). The council meeting opened with a very celebratory presentation for the upcoming Muslim Heritage Month (all good folks, I’m sure, each of the guests spoke and all seemed to have stellar resumes when it came to good works in the city). A new LA Zoo director was announced — with the most excitement centered on her being the first African-American woman to lead a zoo in the US (I get it, and it is an achievement, but so much back-patting over it …). Today’s LA Times front page had nothing about the port automation decision — which could have deep ramifications on shipping and the business sector in our state and region — but it did have a story on hair style discrimination being outlawed. (In fairness, the Times has an excellent news/business reporter who’s been all over the port story, I just didn’t see her story on A1 and am still looking for it; the Times has some strong journalists who do good and fair work, including on the homeless issue).

    One councilman spoke yesterday about how there’s an inherent economic “bias” in our system in the US; a representative of Bernie Sanders’ campaign read a statement in support of the union regarding the port issue, all one-sided echoes of a certain national campaign going on in our midst.

    Meanwhile, editor kept asking “So no one spoke in favor of the terminal being automated?”

    Like

  10. And this is how early debates can begin to winnow and shape the field — follow the money

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/29/kamala-harris-biden-debate-1390512

    _____________________________

    Kamala Harris raises $2 million in 24 hours after debate

    Sen. Kamala Harris raised $2 million in 24 hours after her first presidential debate, her biggest fundraising day of the campaign, her campaign said Saturday.

    Donations flowed to Harris from 63,277 people, nearly 60 percent of which were first-time donors. The average donation was $30. Her previous largest day was $1.5 million after launching.

    By comparison, former HUD secretary Julián Castro had roughly 16,000 new donors and Sen. Cory Booker had almost 4,000 new donors after their Wednesday debate, their campaigns said Friday.

    Harris’ haul comes in the final days of the second fundraising quarter. She also is holding five fundraisers over the weekend in Los Angeles and San Francisco. …
    _______________________________

    Like

  11. Those trends may not hold, but it gives candidates either early boosts or fails (Biden) — and gives some a chance to build from there if they can.

    Like

  12. A disgusting new low for the NY Times.

    Calling for the doxxing and harassment of low level govt. employees who are just doing the job they’re paid to do. How about we turn that around and have those who disagree with her give her the doxxing treatment. She’d squeal like a stuck pig then.

    ——————

    This will eventually end in violence.

    Like

  15. It’s an editorial, that they printed, and as you can see by the Tweets, are clearly promoting.

    And in both cases the WaPo and NYT had the discretion to not promote or print editorials encouraging ruining people’s lives and even violence against them. Yet they chose not to exercise discretion and printed them anyway. That clearly implies they agree with the message. They’re culpable simply by printing such rubbish. Newspapers have no business promoting this sort of hatred of people they disagree with, yet here we are. They own it too.

    Like

  16. Like I said, it was unfit for print, yet they printed it anyway, because they agree with the message. While this is from the NYT story, it applies to the WaPo as well. Same exact MO.

    https://hotair.com/archives/2019/06/29/nyt-op-ed-im-not-saying-doxx-immigration-officers-staffing-trumps-detention-centers-sort-saying/

    “In other words, it’s doxxing with a wink. Alerting a neighborhood that a CBP or ICE officer lurks close by while people like AOC are screeching about concentration camps is of course an invitation to activists to find that person and make their life hell. Whatever the intent, the reality will be the same as in doxxing: Physical intimidation, a warning to the target that We Know Where You Live and that they’d best sleep with one eye open until they change their behavior. This is what’s fit for print, apparently, on the op-ed page of the world’s most august newspaper.”

    ——-

    “Why the same immigration officers weren’t targeted this way five years ago, when Obama’s DHS was shunting unaccompanied minors off into some of the same facilities Trump is using, remains a mystery for another day.

    This is one piece of a larger argument by Cronin-Furman that what border agents are now involved in is nothing more or less than a crime against humanity (“it meets the definition of a mass atrocity: a deliberate, systematic attack on civilians”) and therefore extraordinary measures — international tribunals, boycotts, you name it — to convince them to desist are warranted. How extraordinary? Pretty extraordinary, dude:

    Similar to the way the American Medical Association has made it clear that its members must not participate in torture, the American Bar Association should signal that anyone who defends the border patrol’s mistreatment of children will not be considered a member in good standing of the legal profession. This will deter the participation of some, if only out of concern over their future career prospects.

    I’ve heard of left-wing academic hiveminds exiling a lawyer for defending an especially odious client. Never in my life have I heard of a professional legal gatekeeper doing so. And I mean never: Rule one in the profession of law is that everyone’s entitled to a defense. 9/11 jihadis get lawyers at Gitmo. The Nazis had lawyers at Nuremberg. In this singular instance, it seems, Cronin-Furman is prepared to send legal ethics down the toilet and institute a new rule in which DOJ lawyers — and, I guess, attorneys for individual border agents — who defend Trump’s policies risk disbarment for taking the position they’ve taken.

    Is she seriously proposing this? Or is this just an over-the-top bit of virtue-signaling in a progressive game to see who can signal their contempt for Trump’s policies most vividly?

    An unanswered question is what Cronin-Furman would recommend if her tactics were tried but didn’t work. She and her friends show up to a CBP agent’s neighborhood, post photos of him behind the fence at an immigration detention facility, and warn passersby with a sign that HE WALKS AMONG YOU. Then, nothing happens. The agent doesn’t even go into hiding. In light of the moral stakes she’s presented here, that this is a slow-motion atrocity and must be halted by every available means, she would have to escalate, right? Traditional doxxing would necessarily follow. If that didn’t work, presumably out-and-out violence would be warranted. Auschwitz wasn’t liberated by a boycott or a “shaming” campaign, after all.

    This is where the crimes-against-humanity logic leads you, and why it’s disingenuous of her to disclaim that she’s not threatening anyone here.”

    Like

  17. More violence from the left. Exactly the kind of public, in your face, conduct the WaPo and NYT editorials called for.

    CONTENT WARNING!!!!!!!!

    For language and violence.

    —————-

    Like

  18. Like

  20. I’m at a disadvantage not being able to read the material. But there is a distinct difference between what a newspaper’s editorial opinion is and the op-eds it runs (we run guest op-eds from both sides of the spectrum, probably some of it kinda ‘out there’ on both sides).

    The national media has a lot to answer for. But don’t just fall into the trap of assuming that what they’re doing is *always* wrong or partisan on the “other” side.

    It’s incumbent on all of us to try to set aside our own unique biases. Read the news critically, but fairly.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Yes DJ, however……

    They should have never run the op-eds. They and they alone have the ability to ensure that letters like those never see print.

    It should be treated the way they would a LTE by a known racist. Ignored and not printed. Yet that didn’t happen here. If a person from the right wrote an op-ed calling for doxxing Democrats, it would never see the light of day. And that would be the right decision by editors. No one deserves that. Yet here…..

    Sorry, the bias is obvious.

    Like

  22. This criminal should have been in jail or deported before he killed 7 US Marines.

    Thanks Obama and Dems.

    —————-

    https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/man-who-killed-group-of-marines-should-never-have-been-out-of-jail-g5KH301dSEWuFBpsQ-00DQ/

    “Man Who Killed Group Of Marines Should Never Have Been Out Of Jail”

    “Zhukovskyy, a native of Ukraine, is also being held on a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer and faces deportation when he is released from jail.

    After the wreck, investigators discovered that the driver of the truck that killed seven people had a history of driving under the influence, according to MassLive.

    In fact, he was arraigned on June 26 for a May 11 DUI arrest in East Windsor, Connecticut.

    Zhukovskyy’s license had been suspended for several years after a drunk driving incident in Westfield, MassLive reported.

    And on June 3, five months after his February arrest in Baytown, he rolled an 18-wheeler in the same area, the Boston Herald reported.

    That wreck occurred just two weeks before Zhukovskyy plowed into the motorcycle club in New England.

    The video of his February arrest at a Denny’s restaurant in Baytown showed a jittery man hopped up on something that wouldn’t allow him to stand still.”

    Like

  23. Oh…….. now I get it. This must be the one Obama got too. 🙂

    https://nypost.com/2019/06/29/nobel-prize-in-stupidity-holocaust-survivor-wants-aoc-out-of-congress/

    “‘Nobel Prize in stupidity’: Holocaust survivor wants AOC out of Congress”

    “There are few remaining survivors of concentration camps. Ed Mosberg is one of them.

    And the 93-year-old from Morris Plains, NJ, has no time for Rep. ­Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s statements last week, when she called the southern border’s migrant detention centers “concentration camps.”

    “She should be removed from Congress. She’s spreading anti-Semitism, hatred and stupidity,” Mosberg told The Post. “The people on the border aren’t forced to be there — they go there on their own will. If someone doesn’t know the difference, either they’re playing stupid or they just don’t care.”

    On June 18, the Bronx/Queens politician posted a video on Instagram in which she said: “The United States is running concentration camps on our southern border, and that is exactly what they are — they are concentration camps.”

    Mosberg, who lost his entire family during the Holocaust and himself survived both the Plaszów and Mauthausen camps, said: “Her statement is evil. It hurts a lot of people. At the concentration camp, we were not free. We were forced there by the Germans who executed and murdered people — there’s no way you can compare.”

    On June 21, the Holocaust-education group From the Depths, of which Mosberg is the president, extended an invitation to AOC via Facebook, encouraging her to tour “German Nazi concentration camps” with Mosberg. He said he hoped to take her to the museum and memorial site at Auschwitz, where his mother was murdered.”

    ——————-

    AOC of course declined.

    Like

  24. I fear for out nation.
    AS I said many times before, I pray for my family every day. That God will protect them
    Our country is in serious trouble.
    Sure, we have had problems in the past, but we put most of them behind us.
    But it used to be that you only took money and an appetite to a restaurant.
    And if someone got married, it was considered forever and to someone of the opposite sex.
    And people could argue politics and part as friends.

    We are studying I Timothy in SS this quarter. It’s surprising how much of that is contrary to contemporary practice. Among Spiritual Christians.

    And every Democrat is determined to add to the already unsustainable national debt.
    Someday, likely not in my lifetime, but someday this will come crashing down.
    And what happens to the world when there is no more USA?

    In I Timothy study today. We were talking about widows.
    I didn’t mention that in India, the widow jumps into the funeral pyre.
    (Or used to , I don’t know if that’s still the practice.)

    Happy Fourth, everyone.

    Like

  26. There are also several Tweets out there from Charlie Warzel, writer at large for the NY Times Opinion Desk which cheer on the violence and say the journalist above deserved it for daring to cover Antifa’s violence. Foul mouthed so I won’t link, but you can search Twitter for it.

    Another writer for the HUffPo thinks milkshaking someone isn’t assault. But of course he left out the part about the “milkshakes” being filled with quicklime and quick dry concrete which caused chemical burns on the victims as well as those incurred by getting hit in the face with a couple pounds of concrete. I can’t post those though because like Warzel’s above, he’s also a foul mouthed cretin who needs his mouth washed out with soap.

    They don’t even hide their bias any more.

    Like

  27. ——————–

    Like

  28. —————-

    Like

  32. And the police should be ashamed of themselves, to stand by and watch all this happen while doing nothing. They have no guts or heart to be cowed from doing the job they swore to, to protect and serve, all because they’re more afraid of Democrats in charge. They demonstrate a lack of common decency and honor. Pathetic, neutered spectators is what they’ve turned into.

    Obvious crimes are happening here. And the Democrats who run the city are complicit.

    https://twitter.com/RightHookUSA/status/1145374246316707846

    Like

  33. Concentration camps were first used by the British in the Boer war. They imprisoned Boer (Dutch settlers in Africa) women and children to punish and deter them from supporting Boer irregular soldiers from continuing the war. Hundreds if not thousands died ftom typhus, diarrhea etc due to bad sanitary conditions.

    Similarly, Central American children are imprisoned to deter and punish migrants. The delibrate withholding of soap, toothpaste, etc not only incrases shareholder profits but increases the punishment and deterance.

    There is nothing anti-semetic about the terminology. Concentration camps were used not only by the British but the Germans, Russisns, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Serbisns etc. Imprisioning an ethnic or a political group as punishment/deterrence is nothing new or unususl.

    To cite Auschwitz as a concentration csmp is to minimize the atrocities that happened there. Auschwitz was a death camp not a concentration camp.

    Like

  34. Now how does a citizenry respond to the existence of concentration camps? Countless books have been written on why the average Germans did nothing when concentration camps were first built. The best summary is the poem First They Came. The first groups imprisoned were communists and foreigners, most Germans shrugged their shoulders until it was too late.

    After all they chose to be communists. And Boer women chose to support the irregular soldiers (the Brits called them terrorists). And Central Americans chose to migrate.

    Perhaps if the Brits knew what was happening in South Aftica and protested, hundreds of Boer women and children would have liced And if Germans protested the arrests of communists, perhaps things would’ve been dufferent.

    Thus is doxing and shaming appropriate now?. I’m not a big fan of either technique but a response of some sort is neccessary. My preference would be to attack corporations making money from these camps. However personal responsiblity should still be demanded, its just a job is not an excuse.

    Twenty some years ago, there was a wave of abortion clinic bombings and even a few doctors shot ( a sniper shot a dr in his backyard near my place). This was justified as protecting humdn life. Yet here in the case of living children sleeping on cement floors denied basic sanitation, the pro life movement is silent. The left is out there supporting basic decency for human life and is criticized by the right including those who cheered for heartbeat legislation. Migrant children have heartbeats also

    Like

  35. AJ – I must have missed something along the way. Who are the people that Antifa is attacking? Were they part of a protest or demonstration or something?

    Like

  36. Anonymous (HRW?) – I’ve seen plenty of pro-life, conservative-leaning people protesting what is going on with the immigrants.

    But another thing to consider is that those border agents are completely overwhelmed with the number of people they need to take care of. They do not have the resources to provide all those things for the people. I read of one particular facility that only had two showers for thousands of people.

    Like

  38. Kizzie….private companies are paid 750 per child per night. You could house them in Holiday Inn and still turn a profit. There’s no excuse, its quite clear, the corporations value profit over human dignity.

    As long as evangelical Christians continue to support Trump and. the Republican party, they will lose any credibility in this matter.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.