We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, February 10. 2018
The sun is growing colder
Yikes. I can feel it
Many or most kids do not pay full-freight, tho
The Amazon-ification of Whole Foods - There’s a broader strategy behind two-hour delivery for heirloom tomatoes.
Rent Control Needs Retirement, Not a Comeback
Rent control harms low-income people. It's not about logic, it's politics
Update, public housing in NYC
San Francisco Bay Area Experiences Mass Exodus Of Residents
Local Man Takes Advantage Of 3-Hour DMV Wait To Pen Blog Post Arguing For Government-Run Healthcare
The Idolatry of Journalism - The Newseum is a monument of absurd self-praise.
California confronts the complexities of creating a single-payer healthcare system
Deep in the fine print of the two-year budget deal in Congress
CLINTON ALLY IN STATE DEPT ADMITS PASSING BLUMENTHAL/SHEARER MATERIAL TO STEELE
Breaking: Peter Strzok KNEW Hillary Camp Used Bleachbit to Delete Emails – The Week They Were Deleted
U.S. Spies Paid $100,000 To Shady Russian Who Promised Them Stolen Cyberweapons And Dirt On Trump
Tom Steyer Hires Army of Operatives With Eye Toward Impeachment
Has Anyone Seen the President? Michael Lewis goes to Washington in search of Trump and winds up watching the State of the Union with Steve Bannon.
Amusing. Trump's flaws are such easy targets though. So are my own.
Justice Dept. and FBI Personnel Changes Amid Probes
Can't keep track of the probes
Assad Is Still Using Chemical Weapons in Syria. Neither the threat of U.S. action nor an Obama-era agreement appears to deter Bashar al-Assad.
It’s Hard to Believe, but Syria’s War Is Getting Even Worse
Israel Carries Out "Large Scale Attack" On Syria After Israeli F-16 Shot Down
Tracked: Feb 11, 09:37
Tracked: Feb 11, 09:50
Tracked: Feb 11, 10:05
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Deep in the fine print of the two-year budget deal in Congress
...Is an unfunded chasm of debt that explodes the myth that the paltry tax cut is by itself a savior. It's just more bubble econ.
If Trump is aiding the economy it's by reducing regulations and improving trade, elements that themselves have yet to settle in. Conversely, the market crashing signifies the end of QE. The right consistently gets this analysis wrong too, seeing only the tax cut as influence.
Whichever party is in power determines who enacts the next round of peak, terminal Keynes. This cycle it's the Republicans.
Yep, we're all socialists now.
Would agree that Trumps biggest aid to the economy is shredding the regulation industry while shrinking the administrative state and making big changes in the trade talks. Killing TPP was a great start but I think letting the NAFTA trade deal fail will really aid the manufacturing industry. Right now Asia and Europe are using NAFTA as a vehicle to get products into the US under the tariff radar. Trump has no intention of allowing Asian and European parts to be packaged into a Mexican or Canadian product and be tariff free. I am not fond of the infrastructure bill, the states have enough money to maintain infrastructure but do not make good spending choices. Building sports stadiums rather than roads and bridges is a choice.
I hope the next scandal is a lot easier to follow.
Here is one timeline; bear in mind that it was on Forbes but was taken down.
Re: grid girls
The first obvious point about this is that it's another case of somebody being offended for somebody else. Nobody forced them to do it, they wanted to do it and now because of some prudish feminists, those women have lost their job. The prudes have lost nothing.
The second point is enjoying the feminine form is now "objectifying." Are we supposed to go through life refusing to appreciate things that appeal to us? Should women wear smocks and bags over their heads lest a man appreciate the way she looks? Is this an intersection between radical feminism and radical Islam?
Lastly, if the grid girls were to be replaced, replacing them with young racing enthusiasts is the right move but I would have preferred that the young enthusiasts be accompanied by the grid girls.
The guy uses a DMV wait to solve the government-run healthcare problem. Next he can use the six-month wait for life-saving medical care to solve the global hotcoldwetdry problem, and then he can use the 50-year "hiatus" in warming that results from solar minima to solve the problem of man's inhumanity to man and the enigmatic silence of God throughout human history.
i confess I did! I was reacting to a description from someone else, and obviously not paying enough attention.
Andrew McCarthy: No, Trump Cannot Be Found To Have ‘Obstructed’ The Russia Investigation ... If Mueller was to be engaged in a criminal investigation of Trump, the Justice Department was supposed to make that clear in defining the scope of the special-counsel appointment.
According to the order authorizing the Special Counsel: "If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation".
President Trump cannot obstruct a counterintelligence investigation. Such investigations are not undertaken to build prosecutions but to inform him.
That is simply incorrect. If the Special Counsel uncovers evidence of a crime, and Trump intentionally obstructs that investigation, then Trump may have committed a crime.
Sorry but gotta go with the former assistant U.S. attorney on this instead of
of a bunch of little trolling kiddiez who somehow escaped their sandbox.
Zach, I have read your comments for years. Do you really believe what you type or if you are laughing your posterior off while you type? That is a serious question.
"If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation". Zach@#5
Mueller has uncovered numerous violations of federal law and yet, no one is arrested or in jail. The investigation uncovered lies under oath during Congressional testimony. The investigation did uncover that the DNC conspired with FBI (Very) Special Agents and others inside the DOJ to violate Federal law and to place their preferred candidate into the White House. So Zach, why is no one in jail? The answer is because the FBI and the DOJ are still not obeying the law themselves.
Mueller's team are mostly individuals with concrete ties to Clinton and by law and legal ethics should not be able to investigate anything. Why is that team allowed to continue wasting money when all they uncover is what they covered up years ago?
You comments on politics and on the false narrative of man made global warming are so far off base that usually I won't reply. The past few days you were so far off base that I wanted to ask if you are serious about what you type or if you are just a troll out having fun.
Dave: Do you really believe what you type or if you are laughing your posterior off while you type?
Our comments are our own, freely and sincerely given.
Dave: Mueller has uncovered numerous violations of federal law and yet, no one is arrested or in jail.
That is not correct. Trump's former National Security Advisor and one of his campaign's foreign policy advisors have pleaded guilty to lying about their contacts with Russian agents. Two others, including his former campaign manager, have also been charged on money laundering charges associated with Russia.
Dave: The investigation uncovered lies under oath during Congressional testimony. The investigation did uncover that the DNC conspired with FBI (Very) Special Agents and others inside the DOJ to violate Federal law and to place their preferred candidate into the White House.
Instead of waving your hands in the general direction, you may want to be specific.
Dave: Mueller's team are mostly individuals with concrete ties to Clinton
Mueller is a Republican and has worked under both Democratic and Republican administrations. To what "concrete ties" are you referring?
Dave: You comments on politics and on the false narrative of man made global warming are so far off base that usually I won't reply.
Our only statement on this thread accurately portrayed the findings of Lubin 2017.
"The "dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application." Memo 1)
". . . Steele said he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president." This clear evidence of Steele's bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files -- but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications." Memo 3)
Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife's opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs' relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC." Memo 3)a)
Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information. Memo 4)
The investigation continues to unearth gems such as these which show the trail of illegal actions by FBI (Very) Special Agents and others inside DOJ.
Who is David Laufman and why did he suddenly resign?
Why did Comey suddenly take terminal leave when his part of the illegal activities was brought to Congressional attention?
Why is Bruce Ohr, acting as a senior DOJ official, not indicted for his illegal activity in providing the FBI doctored data?
Why with obvious, irrefutable violations of Federal law, has Mueller not indicted his friends and placed them in jail? Just why is that Zach?
Apparently, you missed the memo on who the Mueller team attorneys are and how they worked for the Clintons or gave pay to play donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Mueller team is not unbiased and they are working hard to cover up illegal actions by the DNC, the FBI and DOJ.
Dave: "The "dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application."
The publicly available information does indicate it was an important part of the FISA application. Valid warrants are often ordered based on gangsters and other ne'er-do-wells. So?
Dave: This clear evidence of Steele's bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files
Turns out that FBI agents are allowed to have political opinions. So? Those aren't "concrete ties".
Dave: Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.
That isn't actually known. The public does not have access to McCabe's testimony, or to the FISA application.
Gee whiz. Even a cursory look at Carter Page's activities show that he was hobnobbing with Russian agents. The application doesn't have to have proof, just probable cause, and the dossier was almost certainly not the only evidence in the application. Indeed, Trump's own FBI director said that the Nunes memo was misleading.
And the backtracking and tap dancing begins.
We have to give the CSR(s) credit for effort. Imagine the electrical bill alone when you run an absolutely endless routine for decades on end that's based entirely on diverting Entirely Logical Valid Point A into jarred pickled herring and Evidence of Stark Reality B into a nice upholstered toilet seat in a lively rosy cream with the little floral accents.
You almost have to forgive it(s) for what if it were human would be all that blatantly dishonest postmodernism with the eternal narrative framing. Fortunately the CSR'(s') hilarious big loud BUT WE'RE(s) SINCERE! sticker pasted on the back of it(s) giant green cyclopsian eyeball(s) brings a refreshing levity. Probably some long-dead programmer put there as a joke.
Makes you wonder how many fuses would blow if you tossed Gödel's God Proof at it(s). The ensuing arcing and snapping might just brownout half of Nigeria.
Now there's an idea... Does a cloud of plasma smell like ozone?
"Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information." Memo 4)
Exactly which part of that quote isn't clear? No Steele dossier; No FISA warrant. That's hard to get around Zach, no matter how much spin is put on it.
"Turns out that FBI agents are allowed to have political opinions. So?" Zach above
Zach, the problem is not that they have political opinions, but, rather that they used their positions inside the FBI and Justice to illegally request a FISA warrant and then used that FISA warrant information in an attempt to redirect the presidential election. That is not just having a political opinion, that is using a position of power to influence outcomes and the manner in which it was done violated Federal law. Again, that is hard to get around no matter how hard the spin is.
Zach, you still missed the memo with the concrete ties of Mueller's team having worked for the Clintons or the Clinton Foundation. Again, violations of law and ethics that can't be avoided even with hard spin.
After much effort and extreme backing by the media to keep the Nunes memo and other information from being released, even Nancy Pelosi said that the memo was accurate. The FBI said the memo was accurate. That memo illuminates the illegal activity which you are trying to spin away.
Zach, you are attempting to flim flam the illegal actions of the FBI, DOJ and other individuals. That worked with Walter Cronkite when he lied about the battle of Khe Sanh and the Tet Offensive. As a result, the communist groups here in the US used ignorant individuals to riot and create distrust of the fighting in Vietnam. In fact, both of those actions were huge successes for the ARVN and US forces with the NVA and the Viet Cong being almost completely destroyed. No, we've seen your type of spin before trying to force narratives to cover treasonous activity here.
Your sincere comments don't cut the mustard here.
Dave: Exactly which part of that quote isn't clear?
The statement was clear. We responded, "The public does not have access to McCabe's testimony, or to the FISA application." It's quite possible McCabe's testimony is being taken out of context, much like Comey's testimony has been repeatedly taken out of context concerning the dossier being "salacious and unverified".
Dave: the problem is not that they have political opinions, but, rather that they used their positions inside the FBI and Justice to illegally request a FISA warrant and then used that FISA warrant information in an attempt to redirect the presidential election.
That's the part you are assuming, not showing. You made the claim then said they had political opinions as if the latter proves the former.
Dave: you still missed the memo with the concrete ties of Mueller's team having worked for the Clintons or the Clinton Foundation.
Again, you make the claim, but don't show it.
Dave: even Nancy Pelosi said that the memo was accurate.
Pelosi said the memo was a "total misrepresentation". Trump's own FBI director said the FBI has "grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy."
Zach, thank you for proving that you are just another troll doing his best to destroy America.
Dave: doing his best to destroy America.
Actually, we're rather fond of America, and believe it still has an important role to play in the world. That's why we reject unwarranted attacks on its institutions.
Human: That guy just did some illegal stuff. He ought to be prosecuted.
Clattering Site Robot(s): That's not a guy, that's a patriotic American flag with handsome golden tassels , which, under the Rules of Executive Privilege accorded to an Administration Not in Power automatically grants parties a Monopoly Do-Over-Put-Of-Jail-Free card eenie einie over no tap-backs. We(s) are sincerely earnest about this fallacy we(s) churned up out of what we(s) were programmed to believe was obsolete memory. See? SINCERITY!
Human: Well, that's kinda whack, you Clatt-
Clattering Site Robot(s): TROLL! We(s) SHALL NOW REPEAT OUR FALLACY USING A DIFFERENT CRAYON. IT IS NOW TOFU IN A NICE BISQUE WITH SQUID CRACKERS. SEE! WE(S) ARE VINDICATED IN OUR SINCERITY!
Clattering Site Robot(s): AND ANOTHER THING; MOSS ONLY GROWS ON THE STARBOARD QUADRANT OF PRE-17TH CENTURY MAUSOLEUMS, YOU FASCIST CONSERVATIVE. WE ONLY REPORT THE TRUTH! WE CONCLUDE YOU ARE TROLLING!
Clattering Site Robot(s): [fizzles maniacally; attempts to point at colorful BUT WE'RE(s) SINCERE! sticker plastered to the back of it's single gigantic monochromatic green eyeball by a long-dead programmer as a joke, fails. Smoke billows.]
Clattering Site Robot(s):
Human: Anyway, somebody ought to call the law on that guy. 'Cause that was wrong.
Clattering Site Robot(s): TROLL!
The sun is growing colder
The same study showed that the expected temporary U/V cooling will not be sufficient to stop anthropogenic global warming.
Makes you wonder how to inject some factual objectivity into the clattering site robot'(s) input pipe, doesn't it?
Also [a href="https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/gisp2temperaturexaxisprafter.gif?w=578&h=396"]science[/a].
Meh: Makes you wonder how to inject some factual objectivity into the clattering site robot'(s) input pipe, doesn't it?
We accurately portrayed the findings of Lubin 2017. If you think they are in error, you may want to explain why, rather than just waving your hands.
Clattering Site Robot(s): I shall now regurgitate the same clattering dot matrix output as before. [Scrapes memory and spits out the identical fallacy.]
Meh: Right. So if it sounds like a thudding cow it's a thudding cow. I could actually go with that, CSR(s), because ever since that guy speculated that you(s) couldn't prove that cows could not leap moons, everybody's basically figured he was right Proof! You(s) may be onto something.
Clattering Site Robot(s): I shall now regurgitate the same clattering dot matrix output as before. [Scrapes memory and spits out the identical fallacy.] Meh, Confounder of clattering site robot(s), there is 100% confirmation of greenhouse AGW warming/cooling/disaster/political weather temperature climate atmosphere conjectures because theory predicts it. [Performs 385,228,100th inspection of interior of 10" green monochromatic screen. Test-spins print ball and prepares to print [i]TROLL![/] upon subsequent attacks on conflicts of internal logic.]
Meh: Conjecture of AGW = proof of physical reality? That's weird. You(s) late for a service interval?
Zzzz: The Earth can only gain or lose heat radiatively.
The Kiddiez actually posted that on another thread but then again they post a lot of stuff they know nothing about.
Can you spot the fallacy?
Does it involve tap dancing your fool ass off like your shoes are made of Siminoz?
Because, yeah, I do. Fifty different flavors thereof. It's hilarious...
I don't understand the latest scandal about Rob Porter and his alleged domestic violence. Assuming the worst and he hit his spouse. There are remedies and his divorce is obviouxly one of those remedies. What is the point now? Is the point that anyone accused of domestic violence can never work again or appear in public? What? This is something between these two people why is it part of a public discourse. Yes, one could certainly argue that anyone who hits their spouse is a horrible person but can anyone tell me what actually happened here? Did she hit him first (which is often the case) and he hit her back? Did she physically and mentally abuse him (which is often the case) until he reacted to it? Is it all a lie and she is simply guilty of revenge "porn" (which is often the case)? What, exactly, requires that this man be hounded out of his job for the rest of his life? And who gets to decide? It should be clear by now that the #metoo movement was set up to push out political opponents and has mostly worked with a few backfires.
Have you seen the interview with Rob Porter's wife? Isn't it obvious that she genuinely enjoys the pain she is causing her ex? So again let's assume he did exactly what he is accused of her revenge is justified, right? But still why are we forced to participate in it? Why can't she go on TV and destroy his life without us saying "me too"? Let the guy work his job. Let the ex spread rumors and spend the rest of her life trying to destroy him. Let the other 320 million of us stay out of it.
That makes too much sense. Besides not satisfying the SJWs. Who by among us can cast the first stone after being berated by a sharp tongued spouse? Resisting that violent response is a real challenge betimes.
OneGuy: Is the point that anyone accused of domestic violence can never work again or appear in public?
No, but someone with a history of domestic violence will have troubles getting a security clearance.
What, exactly, is a "history of domestic violence? I knew a divorce lawyer who would not take a divorce case for the woman (all his clients were women) unless she would claim domestic violence. But what is a HISTORY of domestic violence? Is it one ex claiming domestic violence? If so what is the remedy if the ex and the lawyer made it up? There is none. It is like being called a racist or a white supremacist; the accusation doesn't need proof and there is no appeal, repeal or justice. In this case it is "the politics of personal destruction" right out of the Clinton/Alinsky playbook. This is filthy, dirty politics at it's worst and the smirking ex being interviewed was used by filthy dirty politicians. But the thing is, if she knew that, she wouldn't care. Because she had her own revenge porn to spew on national TV. She had an axe to bury in her ex's head and she did it in public just as she intended to.
I don't hate my ex and after 30 years I'm not mad or unhappy about it all anymore. But even at it's worst I would not have exposed things she did publicly just to destroy her life. I cannot fathom sinking that low and it makes me very suspicious of anyone who would. Would they lie? If there goal was to destroy their ex (and in this case that is clearly true) would they lie to do it???
"someone with a history of domestic violence will have troubles getting a security clearance"
That is true but totally misleading. If the domestic violence is hidden, then there is a remote chance that person could be blackmailed, which makes him (in this case, Porter) a security risk. However, once the accusations of domestic violence are made public, as has now happened to Porter, there is no longer anything to hide, there is no leverage for any blackmailer to employ, and thus there are no longer any grounds for the FBI to deny him a security clearance. To deny Porter a security clearance at this point is security theater, a way for the FBI to retaliate against Trump and embarrass him for the attacks he has lately made on the Agency.
OneGuy: What, exactly, is a "history of domestic violence?
In this case, it involved both of his ex-wives.
OneGuy: This is filthy, dirty politics at it's worst
You seem to think this is exceptional. Rather, such background checks are standard for security clearances, and even for some types of employment in the private sector. Are you suggesting that background checks should not be done for security clearances?
Agent Cooper: However, once the accusations of domestic violence are made public, as has now happened to Porter, there is no longer anything to hide, there is no leverage for any blackmailer to employ, and thus there are no longer any grounds for the FBI to deny him a security clearance.
Spousal abuse shows bad character, poor judgment, and lack of responsibility. One instance you might write off, but a past pattern may indicate future problems.
"In this case, it involved both of his ex-wives."
I know I saw them and seriously would you believe what they said? One used that phrase "he put his hands on me". WTF does that mean? Not believable. If someone pushes me or hits me I would say that. The ONLY reason I would ever use that phrase "he put his hands on me" was if nothing happened and I needed to make it appear that something happened.
"Spousal abuse shows bad character, poor judgment, and lack of responsibility."
And yet women are responsible for 66% of spousal abuse 75% of killing their own children (not even counting abortions) and all the focus is put on the men. I understand part of the problem is because men are far less likely to whine and blame others. And as we can see from this latest case far less likely to coomme back 13 years later to torpedo the ex's life.
SO what actually happened? Not what she said I know what she said and saw the smirk and dramatic pause at appropriate times. What actually happened? Did she hit him first and he returned the favor? Did she throw something at him? What? We don't know and llikely will never know. But it all begs the question. WHAT is the resolution, the punishment, the absolution for a accusation of domestic violence or "he put his hands on me" or whatever??? Should we burn him at the stake? Or if the charge turns out to be false/hyped burn her at the stake? Should we lynch him/her? Should we harass him/her for the rest of his life getting him fired from every job??? What? What will make you happy?
IMHO this is no one's business but the two involved AND if it is investigated and a crime was committed it becomes the courts business. Should we fire everyone who ever committed a crime or even worse everyone who was accused of a crime??? Spell it out so we all know the rules.
This was/is dirty politics; a witch hunt. It is what #metoo was intended to do to create an atmosphere where enemies can be harmed and destroyed for political or personal reasons. There is zero reason for me or anyone to care what arguments, fights or revenge porn these women are into.
OneGuy: I know I saw them and seriously would you believe what they said?
When there is more than one accuser, then it is reasonable to believe there is a pattern.
OneGuy: WHAT is the resolution, the punishment, the absolution for a accusation of domestic violence
It's not a criminal case. Employers have a right to set standards.
OneGuy: Should we fire everyone who ever committed a crime or even worse everyone who was accused of a crime???
Don't exaggerate. He doesn't have a security clearance. That's the extent of it.
OneGuy: This was/is dirty politics; a witch hunt.
As already pointed out, this isn't something new. A pattern of bad behavior has always been a reason to deny someone a security clearance, and it has never required proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
"When there is more than one accuser, then it is reasonable to believe there is a pattern."
I agree, except when politics enters into the equation then it is more likely that there is an ulterior motive.
"It's not a criminal case. Employers have a right to set standards."
Again I agree with what you said but not what you imply. If employers have a right to set their own standards why not just ignore these two Harpies? There is ZERO chance that the left would let Trump ignore them. If the president was a left wing Democrat this would never come up. This is a politically motivated witch hunt to try to cripple Trump's White House. Most likely Porter was getting to close to something the Democrats want to keep secret so they pulled this rabbit out of their hat.
"Don't exaggerate. He doesn't have a security clearance. That's the extent of it. "
Did he have a security clearance the day before his ex's dropped their revenge porn???
"a reason to deny someone a security clearance, and it has never required proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
Then how did Hillary ever get a security clearance?
OneGuy: I agree, except when politics enters into the equation then it is more likely that there is an ulterior motive.
It's possible, but the accusations predate the Trump Administration.
OneGuy: If employers have a right to set their own standards why not just ignore these two Harpies?
Because security clearances typically err on the conservative side. There is an appeal process.
"Spousal abuse shows bad character, poor judgment, and lack of responsibility. One instance you might write off, but a past pattern may indicate future problems."
If you want a good example of that, Bill Clinton comes to mind. But I bet he still has a top secret security clearance. I know that Hillary Clinton still has hers, despite having shown "extreme carelessness" in the handling of classified documents. If past is prologue when it comes to bad character and poor judgement, and this is what the FBI takes into account, then I'd say they are using that standard selectively based on politics. The Porter business was clearly a Deep State strike against Trump. Only a fool would try to deny it.
Agent Cooper: If you want a good example of that, Bill Clinton comes to mind.
Sure. While the President does not have to get a security clearance, the secrecy involved in Clinton's adultery created serious security problems, representing “personal conduct or concealment of information about one’s conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.” Of course, this was during a transitional period from when philandering was often overlooked even normalized, to a period when everything a public official did was subject to public scrutiny.
Agent Cooper: But I bet he still has a top secret security clearance.
As an ex-President, Clinton still has a security clearance, but on a need to know basis.
Agent Cooper: The Porter business was clearly a Deep State strike against Trump.
Porter's inability to get a security clearance is on Porter and his conduct. Apparently, dozens of people in the White House still lack permanent security clearances.
Human: The Porter business was clearly a Deep State strike against Trump.
Clattering Site Robot(s): Interested party(s) realize that politics is messy and you can't fight City Hall if it floats around like a gigantic inflated Bullwinkle during parades. Therefore, many Robot(s) conclude that the Earth is warming and tomato soup with badgers.
Human: Yeah, but that's nuts, CSR(s) beca-
Clattering Site Robot(s): TROLL! Global Warmening was proved at the Group of Ancient Gang of Climatologists in 1895 when steam displaced the bellows of the end of the Carbon Crustacean Age. And crackers, especially savory crackers.
Human: What the flippin-
Clattering Site Robot(s): Federal code requires that enlistees perform seventeen weeks of calisthenics before receiving their meal tickets. This is written. Are you a blind wharf digit or a fabulous crepe episode?
Human: Holy f-
Clattering Site Robot(s): TROLL!
Clattering Site Robot(s): [Warehouse lights dim and flicker. Sound of enormous breakers tripping.]
Clattering Site Robot(s):
Human: I mean, dude...
The sun is getting colder? QUICK! Send the sun a sweater!
Syria getting worse...is NOT hard for me to believe.
"QUICK! Send the sun a sweater!"
Sssh... Don't encourage them.
Next they'll all be in Gstaad or at the UN planning how to spend trillions on knitting that sweater.
"The sun is growing colder" While objectively true, the article is Fake News.
The Sun will NOT be 7% cooler; more like 0.25% cooler. The 7% figure is only for UV. Unfortunately, "science reporters" are generally neither. However, the extended solar minimum (we cannot yet be sure if this will be a "Grand Minimum") will no doubt produce "Dalton Minimum"-like conditions. You know; Hans Christian Anderson's stories about ice-skating on the frozen canals of the Netherlands, and the London Frost Faires. It'll be uncomfortably cold for a summer boy like me.
Despite the disgraced American media’s best and most cynical efforts to bury the truth, and to even stop the truth from ever seeing the light of day, this poll (and another addressed below) demonstrate that the American people are almost entirely tuning the partisan, mostly-hysterical news media out and looking to alternative media for the truth.