OPEN THREAD 20191111

Basically, all legal free speech is allowed. We will assist the authorities in dealing with illegal speech. You are each other’s moderators. Have fun. And don’t forget to MAGA at nuclear levels.

Citizen U

PS – this is DAY 5. Five is a prime number, like 17. But 5 is even more special. READ HERE:

The 5th element is BORON. It has two stable isotopes that we know of – 10 and 11. (Wolf said with a Lazarian smirk.)

No, seriously – lookin’ pretty grim for a third stable one.

But you never know with FAKE SCIENCE. *wink*

Enjoy the show!

228 thoughts on “OPEN THREAD 20191111

    1. This is a good point from that article.

      “So how can Democratic senators running against Trump be allowed to vote on his impeachment? There’s Sanders, Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Harris, Michael Bennet and Cory Booker. Add Kirsten Gillibrand, who ran against Trump until recently. That’s seven votes in the Senate that are hopelessly conflicted.

      “Take those seven votes away and it is virtually impossible for Trump to be convicted. Trump should ask the Supreme Court to rule on this.”

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Lawyer intervention:

        SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to rule on the rules of the Legislative Branch. If the Senate allows them to vote so be it.

        Instead, Trump needs to go on the offensive. Isn’t this 100 x 100 x 100 worse than allegedly “digging dirt” on an opponent? Isn’t a Democrat candidate for president, who SHOULD recuse due to conflict of interest, but who instead votes to impeach their rival candidate about as partisan, unethical as it gets? I promise if the rat bastards in the Senate somehow vote to convict, Trump will win a re-election in a BIGGER landslide.

        Also, do not forget that the Senate trial rules REQUIRE that all senators be present during the entire time of the trial. I believe that both McConnell and Graham consistently do not dismiss the possibility of a trial specifically because of the attendance requirement.

        Liked by 4 people

        1. Big T’s post on the Senate rules reminded me of another wild idea I had been kicking around a while ago. My thought is that the number of potential votes in favor of impeachment may not be a large as we think it is.

          In the event that the sedition plot to overthrow PDJT is revealed, the role of certain Senators may come to light. There is pretty good evidence, for example, of coordination between Mark Warner (D- VA) and an attorney named Adam Waldman, who represented both Christopher Steele and Russian Oligarch Oleg Daripaska.

          And I believe PDJT long ago identified the Chinese spy on Diane Feinstein’s staff, obtained a FISA warrant on him, and through that process learned every detail of the coordination between Feinstein’s staff, Two Door Ford and TDF’s attorneys in the assault on SCt Justice Kavanaugh.

          I’ve said before I think we are going to have an impeachment trial in the Senate. And I am with this post speculating that there may be a handful of Senators who will be unable to meet the “present” requirement in the Constitution because their ability to be present may be impaired when the extent of their criminal behavior is revealed. Following my wild theory, it becomes even more difficult for the Senate to vote to impeach PDJT because the expelled Senators will no longer be present, and to the extent that they are replaced, their replacements will not be able to meet the present requirement because they will be unable to attend the portion of the proceeding that has already taken place.


          1. The end of this is a little confusing. First draft speculated that some Senators may be expelled, which is why in the last sentence I referred to “expelled Senators.” Second draft I deleted expelled from the prior sentence, suggesting that Senators may merely be somehow “impaired” from meeting the present requirement, which would happen if they were to be expelled, but might also happen in other ways.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. So are you saying the trial, if it happens, will fail on procedural grounds before it gets to a vote on “conviction”?

            If it does happen, I want to know what rules of evidence CJ Roberts will enforce. As of now “rank” hearsay is deemed credible. Understand that the rule against hearsay derives DIRECTLY from the abolition of the Star Chambers. Heasay is an “out of court statement offered for the truth of its content.” As such the maker of the statement cannot be cross-examined. In that sense it is simply a verbal affidavit which serves as valid but uncross-examined evidence and thereby is violative of the consitutional right of confrontation.


            1. “If it does happen, I want to know what rules of evidence CJ Roberts will enforce.”


              Snake Roberts will be forced to recuse, due to his own involvement with selecting the crooked FISA court judges and then never doing anything about their corruption once the whole world knew the FISA court judges were corrupt.

              Roberts should be on trial himself.

              Also, about DJT winning re-election if the Senate convicts during impeachment, they would almost certainly vote to prevent DJT from ever holding public office again, which IIRC, is the other part of the penalty phase of an impeachment conviction, isn’t it?

              Liked by 1 person

              1. 1. He doesn’t “select” them to my knowledge. He is just the CJ of the FISC. 2. I don’t know what his “supervisory powers” are, i.e. “doing anything about them.” The “whole world” my suspect there is corruption but I don’t think it is verified. 3. There is no “penalty phase” of impeachment and a vote “to ban” Trump is illegal and unconstitutional on its face. It is an up or down; the penalty IS conviction.

                Liked by 1 person

              2. Thank you for the reply, this is not an area I have looked at carefully, and I was going by memory. I was able to find some substantiation for items #1 and #3, but I have not slogged through SD’s numerous dissertations for specific details on #2.

                And I don’t know whether to call you Tomaso or Big-T 😁

                1. “1. He doesn’t ‘select’ them to my knowledge. He is just the CJ of the FISC.”

                I should have used the word ‘designate’ instead of ‘select’, if there is a legal difference:

                “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was established in 1978 when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which is codified, as amended, at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1885c. The Court sits in Washington D.C., and is composed of eleven federal district court judges who are designated by the Chief Justice of the United States. ”


                2. “I don’t know what his “supervisory powers” are, i.e. “doing anything about them.” The “whole world” my suspect there is corruption but I don’t think it is verified.”

                If I recall correctly, from many of SD’s lengthy articles on the subject, at least one of the FISA court judges (and maybe more) has conceded that many improper things have taken place. I think it was Judge Rosemary Collyer (sp?), who issued a LONG Judicial opinion or ruling (maybe 80+ pages?) where all kinds of wrongdoing was acknowledged. Also, at least one FISA Court Judge was ‘recused’ (Contreras, maybe?), without specificity about whether he recused himself, or whether someone above him acted to recuse him.

                Whatever that Judge was conflicted about (he is friends with someone involved in the ongoing coup, maybe FIB agent Strzok?), he had already made decisions about which he was conflicted (involving Gen. Flynn, IIRC), and that damage to Gen. Flynn has not been undone simply by recusing the Judge who set Gen. Flynn on his current path.


                3. “There is no “penalty phase” of impeachment and a vote “to ban” Trump is illegal and unconstitutional on its face. It is an up or down; the penalty IS conviction.”

                My source is Wiki, so not authoritative by any means, but they claim that disqualification is a possible outcome.

                Result of conviction: removal, and with an additional Senate vote, disqualification

                Conviction immediately removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him or her from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. As the threshold for disqualification is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Senate has taken the position that disqualification votes only require a simple majority rather than a two-thirds majority. The Senate has used disqualification sparingly, as only three individuals have been disqualified from holding future office.

                Conviction does not extend to further punishment, for example, loss of pension. After conviction by the Senate, “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law” in the regular federal or state courts.

                If the above is correct, and the President was convicted in the Senate by a 2/3rds majority, I am confident that in their animosity and hatred, a simple majority would further bar him from holding future elective office.


              3. The part about disqualification from holding future federal office is in Section 1, Article 3 of the Constitution:

                The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

                Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. ”

                (boldface emphasis mine)


              4. 1. “You can call me Ray or you call call me Jay but you doesn’t have to call me Johnson.” I did not have prior knowledge that I was to be designated “Big T” and, in deference to the person who coined that moniker, I have not objected. TG is my Twitter handle and it has fallen over to here on my WordPress account. So I am now going to change my name officially to my given name and you can call me Thomas. So much simpler.

                2. The miscommunication is over “select”. These are sitting USDC judges who have a full docket of cases aside from the FISA apps. As I was a clerk for USDC judge who had other duties as well, assignments like FISC are usually rotated among all sitting judges because of the additional work. Here, however, I suspect that, because the court sits in DC and the agencies are there as well, there is a strong bias to designate judges in the NE/DC corridor. In turn, these judges almost automatically trust and also favor the law enforcement agencies, particularly after 9/11.

                3. I have not parsed the statue as to what “supervisory” and/or “appellate” authority resides in Roberts. I am 100% sure that the entire court, law and agency needs to be rolled up and closed and we need to start over.

                As for the Collyer opinion, her opinion was “ad hominem” and had no supervisory impact. It is, nonetheless, a landmark legal piece and opened the door on the corruption in the Court as an enabler of FBI/DOJ corruption but it is of no direct impact on the court’s actions.

                Judge Contreras was yanked, presumably by Roberts (although we don’t know for sure), from the Flynn case when his name surfaced in the Strozk/Paige text messages as their “friend”. The rest of your comment is simply well-warranted opinion about what should happen.

                3. I stand by my earlier comment that there is no authority beyond conviction in the impeachment process. I have no knowledge as to why other public officials were “barred ” although I suspect that they were convicted of felonies separately and thus barred automatically. I do not accept as authority Wiki for anything including today’s date. It is banned in every high school as a source. I am certain that the zealots have written much of the impeachment “info” here.

                A vote to bar a person from holding elective office without a conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction is per se unconstitutional.

                As much as I do not recognize Wiki as a source or authority, I also do not recognize or accept “SD” as a source on anything within my area of professional expertise. My position is buttressed by his egregious, egotistical behavior in the recent past which, I am sure to his chagrin, resulted in the creation of this gaggle of patriots but which is indicative of a biased and egomaniacal personality. (That doesn’t mean I don’t read his prolific ramblings. I just accompany the read with giant grains of salt.)


              5. Thank you Thomas, I understand better now the difference between ‘select’ and ‘designate’, which I had used more or less interchangeably.

                We are definitely in agreement that the FISC / Law / Agency should be needs to be ‘blowed up, real good!”. It appears to have been created essentially in secrecy (in 1978, when the population’s access to information was limited to a daily newspaper and a half hour of evening news), and has basically operated in secrecy ever since.

                I also agree that it seems unjust to bar someone from holding federal office if the individual in question was impeached for something which did not involve a follow up conviction in a court of law.

                But the Constitution appears to say otherwise on this point, the relevant text of which I posted after my initial reply, posted again (see below) for convenience.

                Section 1, Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution:
                “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

                Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. ”


                (emphasis mine, boldface and italics for the word “AND”)

                Does the word “and” followed by “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” not mean that such disqualification can be imposed by the Senate?


              6. Yes it does. I plead stupid here. I had forgotten the language you posted was taken directly from the Constitution. I glossed over it in your reply, attributing it to Wiki.

                Even us lawyers mentally stop after the first paragraph and overlook the following part. It does further emphasize the gravity with which the founders viewed impeachment. Thus I agree with you that, if the Senate were to vote to convict, they would also bar the defendant from future office. As to the threshold – two-thirds or simple majority – it’s probably not am issue if there is already a conviction.

                Liked by 1 person

  1. Gripe:

    It is VERY difficult to tell sometimes if I am reading a top-level comment, or a response. Or a response to a response. The other theme has those vertical lines to help out.

    Other thought not a gripe so maybe I should take it over to the other damn tree:

    I do think since the indent increment is only half as far as it is in the other theme, it might be possible to enable deeper nesting.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Yes – I kicked the indent level up from 7 (Q Tree) to 10 – BUT you can barely see it.

      Which would you prefer in a new theme? This order?

      A: Both lines and smaller indent
      B: Lines
      C: Smaller indent

      or smaller indent over lines?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. If it’s one or the other, at this point, I’d have to go with the lines–some of the conversations are LONG and when I see something fairly far to the left (layoutwise, not politically) I can’t tell if it’s a response or not.

        I hope it’s not one or the other though.

        Liked by 3 people

            1. I don’t want to back off on the larger print, either.

              There is a way to see where a post refers without the lines, that takes just as much scrolling and no more. Put the mouse pointer on the edge of the post and scroll back. First one that jumps left of it is the one. Very easy. So if we just stay with this one, I can adapt.

              I do like getting 10 indentations now, and the last one ain’t bad, either.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. That scrollback technique is what I have been resorting to.

                Some of the conversations are lengthy enough that you have to scroll back a long, long way though…and then you have to find your way BACK.

                If you can do it without breaking anything else, please do…otherwise, I’ll learn to live with it.

                Oh, if you jump to a comment here from the notifier, it boxes that comment–and everything hanging from it in the comment “tree.”

                Liked by 1 person

  2. Wolfmoon, I know you are very busy and I would really like your input on a part of this article.
    I have been studying Eugenics most of my life. It came to my attention around 1961. In Corey’s article, the section about Eugenics had this information
    Disturbing revelations have come to light of another known billionaire investor in genetics research, Jeffrey Epstein, who had a somewhat mysterious relationship with Bill Gates. The pair met on several occasions to discuss a partnership in funding research for global health projects. Epstein also met with Gates Foundation representatives to present a proposal involving seed money from both the Gates Foundation as well as JPMorgan Chase. Upon Epstein’s death, it was announced that the accused sex trafficker and pedophile named Editas founder and former Bill Gates advisor, Boris Nikolic, as successor executor of his will, much to the surprise of Nikolic, who’s spokesperson claims that the two had no business ties. Both Epstein and Nikolic were clients of JPMorgan Chase, of which another Epstein associate, Jes Staley, is the former CEO.

    Epstein, of course, had a close connection with the Clintons, who’s Clinton Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative, and Clinton Health Access Initiative also are deeply involved in the healthcare industries in less developed countries and have partnered with The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is one of the largest donors to the Clinton Health Access Initiative, with the goal of reducing prices and increasing access to HIV treatments in the developing world. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation worked in coordination with CHAI, UNAIDS, and others to accelerate the availability in South Africa and Kenya, of a single pill HIV treatment regimen recommended by the World Health Organization. The billionaire pedophile claimed, in a 2007 letter from his attorney amidst plea negotiations, that “Mr. Epstein was part of the original group that conceived the Clinton Global Initiative, which is described as a project ‘bringing together a community of global leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges,” and quoted Bill Clinton describing Epstein as, “a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in depth knowledge of twenty-first century science,” during their month-long trip to Africa raising awareness for the AIDS epidemic.
    End Excerpt
    These people care nothing about humans sick or well. They are working on something that seems to be more in line with cloning. They are using CRISPR-Cas9 for genome editing. Are they trying to genetically alter themselves to live above ground? Bill Gates, Zuckerberg and some of the others look less than human. They are odd.
    President Trump has taken down Epstein and is going after all of them. They are fighting hard. We need to fight harder.
    I know that Q is right that most people would not be able to deal with the truth and will never hear it. We don’t need a lot of people to win this battle. I remember reading somewhere that only 3% of the American population fought in the American Revolution. We have a lot more than that right now.
    I believe that our war this time is more about winning the hearts and minds of people. We have much better forms of communication than they did during the American Revolution. President Trump calls this the Second American Revolution. He is taking their money and shining bright light on them. They are exposed and broke. We don’t need guns as much as we need to speak the truth and keep the focus on them.
    You can probably just scan a lot of the article. I was familiar with most of it. I was surprised to see the picture of the 5 men in this section included Epstein, Larry Summers along with Bill Gates. Gates was no surprise at all. His parents founded Planned Parenthood and he has the seed bank to redo the earth when they destroy it.
    Do you have any insight into what they are doing? This article just stirred up a bunch of loose ends in my mind.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Yes, I have insight, but I agree with Q that some stuff is somewhat hard for people to (1) hear, (2) think about, (3) accept / believe, and (4) deal with. I have been led to conclusions that change the way I think of humanity BACK to biblical ways, and yet at the same time I have (A) agreement with the military outlook, but (B) sympathy for the CIA / globalist / “treason” outlook. There are many possibilities of what is actually going on. I have some top suspects, but it’s still a list of scenarios.

      I am trusting the plan. I have my own opinions and beliefs, but ultimately, I am trusting the plan.

      At some point I may explain what I’m talking about, but probably not until I’ve prepped people for what I’m thinking. I have to be careful, too, not to interfere with the plan. I don’t think that will happen, but I need to take care.

      Liked by 5 people

  3. posted on the q tree, but bringing it here too…
    was Charles Manson an earlier version of Epstein?
    As O’Neill began reporting on the story and conducting interviews with police and prosecutors involved in handling the case, he found significant evidence that some kind of cover-up was taking place. Upon further investigation, he learned that Manson was far more connected in Hollywood and the entertainment industry than initially believed.

    In fact, there is compelling evidence that Manson was a figure somewhat similar to Jeffrey Epstein, who was connected to high-profile figures through a child trafficking operation. It is often underplayed in dramatizations about the Manson family, but many of the young hippies in the cult were actually underage girls. O’Neill’s research suggests that Manson was popular in Hollywood because he trafficked these children to various record executives, famous entertainers, and rich patrons.

    The case becomes even more suspicious when considering that Manson and his cult seemed to be protected by the government and local law enforcement. Manson had committed multiple crimes while on parole, but was released on numerous occasions. O’Neill documents how the LAPD knew what Manson was up to for a long time and did nothing, and may have even looked the other way in previous murder cases involving the family.

    One of the most interesting angles revealed in this new research is that the Manson family was in regular contact with a notorious doctor who worked in the CIA’s MK Ultra mind control experiments. Louis West, the UCLA psychiatrist who performed Jack Ruby’s controversial psychiatric evaluation, was also a major player in the CIA’s mind control experiments. However, not all of these experiments were in the lab; some of them took place out in public, in the form of taking surveys and observing people in their day-to-day lives.

    West was fascinated with the hippie subculture and conducted open-air experiments in San Francisco’s Haight neighborhood, which was the epicenter of the movement at the time. In one case, he set up a fake “hippie crash pad” in the community, so he could secretly observe the hippies in their natural habitat. The CIA also set up a free medical clinic in the neighborhood under the pretenses of giving them free medical care, but with the covert goal of examining them and using them as test subjects.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Thank you, Pat. This is very big.

      Remember how “hippie” changed to “yippie”, and there seemed to be forces in MEDIA and elsewhere that WANTED that change? From “peace, love & understanding” to POLITICAL ACTION? To REVOLUTION?

      All making sense here. TENTACLES OF CIA changing American society – of HELPING the SOVIETS.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Wolfie – got to thinking last night (this morning) while I was laying in bed….please don’t hesitate to ding me if I post anything that could threaten our Trees in any way – I wondered about my comment about using a scatter gun vs. a sniper rifle…..

    Liked by 1 person

  5. so i think there’s some confusion about sites…IN MY OPINION…
    I follow other blogs –some posters on Wolf’s blogs also post on these blogs…and some are saying the Q tree has become divisive and has the same feel as the CTH…maybe they didn’t realize the atmospheric change HERE vs the Qtree…but still it pisses me off…
    they claim the high road–even though they themselves have chased several regular posters off their sites due to petty jealousy and vindictiveness…hypocrites!!!

    Liked by 5 people

      1. Hey, NebraskaFilly, remember your very first post on this blog four days ago?

        November 7, 2019 at 18:21
        Ok, #1 asshole – stop picking on people who aren’t here to defend themselves. THAT is dirty pool!


        1. And yet you posted at Q Tree today….

          “I don’t approve of the personal attacks”

          LOL! Can you say Hypocrite?

          Oh and stop being so f’in bossy. You aren’t the boss of me….

          “Not here, Andy”

          Bite me.


          1. The more I get used to your posting style, the more I begin to understand or appreciate what I suspect you’re trying to do, which I don’t think is meant to actually hurt anyone at all. Sometimes I’m laughing out loud, because it’s so over-the-top that it’s like parody.

            For some reason, this particular one reminded of Beavis, by the time you got to the last line. Beavis was so relentlessly offensive and destructive that that was what made his character so hilarious.

            You could count on Beavis doing his thing, and he never let you down 😁

            Liked by 2 people

    1. I do not see anything on the Q Tree like what I saw at CTH. There will always be disagreements, but this place (UTree) is provided for hashing out such things. CTH became so negative with regard to politics that it was untenable for many.

      Just my opinion (and Wolf or anyone, correct me if I’m wrong): The QTree is a great place of positivity and political discourse and information sharing, but its purpose was not to be a coffee klatsch or church. That said, I don’t mind the personal tidbits and camaraderie, and, while I know the religious posts get old for some, when I see what society is becoming with witches’ spells, transgenders flashing children, etc., I think it best (expedient, really) NOT to remove such influences. I personally benefit from reminders that there is more to life than the literal and tangible that we experience. I could say more about religious faith, but there is no need.

      I realize that people come in all different personalities and temperaments, and that it’s difficult to understand where someone else is coming from at times. That said, if we are going to fight for our country — even if mostly through personal interaction and by spreading information on the internet — then people need to get a backbone, and do it quickly. The world is not kind or coddling. Internet sites, being full of all kinds of people, are not going to be, either. So my (kindly meant, and not aimed at you, patfrederick) message is to buck up and not try to turn these sites into places where no one gets offended. THAT is an impossible goal, in any case. We have to be strong.

      Liked by 8 people

      1. i agree…I just thought that the poster mixed up the 2 sites–the Q and U tree…
        I saw the religious discussion here the other day…and it’s perfectly find to have at it here…but I did not and still DO NOT see that kind of vitriol on the Q tree…that was point…the rest was ranting…

        Liked by 4 people

      2. Just to clarify – I NEVER want to see God removed from the equation. I truly believe He brought us our VSG and He is essential to our success and the very survival of our nation – indeed, the world!! My only issue is the volume and the preachy tone, as if I am not Christian “enough.” Perhaps it touches the sore spot that remains due to reconciling my faith with the loss of my daughter. I still can’t pray but I am getting better.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. My problem with all the religious posts…I have lived and stayed extensive periods in other nations ( as have many among us) that are not Christian, and I have come not only to respect their beliefs and way of life but to also realize “Christianity” like “Democracy” is not necessarily the only or correct way of living. There are many aspects of other religions that I personally like better for myself than Christianity, as we know it today.
          And, although some posters write “we all worship God and follow Jesus” …to me that simply is not true, and it is very narrow-minded to even suggest it. And, while these posters are very sincere in their faith, there’s no respect for the equally sincere beliefs of the rest of the world. Somehow, we are given the impression if we do not believe their way or question their “presentation” we are the sinners.
          All I ask is to to allow me to follow my own spiritual path and stop trying to shove your beliefs and your way down my throat day after day. I do not attempt to change you…why won’t you extend that courtesy to me? And yes, there’s the scroll feature but if I’m scrolling that much then I ask myself why am I even there.

          Liked by 4 people

            1. I am expected to “respect” them–by keeping my mouth shut.

              Somehow the reverse isn’t the case.


              Yes, it is. Don’t ever think it isn’t. Even among those who claim the same orientation in that regard.


          1. I agree completely – it is closed-minded, not just narrow-minded, as well as judgmental, and yes, quite unintentional in most cases. I never believed anyone here ever had that intention. I’m sure they believe they are doing as instructed based on their understanding of doctrine.

            I have never left the US but serving at the Pentagon and living in NOVA working within the defense contracting industry, I met many people of different faiths, including the 8 Egyptian Naval officers I shepherded around NOVA only a couple of weeks after 9/11. I am proud of the fact that I was always able to find some common ground, with a mutual respect for each other’s beliefs and positions. I worked with Mormons, Sikhs, Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics, Evangelicals, and even Scientologists (which is NOT a religion, IMO – it is a brainwashing cult – I had my own experience with them at one time). There is common ground to be found if one is open to it and believes in the freedom of everyone to live as they choose. I tend toward the libertarian side when it comes to personal freedoms.

            To me, the same applies to gays. I worked with a young woman at the racetrack who was from Canada. I heard sporadic rumors that she was gay but I really didn’t care one way or the other – it wasn’t a subject that ever came up. I supported her in her grief when her beloved filly had to be put down after an injury on the track. One day, she asked if I wanted to go out for a drink and I said sure. Sitting at the table, she very seriously broached the subject, saying she wanted me to know she was gay. I shrugged and said, “Yeah. So?” She said, “And you will still sit here and have a drink with me?” She was shocked and had expected to be rebuffed simply because she was gay. Sadly, not surprising in NE in the early 1970’s. I simply said it wasn’t my business who she chose to sleep with – I made it clear that was not my interest but I would not discount her value as a person and a friend because of it.

            Did Jesus not say to “Love the sinner?” Did Jesus not say to first cast the beam from your own eye?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “My problem with all the religious posts…I have lived and stayed extensive periods in other nations ( as have many among us) that are not Christian, and I have come not only to respect their beliefs and way of life but to also realize “Christianity” like “Democracy” is not necessarily the only or correct way of living.”


            This is the great philosophical argument, that is, if God is who He claims to be, if He is God, if He created the universe and everything in it, including you and me, then does He not have the wisdom, judgment, perspective, right and authority to determine what is right and what is not?

            And if God is not who He claims to be, then our faith is in vain, our efforts and sacrifices wasted, we are most pitiable (KJV translates ‘miserable’), as Paul himself (by inspiration of God) noted in 1 Corinthians 15:12-22, in a very forthright argument.

            So God puts it all on Himself. Either He is who He claims He is, or He isn’t — and it all hangs or falls apart on that one thing.

            There are books that go into great detail over proofs about God, and the historicity of Christ, and the fulfillment of prophecy (e.g., the astronomical odds that very specific prophecies in Scripture could be fulfilled) and many other proofs. The kind of analysis that makes Q-proofs look like child’s play by comparison.

            So it should be that our confidence and belief in God is not just blind faith, or even by a preponderance of the evidence, but beyond a reasonable doubt.

            But since God has chosen that faith be a component, we cannot (in this life) have something that is 100% certifiable proof beyond any doubt whatsoever, that you could show someone, like you might do with an evidence exhibit at a trial.

            Ideally, all men should have a desire to stand for truth. If those who believe God are right, they should have that desire also. And if what God says is true, then those who are not in a spiritually saved condition are in jeopardy.

            Like a ship that is slowly sinking, every one of our lives will eventually come to an end. God offers a lifeboat, and those who believe God (and in God) see the lifeboat, and hopefully get in it. But they have friends, and family, and acquaintances who do not believe, and therefore don’t see the lifeboat (or even see the need for it), and if they remain in that condition until death, there are consequences.

            So those who believe should be like God in the sense that God wants all mankind to be saved: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

            For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; [4] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

            Just as there are all different personality types, so different people have different ways of talking about it to others. It is certainly true that none are perfect, so it is tempting to dismiss the message along with the messenger when we see hypocrisy or other personal failings in those who try to stand for God’s Word.

            But for a Christian, not trying to communicate God’s message of salvation to others, when the opportunity presents itself, is like trying not to say “look out!” to someone who is about to get hit by a bus, or not throwing a life preserver to someone who is about to drown, or not taking the time to stop and help someone who is suffering.

            If you care about people, how does one not try to help?

            Now imagine how much harder it would be, to not help someone you know and like?

            Knowing that they can’t ‘see’ the lifeboat, for any number of reasons beyond our (or their) control.

            But maybe tomorrow they would see it, if only someone cared enough to show it to them again, just one more time. Because there is no way to know when someone is ready, or has had a change of heart, or some circumstance has happened in their life that opens their eyes.

            And if they do ‘see’ it, and they choose to get in the lifeboat, and at the end of their life they are saved… for all eternity… can you imagine the enormity of that… is it even possible to grasp how valuable that single soul is, and what it meant, at that moment of decision, when they first believed?

            The eternal value of a single soul is far greater than all the temporal riches in the world could ever be. Whether a family member, or a lifelong friend, or a complete stranger. Each and every one is valuable to God.

            Anything of such great value, of such immense potential, is worth trying to reach. And so they try. But according to God’s Word, it is not the wisdom of man’s words that can cause someone to believe or be saved, it is only the power of God’s Word that saves. Christians can and should reason with others, as they have Scriptural example to do — but even if they succeed in communicating in such a way that someone takes a closer look and begins to investigate for him or herself, it will be the power of God’s Word that pricks their mind or heart, not man’s words.

            Or as Paul wrote, “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. [7] So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.” (1 Corinthians 3:6-7)

            Liked by 1 person

          1. YW! 😀

            What’s interesting to me is that CIVILITY on the other tree offers the possibility of free discussion of some things that can’t actually be successfully discussed here. That paradox is fascinating.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. absolutely !

      they are the ppl making it so “devisive” !

      they come here, insult some of us with foul obscenities, then run back to that girl clique blog and cheer each other on about it ! bragging and boasting about how “this is WAR !”

      the jealousy and vindictiveness is exactly why I couldn’t stand their adolescent mind sets and 2 faced BS.

      Liked by 8 people

      1. There’s no safe space here. This is beyond the FOXHOLE. This is the WOLF DEN. Live with the growlin’! 😉

        Seriously, I don’t mind folks needing a different culture of nicey-nice. I get along just fine with that one, too. But I refuse to deplatform those who prefer a rougher ride in the SPITTIN’, SMOKIN’ and CURSIN’ JEEP.

        “Get outta my cab!”

        “No, you idiot! I’m just bustin’ your chops! Get back in my cab, before I make you get outta my cab for real!”

        MAGA!!! 😀

        Liked by 2 people

        1. oh…so screaming :” FUCK YOU !” and “BITCH” in a drunken barrage of squalid trash talking low life rage is considered “growling”…..and ok with you…


          got it.

          next time I’ll remember that I heard it here first…from you…so when I dish it back to the fucking trailer trash bitch, everybody will be cool with it.

          do I have that right ?


          Liked by 3 people

          1. I’m not finding any “squalid trash talking low life rage” exceptions in my copy of the Constitution! Maybe if I try “Control-F”, but I’m too busy. I’ll check later and get back to you if I find anything! 😉

            Liked by 1 person

            1. all i’m getting at, without being cute, is trying to understand from you if profanity …no matter how low or obscene or disgusting or pointless or drunken…is going to be ok here.

              simple as that.

              yes or no.

              Liked by 2 people

              1. “Actually Page 2 doesn’t say guns, it says “arms”

                Which I take to mean ANY weapon.”


                Exactly, and an incredibly important distinction, one which our Founding Fathers had the foresight to realize.

                If it said “guns” instead of ‘arms’, it would be LIMITING.

                Guns are just the best ‘arms’ that were available at the time the Constitution was written, but that didn’t mean something better wouldn’t come along or be invented.

                And when that happens, if the government has that new weapon and all We the People have are guns, then the whole point of the 2nd Amendment (to overthrow a tyrannical government, if it becomes necessary) is moot.

                And we can be absolutely sure that if the 2nd Amendment said ‘guns’, it would be strictly restricted to guns and nothing else, and then the debate would be over what constitutes a ‘gun’, and they would pick away at it on that ground.

                And when something better is invented, We the People would absolutely be excluded and prohibited from owning or using it, because the tyrants in power would smile and say they’re upholding the letter of the Constitution, which only protects our right to have ‘guns’, but says nothing about more advanced technologies.

                The word ‘arms’ covers everything — past, present and future, without limitation.

                It preserves at least the argument that if, for example, handgun sized laser blasters are invented, We the People have just as much right to carry one of those as we do a gun.

                And that might be an important thing, if (for example) armor technology advances to the point that it is extremely light and flexible and stops bullets easily, but has no power at all to stop lasers…

                In which case the government could wear lightweight armor body suits and carry lasers, and We the People could do neither, we would be limited to guns which had no practical effect on technologically advanced armor.

                So ‘Arms’ (as opposed to ‘guns’) is a YUUUGE distinction, and I am confident it was not by accident. 👍

                Liked by 2 people

              2. I won’t make promises about things that I don’t have control over, and profanity is one of them. WordPress will try to make me a liar on what is acceptable. I can’t speak for WordPress.

                You may experience WORDPRESS moderation on profanity. It won’t be ME. I can only promise you that much.

                In the past, “See you auntie” went straight “beyond the bin” with no recourse possible – they just VANISH. I can’t even approve them. They’re GONE. The F bomb generally makes it to the bin at least – usually straight through. Other levels of profanity and vulgarity may or may not get binned.

                Profanity is your RIGHT. Use it at your DISCRETION.

                Liked by 1 person

              3. “I’m thinkin’ this is the place to just let it ALL hang out!”


                Imma think that sounds like taking naked selfies and posting them to the interwebs…

                Maybe not the best idea… 😂

                Liked by 1 person

    3. I was very bothered by the mounting requests to act like Twitter and ban people. And yet there was a kind of division festering, that NEEDED ACTION.

      It was a HINT to follow the natural pattern of GROWTH and DIVISION.

      Doesn’t matter how the original forces of division happened – once I got the idea of creating a TRUE free speech site where the DEAL WAS SPELLED OUT CLEARLY before anybody walked through the door, I knew I could keep everybody and GROW BOTH SITES.

      Twitter never got the RIGHT IDEA. GAB had the right idea. Their GROUPS allow moderation, but NOBODY can be deplatformed for legal speech. I could not be Twitter, but I could be Gab.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I can’t thank you enough, Wolfie! ONLY place on the web I don’t have to censor myself in some fashion. If I need to spout off, now I have a place to do so with an audience other than my cat! He will be grateful!

        Liked by 1 person

    4. “and some are saying the Q tree has become divisive and has the same feel as the CTH…maybe they didn’t realize the atmospheric change HERE vs the Qtree…”


      It’s all very curious, thinking about the differences among the three.

      CTH always seemed very claustrophobic, tense, because you could tell everyone wanted to say more than they did, for fear of being banned.

      In that kind of environment, I push the envelope as far as I can, not because I’m trying to cause problems, but because when you are operating under restrictions, you have to work that much harder to say what you really mean to say, without saying something that gives the Ban-happys an excuse to swing at you. So it always works out like you’re right on the edge, and you have to treat it as if every ‘serious’ post you make could be your last. Because it might be, and eventually, it is.

      Sort of like a balloon inside a box. On some days, one wall of the box is pushing in, distorting the balloon. On other days, another wall of the box is pushing in, just depends on the mood of the tyrants in charge. It’s always changing, and you have to gauge that mood when you’re writing your post. There is always pressure focused inward on the commenters, and the commenters are always exerting pressure outwards in response.

      At WQTH, all that tension was gone, so you could just be yourself, more or less. Like the balloon was the right size for the box, and the box didn’t change from day to day.

      Here, it’s like a balloon with no box, and no atmosphere, so if we don’t put containment pressure on the balloon ourselves, it will rapidly expand and explode 😁

      And it’s a good analogy or metaphor for freedom. You can’t have real freedom without responsibility.

      At CTH, we had very little personal responsibility, because we had very little freedom.

      At WQTH, we have a pretty ideal balance of small government and self-governance. Personal responsibility is considerably higher than at CTH.

      Utree was originally presented (it seemed to me) as libertine, but I suspected it wouldn’t really turn out that way, because people are who they are (more or less), and I never had the impression that most people at WQTH were libertine to begin with.

      It is an interesting experiment.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. U Tree is my selfish way of never being a deplatformer. I’m basically running the same program I ran when I was at CTH. Put up a new site and open it up. If people have to migrate there, later, fine, they can. If not, it’s just a super-free-speech resort. I’ll go with whatever the future brings.


    1. Mexico is a very lawless country. Has been for many years. And it’s getting worse all the time.

      IMO, they need to resort to the days of The Wild West and start administering Instant Justice and have public hangings of thieves. It worked for our country and it likely would work in Mexico.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Wont catch me going there.
        It would be nice seeing the border jumpers wanna fix their own country.
        Who knows maybe the citizens of Mexico will want a life free of corruption.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. Speaking of idiots, the loony liberal woman who attacked and bit the flag waver yesterday was really lucky. The woman she attacked and bit is Tara LaRosa, MMA cage fighter. She’s lucky she wasn’t thrown off the bridge into the freeway traffic!

      Liked by 5 people

      1. I tried liking this a lot earlier today, but for some reason, the last couple of days, a little flashy box barely appeared and disappeared, and couldn’t like or post. Ha! now it’s working. This was an awesome take down!! and of a “poor, over educated, little” professor.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit usually publishes rehashes of stuff someone else publishes. I am not sure but he may be the guy actually breaking this. BUT, it appears that Eric Chlamydia the TinWhistler is so close to Joe Biden that, drum roll, on 1/19/16, he was THE HOST of the White House meeting where Sleepy Joe “Twinkle Toes” made the quid pro quo demand: “You stop looking for the $7B in US taxpayer funds that I/Hunter/et als. stole or you won’t see a dime of the $1B sitting here earmarked for you. Ya got 6 hours.” That’s right, EC complained about Trump “shaking down” the Ukraine when he was the BAG Man for Joey B’s shakedown in 2016 – Freud is laughing his ass off: “Vhat? Ya calls dat projection. Oy vay!” This is now clearly the replay of the Blaisey-Ford/Kavanaugh scenario just moved from Feinstein’s office to the White House.

    Liked by 10 people

    1. When I was living in Norfolk, every Veterans Day I got a free car wish and free meal at Applebee’s. I was surprised that the Lutheran church here didn’t have their usual breakfast for veterans. Not sure why they aren’t doing it any more.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. This is how far the liberal mental illness has spread. My 8th grade grandson plays competitive basketball. They’re not horrible, not great. They lost the other night and on the way home my daughter told me that one of the other moms had mentioned to her about the coach giving them hell at the last practice. My daughter hadn’t heard about it because I guess my gs wasn’t bothered by it or whatever.

    Anyway..the coach was railing at them for not being better. Guess what the blame was…..(white) privilege. He told them that they’re all a bunch of pampered privileged brats and never worked hard at anything because somebody handed it to them. Unbelievable. I only wish that it was my son not grandson …I’d love to “discuss” this with him.

    Liked by 2 people

            1. Oh, boy – I know all about staying in that lane. I worry so about my sweet Piper because her Dad doesn’t pay close enough attention to what she is doing – he gave her his old I-pad and she surfs YT with no supervision (she is 10). I try to drop a comment here and there, occasionally send him articles on FB, but I have to be careful – he could prevent me from seeing her at all. Grandparents have no rights here in NE, as it is in many other states.

              The first time I went to Grandparents’ Day at her school (1st grade), one of the segments of the day is in the auditorium with crafts and bingo. It was stated at the beginning everyone was to use only one card. Yet there was a boy at our table who was using 3 cards and winning time after time after time – cute little cheap prizes they could choose from a box. No-one said jack shit about it! Piper was soooo very disappointed and when the game ended, she was so sad, I suggested she go up and ask if she could just have one. Nope – sorry – against the rules!!!! I tried to talk to the woman about it and she just brushed me off and rushed away.

              Well, I stewed about it for weeks but finally decided it wasn’t my place and I put it aside. The next year? SAME DAMN THING!!!! So I asked my SIL if he had any objections to my talking to the principal about it and he ok’ed it. The principal had met me before during my daughter’s crisis and after her death. I explained that, IMO, it was setting a very bad example about flouting the rules – it basically said to them there were no boundaries. I will say he was very understanding and agreed it was wrong and not fair at all. It is no longer allowed, thankfully. And this year, my Piper won!

              Liked by 4 people

          1. Have any of you EVER played competitive team sports? I’ve coached a bunch of privileged white kids in a privileged white suburb and they were a bunch of privileged white kids who needed their assed kicked sideways. I have also coached lazy ass kids of different races who needed their asses kicked. Coaches do that. So does the military. Ever heard a drill sergeant? You want to call him a racist? So don’t hand me that calling them what they are is racist. That comes directly out of the “everybody gets a trophy” mentality and is a direct cause of the fact we have a bunch of wimps who look for safe spaces when they finally leave the womb – at 22.

            Liked by 4 people

            1. Yes, this is a subtle point, but it’s a good one. We have now been trained by THEM to “accept that everything said to us must be listened to as serious”. This was how they went after DRILL SERGEANTS – which many had regarded as the last fortress of “SAY ANYTHING” free speech – because things are said by DI’s simply to “rile ’em up”.

              We have to TALK BACK TO THAT SHIT. And that is exactly what we’re doing here, but I never realized it until now. This very moment. So THANK YOU, Big T. I actually GET THIS PLACE now!!!

              Liked by 2 people

            2. That sentiment wasn’t lost on me either to a degree and I think it was the word privileged that got me all hot n bothered because it’s always used as their pet whipping stick…but the fact that it didn’t mean a thing to my grandson was reassuring that all this SJW crap has’t filtered into his bubble despite the left lean at school. St Greta ‘s message hasn’t oozed in either.
              It might help that he gets a full ear full of Trump is the guy, the media is bogus, Dems are nuts by his irritating but spot on other grandpa and then he’ll ask me is that true…uh yes it is sonnyboy!
              lol, it was just another day in the life for him

              Liked by 2 people

            3. I disagree that it’s harmless coaching. These are middle school kids, not army inductees. And the big problem I have with what the coach said is he referred to their race. I’m sick of the minority groups jumping on every little racial comment when anything about white people goes unnoticed.
              Your comment, “So don’t hand me that calling them what they are is racist” is a racist comment in and of itself. Try telling a group of black kids that age “what they are”.

              Liked by 2 people

              1. I guess we disagree. You are of the “everything is racist school of uber-racists”. I am not. But then there are many things that I am but you are not as well, I guess including I am a racist. HAHAH!

                Liked by 1 person

              2. I think I can see Andy’s point in terms of SENSITIVITY TRAINING (which is exactly what has happened to the snowflakes).

                My mother (who knew what this shit was) was absolutely appalled when teachers tried to introduce sensitivity training into schools in the 1960s and 1970s. It’s basically communist division training. What happened is that THEY DID IT ANYWAY – they just snuck it in and did it slowly. So they TRAIN THE KIDS to be snowflakes. And then they react in horror at stuff that the leftists want “changed”, and the political “action” must be made manifest because the emotional responses provide the “reality theater” that the leftist pols on the school boards and in the administrations need.

                Climate sensitivity is the “new training”.

                So basically if the kids have been MADE SENSITIVE (like the schools have done), then hit them with what used to be normal, and they freak out.

                Liked by 1 person

              3. It’s like when this goofy activist mom (who tailed me one time, but that’s another point) accused our Trump sign near a polling place of making her kid cry, and that this was a form of violence.

                GOOD LORD.


              1. No, it may be harsh to those attending the Basilica of the Perpetually Offended , but it’s not racist. Your view and Andy’s so eviscerates the word of meaning that every time I make a factual statement about someone’s race it is thereby racist. That’s a liberal, fascist view; not mine. Sometimes white is white.

                Liked by 1 person

              2. I have a friend who years ago tried to get me to see that the very idea of racism as redefined by the left is a Marxist strategy to manipulate us, and it took me a lot of work just to SEE what he was saying. I fall back into the HOLE of that thinking almost subconsciously.

                All part of FAKE NORMAL.


              3. I think “every time” is a bit of an exaggeration. Was race mentioned specifically? Were all the members on the team the same race? Some clarification would help. Bob Devaney (best Husker coach ever, IMO) was an absolute tyrant in the locker room and on the practice field, yet he was never (nor would he now) considered to be a racist. All members of the team, regardless of the race, were treated exactly the same. As it should be.


            1. True. We have to get out of snowflake culture. Just this fight right here made me realize WHY my mother warned be about “sensitivity training” back in the 60’s. I never got it until today.

              The NAZIS did the same thing. They trained kids to be “sensitive” about race, and they used all kinds of LOFTY and GOOD ways of putting it, but WHO got the short end of the stick? Jews – followed by blacks, Asians, Slavs, Latins, and other “non-Aryans”, with varying degrees of [in]tolerance.

              This is actually where the people who talk about “anti-white” stuff have a real point. American globalist socialism is actually a lot like Nazi national socialism on race. There are “good people” who have been unfairly victimized and then there is everybody else, which includes varying degrees of guilt.
              There is always a short straw that gets drawn. With the Nazis, it was Jews. With American socialism, it’s “whites”.

              Oh, I am seeing this now. Everybody on the Trump Train is seeing part of this, but we don’t quite see it the same. The whole Fuentes-TPUSA fight is zeroing in on the reality. The Don Jr. side sees that where blacks have been brainwashed and are being freed now. But they MISS the brainwashing on and of whites. The Fuentes crowd sees the brainwashing on and of whites, and gets (but is less concerned) about the brainwashing on /of blacks, but soaks up the very cunning left-hoax “ROL-NAZI” that Jews are behind it – meanwhile, there is massive brainwash among Jews, too.

              Oh, I am so glad I cut the cable and burned the tickets. I would have never gotten out of the fog of Fake Normal. There is a circular blame factory here that is cunning beyond words.

              Trump’s speaking schtick – over and over about unity in the red color of patriot blood -the “patriots” know exactly what they are doing. They’re slowing the rotation of the vortex.

              WE’RE ALL RIGHT. WE’RE ALL CORRECT. That’s how the deception works. That’s why AND LOGIC beats it. We are stuck in a circular (or maybe even spherical) “let’s you and him fight”.


              1. *sigh* There goes my simple mind again – way too deep for me, Wolfie. First, never in my life have I been accused of being too sensitive – on the contrary, my problem is being too blunt and sometimes lacking empathy. And in all my years in the work force, I have not once had “sensitivity training.” Bottom line: if one blames the entire white race for slavery – they are a racist. If one blames the entire black race for the poor behavior of some – they are a racist. If someone blames all Muslims for the actions of the fundamentalists – that is bigotry. If one blames all Jews for Christ’s death – they are bigoted. That is my definition.


    1. 15yrs ago, son was asked to do competitive baseball. We were into it for several thousand dollars when Labor Day rolled around. Coach accepted a last minute invite to play a tournament on Labor Day afternoon.
      No, we already had plane tickets to spend the long weekend in Boston.
      Coach, my utility lineman, known for years, up in my face, threatening to pull my kid from the team if we did not alter vacation plans.
      They were in 4th grade.
      Son has an accomplished major league uncle.
      He never played baseball again.
      It was a big mistake to get him involved at all.


      1. I work part-time in a shipping hub for FedEx that is just south of Memphis in North Mississippi. The employee composition is roughly 75% black – 25% white. My supervisory hierarchy is all black all the way to the Hub Chief Manager.

        Perhaps all the Sharpton pimps: fascist race-mongers and hate-baiters should come see the real world. It will puncture their message faster than a “stabbed ballon.” The only time “race” is an “issue” is when someone is looking to find somebody on the other side of the plant, i.e. “He’s a tall black guy with dreds who usually wears a hoodie.” “Find the belt manager she’s a tiny white girl who always is smiling.” In other words: never. It is a cohesive, productive, hard-working ecosystem that has no patience for bullshit and weeds out slackers and whiners – white, black or polka-dot – in about as much time as it took Trump to defenestrate Jeb Bush.

        All the time where I live and work – and 95% of the time in the whole world – black is black and white is white. And, cue Forrest Gump, that is all I have to say about that.


        1. lol..I agree with you 100%. I worked for FedEx in Memphis for years, started at the ramp, transferred to a station in South Memphis, transferred to other stations and finally to Ca. but the racial ratio was about what you said.
          Once there had been some on going robberies of mail trucks in South Memphis so they made a request to all of us to be on the lookout at the warehouse dock areas for a white guy with a description of xxxxx. The blacks all laughed and said…white guys look the same to us unless they have some really distinctive thing like a long red ponytail or big belly and limp.
          Everything was do your job no matter your color UNLESS the black girls thought white girls were flirting with the guys…watch out for the weaves flyin then
          Black is black and white is white for sure and that’s fine.

          PS~ the story that started this ..somebody asked if white was specifically said..I’m not sure only that they were privileged . The majority of the team is white maybe a couple of other darker kids..hispanic or indian or something, I never really noticed. The coach looks to be other than white but I have no idea his ethnicity.

          Liked by 1 person

    1. I don’t see ads, except on OANN. I record literally EVERYTHING else just so I can FF through the commercials. That is my biggest pet peeve about TV – remember when you chose to pay for cable because there were no commercials? And that little “skip” button on the remote? I have to press it between 7 and 10 times to get through the commercial! Used to be, only once would do it! You record a half-hour show and the actual show is about 15-20 minutes!

      Liked by 1 person

    1. You understand. of course, the anti-vaping hysteria is bankfolled by Big Tobacco, right? Not to minimize death by comparative quantity but since when did the media run similar breathless (no pun) commentary about smoking without vapor? When CHF and Pulmonary disease are in the top 4 causes of deaths over 55 it is rich that we are bombarded with a death count of somewhere around 100 nationally.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. The media has been warning about the dangers of smoking tobacco for decades. Vaping is new and has been found to be dangerous to those who add chemicals to the product. I think the warnings about vaping are warranted. Certainly the young man in the article above would agree.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Must like this pun! But Andy read the ARTICLE, and he’s right. The ARTICLE can be used to harpoon Big Tobacco and drag the precious blubber of money all over the dock, to be picked up by the vaping companies.

            What this really says is that vaping is pretty safe (YOUR NUMBERS) except for very specific chemicals (Andy’s point) that we really don’t understand yet. Vitamin E acetate – that’s a bit WEIRD, but understandable after the fact. Tobacco companies TEST STUFF – and may even have KNOWN from animal experiments that tocopherol acetate was not good in cigarettes. Or maybe they didn’t. But in any case, it has now been known for sure, by PEOPLE putting THC products that may or may not have been designated for vaping into their vaporware ( my pun! 😉 ).

            The truth will almost certainly defend vaping over cigarettes. But the way to end the DOGPILE by Big Tobacco is to ask them point blank – DID THE KNOW AND KEEP SILENT?

            That will shut them up pronto, IMO. I’ll bet they have all kinds of data that would make vaping safer.


            1. There can be no doubt that vaping is inherently safer than cigarettes. Let’s see: we take out all the carcinogens associated with tar and then deliver nicotine, an addictive chemical that causes mostly long-term vascular degeneration (see: alcohol), in a water-based system similar to a bong. Hmm…safer? I don’t need Big T(obacco) to tell Big T that it’s safer. Not a lot of Bongers checking in with lung cancer over the years.

              You all may not be aware but the factual basis that forced Big Tobacco to pay billions to settle the class action case was (a) they knew full well about the addictive nature of nicotine and did nothing to inform or warn and (b) they took affirmative steps, both with additives and with genetic engineering of tobacco plants, to enhance the addictive qualities of tobacco. so did they know and suppress the relative benefits of vaping over cigarettes? DUH.


          2. Its not a matter of wanting to have the last word. I think young people need to know the risks of vaping just as they need to know the risks of smoking cigarettes. Those who smoke cigs and get lung cancer do so for many years. They usually die above the age of 60, whereas the vaping deaths are within very few years, as little as five or less.

            But, to each their own. I prefer smoking an occasional cigar. They aren’t as dangerous to one’s health as other forms of tobacco. I always like to point out George Burns lived to almost 100 years old and you never saw him without a lit cigar.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Really? And who was discussing anything about failure to warn kids, who cannot buy these items legally anyway? Anything you cite regarding the relative dangers of vaping compared cigarettes is purely colloquial as there is not a single reliable scientific study or conclusion out there – just a lot of data and media noise. But then I am sure you will find a reason to chime in beyond this about something else that we are not talking about because it’s not about the last word . . because it’s something really, really important.


      2. It’s what’s in the vape oil that’s dangerous. ~~~~

        Some brands contain chemicals including formaldehyde — often used in building materials — and another ingredient used in antifreeze that can cause cancer.

        Flavors in e-cigs also raise red flags. Some use a buttery-tasting chemical called diacetyl, which is often added to foods like popcorn. When it’s inhaled, it can be dangerous.

        “Diacetyl is a well-known harmful chemical, which, among other things, causes a lung disease called ‘popcorn lung,'” says Erika Sward, assistant vice president for national advocacy at the American Lung Association
        My own experience with vaping was bad.
        The oil comes in degrees of nicotine…zero to lots.
        The one that my son gave me was high but I didn’t know and even if I did the idea that a smoker could get too much nicotine didn’t occur to me. I vaped like a if I was smoking.
        After a while I started feeling sick as a dog, so dizzy that I had trouble walking. I never vaped again .
        It was nicotine OD .

        Liked by 2 people

        1. 1. It appears that some of the vape is of China-origin and thus I suspect a derivative of the fentanyl attack on the US. 2. We have had the same experience here with our use of the nicotine vape – in this case the Altobrand. Simply so strong that you cannot use it.

          Liked by 2 people

  8. No, my point is simpler than that. Conviction only occurs where 2/3 of the Senators “present” vote to convict. If 100 Senators are present at the outset, the 2/3 threshold is set at 67 votes in favor of conviction. If Warner and Feinstein and perhaps one or two other D Senators are removed for sedition or otherwise, the possibility that there will be 67 votes against PDJT goes way down. Most Republican Senators will not vote for the coup, and the margin gets much larger when you consider that replacement D Senators cannot be present, and thus cannot vote, because in order to be present they must attend the entire proceeding.


    1. Yes! I don’t have time to post them now, but they are at
      They are not just coding that we don’t understand; there are some significant messages (which I’d love to see decoded, LOL). Up to 3587 so far:

      11 Nov 2019 – 7:56:17 PM
      Indictments coming.

      Liked by 3 people

    1. I’m no expert, but from the little experience I’ve had, bleeding in the brain seems very serious. I wonder if he’s had a stroke. Not to be callous, but I can’t help but think of the consequences, should the operation not go well or if he’s already near death. It would be a state funeral, with everything else delayed (the sham hearing, possibly the release of the Horowitz report or whatever else might have been released).

      I do wish Pres. Carter and his family well. It’s not easy for any of them.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I’m still glad I voted for Jimmy Carter in ’76. Other than being saddled with runaway inflation and high interest rates, he was a pretty good president, IMO. And those things may not have been his fault.


        1. Except the bimbo who gets a cool 20 million if he DIES RIGHT NOW before the new will takes effect! 😉

          But I’ll give Dzhimmi a break – if there was ever a President who DIDN’T get hot for a bimbo, it was Dzhimmi Kharter! We really took a slide on that score with Beelzebubba!


  9. #3586

    Once C_A always C_A?
    Former C_A elected to Congress?
    Former C_A running for Congress?
    Former C_A running for Senate?
    Former C_A elected to Senate?
    Former C_A elected to Presidency?
    Define ‘black op’ [clandestine]
    Once C_A always C_A?
    @Snowden pre_NSA?
    @Snowden base of ops [geo location]?
    Whistleblower(s) vs. POTUS?
    Former C_A?
    Define ‘black op’ [clandestine]
    What happens if rogue elements of US AB[C] intel agency target [to insert] US political system [President, VP, House, Senate, NSC, US Amb., etc.] in ‘black op’ designated to control friend vs. foe targeting [self-preservation]?
    NSA v C_A

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s