Monday, November 18, 2019
The 90 Miles Mystery Video: Nyctophilia Edition #112
Before You Click On The "Read More" Link,
Please Only Do So If You Are Over 21 Years Old.
If You are Easily Upset, Triggered Or Offended, This Is Not The Place For You.
Please Leave Silently Into The Night......
The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #809
You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,
from the beautiful to the repugnant,
from the mysterious to the familiar.
If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,
you could be inspired, you could be appalled.
This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.
You have been warned.
Sunday, November 17, 2019
The Deep State On Display In The Impeachment Inquiry...
The Witnesses Are All Deep State Operatives Desperately Trying The Survive The Draining Of The Swamp....
Deep State Media parrots impeachment (Dem) party line but America not buying
It was a tale of two worlds — inside and outside the Beltway. Impeachment was the biggest news in decades to those who work and live in the D.C. area. Especially journalists, who saw the hearings as their best chance to finally get revenge on a president they hate.
The rest of America had other things on its mind. That became painfully clear as the hearings geared up on Friday and the No. 1 trending topic on Twitter was not the hearings but a fight from the Cleveland Browns-Pittsburgh Steelers game the night before.
If you had asked Americans which video they remembered, the hearings or the game, it’s not even close. On one hand you had Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Arkham, obnoxiously silencing Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. Stupid, but the stuff of grade-school bullies. On the other hand, you had Browns defensive end Myles Garrett ripping off the helmet of Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph and smashing him with it.
If you guessed the NFL clip, you are correct. It was broadcast and analyzed almost as much as the Zapruder film.
Meanwhile, the press/left tried desperately to convince ordinary voters that these hearings were different than the three-year campaign they had led against President Trump. Skepticism was so commonplace that The New York Post ridiculed the hearings even before they began.
The paper was emblazoned with a huge word: “GUILTY” followed by “NOW FOR THE TRIAL…” The cover image was a collage of the Capitol, Schiff decked out as a circus ringleader, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wearing a clown wig and costume. The only thing missing was a gaggle of clowns representing the adoring press.
The Post wasn’t wrong. The broadcast evening newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC had been especially vicious since the beginning of the impeachment inquiry in September. The “neutral” news media were 96 percent negative to Trump.
The Schiff-led hearings lived up (or down) to that preview. They gave journalists exactly what they wanted, a formal attack on the Trump presidency.
Only it wasn’t necessarily what everyone else wanted. News outlets were angry that the right wasn’t excited by the result. The Daily Beast complained, “Trumpworld’s New Talking Point: The House Impeachment Hearings Are ‘Boring.’” Buzzfeed went with: “Republicans Got The Public Hearings They Wanted. Now They Say They’re Too Boring.” Even late-night comedians were frustrated that everyone found the hearings lacking “pizazz.”
Journalists were thrilled and toed the (Democrat) Party line with daily talking points. The news media moved on from parroting the term “quid pro quo” in regards to Ukraine and quickly embraced the new liberal term “bribery.”
According to Lexis-Nexis, CNN had used “quid pro quo” close to 700 times in just one month. But once pollsters realized it didn’t resonate, Pelosi adopted “bribery” and the media followed her lead. The broadcast networks deployed the new term at least 43 times in evening and morning shows in the next 24 hours.
There were two particularly notable moments in the hearing. Stefanik provided one, reminding viewers of the many times Schiff had told the media that he had a deal to have the alleged whistleblower testify. She cited repeated examples of his promises across media from USA Today, Vox, CNN, ABC News and more.
It was the kind of point the press should have been hammering home. But they acted more like lap dogs for the left than...
You’ll Be Surprised Who Is Trying to Empower the Deep State at EPA
Some key House Republicans have chosen to support a Democratic bill called the Scientific Integrity Act. That nearly every House Democrat is a co-sponsor of the bill was apparently insufficient warning.
Recently passed out of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, the bill actually has nothing to do with what one would reasonably think of as “scientific integrity.” It does nothing to ensure that federal scientists conduct legitimate science.
Instead, the bill is aimed at empowering deep-state scientists for the duration of the Trump administration.
In a nutshell, the bill requires that federal agencies set up formalized grievance procedures for federal scientists who claim they are being silenced by senior bureaucrats and political appointees.
Under the bill, the filing of a grievance would start a process that not only disseminates the underlying “science” to the public regardless of its merits, but also guarantees dramatic headlines of censorship and persecution.
Such claims of censorship are not new, but they’ve been greatly exaggerated.
Followers of the climate wars will recall, for example, during the Bush administration when NASA gadfly James Hansen ludicrously claimed the Bush administration tried to silence him. The truth is that Hansen had been talking to anyone who would listen to him, without any government interference.
Of course, the government has every right to rein in faulty, ideologically-driven science when it occurs. This year, for instance, the White House blocked a State Department intelligence employee from testifying about climate change and national security.
The media was appalled, but they conveniently overlooked the fact that a prominent scientist on the National Security Council staff had fact-checked the State Department employee’s testimony and found it in error.
Such oversight is important. The Scientific Integrity Act, however, would basically make it illegal for federal agencies to exert any control over the scientists that work for them.
The House Science Committee’s ranking member, Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., succeeded in mildly amending the bill so that “aggrieved” federal scientists can’t go straight to the media, but instead would have to follow agency procedures in doing so.
Having accomplished little, Lucas then rolled over and said, “With the adoption of my amendment, I will support passage of the bill and encourage all my colleagues to do so.”
Lucas and five other Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the bill.
House Democrats, of course, don’t need the support of Republicans to pass bills out of committee and bring them to the floor. But Lucas and the other Republicans he convinced to support him now make the bill “bipartisan.”
Besides aiding and abetting the Resistance against the Trump administration—which is supposed to be in charge of federal employees—the bill also allows Democrats to pose as the party of federal scientific integrity.
This does not comport with...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)