Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

It’s not all true…

5 January 2018

So, Michael Wolff, author of the liberals’ much beloved Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump Whitehouse admits that it is comprised of unverifiable heresay -further: that he, himself, believes many of his sources to have been lying, but produced it anyway, “allowing the reader to judge” the veracity of the content.

This would be unbelievable if not for the unmistakable parallel to the journalistic practices on display for the last quarter century or so. What is remarkable is that such a work carrying such a statement within its own pages would not be listed under “fiction”.

Both the author and his publisher are, in my unlearned opinion, guilty of libel for promulgating such as fact. Apparently, the President’s lawyers think so, too.

Go get ’em, Mr. Trump.


The genius of (past) progressives

24 December 2017

As I read articles regarding charities protesting the tax legislation recently signed into law, I am in awe of the genius of the progressives, now long dead, who foisted the progressive income tax upon us. Mind you, these progressives are long dead – none of the machinations of the current breed of progressive can compare to the forethought and intricacies of their past masters.

I mean: think about it. They put something into the tax code to turn charities – churches, and the like – into instruments by which to prevent their masterpiece from being dismantled! Rather than expecting that people are charitable by nature, giving of their excess, they have been jaded by a century of “charitable deductions” to believe that their life’s blood is a gift from government rather than a gift from their donors.

Shear genius.

– Pateratic

Tavis Smiley is not smiling…

14 December 2017

Well. PBS followed the new liberal moral signalling rules. The same rules that were just applied to Judge Roy Moore. Apparently, they’re a rogue cannon, taking down liberals as well as the enemies of the liberals: Tavis Smiley, accused of sexual misconduct – ACCUSED, mind you – has had broadcast of his show indefinitely suspended.

My how they SCREAM when their “dirty tricks” are applied to themselves! This would actually be entertaining, if it wasn’t for the despicable violation of presumption of innocence we all are entitled to and expect. However, this expectation is only relevant when applied to the government; the private sector is not encumbered with such things. As we’ve repeatedly seen during this last quarter century, the MSM and many employers have no responsibility to  (nor regard for, in the case of the MSM) the truth, and, as demonstrated again and again, have no qualms regarding the destruction visited upon anyone’s life by the reliance on innuendo and hearsay.

The left is feeding upon their own to build a case in the mind of the public that they are taking the higher ground. That they will turn in their own because they are better than the other side. Building this portfolio of sexual predators ousted by the haloed democrats, they can turn like the triffids they are and point and screech at the likes of Donald Trump. This activity, reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union when family and neighbors were coaxed to turn in their friends and relatives for alleged violations of the law, no matter how minor or contrived, to show they were good Nazis or Communists, is intended to set the stage for a Trump impeachment and/or for the 2018 elections. Te impeachment, at least currently, is a pipe dream. And, hopefully, those who vote will continue to see through it, and prevent their party’s resurgence.

In the meantime: the ends justify the means, hey Tavis? Except when you’re one of the means…


GOD is with us…

8 December 2017

“We are not going to turn this country into a reign of terror of domestic enforcement, and have the DACA, the DREAMers pay that price. But I’m optimistic. I always have been. God is with us on this.” —Nancy Pelosi

Um, Nancy? For the record, and to the best of my knowledge: God’s name is not “Barack Hussein Øbama”.


Wait, what?!

8 December 2017

What is it with these elitist politicians? So, Conyers is out (finally!) for being outed as a sexual predator. As the longest (self-)serving representative, he was elected a couple of years after my birth and served well into his senility. (I’d argue he has served well past his usefulness, but that would have happened about the time he was first sworn in, so the point is moot.) So what does he do? He issues an edict that his son should succeed him.

What?! A politician – not a king, mind you – is tossed for an ethics violation and he thinks he can “anoint” a successor? That ain’t how it works, Bucko. And his SON?! I’m all for not holding the son accountable for the sins of the father (there’s a lesson there for ya, Conyers…), but if the campaign of one Coleman A. Young II is any indication: the political apple generally doesn’t fall too far from the tree.

Ah, well. It *IS* Detroit, after all. Name recognition and the perception of being willing to dole generously from the goody bag are all a candidate need have to be successful in those polls. Oh, and a perception of being against “the white man.” (Remember: “people of color” cannot be racist. It’s all about vengeance justice for crimes committed long, long before any of us were born; nor is it about prejudice or racial hatred. Justice. Against the white man. A motivation pure as the driven snow…)

God help us: he’ll probably get his wish.


MSM Trustworthiness

28 June 2017

A rare (extremely rare) double post day!

“Our trustworthiness today is the same as it was a year ago, before people in high offices started questioning it.” —CNN president Jeff Zucker

Well, I agree with him. CNN was an untrustworthy leftist mouthpiece before high office questioned their veracity; and they remain an untrustworthy leftist mouthpiece now that they are finally being called out for it.



Those who are ignorant of history…

28 June 2017

…are doomed to repeat it.

I’ll just leave this here:

“The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising.” —Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1536-1598)


Felony Charges For Investigative Journalism

29 March 2017

Well! If this doesn’t have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, I don’t know what will: Regarding David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress, Kah-Lee-Phone-Ya State Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a longtime Congressional Democrat, charged the two anti-abortion activists with 15 felonies for making undercover videos of themselves arranging to buy fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood. In a statement, Xavier said that the state “will not tolerate the criminal recording of conversations.” You forgot to capitalize that “s”, Xavier.

Covert data gathering has been a cornerstone of investigative journalism since long before Xavier’s birth. It has also been a cornerstone of such enterprises as law enforcement, private investigation – even inter- and intra-party politics, as evidenced by the “leaked” recordings of various private meetings of politicians and party committees where there actually may exist a reasonable expectation of privacy. That’s the key regarding illegal recordings, and this is going to be Xavier’s primary hurdle pressing his bogus charges in court.

In the Planned Parenthood case, at least in the recordings I’ve seen, the recordings were made in restaurants and other public places, where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists. In virtually all of the recordings I saw, there were multiple people involved in the conversation. In none of these conversations did anyone imply or state that the discussions were confidential – not even the Planned Parenthood personnel. So: on what grounds does Xavier, the Champion of the Democrats, find these charges justifiable and viable in court (any court except the 9th District of Kah-Lee-Phone-Ya and the District of Hawaii)? Where is the criminal intent in exposing the criminal activities of an organization?

Personally, I don’t think this case has a leg to stand on – especially in light of similar charges against these two failing in Texas – and is all about punishing those who oppose and expose organs (no pun intended) of the liberal agenda. This is an agent of the government using lawfare to both bankrupt and otherwise punish these individuals, while also sending the clear message that one should not go after any darlings of the State. They are being made an example of.

In all fairness, when this fails in court, Xavier should be impeached for abuse of office and disbarred for unethical behavior.

What are your thoughts? Add your comments below.


Removing A Label From Multiple Emails in GMail

22 March 2017

Executive summary:

  1. Locate and edit filter to eliminate unwanted tags from incoming messages.
  2. Remove unwanted tags from any existing effected messages


I normally write political stuff in these pages, but, since the method to do this was rather simple, but hard to find information on, I thought I’d provide a “tech tip” for those, like me, who use GMail despite that the company is run by a gaggle of liberal putzes.

I recently decided that I valued the mail from WebMD as something more than just ads for their site. Previously, all WebMD was filtered as both “ads” and “promotions,” making them rather easy to hunt up for deletion. So, simple me: I went into GMail’s Settings menu and picked Filters and Blocked Addresses. Gmail Menu

Next, I used the browser’s search-on-page (usually ctrl-f) feature to find WebMD among the saved filters. When I found it, I clicked the word “edit” to the right of its entry. From the resulting window, click the word”Continue” at the bottom right. A new list of checkboxes appears. Since I was already filtering these emails, the “Apply the label” check box was checked and the last-applied label was shown in the text box to the right of it. I clicked this box to reveal the list of possible labels, and selected “Health.”


Before clicking “Update Filter”, be sure to check the box next to “apply to XX matching conversations” to apply the new label to all the emails you found in your inbox.


Well, now! That should have done it, right? Bzzzzt! That only added the Health label – it had no effect on “Ads” or “Promotions” labels already applied – Doh!

Here’s how to eliminate the unwanted labels: In your inbox search (part of the GMail user interface; not ctrl-f used earlier), enter “from: ” followed by enough of the sender’s email address to uniquely and completely identify what you’re after. Note that you can use “to: ” if the sender of interest sends to a unique address – like a listname – or “subject: ” or nothing at all to qualify your search term – you just need to ensure it pulls in all emails of interest for your relabeling effort. As I stated earlier, I used the “from: ” address.

gmail search

Now, click the selection box, and click “All” to select all of the emails resulting from your search.


Finally, click on the little tag icon, and then click off the checkboxes next to any label you no longer want associated with those conversations. Click “Apply” at the bottom to make it so.


The two critical steps of this process – editing your filter and removing unwanted tags – have solved your problem. These emails will no longer show up under any labels except those which you left active.

You’re welcome.


History sometimes repeats itself…

10 March 2017

The President-elect won the election with less than 40% of the popular vote but had the majority of electoral votes. The Republican Party had put forth a candidate to win several crucial states that could swing the electoral college. The election was a bitter one with the Democratic Party fractured between two candidates.

The incoming President received so many death threats that he chose to arrive in Washington in secrecy. The security for the inauguration was the tightest ever with troops stationed on buildings throughout the day. This was an unprecedented amount of protection for any President – elect. Many members of Congress chose not to attend the ceremony.

Despite all this Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as our 16th president on March 4, 1861.