Demoncraps Caught Trading DACA Slaves For Money

“Trump says Democrats ‘just want to talk’; don’t really want deal for young illegal immigrants”
 
Demoncraps have long had problems with proper political negotiations. They think everything, including that which they claim to support, is up for negotiating some kind of personal gain. Let’s see if this is the case, here…
 
“DACA is probably dead because the Democrats don’t really want it, they just want to talk and take desperately needed money away from our Military…”
 
Ahhh… There it is! It’s not about the kids, other than as a means to a different end. Demoncraps want the money, funds that keep our military strength sufficient to avert most wars, and provide for less costly, decisive victories when wars cannot be avoiding.
 
They’re just using the kids as bargaining chips, HOSTAGES, if you will, in order to get their money. This was never about the Demoncraps’ little illegal immigrant slaves, as they see them. It was only about Demoncraps getting to play with more money!
 
The Demoncraps would rather have play money in their pockets now than avoid very costly wars in the future. Hell! They’re willing to trade our nation’s national security, “the security of our free state,” down the toilet just so they can play around with OUR money on THEIR shiny new mega-million dollar bobbles.  To them, DACA children are nothing more than bargaining chips.
 

The question is, “Why?” Could it be related to the trillions of dollars which “disappeared” out from under Obama’s nose while he was in office? How many of you would like to bet the Demoncraps have an entire INDUSTRY of money-sucking connections throughout government for the sole purpose of augmenting their salaries?

Then there are the simple-minded Demoncraps who think they’re “saving the kids.”  Well, here’s some DACA Stats they’re certainly ignoring:

DACA Stats

The fact is, the vast majority of “dreamers” are nothing but a bunch of THUGS.

Here’s the full article:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/14/trump-says-daca-probably-dead-team-backs-strong-stance-blames-democrats.html

What the Liberals are saying about President Trump’s Tax Cuts Plan

I recently spotted a typical liberal response to President Trump’s Tax Plan:
“I have an MBA, and these tax cuts will have little to no effect on the economy.” – Jess*

Well, Jess,* I have two degrees in business, two degrees in science, and two degrees from which I graduated summa cum laude, one of which is my own MBA, so with all due respect, I’ll see your MBA, raise you two science degrees and two SCLs, and recommend you spend more time studying economics.

I see Ivanka Trump graduated cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in economics in 2004. Do you she that might have some input into President Trump’s tax plan?  I’ll bet she did.  I’m also willing to bet that both of them knew enough not to solely trust their education and experience, but instead solicited input from dozens of top experts in a variety of fields.

Perhaps it was on the advice of the Reagan-era policies of Milton Friedman, who held a PhD in Economics from Columbia University, and was a Fulbright Visiting Fellow at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, whose “tax cuts increase the economy” advice to President Reagan absolutely resulted in both tax cuts as well as the resulting strong economy throughout the 1980s and well into the 1990s.

That may not mean much to you, but this and tons of repeating history very strongly confirm that President Trump’s tax cuts are precisely the right move. Indeed, the economic jumped yet again after the bill passed, a very strong indication it’s the right thing for our economy.

*Not his real name.  Names have been changed to protect the innocent.

Madam Secretary, the 25th Amendment and the Removal of Donald Trump

Washington Post headlines read, “We really do need to deploy the 25th Amendment.”  “The fictional White House in “Madam Secretary” will provide viewers with a crash course in the implementation of the 25th Amendment — the mechanism for removing the president from office — in the CBS drama’s next episode, titled “Sound and Fury.”
 President Trump and Vice President Pence
They’re absolutely certain to get it wrong, as all the talk I’ve seen to day fails to mention the fact that only Vice President Pence can invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.
I’ve provided a short outline, below, taken directly from the 25th Amendment. I highly encourage you all to print it out, watch the episode, and see how close to (or far away from) reality the writers, directors, actors, and producers actually come.
 
My contention is that the 25th Amendment is NOT “the mechanism for removing the President from office” as stated by the producers of Madam Secretary.  More specifically, the 25th Amendment is not the mechanism by which anyone who dislikes the President could remove him from office.  That venue lies with impeachment, not the 25th.
Before we continue, let’s examine the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution in its entirety, as preserved and reported by our nation’s Library of Congress:
Amendment XXV - LOC
 Sections 1, 2, and 3 simply confirm that it is the Vice President, and no one else, who assumes the duties and responsibilities of the President if the President should the latter no longer be able to do so due to death, illness, injury, or mental incapacitation. Obviously, the line of secession is much longer, but that’s Congressional legislation, not the 25th Amendment.
 
Section 4 is where the VP and a majority of either:
– a majority of the principal officers of executive departments (cabinet)
– majority of the principle officers of Congress
may declare in writing that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and present that declaration to both the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
 
Upon such declaration, the Vice President shall immediately assume assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.  The key, however, is that those other entities cannot accomplish this on their own.  It absolutely requires the Vice President’s complete and unreserved involvement.
 
Here’s where it gets a little sticky.
 
The elected aka original President can then write a counter-declaration to the same two heads of Congress saying that no such inability exists, at which point he shall immediately resume the powers and duties of his office.
 
So, here’s what we have so far:
 
VP and either cabinet or Congressional officers declare the President is unfit to the two head of Congress. VP assumes the office.
 
But if the President counter-declares, then he resumes his office.
 
Are you with me so far? Ok. Now it gets even stickier:
 
If the VP still thinks the President isn’t fit, then he, along with a majority of the cabinet or officers of Congress can, within 4 days, present their case again, at which point all of Congress assembled within 48 hours and makes a decision within 21 days to decided who either remains or becomes president: The original President or the Vice President. If they fail to make a decision, the powers and duties remain with the original President.
 
Did you notice what’s required throughout this scenario? That’s right: The VICE PRESIDENT, the President’s right-hand man. Without the VP, NONE of this happens. Congress cannot initiate this action. The cabinet cannot initiate this action. The Supreme Court cannot initiate this action. CNN cannot initiate this action, and neither can the Demoncraps or a TV show named “Madam Secretary.”
In fact, Rolling Stone magazine reaffirmed this finding in their excellent article covering this very issue.  They even provided a handy graphic Rolling Stone Graphicshowing how many entities must concur before it’ll happen.
 
I find the claim that “The fictional White House in “Madam Secretary” will provide viewers with a crash course in the implementation of the 25th Amendment — the mechanism for removing the president from office — in the CBS drama’s next episode, titled “Sound and Fury” “to be dubious, if not spurious, and highly misleading of the public.
In fact, it borders on,  if not crosses, the line of “inciting a riot.”
 
Rather, they will probably paint a very false picture about how, if enough Demoncraps raise hell, and infuriate Congress enough, then Congress can *SOMEHOW* make the decision, even without the VP’s input, a point which I hope the 25th Amendment itself has made abundantly clear simply cannot happen.
In other words, “wrong,” so sayeth our Constitution, “the supreme Law of the Land.” – Article VI.  Clause 2.
 
That’s just not reality, there, Hollywood.  The reality is that it’s an AMENDMENT, not merely federal law, and the 25th Amendment DEMANDS the Vice President’s concurrence. Furthermore, as an Amendment, no emergency session of Congress, even with the three-quarters vote required for repealing an Amendment can overturn it, not without first being properly ratified by three-quarters of the States, which will take several years.
So, Demoncraps and libtards, if it makes you happy to keep barking up that dead tree, be my guest.  Go ahead and waste your time.  I think the rest of America, however, might not consider you to be so blitheringly idiotic if you simply read the Constitution, including, in this case, the 25th Amendment itself.

National Security Strategy of the United States of America

America’s National Security Strategy is a very important effort.  For the last year, some rather dim individuals and groups have been criticizing President Trump for “not having a national security plan.”

Actually, he has always had a national security plan: “Define the objective, then let the Generals do their job.”  It’s been simple, straightforward, smart, and effective, and precisely what any non-military civilian leader should do.  President Trump is to be commended for his wisdom!

A year and a lot of learning and hard work later, President Trump publishes our new National Security Strategy with four key focus areas:

  1. Protect the American People, the Homeland, and the American Way of Life
  2. Promote American Prosperity
  3. Preserve Peace through Strength
  4. Advance American Influence

I am providing links to both the summary as well as the full plan towards the bottom.

In the meantime, let’s examine the reaction to President Trump’s NSS as compared to their opinions on his Foreign Policy.  As you can see, there is great positive feedback about his NSS than his FP, which is more negative than positive.

FP vs NSS

Fox News Coverage:  “Trump unveils national security strategy:  ‘America is going to win.’

White House Announcement and Summary

National Security Strategy of the United States of America – OFFICIAL

Spectre and Meltdown – What you REALLY need to know

I’m putting my IT hat back on for a minute and sifting through the confusion in the media to bring you a clear set of 5 key points and 2 recommendations for your consideration.  Feel free to distribute.

Here’s the lowdown on the Meltdown and Spectre flaws in Intel and other chips (links to supporting articles will follow):

1. Yes, Spectre and Meltdown are real. They affect Intel, and to a lesser extent, AMD processors. “Flaws buried deep in the architecture of most modern CPUs have presented a golden opportunity for bad actors to access priveleged information held in memory. Most computers contain iron-clad spaces where data can pass securely in an unencrypted, visible form. These work by limiting the access to that data from other applications and pocesses. But Meltdown and Spectre undermine these safeguards. If exploited, they could result in an adversary accessing things like passwords and privileged data.”

2. There were no known instances of the vulnerabilities actually being exploited.

3. Intel has begun releasing updates. The problem is, the updates can adversely affect performance. “The performance impact of these updates is highly workload dependent,” though that “some workloads may experience a larger impact than others.”

4. Microsoft’s initial attempts to patch machines through Windows updates have actually bricked (broken) some of the AMD machines. Microsoft has halted those updates until they’ve fixed their own bugs.

5. Apple’s 11.2.2 iOS update will deliver the patches to its flock.

My two recommendations:

1.  With respect to key point 2, above, I would NOT go hunting down a fix.  It’s likely to be premature, buggy, and as per key point 4, it could very will brick (permanently break) your machine.

2.  If you’re in the market for a new computer, I would definitely wait long enough to be absolutely certain your new computer uses a post-Spectre/Meltdown processor, one specifically built to NOT have the flaws.

For details supporting the above five key points, I have provided links to the relevant articles from which I sourced the information, here:

https://thenextweb.com/security/2018/01/04/spectre-and-meltdown-are-as-bad-as-you-think/

Intel will have Meltdown and Spectre fixes for 90 percent of recent products within a week

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/microsoft-stops-distributing-meltdown-spectre-patches-amd-devices-fixes-brick-machines/

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/01/09/apple-issues-spectre-fix-with-ios-11-2-2-update/

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4073707/windows-os-security-update-block-for-some-amd-based-devices

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/8/16866600/intel-ceo-spectre-meltdown-updates-fix-brian-krzanich-ces-2018

Origin of the Term “Bomb Cyclone”

The term “bomb cyclone” is not listed in AFH 11-203V1 or V2, “Weather for Aircrews,” a three-week course taught to all military aviators in the United States Air Force.  The volumes comprise 234 and 85 pages, for a total of 319 pages of detailed meteorology.  It includes tons of references to cyclone, cyclones, and cyclonic activity, but not a word about “bomb cyclone” or “cyclone bomb,” “cyclonic bomb,” “bombogenesis,” or other variations.
 
So I checked an exhaustive online weather glossary. Zero. Zip. Nada.
 
And then I found the origin: “John Gyakum, along with the revered late Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorologist Fred Sanders, first coined the term in a paper they published in 1980. They used the phrase to describe powerful cyclones that get their energy from rapid drops in pressure caused by hot and cold temperatures colliding.”
Here’s the link to the American Meteorological Society’s Abstract for the paper, and here’s the link to the paper itself.  And here’s the citation:
Gyakum, J. R. and Sanders, F.  (1980).  Synoptic-dynamic climatology of the “Bomb.”  Department of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institution of Technology.  Retrieved from:  http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493%281980%29108%3C1589%3ASDCOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
 
This term, however, while coined by two researchers from MIT, was never widely adopted in the annals of mainstream meteorology.  Furthermore, Gyakum stopped using it shortly after 9/11 for obvious reasons.  Sanders passed away in 2006.
 

As of January 4, 2018, the term “bomb cyclone” as swept through the corridors of mudstream media like wildfire, even though it was never

January 2018 Hurricane
(click to enlarge)

officially adopted as a weather term.  Technically, it’s still just a cyclone (tropical depression), although it appears as if NOAA is caiming it has developed hurricane-force winds near its center.

Even so, tons of publications ranging from Time to Forbes, Popular Science, Fortune, and more have all put out articles about its origins. Fortune gets it right: “Technically, the term bomb cyclone comes from the scientific term “bombogenesis,” which is a storm that drops 24 millibars of pressure over 24 hours.”  Well, it sort of gets it right, as the term “bombogenesis” never appeared in the original paper.

There’s a difference between normal cyclonic development and a bomb, best explained by this quote from NBC News’ Science:  “Hurricane Sandy was a monster, but not a bomb since it was forecast with extraordinary accuracy a week ahead. A meteorological bomb, on the other hand, develops at a frightening pace — with the atmospheric pressure dropping a millibar or more per hour for at least 24 hours.” – NBC News

The problem with this is that the term was never used by mainstream meteorologists and just randomly popped up even though it’s surviving creator said he’s not using it any more.

Thus, I think some idiot from mudstream media re-coined it without knowing its origin, and only after it gained traction did the many outlets of mudstream media try to legitimize it by tying it back to an obscure research paper from 1980.  I found a few references to various forms of it used by local meteorologists over the years, dating back to 2007.

Regardless, the threat is real.  Despite its appearance in January, well past the end of hurricane season, it still has all the earmarks of a hurricane, including high winds and massive precipitation.  In fact, due to the extreme cold, instead of falling as many inches of rain, that precipitation will fall as many feet of snow.

As of 4:00 AM on January 4, 2018, it’s center was abeam North Carolina, but by 3:00 PM, it had moved rapidly north, so that it’s currently abeam Nantucket.  Furthermore, although it is rapidly pulling polar air from Canada, sweeping it through the Eastern Seaboard,  it appears to be far enough out to sea that it’s not “bombing” the area with snow.  Nantucket is currently reporting 13 inches of snow, with another 3 inches per hour for several hours.  Three feet of snow would be a lot, but it’s not uncommon in that area, and it’s certainly not ten feet.

Do Police Shoot Blacks More Often Than Whites?

Do Police Shoot Blacks More Often Than Whites?  Yet another blithering idiot at Newsweek seems to think so.  However, whatever journalism school the author(s) of this drivel attended, it failed to teach them proper statistics. The Washington Post published a better study, one with correct numbers, which I’ve referenced here, and which is even mentioned in the Newsweek article, and which I’ve cross-referenced with known U.S. demographics.

Killed by Police in 2017:
White – 456 (47%)
Black – 221 (23%)
Hispanic – 179 (18%)
Other – 43 (4%)
Unknown – 77 (8%)
Total – 976 (100%)

True, blacks comprise only 13% of the U.S. population. 12.61%, to be precise. Yet 22.64% of people killed by Police in 2017 were black. Thus, blacks are being killed at a rate 79.59% greater than their prevalence in the U.S. population, whereas whites are being killed at a rate 36.52% less than their prevalence in the U.S. population.

It’s true that around 13 per cent of Americans are black, according to the latest estimates from the US Census Bureau.

And yes, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black offenders committed 52 per cent of homicides recorded in the data between 1980 and 2008. Only 45 per cent of the offenders were white.

Thus, these numbers shouldn’t be “troubling” at all. If one race is disproportionally more likely to commit a crime, then they are disproportionally more likely to be confronted, arrested, incarcerated, resist arrest, and shot, as well.

The question is whether or not the abundance of black shootings is equivalent to the abundance of black crime?

And the answer is that is matches almost exactly. Blacks commit 186.49% more crime per capita (per person) than whites. Blacks are shot 179.59% more often than whites.

If anything, the data shows that blacks are 6.91% — nearly 7% — LESS likely to be shot by police during or after committing a crime than are whites!

Thus, the answer to the question is, NO, police do NOT shoot blacks more often than they shoot whites.  In fact, they shoot both black criminals and white criminals with nearly the same frequency.  It’s just that blacks are nearly twice as likely (79.59% more likely) to commit crimes than are whites.

THAT’S a FACT, ladies and gentlemen. Thus, claims like, “Black people are three times as likely to be killed by police as white people” are BOGUS claims, “reports” by people who do NOT know how to properly use statistics. In fact, the statistics themselves clearly show the “report titled “Mapping Police Violence” that was released Thursday” is grossly in error.

Sadly, so many hate groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter will probably latch onto that report as their gospel and start killing even more whites.

Education is important! It helps you to be able to discriminate between high quality information and bogus journalism, like this piece written by Josh Saul of Newsweek and published on December 29, 2017. By “totally bogus,” I mean it’s TOTALLY bogus, not worth the electrons it’s printed on.