Friday, July 31, 2015

Andrea Tantaros in Bikini

HT: http://joeforamerica.com/2015/07/andrea-tantaros-in-a-bikini/#


A Tale of Two Leakers

When Edward Snowden exposed the NSA's spying, most on the left and some on the right called him a traitor. True, he did expose some foreign spying operations (which should not be a surprise: nations spy on each other all the time: even friendly ones), but he also exposed a major constitutional violation. He has shown that trading liberty for security results in neither.



The news that Hillary Clinton maintained a private email server has been known for a year, but few have really thought about the damage this has done. It certainly proved that the attack on the Benghazi consulate in 2011 was not motivated by a YouTube video. Now news has come out that her emails contain a treasure trove of classified information (seriously pundits? media? this is a surprise to you?), but no one is calling Hillary Clinton a traitor, despite the fact that she is known to be a greedy and power hungry bitch, and has done nothing redeemable.

Firefox Issues

From now on, all posts with embedded videos will be behind page breaks to alleviate problems loading Adobe Flash content with Firefox. Posts with videos in them on the front page have been updated to keep the videos off the front page.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Obama's Race Database





We recently discussed a story that wasn’t particularly popular here (to be charitable) which dealt with a new White House plan to implement enforced neighborhood diversity in American towns and cities through the power and influence of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The rest of the nation wasn’t exactly pleased with the idea either, but it did raise some interesting questions. One of the biggest among those was the puzzle of exactly how the federal government plans to figure out precisely how many people in each racial pigeonhole are living where and how they are interacting. Is that sort of data even available to be used in making such determinations, assuming you wanted to do it?
The short answer seems to be “no.” The longer – and apparently more accurate – answer is, “not yet.” But never fear, citizens! As Paul Sperry reports for the New York Post, the required data collection is on the way and it’s going to be mind blowing.
More at Hot Air

The only reason for such a database is to give preferential treatment for certain races, at best. At worst, possibly racial laws, like the Nürnberg Laws .

Sunday, July 26, 2015

More "Affirmtive Consent" Madness




A “yes means yes” advocacy group, the Affirmative Consent Project, is instructing college students to take a picture with a contract before they have sex with each other just to make absolutely sure both parties are officially consenting.

Under the law's exact wording, it gets worse.

Now, in case you think taking a photo with a contract before having sex would be going a bit far with the whole make-sure-you-have-proof-of-affirmative-consent thing – you’re wrong. In fact, it’s not going far enough. After all, affirmative consent policies demand that consent be given repeatedly throughout the entire encounter and that both parties be sober enough to do so. So, just because someone consented when they signed the contract doesn’t necessarily mean that they were consenting the entire time. And, as Ashe Schow points out in the Examiner, a student could always claim she was too drunk to know what she was doing when she signed it.


How far is it of a leap to go from this to a government having a full time video record of your private life? Not very. "Pro sex" progressivism is anything but.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Tomi Lahren Unleashes Verbal Broadside On Obama

Hot, and absolutely right! :)

“Radical Islam is becoming the rule, not the exception. … I care that this SOB killed four of our United States Marines and I care that our commander in chief is more concerned with Muslim sensitivity than the honor and sacrifice made by these Marines.”

Iran Nuclear Deal: America to Defend Iran?


From The Jewish Press:

"ObamaDeal” explicitly states that the United States and the other P5+1 powers can help Iran deflect and even “respond” to sabotage and nuclear threats to its nuclear sites. The damming evidence that ObamaDeal directly allows Western powers to help Iran to protect its nuclear sites, and possibly even to stage a counter-attack on the source of the threat, is stated in Annex III of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Congress is reviewing the agreement and has the option to cancel America’s commitments under the deal.
You have to reach page 142 of the JCPOA until you reach “Annex III: Civil Nuclear Cooperation,” where Section “D 10 states that the P5+1 “and possibly other states are prepared to cooperate with Iran on the implementation of nuclear security guidelines and best practices. Cooperation in the following areas can be envisaged:
Co-operation in the form of training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems [boldface added];
Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.
Emphasis should be placed on the word “respond.” It leaves open for interpretation the possibility that the United States and other P5 +1 countries can take action in the form of training and preparing Iran to stage a cyber attack or retaliation in the event of a third-party assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

There is a lot open for interpretation here. However, it does look like the U.S. has agreed to protect Iran from an attack by a "third party." Israel and Saudi Arabia are the two nations mostly likely to attack Iran's nuclear sites. While that does not necessarily mean the U.S. will go to war with its allies, it can happen.

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

The Facade of Left & Right




What Robert A. Heinlein said is absolutely true, and recent supreme court rulings and the pseudo-populist movement to ban the Confederate Battle Flag (as well as Old Glory) demonstrate this profoundly. The facade of Democrats versus Republicans is giving way to the reality of authoritarianism versus libertarianism. However, not everyone who supports the authoritarian side is doing so waving the swastika. Authoritarianism is almost always born from good intentions.

Democrats believe that statism is a necessary evil to curb an intolerance that in the past was their own, and that isn't really there anymore. They also also believe that symbols and objects have a negative effect on human behavior and that the power of the state is necessary to destroy them.

Republicans believe the statism is a necessary evil to preserve a tradition that really shouldn't be dictated by the state at all. Establishment Republicans believe that internal state power is necessary to protect from outside enemies.

Supporters believe that their version of statism is necessary to protect against the other. Both also believe that free will is inherently dangerous, that most people will choose wrong; most tyrants believe they are saving subjects from themselves. More importantly, both are blissfully unaware that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

On the flipside, libertarianism is growing in popularity.


Thursday, July 2, 2015

Rule 5: Female Geniuses


Amy Mainzer
Astrophysicist specializing in the study of brown dwarfs, protoplanetary disks, star formation, planetary atmosphere and asteroids. She appears frequently on astronomy shows.


Hedy Lamarr
While best known for acting, was also an inventor. Her most famous invention was the development of frequency-hopping spread spectrum, which is used today for wireless communication. It was originally to create an unjammable data link for radio-controlled torpedoes.


Danica McKeller
Danica McKeller riginally acted on The Wonder Years and several made-for-TV movies before studying mathematics and writing math books.


Lise Meitner
Compared to Marie Curie, Lise is relatively unknown today. She was paraded by the mainstream media as the "Mother of the Atomic Bomb," for a brief time after World War 2 but despite that, she refused to join the Manhattan Project. While women were not allowed into high-education, she was privately tutored and become the first woman in Germany to become a full professor (at a time when Germany was becoming anti-semitic and misogynic). With her nephew Otto Hahn, Lise discovered nuclear fission. The Nobel Prize, controversially, went exclusively to Otto.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Nation Wide "Affirmative Consent" Law Proposed


Forget sex robots, virtual reality porn, and any of the other technological advances feared capable of disrupting current sexual mores. The biggest threat to sex as we know it is the coming revision of U.S. sex-crime laws. For a glimpse into this frightening future, look no further than Judith Shulevitz's latest in The New York Times. Shulevitz chronicles how "affirmative consent" (the principle, often referred to as "yes means yes," that the mere absence of a "no" is not sufficient permission to proceed sexually) has been quietly spreading from California universities to colleges across the country, and could soon mutate out of academia entirely.
The American Law Institute (ALI)—a respected body of professors, judges, and lawyers that draft model laws oft adopted in whole by state and federal government—has spent the past three years deliberating over sexual assault statutes (an area it hadn't revisited since 1962). A draft of the group's recommendations, released in May, endorsed "the position that an affirmative expression of consent, either by words or conduct, is always an appropriate prerequisite to sexual intercourse, and that the failure to obtain such consent should be punishable under" criminal law.

Source: Reason

The American Law Institute has proposed to re-shape national law along the lines of the various "Affirmative Consent" laws being enacted on campuses.

The original "Affirmative Consent" law was enacted in California to appease the feminists, and like most progressive "laws," was written with no regard to protecting the innocent. On the surface, this law presumes non-consent in the mere absence of both a "no" and a "yes." The problem with this law is that the guy is automatically presumed to be a "rapist" unless the girl actively demonstrates her consent. These laws not only empower the girl who has consensual sex and accuses the guy of rape, merely touching another person without an overt expression of consent is automatically criminal.

To presume an innocent person as a criminal is the same thing as presumption of guilt; itself unconstitutional.

The drafters of this proposal are aware of the ambiguity of their proposed law, but believe that the ends justify the means. If this law ruins your life, then your sacrifice was for the common good.
[T]he appropriate default position clearly is to err in the direction of protecting individuals against unwanted sexual imposition. ... Of course, a legal standard requiring the affirmative expression of consent to sex will—inevitably—entail many false negatives, in the form of findings of unwillingness when in fact passionate desire was present. But the contrary standard now prevalent in American law will—just as inevitably—entail many false positives, assumptions of willingness and subsequent sexual intrusion when such intimacy was entirely unwanted. Section 213.2(2) reflects the judgment that the harms that arise under the latter standard present far greater reason for concern.

The government aims to invade the bedroom, and not from the right flank.