Losing Two Thirds Is "Success" On Light Rail

Joe Soucheray: In their universe, a costly train is success – Twin Cities:

The left LOVES trains! I think it is a control thing -- the train runs on it's schedule and you figure out how to work your schedule so you can meet it. The left loves that -- people need to be compliant. Trains employ a bunch of people that vote Democrat, and they lose a bunch of money, increasing the percentage to the economy under government control -- WIN, WIN!

Cars are bad. Some rich guy can decide to drive a Yugo and you can't soak him like you want for transportation. WORSE, he can drive ON HIS OWN SCHEDULE! That gives the "illusion of self determination". Naturally, the left will point out that the roads are PUBLIC -- but paid by massive gas taxes which are really "user fees". The PROBLEM is that those fees are NOT based on income! The rich guy in the Yugo might pay LESS than the Hispanic in the low rider ghetto cruiser in actual dollars, and of  course MUCH less in terms of percentage of income! Rich people ought not have that kind of freedom!

So light, heavy, fast, slow, dangerous, expensive, etc, the left LOVES trains! Having the train is SUCCESS! Why? Because it is a giant trophy that shows that they can get what they want even though it hurts everyone, including the constituency that they claim to be serving! (a better bus system would serve more people that need it FAR better for a FRACTION of the cost).

BUT, it makes them feel good and superior -- and in the final analysis, that is what "liberalism" is all about; feeling smart, good, in with the in crowd and SUPERIOR!

'via Blog this'

Not On Our Side, Tribal Intelligence

The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb. — Medium:

A useful short read, but I suspect most of the group that reads my blog will feel a bit like me. When you are on the "minority team", you HAVE to hear "the other side" -- pretty constantly. Now I go out of my way to NPR, Slate, etc, so get a MEGAdose of what the "other side" has to say, but we are all soaking in the dominant culture.

"When someone communicates that they are not “on our side” our first reaction is to run away or dismiss them as stupid. To be sure, there are hateful, racist, people not worthy of the small amount of electricity it takes just one of your synapses to fire. I’m instead referencing those who actually believe in an opposing viewpoint of a complicated issue, and do so for genuine, considered reasons. Or at least, for reasons just as good as yours. "

The other missing item in the article is that at one time we as a culture DID believe that "Western civilization" -- which included Christianity was "better", and there was a good deal of evidence. Europe once "ruled the world", capitalism advanced the condition of people around the planet, rule of law and just basic civic decency was common, people believed that hard work and personal responsibility were virtuous, the family is the cornerstone of  society, children were a blessing and the promise of the future, etc.

The "big divide" is now between pretty much everyone except a few "radicals" agreeing with the previous paragraph, and today's world where "the winning side" believes that god is dead, all values are relative, man is an animal, the environment (and animals like gorillas or even snail darters) are more important that human life, Western culture is decadent / corrupt / evil, Islam is the "Religion of Peace" and Christianity died with god and survival in a godless world goes to those who can prevent the births of their succeeding generation.

The "old values" people are largely the ones dismissed as "backward, stupid, reactionary, bigoted, etc". Sure, with the advent of Trump, the "todays world" people are taking some "abuse", but that is a pretty new phenomenon.

Never the less, being able to at least MAKE the points that the other side makes is worthy. I believe that we will actually have to AGREE on some set of transcendent values though before we return to actually "making progress" and truly "getting alone". The article not so subtly makes the point that there is "no real truth", it is is all relative.

'via Blog this'

Gorillas and Guerillas In Gaza

http://www.themideastbeast.com/israel-place-gorillas-near-gaza-hopes-intl-community-will-care-rocket-attacks/

Israel putting gorillas in Gaza so world cares about rocket attack deaths.

Sadly the 18-22 bracket in the US tends to not mature until much later these days.

If one of our rockets were to kill a gorilla, we would completely alienate our core support base of 18 to 22-year-old left-wing American Facebook commenters,” one senior Hamas official told The Mideast Beast off record. “That’s not a risk we can take lightly.”

Hillary Bubble Boy

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5830/media-have-unintentionally-destroyed-hillary-ben-shapiro#.Vz0U6TLxW6c.twitter

The thesis is that the media have propped up the poor Hildebast for years, but head to head with Trump they can't help her. She would need to stand on her own tentacles.

As a candidate, Clinton is like the Bubble Boy: She's been placed inside the warm cocoon of an all-embracing leftist establishment, never exposed to the normal viruses of everyday politics. The minute she exits that protective bubble, she's hit with those viruses -- and she has no immune system to help her fight them.

 It's short and worth the read.

The media subsidized Clinton into a position of power. She's now so vulnerable that a 74-year-old charisma-free socialist nearly took her down. Now she's got a worse virus: a case of the Trumps. Her immune system has been so compromised that she may be politically terminal.

Books, Tolstoy, "The Cossacks"

It's just a paragraph -- but there is reason that Tolstoy is one of the greatest.

'Three months have passed since I first saw the Cossack girl, Maryanka. The views and prejudices of the world I had left were still fresh in me. I did not then believe that I could love that woman. I delighted in her beauty just as I delighted in the beauty of the mountains and the sky, nor could I help delighting in her, for she is as beautiful as they. I found that the sight of her beauty had become a necessity of my life and I began asking myself whether I did not love her. But I could find nothing within myself at all like love as I had imagined it to be. Mine was not the restlessness of loneliness and desire for marriage, nor was it platonic, still less a carnal love such as I have experienced. I needed only to see her, to hear her, to know that she was near--and if I was not happy, I was at peace.

 I think that rings true for at least any male that has ever been in love. No idea how it works for a woman  -- is there a female writer with the kind of insight of Tolstoy? Could I understand it if there was?

The character "writing the letter" is a wealthy Russian noble, somewhat "looking for his head" in the military -- it seems that his heart found him first.

BO Teleprompter Malfunction, Goes "Okey Doke"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=mSxo9-Z5Ki0&t=3s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=mSxo9-Z5Ki0&t=3s&app=desktop

I'm having real trouble embedding this one -- I'm guessing it might not be around long. 

Looks like BO attempted to go "off teleprompter" again and massive stuttering and incoherence resulted. If this was W, it would be the lead news and entertainment story for a week and "Going Okey Doke" would be like "misunderestimated"!

Perhaps BO and the "Choom Gang" had a reunion and the weed was partaken -- he almost looks off into the ether there with a "Where am I now Whitey?" kind of look. "But your foot on the lady's thumb Beeve"!

http://www.tv.com/shows/leave-it-to-beaver/in-the-soup-81146/

Hillary Endorses Trump, Melts

Hillary Clinton's evisceration of Donald Trump - CNNPolitics.com:

The iron clad rule of the viruses that identify as "Clintons" is that if their lips are a flappin, you can be certain the lies are a spewin ... wholesale!

When Slick wags his finger and says looking right at the camera that he "Did not have sex with that woman ...", Well, he did! (surprise, surprise)  If he ever tells the truth it is an accident.

Likewise, when Hildebeast screeches on some topic, like "Benghazi was caused by in incendiary internet movie!", you can rest assured, it wasn't, it was terrorism just like everyone knew it was.

We can rely pretty much on the opposite of what the hag says -- no secrets on that server? Well, of course there are -- "mislabeled". Indeed.

So, in my book she just declared Trump to be a great guy with fantastic temperament to be president. Now could she just melt?

We REALLY need a Hildebeast filter that makes sure that we don't have to listen to that harpy screech or the demonic cackle! When I hear her, this is what I see in my mind.

I'm thinking that Trump looks a bit like the Wizard -- a lot of smoke and bluster, but maybe in the end he can find some answers for our sad sorry Lion of a military, Straw-man of an economy and Tin Woodsman of a culture which the ravages of BO have left us with.

Indeed, if we all realized that "We had the power to go back to Kansas all along!" (that making the nation great again isn't about "Witches and Wizards", but rather about us getting back to the real world, putting on our work boots rather than our "Ruby Red Slippers" and GETTING BUSY!

Is this her theme theme music?

I'm guessing that even her Secret Service protection would be glad to see this scene -- it must be hard for them to insure that she never gets wet!

'via Blog this'

What If BO Supporters Were Violently Attacked?

Ugly, bloody scenes in San Jose as protesters attack Trump supporters outside rally - The Washington Post:



Actually, we know the answer to the title question  already -- in 2010-2011, Tea Party rallies were watched hyper close by the media for ANY signs of "racism" or "hate speech".  The MSM took any claim of a racist word uttered, somebody maybe spitting on someone, or anything APPROACHING "violence" and lectured on the "racists" that opposed BO. Going back now and reading this article about "The Angriest Most Hateful People On Earth" referring to the Tea Party, and then looking at the blood from the anti-Trump protestors puts things in perspective.



I was a Cruz guy, but I'm getting A LOT more excited to show up at a Trump rally!



Nobody could utter a word as BO destroyed the nation without being labeled "racist"! From the viewpoint of the MSM, how COULD there be criticism of the great and powerful BO.



The ranks of Trump supporters need to get bigger, tougher and ready to punch back twice as hard!



'via Blog this'

Elon Musk, "Simulated"

Elon Musk: There's a 'one in billions' chance our reality is not a simulation:

I apologize to those that saw my "fake post" -- it was supposed to be a "draft", but I hit "publish".

The simulation hypothesis, first proposed in 2003 by philosopher Nick Bostrom, posits that if many sufficiently advanced civilizations exist, and if they're likely to create simulations of the universe (or a slice of it), then we are almost certainly living in a simulation.

If you trust Musk, the chances of us not being in a simulation are insignificantly small. "There's a one in billions chance that this is base reality," Musk said. He bases this argument on the fact that humanity has experienced amazing technological advancement in the last few decades.

My thought since college has been that we are "running on God".  What we see as "quantum effects" are side effects of us not actually being "physical", but rather spiritual.  "The Apple in the Garden" converted a perfect spiritual existence into an imperfect "physical" one, where things seem material and evil, death, and Hillary exist.

Elon Musk is FAR smarter than I, but let's just consider his hypothesis here.

The odds of a universe like ours existing are now often calculated as that our universe is one out of 10 to the 400th universes. The number of atoms in the universe is less than 10 to the 100th ... like 10 to the 80th (my internet at the lake is sketchy right now).

So does it strike anyone else that "living in a simulation that was done by a more advanced civilization" is just a "modern" way of trying to avoid God? I mean, if you create a simulation, you COULD have "simulated spiritual experiences", an afterlife and even bliss and punishment in an afterlife.

Perhaps we live in the simulated universe that humans who advanced beyond the "Singularity" and became "machines / genetically engineered / cyborg super-beings" decided to create our simulation because they were bored? I'm reminded of the words from "Sapiens" relative to beings such as ourselves becoming "omnipotent" (all powerful) without being "all knowing" or perfectly moral.

Is there anything more dangerous than irresponsible and dissatisfied gods who don't know what they want?

Is not the current election season in the US enough for people to realize that great power and wealth are no guarantee at all of great morality, responsibility or even grade school level truth and character?

Elon Musk is an engineer / entrepreneur / inventor -- his simulation hypothesis is a classic from that sort of brain. Programmers often say that "any problem can be "solved" by adding a level of indirection". It is wiser to say that many problems can seem simpler by adding a level of indirection or abstraction. 

"We are simulated" solves precisely nothing. By whom for what purpose? is still operative, and if this is all merely a simulation by beings no more morally perfect or philosophically wise than ourselves, it is FAR from a comforting conjecture!

I fully understand that may moderns find the idea of a morally perfect God who would be willing to die a horrible death for THEIR miserable life to be about as terrifying as they can imagine. I maintain they have REALLY not thought their situation through! 

As with a lot of things, consider that such advanced super-beings might have "children". There is a rather fun old Star Trek called "The Squire of Gothos" that is a worthy watch if you want to consider the Musk conjecture -- perhaps one of the "super children" kicked off the equivalent of his "Fisher Price" computing toy on "random universe creation" at 10 to the billionth and somewhere along the line, we popped up! He is looking at it right now and deciding the best way to "intervene". 

Or maybe he already did -- and it is BO followed by Trump vs Hildebeast! 

'via Blog this'

Universal Bathrooms and Lockers, "Transforming Society"

https://www.buzzfeed.com/shannonkeating/gender-segregated-bathrooms-have-a-long-ugly-history?utm_term=.vtja2Q7Kgk#.anl8amEMNY

It's a significantly long read, but you really aren't going to "get it" unless you read it yourself. The "bottom line" is that "Cisgender" isn't enough -- gender must be destroyed, all veils must be torn and we must ALL see life "up close and gritty" like it "really is". There is no sacred -- we must worship the profane and wallow as undifferentiated beasts.

Like many things, this was all predicted in "Ideas Have Consequences" -- and the Bible for that matter. The following is quoted from Burke in "Ideas" referring to the French Revolution, but it may as well be today.

"All the decent drapery of life is to be rudely torn off. All the superadded ideas, furnished from the wardrobe of a moral imagination, which the heart owns, and the understanding ratifies, as necessary to cover the defects of our naked shivering nature, and to raise it up to dignity in our own estimation, are to be exploded as a ridiculous, absurd, and and antiquated fashion." 

Early on the article tells you that gender distinctions are an "illusion".

Functionalism, then, lends credence to the illusion of innate binary gender distinctions.

And that this "illusion" has caused a lot of "inequality" to flourish.

Men’s and women’s restrooms we largely take for granted today are the direct result of a long history involving the continual reproduction of outmoded concepts of gender difference, which have allowed countless forms of gender inequity to flourish unimpeded.

However, somehow, when it comes to working power lines, the "illusion" collapses, and women actually DO have some difference in the facilities they need -- and naturally OUGHT TO HAVE. When it suits them of course. Consistency is NOT an issue! It is BOTH an "illusion" and a real issue that affects women differently than men -- somehow, no longer an "outmoded concept".

...while working on power lines, linemen are typically far away from any public restrooms, but male electrical workers typically have no problem relieving themselves outside, something DeClue was far more hesitant to do.

We then continue with the problem with "cisgender women" (actual women) -- apparently the "outmoded concepts and illusions" have want the "uninformed" might take to be "real differences", like pregnancy, menstruation or taking longer in the bathroom -- strange that these "outmoded concepts and illusions" would have such seeming actual effects!

Combined with the fact that cisgender women take longer to do their business (some studies say up to two times as long as cis men do), pregnant people need to urinate more frequently, and menstruating people need to use the restroom for an entirely different reason, Banzhaf argues that equity can only be achieved if women are given access to more facilities than men are. Separate, in this case, is not equal.

But then we fall back again to "cultural imagination" and "compulsive heterosexuality" -- pure "states of mind" with no connection to some sort of physical differences.

Public restrooms — and, perhaps even more strongly so, locker rooms — have always operated in the cultural imagination as sites of strict gender roles and compulsive heterosexuality.

The following paragraph is mostly for entertainment. Apparently, Hollywood has been complicit in creating the "cultural imagination" of women being somehow vulnerable when they are in a state of undress -- such a "Victorian" idea!

In the shift from drama and comedy to horror, the bathroom becomes ground zero for violence against women. In Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho,the most famous bathroom scene in cinematic history involves a woman in the shower getting stabbed to death by Norman Bates, a notoriously genderqueer bad guy. In what’s arguably the other most famous bathroom scene of all time, The Shining’s Jack corners Wendy in the bathroom and proceeds to hack his way in. David Cronenberg’s Shivers, from 1975, features an absolutely repulsive sceneinvolving a parasite that crawls up the bathroom drain and between a woman’s legs. And speaking of ’80s teen movies again, Nancy in A Nightmare on Elm Street gets an unwelcome visit from Freddy Krueger while she’s in the bath. If they want to avoid spiders and grudge monsters, women in horror films would do best to avoid the bathroom altogether. These scenes manage to sexualize the vulnerable and violated female body, while also suggesting that the Victorian paternalism of yore might still apply according to the fantastical versions of our modern conceptions: Women still need protecting.

Now we are getting to the "bottom line". Unisex individual bathroom or locker spaces are not going to cut it, because we NEED "people to mix" -- and heaven knows we MUST really "transform society".

If we’re really going to transform society,” he said, “we need to create public spaces that encourage people to mix.”

So finally we come to this -- we need to all be showering and shitting and peeing right in front of each other like hogs in a pen to really get to experience "people as they really are"! No illusions -- everyone just operating as common animals, because -- well, because that is how the left wants it to be, and they will stop at nothing until humanity is reduced to the grossest of all animals.

“In the days before coed dorms, the only time men and women would see each other would be outside for class or a date, when they’d be well-dressed, and women would have their makeup on,” he said. It was, he added, “an artificial impression of the other. But once you have coed restrooms, when everyone has towels wrapped around themselves, their hair looks like hell — I think they begin to see each other more as real people instead of constructs. People as they really are, rather than how we’d like others to see us.”

You might read this and think that "These people are nuts, this will NEVER happen". Think again -- gay "marriage" is legal, BO is forcing states to allow bathrooms and locker rooms to be mixed already,  but don't think for a second that it will end there, and "there aren't many weird trans people anyway".

This has NOTHING to do with "transgender", this is about the TRANSFORMATION OF SOCIETY to the equivalent of military bathrooms and lockers for "people" -- with no "illusions" about there being such a thing as "gender difference".

Society must be completely destroyed and humans reduced to worse than animals -- and even then, the Satanic Left will find a path to yet further perversion.

"I Don't Care" vs "What Difference Does it Make?"

Donald Trump perfectly summed up his life philosophy in just 6 words - The Washington Post:

The WaPo feels that Trump's life philosophy is summed up by "Why antagonize? I don't care."

The same WaPo had this to say about one of Hildebeast's summaries in Oct of 2015 ...

When she last testified before, I think, a Senate committee, she got exasperated. At one point, "What difference does it make?" came out. [Ed. note: The exact quote is "What difference, at this point, does it make?] I felt right there and then, that’s not the right answer. People died, let’s not forget, so that has to be treated with a good deal of sensitivity.

Here the same WaPo is cheering on the gay / bisexual / transgender movement.

But all of these factors — the increased acceptance, the increased behavior and the trend toward sexual fluidity — make Twenge think she knows the real driving force behind this cultural shift: We care more about ourselves. She believes this comes from an increased sense of individualism.

As I've often argued, BO, Hildebeast, and Trump are all perfectly representative of a "culture" dedicated to "whatever I think is what counts"! One of the other nicknames for Hildebeast is "Herself" -- as with BO, EVERYTHING always comes back to her (or in BO's case, him). Trump, Hildebeast and BO definitely DO CARE -- about themselves. As do the WaPo writers and what they see as "all reasonable Americans".

The WaPo believes that thousands of years of culture can be thrown out the window so individuals care only about their own pleasures, peccadillos and personal views on everything from metaphysics to politics. They naturally find this to be abhorrent when they see it in Trump, have some mild concerns when they see it in Hillary, and are completely blind relative to BO or themselves.

"Some thinkers have made the case that individualism has been increasing in Western culture since the Renaissance, but that this change accelerated beginning around 1965 or 1970," she explained. As societies become more comfortable in terms of resource availability, one doesn't need to worry as much about fitting in to the rules and expectations of the larger group.

A historian might look at this and say that "nothing fails like success". When MATERIAL needs ("resource availability") is assumed to be guaranteed, as a "right" -- like gravity, or your next breath, the normal human, absent any "higher ideals", will revert to looking out for the pleasures and assumed happiness that such pleasures will bring for them personally -- and "not care". Because, "What difference, at this point, does it make"?

God must always have a little chuckle -- the person they quote in the gay cheerleading study is named "Twenge", painfully close to "twinge", which is a feeling that it is clear that they have started to have as they have watched the rise of Trump. Absent any truth that transcends mere physical information, the only arbiter is power -- so they have had 2nd thoughts about democracy and have advocated using the Electoral College to overturn the election.

This is BOistan -- this is what we have created, and now we live here. It's every person for themselves and the nastiest tribe "wins"!

Thankfully, the life of a place like this is "Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"  .... the context from Hobbes is here -- I believe he was commenting on the current state of BOistan.

"During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man. 

"To this war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues.

"No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

'via Blog this'

Toast Arrest, Alcohol Involved

Rochester woman demands waitress be arrested over toast | KIMT 3:



A little local news. Rochester woman loses it when Denny's waitress late with order of toast and demands waitress be arrested. Police suspect alcohol was involved ....







'via Blog this'

Uncanny Valley, Not Horseshoes Or Hand Grenades

Uncanny valley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

The "Uncanny Valley" is a theory that when a simulacrum of human behavior gets "close", but "not quite there", it evokes a revulsion response. Thus if say the CGI in a movie gets "almost" to making you believe that you are watching a human, it might be better off being a little LESS realistic!

My theory is that this is the problem with Hildebeast -- sometimes she seems almost human, but then the revulsion hits!

It's a worthy wiki article -- there are lots of cases that they can  come in, robots are just one. Men trying to come off and women coming off as men, or gay "marriage" for that matter can cause our brains to flow into this valley -- even if the person is totally dedicated to being the most left wing trans / gay / whatever "open mind". That "open mind" still runs on human mushware, and that mushware had either a REALLY sophisticated designer (God), or a REALLY long development cycle (billions of years of evolution). Making "decisions" with the top-most functions of the brain about what the "old iron" ought to do isn't going to cut it.

Close STILL only counts in Horseshoes and Hand-grenades -- and in this case, missing by a little is actually WORSE.



'via Blog this'

Revive The Media, Straight White Male Republicans!

Why the president needs to be white, male and Republican: Glenn Reynolds:

Actually it isn't just the media -- NRO, the whole "NeverTrump movement, major hunks of the Republican establishment and all entertainment and academia as well. The only people that will admit to supporting Trump are pretty much the "bitter clingers" which BO successfully marginalized enough that they are killing themselves in droves. All the "smart people" just hope enough of "clingers" die before November to insure Trump isn't elected!

The whole linked article is worth the read, though the thesis is simple. With BO in office, there was essentially no real media opposition. As Reynolds points out, BO did pretty much everything that people are "concerned" that Trump might do, it is just that when BO did it, it was "their president" for the chattering classes.

I’d like to think that pointing this kind of thing out would address the problem, but my faith in our political classes is pretty low right now. So, given the realities, I have a suggestion for limiting the imperial presidency that will probably work: Only elect straight, white male Republicans.

Get a straight white male Republican back in the White House and I'm convinced that any potential presidential overreach becomes BIG news again. The debt and deficit no doubt will be issues once more, real cost of living going up with no COLA increase in FICA will be scandalous -- "pushing grandma over a cliff in her wheelchair".  Military deaths will suddenly be more important than gorilla deaths, and columnists like Maureen Dowd of the NY Times and EJ Dionne of the WaPO will suddenly rise from the dead.

In writing this, I realized that both of them used to have SCATHING columns about how much time W spent at the ranch, how stupid he was, how much it cost to run Air Force One, which foreign leader might have dissed W -- and just general malaise about how HORRIBLE W was as president! Hell, homelessness may even come back as an issue!

I had forgotten Maureen's name! Elect Trump and I know she will be back and LOADED with righteous indignation!

The whole idea of the old "it's patriotic to oppose the president"!!!! that was so much in evidence during the W years has somehow completely died -- just think how good all those folks will feel to step back into the vital role that they have so often let us know that they fill!

They ought to vote for Trump -- I'm betting their sales of newsprint and books go way up!

'via Blog this'

The Rigged System

Socialism for the Uninformed - Thomas Sowell:

When Senator Sanders cries, "The system is rigged!" no one asks, "Just what specifically does that mean?" or "What facts do you have to back that up?" 

In 2015, the 400 richest people in the world had net losses of $19 billion. If they had rigged the system, surely they could have rigged it better than that.

I check everyone -- even Sowell, yes, Bloomberg agrees --- in one of the much less reported pieces of news, the 400 richest lost $19B.

The rest of the Sowell article is worth reading -- socialism is failing miserably in Venezuela and Brazil, as it always does. Letting someone else pay for everything seems to sound good to a certain set of people, and with proper control of the media narrative, it always will. 

I'm reminded of one of my favorite analogies -- In gambling, "The House" always wins! You need to keep track of who "The House" is. In this country it's easy -- "The House" is "The Party". They are the ones that control what you hear and tell you what you are to believe. 

They avoided telling you that the rich folks lost $19B last year, but they REGULARLY tell you how things are "rigged". They indeed are -- they are rigged by and for The Party! Recall how much focus we had in 2012 on Mitten's wealth. To the extent that anyone knows the combined wealth of the Clinton's and their "Foundation" it at least rivals and likely exceeds Mittens -- the "Foundation" BRINGS IN over $200 Million a YEAR! Mittens was supposed to be worth $300M.   

The point is "the narrative", not the facts. TP insures that the masses ALWAYS have "The Story" as orchestrated by TP.


'via Blog this'