July 2, 2016
June 18, 2016
Listen to Fake The Shootings ( To the tune of Shake Your Bootie) .wav by user802527705 #np on #SoundCloud
June 7, 2016
I enjoyed Roger Stone’s appearances on Alex Jones youtube channel till I saw a campaign poster for the late DEMOCRATIC and known KKK member Sen Byrd . Ask yourself, why on Earth would he have that on display unless he supported Byrd’s views (and son who was also racist) . I’m concluding that Roger Stone is a white supremacist and possibly the same regarding Alex Jones as they are acting like pals now. I don’t think Donald Trump is racist as there is no overwhelming evidence of it as there is w/ Stone .
May 9, 2016
While I’ve been skeptical of the whole Zika virus scare for awhile, major red flags came up when I read about a pregnant teen from South America living in CT with the virus and trying to raise money via Go Fund Me.
So here we have a South American girl living in CT, the land of False Flags and using an org that is now Dan Pfeiffer’ s (Obama’s former top advisor) employer, to raise money.
I thinks its a gov false flag to create fear and money
Stay tuned for more!
Falling asleep ….
May 3, 2016
From Forbes Magazine by Alex Epstein :
‘97% Of Climate Scientists Agree’ Is 100% Wrong!!
If you’ve ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you’ve probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?
The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual–and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.
Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.
1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?
Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like “climate change is real.”
Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn’t use fossil fuels?
What you’ll find is that people don’t want to define what 97% agree on–because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.
It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.
If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.
Sources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice-Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels–which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.
Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2010); Bolt and van Zanden (2013); World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014
Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.
On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.
This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.
John Kerry pulled the same stunt when trying to tell the underdeveloped world that it should use fewer fossil fuels:
And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse.
In Kerry’s mind, 97% of climate scientists said whatever Kerry wants them to have said.
Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.
But it gets even worse. Because it turns out that 97% didn’t even say that.
Which brings us to the next question:
2. How do we know the 97% agree?
To elaborate, how was that proven?
Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.
Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.
One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.
Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”
This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.
But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
It’s time to revoke that license.
Alex Epstein is founder of the Center for Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.
April 29, 2016
From UN.org :
Symposium on Hate Speech in the Media, organized by the UN Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC). Pictured l to r: Cristina Gallach, UN Under-Secretary-General for Communications & Public Information; Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, UN High Representative to the Alliance of Civilizations; and Jean-Paul Laborde, Exec. Director, Counter-Terrorism Executive
2 December 2015 – The United Nations today launched a campaign against hate speech, with senior officials calling for a global mobilization of citizens as foot soldiers in the battle to uproot a scourge that seeks to unleash a clash of civilizations in the name of religion.
“Hate speech has been with us for a long time,” UN Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information Cristina Gallach told a symposium on the issue at UN Headquarters in New York, urging citizens worldwide who come across hate speech on social media to forcefully counter it.
“We will never forget the slaughter of over 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus during a brief three month period in Rwanda in 1994. We will never forget either the six million Jews plus five million others who perished because of one hateful vision,” she said.
“Today, however, more than ever, individuals are using hate speech to foment clashes between civilizations in the name of religion. Their goal is to radicalize young boys and girls, to get them to see the world in black and white, good versus evil, and get them to embrace a path of violence as the only way forward.”
Both Ms. Gallach and Nassir Abdulaziz Al–Nasser, High Representative for the UN Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC), the symposium’s host, stressed that the “loudspeakers for hate” have been amplified exponentially with the explosion of new means of communication beyond the traditional media, with Facebook and Twitter providing immediate worldwide access.
“We have a big problem on our hands,” Ms. Gallach said. “The world has witnessed this very recently in Paris, where, at last count, 130 people have died at the hands of nine young men who heeded the [Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL] call for violence and succumbed to hate speech.”
She called for passage and enforcement of laws prohibiting incitement of hatred or violence, and the use of communications to establish a counter-message.
“We must monitor social media and quickly respond to hate speech,” Ms. Gallach stressed. “Of course, in an age when Facebook has over 1.5 billion monthly active users, or Twitter has over 300 million users, monitoring might be almost an impossible task, but we can achieve this with the involvement of citizens of the world, who are going to be our crucial partners in combatting hate speech.”
Underscoring that the battle is a collective responsibility, not only for Member States, but for everyone, including the media, she highlighted corporations as crucial partners with the task of deleting content inciting violence or hatred.
Mr. Al-Nasser also noted the role played by new media. “We see how radical groups have hijacked these new media platforms and used [them] as an advocacy tool for their extremist ideologies, and inciting violence and hatred,” he said.
“In doing so, they have assaulted not only individuals, but also global values representing the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On the other hand, we see those who also use information technology to re-inforce stereotypes, stigmatization and demonization against certain race, faith, or sexual orientation.
“That being said, our next goal should be winning the battle of ideas,” he stressed, citing the use of hate speech against migrants and minority communities blaming them for a nation’s problems.
Today’s symposium was the first of a series on Tracking Hatred that UNAOC will be hosting to identify best practices by engaging global media and journalists, especially those who well positioned to investigate xenophobia, violent extremism and prejudice.
The next symposium will be held in Baku, Azerbaijan, in April.
April 22, 2016
As you know, my dear people, the last year for me has been awful. The Royal House of Clinton has been tormented by questions about our handling of finances and subjected to tiresome questions about the events in Benghazi – in the furthest regions of our empire. And, sadly, also questions about my Royal e-mails.
Nevertheless, I will not be daunted in my desire and commitment to serve you, the people. For the next eleven months I will be traveling among you as one of you, to listen to your deepest longings and needs. I will be with you in your Wal-Marts and beside you in your Burger Kings. I will drive with you down the busy interstate highways of our land, sharing your poverty and needs.
How well I remember the days when the Duke of Arkansas and I were impoverished. After we were expelled from our Washington Palace we hardly had two mansions to rub together. We were so poor that we removed thousands of dollars of china, flatware, carpets and gifts from the Washington Palace just to survive. Shockingly, unscrupulous and ungrateful officials later forced us to return many of these treasures. Now, happily, benefactors from around our empire have given us just enough for us to scrape by.
During these difficult times, we had to cut back. When our daughter was married, we only had three million dollars to spend on her wedding. And, I remember our hopes, as she moved into her $10 million Manhattan apartment, that one day she would be able to move on from that humble abode to something more fitting. After working for MSNBC for a starting salary of a mere $600,000 per year, what else could she do? So I now pay her $3,000,000 a year to run the ‘Foundation’.
So, as I travel across our kingdom to meet you all, I will be listening and sharing with you. Then, when the time for the royal election (Coronation) comes, I know I can count on you to crown me as your rightful monarch, with my assurance that I will continue King Obama’s policies, and we can all live happily ever after.
Hilarity Rodham Clinton