Skip to content

Diversity not so beautiful in Elizabeth, NJ — Refugee Resettlement Watch

The Leftist Open Borders activists and the Refugee Resettlement contractors continue to promote the naive concept that all immigrants they shove together in neighborhoods throughout American towns and cities love each other and are eager for the mixing of cultures they are told happens in the mythical American melting pot. It is a big lie […]

via Diversity not so beautiful in Elizabeth, NJ — Refugee Resettlement Watch

“the Laws of Nature and the substance of what is right and good – has received the name Reason”

Nevertheless… If you can tell a big enough lie for long enough people will begin to believe it is the truth.

Unsettled Science: A War on Global Warming?

Anthropomorphic Global Warming, conveniently renamed “Climate Change,” reveals itself in nothing short of pushing political agendas in order to perpetuate the most heinous form of cronyism. So, suspend for a moment, all of the government and media propaganda and do some research for yourself.

Consider, how much would a personal ‘household’ sustainable solar/wind network system cost? per month? per year? Will it be dependable? How long will it take to install? How much will it cost, and how long before you get an actual return on your investment in such a system? Will it be months, years, or decades? How long would such a system actually last before it needed to be upgraded, repaired or fully replaced? What would be the added cost to insure such a system?

Now, let’s take a look at “Climate Change.” What science has been settled exactly? Doesn’t climate historically change, seasonally, and cyclically, and further depends on uncontrollable short and long-term environmental events, (e.g, solar events, and levels of volcanic activity, etc.)?

Certainly industry does pollute the planet, but moving it from one location or one type to another logically does very little to correct the problem. Why isn’t a ‘high tech’ solution being applied to vastly improve, and modernize existing energy infrastructures or redesign and construct them for optimum performance? Is it lack of technical capability? Or is it just not ideologically feasible, at the moment, or when it comes down to replenishing both political coffers and power structures. (For example, see: Obama Admin Sues Peter Thiel’s Palantir for Bogus ‘Racial Discrimination’)

How about Wind and Solar “sustainable” systems? How much do they actually cost to install and maintain? Why do these “business models’ fail so miserably without any government (i.e. taxpayer) subsidies? (See: List of Failed – Green Energy & Solar Companies in the Billions) What is the actual “return on investment” for ‘preferred’ residential-based systems, or for that matter, industry level infrastructures, (many of which, at present are being poorly maintained)?

In theory the concept of these systems are commendable, in reality they have not been economically feasible due to various reasons. Specifically politically and regulatory.  Off-grid lifestyles may be nice, but are they feasible for the average household? What has governmental regulation and an agenda-driven push to eliminate affordable energy and replace it with something else really done to reduce the actual consumer cost of energy, just in say, the last ten years or so? What has been the overall impact of relentless efforts and regulations aimed at crushing the oil and gas industry and waging war on the coal industry? Consider also, the hidden costs of producing and using ethanol and other synfuels (See: The Trouble with Tier 3 , and  EPA Finalizes Tier 3 Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Standards .)

Certainly we have observed and are now experiencing such conditions as they apply to those inconvenient issues and problems that are occurring with ‘clean energy‘, like nuclear power systems which are coming up on, or have in some cases exceeded the half a century mark in operation. Also, not forgetting the ‘environmentally friendly‘ waste disposal problem (See: Nuclear Waste Storage Sites in Rock Salt May be More Vulnerable Than Previously Thought.) Indeed, the same type of philosophy, agenda and propaganda was used to give humanity, the next best thing ever.

Whatever your belief in Global Warming, now known as “Climate Change,” consider if it is based more on propaganda, policy-driven testimonials,  the The Forer (Barnum) Effect, and mass media hype than on valid, repeatable scientific study.

The Barnum effect is named after P.T. Barnum, the showman who declared “there¹s a sucker born every minute.” He found many ways to separate “suckers”, as he called gullible people, from their money. In psychology it refers to the gullibility of people when reading descriptions of themselves.

Perhaps this is just another form of economic vampirism as it seeks to feed off of the ideologies of gullible people in what is now called, global climate change.

The truth is out there.”  (We simply need to be brave enough to discover it and use it for our survival.)

Biological Health Hazard – Zika virus infection: Saint Kitts and Nevis – Travel Advisory

Zika on Saint Kitts and Nevis: CDC issues travel notice


SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS. Image: Central Intelligence Agency Web site, public domain

Local mosquito transmission of Zika virus infection has been reported in Saint Kitts and Nevis, the two-island country in the West Indies.

Local mosquito transmission means that mosquitoes in the area are infected with Zika virus and are spreading it to people.

Because Zika virus is primarily spread by mosquitoes, CDC recommends that travelers to Saint Kitts and Nevis protect themselves from mosquito bites.

Mosquitoes that spread Zika bite during the day and night. There is no vaccine or medicine for Zika virus.

Some people who are infected do not have any symptoms. People who do have symptoms have reported fever, rash, joint pain, and red eyes. The sickness is usually mild with symptoms that last from several days to a week.

Sexual transmission of Zika virus is also possible, so travelers are encouraged to use condoms (or other barriers to prevent infection) or not have sex.

Until more is known, CDC continues to recommend that pregnant women and women trying to become pregnant should not travel to any area with Zika.

If you must travel to or live in one of these areas, talk to your healthcare provider first and strictly follow steps to prevent mosquito bites.

Even if they do not feel sick, travelers returning to the United States from Saint Kitts and Nevis should take steps to prevent mosquito bites for 3 weeks so that they do not spread Zika to uninfected mosquitoes.

Travelers returning from Saint Kitts and Nevis who have a pregnant partner should either use condoms or not have sex for the rest of the pregnancy.

People who have traveled to Saint Kitts and Nevis should use condoms for at least 8 weeks after travel to protect their sex partners. Men who have Zika symptoms or are diagnosed with Zika should use condoms for at least 6 months after symptoms start; women with symptoms should use condoms for at least 8 weeks after symptoms start.

Travelers who are thinking about pregnancy should talk with their health care provider. Men who have traveled to Saint Kitts and Nevis should wait at least 8 weeks after travel before trying to conceive or at least 6 months after symptoms start if they develop symptoms of Zika. Women who have traveled to Saint Kitts and Nevis should wait at least 8 weeks after travel before trying to get pregnant, or at least 8 weeks after symptoms start if they develop symptoms.


Florida local Zika transmission tally tops 100
Zika vaccine: Sanofi Pasteur awarded $43 million to develop an inactivated vaccine
Sepsis: Spreading the word about this medical emergency

26 September 2016
Outbreak News Today

See Also

PAHO/WHO Zika Epidemiological Update – Zika virus – Incidence and trends

PRO/EDR> Zika virus (51): Americas, PAHO/WHO
Archive Number: 20160923.4511356

Bread and Circuses: Pavlovian Theater of illusion

Tonight’s Debate: Watch the Staging

26 September 2016

(Waking Times) Watch how tonight’s Trump-Hillary debate is set up.

Are the two podiums the same size? No? Who has the bigger podium?

Is the lighting even, or are there shadows? Where do the shadows fall?

Is there blue color in the background, which exudes a “calming effect?”

How is the moderator, Lester Holt, lit? Is he spotlighted, haloed, to impart the sense that he’s the ultimate authority in the room?

What about camera angles on the two candidates? Are they receiving the same coverage, or is one more prominent? Are there close-ups?

Will cameras impart a sense of distance, in order to reduce dramatic effect and give the impression that the whole event is somewhat monotonous?

Will the audience be allowed to applaud and boo, or will Lester Holt control that?

To what degree will the candidates be allowed to wander off-topic? Will the reins be tight or loose?

How much time will each candidate be given to make statements? Will either or both of them be pinched, so they can’t say anything of substance?

Ah yes, substance. Context. Network news is famous for thin context:

The news is all about artificially manipulating the context of stories. The thinner the context, the thinner the mind must become to accept it. If you want to visualize this, imagine a rectangular solid. The news covers the top surface. Therefore, the mind is trained to work in only two dimensions. Then it can’t fathom depth, and it certainly can’t appreciate the fact that the whole rectangular solid moves through time…

Let’s consider some general background on the news:

The network evening news. This is where the staging is done well.

First, we have the image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style. The overall effect: hypnotic, yet stimulating.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as well be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the (thin) context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they’re not. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a hundred are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition, and this trend has jumped quickly since the recent school-shooting tragedy…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? I don’t need a gun. The police have guns.”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned nothing. But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of (false) continuity.

It would never occur to him to wonder: are the squabbling political legislators really two branches of the same Party? Does government have the Constitutional right to incur this much debt? Where is all that money coming from? Taxes? Other sources? Who invents money?

Is the flu dangerous for most people? If not, why not? Do governments overstate case numbers? How do they actually test patients for the flu? Are the tests accurate? Are they just trying to convince us to get vaccines?

What happens when the government has overwhelming force and citizens have no guns?

When researchers keep saying “may” and “could,” does that mean they’ve actually discovered something useful about autism, or are they just hyping their own work and trying to get funding for their next project?

These are only a few of the many questions the typical viewer never considers.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context thin—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this staging is: small viewer, small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

The average viewer, having been entrained through years of watching the news, is going to come to tonight’s Presidential debate ready for thin context and no depth.

That’s the subconscious expectation.

Can this expectation be reversed in 90 minutes, regardless of what either candidate says?

And if either candidate suddenly punches a hole in that expectation, will the average viewer welcome it, or will he feel shocked and disturbed by the intrusion? Will he resent it?

Or to put it another way, which candidate more closely resembles a network news anchor—the familiar words, the familiar generalities, the thin context.

The networks that will broadcast the debate consider it a media/news event.

They will try to keep it within that space.

They think they own that space, which includes the viewer’s mind.

[Byline Jon Rappoport]

26 September 2016
Waking Times


It’s about illusional influence

illusion |iˈloō zh ən|
a false idea or belief ; a deceptive appearance or impression; a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses

1.  he had destroyed her illusions: delusion, misapprehension, misconception, false impression; fantasy, fancy, dream, chimera; fool’s paradise, self-deception.
2.  the lighting increases the illusion of depth: appearance, impression, semblance; misperception, false appearance; rare simulacrum.
3.  it’s just an illusion: mirage, hallucination, apparition, figment of the imagination, trick of the light, trompe l’oeil; deception, trick, smoke and mirrors.

See Also

Guided imagery

The hard facts of experience

“…You can look up any dictionary definition of martial law you like, but living under such oppression first hand is as good of an explanation as you can get: absolute arbitrary rule by the government with a gun potentially pointed at you at all times, food used against you as a weapon, and being under surveillance at any or all times…”

— Paylie Roberts, Memories of Poland – Lessons From Growing Up Under Communism

h/t Western Rifle Shooters Association

Reality America continues to unveil it’s first hoodlum president

Obama: once out of office, I’m gonna stop being polite and start getting real

“Recent ex-presidents have avoided controversy. But Obama suggests he’ll embrace it.
(Much the same as he has done while in office.)

“The science is settled” ???

See Also

Leadership Personality Disorder: Malignant Narcissism, Hubris seeking relevance

A sample of the 14 symptoms of hubris syndrome identified by Owen and Davidson include:

  1. Using power for self-glorification;
  2. An almost obsessive focus on personal image;
  3. Excessive self-confidence, accompanied by contempt for advice or criticism of others;
  4. Loss of contact with reality;
  5. Speaking as a messiah;
  6. Reckless and impulsive actions; and
  7. Hubristic incompetence where supreme overconfidence leads to inattention to details.

Hubris syndrome can be related to a number of illnesses, from bipolar disorder and anxiety disorder to alcoholic and drug abuse. Hubristic leaders will deny that they are hubristic, which impedes diagnosis of the problems… Related illnesses such as bipolar disorder, drug addiction, or alcoholism can be red flags for hubris syndrome.

Other symptoms include — conflating yourself with the organization; using the royal ‘we’; believing that a higher court (perhaps God or Allah) will vindicate you; restlessness, recklessness and impulsiveness; and a righteousness that ignores practicalities or cost — are unique to the hubris syndrome.


If you don’t know me by nowI’m (still) your puppet

Making us defenseless makes us safer (or something)

“Guns can only be “banned” when they are confiscated from their lawful owners.”

Hillary tells retirees she will fight terror with gun control

Ahead of November’s presidential election, the AARP has provided on its website a voter guide featuring responses by both major candidates to a range of issue-based questions.

One inquiry that resulted in stark policy differences between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump dealt with their respective plans to deal with terrorism.

While Clinton paid lip service to what she called a “comprehensive plan” to target terror groups operating around the world and recruiting online, her answer soon morphed into her effort to address “violence broadly,” notably by making it harder for Americans to exercise their Second Amendment right.

“It’s also why I’ve advocated gun-safety reform,” Clinton said, “like comprehensive background checks, closing the gun-show loophole, closing the online loophole — because, you know, it’s not only terrorists we need to be worried about.”

In contrast, Trump offered an answer that, whatever one might think of his policy proposals, actually addressed the issue at hand.

“The only way to truly defeat Islamic terrorism is to call it by its name and identify it as a military and ideological foe,” he asserted.

The brash billionaire’s plan, he continued, includes a domestic focus on increased vetting of potential foreign visitors and a refusal to issue admit refugees and others “from regions of the world where proper vetting cannot occur and which are at a high risk for terrorism.”

He also advocated the use of “overwhelming force” to cut down terror organization operating around the world.

Posted on 23 September 2016
The Extract


More obvious is the fact that America has a cartel of criminals for president and in congress, whom not only encourage thugs, but treats them like heroes while spitting on law abiding citizens, law enforcement personnel and military veterans, as they lecture the rest of American’s patriotic citizens on gun control, most all of which they readily classifies as extremists.


Martin O’Malley semantically masturbates while calling for gun confiscation by executive order if Congress doesn’t act

The Gun Control Debate Requires No Statistics