FP is starting a new interactive Q&A series with a bang. Like a bang in the sky followed by electronic silence. Here’s Scott Hughes on EMP, facts and protections:
Well, it’s not a flying car. It’s a motorcycle. Prototype. Concept. Test. Not just quite ready for the market at this time.
Three years! 2025! Couple of decades. 23rd Century….
Whatever.
Kitty Hawk.
Nice concept. However, I think 8 feet above water might be about right. As built, or as looks, this thing could have no glide factor. If the engine dies, pilot/rider dies. And obviously not suited for Class A cruising.
Anywho, plenty of YEARS to work that out, Buck Rogers.
People can no longer think or reason. There seems to be no rational component in their brain, just emotion set into action by fuse-lighting words.
Here is an example hot off the press. This month in Cobb County, Georgia, a car was pulled over for driving under the influence of alcohol. The white police lieutenant requested the ID of a white woman. She replied that she is afraid to reach into her purse for her license, because she has read many stories of people being shot because police officers conclude that they are reaching for a gun. Instead of tasering the woman for non-compliance, yanking her out of the car, and body slamming her, the lieutenant diffused the situation by making light of her concern. “We only shoot black people, you know.” This is what a person would conclude from the news, because seldom is a big stink made when the police shoot a white person.
The upshot of the story is that the lieutenant’s words were recorded on his recorder and when they were entered as part of the incident report, the chief of police announced that the lieutenant was guilty of “racial insensitivity” and would be fired for the offense.
Now think about this. A little reasoning is necessary. How are the words racially insensitive when no black persons were present? How are the words racially insensitive when the lieutenant said exactly what blacks themselves say? And now the clincher: Which is the real insensitivity, saying “we only shoot black people” or actually shooting black people? How is it possible that the officer who uses “racially insensitive” words to diffuse a situation is more worthy of punishment that an officer who actually shoots a black person? Seldom is an officer who has shot a black, white, hispanic, Asian, child, grandmother, cripple, or the family dog ever fired. The usual “investigation” clears the officer on the grounds that he had grounds to fear his life was in danger—precisely the reason the woman didn’t want to reach into her purse.
For a person who tries to tell the truth, writing is a frustrating and discouraging experience. What is the point of writing for people who cannot read, who cannot follow a logical argument because their limited mental capabilities are entirely based in emotion, who have no idea of the consequence of a population imbued with hate that destroys a nation in divisiveness?
I ask myself this question every time I write a column.
I ponder similar questions. Writing or expressing anything other that pop trash nonsense is tiring. Still, we try.
It’s really easy. Perrin’s First Law of Terrorism: Terror suspects are ALWAYS known to authorities in advance. Always.
For example: The London Tube Bombing Case: Arrestee No. 1, an 18-year-old “refugee” and foster “child,” was arrested (and released) at the same train station only two weeks ago.
The first suspect is from Iraq, the second from Syria.
The process goes something like this, overall: Western nation invades or meddles in foreign country. Foreigners are angered by this. Western nation foolishly allows mass migration of angry foreigners into Western nation. Western nation puts up displaced angry (fighting-age male) foreigners in foster homes. Displaced angry fighting-age male foreigner fosterlings bomb local subway train. Repeat process until Western nation is dead.
Meddling there + importing here = suicide.
Always.
For only Two Pounds a day you can help a needy child like this hospitalize thirty or so of your countrymen. Facebook/Mirror.
A woman was reportedly severely burned in an explosion at Parsons Green underground station in west London that is being treated as a terrorist incident.
BBC presenter Sophie Raworth, who was on the packed commuter train heading into central London said she saw a woman taken to ambulance with burns “from top to toe”.
Witnesses described a loud bang, followed by flames and a “fireball” that erupted in the District Line Tube carriage at about 8.20am today.
The packed commuter train also had many children on board, travelling to school.
Several passengers were injured in the explosion, and witnesses said there were scenes of panic as people struggled to escape the carriage, “collapsing and pushing” each other.
Images of the aftermath of the incident appear to show a bucket with wires trailing from it smouldering inside the carriage, near doors.
Before we get to my Terrorism Template in use, word comes that the suspect has been identified from CCTV footage. He is already known to authorities somewhere because Perrin’s First Law of Terrorism.
Other than the use of a primarily incendiary bomb, this story unfolded like most. What caught my eye this time comes from deeper down in the Template, the reactionary part after the main event is over. Note:
In [Other Country A (probably America or Great Britain)] [Idiot President or Prime Minister X] declared, “[stupid quote]”. [Insert additional stupid quote if politician X calls for bombing or other military action in unrelated county B – also insert podium pounding picture of serious looking idiot or map of country B]. The shocked attention of the world is now turned towards the people of [city].
Today, “Other Country A” is indeed America. Here, this morning “Politician X” Trump did call for action in or against unrelated countries. In fairness, Trump first decried the actual attack and offered sympathy and assistance to Great Britain. Then he said it was time to “get nasty” and touted his immigration ban affecting six Muslim countries.
This is a stretch, and barely fits, in that the ban is not necessarily military action. And it is related to defense in the wider war on the West. But it usually comes conjoined with additional actions in already failed missions – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc.
The burning bucket. Evening Express.
This and more I briefly covered in today’s commentary for Prepper News Weekly:
Former President Jimmy Carter offered a damning indictment of U.S. foreign policy and domestic affairs Tuesday, saying money in politics makes the nation more like an “oligarchy than a democracy” and casting President Donald Trump as a disappointment on the world stage.
Carter’s criticisms, offered at his annual presentation to backers of his post-presidency Carter Center in Atlanta, went beyond Trump, but he was particularly critical of the nation’s direction under the Republican president’s leadership.
The 39th president, a Democrat, offered this advice to the 45th: “Keep the peace, promote human rights and tell the truth.”
Carter’s insisting on peace, human rights, and truth shows just how long he’s been away from Washington. It’s as bad as Rand ranting about the Constitution and the Senate actually doing its job. Sad.
Were my debt-trimentalplan from the previous post enacted and followed, there would theoretically be money for everything under the sun: Universal Healthcare; universal income; welfare unending; chickens on pot; a starship to get me to a saner planet, and; funding for wars the world over.
As is the wars (and all that other spending) are bankrupting the country. There are also funny, lingering Constitutional issues, holdovers from when the Old Parchment meant something.
Rand Paul is about the only man left in D.C. who still throws around the “C” word, the dirtiest 12 letters in the English language. Today he again pushed the antiquated idea of Congress, not the White House, declaring war:
The Senate on Wednesday rejected a bipartisan push for a new war authorization against the Islamic State and other terrorist groups, electing to let the White House rely on a 16-year-old law passed after the Sept. 11 attacks as the legal basis to send U.S. troops into combat.
Senators voted 61-36 scuttle an amendment to the annual defense policy bill by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., that would have allowed war authorizations, created in the wake of al-Qaida’s 9/11 strikes, to lapse after six months. Paul, a leader of the GOP’s noninterventionist wing, said Congress would use the time to debate an updated war authority for operations in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere before the old ones expired.
Paul criticized his colleagues ahead of the vote, urging them to embrace their war-making responsibility instead of surrendering their power to the White House. He and senators who backed his amendment said former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump have used the war authorizations from 2001 and 2002 for military operations in countries that Congress never voted to support.
“We are supposed to be a voice that debates and says, ‘Should we go to war?’ It’s part of doing our job,” Paul said. “It’s about grabbing power back and saying this is a Senate prerogative.”
Debates? Doing their job? The Constitution? Such craziness.
All know that the purpose of the Senate is to collude with assist the House with cobbling together “budgets” for the spending of money we don’t have. The wise executive apparatchiks handle the details – “healthcare” for the kiddies, billion$ for banks, and wars without end.
And the wars are really going so well. Rand is in an irrational dizzy about Afghanistan. Why? We’re having so much fun there, we’ve made it a multi-decade party.
Then, there’s the … whatever kind of meddling it is … in Syria. A Christian Bishop from Syria (yes Alabama, there are and have been Christians in the Middle East) explains the sheer brilliance of U.S. policy in his country:
acma2000/YouTube.
The man seems a little distressed about something. Calm down, Padre. They’re raising the debt ceiling!
And, you. You keep a votin’ for all this. Doing such a swell job.
Barring a return to the majority of our history, income tax-free, a tax cut (any tax cut) still sounds good.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Tuesday the Trump administration is considering backdating tax reform to the start of this year to boost the economy.
Backdating “is still something we are considering and it would be a big boon for the economy,” he said at the Delivering Alpha conference presented by CNBC and Institutional Investor.
Republicans aim to overhaul the American tax code but have faced various hurdles in their goal of passing a tax reform bill this year. Congress and the White House have not yet released a plan but are working this month to prepare legislation. Mnuchin heads to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to discuss tax policy with GOP congressional leaders, the latest in a series of meetings.
Earlier Tuesday, Mnuchin insisted that a tax overhaul would happen this year.
“We’re going to get this done by the end of the year,” Mnuchin told CNBC, adding that the administration is “super focused” on the goal following the three-month debt limit and government funding extension passed last week.
The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing on Thursday on individual tax reform. Sen. Orrin Hatch, the committee’s chairman and one of the six primary tax negotiators, said he expects to share the plan with other lawmakers after that and other hearings.
President Donald Trump urged lawmakers last week to push forward with tax legislation “ASAP,” telling them not to wait until the end of September. Tax reform is one of the key planks of the agenda he pitched as a candidate, and he has made two recent speeches touting the benefits of changes to the tax system without offering new details.
Great. I think the biggest of those various GOP hurdles this year has been the hurdle of the GOP itself. Maybe Trump should enlist the Dems’ help. Whatever works.
I like my idea the best – big government proponents should too. By killing the 16A, the entire tax code, and the IRS, no money will be lost at all. In fact, we may be approaching the magical point of unlimited (free) government budgets! This is because Congress will soon remove any pretense of a debt “ceiling.” The whole bunch (D’s and R’s and the President) call for essentially endless and limitless debt.
And why not? Why not fund the government completely with IOUs? They’re never going to be repaid anyway. It makes perverse sense. Everyone, every single big government lover of any stripe, could get his pet project funded to the moon. And everyone else would keep their cash!
No … that game would not last forever. None does.
Okay, okay. Cut this year. Repeal next year. Forever never comes.
First, median incomes in 2016 set an all time record. Rather, they beat out (or caught up to) those from 1999. Hooray! We’ve only lost two decades of growth. And incomes, recall, are usually the last thing to catch up – before a new correction.
One of the first things to go up and one which goes up fastest … is new government debt. See: the Instantaneous manufacture of $317,645,000,000 worth of new debt in one day! It’s a miracle! Thanks to Congress and the Prez. for the temporary spending boost on the way to infinite and perpetual indebtedness.
For the latter story you can thank the government and their pet, the Federal Reserve. The Fed was one of three marvels foisted on the formerly free people in 1913.
Speaking of foisting – yesterday was the 16th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. I was a little busy and, therefore, this will likely be my only remembrance note this year. (Unlike last year – see Sept. 2016 archives).
Just in time for the anniversary, engineering expert Dr. Leroy Hulsey and his research team released a study of the collapse of WTC Tower 7. It’s kind of part one of the study anyway. He (they) have some questions about the official narrative.
You may recall that the ninth plane (from Toronto) hit WTC 7. The impact and resulting conflagration caused substantial weakening of the steel frame inside the tower (much like WTC 1 and 2), which caused a complete (and VERY neat and self-contained) collapse.
I completely made that last paragraph up. No plane hit No. 7. There was only a small, office-material-fueled fire (with temperatures insufficient to melt or weaken steel). And the fire almost burned out long before the collapse – maybe around the time the media was parroting that the tower had collapsed, even as it stood in the background of their live broadcasts.
Not many believe the “official” story about No. 7 or anything else that day, not even members of the Commission impaneled to investigate it. This study sheds a little light with more to come. See if you will.
You must be logged in to post a comment.