Disaster Interesting clickbait, op-eds, fluff pieces and other smaller stories -

  • I am killing the Proving Grounds board in a week, unless someone has an idea to make it work. (Thread) (Update 1)

What should the prefix to this thread be?

  • World

    Votes: 107 17.1%
  • Science

    Votes: 19 3.0%
  • Culture

    Votes: 131 20.9%
  • Disaster

    Votes: 369 58.9%

  • Total voters


True & Honest Fan
The Surf Mommy says the US Government is hiding the truth about 9-11. I believe it would be fun to take the Surf Mommy out, and even more fun to hit all three of her holes, but I don't believe she is correct on this.

Tulsi Gabbard: U.S. Government ‘Is Hiding The Truth’ About 9/11 Terror Attacks
By Ryan Saavedra
Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) speaks during a press conference at the 9/11 Tribute Museum in Lower Manhattan on October 29, 2019 in New York City. Gabbard called for the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI declassify and release 9/11 investigative documents that she claims would implicate the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard said during a Fox News interview on Thursday night that the United States government is “hiding the truth” about the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Gabbard, a Representative from Hawaii, told Tucker Carlson that she believes that the U.S. government is covering up Saudi Arabia’s role in the attacks which killed thousands of Americans.

00:06 / 00:15

“This story that we’re hearing from the families of those who were killed on 9/11 pushes this issue to the forefront where, for so long, leaders in our government have said, ‘well, Saudi Arabia is our great ally, they’re a partner in counterterrorism’ — turning a blind eye or completely walking away from the reality that Saudi Arabia time and again, has proven to be the opposite,” Gabbard said.

“They’re undermining our national security interests … they are the number one exporter of this Wahhabi extremist ideology,” Gabbard continued. “They’re a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists, like al Qaeda and ISIS around the world. They’re directly providing arms and assistance to al Qaeda, in places like Yemen, and in Syria.”

“And as we are seeing here, it is our government, our own government that is hiding the truth … and the many other families of those who were killed on 9/11,” Gabbard concluded. “For what? Where do the loyalties really lie?”
Gabbard concluded her remarks by saying that people should “follow the money trail. It goes back to the military-industrial complex.”

In a 2016 article in Politico Magazine, Zalmay Khalilzad — a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations — wrote:
On my most recent trip to Saudi Arabia, I was greeted with a startling confession. In the past, when we raised the issue of funding Islamic extremists with the Saudis, all we got were denials. This time, in the course of meetings with King Salman, Crown Prince Nayef, Deputy Crown Mohammad Bin Salman and several ministers, one top Saudi official admitted to me, “We misled you.” He explained that Saudi support for Islamic extremism started in the early 1960s as a counter to Nasserism—the socialist political ideology that came out of the thinking of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser—which threatened Saudi Arabia and led to war between the two countries along the Yemen border. This tactic allowed them to successfully contain Nasserism, and the Saudis concluded that Islamism could be a powerful tool with broader utility.
Under their new and unprecedented policy of honesty, the Saudi leadership also explained to me that their support for extremism was a way of resisting the Soviet Union, often in cooperation with the United States, in places like Afghanistan in the 1980s. In this application too, they argued, it proved successful. Later it was deployed against Iranian-supported Shiite movements in the geopolitical competition between the two countries.
But over time, the Saudis say, their support for extremism turned on them, metastasizing into a serious threat to the Kingdom and to the West. They had created a monster that had begun to devour them. “We did not own up to it after 9/11 because we feared you would abandon or treat us as the enemy,” the Saudi senior official conceded. “And we were in denial.”

Tulsi Gabbard



Families who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks want the truth, and they deserve the truth. Join me in demanding all information regarding Saudi involvement in 9/11 attack: http://tulsi.to/911

Embedded video


6:07 AM - Nov 1, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

2,535 people are talking about this



True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard said during a Fox News interview on Thursday night that the United States government is “hiding the truth” about the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Gabbard, a Representative from Hawaii, told Tucker Carlson that she believes that the U.S. government is covering up Saudi Arabia’s role in the attacks which killed thousands of Americans.
Oh, good. I thought this was going to be some truther bullshit and not well documented fact. Since 2001 everyone including Congress has soft-pedaled Saudi Arabia's huge role in 9/11, even censoring the 9/11 report for years.


Smaug's Smokey Hole

the black goat of yule
CLICKBAIIIIT! I have no idea what is going on with the prequels or what they are supposed to be but how could they repeat the same mistakes as the last seasons when they haven't done anything yet? What is going... "There’s no way that HBO is blind to the horrible optics regarding diversity on every level of the original “Game of Thrones” series." - oh of course it's that, how could it ever be something else.

Don't read the article.

‘House of the Dragon’ Is Already Repeating the Same Mistakes as ‘Game of Thrones’

It seems unthinkable that HBO’s “Game of Thrones” could spend another week dominating news headlines more than five months after airing its series finale, but here we are.

Recent days saw the fantasy series making and breaking news left and right, from a controversial panel featuring creators D. B. Weiss and David Benioff, to the pair stepping away from their deal to make a “Star Wars” trilogy, to HBO cancelling a “Game of Thrones” prequel series, only to announce a series order for a different prequel series hours later.

More from IndieWire

But for as easy (and edifying) as it is to tee off on Benioff and Weiss, it was HBO’s maneuvering regarding the future of the franchise that was ultimately the cause for the most concern.

On the surface, trading one prequel series for the next seems like a straightforward move for the premium cable network. After all, HBO’s president of programming Casey Bloys announced in 2018 that the company had several prequel concepts percolating, so it’s not as though there’s a shortage of “Game of Thrones” content to choose from.

What’s concerning are the early differences between the project that was and the project that will be. On October 29, it was reported that the untitled prequel series starring Naomi Watts and penned by screenwriter Jane Goldman — who was also set to serve as showrunner — had been canceled, despite having already wrapped a pilot — directed by S.J. Clarkson — that Bloys described in July as “amazing” (despite not having seen it). Though little was known about the potential series, HBO had previously stated that it was set 5,000 years before the events of “Game of Thrones” and described it as an examination of Westeros’ “descent from the golden Age of Heroes into its darkest hour.”

Assuming that HBO was ultimately unhappy with the pilot as filmed, it’s unclear whether or not attempts were made to rework the material into something acceptable, a concerning development given the well-recorded shortcomings of Benioff and Weiss when filming the original “Game of Thrones” pilot; the unaired version of which Craig Mazin called “a complete piece of shit.

Mere hours later, HBO announced that it had given a straight-to-series order to “Game of Thrones” prequel series “House of the Dragon,” with Emmy-winning director and GOT alum Miguel Sapochnik directing the pilot and co-showrunning the series with Ryan Condal. With George R.R. Martin and Vince Gerardis serving as executive producers, the new prequel series is based on Martin’s “Fire and Blood” novel, takes place 300 years before the original series, and focuses on the rise of the House of Targaryen, far before the mother of dragons was even a twinkle in her vile father’s eye.

“The ‘Game of Thrones’ universe is so rich with stories,” Bloys said in a statement announcing the news. “We look forward to exploring the origins of House Targaryen and the earlier days of Westeros along with Miguel, Ryan, and George.”

That means that on the same day that news broke about the cancellation of a female-led, female-written, female-directed “Game of Thrones” prequel pilot, HBO announced that it had not only ordered a pilot, but sent a new show directly to series; a prequel which, given the source material, will focus primarily on the Targaryen men, with a creative team consisting entirely of men.

There’s no way that HBO is blind to the horrible optics regarding diversity on every level of the original “Game of Thrones” series. Only one woman, Michelle MacLaren, ever directed on the series, helming four episodes, meaning that six percent of the show’s 73 episodes were directed by women. Only three women ever wrote on the series — Jane Espenson, Vanessa Taylor, and Gursimran Sandhu — adding their contributions to a total of nine episodes.

It makes sense that HBO would be desperate to recapture the magic of a franchise that took the entire world by storm. But forging ahead into the future without making an earnest commitment to make the world of Westeros more inclusive, both behind the scenes and on the page, is an exercise in folly. The magic of “Game of Thrones” didn’t come from men, and to operate in such a fashion suggests that “House of the Dragon” isn’t the only thing at HBO stuck 300 years in the past.


Thank Fuck For Evil Otto

He lived the life of a black man, authentically.
monsters that are visibly different, hold predatory relationships to white women and are unable to peacefully coexist with Western civilisation - all attributes popularly associated with the racial "other"
That is a truism - white women are disproportionately targeted by non-whites, and always have been. Good of Shaheen to recognize those predators as the monsters they are.

Shaheen Nassar is policy analyst at CAIR-Los Angeles. He is an activist and a University of California Riverside graduate with a degree in Ethnic Studies.

lol. I mean, that would be funny if he wasn't a destructive activist working for a subversive institution that despises western society while raping its fruits. A degree in Ethnic Studies though!


᚛ᚂᚐᚋᚆ ᚇᚆᚓᚐᚏᚌ ᚐᚁᚒ᚜
True & Honest Fan
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Mexican_Wizard_711


will definitely consider what you have said
True & Honest Fan
Ronan worked as an intern to Hillary at the State Department for a period.

Then her staff withdrew her cooperation from a book he was writing on US foreign policy through the eyes of every living Sec of State and in the same breath, leaned on him to kill his Weinstein reporting as Weinstein was a close friend and major donor. (This is all in Catch and Kill, which is a most interesting book)

It is most interesting that he has broken cover on the Bill issue.
  • Informative
Reactions: millais


True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
Ronan worked as an intern to Hillary at the State Department for a period.

Then her staff withdrew her cooperation from a book he was writing on US foreign policy through the eyes of every living Sec of State and in the same breath, leaned on him to kill his Weinstein reporting as Weinstein was a close friend and major donor. (This is all in Catch and Kill, which is a most interesting book)

It is most interesting that he has broken cover on the Bill issue.
I believe the guy may be an actual sincere warrior for social justice (not an SJW) who can't be leaned on in that way. I wish him luck. He already has and will piss off some very dangerous people pursuing that path.



A 24-year-old man killed in the California shooting that left 5 dead was there to DJ, his family says
By Christina Maxouris, CNN
Updated 5:54 AM ET, Sun November 3, 2019

(CNN)Omar Taylor was at a Northern California Halloween party hoping to entertain the crowd with music.
The 24-year-old man from Pittsburgh was there to DJ, but instead was shot and killed Thursday at the Orinda party advertised on social media, the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office said. He was one of five people fatally shot.
"To get that call was devastating," Laneisha Epps, Taylor's stepmother told CNN affiliate KGO. "This was a senseless, careless act. It's such a traumatic experience the family is taking on now."
The shooter remains on the run, according to authorities.
The other four victims killed were Oshiana Tompkins, 19; Tiyon Farley, 22; Ramon Hill Jr., 23; Javin County, 29. Three people were pronounced dead at the scene and two died at the hospital, the sheriff's office said.
"Music and DJ'ing was his happiness, I don't even think he was going in thinking there was trouble or anything," Taylor's brother told the affiliate. The party was just another job Taylor took on as a DJ to help support his daughter, the brother said.
Orinda is a suburb east of Berkeley in the Bay Area.
Parties weren't allowed
Officers say after fire rang out, they found a chaotic scene full of "gunshot victims, injured party-goers, and numerous people fleeing the scene."
Two firearms were found in the house and a crime lab is analyzing them to determine whether they were used in the shooting or any other crimes, authorities said.
The home where the shooting happened was an Airbnb that prohibited parties. There were more than 100 people at the event when police arrived.
Airbnb said it was horrified by the tragedy and it's cooperating with the investigation.
Days after the shooting, Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky announced the company would begin cracking down on unauthorized house parties.
"Starting today, we are banning 'party houses' and we are redoubling our efforts to combat unauthorized parties and get rid of abusive host and guest conduct, including conduct that leads to the terrible events we saw in Orinda," Chesky said.
The company will expand "manual screening of high-risk reservations," create a "party house" rapid response team and take action against users who violate the new policies, he said.
  • Feels
Reactions: Smaug's Smokey Hole



Video shows the moment a man was brutally attacked with acid near 13th and Cleveland

By: Cearron Bagenda Facebook | Twitter
Posted: Nov 2, 2019 9:49 AM CDT | Updated: Nov 3, 2019 9:56 AM CDT
NOW: Video shows the moment a man was brutally attacked with acid near 13th and Cleveland

Updated 8:07 a.m. on November 3, 2019
MILWAUKEE (CBS 58) -- Milwaukee Police have taken a 61-year-old man into custody in connection with an aggravated battery that happened near 13th and Cleveland on Friday, Nov. 1.
Mahud Villalaz was left with 2nd degree burns after he says a man doused him with acid just before 8:30 p.m.
"I don't want this guy near my kids, my family or anything like that", said Villalaz.
The family of Villalaz released the following statement:
"We wish to thank Chief Alfonso Morales and all the professionals at the Milwaukee Police Department for their efforts in bringing the attacker to justice. We also wish to thank everyone for their thoughts and prayers during this difficult time.”
Surveillance video captured the moment the attack happened.
"It started burning really bad, I started screaming for help to the restaurant," said Villalaz.

People who live near the scene of the attack say they were shocked after hearing what had happened.
"I've been here for thirty years, I was shocked to hear something like that happened over here," said neighbor, Connie Miller.
"Been around here all my life," said Oscar Huizar, who lives in the area. "Not much has happened like that so this was like a major thing."
Neighbors are relieved to hear the suspect has been arrested.
"I hope they give him what he deserves, because that man did not deserve to have that thrown in his face," adds Miller.
"It makes me feel a lot more safer around here, another dangerous man off the streets you know," says Huizar.
The argument between the men allegedly started because of parking, but it escalated. Villalaz who is Hispanic, says the suspect asked him why he came to the U.S. illegally. Villalaz told the man he's a U.S. citizen.
The attack is a wake-up call for people who live in the area.
"Every day it's getting a little bit harder you know for a Hispanic male around here," said Huizar.
"Be more alert out here, because it's just not the same like it used to be when I was growing up," Miller adds.
Charges will be presented to the District Attorney's Office in the coming days.
A GoFundMe has been set up for the victim. If you'd like to donate, click here.
Stay with CBS 58 News for more information on this developing story.
MILWAUKEE (CBS 58) -- Mahud Villalaz, 42, was left scarred with 2nd degree burns across his face after he says a man doused him with acid.
"I get ready to go inside the restaurant, he throw at me the acid…and I go like this and go on my face."
According to Milwaukee Police, the vicious attack happened Friday just before 8:30 p.m. near 13th and Cleveland on the south side.
Mahud Villalaz by

The two men got into an argument, initially about parking.
The situation escalated. "He started arguing, 'why you come here to invade my country? Why you come here illegally?' Sir, you don’t know my status, I'm a U.S. citizen too," Villalaz said.
According to Villalaz, the man got upset and threw what's believed to be battery acid at him.
"It started burning really bad."
State leaders condemned the attack at a press conference, calling it a hate crime. "I'm angry that a racist was able to live out his beliefs through violence against one of my constituents," said state Rep. Jocasta Zamarripa (D-Milwaukee).
Darryl Morin, president of the organization, Forward Latino, believes it was premeditated. "Because no one walks around with a bottle of acid and hangs out in a predominantly Latino neighborhood for no reason," he said.
Villalaz is trying to make sense of what happened to him.
"My son calls me today,” he said. ‘Daddy what happened to you?’ What I can tell him? Some crazy guy did this to me."
The attack happened in Alderman Jose Perez’s district. He issued a statement calling the attack heinous and said, “This was senseless violence and it needs to stop. We as a community need to come together to work through our differences and learn to respect one another and diffuse conflict."
Police are looking for an unknown suspect.
He's described as a white man, about 6 ft. tall with a medium build. He was last seen wearing a blue winter jacket, black pants and shoes. He was also carrying a black satchel, holding a silver aluminum container with the suspected acid.
Anyone with information should contact authorities.

MILWAUKEE (CBS 58) -- Authorities are investigating after a man was attacked with acid on Friday night, Nov. 1.
It happened near 13th and Cleveland around 8:20 p.m.
According to Milwaukee police, there was a verbal confrontation between the victim and suspect and the suspect threw what is suspected to be battery acid into the face of the victim.

The victim, a 42 year old male, received 2nd degree burns as a result of the acid attack. He is being treated at a local hospital.
The unknown suspect described as a Caucasian male, approximately 6 ft tall with a medium build. He was last seen wearing a blue winter jacket with the hood up, black pants, black shoes, carrying a black satchel on his right side and holding a silver aluminum container containing suspected battery acid with a white shopping bag with unknown lettering.
Police are looking for surveillance that may help in the investigation.


True & Honest Fan
The military-intelligence complex....busily fucking themselves. These retired officers forget they are still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Article 88
Art. 88. Contempt toward officials

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

If these officers believe being retired will save them from UCMJ action, the Supreme Court says, "Guess again!"


Here's another great op-ed by Victor Davis Hanson.

The Military-Intelligence Complex
Many retired high-ranking military officers have gone beyond legitimately articulating why President Trump may be wrong on foreign policy, and now feel free to smear him personally or speak openly of removing their commander-in-chief from office. And the media and the bipartisan foreign-policy establishment are with them every step of the way.

Victor Davis Hanson November 4, 2019

Much has been written about the so-called Resistance of disgruntled Clinton, Obama, and progressive activists who have pledged to stop Donald Trump’s agenda. The choice of the noun “Resistance,” of course, conjures up not mere “opposition,” but is meant to evoke the French “resistance” of World War II—in the melodramatic sense of current loyal progressive patriots doing their best to thwart by almost any means necessary the Nazi-like Trump.

We know from a variety of disinterested watchdog institutions and foundations that the media has offered 90 percent negative coverage of the Trump Administration. CNN in its anti-Trump zeal has ruined its brand by serial fabrications and firings of its marquee biased reporters.

An entire array of CNN journalists and analysts either has resigned, been fired, retired, forced to offer retractions, or been disgraced either for peddling ad hominem crude attacks on Trump, displaying unprofessional behavior, concocting or repeating false stories, engaging in obscene commentary, or being refuted, including but not limited at times to Reza Aslan, Carl Bernstein, Donna Brazile, James Clapper, Marshall Cohen, Candy Crowley, Kathy Griffin, Julie Joffe, Michael Hayden, Suzanne Malveaux, Manu Raju, Jim Sciutto, Julian Zelizer, and teams such as Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Harris, and Gloria Borger, Jake Tapper, and Brian Rokus.

About every month or so, a Hollywood or entertainment personage offers a new assassination scenario of shooting, torching, stabbing, beating, blowing up, caging, or lynching the elected president.

Likewise, the country witnesses about every six weeks a new “turning point,” “bombshell,” “walls are closing in” effort to subvert the Trump presidency. And the list of such futile and fabricated attempts to abort Trump is indeed now quite monotonous: the efforts to sue three states on false charges of tampered voting machines, the attempt to subvert the voting of the Electoral College, the invocation of the ossified Logan Act, the melodramas concerning the emoluments clause and 25th Amendment, the Mueller’s Dream Team and all-star 22-month failed effort to find collusion and obstruction, the personal psychodramas of Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen, Michael Avenatti, and the Trump tax returns, the desperate efforts to tar Trump as a “white supremacist,” followed by cries of “Recession! Recession!,” and now, of course, “Ukraine! Ukraine!”

Perhaps these efforts were best summed up by an anonymous New York Times op-ed writer who on September 5, 2018, outlined how officials within the Trump Administration took it upon themselves in the midst of the Mueller investigation to obstruct and impede the workings of the seemingly oblivious cuckold Trump: “The dilemma—which he [Trump] does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations . . . I would know. I am one of them.”
The Normalization of the Coup?
Yet far more disturbing have been the furor of lame-duck and retired intelligence and military officers.

In unprecedented fashion, some have not just disagreed with the commander in chief, but have declared that he is unfit for office and by implication thus should be obstructed and perhaps even removed. Efforts such as these were recently praised by former acting CIA Director John McLaughlin, who announced to a gathering of former intelligence bureaucrats, “Thank God for the deep state.”

Donald Trump had been in office less than a month when the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. intelligence agencies had decided on their own to withhold information from the recently inaugurated president of the United States: “In some of these cases of withheld information, officials have decided not to show Mr. Trump the sources and methods that the intelligence agencies use to collect information, the current and former officials said.”

What would one call that? Obstruction? A coup? A conspiracy?

Most of the major intelligence heads in the Obama Administration—James Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper—either leaked classified information aimed at harming candidate and then President Trump, later declared him a veritable traitor and Russian asset, or earlier took measures to monitor his campaign or administration’s communications.

In the coming months, the investigations of Michael Horowitz, the inspector general at the Justice Department, and the department’s own criminal investigations by U.S. Attorney John Durham, may well detail one of the most extensive efforts in our history by the American intelligence agencies and their enablers in the executive branch to subvert a campaign, disrupt a presidential transition, and to abort a presidency.

Just 10 days after Trump was inaugurated, Washington insider lawyer Rosa Brooks—a former adviser in the Obama Administration to Assistant Secretary of State Harold Koh and a former special counsel to the president at George Soros’s Open Society Institute—in Foreign Policy offered formal advice about removing Trump in an article titled, “3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020.”

Brooks needed just over a week to conclude that the elected president had to go by means other than an election. After rejecting the first option of the usual constitutional remedy of waiting until the 2020 election (“But after such a catastrophic first week, four years seems like a long time to wait.”), Brooks offered her three fallback strategies to depose Trump:

1) Immediate impeachment. “If impeachment seems like a fine solution to you, the good news is that Congress doesn’t need evidence of actual treason or murder to move forward with an impeachment,” she wrote. “Practically anything can be considered a ‘high crime or misdemeanor.’”). Brooks did not elaborate on what “anything” might be.

2) Declaring Trump mentally unfit under the 25th Amendment. “In these dark days, some around the globe are finding solace in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution,” she wrote. Brooks did not mention that what non-U.S. citizens abroad may feel about removing Trump as mentally unfit is of no constitutional importance. Yet she was also prescient—given the later McCabe-Rosenstein comical aborted palace coup of ridding the country of a supposedly “sick” Trump.

3) A military coup, which Brooks wrote, “is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America.” If not a “coup,” then “at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders.” Notice the cheap praeteritio: claim that such an idea should have been previously “unthinkable” as a means to demonstrate just how thinkable it now should be.

In the months and years that followed, Brooks again proved either vatic or had foreknowledge of the sort of “resistance” that would follow.
So it is now the decision of many ex-intelligence heads and flag officers to change the rules of the game. They will live to rue the ensuing harm to the reputations both of the intelligence services and the military at large.
In early March 2017, Evelyn Farkas, an outgoing Obama-appointed deputy assistant secretary of defense, detailed in a weird revelation on MSNBC how departing Obama Administration officials scrambled to leak and undermine the six-week-old Trump Administration. “I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill . . .‘Get as much information as you can. Get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration . . . The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff’s dealing with Russians, [they] would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence . . . That’s why you have the leaking.”

In other words, a Pentagon official was illegally leaking documents, apparently classified, in order both to defame the president as a Russian asset and to thwart any investigation of such internal and likely illegal resistance.
The New Retired Military
At various times, an entire pantheon of retired generals and intelligence directors has gone to Twitter or progressive cable channels like CNN and MSNBC to declare the president of the United States either a Russian asset and thus a traitor, or unfit for office, or in some other way to call for his removal before the election of 2020—for some, seemingly in violation of the code of military conduct that forbids even retired officers from defaming the commander-in-chief. None cited any felonious conduct on Trump’s part; all were infuriated either by presidential comportment and tone or policies with which they disagreed.

Retired four-star general Barry McCaffrey for the past three years has leveled a number of ad hominem charges against the elected president. He essentially called the president a threat to American national security on grounds that his loyalties were more to Vladimir Putin than to his own country. McCaffrey later called the president “stupid” and “cruel” for recalibrating the presence of trip-wire troops in-between Kurdish and Turkish forces. He recently equated Trump’s cancellation of the White House subscriptions of the New York Times and the Washington Post to the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini (“This is Mussolini”).

When a retired military officer decides and announces that the current president is the equivalent of a fascist, mass-murdering dictator who seized power and defied constitutional norms, then what is the signal conveyed to other military officers?

Retired General Stanley McChrystal—removed from command by the Obama Administration for inter alia allegedly referring to the vice president as “Bite Me”—called the president “immoral and dishonest.” Former CIA director Michael Hayden—a four-star Air Force general formerly smeared by the Left for defending supposed “torture” at Guantanamo—compared Trump’s policies to Nazism, when he tweeted a picture of Birkenau to illustrate the administration’s use of detention facilities at the border—a plan inaugurated by the Obama Administration—to deal with tens of thousands of illegal entrants.

One can disagree with Trump’s decision to pull a small contingent of tripwire troops back from the frontlines in Syria as Kurds (our current friends, but not our long-standing legal allies) and Turks (our long-standing legal allies, but not our current friends) fight each other, or see the logic of not putting even small numbers of U.S. troops in the middle of a Syrian quagmire.

The choice is a bad/worse dilemma, one that involves the likelihood either of not defending de facto allies or getting into a shooting scenario against de jure allies. So why would retired General John Allen instead attack the commander-in-chief in moral terms rather than merely criticize the president’s strategic or operational judgment: “There is blood on Trump’s hands for abandoning our Kurdish allies”?

Again, when our best and brightest former generals and admirals inform the nation that the current elected president, with whom they disagree on both Middle East and border security policies, is “immoral” and “cruel” or deserves bloodguilt, or is the equivalent of a fascist dictator or similar to those who set up Nazi death camps, is not the obvious inference that someone must put an end to the supposed fascistic/Nazi takeover of the government?

Apparently so.

In the eeriest series of comments, retired Admiral William McRaven has all but declared Trump a subversive traitor. Apparently in reference to fellow military also working in resistance to the president, Raven remarked, “The America that they believed in was under attack, not from without, but from within.”

In a New York Times op-ed, the decorated retired admiral went further, mostly due to his own disagreements with Trump’s foreign policy, especially toward the Turkish-Kurd standoff in Syria, and his dislike of the president’s style and behavior. Indeed, McRaven seemed to call for Trump to be removed before the 2020 election, “t is time for a new person in the Oval Office—Republican, Democrat or independent—the sooner, the better. The fate of our Republic depends upon it.” (Emphasis added.)

Let us be clear about what McRaven wrote. We are just one year away from a constitutionally mandated election. Yet McRaven now wants a “new person” in the Oval Office and he wants it “the sooner, the better.” And he insists our collective fate as a constitutional republic depends on Trump’s preferable “sooner” removal.

What exactly is the admiral referring to? Impeachment? Invocation of the 25th Amendment? Or the last of Rosa Brooks’ proposals: a forced removal by the military?

Note again, the common thread in all these complaints is not demonstrable high crimes and misdemeanors but rather sharp policy disagreements with the president about the Middle East, or the president’s own retaliatory and sometimes crass pushbacks, usually against prior ad hominem attacks both from serving and retired military officers, or false claims that Trump was a veritable asset, something refuted by Robert Mueller’s 22-month, $35-million-dollar investigation of “collusion.”

An Honorable “Seven Days in May”?
Note that the Left seems either amused or supportive of the current furor of our retired officers and intelligence heads (in a way they were not with General Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security advisor)—a phenomenon that began during the Iraq War when an array of retired officers was canonized by the media and past Pentagon critics for declaring the Bush Iraq War variously stupid, immoral, or doomed to failure.

Apparently, an ascendant progressive view is that our armed forces CIA, FBI, and NSA are protectors of civil liberties and progressive values, and therefore are to be lauded for almost any rhetorical attacks on the president deemed necessary to remind the country of the danger that Trump supposedly poses.

Gone are the old days when Hollywood’s “Dr. Strangelove” warned us of supposed Curtis LeMay-reactionaries, or the 1964 political melodrama, “Seven Days in May,” that envisioned a future right-wing military coup against an idealistic president in the mold of Adlai Stevenson.

Instead, the military in the present age—or at least its Beltway incarnation—has been recalibrated by the Left as a kindred progressive Washington institution, perhaps because of its necessary ability to enact change by fiat, whether in regard to issues regarding diversity, feminism, global warming, or transgenderism—all without the mess, delay, and acrimony of legislative and executive bickering.

In the past, when retired generals rarely and inappropriately weighed in on the allegedly improper, stupid, or immoral drift of a contemporary progressive president, they were met by a progressive firestorm as potential insurrectionaries. General Douglas MacArthur was roundly hated by the Left for his often boisterous and improper attacks on President Truman’s decision not to expand the war in Korea.

Again, today there has arisen a quite different—and far more dangerous—calculus in which the media canonizes rather than audits retired officers who compare the commander-in-chief to a fascist, declare him unfit, or dream of his “sooner the better” removal.

Had any of the current generals said anything similar about President Obama in the fashion they now routinely attack Trump, their public careers would have been ruined. There would have been Adam Schiff-like progressive congressional inquiries about the current status of the code of military conduct as it pertains, not to quite legitimate political editorialization, but rather to “contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State . . . ”

Attacking Trump in “contemptuous” fashion is not speaking truth to power but a confirmation of the existing status quo of the media, progressive orthodoxy, and the general Washington bipartisan bureaucracy.

The result is that many retired high-ranking officers have made the necessary adjustments. Many have gone well beyond legitimately articulating why Trump may be wrong on foreign policy, and now feel free to malign, insult, and even dream of removing their commander-in-chief, on the grounds that Trump is sui generis, that the media will applaud their efforts, and that the bipartisan foreign-policy establishment will canonize their deep-state bravery.


But the danger is that half the country will conclude that too many retired generals and admirals are going the way of past CIA and FBI directors—no longer just esteemed professionals, op-ed writers, and astute analysts, but political activists who feel entitled to challenge the very legitimacy of an elected president—a development that is ruinous both for the reputation of a hallowed military and of the country in general.

So it is now the decision of many ex-intelligence heads and flag officers, as retirees, analysts, and businesspeople, to change the rules of the game. Again fine. But they will live to rue the ensuing harm to the reputations both of the intelligence services and the military at large.

Indeed, the damage is well underway.



True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
[from article]
Days after the shooting, Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky announced the company would begin cracking down on unauthorized house parties.
They're desperate to avoid liability. Real hotels and motels have to obey laws about shit like this, while much like Uber and Lyft, these quasi-legal activities more or less invite shit like wild house parties. You couldn't rent a hotel to do shit like this, and zoning wouldn't allow you to classify your private residence as some kind of nonstop rave, renting it out to drug addicts and criminals alike to throw potential massacres when gangs involved in these activities use your property, with scummy companies like AirBNB taking a cut of the profits without regard to the wrecked neighborhoods and illegal conduct.


True & Honest Fan

Man killed at Maryland Popeyes in fight linked to popular chicken sandwich

The stabbing occurred one day after Popeyes began selling its fried chicken sandwich again.

A man was killed at a Maryland Popeyes over a fight linked to the chain's popular fried chicken sandwich, police said.

A spokeswoman for the Prince George’s Police Department said the victim, who has not been identified, was stabbed at a restaurant in Oxon Hill, outside Washington D.C.

The fight began inside the restaurant and later moved outside, said the spokeswoman, Jennifer Donelan.

Donelan said the man later died at a hospital.

Sources said the fight was reportedly linked to the sale of the sandwich, which Popeyes began selling on Sunday after a two-month hiatus.

The restaurant introduced the sandwich in August, then sold out in just two weeks — a surge in popularity prompted by a viral feud with Chick-fil-A.

This summer, customers angry about the sandwich shortage threatened restaurant workers at a franchise in Texas. Another filed a lawsuit in Tennessee alleging “deceptive business practices.”

Popeyes did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.


Remember when Shane Gillis was fired from SNL because he said racial slurs? I wonder how long Michael Che will keep his job on SNL for his slab against Caitlyn Jenner? Timcast post a vlog about this on Bitchute.

That poster mention some points who are food for thoughts.
It should never ... NEVER be illegal or socially punishable to offend someone. What happened to teaching children to have thick skin, and to let offensive stuff roll of thier back, brush thier shoulder off, smack the dust off after getting nocked down, these super valuable life lessons that teach you how to deal with reality and the rest of your life. You will always have people who don't like you and try to put you down, you have to move past them and ignore them.

Botchy Galoop

Hoe, Hoe, Hoes Mad

So this is what "legalization" of marijuana looks like in Canada. From what I can decipher, this is a medical MJ shop in B.C. that has been operating for years. Now that MJ is legal, you must be and sell the Govt approved weed. I am sceptical about the narrative here about GMO modified weed being cultivated to be less medicinally beneficial, but in truth I have not studied these claims.
It appears that the Govt wants to be the monopoly seller of weed. It's all about those tax dollars I suppose.

EDIT: Remember, remember the 5th of November.

Thank Fuck For Evil Otto

He lived the life of a black man, authentically.

Pimps spared prison, judge strikes down mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking minors

In a rare ruling, an Ottawa judge has spared two pimps the mandatory minimum prison term for human trafficking involving minors, calling it cruel and unusual punishment as the pimps only groomed their teenage victims for the sex trade, and had not yet fully exploited them.

The Ottawa pimps, Amina Ahmed, 33, and Nadia Ngoto, 36, met their last human trafficking victims early on the morning of July 21, 2016.

They invited the two vulnerable runaway girls, aged 14 and 15, into their car only to bring them to a hotel room and ply them with booze and drugs. They were then brought to an Ottawa apartment, where they were dressed up and told how to pose for photographs that would quickly be posted to a money-for-sex website.

The young girls then found themselves in a room full of strange, older Ottawa men who started touching them in a sexual manner. The girls were told they weren’t friendly enough, and the men became frustrated. In turn, an element of fear was introduced when the girls were told not to “piss us off” and that they needed to “behave.”

They were told to get ready to go to “work” at the casino, but before they were subjected to sex acts with adult men, one of the runaways texted an Ottawa police officer with the missing persons unit and the girls were rescued.

The pimps were both found guilty at trial earlier this year and in a recent sentencing decision, Ontario Superior Court Justice Marc Labrosse struck down the mandatory minimum of five years in prison for human trafficking involving minors, saying it was cruel and unusual punishment in this case. The judge ruled it would be a grossly disproportionate sentence.

Labrosse instead gave Ahmed time-served after spending 18 months in jail awaiting trial. She walked as a free woman the next day, and her accomplice got a suspended sentence after spending 175 days in pre-sentence custody.

The judge ruled that the pimps were preparing the teen girls for the sex trade, but that’s where it ended, and as such, Labrosse said the human trafficking crimes were at the low end of the scale.

“The offences are really limited to preparatory conduct,” Labrosse wrote in his decision.

The judge noted that Ngoto was herself a victim in the sex trade, and court heard evidence that she worked as an escort in a scheme that had Ahmed, her co-accused, collect half the profits. The judge noted that evidence as a mitigating factor at sentencing.
In his decision, the judge said in light of their limited role, the convicted human traffickers of minors didn’t deserve the mandatory sentence.

In fact, the judge went one step further and said the public would be shocked and outraged if he sentenced the pimps to prison.
“The factual matrix surrounding these offences and the preparatory conduct attributed to the offenders would not be viewed by the general public as warranting a five-year sentence in a penitentiary,” the judge said.

In light of the fact that the offenders who preyed on teens were themselves victims in the sex trade, the judge said the public would be outraged if he sent them to prison for five years.

“Such a sentence would outrage the standards of decency,” said Labrosse when he sided with the Charter applications successfully argued by defence lawyers Tobias Okada-Phillips and Cedric Nahum.

Asked for comment on the decision that balked the federally-legislated mandatory minimum of five years, Okada-Phillips said: “The decision is great. It adds to the steady flow of cases striking down mandatory minimums. Sentencing should be left to judges. The judge who hears the case is best positioned to impose a fair sentence.”

The convicted pimps are now trying to turn their lives around, court heard.
The convicted pimps are now trying to turn their lives around, court heard.



The convicted pimps are now trying to turn their lives around, court heard.
I see a court going easy on women because wahmen poc. You let those girls get fucking sexually molested. Are we gonna let pedos go now too because uncle touched their pp and made them like kids?

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino