Author: papa

hahaha

Candice Owens has intellect and courage. Follow her. She is tough, can admit being wrong, and is rational. Everything your mother is not. You can read her book Blackout on your kindle. I love you, Papa.

Brig, Soren and Reidar, you can read the PDF here

No people who have lost their character have kept their liberties.…

By Lawrence W. Reed at Foundation for Economic Freedom

The history of ancient Rome spans a thousand years—roughly 500 as
a republic and 500 as an imperial autocracy, with the birth of Christ
occurring during the transitional years in between. As demonstrated
by the historian Thomas Madden in his 2008 book,Empires of Trust,
the closest parallels between Roman and American civilizations are to
be found in Rome’s first half-millennium as a republic. We in our day
can derive the most instructive lessons and warnings from that period.
The tyranny of the empire came after the republic crumbled—the truly
awful consequences of decay, which America can yet avoid.
The paramount lesson of the Roman experience is actually not peculiar
to Rome. It may be, in fact, the most universal lesson of all history: No
people who have lost their character have kept their liberties.
Roman society at the time of the Republic’s founding was basically
agricultural, made up of small farmers and shepherds. By the second
century B.C., large-scale businesses made their appearance. Italy
became urbanized. Immigration accelerated as people from many
lands were attracted by the vibrant growth and opportunities the
bustling Roman economy offered. The growing prosperity was made
possible by a general climate of free enterprise, limited government,
and respect for private property. Merchants and businessmen were
admired and emulated.
No one should claim that Romans fostered a libertarian society. They
took liberty to new heights in many ways by limiting the power of the
State, but shortcomings were plentiful. This much is clear: The liberties
The paramount lesson of the Roman experience is actually not
peculiar to Rome. It may be, in fact, the most universal lesson
of all history: No people who have lost their character have
kept their liberties.
5
they achieved were made possible and sustained for centuries by traits
of character on which liberty always depends: courage, hard work,
personal independence, and self-reliance.
Rome’s remarkable achievements in sanitation, education, banking,
architecture, and commerce are legendary. The city even had a stock
market. With low taxes and tariffs, free trade and considerable private
property, Rome became the center of the world’s wealth. All this
disappeared, however, by the fifth century A.D.; when it was gone,
the world was plunged into darkness and despair, slavery and poverty.
Why did Rome decline and fall? Rome collapsed because of a
fundamental change in ideas on the part of the Roman people— ideas
which relate primarily to personal responsibility and the source of
personal income. In the early days of greatness, Romans regarded
themselves as their chief source of income. By that I mean each
individual looked to himself—what he could acquire voluntarily in the
marketplace—as the source of his livelihood. Rome’s decline began
when the people discovered another source of income: the political
process—the State. In short, it was a character issue.
Rome rose to greatness on the pillars of strong personal character. It
foundered when its people sacrificed character for less noble things
like power and the false, temporary “security” of a handout.
When Romans abandoned self-responsibility and self-reliance, and
began to vote themselves benefits, to use government to rob Peter
and pay Paul, to put their hands into other people’s pockets, to envy
and covet the productive and their wealth, they turned down a fateful,
destructive path. As the late Dr. Howard E. Kershner put it, “When a
self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take
from some and give to others, the process will not stop until the last
bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare.”
The legalized plunder of the Roman welfare state was undoubtedly
sanctioned by people who wished to do good. But as Henry David
Thoreau wrote, “If I knew for certain that a man was coming to my
6
house to do me good, I would run for my life.” Another person coined
the phrase, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Nothing
but evil can come from a society bent upon coercion, the confiscation
of property, and the degradation of the productive.
In the waning years of the Roman republic, a rogue named Clodius ran
for the office of tribune. He bribed the electorate with promises of free
grain at taxpayer expense and won. Thereafter, Romans in growing
numbers embraced the notion that voting for a living could be more
lucrative than working for one.
Candidates for Roman office spent huge sums to win public favor, then
plundered the population afterwards to make good on their promises
to the rent-seekers who elected them. As the republic gave way to
dictatorship, a succession of emperors built their power on the huge
handouts they controlled. Nearly a third of the city of Rome itself
received public relief payments by the time of the birth of Christ.
When Romans abandoned self-responsibility and selfreliance, and began to vote themselves benefits, to use
government to rob Peter and pay Paul, to put their hands
into other people’s pockets, to envy and covet the productive
and their wealth, they turned down a fateful,
destructive path.
7
The historian H. J. Haskell describes this tragic turn of ideas and events:
“Less than a century after the Republic had faded into the autocracy of
the Empire, the people had lost all taste for democratic institutions. On
the death of an emperor the Senate debated the question of restoring
the Republic. But the commons preferred the rule of an extravagant
despot who would continue the dole and furnish them free shows. The
mob outside clamored for ‘one ruler’ of the world.”
It’s frightening to consider how easily a sturdy people, when they let
their guard and character down, can be bought and paid for by the
welfare state. And once they sell themselves for that mess of pottage
from politicians, it’s not easy to turn back.
Speaking of the emperor Augustus, who ruled from 27 B.C. to 14 A.D.
and who tried to reduce the free wheat program by briefly introducing a
means test, Haskell cites the emperor’s biographer and contemporary:
“[H]e was inclined to abolish forever the public distribution of grain,
for the people had come to rely upon it and had ceased to till the fields;
but he had not proceeded further in the matter because he was sure
that, from a desire to please the people, it would be revived at one time
or another.”
It’s frightening to consider how easily a sturdy people, when
they let their guard and character down, can be bought and
paid for by the welfare state.
8
In response to a severe money and credit crisis in 33 A.D., the central
government extended credit at zero interest on a massive scale.
Government spending in the wake of the crisis soared.
In 91 A.D., the government became deeply involved in agriculture.
Emperor Domitian, to reduce the production and raise the price of
wine, ordered the destruction of half the provincial vineyards.
Following the lead of Rome, many cities within the empire spent
themselves deeply into debt. Beginning with Emperor Hadrian early
in the Second Century, municipalities in financial difficulty received
aid from Rome and lost a substantial measure of their political
independence in the bargain.
The central government also assumed the responsibility of providing
the people with entertainment. Elaborate circuses and gladiator
duels were staged to keep the people happy. One modern historian
estimates that Rome poured the equivalent of $100 million per year
into the games.
Under Emperor Antoninus Pius, who ruled from 138 to 161 A.D., the
Roman bureaucracy reached mammoth proportions. Eventually,
Romans first lost their character. Then, as a consequence, they
lost their liberties and ultimately their civilization.
9
according to the historian Albert Trever, “the relentless system of
taxation, requisition, and compulsory labor was administered by
an army of military bureaucrats…. Everywhere were the ubiquitous
personal agents of the emperors” employed to crush tax evaders.
There were plenty of taxes to evade. Emperor Nero is said by Roman
historian Gaius Suetonius in De Vitae Caesarum to have once rubbed his
hands together and declared, “Let us tax and tax again! Let us see to it
that no one owns anything!” Taxation ultimately destroyed the wealthy
first, followed by the middle and lower classes. “What the soldiers
or the barbarians spared, the emperors took in taxes,” according to
historian W. G. Hardy.
Late in the Third Century, Emperor Aurelian declared government relief
payments to be a hereditary right. He provided recipients governmentbaked bread (instead of the old practice of giving them wheat and
letting them bake their own bread) and added free salt, pork, and olive oil.
Rome suffered from the bane of all welfare states, inflation. The massive
demands on the government to spend and subsidize created pressures
for the multiplication of money. Roman coinage was debased by one
emperor after another to pay for expensive programs. Once almost
pure silver, the denarius, by the year 300, was little more than a piece
of junk containing less than five percent silver.
Prices skyrocketed and savings vanished. Businessmen were vilified
even as government continued its spendthrift ways. Price controls
further ravaged a battered and shrinking private economy. By 476
A.D., when barbarians wiped the empire from the map, Rome had
committed moral and economic suicide.
Romans first lost their character. Then, as a consequence, they lost
their liberties and ultimately their civilization.
I close with an old story whose relevance to the Roman one will be clear
in a moment. It’s about a band of wild hogs which lived along a river in
a secluded area of Georgia. These hogs were a stubborn, ornery, and
10
independent bunch. They had survived floods, fires, freezes, droughts,
hunters, dogs, and everything else. No one thought they could ever be
captured.
One day a stranger came into town not far from where the hogs lived
and went into the general store. He asked the storekeeper, “Where can
I find the hogs? I want to capture them.” The storekeeper laughed at
such a claim but pointed in the general direction. The stranger left with
his one-horse wagon, an axe, and a few sacks of corn.
Two months later he returned, went back to the store and asked for
help to bring the hogs out. He said he had them all penned up in the
woods. People were amazed and came from miles around to hear him
tell the story of how he did it.
“The first thing I did,” the stranger said, “was to clear a small area of the
woods with my axe. Then I put some corn in the center of the clearing.
At first, none of the hogs would take the corn. Then after a few days,
some of the young ones would come out, snatch some corn, and then
scamper back into the underbrush. Then the older ones began taking
the corn, probably figuring that if they didn’t get it, some of the other
ones would. Soon they were all eating the corn. They stopped grubbing
for roots and acorns on their own.”
“About that time, the stranger continued, “I started building a fence
around the clearing, a little higher each day. At the right moment, I
built a trap door and sprung it. Naturally, they squealed and hollered
when they knew I had them, but I can pen any animal on the face of the
earth if I can corrupt them enough to depend on me for a free handout!”
I’ll say it one more time for emphasis: No people who have lost their
character have kept their liberties.

Learn how sewing machine works in 5 seconds. Amazing – human ingenuity crafted by countless hours of testing and refinement.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1292310427246792705

In January 2019 Kamala Harris wanted “Anti-Lynching” legislation passed- which had been stalled over 100 years in the Congress, so she collaborated with actor Jussie Smollet in a clown-show HOAX. Jussie was actually filmed buying the rope himself! No worries for Kamala because she knows she can get away with staging the most brazen lies and HOAXES. She cannot be criticized- (just watch comments below 🙂

Kamala was the first to promote the HOAX on social media,

And surprise …only weeks later in Februrary 2019, Kamala got her Anti-Lynching legislation passed through the senate unanimously. Later she also managed to get the felony charges against her friend Jussie Smollet dropped, against the desire of police department in Chicago. All of her phone calls with Jussie before and after attack were sealed from public view.

Rather than facing shame and embarrassment for the HOAX, instead she is rewarded and now selected as VP.

HOAXER-IN-CHIEF

There is a pattern of her using hoaxes as a weapon. – She succeeds in destroying people, and nobody is willing to call her a fraud. She claimed that Tulsi Gabbard was a “Russian Asset” after Tulsi humiliated her in the debate. No worries, Tulsi was banned from participating in another democratic debate, eventhough she qualified in the polling. Oh well, Tulsi reputation is destroyed….Move on to next target. Kamala has no constraint or moral compass.

The Christine Blasey Ford, and other “gang rape” allegations to take down supreme court nominee Brett Kauvaugh failed in the end, but unquestionably it was a HOAX. The infamous letter from Ms. Blasey Ford arrived through California senate office of Dianne Feinstein, her colleague in California.

Kamala Harris introduces Anti-Lynching Hate Crime Legislation.

Watch Jussie Smollet blame others for his hoax. And he somehow manages to claim he is the victim for people not believing him! Don’t look at actual evidence or reality. Truly astonishing. He cannot face the humiliation of what he did, and we observe this exact behavior of Kamala Harris and Lise-Anne. Their ego is too weak to admit a mistake. People who cannot admit they are wrong are the most dangerous. They will commit any evil act (hoax, lie, cheat, even kill) to avoid facing feelings of self-inadequacy.

She is a hysterical fraud, just like your mother. See the resemblance?

Brig, Soren and Reidar…Make your own opinion by watching the actual video of the arrest.

What is an undeniable fact is that world-wide people are protesting for a criminal and thief, named George Floyd. That is not contested.

Yet nobody protests for police brutality of virtuous people like Julian Assange. There are no protests for innocent people, falsely accused, or virtuous people. That should tell you something about mobs and psychology. Virtuous people are not revered, they are crucified like Jesus. Brilliant and virtuous people like Galileo or Alan Turing are destroyed by the mob- killed. There are no world-wide protests for them…

Criminals are ones the mob protests for. That is a “101 lesson” in group human behavior. If you agree with view of the mob, you are unethical and evil. #salemwitchtrials

Video from last night’s riots in Chicago shows a woman live streaming video of herself looting a luxury clothing store as she shouts “I can’t breathe!”

I don’t know where the f%cking keys at!” shouts the woman as she ransacks drawers attempting to find them.

“Let me see, does that say Valentino, does that say Dolce and Gabbana?” she asks as she begins to run through the store before shouting “I can’t breathe!”

She then tries to find scissors to cut the tags before asking another looter for help.

The statement “I can’t breathe,” which was uttered by George Floyd before his death (and well before any kind of physical restraint was placed on him) has become the slogan of Black Lives Matter riots and protests over the last two months.

The fact that looters are using it as they exploit the shooting of an armed criminal to steal designer goods once again illustrates how for many how BLM is just a marxist cover for wanton criminality and destruction.

How dumb do you have to be to live stream yourself looting. #Chicago https://t.co/uQ1gOWlxyK

— Matrix Forest (@MatrixForest) August 10, 2020

Brig, Soren and Reidar- please read Quillette regularly (article below), it will expose you to other smart people with heterodox ideas.

The idea that “Gender is a Social Construct” is simply a denial of all scientific learning and empirical evidence. It is a con. Beware. Beware of all people who promulgate this idea- they are dangerous. Gender is perhaps the most OBVIOUS, SELF-EVIDENT of all things we know in the world.

Gender neutralizers want to destroy you. Don’t let them.

The New Evolution Deniers

written by Colin Wright

Evolutionary biology has always been controversial. Not controversial among biologists, but controversial among the general public. This is largely because Darwin’s theory directly contradicted the supernatural accounts of human origins rooted in religious tradition and replaced them with fully natural ones. The philosopher Daniel Dennett has described evolution as a sort of “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.” Fearing this corrosive idea, opposition in the US to evolution mainly came from Right-wing evangelical Christians who believed God created life in its present form, as described in Genesis.

In the 1990s and 2000s there were repeated attempts by evangelicals to ban evolution in public schools or teach the so-called “controversy” by including Intelligent Design—the belief that life is too complex to have evolved without the aid of some “Intelligent Designer” (i.e. God)—in the biology curriculum alongside evolution. But these attempts failed when scientists demonstrated in court that Intelligent Design was nothing more than Biblical Creationism gussied up in scientific-sounding prose. Since then, however, Creationism and Intelligent Design have lost a tremendous amount of momentum and influence. But while these right-wing anti-evolution movements withered to irrelevancy, a much more cryptic form of left-wing evolution denialism has been slowly growing.

At first, left-wing pushback to evolution appeared largely in response to the field of human evolutionary psychology. Since Darwin, scientists have successfully applied evolutionary principles to understand the behavior of animals, often with regard to sex differences. However, when scientists began applying their knowledge of the evolutionary underpinnings of animal behavior to humans, the advancing universal acid began to threaten beliefs held sacrosanct by the Left. The group that most fervently opposed, and still opposes, evolutionary explanations for behavioral sex differences in humans were/are social justice activists. Evolutionary explanations for human behavior challenge their a priori commitment to “Blank Slate” psychology—the belief that male and female brains in humans start out identical and that all behavior, sex-linked or otherwise, is entirely the result of differences in socialization.

This stance is maintained by the belief that evolutionary explanations for sex-linked behavioral differences are biologically essentialist, which is the fatalistic notion that biology alone directly determines our behavior. Blank Slate psychology, however, is universally rejected by experts, as the evidence for innate sex-linked personality differences in humans is overwhelmingly strong. But experts also universally reject that this view demands we embrace biological essentialism, because the environment does play a role, and observed sex differences are simply averages and overlap tremendously between the sexes. Sex no more determines one’s personality than it determines one’s height. Sex certainly influences these traits, but it does not determine them. For instance, most of us know females who are taller than most males, and males who are shorter than most females, though we are all aware that males are, on average, taller than females. In humans, the same is true for behavioral traits.

I am an evolutionary behavioral ecologist, and most of my work is concerned with how individual differences in behavior (i.e. personality) influence individual fitness, and the collective behavior and success of animal societies. Most are probably not aware, but animal personality research is a vibrant field within behavioral ecology due to the ubiquity of personality as a phenomenon in nature, and its ability to explain interactions both within and between species. In nearly every species tested to date for the presence of personality, we’ve found it, and sex-linked personality differences are frequently the most striking. Sex-linked personality differences are very well documented in our closest primate relatives, too, and the presence of sexual dimorphism (i.e. size differences between males and females) in primates, and mammals generally, dramatically intensifies these differences, especially in traits like aggression, female choosiness, territoriality, grooming behavior, and parental care.

Given that humans are sexually dimorphic and exhibit many of the typical sex-linked behavioral traits that any objective observer would predict, based on the mammalian trends, the claim that our behavioral differences have arisen purely via socialization is dubious at best. For that to be true, we would have to posit that the selective forces for these traits inexplicably and uniquely vanished in just our lineage, leading to the elimination of these traits without any vestiges of their past, only to have these traits fully recapitulated in the present due to socialization. Of course, the more evidenced and straightforward explanation is that we exhibit these classic sex-linked behavioral traits because we inherited them from our closest primate ancestors.

Counterintuitively, the social justice stance on human evolution closely resembles that of the Catholic Church. The Catholic view of evolution generally accepts biological evolution for all organisms, yet holds that the human soul (however defined) had been specially created and thus has no evolutionary precursor. Similarly, the social justice view has no problem with evolutionary explanations for shaping the bodies and minds of all organisms both between and within a species regarding sex, yet insists that humans are special in that evolution has played no role in shaping observed sex-linked behavioral differences. Why the biological forces that shape all of life should be uniquely suspended for humans is unclear. What is clear is that both the Catholic Church and well-intentioned social justice activists are guilty of gerrymandering evolutionary biology to make humans special, and keep the universal acid at bay.

Despite there being zero evidence in favor of Blank Slate psychology, and a mountain of evidence to the contrary, this belief has entrenched itself within the walls of many university humanities departments where it is often taught as fact. Now, armed with what they perceive to be an indisputable truth questioned only by sexist bigots, they respond with well-practiced outrage to alternative views. This has resulted in a chilling effect that causes scientists to self-censor, lest these activists accuse them of bigotry and petition their departments for their dismissal. I’ve been privately contacted by close, like-minded colleagues warning me that my public feuds with social justice activists on social media could be occupational suicide, and that I should disengage and delete my comments immediately. My experience is anything but unique, and the problem is intensifying. Having successfully cultivated power over administrations and silenced faculty by inflicting reputational terrorism on their critics and weaponizing their own fragility and outrage, social justice activists now justifiably think there is no belief or claim too dubious that administrations won’t cater to it. Recently, this fear has been realized as social justice activists attempt to jump the epistemological shark by claiming that the very notion of biological sex, too, is a social construct.

As a biologist, it is hard to understand how anyone could believe something so outlandish. It’s a belief on a par with the belief in a flat Earth. I first saw this claim being made this year by anthropology graduate students on Facebook. At first I thought they mistyped and were simply referring to gender. But as I began to pay closer attention, it was clear that they were indeed talking about biological sex. Over the next several months it became apparent that this view was not isolated to this small friend circle, as it began cropping up all over the Internet. In support of this view, recent editorials from Scientific American—an ostensibly trustworthy, scientific, and apolitical online magazine—are often referenced. The titles read, “Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic,” and “Visualizing Sex as a Spectrum.”

Even more recently, the most prestigious scientific journal in the world, Nature, published an editorial claiming that classifying people’s sex “on the basis of anatomy or genetics should be abandoned” and “has no basis in science” and that “the research and medical community now sees sex as more complex than male and female.” In the Nature article, the motive is stated clearly enough: acknowledging the reality of biological sex will “undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.” But while there is evidence for the fluidity of sex in many organisms, this is simply not the case in humans. We can acknowledge the existence of very rare cases in humans where sex is ambiguous, but this does not negate the reality that sex in humans is functionally binary. These editorials are nothing more than a form of politically motivated, scientific sophistry.

The formula for each of these articles is straightforward. First, they list a multitude of intersex conditions. Second, they detail the genes, hormones, and complex developmental processes leading to these conditions. And, third and finally, they throw their hands up and insist this complexity means scientists have no clue what sex really is. This is all highly misleading and deceiving (self-deceiving?), since the developmental processes involved in creating any organ are enormously complex, yet almost always produce fully functional end products. Making a hand is complicated too, but the vast majority of us end up with the functional, five-fingered variety.

What these articles leave out is the fact that the final result of sex development in humans are unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time. Thus, the claim that “2 sexes is overly simplistic” is misleading, because intersex conditions correspond to less than 0.02 percent of all births, and intersex people are not a third sex. Intersex is simply a catch-all category for sex ambiguity and/or a mismatch between sex genotype and phenotype, regardless of its etiology. Furthermore, the claim that “sex is a spectrum” is also misleading, as a spectrum implies a continuous distribution, and maybe even an amodal one (one in which no specific outcome is more likely than others). Biological sex in humans, however, is clear-cut over 99.98 percent of the time. Lastly, the claim that classifying people’s sex based on anatomy and genetics “has no basis in science” has itself no basis in reality, as any method exhibiting a predictive accuracy of over 99.98 percent would place it among the most precise methods in all the life sciences. We revise medical care practices and change world economic plans on far lower confidence than that.

Despite the unquestionable reality of biological sex in humans, social justice and trans activists continue to push this belief, and respond with outrage when challenged. Pointing out any of the above facts is now considered synonymous with transphobia. The massive social media website Twitter—the central hub for cultural discourse and debate—is now actively banning users for stating true facts about basic human biology. And biologists like myself often sit quietly, afraid to defend our own field out of fear that our decade of education followed by continued research, job searches, and the quest for tenure might be made obsolete overnight if the mob decides to target one of us for speaking up. Because of this, our objections take place almost entirely between one another in private whisper networks, despite the fact that a majority of biologists are extremely troubled by these attacks to our field by social justice activists. This is an untenable situation.

It is undoubtedly true that trans people lead very difficult lives, which are only made more difficult by the bigotry of others. But social justice activists appear completely unwilling or unable to distinguish between people who criticize their ideology and people who criticize their humanity. Their social immune system appears so sensitive that it consumes itself. We need to acknowledge that trans issues and ideology are complex, and concern one of the most marginalized communities in the world. Because of this, we must give these issues the respect they deserve by approaching them with nuance and compassion instead of crudeness and cruelty. But we must not jettison truth in this process. If social justice activists require scientists to reject evolution and the reality of biological sex to be considered good allies, then we can never be good allies.

Back when evolution was under attack from proponents of Biblical Creation and Intelligent Design, academic scientists were under no pressure to hold back criticism. This is because these anti-evolution movements were almost exclusively a product of right-wing evangelicals who held no power in academia. Now we have a much bigger problem, because evolution denialism is back, but this time it’s coming from left-wing activists who do hold power in academia. This makes the issue both harder to ignore and harder to remove. Social justice and hyper-militant trans activism now seems to act as a kind of anti-universal acid, and not merely a strong buffer solution. While the universal acid of evolution eats through old cherished beliefs and replaces them with deeper understanding and a clearer picture of reality, the anti-universal acid of social justice ideology is a recklessly destructive force, aiming to abolish scientific truth and replace it with relativistic postmodern nonsense.

I did not train to be a scientist for over a decade just to sit quietly while science in general, and my field in particular, comes under attack from activists who subvert truth to ideology and narrative. When I reflect on my initial reasons over a decade ago for choosing a career as an academic scientist, it was largely due to the inspiration I felt from outspoken public intellectuals like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Stephen Fry, and the late Christopher Hitchens, who led by example and followed reason wherever it took them. At the time, it seemed to me that a career as an academic scientist would be the most intellectually satisfying profession imaginable. It would allow me to dive deep into questions at the frontier of human knowledge, teach and train students to think critically, and pass on the virtues of boldly engaging with unreason in the search for truth to a new generation.

But it seems clear to me that academia now is not as it was advertised a decade ago when I started down this path. It is no longer a refuge for outspoken, free-thinking intellectuals. Instead, it seems one must now choose between living a zipper-lipped life as an academic scientist, or living a life as a fulfilled intellectual. Currently, one cannot do both.

Colin Wright has a PhD in evolutionary biology from UC Santa Barbara. He currently studies the social behavior of ant, wasp, and spider societies at Penn State. You can follow him on Twitter @SwipeWright

Another day, another liar. #liesdestroylives

Brig, Soren and Reidar. Your mother is not unusual. She lies with impunity like many woman of high status and education. They never face consequences for their evil behavior. Many men are in jail, their lives destroyed because of Sally Yates and her lies. She is mendacious.

Sally Yates Can’t Remember

Why everyone is now running away from the Logan Act.

By The Editorial BoardAug. 7, 2020 6:38 pm ET

Sally Yates was a top official in the Obama Justice Department who served as acting Attorney General in the first days of the Trump Administration until President Trump fired her for insubordination. On Wednesday the Senate Judiciary Committee asked whether then Vice President Joe Biden had brought up the Logan Act during an Oval Office meeting related to the investigation of the incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn.OPINION: POTOMAC WATCHLessons From New York’s Mail-Vote Mess00:00 / 22:40SUBSCRIBE

“I can’t remember,” she said.

How convenient. The Logan Act is an obscure statute from 1799 that forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments over disputes with the United States. It has only been used to prosecute twice, in 1802 and in 1852, both times unsuccessfully, and is widely regarded as unconstitutional.

Yet the Logan Act was the main premise that Justice Department officials and the FBI cited for going after Gen. Flynn for his conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. Notes taken by the FBI head of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, ask if the goal of the bureau’s interview with Mr. Flynn was to “get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act.” Notes about the Jan. 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting taken by FBI agent Peter Strzok have Mr. Biden bringing up the Logan Act. And the leak to the Washington Post that ginned up all the hysteria against Gen. Flynn tied his calls to Russia’s ambassador to the Logan Act.

Ms. Yates is rewriting history. While she testified that the Flynn investigation was all about counterintelligence, her argument that Gen. Flynn had “neutered” the sanctions President Obama had imposed on Russia is also an implicit Logan Act argument.

We’re delighted everyone now agrees that prosecuting Mr. Flynn under this statute would have been ridiculous. In many ways the Logan Act has become the new Steele dossier, something that was taken very seriously by the FBI and Justice and the press—but is now so discredited that everyone wants to run away from it. Including Sally Yates and Joe Biden.

Bill Binney is a true american hero, and he explains the HOAX behind the russia-gate story that the Hilary Clinton’s emails were hacked by russians. It is all a lie by Hilary… a total fabrication to draw attention away from her failure to win the presidency. Your mother is another person who lies dramatically to take the focus away from her inadequacy.

It is UNEQUIVOCAL that the emails were taken by a person inside the democratic party.