text:
Donations Welcome via Subscribe Star & PayPal
Reparations: The Latest Policy Democrats Admit They Supported All Along
February 22, 2019 February 22, 2019 / By Hohenzollern
Last month I wrote:
This is how it goes. First, the right accuses the left of wanting some policy goal (say, gun confiscation and repealing the Second Amendment) which the left pretty obvious wants. The left, however, knowing that said policy goal is wildly unpopular with the American people, vehemently denies they want the policy.
However, before long, the left will inevitably come out in favor of the policy goal they previously spent a good deal of energy denying they wanted.
Leftists in 2012: "Nobody wants to take your guns."
Leftists in 2018: "Repeal the Second Amendment, and we're coming for your guns"
The left will deny supporting some policy because the policy is not popular among the public at the time. But once the left feels it is politically safe to come out in support of said policy, they will "evolve" on it and pretend they just started supporting it now, even though in reality they've secretly supported it all along.
Gun confiscation, open borders, socialism, late-term abortion, letting illegals vote: you name it: Democrats have been for these things all along. The only difference today is that they feel they won't be punished at the polls for it.
They now feel the American electorate is "ready" for their extreme positions.
And so today we have Elizabeth Warren and Kamala "The Whore" Harris coming out in favor of reparations. We've known all along that Democrats wanted reparations, but they've been careful about not letting the public know it:
"From the very first day of the 2020 presidential race, when Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts blamed "generations of discrimination" for black families earning far less than white households, Democratic hopefuls have broadly emphasized racial justice and closing the wealth gap in their policy platforms.
But in recent weeks, some candidates have started embracing specific goals and overtly race-conscious legislation that even the most left-wing elected officials stayed away from in recent years."
See what I'm talking about?
"Last week, Senator Kamala Harris of California agreed with a radio host's recent suggestion that government reparations for black Americans were necessary to address the legacies of slavery and discrimination. Ms. Harris later affirmed that support in a statement to The Times.
"We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities," she said. "I'm serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities."
Ms. Warren also said she supported reparations for black Americans impacted by slavery — a policy that experts say could cost several trillion dollars, and one that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and many top Democrats have not supported."
No, they all support it: they just won't admit it. Until now.
Watch more and more Democrats come out of the woodwork and pretend they "evolved" on reparations overnight.
Cough up the dough, whitey!
$15 trillion dollars over 55 years of the War on Poverty is not enough. Medicaid isn't enough. Food stamps aren't enough. The Community Reinvestment Act wasn't enough.
We need to throw even more money at the black community.
Of course, the Democrats never tell us who gets to decide how the reparations payments are divided up and distributed. I'm sure it's "community leaders" (read: Democratic politicians) in the big cities like Chicago, Atlanta, New York and LA. Because they've done such a tremendous job thus far!
In reality, reparations would be the largest Democratic scam in history, with most of the money (and we're talking hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions) ending up in the pockets of corrupt Democrat politicians and political machines.
But let's just for a bit consider the arguments for reparations at face value–in other words, let's assume the money is somehow miraculously doled out fairly evenly to regular black Americans and isn't just a huge scam.
The case for reparations boils down to one phrase which I'm sure you've heard on many occasions: the "legacy of slavery."
We need to address it. In 2019.
Even though slavery ended in 1863, and Jim Crow ended in 1964.
My question: how long can we reasonably blame the "legacy of slavery"?
Consider that Japan and Germany experienced total and complete destruction in the wake of World War II. Their economies and currencies were not only devastated, but virtually their entire infrastructures. Germany suffered 4.3 million casualties in the war, and Japan lost 2.3 million–and those were primarily young, able-bodied working-aged men as well. It was estimated that by 1945, Japan had lost 42% of its national wealth.
Yet within four decades, Japan had become the second-largest economy in the world and the leading exporter of high-tech electronics. Japan was able to bounce back remarkably quickly from the massive devastation it suffered in the war.
Half of Germany was behind the Iron Curtain of Soviet Rule and the country was not fully reunified under democratic capitalism until the early 1990s. And yet today Germany is the powerhouse of Europe–its biggest economy and most influential player.
I have visited both countries within the past few years. Both are technologically about on-par with America–you really don't feel any culture shock visiting either place. Outside of the heavily-migrant areas in Germany, you feel very safe in both countries.
In terms of GDP per capita, America's today is $59,500. Germany's is $50,000 and Japan's is $42,800.
I'd say both nations were able to recover quite well from the total devastation they suffered by the end of World War II in 1945. They went from being completely destroyed by war to rich, advanced, first-world nations in half a century.
And on top of all this, both countries were forced to pay billions in war reparations–plus Germany was still paying off its massive reparations from World War I. Germany didn't pay its debts off fully until 2010!
I actually brought up this point about Japan and Germany in a debate the other week about this very topic, and the other person said, "Well Japan and Germany didn't have racism when they were rebuilding."
Really? The whole world wasn't against those two countries in the wake of the war?
In terms of US aid dollars, the Marshall plan to rebuild Western Europe as well as the postwar occupation of Japan, only cost about $100 million in today's dollars. Meaning the US gave Japan and Germany barely a fraction of what it has spent on the War on Poverty and welfare over the past few decades.
And the implication is that being nuked and firebombed and shelled repeatedly for years is no big deal, whatever.
But racism, that's the real killer.
Sure, you can recover from being NUKED pretty easily. No biggie.
But racism is insurmountable.
Yep. Makes sense.
So, again: when do we cut the BS over the "legacy of slavery"?
The Great Thomas Sowell has explained countless times that the "legacy of slavery" excuse is nonsense, and that the real "root cause" of the turmoil in the black community today is the legacy of liberalism:
"[New York Times' Nick] Kristof's "overwhelming" evidence of the current effects of past slavery is that blacks do not have as much income as whites. But Puerto Ricans do not have as much income as Japanese Americans. Mexican Americans do not have as much income as Cuban Americans. All sorts of people do not have as much income as all sorts of other people, not only in the United States, but in countries around the world. And most of these people were never enslaved.
Liberals will always find a way to blame White People for inequality all around the world, though. It's central to their political movement.
"If we wanted to be serious about evidence, we might compare where blacks stood a hundred years after the end of slavery with where they stood after 30 years of the liberal welfare state. In other words, we could compare hard evidence on "the legacy of slavery" with hard evidence on the legacy of liberals.
Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the civil rights laws and "war on poverty" programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began."
Wait, black poverty was 87% after the New Deal? Interesting.
"Ending the Jim Crow laws was a landmark achievement. But, despite the great proliferation of black political and other "leaders" that resulted from the laws and policies of the 1960s, nothing comparable happened economically. And there were serious retrogressions socially.
Nearly a hundred years of the supposed "legacy of slavery" found most black children being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent."
Specifically, over 72% of black children today are born out of wedlock. That's the Legacy of Liberalism, not the Legacy of Slavery.
"The murder rate among blacks in 1960 was one-half of what it became 20 years later, after a legacy of liberals' law enforcement policies. Public housing projects in the first half of the 20th century were clean, safe places, where people slept outside on hot summer nights, when they were too poor to afford air conditioning. That was before admissions standards for public housing projects were lowered or abandoned, in the euphoria of liberal non-judgmental notions. And it was before the toxic message of victimhood was spread by liberals. We all know what hell holes public housing has become in our times. The same toxic message produced similar social results among lower-income people in England, despite an absence of a "legacy of slavery" there.
If we are to go by evidence of social retrogression, liberals have wreaked more havoc on blacks than the supposed "legacy of slavery" they talk about. Liberals should heed the title of Jason Riley's insightful new book, "Please Stop Helping Us."
If anyone should be paying reparations to black people, it's the Democratic Party.
A part of me almost supports reparations just to get it over with: "That's it. No more complaining. We don't owe you shit anymore. No more excuses."
If the reparations payments go out and don't make things better, then white people no longer have to feel any guilt whatsoever. The "sins of their fathers" have been atoned for.
Because reparations is the logical endgame of white guilt, no? That's what it's all building up to, right?
There is really nothing greater white Americans can do for black Americans to say, "We're sorry for slavery and we're sorry for holding you back," than to give black Americans vast sums of money, is there?
And so if/when the reparations happen, and if/when those reparations payments don't change anything–because the real problems in the black community stem from absent fathers and toxic inner city rap/drug/gang/materialistic culture, not Whitey–then we're not on the hook for anything anymore.
It's not our fault–we paid up.
That's why a part of me could, in theory, see a rationale for supporting reparations.
But, of course, we all know that even if reparations do happen, the left will never let us off the hook.
White guilt is just too important to their political fortunes. So it's forever.
I figured the left would quit guilting white people after Obama was elected in 2008. I figured, "Okay, that's it, America has finally redeemed itself. We've proven we're not a 'racist country' anymore by electing a black president. A nation nearly 70% white elected a president who represents 13% of the country. No more "RACIST!!!!" cries."
No more excuses.
But instead of the white-guilting subsiding, it got worse. Way worse. Race relations in America have gotten significantly worse since 2008.
If you went back in time to election night 2008 and told someone that in 10 years, race relations would be significantly worse than they are today, they would not have believed you. Yet here we are.
Somehow, the left has convinced people that despite Obama being elected and reelected, America is still Extremely Racist. The left has convinced people that Obama's eight years in office don't mean shit.
So this is why I won't support reparations: because even if we agree to reparations, the left will still never shut up and stop guilting white people.
If and when the reparations fail to fix anything, the left will just say it wasn't enough and that they need even bigger reparations payments the second time around.
Chappelle's Show had a hilarious skit on reparations back in 2003:
Rush: America is in a "Life and Death Struggle" Due to Mass Immigration
Based Rush. From his show yesterday beginning around the 14-minute mark:
"For the last 25 years, I see the United States in a sort of life and death struggle for its existence as we knew it.
I thought after the 1980s, after two terms of Ronaldus Maxiumus (Reagan), that we'd won. How could we have not? We had just had two terms of the most conservative administration ever. We had an economic boon. We had wages up, interest rates plummeting, virtually every economic mistake Jimmy Carter made was fixed, there were more people working than ever before, the Berlin Wall came down shortly after Reagan left office, the Soviet Union was no more, we rebuilt our military–I figured people lived through this, they're going to finally see it, they're going to finally believe it, they're going to trust it ["it" meaning conservatism].
So why didn't that last? I mean you had eight years where everybody alive knew that tax cuts led to massive prosperity for everyone–why didn't that last?
I'll tell you why: that is when the left began to import millions of foreign nationals via illegal immigration."
Not just illegal immigration but legal immigration, too. Rush hasn't yet gotten to the point where he's comfortable calling out the negative effects of legal immigration, but give it some time. He will.
Before we go further, I want to point out: simply acknowledging that legal immigration has had some very bad consequences for the GOP and the country does not mean you're totally against legal immigration. You can still be fine with legal immigration while wanting less–even considerably less–of it.
We don't have to end immigration altogether. We just need to dramatically cut it down to prevent massive, permanent demographic transformation. We need to get our demographics under control or else we won't have a country anymore.
There is nothing immoral about wanting to reduce legal immigration. The idea that the only moral and virtuous position is to want as many immigrants as possible from all corners of the globe year in and year out indefinitely is a globalist lie. There is nothing immoral about restricting immigration. We Americans don't owe foreigners anything. The idea that we do is a Globalist Uniparty lie to trick Americans into giving big corporations an endless supply of cheap labor.
Back to Rush:
"[The] Simpson-Mazzoli [Act], 1986, granted Amnesty for 3.6 million of them and that's what opened the floodgates. The [memory of Reagan's success in the 1980s] are overwhelmed and outnumbered by people who were not alive here, who were living somewhere else; they've been imported by the left by illegal immigration. Did you know one out of four people in California was not born in the United States?"
Actually, it's closer to one in three. And if you count the real number of illegals in this country–30 million, as opposed to the laughably inaccurate 11 million number that has been used since 2005, as if not a single illegal has entered this country in 14 years–the foreign-born share of California's population is probably even higher than 1/3.
"You wonder what happened to the Republican Party in California? There you go.
The electorate has been changed.
The makeup of our culture has been changed, by way of illegal immigration brought to us by the Democrats and a bunch of clueless Republicans who thought that because Latin Americans were Catholic they were gonna end up voting conservative! So they [Republicans] were on the bandwagon for keeping borders open for their own reasons. Gigantic miscalculation."
BASED RUSH!
First Tucker, now Rush.
While our Republican politicians continue to sell us–and the country–out in favor of big business, at least we can take small solace in the fact that our leading luminaries on the airwaves get it.
This is important because Rush gets through to Trump. Rush and Trump are longtime friends and golf buddies. I'm not sure how much they talk these days but Rush has a decent amount of influence with the President. Trump values Rush's opinion.
Now, with regards to Democrats resuscitating their national political fortunes by way of mass immigration despite the success of the Reagan administration in the 1980s, the unspoken point is that in a "diverse", post-mass migration society, economics don't matter to voters. Not really.
What I mean by that is, their votes are not swayed by a good economy under a president of the opposite party.
If not for mass immigration, Reagan would have been the Republican FDR: an enormously popular and successful president whose lasting impact was reshaping the political landscape to favor his party for a generation. Under FDR and his successor Truman, Democrats won every Presidential election from 1932-1948. Not only that, they shifted the center of American politics toward the left in a major way so that by the time 1952 rolled around, the only way the Republicans could win was to nominate the hero of World War II, Dwight Eisenhower, and promise to leave the New Deal in place.
Republicans had first tried running against FDR's New Deal in the 1930s but were clobbered every time. By the 1950s the GOP realized it would never win unless it accepted the New Deal as permanent and basically shifted left. FDR had permanently tiled the playing field of American politics to the left. He made it so that the GOP had to become the Democrat Lite Party because FDR's policies were so widely popular. FDR's policies were initially seen as liberal, but because of their widespread popularity, they became the de facto center of American politics. This is how you push the entire political spectrum to one side. What were previously moderate, centrist views became right-wing after FDR's New Deal.
That's what Rush is talking about with Reagan: Reagan should have been the Republican FDR–the one who pushed the entire American political spectrum to the right and made conservatism the new moderate centrism. What were previously right-wing conservative policies should have become mainstream consensus positions.
But instead, Bush 41 was a one-term President, and since 1992, it is the Democrats have won four of the seven Presidential elections and six of seven popular votes.
Instead of tilting the playing field permanently to the right through Reagan's success, Democrats tilted it permanently to the left by way of mass immigration.
Whereas in the past Americans would vote based on which party was better for their personal finances, in a post-mass immigration America, political affiliation is not determined by this. Political affiliation is determined by tribe: Blacks vote Democrat. Hispanics vote Democrat. Jews vote Democrat. Whites vote Republican.
That's just the way it is.
It's about way more than economics. It's about tribal identity. Democrats have succeeded in making voting Democrat an inextricable part of being black or Hispanic in America.
Why do you think black Republicans are routinely scorned as "Uncle Toms" by other black people? Because there's a widespread belief that voting Democrat is an integral part of being black in America.
Hollywood and the Uniparty Media have succeed in convincing much of the country that white people still massively oppress minorities, and voting Republican is seen as a way to propagate "systemic racism" against minorities. Many minorities believe minority Republicans are voting to continue their own oppression.
It makes a lot more sense if you think of the Republican Party as the "White Party" and the Democratic Party as the "nonwhite party." Why on earth would a nonwhite person vote for the White Party?
And if you're wondering why many white people vote for the Nonwhite Party, you've stumbled upon the real problem in 2019, given that ~60% of the country is still white: the cultural left has indoctrinated and guilted a good deal of white people to believe they are morally obligated to vote Democrat, i.e. against their own interests. Self-loathing whites still remain integral to the Democratic coalition because there simply aren't enough minority voters to carry the Democrats to victory on their own. Yet.
Dismantling and Replacing "Old" America
As our country grows more "diverse" and less American, this is the inevitable result:
"Over the past several years, we have seen a rising tide of assaults on statues and other works of art representing our nation's history by those who are eager to squeeze that complex story into a box defined by the evolving rules of political correctness. We might call this the "monument controversy," and what happened at Notre Dame [where 134-year-old paintings of Christopher Columbus were covered-up] is a case in point: a vocal minority, claiming victim status, demands the destruction, removal, or concealment of some object of which they disapprove. Usually, the official response is instant capitulation.
As the French writer Charles Péguy once observed, "It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of not looking sufficiently progressive." Consider the frequent demands to remove statues of Confederate war heroes from public spaces because their presence is said to be racist. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, for example, has recently had statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson removed from a public gallery. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has set up a committee to review "all symbols of hate on city property."
"Symbols of hate" of course means "symbols of whiteness."
Roger Kimball goes on:
"But it is worth noting that the monument controversy signifies something much larger than the attacks on the Old South or Italian explorers.
In the first place, the monument controversy involves not just art works or commemorative objects. Rather, it encompasses the resources of the past writ large. It is an attack on the past for failing to live up to our contemporary notions of virtue."
While this is the left's usual stated reason for erasing American history, the true reason behind it is far more troubling than simply political correctness run amok.
It's about erasing traces of American history to make the country more reflective of its new owners (nonwhite immigrants), rather than the old ones (white people).
Since 1965, the Uniparty Establishment has been working tirelessly to demographically transform America into a "diverse" international homeless shelter in order to make it more receptive to leftwing socialist policies.
Demographic transformation of a country necessarily entails wholesale cultural, linguistic, religious, political and yes, even historical, transformation.
Historical transformation–which comes after erasure–is necessary to ensure a place is completely transformed beyond all recognition, permanently.
A nation is defined by its history, in other words "who it was." In order to know what someone or some place is, you must know what it was.
Erasing a nation's history means it is simply a blank slate, a plot of land on a map, which can thus be remade into anything.
And that's the point.
If you thought the historical erasure would stop with Confederates and Old Southerners, you were wrong. That's just the first step. That's the low-hanging fruit the Globalist Uniparty Usurpers can take with little pushback from the token opposition on the right at places like National Review, whose Editor was all to happy to capitulate on the matter of Confederate Statues:
Yes, this is certainly standing athwart history and yelling 'Stop!'
The so-called "Conservative Movement" has no interest in conserving American history because its member are more interested in being accepted by the Cool Kids.
But it's not going to stop with the Confederate monuments. Already they're coming for Christopher Columbus.
In 2017, "protesters" in NYC defaced a statue of Theodore Roosevelt and demanded the statue be taken down because it was a symbol of "patriarchy, white supremacy and settler-colonialism."
And if you think they're not coming for the Founding Fathers, you're clueless.
The more immigrants that pour into this country, the less relevant American history becomes. Our history is not their history. Why should they have to drive down roads named after our Presidents, and send their children to schools named after our historical figures? Eventually, everything will be renamed.
Here in Chicago, there was talk a few years ago about renaming O'Hare International Airport after Obama. It didn't happen, but is there any doubt this will happen in the future eventually? "Who was Butch O'Hare? *google search* Oh, some OLD ASS RACIST ASS DEAD ASS WHITE GUY?! FUCK HIM!"
Obama is the messiah of the New America, while a guy like Butch O'Hare represents the old America.
In Minnesota, Lake Calhoun, located in downtown Minneapolis, had its name changed to "Bde Maka Ska" last year. "Bde Maka Ska" is its "original Dakota" Indian name.
It's not about honoring the Indians who were "here first," but about dismantling all traces of white American history. John Calhoun, whom the lake had been named after for nearly 200 years, was an advocate of slavery, so of course that was the justification for stripping his name from the lake.
Because White Men = slavery, while Indians = morally flawless noble savages.
But removing the name of a Dead White Guy from a lake in Minneapolis was part of the wider, deliberate chipping-away at American history taking place across this country.
And it's not just statues, lakes and buildings named after Dead White Guys. It's Western literature that is being tossed in the dustbin of history, too:
"The English department at the University of Pennsylvania contributed to the monument controversy when it cheered on students who were upset that a portrait of a dead white male named William Shakespeare was hanging in the department's hallway. The department removed the picture and replaced it with a photograph of Audre Lorde, a black feminist writer.
"Students removed the Shakespeare portrait," crowed department chairman Jed Esty, "and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department." Right.
High schools across the country contribute to the monument controversy when they remove masterpieces like Huckleberry Finn from their libraries because they contain ideas or even just words of which they disapprove."
The New Americans are dismantling our country before our very eyes. They are pulling the rug out from under us.
They are making the country more reflective of who they are, rather than who we are.
This applies to architecture as well. For ten years Muslim preachers in England have been demanding the Queen wear a full burka and that Buckingham Palace be affixed with minarets:
"The Queen forced to wear a burkha and Buckingham Palace turned into a mosque – that was the vision of Britain under Sharia law proposed by a Muslim firebrand yesterday.
Preacher of hate Anjem Choudary even showed mocked-up photographs of the palace sporting a golden dome and Nelson's Column as a minaret.
He was speaking ahead of a central London demonstration that was planned for today."
Here's Choudray's ideal version of Buckingham Palace:
Could they be any clearer about their intent to conquer Britain?
And American architecture is next. The neoclassical style of the Capitol, the White House and most of our famous landmarks around D.C. will one day inevitably be renounced as "white people" architecture.
Will the New Americans one day blow up Mount Rushmore? It sounds unthinkable but logically, it follows when you're already defacing statues of Teddy Roosevelt and itching to do the same to statues of Jefferson and Washington.
The most important thing is: the faces on Mount Rushmore will come to reflect the old America, and the New America will not like that.
This type of thing has happened consistently all throughout history: when places change hands, they change names.
All traces of the old occupants and rulers are discarded and replaced with monuments recognizing the idols and icons of the new occupants and rulers.
Under Roman rule, the land today known as "France" was called "Gaul."
When the red communists took over Russia, the city of St. Petersburg was renamed "Leningrad" after the patriarch of the Soviet Communist Party.
In Vietnam, Saigon became Ho Chi Minh City, named after the leader of the Vietnamese Communists.
Constantinople became Istanbul in 1453 when it was conquered by the Ottomans.
New York City was originally called New Amsterdam, reflecting its Dutch rulers. But the British renamed it after the Duke of York upon conquering it in 1664.
In 2003, what was the first thing the Iraqis did after being "liberated" by America? They famously pulled down the giant statue of Saddam Hussein.
The Uniparty Propaganda Media celebrated the toppling of the Saddam statue as a symbolic moment marking the official end of Saddam's regime–and, of course, the optimistic dawn of a New Era of American-Imposed Democracy in Iraq.
The toppling of old statues, no matter where, marks the fall of an old regime and the its replacement by a new one. America is no exception.
There are countless more, and smaller, examples of names being changed and statues being toppled all around the world, all throughout history.
It is symbolic of conquest.
We may not have foreign armies marching on us and conquering us in the traditional understanding of the term, but we are being conquered nonetheless.
What we're experiencing is conquest by way of mass immigration. The modern West may be experiencing the first-ever peacetime conquest in that our homelands are being conquered despite not being besieged by foreign armies and enemies at the gate
The end-result will be the same, however.
Covington Catholic's Nick Sandmann Sues Washington Post for $250 million (!)
Two-hundred and fifty million dollars. Whoa:
Nick Sandmann sues WaPo for $250M+. https://t.co/RH2WUsSzS3
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) February 19, 2019
And the best part is the lawsuit is being filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky, which I'm sure is favorable turf for the Good Guys.
You can go ahead and read the lawsuit here. The specifics articles and false claims Sandmann is suing WaPo over ("negligence and actual malice") begin on Page 18.
While I am of course sympathetic to Sandmann and it obviously goes without saying that I want to see the Washington Post brought to its knees, I'm having trouble seeing how the plaintiffs can justify $250 million?
Don't get me wrong, Sandmann is definitely owed a lot of money, but $250 million? That's a hell of a lot.
Sandmann's lawyer can obviously argue that the Post has defaced Sandmann's good name for life: any Google search of him will instantly turn up countless smear pieces and false claims about him.
The Post may well have contributed to a. depriving Sandmann of a college education, b. depriving him of a good career, and c. exposing him to countless death threats, vitriol and unmerited negative treatment from other people.
Sandmann's life will never be the same.
So I guess we'll find out (hopefully): how much does it cost to ruin a 16-year-old's life?
I doubt Sandmann will get the full $250 million, or anywhere close to it. I looked at some other huge defamation cases and it seems like the formula is to seek an outrageous sum (like $250 million) and settle for something like $1-3 million. But I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I know Hulk Hogan got $140 million from Gawker, but I wonder if it's different for rich celebrities who can plausibly claim to be deprived of tens of millions of dollars in future income.
The reason I doubt Sandmann will get anywhere near $250m is because the Post's lawyers will say it's implausible to say he was deprived of that much money.
But then again, how can they say with any certainty that Sandmann wouldn't have gone on to make hundreds of millions of dollars in his career if he had not been a victim of WaPo's (and others') smears? They can't.
Maybe this will prove to be a fruitful strategy for dismantling the Uniparty Propaganda Complex: suing them into oblivion.
We've already seen it with Hulk Hogan putting Gawker out of business.
Consider that Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for $250 million back in 2013. $250 million would put the paper out of business if it weren't owned by Bezos. I'm sure it's nothing to him to bail the paper out and sink another $250 mil. He doesn't want to go down as the guy who oversaw the demise of the Washington Post. But then again, Bezos is no longer worth $140 billion–that'll be cut in half when he finalizes his divorce. Maybe only having $70 billion in net worth will make Bezos stingier.
Still, let's hope for a considerable settlement–enough to do some serious damage to the Post's finances.
And then, of course, Ace of Spades says there are 53 other Fake News Propaganda Outlets Sandman is primed to sue in addition to the Post.
Sue 'em all.
Bernie Sanders Announces Presidential Run, Begs Left to Not Hold His Straight, White Maleness Against Him
So it's official: Bernie Sanders is running for President again. In an interview, he was asked whether he thinks he–as a straight, white male–has any place in the modern Democratic Party:
When asked by VPR's Bob Kinzel about concerns that he no longer best represents "the face of the new Democratic Party," Sanders, 77, said: "We have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or their gender and not by their age," Sanders said.
LOL: the Democratic Party revolves around nothing but evaluating people by their skin color, sexual orientation, gender and age. Good luck disabusing the party of that, Bernie.
"I mean, I think we have got to try to move us toward a non-discriminatory society which looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for."
Again: discrimination based on immutable characteristics like skin color and gender is the modern Democratic Party's reason for being.
So the question is: will Bernie be able to overcome his toxic straight, white maleness and win the Democratic nomination for 2020?
Who is Bernie Sanders to claim he is more deserving of the Presidency than minority women like Kamala Harris, or even Kirsten Gillibrand?
Bernie is a man and men's time is UP! Men have had their shot at power already! It's time to give the women their day.
How DARE a male like Bernie stand in their way?
And how dare Bernie stand in the way of minorities like Cory Booker? White Oppressors have been in power for 400 years! Their time is up.
I wrote an article on the old site wondering if John Kerry in 2004 will go down as the last straight, white male to ever win the Democratic Presidential nomination. I wrote that while Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden might win the party's nomination in 2020, the odds going forward of a straight white male winning the party's nomination in 2024, 2028 and further down the line become lower and lower.
The Democratic Party base is now openly hostile to straight white males, and it will get worse with each passing year.
The Democratic Party is finally in line with Bernie Sanders' views as far as socialism goes, but unfortunately for Bernie the Dem Party has also decided that straight white males are the Great Satan.
It's hard to see him–or any straight white male–winning the Democratic presidential nomination. And not just in 2020, but ever again.
Based Rush Limbaugh
This man has always kept it real. He's been around for almost 30 years and has never shilled for the Establishment or virtue signaled for the approval of the left.
Rush Limbaugh simply gets it. Always has, always will. This is because he actually values the input of his listeners. He never allowed himself to get too big to the point where he stopped caring about what the Regular Americans who listen to him think.
Rush is the biggest name in Republican politics outside of Donald J. Trump and the reason Rush is still deeply in-tune with the Party Base. Because Rush actually respects them and cares about what they care about.
Look at what Rush said this weekend:
"On this weekend's broadcast of "Fox News Sunday," nationally syndicated conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said President Donald Trump was right to declare a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border to build a wall.
Limbaugh, "We have an emergency. This is an invasion. The very existence and definition of American culture, American society, the rule of law. Why does nobody talk about the fact that millions and millions and millions of people are breaking the law coming here illegally and that the Democrat Party wants that to happen?"
He added, "It is undeniable that we have a major immigration problem and a political party that needs a permanent underclass of voters that wants that parade of illegal people who are uneducated, don't even speak the language, they want them here. It is a crisis."
Importantly, Rush sees the "big picture" on immigration: it's not just about crime and drugs. It's about preserving American culture. It's about keeping America American.
He knows that the real national emergency is the demographic transformation of America into a third-world, Elysium-style hellhole.
Who is Really Under Siege in America? Trump Supporters.
It's become apparent in 2019 that whatever the "media"/ mainstream cultural consensus claims to be true of America, in reality the exact opposite is true. Specifically, its prevailing assumptions on which races, genders, sexual groups and religions face the most oppression represent the polar opposite of how things truly are.
For example, while the Uniparty Propaganda "media" says that black men like Jussie Smollett are endangered and under threat by white racists in Trump's America, the real truth is just the opposite: it's white Trump supporters who are more likely to be assaulted and harassed in public. See: Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Rand Paul, the teenaged Texas Trump supporter, etc. Breitbart's John Nolte has compiled a list of 639 (and counting) incidents where Trump supporters were attacked or harassed in public–with the full approval and often encouragement of Democratic politicians like Maxine Waters and the "media."
Meanwhile, the list of fake hate crimes against minorities numbers in the hundreds–and the site that kept track of them, fakehatecrimes.org, appears to have been taken offline:
Fortunately, American Renaissance has a list of its own here.
The popular consensus is that Women Are #Oppressed in America but the reality is that there has never been a better time to be a woman in this country. If anything, there is a War On Men underway–and men are losing badly.
The bottom line is that whatever narrative the media is trying to sell you is almost certainly going to be the exact opposite of the truth.
As the Jussie Smollett fake attack unraveled over the weekend, this true story from Kentucky–which of course the "media" ignored–showed who's truly in danger:
"BOWLING GREEN, Ky. (WBKO) — A Tennessee man is in jail after being accused of pulling a gun on a Sam's Club customer Saturday.
According to the police report, officers were called to Sam's Club due to a person with a gun.
According to the alleged victim Terry Pierce, a man pulled a gun on him because he was wearing a Make America Great Again (MAGA) hat.
"I have as much right to wear that hat and support my country and my president as he has not to," said Pierce.
The police report confirms that the suspect, identified as James Phillips, admitted to flipping off Pierce and Pierce's wife because of their hats.
Pierce tells 13 News that he was shopping with his wife when Phillips "Pulled a .40 caliber out and stuck it in my face, backed up and said, 'It's a good day for you to die.'"
How would you like to be a Trump supporter minding your own business doing a little weekend shopping at Sam's Club when a rabid, deranged Democrat sticks a gun in your face and threatens to kill you because you're wearing a MAGA hat?
There is real oppression and intolerance in this country: against Trump supporters.
The Jussie Smollett "Hate Crime" Was Completely Staged
As I predicted on this site the day the story originally broke, the Jussie Smollett "hate crime" was in fact a hoax orchestrated by Smollett himself:
On Saturday night, Chicago Police confirmed to PJ Media that the testimonies of two black men arrested in the case of Empire star Jussie Smollett have flipped the story. Rather than considering Smollett the victim of an attack, it appears that police may now see him as the perpetrator of a hoax.
"We can confirm that the information received from the individuals questioned by police earlier in the Empire case has in fact shifted the trajectory of the investigation," Chicago Police chief communications officer Anthony Guglielmi told PJ Media. "We've reached out to the Empire cast member's [sic] attorney to request a follow-up interview."
Two law enforcement sources confirmed to CNN that police are considering the Jussie Smollett case a hoax. Police now think the two men they arrested last week — Olabinjo "Ola" Osundairo and his brother Abimbola "Abel" Osundairo — were paid by Smollett to attack him. Chicago Police believe the Empire star orchestrated the assault."
In America 2019, black people are so oppressed that they have to pay Nigerian guys $3500 to pose as Trump supporters and stage a hate crime.
That's #SystemicRacism for ya.
The "media" was, of course, complicit, running with Smollett's obviously bogus story and taking his claims at face value from the start.
Smollett's fabrication allowed the "media" to further peddle the bogus narrative that America is experiencing a surge of racist hate crimes in the Era Of Trump. Look at them all "reporting" Smollett's lies as if they were true:
https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1096940370523389952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1096940370523389952&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Ftrending%2Fhoax-police-think-empire-star-jussie-smollett-paid-two-men-to-attack-him%2F
Enemy of the people.
Trump's Waterloo
I want to preface this post by saying that yes, this is certainly a pro-Trump blog, and that purely based on the alternatives, there's just about nothing Trump could do that would turn me against him.
But this budget bill he's about to sign into law is cancerous. It's a monstrosity. It represents everything he claims to be against and perhaps the single-greatest betrayal of his supporters he could ever commit.
In all likelihood, it is Trump's "Read my lips: No new taxes" moment–an instance where a President reneges on his central campaign promise, thereby demoralizing and alienating his base, probably for good.
But unlike taxes, which can be raised and lowered at any time, amnesty is forever. And that's exactly what this budget bill is: amnesty.
A major the criticism of the bill is that "no one has read it," and you often hear this phrase thrown around a lot. But it's not accurate to say "no one has read it"–not with this bill, not with prior bills, not with Obamacare, etc.
Someone has read it. Hell, someone even wrote it. Probably quite a few people.
What "no one has read it" actually means is that a select few Uniparty Establishment Members of Congress wrote the bill and are hoping to hurry it through Congress and get it signed into law before its full, ugly details become widely known.
While we don't know all of those details, what we do know so far is that this budget bill is the last thing this country needs right now.
In fact, it's the complete opposite of what Trump's supporters voted for, and which Trump has been fighting for these past few months.
Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) says the bill would actually weaken ICE and make the border less safe:
Here's why I voted no on the dead-of-night, weaken-ICE spending "compromise" and why this whole process needs to be blown up pic.twitter.com/eQwrraqGFF
— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) February 15, 2019
Here are some more specifics about the bill:
The President should declare a national emergency & not sign the spending bill. The agreement "in principle" which was rumored to include $1.375 Billion for a wall, instead allows for local authorities to veto wall construction, doubles # of H2B workers, & gives amnesty to UACs.
— Nicholas J. Fuentes (@NickJFuentes) February 14, 2019
This is from Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL):
.@RepMoBrooks on the biggest poison pill in the Spending Bill:
"Then you've got other language in this legislation that has the potential to RESTRICT the ability of a @POTUS to build a wall under the EMERGENCY DECLARATION that we anticipate tomorrow." https://t.co/yQYHIWYDEO
— The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) February 15, 2019
And it contains an amnesty provision that would cover over 1 million illegals:
Seems to be the case that some are fine with codifying permanently into immigration law a national de facto amnesty/sanctuary for any illegal alien living with an unaccompanied alien child. Kris Kobach estimates that upwards of 1M of illegal aliens would benefit. https://t.co/fza4OzsI9F
— John Binder 👽 (@JxhnBinder) February 15, 2019
It expands the chain migration program that has allowed millions to come into this country for no good reason:
https://twitter.com/matt_sussis/status/1096062029192982529
The bill has far more money for "global health programs" than border security:
The bill contains ~2.5x more money for global health programs ($3.1 billion) than border barrier ($1.375 billion). Trump has gotten rolled by Congress throughout his entire term. For all the screaming and hyperventilating, he is an extremely weak president relative to Congress
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) February 14, 2019
It's a complete disaster.
Daniel Horowitz summarizes the five worst provisions of this horrendous bill:
"1) Less of a wall than even what Democrats already agreed to: Trump originally demanded $25 billion for the wall. Then he negotiated himself down to $5.6 billion. Democrats balked and only agreed to $1.6 billion. This bill calls it a day at $1.375 billion, enough to construct 55 miles. But it's worse than that. This bill limits the president's ability to construct "barriers" to just the Rio Grande Valley sector and only bollard fencing, not concrete walls of any kind. There's no ability to adapt. Furthermore, section 231 prohibits construction even within the RGV in five locations that are either federal or state lands. Remember, the challenge with building a wall in Texas is that, unlike in other states, the feds need to navigate issues with private lands. The first place you'd construct fencing is on public lands, which are now prohibited. The national parks along the border have gotten so bad that park rangers are scared to travel alone in them.
2) Liberal local officials have veto power over wall: Actually, on second thought, it's likely that not a single mile of fence will be built. Section 232(a) of this bill states that "prior to use of any funds made available by this Act for the construction of physical barriers" the Department of Homeland Security "shall confer and seek to reach mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers within that city." With whom must the feds consult? "The local elected officials." Now you can understand the brilliance of limiting the wall to the Rio Grande Valley. These are the most liberal counties on the border (thanks to demographics of open borders itself!), and there is practically no local official who supports the wall in these counties.
What are the consequences? This bill stipulates that "Such consultations shall continue until September 30, 2019 (or until agreement is reached, if earlier) and may be extended beyond that date by agreement of the parties, and no funds made available in this Act shall be used for such construction while consultations are continuing." Thus, all the Beto O'Rourke type of politicians in that region have de facto veto power. There's a reason why they didn't authorize fencing in conservative counties like Cochise and Yuma in Arizona.
There will be no border wall.
"3) This bill contains a blatant amnesty for the worst cartel smugglers: Section 224(a) prohibits the deportation of anyone who is sponsoring an "unaccompanied" minor illegal alien – or who says they might sponsor a UAC, or lives in a household with a UAC, or a household that potentially might sponsor a UAC. It's truly difficult to understate the betrayal behind this provision. One of the driving factors of the invasion is the misinterpretation of the UAC law. Under current law, Central American teenagers are only treated as refugees if they are A) a victim of "A severe form of trafficking" and B) have no relatives in the country. Yet almost all of them are self-trafficked by these very illegal relatives who are indeed present in the country. Rather than clamping down on this fleecing of the American people, the bill gives amnesty to the very people paying the cartels to invade us!"
You're starting to notice a pattern here, right? Not only does this bill give us none of what we want, it gives us more of what we don't want.
"We can call this the MS-13 Household Protection Act of 2019," said Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies. "We know that 80 percent of the UAC sponsors are in the country illegally. The number of people this would protect would reach into the hundreds of thousands, if all of the household or potential household members are counted. ICE has estimated that 30-40 percent of the MS-13 members it has arrested in the last two years arrived as UACs. There is no reason to shield any of these individuals from deportation. After all, if the minor is living with family, they should no longer be considered unaccompanied anyway. If there are illegal aliens here who do not yet have a child here to serve as a deportation shield, this certainly is an incentive for them to make the arrangements to bring one."
4) More funding to manage and induce the invasion rather than to deter it: While offering no new funding for ICE deportation agents or immigration judges to speed up asylum claims, as the president requested, this bill adds another $40 million for the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program, which moves asylum seekers to facilities in the interior of the country, where they are usually released. Vaughan, who has studied interior immigration enforcement for decades, warned that "this bill will further expand and institutionalize the catch-and-release policies for those arriving illegally at the border from all over the world."
This bill makes everything worse, flat-out.
"What are the effects of the ATD program? "Most of these people have no intention of asking for asylum and know they don't qualify for it, but are simply joining the illegal population, knowing it's unlikely that they will be deported. The bill funds 'case management' staff to keep tabs on those who don't abscond immediately, but no money for ICE officers to find and remove them. This is going to saddle the communities that have been forced to absorb these new arrivals with billions of dollars of future costs for schooling, health care, and other welfare services."
At the same time, this bill reduces border detention beds from 49,060 to 40,520 rather than expanding them as Trump demanded. It contains no funding for more border agents. It offers $3.4 billion for refugee resettlement, more than last year's record levels. Remember, much of the refugee program has been used not just for bringing in traditional refugees from overseas but to resettle the aforementioned Central American teenagers being self-trafficked through the border, empowering cartels, and taking advantage of us.
5) Doubling low-skilled workers: This bill (p. 1,161) doubles the number of H-2B non-agricultural, unskilled seasonal workers who will continue to be a public charge on America. This gives you a glimpse of what is driving this amnesty bill on the Republican side.
This is just a cursory glance through the bill. Taken together, these provisions will aggravate the criminal conspiracy of the cartels and continue the invasion. Just this week, 1,800 family units came in during one 24-hour period, a new record. The message of this bill is to come here and seek bogus asylum or to grab a kid and you and others will get amnesty. Plus, there are no wall or policy changes to mitigate these effects.
Moreover, this bill will likely override Trump's executive powers because of the sneaky limitations on wall construction. This is the sort of omnibus bill that ensnared Reagan in Iran-Contra. Signing this bill will undermine his case for an emergency at the border both legally and politically."
The one ostensible saving grace is said to be that Trump will declare a national emergency and start building the wall on his own after signing this bill, but get this: the budget bill actually contains language that would specifically restrict Trump from declaring a national emergency to build the wall:
"According to one of the country's leading experts on national emergencies, it appears that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can trigger a process that could require the GOP-controlled Senate to hold a vote on such a declaration by Trump — which would put Senate Republicans in a horrible political position."
Do you have any faith whatsoever that the Senate GOP will vote to uphold Trump's national emergency? The GOP-controlled Senate just passed this radioactive spending bill–it will not rubber-stamp Trump's national emergency. Zero chance.
Ace of Spades further explains why this bill will prevent Trump from declaring a state of emergency:
"Furthermore, this scotches Trump's (claimed) plan to do this by Emergency order, because legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President would supersede the vague general powers the President would claim under the various statutes concerning national emergencies.
The specific trumps the general. The general powers conferred by statute for emergency authorization would be limited by the quite-specific limitations in the very spending bill Trump is signing.
Trump would sign a piece of paper forbidding him to do that which he claims he will next do on his own authority."
There will be no wall built under a state of emergency.
After he signed the last horrendous omnibus bill several months back, he promised he would never do it again.
#ThrowbackThursday President Trump to Congress on $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill: "I will never sign another bill like this again."
Today's spending bill is just as disastrous as that one Mr. President.
Honor your promise and veto this awful bill. pic.twitter.com/jDFokdABBI
And yet here he is preparing to do the same thing again.
I'm starting to wonder if maybe Trump should have left the immigration subject alone.
Not only does this budget bill not fund his wall, it actually contains a massive amnesty provision that will further screw Americans out of jobs, suppress wages, and continue the demographic transformation of this country that exclusively benefits Democrats.
In other words, Trump went into this budget battle demanding full funding for the wall, and he's going to come out of the battle with no money for the wall and having signed a massive amnesty into law.
That's how the Uniparty Establishment rolls: not only will they deny Trump what he wants, they will totally humiliate Trump and make him their bitch by also having him give them what they want against the wishes of Trump's voters. The Uniparty's message is this, "Your offer was border security and no amnesty. We're going to give you amnesty and no border security, and there's nothing you can do about it, you little bitch."
It's a complete humiliation. It seems personal. It seems like the Uniparty specifically tried to make this budget bill as bad as possible for Trump purely out of spite. They wanted to make an example out of him: this is what happens when you dare challenge Uniparty Consensus on immigration.
Consider the sheer audacity of the Uniparty in saying they're not only going to deny Trump the wall and maintain the status quo on immigration, but they're going to actually take this opportunity to push for amnesty and accelerate the demographic transformation of this country. It's mind-boggling.
Not only is this a no-win for Trump and his supporters on immigration, it's a major setback. This bill has us end up in a far worse place than we were before this shutdown battle even began.
Which is why I say I wonder if Trump would have been better off not even mentioning immigration at all: by making immigration his hill to die on with the shutdown, as well as the main issue during the campaign, Trump actually revealed immigration to be his biggest weakness. The Uniparty knows immigration is the one issue that will completely demoralize Trump's supporters if Trump doesn't deliver on it.
Simply agreeing to leave the immigration status quo alone might have given the Uniparty less incentive to seek out Trump's total humiliation here. Because I feel like a major reason the Uniparty sought the ICE-weakening and amnesty provisions was purely to demoralize Trump's supporters.
Just look at the despair among Trump supporters on social media: many feel like this is a complete betrayal by Trump, and they're right. They're ready to abandon ship, at least that's what they're saying.
The Uniparty not only wants to defeat Trump on immigration, it wants to force him to betray his supporters on immigration. "You're not only going to fail to deliver on your promise to build the wall, you're going to sign a massive amnesty into law."
Maybe we should have never spoken up about immigration. The moment we dared say we wanted less immigration, our Uniparty Rulers responded, "You know what? Just because you said you want less immigration, we're actually going to give you more. Because fuck you, that's why."
I'm starting to think the previous status quo would have been better. Why did we have to go and open our big mouths?
These are truly evil people we're dealing with here.
It's now becoming apparent that turning America into a third-world nation is the most sacred dogma of all for the Uniparty Establishment.
This spending bill is so bad it's hard to process it all. I'm still trying to figure out how we got here. It all just happened so fast.
One minute we thought we might be getting the wall, now we learn Congress has put together a bill that basically codifies OPEN BORDERS FOREVER into law and Trump is going to sign it.
President Trump, veto this monstrosity of a bill and at least go on record as having done all you could to oppose it. Even if your veto gets overridden (which it will), at least you tried. I guess we can take solace in that.
They say Congress can't agree on anything and that bipartisanship is dead, but it sure seems like Congress can agree on one thing: flooding America with third-worlders.
As I said above, there's just about nothing Trump could do to make me abandon him. Where am I going to turn? What's the alternative? John Kasich?
The Democrats?
There is no alternative to Trump. He's still far and away the best we have.
That said, two years in, it's become abundantly clear: the Swamp will never be drained. It cannot be drained. Trump is one measly President against all of Washington.
He has no allies in Congress. His White House is filled with Establishment careerists who constantly steer him toward their ends and away from those of his base.
Look at this: "Trump's aides fret he won't sign the bill"
If Trump's aides are fretting he won't sign, they're the reason we don't have a wall https://t.co/9L2Jg05bex
— Anntensity (@anntensity) February 15, 2019
Trump is surrounded by people who are actively trying to undermine his agenda. That headline tells you everything you need to know about Trump's "aides."
Election Night 2016 was the high point. It proved one thing: an outsider can win the presidency. The people can still vote.
But since election night 2016, only one thing has been proven: even if you elect an outsider, the Swamp is just too powerful. Voting doesn't mean shit. The only thing Trump's presidency has proven is how small and powerless a President can be in the face of the full might of the Uniparty.
This is Trump's Waterloo moment. In getting him to agree to not only no border wall but to actually accelerate the demographic transformation of this country, the Uniparty Swamp has in all likelihood just dealt Trump a mortal blow.
Failure, his supporters can understand and forgive. But not betrayal.
Last month's shutdown was for Trump analogous to Napoleon escaping exile on Elba and returning to France. Just when you thought Napoleon was gone and finished, he returns, rallies an army and retakes power. Just when you thought Trump was finished, he shuts down the government for over a month and says he won't budge until he gets a wall.
For a moment it almost seemed like we were going to win. It almost seemed like Trump was actually going to get the wall.
But of course, in the back of our minds, we all knew this was coming.
Just as Napoleon's return to power was short-lived, so too was Trump's defiance of the Swamp with the shutdown.
Because the iron law of American politics is this: the Swamp Always Wins.
The Deep State Is Real: McCabe Says DoJ Plotted to Overthrow Trump After Comey Firing
There is no omnipotent Deep State pulling the strings behind the scenes. Wherever would you get that ridiculous idea?
"Meetings were held at the Department of Justice on whether President Donald Trump should be removed from office with the 25th Amendment after the firing of former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe writes in a new book.
"There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment," CBS News' Scott Pelley said Thursday in a preview of his forthcoming interview with McCabe.
Pelley noted that these meetings were part of an extraordinary 8-day period after Comey's firing in which Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also suggested to senior FBI officials that he should wear a secret recording device in his meetings with Trump.
The 25th Amendment allows for the removal of the president of the United States if a majority of his Senate-confirmed cabinet believe he is no longer capable of discharging his duties while in office. Rosenstein reportedly speculated that he could convince at least two cabinet officials to sign on to a plan to oust Trump from office."
Oh, and that story that broke a while back about Rod Rosenstein supposedly offering to wear a wire and then go talk to Trump? Which Rosenstein played off as a joke?
McCabe says that not only happened, but that Rosenstein was dead serious about it.
This is like something out of a movie. We now have the Deputy FBI Director (who became Acting FBI Director upon Comey's firing) on record in his own book saying the Department of (In)justice held a meeting in which they not only discussed but actively planned to remove a sitting President.
Keep in mind that Andrew McCabe is not saying this to clear his conscience or to confess. Quite the opposite: he's bragging.
Make no mistake about it: McCabe's admissions here will be received among #Resistance and Uniparty Establishment circles as heroic. McCabe will be painted as a martyr who valiantly tried, but ultimately failed, to Save The Nation From Trump.
Despite McCabe's noble efforts, Fuhrer Trump ultimately clung to power.
That's how the #Resistance and Uniparty Establishment views this admission.
They don't fear a rogue, unelected Deep State attempting to overthrow the duly elected President because they are all part of the rogue, unelected Deep State.
← Previous Page 1 2 3 4 Next Page →
Follow Palace Intrigue on Twitter!
Follow Palace Intrigue via Email
Copyright © 2021 The Palace Intrigue | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme
The Palace Intrigue


text:
Q: Db2: Create a Column that stores the timestamp a value in the same row is set I have a Boolean column in my database called: IS_SUBMITTED that is by default set to False.
What I would like to do is to have another column in the database called TIME_SUBMITTED that is set to Null by default, but when IS_SUBMITTED is set to True, TIME_SUBMITTED is updated with the current timestamp.
Is this possible to implement? I image it may involve the use of a trigger but I'm quite new to Db2 and I can't quite seem to get it working properly.
Cheers

A: A BEFORE UPDATE trigger is what you need...
The simple solution assumes that IS_SUBMITTED is only ever changed one time from FALSE to TRUE.
create or replace trigger MYTRIGGER
  before update of IS_SUBMITTED on MYTABLE
  referencing
    new row as n
  set n.time_submited = current_timestamp
;

If IS_SUBMITTED can be changed backed to false, you'd need to decide how to handle that.  And use a compound BEGIN/END statement in the trigger with the additional logic.  I'll leave that as an exercise.
Lastly note, when asking Db2 questions on SO, it's a good idea to include your platform (LUW, z\OS, IBM i) and version.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: Can you depict the electron's electromagnetic field? I've had a number of discussions with individuals about electromagnetism. A recurring issue concerns the distinction between field and force, and seems to be associated with the lack of unification in contemporary teaching. As we all know, Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism a hundred and fifty years ago, but IMHO it sometimes feels like it never happened.
I think my concern is best signalled by the lack of any depictions of the electromagnetic field. For example we can see this depiction of the electric field in Andrew Duffy's Physics 106 course, where we can also read "lines of force are also called field lines":

And we can see this GNUFDL picture of a magnetic field by user Stannered on Wikipedia:

But there aren't any depictions of the electromagnetic field. Why not? Note section 11.10 of Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics where he says "one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fμν rather than E or B separately". I'm sure most readers would agree with this. But then surely one should properly depict the electromagnetic field Fμν rather than E or B separately. So, can you? You can probably depict a gravitomagnetic field. But can you depict the electron's electromagnetic field? And if not, why not?

A: This sketch might help ;)
It is an interactive picture of a charged particle in a plane, with the electric field lines and projections of the magnetic field lines also drawn. Here is what I thought about while making this visualization. The original question had depictions of an electric field due to a static charge and a magnetic field due to a current. My understanding of the situation (which I stole from Bosoneando haha) was that Coulomb's law and the Biot-Savart law are inadequate to describe situations where the light speed limit is important, and static pictures are not so good at conveying the subtleties of what happens with a field in that limit. Because position, velocity, and a particle's recent history all need to be taken into account to properly describe the classical electromagnetic field surrounding the particle, I felt an interactive visualization might best capture the physics of the situation.

A: I know of another geometric interpretation of the electromagnetic field that is invariant under Lorentz transformations and more general transformations of coordinates. It is not well known and requires you to think of two-dimensional surfaces in four-dimensional spacetime. But it can be visualized (as easily as any visualization of spacetime), is coordinate independent, and gives you all of the information about the field tensor using families of surfaces rather than numbers.
Integrable Surfaces
First let's consider the special case of a field where everywhere the electric field vector is perpendicular to the magnetic field vector. If we consider the four-vector $B^\mu$ with time component 0 and space components equal to the three-dimensional magnetic field vector, then it is annihilated by the electromagnetic field tensor
$$F_{\mu\nu}B^\nu = 0.$$
Due to the antisymmetry of $F$ there must be another direction $u^\mu$ that is also annihilated. If we choose it to be orthogonal to $B$ it will be in the direction of the Poynting vector.
Now in some frame at some time slice consider the magnetic field. This three-dimensional space is foliated by all of the curves of the magnetic field lines. As time passes the magnetic field lines will change. And in fact we can consistently think of each field line like a string moving in time with four-velocity $u^\mu$, the fact that this works ultimately comes from the Frobenius theorem. So each magnetic field line traces out a two-dimensional sheet as it moves in four-dimensional spacetime. And the foliation of space-time by these sheets is coordinate independent.
This in itself doesn't fully specify the electromagnetic field, we need one more scalar that specifies the magnetic flux, i.e. how many of these magnetic field line sheets are intersecting a given spatial surface at a given point in spacetime. In fact if you understand differential forms the whole electromagnetic field tensor can be thought of as an area form for this flux. It is simple to depict this aspect in the usual way by making magnetic field line sheets denser in regions where the magnetic flux is higher.
What I have been describing is the case where the two directions annihilated by the field tensor are the magnetic field vector and a Poynting four-vector, which may be (1,0,0,0) if it's a static magnetic field. The two-dimensional sheets are tangent to these two directions. But what if we are instead dealing with a static electric field like for a point charge? There is no magnetic field but there are still two directions annihilated by the field tensor - the two spatial directions perpendicular to the electric field. The surfaces tangent to these are just the familiar equipotential surfaces. If you boost the point charge out of rest you will get a non-zero magnetic field which will be tangent to the surface, so the only difference from the previous case is that the other direction $u$ tangent to the surface is a spacelike rather than timelike. As before, this family of surfaces in spacetime tells you the `direction' of the field and the density of the surfaces tells you the 'magnitude.'
General Electromagnetic Fields
Now for a general field it is no longer true that the electric field is perpendicular to the magnetic field, and it is no longer true that spacetime is foliated by integrable magnetic field line sheets or equipotentials. But there is a simple modification. The electric field being perpendicular to the magnetic field is equivalent to saying the electromagnetic field can be written in terms of scalar fields $X$ and $Y$ as follows,
$$ F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu X \partial_\nu Y - \partial_\mu Y \partial_\nu X.\quad[1]$$
In general the electromagnetic field comes from the gauge potential $A_\mu$
$$ F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu.$$
And in general a four vector can be written in terms of four scalars via Darboux's theorem
$$A_\mu = X_1 \partial_\mu Y_1 + X_2 \partial_\mu Y_2$$
So a general field tensor can be written in terms of two tensors, each with the form of equation 1. And we can associated a family of two dimensional sheets to each tensor.
Summary
The electromagnetic field can be represented by two families of two-dimensional surfaces in four-dimensional spacetime. If we pick an appropriate three-dimensional slice, we will see two families of one-dimensional field lines. These are not the electric and magnetic fields. If you add up the flux of both familes through a surface it will give you the integral of the electromagnetic field (as a two-form) over that surface. If the electric field is everywhere perpendicular to the magnetic field, only one family of surfaces is required and they are just the sheets traced out by magnetic field lines in spacetime (or equipotentials if the magnetic field vanishes).

A: I personally struggle with visualizing the electron's electromagnetic field $F_{\mu\nu}$ at a stroke because there are too many variables involved: six interrelated quantities at each point in space.  However, as Bosoneando points out, those six quantities are trivially related to the usual electric and magnetic fields by
\begin{align}
E_i &= -F_{0i} & B_i &= \frac12 \epsilon_{ijk} F^{ij}
\end{align}
if you'll permit me a little sloppiness with raised vs. lowered indices.  That means it's completely correct to visualize $F_{\mu\nu}$ as two vector fields in the volume surrounding the electron.
The electric field is given by the monopole term, as you point out.  The magnetic field is not given by the circulate-about-the-wire field in your second image (v1 of your post): that is instead the field of a current, or the superposition of the field of many moving electrons.  The magnetic field of a stationary electron is the field of a magnetic dipole.  Unlike most dipole field illustrations, the electron's magnetic field has the "far-field" dipole shape at all length scales; the electron's magnetic dipole moment seems to be an intrinsic property of the particle, rather than a consequence of some internal structure.
A satisfying way to turn these field visualizations into computational tools that are more intuitive than "shut up and calculate" is to recall the energy density of an electromagnetic field,
$$
U = \frac12\left(
\epsilon_0 E^2 + \frac1{\mu_0}B^2
\right),
$$
and remember that systems tend to evolve towards states with lower total energy.
An electrodynamical system will therefore tend to minimize the volume of strong field.  This, with your first diagram, makes it obvious why opposite charges are attracted to each other: an electric dipole field due to two separated charges has more nonzero field volume than the field due to charges which are superimposed.  In a uniform magnetic field a dipole will experience a torque which tends to align the dipole with the external field, which produces a minimum in the combined magnetic field in the plane of the dipole.  A magnetic dipole in a non-uniform magnetic field will still experience this torque, but also force in the direction of the gradient of the magnetic field strength: an aligned dipole wants to live where the magnetic field is at its strongest, in order to cancel as much magnetic field energy as possible, while an anti-aligned dipole wants to live where the magnetic field is weak.  You have experienced this interaction with toy magnets: they like to repel each other, but they really like to flip around and attract each other.

A: You can certainly draw pictures which contain both the $\vec E$ and $\vec B$ field lines in different colors, and together they specify the electromagnetic field. The only problem is that, in this form, the vector fields themselves are not Lorentz-covariant so if you, say, assume that the electron's stationary E-field and zero B-field are the same in an boosted reference frame, then you will predict that moving charges never generate magnetic fields, which is very wrong.
But you see these sorts of illustrations for example on this google search.
The best alternative solution is probably depicting the 4-potential $A^\mu$, which also completely specifies the electromagnetic field: you depict $\phi$ with a color gradient and $\vec A$ with lines. Probably the reason why this is not done so much is that it has a similar problem: you have to know how the scalar field turns into the vector field under Lorentz transforms. Another reason is that, due to $\nabla\cdot \vec E = \rho$, there is a straightforward way to say that $\vec E$ "comes out of positive charges" and has continuous field lines otherwise. The analogous way of drawing field lines for $\vec A$ obeys the Lorentz gauge condition that $\nabla\cdot\vec A=-\dot\phi/c$, so $\vec A$ needs to come out of places where $\phi$ is decreasing, and into places where it is increasing.
Actually that picture probably looks pretty cool; the travelling electron now has a reduced $\phi$ due to its direct Lorentz contraction (does it also get a length contraction? It might appear "squished", too), and that part "bleeds out" into a cloud of $\vec A$ which points in the direction the electron is going. But it's not a common visualization by any means.

A: I don't think that nobody seriously thinks that unification of electricity and magnetism never happened or that it is unimportant. You just have to look at the standard model, and you'll find a term in the lagrangian (in units with $\hbar = c = \varepsilon_0 = 1 $): $$\mathcal{L}_{EM} = -\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}$$See? No electric or magnetic fields, but the electromagnetic tensor.
But you also have to be aware that the electric and magnetic fields can always be calculated from the electromagnetic tensor $$E^i = -F^{0i} \qquad B^i = -\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ijk}F^{jk}$$
The fact that you have a more powerful theory doesn't force you to use it in every occasion you can. For example, in this question you can solve the problem in an esasy way if you go to the reference frame where $\vec{B}=0$ or you can solve it in an involved way calculating the electromagnetic tensor in the original reference frame. Both are correct and you obtain the same results, but one of them is way easier. Do you prefer the complicated way because you have a better feeling of the physics of the problem? Perfect, but that doesn't disprove other equally valid approaches.
Now, to the visualization part. That is a bit tricky, because it involves both physics and perception and intuition. When you depict an vector field, let's say the velocity field in a fluid, you're conveying several things. First of all, of course, you're asigning three number to every point in space. But any collection of three numbers don't form a vector field: if you perform a rotation, the three numbers transform in a non-trivial way, they transform in the fundamental representation of the SO(3) group. If you depict them as arrows and rotate the figure, the arrows will rotate in the same way as the vector field does. So using arrows makes sense.
But you run in trouble when you try to depict things within a larger group, namely the Lorentz group SO(1,3). I can imagine rotating a diagram, but imaging boosting it is a little harder (at least for me). If you try to depict an antisymmetric second-order tensor like the electromagnetic tensor, you have to represent 6 independent degrees of freedom plus the way they transform under arbitrary Lorentz transforms (the example given by @CuriousOne in the comments doesn't seem too clear to me, because I don't know how color transforms into shape or orientation when rotating or boosting the figure). As you can see, this is a lot of information to put in a single diagram.
What it is usually done is forgetting about boosts (for depicting purposes only) and considering how the electromagnetic field transforms under the subgroup of rotations $SO(3) \subset SO(1,3) $. It isn't hard too see that three components transform as a vector and the other three as a pseudovector (yes, electric and magnetic fields again!). So the best way to depict the electromagnetic field, IMHO, is as two set of vector fields, keeping in mind that they are not independent, but they will mix together if you boost th whole thing.
I know that this is not the answer you're looking for, but sometimes we have to admit the limits to our perception and our ability to make nice sketches. But in the end, equations are the most reliable method to convey all the information, and they never lie!
ADDENDUM:
Reading your comments in the answers given to you, I think that the cause of your doubt is that you're mixing several concepts:

*

*Field lines: In a vector field, field lines are a set of curves whose tangent vectors at every point form the vector field. Note that filed lines are a mathematical concept, even though in some special cases we can attach them some physical significance. Note also that field lines can be defined for vector fields, but $F_{\mu\nu}$ is a tensor field, not a vector field. So, you can't define filed lines for the electromagnetic tensor (but you can for electric and magnetic fields!)

*Force lines: A special case of field lines, where the vector field is the force felt by a test particle. In a purely electrostatic setting, filed lines and force lines are equal (up to a constant) $$\vec{F}(\vec{r}) = q \vec{E}(\vec{r})$$ so you can use them interchangeably. But when magnetic fields are present, the force in a test particle is the Lorentz force $$\vec{F}(\vec{r}, \vec{v}) = q\vec{E}(\vec{r}) + q\vec{v}\times\vec{B}(\vec{r})$$ or if you prefer a more unified fashion $$\frac{dp_\mu}{d\tau} = q F_{\mu\nu}\frac{dx^\nu}{d\tau} = q F_{\mu\nu} u^\nu$$The force now depends on the speed of the particle [to be exact, the rate of change of the four-momentum depends on the four-velocity of the particle]: you can no longer associate a force to every point of space in a univocal way, so you can't define force lines. In your second figure, a particle moving in the direction of the wire will feel a force perpendicular to its velocity and to the magnetic field, and therefore will be attracted/repelled to the wire. But a particle moving in the direction of the magnetic field, in the same point of space, won't feel any magnetic force at all.

*Depicting the electromagnetic field: The electromagnetic field is a bunch of numbers defined at every point that determine (following the equations given above) the dynamics of charged particles. They belong together because they are not independient, they mix when you rotate or boost your system. Anyway you try to depict them must reflect this mixing. This is the question that you posed (even though not what you meant, according to your comments), and this is what I tried to explain in the first version of my answer. Maybe you should ask yourself what is the real physical significance of the electromagnetic field, and what is the physical significance that you're trying to attach it.


18 Lovely Resume format Pdf Free Download Pics – federal resume template 8 free word excel pdf format the resume here follows a paragraph format where you have each paragraphs placed under the major points of a cv such as educational qualification work , resume format pdf free download. printable resume template 35 free word pdf documents a resume is a perfect representation of you and your achievements when you go out looking for a job it is something that could summarize everything that , resume format pdf free download.
resume format 2017 16 free to download word templates the best resume format 2017 is what you need to get the job this year stop wasting time download our free word resume templates its what you need . resume samples in pdf format best example resumes resume samples resume templates downloads in pdf format you will find all of our resumes that are completely free to download below all of the files , resume format pdf free download. resume template 2018 free online pdf and word cv builder how to write a resume fill this step by step template and get your cv ready for download in pdf or editable word template in a few minutes .
18 Lovely Resume format Pdf Free Download Pics – jobz pk cv templates download free sample resume cover resume samples cv templates download cv samples resume templates cv format free resume cover letter editable cv ms word pdf format cv templates . professional resume template psd pdf emske a professional resume template ind psd pdf this cv template is print ready simply enter information about yourself upload your photo and create a qr code . resume formats in word and pdf these sections come in your free resume template download everything you need for a proper and complete resume , resume format pdf free download.
how to select the file format for your resume what file format should you use for your resume most employers want either a doc file or a pdf of your resume here is how to save and send it , resume format pdf free download. basic resume template free templates in doc ppt pdf xls tidyform provides a large number of free and hand picked basic resume excel powerpoint and pdf formats all of our templates are free of download . , 18 Lovely Resume format Pdf Free Download Pics.


text:
'use strict';

import { extract, tagKeys, generatePot } from '../src/crusca';

import Promise from 'bluebird';
import expect from 'unexpected';

const readFile = Promise.promisify(require("fs").readFile);

describe('crusca.js', () => {

  describe('[extract] should extract translatable string', () => {

    const fixturesDir = './test/extract';
    const extractedStrings = [
      { line: 13, value: 'Template Literal' },
      { line: 16, value: 'Template Literal with {0} variable' },
      { line: 19, value: 'Template Literal with {0} and {1} variables' },
      { line: 22, value: 'Tagged Template Expression' },
      { line: 25, value: 'Tagged Template {0} with {1} Expr' },
      { line: 28, value: 'Template Literal with {0} Binary Expression' },
      { line: 31, value: 'Template Literal with {0} Call Expression' },
      { line: 34, value: 'Template Literal with {0} Member Expression' },
      { line: 37, value: 'Template Literal with {0} Member Expression' },
      { line: 40, value: 'String Literal' }
    ];

    it('from an ES6 module', () => {

      return readFile(`${fixturesDir}/es6.js`, 'utf8')
        .then((code) => {
          const strings = extract(code);
          return expect(strings, 'to equal', extractedStrings);
        });

    });

    it('from an CommonJS module', () => {

      return readFile(`${fixturesDir}/cjs.js`, 'utf8')
        .then((code) => {
          const strings = extract(code);
          return expect(strings, 'to equal', extractedStrings);
        });

    });

    it('from an AMD module', () => {

      return readFile(`${fixturesDir}/amd.js`, 'utf8')
        .then((code) => {
          const strings = extract(code);
          return expect(strings, 'to equal', extractedStrings);
        });

    });
  });

  describe('[tagKeys] should create an object with keys and locations', () => {

    const fixturesDir = './test/tagKeys';

    it('reading from 1 file, starting empty', () => {
      const filePath = `${fixturesDir}/simple.js`;
      return readFile(filePath, 'utf8')
        .then((code) => {
          const keys = extract(code);
          const taggedKeys = tagKeys(keys, filePath);
          return expect(taggedKeys, 'to equal', {
              'Some unique string': ['#: ./test/tagKeys/simple.js:7'],
              'String number 2': ['#: ./test/tagKeys/simple.js:9']
            }
          )

        });
    });

    it('reading from 1 file with no strings, starting empty', () => {
      const filePath = `${fixturesDir}/noStrings.js`;
      return readFile(filePath, 'utf8')
        .then((code) => {
          const keys = extract(code);
          const taggedKeys = tagKeys(keys, filePath);
          return expect(taggedKeys, 'to equal', {})

        });
    });

    it('reading from 1 file, with key reusing', () => {
      const filePath = `${fixturesDir}/withReuse.js`;
      return readFile(filePath, 'utf8')
        .then((code) => {
          const keys = extract(code);
          const taggedKeys = tagKeys(keys, filePath);
          return expect(taggedKeys, 'to equal', {
              'Some not so unique string': [
                '#: ./test/tagKeys/withReuse.js:7',
                '#: ./test/tagKeys/withReuse.js:9'
              ]
            }
          )

        });
    });

    it('reading from 1 file, starting non empty', () => {
      const startingValues = {
        'Some String': ['# ./path/to/file:42']
      };

      const filePath = `${fixturesDir}/simple.js`;
      return readFile(filePath, 'utf8')
        .then((code) => {
          const keys = extract(code);
          const taggedKeys = tagKeys(keys, filePath, startingValues);
          return expect(taggedKeys, 'to equal', {
            'Some String': ['# ./path/to/file:42'],
            'Some unique string': ['#: ./test/tagKeys/simple.js:7'],
            'String number 2': ['#: ./test/tagKeys/simple.js:9']
          })

        });
    });

    it('reading from 1 file with no strings, starting non empty', () => {
      const startingValues = {
        'Some String': ['# ./path/to/file:42']
      };

      const filePath = `${fixturesDir}/noStrings.js`;
      return readFile(filePath, 'utf8')
        .then((code) => {
          const keys = extract(code);
          const taggedKeys = tagKeys(keys, filePath, startingValues);
          return expect(taggedKeys, 'to equal', {
            'Some String': ['# ./path/to/file:42']
          })

        });
    });

    it('reading from 2 files, without key reusing', () => {
      const filePaths = [
        `${fixturesDir}/simple.js`,
        `${fixturesDir}/simple2.js`
      ];

      return Promise.all([readFile(filePaths[0], 'utf8'), readFile(filePaths[1], 'utf8')])
        .then((data) => {
          const taggedKeys = data.reduce((result, code, idx) => {
            const keys = extract(code);
            return tagKeys(keys, filePaths[idx], result)
          }, {});

          return expect(taggedKeys, 'to equal', {
            'Some unique string': ['#: ./test/tagKeys/simple.js:7'],
            'String number 2': ['#: ./test/tagKeys/simple.js:9'],
            'A different string': ['#: ./test/tagKeys/simple2.js:7']
          });
        });
    });

    it('reading from 2 files, with key reusing', () => {
      const filePaths = [
        `${fixturesDir}/simple.js`,
        `${fixturesDir}/reuseFromSimple.js`
      ];

      return Promise.all([readFile(filePaths[0], 'utf8'), readFile(filePaths[1], 'utf8')])
        .then((data) => {
          const taggedKeys = data.reduce((result, code, idx) => {
            const keys = extract(code);
            return tagKeys(keys, filePaths[idx], result)
          }, {});

          return expect(taggedKeys, 'to equal', {
            'Some unique string': ['#: ./test/tagKeys/simple.js:7'],
            'String number 2': [
              '#: ./test/tagKeys/simple.js:9',
              '#: ./test/tagKeys/reuseFromSimple.js:9'
            ],
            'Some other very unique string': ['#: ./test/tagKeys/reuseFromSimple.js:7']
          });
        });
    });

  });

  describe('[generatePot] should generate the data to write in a .pot file', () => {

    const fixturesDir = './test/generatePot';

    it('comparing to file `./test/generatePot/template.pot`', () => {

      const taggedKeys = {
        'Some unique string': ['#: ./test/tagKeys/simple.js:7'],
        'String number 2': [
          '#: ./test/tagKeys/simple.js:9',
          '#: ./test/tagKeys/reuseFromSimple.js:9'
        ],
        'Some other very unique string': ['#: ./test/tagKeys/reuseFromSimple.js:7']
      };

      return readFile(`${fixturesDir}/template.pot`, 'utf8').then((fileData) => {
        return expect(generatePot(taggedKeys), 'to be', fileData);
      });

    });

    it('escaping double quotes', () => {

      const taggedKeys = {
        'Some "quoted" unique string': ['#: ./test/tagKeys/simple.js:7']
      };

      const potFileContent = generatePot(taggedKeys, '');

      expect(potFileContent, 'to be', '\n' +
        '#: ./test/tagKeys/simple.js:7\n' +
        'msgid "Some \\"quoted\\" unique string"\n' +
        'msgstr ""\n');

    });

  });
});

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Happy Heads are our Goal!
Have a look at the site!
Just a quick note to let you know my super-cool Gallet 250 arrived and even though UPS chose the "Ace Ventura" manner of delivery it arrived in pristine condition.
I've just completed my first flight with it and I'm super stoked. Fit right outa' the box. Nicely done Rob.
Have a peaceful weekend and know you have another satisfied customer. If you have any questions or follow-up give me a holla.
You guys are definitely customer friendly. I received a ton of info via our conversation and was able to make the correct purchase for my head. Happy Head here in TX !
Geez, this is a great fit ! It has been a great experience. You nailed it !
I am impressed with your customer service. This purchase has been handled well and my helmet is excellent. I will recommend Merit to others.
Hey, great fit and great service. Appreciate your patience and attention to details. This is by far my best helmet yet and I've been flying 25+ years !
The New Speakers works like a charm. I am thrilled with my new helmet. The fit is great and the difference from my previous helmet is like night and day.
Thanks so much for all your help. I would recommend your company to anyone and I already have !
I received my helmet yesterday and it seems to fit very well !! I will flight test it next week. I am very happy with the good and quick work you've done! Thank You.
Merit Apparel has over 30 years of flight helmet experience that has afforded us the opportunity to design and develop quality communications and options to be integrated with Gallet Flight Helmets. We have the ability to customize the fit and set-up of each helmet to meet your individual needs.
At Merit Apparel you will also find a full line of Nomex Flight Gloves.
You won't find better customer service anywhere. It's our number one priority.
Copyright © 2018. Merit Apparel. All rights reserved.


text:
Injuries can trigger anxiety and concern for most professional athletes. "Will this influence my performance? Will this affect my career?" That's why sports medicine programs focus on helping these individuals get back on the field faster — to ease their worries.
When athlete Seo-In Kim felt a twinge and soreness on his right knee, he began to worry. He noticed the soreness early in the season and initially didn't think much of it. But when the pain turned to discomfort and limited his ability to play, he feared the worst. He could not turn and sprint as quickly and could not cover as much ground. As a result, he started to lose minutes on the field.
"Any athlete who has gone through an injury has the same doubt – is this the end of my career?" he thought.
As a midfielder, Kim is expected to run from one end of the field to the other, requiring him to cover more ground than any other player. His attack-oriented position also means more tight turns, cuts, and sprints.
Born in South Korea but raised in the suburbs of Kansas City, the 27-year-old had already built what seemed like a lifetime of soccer experience. He had earned invitations to the United States Youth National Teams while at the prestigious Sporting Kansas City Academy. Kim attended Duke University and the University of California-Santa Barbara (UCSB) and went on to play professional soccer in places as far away as Malta and the Czech Republic. Most recently, he joined Chicago House Athletic Club.
"I tore a ligament on the same knee while at UCSB," Kim said. "I was just beginning to recover mentally from that injury, so this new pain brought back some bad memories."
Luckily, Sebastian Ko, M.D., the team's physician, noticed his decline on the field and quickly assessed his knee.
All professional soccer teams have physical trainers on the bench to tend to on-field injuries, but surgeons are rarely present on the sidelines. As an orthopedic surgeon at the Chicago Center for Orthopedics at Weiss Memorial Hospital, Dr. Ko has a full schedule of patients to care for, yet found time to attend every House game.
"Every club has their own protocols regarding team doctors, but I have yet to see one as involved as Dr. Ko," said Kim. "Having him at every Chicago House game is reassuring."
Kim was afraid he might have torn a ligament. After examining him, Dr. Ko suggested that Kim get an MRI to allay any doubts he may have. The Chicago Center for Orthopedics has a unique program that could expedite the diagnostic and treatment process for amateur and professional athletes. The Fast-Track program means that injuries can be assessed quickly at the facility — within two days — rather than waiting weeks for an appointment and days for an x-ray or MRI.
"The Fast-Track program is one of the reasons why athletes choose to get diagnosed and treated at our facility," noted Dr. Ko. "We've been able to help these individuals get back on the field sooner. For Kim, the MRI showed that he had suffered a torn meniscus ligament."
"I never really had to sit and wait," added Kim. "Dr. Ko had a plan within days, and I had the surgery."
Kim was right to trust the optimism. Within two weeks of the surgery, he was already jogging. Two and a half months later he was back to doing full workouts. Kim was surprised at how quickly he was back on track.
"I really was expecting the worst, but Dr. Ko explained everything thoroughly, from surgery to rehabilitation, and with an empathetic ear."
Although the season ended before he could fully recover, Kim feels ready to return to the field. He has regained the confidence in his body — and performance — once again.
"I don't think it could have worked out any better than it did," said Kim. "It's a testament of the great work by Dr. Ko and everyone at the Chicago Center for Orthopedics. They worked so hard to give me a second chance. That's admirable."

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl