The Tennessee Star released the journal of Audrey Hale, the female to male tranny that shot up her former school. I downloaded the journal and have archived it here on this site. She decided to call herself Aiden and carried out the shooting less than a year after she began pretending that she was a man.
The journal is a weeks long picture into the random train of consciousness of a person who has lost touch with reality, spending page after page of rage, sadness, and thoughts of using a penis on “beautiful brown girls” while claiming that if she had a penis, it would be a “big and rock hard one” before lamenting that she was only born with a puny vagina. By the time March 11 rolled around, she wrote a 3 page dissertation about what her imaginary penis was like, and it was a disjointed psychotic screed.
The common thread running through the book is about pain, sadness, and the desire to massacre people. Even as she wished to be a man, she also claimed that all men should die because they are a waste of life and time. Then she claimed that it was a blow to women that she was a man born in a woman’s body, because they were missing out on all of the good things that she brought to the world.
This was a person who hated herself, and hated the world as well. She wanted to kill as many people as possible. She journals that she was seeing a therapist, and I can’t believe that this supposed mental health professional didn’t see the madness there.
Trump was invited to Arlington to attend the memorial for the troops that died during the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal by the dead soldiers’ families. Biden and Harris were invited as well, but chose not to attend.
The left is in full pearl clutching mode, calling Trump a criminal because he had a photographer there, claiming that it is a crime for political activity to take place at Arlington. Funny, they weren’t too concerned about that last Veteran’s day, when Biden was campaigning there.
Then the left goes on an on about the respect they have for the people buried there. I am old enough to remember when the left thought it was funny to do this:
This illustrates how politics is done today. For $5000, you too can hire an internet reputation company to clean up your online reputation. I would bet that they can even gin up enough astroturf for you to make a run at the Whitehouse.
My wife is an adjunct professor at a college. She teaches online classes in finance, economics, and an intro course in the Microsoft Office suite. The Microsoft class is a good one, because the state of Florida requires one semester of computer education in order to graduate, so there are a lot of students who take those classes.
The policies of the courses are set by the college. Every professor has the same policy- no late work is allowed, no cheating, etc. This is to make sure that the lessons are the same for everyone to ensure consistency.
The class covers a different program every few weeks: Office, Excel, Powerpoint, etc. The assignments go as follows: they are taught how to use the features of the program, then are given a file that they have to make edits to. The edits that they must make are spelled out, the student then makes those edits, saves the file, and turns it in to the professor. The file has a digital watermark to ensure that students aren’t merely sharing the file and turning in each other’s work. They have two weeks to complete the assignment- it’s due on Sunday night at midnight.
In her Microsoft class, she has 90 students. The first assignment was due at the end of the second week, consisting of making 25 edits to an Excel Spreadsheet. It’s an intro class, so the edits aren’t difficult. Still, this is what happened:
fully 24 of them didn’t turn in the first assignment, and instead sent her an email asking for more time. Because the spreadsheet is being edited in the school’s environment, she can see how they are progressing. 21 of the 24 students didn’t even begin to work on the assignment until the day it was due.
Five students didn’t turn in an assignment, nor did they bother to message her as to why. They didn’t even attempt to work on it.
Another 6 students were caught turning in assignments with other students’ watermarks.
Then there was the student who takes the cake- he sent her an email complaining that he got an A on the first week’s assignment (introduce yourself to the class by posting an intro to the class discussion page), but now has a 23% in the class because he didn’t do the assignment, but that’s not fair because he doesn’t even OWN a PC or a Mac, and it’s not fair to penalize him for being poor and not owning a computer. In an online class about computers, when there are computers free for students to use in the campus library. He complained that the assignments should be able to be completed on a cell phone.
Fully 40% of the students in her classes are failing because they didn’t even TRY to get the assignment done in the two weeks that was allotted for them to complete it.
So my cranky assed wife spent the day dealing with students’ emails about why they didn’t get their work done, and why they are failing her class. For those of you in the workforce- these people are going to be working with you any time now, and this is the work ethic you will be dealing with.
Many people who are in the general public don’t like “bankers” but without them, it is very difficult to build wealth and for a modern economy to function. Money is the means with which we engage in trade- it enables two people to trade goods and services.
Money permits the farmer to barter for medical services without having to travel to the doctor’s office with a lamb in tow to use for barter. It permits the doctor to barter with others for things that can’t readily be traded for- the doctor can’t mail a leg of lamb to the electric company, and it’s difficult for the electric company to barter with a bushel of electricity.
Once we admit that money is a necessary commodity that permits modern trade, we also realize that we sometimes don’t have enough liquidity to make large purchases. In these cases, we find someone willing to loan us the money. Seldom do we have friends and family that have enough in liquid assets to loan us money for a house or a car, so we enlist strangers and acquaintances to loan us money.
Those people aren’t going to loan us money without knowing the risks of not being repaid. They evaluate that risk, and looking at people with similar financial profiles, determine how risky it is to loan you money. That is, how likely is it that you will default on the debt and walk away with their cash? So let’s say that the lender determines that people whose financial situations are similar to yours default on loans 1% of the time.
The lender needs to be compensated for his administrative overhead, the risk he is undertaking, and still have enough for a profit. If he were to invest that same cash into a mutual fund, he would have significantly less risk and expense, so he needs to make more than he would make investing in that mutual fund.
In this case, the mutual fund would pay 2.5%. The lender’s overhead is another 1%. If the lender doesn’t get to charge at least 3.5% interest on this loan, he is only breaking even with that mutual fund, and that doesn’t even account for risk.
In order to measure risk, the lending industry has developed credit scoring, with Fair, Isaac, and Company (FICO) being the company with the most widely used scoring model. Let’s look at default rates for different FICO scores:
You can see that loaning money to people with a FICO score of 700 or higher means that you have a 6.4% chance of losing your investment. Using the numbers from our example above, if we were the lender, we would have to charge 9.9% interest to get the same 2.5% we would get from that mutual fund. In this case, we have one of two choices: we can lend to people with a 700 credit score or more, but at 10.9% interest, or we can loan to people with a 750 FICO or higher, and because the risk is lower, we could offer loans at 6.5%.
The issue here is that only 40% of the public has a score of 750 or higher, and everyone wants to lend to them because the risk is so low. For those reasons, competition is fierce for their business, and we will likely only be able to charge 5.9% for loans without collateral, and 5.7% for loans with collateral, because collateral reduces our risk.
This is of course a simplified example, but it does show that this is a simple math problem that balances risk with reward. This doesn’t mean that bankers are evil.
Let’s suppose that you had a chance to choose between two employers. One offered to pay you $20 an hour, and there was a 99% chance that your paycheck would cash without a problem. The second employer offers you $100 an hour, but there is a 35% chance that your paycheck will bounce. It’s a choice that you want to be careful with.
Banks do the same thing. Why would someone loan you money unless there was a reward for them doing so? Anyone who has loaned a friend or family member knows that there is a chance they will never see that money again, and that is for people you know. Absolute strangers are even more likely to walk.
I discovered that myself when I invested money in some peer to peer lending on Prosper.com. I put $500 into that website, loaning that money by partially funding several different loans. The terms there are simple- people see the credit scores of lenders, and bid on funding those loans at whatever interest rate they are comfortable.
So let’s say that you want to borrow $1,000 and your credit score is a 740. There is a 6.4% chance of a default, so the bidding begins. Your loan is funded by 30 people who offer to lend you the money at 8.9% interest. You have to repay that loan in 36 months, with a monthly payment of $31.75. At the end of the three years, the people who funded your loan would have received $1.10 in return for every dollar that they loaned you- a profit of 10% over three years. (some of the interest charged is given to Prosper to cover their expenses)
If you only make a year’s payments before defaulting, each dollar invested would only return 69 cents, meaning that the investors lost 31% of their investment.
That’s why interest gets charged, and a basic idea of how it’s calculated. If interest wasn’t charged, then there would be no money to lend to anyone.
Now that the left is, in their minds, on the cusp of taking over, they are calling for the elimination of the Constitution. Mostly, they are angry that the nation isn’t a pure Democracy where the 49% minority who live in between the coasts is ruled over by the people who live on the east and west coasts.
They want a return to slavery. In this way, the city dwellers in Los Angeles and New York can vote to declare that housing, food, and medical care are basic human rights that must be provided to them free of charge.
The people who don’t live in major cities would be forced to work to provide these things to the cities free of charge. They ignore that, without the Constitution, the government is no longer a representative of the people, bound to serve them under a social contract: it is instead an occupying force that rules over them by force of arms. The only way to maintain this power is from the barrel of a gun. This won’t end well for anyone, as Americans don’t respond well to violent dictatorships. As if our national motto is: “You can’t tell me what to do,” Americans will resist any attempt to lord over them with force.
The NY Times article that spawned this post mentions something that I think is the only way to avoid the civil war that is coming: A National divorce. The country breaking up into different, distinct nations is the only way that this bloodshed could conceivably be avoided. I also don’t think it will happen, because the left can’t force people to provide them with free stuff unless they have people to do the work.
Each of those on the communist left see themselves as being able to sit around the house smoking weed, playing video games, and writing shitty poetry while someone else provides them with food, water, shelter, and medical care. They can’t do that if no one is in their control that can be forced to do that for them.
So we are headed for a violent period in this nation that will make the last civil war look, well, civil. Think of the years of 1865, but with half a dozen factions fighting it out for supremacy, and where one, or perhaps even more than one, side is in possession of nuclear weapons.
Ed and Brian Krassenstein were making money from Ponzi schemes and illegal porn sites. One of the web addresses that they owned was 17onlygirls (dot) com. They were domain name squatters who specialized in web addresses that promoted child porn and illegal Ponzi schemes. Ponzi fraud type sites were also a part of their business. They ran investment forums TalkGold and MoneyMakerGroup until the Department of Justice accused them of profiting from Ponzi scheme promoters through the sites. They owned tens of thousands of web domains, which they sold to the highest bidder while pretending not to know that the domains would be used for.
Screenshots of his messages from 2007 appear to show him negotiating over buying three addresses: TeenPies.com, TeenPie.com, and TeenPorn101.com.
There is no suggestion that the Krassensteins ran porn sites themselves. But by buying porn site domains, they stood to gain from selling or leasing those addresses.
They were being investigated by the FBI. A civil asset forfeiture was filed against them. Federal agents raided their homes and seized almost half a million dollars from the brothers in 2017, obtained from selling ads for Ponzi schemes on investment web forums that they ran. They entered a plea agreement to forfeit the some of the profits and avoid jail.
In exchange for returning some of the funds, the Krassenstein twins gave up nearly half a million dollars of the millions that they made on the Ponzi and porn site schemes that they were accused of, and the FBI agreed not to prosecute them. That was in August of 2017.
Just after that, the Krassensteins purchased a Twitter account that was being run as a Justin Bieber fan club, because the account had a follower account that was over half a million people strong. This allowed them maximum reach. Keep in mind that this was bought after the FBI let them keep money from the illicit gains of their Ponzi and porn site business. It certainly gives the impression that at least some of the funds for that purchase were gains from the business activities that the DOJ was investigating.
Then the Bieber account transitioned to become one of Trump’s largest critics on Twitter. Today, the accounts of those two fraudsters have almost 2 million followers and are major supporters of both Democrats and Harris, while being major critics of Trump.
So two guys who were admittedly involved in child porn sites and were alleged by the DOJ as being involved in Ponzi schemes, Fraud, and porn sites enter a plea agreement where they return a fraction of what they were alleged to have defrauded people out of, and the investigation is dropped. Then they use large sums of money to buy influence on social media and immediately begin targeting the President of the United States (Trump) as part of a coordinated a propaganda and disinformation campaign. Now they are shilling for Kamala Harris and the Democrats on social media.
Now that the facts are done, we get into my conclusions. This has all of the appearances of being an FBI (or other intel organization) funded and controlled operation.
I’ve been asking where the money to influence elections and favoring Democrats is coming from. My theory is that the sums of money are so large that it must be a nation state that is sponsoring the billions (perhaps tens of billions) of dollars that is being used to influence our elections. No individual has that kind of money to toss around without sure results.
The answer that most easily fits all of these facts is the most frightening of any possible one that I can come up with: I think that the nation state that is funding the rigging of US elections is none other than the US government itself. The money is being funneled from the US bureaucracy through the Ukraine, China, through criminal organizations, and through grants to NGOs to benefit the members of our elected officials, who in turn are giving large sums of money to the swamp. This is more frightening than thinking a foreign nation is interfering. A representative government that is interfering in its own elections is the most frightening of all scenarios.
This would explain why the left has so much money, how the riots and election shenanigans were so well coordinated, and how the Wuhan lab was being funded by Fauci to perform gain of function research is all explained when looked at through this lens. It explains why almost no one in the riots of 2020 faced jail time, while those who participated in J6 are rotting away even four years later, many without trials and only charged with trespassing or other minor crimes.
This is why Trump is their enemy. He swore to drain the swamp, without even realizing that he was up to his ass in alligators. This is also why I fear that the days of this blog are coming to an end. I am willing to argue with idiot leftists. I have no illusions of being able to stay active criticizing the American version of the KGB or the Stazi. I do not want to be vzyali.
There are law firms paying people to bait businesses into law violations, so those law firms can sue the business. For example, there are disabled people admitting that they are being paid $200 per visit to enter certain businesses to prove that the business isn’t ADA compliant.
If you listen to the left, all of this is conspiracy theory nonsense, and our elections are more secure than they have ever been. Of course, that is all bullshit, but it isn’t intended to fool everyone. It just needs to fool some people into believing it, so they remain docile long enough for the takeover to be complete.
All of this costs money. In the case of the law offices, they are making money through legal Lawfare- they entice people to break the law, and then they sue them. Still illegal, but it’s easy to see the profit motive and the source of funding.
Where is the funding coming from for the fake voters casting the fake votes? A network of dozens of NGOs in every state, each with dozens or even hundreds of employees is expensive. I still think that the only organization with that sort of cash is a nation-state.
I can’t believe that I have to do this post again. It seems like every few months, people have to read this, so here we go again.
A couple of people got their panties in a wad because I disparaged Pit Bulls, and they decided to take the argument personal. Since they demanded that I show my work and provide sources, I did so. Then I demanded that they do the same.
Instead, they engaged in a two part attack: They declared that my sources were not reliable, then engaged in personal attacks. At the same time, there was Internet chest thumping about how they would be willing to go to jail for murder if someone shot their pitbull.
One of those who commented even called me a communist for daring to call CFS because a dog who was known to attack people was permitted to be in the yard alone with the child and had torn off a child’s scalp.
Having had enough of the nonsense, I locked comments on the thread, as there was no productive dialog going on at the time, just Internet chest thumping and finger pointing. After that, I received messages about what an asshole I am and how they won’t be back to read my blog. Here is my answer to that:
I don’t care. This isn’t an airport, you don’t have to announce your departure.
This blog costs me money. I blog because I want to. I don’t make money on advertising, nor do I need large numbers of readers in order to validate my feelings. If you don’t want to read what I write, then don’t read. If you want to comment, that’s great. I love a back and forth debate, but let’s not pretend that “I demand that you provide sources,” then refuting those sources with, “I don’t believe them,” while not providing any sources of your own, then impugning my character.
There are rules here for commenting, and I link to them here. They are simple rules, summarized below-
The owner of this blog (me) has the final say on what you can and cannot post. It’s my house, I make the rules. Content here is moderated, and I will not be approving any comments that I find, in my sole judgement, to be unworthy.
Deliberately posting statements that are aimed at insulting the blog owner (me) will get your comment tossed in the trash. Feel free to disagree with me, just don’t call names or impugn my character.
Don’t deliberately insult others. No personal attacks. Feel free to attack ideas.
If you are making a comment about one of my posts, it should be made on the post that you are commenting on, not on another, unrelated post.
No spam.
I don’t approve comments that are out of bounds.
If warnings don’t work and you keep at it, I will ban you from ever posting on this site again. I know that you can pull tricks like IP spoofing, changing your name, etc. So don’t think doing that is going to earn you “I’m so clever” points. It doesn’t make you clever, it makes you an ass.
Too many people using those tricks to circumvent the rules is what got us full time moderation, which is a major pain in my ass, and a major time waster for me.
When in doubt, please refer to rule #1.
Because of this incident, and the amount of work that arguments like this cause, there will be another rule added to the above list:
If you demand that anyone provide evidence for an assertion that they are making, then you must hold yourself to the same standard when making a counterargument. It takes time and effort to research sources, and replying with “Nuh, uh, I refuse to believe that” while not providing sources of your own to refute them is how an 8 year old debates.
Again, I don’t need everyone to agree with me, but I do require that people be civil and hold themselves to a standard of decorum. Locking the comments on that particular post was the least intrusive thing I could have done. I keep moderation to a minimum here.
With that being said, the people who engaged in personal attacks have seen their entire IP banned from commenting.
A large group of Amish Canadian Priests who were on their way to Bible Study decided to argue with a liquor store owner when one of them sucker punched the businessman in the face. Once that happened, the rest of the chimps decided to join in the group beating. That’s when the man produced a gun, which caused the entire group of them to collectively decide that they had other places to be. One of the little assholes filmed the encounter:
NEW: California liquor store employee gets jumped by a mob of teens before pulling out a handgun, sending the wild mob scurrying.
The incident happened outside of Golden Hours Liquor in Oakland, California.
Police responded when shotspotter reported gunshots in the area, but Oakland police say no one was shot and nobody was arrested. Since the police and courts aren’t going to do shit, people will begin to take matters into their own hands. This video pissed me off just watching it. He would have been totally justified in shooting one of the assholes if he actually lived in America, but he lives in California. I would feel sorry for him, but he is likely a Democrat and voted for all of the diversity that he is currently experiencing.
