Cop Watch

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/8565486/porn-uk-ban-unlock-card/ WATCHING free porn in Britain is about to get a lot trickier thanks to new rules that aim to protect children from online smut. As early as next month, porn sites will be required to get proof of ID from UK residents before showing any X-rated clips. That includes free porn sites like PornHub and YouPorn – which attract nearly 2billion visits a month between them worldwide. They'll join a number of other sites in using the AgeID system, which requires users to verify their age via an official form of ID such as a driver's license or passport. From April, when the new system is expected to launch, randy internet lurkers will be shown a non-pornographic "landing page", according to AgeID spokesman James Clark. "When a user first visits a site protected by AgeID, a landing page will appear with a prompt for the user to verify their age before they can access the site," he told The Sun.

78% of WV GDP is nat gas/coal. Without the help Trump provided, they would have been in a negative GDP situation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-wsj-poll-2020-race-will-be-uphill-trump-n978331 But Democrats who want to defeat Trump have hurdles of their own. The president's job rating remains stable with nearly 90 percent of Republicans approving of his job. And a majority of Americans remain confident in the economy, believing that there won’t be a recession in the next year. March 3, 2019, 9:01 AM EST

If you want to call this socialism, fine. I call it fair.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/there-should-be-free-speech-on-college-campuses-for_us_59a4144fe4b0a62d0987b0b3 I graduated from Temple University Law School in the 1980s. One of the most intellectually stimulating parts of class was when conservative students got in passionate arguments with liberal students about law, politics, government, judicial philosophy, and current events. Even though I disagreed with most of what the conservative students said, I found it valuable to learn how they felt and to get a sense of why they differed with me and the other liberals in the class. Even though I have a policy of encouraging my conservative students to speak their minds freely, I’ve noticed that most are hesitant to do so, especially since most of the students in the class are very open in expressing their liberal points of view. This was especially the case right after the Trump election, when most of my students were shell-shocked and were trying to figure out how to deal with this setback. I tried to get some conservative students to give a pro-Trump point of view for some balance, but most were shy to do so, which resulted in me playing devil’s advocate to challenge how the rest of the class felt. Unfortunately, I’ve found over the years that even though I encourage, urge, or even beg conservative students to give their viewpoints during class discussions, most are reluctant to do so for fear of sticking out like a sore thumb. This concept of free speech should work both ways and also apply to university professors and administrators. Professors shouldn’t be forced to hide their political viewpoints in their classrooms, their scholarship, and their social media. The key is that they be transparent about it and that they not let their political perspectives affect how they treat students in their classes with differing viewpoints. The concept of academic freedom for university professors needs to be enforced. In 2006, conservative writer David Horowitz wrote a book: The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. Last year, a conservative organization, Turning Point USA, published a watch list of professors who allegedly advanced liberal propaganda in class, while Bob Thorpe, a Republican Arizona state representative, introduced a bill earlier this year that would ban college classes or activities that advocate social justice based on ethnicity, race, or gender. Professors have also been harassed and targeted through secret taping of classes and student meetings. Like students, professors should be allowed to express their beliefs without punishment. Free speech is a two-way street. conservative students and speakers on university campuses should be free to express their viewpoints, while liberal students and professors should be free to exercise their free speech peacefully. Violent protests and intimidation shutting down speakers on either side of the political spectrum isn’t constructive and should stop.

“We know this would still be under wraps if she hadn’t stepped on senior Democrat toes. They’re ready to throw her to the wolves.”

Saved.

CULTURE OF CORRUPTION

But leave them to die in Benghazi. 🤐

Comments at link

The reaction from those on the left on Twitter to the post linking this satire was....not pleasant. I don't see why not, all he does is regurgitate their exact excuses for murdering babies back at them. If they ever do discover a “gay gene”, the left on left violence on this exact subject will be glorious. http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/28/wife-decided-abort-unborn-gay-son/ My girlfriend and I recently found out she is pregnant. I told her I’d support her and the baby, and secretly started saving for an engagement ring. She said she thought I would have wanted her to get an abortion. I didn’t—at least at first. She was excited and started planning the nursery. It took me two months to save up, but I finally got on one knee and popped the question. She cried and said yes. I’m still scared about being a dad, but I’ve got a good job and so does she. We’ll make a great family, just the three of us. Last week, though, she went in for a checkup. We decided to get full fetal blood work done. Everyone’s doing it; the doctor said there is little risk to the fetus, and better safe than sorry, right? I’m sure everything will be fine, and we’ll learn the sex. I really hope it’s a boy. Oh, and we decided to make everything official with a trip to the courthouse. We are married now! Well, got the blood work results, and there’s good news and bad news. Good news: It’s a boy and he’s healthy. Bad news: He’s gay. I didn’t even know there was a blood test for that now, but I guess it’s new? They found the genes that cause homosexuality and they test for them now. I’m a really tolerant person, but this has made me think hard. I don’t know how I feel about trying to raise a gay son. Will I be able to relate to him? Won’t his life be super hard? I know things are getting better for gay people, but it seems to me that being gay is really hard in the South, where we live. Gay people aren’t really accepted here like in other parts of the country yet. This really started to weigh on my mind, so I did some research. Suicide attempts are significantly higher among gay teens—five times more likely. Gay kids are five times more likely than a heterosexual youth to end up hospitalized as a result. More than 70 percent of calls to Trevor Lifeline, a targeted suicide prevention hotline, come from the South and central regions of the country, right where I live. Another study found that any kind of victimization at school leads to much higher risks of substance abuse. Studies in progressive states like Vermont and Massachusetts found that for gay and bisexual boys, rates of victimization were nearly five times that of straight kids. More disturbingly, that victimization coincides with a host of risky behaviors, from cigarette and alcohol abuse all the way up to hard drugs like cocaine and heroin. Gay kids are way more likely to do all of these things than similarly persecuted straight kids. On top of that, in every studied risk factor but cigarette use, gay and bisexual boys are at a much greater risk than girls. What kind of life will my gay son have? How could I justify subjecting him to such horrible experiences for his entire life? I can’t imagine what things here in the South must be like. I remember being accused of being gay in school. It was awful. I don’t know if we could send our child to public schools. We would need to find and pay for a progressive private school. If we couldn’t afford it, I guess we could homeschool. But this is not at all how we wanted our future to be. We both have good jobs we love, but I don’t see how we can afford private schools—and which one of us would give up our job to homeschool our son? So my wife and I talked, and we’ve decided we aren’t ready to raise a gay child. It isn’t fair to raise a gay child in our area. It would be so hard for our son to live here. And I don’t think either of us could handle it if he killed himself. Moving elsewhere just to have this baby would be totally unfair to us. We are going to get an abortion, both for the child’s sake and for ours. It’s the best thing for all of us. I’m really glad we found out before it’s too late. I’ve never been more thankful for a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body. My wife told one of her friends that we are going to have an abortion because we don’t feel equipped to deal with raising a gay child. Apparently it got around to some of our gay friends from college. I’ve been getting emails, texts, and IMs all day from them asking me why I’m a homophobe, and why I hate gay people. I don’t hate gay people! I just can’t bring a child into the world who would have such a hard time. I mean, we’d do the same thing if the fetus had Down syndrome, and so would about 67 percent of others if they found themselves in that situation. Even Richard Dawkins tweeted that it would be immoral to have a child who would suffer because of his genetics. Many people believe it’s immoral to bring a child into the world who is just going to suffer. Ending the pregnancy is just better for everyone. It seems so obvious. I don’t understand. It’s my wife’s body. It’s her choice, and I agree with it. It’s our choice of what to do with our pregnancy. How can anyone else tell my wife what to do with her body? Tomorrow is the day we are supposed to go in for the abortion, but we’ve had to switch clinics twice due to the threats. We actually ended up crossing state lines to go to a clinic, four hours from home. Thankfully the federal law allowing abortion makes that possible. I was exhausted, but it’s our choice. No one else can tell us what my wife is allowed to do with her body. We got to the clinic almost an hour early. They made us sit in the waiting room for a while and finally called us back, but instead of walking us into a table with stirrups like we expected, they escorted us into an office. A man in a lab coat was waiting at a desk. “I recognize you,” he said, after looking at us sternly for what seemed like an eternity. I didn’t know what to say, so I didn’t say anything. My wife didn’t speak either. “What you are doing should be a hate crime, and I won’t have any part in it,” the man said, looking angry. “But it’s my body,” my wife said, sounding defiant, but like a little girl too. “It’s my right.” “It’s hateful,” the doctor responds. “You are terminating this pregnancy because you don’t want a gay child. Are gay children less valuable than straight children?” He sounded like a teacher trying to impart a lesson to a very slow student. “No, but—” my wife started to say. “A gay child has just as much value as a straight child. In fact, you are lucky! Gay children are very rare. Census numbers put the number of homosexuals in America at around 3 percent. It wouldn’t take many more people like you,” he nearly spits the words, “to eliminate homosexuality in America. That’s genocide, and I won’t have that on my conscience!” With that, we were ushered out. My wife cried all the way home. When we got there, we found that someone had firebombed our rented townhouse and wrote “Bigotry Doesn’t Belong Here!” and “Love Wins!” in spray paint on the sidewalk. I guess some fetuses are more equal than others, but I can’t understand it. I just followed all the arguments I’ve heard from our society to their logical conclusions.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/sweeney-agonistes-tommy-robinson-turns-the-tables-on-the-bbc/ Tommy Robinson’s courageous truth-telling about Islam has not only resulted in years of harassment by the British authorities, an endless cascade of death threats, and, last year, a thoroughly unjust prison term that might have spelled his demise, but also, of course, a pattern of coverage by the mainstream media that has been almost uniformly deceitful and poisonous. When he heard that the BBC series Panorama, which is the UK’s answer to 60 Minutes, was planning a story on him with the working title “Tommy Takedown,” and that its producers were collaborating with the vile group Hope Not Hate (HNH), which is Britain’s version of the Southern Poverty Law Center -- i.e., a shady far-left smear machine masquerading as a noble monitor of bigots, fascists, and hate groups -- he decided to go on the offensive. The key to Tommy’s plan was Lucy Brown, a former employee whose job with him had ended in a shouting match. After their split, she was offered £5,000 by HNH to badmouth Tommy for a cover story, and had to contact a lawyer to prevent a major daily from falsely claiming she’d accused Tommy of sexual allegations. When Panorama reporter John Sweeney asked her to talk to him for what he promised would be a “definitive documentary” uncovering Tommy in all his “horribleness,” Brown got in touch with Tommy and agreed to wear a hidden camera when she met with Sweeney to discuss his plans. The undercover footage of Brown’s meeting with Sweeney forms the heart of Tommy’s hour-long exposé, Panodrama, which he premiered last Saturday on a huge screen to a huge crowd in front of the BBC’s Manchester headquarters. In that footage, we see Brown meet Sweeney at a pub where, presumably in hopes of loosening her tongue, he plies her with various kinds of liquor, including champagne, gin, red wine, and brandy, for a total bar bill of £220, which he put on his BBC expense account. Sweeney, who had promised a “definitive” takedown of Tommy, instead provided Tommy with a definitive portrait of the sleazy journalistic hack at work. What helps make Brown’s undercover footage so riveting is the way in which Panodrama presents it. After Brown has given Tommy the video, Tommy, whom Sweeney has been nagging for weeks to do an on-camera interview, agrees to sit down with him at a site of Tommy’s choosing -- a room furnished, as it happens, with a big screen. Before Sweeney can start asking questions, Tommy, who has brought his own cameraman along, sets about interrogating Sweeney. For instance, he asks Sweeney whether he’d ever tell any interviewee what to say about Tommy. No, Sweeney assures him. Tommy then directs Sweeney’s attention to the big screen, where Sweeney can be seen in Brown’s undercover video spelling out to her in some detail the three points about Tommy that he’d like her to make during their on-camera interview. If she covers those three points, Sweeney tells her, he guarantees they’ll be included in the final cut. Indeed, he pretty much writes her a script. Sweeney also asks Brown if there’s anything she doesn’t want him to ask her on-camera, and adds: “I’m not supposed to ask this.” So it goes again and again: Tommy poses a question; Sweeney answers it with a firm no; Tommy then shows him an undercover clip that proves him a liar. Tommy pulls all this off with the skill of a master prosecutor. Watching him do so is a delicious experience. So is watching Sweeney watching Sweeney. In the undercover footage, Sweeney comes out with all kinds of things that you know he’d never say on TV. He informs Brown that the way “to piss off a Greek” is to “start speaking Turkish.” He says that since he has his dog with him, he can’t take a taxi home because “Asian cab drivers don’t like taking dogs.” (As Tommy points out to him: “You’re doing what your channel does, blaming an entire continent” when in fact it’s Islam that has a problem with dogs.) Sweeney confides that one of his heroes is former IRA terrorist Martin McGuinness. He jokes about shooting gay people and refers to someone as a “bloody woofter” -- cockney rhyming slang for “poofter.” There’s also a good deal of nasty stuff about the lower classes. “I have more in common with Tommy than most reporters,” Sweeney says. “A scumbag Irish background.” He says that it’s so rare to encounter a working-class white male in the green room of BBC’s Newsnight that it’s like running across “a cannibal from the Amazonia.” And he observes that in today’s Labour Party, it’s more common than it used to be to hear “accents like yours and mine” -- i.e., middle-class establishment accents -- “rather than Tommy’s.” Then there’s the HNH angle. Tommy asks Sweeney if HNH is working with him on this documentary. Sweeney says no -- whereupon Tommy shows Sweeney a screen capture of a text message in which an HNH official claims that HNH is, in fact, “steering” Panorama‘s Tommy program. Tommy asks Sweeney if he’s aware of the use of threats to pressure former colleagues of Tommy to trash-talk him. No, says Sweeney -- whereupon Tommy provides testimony by two former colleagues, Caolan Robertson and George Llewelyn John, to the effect that HNH had bullied them into submitting to an interview for the Panorama program, that an HNH official had been present during their interview with Sweeney, and that that official had pressured Robertson to open up further, whereupon, feeling increasingly uncomfortable with the situation, Robertson and Llewelyn John had backed out of the interview. If the BBC is actually in bed with HNH, that’s big news -- especially if HNH made threats or engaged in blackmail on behalf of the Beeb. But this is, alas, where Panodrama falters. There are references to “indecent images” sent to Robertson as part of the alleged HNH blackmail attempt, and to an purported sexual assault on Robertson by an HNH operative -- all of it sensational, if true. But no hard evidence of any of this is forthcoming. In contrast to the neatly systematic presentation of the undercover footage, moreover, the material concerning Robertson and Llewelyn John is served up in a rather rushed and confusing manner. Their claim is apparently that HNH, in cahoots with labor-union leaders and national-security officials, threatened to sue them for inciting the June 19, 2017, Finsbury Park mosque attack by Darren Osborne; but this narrative doesn’t come across very clearly. Also included in Panodrama is a brief conversation between Tommy and a young man named Tom Dupre, who says that after he posted critical comments online about Islam and immigration, HNH went after him aggressively until it succeeded in getting him fired from his bank job. But Dupre doesn’t provide definitive documentation of his charge, either. Not that I would put anything past HNH. They’re a loathsome group. These are the people who, around the time that Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik went on trial, issued a “Counter-Jihad Report” that was intended to depict decent critics of Islam as having influenced Breivik. It was also HNH that engineered the ban of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from the UK. That’s how powerful HNH is. Its falsehoods are routinely spread by the British media and routinely acted upon by the British government. HNH members are invited to schools across the UK to preach their propaganda to children. I would love to see Tommy take HNH down once and for all -- yet so far he doesn’t seem to have the goods on them. But no matter. There’s always tomorrow. And meanwhile Panodrama accomplished something terrific: It showed BBC headliner John Sweeney up for the manipulative, dishonest operator that he is. After Tommy has finished showing him Brown’s undercover footage, Sweeney feebly insists that he’s not anti-Greek or anti-Turkish (“I have many Turkish and Greek friends”), that he’s not homophobic (his best friend from school is gay!), that he’s “proud of [his] Irish heritage,” that he’s “not a member of the establishment” (even though he described himself as such in his chat with Brown), etc., etc. “You’re fake news,” Tommy shouts at Sweeney. “You’re a classist, elitist … You’re a liar, you’re a fraud, you’re a racist, you’re a homophobe … You were trying to destroy my life!” The accusations are as true as can be, and the spectacle of Tommy hurling them directly, eloquently, and fearlessly into the face of this befuddled BBC boob is delicious -- at once powerful and poignant, a textbook example of speaking truth to power. There’s one thing about Panodrama that remains unclear. It was supposed to be live-streamed on Facebook during the Manchester rally, but the stream stopped dead early on. A backup YouTube stream also halted shortly thereafter. The film was switched to a new Facebook page, that feed, too, terminated mysteriously. Not until Monday afternoon, Greenwich time, was the full documentary posted on Tommy’s Facebook page. It’s now gone. In fact, on Tuesday, Tommy was banned from Facebook and his page taken down. Presumably the documentary will resurface somewhere else online. Find it and watch it. By itself, it won’t sink the BBC, but it’s a brilliant job, handsomely photographed and snappily edited -- and it is, we can hope, just the opening salvo in a long-deferred, all-out war against the British government’s fake-news empire.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/25/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-private-jet-flights-1182793 “I’m not shocked that while thousands of volunteers braved the heat and cold to knock on doors until their fingers bled in a desperate effort to stop Donald Trump, his Royal Majesty King Bernie Sanders would only deign to leave his plush D.C. office or his brand new second home on the lake if he was flown around on a cushy private jet like a billionaire master of the universe,” said Zac Petkanas, who was the director of rapid response for the Clinton campaign… Sanders’ flights — usually on a Gulfstream plane — cost the Clinton-Kaine campaign at least $100,000 in total, according to three people familiar with the cost of the air travel. “We would try to fight it as much as possible because of cost and availability of planes, but they would request [a jet] every time,” one of those sources said. “We would always try to push for commercial. … At the campaign, you’re constantly trying to save like 25 cents.”