Free Markets, Free People

Stray Voltage

Power Line calls it “Desperately Seeking Islamaphobia“.  Seems there was a burglary at a mosque there this week.  And oh my goodness, it had to be a result of “Islamaphobia”, because, you know, CAIR shilled for it to be considered as such:

A burglary this week at a Minneapolis Islamic center prompted the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to issue a statement of concern Friday.

Jaylani Hussein, director of CAIR-MN, said surveillance video captured images of a man breaking into the Umatul Islam Center on Lake Street and 2nd Avenue S. between 11 p.m. and midnight Wednesday.

He said the break-in is the first major incident involving a mosque in the Twin Cities since comments made by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump touched off a wave of anti-Muslim commentary and some incidents of harassment nationwide.

Overreaction time!

Gov. Mark Dayton met with about two dozen Muslim community leaders and imams Sunday morning at the Umatul Islam Center in south Minneapolis and commiserated with them about a break-in and vandalism at the mosque last Wednesday.

And the Gov even held a press conference. Turns out it was a well known burger who randomly targeted the mosque.

Meanwhile, in other Twin City news (Mar 1):

Computer equipment, electronics and musical instruments known as “Singing Bowls” were stolen from two Minneapolis churches on the night of March 1, prompting a warning from police for religious institutions.

And no, the Governor didn’t show up to console the Christian leaders at these churches or hold a press conference to condemn them, because  …. ?

Meanwhile, “The New Red Guard” has found another unreliable sort. This one was so bad she screwed up in her “self-criticism” session:

We students in the class began discussing possible ways to bring these issues up in our classes when COMS 930 instructor Dr. Andrea Quenette abruptly interjected with deeply disturbing remarks. Those remarks began with her admitted lack of knowledge of how to talk about racism with her students because she is white. “As a white woman I just never have seen the racism… It’s not like I see ‘Nigger’ spray-painted on walls…” she said.

That’s what you get on campus now when you try to discuss any topic The New Red Guard (in this case, at KU) deems taboo or you use a taboo word even as you are describing your “white privilege” and didn’t aim it at anyone.  Their answer is to purge the offender.  So they’re boycotting her class.  But, as usual, there is probably a much simpler reason – bad grades.  And Dr. Quenette had the temerity to point out that perhaps some of those people of color weren’t dropping out because of “racism” but instead of bad grades:

This statement reinforces several negative ideas: that violence against students of color is only physical, that students of color are less academically inclined and able, and that structural and institutional cultures, policies, and support systems have no role in shaping academic outcomes. Dr. Quenette’s discourse was uncomfortable, unhelpful, and blatantly discriminatory.

Or said another way, the spoiled children didn’t like being confronted with an uncomfortable truth.  And they want their participation trophy … now!

On another SJW front, the University of Pittsburg is still recovering from having to endure a visit by a  … conservative!

The University of Pittsburgh’s Student Government Board held a public meeting on Tuesday to discuss the traumatizing visit the night before from “dangerous” homosexual and Breitbart Tech Editor Milo Yiannopoulos, during which students described themselves as feeling “hurt” and “unsafe.”

Now don’t forget the most important thing about this event. It was a non-compulsory and extracurricular event featuring a gay journalist expressing a difference of opinion from the mainstream at the college.

Yeah, that was it. Read the whole thing to see how badly traumatized these special social flowers were because of it and how the whole earth, or at least much of Pitt, is being moved to accommodate this “hurt”.  Simply amazing.

Hey Bernie, how you going to pay for all that “free” stuff?

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has proposed $15.3 trillion in tax increases, according to a new report, and would raise rates on virtually everyone, including the politically all-important middle class.

Not surprisingly for a candidate who has made income inequality his central issue, Sanders’s plan would wallop the rich, an analysis released Friday by the Tax Policy Center shows.


But Sanders, going where few politicians dare, would also raise taxes on middle- and low-income families, with those in the dead center of the income spectrum facing a $4,700 tax increase. That would reduce their after-tax incomes by 8.5 percent, the report said.

Wait!  I thought you said it would be “free” for me!?

Hey, guess what?  He lied.

And, finally, the one silver lining if there is ever a Trump presidency?  Miley Cyrus will leave the US:

“We’re all just f—ing jam between his rich ass toes!” she wrote. “Honestly f— this s— I am moving if this is my president! I don’t say things I don’t mean!”

Hmmm … almost makes one reconsider, huh?  Yeah, but I’ll only reconsider if she takes Kanye West, the Kardashians and Rosie O’Donnell with her.

Have a great weekend!


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

47 Responses to Stray Voltage

  • You are absolutely right about Pittsburgh and Kansas. It disgusts me that Kansas didn’t at once protect their untenured assistant professor, sacrificing academic values to fascistic political correctness. I never thought I’d see anything like this in what should be a bastion of free speech, where students should learn to understand and engage other perspectives, not feel all hurt and whiny.

    • Odd, because we told you about this months ago.

      You went into denial. You should have gone into investigation.

      • Are you kidding? I was condemning this long ago, and have been involved with other academics to fight the challenge to free speech. To say YOU told me is absurd, to say I was in denial is blatantly false. I guess that’s why you don’t post under your own name. You don’t want to be held accountable for what you say.

        • Maybe someone who cares will bring up your posts showing how you lie about this like pretty much everything else.

          I don’t care. You’re a demonstrated liar, and that’s enough for me.

          • IOW, you know you’re wrong. That’s as close to an admission one gets from you. I have said that it hasn’t been as widespread a problem as some make it out to be – these are mostly at elite universities, and the lions’ share of schools aren’t touched by that kind of PC madness. Still, it’s best to stop something early, when the problem is not out of control. Here’s another example of the insanity.

      • Luckily the problem is mostly at elite expensive universities. Here’s what I wrote in response to an incident at Bowdoin College here in Maine: “As a Professor of Political Science at the University of Maine at Farmington, I am saddened to see a good university succumb to the most absurd and vulgar notion of political correctness. This is wrong, bizarre, and I certainly believe Bowdoin should and will be mocked and made fun of for this creepy surrender to an extreme and even fascistic form of political correctness. Everything we wear comes from somewhere. It’s OK to have little sombreros, gold chains, Viking horns, Scottish kilts, or whatever to have a party. I am utterly disgusted with Bowdoin – and to be sure, I am a liberal who believes strongly that colonialism was a horrible crime against indigenous peoples, and that the West needs to confront the impact of its violent exploitation of much of the so-called third world. There are real inequities and injustices out there caused by colonialism. But silly political correctness is an impotent and ignorant misplaced reaction that only hides the real problems and makes those who pursue it look ridiculous.”

        • Colonialism.
          More war on words.
          Do you never tire of benefiting from historical reality while condemning it.

          • Do you think it’s possible for me not to benefit – from colonialism, from being white, from being raised in reasonably affluent conditions? Do seem to think one has to reject ones’ benefits if one is to recognize them. That is absurd. One has to look at history and recognize that some who have been harmed need assistance. Learning about the truth of the past has changed many peoples’ lives (I see it in students). That is a good thing, and it changes the world. That’s why I got into my profession – it helps impact social change more than anything else I could do.

          • The white guilt thing is crap.
            I grew up in a town that had no blacks, 1 asian family, and no hispanics/latinos that I ever noticed in the 18 odd years I lived there.
            Italians, Irish, Polish, French, Portuguese and the dreaded WASPS.

            Explain to me how my ‘white privilege’ worked there, explain to me how it benefited me over others, how it benefited my father, or my immigrant grandfather.
            The weak were exploited by the strong, that’s the way it went, that’s history.

            You want to feel guilty, feel free, don’t expect me to feel guilty for history that has occurred again and again and again.
            I’m not obligated by your guilt, nor am I obligated by people playing the guilt card.

            You choose to live below your means, or your family does, that doesn’t make it better on families with lower means.
            I grew up solid blue collar, go into the military or go into a factory.
            My grandfather was a gardener on estates for people like the Fricks, Moores, Sears and Ayers in Beverly Farms Mass (look it up) and my grandmother was a housekeeper.
            We weren’t raised to piss and moan about how hard it was and how we should be angry at the rich people or how they owed us.

            I don’t resent privilege, that’s just that way it was, and the way it is, and the way it will be (forever and ever, Amen).
            What I resent is having to hear you whine about your white guilt for your ancestors trying to make sure their descendents had a better life and then passing it on to you, so you could whine about the guilt of your privilege.

            All the time you’re wasting on fingerpointing the white kids for the sins of their great grand fathers, knock that crap off.
            It’s not productive, and it’s probably being taught in an accusatory fashion to make them toe the line. You want to perpetuate grievance and anger and resentment, keep it up.
            Teach all your students to treat others the way they want to be treated and they can go pick flowers and groove on the spring in Maine for the rest of the semester.

          • No one is talking “white guilt.” Acknowledging reality of systemic problems as a result of colonialism is simply to acknowledge reality. That is not guilt at all – I certainly don’t feel any guilt. But no one who studies the politics and political economy of third world states can deny the long term negative consequences of colonialism. There are also consequences systemic racism in this country. It’s something to acknowledge and deal with, but absolutely no reason for guilt.

          • “But no one who studies the politics and political economy of third world states can deny the long term negative consequences of colonialism”

            Why not? You seem to be able to deny the long term positive consequences of colonialism, not to mention the long term negative consequences of the native cultures.

          • “No one is talking “white guilt.”
            Do you think it’s possible for me not to benefit –… from being white,”
            Ah, see you brought it up, not me – why did you mention it?
            Guilty conscience?

            I was talking about colonialism, because I understand that pretty much every culture (race, religion and creed) that amounted to anything spread itself around in a fashion that was pretty much colonialism until it either ran into geography it couldn’t overcome or some other dominant culture doing the same thing.
            Then they more often then not, clashed.
            That’s what dominant cultures do, they dominate.

            Colonialism isn’t a European invention, and that means that injustices and horrible crimes and inequalities weren’t unique to Europeans and their colonialism.
            But ‘the west’, you use that a lot when you comment – ‘The West’.
            What’s that?
            Everything and everybody European since Columbus?

            By ‘confront’ don’t you mean ‘atone’?
            That’s why we focus on ‘The West’, no?
            Because when you say ‘The West’ you mean ‘ White European Males’.
            At least be honest about what you mean instead of using dog whistle code phrases.

            I’ve studied and was taught world history from about 4000 BC to modern day – and ‘confronted’ the good things and the bad things done by the cultures studied without dwelling on what bastards in particular ‘the West’ were.
            ‘The West’ was just more recent, and better documented, because our culture survived and didn’t end up burned to the ground and stomped flat into the dust like so many early cultures that we have no records for.
            Ah, those noble cultures that we have to piece together from bones, and bits of burned wood and shattered pottery, that dominated other lesser cultures before they were dominated…

            Back to colonialism –

            When can we stop talking about what wise Europeans did in North America, or Africa or SouthEast Asia or South America?
            Wasn’t it Spain and Portugal who colonized the ‘Hispanic’ countries of the central Americas and large chunks of Asia?
            Are they teaching shame for Hispanic culture in Hispanic countries?
            Is the shame being taught in American universities along with shame for the ‘European’ colonies?
            It seems never mentioned for some reason.
            No, instead I hear ‘Re-Conquista!” not ‘confronting’.
            Where ‘Re’ means – ‘Do it again!’.
            Doesn’t sound like confronting to me.

            “But no one who studies the politics and political economy of third world states can deny the long term negative consequences of colonialism.”
            Are they studying the negative consequences of Islamic colonization on North Africa and Spain and the Balkans?
            And Turkey, which was really the Eastern Holy Roman Empire, and their capital, called Constantinople, now called Istanbul (May, 1453 )
            Are they studying the negative consequences and impacts for the conquered tribes of the Zulu empire in Africa (1787-1828)
            Are they talking about modern day slavery in Africa and the Islamic countries in the Middle East and Southeast Asia?

            Or are we only talking about those evil white European males and their ideas of suffrage and democracy and equality before the law?

            Are they spreading the wealth of negative impacts caused by nations and races that weren’t “white” while trying to get the whites in the United States to pony up some cash to make up for their collective, skin color assigned guilt and racism?
            Are they trying to make sure the ignorant little white kids are ‘confronted’ with all the shit they have to atone for and need to pay up for because they were born white?

            “One has to look at history and recognize that some who have been harmed need assistance.”
            So, everyone has to pay up regardless of their family history.
            Yes that sounds more than fair.

          • No, I did not bring it up, you did – asking the question “do you never tire of benefiting from historical reality while condemning it.” I wrote that of course I benefit from it. That is not the same as guilt. I benefit from having had parents who really cared for my education. I do not feel guilty about it. You are the one bringing up guilt, as if one is guilty if one benefits, which seems to me wrong. You also seem to think I’m only talking about ‘whites’ or ‘Europeans.’ They did the most recent damage but of course in history there have been a lot of misdeeds. Heck, my speciality is German politics and I’m ethnically German – but I don’t think Germans should feel guilty for what their ancestors did. I don’t know why you seem to equate criticism of European colonialism with some kind of pre-occupation with “whites.” I certainly wouldn’t go there.

          • Where did I say ‘white’ before you used the word Scott?

            I asked you if you never tired of benefiting from the history of European Colonialism while condemning it.

            You dragged in that you benefited from being born white.

          • “You also seem to think I’m only talking about ‘whites’ or ‘Europeans.’ ”

            Oh, horrors.
            Of course that’ s not what you meant, it’s just the way you know it works, but it isn’t what you meant, no no no no.
            I understand.

            There are so many non-white colonists from Europe at the peak of the European colonial expansions.
            History is replete with the examples.

            So, go ahead and find a couple.
            While your at that, you can tell us who ‘The West’ is.

            I mean, apart from that being one of the biggest complaints is that ‘people of color’ and ‘women’ aren’t adequately represented in traditional Western Civ, it couldn’t possibly be what you meant to imply.

          • I never mentioned guilt. You went off on a rif on guilt. You over and over talked about white or Europe, compared it to Islam and a whole bunch of stuff far away from anything I mentioned. In so doing, you never countered any point I made! It was a lot of noise, but nothing of substance. Yes, I benefit from being white. That’s obvious. I benefit from many things. That doesn’t mean guilt, nor does it mean any of the other meandering topics you throw out. You may be arguing against someone, but you’re not responding to me.

          • Very telling the things you focus on – I compared it to Islam?
            Or I asked if any of the negative consequences of an Islamic colonization, or the Zulu conquests, or the fall of the Eastern Holy Roman Empire were being studied.
            and why would I ask that?
            Because Europe was not the only place to conquer and colonize other places, and those I listed weren’t European, but they conquered, and colonized and the results weren’t pretty for the indigenous peoples.
            So you were talking about colonialism and the evils of colonialism, apparently white colonialism, you just wouldn’t say so directly.

            So you feel like you benefit from being white.
            Interesting, probably mostly inaccurate – The truth of the matter is a very high percentage of the US population has been ‘white’ for the bulk of your lifetime. For example, as recently as 1995 the ‘white’ population of the US was estimated to be 83% of the total population, by 2000 it was only down to 82%.
            So mostly white when you were growing up, mostly white when you went to school, mostly white for your first real job. When only 18% of the rest of the total population isn’t white, it’s obviously not your fault if there weren’t people of other colors and races all around you all the time
            It also mean you probably didn’t steal their jobs, or their education, or their opportunities, or their future, or their happiness or their success, just by being born white.

            Ah, but I guess that’s white/white Hispanic combined. If you’re worried (and you seem to be) about “white” white then it was only 73.6% in 1995 and 71.3% in 2000.
            Still, safely says that you, and most everyone around you, was ‘white’ white unless you lived in specific urban areas (which you don’t and haven’t for a while) since you live in a state and in a town that are both 94% ‘white’ white (and thank you Whoopie Goldberg for ‘rape’ rape so I can use the same system for ‘white’ white)

            So, how you gain some extra benefit from this skin color when everyone around you looks like you, well, hey, if you say so, I guess you’d know better than I would.

            But again, you brought up the white thing, I only discuss it since there wasn’t any reason to mention being white, because why would anyone do that unless they were feeling a little guilty, and I think white guilt is bullshit.

            If you don’t feel guilty about it, and being affluent too, why mention those things?
            Neither of those things specifically had to do with the word ‘colonialism’ for me when you went off on benefiting from being white and wealthy, “reasonably affluent” was the phrase you used.
            What your skin color and wealth had to do with generic colonialism must be tied to your vision of the word ‘colonialism’ right?

            So what is ‘the West’? Still no answer for that?

            I just treat people the way I want to be treated, but I must confess you’re a very very notable exception to that rule, I don’t treat you very nicely.

            and sure I’m responding to you Scott, you know that.
            You’re just flustered and affluent white guilt ridden.

          • Again, you’re being very wordy but not addressing any claim I made. I answered your question about benefits, and you seem to think I was talking guilt or focusing on particular things. Nothing of the sort. I teach about colonialism so I could go on about that if you wanted, but I don’t think you’re interested. I’ve also taught a course on “Islam and the West,” where the West is defined as a civilization rooted in Europe that developed over time influenced by first the Roman Catholic Church (growing out of the Roman Empire, which I consider the impetus for the West – Greece was an influence on Rome, but I see Rome not Greece as the beginning) and later the enlightenment. I could talk volumes on that too, if you wanted. But I really don’t get the point of your wordy posts that talk about guilt and the like. They are responding to nothing I said.

          • A bit more. I see Rome as the place where two influences — the Hebrew world and Greek thought — come together to form the basics of western civilization. A lot of the philosophical, political and cultural bases for what became the West emerged in Rome. Montesquieu is credited with ideas of checks and balances and political structures copied by our founders, but he got those by studying the organization of ancient Rome. Not sure why you’re studdenly talking about what the “West” is, but it is a subject I enjoy – for years I taught a first year seminar on the intellectual history of western civilization. Fun stuff!

          • Because it’s insufficient and vague and leaves it up to the reader’s view of what ‘The West’ is.
            From 1945 thru today ‘the west’ was largely considered to be Europe north of the North African coast, the Americas and the pieces and parts of the far flung British Commonwealth.

            It can mean a lot of different countries, at different times in history.
            Or populations since ‘countries’ as such are a very recent historical creation, so much so that we still have, for example, sectarian groups in the UK and Spain seeking to part ways with the long accepted ‘country’.

        • “Luckily the problem is mostly at elite expensive universities.”

          Where have you been for the last half century? Why do you think we have Women’s Studies or Africana Studies departments, or courses in “Queer Theory”? Those “elite” universities are just the leading edge, like Berkeley in the 1960s.

          ” There are real inequities and injustices out there caused by colonialism”

          Are you using the concepts of justice and inequity developed by the colonial powers or the concept of justice used by the indigenous people?

          • Whichever broad brush works best.

          • Womens studies and the like are legitimate academic pursuits that generally do not try to stifle free speech. My experience of them is that while they may argue for inclusive language or other things, they don’t make demands or want to set up a kind of thought police. I’ve been elected Faculty President for next year and I am very keen to be pro-active and have us pass something to undercut any future tendency to threaten academic freedom or free speech on campus. I’d fight against groups like that tooth and nail.

          • Ah, then do so.
            And if you succeed, well done.

          • Thank you! I may be made fun of here for my “disagreement is good” mantra, but to me that’s the essence of democracy and absolutely necessary in academia (which includes needing strong conservative voices to be listened to, not shouted down as politically incorrect). So at least we agree on something!

          • If you stick to the goal of making speech genuinely free (within the limits of yelling fire, and all that) and keep it so then you deserve the accolades.
            Even if you fight a good fight but ultimately failed after being overwhelmed (overthrown, overruled, etc) you deserve credit for fighting.

          • “…are legitimate academic pursuits ”


          • ” I’d fight against groups like that tooth and nail.”

            Hardly the conduct of a pragmatist. More like an ideologue clinging to their outmoded beliefs, refusing to compromise.

          • It’s called principle. One can and should be pragmatic on most issues, but when it comes to core principles, it’s time to draw the line. You sacrifice those, and any compromise is meaningless.

          • One more point: I consider myself a pragmatic idealist. That means pragmatism is used in the service of core principles. Compromise is done to move those principles forward, step by step, imperfectly. You don’t compromise if it means endangering core principles. I compare that with a rigid idealist who pushes absolute principles and refuses to recognize that reality moves slowly. Rigid idealists become cynical and angry over time. Pragmatic idealists learn to enjoy small victories, even if the world that should be remains generations in the future.

          • ” but when it comes to core principles, it’s time to draw the line.”

            LOL. In other words, being an ideologue is in the eye of the beholder. How pragmatic of you.

          • In other words, being an ideologue is in the eye of the beholder. How pragmatic of you.

            You broke the code. I got a good laugh at “pragmatic idealist”. Very Orwellian.

            This is the same guy who has repeatedly indicted the use of reason (waving his hands about how too much reason is bad) and ideas (“ideologue”).

            Just ridiculous.

  • Miley – as opposed to being a gob of saliva off her rich ass tongue.

    Talk about clueless and unaware.

  • Experts both for and against the rule I have talked to agree its broad reach could extend to financial media personalities who offer tips to individual audience members, a group that includes not just Ramsey but TV hosts like Suze Orman and Jim Cramer, as well as many other broadcasters who opine on business and investment matters. They would be ensnared by the rule’s broad redefinition of a vast swath of financial professionals as “fiduciaries” and its mandate that these “fiduciaries” only serve the “best interest” of IRA and 401(k) holders.

    Would this prohibit politicians from making speeches to organizations like JPMorgan (think Hillary Clinton) ?

  • If Trump wins, I promise that a pro- Trump visits these people promising to leave and forcibly eject them if they haven’t left.

    • What I continuously marvel at is they seem to think WE CARE they’re going to leave.

      Door, ass, try not to damage the door on the way out.

  • We all heard the same threats..I mean promises when GWB was elected twice. The “oh-so-concerned” dearies were going to flee the evil USA. Well nothing happened. It was a big disappointment.

  • Rep. Joaquin Castro, the twin brother of HUD secretary Julian Castro, proves he is dumber than a pile of rocks, when he claimed this morning on CNN that Hillary Clinton had been cleared by the Justice Department on the email scandal.

    • Dumb or directed?

      It IS at least a meme. They will try any trial balloon at least once!

    • He probably didn’t get the memo. The new narrative is “everybody does it”. See this Washington Post article from this yesterday:

      Hillary Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information, according to a new Washington Post analysis of Clinton’s publicly released correspondence. [Emphasis mine]

      …{skip two paragraphs discussing what the government said about the emails}

      The analysis also showed that the practice of using non-secure email systems to send sensitive information was widespread at the department and elsewhere in government.

      My first take reading this article was that the government was saying the practice was widespread. That didn’t make sense, so I read it again, and realized they were saying that their own “analysis” indicated the practice was widespread. (Where have we heard that kind of mealy-mouthed use of “analysis” before, in which the word “analysis” is used to mean “our opinion”? Oh, yeah, it’s a regular feature of our comment section.)

      See, they could have said “our analysis”, or some such. Remember, these are professional wordsmiths. Instead, they chose to write it in such a way that it would be easy for mush headed fools to come away with the notion that it was basically a fact that “everybody does it” and that therefore Clinton should not be held to a special standard.

      I think this is likely a trial balloon to see if the “everybody does it” defense will get pushback, plus preparation for Clintonian spokesbots to deflect questions by just shrugging and pointing to articles like this one whenever they are asked about Hillary’s obvious transgressions.

      • I think he got the exact memo – they’re moving to seal it up as a non-issue in the minds of Democrat voters.
        I just had a discussion not an hour ago with my idiot neighbor from Massachusetts – who used to work Air Force silo security, so he understands, or ought to understand the clearances thing.
        He assured me she hadn’t done anything because, blah, blah, already cleared, and would be arrested if, and what a great job she did as First Lady, and Sec State.
        (I got a laugh from my normally straight-laced wife when I said Hillary’s only accomplishment was getting screwed by Bill Clinton…)

        Anyway – Peligrano (sp, whatever) ‘leaks’ that there were no hack foreign incursions showing in the servers log – like THAT would be testimony he needed immunity for then this idiot protection
        other ‘evidence’, etc.

        They aren’t trying to convince us she’s not a felon, they’re trying to convince people who WANT to vote for her, but actually maintain enough integrity to stop them voting for a criminal.
        They just have to NOT arrest her, and she’ll get the votes.

        Not much different than Teflon Donald right now – all the accusations, people are ignoring them because they think Trump is going to fix it all.

        • “there were no hack foreign incursions showing in the servers log”

          LOL. Even a neophyte like me knows that good hackers will erase log entries and other evidence of their presence. Of course given what I have been able to find about Pagliano’s education and experience, he might not know that.

          • Oh no! I heard from a Clinton talking head expert that you can’t modify or erase those logs!
            That data is extra special magical and is composed of magical bits that can never be altered once they have been ‘written’.

            It wouldn’t be possible for someone to ever overwrite those sectors with whatever bits necessary to make any evidence look normal, no no no no no.
            Government level hackers aren’t that clever!

            Pagliano, thank you, I was just too damned lazy to look it up again.

          • Pagleano, Peligrano, mox nix. His name will be shite soon enough.

      • It would be interesting to research all the enlisted types…or Gen. Petraus…who did a LOT less, and are serving time in prison right now.

        A former AG did an analysis a few days back, listing all the federal crimes involving Hellary. And he didn’t even mention skankles…

        • Hell – there was the kid who took a selfie, with a secret level panel in the backdrop,
          the idiot that took a photo of a control panel (on purpose) on a boomer and then threw the phone out for some reason, phone was found by former military or someone who suspected and turned the phone in.

          Those are two I’ve seen over the last year just off the top of my head, and I didn’t read them on Infowars, they were published more as “doh! – dumbass!”.

        • When Slick Willy was being impeached there was testimony before the committee from people who had done jail time for the exact offense Willy was charged with. That didn’t seem to convince many Democrats.