Posted by: the daily messenger | May 9, 2018

Shooting 8000mah Lipo Battery with Nail Gun A TESLA BATTERY

Less than two months after a Tesla Model X burst into flames in Mountain View, CA after a gruesome crash attributed to an autopilot error trapped the driver in the burning car resulting in his death, Tesla tragedy has struck again after two 18-year-old men died, trapped in a fiery Model S crash near Fort Lauderdale beach Tuesday evening, the SunSentinel reported.

model S- The 700hp rolling instant crematory

As WPLG reports, in the “horrific crash” of the Tesla Model S with three young people hit a wall and then caught on fire, while a third teen was ejected from the car.
According to Battalion Chief Greg May, of Fort Lauderdale Fire Rescue, the Tesla Model S burst into flames after it wrecked about 7:30 p.m. and the two men who died were trapped inside.
A third man, also 18, who was in the backseat of the Tesla Model S, was thrown from the car when it crashed in the 1300 block of Seabreeze Boulevard, said Tracy Figone, a spokeswoman for the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. He was hospitalized. His condition was not known.
So far the identities of the three men were not released.
Neighborhood resident Wendy Mascolo told WFOR-Ch. 4 that she heard the violent crash when it happened and ran to help.
“These parents, they got the worst call of their lives and their lives are never going to be the same,” she told the station.
The investigation is ongoing.

Posted by: the daily messenger | May 7, 2018

MessiahMews Blogs: Miracle. July 2006 – May 6th, 2018

MessiahMews Blogs: Miracle. July 2006 – May 6th, 2018: R.I.P. Miracle. July 2006 – May 6th, 2018 Early this morning, our most precious and very much loved furbaby Miracle crossed the rainbow br…


Posted by: the daily messenger | May 5, 2018

Ahed Tamimi, Lorde, & Monika Schaefer

Posted by: the daily messenger | May 5, 2018

Canadian Arrested For Denying Official Holocaust Story (Part 1)

Posted by: the daily messenger | May 5, 2018

More Than 4 Million Americans Have Lost Health Insurance Since 2016

Because they can no longer afford the massive increases in monthly payments, that when truly needed, cover very little with stiff deductibles that wipe out a family’s savings.

Dental insurance is even worse, covering nothing but mercury amalgams which poison the brain and body, and check ups. The rest is on you. I know this because, two sons had to see a dentist and between the two of them, it will cost $14, 000.00 for what 20 years ago would have been under a $1,000.00 total. 

Up until the 1990s, in America, medical insurance was provided FREE OF CHARGE BY ALL EMPLOYERS. Then the jobs left the USA, to China, and so did our benefits.

And since that time, insurance premiums have become on par with house payments, on a monthly basis. This is why millions have given up insurance.

  • Too expensive
  • It no longer provides meaningful coverage

Ojai has become freak land, every weekend now…complete with cruising pedophiles roaming the arcade and Libbey Park

From the internet

Ron Paul’s former campaign manager died from complications caused by pneumonia because he couldn’t afford health insurance, it has emerged. The details surrounding the 2008 death of Kent Snyder were revealed by Gawker after the Tea Party candidate indicated he did not agree with free state health care for the poor.

Mr Snyder, 49, died on June 26, 2008, with hospital costs totalling $400,000 after he became ill with viral pneumonia. The bill for his care was sent to his mother, who was unable to pay, and so a website was set up by friends to secure donations. Mr Paul’s election campaign did not provide workers with medical insurance.
10 Years Later…$800,000…


Obamacare? It’s dogshit

It quickly wasn’t free tho…. a year later it was two hundred, a year after that it was four hundred, another year and it’s eight…I had to drop it when it jumped to sixteen.

Thank God Trump killed the mandate or they’d be fining me. McStain and his thumbs down is gonna cost us all trillions before it’s over.

The insurance companies are the problem.
 Before Obama care I had a blue cross blue shield family plan that worked and that I paid for out of my own earnings without any government assistance.   The democrats then said because my plan would not pay for gender reassignment surgery it was illegal. The democrats offered me a new plan under Obamacare that was three times the cost of my original plan. 

It also came with a massive deductible meaning I would most likely never ever use any of the benefits of their plan. it would be over 25K in bills before they would pay anything.  It was three times my house payment for this plan!  I had three kids and a wife, we did not want nor qualified for the welfare tax assistant program that so many Americans received to pay for this high priced policy.

My insurance plan has been CANCELLED 4 times since O’Bozo Care started implementation.  Each time was because of additional stupidity that was added to the regulations. (I have private pay, I’m not covered under an employer plan) Many have experienced the same but the progs go on TV and lie that “Nobody has lost their insurance under O’Bozo Care”.  Sorry asswipe, I have the DOCUMENTATION proving otherwise.

Every time I have had to change plans the premiums raise dramatically, the coverage is much worse, and the deductibles and copays become more draconian. My premiums are 3X what they were 4 years ago and the coverage is much worse.

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Short-sellers who had targeted Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) logged a $700 million paper profit on Thursday after the stock fell nearly 9 percent a day after Chief Executive Elon Musk stunned analysts by dodging “boring” questions about the electric car maker’s financial outlook.
The windfall wiped out short-sellers’ 2018 losses on Tesla, the biggest U.S. equity short, bringing year-to-date paper profits to $683 million, said Ihor Dusaniwsky, head of research at financial analytics firm S3 Partners.

Short-sellers aim to profit by selling borrowed shares with the hope of buying them back later at a lower price.

Tesla’s shares and bonds slid on Thursday as investors took Musk to task for cutting off analysts’ questions and grappled with concerns over Tesla’s ability to raise money in the future.
In a bizarre conference call, the iconoclastic CEO described questions about Tesla’s capital requirements as “boring” after Tesla, which also makes solar technology, reported a record loss of $709.6 million, or $4.19 per share, in the first quarter ended March 31.

“Don’t let Musk’s conference call theatrics fool you. He did not want investors to focus on his rapidly deteriorating finances,” prominent short-seller Jim Chanos of Kynikos Associates LP told Reuters in an email.

“Tesla’s quick ratio dropped to 0.38 and their (Altman) z-score is approaching 1.0,” Chanos said.
The so-called quick ratio is a commonly used indicator of short-term liquidity, while an Altman z-score is a combination of weighted business ratios that is used to estimate the likelihood of financial distress.

“Both are indicative of a company in financial distress,” said Chanos.
Chanos told Reuters in November he continued to add to his short position in Tesla throughout 2017.


The borrowing cost for Tesla is around 3.69 percent, up from about 1 percent at the start of the year, putting it among the top 5 percent most-expensive stocks on the Russell 3000 index to short, according to S3 Partners.

Shorts have to shell out $1.22 million every day to keep their position on, the most for any stock in the Russell 3000 Index, according to S3 Partners data.

Selling Tesla short has not always paid off. Shorts logged $2.3 billion in mark-to-market losses in 2017, as the shares soared 45.7 percent for the year.

But the stock has lost 9 percent in 2018 so far as investors fretted about issues such as a federal probe of a fatal crash on March 23 in California involving one of its vehicles and a downgrade of its credit position by Moody’s Investors Service.

Emboldened by production setbacks at the company, short sellers have boosted short interest in the stock by $2.5 billion, or 26 percent, for the year.

That took the overall short interest to $11.94 billion, enlarging what had been, off and on since March 2016, the largest equity bear bet in U.S. markets, according to S3 Partners data.
Options traders also boosted their bearish bets against Tesla in recent weeks.

Tesla Inc284.75


  • TSLA.O

Investor Christopher Irons, founder of independent investigative research website, said he had a small position in deep out-of-the money puts on Tesla, that makes money if the stock crashes.
Musk’s remarks during the analyst call shook investors’ confidence in Tesla, Irons said.
“Being a public company is a privilege and if you are going to take the good of being a public company, you owe it to the public to answer their questions,” said Irons.

Reporting by Saqib Iqbal Ahmed and Jennifer Ablan; Editing by Alden Bentley and Bernadette Baum

European Queens Waged More Wars Than Kings


Sending the peasants into the slaughter, twice as much as men.
There’s an assumption about women in power that you may have heard: that women who lead tend to be more diplomatic than their male counterparts, resulting in a more peaceful world. Psychologist Steven Pinker, for instance, wrote in his 2011 book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, “Over the long sweep of history, women have been and will be a pacifying force.” A oft spread and total lie regarding history and even office politics.
After sifting through historical data on queenly reigns across six centuries, two political scientists have found that it’s more complicated than that. In a recent working paper, New York University scholars Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish analyzed 28 European queenly reigns from 1480 to 1913 and found a 27 percent increase in wars when a queen was in power, as compared to the reign of a king. “People have this preconceived idea that states that are led by women engage in less conflict,” Dube told Pacific Standard, but her analysis of the data on European queens suggests another story.
Interestingly, Dube and Harish think the reason why queens were able to take part in more military policy can be explained by the division of labor that tended to happen when a queen — particularly a married queen — ruled. Queens managed foreign policy and war policies, which were often important to bring in cash, while their husbands managed the state (think taxes, crime, judicial issues, etc.). As the authors theorize, “greater division of labor under queenly reigns could have enabled queens to pursue more aggressive war policies.” Kings, on the other hand, didn’t tend to engage in division of labor like ruling queens — or, more specifically, they may have shared military and state duties with some close adviser, but not with the queen. And, Dube and Harish argue, it may be this “asymmetry in how queens relied on male spouses and kings relied on female spouses [that] strengthened the relative capacity of queenly reigns, facilitating their greater participation in warfare.”
Here’s Dube and Harish with more on that:

Female reigns may have had higher capacity to carry out war since queens often put their spouses in charge of official state matters. This division of labor would then have freed up time and resources for queens to pursue more aggressive war policies. In contrast, kings typically were less inclined to put their spouses in official positions through which they could aid in managing the polity.
This asymmetry in spousal division of labor emerged in several realms. Since women didn’t serve as heads of militaries, queens would often appoint their husbands to this role, though kings of course, did not do the same with their wives.. As an example, when Queen Dona Maria II of Portugal married Prince Augustus Francis Anthony in 1836, their marriage contract stated that he would serve as commander in chief of the army.

And when husbands of queens managed state affairs, the success of the country was strong. The authors point to Francis Stephen, who revamped the Austrian economic system while his wife, Queen Maria Theresa, used that cash to bolster the army. “Spousal support,” in other words, was a win-win for these royal couples, allowing queens to not only be more invested but also more successful than their peers who acted alone. (Modern couples, take note.) That doesn’t mean that queens and kings always agreed — qualitative data suggests that, in fact, queens and kings often disagreed, and virulently, with most queens RARELY marching onto the battlefield. 
The queens’ marital status made a difference here; as the authors write, “among married monarchs, queens were more likely to participate as attackers than kings.” If a queen were single — which was the case with 13 of those they studied — she was more likely to be attacked compared to the times when a king was in power, perhaps because her country was seen in the outside world as being more vulnerable and thus easier to attack.
But the authors emphasize that the increase in wars on a queen’s watch is likely explained by an attempt by the female leaders to signal their strength. Were that true, you’d expect a spike in war participation earlier in the queens’ careers, and that wasn’t the case according to the data analyzed here. Dube and Harish also argue that the queens were actively seeking to fight more wars. But here are a few more relevant commonalities of queenly reigns: Queens didn’t tend to use war ministers as much as kings, they relegated other tasks to their husbands, and they often threw themselves into the policy-making machine wholeheartedly.
It’s just a working paper, which means that Dube and Harish may uncover more as they continue to research this subject. But so far their findings have already begun to poke a few holes in some commonly distributed lies.
Things for Tesla just went from bad to worse when in one of the most bizarre conference calls since Jeff Skilling had some choice words for Richard Grubman, Elon Musk unexpectedly and abruptly cut off the earnings call when he encountered a question he appeared to find “uncool.” It may be Tesla investors are stupid cunts, and buying into Tesla obviously encourages that branding. However, the sainted CEO of rip off motors blurting out his hatred of truth and common sense doesn’t bode well for a company built upon subterfuge and lies.

  • ”will Tesla ever be profitable” Never, it’s a ponzy scam, funded by the NWO globalist pedophiles.


  • ”is your autopilot a killer” Yeah, it’s why we created it. For plausible deniability when we kill off people who get in our way.

  • ”do you have the exploding killer battery problem controlled” Why would we, we designed it as a bomb, that can be detonated remotely, you dunce.

  • ”will China’s rare earths make your lithium ion obsolete” It already has, and its stable. Lithium explodes like a thermite bomb, just deadlier.

  • -boring. go to YouTube. Watch our fanboy videos we have out there that look like independent owners lauding our expensive garbage. You rich soyboys will buy whatever we tell you to buy, because frankly, you are stupid cunts.

Just as a Bernstein analyst was asking one of the most important questions to emerge from this earnings release, namely what does it mean for battery and production capacity now that Tesla has cut its capex estimate, and just as CFO Ahuja started to provide some semblance of a response, the analyst was suddenly cut off, only it wasn’t because the line was dropped but because Musk literally cut off the analyst mid-question, saying “boring bonehead questions are not cool.”
“We’re going to YouTube. These questions are so dry. They’re killing me”, the petulant Musk said interrupting the next question in the queue which wanted more information on Model 3 reservations, at which point Musk proceeded to go to the Youtube channel for retail investors that had been arranged over Twitter.

: Thank you. The first question is related to the Model 3 reservations, and I was just wondering if you gave us a gauge as maybe some of the impact that the news has had. Like, of the reservations that have actually opened and made available to configure, can you let us know like what percentage have actually taken the step to configure?
: We’re going to go to YouTube. Sorry. These questions are so dry. They’re killing me.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question is from Galileo Russell with HyperChange.
: Hey. Great quarter. Thanks for having me on the call to represent retail investors. I was wondering with Waymo’s plans to launch an autonomous taxi service in limited markets this year if you could give us an update on the Tesla Network? And any details surrounding the launch date or geographical rollout? Thanks.
: Sure. Thank you for an interesting question.

Here is the recording of Musk mask of sanity slowly slipping off. He’s becoming more insane every day.

But at this point, the Musk meltdown only accelerated, as Musk attacked media stories questioning the safety of autonomy, i.e. the company’s over hyped autopilot – which as Musk will tell you should never be called an autopilot if it results in a deadly accident  – calling them “outrageous” and slamming “irresponsible” journalists who write about the dangers of autonomous vehicles, blasting that “people might actually turn it off and then die.” Or, as the recent tragic incidents have shown, die after assuming the autopilot actually knows what it is doing.
At this point, Musk found a question that “wasn’t boring” when someone on the Youtube channel asked how Tesla was competing with Porsche; the flamethrower man then gingerly pivoted into yet another non-sequitur, stating that “not being profitable is a good criticism that has been leveled at TSLA” and would be even greater if Musk had some answer to it, then claiming that “moats are lame” and what matters is the “pace of innovation”, however by this point the stock of Tesla was in freefall, sliding 5% after hours as increasingly more investors experienced a proverbial light bulb moment, realizing just what an “unstable genius” Elon Musk is.

And then, as if the above wasn’t enough, the absurdity really escalated when in response to Baird’s Ben Kallo asking for more frequent production updates – i.e. when Model 3 production hits 3k or 4k a week – Musk said investors should be focused on long-term things, and snapped that he has “no interest” in satisfying the interests of day traders.
“Please sell our stock,” he advised them, just as they were doing precisely that in the after hours.
Musk’s meltdown continued by stating that “Tesla is a leaky sieve of information”, and made another trade recommendation, saying that “if people are concerned about volatility, they should not buy our stock.
The full bizarre exchange below:

Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Ben Kallo with Baird.
: Hey, Elon. So I remember the Baron story, I don’t know if it was fake news or not, what you hung up on about your battery costs. And I don’t want to ask the same question, but I think it’s important because one of your stakeholders are shareholders right now, and so far we’ve had a couple of push-outs in production. Is there a way that you can update us when you get to that 3000 number or 4000 number per week? I mean you’re active on Twitter. Can you just let us know because we are going to have a big back in here, and there’s a lot of news flow out there that makes volatility into the slot, it makes it hard for people to own, even though you have a lot of believers out there. And so even though we’d be in my office right now, I think it’s very important to give those kind of updates. And so that’s — I think that’s my question. Can give us an update when you get to 3000 or 4000 per week on the Model 3.
: Yeah, actually, Tesla is such a leaky sieve of information that I think the news will leak pretty quickly. I also feel the track registrations quite closely. So at most any information that we provide would be a week or two in advance of what will become public knowledge just due to vehicle registrations and shipments that are tracked very carefully.
So really the point is like people get too focused on what’s happening in the space of a few weeks or a few months. There’s the whole maxim of investing, you should not be focused on short-term things, you should be focused on long-term things. We have no interest in satisfying the desires of day traders. I couldn’t care less. Please sell our stock and don’t buy it.
I think that if people are concerned about volatility, they should definitely not buy our stock. I’m not here to convince you to buy our stock. Do not buy it if volatility is scary. There you go.

And with that the most bizarre earnings call in years was mercifully, finally over and Musk can get back to his favorite Teslaquilla, or was it red wine and some ambien?.

What about the girl Scouts? Don’t they have to change, too? Nope. Just anything with the word men or boys in it. That’s how lopsided and screwed up feminism is and what a complete hypocrisy feminists are to the world.
After more than a century, the Boy Scouts of America are giving in to political correctness and changing the name of their flagship program.
The Boy Scouts announced Wednesday that after 108 years, its iconic name will be changed to simply Scouts BSA to accommodate incoming girls into the program, the New York Post reported.
The name change was decided after long and  “incredibly fun” deliberations, according to Chief Scout Executive Mike Surbaugh.
“We wanted to land on something that evokes the past but also conveys the inclusive nature of the program going forward,” he said. “We’re trying to find the right way to say we’re here for both young men and young women.”
The junior program for 7- to 10-year-olds, the Cub Scouts, will not be facing changes though it has already been accepting girls into the program. The parent organization, the Boy Scouts of America, will also be retaining its current name.
The name change will take effect next February for the Scouts BSA, the program for 11- to 17-year-olds which will begin admitting girls next year. But the members will be known simply as scouts, with no “boy” or “girl” modifiers, according to Surbaugh.
According to the New York Post:
The program for the older boys and girls will largely be divided along gender-lines, with single-sex units pursuing the same types of activities, earning the same array of merit badges and potentially having the same pathway to the coveted Eagle Scout award.
Surbaugh said that having separate units for boys and girls should alleviate concerns that girls joining the BSA for the first time might be at a disadvantage in seeking leadership opportunities.

About 170 Cub Scout packs which are taking part in the first phase of the new policy have seen more than 3,000 girls joining. A nationwide campaign called “Scout Me In” is expected to increase that as recruitment efforts intensify over the summer.

The Girl Scouts of America were apparently unprepared for the move and are reportedly launching a counter offensive to recruit girls as members, including offering new badges that girls can earn, with a focus on outdoor activities, science, engineering, technology and math.
An Illinois Girl Scouts regional leader believes the BSA’s decision to allow girls to join has negatively impacted her group which has seen membership drop by more than 500 girls so far this year, the New York Post reported.
Relations with the Boy Scouts in her area have become “very chilly,” Fiona Cummings of Girl Scouts of Northern Illinois noted.

“How do you manage these strategic tensions?” she asked. “We both need to increase our membership numbers.”

The Boy Scouts have seen a drop in participation from the more than 4 million members in past peak years to currently about 2.3 million, down from 2.6 million in 2013. The Girl Scouts, which had over 2 million youth members in 2014, now have about 1.76 million girls, according to the New York Post.

One has to wonder why efforts are not being made to reform both organizations so they can retain their original names, cater to the specific members and offer similar activities. Instead, it seems the Boy Scouts may be in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Posted by: the daily messenger | May 3, 2018

Polio And The Vaccine Myth



Oral Polio Vaccine

Many love to refer to the supposed fact that polio was rid of in the US thanks to the polio vaccine. However, Doctor Patricia Doyle explains its eradication thus:

“I would liken the reduction in cases to improved potent water supplies and to improved sewage treatment. I remember in the early 1950’s the city of Yonkers, NY came to the suburb of Yonkers, Sherwood Park, east Yonkers and actually required us to hook up to the sewer system. At that time our home was using a cesspool and well water. Many homes, mostly older, in my area used the cess pool and well water systems. Polio is actually spread via feces/oral route. I would wager that President Roosevelt got his polio swimming in the Hudson River which is where many of my neighbors got their polio. I remember seeing signs which read ‘No Swimming due to Polio’ in…

View original post 448 more words

Posted by: the daily messenger | May 2, 2018

The Counter-Coup Fire Rises

Chateau Heartiste

quote here the astounding testimony of former Trump aide Michael Caputo to the Senate Intel Committee.


‘In 2009, my wife and I moved to my hometown of East Aurora, New York to have a family. Making far less money back home, we had a far better quality of life. That is, until the Trump-Russia narrative took off. Today, I can’t possibly pay the attendant legal costs and live near my aging father, raising my kids where I grew up.

‘Your investigation and others into the allegations of Trump campaign collusion with Russia are costing my family a great deal of money – more than $125,000 – and making a visceral impact on my children.

‘Now I must to move back to Washington, New York City, Miami or elsewhere, just so I can make enough money to pay off these legal bills. And I know I have you to…

View original post 847 more words

Posted by: the daily messenger | May 2, 2018

The Counter-Coup Fire Rises

quote here the astounding testimony of former Trump aide Michael Caputo to the Senate Intel Committee.
‘In 2009, my wife and I moved to my hometown of East Aurora, New York to have a family. Making far less money back home, we had a far better quality of life. That is, until the Trump-Russia narrative took off. Today, I can’t possibly pay the attendant legal costs and live near my aging father, raising my kids where I grew up.
‘Your investigation and others into the allegations of Trump campaign collusion with Russia are costing my family a great deal of money – more than $125,000 – and making a visceral impact on my children.
‘Now I must to move back to Washington, New York City, Miami or elsewhere, just so I can make enough money to pay off these legal bills. And I know I have you to thank for that.
‘Here’s how I know: how many of you know Daniel Jones, former Senate Intelligence staffer for Senator Dianne Feinstein? Great guy, right? Most of you worked with him. One of you probably just talked to him this morning.
‘Of course, very few of us in flyover country knew Daniel until recently. Now we know that he quit his job with your Senate committee not long ago to raise $50 million from ten rich Democrats to finance more work on the FusionGPS Russian dossier. The one the FBI used to get a FISA warrant and intimidate President Donald Trump, without anyone admitting — until months after it was deployed — that it was paid for by Hillary Clinton.
‘In fact, good old Dan has been raising and spending millions to confirm the unconfirmable – and, of course, to keep all his old intel colleagues up-to-speed on what FusionGPS and British and Russian spies have found. Got to keep that Russia story in the news.
‘Of course Dan’s in touch with you guys. We know from the news that he’s been briefing Senator Mark Warner, vice chairman of this committee. Which one of you works for Senator Warner? Please give Danny my best.
‘I saw some of his handiwork just last month. Remember this lede paragraph, from McClatchy on April 13?
‘The Justice Department special counsel has evidence that Donald Trump’s personal lawyer and confidant, Michael Cohen, secretly made a late-summer trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
‘That’s your pal Dan, isn’t it? He came up with some kind of hollow proof that Michael Cohen was in Prague meeting with Russians when he wasn’t. He tried to sell that to reporters, and they didn’t buy it because it doesn’t check out. So, to get a reporter to write up his line of bull, he gave the documents to the Office of Special Counsel.
‘We know that’s likely, because he’s told people he’s briefing investigators.
‘So, technically, the special counsel’s office has evidence. Your pal Dan gave them more of the Democrats’ dossier, funded by more Democrats, provided again by Russian and British spies. Information no reporter would write up, but now there’s an angle: the Special Counsel has it. Now it’s a story.
‘It’s a clever but effective ruse. That’s a story, just like when reporter Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News wrote this gem on September 16, 2016:
‘“…U.S. officials have since received intelligence reports that during that same three-day trip, Page met with Igor Sechin, a longtime Putin associate … a well-placed Western intelligence source tells Yahoo News. That meeting, if confirmed, is viewed as especially problematic by U.S. officials…”
‘Dozens of stories were written from the Isikoff piece, doing real damage to the Trump campaign. Of course, now we know Isikoff’s reference to “intelligence reports” was just him renaming a dossier funded by Democrats and dug up by his longtime pal Glenn Simpson and some foreign spies. Once Simpson gave his Clinton campaign opposition research to the feds, it was news.
‘This was especially true after Isikoff intentionally labeled the campaign materials as intelligence – just like McClatchy called Dan’s information “evidence.”
‘But who is McClatchy’s second source? It couldn’t be Dan; he was the first source. It couldn’t be Simpson; he works for Dan. It can’t be the Mueller investigation; they kicked the McClatchy story to the curb with aplomb. So who could it be – perhaps one of his former Senate Intelligence colleagues? I mean, you’re all in this together. You’re the swamp.
‘What America needs is an investigation of the investigators. I want to know who is paying for the spies’ work and coordinating this attack on President Donald Trump? I want to know who Dan Jones is talking to across the investigations – from the FBI, to the Southern District of New York, to the OSC, to the Department of Justice, to Congress.
‘Forget about all the death threats against my family. I want to know who cost us so much money, who crushed our kids, who forced us out of our home, all because you lost an election.
‘I want to know because God Damn you to Hell.’
Can you feel the heat? This is the sound of white hot rage. Of unslaked vengeance. Of righteous fury. The anti-Trump coup coordinators and operatives of the Creep State who want to steal the vote of Heritage Americans are unwittingly ushering forth an army of counter-coup rebels.
Trump is not “going down”, notwithstanding to the contrary the desperate fantasies of shitlibs. There will only be one of two outcomes:
The seditious coup collaborators (including their media enablers) will back off and Trump will be free to implement his MAGA agenda, or
the seditious coup collaborators (including their media enablers) will double down, and there will be riots on Capitol Hill as Trump’s fiercest ally — the American people who voted him into office — storm the citadel in his defense.
Choose wisely, Deep State, and God damn you to Hell.

Authored by Craig Murray,
At the very beginning of the of the Skripal incident, the security services blocked by D(SMA) notice any media mention of Pablo Miller and told the media not to look at Orbis and the Steele dossier on Trump, acting immediately to get out their message via trusties in the BBC and Guardian.
Gordon Corera, “BBC Security Correspondent”, did not name the source who told him to say this, but helpfully illustrated his tweet with a nice picture of MI6 Headquarters.

MI6’s most important media conduit (after Frank Gardner) is Luke Harding of the Guardian.

A number of people replied to Harding’s tweet to point out that this was demonstrably untrue, and Pablo Miller had listed his employment by Orbis Business Intelligence on his Linkedin profile. That profile had just been deleted, but a google search for “Pablo Miller” plus “Orbis Business Intelligence”, without Linkedin as a search term, brought up Miller’s Linkedin profile as the first result (although there are twelve other Pablo Millers on Linkedin and the search brought up none of them). Plus a 2017 forum discussed Pablo Miller’s Orbis connection and it both cited and linked to his Linkedin entry.
You might think that any journalist worth his salt would want to consider this interesting counter-evidence. But Harding merely tweeted again the blank denials of the security services, without question.

This is an important trait of Harding. Last year we both appeared, separately, at the Jaipur Literature Festival. Harding was promoting a book and putting the boot into Wikileaks and Snowden. After his talk, I approached him in an entirely friendly manner, and told him there were a couple of factual errors in his presentation on matters to which I was an eye-witness, and I should be very happy to brief him, off the record, but we could discuss which bits he might use. He said he would talk later, and dashed off. Later I saw him in the author’s lounge, and as I walked towards him he hurriedly got up and left, looking at me.
Of course, nobody is obliged to talk to me. But at that period I had journalists from every major news agency contacting me daily wishing to interview me about Wikileaks, all of whom I was turning down, and there was no doubt of my inside knowledge and direct involvement with a number of the matters of which Harding was writing and speaking. A journalist who positively avoids knowledge of his subject is an interesting phenomenon.
But then Harding is that. From a wealthy family background, privately educated at Atlantic College and then Oxford, Harding became the editor of Oxford University’s Cherwell magazine without showing any leftwing or rebel characteristics. It was not a surprise to those who knew him as a student when he was employed at the very right wing “Daily Mail”. From there he moved to the Guardian. In 2003 Harding was embedded with US forces in Iraq and filing breathless reports of US special forces operations.
Moving to Moscow in 2007 as the Guardian’s Moscow correspondent, others in the Moscow press corps and in the British expatriate community found him to be a man of strongly hawkish neo-con views, extremely pro-British establishment, and much closer to the British Embassy and to MI6 than anybody else in the press corps. It was for this reason Harding was the only resident British journalist, to my knowledge, whose visa the Russians under Putin have refused to renew. They suspected he is actually an MI6 officer, although he is not.
With this background, people who knew Harding were dumbfounded when Harding appeared to be the supporter and insider of first Assange and then Snowden. The reason for this dichotomy is that Harding was not – he wrote books on Wikileaks and on Snowden that claimed to be insider accounts, but in fact just carried on Harding’s long history of plagiarism, as Julian Assange makes clear. Harding’s books were just careful hatchet jobs pretending to be inside accounts. The Guardian’s historical reputation for radicalism was already a sham under the editorship of Rusbridger, and has completely vanished under Viner, in favour of hardcore Clinton identity politics failing to disguise unbending neo-conservatism. The Guardian smashed the hard drives containing the Snowden files under GCHQ supervision, having already undertaken “not to even look at” the information on Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact the hard drives were not the only copies in the world does not excuse their cravenness.
We know, of course, what MI6 have fed to Harding, because it is reflected every day in his output. What we do not know, but may surmise, is what Harding fed back to the security services that he gleaned from the Guardian’s association with Wikileaks and Snowden.
Harding has since made his living from peddling a stream of anti-Assange, anti-Snowden and above all, anti-Russian books, with great commercial success, puffed by the entire mainstream media. But when challenged by the non-mainstream media about the numerous fact free assertions on behalf of the security services to be found in his books, Harding is not altogether convincing. You can watch this video, in which Harding outlines how emoticons convinced him someone was a Russian agent, together with this fascinating analysis which really is a must-read study of anti-Russian paranoia. There is a similar analysis here.

Perhaps still more revealing is this 2014 interview with his old student newspaper Cherwell, where he obviously felt comfortable enough to let the full extent of his monstrous boggle-eyed Russophobia become plain:

His analogies span the bulk of the 20th century and his predictions for the future are equally far-reaching. “This is the biggest crisis in Europe since the Cold War. It’s not the break-up of Yugoslavia, but the strategic consensus since 1945 has been ripped up. We now have an authoritarian state, with armies on the march.” What next?
“It’s clear to me that Putin intends to dismember Ukraine and join it up with Transnistria, then perhaps he’ll go as far as Moldova in one way or another,” Harding says. This is part of what he deems Putin’s over-arching project: an expansionist attempt to gather Russo-phones together under one yoke, which he terms ‘scary and Eurasian-ist’, and which he notes is darkly reminiscent of “another dictator of short stature” who concocted “a similarly irredentist project in the 1930s”.

But actually I think you can garner everything you want to know about Harding from looking at his twitter feed over the last two months. He has obsessively retweeted scores of stories churning out the government’s increasingly strained propaganda line on what occurred in Salisbury. Not one time had Harding ever questioned, even in the mildest way, a single one of the multiple inconsistencies in the government account or referred to anybody who does. He has acted, purely and simply, as a conduit for government propaganda, while abandoning all notion of a journalistic duty to investigate.
We still have no idea of who attacked Sergei Skripal and why. But the fact that, right from the start, the government blocked the media from mentioning Pablo Miller, and put out denials that this has anything to do with Christopher Steele and Orbis, including lying that Miller had never been connected to Orbis, convinces me that this is the most promising direction in which to look.
It never seemed likely to me that the Russians had decided to assassinate an inactive spy who they let out of prison many years ago, over something that happened in Moscow over a decade ago. It seemed even less likely when Boris Johnson claimed intelligence showed this was the result of a decade long novichok programme involving training in secret assassination techniques. Why would they blow all that effort on old Skripal?
That the motive is the connection to the hottest issue in US politics today, and not something in Moscow a decade ago, always seemed to me much more probable. Having now reviewed matters and seen that the government actively tried to shut down this line of inquiry, makes it still more probable this is right.
This does not tell us who did it. Possibly the Russians did, annoyed that Skripal was feeding information to the Steele dossier, against the terms of his release.
Given that the Steele dossier is demonstrably in large degree nonsense, it seems to me more probable the idea was to silence Skripal to close the danger that he would reveal his part in the concoction of this fraud. Remember he had sold out Russian agents to the British for cash and was a man of elastic loyalties. It is also worth noting that Luke Harding has a bestselling book currently on sale, in large part predicated on the truth of the Steele Dossier.
Steele, MI6 and the elements of the CIA which are out to get Trump, all would have a powerful motive to have the Skripal loose-end tied.

Rule number one of real investigative journalism: look where they tell you not to look.

Posted by: the daily messenger | May 1, 2018

Millennials: The Dumbest Retard Generation in History

Posted by: the daily messenger | May 1, 2018

Juicing and Raw Foods: Cleansing The Small Intestine

Juicing and Raw Foods: Cleansing The Small Intestine: If there were only one kind of pill that would help everybody, the cancer patient or otherwise, it would be “Okra-Pepsin-E3” made …
Posted by: the daily messenger | May 1, 2018

America has been in a Great Depression for the past decade

Burgernomics: the Big Mac index applied to GDP
“Burgernomics” is hardly new. The Economist Magazine’s Big Mac Index has been using the famous hamburger as a light-hearted proxy to determine the purchasing power parity value of global currencies for decades. The idea is to see whether the market values of existing exchange rates adequately measure what people can buy with that money.
A Big Mac, which is made the same way in most countries around the world, and whose recipe has changed little during the past thirty years, provides an excellent tool.
However, the Big Mac also provides a good proxy for how much Americans’ real national output has changed.
In addition to its famous ingredients (two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions on a sesame seed bun), the burger also contains substantial inputs related to rent (purchase entitles the buyer a seat at the restaurant for an hour or so), labour and taxes (which comprise a huge portion of business costs).
America is in a Great Depression right now
Measured in official terms, U.S. GDP came in at $19.4 trillion in 2017. That’s a 33% increase over the $14.5 trillion recorded in 2007.
However, those $14.5 trillion could buy 4.25 trillion Big Macs back in 2007 when they cost just $3.41 each.
By 2017, the price of a Big Mac had risen to $5.06, so the $19.4 trillion in GDP that year equated to only 3.83 trillion of the burgers.
That suggests that U.S. GDP, as measured in Big Mac terms, fell by 10% between 2007 and 2017.
ShadowStats, stagnant wages and the two-income trap
The idea of measuring U.S. GDP in Big Mac terms is, of course, far from fully-baked.
However, the results tie in with a lot of other anecdotal data points.
John Williams, of ShadowStats, for example has for years tracked how the U.S. Statistical agencies have changed their data calculations. The reasons cited by the officials always sound good, but their net effect is to make government statistics look a lot better than they actually are.
Williams calculates that U.S. inflation (which came in at 2.36% during March) was running at 5.9% based on the way the government calculated the data back in 1990, and at 10.1% based on 1980 methodologies. The official U.S. unemployment rate of 4.14% during March is actually 21.7% when calculated using ShadowStats’ alternative measure.
Other research, also by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, shows that real wage gains for U.S. workers in many categories have actually fallen during recent decades. For example, a typical 27-year-old man earned more in 1969 than he did three decades later.
Trust the experts?
That said, questioning the methodology of U.S. government experts is tricky business.
Academic economists and those that work at the big banks all use the numbers, generally with little or no question.
Those that do question the numbers, such as ShadowStats and the economists at the Mises Institute in Auburn Alabama, tend to be ignored or shut out of mainstream media.
For example, the latest BEA data release saw no prominent experts rise to question the data.
As such, average Americans will need to do their own calculations to figure out whether their government’s numbers are trustworthy.
Those that do so in a booth at their local McDonald’s will get a relatively good indication as to which way the wind is blowing.
Note: neither the Economist Magazine, nor McDonald’s Restaurants responded to requests to confirm data and findings done for this article.

Big Mac index suggests America in decade-long depression

Written by Peter Diekmeyer, Sprott Money News

from the internet

Go back to 2000 and look at the prices in the newspapers.  Half of what they are now, except for medical care and drugs, which are 10x higher.

if you check the tables in the article, the price of Big Macs has also been increasing by just over 4% for the entire three decade period.
This suggests that the Big Mac data might also provide a good proxy for consumer price inflation (excluding assets and government, which would drive the number up a bit higher).

a Big Mac in 1990 weighed a hell of a lot more than they do now.  Fine with me.  I use to have one twice a month, now, twice a year. Because I’m a fat F… whose wife can’t cook for shit. They are not healthy for you.  In fact, a study could be done that would show the indirect downstream medical and loss of productivity cost would be more than the counter price.
Meanwhile, bulksuppliments and organic food sales did not exist even 18 years ago.  You can live a longer and healthier life for less if you stay away from expensive things that are bad for you and embrace more affordable things that are good for you.

Back in 1995 or so, 87 grade gas costed 99 cents, now it’s $3.35.
Pizza hut (medium) $7, now $13 or so …
If you can manage the basic living stuffs, life is ok.
It’s the car, school tuition, home price, healthcare … are doing the damage.  Big items are making money off of us…

In 1989 I bought a brand new Honda Civic DX (fully loaded) for $4200. It was about 6 weeks wages (I was still not at top income rate at the plant and taxes not counted). Today a new Honda is about $44,000 and is less reliable. Now, it takes a full year of salary to buy essentially the same car. We’ve been robbed.

Posted by: the daily messenger | May 1, 2018

Bill Binney, a former technical director at the NSA

Authored by Erik Sandberg via,
Some of the most vocal critics of the ethics of the U.S. governmental and surveillance agencies have been the ones who worked and built their tracking programs. The problem many of these individuals feel  –  like Bill Binney, a former technical director at the NSA  –  is that the spying mechanisms and frameworks have been abused by successive American governments following the travesty that was 9/11.

The sheer amount of data that was being fed in to the National Security Agency in the lead-up to 9/11 is also a moot point in that the event was an entirely avoidable catastrophe. Programs originally designed and implemented to protect U.S. citizens are now being used against its population.
Listen to the full interview in our weekly Newsvoice Think podcast.
Speaking to Bill Binney, we wanted to find out a bit more about how the National Security Agency functions and in what ways it violates the U.S. constitution. He told Newsvoice Think that it’s now practically impossible for any member of the public to communicate safely, privately or in a fashion that doesn’t end up in an NSA repository unit.
Bill Binney on the Fairview surveillance program

“The Fairview surveillance program has been used to spy on the Donald Trump administration, even before he took office. Now they’re starting to talk about this program simply because the politicians are getting hit with it. The poor suckers and thousands of citizens that have been jailed via this program. They don’t count. They’re the Department of Just-Us.”

Bill Binney on protecting ourselves against spying…
With Telegram hitting the news early in 2018, the focus on encrypted messaging apps and their primary function was much debated. In Iran, the government there blamed Pavel Durov’s product and banned it for inciting and encouraging revolution in a country already nervous and encircled by U.S. bases in the Middle East. The argument on encrypted messaging apps rages on with many in the U.K., such as Amber Rudd and even the Prime Minister calling on access in unique cases such as terrorist activity. Bill Binney, however, was sceptical on whether there is any way that the public can protect themselves from intrusion on their metadata.

Bill Binney on the relationship between the press and the CIA…
Censorship isn’t secluded to just Iran, though. With journalists across the globe still being jailed or in extreme cases, as witnessed recently in Slovakia, killed for their investigative work and reporting. Binney describes that the CIA have been involved and have colluded with the press since the ’50s and that the former director of the CIA, William J. Casey once said: “We’ll know when our propaganda campaign has succeeded; when everything and everyone in the country believes is false.”
Bill Binney on Mike Pompeo and the intelligence communities… While Russia’s influence on the 2016 U.S. elections continues to hark debate, Bill Binney found himself at the centre of the furore late in 2017. At the behest of Donald Trump, he was summoned by the then CIA director Mike Pompeo who wanted his thoughts on Russian ‘hacking’.

The intelligence community was not telling them the truth. They’re trying to drum up a new cold war. Look what they said in public testimony about spying, look what they said about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: Nobody’s been telling the truth about these major issues.
Then they go off and kill hundreds of thousands of people based on a lie so they can go and build these military industrial complexes.”

With Newsvoice, you can be a part of the media. Our mission is to democratize the news, and move the power over to our readers. Get involved by downloading the app, or visit us at

Posted by: the daily messenger | April 30, 2018

Full Moon AND witches Sabbath of Beltane

In conjunction. Explains all the massive crowds this weekend in Ojai of the usual abominations.

they poisoned my beach and ocean, making it suicide to surf any more. The radiation count is 1500% over what it was 10 years ago. And the local shore life in the water, HAS VANISHED.

Authored by John Laforge of CounterPunch

The radiation dispersed into the environment by the three reactor meltdowns at Fukushima-Daiichi in Japan has exceeded that of the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe, so we may stop calling it the “second worst” nuclear power disaster in history. Total atmospheric releases from Fukushima are estimated to be between 5.6 and 8.1 times that of Chernobyl, according to the 2013 World Nuclear Industry Status Report. Professor Komei Hosokawa, who wrote the report’s Fukushima section, told London’s Channel 4 News then, “Almost every day new things happen, and there is no sign that they will control the situation in the next few months or years.”
Tokyo Electric Power Co. has estimated that about 900 peta-becquerels have spewed from Fukushima, and the updated 2016 TORCH Report estimates that Chernobyl dispersed 110 peta-becquerels. [1] (A Becquerel is one atomic disintegration per second. The “peta-becquerel” is a quadrillion, or a thousand trillion Becquerels.)
Chernobyl’s reactor No. 4 in Ukraine suffered several explosions, blew apart and burned for 40 days, sending clouds of radioactive materials high into the atmosphere, and spreading fallout across the whole of the Northern Hemisphere — depositing cesium-137 in Minnesota’s milk.[2]
The likelihood of similar or worse reactor disasters was estimated by James Asselstine of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), who testified to Congress in 1986: “We can expect to see a core meltdown accident within the next 20 years, and it … could result in off-site releases of radiation … as large as or larger than the releases … at Chernobyl. [3] Fukushima-Daiichi came 25 years later.
Contamination of soil, vegetation and water is so widespread in Japan that evacuating all the at-risk populations could collapse the economy, much as Chernobyl did to the former Soviet Union. For this reason, the Japanese government standard for decontaminating soil there is far less stringent than the standard used in Ukraine after Chernobyl.
Fukushima’s Cesium-137 Release Tops Chernobyl’s
The Korea Atomic Energy Research (KAER) Institute outside of Seoul reported in July 2014 that Fukushima-Daiichi’s three reactor meltdowns may have emitted two to four times as much cesium-137 as the reactor catastrophe at Chernobyl. [4]
To determine its estimate of the cesium-137 that was released into the environment from Fukushima, the Cesium-137 release fraction (4% to the atmosphere, 16% to the ocean) was multiplied by the cesium-137 inventory in the uranium fuel inside the three melted reactors (760 to 820 quadrillion Becquerel, or Bq), with these results:
Ocean release of cesium-137 from Fukushima (the worst ever recorded): 121.6 to 131.2 quadrillion Becquerel (16% x 760 to 820 quadrillion Bq). Atmospheric release of Cesium-137 from Fukushima: 30.4 to 32.8 quadrillion Becquerel (4% x 760 to 820 quadrillion Bq).
Total release of Cesium-137 to the environment from Fukushima: 152 to 164 quadrillion Becquerel. Total release of Cesium-137 into the environment from Chernobyl: between 70 and 110 quadrillion Bq.
The Fukushima-Daiichi reactors’ estimated inventory of 760 to 820 quadrillion Bq (petabecquerels) of Cesium-137 used by the KAER Institute is significantly lower than the US Department of Energy’s estimate of 1,300 quadrillion Bq. It is possible the Korean institute’s estimates of radioactive releases are low.
In Chernobyl, 30 years after its explosions and fire, what the Wall St. Journal last year called “the $2.45 billion shelter implementation plan” was finally completed in November 2016. A huge metal cover was moved into place over the wreckage of the reactor and its crumbling, hastily erected cement tomb. The giant new cover is 350 feet high, and engineers say it should last 100 years — far short of the 250,000-year radiation hazard underneath.
The first cover was going to work for a century too, but by 1996 was riddled with cracks and in danger of collapsing. Designers went to work then engineering a cover-for-the-cover, and after 20 years of work, the smoking radioactive waste monstrosity of Chernobyl has a new “tin chapeau.” But with extreme weather, tornadoes, earth tremors, corrosion and radiation-induced embrittlement it could need replacing about 2,500 times.
John Laforge’s field guide to the new generation of nuclear weapons is featured in the March/April 2018 issue of CounterPunch magazine.
[1] Duluth News-Tribune & Herald, “Slight rise in radioactivity found again in state milk,” May 22, 1986; St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch, “Radiation kills Chernobyl firemen,” May 17, 1986; Minneapolis StarTribune, “Low radiation dose found in area milk,” May 17, 1986.
[2] Ian Fairlie, “TORCH-2016: An independent scientific evaluation of the health-related effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster,” March 2016 (…).
[3] James K. Asselstine, Commissioner, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Testimony in Nuclear Reactor Safety: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, May 22 and July 16, 1986, Serial No. 99-177, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1987.
[4] Progress in Nuclear Energy, Vol. 74, July 2014, pp. 61-70;, Oct. 20, 2014.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »