TimoMalum.com

News From Clown World: November 08, 2024.

The Justice Department is alleging that Farhad Shakeri of Iran conspired to kill Donald Trump prior to the election. The DOJ says "Shakeri – who participated in recorded conversations with law enforcement – was originally tasked by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps to carrying out other assassinations against US and Israeli citizens inside the US. But IRGC officials told Shakeri on October 7 to focus only on Trump, court documents say, and that he had seven days to formulate an assassination plan." [source: CNN] But was this a real plot, or was Shakeri part of a set up, something the DOJ is reputed to frequently do?

Iran is the primary resistance against Israel's attempts to expand its territory across nearly the entire Middle East. With Iran out of the way, Israel is essentially free to do as it pleases, and for that reason, Iran has been a target of American neocon warmongers for decades. Senator Lindsey Graham practically foams at the mouth at the mere mention of bombing Iran. His desire to please his Zionist masters overrides any concerns about the horrors of war. Knowing the United States would like to wipe it off the map, one could almost expect Iran to take some sort of action against us, yet in the current Middle East conflicts, they've shown a remarkable level of restraint. By no means have they acted like the insane terrorists that the U.S. State Department portrays them as. But if they did do something, why would it involve Trump? One reason is that he ordered the successful assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020. Another is Trump's endless promises to defend Israel and allow them to continue the genocide in Gaza. Iranian officials know that when Gaza has been bulldozed, Israel will move on to new targets such as Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran. They expect Trump to support Israel in whatever it does. Despite this, I doubt the alleged plot by Farhad Shakeri has much validity. Just like we were lied to about weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion of Iraq, the public must be angered to get it to support a war with Iran. An assassination attempt, even one conducted by operatives within our own government, would certainly create that anger. The truth will just have to wait a while.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi has won another term in office. At 84 years old, a normal person would want to slow down and enjoy her final years alive. But Pelosi can't let go of the power and fame. She thinks she's doing a job that no one else can do. "The world needs me", she probably mutters each morning as she brushes her fangs. I was certain there had to be a psychological condition that fits her behavior, and here it is: megalomania.

"Megalomania is an unrealistic belief in one's superiority, grandiose abilities, and even omnipotence. It is characterized by a need for total power and control over others, and is marked by a lack of empathy for anything that is perceived as not feeding the self."

It also makes you run for public office when you're 84 years old.

Stay home, Nancy. You've done enough damage. We'll be fine without you.

The mind-control news media is claiming "disinformation from adversaries and Americans swamped 2024 election". Left-leaning rag 'The Hill' claims "Russia, Iran, and China continued to promote content that sows division among Americans". I don't doubt that some of that took place, just like the United States government sends disinformation into Russia, Iran, and China. Turnabout is fair play, after all. But as usual, the news media lacks all self-awareness and can't see that much of the disinformation and misinformation about this year's political campaigns came from the news media itself. They made it their mission to lie about not just Donald Trump but all conservatives while hiding the truth about Democratic Party candidates from the public. Much of the news media, especially MSNBC, are little more than propaganda pushers for Democrats and other elements of the radical left. Anyone with a bit of time on their hands can debunk at least 25% of what we're told is news. And important stories never get covered while space is created for the latest Taylor Swift update.

More Americans than ever before now realize that the media (news, music, TV, and films) is not on our side and is actually doing real harm to our society. We don't have to worry about what foreign adversaries might do: our real enemies are right here in America, sending their garbage into our homes 24 hours a day.

Finally for today, we see that the CDC is still trying to create a bird flu pandemic, at least in our minds. Despite repeated attempts to convince us that a few cases of pink eye came from chickens, so far the public hasn't been fooled. Many people now know that the PCR tests used to detect the alleged virus (H5N1) are not designed to diagnose diseases and at best, they find fragments of material that health officials claim is proof of a virus. What the officials never admit is that viruses have never been proven to cause transmissible illnesses. Many researchers say viruses don't exist at all, and if that's the case, there's nothing to test for, at least not with our current level of knowledge and technology. But claiming a virus is spreading and could potentially make us sick is a great way to control people. We're more obedient when we're afraid. We follow orders when we think those orders will keep us and our loved ones well. We voluntarily submit to vaccines that contain harmful ingredients and can create chronic health conditions that impair us for life. And we kill millions of animals destined for our food supply in a misguided attempt to prevent the spread of something that probably doesn't exist.

To add to this madness, the CDC now claims that you can have bird flu without feeling sick. Yes, that old myth of "asymptomatic illness" that was used so effectively during COVID is being tried again. The CDC has provided no proof of anything they claim, but science isn't their specialty. What they're really good at are propaganda campaigns and behavior modification.

After four years of COVID mania, I hope the majority of us have learned to be extremely skeptical of health officials and anyone else who uses health issues to control us or profit from us.

Censorship Is Fast & Furious On Mastodon.

Pictured above is a screenshot of the message I received from the power-mad moderators on Mastodon.social, one of the largest servers in the Mastodon social media network. Less than two days after I joined, I got my first strike against my account for merely reposting someone else's content. The original post stayed up, but my repost was taken down. The reason given? "Content violates the following community guidelines: Do not share information widely-known to be false and misleading." 

Here's the post:

The original post by Lesley Carhart said, "I am not sure that people outside the US who have not had to deal with a similar party leader understand when we say, 'cult', we mean an actual, completely brainwashed cult. Not just racists. Not just people who like strong men or fascism, as exists globally today. An actual cult, where the members are willing to abandon their families and long-time friends, give away their belongings, and even resort to violence. Nothing, no matter how vile or rational, will get through to them except careful deprogramming. We have to contend with that. It can happen to you. Please be careful out there."

At first I thought she had to be talking about the Marxist Democratic Party, since all the things she describes are what I see every day among the brainwashed leftists. But then I saw her hashtags, which all point to "blue" targets. It was then I realized she was talking about Republicans and probably anyone who supports Donald Trump. 

I could go point by point and destroy Carhart's post, but my concern isn't so much with her as it is with the moderators at Mastodon. Why was my repost considered a violation of community standards? Was it what Carhart said, or how I replied? My reply to the post said, "Members of a radical leftist cult think YOU'RE in a cult, and must be "deprogrammed". 

My reply was true, because that's clearly what Carhart said should happen to Republicans. Is pointing out the truth a violation of community standards, or is the act of criticizing a leftist my real violation? To be clear, Carhart's post originally appeared on Infosec.exchange, another Mastodon server, but was then made visible on Mastodon.social, where my account is. (If you're not familiar with the Mastodon "Fediverse", this probably seems confusing.) It's possible the original post met the standards on Infosec.exchange, but not Mastodon.social, and by reposting it and adding a comment, I brought it to the attention of the Mastodon.social moderators who might have been okay with my comment but not the original post. Unfortunately, I will never know. I appealed the strike, asking how the repost and comment were "widely-known to be false and misleading". Within a few minutes, I got a reply: Appeal Denied. I wasn't given the courtesy of an explanation.

I really wasn't surprised. The same thing happened to me on Twitter/X, only worse: a permanent suspension with no reason given, and no response to my appeal. This seems to be the standard operating procedure for social media sites now that the stench of authoritarianism has begun spreading around the world.

But what makes it so ironic is that the majority of the posts on Mastodon are from Democrats and other Marxists who constantly whine about the dangers of MAGA fascism. Can one of them explain how censorship from the left, often in cooperation with the government and big tech companies, is anything but fascism?

Worse than I've ever seen in my life, people are radically divided by their political ideologies. We all have more common ground than we realize, but the powerful people in the establishment and the media hacks they employ work day and night to drive wedges between us. In many cases, each side believes outright lies about the other, fueled by propaganda and other deliberate efforts to keep us fighting. It's a situation that works very well for the establishment.

Social media promised to bring us together and usher in a new era of communication and understanding. But if power-mad, intolerant moderators abuse their positions and censor things they disagree with, they end up doing harm to society even if they think they're doing something noble.

Mastodon.social has disappointed me in less than two days. They should do better. They HAVE to do better. They, and every other social media site, have a vital responsibility to the public.

They must begin to understand: there is no place for censorship in a free society. But we must begin to understand: many on the left don't want us to be free.

Notes From Clown World: October 26, 2024.

I left the Democratic Party eight years ago because I got tired of their lies. Theirs is a party that gains and retains power through fear-mongering, division, promises of free stuff, and endless deception. It's an organization of wealthy political elites who pretend to care about us, but their real goal is keeping us broke and demoralized, dependent upon them for everything. For decades they've dishonestly pandered to black Americans, and sadly, their tactics have been very effective. Democrats traditionally win the majority of black votes, despite the party being the early foundation of the Ku Klux Klan and despite Hillary Clinton's hero, Margaret Sanger, being a eugenicist who targeted black Americans. The organization Sanger founded is now known as Planned Parenthood and is responsible for the murder of millions of black babies. 

Time passes, but little changes. Kamala Harris is promising free stuff to blacks and spreading fear within the black community in a desperate attempt to win this year's presidential election. On her website, she portrays Donald Trump as some sort of monster who is a "serious threat to the lives of black men", while providing no credible proof to back up her claim. She's promising 1 million forgivable loans of up to $20,000 each to black entrepreneurs, with the losses covered by hardworking Americans of all races who will have no say in the matter. She's pitching a vague plan to create a National Health Equity Initiative focused on black men, but there are no details on what this actually is or what it will cost, or why black women are excluded. And she's proposing price controls on food and rent, despite historical evidence that these sorts of schemes typically result in food and housing shortages which hurt minorities worst of all. 

Will black Americans take the bait once again and vote for Democrats in 2024? If the number of Kamala Harris yard signs I'm seeing in black neighborhoods is any indication, I'd have to say, "yes, this year more than ever". 

Perhaps some of her support is the result of endorsements from super-wealthy celebrities with more talent than brains. Already Harris has been endorsed by Bruce Springsteen, Willie Nelson, and Geraldo Rivera. Dozens of other musicians and Hollywood stars have jumped on the Kamala-train too, but doing the research so I can list them all would be nauseating. And considering what we know about the A-listers who visited Jeffrey Epstein's island and the stars allegedly involved in the Sean Combs (P Diddy) sex scandal, celebrity endorsements don't really help Harris' reputation. I doubt Willie Nelson shared baby oil with Jennifer Lopez over at Diddy's crib, but a lot of us have become very suspicious of anyone involved in the film and music industries, and rightly so. Unlike in the past, bragging about celebrity endorsements is not going to win over many hearts and minds in middle America. And this cuts both ways: endorsing a politician who pushes abortions, wars, forced vaccinations, censorship, and Communist economic policies isn't going to help movie and music sales. It could actually tank your career.

"The scariest Halloween decorations have to be those Harris signs in people's yards."

Does Keith Olbermann have any friends who can check on him? His tweets make him look like an unhinged madman. I'm thinking he might need a psychiatric evaluation before he hurts himself. He recently said "We need to arrest and detain Elon Musk immediately". On what charges, Keith? For resisting the radical left and their tyrannical, authoritarian agenda? Olbermann says Musk is "operating on behalf of Russia" (as if Russia is actually our enemy), but he offers no proof. He doesn't even want to give Musk a trial: he demands that President Biden "lock him away in a military facility". 

What country does Keith Olbermann think he lives in? This isn't North Korea, Keith, although you and your kind are pushing us toward just such a Communist, hellish existence. 

Keith, if you'll send me your address, I'll send you a copy of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. I suggest you read it and learn how things are designed to work here in America. Sending people to gulags isn't part of the plan.

Finally today, we have an ANTIFA cartoon that's funny, but more true than I'd like to think. If Donald Trump wins in November, there is no doubt in my mind that Democrats and their allies of the radical left will refuse to accept the election results. I've heard that more than 40 lawsuits have already been written, ready to be deployed if Trump wins. And I expect violence to erupt as well, with indoctrinated leftists and paid agitators leaving their mom's basements to go and burn cities, just like in the 2020 "Summer of love". But I expect the protests will go on longer, and burn hotter, because the left is even more ignorant, intolerant, and filled with hate than they were four years ago. They have an irrational hatred of Trump and all who support him, and a Trump victory will push their frail minds over the edge. If they can't have their way, they'll try to tear everything down with the hope of launching a violent Communist revolution.

Right now, they're preparing. Are you?

We Demand: Take Care Of Our Own.

Freeze all foreign aid and take care of our own. We are not asking.

Democrats Are The New Communists.

Democrats are the new communists.

Which Candidate Will Shrink The Federal Government? Let's Take A Look.

As a lifelong libertarian, I've always felt that the biggest obstacle to a free and prosperous society is an oppressive and parasitic government. In the United States we have a federal government that began with good intentions more than 200 years ago, but has since become a hostile, angry monster that can never be fed enough. The size of the government is staggering: as of 2022, "the federal government employs nearly 9.1 million workers, comprising nearly 6 percent of total employment in the United States. The figure includes nearly 2.1 million federal employees, 4.1 million contract employees, 1.2 million grant employees, 1.3 million active duty military personnel, and more than 500,000 postal service employees." [source: The Hill] There are more federal employees than the total population of Austria. The federal budget for 2024 is $6.9 trillion, and that number is expected to grow no matter who is elected president in November. The national debt is currently more than $35 trillion [source: Statista] and that number rises by another trillion dollars every 100 days. The federal debt to GDP ratio is now at 122%, meaning we're broke.

The United States is a bankrupt nation that functions on debt and the intimidation of the world through our military. This is an unsustainable situation, and an economic crash is inevitable unless drastic action is taken to reign in the spending. Painful decisions will have to be made to ensure the long-term security of the nation. But politicians don't like to make decisions that cause pain. They'd rather kick the proverbial can down the road and hope someone else comes up with a real solution, after they've left office.

And beyond the financial woes, our monstrous government is a burden on society, imposing oppressive laws, rules, regulations, and red tape that cripple our ability to get anything useful done. Picture Star Wars' 'Jabba the Hut' sitting on a throne and eating everything in sight and you'll have a good idea of what our government has become.

It's critical that we reign in this obese monster before it destroys and consumes everything it can reach. But will anyone do it? Does anyone have the courage? I decided to take a look at the campaign platforms of the top four candidates and see if any of them are taking the situation seriously with plans to shrink the government. 

Kamala Harris (and the establishment players she represents), offers little hope or change in the size of the federal government. She is the face of the deep state, the entrenched bureaucrats who remain in power for decades and run the nation un-Constitutionally via policies and regulations. Harris is the vice-president because of the deep state, so you can bet she won't do anything to upset them. One of the first items in her platform says she will "make affordable health care a right, not a privilege by expanding and strengthening the Affordable Care Act" (socialism). She claims she will "make millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share in taxes", although she doesn't say what a "fair share" is. She brags about the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the American Rescue Plan, all of which combined added trillions to the national debt. 

Unfortunately for us, Harris' platform contains very little other than references to things she did in the past. On issue after issue, her website talks about what she did as a prosecutor in California or as a member of Congress. There are no specific plans listed for what she will do in the future, except vague statements such as promising to work on the (alleged) climate crisis, or saying she'll end the fentanyl crisis by "signing the bipartisan border bill that will fund detection technology to intercept even more illicit drugs". 

So we're left wondering what she'll actually do. But we know her ideology is rooted in Marxism, so it's a fair guess to say a Harris presidency will be one of taxing, spending, unfettered government growth, and more intrusions into our lives.

Jill Stein of the Green Party, starts out with drastic cuts to our military (50-75%). I applaud her desire to close military bases overseas, disband NATO, and stop military funding of Israel and Ukraine. But she then pledges those funds as a "peace dividend" to a number of spending plans, such as the bogus "climate change" agenda and "universal access to basic human needs for food, clean water and sanitation, education, and health care for every human being on Earth". Stein is promising to build 15 million green, union-built, publicly-owned homes, expand HUD and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Programs for first-time home buyers, guarantee lifelong free public education for all institutions of learning, including trade schools and Pre-K through college and graduate school, and guarantee free childcare. 

In other words, Jill Stein loves a big government, as long as that government is administering far-left social programs instead of wars. Her platform doesn't mention the federal budget or the national debt at all, except to recommend that we "tax the ultra-wealthy and giant corporations heavily". Unfortunately for Stein, even if the government stole every penny of every wealthy person in the country, it still wouldn't make a dent in the $35 trillion debt. 

Our next Marxist candidate is Cornel West. His platform repeats the word "justice" 17 times just in the category list alone. This should give you some idea of where a West presidency would end up. His platform mentions universal basic income, an expansion of parental leave & disability benefits, "fostering businesses that embody the principles of collective ownership" (communism), a "vow to significantly amplify funding for maternal health initiatives tailored to the needs of Black women (racism), free tuition for higher education, "climate reparations to recognize the deep injustices of climate change" (fake science), on top of a number of other so-called "green" initiatives that you and I will have to pay for. Like Stein, West proposes cuts to the military, including "disbanding NATO" and closing overseas bases. But then he says we need to cancel the debts of developing nations, despite the U.S. itself being bankrupt. It's hard to make the math work on his Marxist vision for America.

Cornel West loves a big government that taxes heavily, spends freely, and imposes itself upon us at every turn. That's not much different than what we already have. The only real difference is what the money gets spent on.

As the MAGA Republican candidate, we should expect Donald Trump to be the candidate most likely to tame the savage beast that is our government. But what does he have to say about it?

He says he wants to "stop outsourcing and turn the United States into a manufacturing superpower". Reducing imports and increasing exports would certainly help our situation, but Trump offers no details on how he will actually do this. Will it involve more government spending or the creation of a new trade agency? He doesn't say. Unfortunately he does say he will increase military spending, including by building a "great iron dome missile defense shield over our entire country". Such a system, which has proven to be a failure in Israel, will cost us billions of dollars...possibly trillions, and isn't needed since we have no enemies with intercontinental missiles who are foolish enough to start World War 3. An iron dome is nothing but a hand-out to the military industrial complex, the same people who have helped to bankrupt our nation and have kept wars going throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. 

Trump also says he will "rebuild our cities", but again doesn't say how he'll do it. Is this another spending program? It sure looks like it to me.

I wish I could tell you more, but Trump's platform is completely lacking in details. It's a collection of grand words and concepts. But I can tell you there's nothing in it that mentions shrinking the government, cutting spending, or reducing the debt.

If you dig a little deeper, you can find the Republican Party's platform which is different in some ways than what you'll find on Trump's campaign website. There, you will see the Republican's promise to "rein in wasteful federal spending: Republicans will immediately stabilize the economy by slashing wasteful government spending and promoting economic growth." How will it be slashed? They don't say. They also promise to "cut costly and burdensome regulations: Republicans will reinstate President Trump's deregulation policies, which saved Americans $11,000 per household, and end Democrats’ regulatory onslaught that disproportionately harms low and middle-income households." That one statement alone is the most encouraging thing I've seen on any of the platforms. But I question why it's on the Republican Party's platform but not on Trump's website.

Another positive note on the Republican's platform is this: "Republicans will end Democrats’ unlawful and un-American crypto crackdown and oppose the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency. We will defend the right to mine Bitcoin, and ensure every American has the right to self-custody of their digital assets, and transact free from government surveillance and control." That's a huge statement, and I hope the Republicans have the guts to follow through. 

While there isn't much in either Trump's or the RNC's platforms that suggest they'll cut spending, (and Trump's platform has the wasteful "Iron Dome" boondoggle) their agendas do appear to have the goal of stimulating the economy, reducing the trade deficit, ending at least some of the government's burdensome regulations, and protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. None of the other three candidates are proposing anything similar.

My reservation with Donald Trump and the Republican Party is we've had a lot of promises in the past and an equal amount of disappointments. We don't need four more years of excuses. We need results. And we need results that will last beyond the next election season. 

And it's important to note that none of the candidates have said anything in their campaign platforms about reversing Joe Biden's massive funding increase to the IRS that would enable up to 80,000 new agents to be hired. None of the candidates mention eliminating or greatly downsizing any of the "three letter agencies" such as the CIA, the FBI, the CDC, or the FDA, that have done so much harm to the American people in the past several years. They won't even touch easy targets such as cutting funding to Planned Parenthood or NPR.

But after reading the campaign platforms, I can say without any doubt that the only candidate who has a chance of controlling the "hostile, angry monster that can never be fed enough" is Trump. The other three candidates don't even pretend to care about the problem.

Vote accordingly.