Welcome to my blog. Here you will find information that is both interesting and useless. You can even see how Steve, my camera, sees the world through my eyes, or get your hands on my latest novel, Jihad Joe at:


Thanks for visiting. Hope you enjoyed the coffee and cake. Sorry we ran out of donuts.

Friday, October 21, 2016

Liberal Cuomo passes anti-Airbnb bill: shades of Uber

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is a left-wing liberal who, like all liberals, pretends to be on the side of the "little guy." But if you rent out space in your New York apartment through Airbnb, you can be fined up to $7,500. 

The punishment applies to rentals less than 30 days when the owner or tenant is not present. 

Cuomo caved to the pressure from the hotel industry and now the bill has become law. The "little guy" can no longer make a few dollars from renting out space, nor can the client save money from not having to pay extravagant hotel bills.

Many property owners (aka "little guys") use Airbnb and similar websites to rent their apartments to short-term visitors, while taking residential units off the high-priced housing market.

Another liberal, Sen. Liz Krueger of Manhattan, said "Today is a great day for tenants, seniors, and anyone who values the safe and quiet enjoyment of their homes and neighborhoods." 

"For too long companies like Airbnb have encouraged illegal activity that takes housing off the market and makes our affordability crisis worse," she said.

To enforce this law will be like trying to enforce a law that demands left-handed tenants have cupboard doors that open left-to-right. 

There has been a law on the books since 2010 that prohibits rentals of less than 30 days when the owner or tenant is not present, but try enforcing it.

Luckily there are people and landlords who are more than willing to turn in their neighbors who violate this law, and the state could monitor the website to find potential violations--they can call the state workers "The Big Brother Brigade."

The new law does not apply to rentals in single-family homes, row houses or to spare rooms in apartments if the resident is present, but it does apply to condos and co-ops.

Airbnb tried to kill the measure, suggesting alternative regulations to address concerns over short-term rentals without imposing huge fines, but it didn't work.

People who rent out their space on Airbnb are just trying to make a little money while they're out of town, but if the government can get in there and screw things up for the "little guy," that's what they're going to do. It's like the scorpion and frog crossing the stream.

Those who get caught violating the state law and list their apartments for less than 30 day rentals, will face a fine of $1,000 for the first offense; $5,000 for the second; and $7,500 for the third.

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Here to help the "big guy."

U.S. warships challenge China's South China Sea claims

Beijing continues to try limiting freedom of navigation in the strategic waters of the South China Sea, a sea-lane that traffics about five trillion dollars in trade each year and has what is believed to be billions of dollars in oil deposits beneath its sea bed. The U.S. is making efforts to counter Beijing's efforts.

A U.S. Navy destroyer sailed near islands claimed by China and drew a warning from the Chinese warships to leave the area. China called the move "illegal" and "provocative," and reported that two of their warships had warned the U.S. to leave.

The guided-missile destroyer USS Decatur challenged the "excessive maritime claims" near the Paracel Islands, a string of islands that China and its neighbors have been disputing over.

According to an anonymous source, this latest U.S. patrol has angered Beijing and could further increase tensions over the South China Sea. The Decatur did not sail within the 12-nautical-mile territorial limits of the island, said the anonymous official.

The Pentagon said the Decatur "conducted this transit in a routing, lawful manner without ship escorts and without incident." The ship sailed near Triton and Woody Islands and was shadowed by three Chinese ships, according to the official, and all interactions between the vessels involved was safe, Reuters reported.

The White House confirmed the Reuters report.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said at a news briefing that "This operation demonstrated that coastal states may not lawfully restrict the navigation rights, freedoms and lawful uses of the sea that the United States and all states are entitled to exercise under international law." 

This is the U.S.'s fourth challenge this year to China's overreaching maritime claims, and the first challenge since May.

China said it declared its "baseline" for the Paracel Islands in 1996 and that the U.S. was aware of this claim. Despite that, China said the U.S. had sent a ship into Chinese "territorial waters."

That would be true if we sailed within the 12-mile territorial waters, but we didn't.

China's Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the U.S. ship did not ask for permission to enter Chinese territorial waters, and had broken both Chinese and international law. They say that the U.S. is deliberately creating tensions.

They are full of wonton soup.

The latest U.S. operation comes soon after Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte, who took office in June, visited China and announced his "separation" from Washington and his love for Beijing. (Duterte is the guy who's executing drug addicts and dealers, carte blanche.)

A government official in Washington said that our latest operation had nothing to do with Duterte's visit and that the patrol had been planned for weeks. Other officials say they will continue such operations despite Beijing's objections.

"The U.S. Navy will continue to conduct routine and lawful operations around the world, including in the South China Sea, in order to protect the rights, freedoms and lawful uses of sea and airspace guaranteed to all. This will not change," said Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson.

Although U.S. officials have said the operations will continue despite Beijing's protests, the Obama administration has been criticized in Congress for conducting them haphazardly, slapdash, and in a somewhat creampuff fashion.

Hillary's 'loose lips' sink ships

Hillary Clinton's not very bright judging from her latest screwup of her handling sensitive information (aka "protected information"). 

Thankfully, she only told the information to a mere 70 million people in the USA, and it's highly unlikely that Russia, China, North Korea or any other enemy of the United States watched the third and final presidential debate on Fox News Network.

But if they did watch the debate and paid attention, our enemies would now know that it takes four minutes from the time the president makes the call to use nuclear weapons to their actual launch. 

The little "slip of the tongue" was generated amid questions regarding the fitness of Clinton and Trump to hold the nuclear codes. Intelligence operatives and others later informed Fox News that the level of detail about nuclear response times is "protected information."

"The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed," Clinton said. "There's about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so."

Dan Maguire, a former strategic planner with Africom and having 46 years of combined service told Fox News that "Whether the four minutes is accurate or not, anything having to do with response capability is generally classified." He then added: "She has a tendency to use previous access and her position as secretary of state to give an appearance of knowledge to show she has the answers, rather than protect the information."

That is because Hillary Clinton is an idiot when it comes to national security.

A statement by a former Navy SEAL officer said that Hillary's statement appears to be a "direct violation of US national security protocols and governing law. Our country has no greater secrets than those that protect our strategic nuclear deterrence capability."

Clinton was making the point by using the information that ten people who have had the responsibility of carrying out such a presidential order are backing her. And of course, the Clinton campaign is also backing her--one senior official in the campaign provided Fox News with published reports detailing response times.

However, intelligence experts and the same former Navy SEAL as well as former senior intelligence officials said that the mere fact the response time has been reported in academic documents does not authorize government officials who hold a security clearance, or had previous access to classified information, to discuss it publicly.

The former Navy SEAL said that Clinton's statement "now validates with specificity something of great sensitivity that has long been speculated by our adversaries and others in the national arena, including academics and think tanks."

But have no fear, Hillary .  .  .  James Comey knows you weren't being malicious against the United States when you gave our enemies important strategic information about our nuclear response time. You only wanted to sound smarter than Donald Trump. 

Just because you probably violated an operational security known as OPSEC by referencing the four-minute time line and took about as much care with your personal illegal server, is nothing to worry about. After all, as Comey might say, no reasonable prosecutor would indict you even if you murdered Donald Trump on national TV . . . as long as it wasn't Fox News.

Finally, the fact that Hillary Clinton gave a four-minute time line to the world is no reason to believe what she said is true. After all, her lips were moving when she said it.

WikiLeaked: What Huma implied about Clinton's Moroccan trade-off

Hillary Clinton was questioned about charges of "pay to play" at the Clinton Foundation in the first presidential debate and, as is her wont, she was an artful dodger. But within hours after the debate, WikiLeaks produced a new load of emails depicting her at the center of negotiating a $12 million commitment from King Mohammed VI of Morocco.

Ironically, it wasn't Putin or Trump or a guy named Harmon Glunk who made the charge; it was Hillary's most loyal aide, Huma Abedin. 

Huma described the connection in an email exchange from January of last year with John Podesta and Robby Mook.

Abedin, the soon-to-be ex-wife of Carlos Danger (aka Anthony Weiner) wrote that "this was HRC's idea" in regard to her speaking at a meeting of the Clinton Foundation (aka Clinton Global Initiative) in Morocco in May of 2015. The purpose of Hillary's going there to "speak" was to finagle a $12 million commitment from King Mo.

"She created this mess and she knows it," Huma wrote to Hillary's henchmen, Mook and Podesta. 

The 'mess,' in part was how her three advisers wanted her to have no part in the speaking engagement as she was getting ready to launch her presidency campaign. They believed it would likely raise questions about her role at the foundation and be viewed as a serious conflict of interest should she become "THE FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!" as she puts it so loudly.

The month prior to the speaking engagement, Politico reported that the Clinton Foundation was accepting a "major donation" of no less than $1 million from a Moroccan government-owned company, OCP, a phosphate exporter. The report said that it would be "unlikely" that Hillary would attend the event the following month as she had just began her campaign (to the chagrin of informed voters who have her number, so to speak).

As it turned out, the influence peddling came to $12 million and Hillary almost passed out from the shock (as she is also wont to do). 

She struggled with her decision about whether she should stay or go and this was due to the fact that her role with lining the coffers of her foundation was a lot bigger than the public knew--emphasizing the distinction between what she says publicly versus what she says privately.

As early as January, Robby Mook indicated that Hillary was wrestling over whether to attend the event--her advisers worried about how it would look in terms of her involvement with the foundation and its fundraising.

The email subject line was: "FYI CGI Africa." The CGI being the Clinton Global Initiative. The email was sent to Podesta and Abedin around the same time Carlos Danger was also online sending something else to young women who would have him.

"Came up on our call with HRC," Mook wrote. "John flagged the same issues we discussed, Huma. HRC said she's sitll (sic) considering."

Huma later replied that King Mohammed would be totally pissed off if Hillary pulled out. She wrote: "Just to give you some context, the condition upon which the Moroccans agreed to host the meeting was her participation. If hrc was not part if (sic) it, meeting was a non-starter."

Perhaps King Mo had 'a thing' for Hillary, but he sure wanted her there.

It turns out that the idea for the event to be held in Morocco was Hillary's. "This was HRC's idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request," Abedin wrote. "The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting."

The big question now is what did Morocco and other donors to the Clinton Foundation get for their money? 

Possibly the first female president that money could buy.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Iran wants billions for US hostages--again

It was so predictable--we paid $1.7 billion in cash for the release of hostages and pretended it was money we owed Iran, and now Iran wants "many billions of dollars" more from us in exchange for the release of several more U.S. hostages who are still being held in the Islamic nation. 

This information comes to us from Iran's state-controlled press.

Iran's president and other Iranian officials have talked about further payments from the United States for several months since Obama agreed to pay Tehran earlier this year as part of a deal that included the release of American hostages. 

So what did Iran do?

They did what any smart scumbucket country would do--they captured more hostages because "more hostages means more money, more money."

According to the report, future payments to Iran could be as high as $2 billion, according to anonymous sources who said that Iran is holding our citizens in Evin prison where prisoners are routinely tortured and abused.

The Iranian news sources close to the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) which handle prisoner swaps with the USA, reported Tuesday that Iran expects "many billions of dollars to release" those U.S. citizens still being detained.

Iran is holding American businessman Siamak Namazi and his father Baquer. They were abducted AFTER THE UNITED STATES PAID IRAN $1.7 BILLION according to Mashregh News outlet.

This is the results we get with the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton will be an extension of that incompetence.

Who Lost the Great Debate--guess

The final debate is over, the candidates had their say, and, in the end, Donald Trump would not commit to the results of the election if he loses. 

He will believe the results, of course, if he wins. That's because he needs an 'out' to protect his fragile ego should Hillary Clinton win, and it's looking more and more like the former secretary of state, as incompetent and untrustworthy as she is, will likely win the election.

And if Hillary Clinton does, in fact win, that would be historical--she would be the first non-convicted felon to hold the office of president.

Had the GOP put up any other candidate than Trump, there is no doubt that Clinton would be singing the blues. Not only is she the former Worst Lady, she is also the worst candidate money can buy. But the presidency has become like a monarchy, and it's Hillary's turn, and her devil-given right, to run the country.

Trump seemed to win the debate up until the end, until he blew it, just like the New York Mets.

Chris Wallace began with policy issues over gun rights and went on to discuss abortion and immigration. All was going relatively well for Trump, whose use of polysyllabic verbiage is generally limited to such words as 'incredible,' 'unbelievable' and 'amazing'. Donald called Hillary a "nasty woman" and she responded by saying Donald was the "most dangerous" person to run for president in modern history. 

Nice and civilized.

When asked if he would accept the election results, Trump's response was: "I will look at it at the time." He cited his concerns about voter registration fraud and hit the media saying they are corrupt. Of Hillary Clinton, he said that she "shouldn't be allowed to run" because she committed a "very serious crime" with her emails.

And again when pressed about whether he will concede if he loses the election, Trump said, "I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense," this being the same secret tactic he will use against ISIS if he should somehow happen to win.

Clinton responded to that remark with "That's horrifying," and to be perfectly honest, I can see her point. It's one thing to think that corruption exists, because it absolutely does exist. But the idea that the entire election is "rigged" suggests that our system in total is corrupt and nothing about the American system can be trusted. That's just nonsense and Donald needs to visit places like Russia and North Korea for a more balanced outlook.

Hillary went on to add, "That is not the way our democracy works. He is denigrating, he's talking down our democracy and I for one am appalled."

What does not apparently appall Hillary is accepting millions of dollars from foreign countries that denigrate the very gender for whom she pretends to advocate.

Trump responded by saying the Justice Department's handling of her email probe was "disgraceful," but he forgot to mention the FBI Director's even more disgraceful handling of her email probe.

Chris Wallace was the best part of the debate along with the respectful audience. His questions were tough on both candidates and he was able to pretty much keep the debate in control, in spite of the back and forth verbal battling that took place from time-to-time.

The candidates never shook hands at the start nor the end of the debate--boxers have more class than either of these two clowns.

America lost the debate.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

2 Clintonites out after video sting exposes violence incitement, fraud

Scott Foval, the national field director of Americans United for Change, got his walking papers on Monday as did Robert Creamer, head of Democracy Partners; although Creamer claimed that he was "stepping back" from trying to get Hillary Clinton elected as the first felon and female president. 

Undercover video showed discussions of "busing" in voters and inciting violence at Republican rallies.

"I am unwilling to become a distraction to the important task of electing [Hillary] Clinton, and defeating Donald Trump in the upcoming election," Creamer wrote in a statement. 

The Democratic National Committee denied any knowledge of the schemes discussed in the video, and if you believe the DNC, you might be interested in this bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn. 

Snuffies like Creamer and Foval don't commit such egregious acts without the blessings of the campaign.

"The practices described in the video by this temporary sub-contractor do not in any way comport with out long standing policies on organizing events, and those statements and sentiments do not represent the values that the Committee holds dear," DNC interim Chairwoman Donna (CNN) Brazile said of Foval.

The two "Rigging the Election" videos were produced by James O'Keefe, a controversial activist. The videos were 32 minutes total in time and were released in two, edited portions on Monday and Tuesday. 

An undercover filmmaker posed as a campaign donor and is seen trying to engage Foval and Creamer in talking about voter fraud and other schemes. Creamer doesn't go for it, but Foval sings like a bird.

"It's a very easy thing for Republicans to say, 'Well, they're busing people in' . . .We've been busing people in to deal with you f***ing a**h***s for 50 years and we're not going to stop now, we're just going to find a different way to do it," Foval brags. He implies that using personal vehicles for each voter arouses less suspicion than busing large numbers of people from out of state at one time.

Foval also talks about planting people at Republican rallies for Trump. The people chosen are there to incite violence and are trained and given scripts to stick to, said Foval.

"I mean honestly, it is not hard to get some of these a**h***s to pop off," he said. "It's a matter of showing up, to want to get into the rally, in a Planned Parenthood tee-shirt. Or, Trump is a Nazi, you know? You can message to draw them out, and draw them to punch you."

Foval was not referring to himself getting punched, but mentally ill people work well in that area.

Foval worked as a sub-contractor for Creamer's group, which was contracted with the DNC since June of this year. But a DNC source, sounding a lot like Sergeant Schultz on "Hogan's Heroes" said that Foval was not a DNC employee. 

["Vee see nuthink. Vee know nuthink. He ees no vurker uf hours. Go from here."]

That bridge is still for sale.

Zac Petkanas, a Clinton campaign spokesman said, "While Project Veritas has been known to offer misleading video out of context, some of the language and tactics referenced in the video are troubling [especially now that it's public] even as a theory or proposal never executed."

Make an offer and the bridge is yours.

Creamer is shown in the video being asked about getting around voter registration laws for Hispanics, but later said in a statement that none of the schemes described in the conversation on video ever took place. ["We just like to talk about stuff without actually doing stuff."]

O'Keefe has been criticized for heavily editing and manipulating his videos in the past. In 2010, while attempting to gain access to Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in Louisiana, he was caught and arrested. He was charged with a misdemeanor and sentenced to 3 years probation.

"The discredited source of these videos, James O'Keefe, is a convicted criminal with a history of doctoring video to advance his ideological agenda," Brazile said. "We are in the process of conducting an internal investigation to determine whether he and his cohorts committed any illegal activities in this well-funded operation."

Well, Ms. Brazile, if a burglar breaks into a home and sees someone about to be murdered and reports it and stops the murder, the burglar is still a burglar and the murderer is still a murderer. But at least the murderer was caught, just like Foval and Creamer.

We aren't buying your bridge.

Bill won't touch Melania--it might cause a stir

Melania and Bill will not have to shake hands at the start of the final debate on Fox News Network. The Clinton campaign reportedly has been granted a change in protocol and some pundits believe that Hillary requested the change because Bill tends to get all hot and bothered touching women who are not his wife. 

It might "cause a stir," if you know what I mean.

During the first two debates both spouses shook hands at the start, but the Clinton campaign other than Bill have asked the Commission on Presidential Debates that the spouses be allowed to enter the debate closer to their seats so that they will not have to cross paths and shake hands.

The Times reported that the change is a sign of how "acrimonious" the race to the White House (aka "race to the bottom") has devolved to. It was purportedly sought by Clinton's campaign team because Trump attempted at the second debate to have three women who have accused Bill of sexual assault or rape to sit near him. 

But others believe that if Bill shakes hands with Melania Trump, it might lead to future problems for and with Hillary, if you know what I mean.

It was rumored that Donald Trump has invited Malik Obama, the half-brother to President Barack Hussein Obama to the debate. 

That should be an interesting show biz move.