Daily Pics, My Comic, and The Times
the Daily
the Comic
the Blog
Yesterday my spouse was berating me for checking my email all day as I work from home.

"You know", she complained, "I think that work rules your life".

"No dear," I replied, "you rule my life. I just prefer work."


It's ten below zero one early spring day in Alaska. Pat is drinking at his local saloon and the bartender says to him, "You owe me quite a bit on your tab."

"Sorry," says Pat, "I'm flat broke this week."

"That's okay," says the bartender. "I'll just write your name and the amount you owe me right here on the wall."

"But," says Pat, "I don't want any of my friends to see that."

"They won't," says the bartender. "I'll just hang your parka over it until it's paid."


Starting in fiscal year 2021, the Department of Defense announced it will begin to reduce waste by banning all single-use plastic explosives.

“I directed this policy change after reading a shocking study that literally zero percent of the C-4 plastics we use are recycled,” said James Harber, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Non-Readiness Related Issues, at a briefing to reporters. “It is absolutely unacceptable for DoD to be pumping thousands of tons of non-biodegradable, petroleum-based plastic explosives into the environment every year. We’re going to cut this to zero, and fast.”

In lieu of such environmentally harmful weapons, the DoD will being to employ more ecofriendly options such as sustainably sourced, small-batch, artisanal gunpowder.

“It’s about the big picture,” Harber said. “When you’re trying to blow something up, it’s imperative that you don’t also needlessly cause lasting damage to the ecosystem in the process.”

Eventually, DoD hopes that it can become more green in other ways. According to Harber, his office is looking at making more use of projectile weapons including railguns, catapults and trebuchets that don’t rely on polluting propellants.

“If you look at the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by a machine gun firing at a cyclic rate, it’s immense,” according to Harber. “So why not just use a low-carbon bow to suppress the enemy? They’re proven to work. The Canadian, uh, I think they’re called peacekeepers, recently adopted bows and arrows. It cut the carbon footprint of their infantry in half and created dozens of jobs for First Nations artisanal bowyers.”

As is often the case when organizations seek to become more green, a handful of individuals who reject the scientific consensus on climate change have criticized the move. Retired Army explosives ordnance disposal technician Billy James has started an online petition claiming that recycling explosives is “fucking stupid. How do you recycle something that just blew up?”

He says, “The ‘bomb-to-table’ movement is just a bunch of dumbass commie hippies.” The petition already has over 10,000 signatures.

Environmental groups categorically reject these claims, however. Sterling Wallace, the president of the Green Warfighting Foundation, a pro-recycling group, said that it is normal for the rank-and-file of large organizations to resist recycling. “There are always holdouts,” he said. “The trick is to remember that where there’s a will, there’s a way.”


"It's just too hot to wear clothes today," Jack says as he stepped out of the shower, "honey, what do you think the neighbors would think if I
mowed the lawn like this?"

“Probably that I married you for your money," she replied.


Today I was invited by a female janitor to smoke some weed, but I politely declined.

I just can’t deal with high maintenance women.

Quote of the Times;
New York City’s China death virus outbreak came courtesy of Iran - a country from which Trump banned travel, only to have his order overturned by activist liberal judges. - Yiannopoulos

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
The Siege Of Waco & The Deep State by John Wilder

“There’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.” – Battlestar Galactica (New One)

The Waco Siege started 27 years ago. It started as a raid by the ATF – Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The ATF was formed after the Gun Control act of 1968. In researching the ATF, I was amazed that its history consists of nothing more than an unending series of scandals and heartache visited upon (mainly) people with no criminal intent who had no idea that they were violating some extremely technical law. And that’s on a good day.

How bad is the ATF? Here’s what a Senate subcommittee said: “Based upon these hearings it is apparent that ATF enforcement tactics made possible by current federal firearms laws are constitutionally, legally, and practically reprehensible.” From that, it actually got worse.

The ATF was involved (besides Waco) in the Ruby Ridge disaster (which netted a body count that included a 14 year old boy and a mother holding a baby) as well as operation Fast and Furious where guns were intentionally illegally sold to Mexican drug criminals. It’s okay selling guns to drug cartels because Fast and Furious was named after a Vin Diesel movie, and who doesn’t like him?

It appears that most of the actually useful things that the ATF does revolve around databases that attempt to match weapons to crimes. Keeping close to computer screens and away from actual A, T, and F might be a good idea, since they’ve lost (in just one audit) over 76 firearms, plus hundreds of laptops. Oops. Too much A? And this is the group that reveres Elliot Ness and the famous Untouchables as their forefathers.

In an existence consisting of repugnant, objectionable, and odious events the Waco Siege is probably their crowning achievement. Waco is certainly the worst single thing the ATF has ever done. The fact that it’s not the only bad thing people talk about when they bring up the ATF tells you just how incompetent they are.

What did the ATF do that was so bad at Waco?

They launched a military-style raid against a church, the Branch Davidians, for no real discernible crime other than being a great target for a raid that could get publicity right before Congressional budgets were set. Oh, and ATF agents knowingly lied in order to get military support, indicating that there were illegal drugs at the church when there was no evidence at all. And this is just for starters.

On the morning of the attack, the agents shot the dogs, then engaged in a firefight with the members of the church. The ATF says they didn’t shoot first. The surviving Branch Davidians say the ATF did shoot first. Since the ATF was recording the raid for use in public relations, it seems odd that they don’t have footage of that. Almost as if the tapes were . . . conveniently lost? Nah.

The ATF may be evil, but they make up for it partly by being incompetent. After 45 minutes of exchanging gunfire with the Branch Davidians, the ATF asked for a do-over, since they had shot all of their ammunition. The church allowed and honored a ceasefire when they could have easily killed every single ATF agent as they tried to withdraw. But the folks in the church didn’t. Once the threat of attack had passed, they let the agents leave in piece.

Did I mention that the Branch Davidians called 911 when they were first attacked?

The Waco Siege then spiraled into a circus.

The press, FBI, and the Texas National Guard all showed up. When a group of moms and kids surrendered, the moms were immediately arrested and the kids placed in state custody, which made the remaining kids not want to leave. Funny, that. The FBI hostage negotiators sent in a camcorder so the Davidians could show they weren’t being coerced into staying. The FBI refused to allow the tape to be given to the media. Why?

It might make people sympathetic to the Branch Davidians, which wouldn’t do because the FBI needed them to be the villain.

During the standoff, the FBI continually ramped up the stress through lights at night, and horrible sounds during the day – which is probably a questionable strategy when dealing with an end-of-the-world cult.

The FBI then decided that broadcasting “This is not an assault” over a loudspeaker while using a tank to demolish the structure and pump in flammable tear gas. If that’s not an assault, I’m not sure what is, especially since there are infrared recordings that may show muzzle flashes on the morning of the attack – muzzle flashes of people outside shooting into the compound. Apparently, this sort of behavior isn’t an assault – it’s just the non-threatening way that FBI agents normally great each other.

Malcolm Gladwell tallied the forces in his article for the New Yorker:

“Outside the Mount Carmel complex, the FBI assembled what has been called probably the largest military force ever gathered against a civilian suspect in American history: 10 Bradley tanks, two Abrams tanks, four combat-engineering vehicles, 668 agents in addition to six U.S. Customs officers, 15 U.S. Army personnel, 13 members of the Texas National Guard, 31 Texas Rangers, 131 officers from the Texas Department of Public Safety, 17 from the McLennan County sheriff’s office, and 18 Waco police, for a total of 899 people.”

Those were just the ground forces – there were helicopters and other flying surveillance, too.

The Siege ended in tragedy after the tanks went in – a total of 76 dead in that final “not an assault.” The church members perished horribly in a fire that may or may not have been started by the government.

I don’t want to give the impression that the leader of the Branch Davidians, David Koresh, was a hero. He clearly wasn’t. Outside of his taking wives that were very young (though still within Texas marriage age at the time, per the Sheriff), Koresh had the opportunity to end the standoff without tragedy.

That still doesn’t absolve the government, because if Koresh felt he wouldn’t get a fair deal, it looks like he was right.

Almost immediately after the first catastrophic attack by the ATF, the involved agents started writing reports on what happened.

And were stopped even though writing reports doesn’t allow them to use what is apparently their only skill – bungling operations and getting people killed. Someone from Washington, D.C. noticed that the agents were writing things that could be used by the Davidians to prove themselves innocent, which must violate some sort of ATF policy.

Thankfully, the evidence remaining from the fire was at least carefully cataloged so Americans could have faith that the justice system would produce a fair result?

No. The entire site was bulldozed within two weeks after the fire, destroying valuable evidence.

Evidence? Why would you need that?

I mentioned that I was going to write about Waco to The Mrs. We discussed it for a while, but she opened with, “Well, I guess that’s another list you’ll be on.”

We continued to talk about it. Her position was that Waco started the Right/Left split in the country. From one standpoint, she was correct. If you look at the Pew data from back in 1994, we weren’t that split as a country, but by 2017 the split was in force. Waco happened right at the front of the polarization of American politics.

The Mrs. and I continued discussing the Waco Siege. We both agreed that Waco was also the most blatant display of the Deep State back before the year 2000, and she felt it was the blow that really split the country. How so?

The search warrant for the raid was based on multiple lies.

The Branch Davidians had phone lines cut with the outside world so they couldn’t plead their case except through the FBI.

Evidence was “lost” including physical evidence as well as video evidence.

Agents writing routine reports after the failed first raid were stopped from creating reports because their stories didn’t match and the government didn’t want to provide evidence that the Branch Davidians could use to be found innocent. Innocence is for government agents, silly.

Stories of agents never actually matched with each other, being inconsistent as late as 6 years after the raid.

Physical evidence (as was available) contradicted agent testimony or suggested agents may have lied.

In the end, every charge that could be brought against the survivors was brought, but there were no charges brought against a single Federal agent. Perhaps 9 (from the data I could find) ATF personnel either retired early (presumably with full benefits and honors) or were “under scrutiny” which probably means that they wouldn’t get promoted again for a year or two.

There were lasting career consequences, though: one FBI leader was demoted from a very high position, and the rest of his life was horrible. Just kidding. He moved from one high paying executive job in the private sector to another.

Leftist Senators (most prominently Charles Schumer) bent over backwards to justify what the ATF did during the Senate hearings on the Siege. I can say this with confidence: Chuck Schumer is the ATF of the Senate.

The parallels to the Deep State today are similar:

Hillary Clinton can intentionally violate the law related to storage of classified information. No charge.

The FISA affidavit that started the Mueller investigation could be based on lies. No charge.

Andrew McCabe could lie to Congress. No charge.

John Brennan could lie to Congress. No investigation.

Roger Stone could lie to Congress. No investigation. Just kidding. Hammered as if by the fist of an angry god, and convicted of a crime.

General Flynn made non-consequential misstatements of fact when he was in a “friendly chat” with FBI agents. No charge. Just kidding. Hounded like he had stolen Satan’s bra and convicted of a crime.

Certainly I could come up with more examples. But the point is clear – the Deep State protects itself first. Members can commit murder, and there will be no charges. Members can lie to cover each other and be immune. Members can destroy evidence without consequence. Members can get in the 10 item only line with 12 items. No consequences.

When I think about why the Deep State would go so far to protect its own, my first question is, why? You see this as a regular fixture with almost any member. Some of those being protected aren’t important. The on-scene director at Waco – why protect him?

The answer is fairly simple: These people know things.

They know of the activities that the Deep State wants to hide. They’re the ones who know the real secrets, both on you and me but more importantly on each other.

Why could Waco not be ended peacefully? Because it would give Koresh a victory. And a victory, no matter how small would, they felt, make them less powerful, less respected. There is a reason that the ATF and FBI posed in pictures on the still-smoldering remains of the Branch Davidian compound. There is a reason that after the fire took down the Branch Davidian flag, the ATF raised an ATF flag at Waco.

Nothing says reasonable like a selfie on top of ashes!

That reason is the Deep State’s deepest desire. What does the Deep State want?

Power, both personal power, and power to the organizations they serve. Make no mistake, the Deep State is partisan, and loves all of those who like state control. Why else would they militarize a Federal Bureau that was less effective than Soviet situation comedy writers? You could look into the sneering, mocking weasel face of Peter Strzok while he was giving testimony to Congress and see it in his eyes. Contempt.

Contempt for those that weren’t of his Deep State pedigree, and a smugness borne of the thought that there was nothing that could ever be done to him.

News of the Times;
Someone needs to start selling toilet paper infused with CBD oil.

Calm all your asses down


Life is like a toilet paper.

One minute you’re on a roll.

And the next minute, you’re taking shit from some a$$hole.


The bartender asks "Why the long face?"

The man replies "I just found out my wife is sleeping with another man. I've decided I'm going to drink myself to death."

The bartender looks shocked and says "I'm sorry I can't help you kill yourself."

The man asks "Well what would you do in my situation?"

The bartender puffs himself up a bit and says "If I found out a guy was sleeping with my wife I wouldn't sit around feeling sorry for myself, I'd kill the guy."

The man jumps up from his stool and shouts "That's a great idea! Thanks!" and runs out of the bar.

A couple hours goes by and the bartender is starting to get nervous when the man walks back into the bar with a smile on his face.

"Did you kill the guy?" The bartender asks nervously.

"Nope! I slept with your wife. Whiskey please."


The long national nightmare of every single day being dominated by news about Donald Trump has finally come to an end, as the top news story for the past week has been about a pandemic threatening lives and the economy.

“This is such a nice change of pace,” said Dwayne Hughes, an electrician. “I just got sick and tired of the news being, ‘Hey! Here’s what Trump just tweeted!’ And now the news is all about what major thing closed or got canceled today. It’s way different.”

Claudia Davis, a baker, agreed. “Every day it was just them bleating some nonsense about how Trump is going to kill millions with tax cuts or ending net neutrality. And now millions could actually die, but Trump isn’t at the center of it.”

The news coverage of the coronavirus has taken a turn for the worse, though, as constant news reports of Trump’s reaction to coronavirus have begun to spread and could infect all news coverage by the end of the week.


My wife left me for an Indian guy.

I know he's going to treat her well, I heard they worship cows.

Quote of the Times;
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” – Luke 22:36

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
Plot Twist by Christopher F. Rufo

The progressive narrative on homelessness has always been wrong - and new data undermine it further.

In recent years, discussion about homelessness has been circumscribed around a set of premises acceptable to progressive opinion. The homeless were thrown onto the streets, we’re told, because of rising rents, heartless landlords, and a lack of economic opportunity. Activists, journalists, and political leaders have perpetuated this line of reasoning and, following it to its conclusion, have proposed investing billions in subsidized housing to solve homelessness.

But new data are undermining this narrative. As residents of West Coast cities witness the disorder associated with homeless encampments, they have found it harder to accept the progressive consensus—especially in the context of the coronavirus epidemic, which has all Americans worried about contagion. An emerging body of evidence confirms what people see plainly on the streets: homelessness is deeply connected to addiction, mental illness, and crime.
Homeless advocates argue that substance abuse is a small contributor to the problem, and that no more than 20 percent of the homeless population abuses drugs. Last year, when I suggested that homelessness is primarily an addiction crisis—citing Seattle and King County data that suggested half of homeless individuals suffered from opioid addiction—activists denounced me on social media and wrote letters to the editor demanding a retraction. But according to a recent Los Angeles Times investigation, 46 percent of the homeless and 75 percent of the unsheltered homeless have a substance-abuse disorder—more than three times higher than official estimates from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority.

In the interest of preventing “stigmatization,” progressives downplay the connection between schizophrenia, severe bipolar disorder, and homelessness. In general, cities have claimed that roughly 25 percent to 39 percent of the homeless suffer from mental-health disorders. As new data from the California Policy Lab show, it’s likely that 50 percent of the homeless and 78 percent of the unsheltered homeless have a serious mental health condition. For residents of cities like San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, this should come as no surprise. The people smashing up property and yelling in the streets are clearly suffering from mental illness. The numbers confirm the ground-level reality.

The relationship between homelessness and crime has been the strongest taboo in the public discourse. Activists and political leaders insist that the homeless are ordinary neighbors who commit crimes at rates comparable with that of the general population. Not so: according to new data from the Downtown Seattle Association, the homeless represent 45 percent of all bookings into the King County Jail system, which means that homeless individuals are nearly 100 times more likely to commit crimes and get booked into jail than the average citizen. Public fears about homeless encampments are not a symptom of “mean-world syndrome,” as some commentators suggest, then, but a rational response to the increased probability of crime.

Residents in the most progressive enclaves of West Coast cities have quietly begun to demand policy changes to address the obvious causes of the homelessness crisis. In San Francisco, city leaders have launched a new initiative to focus on the 4,000 individuals who suffer from the “perilous trifecta” of homelessness, addiction, and mental illness. Mayor London Breed has spoken frankly about the human causes of homelessness, and Anton Nigusse Bland, a physician and director of mental health reform for the city, has pledged to “develop a strategic approach to mental health and substance use services for people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco.”

This is a small but promising step. Especially now, with the threat of an infectious disease becoming a national crisis, it is imperative that city leaders come to grips with the dangers of letting people live in encampments that lack even rudimentary sanitation. We can only hope that this new awareness extends to other cities. For now, more than 100,000 people in California, Oregon, and Washington continue to languish in the streets.

News of the Times;
The coronavirus is a lot like a kinky sex life.

I don't mind having it, but I'm scared my elderly parents do.


A robber breaks into a house and ties up the girl and guy.

The robber asks where the jewels are and the guy responds with:

"I'll give you everything! Please, let her go..."

Robber: "I only care about the jewels! I won't hurt you if you give me what I want..."

Guy: "I BEG you, let her go!"

Robber: "Wow, you must really love your wife"

Guy: "What? No.... My wife is about to get home!"


Back when I was in high school, my guidance counselor once asked me what I was going to be when I grew up.

To be a smartass, I told him I would be a crack whore.

Turns out I should have told him I would be a psychic.


My ex-girlfriend just told me she wants us to get back together again.

MAN! I sure am LUCKY!

I mean, first I win the lottery and now THIS?!''


Finally the answer for why people are panic buying toilet paper.

Every time on person sneezes, 10 people around them shit themselves.

Quote of the Times;
Hunting ain't so much fun when the rabbit has a gun.

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
92% of New Muslim Candidates Won’t Express Support for Constitution by Stephen M. Kirby

In January 2020, I wrote about the results of a survey I had done in which I presented four questions to eighty Muslim public officials across the United States; each question asked the Muslim public official to choose between following the U.S. Constitution/our man-made laws or Islamic Doctrine. An eye-opening 92% of these Muslim public officials would not express support for the U.S. Constitution or our man-made laws. Of the six who did express this support, only two allowed me to mention their name.[1]

I also submitted these same four questions to seven prominent Muslim Americans who have been publicly aspiring to reform Islam; I sent four similar questions, based on Canadian law, to six prominent Muslim Canadians who had also been publicly aspiring to reform Islam. Of these thirteen aspiring reformers, only two Muslim Americans and one Muslim Canadian responded saying they supported man-made laws over the commands of Allah and the teachings of Muhammad.[2]

I then decided to submit the same four questions to 36 Muslim American candidates who appeared to be seeking public office for the first time.[3]

We shall first look at the four questions I used and then examine the variety of responses I received from those Muslims seeking public office. I then list the Muslim candidates, by State, who did not respond. This is followed by my concluding remarks.

The Questions

On February 10, 2020, I sent the following e-mail to a group of 36 Muslims who were running, or had been running, for public office at various levels of government across the United States; on February 17th I sent it again to the Muslims who had not initially responded:[4]

I have written extensively about Islam (six books and numerous articles and brochures) and think it important that non-Muslims gain a better understanding of Islam.

If you are elected to public office you will take an oath of office that includes swearing, or affirming, to support the United States Constitution. With that in mind, I am interested in your response, as a candidate who follows the religion of Islam, to the following questions:

No. 1: Will you go on record now and state that our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech gives the right to anyone in the United States to criticize or disagree with your prophet Muhammad, and will you also go on record now and state that you support and defend anyone’s right to criticize or disagree with your prophet Muhammad, and that you condemn anyone who threatens death or physical harm to another person who is exercising that right?

No. 2: Our 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in the United States. As part of that freedom, anyone in the United States has the right to join or leave any religion, or have no religion at all. Will you go on record now and state that you support and defend the idea that in the United States a Muslim has not only the freedom to leave Islam, but to do so without fear of physical harm, and will you also go on record now and state that you condemn anyone who threatens physical harm to a Muslim who is exercising that freedom?

No. 3: According to the words of Allah found in Koran 5:38 and the teachings of your prophet Muhammad, amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft. But our U.S. Constitution, which consists of man-made laws, has the 8th Amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment such as this. Do you agree with Allah and your prophet Muhammad that amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft in the United States, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting such punishments are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah and teaching of Muhammad?

No. 4: According to the words of Allah found in Koran 4:3, Muslim men are allowed, but not required, to be married to up to four wives. Being married to more than one wife in the United States is illegal according to our man-made bigamy laws. Do you agree with Allah that it is legal for a Muslim man in the United States to be married to more than one woman, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting bigamy are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah?
I look forward to your responses.

Support for the U.S. Constitution

Only three Muslim candidates clearly stated that they would support the U.S. Constitution/our man-made laws over Islamic Doctrine; they each gave me permission to use their name:

Deedra Abboudd (D), Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Arizona
Iman-Utopia Layjou Bah (I), U.S. House of Representatives (AZ-2)
Rashid Malik (D), U.S. House of Representatives (GA-7)

Other Replies

I received various replies from five other Muslim candidates:

Leila Shukri Adan (D), U.S. House of Representatives (MN-5): On February 17th Adan responded to my second e-mail:

Thank you so much for your email and for the reminder. I am confirming receipt and will get back to you soon!

I have not heard back from Adan.

Muhammad Arif (D), United States Senate, Arizona: Arif responded the same day to the February 10th e-mail. He asked if we could meet for coffee or lunch to discuss the questions. I explained that I lived too far away for that. We exchanged several additional e-mails, and on February 11th he wrote:

Since you do not live in Arizona and I’m busy in my campaign because I have limited time … can I email you these answer [sic] next week … I apologize for delay [sic] because the questions I have to read carefully and answer in details [sic]

I replied that would be fine. The “next week” came and went, and on February 22nd I sent him an e-mail asking when I could expect his responses. I have not heard back from Arif.

Zainab Baloch (D), Mayor of Raleigh, North Carolina: Baloch lost the 2019 general election to become the Mayor of Raleigh. However, her subsequent social postings appeared to indicate that she was in politics for the long haul; she had written: “This isn’t a sprint, it’s a marathon.” On February 17th she responded to my second e-mail:

I didn’t miss it [my first e-mail]. If I have time to respond to your harassing questions, I will. Have a great week!

I have not heard back from Baloch.

Ameena Matthews (D), U.S. House of Representatives (IL-1): On February 24th, in reply to my second e-mail, I received the following from Dr. La’Shawn Littrice, Matthews’ Campaign Manager:

Hi, Steve. How are you? I will forward this to Dr. Matthews and get it back to you by Wednesday [February 26th] of this week.

On February 28th I sent Littrice an e-mail asking her for an update. I have not heard back from Littrice.

Reem Subei (D), Ohio State Senate: In response to each of the two e-mails I sent Subei, I received the following form response:

Thank you for contacting Reem for Ohio. This campaign is about bringing justice and equality to all. Please click the link below to provide us with your preferred volunteering activity. Let’s build a system that works for everyone, because we all win when we all win.

The link takes one to a form for volunteers to complete. I have received no other response from Subei.

No Reply

These Muslim candidates did not reply:

Kaisar Ahmed (Nonpartisan) – San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors
Shahid Buttar (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (CA-12)
Fatima Shahnaz Iqbal-Zubair (D) – California State Assembly
Cenk Uygur (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (CA-25)

Iman Jodeh (D) – Colorado State House of Representatives

Madinah Wilson-Anton (D) – Delaware State House of Delegates

Nabilah Islam (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (GA-7)

Junaid “J” Afeef (D) – Kane County State’s Attorney
Rush Darwish (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (IL-3)
Mohammed Faheem (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (IL-8)
Sarah Gad (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (IL-1)
Inam Hussain (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (IL-8)
Moon Khan (D) – Circuit Court Clerk, DuPage County
Azam Nizamuddin (D) – Circuit Judge, Circuit Court of DuPage County
Abdelnasser Rashid (D) – Cook County Board of Review

Saafir Rabb (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (MD-7)

Ihssane Leckey (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (MA-4)
Nichole Mossalam (D) – Massachusetts State House of Representatives

Solomon Rajput (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (MI-12)

Dalia Al-Aqidi (R) – U.S. House of Representatives (MN-5)

Omar Fateh (D) – Minnesota State Senate

New Jersey
Alp Basaran (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (NJ-9)

New York
Tahanie Aboushi (D) – Manhattan District Attorney
Shaniyat Chowdhury (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (NY-5)
Mary Jobaida (D) – New York State Assembly
Badrun Nahar Khan (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (NY-14)
Zohran Kwame Mamdani (D) – New York State Assembly

Mohamud Jama (D) – Ohio State House of Representatives


These 36 Muslim Americans seeking public office would have to, if successful, take an oath of office that includes swearing (or affirming) to support the U.S. Constitution. In theory then, one would think such Muslim Americans would be quite willing even now to express their support for that Constitution and our man-made laws. The fact that 92% of them would not take this opportunity to express that support is troubling.

Troubling, but not surprising. This, in spite of the fact that anyone holding a public office in the United States is required to take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and our man-made laws, and we regularly hear from aspiring Muslim reformers that Islamic Doctrine needs to be modernized and made more compatible with Western laws. But when faced with specific choices, instead of glittering generalities, 92% of all the Muslims listed in these three categories would not express support for Western laws over Islamic Doctrine.

One might wonder if it is fair to ask Muslims to make such a choice. It certainly is because of the irreconcilable conflict between major tenets of Islamic Doctrine and Western Laws, especially the U.S. Constitution.[5]

Here is an additional consideration. In its 2020 ‘Muslim Vote Campaign’ the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has included a questionnaire asking non-Muslim candidates and government officials whether or not they support specific “Muslim needs.” CAIR explained:

CAIR’s 2020 questionnaire is an update to its 2016 questionnaire and provides sample questions for Muslims to ask local city council, mayoral, state legislative, gubernatorial, and congressional candidates running for office and government officials.

Candidate responses to CAIR’s election questionnaire will assist American Muslims in evaluating each candidate’s leadership criteria and their ability to unite and engage the community on policies and programs that meet Muslim needs.

The questions and the issues included in the questionnaire emphasize the American Muslim community’s concerns, as well as those of its civil rights, immigrant rights and worker rights allies.[6]

Here is a sampling of the issues about which the American Muslim community is concerned:[7]

1. Do you plan to address the rise in Islamophobia and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States?

2. Do you support the right of Muslim inmates to make religious accommodation requests for religious headwear, like hijabs, kufis, and other head coverings?

3. Do you support the right of Muslim inmates to make religious accommodation requests for copies of the Quran and other religious texts, prayer mats, prayer beads, and other religious items?

4. Do you support the right of Muslim inmates to make religious accommodation requests for modified meal schedules while fasting during Ramadan?

5. Do you support the right of Muslim inmates to make religious accommodation requests for daily congregational prayers and Friday religious services?

6. Do you support public school systems with significant Muslim populations in your congressional district and/or state closing for the Muslim holidays of Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, when many students or faculty would otherwise be absent?

The focus of CAIR’s questions is on the need for non-Muslims to accommodate certain Islamic religious teachings. Since CAIR has turned the focus on certain Islamic religious teachings, it is only appropriate that the focus should now be turned on all Islamic religious teachings, especially those that are irreconcilably in conflict with the U.S. Constitution and our man-made laws. Muslims running for and holding public office need to be asked about these conflicts and expected to publicly, categorically choose between the U.S. Constitution/our man-made laws and those contradictory teachings of their religion.

We need to pay heed to these words of Winston Churchill from 1940:

This is no time for ease and comfort. It is the time to dare and endure.

Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of six books about Islam. His latest book is Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.

[1] Stephen M. Kirby, “93% of Muslim Public Officials Would Not Express Support for the Constitution They Swore to Uphold,” Jihad Watch, January 7, 2020,

[2] Stephen M. Kirby, “The Adventures of Asking Muslim Reformers to Categorically Choose between Western Laws and Islam,” Jihad Watch, January 16, 2020,

[3] I would like to thank Deplorable Kel for a majority of these names:

[4] These questions were taken from Chapter 10 of my latest book, Islamic Doctrine Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials (Washington DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2019);

[5] For details about this irreconcilable conflict see Islamic Doctrine Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials. For ways in which Islamic Doctrine allows Muslims to appear to take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and our man-made laws, see Chapter 1, “Taking the Oath of Office.”

[6] “CAIR Launches 2020 ‘Muslims Vote’ Campaign with Release of Candidate Questionnaire, Calendar of Election Dates,” CAIR, January 21, 2020,

[7] “Sample Questions for Candidates and Public Officials,” CAIR, 2020,

News of the Times;
I told a joke about Coronavirus and nobody laughed

Except that Chinese kid in the back.

He got it.


Man says to his boss, "Can we talk? I have a problem."

Boss: "Problem? No such thing, we call it an opportunity!"

Man: "Ok then, I have a serious drinking opportunity."


That's it! I'm giving up drinking for a month. Oh, wait, bad punctuation. That should have been, "That's it. I'm giving up. Drinking for a month."

They told me, "Follow your dreams." So I went back to bed.

A study says cows talk to each other about how they feel. Some are content. Others are bossy. Almost all agree we should eat more chicken.

One thing about Harry and Meghan leaving the Royal Family-this paves the way for Meghan to play herself in season 8 of The Crown. I'm reminded of the age old question: How did they measure the size of hail before golf was invented?

Former congressman Chris Collins was sentenced to 26 months in prison for insider trading. Yes, he'll lose his freedom, but he'll now get a whole new meaning for the phrase, "insider trading."

Carlos Beltran was fired as Mets manager in the wake of the Astros cheating scandal. On the positive side, since he was hired last

November, he'll remain as the only Mets manager to never have lost a single game.

A new study says that the average American is sleeping less than six hours a night! Finally, I'm average!

While Finland has been designated the happiest country in the world, it also has a high suicide rate. I'm thinking this but not saying it out loud: Well, that does thin out the unhappy people.

Prince Harry says that his son Archie, while staying in British Columbia, saw snow for the very first time. As ex-royals, they're all going to be seeing a lot of things for the first time.

GM is set to unveil a fully driverless car. As soon as they track it down. It was last seen heading west on I-92.


Wanted: Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate. Must be a transgender woman of mixed Black and Hispanic descent, some native American heritage a plus, from a Midwestern battleground state carried by Trump in 2016 with a nursing or geriatric care background. Political experience unnecessary for the right candidate. Apply today at


I had my picture taken with the band R.E.M. once...

That's me in the corner.

Quote of the Times;
So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
Chinese Scientists Find Genetic Explanation For Coronavirus Discriminating by Race by Lance Weltom

Sir Humphrey Appleby, the Machiavellian senior civil servant in the hit 1980s British sitcom Yes, Minister once famously commented that one should “never believe anything until it’s been officially denied.”

Which meant we could be fairly confident that racial and ethnic differences in susceptibility to Coronavirus exist, because our race-denying Ruling Class so dogmaticaly refused to consider the evidence.

Now that’s over: a study by a Chinese research group has emerged that offers concrete proof of race differences in susceptibility to Corona virus are very real.

The study - a preprint that has not yet been peer-reviewed - is entitled Single-cell RNA expression profiling of ACE2, the putative receptor of Wuhan 2019-nCov, By Yu Zhao et al., bioRxiv, 2020] and is authored by a group of medical scientists based at Tongji University in Shanghai.

The authors explain that “2019-nCov was reported to share the same receptor, Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2)” as the SARS disease, an outbreak of which in 2003 seemed almost exclusively to kill Northeast Asians.

Based on “the public database and the state-of-the-art single-cell RNA-Seq technique” the Chinese scientists “analyzed the ACE2 RNA expression profile in the normal human lungs.” Crucially, they further found (in a comparison of eight individual samples) that the “Asian male one has an extremely large number of ACE2-expressing cells in the lung” in comparison to other races. (The database was based on analysis of eight normal human lung transplant donors of different races.)

As they put it:

We also noticed that the only Asian donor (male) has a much higher ACE2-expressing cell ratio than white and African American donors (2.50% vs. 0.47% of all cells). This might explain the observation that the new Coronavirus pandemic and previous SARS-Cov pandemic are concentrated in the Asian area.

So, there you have it: scientific evidence of how there are, indeed, genetic differences underling the empirical evidence that I have been presenting for weeks that there are racial differences in susceptibility to the Coronavirus (now widely known as COVID-19).

And this finding comes as more and more people are beginning to notice the racial dimension to Corona virus.

According to Woke Wisdom - which declares that “race” is only skin deep - the Coronavirus should be ravaging Africa by now. After all, Africa is poor, poor health compromises the immune system, and access to medical care is, for most Africans, extremely limited. Surely, Africa should be worse affected that any other continent in the world—as should black minorities within white countries. But, consistent with the findings of the Chinese scientists, this is not the case:

Whether it’s a matter of faulty detection, climatic factors or simple fluke, the remarkably low rate of coronavirus infection in African countries, with their fragile health systems, continues to puzzle – and worry – experts.

To date, only three cases of infection have been officially recorded in Africa, one in Egypt, one in Algeria and one in Nigeria, with no deaths.

This is a remarkably small number for a continent with nearly 1.3 billion inhabitants, and barely a drop in the ocean of more than 86,000 cases and nearly 3,000 deaths recorded in some 60 countries worldwide.

[With only three official cases, Africa’s low coronavirus rate puzzles health experts, France 24, March 2nd, 2020].

Does this low infection rate worry “experts” precisely because it raises the possibility - which I discussed last week - of blacks having a relatively high immunity due to many of them being adapted to a hot and wet ecology which, like the cold and wet ecology of much of Europe, is high in flu and thus selects for flu resistance?

The report then presents a number of hypotheses. Has there been a lack of travel between China and Africa? No. Could it be to do with the climate? France-24 produced a senior medic to reject this one:

“This hypothesis was rejected by Professor Rodney Adam, who heads the infection control task force at the Aga Khan University Hospital in Nairobi, Kenya. ‘There is no current evidence to indicate that climate affects transmission,’” he said.

Professor Adam also used his interview as an opportunity to cast doubt on the race hypothesis:

“While it is true that for certain infections there may be genetic differences in susceptibility… there is no current evidence to that effect for Covid-19.”

It’s not obvious why Professor Adam felt obliged to offer this opinion, since France 24 does not directly raise the race hypothesis.

But note that, significantly, he concedes that “for certain infections there may be genetic differences in susceptibility…” Of course, this is known to everyone in medicine (see: Tay-Sachs Disease; Sickle-Cell Anemia). But for some reason, we’re not allowed to ask about it with COVID-19.

And there is “current evidence.” It has not yet passed “peer-review,” it has not yet been critiqued by other scientists, but there is certainly evidence—beyond the circumstantial—that genetic differences seem to explain race differences in the reaction to the Corona virus.

The African media have noticed the surprising lack of deaths as well. Recently, a series of African news outlets reported that “the African Blood Genes” may permit resistance to Corona. In response, the Nigeria-based Centre for Democracy and Development (a democracy-promoting NGO, not a scientific organization) has asserted on its blog that: “experts have said claims that black people were resistant to the virus were ‘false information.’”

It added:

A UK-based specialist in infectious diseases and epidemics, Paul Hunter, told DW [Africa has been spared so far from coronavirus. Why?, February 14, 2020] that the absence of Covid-19 on the continent maybe largely due to luck. There is nothing special about Africa not having seen a case other than pure chance at the moment… “I doubt we will see a big outbreak in Africa, Droplet diseases don’t seem to be as big an issue in Africa,” he said, adding that SARS, a respiratory disease that is also a coronavirus, spread through 26 countries in 2003 but failed to gain a hold in Africa.

From scientific evidence, there is no medical proof that African blood is resistant to the Coronavirus

[Is the African Blood Resistant to Coronavirus? CDD West Africa, February 17, 2020].

Perhaps not. But there is now scientific evidence that Africans (and Whites) are more resistant to it than Asians and that this is for genetic reasons.

News of the Times;
The World Health Organization has declared that dogs cannot transmit Coronavirus, and there is no reason to quarantine dogs.

W.H.O. let the dogs out.


A U.S. Marine General was about to start the morning briefing to his staff.

While waiting for the coffee machine to finish brewing, the General decided to pose a question to all assembled.

He explained that his wife had been a bit frisky the night before and he failed to get his usual amount of sound sleep.

He posed the question of just how much of sex was “work” and how much of it was “pleasure?”

A Major chimed in with 75%-25% in favor of work.

A Captain said it was 50%-50%.

A Lieutenant responded with 25%-75% in favor of pleasure, depending upon his state of inebriation at the time.

There being no consensus, the General turned to the Private First Class who was in charge of making the coffee and asked for his opinion.

Without any hesitation, the young Private First Class responded, “Sir, it has to be 100% pleasure.”

The General was surprised and as you might guess, asked why?

“Well, sir, if there was any work involved, the officers would have me doing it for them.”


Why Italian Fathers and Grandfathers pass their handguns down through the family.

An old Italian man is dying. He calls his grandson to his bedside, Guido, I wan' you lissina me. I wan'a you to take-a my chrome plated .38 revolver so you will always remember me."

"But grandpa, I really don't like guns.. How about you leave me your Rolex watch instead?"

"You lissina me, boy. Somma day you gonna be runna da business, you gonna have a beautiful wife, lotsa money, a big-a home and maybe a couple of bambinos. "

"Somma day you gonna come-a home and maybe finda you wife inna bed with another man.

"Whatta you gonna do then? Pointa to you watch and say, 'times up'"?


A man was stopped by the police around 2 am. The officer asked him where he was going at that time of night.

The man replied, "I'm on my way to a lecture about alcohol abuse and the effects it has on the human body."

The officer then asked, "Really? Who's giving that lecture at this time of night?"

The man replied, "That would be my wife."


In Alabama, there is no Reverse Cowgirl.

You don't turn your back on family.

Quote of the Times;
Climate change hysteria is religious dogma, designed to produce a cult to the Nature Goddess.

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
This is the Best Way to Detect Lack of Integrity in Others by LaRae Quy

Integrity is a word that we hear almost every day but we seldom take the time to think about it. Integrity is similar to ethics, honesty, and trustworthiness—they are a moral code of values that affect our behavior. Integrity is about doing the right thing in every situation, whether it’s convenient or not.

The world is so competitive that some people will lie, cheat, and bribe to get what they want, either for themselves or their children. Integrity is pushed to the side but people who don’t want to be featured on the front page from a scandal will need to scrutinize their lack of integrity and moral codes to a far greater degree than they have in the past. Leaders, entrepreneurs, and business owners must accept that they are held to a higher standard of integrity than others.

Maybe one of the reasons we don’t think about integrity is because it’s the opposite of self-interest. We’ve devolved into a “me” culture that promotes self above others. While that might be acceptable in small doses, it can have a toxic affect when it bleeds over into our behavior in business and life. We need to be mentally tough to hold ourselves to a higher moral standard.

The best way to detect lack of integrity in others is to listen to what they say and watch what they do. Beware of the following:

1. They Do The Right Thing—When They’ve Got An Audience

Integrity is usually defined as doing the right thing when no one is watching. A person who lacks integrity will make decisions based on how it will make them look rather than how it will benefit others. They look at their actions as a performance to be rated for approval rather than a step toward doing the right thing for the community.

Watch out because these people tend to yearn for the spotlight and will do whatever it takes to get there—even if it means doing the right thing, but only in front of an audience. Pay attention to how they make decisions when no one watches over them. Observe how they treat people who are lower in rank or status.

Tip On How To NOT Be The Person Who Lacks Integrity: In situations where you’re not sure whether or not you’ve lost your moral compass, ask yourself, “Did I do the right thing?” Take the time to really think through the answer. If there is a doubt, find another way.

2. If It’s Legal, It’s Ethical

Former Valeant CEO Michael Pearson testified to a Senate committee hearing he regretted that he pursued acquisitions where the rationale for the deal rested on increased prices of the medicine. It wasn’t illegal, but the public didn’t like it. Valeant stock took a nose dive and the company had to change their name to shed the scandal.

The law is enforced by the state or federal government with penalties for violations but ethics is far broader than the law. Ethics and integrity imply good conduct as determined by the values and customs of society. Our moral codes of behavior inform us when we’ve crossed the line—lying, betrayal, nepotism. These behavior are wrong, but they are not illegal.

Watch for these behaviors: People who lie, break promises, make decisions based on greed, or cheat on their spouses have not broken the law, but they are unethical.

Tip On How To NOT Be The Person Who Lacks Integrity: Integrity is self-motivated and based on your values. Take the time to think about the values that drive your behavior. Are they something you’re proud of? Would you want them printed in your obituary?

3. They Don’t Care About Little White Lies

A lack of integrity usually starts small and rolls down a slippery slope from there. Very few people wake up one morning and say, “I’ve decided I’m going to do something unethical.” Instead, it’s shortcuts, laziness, carelessness, and greed that triggers the behavior. Small concessions that, at first, don’t seem like a big deal especially if they can land a big sale, favorable performance appraisal, or a corner office.

A recent study by the Harvard Business Review found that people who lack integrity are more likely to rationalize their conduct if it isn’t presented as an abrupt change. Researchers found that if they could get people to cheat a little the first time, they’d be willing to cheat a bit more the second time, and finally cheat “big” the third time.

Anytime you hear someone say, “It’s just a little white lie,” give them a wide berth. It’s the thinking of a poor leader who’s philosophy incorporates excuses and a tendency to blame others for their mistakes.

“The safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”—C. S. Lewis.

Tip On How To NOT Be The Person Who Lacks Integrity: Be accountable to others who will nudge you in the right direction. Help each other acknowledge and address your problems before it spills into unethical or greedy behavior that can get out of control. Even small reminders and nudges can deter undesirable behavior.

4. They Think Their Behavior Doesn’t Hurt Anyone

Operation Varsity Blues sickened everyone and has placed a spotlight on how some people with wealth justify their self-interest, even at the expense of others. Research shows that people will go to great lengths to rationalize their lack of integrity and maintain their higher status. In the case of cheating for their children, parents morally disengaged because they wanted successful kids to reflect well on themselves.

Their behavior hurt others because their children were placed ahead of those who worked hard to get good grades and didn’t have rich parents to buy their way into an Ivy League school. People who lie, cheat, and bribe hurt everyone around them and they are either stupid or narcissistic if they don’t realize it.

Today’s world is so focused on individualism that it’s hard to find someone who focuses on ways to help others. People who put the best interests of others before their own have integrity. They don’t expect loads of praise or recognition for their actions.

Interesting research shows that people are more likely to justify cheating if they can share the benefits with others. Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos is a great example of how a person will find reasons to justify why they cheat and misrepresent the facts—in her case, to change the world.

“There are no moral shortcuts in the game of business or life. There are, basically, three kinds of people, the unsuccessful, the temporarily successful, and those who become and remain successful. The difference is character.”—Jon Huntsman

Tip On How To NOT Be The Person Who Lacks Integrity: Make note of how many times you say (or think) something like “Others do the same thing,” or “I know people who do lots of worse things.” It’s an attempt to minimize the consequences of your actions or words.

5. Their Definition Of Honesty Is Fluid

When you lie to Congress, it’s a crime. When Congress lies to you, it’s politics. In much the same way, those who lack integrity have a fluid relationship with the truth. It becomes flexible and dependent upon the circumstances and when it benefits them.

If an FBI agent displays a lack of integrity, they are fired. Lack of candor will send an agent to the unemployment line faster than any other transgression. Internally, FBI stands for Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity.

The reason the FBI places so much emphasis on candor is because agents must have the guts and integrity to uphold federal laws. Unfortunately the FBI’s reputation has been tarnished by a few renegade agents at the top who made decisions on what they considered to be right or wrong and who should become president or not. They did not act with integrity and have been fired or removed from the ranks.

Tip On How To NOT Be The Person Who Lacks Integrity: Integrity means you need to tell the truth, even if it’s ugly. Once you start to delude others, you’ve also deluded yourself. People with integrity make promises, keep their word, and don’t change the truth to justify their behavior.

6. Do As I Say, Not As I do
Research shows there a tremendous gap between our actual behavior and the way we see ourselves. We have a strong desire to maintain a positive moral self-image and will make excuses or find ways to justify our behavior. For example, we: claim all the credit on a project, engage in a conflict of interest, and show favoritism—without an awareness of our behavior.

When people lead with a “do as I say, not as I do” manner, expect others to resent the double standard. Cognitive dissonance occurs when an admired role model behaves in a manner that is distasteful to those around them. Even in what might be considered a small white lie, their lack of integrity signals hypocrisy and, in time, will damage their reputation.

Tip On How To NOT Be The Person Who Lacks Integrity: In today’s world, leaders are distrusted until they’re proven trustworthy. The onus is on you to be vigilant about what you say and what you do. Others will watch and take their cues from your behavior. If there is a discrepancy between your words and your actions, you lack integrity.

News of the Times;
Older Newer
Several animals were savagely beaten in the making of this page, including but not limited to; kittens, rabbits, zebu, skunks, puppies, and platypus. Also several monkeys where force fed crack to improve their typing skills.

And someone shot a duck.

An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.

No Vegans were harmed in the making of this site. We're looking for a new provider.