Daily Pics, My Comic, and The Times
the Daily
the Comic
the Blog
All countries may eventually get coronavirus.

But China got it right off the bat.


My family treats me like a God.

They forget that I exist unless they want something.


A Japanese couple is having an argument over ways of performing highly erotic sex:

Husband: Sukitaki.

Wife replies: Kowanini!

Husband says: Toka a anji rodi roumi yakoo!

Wife on her knees literally begging: Mimi nakoundinda tinkouji!

Husband replies angrily: Na miaou kina tim kouji!

I can't believe you just sat and tried to read this. As if you understand Japanese! Unbelievable!

I knew you would read anything as long as it is about sex.

You need help!


I heard that Prince Charles tested positive for Covid-19.

Looks like he got coronated at last!


My wife has evil lessons with Satan every week.

I don’t know how much she charges.

Quote of the Times;
A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Jefferson

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
China is exporting far more than coronavirus by Chuck Norris

While I love people from every country around the world, I can't say the same about their governments.

China is already in global hot water for being the petri dish in which the COVID-19 (coronavirus) spawned. But that culpability and atrocity might pale in comparison to what else the Chinese Red State is doing.

The Chinese regime has been found guilty of continuing to kill tens of thousands of prisoners of faith and conscience annually and then sell their organs for profit. That was the final judgment on March 1 from an independent people's tribunal based in London, as outlined in a 160-page report, which includes an additional 300 pages of witness testimonies and submissions.

For those who didn't know about these atrocities against humanity, the report explained:

For over a decade the People's Republic of China has stood publicly accused of acts of cruelty and wickedness that match the cruelty and wickedness of medieval torturers and executioners.

If the accusations are true, then thousands of innocent people have been killed … having their bodies – the physical integrity of their beings – cut open while still alive for their kidneys, livers, hearts, lungs, cornea and skin to be removed and turned into commodities for sale.

Those innocents were killed by doctors simply because they believed, for example, in truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance and lived lives of healthy exercise and meditation and because the way they lived was seen as dangerous to the interests and objectives of the totalitarian state of the People's Republic of China.

And yet the People's Republic of China has done little to challenge the accusations except to say that they were politically motivated lies. …

If the accusations are proved, they will, inevitably, be compared to the worst atrocities committed in conflicts of the 20th century; but victim for victim and death for death, the gassing of the Jews by the Nazis, the massacre by the Khmer Rouge or the butchery to death of the Rwanda Tutsis may not be worse than cutting out the hearts, other organs and the very souls of living, blameless, harmless, peaceable people.

The chairman of the tribunal was Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, who previously led the prosecution of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes at the International Criminal Tribunal.

According to the Epoch Times, "Four methods of forced organ harvesting are currently known: killing prisoners by removing their organs; harvesting organs from prisoners after lethal injection; harvesting from prisoners who weren't dead after execution by shooting; and 'organ harvesting under the pretext of brain death.'"

In 2015, the Chinese government said it would cease forced organ harvesting from executed prisoners and rely exclusively on a new voluntary donation system.

But just months ago, in November 2019, a study published in the scientific journal BMC Medical Ethics found that "Beijing's reported organ donation numbers don't stack up, and there is highly compelling evidence that they are being falsified." (The availability of organs cannot be accounted for by the number of death-row executions and voluntary organ donations.)

The reason for the discrepancy is based in the inhibition and refusal of the Chinese people to donate their organs, which was made clear last year when the University of Arizona hosted a panel on China's forced organ harvesting.

Weldon Gilcrease, M.D., deputy director of DAFOH and a director and assistant professor of oncology at the University of Utah School of Medicine, explained: "Prior to 1999, [the] number of liver transplantations taking place in China was about 15 to 20 per year as an entire country, because there is a culture code within China that you take your body into [the] next life, so your organs must stay intact. Therefore, the donation rate is extremely low."

After 1999, however, there was an absolute explosion in the number of organ transplants in China, Dr. Gilcrease explained.

Since the early 2000s, Chinese hospitals have been providing live organs on demand. In just a few days or weeks, perfectly matched organs can "magically be acquired." And we aren't just talking about harvesting a few available organs; rather, there are 60,000 to 100,000 major organ transplant cases per year in China.

It was back in 2006 that former Canadian Secretary of State David Kilgour and human rights lawyer David Matas removed the Chinese veil of secrecy by uncovering evidence that Falun Gong prisoners of conscience were being murdered on demand to supply China's organ transplant industry.

In fact, there has been so much harvesting of human organs in China that it has become a major export industry, too, with even some Western countries in support, including "Canada, among other developed countries," as the Epoch Times again reported.

Fortunately, most developed countries have opposed it.

The European Union and the United States have condemned forced organ harvesting. And countries like Israel, Spain, Belgium, Italy, Taiwan and Norway have already enacted anti-organ trafficking legislation.

The Chinese regime's human rights abuses were just highlighted in a U.S. State Department report, including its state-sanctioned practice of killing prisoners of conscience for organ transplant surgery.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said at press briefings last week and last July that China's persecution, abuse and atrocities against those who are simply expressing and practicing compassionate religious beliefs – including "underground" and "expendable" Christians, Tibetans and Muslims – is the "stain of the century."

"It's imprisoning religious minorities in internment camps – part of its historic antipathy to religious believers," Pompeo explained.

He concluded, "We pray for a day when Cubans, Venezuelans, Chinese, Iranians, and all peoples can speak and assemble freely without fear of their own governments."

My wife, Gena, and I are grateful that a bipartisan group of U.S. senators has drafted a resolution to expose China's barbaric human rights record as the basis for the country being unfit to host the Olympic Games in 2022.

When you write or call your government representatives and President Trump about continuing to fight to free the U.S. from its dependency upon China, particularly in the areas of medicine and antibiotics, tell them to fight even more ferociously against Beijing's atrocities of forced organ harvesting and trafficking.

Whether aiding us to fight against COVID-19, sparing human life in the womb or warring against brutal regimes that torture and kill their own people for the profit of organ sales, the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson applies: "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

News of the Times;
Harvey Weinstein has coronavirus.

Must suck to have something invade your body against your will.


Why is it that everyone’s stocking up on milk, bread and eggs?

When it hits the fan, I don't think my top activity will be making boatloads of French toast.


INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION – Due to justified concerns about their own immune systems, an alien race has decided to postpone their plans for a hostile takeover of planet Earth until the novel coronavirus pandemic clears.

“Invading a new planet does require a lot of time, effort, and coordination, and if the time’s not right, the time’s not right,” an alien known as Yq9 told Gomerblog. “Humans have been on their planet for a long time and if they don’t have a handle on the virus, there’s a strong chance we won’t either. Those poor Americans are really struggling down there, it almost seems rude to invade, you know? Right now, it’s more fun just to be the spectator.”

The aliens have spent the past several days having many thoughtful conversations weighing the risk and benefits of taking over Earth now versus a later date in time. Ultimately the decision was unanimous: wait until later.

“There are several positives to waiting,” an alien known as Zq4 explained. “First, humanity might be wiped out by COVID-19, which makes our lives a whole lot easier. Two, if the human hosts of coronavirus die out, so might the virus. Three, we are all curious to see if Lebron James can bring a championship back to Los Angeles.”

The new invasion date is to be determined.


"Push harder" I shouted at my wife while she was in labor.

"Screw you" she screamed back at me.

Bit harsh I thought…, it wasn't my fault the car broke down on the way to the hospital!


This whole month I'm only eating yogurt and soup.

I gave up mastication for Lent.

Quote of the Times;
People don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed. – Nietzsche

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
California Is a Cruel Medieval State by Victor Davis Hanson

One way of understanding California is simply to invert traditional morality. What for centuries would be considered selfish, callous, and greedy is now recalibrated as caring, empathetic, and generous. The current ethos of evaluating someone by his or her superficial appearance—gender or race—has returned to the premodern values of 19th-century California when race and gender calibrated careers. We don’t pay medieval priests for indulgences of our past and ongoing sin, but we do tweet out displays of our goodness as the penance price of acting amoral.

A paradox ensues that Californians both have a high, indeed smug, view of themselves and yet do a lot of damage to their fellow human beings. Their haughtiness is based largely on the reality that Silicon Valley, sandwiched between Stanford University and University of California, Berkeley, became the birthplace of the global computer, internet, social media, and a high-tech revolution. For progressives who deprecate the capitalist lifestyle, having a lot of money still allows one to say one thing and live out the opposite.

The state’s multi-trillion-dollar companies have hired tens of thousands of seven-figure, mid-level executives and computer experts who assume that life in the California coastal corridor is a birthright paradise.

The resulting tax revenue bonanza to the state allows one-party-rule to rid California of the old bothersome Reagan-Deukmejian-Wilson working- and middle-classes by embracing not-in-my-backyard zoning, identity politics, anal-retentive regulations, steep tax rates, utopian green agendas, open borders, and decriminalization of things that used to be felony offenses.

Indeed, the bigger and wealthier California became, the more the rich sought to privatize their lives and to give up on public services, the more the middle classes left the state, the more the poor from Mexico and Latin America crossed the southern border illegally, the more its schools deteriorated, and the more its infrastructure ossified and became decrepit, from century-old power transmission towers to pot-holed and jammed highways.

The resulting medieval society is now one of a few thousand millionaires and millions of lower-middle-class wage earners as well as millions of abject peasants and poor serfs. Those on the bottom receive relatively generous subsidies to just get by. Over a quarter of the state’s population was not born in the United States. A fifth lives below the poverty line. One-third of welfare recipients in the United States live in California. These are statistics of which our moralists in Malibu or Mill Valley either are ignorant, or simply shrug that they don’t care.

In a paradoxical way, California would have to become much more impoverished than it is now to seem a far worse abode than the birthplace of most of its current immigrants from southern Mexico, Central America, China, and Southeast Asia. That is, while the middle class has been leaving in droves, given the abject decline of their beloved native state, the even poorer newcomers have a quite different benchmark of comparison. Compared, to say, Oaxaca, or rural China, California’s is rich, free, and eager to subsidize even illegal arrivals.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

The coastal rich and professional classes make so much that they are willing to put up with the state’s high taxes and poor services on three assumed premises.

First, state redistribution of some of their vast incomes doesn’t hurt all that much, while offering atheists, agnostics, and secularists generous medieval penance and fides as true-blue progressives. As long as the coastal tech economy, financial services, entertainment, tourism, and blue-chip research universities keep booming, the state within a state doesn’t worry about the funding-to-benefit relationship between soaring California taxes and commensurately declining public services.

Second, the coastal enclaves have enough money to navigate around the ramifications of their own ideology, whether by avoiding much of the state’s interior, putting their kids in private schools, living in tiny gated communities, buying concierge private healthcare, and ensuring that the Other, who daily ventures into their neighborhoods to do domestic and outdoor chores, leaves by nightfall. Buying a Range Rover or Mercedes SUV or even a Gulfstream is a good way to ease the burden of fighting climate change, just as one’s concierge doctor can galvanize his support for Medicare for All.

Third, our blessed lords and earls envision California not as a single state. Indeed, most coastal dwellers have never visited the small towns of the Central Valley or the Sierra foothills or the northern third of the state. Instead, they see these areas the way Manhattanites look at Rochester, or Chicago looks at southern Illinois. In their view, freakish 19th-century mapping created California, and so they have no concern what Outer Californians think of the way they govern the state.

The result is abject cruelty. How can state leaders impose the highest gasoline taxes in the country, and then allow sections of their main longitudinal freeways—large swaths of the 99, the central coastal 101, or most of the West Side I-5—to become gory 4-lane motorized gladiatorial arenas?

As traffic quadrupled over the last half-century, the state’s freeways necessary to drive across California remained calcified. And the result was that lots of people simply died, and that calculation was always baked into California governance as tolerable. By that, I mean, our masters of the universe couldn’t care less that the 99 “freeway” has become, by most metrics, the most lethal major thoroughfare in the United States. Out of sight, out of mind.

“Winners” and “Losers”

Much of the state is a natural desert—ironically in some of the tiniest places where the rich dwell, from Montecito to Carmel.

Yet no major reservoir has been built in nearly 40 years, a period during which the population doubled. No doubt, 19th-century California was a paradise—Hetch Hetchy undammed, the lush delta flooding over millions of acres, upstream salmon fighting the San Joaquin River white water from the Bay to the Sierra Nevada.

But such fantasies are no way to run a 21st-century state with open borders, 40 million people, and a population that to survive and eat needs daily vast transfers of irrigation and municipal water from the wet north and east to the parched center and west.

Releasing to the sea millions of acre-feet of reservoir water or never allowing it to be banked in established manmade lakes means that millions of struggling rural residents drill new, multi-thousand-dollar domestic wells to survive, farmers idle land, and the poor lose jobs. The elite response is that there is no mental connection for them between what is sold at Whole Foods and what is grown outside of Bakersfield or Salinas. They muse why do such exploiters of nature have to drain our state’s aquifer? And they assume that while Hetch Hetchy and the Owens Valley are critical to bring the anointed water, all other such huge water transfer projects should become negotiable.

One of the strangest sights in California is the horde of trailers, ratty cars, and dilapidated Winnebagos parked throughout moralistic Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale, juxtaposed with gleaming high-tech corporate campuses. The most empathetic and caring people in the world, as they remind us hourly, turn out to be pretty callous about the “losers” in their midst who live in mobile and makeshift quarters on the street to keep Silicon Valley humming.

At least 19th-century company mining towns did not have the percentages of transients and homeless as does the richest, most caring landscape in the world. Those who can afford $1,000-a-square-foot coastal cottages assume that the losers who can’t code just couldn’t cut it. If you insist on driving a semi, or welding tanks, and you are not willing to program, then why in the world should you dare imagine that you deserve to live within 50 miles of the California coast?

To walk in areas of downtown San Francisco, Los Angeles, Fresno, or Sacramento is to venture into the pages of Boccaccio or Dickens, as thousands defecate, inject, eat, drink, and urinate on the sidewalks. Should the coronavirus ever incubate there among California’s hundreds of thousands on the street, the result would make the current nationwide caseload look like the common cold. Indeed, an epidemic among the tents and grocery carts of the state’s main cities would become hideous and terrifying—and right out of the accounts of Thucydides or Procopius.

These ebbs and flows of homeless villages often lap up near the commuting corridors of the hyper-wealthy pedestrians and commuters. The former appeared bothered and so play the role of mounted knights that rode on by beggars outside the walls of the keep.

Truth and Consequences

In California’s upside-down morality, what is ethical is allowing thousands to live in fetid filth and to endanger their own health and that of an entire city, or waving in millions of foreign nationals without health audits, background checks, or legal permission. The Silicon Valley moralist at coffee seethes that Trump “put people in cages,” while in private is relieved that there are not caravans of tens of thousands headed his way from Central America—in the age of the coronavirus.

What is now considered unethical would be either to provide planned suburban or rural homeless campuses with sanitation, clean food, and dormitory shelters, or to ask illegal immigrants in their home countries first to apply for U.S. residence through legal channels, to undergo legal, health, and job audits, and in the interval to learn English and the customs and laws of their desired new home.

Instead, opening the southern border to millions of destitute Central Americans and southern Mexican nationals is proof of one’s morality among the wealthy of La Jolla, Santa Barbara, Pacific Heights, and Sausalito—again at least in the abstract. Few of them venture to a Merced, Sanger, Madera, or Firebaugh school to see the impact of tens of thousands of immigrant youths, without English, money, or skills suddenly overwhelming local school districts.

Fewer experience the effects on driving and law enforcement when millions of foreign immigrants navigate without prior experience of U.S. traffic laws, and without licenses, insurance, and registration.

No moralist seems to worry that tens of thousands of Americans, among them Mexican-American citizens in particular, depend on access to state and federal dialysis centers and hospital emergency rooms, many of which are now overwhelmed with non-citizen new patients.

To write the above is proof of one’s callousness, to be its architect evidence of one’s caring.

So those who craft sanctuary cities never venture into the Reedley emergency room, or know what a rural Tulare County sheriff encounters on a Saturday night, or what it is like to drive late on a Saturday night on a rural road in Central California, or would dare put their children in the Delano public schools, or to live outside of Mendota with the house pump sputtering sand. Those who insisted on continuing with a money-draining, high-speed rail boondoggle rarely try to drive east on Highway 152 outside Gilroy and thereby learn the consequences of allowing roads to become Road Warrior death zones.

Those legislators and executives who dreamed up decriminalizing thefts under $950 never worried about how the lost inventory of a family-owned store destroys middle-class aspirations. They certainly are careful about where not to shop, especially not where hordes of teens swarm and walk out each with mysteriously less than $950 in loot.

California has become a cruel and unusual state because callousness and narcissism were redefined as caring and compassion.

News of the Times;
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;
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.