ET Williams

The Doctor of Common Sense

Blog

by

Anonymous Warns To Prepare for World War III

Anonymous warns world to ‘prepare’ for World War 3

The infamous hacktivist group Anonymous has released a chilling new video — urging people across the globe to “prepare” for World War 3 — as the US and North Korea continue to move “strategic pieces into place” for battle.

 

See video here: http://nypost.com/2017/05/08/anonymous-warns-world-to-prepare-for-world-war-3/

“All the signs of a looming war on the Korean peninsula are surfacing,” the group says in the ominous six-minute clip, posted on YouTube over the weekend.

Using their signature Guy Fawkes character, the hackers make several claims about recent military movements in the region — and alleged warnings made by Japan and South Korea about imminent nuclear attacks from the North — as they deliver their frightening prophecy.

“Watching as each country moves strategic pieces into place,” the organization says, in its notorious robotic voice. “But unlike past world wars, although there will be ground troops, the battle is likely to be fierce, brutal and quick. It will also be globally devastating, both on environmental and economical levels.”

According to Anonymous, President Trump’s test of the Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile last week — coupled with a recent warning from Japanese officials to citizens, telling them to make preparations for a possible nuclear attack — are ultimately proof that all signs are pointing to a major conflict between the US and North Korea.

In addition, China reportedly has urged its citizens in the Hermit Kingdom to return home as tensions continue to escalate over their nuclear weapons program.

“This is a real war with real global consequences,” the group explains. “With three superpowers drawn into the mix, other nations will be coerced into choosing sides, so what do the chess pieces look like so far?”

Anonymous — described online as a global network of hackers, intent on spreading “facts the government doesn’t want you to know” — claims the US and South Korea have been working together to keep the peace in the region, along with China and the Philippines, but their pleas have fallen “on deaf ears.”

They claim that the Trump administration has also been working closely with the Australians, sending a rotational deployment of more than 1,000 US troops to the country, along with a large fleet of military aircraft.

Australia is ultimately considered a “strategic location in the Indian Ocean,” Anonymous says.

“The citizen will be the last to know, so it is important to understand what the other nations are doing,” the group states, citing China’s warning last week to its people in the North.

“The pragmatic Chinese, it seems, are starting to lose their patience.”

Another surefire sign that war is imminent, according to Anonymous, is the recent talks between President Trump and Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte.

The pair spoke a little over a week ago to discuss the situation with North Korea and other regional security threats. A readout later claimed that relations between the two countries were “heading in a very positive direction.”

“When President Trump starts reaching out to those like President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines to assure they are on the same page, one must start to wonder,” Anonymous says in the video. “However, even Duterte has advised the US to back away from Kim Jong Un.”

The group concludes the video with an eerie message for those watching around the world.

“Prepare for what comes next,” they say. “We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget.

http://nypost.com/2017/05/08/anonymous-warns-world-to-prepare-for-world-war-3/

by

Trump Purges EPA of Global Warming Alarmists

Delingpole: And So It Begins, Trump’s Great Climate Purge…

Finally the Trump administration is starting to get serious about taking on the Green Blob.

EPA administrator Scott Pruitt – perhaps stung by criticisms that he was turning into a squish – today reaffirmed, in an interview with CNBC, that he is not a believer in catastrophic man-made global warming.

“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet…”

This new boldness coincides with a purge of warmist scientific advisers at both the EPA and the Interior Department.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has chosen to replace half of the members on one of its key scientific review boards, while Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is “reviewing the charter and charge” of more than 200 advisory boards, committees, and other entities both within and outside of his department. EPA and Interior officials began informing outside advisers of the move on Friday, and notifications continued over the weekend.

Pruitt’s move could significantly change the makeup of the 18-member Board of Scientific Counselors, which advises EPA’s key scientific arm on whether the research it does has sufficient rigor and integrity. All of the members being dismissed were at the end of serving at least one three-year term, although these terms are often renewed instead of terminated.

Among the tragic victims is Robert Richardson, a Michigan professor and “ecological economist”, who tweeted movingly about his martyrdom.

A closer look at the man’s biog gives a few clues as to why his contract was not renewed:

His research, teaching, and outreach program focuses primarily on sustainable development, and he uses a variety of methods from the behavioral and social sciences to study decision-making about the use of natural resources and the values of ecosystem services.

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.

But the biggest sign of Trump’s commitment to slaying the Green Blob is expected tomorrow when we’ll finally hear whether or not the president means to keep his election promise to pull the US out of the Paris climate agreement.

If this happens it will be a disaster for the U.S., with the only beneficiary being White House chief strategist Steve Bannon. At least that’s what environmental journalist David Roberts claims in Vox.

Given that Roberts is the guy who once called for Nuremberg-style trials for climate skeptics perhaps his views should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Nonetheless, he is quite right when he argues that whether the U.S. stays in or out of Paris it will make little difference on the policy front.

[The agreement] asks participants only to state what they are willing to do and to account for what they’ve done. It is, in a word, voluntary.

Roberts suspects, as I do, that the legalistic reasons being advanced for pulling out of Paris have probably been overdone.

But whatever works is fine by me. The important thing is for the U.S. to pull out of Paris not in order to facilitate exit from Obama’s Clean Power Plan or to avert legal action from politicized litigators like the Sierra Club but purely as an upward extension of the presidential middle finger to the bloated, corrupt and overmighty Climate Industrial Complex.

If and when Trump pulls the U.S. out of Paris it won’t be the end for the Green Blob, nor even the beginning of the end. But it might, perhaps, be the end of the beginning. It will be arguably the first big signal by any major leader of the Western world that the tide on the Great Global Warming Scam is about to turn and that the Alarmists are about to be crushed by fortune’s wheel.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/08/delingpole-and-so-it-begins-trumps-great-climate-purge/

by

43 Dumbasses Who Might Run in 2020

“Hi. I am a dick and I am running for president”

The 43 people who might run against Trump in 2020

The 2020 presidential election could feature the most crowded Democratic primary in decades, with scores of Democrats rumored as potential contenders.

The potential field could see some familiar faces as well as a mix of ambitious senators, governors and House members. But President Trump’s success as an outsider could also embolden more nontraditional candidates from the business and entertainment industries.

With no clear leader, the 2020 field should be a change from 2016, when Democrats had a small field of candidates, including front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Here are 43 possible candidates who could take on Trump in 2020:

Former Vice President Joe Biden: Biden, 74, said he “regretted” not running in 2016. He stoked major speculation about 2020 with a busy travel schedule but later said, “Guys, I’m not running!”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.): Sanders, 75, emerged as a leader on the left after his 2016 presidential run, and he’s working with the Democratic National Committee to help unite the party. He wouldn’t rule out a 2020 run but said in January it’s “much too early” to discuss another bid.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.): Warren, 67, has become one of the biggest thorns in Trump’s side. In an April interview, Warren said she has no plans to run in 2020 and is focused on her 2018 reelection.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.): Harris, 52, has been in the Senate for just four months, but the rising star is already floated as a potential contender. The former California attorney general said she’s not thinking about future campaigns.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.): The vocal gun control advocate has been another strong Trump critic. The White House reportedly askedconsultants to look into Murphy, 43, and four other possible Trump challengers.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.): Klobuchar, 56, is running for reelection next year, but she stoked major speculation with her plans to travel to Iowa, a crucial state on the primary schedule, this weekend.

Facebook CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg: Zuckerberg, 32, who also co-founded an immigration advocacy organization, created some buzz when he said he’ll visit all 50 states this year.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.): Booker’s meteoric rise from a mayor of Newark, N.J., to U.S. senator has prompted speculation about a future run for president. While Booker, 48, won’t discuss future plans, he didn’t rule it out, either.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.): Gillibrand, Clinton’s Senate successor in 2009, earned Democratic cred by leading the Senate Democrats in votes against confirming Trump’s Cabinet nominees. But Gillibrand, 50, says she’s focused on her 2018 reelection campaign and recently ruled out a 2020 run.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper: Hickenlooper, 65, who was on Clinton’s vice presidential shortlist, has been floated. He told the Denver Post that he’s not running for president.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo: Cuomo, 59, is running for reelection in 2018, but he hired two fundraisers from Florida, a sign that he could be considering a presidential run.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley: O’Malley, 54, didn’t gain much traction in his 2016 run, but he’s already testing the waters again. A political action committee affiliated with him polled Democratic caucus voters in Iowa, and he visited New Hampshire in April.

Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro: Castro, 42, was on Clinton’s vice presidential shortlist. The former San Antonio mayor drew national attention for his 2012 Democratic National Convention speech.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.): Kaine, 59, grew his profile as Clinton’s running mate. After the election, Kaine ruled out running for president or vice president in 2020. He’s up for reelection in 2018.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.): Franken, 65, emerged as a tough critic during the confirmation hearings for Trump’s Cabinet picks. In an interview, he said he’s not running, noting that senators generally don’t fare well running for president.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio): Brown, 64, was on Clinton’s running mate shortlist. He could face a tough reelection in 2018, though, after Trump won his state in 2016.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick: Patrick, 60, left office in 2015 and now works at Bain Capital. He’s been previously floated as a presidential contender and is close with a former top Obama adviser, David Axelrod.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio: De Blasio, 55, is running for reelection this year. His political prospects have been buoyed by the news that he won’t face charges in a federal investigation into his 2013 campaign fundraising.

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban: The billionaire businessman and “Shark Tank” star frequently clashed with Trump in 2016 and endorsed Clinton. Cuban, 58, has said “we will see” about whether he runs for president.

Environmental activist Tom Steyer: The billionaire donor, 59, who runs a climate change advocacy group, is considered a possible candidate for California governor in 2018.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez: The former Labor secretary, 55, was elected head of the national party this year and is looking to rebuild after the 2016 elections.

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton: Dayton, 70, was recently diagnosed with prostate cancer but plans to finish out his term, which ends in 2018.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe: The term-limited governor will be out of office in January 2018. McAuliffe, 60, is a well-connected ally of both Bill and Hillary Clinton and a former DNC chairman.

California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom: Newsom, 49, launched an early 2018 bid for California governor. He’s said being president seems “like the most miserable job in the world.”

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg: Sandberg, 47, drew praise for her book “Lean In,” which discusses women in the workforce, but she has said she won’t run and will “continue to say no.”

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Schultz, 63, is stepping down from his role and will be executive chairman. He was urged by friend to run in 2016, but he endorsed Clinton.

Former first lady Michelle Obama: The former first lady proved a formidable campaigner for Clinton in 2016, but Obama, 53, and others close to her have said she won’t run for elected office.

Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson: The wrestler and star of the “Fast and the Furious” film franchise has flirted with running for office. A registered Republican, Johnson, 45, spoke at the party’s convention in 2000, but documentary filmmaker Michael Moore has urged him to run. One potential political ally: Warren, who has described herself as a fan of Johnson’s HBO show “Ballers.”

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii): Gabbard, 36, hasn’t been afraid to buck her party. She drew scrutiny for secretly meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad and criticizing the U.S. strike on Syria following Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons on civilians.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.): Ellison, 53, was a prominent Sanders supporter and was a leading contender for DNC chairman before losing to Perez. He now serves as the DNC’s deputy chairman.

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.): Maloney, 50, considered a bid to lead the House Democrats’ campaign arm this cycle, but passed. He wrote Democrats’ autopsy on the 2016 elections.

California Gov. Jerry Brown: Brown, whose term is up in 2018, doesn’t think he’ll run for office again, but wouldn’t rule it out. Brown, 79, has run for president three times.

Media mogul Oprah Winfrey: Winfrey, 63, who endorsed Clinton, is frequently floated for president but has said she will “never” run.

Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.): Feingold, 64, served in the Senate from 1993 to 2011, but he lost a comeback bid in 2016. He considered a presidential run in 2008.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean: Dean, 68, unsuccessfully ran for president in 2004. Dean, whose tenure as DNC chairman from 2005 to 2009 was marked by its successful “50 States Strategy,” briefly ran for DNC chair this year before dropping out.

Former Vice President Al Gore: Gore, 69, who lost the 2000 presidential election after a Supreme Court decision, reemerged in politics when stumping for Clinton last year.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.): Warner, 62, ruled out a 2020 run: “I think that window is probably shut.”

Former Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.): Webb ran for the Democratic nomination in 2016 but dropped out after only polling in the single digits. He briefly weighed running as an independent. Since the 2016 race, Webb, 71, has pitched himself as a politician who can understand the white working-class voters who are flocking to Trump.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti: Garcetti, 46, is considering a 2018 bid for California governor, but The New York Times reported that national donors have urged him to run for president.

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.): Moulton, an Iraq War veteran, was also mentioned in the New York Times story and privately says he’s not ruling out a bid. Moulton, 38, brushed aside the story but is fundraising off of it anyway.

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu: Landrieu, 56, called the a New York Times story about him considering a run “hysterical.” He gained notoriety after defending the removal of Confederate memorials in New Orleans.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.): Duckworth, 49, recently made the switch from the House to the Senate. She’s an Iraq War veteran and lost both of her legs while serving as a Army helicopter pilot during the war.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee: The two-term governor was a congressman for more than a decade. Inslee, 66, played a role in his state’s lawsuit against Trump’s travel ban.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/332156-the-43-people-who-might-run-against-trump-in-2020

by

Idiots Believe Fake News: Little Girl Calls Trump a Disgrace

You’ll never hear fake news on The Doctor Of Common Sense channel. Rated the most accurate on the web.

Fake viral video showing girl standing up to Trump fools thousands

Fake viral video showing girl standing up to Trump fools thousands

A viral video that purportedly shows a young girl telling President Trump he’s a “disgrace” currently has hundreds of thousands of retweets on Twitter, but it’s not real.

A clip from the Comedy Central series “The President Show” was shared by hundreds of thousands of people on social media over the weekend. The clip shows Trump impersonator and show host Anthony Atamanuik from behind and is cropped to hide Comedy Central’s logo. The impersonation fooled thousands of Twitter users, who angrily responded to the fake Trump’s words.

In the video, Atamanuik tells a young girl at a Tax Day protest that she is a “disgrace,” only for the girl to respond “you’re a disgrace to the world.”

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/332334-fake-viral-video-showing-girl-standing-up-to-trump-fools-thousands

by

Restaurant Increases Sales by 50% After Banning Kids

Nobody wants to pay to eat around a bunch of screaming brats

Restaurant sees a 50 percent increase in sales after banning children

Even some parents understand.

“Our dinner was excellent,” said one diner.

“This will make us come back again,” said another.

“I wouldn’t stop coming,” said a satisfied customer.

What is a restaurant in North Carolina doing that’s creating such a buzz? According to this report from WCNC, they’ve come up with a real crowd pleaser. They’re banning kids – and business is booming.

Caruso’s, which is located in Mooresville, North Carolina, has been getting rave reviews from its customers ever since it implemented its “no children under five” policy just a few months ago. Once word was spread by another report from WCNC last week, more customers are flocking in. Sales have increased 50 percent.

“Our clientele has definitely increased, and we just encourage people to come out and experience our restaurant more,” says the restaurant’s hostess in the report.

It kind of makes sense, doesn’t it? Who wants to enjoy a meal with a screaming child in your ear, particularly if it’s not your own? There are adult pools, adult movies, adult sporting events, so why not adult restaurants, too?

The ban on kids “just makes sure that when we come here, we’re going to get the dining experience that we pay for,” a customer said in the WCNC report. Apparently, he’s not the only who appreciates a guaranteed quiet meal.

As you would expect, Caruso’s has received its fair share of criticism online for the new policy. WCNC previously reported that some parents with their kids in tow complained on Facebook after they were refused services. Comments like “Never been more disappointed and appalled,” “I won’t be going again” and “#discrimination” were posted on the social media site. But others, even those with young kids, were more understanding. “If [parents] don’t like the rule, then find somewhere else that serves nice Italian food,” one told WCNC.

The fact is that running a restaurant today isn’t easy, particularly with increased competition from grocery stores and take out services. So if there’s a way to get more customers in the door, more restaurants are going to try it – and it’s hard to argue with the results that Caruso’s is seeing.

 

https://www.aol.com/article/finance/2017/04/07/restaurant-sees-a-50-percent-increase-in-sales-after-banning-chi/22030496/

by

Janet Napolitano Stashed $175 Million and Raised College Tuition

Full goon Napolitano.

The California State Auditor issued a scathing report last week alleging that University of California President and former Obama Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano raised tuitions while her office hid $175 million.

The cover page for State Auditor Elaine Howle’s 167-page audit report states bluntly that the UC president’s office  “Failed to Disclose Tens of Millions in Surplus Funds, and Its Budget Practices Are Misleading.”

The audit found that the UC spent $32.5 billion on expenses during the 2015-16 school year to fund 10 campuses, five medical centers, and its Office of the President headquarters. Although the UC states that its “fundamental missions are teaching, research and public service,” the UC only spent “$6.7 billion (21 percent) on teaching, “$4.6 billion (14 percent) on research” and “$630 million (2 percent) on public service.” The other $20.6 billion (63 percent) was spent on non-fundamental activities.

The audit highlighted criticism in January from students and lawmakers after the UC regents approved President Napolitano’s 2.7 percent tuition increase for the 2017-18 year, given that UC tuition nearly doubled from $6,141 in 2006–07 to the current $12,192 this school year.

In addition, State Auditor Howle’s audit found the “Office of the President has amassed substantial reserve funds, used misleading budgeting practices, provided its employees with generous salaries and atypical benefits, and failed to satisfactorily justify its spending on systemwide initiatives.”

Howle ominously added that the “Office of the President intentionally interfered with our audit process. Auditing standards require that we disclose this interference and prohibit us from drawing valid conclusions from this portion of our work.” Specific concerns, outlined in a cover letter to Governor Jerry Brown, include:

  • The Office of the President has accumulated more than $175 million in undisclosed restricted and discretionary reserves; as of fiscal year 2015–16, it had $83 million in its restricted reserve and $92 million in its discretionary reserve.
  • More than one-third of its discretionary reserve, or $32 million, came from unspent funds from the campus assessment— an annual charge that the Office of the President levies on campuses to fund the majority of its discretionary operations.
  • In certain years, the Office of the President requested and received approval from the Board of Regents (regents) to increase the campus assessment even though it had not spent all of the funds it received from campuses in prior years.
  • The Office of the President did not disclose the reserves it had accumulated, nor did it inform the regents of the annual undisclosed budget that it created to spend some of those funds. The undisclosed budget ranged from $77 million to $114 million during the four years we reviewed.
  • The Office of the President was unable to provide a complete listing of the systemwide initiatives, their costs, or an assessment of their continued benefit to the university.
  • While it appears that the Office of the President’s administrative spending increased by 28 percent, or $80 million, from fiscal years 2012–13 through 2015–16, the Office of the President continues to lack consistent definitions of and methods for tracking the university’s administrative expenses.

 

  • http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/04/30/napolitano-uc-175-million-state-audit/