Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
'eat the yolks'
139 views
Skip to first unread message
A Moose in Love
Mar 23, 2019, 7:54:52 AM3/23/19
to
eggs are healthier than many processed foods. a good book to read in regards to this topic is 'eat the yolks.' the gal that wrote it makes a very strong case for eating animal meat and fat. stay away from legumes, seeds. she also states that all foods consumed under this dietary plan must be organic.
notbob
Mar 23, 2019, 8:28:31 AM3/23/19
to
On 3/23/2019 5:54 AM, A Moose in Love wrote:
> she also states that all foods consumed under this dietary plan must be organic.
What "dietary plan"? ;)
> she also states that all foods consumed under this dietary plan must be organic.
nb
A Moose in Love
Mar 23, 2019, 8:41:59 AM3/23/19
to
Cindy Hamilton
Mar 23, 2019, 9:38:39 AM3/23/19
to
On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 7:54:52 AM UTC-4, A Moose in Love wrote:
> eggs are healthier than many processed foods. a good book to read in regards to this topic is 'eat the yolks.' the gal that wrote it makes a very strong case for eating animal meat and fat. stay away from legumes, seeds. she also states that all foods consumed under this dietary plan must be organic.
The author is a "Nutritional Therapy Practicitioner". Her training,
> eggs are healthier than many processed foods. a good book to read in regards to this topic is 'eat the yolks.' the gal that wrote it makes a very strong case for eating animal meat and fat. stay away from legumes, seeds. she also states that all foods consumed under this dietary plan must be organic.
provided by the Nutritional Therapy Association, is not accredited.
Nor, seemingly, does it qualify for a .org or .edu domain.
I would take the book with a big grain of salt.
It's time for me to make a big pot of lentil soup.
Cindy Hamilton
A Moose in Love
Mar 23, 2019, 10:38:58 AM3/23/19
to
Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl
Mar 23, 2019, 11:30:02 AM3/23/19
to
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:54:49 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
<parkstre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>eggs are healthier than many processed foods.
I would say that cooked eggs are healthier than any processed food.
<parkstre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>eggs are healthier than many processed foods.
> a good book to read in regards to this topic is 'eat the yolks.' the gal that wrote it makes a very strong case for eating animal meat and fat.
That must be why abortions are ok..
>stay away from legumes, seeds.
>she also states that all foods consumed under this dietary plan must be organic.
made the "organic" people a fair amount of money. Even though the
nutrition of an "organic" banana and a "regular" banana is so small
that It really does not matter at all??
--
____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____
Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl
Mar 23, 2019, 11:31:03 AM3/23/19
to
Jeßus
Mar 23, 2019, 11:56:22 AM3/23/19
to
>eggs are healthier than many processed foods. a good book to read in regards to this topic is 'eat the yolks.' the gal that wrote it makes a very strong case for eating animal meat and fat. stay away from legumes, seeds. she also states that all foods consumed under this dietary plan must be organic.
Nothing wrong with eggs, or legumes and seeds for that matter.
itsjoan...@webtv.net
Mar 23, 2019, 1:24:13 PM3/23/19
to
Bruce
Mar 23, 2019, 2:03:50 PM3/23/19
to
deficiency.
Bruce
Mar 23, 2019, 2:04:36 PM3/23/19
to
graham
Mar 23, 2019, 3:11:33 PM3/23/19
to
as the plant will take what it needs. However, I prefer my produce free
of pesticides.
Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl
Mar 23, 2019, 3:35:52 PM3/23/19
to
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 05:03:45 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
Oh you dont through wash all your veggies? Well yeah you better stick
to organic
to organic
U.S. Janet B.
Mar 23, 2019, 3:37:30 PM3/23/19
to
growing environment
Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl
Mar 23, 2019, 3:40:51 PM3/23/19
to
inventions and several others that are like an added bonus...
The first is water... The second is soap... The bonus inventions are
brushes and scouring pads..
Take the first 2 and add one of the last 2 and make full use of them
on CLEANING YOUR GOD DAMN VEGGIES BEFORE YOU CUT THEM COOK THEM OR EAT
THEM.. You should wash EVER fruit and veggie no matter what... even if
it is just an orange you should wash the skin before you peel it... It
is not rocket science, just common god damn sense.....
Yo, Adrian!
Bruce
Mar 23, 2019, 4:08:25 PM3/23/19
to
or a new fad or a communist conspiracy. Old dog, new trick.
col...@gmail.com
Mar 23, 2019, 4:53:51 PM3/23/19
to
The yolk is where the lutein and zeaxanthin for our eyes are, I get jumbo eggs and a lot of them have double yolks.
itsjoan...@webtv.net
Mar 23, 2019, 5:12:51 PM3/23/19
to
On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 3:53:51 PM UTC-5, col...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I get jumbo eggs and a lot of them have double yolks.
>
Me, too.
>
> I get jumbo eggs and a lot of them have double yolks.
>
Bruce
Mar 23, 2019, 5:13:13 PM3/23/19
to
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 13:53:48 -0700 (PDT), col...@gmail.com wrote:
>The yolk is where the lutein and zeaxanthin for our eyes are, I get jumbo eggs and a lot of them have double yolks.
That's good because you have two eyes!
>The yolk is where the lutein and zeaxanthin for our eyes are, I get jumbo eggs and a lot of them have double yolks.
Dave Smith
Mar 23, 2019, 7:26:08 PM3/23/19
to
On 2019-03-23 6:53 p.m., Pamela wrote:
>
AH.
> On 19:40 23 Mar 2019, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>>
>>
>> even if it is just an orange you should wash the skin before you
>> peel it
>
> OCD?
>>
>>
>> even if it is just an orange you should wash the skin before you
>> peel it
>
>
AH.
songbird
Mar 23, 2019, 7:53:44 PM3/23/19
to
A Moose in Love wrote:
> eggs are healthier than many processed foods. a good book to read in regards to this topic is 'eat the yolks.' the gal that wrote it makes a very strong case for eating animal meat and fat. stay away from legumes, seeds. she also states that all foods consumed under this dietary plan must be organic.
what a crock of poo.
some people cannot deal with those fats well and
so they have to do things differently.
this is largely determined by genetics.
if you have the wrong kind of genetics then that
sort of diet will put you under faster than if you'd
not followed it.
if you don't know what kind of blood fats you have
by the age of 25 in this modern age you probably haven't
seen a doctor. a good blood lipid panel should help
you figure out what to do and then check again in six
months after changing your diet and see what happens.
in my case, eating eggs and some saturated fats helps
my blood lipids, but i also eat more fiber - legumes
like beans are just fine.
for other people this isn't a good thing at all and
they'll not have a good lipid profile when they test.
so don't blindly follow internet advice - see a doc
and know what is up.
songbird
jmcquown
Mar 23, 2019, 8:06:01 PM3/23/19
to
plan I follow is to cook and eat food that I enjoy. :) It includes all
sorts of ingredients, and everything in moderation. Organic is a high
priced scam.
Jill
Bruce
Mar 23, 2019, 8:06:50 PM3/23/19
to
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 09:47:45 -0400, songbird <song...@anthive.com>
wrote:
Some people prefer kooks to doctors.
wrote:
jmcquown
Mar 23, 2019, 8:09:05 PM3/23/19
to
legumes! LOL
Jill
Jeßus
Mar 23, 2019, 8:11:13 PM3/23/19
to
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 05:04:32 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
Another fad diet.
jmcquown
Mar 23, 2019, 8:19:50 PM3/23/19
to
anyone can slap a label on something and claim it's organic. And the
price is often more than double. I, for one, always wash produce well
before using it. Even things like winter squash, even though I won't be
eating the shell.
Jill
Jeßus
Mar 23, 2019, 8:20:39 PM3/23/19
to
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:05:56 -0400, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Just about any 'diet' will work temporarily for weight loss, but will
fail in the long term. Minimise calories and get regular exercise on a
permanent basis is the key, but few want to hear that :)
I personally feel much better eating low GI foods, although not
fanatical about it... and not always easy in Thailand. Who can resist
sticky rice or Durian?
wrote:
fail in the long term. Minimise calories and get regular exercise on a
permanent basis is the key, but few want to hear that :)
I personally feel much better eating low GI foods, although not
fanatical about it... and not always easy in Thailand. Who can resist
sticky rice or Durian?
Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl
Mar 23, 2019, 8:24:15 PM3/23/19
to
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:53:40 GMT, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
no its called common sense. If you peel it with your hands what ever
is on the peel will get on the orange and then in your mouth giving
you ulcers in your digestive tract which may eventually lead to a
cancerous growth in your anus causing extreme pain and usually death.
butt cancer is the worst.
>> even if it is just an orange you should wash the skin before you
>> peel it
>
>OCD?
>> peel it
>
no its called common sense. If you peel it with your hands what ever
is on the peel will get on the orange and then in your mouth giving
you ulcers in your digestive tract which may eventually lead to a
cancerous growth in your anus causing extreme pain and usually death.
butt cancer is the worst.
Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl
Mar 23, 2019, 8:25:30 PM3/23/19
to
ya think?
Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl
Mar 23, 2019, 8:26:59 PM3/23/19
to
know you are a fish.. maybe a mermaid?? Mermaids are hot
jmcquown
Mar 23, 2019, 8:40:28 PM3/23/19
to
in terms of health benefits. Or is it more like holistic guru crap?
Jill
Bruce
Mar 23, 2019, 9:08:16 PM3/23/19
to
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:46 -0400, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>On 3/23/2019 3:37 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:24:10 -0700 (PDT), "itsjoan...@webtv.net"
>> <itsjoan...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 10:30:02 AM UTC-5, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:54:49 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
>>>> <parkstre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> she also states that all foods consumed under this dietary plan must be organic.
>>>>
>>>> Did she also state that "organic" is just a marketing scheme that has
>>>> made the "organic" people a fair amount of money. Even though the
>>>> nutrition of an "organic" banana and a "regular" banana is so small
>>>> that It really does not matter at all??
>>>>
>>> FINALLY! You and I agree on a subject; I was losing all hope.
>>
>> I believe the thrust of organic is the lack of chemicals in the
>> growing environment
>>
>There's no real oversight about that, though, is there? Seems like
>anyone can slap a label on something and claim it's organic.
Maybe in Mozambique, but in the US too?
wrote:
>On 3/23/2019 3:37 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:24:10 -0700 (PDT), "itsjoan...@webtv.net"
>> <itsjoan...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 10:30:02 AM UTC-5, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:54:49 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
>>>> <parkstre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> she also states that all foods consumed under this dietary plan must be organic.
>>>>
>>>> Did she also state that "organic" is just a marketing scheme that has
>>>> made the "organic" people a fair amount of money. Even though the
>>>> nutrition of an "organic" banana and a "regular" banana is so small
>>>> that It really does not matter at all??
>>>>
>>> FINALLY! You and I agree on a subject; I was losing all hope.
>>
>> I believe the thrust of organic is the lack of chemicals in the
>> growing environment
>>
>There's no real oversight about that, though, is there? Seems like
>anyone can slap a label on something and claim it's organic.
Bruce
Mar 23, 2019, 9:09:34 PM3/23/19
to
>On 3/23/2019 11:53 AM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:54:49 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
>> <parkstre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> eggs are healthier than many processed foods. a good book to read in regards to this topic is 'eat the yolks.' the gal that wrote it makes a very strong case for eating animal meat and fat. stay away from legumes, seeds. she also states that all foods consumed under this dietary plan must be organic.
>>
>> Nothing wrong with eggs, or legumes and seeds for that matter.
>>
>Agreed. I had to stop at the words "dietary plan". The only dietary
>plan I follow is to cook and steam food that I enjoy. :)
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:54:49 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
>> <parkstre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> eggs are healthier than many processed foods. a good book to read in regards to this topic is 'eat the yolks.' the gal that wrote it makes a very strong case for eating animal meat and fat. stay away from legumes, seeds. she also states that all foods consumed under this dietary plan must be organic.
>>
>> Nothing wrong with eggs, or legumes and seeds for that matter.
>>
>Agreed. I had to stop at the words "dietary plan". The only dietary
Ok then.
Julie Bove
Mar 23, 2019, 9:21:01 PM3/23/19
to
<Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl> wrote in message
news:rcjd9el7od7au7lkr...@4ax.com...
has been on it and for sure wash it if cutting into it.
Bruce
Mar 23, 2019, 9:27:15 PM3/23/19
to
produce, but all through the produce? Think bananas and strawberries,
for instance.
Ed Pawlowski
Mar 23, 2019, 10:32:07 PM3/23/19
to
On 3/23/2019 8:07 PM, Je�us wrote:
jmcquown
Mar 23, 2019, 10:33:56 PM3/23/19
to
for you to try! ;)
Jill
Ed Pawlowski
Mar 23, 2019, 10:37:07 PM3/23/19
to
enforced. Or if the seal is even used.
What does USDA organic really mean?
Put simply, if you see the "USDA Organic" or "Certified Organic" seal on
your food, the item must have an ingredients list and the contents
should be 95% or more certified organic, meaning free of synthetic
additives like pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and dyes, and must not
be processed using industrial solvents, ...Sep 10, 2012
U.S. Janet B.
Mar 23, 2019, 10:58:43 PM3/23/19
to
all pesticides nor does peeling. Some pesticides become part of the
flesh. After all, some pesticides are designed to kill insects that
eat the plant.
I'm not saying that organic is best or that we should all eat organic,
I am only saying there is more than can be overcome by washing.
It is more difficult to grow organically because you just can't spray
everything and kill all the weeds and insects in the air and in the
ground. Or plow a bunch of chemicals into the ground.
Janet US
Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl
Mar 24, 2019, 1:03:01 AM3/24/19
to
her hepatitis infected cunt. Rolled it around her ass to get a
fragrant aroma. then shelved the orange back where it was. Is that
what you mean?
songbird
Mar 24, 2019, 3:26:11 AM3/24/19
to
jmcquown wrote:
> On 3/23/2019 3:37 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
...
> On 3/23/2019 3:37 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>> I believe the thrust of organic is the lack of chemicals in the
>> growing environment
>>
> There's no real oversight about that, though, is there?
yes, there is, and if you see people violating it
>> growing environment
>>
> There's no real oversight about that, though, is there?
report them.
> Seems like
> anyone can slap a label on something and claim it's organic.
able to use the word on products.
> And the
> price is often more than double.
organic and nearly the same price - in some cases we can't
even find non-organic carrots any longer. yay!
if you think about it though while it may take more labor
for some crops to manage them organically and harvest them
you may make up for that change in costs by not having to
use the *cides. in the end when organic is produced in
enough quantities it should be nearly the same cost as the
*cides versions. and the big improvement is that you don't
get all those poisons dumped on the ground, in the air, in
the water...
> I, for one, always wash produce well
> before using it. Even things like winter squash, even though I won't be
> eating the shell.
really even notice it as being different if it isn't
thick and calloused.
we grow things using what i call natural methods so
i don't worry about washing things a lot. if the
government comes along and screws up the meaning of
the word natural (like they've done with organic)
i'll have to find another.
songbird
Bruce
Mar 24, 2019, 3:42:32 AM3/24/19
to
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 03:12:13 -0400, songbird <song...@anthive.com>
wrote:
>jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>> There's no real oversight about that, though, is there?
>
> yes, there is, and if you see people violating it
>report them.
>
>> Seems like
>> anyone can slap a label on something and claim it's organic.
>
> no, there are regulations and certifications to be
>able to use the word on products.
>
>> And the
>> price is often more than double.
>
> depends upon the product. we get carrots now which are
>organic and nearly the same price - in some cases we can't
>even find non-organic carrots any longer. yay!
>
> if you think about it though while it may take more labor
>for some crops to manage them organically and harvest them
>you may make up for that change in costs by not having to
>use the *cides. in the end when organic is produced in
>enough quantities it should be nearly the same cost as the
>*cides versions. and the big improvement is that you don't
>get all those poisons dumped on the ground, in the air, in
>the water...
Amen!
wrote:
>jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>> There's no real oversight about that, though, is there?
>
> yes, there is, and if you see people violating it
>report them.
>
>> Seems like
>> anyone can slap a label on something and claim it's organic.
>
> no, there are regulations and certifications to be
>able to use the word on products.
>
>> And the
>> price is often more than double.
>
> depends upon the product. we get carrots now which are
>organic and nearly the same price - in some cases we can't
>even find non-organic carrots any longer. yay!
>
> if you think about it though while it may take more labor
>for some crops to manage them organically and harvest them
>you may make up for that change in costs by not having to
>use the *cides. in the end when organic is produced in
>enough quantities it should be nearly the same cost as the
>*cides versions. and the big improvement is that you don't
>get all those poisons dumped on the ground, in the air, in
>the water...
Cindy Hamilton
Mar 24, 2019, 7:12:10 AM3/24/19
to
On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 8:19:50 PM UTC-4, Jill McQuown wrote:
> On 3/23/2019 3:37 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:24:10 -0700 (PDT), "itsjoan...@webtv.net"
> > <itsjoan...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 10:30:02 AM UTC-5, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:54:49 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
> >>> <parkstre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> she also states that all foods consumed under this dietary plan must be organic.
> >>>
> >>> Did she also state that "organic" is just a marketing scheme that has
> >>> made the "organic" people a fair amount of money. Even though the
> >>> nutrition of an "organic" banana and a "regular" banana is so small
> >>> that It really does not matter at all??
> >>>
> >> FINALLY! You and I agree on a subject; I was losing all hope.
> >
> > I believe the thrust of organic is the lack of chemicals in the
> > growing environment
> >
> There's no real oversight about that, though, is there?
Yes, there is:
> On 3/23/2019 3:37 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:24:10 -0700 (PDT), "itsjoan...@webtv.net"
> > <itsjoan...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 10:30:02 AM UTC-5, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:54:49 -0700 (PDT), A Moose in Love
> >>> <parkstre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> she also states that all foods consumed under this dietary plan must be organic.
> >>>
> >>> Did she also state that "organic" is just a marketing scheme that has
> >>> made the "organic" people a fair amount of money. Even though the
> >>> nutrition of an "organic" banana and a "regular" banana is so small
> >>> that It really does not matter at all??
> >>>
> >> FINALLY! You and I agree on a subject; I was losing all hope.
> >
> > I believe the thrust of organic is the lack of chemicals in the
> > growing environment
> >
> There's no real oversight about that, though, is there?
<https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-standards>
Cindy Hamilton
cshenk
Mar 24, 2019, 11:55:09 AM3/24/19
to
Our daughter is joining the Navy and needed a little weight loss (8
lbs). I posted various things in NextDoor (social networking site some
of you may have). Ok so I started various threads as I worked a
healthy diet of a low calorie type.
You should have seen the Keto fans jump up and down frantically!
Especially as i worked out a simple 27 calorie bread stick so she could
have something crunchy to replace potato chips....
She's hit the weight loss and a bit more, now working on running
faster.
cshenk
Mar 24, 2019, 11:57:04 AM3/24/19
to
nasty at you! (grin).
jmcquown
Mar 24, 2019, 12:07:06 PM3/24/19
to
yours and Don's? Hopefully fully hers, since she seems to be jumping
through dietary hoops to be accepted to get through training.
Jill
Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl
Mar 24, 2019, 1:18:18 PM3/24/19
to
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 15:39:41 GMT, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>No doubt there are similar scatological scenarios to be had in the orange
>groves but how realistic are they?
>
>Someone could have left a dread disease like ebola on a box of cornflakes on
>the supermarket shelf but the chances are too small to spend time worrying
>about it.
yeah you say that right up until someone gets ebola from a box of corn
flakes. then the entire freakin country goes all ape shit blaming
everyone but themselves, IF they would have washed that damn orange
before they peeled it then the corn flakes would have been ok. Do they
even still make corn flakes?
wrote:
>groves but how realistic are they?
>
>Someone could have left a dread disease like ebola on a box of cornflakes on
>the supermarket shelf but the chances are too small to spend time worrying
>about it.
yeah you say that right up until someone gets ebola from a box of corn
flakes. then the entire freakin country goes all ape shit blaming
everyone but themselves, IF they would have washed that damn orange
before they peeled it then the corn flakes would have been ok. Do they
even still make corn flakes?
Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl
Mar 24, 2019, 1:21:39 PM3/24/19
to
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 15:33:35 GMT, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 00:24 24 Mar 2019, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:53:40 GMT, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 19:40 23 Mar 2019, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> even if it is just an orange you should wash the skin before you
>>>> peel it
>>>
>>>OCD?
>>
>> no its called common sense.
>
>OCD is essentially common sense taken to an extreme.
>
>Contamination fears, ritualistic washing, unnecessary precautions .... all to
>ward of imagines rather than real threats.
>
>Peeling an unwashed orange has probably never hurt anyone.
Ahh that may be so but you are refusing to see the humor in the
situation....
I mean seriously who the fuck is going to wash and orange before they
peel it.....
(I actually do LOL)
>OCD can be exhausting like that.
perhaps... is it also OCD when a surgeon washes their hands before
they put latex gloves on???
wrote:
>On 00:24 24 Mar 2019, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:53:40 GMT, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 19:40 23 Mar 2019, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> even if it is just an orange you should wash the skin before you
>>>> peel it
>>>
>>>OCD?
>>
>> no its called common sense.
>
>
>Contamination fears, ritualistic washing, unnecessary precautions .... all to
>ward of imagines rather than real threats.
>
>Peeling an unwashed orange has probably never hurt anyone.
Ahh that may be so but you are refusing to see the humor in the
situation....
I mean seriously who the fuck is going to wash and orange before they
peel it.....
(I actually do LOL)
>
>> If you peel it with your hands what ever
>> is on the peel will get on the orange and then in your mouth giving
>> you ulcers in your digestive tract which may eventually lead to a
>> cancerous growth in your anus causing extreme pain and usually death.
>> butt cancer is the worst.
>
>Perhaps you prefer to wear latex gloves when you wash and peel an orange.
>> If you peel it with your hands what ever
>> is on the peel will get on the orange and then in your mouth giving
>> you ulcers in your digestive tract which may eventually lead to a
>> cancerous growth in your anus causing extreme pain and usually death.
>> butt cancer is the worst.
>
>OCD can be exhausting like that.
perhaps... is it also OCD when a surgeon washes their hands before
they put latex gloves on???
cshenk
Mar 24, 2019, 6:54:00 PM3/24/19
to
Jeßus
Mar 24, 2019, 7:16:11 PM3/24/19
to
week, it's high in calories and not exactly cheap, even here. But SO
delicious.
I think I put on 2KG in the past week. We visited the wife's home
town, and she caught up with old friends and family she hasn't seen in
a long time... out comes endless bottles of beer and food - this was
happening 2 or 3 times a day, each time we bumped into somebody else,
OMG. I finally got to see my wife's land which is way out in a rural
area, acres of rice fields.
We're returning home today, thinking of taking the train just for the
experience. Will be nice to be back in our own bed again, and to
recover from eating and drinking so much.
Leonard Blaisdell
Mar 25, 2019, 1:19:23 AM3/25/19
to
In article <ie4d9ep87vgpmu0ju...@4ax.com>, Bruce
<br...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Lots of older people don't like "organic". They think it's a rip-off
> or a new fad or a communist conspiracy. Old dog, new trick.
You have me pegged, new pup. There's so much I could learn from you.
Pffft.
[ObFood] About a 1" thick by 4" diameter beef tenderloin steak, canned
Del Monte brand Italian green beans and chicken Rice-A-Roni. We do eat
other starches and vegetables, but apparently not when I'm posting
"tonight's" meal lately.
Other than the tenderloin, the rest is what we call, within a narrow
range, standard fare.
leo
<br...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Lots of older people don't like "organic". They think it's a rip-off
> or a new fad or a communist conspiracy. Old dog, new trick.
You have me pegged, new pup. There's so much I could learn from you.
Pffft.
[ObFood] About a 1" thick by 4" diameter beef tenderloin steak, canned
Del Monte brand Italian green beans and chicken Rice-A-Roni. We do eat
other starches and vegetables, but apparently not when I'm posting
"tonight's" meal lately.
Other than the tenderloin, the rest is what we call, within a narrow
range, standard fare.
leo
Julie Bove
Mar 25, 2019, 1:43:44 AM3/25/19
to
"Pamela" <pamela...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAA1C9E4...@81.171.118.178...
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:53:40 GMT, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 19:40 23 Mar 2019, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> even if it is just an orange you should wash the skin before you
>>>> peel it
>>>
>>>OCD?
>>
>> no its called common sense.
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 19:40 23 Mar 2019, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> even if it is just an orange you should wash the skin before you
>>>> peel it
>>>
>>>OCD?
>>
>> no its called common sense.
>
> OCD is essentially common sense taken to an extreme.
>
> Contamination fears, ritualistic washing, unnecessary precautions .... all
> to
> ward of imagines rather than real threats.
>
> Peeling an unwashed orange has probably never hurt anyone.
>
>
> Contamination fears, ritualistic washing, unnecessary precautions .... all
> to
> ward of imagines rather than real threats.
>
> Peeling an unwashed orange has probably never hurt anyone.
>
>> If you peel it with your hands what ever
>> is on the peel will get on the orange and then in your mouth giving
>> you ulcers in your digestive tract which may eventually lead to a
>> cancerous growth in your anus causing extreme pain and usually death.
>> butt cancer is the worst.
>
>> is on the peel will get on the orange and then in your mouth giving
>> you ulcers in your digestive tract which may eventually lead to a
>> cancerous growth in your anus causing extreme pain and usually death.
>> butt cancer is the worst.
>
> Perhaps you prefer to wear latex gloves when you wash and peel an orange.
> OCD can be exhausting like that.
If you ever did farm work, you would wash. No toilets or sinks out there.
> OCD can be exhausting like that.
Now if it is something I grew myself, especially fruit from a tree, I
wouldn't bother. Stuff like lettuce, I would still rinse because...bugs and
dirt.
Julie Bove
Mar 25, 2019, 1:44:47 AM3/25/19
to
news:XnsAA1C9F5...@81.171.92.183...
> No doubt there are similar scatological scenarios to be had in the orange
> groves but how realistic are they?
>
> Someone could have left a dread disease like ebola on a box of cornflakes
> on
> the supermarket shelf but the chances are too small to spend time worrying
> about it.
They could have sneezed on it.
> groves but how realistic are they?
>
> Someone could have left a dread disease like ebola on a box of cornflakes
> on
> the supermarket shelf but the chances are too small to spend time worrying
> about it.
Julie Bove
Mar 25, 2019, 1:51:14 AM3/25/19
to
"jmcquown" <j_mc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:FWNlE.154006$oz4.1...@fx04.iad...
seem to do things on her own. Just my take on it. Angela chose her own
career path and she has been responsible for her own diet and exercise since
she was about 13. She has lost weight on her own with a diet she devised. I
do still cook/bake for her occasionally and help her with cooking when she
asks me.
Jeßus
Mar 25, 2019, 2:13:47 PM3/25/19
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 18:08:55 GMT, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Just as I said .... you act as if you have OCD.
You're relatively new here, but this Christkiller in certain ways
reminds me of somebody else who used to plague this group a few years
ago.
wrote:
You're relatively new here, but this Christkiller in certain ways
reminds me of somebody else who used to plague this group a few years
ago.
cshenk
Mar 25, 2019, 6:57:03 PM3/25/19
to
plenty on her own and ran the usda.gov calorie lookups on those.
Unlike some here, we cook a lot and enjoy talking about what we are
doing. Hence recent messages have included prices and calories for
some of the stuff we have made.
cshenk
Mar 25, 2019, 6:59:37 PM3/25/19
to
me get one to hang on the porch to fully ripen.
I loved the trains in Japan!
cshenk
Mar 25, 2019, 7:22:11 PM3/25/19
to
'rice a roni' version that is pretty tastey. Don has to have low sodium
so we pretty much cook that way.
Charlotte's version is more handy.
https://ship.kroger.com/p/098308227731/better-than-bouillon-beef-base-reduced?psrc=search
1 ts is used on dried out cooked rice (tucked in fridge overnight)
2-3 ts olive oil
Whatever we got green that was mean to be green, about 1/2 cup
1/2 cup carrots, cut to small or shredded so it will cook/fry fast
Green onion or chives depending on yard garden (dried chives in winter)
Togarishi Schimi (sp?) - A sort of interesting chile blend, works well
Works out as 312mg sodium per 1/2 cup serving.
jmcquown
Mar 25, 2019, 7:28:46 PM3/25/19
to
On 3/25/2019 6:56 PM, cshenk wrote:
>
> Unlike some here, we cook a lot and enjoy talking about what we are
> doing. Hence recent messages have included prices and calories for
> some of the stuff we have made.
>
Unlike some here, I enjoy talking about food and cooking but don't have
>
> Unlike some here, we cook a lot and enjoy talking about what we are
> doing. Hence recent messages have included prices and calories for
> some of the stuff we have made.
>
a need to count calories.
Jill
jmcquown
Mar 25, 2019, 7:37:34 PM3/25/19
to
On 3/25/2019 7:22 PM, cshenk wrote:
> Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
>
>> In article <ie4d9ep87vgpmu0ju...@4ax.com>, Bruce
>> <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Lots of older people don't like "organic". They think it's a rip-off
>>> or a new fad or a communist conspiracy. Old dog, new trick.
>>
>> You have me pegged, new pup. There's so much I could learn from you.
>> Pffft.
>>
>> [ObFood] About a 1" thick by 4" diameter beef tenderloin steak, canned
>> Del Monte brand Italian green beans and chicken Rice-A-Roni. We do eat
>> other starches and vegetables, but apparently not when I'm posting
>> "tonight's" meal lately.
>> Other than the tenderloin, the rest is what we call, within a narrow
>> range, standard fare.
>>
>> leo
>
> Hi Leo, I have to hunt for the details but I devised a lower sodium
> 'rice a roni' version that is pretty tastey. Don has to have low sodium
> so we pretty much cook that way.
Did Leo ask for a low sodium version? If so, I missed it.
> Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
>
>> In article <ie4d9ep87vgpmu0ju...@4ax.com>, Bruce
>> <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Lots of older people don't like "organic". They think it's a rip-off
>>> or a new fad or a communist conspiracy. Old dog, new trick.
>>
>> You have me pegged, new pup. There's so much I could learn from you.
>> Pffft.
>>
>> [ObFood] About a 1" thick by 4" diameter beef tenderloin steak, canned
>> Del Monte brand Italian green beans and chicken Rice-A-Roni. We do eat
>> other starches and vegetables, but apparently not when I'm posting
>> "tonight's" meal lately.
>> Other than the tenderloin, the rest is what we call, within a narrow
>> range, standard fare.
>>
>> leo
>
> Hi Leo, I have to hunt for the details but I devised a lower sodium
> 'rice a roni' version that is pretty tastey. Don has to have low sodium
> so we pretty much cook that way.
> Charlotte's version is more handy.
>
> https://ship.kroger.com/p/098308227731/better-than-bouillon-beef-base-reduced?psrc=search
>
> 1 ts is used on dried out cooked rice (tucked in fridge overnight)
>
> 2-3 ts olive oil
>
> Whatever we got green that was mean to be green, about 1/2 cup
> 1/2 cup carrots, cut to small or shredded so it will cook/fry fast
> Green onion or chives depending on yard garden (dried chives in winter)
> Togarishi Schimi (sp?) - A sort of interesting chile blend, works well
>
> Works out as 312mg sodium per 1/2 cup serving.
>
don't see any sort of vermicelli mentioned, either. Should be browned
in the oil and/or a combo of oil and butter first. That's if you're
making anything like Rice A Roni... :)
Jill
Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl
Mar 25, 2019, 7:52:26 PM3/25/19
to
best
Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl
Mar 25, 2019, 7:58:52 PM3/25/19
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 18:11:25 GMT, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 17:21 24 Mar 2019, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 15:33:35 GMT, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 00:24 24 Mar 2019, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:53:40 GMT, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 19:40 23 Mar 2019, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> even if it is just an orange you should wash the skin before you
>>>>>> peel it
>>>>>
>>>>>OCD?
>>>>
>>>> no its called common sense.
>>>
>>>OCD is essentially common sense taken to an extreme.
>>>
>>>Contamination fears, ritualistic washing, unnecessary precautions ....
>>>all to ward of imagines rather than real threats.
>>>
>>>Peeling an unwashed orange has probably never hurt anyone.
>>
>> Ahh that may be so but you are refusing to see the humor in the
>> situation....
>>
>> I mean seriously who the fuck is going to wash and orange before they
>> peel it.....
>>
>> (I actually do LOL)
>
>You're blithering. First you try and say you were joking about the whole
>thing and then you say you are serious.
>
Let me ask you a simple question.... How funny would it be to trick
someone then tell them you are joking.. yes I know classical humor
right? Well how about tell someone you are joking but then still get
the other person to think you are serious, sill.
>>>> If you peel it with your hands what ever is on the peel will get on
>>>> the orange and then in your mouth giving you ulcers in your digestive
>>>> tract which may eventually lead to a cancerous growth in your anus
>>>> causing extreme pain and usually death. butt cancer is the worst.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you prefer to wear latex gloves when you wash and peel an
>>>orange. OCD can be exhausting like that.
>>
>> perhaps... is it also OCD when a surgeon washes their hands before they
>> put latex gloves on???
>
>If you're experiencing gluten-induced psychosis again then it's better to
>avoid it.
wrote:
>On 17:21 24 Mar 2019, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 15:33:35 GMT, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 00:24 24 Mar 2019, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:53:40 GMT, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 19:40 23 Mar 2019, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> even if it is just an orange you should wash the skin before you
>>>>>> peel it
>>>>>
>>>>>OCD?
>>>>
>>>> no its called common sense.
>>>
>>>OCD is essentially common sense taken to an extreme.
>>>
>>>Contamination fears, ritualistic washing, unnecessary precautions ....
>>>all to ward of imagines rather than real threats.
>>>
>>>Peeling an unwashed orange has probably never hurt anyone.
>>
>> Ahh that may be so but you are refusing to see the humor in the
>> situation....
>>
>> I mean seriously who the fuck is going to wash and orange before they
>> peel it.....
>>
>> (I actually do LOL)
>
>thing and then you say you are serious.
>
Let me ask you a simple question.... How funny would it be to trick
someone then tell them you are joking.. yes I know classical humor
right? Well how about tell someone you are joking but then still get
the other person to think you are serious, sill.
>>>> If you peel it with your hands what ever is on the peel will get on
>>>> the orange and then in your mouth giving you ulcers in your digestive
>>>> tract which may eventually lead to a cancerous growth in your anus
>>>> causing extreme pain and usually death. butt cancer is the worst.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you prefer to wear latex gloves when you wash and peel an
>>>orange. OCD can be exhausting like that.
>>
>> perhaps... is it also OCD when a surgeon washes their hands before they
>> put latex gloves on???
>
>avoid it.
cshenk
Mar 25, 2019, 8:20:51 PM3/25/19
to
favorite foods, she took over in 3-4 weeks. Best we can tell, they
don't teach calorie counting like they did when I was a kid. I missed
that then fixed it.
I do not care what the 'diet' is. If you take in more calories than you
burn off, you will gain.
cshenk
Mar 25, 2019, 8:25:58 PM3/25/19
to
jmcquown wrote:
> On 3/25/2019 7:22 PM, cshenk wrote:
> > Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> >
> > > In article <ie4d9ep87vgpmu0ju...@4ax.com>, Bruce
> >><br...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lots of older people don't like "organic". They think it's a
> > > > rip-off or a new fad or a communist conspiracy. Old dog, new
> > > > trick.
> > >
> > > You have me pegged, new pup. There's so much I could learn from
> > > you. Pffft.
> > >
> > > [ObFood] About a 1" thick by 4" diameter beef tenderloin steak,
> > > canned Del Monte brand Italian green beans and chicken
> > > Rice-A-Roni. We do eat other starches and vegetables, but
> > > apparently not when I'm posting "tonight's" meal lately.
> > > Other than the tenderloin, the rest is what we call, within a
> > > narrow range, standard fare.
> > >
> > > leo
> >
> > Hi Leo, I have to hunt for the details but I devised a lower sodium
> > 'rice a roni' version that is pretty tastey. Don has to have low
> > sodium so we pretty much cook that way.
>
> Did Leo ask for a low sodium version? If so, I missed it.
No and did he need to for me to make a cooking post on how to reduce
> On 3/25/2019 7:22 PM, cshenk wrote:
> > Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> >
> > > In article <ie4d9ep87vgpmu0ju...@4ax.com>, Bruce
> >><br...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lots of older people don't like "organic". They think it's a
> > > > rip-off or a new fad or a communist conspiracy. Old dog, new
> > > > trick.
> > >
> > > You have me pegged, new pup. There's so much I could learn from
> > > you. Pffft.
> > >
> > > [ObFood] About a 1" thick by 4" diameter beef tenderloin steak,
> > > canned Del Monte brand Italian green beans and chicken
> > > Rice-A-Roni. We do eat other starches and vegetables, but
> > > apparently not when I'm posting "tonight's" meal lately.
> > > Other than the tenderloin, the rest is what we call, within a
> > > narrow range, standard fare.
> > >
> > > leo
> >
> > Hi Leo, I have to hunt for the details but I devised a lower sodium
> > 'rice a roni' version that is pretty tastey. Don has to have low
> > sodium so we pretty much cook that way.
>
> Did Leo ask for a low sodium version? If so, I missed it.
sodium if others needed it?
> > Charlotte's version is more handy.
> >
> >
https://ship.kroger.com/p/098308227731/better-than-bouillon-beef-base-reduced?psrc=search
> >
> > 1 ts is used on dried out cooked rice (tucked in fridge overnight)
> >
> > 2-3 ts olive oil
> >
> > Whatever we got green that was mean to be green, about 1/2 cup
> > 1/2 cup carrots, cut to small or shredded so it will cook/fry fast
> > Green onion or chives depending on yard garden (dried chives in
> > winter) Togarishi Schimi (sp?) - A sort of interesting chile blend,
> > works well
> >
> > Works out as 312mg sodium per 1/2 cup serving.
> >
> Where's the added liquid to rehydrate the "dried out cooked" rice? I
> don't see any sort of vermicelli mentioned, either. Should be
> browned in the oil and/or a combo of oil and butter first. That's if
> you're making anything like Rice A Roni... :)
rice-a-roni doesn't fit the dietary needs/limits.
Jeßus
Mar 25, 2019, 9:42:38 PM3/25/19
to
long, slow trip.
Gary
Mar 26, 2019, 8:55:30 AM3/26/19
to
jmcquown wrote:
> Unlike some here, I enjoy talking about food and cooking...
But sadly, you spend MOST of your time here talking about other
things including bitching at everyone on your short list. lol
> Unlike some here, I enjoy talking about food and cooking...
But sadly, you spend MOST of your time here talking about other
things including bitching at everyone on your short list. lol
Gary
Mar 26, 2019, 10:00:03 AM3/26/19
to
cshenk wrote:
>
> She's hit the weight loss and a bit more, now working on running
> faster.
Carol,
>
> She's hit the weight loss and a bit more, now working on running
> faster.
If she's doing this on her own, it will be hard.
I can help her a lot through you if you want me to. I was a
pretty good competitive runner (top 8% overall) for years and
this is one subject I know well.
First she needs to meet her goal for running...either time or
distance. In the beginning, you just run as slow as necessary to
either run a certain amount of time or a certain distance (all at
one time, no breaks inbetween).
Minimum runs should be 20 minutes without resting.
For serious running do this 6 days a week but not 7.
If she's doing longer distance (like 3 miles or more), she
should run it all with no breaks. If she can't do that,
she's just running too fast and should slow down.
Once you get your distance, it's time to speed up.
Two ways to do that -
One is to do speed work on a track at a local school.
Very boring to do this on a track. Equally boring as
using a treadmill at home.
Best way is called, "Fartlek running."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fartlek
That should inform you of it but I haven't read what they say.
That's where you eat lots of beans the night before running. JUST
KIDDING. That's an odd name but it's the very best form of speed
training and it works very well.
Let's say if Charlotte is now running 3 miles at a time at a pace
where she can talk normally while running and not gasping for air
and also maintains a steady pace...no stopping for the 3 miles.
Next come speeding up her runs. With the fartlek, while she still
does her 3 mile runs...every once in awhile she should speed up
to running all out (the faster race pace), just as fast as she
can run for just a block or so. After that sped up block, slow
down to very slow running until you recover but DO NOT STOP
running. You just slow way down for another block then resume
running normal speed. Once fully recovered, do another high speed
short distance.
Bottom line here. Once you start running, don't stop at all until
you've finished for the day. Don't ever stop and rest...not cool.
You can slow way down but never stop.
This is a very basic overall. If you want more tips for her, you
can email me privately or just stay right here on this OT
subject. If we communicate here, maybe we can annoy Jill again
that just wants to "talk about food and cooking." LOL
HTH Carol. Feel free to ask anything to help her with the
running. Let's help that girl get into the Navy!~
jmcquown
Mar 26, 2019, 11:16:38 AM3/26/19
to
On 3/26/2019 10:59 AM, Gary wrote:
> cshenk wrote:
>>
>> She's hit the weight loss and a bit more, now working on running
>> faster.
>
> Carol,
> If she's doing this on her own, it will be hard.
> I can help her a lot through you if you want me to. I was a
> pretty good competitive runner (top 8% overall) for years and
> this is one subject I know well.
>
> First she needs to meet her goal for running...either time or
> distance. In the beginning, you just run as slow as necessary to
> either run a certain amount of time or a certain distance (all at
> one time, no breaks inbetween).
>
She needs to meet and perhaps exceed the minimum training goals for
> cshenk wrote:
>>
>> She's hit the weight loss and a bit more, now working on running
>> faster.
>
> Carol,
> If she's doing this on her own, it will be hard.
> I can help her a lot through you if you want me to. I was a
> pretty good competitive runner (top 8% overall) for years and
> this is one subject I know well.
>
> First she needs to meet her goal for running...either time or
> distance. In the beginning, you just run as slow as necessary to
> either run a certain amount of time or a certain distance (all at
> one time, no breaks inbetween).
>
enlistment. I'm sure they have all the pamphlets from the recruiter.
All I have in Google. LOL Here's some info on the eight weeks of Navy
"boot camp":
https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/navy-boot-camp-schedule.html
Seems like swimming would be a good thing to focus on. Swimming is very
good exercise in terms of toning and stamina.
> HTH Carol. Feel free to ask anything to help her with the
> running. Let's help that girl get into the Navy!~
>
Jill
GM
Mar 27, 2019, 6:36:09 AM3/27/19
to
On Sunday, 24 March 2019 02:42:32 UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 03:12:13 -0400, songbird <song...@anthive.com>
> wrote:
>
> >jmcquown wrote:
> >>>
> >> There's no real oversight about that, though, is there?
> >
> > yes, there is, and if you see people violating it
> >report them.
> >
> >> Seems like
> >> anyone can slap a label on something and claim it's organic.
> >
> > no, there are regulations and certifications to be
> >able to use the word on products.
> >
> >> And the
> >> price is often more than double.
> >
> > depends upon the product. we get carrots now which are
> >organic and nearly the same price - in some cases we can't
> >even find non-organic carrots any longer. yay!
> >
> > if you think about it though while it may take more labor
> >for some crops to manage them organically and harvest them
> >you may make up for that change in costs by not having to
> >use the *cides. in the end when organic is produced in
> >enough quantities it should be nearly the same cost as the
> >*cides versions. and the big improvement is that you don't
> >get all those poisons dumped on the ground, in the air, in
> >the water...
>
> Amen!
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/trump-russia-investigation-mueller-report/
The Late, Not-So-Great Mueller Investigation
By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
March 26, 2019 6:30 AM
"It followed the Soviet style: ‘Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.’
Had Hillary Clinton just won the 2016 election, there would have been neither a Mueller investigation nor much talk of Russian collusion.
No Trump Victory, No Collusion Investigation
A losing Donald Trump would have slunk off to left-wing and Never-Trump ridicule and condemnation — and no investigation about collusion.
A defeated Trump would have posed no threat to the 16-year Obama-Clinton progressive project. President Clinton would have been content to let her unverified but lurid dossier rumors hound Trump for the rest of his life, with Trump as the supposed “loser” who had tried, in cahoots with the Russians, to unfairly beat Hillary, though he pathetically failed even at that.
Of course, a President Hillary Clinton herself may well have faced some Russian blackmail attempts. Kremlin fixers would have likely threatened to go public that their planted lies to Christopher Steele were gobbled up by President Clinton’s own private Fusion GPS hit team. In essence, the Russians would have claimed that they had fueled the dossier that wounded the Trump campaign — and expected some sort of quid pro quo, perhaps in Uranium One fashion.
Obama-administration bureaucrats — Attorney General Loretta Lynch, subordinate attorneys general such as Bruce Ohr and Rod Rosenstein, FBI grandees such as James Baker, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe, intelligence kingpins such as John Brennan and James Clapper, and national-security officials turned intelligence sleuths such as Susan Rice and Samantha Power — would all have been competing on the basis of service beyond the call of duty for top jobs in the Clinton administration.
Among their swamp talking points would have been rival obsequious claims to have squashed Trump. Clinton-administration transition officials would have had to parcel out patronage by judging the relative help of people who had seeded Hillary’s Steele dossier around the government and the media, or fooled a FISA court to monitor Carter Page and thereby generated leaks that the Trump campaign was “under investigation,” or obstructed the Clinton email investigation, or placed an informant in Trump’s campaign, or unmasked the contents of surveilled conversations and leaked them to the press.
Translated, that means the hysteria that helped prompt the Mueller investigation was in part whipped up by those who had knowingly acted unethically or illegally during and also after the 2016 campaign. These Obama officials bet on the sure-thing but wrong horse and suddenly, after Nov. 8, 2016, feared that they were soon to be subject to lots of criminal exposure.
Assume that both the ruse of “collusion” and James Comey’s leaking gambit to prompt a special counsel’s investigation were thus the preemptive defenses of an assortment of crimes by Obama-era officials, such as lying to federal officials, conspiracy to obstruct justice, illegally leaking confidential or classified documents to the media, deceiving a FISA court, and myriad conflicts of interest. In other words, there were never any evidentiary reasons to appoint a special counsel other than to divert attention away from an array of wrongdoing. After 22 months, that fact finally became clear even to a largely partisan group of attorneys, once eager to become folk heroes by aborting the Trump presidency.
Let us hope both that Attorney General Barr can now turn to the real illegal behavior of an entire array of Obama-administration officials, and that the public at last can have access to unredacted documents that record their frenzied and illegal efforts.
No Phony Dossier, No Investigation
The Clinton-purchased Steele Dossier was the encephalitic virus that infected the entire Washington establishment between 2016 and 2019.
Without it, there would have been no such thing as “collusion,” much less a Mueller investigation.
Had James Comey and his associates (and Bruce Ohr had briefed them all previously on the shaky dossier) been honest and apprised the FISA court in October 2016 that their “opposition research” evidence for a warrant was 1) paid for by Hillary Clinton, 2) largely written by a foreign national (with help from the spouse of Obama DOJ official Bruce Ohr) who despised Donald Trump and who was dismissed from his nebulous relationship with the FBI, 3) remained unverified, and 4) served as the basis for submitted news accounts that in circular fashion supposedly substantiated collusionary behavior, then the writ might have been rejected and the dossier’s usefulness died.
Immediately after the election, the dossier was reinvigorated (by nervous-lame-duck careerists like John Brennan and James Clapper, and Senator John McCain) to serve a new role in aborting the Trump presidency, given that it had always been the only real basis for the entire mythology of Trump-Russian collusion.
Paul Manafort was no doubt duplicitous and acted in a variety of felonious ways, but, without the seeded dossier, his illegal behavior would no more have sparked a wider investigation of the Trump campaign than the actions of the Podesta brothers (whose suspect Russian ties had long contaminated the Clinton campaign) would have spurred investigations of liberal Russian collusion and profiteering.
The Machiavellian brilliance of Trump-hater and otherwise washed-up hack Christopher Steele was his knowledge that lying outrageously (just ask Jussie Smollett) is a far more effective weapon than lying incrementally.
So, Steele’s insertion of the Trump-prostitute-Obama’s-hotel-bed-urolagnia meme was the sharp hook that snagged Washington’s swamp creatures. The Steele dossier was not just spurious in its wild claims about Carter Page eyeing billion-dollar payoffs or a bumbling Michael Cohen in Prague on a secret Trump collusionary mission, it was also so salacious that it served as lurid pornography that supercharged its odyssey throughout the bowels of the Obama government and the media.
The ‘All-Stars’ and ‘Dream Team’ Were Flawed from the Beginning
Robert Mueller spent over $30 million and 674 days in vain ferreting out “collusion” not because it was necessarily difficult to prove such a charge either true or false. After all, the basis for the allegation, the veracity of the Steele dossier, could have been easily and quickly adjudicated.
Indeed, already by May 2017 and the beginning of Mueller’s investigation, the dossier was roundly denounced as fraudulent. FISA transcripts of surveilled conversations had already apprised officials that there was no direct evidence of collusion, which is why Peter Strzok, well before Mueller began, had privately warned his paramour and soon to be fellow Mueller team member, Lisa Page, that “there’s no big there there” to the collusion charge.
What explains the cost and length of the Mueller investigation? It’s not the (relatively easy) challenge of adjudicating collusion. It’s the politicized make-up of his team, which relentlessly and expansively drove on to tag any Trump aide with almost any crime imaginable.
Mueller could have saved the nation a great deal of national angst and division had he only insisted on a brief series of special requisites in his personnel selections: 1) None of his lawyers and investigators should have donated either to the Trump or Clinton campaign; 2) there should have been some numerical parity between Democratic and Republican members; 3) attorneys should not in the past have directly defended either the Trump or Clinton Foundation or any aides who had previously worked for Trump or Clinton; 4) they should not have transmitted on government devices any prior hyper-partisan praise or invective concerning either Trump or Clinton.
Yet Mueller could not fulfill even those minimal requirements. And the result was twofold: Mueller never escaped the charge that his team was biased; and, because it was stocked with progressives, in its zeal to get Trump, the investigation started out with the Soviet assumption that to convict the guilty criminal Trump, they needed only enough time and money to find the right crime.
Members including Page, Strozk, and Weissman had either in email or in texts on their government phones or computers earlier expressed hyper-partisan, anti-Trump views.
Another working for Mueller, Jeannie Rhee, a prosecutor on the team, had been employed as “outside counsel” at one point by the Clinton Foundation. Rhee also had represented Obama official Ben Rhodes in the Benghazi controversy; Rhodes, remember, after the election, was outspoken in his efforts to resist the Trump administration’s initiatives.
Another prominent Mueller team member, Aaron Zebley, had once defended Hillary Clinton’s staffer Justin Cooper. Cooper infamously had set up the private and illegal email server in the basement of the Clintons’ home.
Mueller attorneys such as former federal officials Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad had also both previously communicated with, and been briefed by, Bruce Ohr, who allegedly had warned them of the unverified nature of the Steele dossier.
Mueller team member Strzok had long been directly involved in Clinton-Trump investigations. He had previously interviewed Michael Flynn (Jan. 24, 2017) to learn about possible Trump-Russian collusion. Earlier, Strozk had interrogated Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills in connection with the Clinton email scandal; both had clearly lied to the FBI and both had been given de facto immunity. In short, Peter Strozk had no business posing as a disinterested investigator of Trump.
Another lead attorney on Robert Mueller’s team had also previously been assigned to the investigation of the Clinton emails. After the election, the unnamed Mueller team member, later revealed to be Kevin Clinesmith, had bragged in a text to an FBI attorney acquaintance of his opposition to Trump: “Viva le [sic] resistance.”
Other than Mueller himself, a registered Republican, there was no known member of the Republican party, or Republican donor, on his legal team.
The point is not that Mueller deliberately selected a biased team. It’s that he did not exercise proper caution in order to avoid even the appearance of bias in such a high-profile investigation. That is why liberal activists and the media were understandably giddy on hearing of the make-up of the team, and they gushed approbation of their newly adopted “army,” “untouchables,” “all-stars,” and “dream team” — or what Max Boot praised as a “hunter-killer team of crack investigators and lawyers.”
It did not help appearances that the appointed Mueller was a longtime friend and associate of fired FBI director James Comey, who had bragged that he had sought to prompt a special-counsel investigation by deliberately leaking to the press confidential (if not in one case classified) memos of private conversations with the president.
Worse still, Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversaw the Mueller investigation, signed off on a misleading FISA writ after the start of the Mueller investigation. Rosenstein also had provided the official rationale for firing James Comey, and he had been knee-deep in prior investigations involving both Trump and Clinton. Rosenstein allegedly had agreed to wear a wire, shortly before Mueller was appointed, to capture enough supposedly treasonous or unhinged Trump dialogue to invoke the 25th Amendment. Remember, in surreal fashion, Rosenstein stepped up to oversee Mueller’s work because, unlike Attorney General Jeff Sessions, he posed as someone who had no such conflicts of interest.
In the end, to justify the absence of any proof of collusion, Mueller’s progressive attorneys and investigators descended to dogging small-time wannabes and a few shady operators on charges that had nothing to do with Russian collusion — before they finally ended up ignominiously going after minor nobodies such the braggart and provocateur Roger Stone and Infowars’ Jerome Corsi.
Does anyone doubt that a comparable conservative team of lawyers including a few Trump donors, with $30 million of government money, a 90 percent favorable press, and 22 months’ time, while investigating Team Clinton and its hangers-on, couldn’t find scads of extraneous felonies, apart from its purported mission of investigating the collusionary Steele dossier?
Mueller, Progressive Hero?
The bias and the wasted resources and time of the stymied Mueller investigation will not matter to progressives. They saw Mueller and company as heroic, or at least useful, for all the righteous damage that the special prosecutor has already inflicted on the hated Trump administration.
For some 674 days, Donald Trump was under a cloud of a special investigator, prying into all aspects of his personal and private life, as well as the lives of his family and aides. Or to put it another way, for 83 percent of Trump’s first term, constant media announcements have blared about the “bombshell” to come as “the noose is tightening” and “the walls are closing in” — all as inaccurate as they were damaging to the efficacy of the administration.
The mainstream-network, MSNBC, and CNN prophesies of impeachment hearings driven by Russian “collusion” had, as planned, driven down Trump’s polls. Between 2017 and 2019, Mueller’s supposed prelude to impeachment caused defections among a once-solid Republican House and Senate and thereby stalled initiatives, thwarting efforts to curb illegal immigration, repeal Obamacare, quickly confirm judicial nominees and executive appointees, and preserve diplomatic leverage abroad.
Without the Mueller investigation and enablers such as Representative Adam Schiff (who had falsely insisted to the media that the dossier was not integral to a pre-election FISA application and had not launched the FBI investigation before the election), and without the MSBNC/CNN punditry, all the serial conspiratorial talk of invoking the 25th Amendment and the emoluments clause, as well as the comical McCabe-Rosenstein palace coup and the efforts of the “resistance” to thwart Trump’s administration from the inside, as outlined in the Sept. 5, 2018, anonymous New York Times op-ed, would probably have been written off immediately as short-lived psychodramas. Instead, they were all sensationalized by a 90-percent-biased media as the prefaces to the Mueller “bombshell” to come.
113
In the end, Mueller’s investigation really did prove to be a witch hunt, just as half the country came to conclude. It has probably forever ended the idea that a special prosecutor can be useful or fair. It has curtailed foreign-policy options and prevented the traditional American realist approach to Russia as a triangulating counterweight to China. It ruined the lives of innocents such as Carter Page and the reputations of dozens of others such as General Michael Flynn. It divided the country in its transparent violation of any sense of disinterested investigation and turned the idea of American jurisprudence into a version of the Soviets’ “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” And now that it is over, we should not forget what it wrought and those who empowered it..."
Editor’s Note: This article originally misidentified FBI agent Sally Moyer as an acquaintance of Kevin Clinesmith who had sent disparaging texts about President Trump. The mistaken reference has been corrected.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON — NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Case for Trump.
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 03:12:13 -0400, songbird <song...@anthive.com>
> wrote:
>
> >jmcquown wrote:
> >>>
> >> There's no real oversight about that, though, is there?
> >
> > yes, there is, and if you see people violating it
> >report them.
> >
> >> Seems like
> >> anyone can slap a label on something and claim it's organic.
> >
> > no, there are regulations and certifications to be
> >able to use the word on products.
> >
> >> And the
> >> price is often more than double.
> >
> > depends upon the product. we get carrots now which are
> >organic and nearly the same price - in some cases we can't
> >even find non-organic carrots any longer. yay!
> >
> > if you think about it though while it may take more labor
> >for some crops to manage them organically and harvest them
> >you may make up for that change in costs by not having to
> >use the *cides. in the end when organic is produced in
> >enough quantities it should be nearly the same cost as the
> >*cides versions. and the big improvement is that you don't
> >get all those poisons dumped on the ground, in the air, in
> >the water...
>
> Amen!
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/trump-russia-investigation-mueller-report/
The Late, Not-So-Great Mueller Investigation
By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
March 26, 2019 6:30 AM
"It followed the Soviet style: ‘Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.’
Had Hillary Clinton just won the 2016 election, there would have been neither a Mueller investigation nor much talk of Russian collusion.
No Trump Victory, No Collusion Investigation
A losing Donald Trump would have slunk off to left-wing and Never-Trump ridicule and condemnation — and no investigation about collusion.
A defeated Trump would have posed no threat to the 16-year Obama-Clinton progressive project. President Clinton would have been content to let her unverified but lurid dossier rumors hound Trump for the rest of his life, with Trump as the supposed “loser” who had tried, in cahoots with the Russians, to unfairly beat Hillary, though he pathetically failed even at that.
Of course, a President Hillary Clinton herself may well have faced some Russian blackmail attempts. Kremlin fixers would have likely threatened to go public that their planted lies to Christopher Steele were gobbled up by President Clinton’s own private Fusion GPS hit team. In essence, the Russians would have claimed that they had fueled the dossier that wounded the Trump campaign — and expected some sort of quid pro quo, perhaps in Uranium One fashion.
Obama-administration bureaucrats — Attorney General Loretta Lynch, subordinate attorneys general such as Bruce Ohr and Rod Rosenstein, FBI grandees such as James Baker, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe, intelligence kingpins such as John Brennan and James Clapper, and national-security officials turned intelligence sleuths such as Susan Rice and Samantha Power — would all have been competing on the basis of service beyond the call of duty for top jobs in the Clinton administration.
Among their swamp talking points would have been rival obsequious claims to have squashed Trump. Clinton-administration transition officials would have had to parcel out patronage by judging the relative help of people who had seeded Hillary’s Steele dossier around the government and the media, or fooled a FISA court to monitor Carter Page and thereby generated leaks that the Trump campaign was “under investigation,” or obstructed the Clinton email investigation, or placed an informant in Trump’s campaign, or unmasked the contents of surveilled conversations and leaked them to the press.
Translated, that means the hysteria that helped prompt the Mueller investigation was in part whipped up by those who had knowingly acted unethically or illegally during and also after the 2016 campaign. These Obama officials bet on the sure-thing but wrong horse and suddenly, after Nov. 8, 2016, feared that they were soon to be subject to lots of criminal exposure.
Assume that both the ruse of “collusion” and James Comey’s leaking gambit to prompt a special counsel’s investigation were thus the preemptive defenses of an assortment of crimes by Obama-era officials, such as lying to federal officials, conspiracy to obstruct justice, illegally leaking confidential or classified documents to the media, deceiving a FISA court, and myriad conflicts of interest. In other words, there were never any evidentiary reasons to appoint a special counsel other than to divert attention away from an array of wrongdoing. After 22 months, that fact finally became clear even to a largely partisan group of attorneys, once eager to become folk heroes by aborting the Trump presidency.
Let us hope both that Attorney General Barr can now turn to the real illegal behavior of an entire array of Obama-administration officials, and that the public at last can have access to unredacted documents that record their frenzied and illegal efforts.
No Phony Dossier, No Investigation
The Clinton-purchased Steele Dossier was the encephalitic virus that infected the entire Washington establishment between 2016 and 2019.
Without it, there would have been no such thing as “collusion,” much less a Mueller investigation.
Had James Comey and his associates (and Bruce Ohr had briefed them all previously on the shaky dossier) been honest and apprised the FISA court in October 2016 that their “opposition research” evidence for a warrant was 1) paid for by Hillary Clinton, 2) largely written by a foreign national (with help from the spouse of Obama DOJ official Bruce Ohr) who despised Donald Trump and who was dismissed from his nebulous relationship with the FBI, 3) remained unverified, and 4) served as the basis for submitted news accounts that in circular fashion supposedly substantiated collusionary behavior, then the writ might have been rejected and the dossier’s usefulness died.
Immediately after the election, the dossier was reinvigorated (by nervous-lame-duck careerists like John Brennan and James Clapper, and Senator John McCain) to serve a new role in aborting the Trump presidency, given that it had always been the only real basis for the entire mythology of Trump-Russian collusion.
Paul Manafort was no doubt duplicitous and acted in a variety of felonious ways, but, without the seeded dossier, his illegal behavior would no more have sparked a wider investigation of the Trump campaign than the actions of the Podesta brothers (whose suspect Russian ties had long contaminated the Clinton campaign) would have spurred investigations of liberal Russian collusion and profiteering.
The Machiavellian brilliance of Trump-hater and otherwise washed-up hack Christopher Steele was his knowledge that lying outrageously (just ask Jussie Smollett) is a far more effective weapon than lying incrementally.
So, Steele’s insertion of the Trump-prostitute-Obama’s-hotel-bed-urolagnia meme was the sharp hook that snagged Washington’s swamp creatures. The Steele dossier was not just spurious in its wild claims about Carter Page eyeing billion-dollar payoffs or a bumbling Michael Cohen in Prague on a secret Trump collusionary mission, it was also so salacious that it served as lurid pornography that supercharged its odyssey throughout the bowels of the Obama government and the media.
The ‘All-Stars’ and ‘Dream Team’ Were Flawed from the Beginning
Robert Mueller spent over $30 million and 674 days in vain ferreting out “collusion” not because it was necessarily difficult to prove such a charge either true or false. After all, the basis for the allegation, the veracity of the Steele dossier, could have been easily and quickly adjudicated.
Indeed, already by May 2017 and the beginning of Mueller’s investigation, the dossier was roundly denounced as fraudulent. FISA transcripts of surveilled conversations had already apprised officials that there was no direct evidence of collusion, which is why Peter Strzok, well before Mueller began, had privately warned his paramour and soon to be fellow Mueller team member, Lisa Page, that “there’s no big there there” to the collusion charge.
What explains the cost and length of the Mueller investigation? It’s not the (relatively easy) challenge of adjudicating collusion. It’s the politicized make-up of his team, which relentlessly and expansively drove on to tag any Trump aide with almost any crime imaginable.
Mueller could have saved the nation a great deal of national angst and division had he only insisted on a brief series of special requisites in his personnel selections: 1) None of his lawyers and investigators should have donated either to the Trump or Clinton campaign; 2) there should have been some numerical parity between Democratic and Republican members; 3) attorneys should not in the past have directly defended either the Trump or Clinton Foundation or any aides who had previously worked for Trump or Clinton; 4) they should not have transmitted on government devices any prior hyper-partisan praise or invective concerning either Trump or Clinton.
Yet Mueller could not fulfill even those minimal requirements. And the result was twofold: Mueller never escaped the charge that his team was biased; and, because it was stocked with progressives, in its zeal to get Trump, the investigation started out with the Soviet assumption that to convict the guilty criminal Trump, they needed only enough time and money to find the right crime.
Members including Page, Strozk, and Weissman had either in email or in texts on their government phones or computers earlier expressed hyper-partisan, anti-Trump views.
Another working for Mueller, Jeannie Rhee, a prosecutor on the team, had been employed as “outside counsel” at one point by the Clinton Foundation. Rhee also had represented Obama official Ben Rhodes in the Benghazi controversy; Rhodes, remember, after the election, was outspoken in his efforts to resist the Trump administration’s initiatives.
Another prominent Mueller team member, Aaron Zebley, had once defended Hillary Clinton’s staffer Justin Cooper. Cooper infamously had set up the private and illegal email server in the basement of the Clintons’ home.
Mueller attorneys such as former federal officials Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad had also both previously communicated with, and been briefed by, Bruce Ohr, who allegedly had warned them of the unverified nature of the Steele dossier.
Mueller team member Strzok had long been directly involved in Clinton-Trump investigations. He had previously interviewed Michael Flynn (Jan. 24, 2017) to learn about possible Trump-Russian collusion. Earlier, Strozk had interrogated Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills in connection with the Clinton email scandal; both had clearly lied to the FBI and both had been given de facto immunity. In short, Peter Strozk had no business posing as a disinterested investigator of Trump.
Another lead attorney on Robert Mueller’s team had also previously been assigned to the investigation of the Clinton emails. After the election, the unnamed Mueller team member, later revealed to be Kevin Clinesmith, had bragged in a text to an FBI attorney acquaintance of his opposition to Trump: “Viva le [sic] resistance.”
Other than Mueller himself, a registered Republican, there was no known member of the Republican party, or Republican donor, on his legal team.
The point is not that Mueller deliberately selected a biased team. It’s that he did not exercise proper caution in order to avoid even the appearance of bias in such a high-profile investigation. That is why liberal activists and the media were understandably giddy on hearing of the make-up of the team, and they gushed approbation of their newly adopted “army,” “untouchables,” “all-stars,” and “dream team” — or what Max Boot praised as a “hunter-killer team of crack investigators and lawyers.”
It did not help appearances that the appointed Mueller was a longtime friend and associate of fired FBI director James Comey, who had bragged that he had sought to prompt a special-counsel investigation by deliberately leaking to the press confidential (if not in one case classified) memos of private conversations with the president.
Worse still, Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversaw the Mueller investigation, signed off on a misleading FISA writ after the start of the Mueller investigation. Rosenstein also had provided the official rationale for firing James Comey, and he had been knee-deep in prior investigations involving both Trump and Clinton. Rosenstein allegedly had agreed to wear a wire, shortly before Mueller was appointed, to capture enough supposedly treasonous or unhinged Trump dialogue to invoke the 25th Amendment. Remember, in surreal fashion, Rosenstein stepped up to oversee Mueller’s work because, unlike Attorney General Jeff Sessions, he posed as someone who had no such conflicts of interest.
In the end, to justify the absence of any proof of collusion, Mueller’s progressive attorneys and investigators descended to dogging small-time wannabes and a few shady operators on charges that had nothing to do with Russian collusion — before they finally ended up ignominiously going after minor nobodies such the braggart and provocateur Roger Stone and Infowars’ Jerome Corsi.
Does anyone doubt that a comparable conservative team of lawyers including a few Trump donors, with $30 million of government money, a 90 percent favorable press, and 22 months’ time, while investigating Team Clinton and its hangers-on, couldn’t find scads of extraneous felonies, apart from its purported mission of investigating the collusionary Steele dossier?
Mueller, Progressive Hero?
The bias and the wasted resources and time of the stymied Mueller investigation will not matter to progressives. They saw Mueller and company as heroic, or at least useful, for all the righteous damage that the special prosecutor has already inflicted on the hated Trump administration.
For some 674 days, Donald Trump was under a cloud of a special investigator, prying into all aspects of his personal and private life, as well as the lives of his family and aides. Or to put it another way, for 83 percent of Trump’s first term, constant media announcements have blared about the “bombshell” to come as “the noose is tightening” and “the walls are closing in” — all as inaccurate as they were damaging to the efficacy of the administration.
The mainstream-network, MSNBC, and CNN prophesies of impeachment hearings driven by Russian “collusion” had, as planned, driven down Trump’s polls. Between 2017 and 2019, Mueller’s supposed prelude to impeachment caused defections among a once-solid Republican House and Senate and thereby stalled initiatives, thwarting efforts to curb illegal immigration, repeal Obamacare, quickly confirm judicial nominees and executive appointees, and preserve diplomatic leverage abroad.
Without the Mueller investigation and enablers such as Representative Adam Schiff (who had falsely insisted to the media that the dossier was not integral to a pre-election FISA application and had not launched the FBI investigation before the election), and without the MSBNC/CNN punditry, all the serial conspiratorial talk of invoking the 25th Amendment and the emoluments clause, as well as the comical McCabe-Rosenstein palace coup and the efforts of the “resistance” to thwart Trump’s administration from the inside, as outlined in the Sept. 5, 2018, anonymous New York Times op-ed, would probably have been written off immediately as short-lived psychodramas. Instead, they were all sensationalized by a 90-percent-biased media as the prefaces to the Mueller “bombshell” to come.
113
In the end, Mueller’s investigation really did prove to be a witch hunt, just as half the country came to conclude. It has probably forever ended the idea that a special prosecutor can be useful or fair. It has curtailed foreign-policy options and prevented the traditional American realist approach to Russia as a triangulating counterweight to China. It ruined the lives of innocents such as Carter Page and the reputations of dozens of others such as General Michael Flynn. It divided the country in its transparent violation of any sense of disinterested investigation and turned the idea of American jurisprudence into a version of the Soviets’ “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” And now that it is over, we should not forget what it wrought and those who empowered it..."
Editor’s Note: This article originally misidentified FBI agent Sally Moyer as an acquaintance of Kevin Clinesmith who had sent disparaging texts about President Trump. The mistaken reference has been corrected.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON — NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Case for Trump.
penm...@aol.com
Mar 27, 2019, 3:53:23 PM3/27/19
to
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:16:33 -0400, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Navy Boot Canp is in several ways different from the other service's
Basic Training. When I went to Boot Camp about half the skills needed
had to do with being in water; a lot of swimmiong, on the surface and
under water, diving from heights and jumping from heights while
keeping one's head above water, using ordinary clothing to fabricate
flotation devises... all good information for civilians to know;; even
the Navy white hat can be used to trap enough air to keep someone
afloat with little effort.... knot the leg ends of pants to make
excellent water wings. A good deal of training is about how not to
panic... most drownings are due to panic. We did a lot of calistenics
and weight training, but not a whole lot of running, not much marching
either, there's not much space to run/march on a ship. and no digging
trenches/foxholes... however there's a lot of climbing on ship's
masts. Mostly we learned about the chow line, fussy eaters wouldn't
survive. Also a lot of training on knot tieing, polishing bright
work, swabbing decks and painting... I'll bet I'm a much better
painter than Hamburger Gary, he'd be too ascared to go up 80' to the
top of a mast or over the side in a bosn's chair to paint while
everything is a rockin' n' rollin'. I doubt many of yoose would last
long in rough seas (maybe 3 minutes), with nowhere to hide, day after
day, 24/7. I've seen a lot of big strong men crying, MOMMY, MOMMY.
while praying to a terlit.
wrote:
Basic Training. When I went to Boot Camp about half the skills needed
had to do with being in water; a lot of swimmiong, on the surface and
under water, diving from heights and jumping from heights while
keeping one's head above water, using ordinary clothing to fabricate
flotation devises... all good information for civilians to know;; even
the Navy white hat can be used to trap enough air to keep someone
afloat with little effort.... knot the leg ends of pants to make
excellent water wings. A good deal of training is about how not to
panic... most drownings are due to panic. We did a lot of calistenics
and weight training, but not a whole lot of running, not much marching
either, there's not much space to run/march on a ship. and no digging
trenches/foxholes... however there's a lot of climbing on ship's
masts. Mostly we learned about the chow line, fussy eaters wouldn't
survive. Also a lot of training on knot tieing, polishing bright
work, swabbing decks and painting... I'll bet I'm a much better
painter than Hamburger Gary, he'd be too ascared to go up 80' to the
top of a mast or over the side in a bosn's chair to paint while
everything is a rockin' n' rollin'. I doubt many of yoose would last
long in rough seas (maybe 3 minutes), with nowhere to hide, day after
day, 24/7. I've seen a lot of big strong men crying, MOMMY, MOMMY.
while praying to a terlit.
Bruce
Mar 27, 2019, 3:58:29 PM3/27/19
to
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 15:53:18 -0400, penm...@aol.com wrote:
>Navy Boot Canp is in several ways different from the other service's
>Basic Training. When I went to Boot Camp about half the skills needed
>had to do with being in water; a lot of swimmiong, on the surface and
>under water, diving from heights and jumping from heights while
>keeping one's head above water, using ordinary clothing to fabricate
>flotation devises... all good information for civilians to know;; even
>the Navy white hat can be used to trap enough air to keep someone
>afloat with little effort.... knot the leg ends of pants to make
>excellent water wings. A good deal of training is about how not to
>panic... most drownings are due to panic. We did a lot of calistenics
>and weight training, but not a whole lot of running, not much marching
>either, there's not much space to run/march on a ship. and no digging
>trenches/foxholes... however there's a lot of climbing on ship's
>masts. Mostly we learned about the chow line, fussy eaters wouldn't
>survive. Also a lot of training on knot tieing, polishing bright
>work, swabbing decks and painting... I'll bet I'm a much better
>painter than Hamburger Gary
lol
>Navy Boot Canp is in several ways different from the other service's
>Basic Training. When I went to Boot Camp about half the skills needed
>had to do with being in water; a lot of swimmiong, on the surface and
>under water, diving from heights and jumping from heights while
>keeping one's head above water, using ordinary clothing to fabricate
>flotation devises... all good information for civilians to know;; even
>the Navy white hat can be used to trap enough air to keep someone
>afloat with little effort.... knot the leg ends of pants to make
>excellent water wings. A good deal of training is about how not to
>panic... most drownings are due to panic. We did a lot of calistenics
>and weight training, but not a whole lot of running, not much marching
>either, there's not much space to run/march on a ship. and no digging
>trenches/foxholes... however there's a lot of climbing on ship's
>masts. Mostly we learned about the chow line, fussy eaters wouldn't
>survive. Also a lot of training on knot tieing, polishing bright
>work, swabbing decks and painting... I'll bet I'm a much better
>painter than Hamburger Gary
>, he'd be too ascared to go up 80' to the
>top of a mast or over the side in a bosn's chair to paint while
>everything is a rockin' n' rollin'.
cshenk
Mar 27, 2019, 5:28:27 PM3/27/19
to
Navy. You reminded me of some tricks that I was told. I knew about
the not stopping and the 'long reach pace' in spurts. Grin, we can stay
here and have more folks telling me it's not her goal but mine! (it
isn't it's hers).
She wanted USAF but the entry physical tests are harder and when she
asked, there was something on pull ups which she never managed even in
HS gym class. Just not built for them I guess. Anyways, she swapped to
Navy and has been peeking at ratings. So far she likes YN, PS and CS.
Suits her nature. A couple of others but those seem front runners. OS
might be good? Preliminary AFQT test was 85 estimated so she'll
qualify for quite a few ratings. She's scheduled her ASVAB for 12April.
cshenk
Mar 27, 2019, 7:11:10 PM3/27/19
to
be 152 for entry for her height. She's 151.5 right now and doing a
breakstep diet one day a week (so she doesnt set point too hard). It
wasn't really anything major. More like she didn't get taught about
calories and that if you take in more than you burn, you gain weight.
She now knows now how to count the up in a rough fashion and when I am
cooking, I work it out so she knows how much is sane on a food we made.
She picks what to eat now with a better idea calorie knowledge is all.
Back when I was in JH/HS, this was common knowledge taught in school.
It came along with what foods might make pimples worse (based on
knowledge of the times) and general healthy food pyrimids (of the
times).
She'll probably hit about 149lb by late April (giving leeway for a big
meal for her MEPS checkin). Running speed is main focus now and that's
like the diet, all on her to meet her goal.
0 new messages