William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!

Page 5 of 751

Clean Razors For Women Who Cut Themselves? What Happened to First Do No Harm?

Physicians long ago abandoned the Hippocratic Oath, for at least the reason that its call for physicians not to cause harm went against the modern acceptance, and even boasting, of killing. Which is to say, abortion and suicide, assisted other otherwise, were not countenanced in the old oath, but they are well loved today.

But harm doesn’t include only death. What about those physicians, or rather medical professionals, who maim women for religious reasons? And what about those knife wielders who, for example, chop off various useful or otherwise healthy body parts of patients by patient request?

And what about those associated with medicine who give clean needles to heroin users? The argument for this largess is that heroin users, were they to use dirty needles, are apt to contract hepatitis or some other disease; therefore, the clean needles (when they are used) will stop infections.

The argument is valid: if dirty needles carry disease and clean ones don’t, supplying clean ones will cause a reduction in disease rate (naturally, heroin users won’t always, in the hunger of the moment, use the new needles). And this has been seen.

But it is also so that the clean needles will encourage folks to take heroin, or other drugs, and that heroin causes harm, and that when under the influence of heroin (and other drugs) harm is often caused to the user and others. So the physician, while creating a barricade for one harm, clears the path for others. How can we calculate the total harms, with and without clean needle programs?

Enter the peer-reviewed paper “Should healthcare professionals sometimes allow harm? The case of self-injury” by Patrick J Sullivan in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

This is being talked of as the “clean razor” paper, because Sullivan would supply clean razors to the (mainly) women who habitually cut themselves. The paradigm case:

Alison is 35 years old and has a long history of mental health problems. As a teenager, Alison started to cut herself and this has continued. In conversation Alison describes how she started to self-injure almost by accident and found that it made her feel better. Her self-injury follows a particular pattern and she becomes anxious and distressed if prevented from acting in this way. She describes wanting to stop and understands that there are better ways of coping but at the moment cutting is her preferred means of dealing with feelings of distress…

The proposed solution:

Rather than trying to stop Alison cutting herself the clinical team has agreed that she be able to access clean razors for her own use and that staff should work with her to help her understand how to injure herself more safely.

Nick the wrong blood vessel, and you bleed out. Use a dirty razor and open yourself (a bad pun?) to all kinds of diseases. Give Alison clean needles and a copy of Gray’s Anatomy and her opportunities for contracting diseases are lessened (but not eliminated), as are her chances of cutting the wrong thing at the wrong time.

Since she is being supplied by what she wants, in equipment and guidance, she might be encouraged to continue slicing herself open. Perhaps at a higher frequency than when she was doing it the old fashioned way. And if she cuts herself more often, she increases the opportunities for disease and death.

Objections? Sullivan considers, “It could be objected here, that self-injury is not an autonomous choice and therefore the decision to engage in such behaviour should not be respected, even less valued.” But this cannot be so, since it is by free will that self-injury occurs. How about plain counseling? Doesn’t work, he says.

…Furthermore, even if the choice to self injure were not autonomous, their [sic] still remain moral and clinical questions about the means used to prevent such behavior. Enforced interventions are often ineffective and are certainly perceived negatively.

Significant infringements on basic freedoms are likely to produce a confrontational rather than therapeutic environment that increases levels of distress and reduces the chance of a positive outcome in the longer term. In such circumstances attempts to take away someone’s ability to self-injure reduce their coping options and are likely to increase their distress or increase the risk of harm. For example, it must be noted that many individuals who self-injure have a history of abuse or trauma and preventative measures may increase their feelings of powerlessness and in extreme cases result in additional trauma and therapeutic alienation.

All of this is highly disputable, especially given the statistical nature of the claims. However, we’ll forgo those criticism here to concentrate of the “pro self-harm” arguments.

Sullivan says, “Self-injury is being allowed, in order to maintain its role as a coping mechanism, based on the understanding that this occurs safety [sic].” It isn’t occurring safely, a major flaw in his argument. Self-injury by definition is the opposite of safe. Clean needle programs are invoked, though Sullivan does admit others “note that it encourages drug use, it sends a mixed message and it fails to get people off drugs. Whether it is cost-effective and its validity as an appropriate treatment have also been questioned.”

“Where the risks of serious injury are low limitations on basic freedoms are more difficult to justify.” This is easy to write, but tell it to a mother whose teenage daughter sneaks off to slice herself open. It’s doubtful the mother will love the “freedom to cut” argument.

The argument Sullivan relies on most is that stopping a person from self-injury removes this person’s way of “coping.” But then this person also has to cope with the cutting, and from the stress of hiding this (as is usual) from others, and from other worries associated with the cutting. And then it does not follow that self-injury is the lone way a person can cope with life.

Real Versus Statistical Control

The ideal experiment is one in which control is exerted over all aspects of an environment. We desire to measure an outcome; for ease suppose this is a simple number. Any measuring system we can devise will make our measurement of this number finite and discrete, even if the outcome itself is continuous and infinitely graduated. How we know this number could be continuous and infinitely graduated when we can only ever measure it at finite, discrete markers is a matter I won’t here consider.

Before us is the interocitor, which has many levers, all of which by supposition might exert influence over our number X. The “by supposition” is key. We assume or suppose or have otherwise proved that these levers and only these levers have a bearing on X. Now, because we are good at imagining, we can always imagine after measuring X that something besides the levers took control over X at this instant. It is possible, in the sense of we can imagine it, that Martians aimed psychic vibrations at our interocitor through a wormhole and affected X. Since this kind of imagining can go on ad infinitum, if we allow it, any of an infinite number of causes other than the levers could have controlled X.

But we do not allow it. That is, it is we who assume that it is these and only these levers that control X. Then, when lever A is moved through its paces and all the other levers are held fixed, we can watch the change in X. And then we can say that the lever in it places caused X to take the values it did. That is, the lever caused X given all the other known aspects of the environment. If the environment changed, the lever might no longer be causative.

Incidentally, if the interocitor breaks, the situation becomes similar to vibrating Martians. That the machine is broken but unsupposed to be broken does not change how we ascribe cause to the lever. The broken nature of the machine is part of the fixed environment. All that results is that the cause of the lever could be different if the machine were fixed. Now we might suspect the interocitor is broken, but only by assuming outside knowledge, using suppositions like, “I would have guessed because of my experience with other machines, that X would have moved more as the lever was pushed.” But that is a different question. It stands that the fixed environment, even with a broken machine, still allows us to say what the lever causes. It only means the environment was not what we thought.

That’s a long-winded explanation of experimental control which everybody already knows. The point of dragging it out in gory detail was to prove that understanding cause is an epistemological concern that relies at base on the assumptions we bring to the problem. It’s clear enough that if we move the lever, assuming all else remains fixed, and X changes, that the lever is the first cause of the state of X.

Enter “statistical control,” which is not like actual control. Since the most common usage of the term is in regression modeling, that’s the example I’ll use. Regression assumes we can measure the uncertainty in values of X, which we can only measure at discrete and finite levels, can be characterized by a normal distribution, which has two parameters, a central and spread. Since measurement is finite and discrete, and normal distribution assert probability over the continuum, regression is always an approximation.

Anyway, the central parameter of this normal distribution is said to be a function of various measurable observables; as these observables change, the central parameter for the normal changes, and thus our uncertainty in X changes (the spread parameter is thought to be fixed).

It is obvious that we would not use regression in cases of actual physical control: there is no need of it. In actual control, the causes are known (or assumed) and we can make direct measurements. Regression is used only when the causes are unknown. All probability models are used when causes are unknown. We have already seen that probability models, of which regression models are a subset, cannot ascertain cause.

We can still us an interocitor as an example if X is buried in quantum mechanical effects, where the range of X (all else held as constant as possible with our lever in a set position) must be characterized with probability, but quantum mechanical situations are those where it is acknowledged causes are unknown.

The interocitor being useless, consider X measures income of individuals. Somebody is interested in whether incomes differ between races, so race is an observable measured. Now to see if income did differ, all one has to do is look: it did or it didn’t. depending on the definition of differ. It really is as simple as this: define differ and just look.

There are many definitions of differ. One might be—and this is in no way an endorsement: the best definition depends on the decisions one wants to make—is if the means of people measured are unequal. Suppose this definition is met: very well, there is a difference between races.

What caused this difference? There is no way to tell using just this data (the link above proves this, as do extensive discussions in Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics). A voice will suggest “Racism caused the difference”, but this will be mere guesswork. Any number of potential causes can be suggested, and each is equally supported by the data; which is to say, they are not supported at all.

This point is emphasized, because the way regression (or any probability model) is often used is that the cause that is thought of by the modeler is asserted to be true, even though there is no evidence this purported cause is the true cause. But there is a suspicion by the modeler that others might not buy his purported cause, so the parameter associated with race in the regression is put forth as proof the cause in genuine. But this is no different than defining differ as the regression parameter. Cause cannot be asserted, nor even inferred, not on the evidence of the data alone.

Now even if this race parameter is “significant”, the modeler still suspects there will be doubt by others about the cause. And so—finally!—“statistical control” enters the scene. The modeler will enter another observable in the model and say that by doing so he is “controlling” for this observable. Of course, all that has happened is that the change in the central parameter for X as the new observable is changed can be measured (assuming race is still in the model). Since we could not tell cause with just race in the model, we cannot tell it with any new observable in the model.

It should be obvious that “statistical control” is nothing like actual physical control. All that has happened with statistical control is that a subset of the data has been looked at; say males and females of the different races. The definition of differ can, of course, be modified to incorporate sex, so that if one wants to see whether there were differences in sex and race, one need only look.

The model is only useful is making predictions of new observations of X, given assumed values of the observables race and sex (and whatever else is stuck inside). But in no case has cause been shown.

Update Randomness and chance are never causes; they are only states of mind.

What Is Communism? Part II– Guest Post by Ianto Watt

Read Part I.

So much for Communism. What about Bolshevism? Now I won’t belabor the point, as I know a number of you are weak (as you refuse the Port and tobacco that would fortify you). Your demand for immediate knowledge shall be met, forthwith! The true meaning of the word Bolshevik, from the actual operating perspective, is this: Atheism. And its primary liturgical practice is this: terror.

Now you can object all you want, and cite any number of writers who will say otherwise. Fine, have your writers. But remember, I never listen. I only watch. Because actions tell the truth, whereas writers generally do not. Not that they are trying to lie. No, most of the time they are speaking idealistically. Which is fine, if we lived in magic-land. You know, where everyone does as they should. But we don’t. And the reason is, we can’t agree anymore on what ‘as they should’ actually means. So, until someone can counter Solzhenitsyn’s Godlessness: the First Step to the Gulag and Whittaker Chambers’s Witness, I’m not listening. But I am watching, always.

Why these two writers? Simple. Because they wrote what they lived. They wrote what they lived, not what they dreamed. Each had lived under the lie of Bolshevism, each as the warden, then as victim. And both emphatically say that the root of Bolshevism, the core principle that motivates its believers, is unadulterated atheism. And this anti-belief system can only enforce itself through the exercise of terror. Up to and including human sacrifice. On a large scale. The exercise of raw human power over those who do not see the would-be Emperor as being the true God. The one who would re-fashion the world in his own image. For everyone’s benefit, of course, Komrade. Please don’t disagree, or I will have to kill you.

Now you can argue that atheism doesn’t automatically cause a man to become a Stalin or a Trotsky or a Mao. In fact, you may say that there are many altruistically motivated atheists who eschew power and control. And my answer to that is, they don’t really believe their beliefs. Because if they did, they would be as aflame as Marx, Lenin, Stalin and the Gang. But let’s assume they are sincere in their dis-belief, and aren’t driven to lord over their fellow man. Well, Komrade atheist, we seem to have a problem. Because, if there is no God, then everything is allowed, eh? Even terror. Especially terror, actually. Just ask that famous atheist philosopher Ivan Karamazov.

Even if you aren’t driven to terroristic excess, you can’t condemn your neighbor who is. Why? You’ve already said there can be no universal law imposed from above. Just the various human attempts to impose it from below. And now we’re back to Uncle Joe. Why in Heaven’s name would you oppose him? He’s only doing it for your own good. And don’t think staying silent will work. Neutrality is as treasonous as open opposition. Both sides believe in that principle, by the way. Your Swiss Army knife won’t save you.

Now the reason for this affection for terror on the part of atheists is very simple. It’s their Liturgy. It’s how they enforce their call for Equality. And here’s the root of this equality: everyone is fearful. First you purge the Bourgeoisie. Then the Army. Then the Party. And now everyone is equally afraid. So much for Bolshevik-Equality.

Let’s not leave it at this, my friend. For there is a place for equality. But that place is not here. No, there is only one place for true equality, and that is in the eyes of God. The Big God. Forget those idiot gods. They all have green eyes. Or red. And neither is pretty. No, the only place for equality is in the recognition of the inherent value of each human life. Let’s call it Christian-Equality. Because it’s based on the premise that we are all made in the image of the Maker. Each iteration of the image of this infinite Maker must therefore be infinitely valuable.

Yes, I know. You want to know what all of this has to do with anything. So do I. And as usual, I want to know what this has to do with Russia. Because I am convinced, like every Russian is, that mankind will either live or die based on what Russia was, and what she becomes. We’ve already seen that Bolshevik-Communism which afflicted Russia for 74 years no longer seems to be the ruling paradigm of the East. But the question now is, will the Christian-Communism of the past take its place, and bring peace to them, and us?

In the West, will the remains of Christian-Equality be able to overcome the Bolshevik-Equality that is supposedly rooted in Justice? No, no, forget about that damnable word Justice. Have you ever seen that silly bumper sticker? It’s one of those idiot SJW Catholic-Lite blurbs. It says ‘If you want peace, work for justice’. Can you believe it? I say, if you want justice, then go to Hell. Me, I’m looking for mercy. Have all the damned justice you want. Idiots. Bless me Father, for I have sinned…

Don’t get it? You will. Believe me, we all will. It’s just a matter of time. And timing. Don’t believe Jimmy Page. There won’t always be time to change the road you’re on. By the way, do you know what a bustle in the hedge row refers to? Well, do you know who the May Queen is? May is coming soon. May 13th, to be specific. And what is the real meaning of Paradise? A hedged garden? Where? Hey, you look a little woozy there, pal. Here, have another drink. Need a light?

I’m sorry. Let’s slow it down. Let’s get back to work. And the work is this: what is going on in Russia? After all, if Bolshevik-Communism no longer rules Russia, what does rule it? It’s certainly not Christian-Communism. Unless you’re buying the Orthodoxy-will-save-us routine. I’m not. Why is that? Because I know the Tsars did the same thing as Henry when he snatched all the monasteries and their lands. About the same time as Henry, actually. And it had the same result, as they bound the serfs to the now-royal lands, making them slaves instead of sons. And they did the same thing Henry did to the Church. You know the old saying? If you want to change the world, change the liturgy. That’s what these so-and-sos did, and their effect remains with us today. The result was a fractured family. And we know what that produces, eh?

What am I talking about? Well, it’s simple. It comes from the saying, ‘As above, so below‘. What’s that mean? It means that our life here on earth, at the bottom of the Atmospheric Heavens, should, ideally, mirror what is going on in the Empyrian Heavens. That is to say, the form of worship here should mirror the face-to-face worship of The God in Heaven. And if this is done correctly, then all will be well on earth. But if not, then all Hell will break loose. Literally.

And so, when the Henrys and Ivans decided to become gods in their own right, they did it by becoming gods in their own rite. Yes, here we go again. Semantics. Time for a lesson. Time to look at the magic. So, ask yourself, when you think of magic, what do you think of? That’s right, you think of a ‘spell’. Words. Spoken words. Words that ‘spell’ out what you are desiring. And in the mystical world, there are two kinds of words. The first is bene-diction. Good speech. The second is male-diction. Bad speech. Blessings or curses. And so, the battle of all time is reduced to this: words.

Now the question is this: which Word will we believe in? The old Word? The good word, of love and life? The word of Christian Communism? Or will we believe in the new word? The bad word. The word of terror. The word of Bolshevik Communism. The word of hate and death.

Let’s look at how this Word is used. Every man has the power to utter a word, or at least a thought. Will he utter a benediction or a malediction? A blessing or a curse? And where is this Word most important? In the liturgy, of course. And what is the liturgy? Well, it’s your public duty, before your superior. So, in the largest sense, it’s your ritual of worship. And the way you do it becomes your Rite.

If you have no public duty before God, He has no duty towards you. No rites? No rights! What, you say you’ve got Human Rights? As in, the Declaration of Man? Okay, Bucko, let’s see you enforce them. You and what army? And there you have it. This claim to the amorphous Rights of Man can only lead to Bolshevism, or one of its less-competent cousins.

So then, you have no liturgy? You poor atheist. Good luck, fella. How can you hope to have any say in your own fate if you won’t say anything at all? Are you being deliberately stupid? You’ve got to have a prayer if you want to have a prayer of a chance! But if you do have a formal prayer, then if that prayer is in the right form, to the right Being, then you can claim His mercy. Assuming you’re sufficiently repentant. No? Well, do not pass ‘Go’. Do not collect $200.

But let’s say you are repentant. And that you want to effectively petition the real God. Where then do you find this prayer? Well, it’s in the Canon. The official prayer. It’s in the liturgy of the Mass. It’s where the proper intention of your repentance is found. And what is this intention? Simply this: first, that you forgive (and not curse) your enemies. Then, that you bless all your friends. Especially your dead friends. You know, all the saints. They are your friends, right? And who else do you need to bless? Well, how about that guy over there wearing that triple-tiara? Oh wait, that’s so un-fashionable these days. OK, then that fisherman over there, that guy named Peter. And all his successors. I know, some of them are kinda sketchy. Just like me. And you. You really want to get picky about this? You really want justice? Really? It works both ways, you know.

Yes, here’s the root of the modern world. The ancient world prayed for the Pope (whether he was good or bad, just like me, he needs your prayers). But the modern world, given to us by Photius the Khazar-faced liar, and Henry the Woman-Killer, have taken the Pope’s name out of the Canon, and replaced it, in vain, with their own. East or West, take your pick, it makes no difference. Constantinople or Canterbury, it makes no never-mind. Because now, if you follow the lead of Anglican Henry or Orthodox Ivan, you are now praying for Imperial Rome, and not Holy Rome. And you have spoken an omissive curse. Blessed be those that bless you, and cursed be those that curse you.

Don’t get me wrong. There’s plenty of room in the Canon for the King’s name, and the Patriarch too. And Holy Rome has no objection to this. But there’s no need to toss any names. And no need to crowd towards the front either. So let’s ask a silly question. WWAD? Huh? You know, What would Andrew do? You know, Andrew, the Evangelist of Constantinople and Kiev, the twin hearts of Greco-Russian Orthodoxy. Andrew, the favorite of all those Anglish kings who stole all the Churches in Angland and put those damned red doors on them? Why is that, anyway? I thought the Pearly Gates were white. I thought red doors were meant for someplace else. Anyway, do you think the Apostle Andrew would drop his brother Peter from the Canon? Because that’s what all these nationalistic leaders have done to The Church.

The result, of course, is political, and not ecclesial. And now they are all praying for a nationalistic version of the universe, instead of the universal version of the nations. Praying exclusively for the head of a nationalistic church, my friend, is an oxymoron. Because the universe is universal. And so, the real, one and true Church must also be universal. Or else it isn’t the Church. It’s a worldly kingdom. And the result is always the same—terror. Why? Because the people won’t accept it, willingly. They must be terrorized into accepting it. And any who resist must be liquidated. Just read your history. Preferably ones not written by the winners.

What is the meaning of all of this insanity? Simply this, my brother: words count, and every word is counted. The CIA and the KGB aren’t the only ones listening, you know.

Let’s finish this up. Let’s look at the unveiling. You know, the Apocalypse. That’s what that word means, you know. More semantics. In the end, the last book of those words that claim to matter most, says this: that the end won’t see a clash between believers and un-believers. No, it won’t be between the Bolsheviks and the Christians. It will be between believers and believers. One group believes in a Universal (that is, all nations, equally) approach to the offer of salvation. The other believes in an Imperialistic (which is always lead by one nationality) approach.

No, in the end, there will be those who believe that God and Caesar can be reconciled, and those who do not. But wait, haven’t I already said the end will pit the two forces who both claim to be both God and Caesar? Yes, I have. But I’m not an Arian. And the Caesar I’m talking about now is purely human. I’m not talking about the true Emperor of all men. I’m talking about the other guy. The guy who thinks he will become God, when he subdues all other men. And Caesar has to come from somewhere, right? Some nation or another, correct? How about Iceland? Peru? Zimbabwe? No? Then why not Russia? And as the Imperial head of mankind, their ‘duty’ is to lead everyone, whether they like it or not. And this Imperial-Ecclesial alliance at the end, at the Apocalypse, will unveil the final offer to man. Here it is: do you want a job, or not?

Yes, you’re over 80 and you should be retired by now. But you’re not. You’re working as a greeter at Wal-Mart. Why? Because the Commons have been destroyed. Stolen by Caesar, who has been blessed by the prayers of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Canterbury. Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Orthodoxy alike. And because of this theft, your children have no right to the patrimony of their father, Benedict. Bene-Dict. Good-speak. He’s gone, and so are the Commons he lovingly built. And so now, you are no longer seen as a son, because the Emperor has no sons. Neither does the Patriarch. All they have is servants. So then, do you want the job or not? No work, no eat.

Don’t believe me? OK. Fine. But wait, I forgot to tell you something. Something important. Remember the Canon? You know, the official list of those we need to pray for (besides our sorry selves)? Well, there’s been a late addition to The List. It happened one hundred years ago. This lady, this most Beautiful Lady, told some kids that we all needed to pray for the conversion of somebody. Specifically, she said it was the nation of Russia. She said it was important. Very important. And the way things are going today, it looks like she was privy to something big. And she said something else. She said if we don’t, then all Hell would break loose. Why? Because if Russia wasn’t converted, she would remain Holy Mother Russia, instead of becoming Holy Daughter Russia. And the result would be that this mad woman would spread her errors throughout the earth. And that these Errors would lead to our destruction. Now do I have your attention?

Here is the semantic question of the day and year, Komrade: what are the true Errors of Russia? Here’s a hint: they are plural. Don’t tell me it’s Bolshevik-Communism. That horse is dead. Want me to beat that dead horse again? Really? Look at it, it’s dead! I’ve already beaten the crap out of it. And don’t tell me it’s Bolshevik-Equality. Nobody is buying that horse manure anymore, except in Berkeley. As usual.

No, in the end, these Errors will be revealed in the battle between believers. Believers in a human Caesar working as God, versus those who believe it will pit a human Caesar against God. And the division between these two camps centers entirely upon our understanding of the Errors of Russia. What then are these (plural) Errors? Think fast, my friend. Vlad is waiting. The clock is ticking.

But in the meantime, do you want that job or not, buddy?

Finally Revealed: How Russia Rigged The Election

Finally Revealed: How Russia Rigged The Election: Shocking new details emerge.

Early on the morning of 6 July 2016, in the heat of the election battle between the Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Yuri Svetlopov made his way from the Motel 6 off of Interstate 77 to the Johnson Exhibition Hall in downtown Charlotte, North Carolina. FBI surveillance tapes indicate Svetlopov arrived at 10:13 AM, a little over four hours before a scheduled joint speech by Hillary Clinton and then-president Barack Obama.

Security footage taken outside the Johnson Hall, recently released by FBI Director James Comey, indicates that by 10 AM on that morning a large crowd had already gathered to hear Mrs Clinton speak. Crowd estimate experts put the figure in the two to three-thousand persons range.

But then Svetlopov arrived. He is a small, ordinary man, and tapes reveal that morning he was wearing a black baseball cap (the letters on the cap could not be made out), jeans, and an Iron Maiden t-shirt. The tapes clearly show Svetlopov lighting a cigarette in the parking lot. At 10:14 AM, Svetlopov was seen walking into the crowd.

From that point, his movements cannot be exactly traced. But one thing is certain. By 10:15 AM, the crowd waiting outside the Hall began to diminish steadily. At 10:13 AM, there were between 2,000-3,000 people. By 10:50 AM, footage reveals about 1,500 people.

And by 12:58 PM, there were only about two hundred fifty individuals left.

The FBI isn’t certain, but security camera footage also showed the arrival and departure of three semi-trucks from the Crimean Meat Co. that entered and left the Exhibition Hall’s parking lot. At the time, nobody thought anything about it, because this is the company contracted to provide the pigs-in-a-blanket sausages that Mrs Clinton insists be made available at every venue at which she appears.

Only now a more horrific theory has emerged.

A source high up in the FBI was able to reveal that the same Crimean Meat Co. trucks were spotted at nineteen of twenty-three events in June and July of 2016. These events include a 14 July Seattle book signing and fundraiser. Publishers anticipated “maybe a thousand [people]” would show to the book signing, but only “some two dozen” did.

The source could not place Svetlopov at the Seattle event, but said that what they knew of his travel did allow him sufficient time to arrive at Seattle and later appear in Miami, Florida at another Hillary event, where agents are certain they spotted the same Iron Maiden t-shirt in the small crowd.

“Nothing else but sinister Russian activities could account for the lack of enthusiasm for Hillary at these events,” said the source.

Director Comey corroborated this theory when he revealed an early photo of a man who was a known Hillary supporter, and a later photo of the same man now wearing a “MAGA” hat. MAGA was shorthand for Donald Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again.”

[…]

Go there to read the rest. But make sure no Russians are looking over your shoulder.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2017 William M. Briggs

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑