. . . and subsidies . . and free tickets to sporting events, concerts, and conferences for Congresspeople courtesy of Sprint . . .

Sprint Overcounted Low-Income Customers for Years
Wall Street Journal | December 3, 2019 | Sarah Krouse

Sprint Corp. has for years failed to accurately measure how many of the low-income Americans it serves through the federal Lifeline program actually use their phones, according to regulatory documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The No. 4 U.S. wireless carrier by subscribers is facing a potential settlement with the Federal Communications Commission after the regulator in September said Sprint improperly collected “tens of millions” of dollars in federal subsidies for 885,000 Lifeline customers who weren’t using the service. The carrier said its error was caused by a 2017 inadvertent coding issue in the system it used to measure customer usage.

But Sprint also made mistakes in tallying how many subscribers were using their Lifeline service in 2013 and 2014, documents obtained by the Journal through a public information request show.

Because of an error in how it counted usage at the time, spam texts could keep dormant accounts live and allow Sprint to continue to collect subsidies for those customers, the documents show. In one case, the phone of an Oregon woman who died months earlier was still deemed active.

In Oregon alone, correcting that mistake at the time triggered the loss of more than 4,600 Lifeline subscribers for the company, according to the documents. “The failure was systemic and not confined to Oregon,” a then-senior counsel at Sprint wrote in a September 2014 email to officials at the state Public Utility Commission who asked about the matter.

It couldn’t be determined how many customers Sprint shed nationally after the problem was discovered. Sprint declined to comment on the scope of the subscriber loss at the time.

Sprint, which provides Lifeline service through its Assurance Wireless brand, was never fined by the FCC for that mistake.

Danish Academic: U.N. Might Use Military to Enforce Climate Agenda
Breitbart News | 12-3-2019 | Simon Kent

The United Nations may resort to military action against states that defy its mandates on global climate action, according to Ole Wæver, a prominent international relations professor at the University of Copenhagen.

In an interview with ABC News in Australia, Professor Wæver cautions that what he sees as “climate inaction” might draw the U.N. into considering other means to ensure its goals are met, even if that leads to global armed conflict.

Chief Justice Roberts nodded smilingly, noting that “insurance inaction” had drawn the U.S. into considering violent means to ensure that liberals’ goals are met, even if that leads to armed conflict.

Professor Wæver says more resistance to change could potentially threaten democracy although the U.N. would counter that the end justified the means in much the same way countries like Greece had their debt crisis solutions forced on them by European Union bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg.

“The United Nations Security Council could, in principle, tomorrow decide that climate change is a threat to international peace and security,” he says.

…

“And then it’s within their competencies to decide ‘and you are doing this, you are doing this, you are doing this, this is how we deal with it’.”

Not just no, but ‘Heil’ no.

Professor Wæver made his predictions last month on the eve of the United Nations COP25 climate conference now underway in Madrid, Spain.

Almost 25,000 delegates and 1500 journalists have flown into the Spanish capital to attend the two-week long meeting.

COP25 will consider a wide agenda of global action including implementing taxes on developed countries to transfer wealth to nations dealing with “the cost of drought, floods and superstorms made worse by rising temperatures,” as Breitbart News reported.

But aren’t all nations dealing with these things, if they exist? Can we just transfer our money to our own coastlines, etc.?

The U.N. must think it’s pretty tough. Not only contemplating compelling nations to take some action, but also compelling nations to take the specific actions the U.N. decides on. How dare they?

Spacewalking Astronauts Add New Pumps to Cosmic Detector
Phys.org / 12/2/19

.

All Toilets at ISS Break Down, Astronauts Forced To Use ‘Diapers’
Moscow (Sputnik) news agency via spacedaily.com / Nov 28, 2019

None of the toilets at the International Space Station (ISS) are working; astronauts have to use “diapers”, a NASA translation suggested Wednesday.

There are two toilets at the ISS, both Russian-made — one in the US module and another one in the Russian one.

In addition, there are toilets in Soyuz ships docked at the station but they are used when the ship is in flight and only rarely when it is docked.

According to ISS commander Luca Parmitano, the toilet in the US section constantly signals that it is not working, while the one in the Russian module is filled to the maximum.

Later on, an engineer of Space Center Houston told ISS Commander Luca Parmitano that a toilet in the US module was operational again.

This guy is good:

“Conservative Obama” and Pregnant Men
Townhall.com | December 3, 2019 | Robert Knight

What sets our current age apart from previous ones is not only technological wonders but the shocking abandonment of truth.

For Marxists, a lie is as good as truth if it works to advance their cause. A case in point was a recent article on the front page of The Washington Post’s Sunday Outlook section. Next to a large, serious portrait, the headline proclaimed: “Barack Obama: Conservative.” Sure. And Bernie Sanders is a moderate Republican.

Never mind that Mr. Obama was the most radically leftist president in U.S. history, with a background full of communist mentors and connections. He appointed so many wackos to federal judgeships that our battered republic will be feeling the effects for years.

There is method to the Post’s madness. If you can make the case that Mr. Obama was actually something of a conservative, this pushes anyone to his right into the abyss of extremism. It doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not, only whether it succeeds in casting Republicans and even dwindling moderate Democrats as Nazis.

…

This sort of madness, which seems to be reaching a crescendo, began decades ago, beginning with Alfred C. Kinsey’s fraudulent sex studies in 1948 and 1953. Propelled by a compliant media, the “studies” gave the sexual revolution a faux scientific foundation. They were unmasked as fraud by Judith Reisman and her co-authors in “Kinsey, Sex and Fraud” in 1990, but the horse had left the barn, powered by Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and other leftwing activists.

In 1994, The New York Times ran a piece entitled “How to Get a Man Pregnant.” The writer, Dick Teresi, lit upon the idea at a symposium in 1984 sponsored by the Kinsey Institute, the aforementioned fountainhead of fake sex science.

Mr. Teresi wrote about it for Omni magazine, published by pornography magnate Bob Guccione. The article declared “there was no insurmountable biological or technical barrier to a man carrying a baby to term.”

Well, hello Dr. Frankenstein. Mr. Teresi admits that, “Of course, there are some minor problems. Men don’t produce the appropriate hormones. Men don’t have ovaries and thus don’t produce eggs. Men don’t have wombs.” But he cheerfully says all this can be overcome, citing sex-change operations as a guide to seemingly impossible outcomes.

…

While we’re at this, we can insist that brussels sprouts taste exactly like rocky road ice cream.

…

This is child abuse on a massive scale. When an entire generation is taught that truth is subjective, and that the only god they should heed is their feelings, they’ll fall for anything.

Orwell warned in his dystopian novel “1984” about an all-powerful state suppressing the truth. Although no original citation has been unearthed, he’s been widely quoted as saying, “speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.”

Yes, and we’d better do so while it’s still mostly legal in America.

Strategy:

And policies: