Wednesday, January 16

"Texas couple"--actually from Guinea--found guilty of enslaving young girl for 16 years


Last week a federal jury found a "Texas couple" guilty of enslaving a girl from Guinea for 16 years at their home in a Dallas-Fort Worth suburb.

Federal authorities had accused the couple, Mohamed Toure and Denise Cros-Toure, of forcing the girl to work for them and their five children from when she was 6 until she was 22, according to a court filing. Mr. Toure is the son of Guinea’s first president, Ahmed Sékou Touré, who led the country for 26 years until his death in 1984.

The jury found the couple guilty on several counts, including the forced labor charge, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. A sentencing date has not been set.

Authorities said there were no state records of Mr. Toure working.  Instead the couple relied on cash from outside the U.S. as their primary source of income.  They collected about $200,000 per year from 2010 to 2016, according to the authorities.

Here's the charming couple:

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/01/12/us/12xp-enslaved/merlin_144034425_547a47dd-c364-4a07-a49a-6eba298aa218-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

**mandatory Google warning:  "Google has not been able to verify the above information, so readers are advised that it's probably 'fake news.'  In fact we haven't been able to verify that the people in the picture are real, let alone that they did anything like what the article claims.
   The above article is probably just pure Islamophobia.  Islam would never allow its followers to enslave a 6-year-old girl for 16 years.  You should only trust news from us or one of our Trusted Sources, like the NY Times or Washington Post or CNN.**
SF update:  I'll readily admit the information above was from a skanky, unreliable source that often prints "fake news:"   the New York Times.

Black CNN "legal analyst" accuses interviewee of "white privilege;" hilarity ensues

Sometimes a liberal walks right into the swinging cluebat. The story below is almost too perfect.

The person on the left below is Areva Martin. Her bio says she's a "legal analyst" for that paragon of social justice warfare, CNN. (She also has a show on CBS titled “Face the Truth.” Almost too perfect.)

Areva was interviewing the man on the right, David Webb, who appears on Sirius XM radio and Fox Nation.  They were discussing whether race was more important than experience when determining whether or not someone is qualified for a particular job. 

Webb: “I’ve chosen to cross different parts of the media world, done the work so that I’m qualified to be in each one. I never considered my color the issue, I considered my qualifications the issue,”

Areva: “That’s a whole, another long conversation about white privilege, the things that you have the privilege of doing, that people of color don’t have the privilege of. 

Did I mention that the interview and discussion took place during a...wait for it...radio show?

A dumbfounded Webb asked Areva, “How do I have the privilege of white privilege?”

Martin responded, “David, by virtue of being a white male you have white privilege.”

“Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should’ve been better prepped. I’m black,” Webb said.
https://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2019/01/15/931/524/694940094001_5989785523001_5989782240001-vs.jpg?ve=1&tl=1I

This may strike students as a meaningless exchange.  It's not.  Webb clearly took the position that qualifications mattered more than race.  What else would lead Areva to assume Webb must have been white?  And based on that false assumption, Areva assumed he'd reached whatever position he had not because of his talent or hard work, but because he was white.

Ponder that for a bit.

This is a textbook case of racism.  But libs won't see it.

Tuesday, January 15

Global warming--sorry, "climate change" summarized

"Global warming"--now renamed as "climate change"--isn't the first time politically-biased scientists have predicted disaster.

The first unavoidable climate disaster they predicted was in the 1970s, and instead of global warming it was “Global Cooling” that they predicted would end life on earth as we knew it.  Based on a few years of cooling, they warned, that the Earth was about to enter a new ice age.  Time Magazine featured a picture of Earth as a snowball.

As you may have noticed, the threatened the ice age did not occur.  But the folks who predicted the coming Ice Age realized that the public ate up this stuff.  They realized they could make a career out of disaster prophecy. Thus, based on a few years of warming, they realized the scientifically illiterate public would buy a new catastrophe: “Global Warming.”

As you may have noticed, the media loved to wail about global warming, as they love any calamity that sells more papers. It became an instant hit. The headlines wrote themselves: The poles will melt! The oceans will rise!  Lakes and rivers will dry up!  Farmland will turn into desert!

And most gripping: Millions will starve to death!

This was big. Really big.  And could only be solved by government taxation.

"Oooh," squealed leftist politicians.  "Did someone say the magic word?"  It was a match made in heaven.  Or someplace, anyway.

Unfortunately for the warmies and their government grubers, the few years of warming stopped.  But never fear: with the help of data falsifiers at NASA and NOAA--who literally changed historical temperature readings from decades earlier to cool the past--the warmies were able to keep this story from reaching the wider public.

But then a series of three record-cold winters in the U.S. got Americans to thinking maybe someone was lying to 'em.  How could winters be getting colder if the planet was supposed to be getting hotter?

It was a good question.  (And yes, Dan, I know the defense was that temperatures could be colder in one part of the planet even as the entire globe got warmer.  That turned out to be a brilliant smokescreen.

In any case, with more of the public becoming skeptical, in the late 90's the disaster-wailers suddenly stopped pushing "global warming" and switched to “global climate change”

This was a stroke of marketing genius: claims of global warming ran the risk of triggering a backlash from people freezing, but "climate change" could be blamed for everything.

Having a drought?   Climate change, baby!

Warmer winters would prove climate change, but so would colder winters. “Climate Change” was disaster gold--with the added, huge benefit that a) the climate would always vary; and 2) there was no way in hell to prove what was causing it!

Climate change alarmists have made lots of predictions.  But amazingly, not one of their predictions whose expiration date has passed has proven correct. Here’s a sampling, courtesy of Anthony Watts at wattsupwiththat.com:
  • In 1988 a major warmie pusher, James Hansen, was asked how "global warming" (as it was called way back then) was likely to affect the neighborhood near Hansen’s office in NYC.  Hanssen answered that in the next 20 years “The West Side Highway will be underwater. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. 
  • 1990, Michael Oppenheimer, of the Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1996, the Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers… The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”
  • October 15, 1990, Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ecological and agricultural catastrophe by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”
  • 1990, Actress Meryl Streep: “By the year 2000 – less than ten years away — earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.”
  • July 26, 1999, The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”
  • April 1, 2000, Der Spiegel: “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
  • March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten years’ time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”  [Update:  hasn't happened.]
  • Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): “World leaders have just 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”  [Update: We're now nine years past that, and warming is still paused (i.e. no change within the margin of error in the estimate)]
Pushers of "climate change" wail that "the science is settled," and "it's no longer debatable."  In one sense they're right:  Pushers have never been willing to debate.   Many skeptics have said they'd welcome an open, public debate on the topic.  In particular, Chris Monckton has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to debate. That Al Gore has never replied to these requests is difficult to reconcile with his comments on the CBS “Early Show” (May 31, 2006):
“…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science… Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”
These are not the words of a person who understands science. They are the tactics of a person who realizes he doesn’t have a scientific leg to stand on.

Could there be another reason why the “climate change” pushers have been so adamant about getting everyone to accept their agenda?  One clue might be the billions of dollars that proponents have demanded to "solve" this “problem.”

Gavin Newsome extends free health care to millions of illegal aliens. Wheee!

Right after Gavin Newsom was inaugurated as governor of California his first act was to sign several executive orders on healthcare, making taxpayers in that state pay for medical care for what Democrats and Leftists cutely call "undocumented young adults"--i.e. illegal alien invaders.

"Undocumented children and teens"--i.e. illegal alien invaders--were already covered by Medi-Cal; which is the state's version of free medical care for low-income people.  Newsome's new order follows the Obamacare order in allowing people to stay on their parents' plans until age 26.

Newsom's office called it a "major step toward universal coverage"--something Democrats have pushed because it allows them to feel virtuous.

His orders also expanded Obamacare subsidies: the cutoff for taxpayer funded subsidies for a family of four was $98,000, but that will be bumped up to $150,600. 

In case you were unclear, taxpayers will subsidize health insurance for every family--including non-citizens-- making less than this amount.  But of course you knew that, right?

To cover the huge cost of this subsidy, Newsome proposes to "reinstate the individual mandate" of Obamacare"--which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional--at the state level, according to Newsom's office. Is that cool or what?

The new governor also ordered the creation of a new government position: a state surgeon general.

Unless you're naive, you can count on whoever fills this new post to come up with definitive proof that whatever Newsome says in scientifically accurate.  That would include finding that "adverse childhood experiences" harm health.

Newsom sent a letter to President Trump and congressional leaders asking that they "amend federal law to enable States to apply for and receive Tranformational Cost and Universal Coverage Waivers, which would give California federal tax dollars to "begin transformative reforms that provide the path to a single-payers health care system."

Ah, yes, of course.

Of course Newsome was just beginning: "...Everyone in California should have a good job with fair pay. Every child should have a great school and a teacher who is supported and respected. Every young person should be able to go to college without crushing debt or to get the training they need to compete and succeed.  That is the California Dream."

Right out of the socialist playbook.  Newsome is a telegenic socialist.  The morons in Venezuela who elected Chavez, then Maduro, would elect Newsome president in a heartbeat.

Democrat political leaders are big on "Do as I say, not as I do"

Democrat leaders gushed with praise for Obamacare--while exempting themselves, their families, and cronies from its supposedly wonderful benefits.

If Obamacare was (and presumably they still claim it *is*) so wonderful, why did they exempt themselves from it?

Democrat leaders want to ban private citizens from carrying guns.  Many want to ban private citizens from even owning a gun.  But they cunningly write the laws to exempt themselves.  And the wealthier of their fawning supporters in Hollywood all have armed bodyguards.

If guns are so awful that the pols want to ban private citizens from having them, why do the politicians exempt themselves from the ban?  Why do they have armed bodyguards?

Democrat pols, and their media allies, scream that walls are immoral. As Pelosi put it, "That's not who we are."

If walls are immoral, why do their mansions have walls?

"Regular people" have started to notice that with Democrat pols and their media allies it's always "Do as I say, not as I do."  And they think you're too stupid to recognize this as rank hypocrisy.

Illegal alien invader--deported multiple times--arrested for sex assault of 11-year-old

In Conroe, Texas, an illegal invader who'd reportedly been deported multiple times--Jose Manuel Tiscareno Hernandez, 31--has been arrested for the alleged aggravated sexual assault of an 11-year-old girl.  He's being held in Montgomery County jail.

On Thursday the sheriff executed a search warrant in the case.  Hernandez wasn't home at the time, as he was attempting to flee back to Mexico.

The Courier of Montgomery County reported that Hernandez had previously been deported from the United States “on multiple occasions.”  Immigration and Customs Enforcement has issued a detainer request on him, so cooperating state agencies would notify ICE if he's released from jail for any reason.

Astonishingly, a California state law--passed entirely by Democrats who hold the governorship and have had veto-proof majorities in both chambers of the state Assembly for 20 years--bars state and county employees from notifying ICE when those agencies release illegal invaders ICE has told the state they want to deport.  So if this child assailant were in Cali, he'd be quietly released to slip back into the community without being deported.

Charming, eh?  This is what Democrat politicians think is a great idea.  They want this expanded to cover all states.  So...vote Democrat, citizen!  "Cuz deporting illegal invaders for assaulting children is just WRONG, eh comrade?"
**mandatory Google warning:  "We haven't verified any of the above information, so readers are cautioned that it's probably untrue.  We haven't been able to verify that there's a newspaper called the "Courier of Montgomery County."  In fact we have no evidence that there's even a town called Conroe in Texas.  
   If you click the link to the so-called "source" you'll notice that the alleged "victim" isn't named, which makes the story even less likely to be true.  And in any case, even if this incredibly unlikely and raacist story turns out to have some element of truth, remember that this is simply one anecdote.  And as Speaker Pelosi reminds us, anecdotes don't count as data.** 

Monday, January 14

Interesting new proposal from California Democrat politician

Shocked by the high cost of auto insurance for some Americans, a Democrat member of California's state Assembly, Javier Becerra, has introduced a bill that would give poor residents free automobile insurance.

Under the bill--titled "Affordable Automobile Insurance for All"--the state would pay for auto insurance for anyone with an income below 1.5 times the official federal "poverty line."  The program would be funded by taxing all existing auto insurance policies.  Becerra said initial estimates were that the new "fairness levy" on existing auto insurance policies would be about $110 per year.

He acknowledged that there was a very small chance this figure could rise if more people than anticipated applied for the free insurance, but said this was quite unlikely.  He noted the experience of the Affordable Care Act--sometimes called Obamacare--which showed far more people applied for "subsidies" for their health insurance than the bill's drafters anticipated, but said that wouldn't happen here since the insurance is for cars instead of health, so it wasn't comparable.

A few Republicans--who Becerra noted hate immigrants and taxes--criticized the bill, saying the author's use of the term "fairness levy" was an effort to disguise the fact that it was a tax.  They also claimed the program was yet another attempt by Democrats to bribe people to vote for them.  But Becerra noted that the bill would benefit all residents by ensuring that every driver had insurance.  He noted that there have been a few unconfirmed reports that after accidents some drivers simply ran away from the scene, which critics claim likely means they didn't have required auto insurance.

Leading national Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez praised the bill, saying she hoped to introduce a similar bill in congress to make the program a national mandate.  "It's horribly unfair that many minorities and people of color have to pay more for auto insurance than they do for food or entertainment," she said.  "This program would end that awful unfairness."

Senator Kamala Harris (D-California)--whose last position was as California's Attorney-General, and who many believe will be the next Democrat presidential nominee--agreed, saying Americans need to be more fair to the poor, and especially to immigrants, both documented and otherwise.  She suggested California Democrat political leaders should expand this bill to also pay for the cost of annual licence plate renewal for the poor.

Former president Barack Obama endorsed the idea, saying he hoped California's effort to bring free auto insurance to the poor would be a successful as the health insurance program he and congressional Democrats succeeded in passing in 2010.  "Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, people are saving huge amounts on health insurance, while providing insurance for those who couldn't afford it before," he said.


Okay, how many paragraphs did it take for you to realize this was parody?

What's the fundamental difference between government taxing people to "give" "free" health insurance to the poor, and the proposal outlined above?  In other words, if you accept the rationale for Obamacare, what prevents that same rationale from covering every other good or service that some politician says we MUST provide to the poor, because...reasons?

And if you demurr on any of the proposals, Democrat elites scream that you're a raaaacist who hates immigrants and people of color.

Sunday, January 13

Politicians signalling their virtue, example 359,079

Governments have no equal when it comes to wasting tax dollars:  France has a "Minister of State for Gender Equality."

Really?  You couldn't roll that into a position slightly more applicable to every citizen?

Why yes, yes they could.  But making a cabinet-level position solely for gender equality is such an excellent signal of the virtuousness of the pols who rammed it through.

I'm not picking on France here:  Our own gruberment has at least a hundred positions with even less-useful job titles.  But what the hell:  It's only money.

Next you can expect a "Minister of State for Transgender Equality."  Virtue-signal ranking 9.5.

Saturday, January 12

Ever heard of Aztlan?

What do you know about "Aztlan"?

If you live in California (a.k.a. America's Sweden) or Arizona or New Mexico, you know about it.  But if you live in another state, unless you're a communist or leftist, or follow politics closely, you've probably never heard of the term.

That's what I'm here for.

"Aztlán" is a huge chunk of the southwest U.S. that Mexican "activists" in the U.S. claim actually belongs to Mexico.

So how much of the U.S. so they claim really belongs to them?  Take a look:

While you're pondering the implications of that map, consider that virtually every dumb-ass lefist shithole university in Cali, Arizona and New Mehico has a student-funded organization called MeChA: Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx de Aztlán; "Chicanx Student Movement of Aztlán."

The goal of these people is really, seriously, to take the area above away from the United States.

Don't believe it?  Think it's a parody, like the Onion?  Ask one of 'em.
**mandatory Google warning:  "The information above has NOT been verified by Google.  Unless we or one of our Trusted Fact-Checkers verify the above, readers are advised to consider it fake news."
   Remember, you can only trust us or our Trusted Source partners to give you real news."** 

Wiki shows what it claims are gases in the atmosphere--omits just one, making CO2 look huge

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg/330px-Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg.png

If you're so naive as to believe that Wikipedia is NOT a propaganda machine, this may convince you to reconsider.

The graphic at the right is from Wiki, which claims it's the composition of Earth's atmosphere.

As every highschool grad should know, 98 percent of the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen.  Argon is almost one percent.  So far no surprise.

But what's that remaining percent?  According to Wiki, the lower pie chart will tell you.  And OMG!!!  Look!  Damn near the entire lower pie is...wait for it...CO2 !!!  No wonder the Earth is doomed!  Even a moron can see that that second pie chart is freakin' dominated by
the dread greenhouse gas!  It's 0.0407 percent of the atmosphere.

And look at the CH4, which y'all immediately recognize as the dread gas methane.  It's makes up 0.00018 percent.  But of course, as all the warmies know, methane is "20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Adjusting for this larger effect, you can compare methane to CO2 by scaling it up to 0.0036 percent.  So methane has less than a tenth of the effect of CO2.  And yet the wacko warmies have seriously proposed capturing cow flatulence as a way of reducing global warming.  Seriously.

So did any of you notice something missing in Wiki's breakdown of the gases in the atmosphere?

Sure:  Where's the water vapor?

At sea level, water vapor accounts for about one percent of the atmosphere.  Overall, water vapor is 0.4% by mass, or about 10 times more than CO2. And experiments show that water vapor has even more heat-trapping power than CO2 or methane.

Given the much greater amount of water vapor, and its greater "greenhouse effect" per pound, why do you suppose Wiki omitted water vapor from what it claims is the composition of the atmosphere?

Because the warmies know humans have no control at all over the amount of water in the atmosphere.  (Recall that over three-fourths of the Earth's surface is ocean.)  If they'd included water vapor in the pie chart, it would make it too obvious that CO2 only accounts for a trivial amount of any global warming.  The vast majority of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapor--which again, humans can't control.

Do ya really think the folks at Wiki didn't know this?

Friday, January 11

A logical puzzle

Pelosi and the Dems:  "WALLS DON'T WORK!  THEY JUST DON'T!!!

Pelosi and the Dems:  "A ban on private gun ownership will eliminate gun crime!  IT WILL WORK!!

The real word finds that although walls don't keep out ALL illegals, they do deter 95 percent.  But a ban on private gun ownership?  No way will that keep thugs from having guns--because by definition, criminals ignore the law.

Someone else pointed out that if physical barriers don't work, why do most commercial airports have tall fences with razor wire surrounding them?

My how the values of many Americans have changed in less than 50 years...!

In 1969 America put a man on the moon.

In 2016 Obama put a man in the ladies room.

Liberals and democrat pols think Obama's accomplishment is far more important.

Thursday, January 10

Latest faabulous new deal from Democrats: "Green New Deal"

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a dumb, malevolent lunatic--and just one of the socialist Democrats supporting a faabuous new Democrat proposal she calls the Green New Deal.  It's also supported by other top Dems Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker.  Joe "hands" Biden is expected to sign on in a couple of weeks.

The stated reason is to cut CO2 emissions, but we'll let you decide for yourself what the REAL reason is.

If the Dems get this deal passed into LAW, as they want, this proposal would require the U.S, within 11 years, to totally stop using one of the cleanest fuels ever--natural gas.  Which, they hasten not to tell you, currently provides about 32 percent of America’s energy,  And of course they also want to eliminate coal--which, they hasten to avoid telling you, provides almost 18 percent of America’s electricity.

The Democrats' proposal also demands that the U.S. stop using oil and its major derivative, gasoline.  Oil, they hasten to avoid mentioning, currently supplies another 28 percent of our energy.

So to this point the folks being led by 26-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have called for banning the source of 78 percent of our energy.  But never fear, citizen:  They don't want you to freeze in the dark, or switch to bicycles.  So what do they propose to replace all this energy?  Could it be a source that doesn't directly produce any carbon dioxide or air pollution: nuclear power?

Hahahahahahaha!  If you believe that I want whatever you're smoking!

In reality the "Green New Deal" also calls for closing all nuclear powerplants too — which, they studiously ignore, produces another 10 percent of our energy.

In other words, within eleven years the Democrats' “Green New Deal” would ban the use of sources that now supply 88 percent of our energy.  And they'd replace it with...what?

Not clean hydroelectric power, because dams fill beautiful valleys with nasty ol' water.  Can't have that!  So what does that leave?

Unless Ocasio-Cortez has been working on her PhD in fusion physics in her spare time, it leaves solar and wind.

Forget the practical difficulties:  From just an economic standpoint alone, there's no way to do this and still maintain anything remotely like our current standard of living.  What the bill would do is raise the cost of energy so much that ordinary people would be priced out of the market.

Think carefully, young people: do you want the cost of energy to jump tenfold, while wealthy elites can continue to have it?  Really?

For my students: back around 1975 some zealous social engineers decided wealth and private business were eeevil, because it just wasn't fair that some people had more than others.  The country was Cambodia, and the engineers were the Khmer Rouge--communists.  By the time they were finally defeated they'd executed one-quarter of the population of Cambodia.

But don't worry, citizen:  Your Democrat leaders would never even think about anything that awful.  They just want you to switch to electric cars, keep you homes colder in winter and stop using air conditioning, and plastic,  (Think I'm kidding?  They've already banned plastic straws.)

But hey, it's a "Green" deal!  And it's "New!"  And best of all, it's got virtue-credits! 


These days, leftists would regard a body count on that scale as a good start but insufficient to perfect the weather through reduction of carbon emissions. Jim Geraghty has a look at the fine print of the Green New Deal:

Video: CNN talking head shows utter contempt for families of citizens killed by illegal aliens

Watch the reaction of CNN talking head Ana Navarro as a guest notes that illegal alien invaders kill American citizens:  She makes her total contempt for that obvious by...filing her nails.

I wouldn't have believed any liberal could be this open in their contempt for citizens killed by illegals if I hadn't seen it.

Still unsure where the Left's allegiance lies?



Deep State agents at State Department announce $18K grant to show pro-gay films in India. Seriously.

The members of the Resistance / "Deep State" are real, can't be fired, and are deliberately wasting your tax dollars on things that make this nation look stupid to foreigners.
 
Latest example:  A Deep Stater in the anti-Trump State Department has announced an offer of  $18,000 of taxpayer funds to show seven to ten American films supporting homosexuality at an LGBT film festival in Mumbai, India.

The stated reason isn't even to promote homosexuality, but instead the even-more-trendy "to promote gender inclusiveness."

The grant announcement states that the grant is to show films that "outline the legal and social aspects of the struggle for gay rights in the United States."

You may think showing films to residents of India about how much the U.S. prizes gay rights is a waste of taxpayer money, but your betters at the State Department assure you knuckle-draggers that this is an absolutely vital, crucial use of your money, citizen.

Word has gotten out that Portland, Maine gives cash to illegals before their cases are decided. Result?

Portland, Maine.  Cold.  With a population of just 67,000 it's not the kind of big city that normally attracts unskilled, uneducated invaders, since it's harder to be anonymous there.

Yet Portland has become a disproportionate magnet for Africans--specifically Somalis.  Why?  Because word has gotten out that in addition to providing free food and shelter, the Democrat city leaders--led by moonbat mayor Ethan Strimling-- give "free" money to immigrants even before their applications for residence have been approved. 

Result?  Over 90 percent of the people in city-operated "family shelters" are now non-citizens.

Think about that for a minute:  Over 90 percent of the people in city-operated shelters are non-citizens.  So many people have lined up for free shelter that the city has rented motel rooms to house 'em.  Nice.  And most of these came across our southern border--even though they're from Africa.

While most taxpaying residents of Portland were probably willing to have their tax dollars used to support homeless fellow citizens, I doubt they were able to foresee that these programs would be used to make Portland attractive to illegal aliens.  But then again, they didn't get a choice in the matter.  It wasn't put to a popular vote.  Instead, the Dem mayor and Dem city council made the decision, and that was that.

If you don't believe this, click on the link.  It's to an article in the Portland Press Herald--a local paper that seems to have been there for years.  You'd think they'd be in a position to know what the hell is going on, eh?
**mandatory Google warning:  "We haven't verified anything in this post, so readers are advised to consider it all false--the kind of 'fake news' we've warned you about.  In fact, we haven't been able to verify that there's actually a newspaper called the 'Portland Press Herald.'  We're also unable to verify that the mayor of Portland is a Democrat, or that the city council is majority-Democrat.  
   As always, readers are advised to ignore any stories that haven't been confirmed by us, or one of our Trusted Sources--CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times or Washington Post.  Remember, only by relying on Trusted Sources can you be sure you're getting accurate, unbiased news."**

Watch as students demonstrate "cognitive dissonance" over quotes from leading Dems

The folks at Campus Reform have perfected a classic psychological experiment:  They interview college students about how the student feels about a Trump position on, say, building a border wall.  Predictably, students are opposed to anything Trump advoccates.

Then the interviewer reads what he says are quotes from Trump about what we should do about illegal immigration, and asks the interviewees whether they agree or disagree.  Predictably, the students think those comments are "divisive," "racist," "horrible."

Except the quotes aren't from Trump, but were uttered by Pelosi, Schumer and Hilliary.

After the students have condemned quoted statements, the interviewer tells them who actually said the things they just derided--at which point the reactionis...disbelief.

Watch the reactions in the video below.  Pay particular attention to the reactions when the students learn the true source of the quotes they just condemned.  What you're seeing is called "cognitive dissonance."  It's what people experience when confronted with evidence that contradicts something they've always believed was true--and it's very instructive to watch.

Unfortunately the experience is unlikely to move any of the students to question what the media tell them about Democrat policies, because the herd instinct is too strong.  But it's a hoot to watch.


Wednesday, January 9

Mainstream media jumps on Trump statements, "fact checking." Result...?


The Dems and their mainstream media allies were shrieking both before and after the president's speech last night.  Fortunately the alphabet networks were ready to "fact-check" each of the president's claims against their "  Here's how it went:

TRUMP CLAIM:  Last month 20,000 children were illegally brought into the United States.

FACT:  Probably True. According to CBP, 4,982 unaccompanied minors were apprehended at the border in October 2018, and 5,283 in November. In addition, family units -- that is, individuals (either a child under 18 years old, parent or legal guardian) apprehended with a family member by the U.S. Border Patrol -- numbered 23,115 in October and 25,172 in November. Assuming that each "family unit" contains at least one child, that means that the numbers of children are well above the 20,000 number cited by the president tonight.  [So the president was not only correct, his number was conservative (i.e. low)]


TRUMP CLAIM:  In the last two years ICE officers arrested 266,000 aliens with criminal records.

FACT: The number of arrests for the years 2016-2018 is accurate, according to ICE data, but it needs context.  [Of course!  And we'll provide ours!]  There have been 210,876 arrests of illegal immigrants with previous criminal convictions, and 55,233 more arrested with pending charges. But many of those crimes are non-violent, the most common being traffic violations. [Numbers of each?]

TRUMP CLAIM:  "Illegal use of drugs kills more Americans every year than were killed in the entire Vietnam war."

FACT:  Over 58,200 Americans died in Vietnam.  The Centers for Disease Control reported that over 72,000 people died due to drug overdoses in 2017.  [So the president was absolutely accurate.  But they wouldn't actually say that.]

CLAIM:  "The southern border supplies vast quantities of illegal drugs including meth, heroin, cocaine and fentanyl.  Every week 300 U.S. citizens are killed by heroin alone, and 90 percent floods from the southern border."

FACT: According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 15,958 Americans died from heroin overdoses in 2017. This comes out to about 306 deaths per week. And according to the Drug Enforcement Administration's 2018 report, "The SWB remains the primary entry point for heroin into the United States. Most of the heroin seized by CBP occurs along the U.S.-Mexico border near San Diego, California."

So let's see if we've got this straight:  On every point you guys mentioned, the president was right on the money.  Impressive!

Source here--a notoriously biased one: CBS 

Another insane jury verdict

A tow truck driver in Florida was clearing wreckage from a tractor-trailer accident when fire ants crawled up his leg and bit him.

His medical records show he told his doctors that fire ants bit him.

But with the help of a clever attorney he changed his story when he sued the company that owned the wrecked semi, claiming his injuries were actually caused by sulfuric acid being hauled in the wrecked trailer.

During the trial a medical specialist testified that the plaintiff's injuries were consistent with fire ant bites, not battery acid. Yet a jury still awarded the driver $5.2 million in damages.

Of course if the man's legs had actually been burned by battery acid, his pants would have been full of holes.  No mention in the article of anyone bothering to ask that question.  Interesting.

I write about absurd damage awards by juries seeking to help people "cash in" against corporations because it forecasts the future:  Morons have lots more children than educated people (despite Democrat claims that this is false), so will soon constitute a majority, both of potential jurors, and of voters.

If you like that prospect, you'll enjoy the future.

Waiter fired for being rude sues, claims firing discriminatory because he's French, so "more direct"

In Vancouver, Canada, a French waiter was repeatedly warned about his rude and disrespectful attitude toward his co-workers.  Later he was fired.

He then sued his former employer, claiming his firing was "discrimination."

His reasoning--as explicitly stated in his lawsuit--was that French culture “tends to be more direct and expressive” than other cultures.  So firing him for being rude amounted to discrimination against people of French origin.

Normally this would be laughed out of court, but in Canada each province has gruberment agencies called "Human Rights Tribunals," staffed by liberal morons eager to throw their weight around and punish anyone doing something they don't like.  And that body refused to dismiss the waiter's lawsuit.

Many U.S. cities and states have similar agencies.  They're a disaster--as seen from the number of bakers and wedding photographers forced into bankrupty for declining to bake cakes or take photos for same-sex marriages.

Words fail....