Wednesday, July 27

We have a new paradigm, courtesy of Hillary and the Democrat party

The Democratic party has now embraced
  •  illegal immigration;
  •  lawbreaking by their nominee;
  •  deliberately importing tens of thousands of Syrians without being able to vet one; and
  • the mass release into the U.S. of illegal aliens who have committed serious crimes *other than* entering the U.S. illegally.
Thus it would seem there's not the slightest stigma or downside for Democrats to commit or endorse illegal acts--provided such acts are done by their party, its supporters or their presidential candidate.  

It's as if laws that would jail ordinary folk didn't apply to them.  And the scary thing is that half the country is fine with this.

Eh, why worry?  As Hillary said, "At this point, what difference could it possibly make?"

Tuesday, July 26

If someone is bent on wiping out your civilization, are you morally obligated to let 'em?

Is killing ever justifiable?

For example, suppose you knew with total certainty that someone you knew was planning to [detonate a nuclear weapon/poison the water supply/commit mass murder].  You tell the cops but they don't believe you.  Your only chance to stop the person is to kill them before they can act.  Is it wrong to kill the person?

I note this to raise a totally academic question:  If some group was totally dedicated to destroying your civilization, and won't stop as long as they're alive, are you morally obligated to let them do so?

Specifically, over the last year there have been a slew of deadly attacks by Muslims on unarmed western civilians.  A dozen here, 154 there and so on.  Muslims claim their religion is never responsible, that it does NOT order devout Muslims to kill infidels.

This of course is bullshit:  The Koran commands devout Muslims to kill "infidels."  In case you just arrived on the planet, that would be you (assuming you're not Muzz).

As far as can be determined no Muslim authority has ever said "Oh, that verse of the Koran that says 'kill infidels' doesn't mean what it says."  Because of course any muzz who said that would be killed by his co-"religionists," since disagreeing with anything written in the Koran is apostasy, which devout Muslims believe warrants execution.

So if we assume the Koran means what it clearly says, it poses a problem:  Are you ready to let them kill you in order to let them do what their "religion" demands?

Liberals and Democrats--who think of themselves as far more enlightened than you--refuse to answer this question, simply rejecting the premise:  Unable to see consequences that will happen more than a minute or two in the future, they simply repeat the mantra "Islam is 'the' religion of peace, so it's simply illogical that Muslims would want to kill us.  It's simply un-possible." 

To liberals and Democrats, no more analysis or discussion is needed.  They believe Islam is peaceful because the alternative is scary, and because all their enlightened friends believe it.  And that's all they need.

By contrast, people who observe and reason for themselves see Muslims killing anyone, anywhere who isn't a member of their own sub-set of the cult and ask what drives those murders.  Hmmm, that's a real poser.

Regardless of the answer to that question, the next question can already be asked:  "When will they decide they've killed enough 'infidels'?"

Most rational people decide the answer to that one is "never."

This poses the classic "existential problem":  Let's assume you want to continue to live, without converting to Islam.  By contrast, they're bent on doing what their religion commands them to do.  In the long run it's not possible for both of these outcomes to exist simultaneously.

Now, it could be that the Koranic verse noted above has been countermanded by some later verse.  If so the counter has been very well hidden.  I'd be glad to hear it, but if such a verse existed you'd think so-called "moderate" muzz would have been eagerly pointing it out to us infidels.  They haven't, which should lead you to the logical conclusion that no such verse exists.

Okay, Theory Y:  There's no countermanding *verse* as such, but later parts of the Koran *strongly suggest* that followers are really not supposed to kill infidels.

And as you already guessed, if such a passage exists it's been amazingly well hidden for 1300 years.

Now:  If liberals and Democrats want to submit to Islam--whether by paying the "jizya" (a special tax non-Muslims are to pay to Muzz leaders to not be killed) or by converting to Islam--is that their right?  Of course.  I'd be delighted to see Hillary Clinton in a burqa, setting an example for Democrat women.

The point is that Dems, liberals and "progressives" either don't know what the Koran says, or don't believe Islam means what it says, or are fine with converting or paying the dhimmi tax.  You need to know this. 

Even if they knew the Koran demanded that they choose between submitting or converting to Islam, they'd still support welcoming more muslim "refugees" into the U.S., and changing our laws to accommodate them.  Because in their view that's the only "enlightened" thing to do.  It's what Obama and Hillary strongly and openly advocate, so it must be enlightened.

And for libs, Dems and progs, being seen by their peers as enlightened is the highest honor.  Most would rather die than be thought of as unenlightened. (If you don't believe that ask any lib you know if they regard Islam as a threat, in any way, shape or form.)

Your better explain all those tragic events to you poor, unenlightened souls

Mainstream media:  "Today a crazy person, for reasons we can't possibly determine, has *allegedly* committed a "man-made disaster" after he was pushed beyond the breaking point by white privilege.  And Islamophobia.  But whatever the reason, it had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam."

The emperor:  "Global warming was undoubtedly a big factor.  Or maybe climate change.  So I'm ordering that $20 billion be reallocated from wasteful military spending to fighting global...what's the current term again?"
   "In any case, this unfortunate event had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam."

Hillary:  "White Germans need to look in the mirror and do some soul-searching.  And in any case, this unfortunate event had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam."

Merkel:  "My policies had nothing whatsoever to do with this."

H/T grand_pubah at Zips

Message to "lone-wolf" killers from the Democrats and mainstream media

Note to "lone-wolf" killers, from your friendly mainstream media/Democrats:

    "The Republican presidential candidate has claimed you're killing people because your religion tells you to.  We doubt this can be true, because we've determined that all religions are morally equivalent.  But because we're really interested in your real motive and we have absolutely no idea what it could be, we'd like to request that before you, uh, 'pull the trigger' next time, you state the motive for your attack, in writing, in triplicate.  Please sign and have it notarized.

    "Thanks.  We know you're busy."

Edited from commenter snyper77 at WeaselZippers.

French government ordered mayor of Nice to erase all video of truck attack on 6 named cameras

"Le Figaro" is a French weekly newspaper founded in 1826.  Has a circulation of 313,000.  So it's got a lot of reputation on the line.

Four days ago Le Figaro published an article claiming that the central government of France--under socialist Hollande--ordered the city of Nice to destroy the video surveillance tapes from six municipal security cameras for the 24 hours before the deadly terrorist attack, "and also all the images after the attack started."

The order listed the specific cameras that Hollande's government wanted erased, by both location and camera number.  Makes ya wonder how they knew exactly which cameras, by number, eh? [1]

A police supervisor in Nice said "It's the first time we've ever been ordered to destroy evidence."  (The guy said it in French, of course, but that's an accurate translation.)

If you're a liberal/Democrat you probably don't believe this story, because it doesn't *seem* to make any sense:  If you're trying to determine whether the truck attacker was part of a larger plot you'd want as many sets of trained eyes on these videos as possible.  It's not unusual for some detective examining photos from a "cold case" to see something *and grasp its significance* after dozens of other officers didn't notice anything unusual.

If you don't believe that the French government demanded the videos be erased, click on this link to the original story.  If you don't speak French, the problem of translation is easily solved.

The *stated* reason given by central government for ordering the destruction of the video record was to avoid "uncontrolled dissemination" of the vids.  The government said the problem with that was that ISIS could use them for propaganda purposes.  Except there are already 20 cell-phone vids already on the internet--and unlike the surveillance cams, they're pointed at the truck instead of at a random street corner.  So this stated reason, while *plausible*, isn't the real one.

The second objection the Paris government noted to dissemination of the vids was that if victims' families saw them, they'd be distressed.  Again, plausible.  But again, 20 better vids are already on the net.  So the potential for distress--other than actually, y'know, having a loved one killed--is already there.  Families wanting to avoid more pains know not to view 'em.

So what's the *real* reason?  It's to avoid identifying the official in the Hollande government who initially put out the false but de-fusing initial fable that the attack was a) the work of a single crazy guy, totally spontaneous, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam; or alternatively b) the work of a "lone wolf" who was absolutely acting alone, not on behalf of Islamic terrorists.

This official is the mole--well, one of probably dozens, but you get the picture.  While his nominal job is improving security of French citizens, his real goal is to keep those very people--the people he nominally "serves"--from connecting this attack with Islam--in any way, shape or form.

BTW, for the moment the mayor of Nice has refused to destroy the evidence.  But I predict this refusal is only temporary:  national governments have virtually unlimited money with which to convince local officials to do as the central government orders.  "Want that new highway interchange you need so badly?  Do as we ask.  Otherwise, sorry."

The conclusion:
A decade or so ago a former military guy explained that when a serious problem arose, the fastest way to solve it involved 4 steps: 
   Observe:  Find out everything about what's happening;
   Orient:  How do the things you've observed fit into the picture of what's happening?
   Decide what action will solve the problem;
   Act.

This was shortened to "OODA."

Here's something you need to put at the top of your "Observe" checklist:  The  mainstream U.S. media--which is totally, completely Democrat-supporting--will *never* tell you the truth about anything that negatively affects the Dem/liberal/"progressive" agenda.

Never.

If you're a Democrat or liberal or young you think this can't be true.  And the fact that you're wrong about this isn't because you're stupid, but because you simply cannot, *cannot* believe the wunnerful media would LIE to you.  They're so...enlightened.  So seemingly sincere.

Bull. Shit.

They'll do anything--anything--to support the "progressive" agenda, truth be damned.

So...watch for the bombshell story at the top--socialist government demanding that Nice erase all the vids--to appear in the U.S. media.  Guess how many papers will run it.  It'll be on the Agence France Presse wire service, so every major U.S. media organ will know about it, but....

Okay, the Pocono Valley Observer--circulation 1200--might pick it up. 

I rest my case.

So, did any of you sleuths spot the *hidden* bombshell in the government's demand that the vids be destroyed--the proof that their *stated* reasons for doing so were complete, utter bullshit?

Go back to the 2nd 'graf:  Remember that the socialist (pro-muslim) government stated the reasons they were demanding the vids be destroyed (i.e. the *nominal* or cover reasons) were 1) to prevent ISIS from using 'em for propaganda; and 2) to spare victims' families?

Both those are plausible, eh?  But why would surveillance videos for the 24 hours *before* the attack have any bearing on those two stated reasons?

Have a *great* day, as a free person willing to defend freedom.
---
1. Obviously not a coincidence.  Here's how it worked: Within hours after the attack the Nice police sent an initial report to the central security office of the Hollande government detailing what they knew, including what the city's surveillance cameras showed.  So the central government knew what cameras should be erased.
   Having a "mole" in your opponent's intel service lets you know exactly what they know, usually before anyone else in the country knows it.
   (Care to guess how many pro-Soviet moles are in our CIA?)

H/T Gates of Vienna

BLM activists demanding some police funding be shifted to "community mumble..."

There's a basic observation that when a tactic has the effect you want, you keep using it until your opponent develops a successful counter to it.

Black demonstrators around the country are demanding that police be defunded.  But in several cities they're pushing a less-extreme intermediate goal:  to pressure Democrat mayors and council members to cut police budgets by ten percent and put that money into..."community mumble mumble."  Chances are good that craven pols wanting black votes will agree that diverting a mere ten percent of police funding won't hurt policing by a detectable amount.


And if crime does go up they'll just claim it was due to some other cause, like global warming.  So easy to fool the rubes, eh?

And thus the precedent is set.  And just like Democrats taking money from national defense to pay for giving more free shit to their voters, that won't end at ten percent.  Hell, some countries make cops buy their own guns, so why not do that here?  Or, experts say that in urban areas cops are more effective when they patrol on foot instead of in cars, so why not cut the number of patrol cars by, say, a third?  See how it works?

"Is the Constitution the supreme law of the land?" Lynch: Uh, depends.

Loretta Lynch--like all Dem politicians--is quite cunning:  She quickly recognized that because she had the cover of the Democrat media and her corrupt boss, when a congressional committee asked her to testify recently she could brazenly refuse to answer questions as basic as "Is the Constitution the supreme law of the U.S.?" with impunity.

It has to be so hard on your poor emperor: How many people did he have to interview for the post of Attorney-general before he found someone willing to trash the law and the Constitution in order to support him and his thoroughly lawless party?

Did the Founders mean for the prez to obey laws passed by congress?

"Congress makes things called 'laws,' and ordinary people must obey them.  But as everyone knows, the president is one of the 3 co-equal branches of govt, and thus is not subordinate to congress.  So obviously the laws congress makes don't apply to me or my federal workers.

"Since the Secretary of Skate is part of the executive branch--my administration--it follows that the laws passed by the legislature don't apply to the Secretary any more than they do to the president.

This is such a fundamental principle of the constitution that I'm sure my good friends on the Supreme Court will make a formal finding very soon now.

So don't get all wee-wee'd up over any alleged failure of the former Secretary of Skate--who will also be your next president--to obey laws, since they clearly don't apply to her, any more than they apply to me.  They can't.  It says that right in the Constitution.

Posted by: B.H. Obama, Constitutional law professor

First day of the Dim convention, and what was missing?

On the first day of the Democratic national convention, 61 speakers took the podium.  Not one mentioned ISIS.  Why not?  Because as far as they're concerned, not only is Islamic terrorism not a problem, it's actually rude to Muslims to mention it. 

One other thing:  On Monday there wasn't a single American flag visible, either on the stage or in the entire hall.  Why?  Because as Moochelle said, "it's just a piece of cloth."  Besides, a huge chunk of Democrat voters aren't U.S. citizens quite yet (not until 100 days after Hillary and company take office, when her v.p. pick has promised she will give them amnesty), so they're likely to be offended by our nation's flag.

As Hillary said: "Patriotism.  Who needs it?" 

Oh wait, did I mis-quote her?  Sorry, it wasn't intentional, just "careless."  I thought I heard her say that.  So by her standards--and those of our thoroughly stupid or corrupt FBI director, and every Democrat--there's no problem, since there was no "intent."

Wow, I just *love* the new standard for lawskating.  Thanks, Hillary!

Thursday, July 21

After Brexit, IMF cuts their estimated growth for world's economy--by how much??

The elites warned you that if the stupid Brits voted to leave the faabulous EU it would devastate the economy of the *whole world*!  But you didn't listen!  And now look what's happened:
 The International Monetary Fund has reduced its forecast for global economic growth due to the UK's vote to leave the EU.

Before the vote the IMF forecast the world's economy would grow 3.2 percent this year and 3.5 percent in 2017.  But because of that awful, awful Brexit vote, the IMF has now cut those estimates by...a terrifying 0.1 percentage point for each year.

"See, we elites warned you that if the Brits voted to leave the EU it would kill the economy of the *whole world*!  But you didn't listen!  See what happens when you don't listen to us?"

Wait, dude:  Before the vote the IMF was predicting 3.2% growth and now they're guessing 3.1?  A tenth of a percent upsets you?

"See, it's a disaster!"

Hillary story #845,095

Hillary Clinton recently remarked that watching the Republican Convention was like watching "The Wizard of Oz."  This prompted a commenter on another site to write the following:
I used to do consulting work at a nuke power plant in New York when she was senator. She hated nuclear power and she would delight in telling the workers that she was going to close the plant and put them out of work. She visited often and every time she did the employees would whistle the tune "Ding-dong the witch is dead" from the movie.
No idea whether it's true but it's funny.

Of course if anyone did that in today's political climate Democrats would have a heart attack, claiming the eeevil whistlers were wishing death on their party's nominee.

Which is surely way worse than calling for cops to be murdered, as the Left has been doing for months now.

Reporters discover secret annex of Iran treaty; State Dept says *not* secret, just not revealed to the American public

One of the things the Obama regime touts as an example of their great negotiating skill is the nuclear treaty-but-not-really-a-treaty with the mullahs of Iran.  It was so faabulous that they had to declare that even though it was to be a binding agreement between the U.S. and Iran, they weren't calling it a "treaty."

They couldn't call it a treaty because if it was, they'd have to get a 2/3 vote of the senate before it would be binding.  That's called "ratification," and until Obama this was the way all treaties were handled.  It was a check against a naive or stupid president making dumb treaties, for whatever reason. 

Team Obama knew the agreement with Iran was so one-sided against the U.S. that they'd never get a 2/3 vote to ratify. 

Solution?  Just don't call it a "treaty."

Neat, huh.  See how that works?

Now:  Before this non-treaty was finalized, many of the provisions of the thing were kept secret even from members of congress--because the regime knew that if the provisions were revealed before the deal was done, the public would be so furious that they'd never get even the simple majority vote that they finagled to pass the thing.  But after they got the bare-majority approval they wanted--obviously way easier than the two-thirds vote needed to ratify a treaty--they promised the public that all the terms of this crap agreement had been disclosed.

I know you'll all be totally shocked to learn that Obama and Kerry and the whole crew of top Democrats...lied to you about this super-wonderful non-treaty.

It's now been discovered that a major annex to the non-treaty treaty hadn't been revealed to the public.  This prompted a reporter to ask a State Department spokesman how the administration could have said all the provisions had been made public when in fact they hadn't.

Watch the following video.  Watch as the spokesman tapdances and dodges.  "Oh no, it's not at all secret," he says, "because the people negotiating it knew about it.



When you watch this you get a feeling you've seen this performance before.  Finally it hits:  It's the same performance done by Hillary--who when asked "Did you wipe your private email server?" replied:
You mean like, with a cloth?
And yet a majority of voters are about to elect this creature president.

Wednesday, July 20

Attacker stabs French mother and her 3 daughters; authorities mystified as to possible motive

A French mother and her three daughters were stabbed while on vacation in the French Alps.  The attacker was from Morocco.

Both families were vacationing in the French Alps and were in neighboring suites.  The mother had helped the man the previous day when he became ill.

The next day the girls--8, 12 and 14 years old--were having breakfast on their porch when the attacker came over, stabbed all 3, then went inside and stabbed their mother.  The youngest girl suffered a punctured lung and is reported to be in critical condition.

No French official would speculate as to the reason for the attack, but all of them assured reporters that whatever the reason, "it had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam."

Officials also heatedly denied that the man attacked the girls because they were "scantily clad."  However, a rogue, right-wing, anti-government TV network (TF1) reported that this was indeed the motive, as all 3 girls were wearing...shorts.

Gee, hard to imagine anyone getting upset about that, right?  I mean, have you ever heard of anyone getting so offended by *shorts* on girls that they stab them?  Anyone?

You too can predict the future

Predicting the future is actually pretty easy.  If you know a lot about a politician's politics you can pretty easily predict how they'll respond to a given event.

Many members of Blackliesmatter are peaceful, but many others have called for killing cops.  Accordingly, someone started one of those White House petitions to have the Pentagon declare BLM a terrorist organization.

The petition stated“Terrorism is defined as ‘the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims.’ This definition is the same definition used to declare ISIS and other groups, as terrorist organizations.” It also stated that the group “earned this title due to its actions in Ferguson, Baltimore, and even at a Bernie Sanders rally, as well as all over the United States and Canada.” The petition garnered 141,444 signatures, prompting the White House to issue a response.

Ok, prediction time:  How do you think the emperor would respond to that petition?

See, told ya it was easy.

Axe attack in Germany, two with life-threatening injuries. Gov't has no idea of the motive.

You may have heard that a 17-year-old immigrant went on an ax-and-knife rampage on a train in southern Germany, wounding five people (two have life-threatening injuries).

German officials were very disingenuous in describing the attack.  The interior minister said witnesses reported the attacker yelled out "an exclamation" as he was striking his defenseless victims with his axe. 

Do you find it even remotely plausible that the witnesses said "he yelled an exclamation as he attacked"?  I don't either.

Fortunately a slew of news agencies were able to interview witnesses independently, and what the witnesses actually reported was that the guy was yelling "Allahu akhbar."  Which puts things in rather a different light, eh?
  
The German interior minister knew what the attacker yelled, of course, but he didn't want ordinary German citizens to know.  Because the German government--like the emperor's regime--is totally committed to letting an unlimited number of so-called "refugees" into the country without any background check. 

Now a few enterprising reporters have learned more:  In a video posted by the Islamic State that purports to show the attacker, the young man calls on others to “kill these infidels in the countries that you live in.”  “You can see I have lived in your own home and have planned to behead you in your own territory,” the young man says in Pashto while brandishing a knife.


The interior minister’s office told the dpa news agency that investigators had determined that the video was authentic.  If you live in the U.S. you won't read this in the Democrat media, nor will you see the video.  You might well ask why not.  You won't get an answer but it'll be interesting.

The interior minister also took care to note that the attacker appeared to be a calm person and "not overtly religious."  Wow, that's a relief.  Cuz otherwise the ordinary shmuck might well think the attack had some vague, tenuous connection with Islam--which many liberals and Democrats still loyally call the religion of peace.

Looks like German elites still aren't serious on solving the problem of self-professed, unvetted "refugees" fucking up their country--and gravely injuring ordinary German civilians.


Tuesday, July 19

Germany tries to deport a handful of immigrants--they refuse to leave. Now what?

‘Massive failure’ as thousands of migrants slated for deportation stay in Germany

GERMAN officials are reporting a "massive failure in the rule of law" as tens of thousands of immigrants due for deportation defy the government and remain in the country.

A secret report by interior ministers of all of Germany's 16 states says tens of thousands of migrants scheduled to be flown to their homelands in the past few months are still in the country being supported by German taxpayers.

One big cause of this is that migrants facing deportation lie about who they are and where they're from.  And 70 percent of men under 40 are claiming they're suddenly too sick to fly.

And hundreds of liberal German doctors are refusing to sign certificates stating that those intended for expulsion are fit to fly.  Which has utterly predictable results:  In one recent incident the state of Saxony chartered an aircraft to fly 49 Tunisians back home.  Only 13 boarded: the identity of the others could either not be proved or else they had gone into hiding among the migrant community.
Other tricks include deportees hiding their children with friends or relatives knowing officials will not send them home without them.

In one recent case the government chartered a jet to fly natives of Guinea home on a jet with a crew of 14, 13 accompanying police officers and a traveling doctor.  Only 3 of the scheduled men showed up. 

A rational person looks at this situation and thinks, "What the hell did the German elites think would happen?   When the government demands that an unlimited number of anti-western people--who think democracy is evil and women are chattel--be allowed to enter the country, can anyone be surprised that they don't obey when the host country tries to deport some of 'em?

Kind of like the situation here in the emperor's empire, where less than five percent of illegal immigrants even bother to show up for their scheduled hearing.  Too inconvenient, maybe?  Yeah.  Kind of like obeying any law. 

Or like the president deciding which laws he'll choose to enforce and which he'll ignore.

Neat, huh?  Government is SO much more efficient when one person makes every decision.  No messy debate, no embarrassing publicity.  Much better, eh citizen?

 

Former head of Fannie Mae knocked down $100 MILLION while with that agency--and more on retiring.

You've probably never heard of James Johnson.  He was a major figure in the Democrat party, and CEO of one of the tens of thousands of alphabet agencies tied to the federal government:  the Federal National Mortgage Association, usually shortened to "Fannie Mae."

Johnson retired with a pension of $71,000 per MONTH.

That's not a typo.  It's $900,000 per year.

More staggering yet, while Johnson was employed at Fannie Mae he received a staggering $100 MILLION in salary and mysteriously-contrived bonuses.  That isn't a type either:  this asshole actually bagged $100 million dollars.

For Democrats, liberals and "progressives" who probably believe this is all right-wing fiction, do ya know who Bill Moyers is?  PBS fixture, 100 percent liberal.  This info is from his website.

But hey, don't be a bit concerned, citizen:  You've probably heard the Left bitching about obscene CEO salaries many times, but they don't mean CEO's of quasi-government agencies.  After all, you never heard a thing about this before now, right?  Meaning the Democrat Media didn't touch it.

The only reason it's come out now is a couple of people wrote a well-researched book called "Reckless Endangerment."  And besides, it's only money.  And under the brilliant leadership of your emperor, the federal government's deficit for this year is down to a measly $600 Billion so what's another million or so stolen per year, eh?

Hey, the country's in the very best possible hands.  Well, if you're trying to destroy the Constitution, the rule of law and the way of life we grew up under.  But don't worry, citizen:  You'll still have cable TV.  And soup.  And powdered milk and government cheese.  What's not to like?

Update: The economy is faaabulous, citizen! You must believe us.

Before the emperor assumed the throne in January of 2009 our total national debt was about $10.6 trillion.

Under his reign, the total national debt has climbed to $19.3 trillion.

 But do, do continue to vote Democrat, citizen.  Because numbers don't mean anything.  They're just an attempt by Rethuglicans to scare you. 

Lessons the Democrats learned from the deadly truck attack in France

A message from the Democratic Party:
Last week 84 people in Nice, France, were tragically killed by a truck.  Early reports speculated that the driver may have been born in another country, but the birthplace of the driver, his motives and his religion don't matter.

Trucks are responsible for over 12,000 deaths per year in the U.S.  And yet anyone can buy or rent a truck with absolutely no background check.  This is outrageous.  It's also outrageous that people can actually sell trucks privately--again, with no background check.

We've known about this problem--and warned about it--for years.  But each time a Democrat in congress introduces a bill to close these loopholes, the Republicans in congress--on the orders of the powerful National Truck-makers' Lobby--have killed the bill without even letting it have a floor vote.

Thus we hope you'll agree that if we want to prevent a tragedy such as the one in Nice from killing innocent American children--like yours--we need to ban trucks.

Trucks are deadly weapons.  The Republicans say people should have the right to buy or rent any vehicle, but this is obviously absurd.  No one needs to own a truck.  We need to ban these terrible killing devices in order to protect our innocent children.  So please, won't you send Hillary $25, $50 or whatever you can afford?  We hope to raise $500,000 to publicize the carnage caused by these awful devices every year.

Please make your check payable to The Clinton Foundation.  Thanks!

Monday, July 18

"Law of Totally Unpredictable Consequences," part gazillion

"Renewable energy" is, like, so cool, y'know?  An' we reeeally need to stop producing oil and gas and coal and those other icky things cuz, like, they all make CO2.  Which is, like, killing our planet with global warming.  [Hears murmurs of disagreement]  Oh no, wait, sorry!  Global climate change.  Wow, you use one script for years and then they change it!

"Anyway, we need to stop all those other energy thingies and go completely to renewables.  That is just so cool!"
You've all heard this kind of earnest touchy-feely talk from libs and Democrats and damn near every student.  And it's wonderful, really.

Well, until you ask 'em a question or two.  Because when moonbat liberals talk about "renewable energy" they don't mean hydro--which is indeed totally renewable and non-polluting, but which your so-called betters in government and the Left have barred from expanding.

And they don't mean wood--which is indeed totally renewable, but which emits the dreaded CO2.

So for now that leaves solar and wind.  Which leads to the first question:  Since both are intermittent, how do you store energy for times when it's night and there's no wind?

Be prepared for blank stares.

In fact, don't bother asking.  Most of 'em have never considered that problem and will just be upset.

But of course that hasn't kept libs and "watermelons" from ramming renewables down our throats.  Fried and bashed songbirds and eagles are no problem for zealous idealists.

Unfortunately, ideas have consequences.  And in Australia they're finding out:  Jumping on the "renewables" bandwagon, a few years ago liberal pols in the Oz government ordered dozens of coal and gas plants shut down, confident that renewables would take over.

Unfortunately the dumb pols forgot to consult that harsh mistress, reality--who can get pretty cross when that happens.  They ran short of electricity, which left utilities in a bind:  Do we simply turn off the juice to thousands of our customers on a rotating basis (called "the Venezuela solution") or do we pay ten times the usual rate for electricity to snag the last kilowatt to ensure our customers don't go dark in the middle of winter?

They chose Plan B.  And to do that they had to pay up to $14,000 per "MWh."

Of course if you don't know what a "MWh" is, you don't know how big a hit it is to have to pay $14,000 for one, eh?  But knowing how supply and demand work you can probably guess that it's more than the usual rate, right?  So maybe, what, ten times more?

Uh, no.  The usual cost of wholesale electricity is around $100 per MWh.  So utilities that were forced to scramble for supply to keep their customers from freezing had to pay 140 times the usual rate.

Moonbat:  "Eh, they'll probably just absorb that extra cost.  Because all companies--including public utilities--want to be socially responsible!"

Oh certainly, Snowflake.  Companies never pass costs through to customers.  Or taxes either.  Idiot.

But don't worry, citizen--even though your emperor had his EPA pass a rule that forced generating companies to shut down 187 coal-fired powerplants, we can't possibly have a shortage of electricity here.  Because the laws of supply and demand don't apply here, see?  Besides, we've got way more electrical capacity than we need.  [That's sarcasm, btw] 

And anyway, before enlightened Democrats elected the emperor the first time, he promised that "under my plan the cost of electricity will necessarily skyrocket," so when the cost of electricity does that--because of his EPA order that killed 187 coal-fired plants--he'll just be honoring his solemn promise.  Who could possibly be upset about that?