Monday, August 29

Another Obama lie goes down the memory hole

If you're just now in college you probably don't know that when Obama was trying to get congress to pass the total disaster called Obamacare, on 25 occasions he gave speeches in which he made a so-called "promise" to American voters.  He said
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  If you like your health insurance you can keep it."
He said that because critics were warning that it appeared that the preliminary rules of the horribly-designed program would force millions of Americans to use a different doctor than one they'd used and liked for many years.  And of course millions of Americans would be forced to get new health insurance because the bastards who rammed this down your throat demanded that, for example, all new health insurance policies had to provide birth control, regardless of age.  Silly shit like that.

Apparently the idea of losing a trusted doc didn't sit well with lots of folks, so the emperor realized he had to counter these potentially-fatal criticisms.  Cuz if enough Dem congresswhores got enough angry letters and calls from their constituents warning that if they voted to pass that bill they'd be out of a job, they wouldn't have enough Dem votes to pass it--despite having majority control of BOTH the house and senate.

Fast-forward.  Tens of millions were indeed forced to change doctors and health policies.  Oooh, said the Democrats, we need to get our storm-troopers to confiscate all those thousands of copies of videos showing the great emperor looking voters right in the eye and lying through his teeth.

"What do you mean 'We can't do that'?  We run this damn country, so we oughta be able to...."

Okay, they dropped that idea (though not for lack of desire) and cleaned up their reputations another way:  Ever since its first day of operation the government's health-care website has included the question--important to lots of people--"Can I keep my own doctor?"  Unfortunately that phrasing made the contrast between the emperor's repeated, emphatic *promises* and the actual truth too obvious.  So a couple of days ago they simply changed the section from the straightforward question to "You may be able to keep your own doctor."

Much better.  Keeps voters from recalling many, many video statements that began "And I promise you this..."  Let alone the sleazy POS obamacare architect Jon Gruber saying they knew this was a lie from the outset.

Earlier this year the White House also removed an alleged "Reality Check" from its own website, which stated "Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform debunks the myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors."  Of course for millions of Americans that's exactly what happened.

When your party gets caught out in a flat lie, simply make all evidence of the lie vanish, and that'll fix things.  Cuz the average person has the attention span and memory of a clam.  Five years from now not one American in 100 will recall the emperor promising that.

As Orwell said, it will have "gone down the memory hole."

Great job, Democrats!

"Special snowflake" demands that university re-sign all unisex restrooms because term is "uncomfortable"

Just when you think the "special snowflakes" who infest college campuses can't get any nuttier, they outdo themselves.

This time it's a goofy little dweeb at U of Missouri, who has made it his mission to force the university to change the signs on all the "unisex bathrooms"--because he's offended.

And why is he offended?  Because...well...
"Unisex is just such an uncomfortable and outdated word,” MU student Sterling Waldman told the Columbia Missourian. The word, he claims, excludes people who identify as neither male nor female. 

Waldman serves as the social justice chair in MU’s student senate, and successfully pushed for the student government to spend $5000 of student funds on relabeling unisex bathrooms around campus.
If you're not understanding how in the hell the word "unisex" could possibly offend people who "identify as neither male nor female," join the club.  The term seems as inclusive as possible--at least to rational adults.  But of course, look who we're dealing with here.
 
So looks like simply (!) forcing every grade school, high school, university, government building and business to pony up "unisex" bathrooms wasn't enough.  (And of course everyone with a functioning brain knew it wouldn't be.)  Now the "social justice warriors"--a.k.a. special snowflakes--at least at this one very sad university, demand that the place spend supposedly-scarce funds on...renaming the ridiculous "gender-neutral" bathrooms to get rid of the offensive label.  
 
As an aside, Mizzou's administration estimates it'll cost about $11,000 to re-sign all the unisex bathrooms, so if precious Sterling is to be placated the university will have to pony up the rest of the cash.  And based on past history I suspect the spineless administration will cave rather than tell the SJW's to just shut the fuck up already.  
 
Oh, sorry, should I have put a "trigger warning" there?  My bad.

"OMG! Hate-letter with white powder sent to mosque! Islamophobia!" Muslim man admits he mailed it, told to do so by Imam

Have you heard that "Islamophobia" is on the rise in the U.S?

Yeah, citizen, if you believe they Lying Media, Americans are on a rampage against the poor innocent muslims.  Almost like a holy war or somethin'.  Jihad, maybe?  Except...it's bullshit.  It's a hoax, carefully manufactured by the Lying Media to get people to support importing another 100,000 unvetted so-called "refugees"--90% of whom, oddly, instead of being widows and orphans, strangely turn out to be military-age males.  Oh well...

The hoax is stoked by CAIR, and immediately picked up by the lying media.  But what's this??

A Muslim man in Oklahoma admitted mailing a threatening letter filled with a scary "white powder" to a local mosque.  And he says the Imam at the mosque told him to do it.

Well isn't that interesting.
Justin William Bouma, 32, was charged with sending the letter to the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City on June 1.

The imam at the mosque, 3815 N St. Clair Ave., contacted the FBI after opening it.

The powder was determined to be harmless.

Police reported that Bouma later admitted sending the “anthrax” letter to the mosque.
Now a question:  Do you think this is the only fake "attack" on Muslims in the U.S?  Turns out about one fake "Islamophobic" incident happens per week.  You never hear about 'em because the NY Times doesn't think they're worth reporting.  And you have to wonder:  Why? 

It's because admitting that Muslims are hoaxing the "Islamophobia" damages The Narrative:  The Democrats want you to feel that Americans are mean, persecuting innocent U.S. Muslims, because that way you'll feel guilty--which will remove opposition to the emperor and Hillary continuing their policy of importing tens of thousands of unvetted Muslim "refugees" from mid-east countries.

The only outlets that ever report fake "Islamophobic attacks" are local papers and TV stations--which have no reader or viewers outside their local town.

So as far as the average American voter knows, none of it ever happened.

Funny how that works, huh.

Liberal moonbats order Oregon to stop using coal by 2020; are convinced "renewables" will substitute

The population of Oregon is extremely liberal.  And like libs everywhere, they're easy prey for people selling "magic bean" policies--things like promising free health care or free college or flying cars in every garage. 

"Numbers?  Nah, never did like those!  Don't bother me with actual, y'know, numbers cuz we'll just let the experts deal with those little details."

Yeah.

And now in their zeal to "go green" that state's legislators have voted to force the state's only coal-fired generating plant to shut down by 2020.  And where will the state get the electricity to replace the plant's generating capacity?  Why, from renewable energy, of course!

And in the extremely unlikely event [that's sarcasm, if you can't tell] that the wind occasionally fails to blow hard enough to provide the electricity everyone demands, the legislators have graciously allowed the state's electric utilities to buy electricity from...other states.  But after 2030 the lawmakers decreed that Oregon consumers wouldn't be allowed to buy power from any state that used coal to make electricity.

Unfortunately coal is the second-most economical way to make electricity.  (The most efficient is hydropower, but the environmentalists have made it impossible to build any new dams, so that's out.)  This means that the electricity needed to replace the coal-fired capacity the legislators are shutting down will necessarily be a lot more expensive than the energy it's replacing. 

Which means all consumers' electric bills will rise.

Hey, that's okay, citizen.  You weren't doing anything with that money anyway, so you won't mind paying twice what you pay now to keep your lights on, eh?

Meanwhile we'll put American coal miners out of work, and ship the coal the Oregon plant used to China--which loves coal-fired power and doesn't scrub stack gas. So...lose-lose-lose.

Except for China, of course.


Thursday, August 25

Feds sue school system to force 'em to put ADD / ADHD students in mainstream classes

The emperor's laughably mis-named "Justice" department has filed suit against the state of Georgia for allegedly segregating students with behavioral or emotional problems.

This isn't segregation by race.  Rather, the school system recognized that students with certain "behavioral conditions" made it extremely difficult for the other students to learn.  Indeed, sometimes a student who "acts out" commands all of a teacher's attention.  So the district was trying to give special-needs students more attention, while improving learning for everyone else.

Of course this is too logical, so naturally it violates some rule, regulation or law--in this case the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which says school systems must put developmentally-challenged students in mainstream classrooms.

Most Americans were okay with the ADA forcing every business and government building to put in ramps, add braille to signs and so on.  But I suspect fewer Americans thought the law would be used to force schools to put "emotionally challenged" students in the same classroom with (fairly) normal students.

Much like no one ever thought the government would try to use "Title 9" (requiring schools to have sports programs for girls) to force schools to allow men "identifying" as female to use the girls' locker room.

But here we are, eh? 

It's almost as though every law, if enforced as written, has a ton of unintended consequences.  Kinda makes ya wonder if anyone in congress actually reads the damn things before they pass 'em, eh?

And I suspect this will only get more extreme under Queen Hillary.

Europe shows it's serious about reducing assaults on women

How bad is it getting in Europe?  You wouldn't believe...

In Denmark a teenage girl in the small town of Sonderborg was sexually assaulted.  She used pepper spray to try to fend off the attacker.

Sure enough, the attacker fled.  Now the local government is fining the girl for using pepper spray to defend herself. 

In neighboring Germany the same authorities who have invited a million so-called "refugees" to enter the country--only to see a huge rise in attacks by male Muslim "refugees" on German girls and women--have come up with an equally insane idea to prevent attacks on German women:  Give girls temporary tattoos displaying the word ‘NO!’

Oh yeah, that'll work.  Apparently the bureaucrats believe the poor Muzz were assaulting women because they simply had no idea that Germany didn't allow men to sexually assault women.  The authorities seem to believe the tattoos will remedy that.

Uh-huh.

Idiots.  Europe and the U.S. are both being run by 'em.

But don't worry, citizen:  Hillary will defend the rights of women to not be assaulted.  Well, unless they were assaulted by her faabulous husband.

Female Democrat governor refuses to answer when asked--3 times--if she thinks Hillary is honest, trustworthy

Watch how a Democrat governor--female--dodges a simple question:  "Do you think Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy?"

A CNN reporter was interviewing New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan (D).  Here's the exchange:

Q: “Do you think that she’s honest and trustworthy?”  Dem governor: “I support Hillary Clinton for the presidency because her experience and her record demonstrate that she’s qualified to hold the job.”
 
Q: “Do you think she’s honest?” 
Dem governor: “She has a critical, critical plan, among others, for making college more affordable.”

Q: “But do you think that she’s trustworthy?” 
Dem governor: “I think that she has demonstrated a commitment always to something beyond herself, bigger than herself.”

What does this demonstrate?  Well, ya can't scream "partisan politics" since the person being asked for their opinion is a Democrat.

Ya can't scream "bias by a conservative news network" because the interviewer is from CNN--often called the "Clinton News Network" because of their usually slavish support of Hilly and Bill. 

And ya can't scream "sexism!!!" because the person being asked is a woman.

And yet the female Democrat governor refused to answer the question, not just once but three times.  Think a few Democrats might realize Hillary is a thoroughly corrupt liar?

Sure.  But they'll all vote for her anyway, because...Dimocrat/female/not Trump.

And the steady descent--or as Democrats would put it, "progress"--toward hell continues unabated.  

Wednesday, August 24

Nation's descent into liberal insanity continues unabated

How crazy has the nation gotten under the emperor?  Consider this:

The mayor of Seattle has formed a "heroin task force."   You might think he's trying to motivate his police force to bust sellers.  Nope, the mayor is pushing for the city to open "safe-consumption sites" for addicts--places where they could shoot up "safely."  Funded by taxpayers, of course.

A majority of the members of this task-force agree.  Better yet, they propose to give users clean needles to make it even more convenient to shoot up.

And because Democrat-run cities want every junkie's vote, taxpayers would also fund heroin-blocker drugs for users who overdose.

Flashback: Team Obama hires actors to wear lab coats and stand behind the prez to help sell Obamacare

Back when Obama was trying to convince Democrats in congress to vote for Obamacare he made a series of speeches telling Americans how totally faaabulous it was.

In many of these speeches he appeared with people in white lab coats on the stage behind him.  They looked like doctors, making it look like docs supported the disaster called Obamacare.

After one speech a conservative reporter tried to interview one of the "doctors" to get the guy's opinion on the bill, but the alleged "doctor" refused to be interviewed, or even to tell the reporter his name or who he worked for.

Investigation revealed that the guys in the lab coats weren't doctors--indeed, they weren't in any medical field.  Instead they were actors, hired to make it look as if docs supported Obamacare.

In reality, most docs realized it would be a disaster for them.  But hey, the emperor wanted to ram the thing into law so why not hire actors to look like docs?  Who cares if it's fake?

And at that point you realize:  The emperor and congressional Democrats didn't have the faintest idea of how the scheme would actually, y'know, work.  But no matter: faking it was good enough.  Cuz, you know, if it turned out to be a disaster as written they knew they could always get the courts to fix it.

The beauty of Obama's whole "community organizer" shtick is that he never had to stick around and take responsibility for crappy outcomes.  He just took the money and beat feet.  Always got away with it, so he found that it worked.  All you had to do was look like you knew what you were doing and no one would ask tough questions.

As president nothing has changed except the number of zeroes in the cost.  

Tuesday, August 23

Thanks to the emperor and Supreme Court, clear laws no longer mean what they say

In case you didn't learn this in high school, the Constitution says all laws must be passed by congress.  The president's job is to enforce those laws.  
 
Your cunning emperor has turned that on its head:  He now issues what amount to imperial decrees that have the force of law.  Of course his handlers tell the press to call these edicts "executive memos," since "imperial decrees" might have irritated a few million Americans.

The Supreme Court isn't supposed to write laws either.  Nor is it supposed to re-write laws to repair bad ideas or flawed language.  But in the age of the emperor and his minions, the Constitution has been trashed--thoroughly, totally disregarded.  Which produces outcomes that are uniformly crazy.
 
For example, you may be shocked to learn that the 2000-page nightmare known as Obamacare was not well thought out.  In fact, it contained a number of provisions that were so wretchedly unworkable that the whole damn thing would have collapsed had the law retained them.

Specifically, one of the objectionable things about the law was that it ostensibly forced everyone in the country to buy health insurance.  To enforce this the law imposed a fine (which the courts claimed was merely a "tax") on anyone who didn't comply.  This was called "the mandate."

Problem was that the actual, y'know, language of the bill (which ended up in the law passed) stated that the mandate was only to apply to states that set up a "state health exchange," and NOT on people who lived in states that opted to join the federal insurance program instead.

Normally the solution would be to go back to congress for a short bill to fix the problem by striking the fatally-flawed language.  This type of amendment is quite common.  But the emperor and his lackeys Pelosi and Harry Reid had burned their bridges with congress by being such assholes about ramming the bill through (without a single Republican vote) that they knew they'd probably have to make significant compromises to get a fixed bill through congress--particularly since in the 2010 mid-term elections voters had given the Republicans slim majorities in both houses for the first time in decades.  Since the emperor never compromises, this was a non-starter.

But no problem:  The emperor had an ally in the Supreme Court.

In the case of King v. Burwell, decided by the Supreme Court in June of 2015, the emperor's agents managed to convince six justices that Obamacare would face financial ruin if the law wasn't changed to correct a fatal flaw.  The case involved the so-called "individual mandate," which levied either a fine or a tax on citizens who didn't buy health insurance.  

The problem was that the actual wording of Act clearly impose the penalty only on residents of states that had set up their own "state exchange," and not in states that had opted to join the federal insurance exchange.

Problem was, only 16 states had set up state exchanges.  Officials in the other 34 realized that trying to set up and run a state health insurance vendor was likely to be a disaster, so they opted to join the federal exchange.  Thus if the law remained as the clear, unequivocal language said, residents of those 34 states wouldn't have to pay any fine for not buying health insurance.  This would remove the incentive to buy such insurance, since the law also forced insurance companies to offer insurance to people regardless of any "pre-existing conditions," at the same price as regular folks.  

Thus if someone who refused to buy insurance got a major disease, they could buy a policy any time later at no extra cost.

Needless to say, this ruined the Democrats' rosy projections for the number of people who would sign up.

The emperor's agents argued that if the court allowed the law to do what the actual language very clearly said, healthy people in those 34 states were far less likely to buy insurance.  If only the sick bought insurance, premiums would have to rise hugely, sending the health insurance system into a death spiral.  So they asked the court to simply extend the mandate to every American--despite the clear language to the contrary.

The court agreed with the government's argument that allowing the law to mean what it said would indeed doom Obamacare.  Accordingly, the court simply declared that the financial penalty applied to every American.  It ignored the clear, unequivocal language of the law and said "We declare that it doesn't mean what it says."

To many observers this was a clear case of the court re-writing a fatally flawed law, clearly to avoid forcing the emperor to use the time-honored method of asking congress to amend allegedly flawed laws.
 
Fast-forward to today, just over a year later.  Insurers are announcing on practically a weekly basis that they are trimming or even eliminating their Obamacare coverage in more and more states.  They give as the reason that healthy individuals are not buying insurance under Obamacare as expected, thus triggering a death spiral.  

Wait, didn't the Supreme Court protect Obamacare against a death spiral by deciding, as the president's lackeys argued, that the penalty--the "mandate"--applied in every state, regardless of whether it had a state exchange or the federal exchange?  Yes.  But that wasn't enough to fix it, because the same law exempted from the individual mandate a modest number of individuals in several categories.  But the ACA left the barn door wide open with the last category: "[a]ny applicable individual who for any month is determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services ... to have suffered a hardship with respect to capability to obtain coverage under a qualified health plan."  That is the so-called "hardship" exemption.

The Obama administration then took it upon themselves to issue regulations defining "hardship" in such expansive terms that huge swathes of the population are exempt from the individual mandate.  You heard that right: after pleading with the Supreme Court to make sure that the individual mandate applies nationwide, so as to avoid a death spiral, the administration has itself triggered a death spiral by issuing regulations exempting tens of millions from the individual mandate.

For 2015, the list of exemptions invented by the bureaucrats and said to represent "hardship" relieving the individual from the individual mandate includes:
- homelessness,
- eviction within the past six months,
- facing eviction or foreclosure (even if not evicted yet),
- received a shutoff notice from a utility company,
- experienced domestic violence,
- death of a close family member,
- fire or flood or other disaster that caused substantial damage to your property whether natural or man-made,
- filed for bankruptcy within the past six months,
- medical expenses within the last 24 months that you couldn't afford to pay,
- unexpected increases in expenses due to caring for a family member who was ill or disabled or just aging,
- a child has no medical coverage because some other person is responsible (by court order) but has not paid,
- ineligibility for Medicaid because your state did not expand eligibility under Obamacare, or
- your individual insurance plan was cancelled and you believe other marketplace plans are unaffordable.


Those uninsured who can't find a way to fit into one of those categories just aren't trying.  But just in case they can't, the regulations let them make up their own category: any other hardship that prevented them from obtaining health insurance.

The effect of these exemptions has been to remove the threat of having to pay a fine or tax from millions of people who simply don't want to buy health insurance under Obamacare.  The Wall Street Journal summed it up: "[a]lmost 90% of the national's 30 million uninsured won't pay a penalty...in 2016 because of a growing batch of exemptions to the health-coverage requirements."

So the emperor got the decision he wanted from the Supreme Court by frightening them with the specter of his brilliant law collapsing--"a death spiral"--but then directed his lackeys to issue regulations shielding almost all of the uninsured from the individual mandate--thus guaranteeing the very death spiral that scared the Supreme Court into re-writing the law.  

And now, as insurers are announcing their departure from Obamacare--due to lack of participation by healthy individuals--you're leaving the White House, leaving someone else to clean up the disaster you caused.  

So what can we learn from all this?  If you're a Democrat/liberal/"progressive" the answer is:  this is great.  Do it like this every time, because eventually the system will be so utterly fucked up that people will beg you to take care of 'em.  Result:  Perpetual Democrat control of government.

If you're NOT a Democrat the answer is: don't vote for Democrats.

Closing question: How long can a nation delude itself into claiming it's a "nation of laws" when the plain language of a law can be changed--by the courts--because the president doesn't like the result?

Hat tip:  Hollis Hurd  at American Thinker

Monday, August 22

Now for something light...

Now for something different--and funny:  There's a site that dubs voices into videos.  Yeah, old idea but great execution!  They did one of the Democrat Convention, and it's really funny--unless you're a die-hard Hillary fan.


Emperor's people claim holding people accused of crimes in jail if they can't make bail is unconstitutional???

Something serious happened.  Happened last February, but with the emperor's people having total control over what the "press" thinks is worth noting, we're just now learning about it.
 
For the first time in history the emperor's laughably-misnamed "Justice" department has taken the official position that keeping people in jail if they can't post bail is unconstitutional.
 In a legal filing called a "friend of the court" brief, the emperor's minions said "Bail practices that incarcerate indigent individuals before trial solely because of their inability to pay for their release violate the Fourteenth Amendment."

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no citizen can be denied "life, liberty or property, without due process of law."  Of course setting bail for a defendant IS "due process of law," but remember this filing is from an organization whose head--Attorney-General Lynch--was unwilling to even say that perjury is against the law!  With shit like that from the top, minor things like the claim that keeping possible murderers in jail if they can't post bond is unconstitutional is small potatoes.

The DOJ's brief explained that courts must consider the defendant's ability to pay.
 I suspect none of you consider this any big deal.  Let me tell you why it is, and what it means:

If the government's position prevails it will mean that no one can be denied bail if any person in U.S. history, accused of the same crime, was allowed to post bail.  And what that means is that every person accused of a crime will claim they can't afford bail.  Which means they'll be released with absolutely no incentive to appear for trial. 

Get it yet?

This is a disaster.  But more generally, the position represents a total, radical change of the governing philosophy of the federal government, from "equal opportunity" to equal outcomes.  And that will ensure the end of the U.S. experiment.

Now I'm totally sympathetic to the idea that if someone throws a cigarette out their car window and gets jailed, and can't afford a couple of hundred bucks of bail, and ends up sitting in the slammer til Monday, that's a huge irritation.  As you can surely guess, that's not what I'm concerned about.  Instead it's the absolute certainty that if the appeals court doesn't slap this down, it will have the effect I noted above.

If you want this outcome, vote Democrat.

Emperor claims number of illegals crossing from Mexico is all-time low; U.S. Southern Command figure says all-time HIGH.

The U.S. military has a division called the Southern Command, who are responsible for monitoring the number of illegal aliens flooding across the Mexican border.  And according to them, last year something like 331,000 people entered the country illegally via that route.

Think about that.  And your emperor won't kick 'em out.  And in the 0.0001 percent of the cases where an illegal kills an American in a way the government would get too much heat to ignore, and takes the rare step of deporting the killer, much of the time they simply stroll back in.

It's almost like they're giving you the finger:  "You can't do shit to me.  At worst you fly me home, and I come back.  Cuz your laws are for stupid people who think they mean shit."

Oh, and SouthCom estimates that among those 331,000 illegals were 30,000 people from terrorist groups.

Oh yeah, this is gonna turn out well.  And just so you can't claim you didn't know, Hillary says she strongly supports Emperor Obama's policies regarding leaving the southern border open to all.  And refusing to deport in all but the most egregious cases.

The time left to us if we want to save this country is slipping away fast.

By the way:  Your emperor was caught on video claiming
"The number of people illegally crossing our southern border is at an ALL-TIME LOW."
Really, you lying sack of shit?  That's not what SouthCom says.  And it's not what your more-controlled Customs & Immigration says either.  Why would you make such a clearly false claim?  Oh yeah, I got it:  The stupid voters will believe anything you say, right?  "Low-information voters," we call 'em.  Yep.


Saturday, August 20

Three more major health insurance companies stop selling Obamacare coverage in various states

UnitedHealth is a major health insurance provider for the now-compulsory health insurance called Obamacare.  This past April UnitedHealth announced it would stop selling plans on most of the so-called "exchanges."

Shortly thereafter another big insurance company--Humana--stopped selling policies in Virginia and Alabama. 

Earlier this week a third major health insurance vendor, Aetna, which covers about 900,000 people  under Obamacare, announced it was stopping operations in 11 of the 15 states in which it currently sells policies under the law.

Well, say my liberal friends, "that's because those huge companies pay their CEO's those multimillion-dollar salaries!  No wonder they can't keep going!"  Yeah, well...more than a dozen nonprofit health insurance cooperatives set up to sell health insurance under Obamacare--and created with government-guaranteed loans--have failed entirely.  Did they pay multimillion-dollar salaries?

Analysts estimate that about 2,000,000 Americans will have to find new coverage by the end of the year.

What's happening is that the basic rules of Obamacare demanded that insurers--hell, never mind.  You don't care why it went south.  It was a terrible idea from the outset, and so badly executed that failure was assured from the start.  The main architect of many of the details was even caught on tape saying they deliberately wrote the language to make it confusing, and that Americans were too stupid to understand the real effect.

Oh wait, what am I thinking?  "It was a faaabulous idea!  And the only reason these 'totally unexpected' things are happening is that Republicans opposed the law all along!  And had the gall to criticize its wonderfulness.  And nothing could survive criticism."

Cuz I don't wanna lose my job under the new queen.

A foretaste of a Hillary presidency

If you're just now 21 or so you weren't tuned in just 5 years ago when we discovered that Obama was using the Internal Revenue Service to cripple conservative political groups.

That's okay, I know you don't believe it.  Illegal as hell, but of course...Democrats are allowed to do anything, break any law, without penalty.  It's right there in that Con-thingy that the emperor supposedly "taught" at the U of Chicago.  Anyway, google "Lois Lerner" and you'll get most of the story. Or you can go here.
Or here.

My point in mentioning this is that after this story broke, not a single government employee--IRS or otherwise--was punished, or even charged with anything.  Zero.

Hillary Clinton had TOP SECRET material on her unencrypted, private email server.  The emperor's laughably mis-named department of "Justice" declared that the decision on whether to bring charges would be left to the head of the FBI.  Who, as everyone knows, declined to charge her, claiming a) there was no intent; (not true); and b) intent is required in order to bring charges; (again, false).

Two days ago a young U.S. Navy sailor was sentenced to a year in prison for improperly handling classified information.  But wait--I thought the director of the f'n FBI said NO ONE would ever bring charges against someone for that sort of thing.  Remember? 

Now consider:  Do you think the use of government to punish "opponents," and the refusal of government agencies to enforce the law against politicians and bureaucrats (i.e. they can break the law without penalty; you can't) will get worse under Hillary?

We are all Joe the Plumber now.

Friday, August 19

Hack reveals a major ally of the emperor asked Soros for cash to push the Iran nuke "non-treaty treaty"

How badly are you being played by Obama, "progressives" and George Soros?  You have no idea, but thanks to a hacker you're about to get a hint.

Remember Obama's frantic push to make ANY sort of deal with Iran about nuclear weapons?  What he and John Kerry ultimately negotiated was such an abysmally bad deal that they had to claim it wasn't even a "treaty"--even though it's an agreement between nations that is supposedly binding on the U.S.  That is, it clearly IS a treaty, but they had to falsely claim it wasn't--because it was so bad they knew they'd never get the two-thirds vote of senators needed to fulfill the Constitutional requirement to "ratify" the abomination.

Ah but your emperor is smarter than you--in fact smarter than the Founding Fathers.  He simply got a pliable senator to introduce a bill that would allow the thing to be passed--and arguably to bind the U.S.--without the two-thirds vote required by the Constitution!  Illegal as hell, but hey...Democrat emperor, so...

Now a hacker has discovered that an organization that played a key role in the emperor’s max-effort to say and do ANYTHING to ram this piece of shit thru asked George Soros's "Open Society" foundations for $750,000 to pay so-called experts to talk up how wonderful the deal was.

Which would mute public anger or concern about it, which would help 'em get enough votes to pass the unconstitutional dodge that they ultimately used.

The Ploughshares Fund, a liberal organization cited by White House officials as a chief architect of Obama's effort to push the Iran deal, requested the cash from Soros’s Open Society Foundations so that it could pay off “experts and validators” praising the administration’s diplomacy with Iran.


The money would be used to facilitate “mainstream and social media outreach by validators along with other public and private efforts to shape the debate in support of an agreement and continued diplomacy,” the request states.

As just one example of how this played out, National Public Radio took money from Ploughshares while conducting interviews with proponents of the deal.  At the same time NPR cancelled interviews with the most knowledgeable congressional critics of the agreement, sometimes at the last minute, giving a bullshit excuse for the cancellation.

Neither the Open Society Foundations nor Ploughshares returned the Beacon's requests for comment.  But in classic form, after the Beacon published, an Open Society Foundations spokesman sent the following statement:
A number of Open Society Foundations internal documents, including strategies, work plans, and funding requests, have been published after being removed from an online community that served as a resource for our staff, board members, and partners across the world. In some cases, the materials reflect big-picture strategies over several years from within the Open Society Foundations network, which supports human rights and the rule of law in more than 100 countries around the world. We regret that this incident seems to be a symptom of an aggressive crackdown on civil society and human rights activists that is taking place globally. We stand by our work and are proud to support all our grantees.
Ah yes...the leftist rat-bastards plot and scheme to bribe talking heads to talk up your shitty deal that intentionally gave Iran everything it wanted, in return for no meaningful concessions (no inspections by any U.S. entity, and a 28-day advance-notice for any inspection by even the corrupt U.N., to name just two crappy aspects), and yet have the gall to decry the act that exposed their plotting as "a symptom of an aggressive crackdown on civil society and human rights activists"???

This sort of random word-mashing, a pro-forma spewing of psychologically-loaded terms designed to look meaningful but which in reality are...well, totally at odds with reality...is standard operating procedure for the Left.

Isn't it odd that the Left screamed bloody murder about a court decision that allowed companies to spend money to influence politics, but then not only spends money to push their own positions but does it a) secretly; and b) while trying to undermine the Constitution? 

Why the secrecy?  Because they knew they were pushing a piece of crap that most Americans would rightly regard as such.  And knowing that they'd taken cash from Soros to push the deal would make voters even more leery.

By their fruits you shall know them.

Discussing "the religion of peace" with liberals


Liberal: "Islam is 'the religion of peace.'  So it follows that our wonderful, compassionate president  bringing Islamic refugees to the U.S. can't be a problem."

Conservative:  "Can we all at least agree that beheading people is ghastly and universally offensive ?"

Lib:  "Uhh....we're not sure."

Conservative:  "What??  You're not sure if beheading people is offensive?"

Lib:  "Well, uh...it could be."

Conservative:  "You don't even want to give a straight answer to *that*?  Geez, you sound like Loretta Lynch.  So when was the last time you saw anyone *other* than a Muslim holding up a severed head?"

Lib:  "That was a setup!  Trick question!  Moderator, make this guy stop asking trick questions!

Okay, we'll be serious:  There seems to be a huge divide between virtually all Democrats and virtually all conservatives on several crucial questions regarding Muslims, and whether they pose a threat to the western way of life.  (For the moment I'm going to ignore the question of whether there's a distinction between "moderate" and "radical" Muslims.):
  1. Do radical Islamists want to force all non-muslims to either convert or pay the special tax to Muslims (the jizya)?
  2. Does the koran order radical Muslims to kill any infidel who refuses to do either of those things?
  3. Are radical Muslims totally, intrinsically, unalterably opposed to virtually everything about the western way of life? (women's rights, their choice of clothing, whether they can choose not to have their clitoris cut out at age ten and so on);
  4. Do radical Islamists believe they are at war with the America and the west?
  5. Do the widely accepted tenets of Islam result in an unusual incidence of murders of non-Muslims by Muslims?
  6. Does the emperor or his goofy secretary of state or other lackeys know *better than members of ISIS* whether the members of that group are Muslims?

Try asking your Democrat/liberal friends these six questions.  See if they give evasive answers, or simply refuse to answer.  That'll tell you whether they're paying attention or simply drinking the Democrats' Kool-Aid.

Old Dem claim: The only classified on Hillary's server was "confidential." New admission: Actually TOP SECRET.

"The Hill" is a totally pro-Democrat-party website.  A couple of weeks ago they ran a piece that said "the State Department" had revealed that Hillary's aides at State had received 4 TOP SECRET documents from her private, unencrypted email server.

Let me repeat that:  Top Secret.  Not just "confidential."

Wait, how can that be true?  Because when FBI Director James Comey was questioned live by the House Oversight committee, members of that committee barely said a word about any *Top Secret* docs.  Instead they spent almost an hour of precious, limited time discussing just 3 emails that contained two or three paragraphs that were marked with a "C" in parentheses, meaning "Confidential"--the lowest level of classified information.

One of the Democraps on the committee even said "So we're talking about just three documents out of thousands, and they were just confidential, is that right?"  And Comey didn't dispute that in any detail.

The Hill also reported that the existence of Top-Secret emails on Hillary's private server was "known to the public" way back in January.

I don't think that's true.  Specifically, last year a *whistle-blower* at State reportedly told investigators that he'd walked into the secure comm room at State and found Hillary's top aides--including Huma and Cheryl Mills--printing out TOP SECRET "cables" from a special, firewalled computer system at State, then *cutting off* the very large TOP SECRET markings at the top of each page and faxing them to Hillary's email account.

The whistle-blower said he told the aides that cutting off security stamps--let alone sending TOP SECRET material to an unsecured email account--were both extremely serious violations of the rules governing classified material.  They responded by telling him to go away and mind his own damn business.  But as far as I know this story wasn't actually "known to the public" in the sense of being confirmed. 

Hard to imagine anyone seriously claiming that unconfirmed allegations equals "known to the public."  Instead I suspect this was a classic Democrat/Mainstream Media op called "This isn't news cuz it's OLD."  It's "You can't possibly consider this as *news* cuz it was 'known to the public' way back in [insert date months earlier]."  This works regardless of whether the claim that the news was known earlier is actually true, because no one bothers to check.

If there's no record that it was *confirmed* public knowledge last January that emails containing *not* just "confidential" but "TOP SECRET" information were sent from State to Hillary's private email account by her top aides, then The Hill lied.  This wouldn't be surprising.



On the other hand, her aides' cutting off the TOP SECRET markings allowed Hillary to claim "I never sent or received material that was marked classified at the time it was sent or received."

Clever.  Very clever.

What happens when one party promises all manner of "free" stuff to their supporters? Answer: South Africa

What happens when incompetent, greedy or corrupt politicians exploit envy and racism to take over a once-great nation? 

As you could probably guess, it ain't good. 

And as it happens, we don't have to simply guess about that:  We know exactly what happens--from the experience of... South Africa?? 

Yep.  That nation--once the richest and most advanced in all of Africa--walked that path first, starting 20 years ago.  So we can either study their experience, learn what triggered their collapse--and thus what we have to do if we wish to avoid following them down the same path, or...we can allow the usual Democratic and RINO politicians to block all efforts to take the actions necessary if we want to avoid South Africa's tragic fate.

Just so we're clear, if we don't act, the U.S. will see virtually the same results here as South Africa has suffered.

Of course you don't know what's happened there, so you don't know if what's happened there is a fate you don't want.  And the Mainstream Lying Media has been *very* careful not to tell you.  So you can't be blamed for not knowing.

I'm about to change that.  And you're welcome to verify everything for yourself.  So you won't be able to say you didn't know what you were welcoming by supporting your Democrat masters in not acting to change the result.

So:  One of the ways politicians tear a country apart is by telling their followers that "the system" is *unfair* to 'em.  They tell their followers that together they can take over the country and put the allegedly "oppressed" class on top while making their alleged oppressors suffer.

They promise their followers that if they'll help the pols take over the country, the pols will give their supporters loads of "freebies"--whether cash, services, cell phones, food--anything.  This is the basis of the term "FSA"--free-shit army, and its appeal is obvious. 

It's hardly surprising that millions of low-functioning people find the offer of power and "freebies" incredibly attractive.  And once incompetent or corrupt politicians have let this genie out of the bottle there are only 3 possible outcomes:  either
  1.  people who have worked all their lives surrender and let the FSA take what they have, or
  2.  those who support the class-warfare pols eventually realize that demanding freebies absolutely ensures the eventual death of the society; or
  3.  civil war, as the people who don't want to surrender to the class-warfare pols resist being having everything taken away.

Think about it:  Ever hear Democrat politicians yelling that our current system is totally unfair to their supporters?  And that as a result their followers deserve "free" shit?  (Free to them, of course; they don't care who actually has to pay to provide it to 'em.) 

Not surprisingly, when one party makes it a top priority to give their voters everything they need, people who don't believe work has any positive value--and thus don't want to work for a living--will stop doing so. 

Of course liberals will counter that the standard of living for those on welfare is low--thinking that proves that the claim just made (people deciding not to work) is false.  But of course the low income of welfare (in all its forms) doesn't keep people from choosing not to work.  After all, work is hard.  Far more fun to watch TV, have lunch with friends and sit on the porch drinking and getting high in the evening. 

For people who don't see working for a living as particularly positive, this is a no-brainer.

So do you think the politicians stoking the flames of envy in the free-shit-army will suddenly realize that their scheme will destroy the nation?  Not bloody likely, cupcake. 

If you've worked most of your life and have a home and family, you've probably started to realize that the only ways Democrats can get the freebies to give their followers are either by raising taxes on you, or diverting government spending from some other function, like defense or highways.  Short answer is that they want to take what you have--whether by force or by forcing you to pay out the ass to support their supposed "freebies." 

Democrats try to deride this concern by accusing you of "fear of minorities" or some equally absurd charge.

If the Dems continue to fan the flames you'll be faced with one of three choices:  You can either give the corrupt government everything you have that's more than the poor have.  Or you can vote out politicians--in both parties--who are so morally bankrupt that they'd happily destroy the United States by supporting this scheme. 

Or, if you don't see the first two choices as happening, the only other possibility I  see is:  civil war.

Let's see how well turning South Africa--once the most prosperous nation in all of Africa--over to the free-shit-army worked for South Africans.  Certainly there was vast inequality of wealth in S.A, which liberals loudly proclaim is a bad thing.  But isn't it interesting that you've never seen a single wealthy liberal giving away his or her personal wealth, eh?  Or inviting a hundred "refugees" or illegal immigrants to move into their palatial homes, eh Hillary? 

But trust 'em, it's absolutely, totally *wrong* for some people to be wealthy when others are poor.  The undeniable fact that rich Democrats don't give their wealth away is of course ignored.  Cuz, Democrats.

South Africa was settled by Brits and "Boers"--Dutch.  By 1960 it had become by far the most prosperous nation in all of Africa.  Not surprisingly, blacks from all over Africa flocked to S.A. because the economy offered what Democrats and libs see as the most awful of curses:  jobs.

By 1960 blacks outnumbered whites by almost ten to one, yet the government was still run by whites--which made the country a massive target for liberals in other western countries.  It just wasn't *fair*, liberals argued, that the white minority ran the government.  And in many ways the government certainly did oppress blacks.  (And just for the record I oppose actual oppression.)

So liberal western governments organized a total boycott of South Africa to pressure the white government into turning control of the country over to blacks.  And the only black party at the time was the communist "African National Congress" (ANC) headed by Nelson Mandela. 

Many western analysts were...um, highly skeptical that giving control of the country to the communists would work well.  But just as with the momentum surrounding Obamacare here, skeptics were ignored.  The liberal juggernaut said the white government must turn control over to the majority, regardless of the economic risk.  And they did.

As I recall the handover of the government to blacks happened around 1994, and since then life in South Africa has gone straight downhill:  First the black-run government seized thousands of white-owned farms and gave the land to their supporters.  "Unexpectedly," South Africa's food production plummeted, and the country is now forced to import food.  The nation's reserves of foreign currency are depleted. 

Because the communist government spends far more than it grabs in tax revenue, the nation's currency has plunged to barely a tenth of its pre-handover value.  The Los Angeles Times reports *official* unemployment--*not including* people who have "given up looking for work" (sound familiar?) is 27%.  (And that's from a total Democrat-supporting paper, so it's virtually an admission against interest.)

Another indicator of total incompetence is electricity blackouts:  Before the hand-over South Africa produced about 20 percent more electricity than it used, and it sold the surplus to neighboring nations.  Today South Africa no longer produces enough electricity even to meet its own needs, and rolling blackouts are common.  The only power production capacity is government-owned and totally corrupt.

Part of the problem is that a large number of residents in big cities simply refuse to pay their electric bills, since they know that the government won't cut off its supporters.

Even municipal water service is becoming unreliable, as the communist black government didn't realize that keeping up with the needs of a fast-growing population meant *someone* would need to build more reservoirs.  They either didn't grasp this (bad enough)--or far worse, simply ignored the obvious, predictable future demand because they wanted to spend the estimated cost on...something.

Police corruption has become so bad that many white parents tell their children not to bother even reporting assaults, robberies or even rape to the cops.  A murder can be witnessed by a dozen people and captured on video, yet the killer is freed before trial because the case folder mysteriously disappears from police custody.

So...can Americans learn anything from the bitter experience of SA (which is about to get *far* worse)? 

Some of you can.  Liberals / Democrats will probably refuse to learn because it would cause too much "cognitive dissonance."  But we'll try.

You'd think it would be easy for most rational adults to understand that no matter how noble the *goals* of a program, if it's not soundly conceived--including the "how"--the results are inevitably terrible. 

There's a great analogy if you've ever looked inside a computer. (If not it won't be useful to ya'):  There's a big printed-circuit board in 'em, with lots of chips mounted on it.  Imagine it's stopped working, and that you know one of the tiny joints has gotten unsoldered.  (If you're not a techie, solder is a silvery metal that you melt to make a connection, like conductive glue.)  You've got a soldering iron.

Whaddya think the chances are that flicking molten droplets of solder randomly onto the board will fix the computer?

But of course all Democrat leaders think *their* ideas are, like, totally faaabulous, so they don't pay a lot of attention to what they consider "trivial details."  Like cost.  Seems like their involvement usually ends with "Ooooh, this would make me look *so* good to my peers--and to voters!   So we have to make the government do it!"

For example, Hillary's proposal to "make college free" for middle-class students sounds simply faabulous--unless you sit down and actually do the math.

Or take medical care.  Whether you think medical care is a basic human right or not, conservatives warned voters that if congress passed a Democrat-rammed law that forced everyone in the U.S. to buy "special" health insurance (i.e. approved by the Obama administration)--and let the government give taxpayer money to people who couldn't afford the now-mandatory insurance, the result wouldn't work as the Dems claimed. 

Predictably, the Dems rammed it through congress anyway--without a single Republican vote.  In fact they had to use a series of parliamentary tricks to dance around clear prohibitions in the Constitution.  For example, to avoid the Constitutional requirement that all revenue measures had to be introduced by the House, the Democrat leadership (Pelosi) took a bill on a totally different topic, removed EVERY WORD of its language, and inserted the language of Obamacare.

One of the main architects of Obamacare--Jon Gruber--was later caught on video (twice) bragging that the emperor's people were only able to pass it because they deliberately made the bill's language confusing, and Americans were too dumb to understand the details.  Which allowed them to throw out catchy lies like "The average family will save $2500 a year."

And "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."

And "If you like your current health insurance plan you can keep it." 

But hey, great idea, eh?

So...If you don't want this nation to duplicate South Africa's fate you've still got three choices.  You remember what they were, right?

You probably don't.  But if you don't, don't worry--everything will be just fine.  Hillary will continue the faaabulous policies of our current emperor.  Even if Republicans should manage to hang onto a tiny majority in congress, they can't change anything because the new queen will simply threaten a veto, and the Repubs don't remotely have enough votes to override a veto, as now.  So essentially it'll be a third Obama term. 

Eh, no problem, citizen.  Everything's fine.  "The economy is booming, job creation is great" (all this is sarcasm, in case you weren't sure), "illegal immigration is at an all-time low" and race relations are better than at any time in the past.  Well at least that's what your emperor has said--all caught on video.  And like, has he ever lied to you before?

BTW, I'm *not* a Trump fan--I'll readily admit this election is between the lesser of two bad choices.  I just know what Hillary is.  With her at the helm, chances of the nation avoiding South Africa's fate are virtually zero.

Wednesday, August 17

So tell us, Democrats: Are border walls good, or bad?

Democrats have a glaring double-standard on whether it's a good idea to build a wall at the border between two nations.  For example, the U.S. spent millions to help Tunisia build a wall at that nation's border with Libya.  So walls are good, right?  But when Americans get sick of waves of millions of illegal aliens pouring over our southern border, suddenly a wall is just a TERRIBLE idea!  One that no rational person could possibly support!


Wait, I think someone may have figured out why all the Democrats oppose building a wall to keep out illegals:


One thing about Democrats:  You gotta' give 'em credit for being astonishingly...shall we say, um..."flexible," in their principles:  any argument or principle is fine for now, then throw it overboard the moment it starts working against their quest for power.