Friday, July 20

All-black govt of South Africa orders citizens to surrender their guns

For decades, white-run South Africa was by far the most prosperous nation on the African continent.  Never had famine, had clean cities, great highways, booming economy--the whole enchilada.  The economy was so good that millions of blacks from the rest of Africa streamed in to find work, so eventually the country was 90% black and ten percent white.

Western liberal governments considered it outrageous that a country that was just ten percent white was run by that minority.  Accordingly, western nations began a decades-long program of pressuring the white government of South Africa to simply resign, and give control of the country to blacks.  This, said all liberals everywhere, would make the society incalculably better, more fair, more prosperous.

Finally in 1994 the white government did just as the liberals demanded:  they handed over the keys and resigned.  With 80% of the population, blacks won every seat, and for the last 24 years South Africa has been run entirely by blacks--specifically, by the "African National Congress," whose members are communist in every way but name.

The country is no longer prosperous.  It's having to import food, because black gangs have killed 20,000 farmers on isolated farms since 1994, reducing the food supply.  Because of ghastly financial corruption the nation's currency is worth about only two or three percent of its 1994 value.  But I've posted several stories on the economic disaster before, and that's not the purpose of this post.

Over the last decade or so the ANC has seen a more extreme left-wing rival emerge, called the Economic Freedom Fighters party.  It's run by a literal maniac, but for years has been slowly gaining on the ruling ANC because young black South Africans--having been endlessly told that they're the natural leaders of the universe, want to kill the remaining whites and take their property.

In a country ruled by rational thinkers, the leaders would say "Don't be stupid, people: we need the white farmers because they have experience farming.  Stop killing them, and stop this stupid talk about stealing ("re-distributing," to use the commie phrase) their land."  But in South Africa there are no checks and balances, and the gruberment controls the press.  And the ruling African National Congress knows it must be as radical as the EFF if it wants to continue to rule.  So to the surprise of no one, the country's legislature recently passed a bill (introduced by the EFF) authorizing the government to seize all white-owned farms--many farmed by the same family for well over a century--without paying any compensation.

When an armed gang invades your home, if you're armed, at least you have a chance.   But what do you do when the invader has the might of the entire government?  Most white farmers realize that they can't sell for more than a percent or two of the true value of their farms, so most are choosing to try to emigrate, even though the entire value of their lives' work will be taken away.  But at least they'll be getting out alive.  Maybe.

Here's how bad it is:  The head of the EFF--a bona fide crazy guy--said, literally, that he is not calling for the massacre of all whites yet.  The key word there, obviously, is “yet.”  Because some farms have built significant defenses, and a handful of farmers will likely fight it out.

So the government is doing what Democrats here want to do:  They've given the whites 90 days to surrender all their guns.

Seizing farms that have been owned and worked by a family for centuries and that are a family’s only means of livelihood, without compensation, will be far easier for government thugs if the victims have no means of defending themselves.

One of the first things Hitler did after he seized power was to confiscate all guns.  Americans and all western citizens should have learned from this.  Of course most didn’t, but maybe we will learn from the bloodbath that's coming in formerly prosperous South Africa.

And by the way:  Back when the whites governed South Africa, everything that happened there made the American news.  Literally every week our media ran a story on some example of whites oppressing blacks there.  But other than now, when was the last time you heard the name "South Africa" even mentioned, in any context?

I'm willing to bet you can't recall.  Because within a year after Mandela's ANC took over, the U.S. media decided South Africa was of no further interest.  So they've been busily killing whites there at the rate of a few a week--and all ghastly torture murders of elderly white farmers hit by armed gangs--and you haven't heard jack about it. 

Can you guess why?

Cuz it hurts The Narrative, comrade.

It'll be interesting to see how many whites have to be murdered there before the NY Times or WaPo or LA Times or one of the alphabet networks finally, grudgingly, quietly mumbles some...unsettling... words near the end of the newscast.

Gotta protect The Narrative, comrade.  We've almost got those stupid Americans thinking Open Borders is the Next New Cool Thing, so we don't wanna spook 'em, eh?

Guess what these people say they're doing

The creatures in the pic above are "exercising their freedom of speech," by burning an American flag.

Since they didn't bring a flag with 'em, they stole it off a pickup truck.  They felt totally justified in doing this because, as Comrade Marx said "All private property is theft."  So they "liberated it."

You may wonder why they're burning the flag.  Is it because
  • They hate America and everything it stands for?
  • They hate whites and everything whites hold dear?
  • They're "triggered" by seeing flags with red and white stripes?; or
  • They're "defending Maxine Waters?
Their skin color provides a clue, but only eliminates one of the possible answers:  Actually they're defending crazy black congresscritter Maxine Waters.

You may well wonder who they believed they were defending Mad Maxine against.  Good question.  Answer is, against whites.

Say what?

Well, turns out that after Mad Maxine called for her supporters to harass any member of the Trump administration who had the gall to go out to dinner or to a store or a gas station, a few white columnists thought this was...I know you'll be surprised...a bit over the top.  So did a few suggest, oh, say, killing Waters?  Hanging her?  Cutting her head off?

Not even close.  A couple did write columns suggesting that the level of hate Maxine was spounting was likely to further inflame her already crazed followers, and suggested she might wanna stop with the firebrand speeches.  And a group planned to stage a protest outside one of her California offices.

"SEE??!!  SEE??!!  Doze people be threatenin' ouah Maxine!  So we needs to go protek her!!"

So they showed up--in T-shirts saying "REVOLUTION, NOTHING LESS!!"--and burned the flag.

So let's see if we can predict where this goes.  Which of the following seems most likely?
  • The people in the pic aren't nearly as angry as their faces look, but are mostly just bored, or being paid by the Democrat Socialists of America, so this is essentially a nothing; or
  • They're just as mad as their faces look, but as months and then years pass without Trump throwing demonstrators in jail, or deporting bona fide citizens, they'll cool off; or
  • They're as angry as they look, but once they go home and realize black unemployment is at an all-time low, they'll realize there's no reason to start shooting anyone; or
  • They're furious, and because the Media and Dems constantly scream how totally awful life in the U.S. is for blacks, and how totally unfair--ignoring that we just got done with 8 years of black rule--and will remember seeing murals of a faceless hand cutting off Trump's head--one or two will start shooting.  Cuz, "REVOLUTION, NOTHING LESS," comrade!

Little dictators in Pennsylvania threaten to fina a couple $500 per DAY for...holding Bible studies on their farm!

How bad have things gotten in the U.S.?  You don't wanna know.

As most of you know, the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees to all American citizens the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to assemble peaceably.  By the principle of "supremacy" (the legal principle that federal law overrules states and cities), "officials" in subsidiary levels of gruberment [note 1] supposedly aren't permitted to abrogate or infringe on these rights.

The asshole officials in the borough of Sewickley Heights, PA, aren't clear on this concept.  When these little Hitlers discovered that a local couple (the Fetterolfs) were [gasp!!] holding Bible study meetings on their 35-acre farm, they threatened the couple with a fine of $500 PER DAY if they continued.  The threat reportedly contained detailed provisions of activities the city assholes deemed illegal, including hosting Bible study in their home, having meetings where religious songs are sung, conducting any "religious retreats" for church members, or holding fundraisers for religious purposes.

The Independence Law Center has sued the borough on their behalf:  It should be interesting to see if the borough Hitlers show up in court to defend, or fold.  If I were an attorney I would LOVE to litigate this case.

One wag noted that the couple could have avoided all criticism by the town Hitlers if they'd simply told the Hitlers they were studying the Koran or the Communist Manifesto.  The Hitlers would have been scared to death to mess with either.

Note 1:  "Gruberment" is a pejorative term for a government that's totally out of control--can't be controlled even by the president.  It's essentially lawless and corrupt from top to bottom, like the FBI under Comey, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, Chris Wray and Rod Rosenstein.  It's named after Jonathan Gruber, a smug, lying PhD who was the main, lying architect of Obamacare. 

Gruber's infamy is due to his saying several times that everyone working on the thing knew that the loudly-touted "advantages" of Obamacare were lies, and that it would cost far more than Obama and minions were telling the public.  In fact, Gruber said the drafters deliberately wrote the bill in confusing language specifically to make it almost impossible for ordinary voters to understand what was being done.  Also, to make it harder for the Congressional Budget Office to correctly estimate the cost.

Gruber also claimed that they only were able to get it passed due to the stupidity of the average voter.  Seriously, he actually said that.  And the audience--composed of other PhD's and economists-- laughed uproariously!

H/T Moonbattery.

How socialism works (more precisely, how it works...*for awhile*)

Thursday, July 19

Chicago--$28 billion underwater in funding pensions--is on the brink of giving all residents monthly checks

In every large city, city workers get a pension when they retire.  In a few cities, workers pay into their retirement accounts, but in most the annual contribution is made by the city, from tax revenue.

Well, except for Democrat-ruled cities.  Politicians in those cities would much rather spend the money to buy votes, so they pay less into the retirement funds than what the actuarial analysts say is needed to pay out the agreed amount when the worker retires.

"Wait, won't that mean the needed funds won't be there to pay the pensions?"

Congratulations, you must be a Republican.  Dems don't seem able to crack that mystery.

"But if the payments are required (somehow), how the hell do pols get away with having their city contribute less than the amount the experts calculate is needed?"

You're way too smart to be a Democrat.  It's simple:  Annual retirement contributions are invested in a array of things, and there's an average rate of return.  Because of the miracles of compound growth, 30 years later the amount paid in has tripled or quadrupled, depending on that "rate of return."  With me so far?  Good.

Now: The higher the estimated ROR used by the experts to calculate the city's annual contribution to retirement accounts, the less cash the city needs to contribute each year, since the investment is growing faster on its own.

You can already see where this is headed:  To free up cash to buy votes, the HDIC (head Dem in charge) orders the city's retirement managers to re-calculate the required contribution using a rate of return that' optimistic.  And no one on the council says "That's fraud."  Which, of course, is exactly what it is.

The actuarial folks diplomatically note that the rate is optimistic, but they do as they're ordered, for fear of being fired or not getting a merit raise or whatever.  Result:  "Unfunded pension liability."

Chicago has a gazillion public employees.  As of the end of last year the city of Chicago was about $28 billion short of having pensions fully funded.

Now:  You don't live in Chicago, so how does this affect you?

Like this:  In Chicago, what we call city council members are called "aldermen" (although a move is afoot to ban that word and replace it with "alderpersons").   And Alderman Ameya Pawar recently proposed that the city should pay all residents a "universal basic income," paid by taxpayers.

Yes, this communist rat-bastard wants da gruberment to cut everyone a monthly check--sorta like "super welfare," except residents would get it even if they were making above the cutoff for welfare.  And Pawar has introduced a bill to test the program by giving 1,000 families $500 per month, no questions asked.  Oh, and the communists cleverly, cunningly DON'T call this payment welfare but a..."stipend."  Cuz that's a word unfamiliary to most low-info voters so has no baggage.  Plus it's associated with helping college students pay for college, so who could be against something like that, right?

 The bill already has the backing of the36 of of the city lawmakers, so is guaranteed to have enough votes to pass.

Of course you can already predict what will happen:  First, social-justice snowflakes will scream that giving the same amount to a family as to a single person is unfair to families, thus discrimination, so the final proposal will pay extra for kids, whether biological or not.  Next, snowflakes will wail that $500 bucks a month isn't enough, so that base amount will double or triple.

Now, what does that have to do with unfunded pensions?

Okay, as of 2010 there were 1,194,337 households within the city limits of Chicago.  (More than half the population of the entire state lives in the "Chicago metropolitan area.")  So paying a thousand bucks a month to every household in Chicago will cost the city roughly $14 billion per year.  So when the city finally has to figure out how to tell retired employees their pensions aren't funded, they'll have a great excuse:  "We couldn't have foreseen that the demand for a 'Universsal Basic Income' would be so great, and that messed up all our finances!"

And when it comes down to who gets cut, there'll be about two million people--half of them members of the most politically protected group in the country--who'll be screaming at the pols NOT to reduce the monthly checks.

So what will happen next?  The city will start schmoozing the federal government to bail out their ghastly-stupid, self-serving, idiotic, moronic, self-serving (yes, I know that's twice now) decisions.  And if a Democrat is president, it's a done deal.

Which means YOU, today's students, will have your tax dollars effectively stolen by the Democrats in D.C. to keep the Chicago Democrat machine in power for your entire lifetime.

Oh, do I hear a bunch of you saying "That's ridiculous!  First, no rational city council would ever pass such a thing.  Second, the courts would quickly rule it unconstitutional.  Third, if it did pass, city leaders would set the monthly payments at a much lower level, one the city could afford."

Ah, I see you just arrived on the planet and are totally unfamiliar with the way things work here.

No matter.  Enjoy your stay.  Meanwhile for the rest of you:  The proposal already has a majority in the council, so passage is assured.  Of course that's just for the pilot program, so there's a chance Rahm might...nah.  More on that below.

Okay, how about the courts?  Well since this isn't a federal program, it'll be almost impossible to get a federal judge to even look at it.  And Illinois state courts?  You gotta' be kiddin,' right?  Buncha' corrupt clowns.

How about the possibility that city leaders would adopt the program but at a modest level that the city could afford?  After all, Rahm Emanuel (former Obama chief of staff) is very sharp when it comes to running the city's finances properly,..... Sorry, couldn't do that with a straight face.  Rahm is the guy who coined the infamous phrase "Never let a crisis go to waste" (which, interestingly, was a tactic used heavily by Obama) and you can expect he'll hug this proposal so tight he may strain a muscle.

Finally, what are the chances a future Dem president will order the federal government to bail the city out?  Zero.  Dems can't win without Illinois.  And with the population of the city at 2.7 million, no Dem pol wants to anger Chicago residents.  So the bailout is a certainty.

Okay, one last possible saver would be fed courts stopping a pres from doing that.  But since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Obamacare, that bridge has already been crossed.  Also, the feds bailed out New York City back in the late 1970's (forgot that, did ya?) so again, no clear federal barrier. 

Wednesday, July 18

Can anyone tell real headlines from satire anymore?

Some headlines, some fictional headlines.  Question is...which is which?
  • Democrats demand Supreme Court nominee not be unduly influenced by U.S. Constitution
  • San Francisco: man dumping off 20 lbs of human waste in plastic bag on street corner cited for using non-biodegradable plastic bag
  • Mueller investigation has finally determined that the lyrics to Louie Louie are not about Trump and Russian collusion
  • California to transition all state jobs to illegal aliens by 2020; experts say the savings will let state avoid bankruptcy and still have money left over for social programs for illegal aliens
  • Senator Bernie Sanders introduces "single-payer public transportation bill," which will end America's unequal, unfair, and expensive private transportation system
  • CNN: Trump reverses Obama's executive order banning hurricanes; ending the ban is likely to kill thousands of Americans
  • When asked if to find North Korea on a map, 46% of U.S. high school students didn't know what a map was
  • BREAKING on CNN, WaPo, NYT:  Anonymous sources claim Vladimir Putin may have ties to Russia
  • University ranked "most intolerant of free speech" in new study fights the accusation by banning the student newspaper from reporting the story
  • CNN: New evidence proves Donald Trump conspired with voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pensylvania to defeat Hillary Clinton
  • Study finds yet another area of unconscious racism in white children: 99.3% build only white snowmen
  • BREAKING: Millions of uncounted votes found on Hillary's private voting machine in her Chappaqua bathroom
Hat tip to The Peoples' Cube.

Lying Media loved Obama, so he got covers like this:

Five days ago a Trump-hating CNN talking head (redundancy alert) tweeted "Ask yourself what your life would be like with a media that only did things the president liked."
Blogger Jason Howerton realized the absurd lack of awareness and replied, in effect, "Dude, are you kidding?  We just got thru 8 years of that crap!"
Bias in the media?  Nah, couldn't be!

Think the "halo effect" was an accident?
Oh yeah, Obozo was **JUST LIKE REAGAN**--except in every possible way

The myths that inspire socialists and "progressives"

If someone told you they wanted to introduce a new system of government that would
  •  greatly restrict individual freedom;
  •  would murder or imprison millions if they objected;
  •  would drastically reduce your standard of living; and
  •  would encourage children to spy on parents and report them to the government
...most rational people would tell that person, in very direct terms, to f-off.

This is why the people who push socialism--including so-called “progressives”--cunningly wrap their proposals in inspiring myths and propaganda.  Not surprisingly, despite the ghastly failures of socialism, millions of Americans of all ages accept most or all of these myths as true. 

Filled with socialist slogans, and dreams of a glorious future in which everyone has plenty and no one has to struggle, those who accept the myths and lies have become a major source of Democrat-party votes and power.

Yesterday two guys published an analysis of these myths.    I've edited those below, but it's well worth your time to read the original.

The coup that marked the start of the Russian Revolution happened on Nov. 7, 1917.  What came next was the real revolution, as the communists abolished private propert--and with it, individual rights.  All authority and decision-making power rested with the communists.

In the novel Doctor Zhivago, Boris Pasternak provided an unforgettable description of the process:
Everywhere there were new elections: for the running of housing, trade, industry, and municipal services. Commissars were appointed to each-- men in black leather jerkins, with unlimited powers and iron will, armed with the means of intimidation and revolvers. They knew the shrinking bourgeois breed, the average holder of cheap government stocks, and spoke to them without the slightest pity and with Mephistophelean smiles, as to petty thieves caught in the act. These were the people who reorganized everything according to plan.  [Everything] became "Bolshevised."
The result was that civil society vanished into chaos.  But to the communists this wasn't a bug, but a feature.

One of the core myths of communism is that it's superior to capitalism.  At this point, people of average intelligence should be moved to ask, "Superior how, exactly?"

The usual response from the communists is that communism would "bury capitalism," thru greater economic output.  This claim was the core of Marxist / Leninist theory:  When the workers "threw off their chains" — freed from exploitation under greedy capitalist bosses -- the state would take care of everyone’s needs.  Workers would no longer have to struggle to find a job, or pay for food or housing or medical care or transportation or education, because the Party would provide everything.

And of course the Party would treat everyone equally.

One of the keys to this economic marvel was the miracle of central planning.  As Marx and Lenin saw it, the free market was horribly inefficient, in part because there was no brilliant central authority telling all those companies what to produce, and how much of each of tens of thousands of goods should be produced to make everything come out right. 

Marx and Lenin were convinced the free market was no better than randomly-moving molecules.  What was needed was a central planning authority that would organize things.  And to people who didn't understand Adam Smith's "invisible hand," that notion made perfect sense.

And yet it didn’t work.  Right from the start, it did not work--partly because in a command economy there's no feedback mechanism telling producers that people want more of X but less Y.
Faced with severe bread shortages, Lenin ordered farmers (peasants) to turn over their harvest to the state — at prices so low they couldn’t cover their production costs.  Lenin was surprised to find that the peasants responded by planting less, and selling as much of their product as they could on the black market. Many traveled to nearby cities and towns and sold food from sacks on their backs.

Lenin ordered that such “bagmen” should be shot on sight--and still the black market grew.  To starving people, hunger and starvation were a greater threat than a policeman’s bullet.

As food production continued to fall, Lenin relented, endorsing a New Economic Plan that, at least temporarily, allowed peasants to sell produce on the market. 

If any communist apparatchik realized that the profit motive and free-market pricing are very at matching supply to demand, and that the profit motive drives innovation and spurs people to work harder, no one was willing to risk telling this to Lenin.

By huge contrast, with the State providing everything, there was no thing to motivate anyone to work hard and be creative.

Think of how different that is from the voluntary exchange in a free society — where people compete with one another to satisfy the needs of others.

Another powerful propaganda piece of socialist dogma is that all profit was theft, and thus served no useful purpose.  It followed that the only way anyone could amass great wealth was by exploiting workers.  Certainly both these points struck the average low-information citizen as perfectly logical.  What the communists never mentioned was that profit was a huge motivator.

One of the nagging little unresolved problems of communism was how many people the system either exiled to Siberian jails ("the Gulag") or simply executed outright.  But the leaders had a good answer: Because "everyone agreed" that communism was the best of all possible worlds, it followed that anyone trying to block its implementation must be an enemy of the state.  Because the stakes were so huge, it was worth killing or exiling those few "enemies" who refused to go along.  Right, comrade?

As comrade Lenin put it, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.  The fact that the “eggs” were actually human beings was never mentioned.

The same logic was used to justify having school teach kids to "inform" on their parents.  As the leaders saw it, this wasn't even a negative, but was a necessary step to achieve the perfect socialist state as quickly as possible.

Communists tout China's booming economy as proof of the superiority of communism.  But China's economy didn't start growing after Deng Xiaoping opened China to foreign investment and global markets.  He took an even bigger step in 1984 when he allowed peasant farmers to sell in the open market.

But the trifecta was when Deng denounced one of the core concepts of Marxism: that profit was theft.
Instead Deng said “To get rich is glorious.” He and other Chinese leaders since then have systematically freed ownership of the means of production in many other areas.One upshot of that: China has been producing new billionaires at a faster rate than any country in the world and — according to Forbes— will soon have more billionaires than the United States. But the still more important upshot is this: In both India and China, rapid business formation has driven rapid economic growth… and accounted for the greatest anti-poverty program in recent times — lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the last couple of decades.

Every form of socialism — from the mild to the murderous — depends upon government coercion and the curtailment of liberty — including the forcible redistribution of wealth and demands for an ever-growing list of “free” services by government.  It is more than a little disturbing that so many Americans have jumped on the progressive bandwagon.

No member of the Lying Media ever asked Obama to explain what he meant by "I'll have more flexibility"

After president Trump met Vladimir Putin a few days ago, all the Lying Mainstream Media rags are screaming that Trump is "in Putin's pocket" because he...well, fill in anything you like after the dots.

So in light of this, it's instructive to take a look at how the Lying Media treated pas by their Messiah (the emperor Obozo).

A month or two before the 2012 election, Obozo met with then Russia president Dmitri Medvedev (Putin was premier, so Medvedev was below Putin in the hierarchy).  During a break in filming, Obozo leaned close to the Russian presidet, patted his thigh and said "This is my last election. After it's over I'll have more flexibility."  
Medvedev knew exactly what Obozo meant by that, and replied "I'll transmit that to Vladimir.  And I stand with you."

The exchange was caught on an open mike.  The Lying Media ignored it.  Internet bloggers didn't.

Now here's the interesting part:  A friend pointed out that no member of the Lying Media ever asked Obozo to explain what he meant by "I'll have more flexibility."  Because it didn't matter to the media:  Whatever Obozo said was abolutely perfect, so it was unthinkable for any member of the media to ask him to explain.

See the exchange for yourself.

Minnesota: woman who hanged a toddler at her daycare gets probation

Minnesota woman a) tries to kill toddler by hanging him; b) hits a bicyclist with her car as she flees; c) hits a second car; d) and uses her car to push another car and driver 10 blocks.  Judge sentences her to probation, no prison.

Minnesota is notoriously liberal.  As in, insanely so.  These are the folks who routinely allowed natives of Somalia to board flights headed overseas carrying a million cash in suitcases--several times a month.  Never got curious.  Really strangely, crazy liberal.

Nataliia Karia ran a daycare out of her home.  A father who was dropping off his son at Karia’s home found a toddler hanging from a noose in the basement.  He released the child (who survived) and started raising hell with Karia, who jumped in her car and fled.

She struck a bicyclist and two cars, pushing one ten blocks.  She pleaded guilty to attempted murder, third-degree assault and criminal vehicular operation.

On Monday Hennepin County District Judge Jay Quam sentenced her to...probation, no jail.

His reasoning is...goofy at best:  He said he agreed that she was a “low risk” to commit more crimes.
He said her actions were “the perfect storm of factors unlikely to ever be repeated.”

Excuse me?  If a guy fatally shot someone, but the circumstances were highly unusual, such that they weren't likely to occur again, the same argument would hold.  But have you ever heard of someone getting off completely (probation is NOT a deterrent) for such a thing?  No.

The wreckless driving that almost cost a bicyclist his leg should have landed her in jail for at least six months.  But no, nothing.

On the other hand, I guess it's no worse than California juries letting a 7-times-deported illegal who fatally shot a tourist on a pier in San Francisco--admittedly carelessly, not intentionally--off with a slap on the wrist.

Tuesday, July 17

You too can predict the future, at least on a large scale

I'd like to show you how one can predict future events.  It's a skill anyone can master, as you'll see.

A recent survey found that only 42 percent of Americans can even name the three branches of the federal government, let alone tell you the exact function of each.

Now it turns out "recent" is a relative term:  The survey was taken in 2006, so a dozen years ago.

Now, based on just the events you've watched unfold in the last dozen years, would you predict that today the percentage of Americans who can name the three branches of the federal government is higher than the 42% found in 2006, or lower?

Sure.  You know that even though the total amount spent on K-12 education has risen 30% since 2006, the nation's schools are teaching less and less of what's important, and more garbage (i.e. trivia or wastes of time).  You know that the number of attacks by black students on blacks who try to learn in school has risen exponentially, whichis likely to have reduced the amount of useful education black kids receive in school

You know that even though the media has lied to us for decades, it's gotten exponentially worse in the last dozen years.  So bottom line is, it's highly, highly likely that people would know more about government today than 12 years ago.

Admittedly, in the above example you were looking at how historical data probably changed over time, and you based your guess on what you've observed over the intervening dozen years; whereas  in trying to predict in 2006 youd have had to guess whether trends you could see in the five years before would continue, there's almost no difference.

My point is that it doesn't take magic to extrapolate trends.  The funny part is that so many talking heads and political leaders don't seem to be able to do that--judging by the easily-forecast horrible results of most of their ideas.

Found: Putin's secret plan to destroy America !!

FOUND:  Putin's secret plot to destroy America!!  Started with collaborating with PDT to steal the election from Her Highness.


And the scary part is, it's working!

Obama pushes "guaranteed income" in overseas speech; Dems are already ecstatic about it

Today the most faaabulous emperor ever to masquerade as a president of the U.S.--former emperor Barack Hussein Obama--gave a speech in Johannesburg, South Africa.

To the surprise of no one, the emperor pushed the current hot talking points of the Left -- including speaking favorably about proposals for what Leftists have cunningly labeled a "guaranteed income."

If you've never heard of the ocialists'/Democrats' "guaranteed income" proposal--also called "universal basic income"--don't feel bad.  You spend virtually all your waking hours working or raising your kids, leaving precious little time to investigate the latest "gimmeedat" scams of the socialists.  Perfectly understandable.

"Guaranteed income" is welfare for everyone.  The Dems would give, say, $2000 per month to all the drunks and stoners who might otherwise have to get a (gasp!) job--like the rest of us-- to keep themselves in beer and weed.

From the Dems' standpoint "guaranteed income" is almost a perfect program:  It buys 'em millions of votes, demonstrates their wonderful virtue to other Dems, and will take money away from other, more questionable uses of taxpayer funds like, oh, national defense.  If they could just tie in "open borders" and gun confiscation it would be perfect, but I understand they're working on it.

Now I hear some of you saying "I thought my Econ professor said something about 'Anytime you subsidize something, you get ______ of it.'  But I can't recall whether you got more or less of it."  

Oh come on.  Everyone know that when you subsidize something, you get...wait, let me try again--because most Democrats apparently do NOT know what goes in that blank.  Cuz if they did, they couldn't possibly think giving people a "guaranteed income" was a good idea.

The answer, as you all knew, is you get more of it.  Which means millions more people saying "To hell with that low-wage job.  With "guaranteed income" I don't need it, so I'd rather sit around and get [drunk/stoned/whatever] all day instead of being a dummy and having to get up at 9am and go to work."

As you can guess, that reasoning works extremely well for the Dems.

Okay, you think they can't possibly be seriously proposing that, right?  It's just too obviously a recipe for disaster, right?  Only an idiot would...Well, hold on a sec, cuz at least a few Dems and socialists almost certainly KNOW what a disaster that would be, but they're pushing it anyway.  What does that tell ya?

The city council of Stockton, California--with the total support of its new, young, charismatic black mayor--has already approved such a program for their cash-rich city.  Oh wait, Stockton isn't remotely flush with cash.  But don't worry, citizen:  If you're a Democrat, tax money is an abstraction, like, say, the Constitution.  Or ethical, law-abiding FBI officials.  Or truth.

Okay, I'll admit that in small-ish towns like Stockton, five council-creeps can go nuts and vote to repeal the law of gravity, and eventually they'll figure it out.  Ah, well, except...

Now a much bigger Democrat-ruled crap-hole is considering this idea:  Chicago.

Point is that the idea has captivated Mainstream Thinkers in the Democrat party.  Which means that like socialized medicine (i.e. ordinary citizens get the faaabulous level of medical care offered by the Veterans' Administration), they're not just gonna give up on this, but will continue to push it til they get their way.

So back to the emperor's speech.  In the time-honored method of propagandists everywhere, he started by stating well-known truths about the value of getting and keeping a job: 
"It's not just money a job provides," Obama said. "It provides dignity and structure and a sense of place and a sense of purpose. So we're going to have to consider new ways of thinking about these problems...
So far it sounds totally unobjectionable, right?  But just after the last word above, he shows the true colors: a universal income, review of our work week, how we retrain our young people, how we make everybody an entrepreneur at some level. 
Told ya.  If the Emperor is pushing this absurd crap, all the "cool kids" in congress and the media talking heads will jump on the bandwagon right away, adoringly.  Slobberingly.  Cuz they loooove the man they call the greatest president in history.  (Seriously, at least a dozen commenters a day on Democrat sites say that.)

Yeah, I know--hard to believe. sure to vote Democrat, so we can get "guaranteed income" rammed thru on the federal level, so the hard-working community organizers won't have to ram it thru each of the 57 states [sic; Obama said that] individually.  Cuz that's just inefficient, eh?

Democrats: "Anyone who supports Trump is a Nazi!"


The "new" Democrat party is pushing socialism, free crap to bribe voters--particularly younger ones

Today's Democrat party has become the party of the infinitely corrupt Tom Perez, keith Ellison, La Raza, crazy Maxine Waters, socialist  faux-native-American Elizabeth Warren, Hilliary corrupt Clinton.  They support open borders, sanctuary cities and states, amnesty for illegals, stopping deportations even for illegals who have committed crimes here, and non-prosecution for multiple re-entry following deportation.

And they're getting more crazy, more extreme, supporting "guaranteed annual income" (i.e. welfare payments) for *everyone*, which will further encourage people to simply stop working in dull or hard jobs.  They want to make college "free" (i.e. taxpayer-funded) for everyone, and for the government to "forgive" massive student loans.  Meaning, of course, that taxpayers take the hit.

It's hard to believe anyone can be so stupid as to look at these Dem candidates who advocate doing away with ICE, opening our borders, giving more free shit, etc and think, "Those are just buzz-phrases they're using to fire up their base and win votes.  They can't possibly seriously advocate those things!  Surely they'll drop the bomb-throwing demands if they're elected."

But then you read comments by Democrats on CNN or WaPo or HuffPo or Slate or Salon or ThinkProgress and you realize that many, many Democrats really do want all those things.  And that if far-Left candidates win they'll push those winners to ram those programs down everyone's throat.

For example, no one seriously thought socialized health insurance--with coverage demanded by the Obama administration, to include birth control for 60-year-olds and free "insurance" (i.e. "free" health care--paid by taxpayers) for the poor-- would pass.  But due to dozens of legislative tricks and bribes, it did, and f'd everyone who wasn't poor.

California is even giving free health insurance to illegal aliens, despite the Dems absolutely *promising* this was totally impossible under their pet law.

The bastards lie with every breath.

With a few exceptions, leftists, socialists and Democrats aren't great with math, so asking them to explain how they're gonna fund any of their far-Left proposals is an exercise in futility.

Monday, July 16

Two illegal-alien invaders kill a grandmother, behead her 13-year-old granddaughter

Last month Oralia Mendoza, a 49-year-old woman, was stabbed to death in a cemetery in Alabama, in front of her 13-year-old granddaughter.  The killers then beheaded the 13-year-old because she'd witnessed the murder of her grandmother.

Yesterday we learned that the murders of the grandmother and her 13-year-old granddaughter--who was beheaded--was the work of two men, Yoni Aguilar and Israel Palomino.
 Authorities said the grandmother (Mendoza) was associated with the Sinaloa Mexican gang, one of the world’s most violent drug-trafficking organizations.

Aguilar told investigators that he, Mendoza, Palomino, and another woman traveled to Georgia in early June to pick up a kilo of methamphetamine.  Things started to go south when Palomino became suspicious of Mendoza and the other woman because of their cartel connections.  Aguilar, who was Mendoza’s live-in boyfriend, said he thought he was being set up.

A couple of days later Palomino and Aguilar picked up Mendoza and her granddaughter from Mendoza’s house, saying they would take them “somewhere safe.”  The men reportedly drove Mendoza and her granddaughter to a cemetery where they fatally stabbed Mendoza after arguingt over the drug buy.

Aguilar told investigators that Palomino then forced him to kill the girl because she was a witness, police said.

Because the original story said nothing about the immigration status of the killers, those of us who follow the laughable propaganda rags calling themselves "news" sources knew it was a good bet the two killers were illegal alien invaders from Mehico.  And now it turns out, that's exactly what they are.

Y'all gettin' tired of this yet?  Cuz I sure as hell am.

Gosh, if only there was a way to make it a LOT harder to simply walk across any point along the 1200 miles of our lightly-guarded, unfenced southern border.  I don't know, big wall or somethin'?  NAH, that would never work!  I mean, some things just aren't possible.

I mean, emperor Obama said we'd never be able to get ISIS out of the Syrian cities they'd taken over, and sure enough, they're still...oh wait, that's right:  Once the man at the top (PDT) made the decision to let our military do what it needed to do, they were gone in six months.

Of course that's probably a one-in-a-million exception.  I'm sure the people who assure us that a wall would be just awful and wouldn't help are probably right, cuz they're really smaht.  Sorta like Nancy Pelosi and Chuckie Schumer.  And they're really honest too, like James Comey and Rod Rosenstein and Peter Strzok.  So we should probably believe that when they tell us it isn't possible, they're most likely right.

Finally, remember how all the Dems and socialists were screaming about how absolutely awful it was that Trump was continuing an Obama policy of separating children from detained parents (due to a judge's ruling to protect those kids)?  Well here's a child that was murdered by illegals, and where is the chorus of wails wanting to protect these poor, defenseless kids NOW?  Guess this particular kid doesn't matter to 'em, cuz Dems can't use her to blast Trump.

Hypocrisy much, Dems?

For the local reporting click here (FOX 25 Alabama),

Friday, July 13

3 Dem reps introduce bill to abolish ICE; House leaders slate it for fast-track vote by full House; hilarity ensues

In case you haven't heard, Democrats are screaming to abolish the "Immigration and Customs Enforcement" agency (ICE), because it deports their precious, beloved illegal aliens.  Or at least has something to do with deportations.  Oh, and "ripping children from their mothers' arms and throwing them in concentration camps," as Dem spokespropagandists have screamed on scores of occasions.

And sure enough, three House Democrats--Reps. Mark Pocan (D., Wis.), Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) and Adriano Espaillat (D., N.Y.) immediately got busy and introduced a bill to do that.

Of course they would never call it "A Bill Abolishing ICE," cuz that'  Dems have known for decades that you never give a bill a title that would tell the rubes (voters) what it actually does.  Cuz that might cost you some votes.  Instead you title it something that completely disguises its real effect.

For example, a Democrat bill that would give amnesty to a million illegal immigrants would be named "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals."  See?  Can't possibly tell what it does from the title.  And that's the whole point.

So the Democrats called their bill to abolish ICE "The Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act."

Of course if ICE is abolished, there ISN'T any enforcement of our immigration laws.  So open borders.  Oh wait, that's the whole point, isn't it?  Yes, I see now--very humane.  

So...since Republicans have a slim majority in the House, House leaders immediately began plotting ways to obstruct this bill.  Cuz as the media constantly tells us, that's what the Republicans do, whereas Democrats are the sould of reason, always eager to "reach across the aisle" and work with their opponents in the spirit of cooperation and unity.

At least that's the media's story, and they're stickin' to it.

Actually, Republican House leadership announced earlier that they'd bring the bill up for a vote by the full House right away, bypassing the usual time-consuming requirement of getting it through the relevant committee.

Naturally the three Democrat reps who authored and introduced the bill were delighted by the GOP majority cooperating with them to get a vote in the full House, to get the bill moving as soon as possible.

Hahahahahahaha!  Just kidding.  Actually the three Democrats were outraged! saying it was positively awful of the GOP to bring their bill up for a floor vote!  And they released a "joint statement" saying they planned to vote against their own bill.

They used this statement to criticize House Speaker Paul Ryan, calling the move for a fast vote by the entire House a "political stunt." "If Speaker Ryan puts our bill on the floor, we plan to vote no," they said.

"Wait," I hear you saying.  "This has to be fake news!!--right-wing propaganda.  It just doesn't make sense. Why would Democrats author and introduce a bill, then vote against it when it comes up for a vote?"

Yeah, I can see why that strikes most people as a bit...odd.  If true, it would probably lead many voters (not Democrats, of course) to think that the entire move was nothing more than a publicity stunt--a way of fanning the insane-left base, motivating them to vote Democrat in November.

"C'mon, you can't seriously believe smart, reasonable Democrat congresspersons would introduce a bill they had no intention of supporting, just to fan the flames of their base.  That's..nuts."

Certainly is.  Just not the way you meant it.

FBI agent Strzok lies to House committee, stonewalls questioners

FBI agent Peter Strzok--the guy who texted his FBI mistress "Don't worry, we'll stop him" (referring to Trump possibly winning the election)--appeared before the House committee to supposedly be questioned on what he meant by the hundreds of anti-Trump texts.

As you may have heard, the hearing was a joke--a travesty--from start to finish.

First, Democrat congresswhores (my apologies for insulting honest working girls there), led by the ghastly Jerrold Nadler, deliberately diverted sabotaged the hearing by bloviating for 90 minutes by raising what they falsely claimed were "points of order," which by parliamentary rules have priority over all other business.

Next, the asshole was accompanied by an FBI attorney--not one he personally hired.  He asked the chair if he could consult with "his attorney" on several matters before answering questions.  The chair observed that by no stretch of the imagination was an FBI attorney--a government employee, paid with taxpayer dollars--"his" attorney, and declined to let him consult with the suit.

This drove the Dems crazy.  It just wasn't fair, they said, that the mean ol' republican chair wouldn't allow this turncoat to be represented by a government attorney, working for the FBI to conceal all wrongdoing.

Just.  Not.  Fair, comrade.

The Republicans did manage to get the witness to say he was still employed at the FBI, which by itself is an absolute outrage.  They also got him to say he even still has his Top-Secret security clearance.  Crucially, Attorney-general Jeff Sessions said the guy's security clearance had been revoked.

Who's telling the truth?  If Strzok does still have a clearance, why?

The fact that the FBI ordered a government attorney to advise Strzok during the hearing, helping him stonewall what would seem to be an absolutely KEY investigation into FBI corruption--corruption extending all the way to the highest officials of that agency--speaks to the corruption of the FBI, the DOJ and all of Washington.

If an FBI agent had vowed to block Barack Hussein Obama from winning his election, does anyone in the country think he or she would have lasted a week at his job, let alone over a year, after the discovery of the incontrovertible, written evidence that he indeed had stated a desire to do that?

One obvious instance of perjury by Strzok during the hearing was when he claimed that he “never” spoke to reporters about the investigation before election day.  But the FBI itself previously admitted that Strzok talked to reporters about the investigation. Strzok’s attorney wrote an Op-Ed in USA Today saying that “Peter and others” at the FBI “actively ensured that news reports didn’t overplay the seriousness of the investigation.” How could he have done that without talking to them?

The list of likely lies by Strzok, and his smug cockiness--knowing the Democrats will ensure that he won't be prosecuted even for the most blatant, obvious, brazen lie--shows how corrupt the Deep State is.  Judging by how successful the Democrats were in thwarting the questioning of Strzok, and the complete support of half the electorate (more than half if you count all the illegal votes), my guess is that none of the illegal acts by Deep-State Trump-haters will ever be punished.

If the 2018 midterms aren't an even bigger rebuke of the criminal Democrat-run establishment than was the 2016 election of Trump, America as it was bequeathed to us is over.  Our children will inherit a totally corrupt banana republic, run by arrogant criminals who will continue to break the law with utter impunity.

H/T American Spectator

Liberal "comedian" films himself relieving himself in public--Dems think it's comic genius! because...

"Comedian" George Lopez sent liberals and Democrats into gales of laughter by arranging for his film crew to film him...relieving himself on Donald Trump's star on the Hollywood walk of fame.

Isn't that a scream?   No wonder Lopez is so wildly popular with Democrats.  I mean, that's pure comedic genius, eh?  

You have to wonder if Dems would have found it equally funny if a conservative comedian had relieved himself on a pic of emperor Obama.  But of course that wouldn't happen.  It's just the liberals and Democrats that are clever enough to come up with brilliant, side-splitting "comedy" like this.

Keep it classy, Democrats.  You guys really set a great example for all young people in the country.

With the Dems constantly stimulated by the brilliant "comedy" of George Lopez, it's no wonder they'll turn out in droves in November.

Thursday, July 12

One afternoon in Tallahassee

In Tallahassee, 24-year-old Jason White wanted a gun.  Actually three of 'em.  So he did what just seemed like the normal thing:  Stole two from a pawnshop.  But this didn't fill his wants, so he walked into a sporting goods store, picked up a Glock and ran out.

He was tackled at the door by a store employee, 32-year-old Dean Crouch.  Shortly thereafter cops arrived and arrested the thief.
Jason White, got 3 guns the easy way

Interrogated at the station, White was apologetic and remorseful.

Hahahahahahaha!  Not even close.  Instead officers reported the thief repeatedly told them "I stole and I admit to it,  and I will steal again when I get out of jail.”  Apparently the thief had heard that a city had ordered its police officers not to arrest people for theft, and thought that was Tallahassee.

It was actually Austin, Texas, but hey, close enough, right?

As you might have guessed, the story doesn't end there.  Since the store employee who tackled the thief--fearing he might have been on his way to shoot someone very near the store--risked his life to possibly save others, the sporting goods chain--Academy--rewarded the married father of two.

Hahahahahaha!  What, did you just get off the boat?  Academy fired the guy, and he's been forced to put his home up for sale.
The man who tackled the thief--and has been fired

There's a lesson here:  The corporate attorneys and bigwigs know the guy who tackled the thief did a good thing, but they fired him anyway because they fear not doing so would cost them sales to black customers.  So to hell with what's right, if doing what's wrong adds a few thousand bucks to the bottom line, eh?

The "suits" made a conscious decision to throw the heroic employee under the bus.  And his two young girls?  Hey, not our problem, said the suits.  We'd rather just let people walk out with guns.

In fact, maybe we should just stop selling guns altogether.  Yeh, dat's da ticket!