Friday, November 17

Epic BLM fail...

Not sure if this is a spoof but it looks like the infamous anti-white hate group Black Lives Matter--whose knickers are *always* in a twist about Trump--posted a poll question:  "Do you approve of President Trump's job performance?"

They naturally assumed that the poll would overwhelmingly show "disapprove."

Surprise--it was showing 69% "approve" vs 27% disapprove.

So naturally...they pulled it down!


Wednesday, November 15

Another victory for virtue-signalling, and a defeat for logic and good results

Political correctness always produces bad results.  And it's getting worse.  But sometimes those results are subtle and not always apparent.  Example: 

Portland, Oregon, has a serious problem with drug addiction--specifically to heroin, meth, and opioids.  It's been a problem for decades but has gotten a lot worse in the last few years.

To try to formulate an approach to reducing addiction a good-government citizens' group--the City Club of Portland--convened a committee of civilian volunteers to research addiction and possible ways to reduce it.  Anyone in the club could volunteer to serve on the committee.
Not one person of color applied to serve on the addiction-research committee.

The committee met twice a week for six months, interviewing numerous experts and reviewing over a hundred published studies.  Toward the end of July the committee submitted a draft report to the officers of the club.

By October, the club's officers hadn't approved or commented on the report, so one of the members of the research committee asked the club's president what the problem was.

The president said that the club's board of governors would not release the report--because all the members of the research committee were...white.

The fact that no non-white had volunteered to serve on the volunteer committee was ignored.

Also, the committee had been meeting for six months.  At any point the board of governors could have dissolved the committee and saved everyone's time.  But they didn't.

So...thousands of volunteer man-hours were wasted, thrown away because of an official's fear of appearing to be politically incorrect. 

So if Portland ever decides what to do about the ocean of misery caused by drug addiction and addicts, it'll take 'em another year to figure it out--if indeed they ever do.  Because my guess is that all the members who had the time, education and inclination to volunteer to spend over six months doing the research already volunteered--only to have their work trashed.  

How many of those people do you think will be eager to sign up for more fun like that?

Sacrificing competence and unbiased conclusions to virtue-signalling and political correctness can't possibly have a good result.  But snowflakes haven't learned that, and won't until too late.

You surely know people like this:  They'll eagerly swear that 2 plus 2 equals 5 if they think that's the popular thing to do.  They are a curse and a cancer on a sane society.

Of course big swaths of the U.S. no longer fit this definition.

A European analyst looks at the trends on floods of African immigrants into Europe

Hungary is one of the few nations in Europe that seems to understand the existential threat posed by mass immigration of Africans to European nations.  And they've decided they don't want to go along.

In case some of my student readers may not be acquainted with the term, an "existential threat" is one that, if you don't counter it, has a good chance of killing you--or your society, which some Americans feel would be a bad thing.

(Interestingly, I'm seeing signs that growing numbers of white Americans have bought into the "Whites are evil so we should just kill ourselves" bullshit.  There's a serious existential threat right there..)

Recently a Hungarian analyst explained why his analysis pointed to the dire nature of the threat of mass immigration:  First, if present trends continue--which is certainly open to debate--the number of Africans illegally entering Europe each year could approach 2 million.  And there is no indication that any of the EU politicians or national leaders (except Hungary, Poland and possibly Austria) are willing to reduce this flood.

But there's a bigger problem than immigration alone:  The birthrate for native Europeans has been falling for years, and is now far below replacement level of just over 2 children per couple.  It's now about 1.4.  By contrast Africans-almost all Muslims--are having 4, 5 or 6 children per woman.  
Unless you're a science or math or finance major this may not strike you as being very significant--but it is.

This is easily seen in the well-known equation for "exponential growth:"  It's P(t)=P(o)e^rt where P is population, r is the growth rate and t is time.

A few minutes of playing with this equation will show that the "doubling time" for African immigrants could be as short as 17 years.

Also, following the trend in every advanced nation, European women are waiting longer to have their first (and often only) child, partly because many want to finish college and grad-school, and partly because they want to have fun and be free for a decade or so before settling down.  This trend shows no sign of reversing.

By contrast, Muslim women and girls--few of whom enter post-secondary education, and even fewer being allowed by medieval Islamic rules to be "social butterflies"--have their first child at a much younger age, which contributes to a higher overall "fertility rate."

Short answer:  Many EU countries are likely to be majority-Muslim by 2050.

And given typical apathy among voters, well before then Muslims will be able to elect either Muslim or pro-Muslim politicians.  When that happens, any tiny moves to reduce the immigrant flood will be dismantled.  Sharia law will become the norm.  Increasing numbers of government employees and officials--particularly in police and intelligence agencies--will be Muslims.

If you're fine with that for your kids, no problem.  Surely they'll be able to adjust, right?  And for liberals, Democrats, socialists and marxists, living under Islam is certainly a more attractive notion than living in a Christian society.

Tuesday, November 14

Another victory for snowflakes in the polygender-pronoun wars

And further to the endless, sad saga of how liberal-Democrat-enforced gender insanity is turning formerly competent nations into reality-denying morons, there's this:

Ten days ago the pencil-neck metrosexual wusses who seem to infest big cities ordered train operators on New York City's subway system to stop prefacing announcements with "Ladies and gentlemen..."

The reason was to avoid offending the 586 new "genders" invented by the special snowflakes.

Oooh, wait:  Newer trains have recorded announcements.  Oooh, what to do?  Easy: The PC morons simply ordered train operators to override the prerecorded message with the new, gender-correct ones until the agency gets around to changing the automated messages.

The bulletin also warns train operators that managers and supervisors will be monitoring them to make sure they don’t slip and use the forbidden phrase.

H/T Moonbattery.

Teacher suspended after accidentally saying "Well done, girls." Mom complains her kid has...

A teacher in the U.K has been suspended and could be fired after he accidentally called a transgender pupil a girl in class when the female student has said she wants to be called a boy.

When Joshua Sutcliffe saw two girls working hard, he said "Well done, girls."  The girl-who-wants-to-be-a-boy corrected Sutcliffe, who apologized.  But six weeks later, after the girl’s mother lodged a complaint, he was suspended from teaching.

If you commit the horrible offense of accidentally referring to a girl as a girl when her mother wants everyone to pretend she is a boy, apologizing won’t save you.

Following an investigation, he has been summoned to a formal disciplinary hearing this week to face misconduct charges for ‘misgendering’.

Sutcliffe has also been accused of another offensive behavior:  referring to the student by name rather than using masculine pronouns that the insane PC morons demand he use to refer to a girl.

And here is the key to the entire transgender jihad:  It isn't enough to merely stay quiet--the trans-jihadists demand that everyone actively reject sanity and agree, in effect, that 2+2=5, by using biologically wrong pronouns. 

Once they get you to refer to Bruce Jenner or Bradley Manning as “she,” they own you. You have quietly bowed to their demand that 2 + 2 = 5 if they say so, and thus have signaled your willingness to agree to any other tyrannical lunacy they may impose.

As noted at the top, this outrage happened in the U.K.  But if you think the moonbat liberals who run the schools and the Deep State government aren't trying as hard as they can to impose the same rules here, you're naive. 

H/T Moonbattery.

Muslim terror killer in NYC last week got into U.S. via "Diversity Visa Program" ?!

The federal government is accurately criticized for taking forever to respond to threats, especially ones that have only been known for, oh, a decade or two.  It's sorta' like not a single congresswhore or federal employee has the brains or balls to stand up and say "HEY, Islamic terrorists pose a huge threat to all western nations, and yet we're still letting thousands of people into the U.S. by an insane, random lottery!  We need to stop that at once!"

In particular:  The Diversity Visa Program was established by the Immigration Act of 1990.  The stated goal of the law was to "increase the diversity of the U.S. population."   Not sure why any sane people would think they needed to do that, but then I'm not a congresswhore.

Under that program, 55,000 immigrants each year are randomly chosen to get U.S. visas in an annual lottery.  It started in the mid-1990s.

Astonishingly, it's still going on, issuing visas to Muslims from known terrorist-supporting nations.

Yes, in the last ten years our moronic, slow-witted federal government issued nearly 30,000 visas to people from nations officially designated as sponsors of terrorism.

Brilliant, huh?

After Muslim hijackers killed 2,800 Americans on September 11, 2001, why didn't the government immediately order the morons who ran that wunnerful program to not award visas to people from threatening nations?  Well, probably because back then it wasn't clear which nations supported terrorism.

Discovering that took probably around two years.  Surely the feds would have taken action then, right?

Of course then the government didn't take action because they couldn't get the emperor to agree.  Yes, that's the same emperor who used the phrase "my Muslim faith" during an interview with George Stephanopolous on national television.  (Georgie covered for him by saying "You meant 'my *Christian* faith,' of course.")

Now, in the wake of eight more people killed by a Muslim in NYC--a man who was only able to enter the U.S. because he won one of the diversity visas--Trump has proposed ending the issuance of visas to residents of 7 countries.  But you know what's gonna happen, right?  An unelected federal judge in Hawaii will rule that he can't do that, because of the legal equivalent of "Because I said so!"

And it'll take another eight years for all the appeals to work their way through the legal system.

How many more Americans will be killed by winners of "diversity visas" during those 8 years?

Sunday, November 12

Priceless: Leftist moonbats scream at the sky-- caught on video.

Infowars is pretty goofy but Paul Joseph Watson is clever and funny.  In the vid below he watches deranged leftists as they screamed at the sky a few days ago to show their hate for Trump.  This is some funny stuff!

Friday, November 10

Moronic leftist bitches that if TX shooter had been Muzz or POC, Trump would have called for...

As soon as President Trump learned about the mass shooting at the church in Texas, he posted a sympathetic statement on Twitter: "May God be with the people of Sutherland Springs, Texas." 

Of course any statement from Trump causes leftists to shriek their outrage, and invoking God or prayer makes 'em scream even louder.  Thus a notoriously moronic former MSNBC idiot by the name of Keith Olberman tweeted
"You pig, if the shooter were a person of color or a Muslim you'd be heading home calling for the death penalty."
Pretty sure that wouldn't have happened, Keefie, since the shooter was, um, already thoroughly dead.

But we wouldn't expect any former or current employee of MSNBC to know how to actually, y'know, *listen* to news reports before shrieking.

Head of a black group calls for our national anthem to be changed, claiming it's raacist

For some years now blacks have demanded that cities and states remove all statues of Confederate generals.

Gradually, increasing numbers of virtue-signalling whites began to support this demand.  Eventually, politicians stuck a wet finger up in the air and realized they'd get more votes by agreeing to this demand than they'd lose by opposing it, and they agreed to the demand.

The next demand was that all references to Thomas Jefferson be removed.  Politicians bowed and surrendered.

Next was a demand to rename all parks, streets and schools named after the great general Robert E. Lee, and Jefferson Davis.

Pols quickly caved.  It got so ridiculous that the morons in one school district in Oregon or Washington state changed the name of "Lee Elementary" even though the Lee family in question was unrelated to General Lee, and had simply donated a bunch of land to the city to build schools.

Next was the demand that the nation remove statues honoring George Washington.  It's my understanding that Washington freed his slaves, but I suspect that makes no difference to the screamers.

Now the latest demand is to remove the Star-spangled Banner as our national anthem.

Seriously.  The head of a black organization in California has demanded that we drop the anthem because...the third verse is raaaaacist!

Bet you didn't even know there was a third verse.  And I'll bet that before this person in California complained, not ten blacks in the whole country knew there was a third verse, let alone what its lyrics were.

Here's the verse she found offensive;
  And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
   that the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
   a home and a country should leave us no more?
  Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
  No refuge could save the hireling and slave
   from the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.
  And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
   o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Ah, see?  See???  Certainly.  Screamingly obvious why she believes the anthem is raaaacist:  It contains the word "slave."  Sure.  Definitely raaaacist.

But for those who know the history of the Revolutionary War and England, the context makes it clear that that the author of the lyrics wasn't talking about American slaves (presumably black) but was referring to certain British soldiers.  The British had their equivalent of a foreign legion, mostly German mercenaries called Hessians.  Hence, "hirelings."  Similarly, some British noble families sent their "bondsmen" (indentured servants) to fight for the king.  Hence "slave."  And virtually all "bondsmen" in the U.K. were white.

So "slave" didn't refer to blacks at all--meaning the objection is unfounded.

But I don't expect this will deter black organizations from building a Movement to ditch our national anthem.

And the race to war continues.

Thursday, November 9

Insane law forces building owner to pay tens of thousands of $ to graffiti "artists," for...

You need to understand how leftists pass and then use laws that take away rights to private property.  For example, most people think graffiti is unsightly, and if someone spray-paints their home you'd think they'd have the right to paint over the stuff.

Surprise.  There's a law--at least in NYC, unsure how many other places--called the "Visual Artists' Rights Act"--that makes it a crime to paint over certain graffiti.

Naturally you can't believe a legislature or council could possibly be dumb enough to pass such a law or "city ordinance" or whatever. 

That's exactly my point.

In the moral cesspool called New York City, graffiti "artists" painted the side of a building.  The owner painted the building--which you'd think was his right.

A few days ago a federal jury in New York City awarded thousands of dollars to "graffiti artists" who had painted on the guy's building, because the owner painted over their work.

The jury only deliberated for about a day, despite having to reach separate verdicts for each of the 49 artworks at issue in the case, and ruled that the owner must pay each artist.  Amounts ranged from $750 to a jaw-dropping $80,000.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Eric Baum accused the owner of violating the "Visual Artists Rights Act."

“Ignorance of a law is no excuse for violating it,” Baum said in his closing argument Monday. He called painting over the graffiti “the worst intentional destruction or mutilation of art in U.S. history.”

The jury awarded damages for about two-thirds of the pieces. About half of the works the jury found to be “recognized stature” – meaning art experts, members of the art community or a cross-section of society recognized it.

Jurors also found the destruction of the work had been harmful to the “honor or reputation” of the artist in half the cases, even for some works that didn’t belong to the “recognized stature” category.

I mention this piece-of-crap legal case because the Democrats are well on their way to achieving the destruction of the electoral college system of electing the president, using a series of laws in each state that will award each state's electoral votes to the candidate who wins the *national* popular vote.

If you think they'll pull back, you're naive.

What, you think that couldn't possibly happen without a Constitutional amendment?

Yeah?  And I'll bet that until you read about the case just noted, you wouldn't have believed that the owner of a house or building could be forced to pay graffiti hoods tens of thousands of dollars for re-painting his own damn building either.

Democrats have controlled Baltimore schools for decades. Results?

A basic principle of...well, that rational people judge the soundness of policies by their results:  If a policy produces good results, it's a good policy and vice-versa.

Most conservatives understand this very basic principle.

Unfortunately most Democrats don't.  To Dems, what matters are "good intentions," "diversity" and politically-correct thinking.

As a result, when cities have been controlled--ruled--by Democrats for decades, they almost always have crappy schools, overpaid government rulers, lousy streets, high crime--you name it.

A recent example of horrible mismanagement by Democrats can be found in Baltimore's schools:  A group named "Project Baltimore" analyzed state test results for highschool students for the academic year that ended in May.  They found that one-third of the high schools in that city had no students proficient in math.

At first I thought that had to be a typo.  But sure enough, 13 of the city's highschools didn't have a single students who tested "proficient" in math.

In six other schools only 1% of the students were math-proficient.

Of 3804 students in the lousiest schools, only 14 were proficient in math.

On the positive side, Baltimore scores very high marks for diversity:  Only 28% of the population is white.

Of course you don't live in Baltimore, so how does that city's woeful performance affect you?  Well, Democrats want to regain control of congress and the White House.  Next election, ask yourself if you want the entire U.S. to replicate Baltimore's performance.

Tuesday, November 7

Democrat governor of VA on Donna Brazile's bombshell: "No one cares."

Watch the video clip below.  It is the clearest, most devastating demonstration of the utter corruption of top Democrat politicians (and their supporters in the Lying Mainstream Media). 

The clip shows a female talking-head on the Dem-propaganda network MSNBC interviewing the Democrat governor of Virginia--the utterly corrupt Clinton supporter Terry McAuliffe.  The interviewer asks McAuliffe what he thinks about Donna Brazile's revelation that Hilliary took over control of the Democrat National Committee over a year before she won the nomination, and was thus able to channel funds raised by individual states into her campaign, where they should instead have been shared equally with Bernie Sanders.

It's a huge theft of the nomination from Sanders.  But watch as McAuliffe replies, "No one cares."

What he's signalling to the media and the elites is "If you're a good Democrat you shouldn't be concerned about this, and thus shouldn't give the story any air-time." 

Amazing.  Totally corrupt.  And brazen about it.  Watch this shit-head's face as he speaks.

More random black-on-white attacks, this time on a woman in Baltimore

In Baltimore a woman said she was walking to a restaurant in an upscale neighborhood when around 10 teenagers armed with 3-foot boards ran out of an alley.  The males grabbed her and held her while the females used the boards to beat her face, body and legs, breaking her nose and eye socket.

"They grabbed the back of my vest and then held me, and then out in front of them came six young women with wood pieces that were like maybe an inch thick and about three feet long.  After several blows I fell to my knees," the victim said.

The woman would have been beaten even more brutally but for the intervention of a stranger.  When the stranger ran up, the teenagers ran away.

The so-called Baltimore "newspapers" and TV stations carefully avoided mentioning the race of the attackers.  In the past they always--always--do this when criminals and assailants are black, but it's certainly possible that this group of marauding teenagers was white. 

Certainly possible.  Really.

Will whites ever say "Enough is enough"?  Politicians never will.  Cops won't act unless ordered to do so by their political bosses, so that's out.  So I guess this is very much like the position of western nations vis-a-vis Muslim suicide bombers and truck-murderers:  Everyone simply shrugs and does nothing.


Friday, November 3

Did you hear? Yesterday the National Dem woman's club named Hilliary "woman of the year"!

How...fitting:  On the same day that the interim chair of the Dem National Committee--the lying, cheating Donna Brazile--revealed that she had proof that the DNC conspired with Hilliary to rig the Democrat nomination for her, the Woman's National Democratic Club named Hilliary "Democratic woman of the year" for 2017.

According to the club, this award "is in recognition of her extraordinary contributions to American politics and international affairs, as well as the inspiration she has provided to women and girls around the world.”

If you tried to make up this stuff, no one would believe it:  Most objective Americans have suspected for a year that Hilliary took over the DNC to rig the nominating process to ensure she would win the party's nomination.  So yesterday, on the same day that a Democrat woman who chaired the DNC--thus presumably had access to accurate information--revealed that she had seen proof that these suspicions were correct--the national We Love Hilliary Club named her their woman of the year.

It's priceless.  Also very accurate, since Hilliary definitely showcases those qualities that most accurately represent Democrats:  lying, cheating and raking in tens of millions of dollars from influence-peddling ("pay to play") and her bogus "charitable foundation" (whose biggest beneficiary seems to be Hilliary and Bill).

Thursday, November 2

Democrats: They clearly look like the BEST people to rule the nation!

When you look at the leaders of the Democratic party, you instantly see how well-suited they are to rule the country, eh? 

This pic explains SO much!

This is so totally accurate!  In Democrat/liberal world every definition has been turned upside-down!  And they don't see it at all--like that liberal professor whining that society values nuclear families too much, and that white nuclear families perpetuate racism.  What crap!

Wednesday, November 1

Crazy, anti-white professors, part zillion: NYC prof claims "white nuclear families" "promote racism"

For at least a decade conservatives have been warning Americans about how thoroughly universities have been taken over by crazy, socialist, communist and white-hating professors.  Here's yet another in the endless list of examples:

Jessie Daniels--white female prof at City U of New York who describes herself as an expert on “the Internet manifestations of racism”-- claims that “the white-nuclear family is one of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy,” and that families “reproducing white children” facilitate white supremacy.

You probably don't believe anyone teaching at any level would actually say such a dumb thing, so click the link and read for yourself.  I'll wait.

white people who want to be engaged in the work need to ask themselves about housing wealth.”

Daniels also complains that society considers nuclear families "sacred," saying “there’s a whole ideological apparatus to justify how f-cking sacred the family is.”

Is it just me or does this creature seem incredibly twisted?

Another applause line was “White people: do you own your home? When you die, where's wealth in that house going?  If it's to your children, you're reproducing (inequality).”

When her poisonous tweets drew lots of criticism, Daniels locked made her Twitter account private.

Liberal female judge blocks Trump, orders military to keep accepting current and future transgenders

If you don't have any connection to our armed forces you probably didn't know that your former socialist muslim emperor ordered our Defense Department to use taxpayer funds to pay for sex-change operations for transgender service members.

If that idea strikes you as utterly stupid, and a gross mis-use of defense dollars, join the club.  There should be no place in our armed forces for emotionally confused snowflakes, under any circumstances.

So a few months ago President Trump issued a directive countermanding the emperor's deliberate attempt to reduce military readiness, telling the military they no longer had to pay for sex-change operations for transgenders, and to stop allowing transgenders to join the armed forces.  It was a great boost to military morale. you could guess, trans activists, leftists (all of whom hate the U.S. military) and assorted communists immediately sued to block this order, wailing that our military not only HAD to accept transgender snowflakes but HAD to pay for any trannies who demanded sex-change operations.

And yesterday--as you could also guess if you're over 20 or so--a federal judge from the cesspool that is Washington D.C. blocked much of President Trump’s directive until the lawsuit works its way through the federal courts--which could take years.

The ruling, by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (appointed by Bill Clinton) breaks new legal ground for courts in Washington, D.C., because she decreed that being "transgender" is a “quasi-suspect legal category"--a new and that entitled to heightened protections under federal law.  She declared that Trump’s policy creates an “inherent inequality” that likely violates the Constitution.

“All of the reasons proffered by the president for excluding transgender individuals from the military in this case were not merely unsupported, but were actually contradicted by the studies, conclusions and judgment of the military itself,” she wrote.

You should know that this last part is contrived:  The Pentagon is thick with homosexuals and assorted leftists, and they've produced any number of bullshit, made-as-ordered studies saying whatever Barack Hussein Obama wanted said.  But no one bothered to ask the actual troops how well transgendered persons performed.  And of course clever officers/commanders are savvy enough to "officially report" whatever they think their bosses want reported.

The judge ordered the military not to discharge any transgender troops, and to continue to allow current or avowed future trannies to enlist — though she did allow the administration’s ban on the Pentagon paying for gender-reassignment treatments to remain in place.

But Judge Kollar-Kotelly, appointed to the federal district court in Washington by President Clinton, said the new policy illegally singles out transgender troops for different treatment.  By decreeing that transgender status is a “quasi-suspect class,” this liberal judge gave transgenders a special, protected status under which any policy affecting them faces extra scrutiny by the courts.

This means the government must show a compelling purpose for any difference in the way the special class is treated — a bar the judge said Mr. Trump fell well short of.  The judge also said that even if "transgender issues" weren't considered, the president's order "broaches critical gender lines," and so would trigger heightened judicial scrutiny anyway.

“It is well-established that gender-based discrimination includes discrimination based on non-conformity with gender stereotypes,” she wrote.  “The [exclusion] of transgender individuals inherently discriminates against current and aspiring service members on the basis of their failure to conform to gender stereotypes. The defining characteristic of a transgender individual is that their inward identity, behavior, and possibly their physical characteristics, do not conform to stereotypes of how an individual of their assigned sex should feel, act and look,” the judge concluded.

Wow.  This bullshit "decree" is so horribly flawed that one hardly knows where to begin to take it apart.  So might as well start here:  Does anyone believe a convicted murderer has the right to join the U.S. military?  No?  Why not?  If one argues--as this judge did--that the overriding principle of who gets to join is "fairness," doesn't the idea of "fairness" and "equal treatment" apply to everyone?

Could a color-blind person sue to join?  Again, doesn't fairness demand...?  How about someone who requires daily dialysis?  How about a hemophiliac?  All are delightful people, but are they legally allowed to force the military to let them join?

The military has never allowed people with these conditions to join.  The reason is reduced capability.  But this liberal judge has never been in the military and obviously couldn't care less about how her decrees affect military capability and readiness.  Her interests lie elsewhere.

Next:  There is NO law giving transgender snowflakes special legal status.  All of Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's prattle giving special protected status--or as she coyly, cunningly phrases it, "quasi-suspect legal category"-- to transgenders is an effort to write "gender" into the Civil Rights Act of 1972.  But neither that law nor any other confers such status.

Wikipedia (I know) accidentally tells the truth:
It wasn't until U.S. President Barack Obama who [sic] redefined, or refocused, this law to apply to a host of things like sexual orientation, gender identity, physical/mental handicap, among others through a series of "Dear Colleague" letters that are still to this day in legal limbo.
"Accidentally" because Obozo repeatedly "wrote law" by decree, as in the case of asserting that transgenders were entitled to special status.  This is the illegal, unconstitutional peg on which this judge is trying to hang her decree.

Monday, October 30

Loretta Lynch refuses to answer questions about "chance' meeting with Bill Clinton

Most of you have probably forgotten that less than a month before FBI director James Comey was slated to testify to congress on whether Hilliary Clinton had ordered her aides to email above-top-secret information to her unsecured email account on the private server in her home, Obama’s attorney-general Loretta Lynch secretly met with Bill Clinton in her government jet while it was parked at the Phoenix airport.

When word of this meeting leaked out, Lynch said the meeting was "totally by chance," that the two just happened to have been in Phoenix on the same day and that when the former president learned she was there he wanted to just "pay his respects."  According to Lynch the two just talked about "grandchildren and golf."

Wow, some amazing coincidence there, eh citizen?

The only people dumb enough to buy this ridiculous bullshit are liberals and Democrats.  Everyone with an IQ over 80 thinks the real reason Hilliary's husband met Lynch was to promise her that if she'd ensure the FBI would clear Hilly of any violations, Hilly would appoint her to an even higher position after Hilliary won.

In other words, Lynch was offered what amounted to a payoff if she could pressure the FBI not to charge Hilliary with a crime.  In other words, she was offered a legal bribe.

A few congressmen were curious about how that odd meeting came about, and what was discussed on Lynch's government jet, and asked Lynch to answer some questions in a closed-door meeting.

Lynch refused to answer a single question about the meeting when she appeared before the House Intelligence Committee on October 20th.

Lynch has been accused of attempting to influence the FBI’s investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s private email use while secretary of state — and both she and Mr. Clinton say the meeting at the Phoenix airport was a "chance social encounter."

In June, during highly anticipated testimony, fired FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the Lynch-Clinton tarmac meeting caused him to hold a press conference on Mrs. Clinton’s email case.

Sources say Lynch refused to answer three questions from the panel: whether she ever instructed Mr. Comey to characterize the DOJ’s Clinton email investigation a “matter,” whether she discussed the idea of holding the tarmac meeting with Mr. Clinton with anyone in the White House; and whether she could address any issues related to Mr. Comey’s June testimony.
Now: Does anyone believe the meeting was a "chance social encounter"?  Only Democrats.  In a reasonable world prosecutors would question the government pilots to find out the reason for the trip to Phoenix, and whether they were aware of any communications between Lynch and Clinton's aides before the meeting.  You could easily determine whether the ostensible reason for both planes to be there was genuine.

Both Lynch and Clinton are lying.  But as always, there won't be any penalty for either.  Cuz top Democrats are above the law.

Latest scheme from the "humans-burning-fossil-fuels-are-killing-the-planet" crowd

The same crowd of moronic faux-scientists who claim that a) global warming is caused by humans; and b) it's being driven by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, have now proposed an equally crazy, dangerous scheme to cool the planet.

Cuz they're really really brilliant, and have created "computer models" that they say enable them to predict all sorts of things you never imagined would happen.

And you simply have to pay attention to them, cuz leftist activists will immediately condemn anyone who doesn't as a "climate denier."  Or a "hater."  Or worse.

So their latest proposal is that a few--the really really smaht ones, of course--want to reduce heating of the planet by dumping huge amounts of sulfates into the upper atmosphere.  These sulfates will reflect sunlight, cooling things off.

What could possibly go wrong?  These people should be nominated for the Nobel right away!  And you can bet that the next time Americans are dumb enough to elect a Democrat like Hilliary or Obozo as president, that person will jump right on this idiotic idea, cuz they want to signal how virtuous they are and how much they care about the environment.