Thursday, October 20

Leftist newsrag publishes race-baiting article "fearing America will enslave blacks *again*"

Time magazine has been a Dem-loving left-wing rag for 60 years or so, and two days ago they published yet another article designed to destroy America--this time by race riot.

Naturally you think this is hyperbole.  In that case click here to read the damn thing.
The article is by NPR's Tavis Smiley and it's titled
 "Why I fear America could enslave black people again."  

Yeah, you read that right.

First let's get something straight:  No one disputes that slavery was ghastly, but America didn't enslave blacks.  African blacks were captured by other blacks and sold to slave traders, who brought them to the colonies.  It's true that after the Revolutionary War the courts issued decisions that supported that institution (the most infamous being the Dred Scott decision), but to say "America enslaved blacks" is twisting history.

When a "major" "news magazine" prints something like this, lots of people just soak it up without a moment of critical analysis.  When a huge majority of black Americans take this as a true statement, it's easy to understand why they'd be worried or angry or nervous or whatever.

But "enslaving black people again" isn't remotely plausible.  So by publishing the fevered ranting of a reliably Democrat leftist, Time has fanned the flames of race war.  To say that's totally irresponsible is being far too kind.

The editors at Time should know better.  But of course their purpose--like Smiley's--was to denigrate the Republican candidate and generate votes for Shrillary.  They don't give a damn what other consequences may ensue.  And are already here:  Look at the number of ambush-style shootings of cops by blacks this year.  Think fanning the flames of race hatred isn't already having consequences?

The Time editors who approved this ghastly, race-baiting article should be shot forthwith.

Metaphorically, of course.

In 2000 Gore said he wouldn't concede the election, and the media approved; but Trump? HORRORS!

The mainstream press is awash with supposed outrage after Trump refused to say that he would concede the election if he lost.  Of course an accurate wording of that question would be "if the results reported by the state-run bodies claimed he lost," since there can be no doubt the Democrats will stuff ballot boxes, shred mail-in votes for Trump, mail ballots to overseas members of the military too late for them to be returned in time to be counted, and a dozen other dirty tricks they've been caught at before.

But that's just quibbling:  The bigger point here is that in 2000 Al Gore refused to concede defeat in that year's election--and the media didn't say a single critical word.

For college students, the 2000 election came down to one state:  Florida.  The vote there was close, and Gore quite properly asked for a recount, saying he wanted "to make sure all votes were counted."  Hard to argue with that.  Indeed, Democrats have been pushing that point for years.

But when a Republican says the same thing, suddenly it's a huge horror, eh?

But hey, not a shred of bias in your imperial press, citizen.  In fact we're horrified that you'd even think such a thing.

Emperor's press secretary dodges questions about Democrat operatives caught admitting to vote fraud meeting the emperor 47 times

The facts on Democrat vote fraud and the Obama administration, as of now:

1.  A young man who wants an honest government and honest elections used a hidden camera to video two long-time Democrat operatives--Bob Creamer and Scott Foval--admitting to paying people to start riots at Trump rallies.  They also bragged about having committed vote fraud to elect Democrat candidates--for 50 years!

2.  Creamer has been a consultant to both the Dem national committee and Clinton's campaign.

3.  Official White House logs--i.e. not altered by conservative, honest Americans--show that Creamer has visited the White Hut 342 times since 2009--and that 47 of those visits were to meet directly with your piece of s*** emperor--the guy who loudly lied that he would run "the most transparent administration *ever.*"

4. Yesterday Creamer announced he was "stepping back" from both positions.

5. In 2005 Creamer was convicted of "bank fraud"--to the tune of $2.3 MILLION--and served a grand total of five months for the fraud.  You'd think no reputable administration would touch this guy with a ten-foot pole--let alone have their emperor meet with the guy 47 times.  Ah, but this administration doesn't care--because they run the f'n media.

6.  Creamer is married to a Democrat congresswhore from Illinois--Jan Schakowski--who has been in congress for 17 years.  Most observers of Illinois politics think Schakowski is crooked.

7.  When one reporter--one--had the audacity to ask the emperor's press secretary (Josh Earnest) what was going on with this guy meeting with the emperor 47 times, the spokesman's response was to imply that the video was probably inaccurate--but he wouldn't say in what particular he was claiming the video was inaccurate.  Earnest also refused to answer questions about the purpose of the meetings with the emperor.

8.  A spokeswhore for "Hillary for America"--Zac Petkanas--set up the cover story this way:
'Project Veritas has been known to offer misleading video out of context,' but 'some of the language and tactics referenced in the video are troubling even as a theory or proposal never executed.'
Note the cunning inference:  "...even as a theory or proposal never executed."  The Clinton campaign already knows that no one will ever have the balls to investigate to find out how much was actually "executed," so this cunning bastard can *imply* that this was all just "a proposal never executed."  Isn't that clever?

9.  You won't see more than a few seconds of reference to any of this in the Democrat-controlled media, for obvious reasons.  And the few seconds you do hear will be to try to discredit the story.  Because this isn't just a "smoking gun"--it's an atomic-bomb-size scandal.  Any other president, presidential candidate and their party would be utterly discredited by this.  But Democrats are scandal-proof--because they run the mainstream media.

10.  The link in item 3 is to the UK's "Daily Mail."  No U.S. paper would dare to print this story.  Bloggers will, but they only reach people who know about them.  And they'll only be free to do that for a few more months, until the imperial government decides to force anyone wanting to post political content on the Net to get a pricey license from the FCC.  They'll try to "justify" this by claiming that unregulated posts on the internet "hurt peoples' feelings" or something equally dumb.  And a majority of Americans will nod in agreement.

Wednesday, October 19

Hidden video captures Dem operatives *working for the DNC* admitting vote fraud and starting riots at Trump rallies

If her treasonous carelessness with TOP SECRET cables on an unsecure private email server, or her lies about Benghazi, didn't dent your support for Hilliary, the following video should.  It's the smoking gun.

If you still believe Hillary is running an honest campaign--or if you think she's horribly crooked but can't convince your relatives or friends--watch the following video.  It shows Democrat operatives who *claim* to be working at the direction of the DNC and Hillary bragging about how they commit vote fraud, and incite riots at Trump rallies.

Oh, you may think this is just fiction, that the people shown never worked for the Dems.  Actually they were just fired yesterday.  That should tell you something.

And you can bet they were "fired" with the promise of huge payoffs if they'd deny everything, or say they recognized the hidden camera and were just playing the interviewer.

Fact is, this is the smoking gun.  Vote fraud, voter intimidation, starting riots at opposition rallies--you name it, they did it.

H/T Steve Greenwood

Tuesday, October 18

Leader of Europe's largest conservative party to be tried for "hate speech." Read what he said!

Western Europe used to be a very free place.  Liberals used to be for "free speech."

Neither of those things is true today.

Today if you're in western Europe and say something the "special" people don't like, you can be tried for "hate speech" and jailed. 

Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician and leader of that country's conservative "Freedom Party."  In 2014 he asked a crowd of supporters "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands?"  Dutch Muslims promptly accused him of "hate speech."

A Dutch court has now ordered him to stand trial on criminal charges of violating the Dutch hate-speech laws.

In one of the most assinine statements by a leftist judge in...oh, at least a of the judges who voted to send the case to trial said that although politicians are entitled to freedom of expression they should "avoid public statements that feed intolerance."

How can one claim the people have "freedom of expression" if they're banned from saying things that some judge considers "feeding intolerance"?  This is the stuff of communist regimes.

The asshole judge added that prosecuting Mr Wilders will "not affect his political freedoms or that of this Freedom Party."

Riiight, asshole:  You ban them from speaking out, and put the party's leader on trial for doing so, but insanely claim prosecuting the guy won't "affect his political freedoms or that of this Freedom Party."

Insane.  Literally.

And if you don't believe that's coming to the U.S. you've obviously been asleep for the last couple of years.  The Left is positively salivating in its eagerness to ban speech it doesn't like.

Monday, October 17

Weirdness at Hillary rally at Temple University--video

I'm not an Alex Jones fan.  The guy's got lots of goofy ideas.  But with that said, even a poorly-educated self-promoter can sometimes uncover good material.

Hillary had a rally at Temple University, and one of Jones's reporterettes was on-hand.  She noticed some very unusual things:  First, a day or two before the rally the campaign website removed her entire rally schedule for the next 3 days or so.  If you want to have people attend your rally it's hard to figure out a good reason for that. 

When the reporter sought to enter the venue a bearded guy at the door said she couldn't enter because "the fire marshall says we're at capacity." 

Keep this phrase in mind because it'll be re-visited later.

After the rally was over the intrepid reporter just walked right in--and found barely 200 chairs set up in a narrow arc around the stage.  Lots of spare floor space.  And no one had started folding chairs up yet.

"Fire marshall said we're at capacity," huh?

She also finds a crowd of very young people milling around outside after the rally.  She interviews a few and asks 'em if they go to Temple U.  Turns out they're *high school students* who were bused in as a large group, with teachers and escorts.  Seems like the campaign needed bodies to fill seats.  Of course they could simply have opened the doors to the public--but obviously didn't dare do that.

So Hilliary can't get 200 people to attend her rally, while Trump packs in 20,000 or so.  And yet "all" the polls show Hilliary way ahead, eh?  And yes, she'll win it--by fraud.  Of course everyone will know, but won't be able to do a thing about it.

If you had a video of postal workers opening absentee ballots and shredding those marked for Trump, who would you call?  Think the corrupt FBI would care? 

Think the vaunted "Federal Election Commission" would care? 

Think your local TV station would care? 


The video below is 13 minutes or so, but it's worth watching.

Friday, October 14

Recognize this woman?

Recognize this woman?

Forty years of "crazy as a bedbug" will look like that.

Say hi to your next emperor.

Obama's record on foreign policy

There's a saying dating back to Roman times:  If you want peace, prepare for war.
It would seem at least plausible that the reverse is also true:  If a nation is known to opponents to be unequivocally opposed to ever fighting for anything, the risk of being attacked increases.   Which brings us to the emperor's position on international relations.

Obama and the Dems have an amazing record of failure in foreign policy:  Turning Libya into a civil war zone.  Obama declared the "red line" if Bashir Assad used chemical weapons, then folded, then claimed he never said any such thing.  Giving heavy weapons--including shoulder-fired missiles--to sketchy groups in the Syrian theater only to have the whole group switch sides to supporting ISIS.  Claiming the attack on Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a video on the Net, despite knowing this was a lie.

Finally the utter disaster that is the nuclear non-treaty treaty with Iran, the terms of which the emperor first concealed from the American people and even congress, then lied about.

Now the leader of Russia smells weakness, and is missile-rattling to see if Obama will cave yet again.

The emperor and his lackeys--endlessly praised by the media as the smartest, most clever people on the planet-- found they weren't half as clever as they thought.

No American should be surprised by the results.  After all, prior to winning the presidency Obama had zero experience doing anything of substance.  He and his lackeys had spent their entire adult lives learning how to raise money, craft talking points, lie persuasively, deliver talking points convincingly to adoring supporters, fund opposition research to disqualify political opponents, defend or deny authorship of programs that failed, and plant press releases with adoring supporters posing as unbiased journalists. 

Hey, with skillz like that, who could possibly have predicted problems would arise?

Of course most Americans could have predicted that those skills would be virtually useless in running a nation with any semblance of competence.

But don't worry, citizen:  the Democrats have learned from 8 years of unbroken failure, and won't be making the same mistakes twice.  For example, where Obama was a total unknown except for his skin color, the Dems have extensively vetted Hillary--her foundation, Wall Street speeches, TOP SECRET emails on her private server, foundation donors, everything.   Nothing shady about her at all. 

Oh sure, maybe her husband met with the emperor's Attorney-general for an hour--on the latter's plane on the ramp in Phoenix, where no one could see or hear them--but that was simply a coincidence:  They were both at the airport at the same time and he just happened to take a wrong turn while heading for the terminal and wound up in her plane.   Happens all the time.  Hey, one set of stairs looks just like the others, right?

It's also reassuring that when that little dust-up about her private server surfaced, the FBI quickly investigated, seized asked her top aides nicely for their laptop computers, then destroyed those so no secrets could possibly end up being compromised.  Not that there were any secrets on 'em, of course.

Eh, what difference could it possibly make, right?  Four more years of Obama is just peachy for most Americans.  And she can't be impeached either, any more than the emperor.  Cuz first woman prez.


Hillary announces a new program to make life fairer for all Americans

Washington, D.C. (AP)-- Today Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton held a press conference to announce a new proposal. 

"It's come to my attention that DisneyWorld has been selling a special, higher-priced ticket called a 'fast pass' that lets buyers bypass long lines," said Secretary Clinton.  "This higher-priced ticket clearly discriminates against economically disadvantaged Americans.  It is unfair, and only benefits people like Donald Trump, at the expense of ordinary Americans.

"Accordingly, in my first 100 days after winning the presidency I will ask congress to appropriate $100 million to reimburse American families that have incomes less than 150 percent of the poverty level for the cost of a 'fast pass.'"

"If the Republicans in congress continue to obstruct vital social legislation like this proposal, I will use an executive order to outlaw this practice."

"Last year the Federal Communications Commission issued a rule banning internet providers from offering customers higher-priced internet service for higher speeds, because such a system would clearly discriminate against economically disadvantaged Americans.  Americans clearly believe this rule was a good one, since no one complained about the proposed new rule during the comment period. 

"This shows that all good Americans believe no one should be able to use wealth to unfairly buy a good or service not available to every American.  After all, fairness is one of our most cherished principles."

"If you're tired of waiting in long lines at DisneyWorld, I ask that you write your member of congress supporting this proposal.  And please send a contribution to my campaign fund to ensure I'm elected.  Because fairness is our most important principle.  And like all Democrats, I support fairness and equality for all Americans, not just the rich.

One branch of govt gets it, the others don't

Government:  A pinnacle of rational behavior.
In every national park in the country, for decades the Park Service has posted signs saying 
Please don't feed the animals. They become dependent on handouts and won't learn how to take care of themselves.
This year the agency of the federal government that runs the Food Stamp program proudly says it's distributing food stamps--essentially "free" food--to 46 million people, which it says is the greatest number EVER on the food-stamp program. 

Interesting:  One arm of the fed monstrosity recognizes that handing out free food encourages dependency--while another division happily encourages exactly that.

Now, no one wants people to starve if they literally can't work.  But Democrats are quite content to give freebies to people who are quite capable of working, but refuse to take a job they think isn't up to their mahvelous skill level.  Far easier--and more free time!--to let taxpayers carry 'em.  But only til a sufficiently high-paying job opens up for 'em.  Like, Assistant Executive Director of Diversity Outreach, or similar.

And you can't stop it.  At least, it's not possible as long as a Democrat is emperor.

Thursday, October 13

Vote fraud: Yet another crime Loretta and the emperor won't prosecute. Look for a lot of it in the election.

You need to know about vote fraud--mainly because if a candidate wins by means of massive vote fraud, it's too late to do anything about it.

Of course you probably think that's absurd.  If fraud was massive and blatant, why on earth would the Supreme Court or congress tolerate it?

Ah, I see you're new to this country.

Forget "We want the best leader" or "This will set the supreme court for 30 years."  Those are extremely critical, but there's a much more immediate motive for fraud: the award of billions of dollars of shady contracts--"consultancies" to various fed agencies, supply contracts, all manner of "special" programs that can be created by a president or congress--depends on who wins.

You need to know that virtually every big city in the U.S. is run by Democrats, and has been for decades.  They know that having a Democrat president opens the federal treasury to high-speed rail, highway improvements, hundreds of millions of dollars of "community grants" to Dem constituencies and so on.  Everyone has a motive to cheat.

So when employees of the federal bureau of "Citizenship Services" say they've been pressured to fast-track citizenship for current illegals--presumably so they can vote in the upcoming election--that's a hint that no tactic is off the table for the Democrats.

Want free needles and "safe spaces" to shoot up that sweet, sweet heroin?  Democrats think that's a faaabulous idea--and know how to make money off it.

Think taxpayers should fund sex-changing surgery for members of the military, or prisoners, or retirees?  Democrats have already pioneered that, and are looking to increase funding.  They reasonably expect that those programs won't get much money under a Republican president.  So they have a big reason to cheat.

And the emperor's administration has never prosecuted a Democrat for even egregious vote fraud.  So since vote fraud doesn't carry any risk of prosecution for Dems, the only thing keeping Dems from casting as many fraudulent votes as possible would be love of fair play and the American way of life.

Hahahahahahaha!  Yeah, that was funny.

Of course it's outrageous to think Hilliary and the Dems would try to steal the presidency by fraud, because...well, she's always been dedicated to the truth, right?  And doesn't break the law. 

Stop, you're killin' me here.

Once Hilliary is declared by the emperor's peeps to be the winner, no federal agency will bother investigating any claim of voter fraud, even if massive and obvious.  Because no one wants to go up against the vindictive, shrieking FAB.  So...fraud it is.

Of course you won't hear about vote fraud on the nightly news, nor read about it in a big-city newspaper.  If you wanna learn what's going on, internet posters will pick up *local* stories in their areas.  But those stories won't make it up the mainstream media chain, because everyone in the MSM loves Hilliary and hates conservatives.

And of course with Hilliary in the White House all illegals will be given U.S. citizenship, producing another 15 million Democrat voters.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Wednesday, October 12

Professor fired for a politically-incorrect facebook post --but his university claims they're all for free speech??

The University of Virginia fired an "adjunct professor" for making a negative comment on social media about the crazed racist group "Black lives matter."

Oh, wait:  According to the U the guy has "agreed to take leave."  Ah, well, sure...he "agreed to take leave" to avoid being fired.  No substantive difference.

Douglas Muir responded to a Facebook post praising Black Lives Matter, writing “Black lives matter is the biggest rasist (sic) organisation (sic) since the clan. (sic) Are you kidding me. Disgusting!!!”

In the emperor's America, free speech is only for favored groups.  If you're not a member of one of those groups you're in danger of being fired if you voice an opinion that isn't "politically correct."

Now watch the precious munchkins at the university as they rationalize firing a guy for free speech: The U issued this bullshit statement:  “
While free speech and open discussion are fundamental principles of our nation and the university, Mr. Muir’s comment was entirely inappropriate. U.Va. does not condone actions that undermine our values, dedication to diversity and educational mission.”
Translation for the reading-impaired:  If you aren't 100% behind "diversity" you don't get to say so.

U.Va. Provost Tom Katsouleas made this even more clear, saying the university “stands firmly against racism and social injustice of any kind."  That's wonderful.  But watch as he goes on:
This position in no way squelches academic freedom, which welcomes dissent and encourages the voices of others whose perspectives may differ from ours — thereby adding new insights to our own. But statements such as Mr. Muir’s do not foster intellectual exploration, nor do they encourage the voices of others.”
Note the cunning mislead:  "Academic freedom welcomes dissent."  Oh, no doubt.  But you don't, and neither does your shitty university.  Apparently in the era of the emperor you're only free to offer an opinion if you push for killing cops or burning down buildings or towns.  Offer an opinion opposing these things gets you fired.

In case firing wasn't enough of a message, a Charlottesville city councilman also asked people to boycott Muir’s business.
Now, I don't know anyone who favors injustice, or abuse of power, or shooting innocent people, or...
Wait, BLM supporters have openly, repeatedly called for killing of cops.  And whites in general.  But hey, that's just peachy-cool, know, a century ago slavery existed in the U.S.

That's awful.

Monday, October 10

Residents of small French towns protest govt plan to house unvetted Muslim "refugees" in their towns

Migrants--mostly Muslims from the middle-east and North Africa--are being dispersed around the country from the huge camp in Calais that has become a flashpoint in Europe's migrant crisis.  President Francois Hollande has pledged to close the Calais camp as soon as possible, by relocating its 9,000 residents to various small towns around France "while their cases are examined."

As one would expect, Left-wing activists are supporting unlimited immigration, and running their own demonstrations supporting the relocation.  As one leftist put it, "We repress these poor people. They need us, the people who are coming from abroad. We have everything here, we are a rich country."

In Forges-les-Bains, villagers carried signs that read "Not against migrants, but against the state" and "Plan imposed from above = mounting anger."
Of course scattering unvetted "refugees" into small towns is exactly what the emperor is doing in the U.S.  He's doing this because democrat small-town mayors are happy to help the emperor and don't have to be bribed.  And won't complain to the media.

And if some of the "new citizens" do really bad things...well, it's in a small town so it'd never make the network news or a national paper.  Perfect!

And if a few dozen residents of small towns are killed or raped by the invaders, no big deal.  After all, small-town folks aren't organized, can't get the media's attention.  And they probably won't vote for Hillary anyway, so why should we waste any concern?


Russia increasing its nuclear arsenal--apparently ready to violate two treaties--as Obozo shrinks ours

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Russia seems to be breaking the terms of the "Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty with the U.S, by building new nuclear warheads instead of scrapping 'em.

Meanwhile the U.S. continues to scrap our own bombs, based on State Department data.

Over the past six months, says the Beacon, the U.S. has scrapped 114 nuclear warheads, under the terms of the START treaty, while Russia has deployed 249 more warheads than will be allowed under START by February 2018.  So unless it reverses course and starts destroying warheads rather than building them, it pretty much looks like Russia is abrogating the START treaty unilaterally.

This isn't just an aberration:  Since the treaty went into effect in 2011 Russia has increased the number of warheads it's deployed from 1,537 to 1,796 --an increase of 259.  Over the same period the U.S. has reduced its warheads by 433.
Adding to the danger, Putin earlier this week ended Russia's agreement with the U.S. for both nations to reduce their stocks of plutonium, used for making atom bombs. 

Russia is sending a clear message that they're upping their nuclear arsenal, while our shrinks.

Four years ago your emperor ridiculed GOP challenger Mitt Romney for calling Russia one of the U.S.' biggest threats. Members of the Democratic Party's foreign-policy elite and the media joined in on the derisive laughter.  But once again the consistently blundering emperor has been proved completely wrong--as has Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Just weeks after we announced a deal to cooperate with Russia in Syria, Russia told the U.S. in no uncertain terms that they didn't want to cooperate with us.  Now it's added an exclamation point by installing surface-to-air missiles in Syria.  Those have no use against ISIS because it has no air force. Those SAMs are meant for us.

Whether one sees the Putin phenomenon in Russia as a good thing or a bad thing, there is no question that the Russian leader is increasing their nuclear arsenal.  Obama's foreign-policy bumbling, apathy and weakness have led Putin to conclude that the U.S. is no longer willing to defend western interests.  He's convinced the U.S. will no longer respond to an attack--which is always a dangerous thing.

But fortunately we know Hillary has always been strong on defense, so under her skilled leadership...HAHAHAHAHAHA!  Hilliary has always hated the military, so if the combination of so-called "elites," low-information voters (people who couldn't find Russia on a map, i.e. gimmedats) and vote fraud puts her into the oval office there's absolutely no doubt we'll get 4 or 8 more years of the Obama doctrine.

But don't worry, citizen:  Under a Hilliary presidency the Russians won't attack, because all world leaders respect her so much.  Reeeally.  You must believe us.  Because we went to Hahvahd and have high-paying jobs in media and gummint.  So you can trust us to always tell you the truth!

So-called "asylum-seeker" rapes 72-year-old woman, gets slap on the wrist and government refuses to deport him

What do you think a reasonable punishment should be for a young man who brutally rapes a 72-year-old woman?

In Austria an "asylum-seeker" who committed that heinous crime got just 20 months. And they "can't" deport him because of some outrageous EU rule.

So he brutally attacked this poor woman but will be released in less than two years--and "can't" be deported. Wow.

According to a report in the Kurier newspaper, the criminal “asylum seeker” and at least two accomplices attacked the pensioner as she was out walking her dog.

The 72-year-old encountered three "migrants" swimming in the river.  She started talking to them, and was suddenly hit from behind, pushed to the ground and raped.  At the time, police were unable to trace the attacker. It was only when the invader committed yet another crime that he was arrested, and after a DNA swab was matched to the rape.
As the "migrant" was seventeen at the time of the attack, he was sentenced to just 20 months--because at 17 I guess illegals are presumed to be too young to know not to rape women.

Incredibly, the attacker was only sentenced to twenty months for this outrageous crime because the court noted that he had no criminal record and had confessed to the crime.

Austrian law says that when so-called "asylum seekers” commit serious crimes, they're supposed to  be deported, in practice this is never implemented because in most cases, they cannot be returned to their countries of origin.
This is because European Union “human rights” legislation forbids the deportation of “asylum seekers” to any place where their “lives might be in danger”—a fact always used by the rapefugees to avoid being sent back home, even when it is clear that weren't fleeing danger but merely looking for free cash.

Her friend said the victim “has never been herself since the attack.  She no longer dares to go outside her house alone."

Great job, EU pols.  Oh wait, that's right:  Obozo--your Constitution-shredding emperor--has ordered his Immigration Service not to deport illegal alien immigrants even if they commit serious crimes here.  And Hilliary has vowed to continue the emperor's open-borders policy.  According to her (and most other top Democrat leaders) anyone in the world should be able to come to the U.S. without any restrictions at all.


Of course my liberal friends think this is just faaabulous.  Hopefully their children will realize what their parents have done to them before very long.

Saturday, October 8

A tale of two philosophies

Some people have a hard time learning from easily-knowable reality:

"Wait," say Leftists:  "The difference in murder rates could be due to any number of other things, like...ummm, maybe we don't want to go there after all."

University handout lists 35 things students shouldn't say, then denies they're trying to impose political correctness on speech

Adminishits at James Madison U have decided that certain innocuous phrases shouldn't be uttered on campus.

They gave student leaders of the freshman orientation listing a 7-page handout listing 35 things they should avoid saying, including phrases such as
  “you have a pretty face”
  “love the sinner, hate the sin” 
  “we’re all part of the human race”
  “I treat all people the same”
  “I know exactly how you feel”
  “I never owned slaves” and
  “people just need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.”

According to the adminishits these phrases “widen the diversity gap.”  (Can anyone tell me what 'widening the diversity gap' actually means?)  The list also condemns some compliments and encouraging words, such as calling someone “cute.”

The handout also warns against calling something "politically correct," claiming this is “an attempt to shut the other person up.”
"Oh no, citizen.  No no no no!  We would never try to tell people they shouldn't say politically incor--uh, unacceptable things.  Never!  Perish the thought!"  The university’s "director of communications" told The College Fix that the 7-page handout was “just an exercise to get volunteers to understand how language affects others. The list was not even distributed to our first-year students, nor were the volunteers instructed not to use the phrases.”

Oh, okay then.  Glad to know this was simply "an exercise," and that you don't really intend to enforce this craziness.  But why do I get the impression you're lying?

Proof of how Obama lied when he claimed not to know about Hilliary's private email account

Last October, about 6 months after the New York Times first revealed the existence of Hillary Clinton's private email server, the emperor appeared on “60 Minutes” and denied knowing that the presumptive Democratic nominee was doing all her government business from a private email account.

When asked point blank whether he knew about Hillary’s private email server, Obama responded, quite simply, “No.”

Of course we now know--from recently-released FBI investigation notes--that Obama had actually sent Hillary an email using an alias that almost no one other than the two of them knew. 

In her interview with the FBI, Huma Abedin revealed that the emperor sent Hillary an email on June 28, 2012.  Obama's use of an alias known only to him and Hillary strongly suggests that the emperor personally sent the email.  Does anyone really believe Obama didn’t recognize that the email he sent to Hillary didn’t end in "”? 

Eh, what difference can it possibly make?  After all, no one expects the president to tell people the truth, right?  So where's the harm?  Besides, you can't prove Obozo sent that email.  Coulda been sent by some low-level staffer posing as the emperor.  And he just happened to guess the emperor's secret alias.

Yeh, dat's it. 

Russia deploying missile system, has canceled treaty to dispose of plutonium. DANGER.

Before the U.S. presidential election of 2012 your ignorant, egomaniacal Democrat emperor mocked his opponent for suggesting that Vladimir Putin might be a problem.  During one of the 2012 debates, Obama declared that the Cold War was over and only "JV groups" like al-Qaeda remained to disturb the peace.  Here's the emperor:
Gov. Romney, I’m glad you recognize al-Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what is the biggest geopolitical group facing America, you said Russia.  You said Russia.  And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years.  When it comes to our foreign policy you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s....
Very, very clear.  To anyone with a pair of functioning brain cells this clearly implied that Obozo did NOT regard Putin as a threat.

Putin was paying attention.
So how has that worked out for your executive-order-issuing, racially divisive emperor?  Well in the Baltics Putin is deploying a missile system designed to destroy strategic targets ... arguably in breach of the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty.

Hey, no problem, citizen:  Laws and treaties only apply to Republicans.

But wait, there's more:  Russia has just cancelled a longstanding agreement under which both nations agreed to reduce the amount of bomb-grade plutonium in their inventories.  Foreign Policy magazine explains why this is a huge concern:
Putin's decree ends one of the last remaining forms of cooperation [between Russia and the U.S.]  ...enough to make 32,000 nuclear weapons.
Gosh, whaddya think has made Putin so aggessive?  Well, when you have an emperor who ridicules his Republican opponent concerns about Russian aggression, that's a clear signal to Putin that Obozo doesn't think this could ever be a problem.

There's wide agreement among historians that when a nation signals that it's no longer interested in strong defense, opponents are emboldened to attack.

Your emperor has clearly announced that the U.S. will retreat and cave in to any threat.  But don't worry, citizen:  There won't be any consequences from this policy.  Because, Obama.

And when Hillary takes the throne things will be even better!  Because all world leaders respect and admire her so much.

H/T Wretchard

Friday, October 7

FBI gave top Hilliary aides immunity, then destroyed their laptops so they couldn't be examined more closely

Normally when the FBI is investigating a possible crime, and it has reason to believe you have evidence that could incriminate the person being investigated, they don't send you a polite request to produce it. 

Instead they go before a judge, get a warrant, and show up on your doorstep at 5am.  The barge in and take the evidence.

I know y'all will be shocked to learn that the FBI not only didn't do this when it wanted to (allegedly) search the laptops of Hilliary's top aides at State--Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, but instead offered them immunity for anything found on those devices--including TOP SECRET cables from Hilliary.

In fact, after the bureau supposedly "searched" the laptops, they destroyed the hard drives so they couldn't be searched again.  Odd, eh?  Isn't that destroying evidence?  Sure.

And surely you heard all this, right?  Because it was all over the evening news, and the NY Times and WaPo.  Oh wait, that's right, it wasn't.

Oh, wait...I know why the FBI destroyed the hard drives of Hilliary's two top aides:  It was because their evidence room in DC was just, like, totally full of stuff, and they didn't have even one cubic foot left to store those laptops!

Why did the FBI not follow its usual procedure and just seize the evidence?  Why did it destroy the evidence instead of keeping it for more-extensive examination?

Oh, that's right:  Two sets of laws--one for us ordinary folks, one for Democrat elites.

The only possible conclusion one can reach is that the head of the FBI is totally corrupt.  And it's a matter of record that he's gotten millions from the Clinton Foundation.  And that his brother does the foundation's tax returns.  Wow, what a stench.