Thursday, May 25

Federal judge rules that Minnesota can give a teenage boy female hormones without informing a parent--let alone asking for consent

Think the feminist and "gender-changing" mafia are harmless?  Anmarie Calgaro disagrees.  She lives in the Peoples' Republic of Minnesota.  She had a son, who decided at age 17 that he wanted a sex-change operation.

The mother thought it would be a good idea to postpone such a crucial and irrevocable event until later.

The gender mafia infesting Minnesota state agencies had other ideas.  And without informing the mother, they began giving the boy female hormones--a "treatment" that makes males feel more feminine, and presumably more committed to a sex-change operation.  The mother says she was not consulted or informed about this proposed treatment in any way

When the mother found out, she sued multiple state agencies for giving her son female hormones. The suit accused school officials, health care providers and doctors of violating her parental rights for giving her son hormone treatments without her permission.  The suit challenged a Minnesota law that allows minors to access medical care and procedures without either parent’s consent.

Now, a few of you may think it would be totally illegal--impossible--for a state to give your under-age son female hormones without either parent's consent.  It's Orwellian.  Can't happen here, right?

The mother claims defendants began giving her son female hormones--always described as hormone "therapy"--without her consent last November.  When she asked the clinics for her son’s medical records they refused, she says. According to the suit, St. Louis County School District also rejected her request to see her son's academic school records.

The judge declared that the key issue was whether the son was "legally emancipated" from the mother.  Minnesota doesn't have a formal process to declare that a minor child is emancipated from his or her parents, but the law generally considers financially independent minors who don't live with either parent to be emancipated.

The son moved out of his mother’s home in St. Louis County in 2015 and has lived with relatives ever since.  He currently lives alone.

The mother's lawsuit said health care providers and the school district unilaterally decided her son was an emancipated minor, without notifying her and giving her a chance to rebut that decision.  She claims a county agency paid for her son's treatment, which would seem to show rather convincingly that he was *not* financially independent.

Using what must rank as among the most tortured "reasoning" in legal history, the judge rejected the mother's claims as “distracting,” saying that under Minnesota law neither state nor county agencies can terminate her parental rights, and that a minor child is not emancipated until a state court says so--despite the fact that Minnesota law has no provision for this. In other words, he seemed to agree that the child was NOT emancipated, yet still upheld the right of the state to give him female hormones without parental consent.

It makes no sense.

He also decreed that despite the state giving her son female hormones without informing her--let alone trying to get her permission--the mother somehow "continues to have the physical and legal custody of her child."

Again, utterly illogical.

“Even assuming defendants determined [the son] emancipated—as the court must do at this stage of litigation—defendants’ emancipation determinations did not terminate Calgaro’s parental rights. Only a court order can do so."

The judge also defended St. Louis County and its school district saying that the mother had failed to provide any evidence that they intentionally deprived her of her parental rights without due process.

Gosh, there's that "intentionally" requirement again.  Why is it that the Left keeps imposing this requirement when the act in question is something the Left wants to do?

According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune--a Leftist newspaper often satirically referred to as the "Red Star:" the judge
...rejected the idea that the defendants had determined [the son] to be emancipated. The judge also wrote that Calgaro failed to plausibly allege that the school district’s policy deprived her of parental rights and found that [two] private, nonprofit health organizations did not violate Calgaro’s parental rights because they were not acting as government actors carrying out a state law.

[The judge] also agreed with St. Louis County’s argument that the state, not the county, provided [the funds] for [her son's] care, and further dismissed any claims Calgaro might raise against her child, citing the failure of her claims against other defendants.
One of the son's attorneys--Asaf Orr--works for the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ Transgender Youth Project in San Francisco, which presumably took this case pro-bono.  With truly Orwellian inverted logic Orr summarized the case as showing “the resilience of transgender youth and the importance of access to appropriate health care.”

So where does this leave us?  Well, if the decision is allowed to stand it means the state can do anything it likes with your minor kids--including giving them a sex-change operation.  Yet the state will nevertheless decree that your kid is NOT emancipated, meaning you must provide for them.  Despite the fact that you can't make any decisions on their behalf if the state doesn't like those decisions.

Jesus H. Christ save us.

Now a few swamp-dwelling RINO repubs are calling for a tax on carbon !

Many analysts have warned that congress--mainly Democrats but aided by shitty RINOs--is hell-bent on enacting a tax on CO2 emissions.

If you think that's unlikely, you haven't been paying attention. 

And now, sure enough, a group of RINOs calling themselves the Climate Leadership Council (CLC) has joined CO2-phobes in calling for a tax on carbon-dioxide emissions. The group claims CO2 emissions are fatally warming the Earth, threatening all life on the planet.

Economic analyses of various carbon-tax proposals consistently show they would harm all Americans and would be detrimental for the U.S. economy.  Leftists and Dems reply "But it's just a tiny, itty-bitty tax.  How can anyone be so selfish as to complain about such a tiny tax?"

Except that "itty-bitty, tiny tax" won't stay tiny.  Once the government gets a tax passed, it can and will rachet up the rate as much as it wants.  That's what happened to the federal income tax, and if you don't think it would happen here as well you're too naive to breed.

The Left will tell their base--the people who can't add two 4-digit numbers correctly, and believe the government can tax corporations without that tax being passed on to consumers--that they should support this tax because it will be paid more heavily by the rich, who use more energy and energy-intensive products. 

And if that argument isn't enough of a clincher for the low-info base, the folks pushing a tax on carbon promise they'll give some of the revenue generated by the tax back to low-income people.

So as far as low-info Democrat voters are concerned, this is a superb deal:  tax would be paid mainly by the rich, and a chunk of that tax is paid to po' folk!  Win-win!

The taxers' plan would *begin* by taxing carbon at $40 per ton. And the tax-pushers instantly claim that a family of four Democrat voters would receive a cash payout of approximately $2,000 a year--due solely to this new tax!--as part of the tax law.  Wow! 

CLC loudly claims that the under its plan a whopping 70 percent of Americans would get more in payouts (which they call "refunds") than they'd pay in increased direct energy costs and higher costs for all products.

Really, how can any low-income person not LOVE this idea?  It's even got electrolytes!  (That's a reference to a VERY on-point movie about the future U.S.)

CLC seems extremely pleased with its tax scheme.

Of course the proposed carbon tax would also involve policing costs, as criminals devise more ways to get a government carbon-tax-rebate check.  Ever heard how many people have defraud the gummint on just the Earned Income Tax Credit alone?

And of course, like with every other government program there will be huge costs associated with collecting and tracking the taxes paid, and rebates paid out. New employees will have to be hired.  A whole new government bureaucracy will be created--which is fine with congress.

But we're just getting started:  To prevent businesses from fleeing the country to escape all these taxes and costs, CLC proposes imposing a "border adjustment" for the carbon content of imports and exports.  Companies exporting American goods to countries without a carbon tax would get rebates for carbon taxes paid, while those importing products from such countries would have to pay extra fees on the carbon content of their products.

Hey, no fraud potential or new bureaucracy needed for that, right?

It’s also worth noting that CLC’s proposed “border carbon adjustment” will likely not hold up when challenged under various international trade agreements the United States is already a party to, including the World Trade Organization.

But hey, all the Dems need is to get 20 members of the House and 3 senators to join them, and the tax is a shoo-in.

Unless President Trump vetoes it.  Oh wait, the Dems will have forced him out of office.

Enjoy paying your carbon tax, suckers.

Wednesday, May 24

Dem website cites unsourced report by leftist fringe site claiming the entire Weiner sexting deal was a *setup*

Herewith, another example of how the Lying Leftist Media works:  Two days ago a Democrat-fellating website called "The Hill" ran a piece titled

Report: Girl in Weiner sexting case lied to damage Clinton

As of today (two days after it was published) the article has been shared just under 20,000 times, so it's getting lots of traction.  Let's take a look:
The teenage girl who exchanged sexually explicit text messages with former Rep. Anthony Weiner lied about her age and political motivations to harm Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, according to a report by investigative news site WhoWhatWhy.

In a report published Monday, the website said the girl who exchanged the messages with Weiner was closer to 17 and not 15, as initial reports said. That also puts her above the age of consent in North Carolina, which is 16.
 Note the word "report":  The unsourced hit-piece by WhoWhatWhy isn't described as a "story" or an "article" but as a "report."  Makes it sound...official, eh?
In addition, she and her family were also not Clinton supporters, as the girl claimed in a letter published by BuzzFeed, according to social media posts unearthed by the website. The report also says the girl initiated the contact with Weiner.

The website suggests this could mean that Weiner was the target of a politically motivated plot.
“Seeing that Weiner is both a repeat offender and associated with one of the most important people in Clinton’s inner circle, it is conceivable that this was a set-up from the beginning, with the objective of embarrassing the Clinton campaign,” the WhoWhatWhy report reads.

The investigation of Weiner and his accuser led the FBI to announce just weeks before Election Day that it was again looking at Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of State. It did so because it had found a number of Clinton's emails on Weiner's laptop, some of which were forwarded to him from his wife, Human Abedin, a longtime aide to Clinton.

Clinton lost the election, and many in her camp have blamed the FBI and its then-director, James Comey.

Weiner last week pled guilty to a charge of distributing obscene material to a minor, which carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison.

WhoWhatWhy is a nonprofit investigative reporting site...
Ah, "non-profit"!  Leftists read this as code for "You can trust 'em," cuz everyone on the Left knows wanting to make a profit automatically means you're eeeeeebil.

Wonder what their staff uses to pay their rent and buy food?  Maybe food stamps?  EBT cards?  I doubt it.  There's money here, salaries.  Follow the money and you'll find out who these assholes are working for.  I guarantee they ain't doin' it for free.
...that describes itself as "forensic journalism" that looks to "unearth the facts interested parties want hidden." Its editor-in-chief and CEO is Russ Baker, who has written for The New York Times, The New Yorker and The Washington Post. Baker is also the author of a book called The Family of Secrets, which alleges connections between the Bush family and historic events like Watergate during former President Richard Nixon’s presidency.

The WhoWhatWhy report, citing a court record, says the girl was just shy of 17 when she approached Weiner, and not 15 as The Daily Mail cited when it initially broke the story.
It argues that this "lie" seems "clearly designed to produce the maximum public outrage and put Weiner in greater legal jeopardy."

WhoWhatWhy cites a number of social media messages and photographs to argue that the victim was from a Republican-friendly family and that this suggests a political trick may have been in play. 
It says that the victim celebrated Trump's victory on social media, that her father is a registered Republican and that “her mother tweeted derisively about the Black Lives Matter movement.”
“It’s not yet clear whether the motive was primarily money, a plot to smear Clinton, or both,” the report notes.
So, a major Democrat-supporting organ cites a "report" claiming the whole Weiner/sexting-teen-girl/his-laptop-held-600,000-Hillary-emails thing was a setup, eh?

To say there are several problems with this is a profound understatement.  First it would mean that neither the FBI nor Weiner's pricey law firm bothered to investigate the girl's age back when it could have been used to totally demolish the "underage" charge.  So, Democrats:  Was the FBI part of the plot against Hilly?  Of course since the FBI worked for Trump that would be very plausible...except, oooh, wasn't the Emperor in command of the FBI back then?

Oooh, yeah, dat's right.

Well maybe Loretta Lynch was a secret Trump supporter.  Yeh, dat's it.

Get real.

While Weiner's sexting did get law enforcement involved, what caused Comey to re-open the investigation into Hillary's emails wasn't Weiner sexting a girl he believed was 15.  Instead it was that when the FBI searched his laptop, they reportedly found tens of thousands of emails from Hillary--some of which reportedly contained classified material.

Unless the girl and her handlers had a remarkable level of ESP how would they know there were Hillary emails on the laptop of her estranged husband?  (Recall that all Weiner's "sexting" was done by phone texts.)

So why would leftist Russ Baker be taking the time to run this story now, after the election is long over?  My guess is it's part of the campaign to oust Trump, by peeling away just enough GOP senators to give Dems a shot at removal after the impeachment they're hoping for.

But with all that said, if this was all a superbly intricate plot to sink Hilliary, it's the best news I've heard since election night--because it means Trump has some people working for him who are FAR smarter than any of the media ever thought.


They'll have meetings on the roof of a tall building

It's true: A picture is worth a thousand words. And that word is...


After the Manchester bombing, the Left has some suggestions...

In the aftermath of the Manchester bombing that killed 22 and over a hundred injured, let's see how the Left in the U.S. and U.K. have responded:

Suggestions from Democrats/Leftists/socialists/SJW's/"progressives":
1.  Start a hashtag campaign  #Don't_kill_our_kids.   Inspired by brilliant hashtag campaign #Bring_back_our_girls, devised by The Lightworker (pbuh) after the Muslim terrorist group Boko Haram kidnapped 292 schoolgirls in Nigeria.

2.  "Hugs for our Muslim brothers" campaign.  Cuz the real reason they do these things is that they don't get enough love.

3.  Set aside ten percent of all job openings for Muslims.  Cuz the real reason they do these thing is a lack of good jobs.  And those jobs will have to pay at least $20 per hour.

4.  Increase U.S. and U.K. cash payments to the Palestinian Authority.  Cuz the reason they're forced to do these things is that people living in Gaza don't have enough parks and swimming pools.  A billion dollars a year isn't nearly enough to support these poor, oppressed people!

5.  Bombings of concerts and similar events are very rare, so why should anyone demand that our government take any action at all?  I mean, hey, your kid wasn't hurt, right?  So why is everyone getting so excited?

6.  It's not right to impose any restrictions on Muslims--like monitoring mosques--because both the U.S. and U.K. are founded on the idea of "freedom of religion."  And those of us on the Left really, really support freedom of religion.  Well, unless it's the Little Sisters of Mercy or some similar cult that whines that they don't want to provide morning-after pills to employees.  That's not the kind of freedom we can support.

Tuesday, May 23

Top two Dem finishers for DA in Philly claim the cause of hugely disproportionate black crime is...

Often, seemingly innocuous events have a huge and damaging effect on our future.  Here's an example, edited from a piece by Colin Flaherty:
Democrats in Philidelphia believe they've figured out why black crime and violence are so wildly out of proportion: The reason, they believe, is...white racism.

This epiphany appeared during the recent election for District Attorney. The seven Democrat candidates only disagreed on one thing: who was strongest in claiming that the reason for black crime was "institutionalized racism" by whites.  Here's what Dem candidate Joe Kahn said:
There’s no question we have systemic racism in this country, right?  And what we have to do as prosecutors is to be...vigilant about stamping out that problem and using our power as prosecutors to not just recognize that problem, not just push back against it, but be proactive in doing what we can to uplift society and do what we can to push back against the trend in American society with respect to race.
It should be noted that Kahn is white.  He finished second in the DA race.  He joins most Dems in claiming that blacks in the U.S. are "losing their voting rights”--presumably due to states seeking to reduce vote fraud by requiring photo-ID.

During the same debate a white female candidate said that if she was elected as DA her first task would be to hire more black people because of institutional racism in the prosecutor’s office.

But the most vociferous pusher of the notion that white racism is to blame for black crime was Larry Krasner, a white defense attorney.  Krasner has spent the last 25 years as a defense attorney, most recently defending Black Lives Matter.

And now, thanks to a staggering $1.4 million donation from a George Soros front group -- a donation that even the local Democrat media could't ignore--Krasner will now be charged with prosecuting the same violent criminals he has devoted his life to describing as victims.

Now, I don't know whether the government and/or legal system in Philly is awash in "systemic racism," but since virtually every office-holder and prosecutor is already black (except for the just-elected Larry Krasner, of course), it's hard to put much credence in that claim.

But y'know the beauty of federalism--in which the various states are able to try different approaches to problems--is that in a couple of years we could have a better idea as to whether the approach demanded by Krasner, Kahn and their supporters is sound.  Could.  The test would be whether their policies of bending over backwards to try to compensate for this alleged "systemic racism" have cut crime.

The reason it's just "could" is that Democrats are very adept at changing rules and definitions to artificially make the figures look better for them.  Example:  Mayors of so-called "sanctuary cities" have ordered their DA's not to charge illegal aliens with most offenses, to prevent ICE from deporting 'em.  Think the reported crime rate in those cities will decline?

Entire Flaherty article here.

SanFran voters pass measure to allow illegal aliens to vote in school-board elections. No big deal, right?

The Left is amazingly good at getting voters to pass disastrous ballot proposition--by describing them as "fairness" measures.  They seem harmless.  But once the first measure is passed, it's used to justify later initiatives that further the left's objectives.

Oooh, tinfoil-hat stuff, right?

Okay, consider this: Last fall voters in San Francisco approved a ballot measure allowing illegal immigrants to vote in school board elections. 

Big whoop, right?  A nothing-burger.  Non-story.  Trivial.  Nothing to see here, citizen; move on!

Okay, here's what not a single one of you knows:  For the last decade or so, Democrats have been trying to kill the electoral- college system we use to elect presidents.  But they know that if they were to try using the time-honored, legal way to do this--that would be to amend the Constitution--they'd lose.  So two cunning, scheming, nasty Democrats came up with a way to do it without amending the Constitution!

Oooh, tinfoil-hat stuff again, right?

You haven't heard anything about this because the mainstream, lying, Democrat-fellating media don't want you to know about it.  But it's real.  It's called "National Popular Vote," and yes, it's really a thing.  Here's the explanation of its purpose, from their own goddamn website:
The National Popular Vote interstate compact would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.



Monday, May 22

Chairman of California Dem party closes state convention by leading followers in a chant of "F*** Donald Trump;" media yawns

The outgoing chair of the California Democratic Party, John Burton, was on-stage Saturday, May 20th, at the California’s party's state convention in Sacramento.

As former speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the current chair of the Dem national committee Tom Perez looked on in party solidarity, Burton... put his middle finger in the air and led his eager Democrat followers in a chant of “Fuck Donald Trump!”

Isn't that precious?   Obviously following the lead of "The Great Uniter," emperor Barack--the guy who uttered those famous, healing words "Get in their faces."

When the war starts--as it almost certainly will--Democrats like Pelosi, Perez and Burton will pretend to be absolutely mystified as to how it could have happened!   They'll claim they had nothing whatsoever to do with fanning the flames of hatred, class warfare, endless demands for more taxpayer-funded freebies and so on.

Nope, not them.  No way!  Being Democrats and liberals they'll claim to be paragons of delightful, well-spoken rational thinking!  They'll claim that after the election they repeatedly tried to reach out to Rethuglicans to get them to do what the Dems wanted.  After all, the Media had been telling Americans for months that their candidate was an idiot, a thug, an eeeevil rich person whose policies were only going to benefit rich white folks.  So, I mean, what was a good Democrat supposed to do when the eeevil, orange Trump refused to resign the office in favor of the sainted Hilliary?

So hey, not their fault.  No way.

I'll close with three questions:  First, do you think this incident accurately captures the attitude of high-level leaders of the Democrat party?

Second:  How do you think the Lying Media would have reacted if the chairman of California's Republican party had led his party's members in chanting "Fuck Obama!" ?

Finally:  How many of you think a single network or national paper will utter or print a word of this hateful, conflict-inflaming behavior?

Liberal writer: Kids shouldn't play with squirt-guns...cuz..."normalizing"!

A writer on a liberal site claims kids shouldn't be allowed to have...squirt-guns.

Yep.  And not just ones that *look* like real guns--though I highly doubt that any U.S. company still makes those.  No, she includes the orange bulbous critters that look like something from space.

And her reasoning is...surprisingly, it's not that you could put someone's eye out with a squirt of water from an "assault squirt-gun."  No, it's that playing with toy guns "normalizes" guns for kids.  And since everyone knows that guns can be deadly, letting 'em play with squirt-guns is sort of like what they used to call a "gateway drug" that leads 'em to use the real thing.

Y'know, that's a really great point.  Good liberal parents should *never* let kids get familiar with deadly things, cuz familiarity "normalizes" the very thing that could kill 'em.  Absolutely.  All good liberal parents should support libs on this one!

And in that vein, shouldn't this argument also apply to a couple of other deadly things?  Like, oh...  swimming pools!  Lots of kids drown in the things every year, right?  Letting your kids swim just "normalizes" those killer products!

Also, *automobiles*!  Adults get to make an informed choice on whether to use 'em, knowing the risks, but kids don't get a choice.  So good parents--liberals, obviously--need to stop making our kids use 'em, cuz all we're doing is "normalizing" something that could kill 'em. on TV for war-like video games!  Letting your kids discover that "war" and "combat" have actually, y'know, happened--well, do I need to go thru the "normalizing" thing again?  I'm not talking about parents not letting their kids have those sorts of games--geez, all good parents long ago stopped letting their kids have those, didn't they?  No, I'm talking about banning TV ads for those games.

C'mon, liberals!  How can you call out the threats to kids posed by squirtguns while ignoring the threats posed by these other things?  After all, if the logic is sound, why not apply the same logic to everything else that can kill kids?

Journalists fall for fake memo on White House catering demands for Israel trip--LMAO!

You know the media have target-fixation on removing Trump "by any means necessary" when they keep falling for obvious satirical pieces.  In this case a hoaxer posted a fake memo bearing the White House logo, ostensibly setting out requirements for Trump's current visit.

Journalists still didn't suspect anything even when the memo included things like "9 lbs of bacon" (Trump's son-in-law is Jewish) and "2 cartons of KFC paper napkins--MUST BE KFC)"

You really need to click here to see the long list of journos who bit on this thing--and tweeted all sorts of serious criticisms of what a horrible diet Trump was eating! 

But remember:  They're way WAY smahtah than you are.

Seeing this might pique your interest:

Update on Pakistani computer specialists who worked for 20 Democrats in congress but were fired for...what?

Imran Awan and three relatives were computer specialists for as many as 20 Democrat congresscritters, including former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, New York's Gregory Meeks, and Marcia Fudge of Ohio.

Last year the brothers were accused of stealing computers and accessing congressional computers without permission.  Capitol police banned them from congressional computer networks. The ban on the Pakistani crew sent 20 Democrat members of congress searching for new IT specialists.

Now other congressional computer-technology specialists are baffled that data-theft allegations against the four Pakistani brothers have largely been ignored, and say they fear the integrity of sensitive high-level information.

Imran Awan began working for Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida in 2005.  Soon after that his wife, his brother’s wife and two of his brothers appeared on the payroll of various House Democrats shortly thereafter.

On March 1st of this year even Democrat-shill site Politico --which normally ignores scandals involving Democrats--reported the Awan crew is “accused of stealing equipment from congressional offices.”  And more:
Awan has long-standing relationships with Meeks, Wasserman Schultz and Fudge. Meeks was one of the first lawmakers Awan worked for after coming to Capitol Hill in 2004. He joined Wasserman Schultz’s office in 2005 and started working for Fudge in 2008.
Awan made nearly $2 million since starting as an IT support staffer for House Democrats in 2004, according to public salary data. Alvi, who worked for House Democrats beginning in 2007, earned more than $1.3 million as an IT staffer during that time.
Awan, [wife] Alvi and their relatives worked for dozens of House Democrats at a time, meaning no one lawmaker was responsible for paying their full salary.
Sources close to the House investigation said the former staffers, while able to view some member data, did not have access to any classified information.
Five congressional technology aides now say some members of Congress "have displayed an inexplicable, intense loyalty towards the suspects."  The tech aides speculate the suspects could be blackmailing the Democrat representatives because they presumably have copies of the Dems' emails and files, to which they had full access as "administrators" for each office's computer system.

“I don’t know what they have, but they have something on someone. It’s been months at this point” with no arrests, said Pat Sowers, who has managed IT for several House offices for 12 years. “Something is rotten.”

A manager at a tech-services company that works with Democratic House offices said he approached congressional offices, offering his company's services at one-fourth the price of Awan and his Pakistani brothers, but the members declined.  He now suspects the Awans exerted some type of leverage over members.

After capitol cops banned the Pakistani crew, 20 Democrat members of congress began searching for new IT specialists.  A House IT specialist--who requested anonymity--said techs who have examined the computers in some of those offices found some computers were programmed to send all data to an offsite server--a violation of House policies.  And oddly, they found that staffers’ iPhones were all linked to a single non-government iTunes account.

For years it was widely known that Awan, and eventually his 20-year-old brother Jamal, did the bulk of the work for various offices, while no-show employees were listed on members’ staffs in order to collect additional $165,000 salaries, workers said. This circumvented a rule that prevents any one staffer from making more than members of Congress.
Members were fiercely protective of the brothers, despite reportedly shoddy work, and requests for computer help routinely ignored for weeks, all said.

“The number of offices [that hired the brothers] would definitely be suspicious," Sowers said.
One Democratic IT staffer said Awan “would only help the member — he’d tell me this — because staff come and go. There was one staffer whose computer was broken who said, ‘I’m not going to pay my invoices until you fix my computer,’ and Imran went to the member, and they fired [the staffer who complained] that day. Imran has that power.”
  An employee of a third private company with House IT office contracts, who like most of the others requested anonymity, said the Awans were used by more congressional offices than anyone."

The IT specialists are concerned that the Pakistanis had access to all emails dozens of members of Congress sent and received, as well as access any files members and their staff stored.

Court records show the brothers ran a side business that owed $100,000 to an Iranian fugitive who has been tied to Hezbollah, and their stepmother says they often send money to Pakistan.

Curiously, after the brothers were banned from congressional networks, Wasserman-Schultz re-hired Awan, but as an “advisor” rather than an IT specialist--apparently to get around the Capitol Police’s ban on the brothers.  Ohio Democratic Rep. Marcia Fudge’s office told Politico a month after the ban that she had not fired Imran either.

Other IT techs reported that Wasserman-Schultz, Fudge, New York Democratic Reps. Gregory Meeks and Yvette Clarke, and the House Democratic Caucus office all encouraged newly-elected members to hire the brothers.

Another Democratic IT contractor said members “are saying 'don’t say anything, this will all blow over if we all don’t say anything.' The Awans “had [members] in their pocket.  A lot of members could go down over this.”

The mainstream media lie and spin endlessly, but when it comes to Democrat congresscritters using taxpayer money to hire shady characters, it's really hard to sanitize a dozen years of payroll records.

But I have a feeling they're working on how to solve that. 

Read the original (which seems a bit poorly-written) here.

Sunday, May 21

Wanna see how you're being played?

Eons ago Americans expected the "news sections" of reliable newspapers would report "facts."

Although everyone knew papers had their their favorite party and causes, those biases were usually only found on the editorial pages.  When it came to front-page news, papers rarely printed stories they knew were bogus.

If a paper printed a story that was later shown to be false, it was a big deal.  People could get fired.  A newspaper would lose readers.  So the media rarely ran stories it knew were completely false.  It did happen from time to time, but wasn’t a routine practice.

Ah, the good old days!

But now the Lying Mainstream Media have discovered that fake news sells papers and ad slots--provided, of course, that it's fake news that damages Republicans.

Example:  Do you recall hearing a story that under the bill passed by the House to replace Obamacare, rape would be considered a "pre-existing condition" which would make it far more expensive for the victim to get health insurance?

That turned out to be a complete fabrication.  But you heard the claim, right?   Mission accomplished.

How many of you heard the correction--the admission that this wasn't true?  Zero.  So once again, the mainstream Lying media accomplished their goal.

How many of you have heard that someone in Trump's campaign--maybe even Trump himself!--was "colluding" with Russia before the election?

Have you seen or read a description of the particulars of this charge?

No, you haven't.  But that doesn't matter to the media.  They accomplished their mission:  They know that the truth of a charge is of no concern--it's the fact that the charge has been made that sticks in the minds of readers or viewers.  Whether the charge is true hardly matters.

Here's an example of a hit-piece by Lying Mainstream media.  See if you can spot all the instances of totally unsupported innuendo. (I've put my nominations in red.)  The title is

Worried about fallout, Dems poised to poll-test impeachment

Democratic strategists are racing to figure out whether it’s politically wise to call for President Trump’s impeachment, as one bombshell revelation after another about his ties to Russia is forcing candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives to consider the question far sooner than anyone had expected.

In a significant development, party operatives say they expect Democrats to poll-test the public’s views on impeachment....

These operatives acknowledge they’ve been caught off guard by the speed with which impeachment has become a relevant issue – and are wary of the political damage it could cause if not handled correctly.

Even 10 days ago, before Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, few party officials had even considered such a dramatic move, which has happened only twice in American history. “I mean, Jesus, it’s not even Memorial Day!” said one Democratic operative.

[The piece inserts this tip-off as to the goal of the article:
Anti-Trump protesters gather in Raleigh
VIDEO: About 50 anti-Trump demonstrators gathered in Raleigh on Friday, where Sen. Richard Burr and Sen. Thom Tillis were scheduled to appear. They carried signs calling for a special prosecutor and for President Trump's impeachment.]
But on Tuesday night, CNN reported that even Republican lawmakers are now debating whether to support an independent prosecutor or independent commission after the latest round of revelations. And some Democrats are starting to at least entertain the possibility of impeachment.

“If it is, in fact, true, then yes, that is an impeachable offense,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, on CNN.

Last week, Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin suggested the country needed an “impeachment clock” to track how close the president was to being removed from office.
Pressure might also mount from the party’s liberal base, which has grown in size and relevance since Trump’s election, to call for impeachment.

Related stories:

One progressive leader called impeachment a “no-brainer.”  “Impeachment is the only way to stop Donald Trump, whose corruption and incompetence is placing our country in greater danger with each passing day,” said the executive director of Democracy for America.

Still, some Democrats expressed skepticism that impeachment is the right move for the party. Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, stuck to his message that a special, independent investigation is needed.

“The evidence is mounting by the day," said Perez.  "But as long as Republicans continue putting party over country, justice will never be served. Make no mistake: Their complacency is complicity, and history will remember them as cowards.”

The problem, these more wary Democrats argue, is that so much of the playing field during next year’s midterm elections is in states or districts favorable to Trump.  Senate Democrats must defend 10 states that Trump won during last year’s election.
“Voting for a check on Trump is one thing,” said one national Democratic strategist.. “But if a vote for a check on the president . . . becomes a de facto vote for an impeachment trial, the task in front of us will only get more difficult.”

Another operative said he expects that the House GOP’s health care bill – the American Health Care Act – still would play a bigger role in next year’s midterm elections.  “Health care remains the most personal issue facing voters,” he said. “Until that’s taken off the table completely, it’s hard to see how that doesn’t motivate the backlash.”
You can read the original piece here.  And this story isn't unusual, but is a down-the-middle example of how the Lying Media has been fanning the flames.

Saturday, May 20

#Resistance is a two-way street, folks

It seems that what the Left and Democrats call "the Resistance" is winning in its efforts to oust President Trump by a coup. 

It's doubtful that anyone could stand up to the relentless onslaught by every media outlet, every television and cable network.  In any case, so far he seems to be losing.  And the Dems and the Lying Media smell blood.

They definitely want a coup, but I don't think they've thought it all out yet.

For example, they expect the "deplorables" will simply accept a coup as a fait accompli.  But I'm not sure the deplorables will be quite as understanding as the Dems and Lying Media believe.

Once you've shown the public that neither their votes nor the Constitution matters, and that the Left and Dems will veto the results of an election if they don't like who won, what do they think will bind the people who voted for the winner to respect the law, or the new government installed by the Left?

For elections to work, the side that loses the election must respect the will of the people--because that's the only way you can count on the other side to respect the outcome when they lose.
But now that social contract has been entirely rejected by roughly 30% of the country.  They've made it plain that they intend to have the government they want, regardless of the election results.

They demand the right to rule, regardless of elections.

Of course they literally can't imagine the generally-law-abiding, hard-working deplorables would actually respond to a coup with force.  After all, the deplorables always let the Left do as they wish.  They put their heads down and go back to work, as always.  They'd never resist.

They've never resisted before, right?

If you could go back in time to just before Gavrillo Princip assassinated archduke Franz Ferdinand--the event that sparked World War 1--and show him hours of video of the ghastly results of his planned act--do you think he would have passed on the assassination?

No way.  No matter how much evidence you showed him, he simply wouldn't have believed it.

It's not reasonable to think such a relatively minor event could have such ghastly consequences, right?

After all, nothing like that ever happened before.

Why do American feminists never say a critical word about Islam's abuses of women?

One of the blogs I read regularly is Ace of Spades, and today a co-blogger there had a great take on how virtually every American "feminist" supports female-mutilating, female-stoning Islam.

It's always astounded me how the left always sides with the most thuggish, regressive regimes in the world, as long as those regimes are enemies of America. Whether it's the rat bastard commies of the USSR and Cuba, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the murderous FMLN guerillas in El Salvador, they all received enthusiastic applause and support from the progressive left. 

And it's not just the grudging "yeah they're a-holes but we need to support 'em because the alternative is worse" type of support that conservatives sometimes give authoritarian regimes that are friendly to the U.S (pre-1979 Iran, pre-Castro Cuba), but rather the slobbering, obsequious, they're-the-best-ever adoration.

I'm equally astonished that one of the greatest heroes of feminists--one whom they passionately defended and ran interference for--is the serial sexual predator Bill Clinton, a man who violated just about every standard that feminists claim to stand for.

Now America and the west are facing the most regressive and thuggish enemy yet, one that truly treats women as little better than livestock.  So you'd think that a regime such as that would be the one bridge the feminists could not bring themselves to cross.

Of course you'd be wrong.

I'm referring to a blog post at HuffPo by an addlepated feminist titled Muslims Are The True Feminists. Her main point is to explain how wonderful it is to wear the hijab and how it liberates women's bodies from the lustful gazes of evil, feelthy men.

Question: would Mohammad's wife be able to legally drive a car in Saudi Arabia today?

Here's another whopper: not supposed to be forced on them by their fathers and husbands. Wearing or not wearing the Hijab reflects a Muslim woman’s own a personal choice.
Wait, so Islam doesn't force women to wear the bag?  It's totally a woman's personal choice? Really? In what universe?

Next we can expect some Leftist site to post "Female Genital Mutilation Enhancement: Why Getting Your Clitoris Cut Off With a Rusty Knife Has Wonderful Health Benefits."
 Ah, American leftist feminists.  All the logical consistency of both groups.

Where we are as of May 20th, 2017

The Left is mounting a coup against President Donald Trump, with collusion between the largely Democratic media and Trump’s numerous enemies in the Republican Party.  While one object of the coup is impeachment, they also win if they can recruit enough Republican senators and congressmen to declare Trump "unfit for office" and thus force him out without having to go through an actual impeachment.

Even at this early stage, Trump's opponents have succeeded in forcing him to modify several of his policies and abandon some promised changes.  They've put him on the defensive, forcing him to constantly respond to lies and accusation from anonymous sources.  That's a huge win for Dems and their media allies.

When most Americans are busy simply going to work to make their mortgage payments, and don't look at the facts behind the anonymous accusations, it's easy for the media to do their dirty work.

Democrats, RINOs and the Lying Media--people who never built much of anything--are working full-time to destroy this nation.  And they believe--reasonably--that no one will try to stop them.

After all, they've always won before, so why should this time be any different?

The astonishing, wonderful qualities that made America and its government unique are no longer taught in schools, and haven't been for decades.  Thus when young people hear the media scream for the nation's destruction--cloaked, of course, in language of "fairness"--they agree that this is probably a good thing.

The Lying Mainstream Media lost any interest in honest reporting long ago.  They've been lying--they use the euphemism call it "spinning"--for decades.  Finally ordinary, hard-working Americans caught on, and the spin lost its power--at least with the "deplorables."  As a result, they elected a president despite the media's maximum effort to defeat him.

Now, having lost an election they were sure they'd won for their Democrat candidate, the media (and Dems and leftist and RINO's) is hell-bent on impeaching the winner--the man whose supporters defeated the media's choice.

Democrats and their allies on the left have decided they will not honor the results of the election.  But if they won't honor the Constitution and the means of succession provided for by that document--once referred to as the "supreme law of the land"--what tool remains to determine political legitimacy?

Force.  Deadly force.

What's funny is that when war comes the Dems and Lying Media will wail loudly: "If only those stupid deplorables would have just done what we demanded--given in and let us appoint Hillary to replace that awful orange guy--everything would have been just wonderful.  Instead the bitter warmongers refused.  So it's all their fault!

What was likely the fatal step that killed the Constitution and rule of law was when Lois Lerner got away with covering for Obama using the IRS to target conservative groups seeking non-profit certification.  Obviously Obama's corrupt DOJ had no interest in prosecuting her, since that would have revealed their orders.  Congress had a chance to throw her law-shredding ass in jail, but was too scared to do so.

By the failure of congress to punish her with a long prison sentence, the Left knew they'd be able to get away with any lawbreaking, no matter how egregious.

We've been seeing the consequence since the inauguration, when leftist demonstrators rioted in D.C, breaking hundreds of windows and doing tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage, yet no major penalties.  Same in Berkeley, Portland, Seattle, where Democrat mayors order their police to stand down and let the rioters riot.  Again, no punishment of any consequence.

With no fanfare, barely noticed by most citizens, the Left and their media arm have fanned the flames of hate against the rule of law and against conservatives.  They've crossed a line.

I'm actually not a Trump fan, but if you think the Left and media will stop at impeaching Trump you're too stupid to breathe.
Venezuelans demonstrating against their socialist government two days ago. 

CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, the NY Times and Washington Post estimated the crowd at "a few hundred."  And you can trust them to tell the truth, right?

We've come a long way since 1965...

Boy, we've really come a long way, eh?

For those who didn't hear about this:  It really happened.  Some nutbag claimed PB&J sandwiches were racist. 

And ina sign of the times, no one laughed at the nutter.

Friday, May 19

Dem mayor proclaims a day honoring a guy who ambushed and killed a cop; later says he had no idea, all done by a subordinate

How crazed--literally insane--are Democrats/leftists/socialists/marxists/"progressives"?

You can't imagine.

Last week the office of the Democrat mayor of Cincinnati John Cranley proclaimed June 1 "Tre Day" in honor of a man who ambushed and killed a police officer.

The mayor's office has now retracted that proclamation, claiming the mayor never approved it and had nothing to do with it.  They claimed it was "approved by a new staffer."

In 2015 Trepierre Hummons shot and killed Officer Sonny Kim before being fatally shot by another officer. Police officers described the incident as "suicide by cop."

The mayor's office said the request to the mayor to proclaim "Tre Day" was made by the killer's father.  The mayor's communications director said *she* approved the proclamation to "raise awareness of mental illness and child abuse."

This smells like bullshit, cover-your-ass-style damage control, but let's be generous and assume the mayor really didn't know anything about what his "communication director" was up to.  Does this sound even remotely like competence?

Leftist propaganda rag shows White House as Kremlin. Clever, clever leftists!

This looks like the cover of a propaganda organ called "Time magazine."  They cover shows the White House morphing into the Kremlin. 

Isn't that too, too clever?

The editors of Time hate the president with a white-hot passion, and want to impeach him.  The too, too clever cover is their hip, cool, sophisticated way to fire up support for that goal, by cleverly reminding the American public about the Left's endless claims that Trump's first choice for national security advisor had conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Bet you think this is a spoof.  Satire.  Can't be real.  Okay, click here to see the real version.

Thursday, May 18

Vote fraud? Nah, can't be. At least that's what Dem leaders say--unless it's Russians helping Trump

A whistleblower has tapes of Democrat in Dallas bragging about vote fraud.

Guy claimed to have pirated 700 ballots mailed to older residents.  Many of whom didn't request one.  And some signatures on what requests were found are forged.

But hey, Dems say there's no vote fraud. anyone betting this guy's the only one doing it?

But hey, Dems say there's no vote fraud.