Wednesday, August 23

Time once again to play "Fact or Fake?"

...the game where you get to do what CNN editors and producers do: They either make stuff up that fans the flames of race hate and hatred of conservatives, or else they kill stories about things that really happened but that either make Dems look bad or conservatives look good.  You decide.

1. What does this letter look like to you?

Sure--it looks like a collection letter.  Now, suppose I told ya this wasn't actually a collection letter, but a fundraising solicitation from a political party.  Which party would you guess?
  • Republicans, because as the Dems constantly tell us, people who vote Republican are so poorly educated--"deplorables," as Hilliary put it--that they'd think it was a real demand letter and they'd send lots of money immediately; or
  • Democrats, because as they constantly tell us, their voters are all highly educated, so all those who received it would know right away that this was...um..."a joke."  "Satire."  "Sophisticated humor."  Remember, these are the folks who think "Saturday Night Live" is actually funny.  So they must be really smaht.
2.  One party is trying to change the rules for EBT cards to let people make donations to political parties using the card.  Which party?

3.  One or more cable networks claimed Trump could be impeached for one of the things he said in Phoenix last night.  The choices:
  • ESPN, cuz they're now "all politics, all the time;" or
  • PBS, cuz they're all in on getting Trump removed via the 25th amendment; or
  • MSNBC, cuz they're looking to double their viewers from 34 to 68.
 4.  A Leftist organizer has called for a statue of Christopher Columbus to be removed from the center of a traffic circle that bears his name.  Is the city
  • New York
  • Austin
  • San Francisco
  • Los Angeles
  • Chicago
  • Atlanta
  • Seattle
  • Portland
  • All of the above
 5.  What's the capital of Ohio?
  • Cincinnati
  • Canton
  • Cleveland 
  • Toledo
  • Dayton
  • Is this a trick question?  Isn't it Columbus?
Answer:  It's Columbus, but only for another three weeks, until the snowflakes pressure the city council to change the city's name to Martin Luther King City.  Or Leningrad.  Or "Chairman Mao Memorial City of Peace."  They haven't quite decided.

Ohio city to abolish Columbus Day; NYC council member wants to remove Columbus statue

The city council of Oberlin, Ohio has voted to eliminate "Columbus Day." and rename it "Indigenous Peoples' Day."

This is a hot-button issue in Oberlin because of the large percentage of Native Americans in the city:  according to the 2010 census two-tenths of one percent of the residets were Native American. 

Actually the push is coming from the usual Leftist screamers, whose main agenda is starting a civil war in the U.S.  But hey, doesn't matter who's pushing it, right?  Tomato, tomahtoe, eh?

Next you can expect demands to rename Ohio's capital, which is now Columbus.

Not to be outdone, on Monday the infamous speaker of New York City's council, a charmless creature by the name of Melissa Mark-Viverito, said a 76-foot statue of the explorer at Columbus Circle in Manhattan could be the next to go "following a review."

Does anyone believe a review commissioned and staffed by Leftist city council members will recommend anything that contradicts the wishes of the head Nazi speaker of the powerful council?

Can't honor Columbus because he owned slaves, right?  Oh wait, he didn't.  But hey, no matter: He was a white European, and that's enough to put the snowflakes and Nazi's on the warpath.

Tuesday, August 22

Outraged black attacks statue of Columbus in Baltimore

An ignorant but outraged! moron in Baltimore took a sledgehammer to a monument of Columbus.  Does he think Columbus owned slaves?

Yeh, dat's it.

Listen to this moron say that "these monuments were built in the 20th century in response to a movement by African-Americans to..." bullshit.  Cuz this monument is 225 years old.

Guy's a moron, but outraged!   Like 19 Muslims with box knives, he can destroy but cannot build.



Ah, wait: the moron says he's destroying the monument because Columbus was the first European to get here, so he planned it all for the rest of the Europeans... or somethin'.  Yeh.

So here's a thought experiment for liberals:  What do you think will satisfy this outraged! moron?

Do you believe he and his comrades will be satisfied to take the homes of just certain whites, but will leave you alone?  (They've already formally "requested" that you give your home to blacks.)

When he and his comrades come to take your home, do you think your party membership save you?   Think the fact that your home is only 1800 square feet will persuade him and his howling, leaping comrades to let you keep it?  I know:  tell 'em you voted for Obama.  Surely that'll do it.

Six Flags removes all but the American flag, because of...


Most Americans have heard of the big theme-park chain Six Flags Over Texas.

If someone had told you in 2008 that just nine years later the execs of Six Flags would be forced to replace all the flags because they were afraid to risk violence from snowflakes outraged! over the Confederate flag, you'd have thought they were nuts.

Well, now that's exactly what's happened.
 Now, as a private entity they obviously have the right to do as they wish.  (Well, unless you're a baker opposed to gay marriage or a Catholic religious order that opposes the Obama administration.)  My point in posting this is to show how utterly impossible it is to predict knock-on effects of changes. 

"Social media" sites blocking / deleting content they don't like

Conservatives have long recognized the extreme liberal/Democrat bias of Mainstream Media, which reliably reports only the pro-Democrat side of every event.

Ho-hum, right?

Now we're seeing so-called "social media" --Facebook, Google, YouTube (owned by Google) Instagram and others-- blocking content that contradicts The Narrative.

Not all--not yet, anyway.

Of course the leftist assholes who run the above sites have the right to delete whatever they want.  But you should know they're doing it.

Sunday, August 20

Unprovoked, senseless murder in NYC; killer on the loose; Post doesn't print his description


Two days ago in New York City a young couple were walking on the sidewalk after apartment hunting.  They walked past two men sitting on steps.

Moments later one of the men fatally stabbed George Carrol as his horrified wife looked on helplessly.

The killer fled.  

The next day the New York Post ran a story about the murder.

Now, with the killer still on the loose and the wife having witnessed the fatal attack at close range, you'd think an absolutely crucial part of the story would be for the fable-writer "reporter" to include a description of the killer, right?

For some reason the Post didn't think that was important enough to bother including a description.

The next day, the Post ran a followup.  Surely, I thought, by then some editor would have noticed the glaring omission from the first story and would have edited the story.  But still no description of the killer in the totally unprovoked attack.

Until a few years ago--2004 or so--newspaper stories about murders where the killer was still on the loose included a description, which often resulted in useful tips.  But I guess the "journalism schools" have decreed that helping the cops locate killers is no longer worthwhile.  Yeah, dat's probably it.  Cuz I can't imagine any other reason to refrain from printing a description.

Anyone have any info on the new stylebook?

Bill Maher, Democrat propagandist


On Friday Bill Maher commented about the violence in Charlottesville.

Recall that every one of the rat-bastards in the Lying Mainstream Media blasted Trump for condemning violence "on all sides."  The media implied--though they very carefully didn't explicitly state--that all the violence came from one side only: from those protesting the removal of the statue of General Robert E. Lee from the park once named for him.

Like everyone who watched the hours and hours of rerun video of the fighting, Maher has to know his claim is bullshit.  So he elides the truth by joking that "liberals don’t form militias, they form drum circles.”

Gotta admit that's actually pretty funny.  But Maher can't let the joke go without complaining that "Trump kept saying, ‘There’s violence on both sides.’ [But] there wasn’t."

Bill, you lying sack of crap, I watched the endlessly-repeated videos for hours, and both sides were throwing punches.  To say that only one side was violent insults everyone's intelligence.  Oh that's right--your viewers believe your crap, without question.  Mission accomplished.

Maher completed his mission by adding that even if there was violence on both sides in Charlottesville, it doesn’t matter...because he compared Antifa and BLM to American soldiers in WW2.

Naturally you don't believe that, so here's the quote: "...because there was violence in World War II and the Allies were still the good guys."

I hate lying sons of bitches like Maher.

Democrats and MSM: "Conspiracies involving huge systems--like voting--can never happen." Ooops.

Whenever some poor, deplorable working stiff claims insiders conspired to rig anything big that operates in the public realm, how do the Lying Mainstream Media always react?

They ridicule him.  "Can't possibly happen," they claim.  "To do something that outrageous would require lots of people's help, and it would be impossible to keep such a conspiracy secret."

Ridiculing the possibility of a successful conspiracy is how Democrats make people refuse to believe massive, organized vote fraud can or has happened--and will happen again and again.

So if someone claimed insiders had rigged a state lottery, resulting in their winning at least five jackpots worth over $16 million, you can be certain your betters in the media would say "Couldn't happen.  Cuz winning numbers are generated randomly by a computer that's in a glass room with video security, and not connected to any outside network.  There's no way that could possibly happen.  And anyone who believes such a ridiculous story is a fool."

Ah.  Well....

Now a computer guy working for the "Multi-State Lottery Association" pleaded guilty to rigging the lottery so he and his friends could win over five state lotteries worth over $16 million.  Got away with it for at least five years.

The guy did it by inserting a program into the computer that generated the supposedly-random winning numbers. 

Oh, and did I mention that the guy was head of security for the lottery association?   Yeah.

The guy's own brother "won" $568,000 in the lottery, but no one in the association thought that odd.

But remember, citizen:  conspiracies involving big-stakes deals, in areas subject to intense public scrutiny, simply can't happen.

And also remember that if you ever heard any warnings from conservatives, back when your state was considering whether to start a lottery, that they'd become magnets for corruption, you are advised to ignore those warnings.  Because you can trust government officials to make sure things are honest.

Besides, half the proceeds go to funding schools.  So "it's for the children," right?








In Dem-run cities, Antifa and BLM have effectively banned any speech they don't like

One of the core tenets of the founders of this nation--one so vital that they put it in the First Amendment--is freedom of speech.  [Dems may need to read the Note at the end of this post.]

The events of the last two weeks have conclusively shown that te leaders of the Democratic party don't believe in that right--at least for speech they don't like.

Back in the 1960's, Democrats were totally in favor of free speech:  They wanted to be able to burn the American flag and call for the government to be overthrown by force, with no consequences.  Conservatives recognized the damage this would do to the nation but also realized the importance of free speech, so the Democrats were free to radicalize as many young Americans as possible.

But today, with Democrats totally controlling the Lying Mainstream Media, public schools, universities and most lower courts, Democrats have effectively eliminated the right of Americans to say anything the Democrats don't want said.

They've have done this by allowing mobs of leftists to attack speakers the Dems don't like.

Of course many Democrats will angrily deny that their party has done any such thing, but the fact is that in every case since the last presidential election where a speaker or group sought to speak in a Dem-controlled city, the police have either allowed the mob to attack without intervening, or else have removed the would-be speakers from the venue before they could speak, as happened yesterday in Boston.

Not one Democrat politician has condemned Antifa or BLM for their attacks--because all Dem pols know that condeming the mob attacks by BLM and Antifa would be political suicide.

Instead, Dems have followed the lead of their emperor, who got away with clearly violating the Constitution's mandate that the president "shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed" when he ordered federal agents not to deport millions of young illegal aliens.  When congress declined to impeach Obama for this, Democrats realized the Constitution was no longer the supreme law of the land. 

Now they have allowed the mob to block speech they don't like.  In doing so they have violated the Constitution and the rule of law.  To the Democrats, "free speech" only applies to speech they approve of.

Not surprisingly, a few million Americans are angry about this.

So here's what's very likely to happen:  Instead of choosing a Democrat-controlled city and state to hold a rally, the "free speech means what it says" movement will announce a rally in a smaller town with a Republican mayor, in a state with a GOP governor.  BLM and Antifa will call up their mobs as usual--but this time the governor will mobilize the state's National Guard to help city and county cops protect the speakers.

The mayor and governor will announce that anyone wearing a mask will be promptly arrested.  With their faces exposed and recorded, snotflakes will be far more likely to behave.

Of course the hard-core leftists won't be deterred, and will take on the cops and the guardsmen.  At that point things will get far more interesting.
====

Note on the First Amendment (for Democrat legal quibblers):  As everyone should know, it actually says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

Quibblers on the left may well claim that this amendment actually does NOT guarantee freedom of speech--nor of the press, nor freedom of religion, nor of the "right to assemble"--but merely bars congress from passing a law restricting those rights.

Literally that's obviously true.  However, back in the days when the nation's highest court actually believed in the Constitution, on numerous occasions the court held that no state could deprive any citizen of any of the rights enumerated in the Constitution.

Saturday, August 19

The true face of Antifa

A few days ago the Lying Mainstream Media and various Lefty blogs like HuffPo ran pics of American troops jumping off a landing craft to fight their way ashore on D-day. 

So were they honoring the bravery of American GI's?  Hardly.  They compared the anti-American thugs of Antifa to these troops!

Whereupon some blogger sought to...uh...correct the record:
Antifa=American GI's storming the beaches on D-day.  Yeah, sure.

Lying Media = cunning idiots

Vandals deface statue they think is Confederate hero; actually Christopher Columbus

In Houston last night vandals spray-painted a statue of Christopher Columbus. 

Word on the street is that the vandals believed the statue was of a Confederate general, so, you know....

After historians noted that Columbus pre-dated the U.S. civil war by three and a half centuries, the local TV station--anxious to avoid angering local residents screaming about being triggered by Confederate-era statues--defended the act by noting that "some consider Christopher Columbus to be a controversial figure."

Well there ya go then.  Everything's fine.  According to Liberals and Democrats all ya need to excuse vandalism is to claim that a statue is "controversial."  That also serves to excuse stabbing.  Or hitting someone on the head with a club.

The snowflakes have gone full-Idiocracy.

Idiocracy

Saw the movie "Idiocracy" a couple of days ago, for the second time.

The first time was a decade ago, and it struck me as sophomoric humor but fairly amusing.

This time it looked more like a documentary.  And not because of Trump.

Fact or Fake: Is the NAACP demanding a boycott of the NFL unless Kaepernik is signed?

Fact or Fake?  Things have gotten so crazy that it's hard to know anymore.

The NAACP (for those under 30 that's the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) has called for a boycott of the NFL unless some team hires America-hating washed-up QB Colin Kaepernik.

If Kaepernik isn't hired by an NFL team, the black organization will ask fans to not attend NFL games or even watch 'em on television.

A spokesman for the Georgia branch of the NAACP said
“There will be no football in the state of Georgia if Colin Kaepernick is not on a training camp roster and given an opportunity to pursue his career.  This is not a simple request.  This is a demand."  --Gerald Griggs, spokesman for Georgia NAACP
Wow, a "demand," eh?  Clearly the NAACP is feeling new power following the success in getting Democrat pols to remove statues deemed offensive to the black community.

I predict NFL owners and the commissioner will secretly arrange for some team to sign Kaepernik for over a million a year--with the cost secretly split by all owners--rather than risk a boycott by 12 percent of the population.

And of course this will prove to any blacks who weren't already convinced that you can do anything to show you hate the U.S. and still be paid handsomely.  Good lesson, eh?

Mayor of Baltimore refuses to say where the statues went; city council member wants them destroyed

Further to the story about the black female mayor of Baltimore ordering the before-dawn removal of four statues:  Some conservative reporter had the gall to ask the mayor where the statues were now.

The mayor refused to say where they were.

Also, an unnamed member of the city council has called for the statues to be destroyed.  The mayor commented that "no decision has been made" on whether to destroy them. 

The statues would like be worth hundreds of thousands if auctioned off.  But of course, that won't happen.

As I noted in a prior post, the most likely outcome is that after a few years the statues will have vanished, and no one in the city government will claim to know what happened to them, or even where they were stored.  In fact they will have been melted down for the value of their bronze, probably by a brother-in-law of a city council member.  But because the statues will have been out of public view for years, there won't be any way to find out who did it.

After murder of 14 by a van in Barcelona, will Dems demand a ban on vehicles?

Ever notice that whenever anyone, anywhere uses a gun to kill someone, Democrats and Leftists call for a ban on guns?  Sure.  Every time.

Now that Muslims have used vehicles to mow down over a hundred civilians in an near Barcelona, does anyone think we'll be hearing calls from Democrats and Leftists to ban cars, vans and trucks in city limits?  Of course not.

There's been a wave of fatal stabbings in Germany--virtually all by Islamic immigrants--capped by the stabbing deaths of two in Finland, by an immigrant.  Does anyone think we'll be hearing calls from Democrats and Leftists to ban knives?  Of course not.

Why the double-standard when it comes to guns?

Simple:  If Democrats didn't have double-standards they wouldn't have any standards at all.

When Norks threatened to nuke U.S. libs didn't say jack, but when Trump responded...OMG!


Pelosi calls for removal of statues of Confederate figures from U.S. capitol

In the capitol building of the United States there's an area featuring statues commemorating two residents of each state.  Each state gets to select the citizens its people want to commemorate.

Ah, but that was then.  Now Democrat and former speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has called for...well, let's get the exact quote:
The Confederate statues in the halls of Congress have always been reprehensible.  If Republicans are serious about rejecting white supremacy, I call upon Speaker Ryan to join Democrats to remove the Confederate statues from the Capitol immediately.    --Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi was joined by Dem senator Cory Booker, who said he would introduce a bill to remove the statues.

Oh wait--just now realized the above story and quote were published by a notoriously unreliable source, so you can't really trust it to be true, y'know?

Source is the NY Times.

In other news, Pelosi also called for everyone whose last name is "Lee" to change their name to something that won't offend people who are triggered by that name.  Pelosi said "If Seattle can remove the name "Lynch" from three of its schools, why can't I order the same thing?  After all, what difference is there in the principles involved?"

In still other news Democrat senator Chuck Schumer called for the word "lee" to be removed from dictionaries in the U.S.  Schumer said the phrase "lee side," meaning the side of a ship opposite from the direction of the wind, was a "gratuitous, totally unnecessary micro-aggression" for millions of Americans.

Schumer said "The courageous Democrats of Seattle have shown us that Americans don't have to tolerate names or terms that offend them."  He added that if Republicans refused to pass his proposed law, student activists should simply tear out the offensive pages.  "After all," he said, "that's what we do with offensive statues."

And as if on cue, in the middle of the night last night, Duke university removed a statue of Robert E. Lee from campus, on orders of the university's president.  In a written statement the president of Duke explained
The purpose of universities was to provide a safe, non-triggering space for people too young to have developed the personal skills required to enable them to cope with triggers, so removing this horribly offensive statue was the right thing to do.
===
Now:  You're well-informed, right?  Cuz you listen to the Mainstream Media, which tells you everything significant that happens they want you to know.  So you know which two of the above events actually happened. 

"We'll ban speech we don't like, destroy property, erase history...to suppress fascism"


And 99% of those on the Left are totally unaware of the contradiction.

Statue vandalized in California; CBS station buries the lede. See if you can discern the reason

In journalism, the most important part of a story is called the "lede."  Normally the lede is in the first sentence or paragraph.  When a paper publishes a story in which the "real news" is several 'grafs down, it's called "burying the lede." 

Back when reporters were fairly non-partisan this was ridiculed as an error made by newbie reporters.  It'd be like printing an article on the assassination of JFK that said "President's return to DC delayed by hospital visit."

But burying the lede is actually quite useful when the Lying Mainstream Media wants readers to NOT notice the "real" significance of an event.  Here's an example from two days ago:
MISSION HILLS (CBSLA.com) — Several people stopped by a statue of Father Junipero Serra in a park across from Mission San Fernando on Thursday after a photo made the rounds on social media appearing to show the statue had been vandalized.

A picture circulating Facebook showed the statue spray-painted red and the word “murder” written on Serra in white.
d0fe2e50a9fa41339f7d13c96458bf6b Junipero Serra Statue Vandalized In Mission Hills
While city officials would not confirm the authenticity of the photo or the clean-up, a CBS2 reporter saw red paint on Serra’s arm and a swastika on the statue of the child standing next to him.
The real story here is that some low-IQ revolutionary, following the lead of his comrades who are tearing down statues they don't like, vandalized this one.  But notice how the CBS station wrote the story: The first sentence tells us "Several people stopped by a statue..."

Whoa!  Stop the f'n presses!  If you find that to be...less than gripping, you're right.  That was deliberate.

Next phrase: "...after a photo made the rounds on social media..."  Wow!  "A photo made the rounds on social media," ya say?  Is that really an important element of the story?  Well, maybe to highschool students--cuz everyone knows how Americans are slavishly devoted to whatever appears on "social media."

Finally, CBS clues you to the significance of the photo:  it's "appearing to show the statue had been vandalized."  Not "vandals spray-painted a statue in Mission Hills," but rather that someone posted a photo appearing to show vandalism.

Note how careful CBS is here:  The photo clearly shows the statue spray-painted with the word "murder." Unless you're an idiot, that's vandalism.  But CBS wants to bury that fact.  Why?  Because admitting it up front would validate the predictions of dozens of conservative commenters who warned that vandalizing statues was a "slippery slope" guaranteed to have consequences far beyond what the current mainstream media and Democrats believe.

Conservatives warned Americans about this.  And it took about one day to be proven correct.

In fact, someone who wasn't from California could easily conclude that this "apparent vandalism" was just another example of snowflakes vandalizing a statue honoring a Confederate figure.  Nothing noteworthy about that, eh Sparky?

For those who are still naive enough to think this is paranoia, a brief thought experiment will show you the truth:  If someone vandalized a statue of MLK, what do you think the Lying Media's opening 'graf would be on that event?  Would it be
Several people stopped by a statue of Martin Luther King jr. after a photo made the rounds on social media appearing to show the statue had been vandalized.
Obviously not.  QED.

What MUST happen when Dem-controlled city governments allow Antifa to beat up others?

From a commenter on Belmont Club:
When the Antifa types learn that Democrat-controlled governments will allow them to attack others with impunity (something they've already learned), not only will they continue to attack, but will increase the violence of those attacks. 

If they can beat people with baseball bats while the police watch without responding, what is to keep them from shooting or stabbing those who oppose them next time?  In a Democrat run city, there will be no response, no arrest, no prosecution.

That's why the media has to jam that story, to keep Americans not on the Left from grasping that reality.
Another:
The public was starting not to believe The Narrative of "Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election," so on August 12th something the Media spins as a "racist riot" by "white supremacists" happens in Charlottesville. 
The Media instantaneously pivot out of "collusion with Russia" and into "Racism & Riot" without missing a beat. After nearly a year of Trump & Russia, all day, every day, the "collusion with Russia" narrative vanishes.  Trump is no longer a Russian.  Instead, Trump is now a racist.
Another:
Democrats and liberals claim not to believe there's any connection whatsoever between the thugs of "Antifa" and the Communist Party.  If you're one of those, take a look at this pic of the dais at the Communist Party's "Third International:"
 

Wait!  Be reasonable, comrade.  Anyone can see that this photo is CIA agitprop!

Another commenter:
Soon--if not already--just advocating for the local university to teach a course in western civ will get you labeled as a white nationalist, racist, terrorist.