Monday, January 15

"They all knew"



Barack Hussein Obama
  • has had dozens of different Social Security numbers
  • currently has an SSN from a state he hadn't visited when it was supposedly issued
  • has his Harvard Law School, Columbia College, and Occidental college records sealed
  • had his Illinois State Senate records sealed
  • had his Illinois State Bar records sealed
  • had his Punahou School (private high school in Hawaii) sealed
  • had his financial records and even his elementary records sealed
  • had his name-change records sealed
  • had the marriage license between his father and mother sealed
  • had records of his mother’s repatriation as US citizen on return from Indonesia sealed
  • had his adoption records and baptism records sealed;
  • finally, for over a dozen years his own biography, from his publisher, said he was born in Kenya; and he had to sign off on its accuracy.
And remember, citizen:  While campaigning for president he promised his administration would be "the most transparent in history."

Clearly that was bullshit.  Yet according to the Lying Media he's "the most admired man in America."

Really, that's what they claim.

Now, why am I calling out the lies of a man who's no longer president?  Because just like Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, all the top Democrats knew he wasn't eligible to hold the office.  In particular, Pelosi.

Like Hollywood and Weinstein: "They all knew."

Fiat-Chrysler moves truck factory to Michigan from Mexico, announces $2,000 bonuses, cuz...


Rome, January 12 (ANSA) - Fiat-Chrsyler said Thursday that because of the recent tax cut bill pushed by president Trump, it would invest over a billion dollars in its plant at Warren in Michigan, moving production of the next generation of Ram Heavy Duty pickups there from the current plant in Mexico.
    The company said the move will add 2,500 jobs in Metro Detroit by 2020, when the plant retooling is completed.
    The company also said it would give 60,000 US workers a 2,000-dollar bonus, also thanks to President Donald Trump's tax cuts.
PAY NO ATTENTION, CITIZEN!  Instead listen to your Democratic party leaders:  "The tax cuts are the worst thing in the world!  They're cruel, horrible!  Repeat after us: "All good Americans should want to pay more taxes!"

If you believe you've heard something about the stock market going up you should know that this is absolutely normal. The stock market always goes up a year after a presidential election.  And anyway, higher stock prices only benefit the Rich, not ordinary hard-working Americans like the Dreamers and you.

Finally, about those little "bonus" thingies you may have heard about.  They're nothing--or as our brilliant Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi (pbuh) put it, they're just crumbs.  Do NOT think you got any kind of good deal.

Remember: all the REAL benefit went to the Rich, not to your hard-working, ordinary-folk Democrat leaders!

So vote Democrat this fall, because if our Dem candidates win a majority in the House we'll impeach that orange tyrant and our RINO allies in the senate will ensure that he's convicted and removed from office by the following spring. 

Then we'll go after that raaacist gray tyrant Pence!  Yay!

German broadcaster does a story on Venezuela that you won't see in the NY Times


Deutsche Welle is a respected German TV and radio network.  Yesterday they ran the story below (which I've summarized) about the vast humanitarian disaster in Venezuela.

You won't see any stories quite like this in your Lying Mainstream Media, because the situation in Venezuela is due to the disastrous policies of that nation's socialist government, and virtually all mainstream U.S. media support Democrat socialist policies.

Whoa!  Dat can't be right, can it?  I mean, doesn't the Democratic party in the U.S. support free markets, capitalism, freedom of speech and all the rest of what's made America the envy of the world?

No, they don't.  They support socialism:  Government controls virtually everything, including health care.  Assigns desirable housing to supporters, gives good government jobs to its supporters and jack to opponents.

Your kids or grandchildren don't know jack about the utterly, totally horrible results of socialism.  How could they?  The schools teach the marvels of socialist policies, and communism, though they don't use that term.  Individual effort, self-discipline and hard work are all denigrated.

Success is attributed not to hard work but to a rigged system.  And certainly to some extent the system IS rigged when the powerful can break the law without penalty.  Even young people see this easily, so it does't take much of a leap of logic to believe that ALL successful people somehow cheated.  "The system is rigged, citizen."

But I digress.  Here's DW on Venezuela---two days ago:
In an attempt to cushion the effect of inflation, at the end of December Venezuela's socialist government decreed the sixth wage and pension increase in a year, raising the minimum wage by 40 percent. 
Yay!  Now there's a fair gruberment*, citizens!  In the U.S. we can't even get da gruberment to decree a fair $15 per hour minimum wage, while down there the smahtah socialists have hiked the min wage by a whopping 40 percent!  Why haven't the Dems done that here?

Then they tell you that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has forecast an inflation rate of 2,350 percent for 2018, following 2,500 percent for the year just ended.  Kinda puts that 40% wage hike in a new perspective, eh?

The socialist government hasn't dared to publish inflation data for more than a year.  Because "we have the most transparent administration in history!"  Oh wait, that was the emperor boasting.  And it was just as true as "If you like your doctor and your policy, you can keep both."

A 24-year-old lawyer told DW "With a salary like mine, people used to be able to buy a car or make a down payment on a house.  But I can't afford to buy a pair of shoes. Facing this reality destroys your expectations."

Another lawyer said "Inflation is eating up almost everything.  A bottle of shampoo costs almost two weeks of my salary.  There's been a shortage of sugar.  I found one bag last week for 105,000 bolivars. But that's one-sixth of my entire month's salary!"

These aren't unskilled workers, but f'n attorneys.  Imagine how hard it must be for regular folks.

And what would you think happens when people don't have enough money for food?  Yep, the crime rate goes exponential. Tthe Venezuelan Observatory of Violence (OVV) reports that 28,479 people were killed in 2016--a rate of 91.8 per 100,000 people for the whole country. But in the capital, Caracas, the OVV reports 140 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2016.

Is that high?  A little high, or frighteningly high?  DW doesn't say.  But considering that the U.S. has 11 times more people thanVenezuela, 91.8 per 100,000 would translate to over 310,000 murders per year. 

With all the media shrieking about how gun violence is making life in the U.S. a disaster, ask your kids how many murders they think happened in the U.S. in 2016.  Answer?  17,250.  And that's ALL murders, not just gun murders.

(As you would expect, the official murder rate from the Venezuelan attorney general's office for 2016, is much lower, just 70.1 per 100,000 inhabitants.)

So...a snapshot of socialism in action.  The NY Times and WaPo blame the problems on a drastic drop in oil prices.  And lack of rain reducing electrical output.  And global warming.  And economic sabotage by the eeeebil orange dictator in the White House.  In short, anything but socialism.

Tell your kids, or grandkids.  Who will tell 'em the truth about socialism if you don't? 

You can be absolutely sure the NY Times and WaPo and Slate and The Hill and Politico won't.  And unless they know socialism is a lie, they go out as sheep amongst the wolves.
====
*: "gruberment" refers to MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who drafted much of the provisions of that wonder of socialist wonders, Obamacare.  Gruber is famous for saying on several occasions that they deliberately wrote the bill to be as confusing as possible, so no one would be able to understand what its actual costs would be or how it would be funded.  He's also caught on video saying they depended on the stupidity of the American public to get the thing passed.

Really, he actually said both those things.  More than once.  When Republicans in congress asked him later what he meant, he said it was just a slip of the tongue--something he too-cutely called a "speak-o," since everyone had heard the term "typo."  Really.

Leftist website implies murder of Seth Rich has been solved, and DNC had no role in it


Example number infinity of how the Left lies--brazenly, right in your face--and counts on 95% of the American public to not have paid enough attention to realize they're being lied to:

Two days ago the leftwing Democrat-supporting website The Hill ran a story titled "Trump re-tweets far-right activist.  The guy Trump re-tweeted, Jack Posobiec, had claimed that Democrat Dick Durbin had called for an end to chain migration, but that's not the point here.

Buried way down the Hill article was this:
Posobiec has also promoted a conspiracy theory that the Democratic National Committee was behind the murder of staffer Seth Rich, which has been proven to be false.
Wait...did the Hill just claim the DNC had nothing to do with the murder of their computer-expert staffer, Seth Rich?  Gosh, last I heard the cops had no idea who killed Rich.  Yet the Hill implies that the mysterious murder--which cops billed as a "botched robbery attempt" despite the fact that the so-called "robbers" didn't take Rich's wallet, Rolex, jewelry or cell phone, but just shot him.

Yeah, I'd say that was a really botched robbery.

So not only does the Hill imply that Rich's bizarre murder has been solved, but also that the killers gave statements totally absolving the DNC of any role in it.

Bullshit.  Total fabrication by the Hill.  The murder is still unsolved.  And even if the cops managed to find the killers, what are the chances they'd simply spontaneously say "Oh and by the way, the Democrat Committee had, like, nothing whatsoever to do with this murder.  Really."

But when rags like the Hill or Politico or Slate or Mother Jones or HuffPo publish totally false crap like this, the average low-info Democrat takes it as true.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.  "But hey, there's no such thing as fake news, citizen.  At least not from your friends here at the Mainstream Media.  Trust us."

Jesse Watters should go to coastal college campuses and ask students whether they agree with the statement by President Obama that the 19 Muslims who flew hijacked passenger jets into the two World Trade Center buildings were understandably trying to retaliate against the U.S. for invading Iraq.

Let me guess...


Thumbnail

Actually this person just filed to run for U.S. senate on  the Democrat ticket. 

The next day CNN had a poll showing her leading the generic Republican by 30 percent.

Sunday, January 14

Leftists and their Lying Media cunningly conflate "legal immigrants" with "illegal immigrants"


Wanna see how cunningly the Left is working to take over control of America? 

Take a look at the commercially-printed sign below:  "Health care for ALL includes immigrants."  Hey, who can argue that naturalized citizens--"immigrants"--have all the rights of natural-born citizens?  (Except for the right to be president, and even that seems to have been quietly ignored when it serves Democrats.)


Oh wait:  I think that when the sign makers use the term "immigrants" what they REALLY mean is illegal immigrants.  And that the ILLEGALS have a right to taxpayer-funded health care, because of the existence of dat moronic piece of socialist crap called Obamacare.  Hell of a difference.

Oh wait:  When the Democrats passed the 1200-page piece of crap called Obamacare, the actual, y'know, WORDING said taxpayer-subsidized health care would only be given to American citizens--not to illegal aliens.  The Dems were FORCED to put that language in or else it would have been obvious to everyone that the emperor's real goal was to bring in a few million illegals and give THEM free health care too.

Dat would have made the piece of crap harder to pass, eh?  Even the traitorous, socialist Democrat congresswhores would have lost their precious, oh-so-lucrative congressional seats if they'd had to defend THAT.  So they specifically said only American citizens were eligible.

But now, comrade?  Hey, the actual WORDS aren't really binding, not important.  What matters is how much we can get away with.  What we can get a friendly, unelected liberal judge to rule.

Cool, huh? 

Oh, you're skeptical?  Well, Obama unilaterally changed hard dates specified in the actual wording of the law to delay the start dates of punitively-costly portions of the law, to keep voters from realizing what a piece of crap the law was, thus to greatly improve the chances of Dems being elected to congress.

Cool, eh?  The actual words in a published, passed law don't mean shit when you have a brilliant emperor who can change the law by decree.  I mean, who needs congress when you've got a pen?

Just like he did when he gave de-facto amnesty to 800,000 illegal alien youths.  And then, more insulting yet, gave them the authority to bring in their illegal parents too.  (By a miracle, a federal judge ruled that that was way too much overreach, and shot it down.)

Wow, it sure is great to be a Democrat, eh?  Can you imagine how the Lying Media would scream if a Republican president simply decided to ignore laws he didn't like?

Democrat party finds its new face as popular figure files for U.S. senate

The Democratic party has found the new leader it's been looking for:  Bradley ("call me Chelsea") Manning.

Yes folks, the Army private who grabbed and leaked something like 750,000 secret cables from his desk in a war theater has filed for the U.S. senate as a Democrat, in Maryland.

I can totally understand how Bradley/Chelsea is the perfect candidate to be the new face of Democrats.  I mean, the leaking of the secret cables alone has to make Bradley/Chelsea someone Dems would hold in the  highest esteem.  And that's before we even mention the sex-change.

Dems love transgenders, and this guy/girl has the added cachet of having actually been an American soldier, which makes the big F-U to deplorables doubly delicious (from their standpoint).

Democrat senate leader Chuck Schumer was quoted as saying "Because the Democrat party always supports our veterans, we're solidly behind Chelsea. You go girl!"

The vice-chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, Keith Ellison, was also enthusiastic about the filing:  "We believe Chelsea's conversion was caused by the stress of combat in that terrible war against our Muslim brothers.  Of course Islam has points of difference with gays, but now that Chelsea has made the transition to her true gender, we can support her without reservation."

Many news agencies initially thought that the announcement had come from comedienne Chelsea Handler, but any confusion was quickly cleared up when the comedienne issued a tweet complaining that Manning's sex change was actually "cultural appropriation" and should be condemned as mere opportunism.

Handler's tweet triggered an avalanche of criticism from the LGBTQ community, blasting her for not totally accepting the fact that women don't have to be born with female parts.  Handler quickly deleted the tweet and apologized profusely for her unenlightened earlier missive, claiming she was suffering from a head cold and thus wasn't responsible for anything she may have tweeted.

Manning came out as transgender after being sentenced by a military court to 35 years in a military prison for leaking the secret cables, but weeks before the end of his final term in office, preezy Barack Obama granted Manning clemency after the former Army clerk had served just 3 years.  The pardon was cheered by anti-military activists and transgender advocates, who pushed for Obama to run for a third term.
===

Seriously, people: If you'd written this as a screenplay 9 years ago, no one in their right mind would have believed it.

It's also telling that in CNN's masterfully worded story on this, they didn't mention that Manning only served 3 years of the 35-year sentence--a fact that would have put Obama's pardon in more accurate perspective.

Rule of law, baby.  If an anti-American president wanted to encourage troops to leak secrets and defect to the enemy, pardoning Manning from a 35-year sentence, and ransoming deserter Bowe Bergdahl would be a cunning way to do it.

Are some countries shitholes? Take a look at once-civilized South Africa

The Lying Media have their knickers in a twist because Trump said some countries are shitholes.

So does the Lying Media think that statement isn't true?  Oh wait, they refuse to answer that.

So to get an answer to this question let's look to the august, respected BBC.  Specifically, to a piece they ran in January of 2013 on the outrageous incidence of rape in...South Africa, where 60,000 rapes are reported every year.  And some experts think the real number is closer to 600,000.

According to the article this wave of assaults on women doesn't seem to have provoked much action.  Instead the elites seem to be baffled as to the cause:  Is it due to poverty?  Drugs?  Apparently it's just too complex for the elites of South Africa to reason out!  As one resident commented, "We have to keep on getting the message out that rape is totally unacceptable."  Cuz some cultures aren't clear on that, perhaps?

Another resident of SA commented, "Now we don't even report it to the police unless there are ghastly injuries to show too. We just carry on, shell-shocked, because...the attackers wouldn't be arrested and charged if we reported them.  It's so widespread now, people are only shocked when it happens to children."

This apparent utter bafflement as to cause seems oddly familiar, like American leftists complaining about prison populations rising "even as most crime seems to be decreasing"--and professing to utterly unaware that putting criminals in prison just might have some relationship to the drop in most crime.

Cuz that's just unpossible, citizen.  The idea that taking career criminals off the street might reduce crime rates is unthinkable to leftists.  And even less possible to Democrats and liberals is the idea that the fear of being caught and jailed for several years might deter people contemplating a serious criminal act.

Simply unpossible, citizen.

So back to the tidal wave of rape in South Africa--which at one time was a very succesful, sophisticated nation.  When the former white-run government handed all power over to the communist, black-run African National Congress, the crime rate went exponential.  And for some unexplained reason the police stopped taking much interest in solving many crimes.

In many cases, just before the trial of known bad guys was to begin, the entire evidence file on the case would mysteriously vanish, causing the state to drop charges.  It became...routine.  As did powerful government officials looting the treasury.  Essentially the government stopped enforcing the law.

It didn't take long for even the dimmest criminals to realize that crime was now essentially risk-free.

But of course this could not possibly have any effect on the number of crimes committed, right?

So...since all enlightened people agree that women shouldn't be raped, perhaps we've found a country that liberals will agree is a "shit-hole."  And if so, what in the world could be the cause?  Poverty?  Illegal drugs?

It's a mystery.

Wait, my bad:  Liberals will never agree that any nation is a shithole--other than the U.S, maybe.  They just can't admit that some nations work better than others.  Cuz once they're forced to admit that, then the next question has to be:  Why is that?

You can see why they refuse to get into that question.

"Would you rather live in Norway or Haiti?" Leftist opinion-shaper: "I couldn't say."

Sometimes asking a lying Leftist just the right question gets them to see they're liars--resulting in a faabulous meltdown.

And in a few instances when this is captured on live television, the results are spectacular!  As caught in the clip below.

The setup: The virtue-signalling folks in the Lying Media have been clutching their pearls over claims by Democrats that Trump asked Dems "Why are we letting so many people from shithole countries in?"  The Dems were having a gloatfest, because responsible national leaders simply don't say such crude things, eh?

So live on CNN, nominal conservative Rich Lowry was making the point that yes, there really are countries that could most concisely be described as shitholes.  Liberal Joan Walsh was outraged--that was utterly, horribly xenophobic, raaacist, et cetera.  At which point Lowry was inspired to ask
"Where would you rather live: Norway or Haiti?"
Walsh replied,
"I couldn't say.  I've never been to either one."

When Lowry pressed the point, she snapped "It's none of your business!"

Folks, this is the clearest demonstration of the dishonesty of the Left, and why you can't have an honest, productive debate with a Leftist:  When you ask 'em a question that TOTALLY destroys their argument, they simply refuse to answer honestly--or at all.  It's the debate equivalent of the Leftist putting his/her fingers in her ears and shouting "Lalalalalala-- I can't hear you!!"



Remember this little demonstration next time a Leftist says up is down, freedom is slavery, black is white, the U.S. is evil, Donald Trump is Satan or that all countries and all religions are totally equal..

"I couldn't say."  Amazing.  And revealing.

Art imitates life

Thumbnail

Headline stories from Lying Media: "We're all gonna die cuz Trump is prez!"

Lying Media headline: "Will Trump kill Net Neutrality?"
  Translation: "Life as you know it is about to end, because Trump!"

Lying Media headline: "Trump tax cut is the most awful, heartless thing EVER!  You're all gonna die!"
   Sub-head: "The only way to save yourselves is by demanding his removal via the 25th amendment"

Lying Media headline: "German chancellor Angela Merkel is now the leader of the free world"
   Sub-head: "Even a former communist who's invited a million immigrants into her country is better than the eeebil Trumpster!"
   Key 'graf:
"The title [leader of the free world] requires the President to be committed to the values of liberal democracy. But unlike his predecessors...it is already clear that Trump has no such inclinations. He is heading, at terrifying speed, in the opposite direction."

(Actual headline run by Politico: "Leader of the free world meets Donald Trump"  Really, they ran that.  And the actual content of the story is--well for starters, horribly anti-American.  But no surprise.)

Lying Media headline: "Trump plans to hit innocent North Korea with first-strike nuke attack!"
    Sub-head: "Wants to start World War 3, incinerate your children!"
    Sub-head: "U.S. intel agencies all agree that the only threat to use nukes is from Trump!  Norks innocent, only built nukes as defense against U.S. invasion ordered by insane Trump!"

(Actual headline run by Dem mouthpiece The Hill: "This is how Trump could start World War 3."
Really, they actually published that.)

Lying Media headline: "Hollywood star says we'd be better off with Pence as prez"
    Sub-head: "Black star sez Pence is 'a simpleton and a puppet'"

(Actual headline run by The Hill: "'The Wire' star: 'I'd prefer a president Pence because he's a simpleton and a puppet"  Really, they actually published that.)

(Actual headline run by Leftist propagandist group the "Center for American Progress:"  "Don't let Trump start a war with North Korea!"   Really, they actually published that.)

Starting to understand yet?  Obama wasn't kidding when he said he wanted to "fundamentally transform this country."  And with the shocking loss by Hilliary--endlessly touted by the LYing Media as "the most qualified person ever to run for president!" the Lying Mainstream Media are doing everything they can to remove Trump from office and regain control of all branches of government.

I don't doubt some ordinary citizens who vote Democrat are probably nice.  But the Democrat party and its leaders are the enemy of everything you hold dear.  They want open borders and higher taxes, so the government can give "free" stuff to all Dem voters.  They hate free markets, capitalism, Christians and open debate.  They want the government to run health care, among many other things.

Read the articles linked above and you'll start to understand.  Then if you don't like the Democrat leaders' plans, perhaps we can figure out how to fight back.

Saturday, January 13

U.S. facing a far bigger crisis than government shutdown next Friday night

Students who've been enjoying the break between semesters may not know that in just six days the nation will reach a watershed, the outcome of which is likely to change the course of history, by permanently changing the nature of the United States.

Specifically, for roughly the last year the federal government has been running on a "continuing resolution," in which everything is funded at the previous year's level unless otherwise specified.  This gives the government the authority to borrow money (by selling T-bills) to keep things running.

This authority expires next Friday at midnight.  If congress doesn't pass another CR by then, the government theoretically has to shut down--though in reality only "non-essential" services are stopped.

When this happened under the reign of emperor Obama, the lousy son of a bitch communist Muslim motherf***er ordered park service employees to put barricades around totally outdoor monuments in DC--like the WW2 memorial--and to bar veterans and other visitors from crossing the line--even though the monument in question is totally outdoors and has no moving parts or secret passages or electricity that could be messed with.  He was determined to punish veterans and tourists, showing 'em not to mess with his magnificence.  Period.

Uh-huh.  Just another example of the anti-American asshole's disastrous reign.

But I digress.

You'd think passing a resolution to keep the government running would be pretty damn straightforward, eh?  But there's a big problem, called DACA.  That was emperor Obama's unconstitutional executive order giving young aliens who entered the U.S. illegally permission to stay here forever. 

Unconstitutional as hell, but no one had the balls to impeach the son of a bitch.

Trump promised to end this de-facto amnesty-by-decree by Obama.  But every f'n Democrat congresswhore wants all 800,000 of the DACA people (the Dems keep calling them "kids" for emotional effect; they're way older than kids, but the Media never points that out) to be given citizenship, and then to be allowed to bring in all their relatives--a sweet deal for the Dems called "chain migration."

The Dems want this because they see it as an instant path to winning control of both congress and the presidency for the next century, since they know 99% of illegal immigrants will vote Democrat.

They're counting on winning this so much that former Hilliary staffer Jen Palmieri recently wrote a paper laying this out for party bigwigs.  They want this to happen.

But since Republicans have a majority of seats in the House, it's virtually impossible for them to pull off citizenship for the illegals on a straight-up vote.  Which brings us to the crisis:

Passing a resolution to keep the government running requires a majority of both chambers.  Not a problem in the House.  But in the senate, a handful of RINOs say they support legalization of the illegal DACA aliens.  And at last look the Repubs had a one-vote majority in the senate.

Now you can see how the problem is shaping up:  Assuming all Democrat senators vote the way their party demands, then to keep the government from shutting down Repubs can't stand any defections.  So if one or two RINOs vote with the Dems against a continuing resolution, it forces the government to shut down.

Right now you're probably wondering why any Republican would threaten to vote against a bill that, if not passed, triggers a government shutdown. 

The answer is to extort Trump to surrender on his promises to end DACA, end chain migration and build the border wall--all items strongly supported by Republicans in the last election.

This is a no-lose proposition for the Democrats, and they damn sure know it.  Because if senators McCain, Flake or Graham--all of whom have said they strongly support citizenship for the illegals--say they'll only vote to keep the government operating if Trump promises to surrender on the 3 key promises just mentioned, then Trump only has two choices:  Agree, or veto the CR.

If he agrees, Republicans will lose their majority in both houses this fall.  If he vetoes the CR, Dems and their allies in the Lying Mainstream Media will blame Trump for the ensuing government shutdown.  Which immediately wipes all the fabulous news about the economy off the headlines--and makes it likely that he won't be re-elected, and that Repubs will lose their majority in both branches of congress.

Now:  This analysis isn't esoteric, mysterious, DC-insider stuff.  It's basic politics, easy to deduce.  So surely someone on Trump's team has already seen this one coming.  And hopefully they've figured out how to get around it.  Cuz I don't see how the Repubs can avoid making one of two bad choices.

The time to have blown up this trap was when the emperor violated the Constitution by unilaterally ordering federal employees not to enforce valid U.S. immigration law.  The Repubs should have taken this to the supreme court right away instead of letting it waste years in the lower courts.

So Obama's illegal act, in concert with the failure of a RINO-led congress to stand up to the Dems and pass budgets as they should have, rather than caving in and passing continuing resolutions, has set this one.

Good luck.

How the free market found a workaround for Obamacare--and how Obama killed it


To know the full depth to which the Democrats have tried to control every aspect of your life with the abomination called Obamacare, you need to hear the story below:

Emperor Obama promised that Obamacare would save the average family $2,500 a year on health insurance.  This turned out to be one of a long list of whopping lies, as families soon learned.  Despite Obama's endlessly-repeated promise that "If you like your policy you can keep it," millions of Americans had their policies cancelled--because they didn't comply with the thousands of ridiculous rules the emperor's minions wrote to enact the new law.

For example, every Obamacare policy had to provide free birth control to the holder--regardless of age or sex.  That sort of idiocy.

Most policies had huge deductibles--$10,000 or more--meaning they wouldn't pay a cent until the family had spent that much out of their own pocket in a single year.  And after the first year, premiums started climbing by 50 percent or more per year.

And keep in mind that this law demanded that everyone had to buy a "compliant" policy, or else pay a penalty on your income tax.  (The supreme court had decided that the penalty was actually a tax, even though Obama's own lawyers had argued vehemently before the court that it was NOT a tax.)

Democrats never imagined that any company would continue to sell health policies that didn't comply with all the Dems thousands of rules, because anyone who bought such a policy would STILL have to pay the penalty.  Besides, ruling by decree that companies couldn't sell any other kind of policy might have clued even the dumbest Democrat congresswhore that this was an overreach.

As a result, clever, budget-strapped American families started buying policies that were "catastrophic insurance" only--you paid for regular care, and the policy only paid if you had a really major illness.  These policies were routine before Obamacare, so companies knew their economics very well.  As a result, they cost far less than "compliant" policies that included all the lard the bureaucrats demanded to please snowflakes--like sex-change counseling, for example.

Americans who bought these policies still had to pay the penalty, of course, but even after the penalty they still saved thousands of dollars per year compared to buying an Obamacare policy.   Brilliant.

But bureaucrats don't like to be outsmarted, so you can guess how they reacted, right?  In October 2016 the Obama administration issued a rule limiting so-called "non-compliant plans" to a three-month life, rather than the usual year. 

The rule was specifically designed to force these people back onto the ObamaCare "health-insurance exchanges."  Or as Obama's minions at Health and Human Services cleverly worded it,
 "The proposed changes will help strengthen the [ObamaCare] risk pool by ensuring that short-term limited duration plans are used only as intended, to fill truly temporary gaps in coverage."
Wait...the rule didn't limit "short-term" plans, but full year plans.  So this is blowing smoke.  In reality the Obama administration wanted to kill the clever, efficient, market-derived solution to their overpriced, crappy, mandatory policies. 

Can't have anything that results in government "solutions" competing with the free market, eh citizen?  Cuz that might show how bad the....wait, better not finish that sentence.

Similarly, before Obamacare many trade and professional organizations--real estate agents, court reporters, small business associations and the like--would negotiate lower rates from big health-insurance companies.  Obamacare made that illegal--because forcing everyone to get insurance as individuals would increase revenue from the "risk pool."

Trump has proposed to eliminate both these regulations.  Good deal for Americans, so naturally Democrat congresswhores are screaming like stuck pigs. 

But remember, citizen:  The Democrat party is always looking out for your interests.  They'll protect you from the confusion caused by those nasty tax cuts or unfair bonuses only handed out to employees of certain companies.  They'll make sure all taxes are paid by American corporations!  Yeh, dat's it.  Make dem eeeebil bidnessmen pay!

Okay, now for an example from before the emperor.  In fact from before any of today's college students were born.

Back when the feds first made seatbelts mandatory, surveys found--to their amazement--that many people weren't using 'em.  So the federal department of transportation made a RULE that every car sold in the U.S. had to have a circuit that would prevent the car from starting unless all seatbelts were buckled.

There!  That'll get those stubborn dummies to do as we demand!

Of course that required all seatbelts to have circuitry to tell when they were connected.  But that only adds a few bucks to the cost of the car, so....  And of course eventually one of those microswitches or wires will break, which means...your car won't start.

Okay, so a few people a year get inconvenienced.  So what?  Small price to pay to get people to wear seatbelts.

Can you guess what happened next? 

Sure you can:  People got around the circuit by simply leaving the seatbelts connected all the time and stuffing the connected belts down the seat crack.

Bureaucrats were furious!  So they made a NEW rule, requiring that all cars sold in the U.S. had to have a circuit that was smart enough to keep people from doing this.  In other words, it had to detect that the seatbelt was connected after a person's fanny hit the seat.

Clever, eh?

Of course that meant adding 1) weight sensors in the seats; 2) more wires; and 3) a relay to ensure that the weight sensor closed before the belt was connected.  But this only added a few bucks to the cost, so....  And critics pointed out that the more complex it got, the more people would find their cars refusing to start.  Or how about when a driver put a bag of groceries or a briefcase in the passenger seat, and then was surprised when the car didn't start?

Now:  As a pilot I'm all for seatbelts.  The reason for the story is that this pattern by bureaucrats is repeated again and again, but the bureaucrats rarely learn to anticipate the workaround.  And the public always falls for the next politician who proposes a faaabulous program to do...whatever.

Two honest leftist journalists show their local officials are total hypocrites


I was amazed to find there still seem to be half a dozen honest left-wing journalists in the U.S.

In Portland, Oregon, you put your trash out on the curb for pickup.  For years cops looking for evidence of criminal activity have gone through the trash of suspects, without a warrant.  The fact that courts have ruled this is an illegal search didn't give them any pause, because they knew the mayor and police chief wouldn't prosecute.

Last year the cops wanted to get rid of a female cop on the force, so they pulled a "trash grab," and fired her based on the findings.  She contested the firing based on the illegal search, but the local DA and police chief and mayor were all "Oh no, citizen, this is totally legal!  So shut up!"

Well...a couple of left-but-honest reporters thought that was over the line.

The "Willamette Week" is the kind of free, left-wing, alt-hippie weekly paper found in most cities.  After the mayor, DA and chief stridently claimed that trash out on the curb was public property, a couple of its "reporters" decided to see if the three officials would feel the same way if someone decided to analyze their trash.

And you can guess what happened:  the chief issued a press release complaining that reporters had gone through "my personal garbage at my home."  Wait, chief--didn't you say just a week earlier that your trash on the curb was public property, so by inference this was perfectly legal?

Clearly, no understanding of hypocrisy in this one.

The city's female mayor went nuclear. When we confessed that we had swiped her recycling, she summoned us to her chambers. "She wants you to bring the trash--and bring the name of your attorney," said her press secretary.

Wait--how can you demand that the reporters bring your trash back?  After all, you relinquished it when you put it on the curb, right?  Or at least that's what you claimed was true earlier, you lying bitch.  Just kidding then, were ya?

Her office issued this statement: "I consider Willamette Week's actions in this matter to be potentially illegal and absolutely unscrupulous and reprehensible.  I will consider all my legal options in response to their actions."

In contrast, DA Mike Schrunk was almost playful when we owned up to nosing through his kitchen scraps. "Do I have to pay for this week's garbage collection?" he joked. 

Anyway, funny stuff:  Politicians are perfectly happy to steal your stuff, illegally, but squeal like stuck pigs when the same thing is done to them.  

There's a lesson here.  It's like the Dem pols in congress who force you to accept the settlement of criminal illegal aliens in your town, when they'd never dream of letting the same people move into their neighborhood.  Or who force you to buy crappy, overpriced Obamacare health insurance while exempting themselves from the same legal demand.

Funny how pols always work that way, eh?

Congrats to the honest reporters at the Willamette Week.  Seems left and right can agree on a few things after all.

Another day, another Obamacare health-insurance "co-op" goes bankrupt


The Left/Democrats/"progressives" keep telling us that running a "business" is easy.

After all, if stupid "deplorables" in flyover country can run businesses, how hard can it be, right?

It should be even easier when politicians give your "business" $77 MILLION in what the pols amusingly call "loans"--except there's no recourse, no collateral, no provision for enforcing repayment--you know, all those standard terms all businesspeople routinely negotiate with lenders, right?

But don't worry, citizen:  We Democrat leaders assure you we have appointed, like, totally the smahtest people on the planet to be the executives of this "business."  And of course we had to offer top-dollar, six-figure salaries to get such talent, so you can be sure it'll be a rousing suc---

Well, since you asked:  the salaries of the top four execs totalled $1.5 million per year.  But totally worth it, cuz they're really really good at running such a...

Wait, what?  You say it went bankrupt after losing $20 million per year?  That's unpossible, citizen!  Cuz it should have been SO easy--what with all that sweet, sweet taxpayer money we gave loaned 'em.

Yeah, hard to figure how that could have happened, eh?

The entity we're talking about here was called "New Mexico Health Connections," and it was what the brilliant Democrats who rammed Obamacare into law (without a single Republican vote) called a "healthcare co-op."

The Dems who drafted Obamacare called these things "co-ops" to show you they were, like, totally non-profit.  Cuz profits are bad.

It failed for the same reason all the state "co-ops" have failed:  the "business model" was crap.

See, in order to get economically-ignorant Dem voters to support Obamacare, Obama and the Dems had to promise Americans that the scheme plan would cut the cost of their health-insurance.  The figure Obama himself used was that the average family would save a staggering $2500 PER YEAR!  Yay!!!!

And even better, not only did Dems promise it would lower the cost of health insurance, this brilliant bullshit scheme program would do this while giving "free" health insurance to the "30 million people who couldn't afford health insurance under the old, rapacious, cruel system run by eeeebil corporations.  Yay!!!

Some working Americans who weren't Democrats were a bit...um...skeptical.  How did the Obama gruberment believe it could give "free" health insurance to 30 million illegal aliens poor Americans while also lowering the cost of health insurance for everyone?

Simple, citizen:  By eliminating the profit motive.  And "economies of scale."  "Bending the cost curve."

That's right, citizen: See, according to Obama and the Dems, profit is the reason why America is so evil.  And corporations have to make a profit.  So if you eliminate profit--as the "co-ops" would--this immense saving would, like, totally cover the cost of giving "free health insurance" to 30 million people too poor to buy it under the eeeebil current system.

Hey, to a low-information person all of this sounds SO reasonable!  Sounds true so it must BE true, eh?

So how did that work out?

Just like folks with any knowledge of math and economics predicted:  It didn't.

The New Mexico "co-op" is the 25th to go bankrupt.  As predicted by the people who actually do know how to do math 'n stuff.

So what can we learn from this relatively tiny ($77 million-plus) disaster?
  1. When Democrats want to expand their power or win votes, they lie to get ill-considered programs passed.
  2. When you either don't analyze the cost of a proposed policy correctly, or do and simply ignore the result cuz it doesn't help your case, you get disaster every time.
  3. "When something sounds too good to be true, that's usually because it's a lie."
  4. Maybe running a *successful* business is harder than the Democrats/Leftists claim.
  5. When the top Democrat in the House says "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it," that's probably a good clue that she has no idea, but will vote for it anyway, cuz...Democrats.
  6. Maybe next time Dems propose some program that seems to give something for nothing, voters will listen to people who actually know how to run a business and do honest math, instead of some pencil-neck PhD named Jonathan Gruber, who bragged that they were "only able to pass the thing because of the stupidity of the American people."
Normally I'd get a kick out of exposing the utter dishonesty, stupidity and incompetence of the Left, their Democrat allies and their Lying Media.  But in this case the harm done to the economy and the huge increase in national debt was so great that it takes a lot of the fun away.

Hopefully the billions in bonuses and hundreds of billions in higher stock values will take some of the sting out.  And of course you know who to thank for those things, right?

Yep:  Barack Hussein Obama, who set all this up with his faaabulous policies.  But don't worry, citizen:  our media will ensure that no one will make the mistake of giving that dumb ol' Trump guy any credit.  Cuz he called some shithole third-world countries shitholes. 

The nerve of that guy!

Friday, January 12

Denver-area principal pressures 14-yr-old student who claimed abuse by teacher. 4 yrs later...


When a 14-year-old student at Prairie Middle School near Denver told school officials that one of her teachers--34-year-old Brian Vasquez--was sexually abusing her, principal David Gonzalez, assistant principal Adrienne Macintosh and counselor Cheryl Somers quickly circled the wagons to protect one of their own.

State law requires that school employees report such allegations to the police, but instead Arapahoe County prosecutors say the three questioned the student in the presence of the teacher she'd accused of molesting her.  They told her Vasquez was a “valued teacher”and that her accusations could ruin his family and career. 
From left: principal Gonzalez, asst principal McIntosh, accused teacher Vasquez
Browbeaten by the trio, prosecutors say the girl retracted her claims.  The officials made her apologize to Vasquez and hug him.  To add insult to injury, the principal eventually suspended the girl for what he called false accusations.

Fortunately some public employees not in the school system took a closer look, and Vasquez was arrested last August after he confessed multiple sex offenses to Aurora police. He faces 37 counts related to sexual offenses against the original complainant as well as other female students, spanning four years.
Vasquez’s abuse of students continued for years after the initial accusation.  It only stopped in August when a parent of another girl went to Aurora police and reported what they suspected was a sexual relationship between Vasquez and their daughter.  When police questioned Vasquez he admitted to abusing multiple students, included the girl who had been suspended back in 2013.

According to testimony at the preliminary hearing, Vasquez’s sexual contact with teen girls escalated after the girl’s 2013 accusations, and included raping a 15-year-old girl in 2016 and 2017, and exchanging graphic photos with a 15-year-old in 2015.

The principal, assistant principal and counselor who covered for Vasquez and decided not to tell police or the department of human services are also being charged.  The indictment said the staffers told the grand jury they didn’t remember the first accusations against Vasquez.  However,  prosecutors noted that all three staffers had signed letters regarding the student's suspension.

The preliminary hearing was filled with graphic testimony about Vasquez’s relationships with the girls. At times police struggled to keep the numerous acts and multiple victims straight.  Much of the illegal sexual contact happened inside the school, according to testimony.

Now:  Everyone knows there are bad people in every group.  The perp is to blame here, but aside from that is the question of why the presumably sane, rational principal and vice and the counselor would defend the guy without following the law and reporting him.  What made them take the perp's side against the student?

Scientific American: Climate Change helped trigger Iranian protests--seriously!


If you aren't quite sure that the guardians of the gate to scientific publication and fame are totally nutball leftists, consider the statement below, from the once-prestigious mag Scientific American.  According to whoever sent the tweet, climate change helped trigger the massive anti-mullah protests in Iran.
Yep, when you look for the reason tens of thousands of Iranians have taken to the streets to protest their repressive Islamic tyranny, the first cause most people think of is "climate change."

At least that's what the elite Leftist morons at this mag say.  And you should definitely believe 'em, citizen, cuz...they're scientists.

How can half the public believe Seth Rich was shot in a botched robbery?

For the past 18 months I've been astonished that half of the American public seem to buy the utter bullshit Narrative that DNC computer tech Seth Rich was killed in an attempted robbery, since no attempt was made to take a single thing of value from him, either before or after his killers shot him.

Finally someone explained how half the public can be so gullible:  To people who believe that a dude putting on a dress makes him a woman, it doesn't seem unusual at all.

How was the DNC able to "rebuff" the FBI's "request" to examine their server?

From the propagandists at CNN:
"The Democratic National Committee rebuffed a request from the FBI to examine its computer services after it was allegedly hacked by Russia during the 2016 election, a senior law enforcement official told CNN Thursday."
Let me get this straight:  The DNC claimed the Russians hacked their email server, and immediately began spinning the story into "The Russians did it to 'influence the election"--implying that the Russians wanted to help Trump become president.

If true, this would be a national security issue of the first magnitude.  An honest FBI couldn't possibly ignore such an incendiary charge, but would have swooped down on DNC headquarters and seized their f'n server to find out how it was done, what tools the alleged hackers used to breach the Dems security and "influence" the election.  But instead, as the skilled wordsmiths at CNN artfully put it, the DNC simply "rebuffed a request from the FBI" to let their computer experts examine the supposedly-hacked server.

And keep in mind that the allegedly-Russian-hacked server is the main basis for the "collusion" claim.

Ask yourself this:  If the Russians had really hacked the DNC server, as the Democrats have shriekingly been claiming for the last 18 months, how in the world could the DNC have "rebuffed" the FBI "request"?  An honest FBI (yeah, I know) wouldn't have simply asked to examine the allegedly-hacked server--which was the Dems' supposed evidence that the Russians had tried to throw the election to Trump.

The obvious answer is that the FBI didn't want to examine the server--because they knew the "hacked by the Russians" story was false. 

How?  Because they'd been working with and for the Clinton campaign since before she announced that she was running.  And the DNC was totally run by Hilliary.

The NSA--also working to elect Hilliary--would have been able to determine in a matter of minutes that no files totalling the size of the download had been transmitted over the net.  Several hundred gigabytes were in fact downloaded from the DNC server, but to a local usb storage device--a "thumb drive"--not transmitted over the Net. 

The FBI's apparent lack of interest in examining the server only makes sense if they already knew the answer.

The whole story may be about to come out

The plot to steal the last election may be starting to unravel for Democrats, Obama flunkies and Clinton minions.

It appears that six U.S. intelligence agencies conspired to obtain illegal wiretaps of President Trump’s associates, and possibly the candidate himself:
  • Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA’s Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates, by "unmasking" Americans picked up in phone calls tapped using FISA powers.
  • The six agencies collaborated with the British spy agency GCHQ.
  • The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of two FISA-Court warrant applications by the FBI seeking permission to wiretap Trump associates.
  • GCHQ didn't work from the UK but from NSA’s headquarters in Fort Meade, MD, under the direct supervision of our NSA.
  • The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
  • Obama's Justice Department and FBI set up the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya to make it appear that Trump’s associates were working with the Russians.
  • Following that meeting GCHQ began wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner.
  • Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya had been considered such a security risk that before the meeting she'd been banned from entering the U.S.  But just before the meeting U.S. attorney Preet Bharara personally cleared her to enter the U.S.  His office hasn't explained this reversal.
  • It is illegal for U.S. agencies to intercept phone conversations and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States without a warrant.  They tried FISA but were turned down.
  • Witnesses have told the House committee that the FBI paid Christopher Steele, who compiled the anti-Trump dossier, at least $100,000.  Significantly, when the House committee asked FBI director Wray and assistant director McCabe to confirm this claim, both refused to answer.
At the risk of pointing out what should be obvious to anyone with an IQ over 80, if the claim was false, don't you think Wray and McCabe would have said that?

Veselnitskaya had been barred from entering the United Sates due to her alleged connections to the Russian FSB (the modern replacement of the cold-war-era KGB).  But just days before the June meeting Veselnitskaya was given a visa to enter the United States from Preet Bharara, who at the time was the U.S. Attorney for the southern district of New York.

Federal law enforcement sources said Bharara was following the orders of Obama's Attorney-general Loretta Lynch.  As far as is known, the only purpose of Veselnitskaya's entry into the United States was the meeting with Trump associates, federal sources said.

The illegal wiretaps started long before Steele’s dossier.  Federal sources said the wiretaps on Trump insiders began in late 2015, almost a year before the 2016 election. The first targets were Flynn and Carter Page, sources confirmed. When no smoking gun was recovered from those initial taps, U.S. intelligence agencies moved to broaden the scope through their newly-formed alliance.

Intelligence garnered from the British eavesdropping, which again was merely a front for the NSA, was then used in August 2016 to secure a legitimate FISA warrant on Manafort, Trump Jr. and Kushner. That warrant was issued on or about September, 2016, federal sources confirm.

It was the third time the cabal of U.S. intelligence agencies sought a FISA warrant for the Trump associates and this time it was approved--presumably because the agencies were now able to claim that "independent" evidence had been acquired that showed Trump associates conspiring with a foreign government.

FBI sources said finally obtaining the FISA warrant was important because it provided the agencies cover for previous illegal wiretapping.  Of course they knew that if Hilliary won, this would never be discovered.  But in the astronomically unlikely event Trump won, it could be.  Thus they needed an "insurance policy" to ensure this didn't happen.

Virtually all the Lying Media is avoiding this story like the plague.  Except for Howie Carr at the Boston Herald, who tells us this:

    The meeting between Natalia Veselnitskaya and the Trump reps occurred on June 9, 2016.
    Guess who Veselnitskaya had dinner with on June 8, 2016?
    Answer: By an astonishing coincidence, Glenn Simpson--the guy who was paid $1 million to produce the anti-Trump dossier.
    And guess who Veselnitskaya had dinner with on June 10, 2016--the day after the meeting?
    By double-astonishing coincidence, it was...Glenn Simpson again.
    When a GOP staffer asked Simpson about those amazing coincidences, Simpson replied that he had no idea the Russian attorney had met with the Trumps until he read it in the papers.
     He really said that.  Just coincidence.
     You can’t make this stuff up — unlike the dodgy dossier, which they could, and did.


Just coincidence, citizen.  Just like the "accidental" meeting between Bill Clinton and Obama's corrupt attorney-general Loretta Lynch, in her government jet on the parking ramp in Phoenix

A meeting the FBI initially denied had occurred, then tried to suppress all emails about their preparation for.  Which itself shows the obvious lie about an "accidental meeting."

Just a coincidence, like the murder of DNC tech staffer Seth Rich, which the FBI and cops flatly stated was a "botched robbery," despite fact that the so-called robbers didn't take his wallet, jewelry, watch or cell phone.  Nothing taken at all.  (The coincidence is that Rich was killed just after the DNC claimed their computer was "hacked by the Russian government," and Rich would have been the point man to question about that.) 

And it's just a coincidence that all the security cameras on the intersection near where Rich was killed have vanished.

It's also just a coincidence that the DC cops claimed that the body cams on every DC cop who responded to the scene malfunctioned.

Also a coincidence that the DNC refused to allow the FBI's cybercrime experts to examine their allegedly-hacked server for evidence of actual, y'know, hacking.

Ask yourself:  Who benefitted from all these coincidences?

H/T Truepundit.   And the Conservative Treehouse.