Sunday, October 22

University "philosopher" claims having kids is awful...but not on ecological grounds

In 2006 a professor of philosophy published a book called Better Never to Have Been. pushing the idea that simply being born is always a serious harm.  He claimed that because life is often painful, and unavoidably ends in death--which is also often painful--people shouldn't have children.

Seriously, he wrote a book pushing this.
People should never, under any circumstance, procreate.  Even if life isn’t pure suffering, coming into existence can still be sufficiently harmful to render procreation wrong. Life is simply much worse than most people think....
...and there are powerful drives to affirm life even when life is terrible.  People might be living lives that were actually not worth starting without recognising that this is the case.

The suggestion that life is worse than most people think is often met with indignation. How dare I tell you how poor the quality of your life is?  Surely the quality of your life is as good as it seems to you.
He goes on to claim that if you believe your life has more good than bad, you're naive.

Okay, I know "crazy" afflicts a certain percentage of people in every walk of life, but geez, what a loon.  At least that's my take.

This explains so much!

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1d595a07eb4816da39bcfb6075967cd08fc559fa48ac7f2a666558e664cb0e6f.jpg?w=600&h=476



Saturday, October 21

Comey knew about FBI's teaming with FusionGPS to commission and leak anti-Trump "dossier"

Most Americans would probably agree that the FBI shouldn't use its virtually unlimited budget and resources to support one party's candidate over another's.

Democrats, on the other hand, are totally fine with that sort of ghastly misuse of power--as long as it helps their party and hurts Republicans.

If you get your news from the Lyin' Mainstream Media you almost certainly haven't heard about what I'm about to describe.  Once you hear, you should be furious, demanding people be fired and jailed--unless of course you're a Democrat, in which case you won't see any problem.

Before last year's election a "dossier" surfaced, purporting to be an "investigation" into candidate Trump's alleged behavior on a trip to Russia.  The allegations were ghastly--really damning stuff.

The content was carefully leaked to the media, which eagerly published them with virtually no caveat.  After all, they alleged that the FBI had commissioned the investigation, and even paid for it.

And if Hilliary had won, you'd never have heard any more about who commissioned the "dossier" and paid for it.

But against all odds, Hilliary lost.  Now congress wants former FBI director James Comey to disclose whether Fusion GPS, the Democratic opposition-research firm that produced the debunked dossier on President Trump’s alleged Russia ties, was itself a Russian agent paid by the FBI to damage Trump.

Last May senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), who has been a vocal critic of President Trump, had this exchange with James Comey:
Graham:   Are you familiar with Fusion?
Comey:     I know the name.
Graham:   Are they part of the Russian intelligence apparatus?
Comey:     I can’t say.
Graham:   Do you agree that if Fusion was involved in preparing a dossier against Donald Trump, that would be interfering in our election by the Russians?
Comey:    I don’t want to say.
It was a surprising question about information that has not been well reported in the media. Graham referenced an April 28 letter from Grassley to Comey. Grassley noted a pattern of FBI obstruction into the committee’s investigation of Russian interference, particularly when that investigation touched on decisions made by the FBI.

Grassley asked for information on March 6 about the FBI’s relationship to Christopher Steele, author of a political opposition research dossier that alleged collusion between associates of Donald Trump and the Russian government. The FBI failed to respond, despite a March 20 "deadline"--because top officials at the FBI know they won't pay any price for obstructing congress.

On February 15, Grassley and ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked for a briefing and documents related to the resignation of Trump National Security Advisor Mike Flynn and the leaks of classified info involving him. There was a “startling lack of responsiveness” to the request, Grassley wrote. Comey finally briefed Grassley and Feinstein in mid-March, addressing also a small number of the questions about Steele.

On April 19, the FBI claimed that the meeting addressed the concerns of both letters. “That is incorrect,” Grassley noted. Not only has the FBI failed to provide the documents requested in the March letter or answer the vast majority of its questions, there appear to be “material inconsistencies” between the description of the FBI’s relationship with Steele that Comey gave in the briefing and information contained in Justice Department documents made available to the committee after the briefing.

Grassley wrote that whether those inconsistencies were honest mistakes or an attempt to downplay the FBI’s relationship with Steele, he still needs the answers and documents he requested. But then he noted this new information:
Fusion GPS is the subject of a complaint to the Justice Department, which alleges that the company violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act by working on behalf of Russian principals to undermine U.S. sanctions against Russians. That unregistered work was reportedly conducted with a former Russian intelligence operative, Mr. Rinat Akhmetshin, and appears to have been occurring simultaneous to Fusion GPS’s work overseeing the creation of the dossier.
Grassley said he requested information about this on March 31 but that Justice failed to respond.

Now Grassley is demanding documentation of all payments made to Steele, as well as disclosure about whether the FBI was aware that Fusion GPS was at the same time allegedly working as an unregistered agent for Russian interests; when the FBI became aware of this allegation; and whether this information was included in FISA warrant requests or any other related documents.

This consistent, brazen pattern of stonewalling by Obama holdovers at the FBI clearly demonstrates that the Deep State exists, and will obstruct even attempts by congress to uncover the truth--which is that the FBI is totally, irredeemably corrupt.  They're in the tank for the Democrats, and in turn the Dems will ensure that no one in the FBI is ever prosecuted for using its resources to damage Republicans and cover-up for Democrat lies and crimes.

Wheeeee!
 
 
 

Friday, October 20

Attorney for U.S. undercover informant says FBI ordered her client not to reveal anything to congress


If you have any source of news other than the Lyin' Mainstream Media you may have heard something vague about the Russians contributing millions of dollars to Hilliary's foundation just before a low-level drone at Hilliary's State Department approved the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium reserves to a Russian company.

Now an attorney who says she represents an American businessman who was an undercover informant for the FBI says Obama's Justice Department ordered him not to tell Congress about conversations and transactions he witnessed related to a Russian nuclear company's efforts to win favor with Bill and Hillary Clinton and to influence Obama administration decisions.

The attorney--a former Justice Department official and former chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee-- said she's working with members of Congress to see if they can get the Justice Department or the FBI to lift the non-disclosure agreement to allow her client to talk to members of congress.

Now, I don't know whether there's anything to this or not, but it's hugely significant that this story appeared on the pro-Democrat website "The Hill."  As such, it's an "admission against interest," which courts regard as much more credible than the same charge levied by an opponent.

Draw your own conclusions.

Thursday, October 19

Interesting event in Wyoming

Today a Wyoming "woman" was *convicted* of sexually assaulting a ten-year-old girl in a public bathroom.

Wait, that's not quite right.  Here's the real story:  A "transgender woman" [sic, this is how even Fox wrote the story] was convicted Thursday of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl inside a bathroom.  The convicted creature is Miguel Martinez, who now prefers to be called "Michelle."  Here's a pic of the creature:

Miguel Martinez, who also uses the name Michelle, was convicted of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old inside a bathroom.


The Billings Gazette reports Martinez, a friend of the girl's family, invited the ten-year-old into the bathroom where he raped her. The girl told her mother immediately after the assault who then reported it to Casper Police.

Note well:  liberals and Democrats whined to sleazy, snowflake-loving politicians that they wanted--no, demanded--that men who "identified" as women be allowed to use women's restrooms and locker rooms.  The sane people warned that even if 90% of trannies were harmless, such a decree (law) would make attacks like the one on this poor ten-year-old girl inevitable.

The pols put their licked fingers in the air to see which position would get them the most votes, and because liberals seem to have the media and all the power behind them, they then voted to allow trannies to use any room they wished.

Now that this attack has happened, where are all the snowflake-loving pols to say "We stand by our decree, cuz it was right to let men use girls' restrooms.  We're smart, you're not.  You're not qualified to make decisions on such highly technical matters in which you lack any expertise.  So shut up."

Now, I realize Wyoming's legislature wasn't dumb enough to pass a trannies-can-use-any-facility-they-want law.  But you have to wonder if perhaps someone noticed this creature taking the girl into the bathroom but thought "I don't want to make a big deal about this because 'all enlightened people accept this, just like our emperor.'"

Oh, and that line about "You're not qualified...because this is a technical matter you don't have the expertise to analyze"?  That's exactly how the kingpins of King County, Washington (i.e. Seattle) responded to a legal petition to bar Seattle from establishing taxpayer-funded "shooting galleries" where junkies could inject heroin "safely"--i.e. under the watchful eyes of taxpayer-funded medical personnel standing by to administer lifesaving drugs if they overdosed.

The pols believe this is a good thing.  Maybe the pols think Seattle needs more heroin addicts.  Hard to know.

How crazy have the libs gotten? November "Playmate of the Month" is...a transgender man


This doesn't seem to be a parody, and shows how totally screwed this country has become:  Playboy Magazine's "playmate of the month" for November is...a transgender man.

The website uses all female pronouns in describing this person--a total bow to the gods of political correctness.

Warning:  If you have a weak stomach, don't click on the link.  What has been seen can't be unseen.

I know the U.S. took a huge dive into the cesspool during the eight years that emperor Obama occupied the White House, but I didn't think it had actually gotten this bad.

A sane person has to wonder:  Who the hell makes astonishingly dumb-ass decisions like this?  I realize that all corporate execs are now politically-correct, so not one would ever stand up and object to such a dumb decision, for fear of getting fired from their cushy six-figure jobs.  But who do they think reads Playboy?  Lesbians?  Gay pencil-neck metrosexuals?  Congress-creeps whose favor the execs want to curry, to enhance their careers?

I write this as someone who's never subscribed to the mag and hasn't picked one up in 40 years.  Don't care if they go bankrupt.  Just curious as to how things came to such an awful state.

And yes, I do blame Democrats and everyone who demands that we all bow to the altar of trans-gender snowflakes.  Yes, the emperor Obama pushed it (and pushed, and pushed), but he couldn't have done what he did without your endless, unflagging support, Democrats.

You people OWN this.  I'm not sure you know what you've done, but I hope you realize it eventually.

Former Democrat head of the Fed Election Commission pushes for government to control of Net content

Conservatives have known for years that you can't trust anything reported by the Lyin' Mainstream Media.  And even though everyone knows the internet is full of wild speculation, it's a far better source for information because there's always someone *local* to any event, who reports what really happened in that event.

Because the net has always been open to all opinions, and because more Americans are learning that the Lyin' Media constantly lies to support Democrats, it's getting harder for Democrats and their media allies to succeed in fooling at least the 50 percent of Americans who aren't Democrats.

So you won't be surprised to learn that for years Democrats have been trying to ban individuals and conservative outlets from posting anything on the Net that cuts against the interests of Democrats.

Of course you probably think that's just a wild conspiracy theory.  But now the former Dem chairperson of the all-powerful Federal Election Commission has written a paper entitled "The Case for Government Regulation of "Fake News."

You won't believe all the things they're seriously pushing for.  Here's their own summary:
Fake news--or as we call it, “disinformation advertising”-- undermines voter competence, or voters’ ability to make the choice that is right for them. Regulations to address it should aim to improve voter competence in three ways: (1) reduce the cognitive burden on the voter by reducing the amount of disinformation to which they’re exposed; (2) educate and nudge social media users in order to inoculate voters from the negative effects of the disinformation and teach them how to avoid unintentionally spreading it; and (3) improve transparency to facilitate speech that counters disinformation after it is spread, creating the possibility that voters will receive “corrected” information.

The Democrat authors claim that allowing anyone to post their opinion on the internet--including social media-- "splinters the electorate with divisive messages."

In their view, Americans should only see and hear "news" and opinions approved by Democrat.  Can't have "divisive messages" on the Net, right?  

Click on the link and read the whole thing.  You won't believe it unless you see it for yourself.

As an aside, the link goes to a site called "sites.google.com/sites/[name of author of paper]" which is apparently owned by Google.  Question:  does anyone know if Google charges people to host a website for folks?  If Google is doing this for free, anyone wanna speculate on whether they'd offer to host a conservative?

Of course they wouldn't.  But if it's a paying gig, any bets on whether Google would offer the same terms to a conservative?  

You already know the answer.  And this, folks, is what Democrats want the net to be like:  The only opinions allowed will be Democrat/liberal ones.  And thanks to Google for proving my point so easily.

Wednesday, October 18

Breaking: FBI knew about Russian bribery plot before Obama regime approved uranium sale to them

Every story I've read on the website "The Hill" has totally supported Obama, Hilliary and all Democrats.  So I was surprised to see them post a story b titled

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow





$31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.  Later Mr. Giustra’s publicly pledged to donat another $100 million to the Foundation.  (Source: NY Times, January 31, 2008.)









Professor: "Scientific facts are just social constructs"

The pic below is from a student taking a course in what is amusingly called "anthropology" at a university (which shall mercifully remain nameless).


So according to the creature teaching this course, "scientific facts are social constructs"?

Umm...how about "the Earth revolves around the sun"?

Actually the professor is right:  Both the Earth and the sun--along with gravity, heat, cold, hunger and Hollywood--are "social constructs" that only exist to the extent that anthropologists and other liberals allow.  In other words, there is no "objective reality."

Hahahahahaha!  This explains why liberal policies produce such uniformly awful results, cuz if facts are merely "social constructs"--i.e. if there's no such thing as objective reality-- why should their policies and programs try to take it into account?

Obama's U.N. rep claims someone else made many "unmasking requests" under her name

If true, this is huge:  Last week Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, testified before the House Intelligence Committee about the thousands of "unmasking requests" she made--more than one per business day during her last year in office.  And what she said was shocking.

If you haven't followed this you need some background: Someone in the Obama administration--perhaps several people--asked U.S. wiretapping agencies to "unmask" the identity of Americans who'd been recorded during phone conversations with foreign agents.  This is only legal under a very narrow range of reasons.

South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy said Power was “emphatic” on the point that she did not make all of the unmasking requests the paperwork says she made. 

If she's telling the truth--something yet to be determined--it means someone else in the Obama administration made the unmasking requests using her name.

If that's true, why is it a big deal?  Because it would be proof that the Obama regime was knowingly breaking the law with its unmasking "requests" (essentially commands).  And the only logical reason for hiding requests to unmask an American is if they're not legitimate--as would be true if the person making the "request" wanted to use the info to harm political opponents.

Wait, didn't Obama say--literally--"This will be the most transparent administration in history"?

Yeah.  Totally "transparent."

Thorough, scum-sucking crooks.  All of 'em.  They all should be in prison.  But we all know that won't happen.  No one will ever be punished... cuz laws don't apply to Democrats.

Hilliary releases statement explaining why apparent bribes in uranium case aren't a crime

As more details continue to emerge about the Russians funding the payment of tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation to get the then-Secretary of State and her boss to approve sale of  U.S. uranium leases to Russia, Hillary Clinton released this statement:
"We had no intent to be bribed.  When our accountants realized that a hundred-million dollars had been anonymously deposited to the account of our wonderful charitable foundation we were totally mystified.  But of course since we didn't know who had made it there was no way we could give it back. 

We didn't announce it because we believed it could have come from a Republican who wanted to contribute to our wonderful global works but secretly, so he wouldn't be condemned by the deplorable members of his cult.  We decided not to investigate because we didn't want to reveal the identity of such a great person.  But we had NO INTENT to be bribed.  None.  Zero, zip, zilch. 

And as FBI director James Comey has now firmly established, if there's no intent, there's no crime.

Tuesday, October 17

Flashback: Emperor Obama caught on hot mike throwing away missile-defense plan for Europe



Many college students--all of whom have been taught that emperor Obama was a faaabulous president--are too young to have been "aware" of politics back when the emperor met with Russian president Dmitri Medvedev barely 8 months before the 2012 election, on the crucial issue of a proposal by Obama's predecessor to put a ballistic-missile-defense system in Europe.

Russia strongly opposed that idea, and history shows that  the Russians could have been expected to offer one or more major concessions to get the U.S. to scrub those plans.

But then during a break in the televised 90-minute meeting between the emperor and the Russian president, the emperor clearly signalled that he was willing to give up the plans without getting any concessions from Russia.  Not realizing the cameras were still on and picking up his words, Obama leaned toward Medvedev and ask him to deliver a private message to Medvedev's boss, Russian premier Vladimir Putin. 
“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.  This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”
“I understand,” Medvedev replied. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”  Whereupon Obama--in an astonishing breach of normal diplomacy, reached forward and patted Medvedev's leg.



Obama was clearly signalling that while he couldn't risk scuttling the missile-defense plans before the coming election, he'd be willing to do so after he was safely re-elected.

Canny, right?  Faaabulous negotiator, right?

If he'd been a Republican the NY Times and WaPo would have been running screaming headlines for a month about how stupid that move was.  But because the emperor was a Democrat, not a single reporter ever asked Obama to explain his remark.  In fact the Times praised the comment, calling it was "a rare and frank assessment of the difficulty of reaching a deal — on this or any subject — in an election year."

Naturally you can't believe that ever happened.  After all, if it had, wouldn't you think it would have been a huge story?  So you would have heard about it for at least a week, right.  But since you didn't, it must not have happened, right?  Okay, take a look at the video:



And here's the link to the NY Times version of the story.

Still, not a single reporter ever asked the emperor what he meant.  Cuz, Democrats.

The Lyin' Media will always spin stupidity or treason by Democrats as the greatest thing evah.

Monday, October 16

Another of Obama's DACA "dreamers" murders a high-school girl; liberals yawn


Another illegal alien that the emperor Obama allowed to stay in the U.S. under his DACA program has murdered an 18-year-old high school girl.

In Greenville, South Carolina, a friend of 11th-grader Dianna Martinez-Gonzalez made a “frantic” call to police reporting a shooting.  When police arrived they immediately located a male who matched the friend’s description and took him into custody.  Later they found the girl's body.  She'd been shot in the head. 

Police say the suspect, 19-year-old Daniel De Jesus Rangel-Sherrer, confessed to the murder. 

According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement the suspect is a Mexican national who had entered the U.S. illegally but had been allowed to stay by emperor Obama’s DACA program, which allowed all children of illegal immigrants brought into the U.S. before age 16 to stay here--a de-facto amnesty.

Rangel-Sherrer remains behind bars at the Greenville County Detention Center until his next hearing. ICE issued a detainer on him.  Fortunately South Carolina isn't a "sanctuary state" like California, so there's a chance that even if liberals raise his bail, he won't be able to vanish.
 But hey, what are a few murders compared to the huuge benefits of open borders and "diversity"?

Sunday, October 15

Dumbassery from a snowflake at...Princeton??

The quote below is from a student at Princeton.  Sadly, it's an all too accurate example of what passes for "thinking" by liberals/socialists/communists on what are amusingly called "liberal" college campuses today.
Nowadays cries for “free speech” ring from campus to campus. The term has become quite...popular.  Perhaps it owes its popularity to how vague it is.
Really?  "How vague it is"?  Sounds like a charge made by someone trying to discredit the idea.
It...comes from conservatives in response to some sort of censoring of ideas. In its own way, "free speech" has become conservatives' rhetorical weapon of choice, defended by right-leaning groups and thinkers
Conservatives would have you believe that their insistence on free speech is related to a desire for...openness of discussion.  When conservatives appeal to “free speech” it is actually a calculated political move, designed to open up avenues of political discourse while shaming others from moving in active political opposition.

I argue that when conservatives resort to this move, they can be safely ignored, as they are appealing to a right that does not exist.…

Because “free speech” is a cornerstone of our rights under the Constitution, it can appear that conservatives’ free speech has this constitutional tradition as its backbone.  However, this speech is something much different...  Conservatives are interested in being able to propose their ideas without any political opposition to their right to speech.
I am not arguing that conservatives do not expect intellectual opposition to their content; instead I am arguing against their right to be heard…

If conservative arguments were strong, they would be convincing, and if they were convincing, they would not meet political opposition. If conservative arguments were strong, they would stand without desperate appeals to the idea of “free speech.”
This is such a piece of illogical garbage that it's almost self-refuting.  Hard to believe the Daily Princetonian published it.  Wait, this is exactly the kind of liberal crap college newspapers think is just precious.

I don't think these people will ever give up and just enjoy life in the United States.  Instead I suspect they'll keep trying to force conservatives to give up more and more rights to satisfy the communists/socialists/snowflakes/Democrats.

These are the same folks who think Che Guevara was a great person.  Crazy.  Ignorant.  Deluded.

Stupid.  Naive.

Princeton, huh?  Weep for America.

Deadly Cali fires may have been sparked by powerlines touching. And there's more...


Latest reports are that the hugely-destructive fires in Napa and Sonoma counties in California were caused by high winds that blew powerlines together.

For those unfamiliar, cross-country powerlines aren't insulated but are just bare wires, so when they touch it makes one hellofa bang--which typically also blows up any transformers that feed the lines.  Both these events can start fires.

Now here's the gotcha:  Last year the California legislature passed a bill that would have required the state's electrical utilities to increase their efforts to make powerlines less susceptible to wind damage.  But the socialist governor of California--Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown--vetoed the bill.

Interestingly, someone reported that Brown's sister is on the board of directors of an energy holding company.  But probably no connection, eh?

Now Crazy Jerry--one of the most leftwing members of the socialist democrat party in the USA-- blames the deadly fires on ‘climate change/man made global warming.’  It's the socialist agenda for greater control of… everything.

"Universal Basic Services"--a proposal to give every resident free food, housing, internet etc.

Does the following sound familiar?
Our economy and society depend on public services.  [Unless the author defines "public services" in some bizarre way, this is a crock.  But do go on...]
 
The continuing failure of our government to deliver a high quality of life and prosperity to every resident is eroding the social cohesion on which our society depends, and undermining our ability to address the significant challenges ahead. 

Our economy is not only underperforming, it is floundering [sic] socially.  [Really?  Source?]  Real incomes are dropping, and opportunities for many of our communities are restricted and eroding. It is a dismal picture.

A broad consensus has emerged that the untramelled pursuit of growth does not deliver an equal quality of life for all.  [But you're clearly implying that it should.]  But the most common response to this challenge is to claim that we can't afford to invest more in public services because of the high cost. This is tantamount to saying that we cannot afford to invest in our citizens, in the people we live with and among.
Ah yes, the siren song of "investing" in people whose highest aspiration is...what?
At the Institute for Global  Prosperity we're committed to three things:  public debate on exciting, innovative new ideas; "investment in social infrastructures;" and public policy  aimed at improving the quality of people’s lives.

We've been inspired by other nations' experiments with a "guaranteed basic income."  The idea has been offered and praised by the brilliant former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and would tremendously benefit society by, for example, supporting more aspiring artists who otherwise would have to be working a menial job. 

It's clear that we need to rethink how our economy should work, so that college graduates with valuable degrees in Womens' Studies or African Folklore don't have to take demeaning jobs at Starbucks to survive. 

In this report, we lay out some ideas about how to deliver a great quality of life to all residents by offering more public services at no cost to residents, regardless of national origin.  We'll also link to more radical policy initiatves to increase "social integration and cohesion."  We call this complete set of ideas "Universal Basic Services."

Over 30 million people living in the U.S.--including 23 million undocumented immigrants-- suffer from "food anxiety" at some time during the year.  At the end of the month there's not enough money left on their Electronic Benefit card to ensure they'll be able to afford a decent steak on Saturday. We need to ask: why is that?  Why should residents of a country with lots of food have to worry about whether they'll be forced to suffer with just a sandwich or mac and cheese near the end of the month?

Clearly our income tax system isn't progressive enough.  We need to change the brackets so the well-off pay more, so we can give Universal Basic Services to those who stuggle with a minimum-wage job or are simply overqualified for a menial job.  If we are to "increase cohesion," the sense that we are “all in it together,” we must act where we can have the greatest impact and that is on the cost of basic living.

Our research clearly shows that the most efficient way to improve the quality of life for people with no college or with a degree that won't currently give them a high income is to simply give them "basic services"–food, housing, internet, health care and transportation--the fundamental building blocks for life required by every citizen in the 21st century.

This will dramatically reduce the cost of basic living for the those on the lowest incomes, and will reduce poverty because residents won't have to pay anything for a decent standard of  living.

"It will *make accessible* [love that phrase] a life that *includes participation,* *builds belonging* [another total winning phrase!], *creates a common purpose* and *strengthens the cohesion of society as a whole.*  [Wow!  Total win!  Rainbows and unicorns!]

Our research unequivocally shows that giving every disadvantaged resident "basic services"  such as housing, food, cell phones, internet and transport is guaranteed to reduce their cost of living dramatically.
This looks like any position paper from a leftist "think tank."  It's dirt-easy to imagine Bernie or Hilliary or Rahm or Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or Maxine Waters endorsing this paper.  It's so goofy--so utterly socialist--that it almost looks like parody.  But it's not:  There really is an "Institute for Global Prosperity," and what you just read is a very slightly edited version of a 58-page paper they wrote proposing Universal Basic Services.

That institute is in London, but my guess is that U.S. Democrat/Socialists will pick this up in a heartbeat and run with it, cuz they know that with half the electorate not having the faintest idea what capitalism his, or how socialism works, or what the Constitution says, the best way to win elections is to promise Democrat voters free stuff--in this case free food, housing, cell phone, internet and transportation.


Dems: Why stop at trying to ban guns? Why not ban something equally deadly?

In the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting Democrats are renewing their call to repeal the 2nd amendment and forbid civilians to own guns.  That makes lots of sense, cuz every year a handful of people armed with guns do indeed go nuts and kill other people.

But Democrats are missing an even bigger target here:  Why not push to ban...alcohol?

Seriously.  Look at the number of people killed each year by drunk drivers.  Gotta be 10,000 or so.  And look at the number of people who, in an alcohol-fueled rage, kill a spouse, lover, parent or total stranger in a bar--often with a weapon other than a gun.  Must be several thousand of those each year too.

So how 'bout it, Democrats?  I realize you want to go for the easier target but why settle for half a measure?  If your goal is to reduce the number of premature deaths, it only makes sense to push to ban alcohol too, since it causes more deaths each year than guns  And that's before even considering alcohol-related diseases.

But somehow I don't think we'll see Dems push to ban alcohol--because their real goal isn't saving lives, but disarming Americans.

Tell me, Democrats:  How has that worked out for residents of the U.K?  Not only can't they defend themselves against home invaders, they get prosecuted if they so much as pick up a knife to defend against attackers.  But hey, at least they don't have civilians with guns!

Saturday, October 14

A modest proposal

In the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting--which the Dems are blaming on either the second amendment or "toxic masculinity"--Dem congressional "leaders" are calling for either repeal of the 2nd amendment or far tighter gun controls.  Of course this is a hugely controversial topic, so here's an idea that should make everyone happy:

All Democrats should publically promise not to buy or own a single gun--either long gun or handgun. 

Dem politicians would encourage this--and show that they had the courage of their "nominal" convictions, and truly believed guns were not only bad but deserved to be banned--by promising that their bodyguards wouldn't carry guns. 

Congress could encourage this by passing a bill requiring all Democrats who want to buy a gun to disclose their name, address and party when they purchased the weapon.  Since Dems think the federal government should require everyone to register their guns, not a single Dem politician should object, right?

Of course I realize Democrats wanting to buy a gun could nullify this by simply claiming not to be Democrats, but the point is to force Dem politicians to reveal their true colors:  either they don't believe the line they're spouting, or if they do, their own constituents will see what they really are.

Thoughts?

The challenge facing western nations

Liberal politicians of westernized countries can't raise taxes enough to pay for the promises they made to get elected, without killing their economies.

The citizens of western nations aren't reproducing fast enough to maintain their populations--meaning they will eventually be overwhelmed by immigrants and will die out.

Only one western nation--the U.S.--has shown a willingness to devote enough resources to maintain a credible military deterrent.  And the nation came within 80,000 votes of junking that, under the military-hating command of a president Hilliary.

The school systems of western nations refuse to educate their students on such basic topics as the superiority of freedom and free markets over socialism and communism.

Democrats--the Deep State holdovers who actually run the government and make most of the decisions, even with the nominal Republican Trump as president--are determined to keep things on the present course.

Every day offers new opportunities for ordinary citizens to see the truth and vote to change course.  But the grip of the Lyin' Media and class envy and hatred pushed by Democrats--is so powerful that nothing changes.

If you understand what's written above, there's a way to fix this:  Forward this to everyone you know.  The fix is to vote against every Democrat and RINO.  It will be a long, hard fight, made harder by the tendency of the Deep State to corrupt freshman politicians with money or sex.

Think it's daunting?  How does this compare to wading ashore on a beach raked by machinegun fire?

State senator from St. Louis who called for Trump's assassination now compares him to Hitler

Missouri Dem Who Previously Called For Trump’s Assassination Defends New Tweet Comparing Him To Hitler




This is Maria Chappelle-Nadal, a Democratic senator from the total shit-hole that is suburban St. Louis.  Her claim to "fame" is that she authored a Facebook post calling for President Donald Trump’s assassination.

Her newest claim to fame is a tweet comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler.

Chappelle-Nadal said she was upset by Trump’s tweets early Thursday suggesting Puerto Rico must take on more responsibility for its recovery from Hurricane Maria.  Her mother is from Puerto Rico, “So this is very personal to me,” she said.

Ah, now we understand.  The Democrat mayor of the capital of Puerto Rico is sitting on a port crammed with emergency water and food, and refuses to kick the ass of the corrupt teamsters who refuse to deliver the badly-needed supplies to the suffering people.  Which clearly makes it Trump's fault.

Cops from the island nation have called local radio shows saying exactly this.

If I were Trump I'd send in a few thousand of our military and commandeer the distribution of supplies.  Then watch communists like Chappelle-Nadal scream that the Yankee imperialists are "oppressing" the locals!

Nothing--nothing at all--will ever satisfy people like this woman.  She will always find someone else to blame for any problem in the world.  Fan the flames of blame and hate, pitting class against class, race against race.  It's what communists are.  It's what they do.