Wednesday, March 22

Officials in Maryland claim Dem policies played no role at all in laying groundwork for brutal attack

After a 14-year-old girl was brutally raped inside a Maryland high school, by two immigrants--at least one of whom was in the U.S. illegally--the response from Democrats, state pols and the school district has been to blame
    a) all males ("these crimes are often committed by whites");
    b) ICE, for letting the illegal stay in the U.S. AS ORDERED BY OBAMA, after intercepting him on the Mexican border;
No Dem in the state is blaming Obama's open-border policy for ordering ICE agents to let the two attackers in.  Because, Obama.  And no one seems very concerned that the Dem-controlled state legislature has passed a bill to make the state a sanctuary area.  Because Maryland needs a lot more diversity, eh?
"This is not an issue that we're going to move to the political level, although a lot of people want to do it,” said Jack Smith, superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools. “The fact is, these students were not in the same class, but many students between the 9th and 12th grades are in the same classes, in the same band class, in the same world language class, same play after school."
Note the utter irrelevance of the wordcloud Smith threw up to prevent closer examination:  The fact is, the fact that the rapist and victim were not in the same class has zero relevance.  As does the rest of his crap.  Irrelevant.

As one person put it, "There were long speeches from the principal, from the superintendent, from others who were associated with them explaining why this could never have happened."

That's it, assholes:  Explain to parents why this couldn't have happened, after it did.

When a reporter asked Montgomery County council president Roger Berliner why his county is considering becoming a sanctuary area, he replied, “One of two individuals was stopped by ICE in Texas and released. How is this on us?"

Montgomery County Public Schools has a "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy regarding illegals in the school system.” Montgomery County Public Schools spokesperson Gboyinde Onijala said
“We do not conduct background checks on any of our students. There is no provision in the law for that.  We have students in our district that are US citizens that commit crimes and/or come to our schools with criminal records.”
   "It is appalling that Fox News and others are insisting on making this a conversation about immigration when the focus should be on the victim… This is a crime that could be committed by anyone.
So, to hear the officials in this Democrat-controlled state tell it, Dem policies played no part at all in laying the groundwork for this brutal attack.  No fault of theirs at all.  And of course no one can blame the rapists, since they came from stressful countries and all.  So what's left?

Government agency plants "poison bombs" to kill "wildlife," end up killing dogs

You'll find this one hard to believe:  The insane federal government has a totally Orwellian-misnamed "Department of Wildlife Services."  And what service does this group of thugs provide to wildlife?

It kills them.  By the thousands.

And one of the ways it does this is with a fatal gadget called a "cyanide bomb."  It uses bait to attract coyotes--and dogs.  When the animal tugs on the bait the bomb fires cyanide powder into its mouth.

Last week in Idaho a boy was walking with his dog.  The dog found one of the bombs and was killed.

The family later found a second bomb "within yards of the family's home."

A spokesperson for the government agency claimed that the agency would never plant the devices near a home without getting the owners' permission, but the family insists they were never told about the device.

This whole program needs to be scrapped.  The government shouldn't be in the business of killing coyotes or wolves...or dogs.

Two immigrant males rape 14-year-old girl in Maryland high school restroom. Liberals fire up the excuse machine..

Last Thursday a 14-year-old girl at a Maryland high school was brutally raped and sodomized in a campus bathroom stall by two males--an 18-year-old from Guatemala and a 17-year-old from Honduras.  One was in the U.S. illegally.

A Border Patrol agent stopped the Guatemalan in Texas in August 2016 and determined he’d entered the country illegally from Mexico.  He was ordered to appear before an immigration judge, but even though six months have passed since his apprehension, the hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Wonder how all the liberals who support open borders and Obozo's amnesty feel about this?
   1.  "We need more immigrants, because they add so much diversity to our nation!  Remember, 'diversity is our greatest strength," comrade.

   2.  "Acting up with girls is probably a cultural thing in their countries, so we musn't question it.  Remember, all cultures are equal, by definition.  It would be unspeakably bad and supremacist of us to insist that these young men abandon their culture just because we disagree with one of their rituals."  Remember, comrade, 'Diversity is our greatest strength!'"

   3.  "These poor young men were probably just over-stressed by trying to cope with the pressure of attending the 9th grade at ages 17 or 18.  We should probably put 'em with younger girls so they wouldn't feel so conflicted."

   4.  "What kind of girl wanders around the halls of a school at 9a.m. on a school day?  And how was she dressed?  We know that's no excuse when American males are concerned but these poor immigrant lads simply aren't raised to know how to cope with girls who dress provocatively.  Again, we don't want them to have to abandon their wonderful, diverse cultures to be just like Americans. 
   So while we don't allow awful, out-of-control American males to use the 'she was asking for it' excuse, diversity demands that we accommodate these poor young immigrants as much as possible."

   5.  "American males commit these acts all the time, so it's hypocritical to blame immigrants.  You stupid Rethuglicans are just singling out this one crime as showing something significant, when in reality it doesn't show anything useful."

But the proof of liberal insanity is that the Dem-controlled legislature of Maryland has passed a bill declaring the entire state a "sanctuary area."  Cuz this brutal rape--inside a school, during school hours--by two immigrants (one illegal) proves nothing, citizen.


Tuesday, March 21

Watch as Dems suddenly realize that under Trump, a 3% economic growth rate is just AWFUL. But Obama....

I'd like to show you how cleverly--and effortlessly--Democrat opinion-makers fool the naive:  Vox is a solidly left-democrat website.  At the bottom of the graphic below--under the heading "Latest News"--is the phrase
"Trump promised 4 percent growth.  Here's why we'll be very lucky to hit 3."
"See, citizen:  Trump lied to you, touting an unrealistic, unachievable growth rate.  So you'd be a fool to trust anything he says."

What Vox didn't mention--understandably--was...during the 8 years of emperor Obama's brilliant policies the U.S. economy never reached even a 3 percent growth rate.  It was the first time in our history that the economy failed to do that for 8 years in a row.

Vox was fine with this performance when Obozo was running things into the ground.  But now that the hated enemy holds the presidency, suddenly 3 percent is just AWFUL!

And notice how beautifully they did this:  Not a lie, just changing the definition of what's "good."

Also known as "moving the goalposts."  And they do it constantly.

Sunday, March 19

Is war on the horizon? Nah, surely not.

Consider, if you will, the following billboard.  It's in Phoenix.

Free speech is a great thing.  Helps identify the people who want to destroy the nation.

Moonbat twitter site: "St. Pat's day promotes nationalism" ???

Consider, if you will, the following graphic:
It's on a twitter account called   By all means, click the link and go there.

You'll end up thinking it's so fucking dumb it HAS to be satire.  But the anger says it's real.

These people are seriously claiming that anyone who celebrates St. Pat's is a white supremacist.

I'm especially amused by their claim that anyone who enjoys the partying that goes with this day is "promoting nationalism."  Yeah.  So that would be Americans promotion Irish nationalism?  Yeah, that's totally how I roll.  My ancestors were German but in raising a glass or two on St. Pat's I'm totally promoting Irish nationalism.

These people are insane.  Bat-shit crazy.  No question about it.

Saturday, March 18

WaPo changes headline to hide the fact that illegal aliens are getting food stamps

The Washington Post has been a lover of Democrats and a shrill opponent of all things Republican for as long as I've been alive.  Two days ago they ran a story under the headline "Immigrants are now canceling their food stamps for fear Trump will deport them."

The first thing I'd like you to note is how the header deliberately refuses to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.  The former have nothing to fear.  The latter are justifiably worried:  sneaking into the U.S. illegally and then getting food stamps, free housing and in some cases taxpayer-provided attorneys to help them avoid deportation.  Fine deal, eh?

Next is the routine demonization of Trump:  He's demonized for simply enforcing valid law.  But you wouldn't know that from the headline--or the text of the story.

But much as that accomplished the mission for the Post, some editor was irked by the headline--cuz it implicitly admitted that illegal aliens were getting food stamps.  WAIT, according to Democrats that can't possibly happen!  So need to change the headline to remove the implicit admission.  And if we can demonize Trump even more, that would be even better.  Oooh, what to do???

Got it!  Instead of just saying they're "cancelling their food stamps," why not drop the "food stamp" angle and just say they're being starved by dat eeeebil Trump guy?  Yeh, dat's bettah.

Is there a single honest asshole in the entire Lying Media?  Nah.  All Demorats.
I'd like to show you how liberal-run government agencies--working with the explicit approval of then-emperor Obama--quietly issued a decree that would force taxpayers to pay for sex-change surgery.  It's one of hundreds of examples of bureaucrats working with the emperor to re-write laws to accomplish goals favored by Obama and the bureaucrats, but which congress never intended and could not possibly pass as a real law.

So: what do you think the following language means?
Explicit categorical exclusions in coverage for all health care services related to gender transition are facially discriminatory.
This sentence is part of a "rule"--a decree--issued by the federal department of "Currying Favor with Our Base"--a.k.a. HHS under emperor Obozo.  In effect, it orders medical providers--including insurers--to provide sex-change surgery.  Which means every insurance policy would have to cover that service.

For those whose health insurance is subsidized, this means sex-change operations would be provided at taxpayer expense.  Watch how cunningly the bureaucrat rule-makers set this up to make it hard to recognize what was really being decreed:
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued a proposed rule to advance health equity and reduce disparities in health care.
Hey, how could anyone possibly object to any rule said to "advance health equity," eh?
The proposed rule, "Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities," will assist some of the populations that have been most vulnerable to discrimination, and will help provide those populations equal access to health care and health coverage.
It harmonizes protections provided by existing, well-established federal civil rights laws, and clarifies the standards HHS would apply in implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which provides that individuals cannot be subject to discrimination based on their race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.
Building on long-standing and familiar civil rights principles, the proposed rule takes important steps forward.
Notice how they invoke "non-discrimination."  The rule "harmonizes protections."  How could anyone oppose harmony?  And they tell you it's based on long-standing and familiar civil rights principles.  So since all right-thinking people support those 'familiar principles', you must accept this new rule too. 

Except the new rule does no such thing.  Instead it invokes the language of "Title 9" to do something the folks who wrote that law never envisioned:  To force taxpayers to pay for sex-change procedures for people who can't afford it themselves. But watch how hard the HHS bureaucrats work to make you think the new rule didn't change anything:
Section 1557 is the first federal civil rights law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in health care.  Section 1557 has been in effect since its enactment in 2010 and the HHS Office for Civil Rights has been enforcing the provision since it was enacted.
"Everyone agrees that discrimination is bad, awful.  This rule agrees, and doesn't do a single thing that's new, citizen--not a bit--cuz we've been enforcing this provision since it was enacted seven whole years ago!  So, nothin' new here.  Not at all."
Specific Provisions
The basic requirement of the law is that consumers cannot be denied health services or health coverage or discriminated against in other ways in health services or coverage because of their race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. The proposed rule addresses some of the populations that have historically been subject to discrimination.
Wow, sure a lot of "discrimination" language here, eh?  Almost like they're tryin' to set up a rationale that every good-thinking 'Merican will accept without question.  Hmm....
For example, the proposed rule includes prohibitions on gender identity discrimination as a form of sex discrimination... 
Whoa, what just happened there?  The 'graf titled "Specific Provisions" correctly notes that the law said you can't deny services or coverage because of "race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability."  But the phrase in red decrees that "gender-identity discrimination" is "a form of sex discrimination." 

This definition isn't anywhere in the, y'know, actual law.  They just unilaterally decreed that A=B.

The bureaucrats in HHS--with the explicit approval of Obama's minions--just added a new benefit to Obamacare, by adding a prohibition against "gender-identity discrimination."
Protections Against Sex Discrimination
The rule makes clear that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on gender identity.
It doesn't just "make it clear."  Rather, it re-defines "sex discrimination" to include people who want to be the opposite sex.
"For example:
  • Individuals cannot be denied health care or health coverage based on their...gender identity.
  • Individuals must be treated consistent with their gender identity, including in access to facilities.
  • Explicit categorical exclusions in coverage for all health care services related to gender transition are facially discriminatory. Other exclusions for gender transition care will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
The phrase "coverage for all health care services related to gender transition" is perfectly clear:  Insurers providing policies under Obamacare must now cover sex-change operations.  Because the bureaucrats at HHS have simply decreed that failure to do so is "facially discriminatory."

Let me be clear that in a free society, if someone wants a sex-change operation that's fine--if they can pay for it.  But forcing insurers to extend that coverage to every single health-insurance policy is insane.

As are most of the programs and policies pushed by Dems and liberals.

Venezuela blames bread shortage on...bakeries?

Well well well:  Venezuela's nightmarish socialist thugs are in the news again.  This time they've discovered that the country has a shortage of...bread.

And who do the socialist government thugs--cuz that's exactly what they are--think caused this shortage?

Why, folks who own bakeries, of course.

And why would the government blame bakery owners for the shortage of bread?

Why, because they're business owners.

The real reason for a bread shortage is that the country can't import enough wheat (virtually all of which is imported now).

You may well wonder: How can a country that exports roughly two million barrels of oil a day not afford as much wheat as it wants?  Where is all the income from all that exported oil going?

There's as much chance of finding that out as there is that Team Obama will stop trying to overthrow Trump.

Hint:  Look for a huge Swiss bank account in the name of Maduro's sister or daughter.

To officials of a socialist government, business owners are a barely-tolerated evil--tolerated only because there aren't enough competent people in government (yet) to do what the owners do--like baking bread.  So the thugs of the socialist government demonize and tax and abuse business owners, knowing the owners are powerless to stop it.

This is the way socialism works.  There's either freedom, or not.

This is what Obama tried to do with health insurance in the U.S.  It's what Bernie tried to do with "free" college for all.  It's what Hilliary wanted to do.

Not sure if we've dodged any of those bullets yet.  Seems like far too many Americans--elites as well as mindless idiot members of the gimmedat class--love socialism.  I don't think we've seen the last of this fight.

Y'know, it'd be really great if socialist-lovers Hilliary, Bernie, Ashley Judd, Madonna, Whoopie, Lena Dunham, Babs Striesand, Snoop Dog, his thug nephew Bow-Wow, Rosie and a few other brilliant analysts could be sent to Venezuela as advisors to the socialist Maduro government.  Tell the Venezuelan people that the brilliant American socialists would instantly be able to spot what was wrong, and would tell the government how to fix it.  And that if nothing had improved in a year, the people could do as they wished with the Americans.

Then repeat as needed until American socialists figured it out.

Update:  Here's the story as told by Newsweek.  Newsweek confirms the story but adds some interesting bits that effectively absolve the socialist government of responsibility:

Venezuela’s economy has been in crisis since the rapid decline in global oil prices in 2014. The government has not released official inflation figures since 2015, but the International Monetary Fund has predicted that inflation will reach 1,600 percent this year. 
Newsweek implies--though carefully avoids explicitly stating--that the main cause of Venezuela's problems is the "rapid decline in global oil prices in 2014."  While this certainly made things worse, virtually every policy of the socialist government has done more damage.

Embattled, Maduro has manage to hang on, surviving a recall drive when the Supreme Court halted the process last October over claims that several states had reported fraud in the first round of signature-gathering.
Actually the Maduro government threatened harsh measures if the recall vote was allowed to happen.  The court got the message.

Newsweek again:
The bread shortages, the government claims, rest solely at the door of bakeries, which it accuses of putting profits ahead of servicing customers’ basic needs. The price of bread is controlled by the government. 
"Damn business owners refused to produce and sell at a loss!  We'll teach them a lesson!"

BTW, Newsweek doesn't mention the word "socialism" or "socialist" a single time in the article.  "Cuz, like, how is their type of government relevant to the story, dude?"

How indeed, comrade.

Friday, March 17

"Change the people, change the civilization"

A large group of Americans--Democrats and Leftists--believes our society is jus' terrible!  Awful!  And that what we need--what will make America better--is...more immigrants.  Cuz...well, libs are still working on tryin' t' splain exactly why that is, but you know they must be right, cuz...  Well, Dan Rather and Chris Matthews and Rachel Madcow and Chris Cuomo and CNN love open borders and hate the idea of building a wall and hate Trump and...and...well, ALL sophisticated people hate Trump, y'know?

Libs and Dems and Socialists don't believe gangs like MS-13 are harming Americans, don't believe radical Islamists are a threat; believe we shouldn't give long prison terms to people who sell heroin or cocaine or meth.  Their world-views are those of the NY Times and the WaPo, in which the only threat to the U.S. is Trump's threat of reducing the power of the federal government and its myriad agencies and bureaucrats.

Oh, and don't let Trump deport any illegal aliens who have committed serious, violent crimes in the U.S. (leaving aside re-entering the U.S. after being deported five times).  Can't go doing that.  Just like the libs told us we couldn't improve our energy situation by drilling for oil in the U.S.

Oh, forgot that, did ya?  That was how the Left ridiculed Sarah Palin, who'd coined the catchy phrase "Drill, baby, drill."  One Leftist even went so far as to say "Well maybe if we'd started drilling ten years ago it might have made some difference, but NOW it's way too late..." 

Fortunately a bunch of risk-taking entrepreneurs had a better idea, and now U.S. is producing almost twice as much oil as it did when emperor Obozo took office.

But do, do listen to Rather and Cuomo and Madcow and Matthews and HuffPo and WaPo and all the other brilliant voices of the Left.  Cuz dey gots smahts.  An' when dey say "We need open borders, an' more Syrian refugees" you need to believe 'em.  Really.

Thursday, March 16

AP writer warns that global warming may eventually shrink cows to the size of house-cats. Seriously

From the first moment the theory was announced, the Associated Press has a totally devoted to the notion that the earth's climate is warming--dangerously--and that this warming is specifically caused by carbon dioxide, specifically produced by human burning of oil, gas and coal. 

One of AP's consistent shills for this notion is one Seth Borenstein, and here's the latest from him.
(AP) — Global warming shrank certain animals in the ancient past, and scientists think it could happen again.

Warm-blooded animals got smaller at least twice in Earth’s history when carbon dioxide levels soared and temperatures spiked as part of a natural warming, a new study says.
Whoa!  Wait!  Seth and his editors have slipped up big-time, cuz GW "experts" claim that the current warming of the earth's climate can't be due to natural cycles!  If extreme, unprecedented warming ever occured before humans started burning carbon fuels--which is what they seem to mean by "natural warming"--it would mean that any warming we see now COULD be caused by--gasp!--natural cycles!

Whoa!  Somebody gonna be lookin' for a new job for lettin' that one thru, eh?

University of New Hampshire researcher Abigail D’Ambrosia warned that mammals could shrivel in the future under even faster man-made warming.  “It’s something we need to keep an eye out for,” said D’Ambrosia. “The question is how fast are we going to see these changes.”

Three different species shrank noticeably about 54 million years ago when the planet suddenly heated up. One of them — an early, compact horse — got 14 percent smaller, going from about 17 pounds to 14.6 pounds.

This latest work shows heating and shrinking are connected over millions of years.
Hmmm....Even if the climate warms by the feared, much-ballyhooed 2 degrees by the end of this century, how many millions of years do ya think it'll take before cows shrink noticeably?  Do ya really think this is a serious concern?

“These results are very significant because they provide another independent test of whether climate drives changes in body size in mammals,” said Jonathan Bloch at the Florida Museum of Natural History.  “If we start to see patterns repeat themselves, we can learn from that.
The bigger natural warming — 56 million years ago — saw temperatures rise 9 degrees F (5.8 degrees Celsius) or more, probably from giant belches of methane from dead plants and animals that had accumulated on the sea floor, said Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer.
So let's review:  1) global warming--hot enough to shrink mammals, allegedly--happened millions of years before humans arrived;  2) said warming *could* have been caused not by CO2 but by...methane.  But wait, doesn't that kill the ENTIRE premise of catastrophic, carbon-dioxide-triggered AGW?

Why yes, yes it does.  But Seth and his editors didn't see that.  Instead their focus was "OMG!  When the planet gets warmer, a million later the cows will be the size of cats!"


Mattis picks Muslim Brotherhood supporter to #3 position at Pentagon--she withdraws after White House opposition

Trump's SecDef Mattis (retired 4-star Marine, excellent reputation) nominated as "undersecretary for policy"--reportedly the #3 position at the Pentagon--a career State Dept diplomat, Anne Patterson.  Today Patterson withdrew her name from consideration for the post.

Patterson was Obama's ambassador to Egypt.  During that time a presidential candidate--Morsi-- supported by an organization called the Muslim Brotherhood theoretically won an election, and began imposing strict sharia law on Egyptians.  Most Egyptians were strongly opposed to this, and the result was a military coup which deposed Morsi.

According to Egyptian "reformers," Patterson supported the Muslim Brotherhood.

State has always been pro-Islamist, and it's hard to imagine that Patterson could have had a 30-year career at State--culminating in being named ambassador to Egypt--without having verified her support for that philosophy.  Similarly, it seems unlikely Obama would have named her to that post unless he knew her position.

All this is commonly known.  But the bottom line is...unsettling:  Mattis didn't pick Patterson's name out of a hat.  Either he knew quite a bit about her, or else one of his advisors put her name forward.  Either way, it doesn't look good for Mattis.  Either he's not all that savvy, or else he has some snakes in his advisor positions.

Bad either way.

Wednesday, March 15

Lying Media--WaPo, NYT etc--repeatedly compared Trump to Hitler. 'Calling for Revolution? Us?'

When leading U.S. papers repeatedly compare Trump to Hitler, don't be shocked if one of their dim followers decides to believe them, and take action.

During last year's campaign the WaPo and NYT constantly screamed that Trump was a racist, an anti-Semite, xenophobic and Islamophobic.  For example, here is the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank on December 1, 2015, under the headline:
Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist
Said the Post columnist: 
Trump...has gone after African Americans, immigrants, Latinos, Asians, women, Muslims and now the disabled.
Milbank cited as evidence the fact that 25 years ago, after a group of black and latino teens were implicated in the rape of a jogger in Central Park, Trump purchased ads in NY papers calling for the death penalty for “criminals of every age.”

Note how deftly Milbank twists the facts.  Trump did call for the death penalty "for‘criminals of every age’…”  but Milbank transformed the non-racial “criminals of every age” into the racially charged “five black and Latino teens.” It's a classic example of how American journalists--all big supporters of the American Left and the Democratic Party—fan the flames of race hatred.

How about Trump as anti-Semite?  Many articles in the Post have compared Trump to the world's leading anti-Semite, Adolf Hitler.  For example, consider this column in the Post by Danielle Allen of Harvard:
I have [always been] perplexed about how Hitler could have come to power in Germany. Watching Donald Trump’s rise, I now understand.  Leave aside whether a direct comparison of Trump to Hitler is accurate.  That is not my point.  [Instead it's] about how a demagogic opportunist can exploit a divided country.
After directly comparing Trump to Hitler, then asking that readers “Leave aside whether a direct comparison of Trump to Hitler is accurate,” Ms. Allen goes on to imply that the comparison of Trump to a dictator who murdered millions of Jews and others is exactly accurate.

The Post often compared Trump to HitlerHere’s another WaPo headline, this one heading a Post column by one Eric Rauchway, a University of California at Davis history professor. The headline:
Donald Trump’s new favorite slogan was invented for Nazi sympathizers
This Post's columnist was horrified that Trump had the audacity to say “When I am president, it will always be America first.”
He wasn’t quite promising “America über alles,” but it comes close. “America First” was the motto of Nazi-friendly Americans in the 1930s, and Trump has more than just a catchphrase in common with them.
The irony is that the idea of “putting America First” was put forth long before the Nazis existed — by former President Theodore Roosevelt in 1910. TR traveled to Osawatomie, Kansas to give the speech that used this phrase, and 100 years later President Obama visited the same town to applaud TR and favorably cite what is known to history as TR’s “New Nationalism” speech.  But when Trump uses the same phrase, suddenly it's Hitler talking.

Then there was the Post publication of a piece by Hitler biographer Peter Ross Range. Title?
The theory of political leadership that Donald Trump shares with Adolf Hitler
After the standard “well, Trump isn’t Hitler” boilerplate, the author goes on to make the comparison anyway:
But to any serious student of Hitler’s frightening and unforeseen rise to power in Germany, the recurring echoes in Trump’s speeches, interviews and his underlying thinking have become too blatant to overlook.
'But we're not comparing Trump to Hitler.  Really.'

Just two months before the election, in September of 2016, the Post ran this by Shalom Auslander, an author and television writer. Headline:
Don’t compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. It belittles Hitler.
The author claimed comparing Trump to Hitler was unfair — to Hitler.

Longtime Post columnist Richard Cohen chimed in with a column headlined:
Trump’s Hitlerian disregard for the truth
Cohen says the comparison to Hitler "has the distractive quality of pornography and so I cite it only with reluctance.”  Ah, that's good, Richard.  Wouldn't want you to distract your readers or anything.

Virtually every liberal media outlet has called Trump a racist, anti-Semite, xenophobe, homophobe or Islamophobe.  It's barely possible that the editors and "journalists" [!] don't understand that by demonizing Trump they're setting the stage for violence by anti-Trump thugs.  But far more likely is that they believe any means are justified to achieve the end of removing him from office.

H/T Jeffrey Lord in The American Spectator.

Tuesday, March 14

Leftist policy mag owned by the WaPo screams about Trump proposal to cut funding to U.N: "End of the World!"

"Foreign Policy Magazine" was owned by the WaPo Company before being swept into "Graham Holdings" (for the owner of the Post).  It's pretty far left.

As far as I can determine, the U.S. State Department has been run by communists for at least 70 years.  This is why State does so many things that seem insanely anti-American to normal people, and why the WaPo loves State and everything it stands for.

American contributions to the U.N. are funneled thru State.  A week or so ago the Trump administration notified the department to expect a large cut in U.S. funding for U.N. programs.  Now Foreign Policy Magazine has fired up the Dems, leftists and fellow-travellers with an article screaming that any cuts would be a disaster--an "unprecedented retreat" by Trump from wonderful U.N. operations that supposedly "keep the peace, provide vaccines for children, monitor rogue nuclear weapons programs, and promote peace talks from Syria to Yemen."

As one interviewee said "You're basically talking about the breakdown of the international humanitarian system as we know it.”

The article describes the proposed cuts as "reinforcing a shift by the Trump administration from U.S. support for diplomacy and foreign assistance to increased financial support for the U.S. military."  So if you needed a second reason to be against the cuts, there it is:  Can't go increasing support for the U.S. military, eh?

According to the Foreign Policy story, the proposed Trump budget is "facing strong opposition in congress," and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said the president’s budget is “probably not” going to be passed.  Peter Yeo, president of a U.N. advocacy group called the Better World Campaign, said congress "is unlikely to go along with these disproportionate cuts.” 

The story cleverly avoids ever stating the total U.S. contribution to all U.N. programs, instead saying that we provide "over 22 percent of the U.N.’s $2.5 billion administrative budget," and noting other billion-dollar contributions at widely-scattered points.  For example, "Washington pays billions of dollars for peacekeepers and helps underwrite a swarm of other programs that supposedly fight hunger, settle refugees and "battle climate change."

Ah, there ya go:  Wouldn't wanna cut any U.S. financial support for U.N. programs to "battle climate change," eh?

Or consider Sub-Saharan Africa:  Bathsheba Crocker, former assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs in the Obama empire, said steep cuts in the U.S. voluntary funding account could imperil programs responding to major humanitarian calamities, dealing with political crises, and combating terrorists.

Sounds like Bathsheba has touched all the bases, eh?  I mean, warning that cuts in U.S. funding could imperil programs for fighting terrorists.  Yeah, State and the U.N. really are big on fighting terrorism, right?  That's why they support the Palestinians with billions of dollars of aid per year.
Meanwhile a "major U.N. peacekeeping mission in Mali" is “helping with the counterterrorism threats in the region. This is deeply in the national security interest of the United States,” Crocker said.

Bottom line:  The Democrats and their allies in the Lying Mainstream Media will do everything in their power to describe any Trump proposal to cut U.S. funding for the U.N. as Armageddon.  They'll wail that it's our responsibility to keep funding every corrupt, useless program run by the cesspool that is the U.N.

Monday, March 13

Virginia mayor--20 miles from DC--busted for meth, and trading meth for sex. Political party? Not important

Last August the mayor of Fairfax, Virginia--one Richard Silverthorne--was busted for buying and selling meth--and trading meth for sex.

Cops busted the guy, promptly dropped the drug charge because...well, like FBI director James Comey on Hilliary's sending TOP SECRET emails to her unsecured server in violation of federal law: "I would never bring a case on that kind of violation."  Despite the fact that the feds routinely do prosecute the exact same violation by "little people."

So, back to the mayor:  The story broke today, and showed up in, oh, 200,000 places on the Net.  Maybe a hundred original stories, and the rest copies.

Here's USAToday's take.

Read the article.  Notice where USAToday listed the guy's party in that story?

Oh, wait:  They didn't.  And what does that tell you?  Can ya guess?

Here's how the oh-so-unbiased WaPo reported it.

Notice where the WaPo listed the guy's party?  The 19th 'graf.

Here's the oh-so-unbiased CBS.

Where did CBS first mention the guy's party?  The 16th 'graf. 

If this guy had been a Republican his party affiliation would have been mentioned in the first or second 'graf.

But hey, no bias in the lying mainstream media, right?

BTW, I do see that CBS posted the story last August, so kudos to them.  But still...16th 'graf before they mentioned the guy's party.

Where we stand 15 years after 9/11

The Muslim attack on 9/11 succeeded beyond Osama bin Laden's wildest dreams. 

The U.S. Left seized on the attack as a reason to blame America--as if the attack of 9/11 was a response to the U.S. invading Iraq.

The aftermath of the attack--and all other Muslim attacks on the West--has pitted the West against itself: since most westerners are unable to articulate what the West stands for without being accused of some variant of racism, they're defenseless in the face of withering media/establishment scorn.

How can you have a foreign policy if you don't know what it is you want to preserve, protect and defend?

This will not end well. With no tradition of assimilation or integration in Europe, the Muslim immigrants will only increase their complaints, become more violent in their attacks on Christendom and freedom, and more driven to complete the conquest of the West that their holy book demands.

Europeans foolishly swallowed the Marxist myth of "multiculturalism" -- of equally valid cultures peacefully coexisting side by side in what was once a peaceful, civil state like Holland or Sweden.  Of course it was nonsense.

But it was a nonsense that was incredibly appealing to the Left.
Sweden is dead.  As is France.  It's not that they couldn't recover, even now.  Rather, it's that their political "leaders" have sold them out, and the people have become so submissive that they won't overthrow or kill their politicians until too late to recover.

The only question that remains now is how many Europeans will have to die in order to accommodate a dysfunctional, alien, and hostile culture's desire for domination.

The answer, of course, is those who refuse to convert or pay the jizya.

NY State scraps literacy test for teachers

The state of New York has had problems with public education for years if not decades.  It got so bad that in 2013 the state education department required prospective teachers to pass a literacy test.

Just one problem:  too many black and Hispanic candidates failed it.

The solution?  State education officials are poised to scrap the literacy-testing requirement today.
Backers of the test are horrified by the prospect of having to give teaching tenure to people who aren't totally literate themselves, while critics of the literacy requirement said it is "redundant" and "a poor predictor of who will succeed as a teacher."

The critics haven't explained why it's a good plan to hire a teacher who can't pass a literacy test.

Of course the anti-test people have claimed they really, absolutely, totally want "high standards."
"We want high standards, without a doubt," said Leslie Soodak, a professor of education who served on the task force that examined the state's teacher certification tests.
Education experts have complained for years about the low quality of many of those who go into teaching.  A 2016 study found that 44 percent of the teacher preparation programs surveyed accepted students from the bottom half of their high school classes.  The reformers believe the literacy test and others can weed out aspiring teachers who aren't strong students.

But the literacy test raised alarms from the beginning because just 46 percent of Hispanic test takers and 41 percent of black test takers passed it on the first try, compared with 64 percent of white candidates.

A federal judge ruled that the test was not discriminatory, but faculty members at education schools say a test that so many minorities can't pass "is problematic," which seems to be bureau-babble for "discriminatory."

The president of the "National Council on Teacher Quality" said blacks and Latinos don't score as well as whites on the literacy test because of factors like poverty and "the legacy of racism" but doesn't suggest getting rid of the literacy test.
The director of the New York office of the Education Trust called the literacy test "a 12th grade-level assessment" - something a high school senior should be able to pass.  In any case, aspiring teachers can still "pass" thanks to a provision that lets students pass by submitting grades from a class.

The state rules call this a "safety net" provision, and it shows that the state was simply giving lip service to the idea of tightening standards without really doing anything rigorous.

So the bottom line is, state adds literacy-test requirement to look like it's serious about raising teacher proficiency, but adds safety-net provision to give those who fail it a zero-skill workaround.  Then 4 years later, new bureaucrats realize this isn't accomplishing anything--by design--and scrap the original literacy test provision.

Meanwhile everyone in the business professes to be utterly mystified by the increasing popularity of voucher programs to get kids out of public schools. 

Are there no-go zones in Sweden because of immigrant violence? Are Sweden's pols lying?

As most of you know, Stockholm is the capital of Sweden.  It's a lovely, civilized city that used to have almost no crime.

For several years now Sweden has been suffering from an epidemic of rapes, robberies, selling heroin on the streets and the like, almost entirely by "immigrants," mostly from North Africa.  One of the centers of such crime is a suburb of Stockholm called "Rinkeby."

Rinkeby has been in the news several times recently. It was the scene of riots just after Trump noted that "Sweden is having all those problems," and has also been the site of numerous attacks on journalists, including a 60 Minutes crew from Australia.

Sweden's politicians claim there isn't an "immigrant problem."  When asked point-blank about alleged "no-go zones" that police and firefighters are reluctant to enter, pols claim that's nonsense.  But consider the following vignette and decide who's telling the truth:

There used to be a police station in Rinkeby, but the government closed it in the spring of 2014.  A new station was to be built there and open this summer, but construction hasn't started yet.  In fact the government hasn't even signed a contract for it to be built yet.

That's because no construction company is even willing to bid on the project for fear of violence by immigrants.

The date for bid submission has actually expired, but because there hasn't been a single bid the deadline has been extended several times, still with no result.

So...who do you think is telling the truth:  the nation's politicians, who claim there's no problem with immigrant violence; or a handful of police, who claim violence and drug dealing by immigrants is out of control?

So do you think the Democrats right when they claim "diversity is our strength" and push for open borders?

Sunday, March 12

California's high-speed rail: A very rewarding boondoggle

Carolyn Flowers was Obama's Federal Transit Administration chief.

Two days before the emperor left office, Flowers approved a federal grant to install electric power lines for a CalTrain rail line that's a key tie-in for the state's pork-laden $64 Billion high-speed rail project.
A week after she lost her FTA job Flowers began working for a contractor for the Caltrain project.
How does the electrification of Caltrain affect high-speed rail?  Good question.  The bullet train will supposedly eventually link to Caltrain.  Late last year bay-area Democrats wrote legislation that would make $600 million of the $10 billion in high-speed rail bonds that voters approved in 2008 available for electrifying Caltrain. This may be unconstitutional as legislators aren't allowed to amend measures passed by voters, and some taxpayers have sued.

But hey, laws shouldn't be able to stop Democrat legislators, governors or presidents from advancing their goals, right?  I mean, they're just trying to resolve what they've termed "the greatest threat to our national security."  Seriously.

These people are seriously nuts.  But as long as voters keep voting for 'em, they'll keep pouring your tax dollars down a rat-hole.  And taking generous kickbacks, sometimes in the form of six-figure jobs.

Team Obama and the wiretaps, part 2

Ever since the mainstream media succeeded in destroying Joe McCarthy, virtually all Republicans elected to national office have chosen civility and compromise rather than vigorously defending U.S. interests, free enterprise and limited government. 

During this same time the Democratic Party and the Left (now one and the same) have embraced socialism, an all-powerful government and unlimited regulatory power by unelected bureaucrats.  While they wail about the need for Republicans to compromise, they never compromise their own principles.  And they'll use any means to achieve their goals--including violating the Constitution.  

Among the means they use are intimidation, extortion and ridicule of the Republicans, both in congress and presidents.  And they do it without fear of retaliation or even the slightest hint of a vigorous defense or response.

Now, as charges that the Obama administration wiretapped the Trump campaign have finally made it even into the NY Times, the never-ending leaks emanating from Obama holdovers continue to be exploited for Democrat advantage.

With their help of their allies in the mainstream media, Democrats know that any outrageous accusation on their part--like "Republicans want to starve poor children"--will make headlines in every media outlet and will result in Repubs surrendering to Democrat proposals -- all of which are now embedded in American society. 

Given the total success the Dems have had with these tactics, it's no surprise that they thought they could not only wiretap Trump without consequence, but could then illegally leak information which by law is supposedly secret, with the goal of destroying the Trump presidency.

Most of you think such a plan would be far too reckless to be true.  But recall that until the week of the election every expert was supremely confident that Hillary Clinton would win.  Moreover, even if someone blew the whistle on the wiretaps, Team Obama knew they could count on the mainstream media minimizing or rationalizing their lawlessness.

Moreover, another Obama order underscores his real goal:

It's always been U.S. policy that the NSA (the agency that wiretaps most Americans' phone conversations) hasn't been permitted to share the results of wiretaps with other government agencies.  But just 8 days before Trump was inaugurated, Obama issued an executive order reversing this policy, allowing the NSA to share wiretap results with 16 other agencies.

With so many people now having the wiretap results, this new policy ensured that if such information was leaked to the press, no one would be able to find the leakers.

The wiretapping and the deliberate strategy to undermine one’s successor are perhaps the most egregious political actions by any president in American history, far surpassing Watergate.  But the mainstream media will ensure that the public doesn't connect Team Obama to anything illegal.  It'll be reported as "We had solid evidence Trump was talking with the Russians, and...well, that's just awful."

Yeah?  You mean like Obama caught on a hot mike telling the Russian v.p. "After my election I can be more flexible"?

For the past forty years the Lying Media have covered for Democrat officials, allowing them  to get away with virtually anything.  And now, in trying to minimize the illegal leaks of wiretap results, while gleefully reporting the contents of the leaks in their collusion with the Democratic Party elites, they're continuing that long war.

H/T Steve McCann at American Thinker