Saturday, September 22

NY Times finally confesses?

Looks like they either got careless, or finally decided to confess!



Liberal foundation in NYC will post full bail for young or women; Cali proposes just releasing 'em before trial


Last April Bronx grandmother Mary Griffin was walking to church when a sub-human thug named Abdoul Bah bashed her and stole her purse.   He's been charged with armed robbery and assault.

Normally in cases like this, a bleeding-heart public defender would ask the judge to release the perp  on a token bail, but apparently someone thought this goblin might actually hurt the victim yet again, perhaps try to terrorize her into refusing to testify against him.  So bail was set at $150,000.

But never fear, citizen:  Liberals have a Plan--actually several--designed to ensure that every mugger and robber and murderer of color, or under 18, won't have to stay in jail if they can't make bail.

One arm of the Plan, being carried out by the "Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Foundation," would post the entire $150,000 bail for the perp.  Because poor li'l baby Bah is just 16, and every liberal knows that you can't expect a 16-year-old to understand that it's not right to assault, beat and rob people.

The liberal "foundation" plans to post bail for every criminal in New York City who is either female or 16–17 years old.  Cuz it just ain't fair that people with money can post bond, while poor folks often can't.

The idiot Democrats in California have done that one better:  They've introduced a bill that would require that people defined as "poor" be released without paying any bond whatsoever.

Okay, let's review here:  The whole, entire theory of a "bail bond" is that it gives the accused a significant incentive to appear for trial.  If the accused is simply is simply released before trial without posting a bond, at least that incentive to appear at trial vanishes.

If libs start letting perps out without bail, they'll be implicitly asserting there will be no deleterious consequences to society from their wunnerful humanitarian policy.  Kinda like refusing to deport illegal aliens doesn't result in Americans being killed by those illegals in drunk driving or shootings, knife murders and so on.  Simply no negative consequence whatsoever, citizen!

And if released thugs do kill or threaten witnesses or their original victims, well...who could possibly have predicted that, eh citizen?  Why, no one.  Except people with a super-high IQ, like, 95 or above.

And as every liberal knows, that's just UNpossible, citizen.

Thursday, September 20

Rat-bastard Democrat says she's "sure" Kavanaugh is guilty, then quietly retracts

The accusations by Democrats against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh--fueled by the claims of the notoriously memory-deficient Christina Blasey Ford--have introduced another player: Christina King Miranda.

Two days ago Miranda a now-deleted Facebook post that stated definitively, "The incident [the one Blasey Ford claimed happened, claiming Kavanaugh threw her on a bed at a party and laid on top of her--with both parties totally clothed] DID happen, many of us heard about it in school."

That's fascinating, cuz NOW Miranda has told NPR that she does not know if an alleged sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh took place as she first suggested on social media.

Miranda admitted on Twitter that she did not have "first hand knowledge" of the incident. "That it happened or not, I have no idea," Cristina King Miranda told NPR's Nina Totenberg. "I can't say that it did or didn't."  "In my [Facebook] post I was empowered and I was sure it probably did [happen]," Miranda told NPR. "I had no idea that I would now have to go to the specifics and defend [my post] and have my face spread all over MSNBC news and Twitter."

Whoa!  That's a HUGE reversal, eh?  And y'all undoubtedly noticed the contradiction when she says "I was SURE it PROBABLY DID happen."  Hint, sweetheart:  "Sure" and "probably" are contradictions.

What the hell is up with these morons?  Oh wait, we know exactly:  They'll lie like rugs to block Kavanaugh from being confirmed to the court.  And yet they'll continue to lie, lie, lie to string the investigation out for as long as possible.

Wednesday, September 19

Woman who accused Supreme Court nominee refuses to give sworn testimony to congress


For those of you in college who don't have much time to follow the ghastly sh*tshow called politics (and I didn't either in college), a woman named Christine Blasey Ford has accused Brett Kavanaugh (nominated to US Supreme Court) of sexual misconduct 36 or so years ago, trying to bully the senate into voting not to confirm his nomination.

There are only about a thousand problems with this woman's story:  First, she didn't tell anyone at the time--not a family member or close friend or anyone--yet she now claims the "assault" was utterly traumatic. And by "assault," she claims a drunk Kavanaugh jumped on top of her in a bedroom at a party when she was 15.  A friend of Kavanaugh's then "tumbled into them" and rolled both off the bed.

That's it.  According to Ford no clothes came off, nothing else happened.  Ford can't remember whose party it was, whose house it was held at, who was there, or even what year it was.  Yet she claimed it was so traumatic that it "derailed her for four or five years."
So...VERY sketchy.  But senate republicans--understandably not wanting to be accused of not giving her a fair hearing for her serious accusations--have invited her to Washington to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  They gave her the choice of either a totally closed session, or one open to the public.

She now refuses to testify. But we're supposed to believe her, despite her refusal.

Here's the statement from one of Ford’s attorneys:
Dr. Ford was reluctantly thrust into the public spotlight only two days ago.
I'll BET reluctantly:  She wrote an anonymous letter to crazy fruitcake Diane Feinstein, hoping to torpedo Kavanaugh while staying totally anonymous.  Cuz justice, comrade.  She 
She is currently unable to go home, and is receiving ongoing threats to her and her family's safety. 
Really?  So I assume you've reported those "threats" and recorded 'em, right?  But that's odd--if you'd done that, the TV would have been replaying those threats 24/7, since the Lying Media is totes behind the Dems on this issue.
Fairness and respect for her situation dictate that she should have time to deal with this.  She continues to believe that a full non-partisan investigation of this matter is needed and she is willing to cooperate with the committee.
"And she is willing to cooperate with the committee," eh?  But just not willing to testify, even in a closed-door session.   Hmmm....  This must be a new definition of "cooperate."

However, the committe's stated plan to move forward with a hearing that has only two witneses is not a fair or good-faith investigation.  There are multiple witnesses whose names have appeared publicly and should be included in any proceeding..

The rush to a hearing is unnecessary and contrary to the committee discovering the truth. 
"The rush to a hearing," eh?  Let's see...the guy's nomination was announced months ago.  You had ages to come forward and make your case, but you waited til one week before the vote to confirm was scheduled.  So you waited til the last minute, and now complain that the senate wants to move forward.  Sounds like bullshit to me.

This whole thing is designed to keep the senate committee chasing shadows until after the election--because there are half a dozen Democrat senators up for re-election in states Trump won who are worried that if they vote to reject Kavanaugh, they won't get re-elected.   If the Dems can stall the vote until after the mid-terms, those senators can vote to reject without worrying about losing.

Brilliant.  And a classic bit of Democrat cunning..

Tuesday, September 18

A tale of crime and...more crime, in Baltimore

Democrat-ruled cities and states continue to suffer due to bad government.

In the ghastly sh*thole of Baltimore, trial began yesterday for eight gang members on charges of murder and drug sales.  The murders began in 2010. The group of drug dealers and killers are charged with murdering 10 people between 2010 and 2016.

Normally this would be a story so damn common that it wouldn't be of much interest.  But a couple of things about this are different--and signal corruption and incompetence.  Which totally describes most government officials in the Democrat-ruled cesspool of Baltimore.

First, police were working with an informant.  Through either corruption or incompetence, an attorney for the defendants got the name of the informant--and passed the informant's name to one of the gang members.

The gang put out a $20,000 "contract" to have the informant killed.   He was gunned down in June. 

That defense attorney should be charged with accessory to murder.  But of course, it won't happen.

The second indicator of corruption or incompetence regards one member of the gang, 23-year-old Montana Malik Barronette, who was named Baltimore’s `number one trigger puller’ and is accused of at least six homicides between July 2015 and May 2016.

In the kind of inexplicable event that has come to characterize the "justice system" in Democrat-ruled sh*thole cities like Baltimore far too often to be coincidence, Barronette was mistakenly released from jail in 2017.  He was later captured in New York.

"Montana Malik Barronette"

Monday, September 17

Democrat nominee for gov in GA gets millions from out of state, refuses to disclose names of donors

Corrupt Democrat politicians?  Perish the thought!

Oh, wait...

Stacey Abrams is a black female who was formerly Democrat Minority Leader of the Georgia House of Representatives.  So she's a powerful, prominent figure.  And now she's the Democratic nominee for governor in Georgia.

And she's refusing to disclose the source of millions of dollars donated to two tax exempt, non-profit foundations that have helped fund her political career.

Both foundations--called "Voter Access Institute" and "Third Sector Development"--were created and headed by Abrams, and took in $12.5 million in donations from 2013 to 2016.

Interestingly, the two foundations paid Abrams--their creator--nearly half a million dollars over the course of three years.  Now the Democrat has refused to publish the names of donors involved in her ostensibly non-profit  (except for half a mil to her) work.

In response to media inquiry, the campaign wouldn’t explain why it wouldn't disclose donor names, but instead took a swipe at Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, her Republican opponent in the election.
A statement from the Abrams campaign reads “I’m proud of New Georgia Project’s [sic--no explanation of whether this is yet another Abrams "foundation"] efforts to register, advocate for, and mobilize thousands of Georgians, and [to] combat voter suppression being perpetrated by Secretary of State Brian Kemp.”

See how deftly they did that?  She was asked "Why are you refusing to disclose your (huge) out-of-state donors?"  But rather than answer, she claims--without citing any evidence--that her opponent has been suppressing votes.  Brilliant!  Standard tactic:  Dodge the question.

And of course the leftist Atlanta papers will never ask her if she has any actual, y'know, evidence of her claim that her opponent is trying to suppress votes.  BTW, Georgia doesn't have a voter photo-ID law, so that ain't it.

Interestingly, most states have laws requiring candidates to disclose donations made directly to their campaigns.  But there's a stunning loophole:  Neither Federal nor state law requires state candidates to disclose donors to tax-exempt non-profits.  So by setting up tax-exempt, non-profit "foundations," Abrams can keep the identity of those donors hidden from Georgia voters.

Clever, eh?  One might even say--admiringly--"cunning."

Note well, citizen, that this is not at all unethical.  Not something to be scrutinized or criticized.  It would only BE a grievous offense to the public if done by a Republican.  Cuz, standards, peasant.

Interestingly, a couple of ol' cynics--no doubt raaacists--have pointed out that Abrams has been struggling with massive personal debt --hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt on credit cards, student loans and IRS back taxes. She has attributed much of that debt to a misunderstanding during college of how credit cards worked.

Yes, that's certainly exactly the kind of expertise that makes her an ideal Democrat nominee for  governor, right?  Her Democrat base will be fine with it.  After all, if the state runs short of money they can always raise taxes.

Leftists (helped by idiot Mainstream Media) believe the "OK" sign is really...a "white-power" symbol!!

How insane and unhinged are the Left and Democrats?  Here's episode #463,067:

If you followed the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings you might remember an "OMG!" media-created “controversy” about a Republican operative (Zina Bash) who was sitting behind Kavanaugh. Bash was resting one hand on her leg, and curled it into the well-known "OK" position.

Democrats and their media allies--and particularly members of the #Resistance--went nuts.  You may well wonder why--as the rest of us did.

Why, you're just a closet racist and hater, citizen!  Cuz the media and the Left are absolutely certain the OK symbol 👌 is really a symbol of...wait for it... “white power.”

I'm not kidding.

And fuelled by the media (and tweets), the absurd idea that Bash was flashing an insider “white power” symbol--like a gang symbol--spread like wildfire.

Eugene Gu, a member of the so-called #resistance with a large following on Twitter, tweeted unequivocally that he believed Bash was flashing a white power sign. 👌

Think this is too crazy to be believed?  Well Gu's tweet has now been retweeted more than 15,000 times and liked more than 20,000 times.

And it's not just room-temperature-IQ morons who're believing the meme: In a now-deleted tweet, liberal activist and author Amy Siskind actually claimed Zina Bash’s hand in the "OK" pose was enough to disqualify Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court.  Seriously!  That's how crazy these people have become (or more likely, always have been).

Other liberal activists joined the howling mob echoing this insanity.

It's hard to believe that Leftists actually believe this goofy, paranoid, insane theory--that the decades-old "OK" sign is really a white-power symbol--but it doesn't matter:  the Left's strategic "thinkers" jumped on the meme and the media has uncritically promoted it, in its zeal to defeat whites and conservatives and Trump, and in their hope of defeating Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Rational people likely think that no one in their right mind could possibly believe the decades-old, universally-used "OK" sign actually represents "white power," but the pencil-dick cowards running many government agencies--like the Coast Guard--aren't taking any chances.  They're eagerly sucking up to liberal crazies by punishing anyone who uses the ""OK" sign.

Think I'm kidding?  A couple of days ago, while the moronic leftist channel MSNBC was doing a broadcast of the Hurricane Florence response team, a U.S. Coast Guard member in the background had his hand resting against his head in what looked like the "OK."

The Coast Guard removed him from the response team, and tweeted their groveling apology, affirming that the agency bought into the Left's idiot claim that the OK was an "offensive" sign.




Okay (ha!), now it's time to tell ya where this idea really started:  The Anti-Defamation League noted that the meme was started as a hoax on the 4chan website, designed to get the left to fall for it.
The “OK” hand gesture [meme] originated as one of these hoaxes in February 2017 when an anonymous 4channer announced “Operation O-KKK,” [writing] “we must flood Twitter and other social media websites…claiming that the OK hand sign is a symbol of white supremacy.”  “Leftists have dug so deep down into their lunacy,” wrote the poster, “We must force [them] to dig more, until the rest of society ain’t going anywhere near that s***.”
So the entire "OK is a white-power symbol" meme is a hoax.  But that didn't stop several media outlets from running with the story, claiming with certainty that the Coast Guard member flashed a white power symbol.  NBC News jumped on-board, running a story with the headline: “Coast Guard member flashes white power hand signal on TV.”  Only at the very end did the story admit that the "OK-is-a-white-power sign" thing was an online hoax.

And the commander of the Coast Guard response team--buying the hoax--essentially confirmed it by tweeting that it was an "offensive" symbol that didn't represent the views of the Coast Guard.

And as noted earlier, influential Leftist author Amy Siskind was among many leftists who fell for it.

Unfortunately for the creators of the hoax, most of the left still think it's true.  To the Left it's as real as when Sarah Palin went on Saturday Night Live and said "I can see Russia from my front porch!"--a statement instantly cited as evidence that Palin was unsuited to be VP.

Oh wait...Palin never said that.  Or anything close.  It was a great impersonation by leftist Tina Fey.  But to this day most leftists over 30 believe Palin actually said it.

Saturday, September 15

If Venezuela's starving millions didn't make ya reject socialism, maybe this will

Most Americans don't have the vaguest idea what the hell socialism really is, or what it does.  All they've heard is that it'll give you "free stuff," like free college, free medical care and free housing.  And for many Americans--particularly young people--that's all they need to hear to vote for it.

The Lying Media could do a LOT to eliminate this ignorance, of course, by telling you what's really happening in socialist "paradises" like Venezuela.  But with only a few exceptions, the media have ignored the human catastrophe there--and will continue to do so...because they don't want you to know.

They don't want Americans to know about the true nature of socialism because in the last two years a large number of Democrat pols--including their last president and the party's two most recent presidential candidates--have now openly embraced full-on socialism.  Two Dem candidates for congress (spit!) are actually members of the Democratic Socialists of America, and have won the party's nomination.  And barring a miracle, these two will win in November because they're running in vast-majority-Democrat districts.

In the last four years I've posted a dozen articles on the unfolding human tragedy in Venezuela. (If you're interested you can find 'em by googling "+sfsays +Venezuela")  But a story just out may make more of an impression than the hundreds of stories of human misery caused by socialism.

Maybe--just maybe--what I'm about to write will wake a few Americans up.  Because if you don't wake up very soon, it'll be too late.

As Venezuela’s economic crisis--caused by outrageously dumb socialist policies--has worsened, Venezuelans are being forced to abandon their beloved dogs.

One woman and her husband had been struggling to feed their beloved schnauzer.  Due to inflation soaring above 80,000 percent per year, the combined salaries of the couple – hers as a schoolteacher and his as a nurse – were the equivalent of $10 a month, barely enough to cover meals for themselves and their two children.

Finally their budget was so tight that they were forced to cut back to feeding their loved pet just once a day.  By June his only was a few leftover vegetables from the family table.

“I looked at the dog and couldn’t sleep,” Lema said.  So she took a step that is becoming increasingly common in this collapsing nation: giving up the family pet.

If life in Venezuela has become hard for humans, it's become even harder for pets. With inflation at 80,000 percent and rising fast, millions of Venezuelans are starving, and can no longer afford dog food or veterinary care.  A kilo of dog food – 2.2 pounds – now costs nearly three weeks’ of wages for a minimum-wage worker.

Americans are accustomed to seeing stories about human misery around the world--so often that I suspect we tune most of it out.  But maybe the story of starving pets will reach people who would otherwise be unaware of what's hppening there.  And the real tragedy is:  All that misery would have been avoided if the Venezuelan people hadn't elected their first socialist dictator (Hugo Chavez) as president.  Cuz once he was in, that virtually ensured that socialists would stay in power until overthrown by civil war.

Oh, and if you think that's hyperbole, and could never happen in an advanced nation like ours?

The Democrat party, and several influential magazines, have already called for eliminating the electoral college system, and for choosing the president by popular vote.  This would ensure that Democrats would win every election, since there are so many more Dems then Republicans. (Which will only get more lopsided as the huge internet giants teach kids that only liberals can be "cool.")

Cunning, conniving Democrat strategists have actually passed laws in about 20 states--not merely proposed laws, but actually passed them--committing their states to cast all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote when states totalling a majority of electoral votes have passed such laws.  Which is another way of abolishing the electoral college.

You should know that the Electoral College system is written into the Constitution.  It should take a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate it.  But the cunning Democrats have found what they believe is a way to accomplish the same thing without the annoying difficulty of trying to amend the Constitution.

We are perilously close to our unique, beloved nation being taken over by socialist Democrats.

Next time you hear a Democrat praise socialism, think of the poor, starving dogs in Venezuela.

For Lema, the teacher, saying goodbye to her beloved pet was one of the most traumatic experiences of her life.  On a morning last June, she walked out of the house holding Sheldon, accompanied by her two children, as representatives of an animal aid group arrived in a car to pick up the dog. The three of them were crying.

Lema gave the aid workers the dog's pillow, his little red quilt with polka dots, and the dog.

She kept his dog tag.  "We miss him every single day," she said.

I can't read those last paragraphs without getting emotional.  Maybe it's just because I've loved and had to say goodbye to so many dogs (and cats).

NY Times intentionally misleads readers into thinking Trump-admin official bought $52K curtains

And further on the topic of how the Mainstream Media lies and misleads Americans, constantly:

Last Friday the New York Times ran a front-page story headlined

Nikki Haley’s View of New York Is Priceless.  Her Curtains? $52,701

As everyone probably knows, Haley is our ambassador to the U.N. and was appointed by Trump. The ambassador has an "official residence" in NYC, and the story was about that residence getting an astonishingly expensive set of curtains.  Next to the story was a pic of Haley--who, again, was appointed by Trump.

SO...the reader was given the impression--totally intentionally--that the presumably luxury-loving Trump (builder of the tower with his name) had okayed his ambassador buying $52,000 curtains at government expense.  Outrageous!  Scandalous!  Impeach him!

The title and pic were effective enough to prompt Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu to call for “an oversight hearing on State Department spending on Nikki Haley and her deputy.”

Left-wing teenage jerk David Hogg was also fooled by the headline, writing a tweet condemning Haley for having the “audacity to misappropriate thousands of tax dollars for your own lavish lifestyle” while there are children starving in America.  He ended by demanding she “Resign immediately.”


But the sixth 'graf of the article itself--which almost no one ever reads (and which presumably Rep Lieu and young idiot Hogg didn't)--noted that the window treatments were NOT ordered by Haley but by... the Obama administration.

That was obviously before Haley was named ambassador.  And before Trump was even elected.

So the editors and headline writers at the Times knew--from the content of their own damn story--that Haley had nothing at all to do with the curtains.  But they ran the headline specifically noting "Haley's curtains," and the huge cost, anyway.

Again, way down in the article, the author notes that this happened before Trump was elected.  But the Times editors also know that only a tiny fraction of readers read that far down in most stories.

In other words, the misleading headline and pic were absolutely intentional.

Anything and everything to peel another few thousand voters away from Trump, eh?

After a ton of criticism, on Friday afternoon the article was changed and Times’ editors put a note at the top saying "An earlier version of this article and headline created an unfair impression about who was responsible for the purchase in question. While Nikki Haley is the current ambassador to the United Nations, the decision on leasing the ambassador’s residence and purchasing the curtains was made during the Obama administration."  But the editors also know that only about one percent of readers who read the original story ever see the correction.

Liars and propaganists, top to bottom.

Leaked vid shows Google execs wailing about Trump win. Yet they claim "no bias"?

Wanna see how utterly seamlessly the Lying Mainstream Media work to feed you lies and keep you in the dark about what's really going on?

Actually if you're like most Americans, you probably don't.  Cuz knowing the truth makes you angry at how you've been played. Which brings us to the question, Is it better to be angry, or blissfully unaware?  I know which one I'm choosing, but your mileage may vary.  In any case...

Anyone with a functioning brain knows that the social media companies--Fakebook and Twatter--are insanely Left-slanted.  They shut down accounts of conservatives, supposedly on the grounds of "hate speech."  But of course the definition of "hate speech" is, uh..."fluid."  Short answer is, it's whatever they don't like.

The same outrageous left-wing/Democrat bias, and against conservatives, is true of Google.  Google has been caught numerous times "rigging" its search engines to either not find conservative articles, or else the top 200 returns are pro-left and pro-Democrat, with conservative articles pushed way down.

Google knows people simply won't dive down thru 200 articles to find a dissenting voice.

Of course Google (like Fakebook and Twatter) vehemently deny that they have ANY bias at all.  Not a smidgen of bias!  No sir!  We is all jus' totes objective and neutral!!

Last month, after Trump tweeted that Google had "rigged"search results against him, CNN propagandist Chris Cillizza dismissed that  as a "conspiracy theory."  "What the President is peddling to his 54 million Twitter followers is an anecdote hung on a flawed analysis of media partisanship," Cillizza wrote on Aug. 28.

In other words, CNN's leftist staff claims Google is not biased against Trump or conservatives.

Well...last Thursday a leaked video surfaced, of Google employees literally crying and wailing about president Trump's victory in 2016.  Now it wouldn't be alarming if this had been a few employees in the privacy of someone's home, but it happened in a meeting of top execs that was televised company-wide.  So the execs are open and proud to display their support for Hilliary and their hate for Trump to all employees.

Think there might be some barely-subliminal message there as preferred policies?  And thus to what kind of decisions would win employees a promotion?

So this was proof that Google execs were biased--and were communicating their huge pro-Left support to all rank-and-file employees.  Should have been huge news.

So how do ya think CNN reported it?  How would they spin it to make it a nothing-burger?

Answer: The Daily Caller News Foundation couldn't find any mention of the story by CNN, either on the air or on its website.

CNN propagandists like Cillizza, Oliver Darcy, and Brian Stelter also totally ignored the damning, incontrovertible video on their twatter feeds.

So...anyone who gets relies on CNN to attempt to learn what's really happening has no idea the video exists.  So when Google execs piously claim to be neutral, folks that rely on CNN will believe that claim--even though we now have even more proof than before that it's utter horse-shit. 

Saturday, September 8

Obama praises Dem proposals of "medicare for all" and "debt-free college." Wait...

Back when Democrats were trying to pass Obamacare, many conservatives warned that this was merely a "feint," and that this was merely a first step toward the real goal of government control of all health care--something the Dem cunningly named "single-payer," because that made it impossible for regular citizens to understand what the name actually meant.

(By the way, that is an absolutely standard Democrat tactic, like Obama calling his illegal decree giving amnesty to young illegal aliens brought into the U.S. by their parents "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.") 

(Ah..."childhood arrivals."  Sounds perfectly legal and reasonable, eh citizen?)

Well...now Obama has admitted--on video--that the real goal was indeed government control of all health care.  Except he didn't say it in those words.  Instead he said "Medicare for all."

This is classic Barry Soetoro.  He didn't say "free medical care for all" because Americans with an IQ over room temperature are smart enough to realize that there ain't no such thing as "free."  Someone has to pay for it.  And that would be taxpayers.  So he avoided "free."

Similarly, he didn't say "socialized medicine."  Which is what it really is, of course.  But he didn't want to say that, because every country that has socialized medicine has crappy health care.  For example, even in relatively modern Canada citizens have to wait six months for even a simple MRI.  Same story in the U.K.  And in socialist paradises with government health care like Cuba, you can't get an MRI unless you're a member of the nomenclatura.

So Barry carefully didn't say "socialized medicine."  Instead he said "Medicare for all."  Because Medicare has been around for ever (as far as young people know, anyway).  So it isn't scary.  And best of all...it's FREE!!!!

Well, that's a lie, of course.  But low-information people believe it, and that's all that matters to Barry and his Dem followers.

Oh, in the same speech Barry also threw out one more golden "freebie" to his idiot followers:  He said--totally approvingly--that Democrats are proposing the fantastic idea that young people should graduate from college "debt-free."

Wow, isn't that fantastic?!

Wait...how is that supposed to happen?  Are the Democrats proposing that college professors and administrators work for free?

Uh....no.

Is he proposing that the only people who should go to college are kids whose parents can pay for it?

Uh....no.

Wait, I've got it!  He knows that the armed forces have some sort of program that helps pay for college for people who serve five or six years in the military.  So he's really saying that if your parents can't pay for college, you should volunteer to serve in the military, which will then...

Uh....no.

What Barry Soetoro really means is...YOU must pay for college for other peoples' kids who want to go.

Wow, that's a fantastic idea!  How can anyone not support that, eh?

But notice how cunningly he worded his (and the Dems) idea:  "...should graduate debt-free."  Cuz, like, who could possibly be against that, eh?

You need to watch these socialist bastards carefully:  They promise things that sound absolutely wonderful, and that buy them votes.  But no reporter ever asks them how they plan to pay for those "absolutely wonderful" things.  (Interestingly, one incautious reporter asked Barry about how Obamacare would manage to give *free* medical care to the 30 million people Barry told you couldn't afford health insurance, and STILL somehow manage to lower the cost of health insurance to everyone else in the country. 

Barry replied that this would happen by "bending the cost curve" due to greater efficiency.

Of course the reporter didn't have the faintest idea what that meant, or how it could work, but he wasn't about to press the questions.  He had what looked like an "answer," and that was the end of it.

If you never heard this, google "bending the cost curve."  (If Google hasn't deleted all the vids.)

Lying, lying, lying rat-bastards.  Coupled with a totally Dem-supporting media.  So when they say something is FREE, you can believe them.  Cuz dude...has the Media ever lied to you before?
 
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1038109264391430145

A Cardinal claims the highest levels of the Catholic church are promoting "evil"

If you're not a Catholic you probably missed a major bombshell a few weeks ago, when Archbishop Carlo Vigano --the Vatican's former ambassador to Washington--wrote a long, detailed letter claiming high officials in the Church had been protecting and promoting sex abusers within the Church.

The letter described a left-wing, homosexual clique at the top levels of the Church--including Cardinal McCarrick and even the Pope!  Clearly, if these allegations were true, they would be devastating.

Now  In every previous sex scandal involving abusive priests and bishops, the Mainstream Media--which is totally anti-Christian-- has gone into full screaming condemnation.  But this time something very interesting happened: the response has been...different:  The normally scathing media gave the claim almost NO press.  In fact the NYTimes claimed--astonishingly--that Vigano's charge was just "politics," implying his claims weren't true.  Here's the Times:
The letter... seemed timed to do more than simply derail Francis’ uphill efforts to win back the Irish faithful... [i.e. hidden agenda, thus untrue]
Its unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks amounted to an extraordinary public declaration of war against Francis’ papacy at perhaps its most vulnerable moment, intended to unseat a pope whose predecessor, Benedict XVI, was the first pontiff to resign in nearly 600 years.
How...interesting.  Without a single exception, for the past 30 years the Mainstream Media has been totally contemptuous of all religion except Islam.  So why would the biggest liberal media paper suddenly be publishing articles trying to debunk the bombshell claims that the highest level of the Church were staffed by homosexuals?

The leading theory is that the Left hated John Paul and Pope Benedict, who were relatively conservative.  By sharp contrast, Pope Francis is a leftist/socialist, so the Mainstream Media supports him..

Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles Robert Barron has a theory.  He suggests that the Church -- and perhaps the whole world -- is now struggling not just against a few depraved human beings, but against a more powerful "demonic element."   He writes,
When I was in school the devil was presented to us as a myth, a literary device, a symbolic manner of signaling the presence of evil in the world.
But later, Barron began to believe that this teaching itself was false--a lie designed to make people believe evil (or the devil, or whatever you wish to call it) didn't actually exist.  Looking around at some of the clearly "demonic" "humanoids" in the world convinced Barron.

"Demonic elements"?  Come now, citizen:  This is the 21st century.  "Enlightened," educated people long ago rejected the idea that the devil really exists!  You must be superstitious.  Unenlightened.  As our wonderful Hilliary Clinton put it, a deplorable.  A dummy!

Okay, Elites, just to please ya let's throw out "demons" and instead substitute the social-media concept of the 'meme', a word coined by Richard Dawkins' in the 1976 book "The Selfish Gene."  Dawkins defined a meme as "a unit of cultural transmission,  a unit of imitation and replication ... [like] melodies, fashions and learned skills."

Memes are information objects that can morph and become sufficiently viral to take over a society. Just as a song becomes so popular that a phrase or two becomes a buzz-phrase used endlessly by the "in-crowd," perversions can similarly reproduce.  They would act like Barron's demonic elements, turning "seminaries into 'cesspits'" or converting ancient universities into foundries of civilizational destruction.  

With the above points in mind, consider an article in the NYT by moronic leftist Paul Krugman, who warns the left--with its thousands of "wonderful" memes--might actually be in danger of losing power:
There was a time, not long ago, when people said our democratic norms, our proud history of freedom, would protect us from such a slide into tyranny....But believing such a thing today requires willful blindness. ... 
We’re currently sitting on a knife edge.  If we fall off in the wrong direction — specifically, if Republicans retain control of both houses of Congress in November — we will become another Poland or Hungary faster than you can imagine. ...
We’re suffering from the same disease — white nationalism run wild — that has already effectively killed democracy in some other Western nations. And we’re very, very close to the point of no return.
Krugman uses the term "white nationalism" (a.k.a. Nazism) not because it has explanatory power, but because it's a dog-whistle for his Leftist believers.  To Leftists, President Trump's decision to actually (gasp!) enforce valid U.S. immigration law by deporting illegal invaders is "white nationalism."

But never fear, citizen: the kings of social media have found a way to counter this awful epidemic of lawfulness.  They've simply deleted all search results that support conservative goals; deleted or "shadow-banned" conservative accounts; deleted posts the Left regards as "hate speech" while leaving up threats to assassinate the president.  

That may not strike some of you as a big deal, but all those things make it impossible to find ideas the Left doesn't like.  If no one can find explanations of those ideas, and reasoned debate about them, they can't get any publicity.  The result--intentional--is that no one will hear about them.  Meaning they don't generate any support.

It's brilliant.  Devilishly clever.

What we're seeing right now is nothing less than a war, between the kings of the Left and "ordinary" Americans.  And interestingly, the same war is also raging throughout Europe and Australia, as those nations fight savage, bloodthirsty invaders--and so far they're all losing.  
 
Some little-known book put it this way:
Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, the authorities, the powers of this world's darkness--against the spiritual forces of evil.
Or if you prefer, the forces of "memes."

Thursday, September 6

Reporter asks Democrat senator a question; senator accuses reporter of "violating the Constitution"


Sen. Cory Booker accused a reporter of violating the U.S. Constitution after he asked the New Jersey Democrat a question in the halls of Congress on Thursday.

When Wall Street Journal reporter Byron Tau asked Booker whether his actions during the morning session were a stunt, the senator accused him of violating the U.S. Constitution.
I asked if his remarks in committee were a stunt. He told me I violating the constitution by being in his way.
It is not entirely clear what Booker was referring to.  A clause in the Constitution--called the "Speech and Debate clause"--does say members of congress can't be arrested on their way to congress, and "in going to and from [session] … shall not be questioned in any other Place." The prohibition against "questioning" lawmakers on their way to session, however, has always been interpreted to apply to law officers, not reporters.

Obviously, if the clause applied to reporters, no one could ever ask any member of congress [spit] a question, ever.  Booker is a moron.  But far worse, he's a totalitarian:  "You will do as I say because I'm important and you are just an ordinary person."

Booker has been touted as a faaabulous Democratic presidential nominee.  Cuz the Dem leaders think he's just wonderful. 

This is the face of the Democratic party.  Study it well.  This is who they are.

Democrat "senator" Corey Booker--demagogue who knows nothing about the Constitution

Wednesday, September 5

UN agency: forest area dropping! Wait...new study claims it's actually INcreasing??

It's an article of screaming, shrieking, hair-pulling faith among "-studies" majors (and reporters) that the amount of forested land on earth is dropping fast.  This is a CRISIS!  A disaster!  Because, well, trust them, cuz they graduated from really exclusive universities.

The people who believe this have prestigious, well-funded support for their beliefs.  For example, the prestigious, well-funded United Nations has an equally well-funded agency called the "Food and Agriculture Organization."  And IT claims that between 1990 and 2015 global forest area dropped from 4,128 million hectares to 3,999 hectares. 

That's...interesting, because according to a new study published in Nature, global tree canopy cover actually increased by 865,000 square miles between 1982 and 2016.  The Nature study posits that instead of losing 1.29 million square kilometers between 1990-2015, as the FAO claimed, the world actually gained 2.24 million square kilometers in forest area since 1982.

And Nature isn't exactly a hotbed of rapacious capitalists.

As Ronald Bailey notes in Reason, “Forests in [mountain] regions are expanding as [a very small amount of] climate warming enables trees to grow higher up on mountains.”

The greatest increase in tree canopy occurred in Europe, including European Russia, where it exploded by 35%. A close second was found in China, where tree canopy gained 34%. In the U.S., tree canopy increased by 15%.

IF the Nature study is right, the U.N.'s FAO is wrong.  So what methodology did each study use?  No idea.  But history shows that the UN is...um...a screwy, corrupt agency.  The agency's  myriad organizations are dominated by socialists, and have an anti-capitalist agenda.  They invariably push the tale of "catastrophic, human-caused global warming," because that's a tool they can use to get stupid, virtue-signalling politicians to heavily tax all fossil fuels, crippling their economies.

But then you probably already guessed that.

Tuesday, September 4

Dems execute plan to scream and raise objections to disrupt confirmation hearing

If you've ever wondered why republicans in congress can rarely get anything done, just watch the senate judiciary hearings on nominee Kavanaugh.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley was just seconds into his opening remarks before Democratic senator (and likely Dem presidential candidate) Kamala Harris interrupted to object to the committee just receiving a batch of 42,000 documents relating to the nominee’s previous work.   “We cannot possibly move forward,” Harris said.

Grassley said Harris's objection was “out of order,” but other Democrats chimed in to back up Harris, including Democrat Richard Blumenthal, who moved to adjourn the confirmation hearing.

Harris's interruption was followed by a rapid-fire string of similar objections by other Democrats, joined by shouting and screaming from the gallery as Dem protestors interrupted the session.  And under questioning from a GOP member during the session, leading Dem Dick Durbin admitted that the entire disruption--from both members and spectators--had been carefully planned during a phone call on Monday.

Democrats have a great strategy there:  Block and disrupt the constitutionally-mandated business of the senate.  Which they always do whenever they can if they're not in control.

Yeah, sounds like a definite winner there.  In fact, sounds like a great reason to vote to give them majority control of the House in November.  Not.

Nike pays anthem kneeler as the face of its new ad campaign

On Monday apparel maker Nike unveiled the new face of its 30th anniversary “Just Do It” campaign: National anthem kneeler Colin Kaepernick, who started the kneel-during-the-anthem protest movement back in 2016.

Kaepernick declared then, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

Interesting:  We just got out of 8 years of a black president and two black Attorneys-general.  Blacks make up over 95 percent of the highest-paid athletes.  Years ago we had two black Secretaries of State (Condi Rice and Colin Powell).  Many mayors, congresscritters and police chiefs are black.  Black entertainers make up 80 percent of the highest-paid entertainers.  Black unemployment is at a record-low.  And yet here's this rich whiner, Kaepernick, claiming blacks are "oppressed."

I guess it makes sense, if one focuses on a relatively tiny percentage of cases and then tries to convince people those cases are representative of the country, instead of anomalies.

Illegal alien invader shoots store owner in the neck. But it's all good, citizen...

Democrat leaders have said many times--on video--that they want open borders.

They say we NEED open borders, cuz...reasons. 

Really?  We NEED open borders?  Let's take a look at what's happening even now, when it's against the law for invaders to just waltz across our undefended borders:  They''re coming in by the hundreds of thousands.  Of course that's a(ballpark number--it may be 80,000 or so per year.  No one knows for sure cuz obiously the Border Patrol doesn't catch 'em all.

So here's a story from last Saturday about yet another illegal invader.

Old guy in a Philly suburb owns a store that sells beer.  Last Saturday 24-year-old Pablo Quintanilla--an illegal alien invader from Honduras who'd previously been deported but re-entered the U.S.--entered the store and stole three beers.  He left but returned at 9 p.m. – when he was confronted by the store owner, who punched him.

Quintanilla responded with a flurry of far more effective punches, knocking the owner down.
The owner's legally owned handgun fell out of his pocket.  The invader grabbed it, aimed it at the owner and fired four times.  
Amazingly, only one shot hit the owner--in the neck, almost killing him.  The illegal ran out, but because of the hi-def video he was arrested Monday morning.

Now, at this point this story is as common as a day ending in a "y."  Illegal invaders shoot and usually kill Americans every single day.  You never hear about 95 percent of those attacks cuz the media cunningly calls 'em "local interest only."

Cunning, lying mainstream media, eh?  Such lying charmers.

What makes this particular posted story notable is the *comments,* made by the roughly half the American public who have grown entirely sick of this shit.  Here are some:
The leaders of the Democrat party--and their followers--couldn't care less about all the crimes that ILLEGAL immigrants commit or how many people they kill. All the Dems care about are the votes they'll get if they ram amnesty and citizenship down America's throat for these criminals.
Another deportee illegally entering the U.S. a second time.  We desperately need a stronger deterrent to make second offenders pay a higher price, otherwise they will continue to re-enter dozens of times.
Leftists will jump to cover the shooter's legal fees to get him a more experienced lawyer than the public defender.  That will win him a minimal sentence, just like the 7-times-deported illegal who shot Kate Steinle on a pier in San Francisco.  Got off with two months.
Liberals don't give a damn about how bad life in America gets due to illegal invader crimes.  All they care about is getting more votes--and more power.
Democrat leaders support Pablo's "right" to vote in our elections.
Democrats will wail that it's not Pablo's fault, because:
  1. Shoplifting isn't illegal in Honduras
  2. Americans shoplift too
  3. Trump is president, and is identical to Hitler
  4. This is only a story because the shooter is brown
  5. He meant to pay but didn't understand English
  6. He was just doing the jobs Americans won't do
  7. He was looking to assimilate but didn't know how
  8. It's the 2nd Amendment's fault, cuz if the store owner hadn't had a gun this couldn't have happened
Pablo was just following Mad Maxine's instructions to harass Republicans when you see 'em in a store.  He just thought the owner was a member of the Trump administration.
Pelosi and the other leaders of the Democratic party remind you not to believe this story. These "undocumented Americans" are all helpless, innocent refugees who don't commit crime at any greater rate than citizens.  They ask that he be released immediately--without having to post bail--so he can  vote in November.
Democrats wail that they jus' wanna give all the world's immigrants a new life in the U.S. cuz Dems are so compassionate.  That sounds so much better than admitting the secret, real reason:  cuz they know "immigrants" tend to vote 95% Denocrat.
There were a lot more comments but you get the idea.  Unfortunately only a tiny percentage of Americans will ever see this story--the ones in the immediate area of the event.  The mainstream media will ignore it, cuz "only of local interest."

Illegal invader Pablo Quintanilla

Sunday, September 2

Incident in a park in Michigan

Wanna know what the Democrats' policy of tolerating (ignoring) public drug use and de-institutionalizing the mentally ill have done for America?  Here ya go:

In Michigan a family was celebrating a child's first birthday at a local park.  The boy's grandfather noticed a goblin nearby huffing some sort of chemical from a spray can.  The grandfather approached the druggie and asked him to stop doing drugs in front of the children.

The druggie pulled out a machete and stabbed the grandfather at least 15 times, killing him.  One witness said the attacker "was enraged.  He seemed like he had the strength of the Tasmanian devil." 

Cops caught the killer, but not one of the local papers or TV stations said a word on the killer's name or any other detail.  Which is, um...kind of odd for so-called "journalists", who used to be into that "who what where why when" thingy.  But in certain cases they seem, like, totally uninterested.   Hard to figure out a pattern.
 
Details here , here and here.

Now: Offhand I'd guess that nationwide, some druggie kill some innocent person twice a week--usually during a home invasion or robbery.  What made this murder more shocking than most was how pointless it was.  (Not that the others are much easier to rationalize.)  But the real eye-opener was in the 2000-odd comments to the piece.  See how many you agree are "common knowledge."
"In most every liberal city drug addicts have taken over the parks."
"In cities run by liberals police are SCARED to intervene for fear of losing their job and pension."
"America is definitely losing the war on drugs."
My sense of it is that we've lost it completely:  Democrats in several U.S. cities give junkies free syringes with needles, and have officially proposed setting up "shooting galleries" for heroin addicts.  Fairly clear message there.
"If it was California a liberal judge would release the killer in a day, without requiring any bail."
"Radical 'progressive' subversives are minting lost souls wrecked by their politicization who now wander our streets without civility or conscience, along with millions of illegal aliens."
"His public defender will blame the grandfather for upsetting the druggie and will say the druggie should get maybe 30 days due to 'diminished capacity'--it was the drugs.  And Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, Warren and all the other Democrat senators and representatives will agree."
Then the inevitable liberal chimes in that the grandfather should have ignored the guy using drugs in front of children in the park, and deserved to be killed for calling out the drug use.  Seriously.  And the same commenter made several other comments that showed he wasn't being sarcastic.

Saturday, September 1

Judge blocks Trump order to EPA that "prairie potholes" are NOT "navigable waters"

Do ya think having plenty of food in this country is a good thing, or a bad thing?

Most rational people would say it's a good thing.  So if a Democrat policy prevented farmers from continuing to farm land they'd farmed for decades, that would reduce the food supply, right?

So what policy would do that, and why?  Here's the connection:  We all agree that clean water is good.  And it's reasonable that water in rivers that run through more than one state might be regulated by the federal government, since the states might disagree.  Such rivers and lakes bordering two or more states are called "navigable waters," and when Congress passed a law giving the federal gruberment the power to regulate "navigable waters," no one thought that was a power grab.

Anyone who understands English knows that the term "navigable waters" means bodies of water large enough to be used for transport by ships or other large vessels.  But the usual meaning of words meant nothing to Democrats bent on grabbing more power, and as early as 1973 the EPA simply declared that when Congress wrote "navigable waters," what they really meant was "...and all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds."

I'm not making that up. That's a quote from the EPA's diktat.

As you could guess, this insane power grab angered a LOT of Americans, and it soon ended in the Supreme Court.  In a major case that hinged on the correct definition of the term, the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court said “navigable waters” meant “relatively permanent, standing or flowing bodies of water.”

See, "navigable"-- you can navigate a ship or similar vessel across such a body.  It doesn't seem as though it's a tough concept, eh?  Or one that could easily be re-defined to include...um..."prairie potholes, wet meadows" and the like.

But radicals in the EPA kept coming up with new rationalizations, hoping one would persuade the court.  Among the absurd arguments the EPA has used, they've claimed they had the authority to regulate ponds that were not linked to any river and were entirely within a single state because...wait for it...those ponds were used by migratory birds.  Since the birds flew across state lines, the EPA claimed that allowed it to regulate the pond under.. the Interstate Commerce clause!

Another absurd claim made by the EPA to try to control lakes entirely within a single state (thus hardly "navigable waters" was that since lakes, rivers, and streams were often used by residents of other states for recreation, this brought them under EPA regulation because of the Interstate Commerce clause.

Still another claim the EPA tried was that since fish caught in a lake lying entirely within one state could conceivably be sold in another state, this constituted Interstate Commerce, which meant the lake and every molecule and creature in it could be regulated by the federal gruberment--the EPA. 

And of course the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers--two of the many power-mad federal agencies--were only too happy to use the new rule to sue farmers and ranchers for millions.

Okay, now you're certain I'm just spoofing ya, cuz no sane government could possibly do anything remotely like that without the media screaming bloody murder, and the citizens rising up and killing every federal official or judge who had any part of it.  And since you didn't hear about it, it couldn't possibly have...

Oh really?

In 2012 the Corps of Engineers fined a California farmer $2.8 million for planting over the kinds of  puddles left after seasonal rains, by calling them "vernal pools"--ponds that appear for a few weeks in the spring. The farmer eventually settled for $1 million after trying to fight the fine in court.

You'd think the Supreme Court ruling in Rapanos would have settled the matter.  And back when presidents felt themselves constrained by rulings from the Supreme Court, that would have been true.  But Barry Soetoro was not such a president.  Barry was an emperor who would do as he pleased.  And he simply ordered the EPA to keep regulating meadows and ponds,

And sure enough, in 2015, with Obama's green light, the EPA finalized the “waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) "rule," in which the agency once again claimed seasonal and insignificant bodies of water were--absurdly--“navigable waters,” and thus that it had the authority to regulate such under the Clean Water Act. 

Barry: "Constitution?  Congress writes laws?   Hey, why bother with that when I can just pick up the phone and order stuff I want done.  Maybe sign an executive order or two or ten"

So in February of last year President Trump--mindful of the Supreme Court's ruling on exactly this topic--issued an executive order of his own, ordering the EPA to restrict its regulation of waters to "navigable waters" “consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States.”

In other words, Trump sought to undo the lawless power grab by Obama.

And as predictably as the sun rising, last week a federal judge in South Carolina ruled that the Trump administration couldn't do that.  In other words, Obama's order to the EPA--in total defiance of the Supreme Court ruling on the clear and ordinary meaning of "navigable waters"--would be allowed to stand, while president Trump's order seeking to bring the EPA into compliance with the Supreme Court would be blocked.

It's insane.  Just like DACA, where Obama ignored a valid U.S. law to allow illegal aliens brought into the country as children to stay here.  A judge admitted Obama's order was unconstitutional, but still blocked a Trump order that sought to end the unconstitutional, illegal program ordered by Obama.

Insane.

Still think there's no such thing as the Deep State?

Newly-elected radical black female official chooses to be sworn in using "The Autobiography of...

Mariah Parker is a 26-year-old black female who was elected as a county commissioner in Athens, Georgia--by a margin of 13 votes.

She chose to be sworn into office by placing her hand on a copy of The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

Now, when most Americans are sworn into office, they put a hand on the Bible.  I've never heard whether Jews go along with this, or prefer the Torah, but fine either way.  Muslims have been using the Koran.  And in every case, the person is presumably swearing before their deity that they will serve honestly and impartially, or something similar.

In choosing to use the Autobiography of Malcolm X for her swearing-in, what deity was Parker swearing an oath to?

The black revolutionary mag In These Times says she and socialist women like her are "rescuing the Democrat party."  Ah, I see.

Interesting times, citizen.