Tuesday, April 26

The emperor and the law, part gazillion

I'm constantly astonished by how little most Americans seem to care about the deliberate, thorough violation of the Constitution by the emperor and his minions over the past seven years.

I don't know if it's simply that no one knows about the clear, public record of what's happened, or that the few who do just don't understand the significance of what they're seeing.

The list of violations is long:  For example, the Constitution states that one of the main jobs of the president is to "see that the laws of the nation are faithfully enforced."  Yet your emperor has ordered all federal employees to essentially stop deporting virtually all illegal aliens.

Now, one can argue that U.S. law should be changed so anyone from anywhere can simply walk in and stay as long as they wish.  But unless and until such a law is passed, the president should enforce existing law.

Liberals will counter that this is irrelevant because the law regarding deporting illegal aliens was changed.  When you ask for the name of the public law that supposedly did that, and when it was passed, the few liberals who know anything factual about it will say the emperor issued an executive order that had the effect of changing the law.

That's interesting, because the Constitution says all laws must be passed by...wait for it...congress.
The Founders--the guys who debated and drafted the Constitution--seem to have had the idea that it was to be the "supreme law of the land."  Meaning not even the president could do something the Constitution prohibited.  But the emperor has found that he can override the Constitution by decree.  With the full approval of Democrats, and the acquiescence of the spineless Republicans.

As an example of the emperor violating an ordinary law:  Someone in the White House ordered IRS division chief Lois Lerner to delay the issuance of non-profit status certification to conservative political groups.  Use of the IRS for "political purposes" (read: to intimidate your political opponents) is explicitly prohibited by federal law.  A congressional committee served her a subpoena seeking copies of all emails to higher officials in Washington, for the period that would have covered the genesis of this scheme.

Lerner eventually responded that sadly, her computer's hard drive had crashed, so you silly congressional investigators can fuck off. 

The congressmen then went to the head of the IRS and said 'Federal law requires all agencies to back up copies of all emails off-site.  Provide the backup copies to us immediately.'

Astonishingly--and implausibly--the head of the IRS responded that his staff was unable to find any backup copies.  'Gosh, so sorry.  Y'all will just have to fuck off.' 

Congress was incredulous:  Are you telling us your agency hasn't been complying with federal law?  If you haven't, why not?  Recognizing that he was in a bind, the IRS head said zip.

Later an investigator went to the federal computer backup site and asked, 'Has anyone from the IRS asked y'all for the backup emails from the Cincinnati office of the IRS?'  The folks in the backup site said they'd never been asked for anything remotely like that.

Investigator then asked if they had the backups.  They did.

Now consider the effect here:  The head of the IRS lied to congress--brazenly, obviously, smirkingly--yet for some reason wasn't fired.  If they guy was so incompetent that he couldn't find the backups, he shouldn't be in charge of anything, let alone one of the most powerful federal agencies.  An honest president who valued competence would have fired such a presumably incompetent scofflaw.  Why do you suppose the emperor didn't fire the guy?

As noted above, one possible explanation for why no one seems to be concerned by our utterly lawless emperor is that only two percent of the population has any idea that any of these things is happening.  They get their "news" from the alphabet networks, which want to protect their emperor, and to avoid damaging the Democrat party's chances of winning the presidency again in November. 

But even the mainstream media will usually report the barest bones of a story; the editors know that if they only mention a lawless act once--instead of pounding it for a couple of weeks--most people won't remember it for long.  So the bare facts are a matter of public record.  It's just that no one sees anything to be concerned about.

A good friend offered some insight:  People are too busy keeping a roof over their heads to be concerned about things outside their immediate reach--job, marriage, kids, mortgage, taxes. 

My friend adds that the few people who have the time to dig out the truth and understand it probably rationalize that the emperor is no worse than previous presidents--that all prior presidents have violated the Constitution.  (I disagree, but certainly understand why this is a wide-spread belief.)

Yet another reason for lack of public interest is the belief that the problem of any president violating either the Constitution or ordinary laws is so huge that it simply can't be fixed.  Why get worked up about something if there's no way to change it?  This too makes good sense.

A society comes unwound by degrees.  Before 1996 or so, most Americans would have been furious if a president had committed perjury in a legal case.  But that year the president was proven to have done just that.  And in a videotaped deposition in that case he flatly denied doing what he'd been accused of--but later...uh...qualified his answer by saying "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

At a single stroke, keenly observant American teens drew an unsettling but understandable conclusion:  Perjury about things you didn't want to admit was okay, and you wouldn't be penalized if you did it.

Today we have the emperor who does whatever he wants, without regard to law or the Constitution.  What lessons do you think "activists" and "community organizers" have already drawn from this?  Do you think they'll be more inclined to obey the law, or less?

Monday, April 25

How to re-write history: Take a friendly MSM reporter and...

Wanna know how the people who tell you what they claim is true re-write history?  Watch as the AP rewrites history--in this case totally whitewashing the history of one John "Magic Hat" Kerry...
(AP) — Before joining [the emperor] on [the emperor's] first trip to Vietnam next month, John Kerry will take a day to reflect on his long and complicated history with the Asian country, first as a soldier and later as a war protester and statesman. 
You can already see this is a slobbering PR piece for Kerry.
Kerry...is headlining a gathering this week of big names assembled to again revisit the Vietnam War at the presidential library of Lyndon B. Johnson in Austin....
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, documentary filmmaker Ken Burns and news anchor Dan Rather will also attend. Kerry, who fought with distinction in Vietnam before returning home to protest the war...
Stop right there.

VietNam was supposed to be a one-year assignment for all troops.  Kerry was there for a grand total of six weeks before hightailing it out.  He got his free pass out because he claimed to have been "wounded" three times.  One of these was described by the treating doc as "a scratch."  A second was said to be "hardly more than a scratch."  But Kerry--like many privileged kids (but certainly not all)--pounced on the "3-and-out" provision to bug out.

For the AP to claim Kerry "fought with distinction" is an insult to combat vets who did.

Example #2,854,963 of how the politically connected re-write history.

State Dept tech guy who installed Hillary's server reverses, refuses to testify despite immunity

Another bomb has dropped in the continuing series of outrages about the future empress of the U.S., Hillary Clinton.  Of course you didn't hear about it. 

That's not your fault, of course.  The mainstream media--the NY Slimes, Washington P****, the alphabet networks--should have told you.

They didn't.  You might well be curious as to why.

Anyway, here's the bomb:  A guy named Bryan Pagliano was a computer specialist at the State Department when Hilly was SecState.  Hill asked him to set up her unsecured, non-government email server in a closet at her house in New York.

Two congressional committees are investigating how this came about, and last November they asked Pagliano to testify.  He refused, invoking the fifth amendment right to not be compelled to testify if doing so would incriminate yourself.

After much debate, congress then offered to give him immunity against prosecution in exchange for his testimony.  He agreed to testify.

Now his attorney has informed Congress that despite his agreement to testify if given immunity from prosecution, Pagliano will not testify before the committees investigating Clinton’s email setup.

This is a bombshell--a smoking gun.  If you believe you might be at risk of prosecution for something, no rational person would turn down a promise NOT to prosecute you in exchange for testifying.  Unless...

Unless someone else offered him a better deal.

You may well wonder what the hell could possibly be better than guaranteed immunity.  How about a promise of an unconditional pardon AND a lucrative position in a Hillary administration?  And if that doesn't work, there's always the example of former Clinton friend and White House counsel Vince Foster, who was found dead in a park in suburban DC. 

Cause of death was a gunshot through his mouth.  He was sitting against a hill.  Given the known angles of the wound, the slug should have buried itself in the dirt right behind his head.

No slug was found.

The official ruling was suicide, but the physical evidence against it would fill an entire book.  There were far more inconsistencies in Foster's death than the assassination of JFK.  For example, Foster's car was in the parking lot.

No keys were found in the car or on his body, nor in the park.  Hard to figure out where they went.

There were carpet fibers all over his clothes.

They didn't match any from his home or office.  But killers transporting a body often wrap the body in a blanket.

Eh, no big deal.  People get killed all the time in D.C.  People trying to de-fuse the murder speculated that the unfortunate Mr. Foster had simply been robbed and killed.

But in that case why would the robber/killer go to the far greater risk and trouble of moving the body to stage a suicide miles away from the actual murder site?

But I digress:  Pagliano has refused to testify despite a grant of immunity. 

If Colonel Oliver North had refused to testify before the Democrat-controlled congressional committee investigating Iran-Contra despite a grant of immunity, what do you think the Dems would have done?  What would the New York Times have editorialized?  What would it have meant?

Ya think the fix might be in?  Think Pagliano's already been promised immunity or a pardon--long before ever setting foot in a jail--in exchange for NOT testifying?

If I'd told you seven years ago all the utter shit that would go down in the U.S. by 2016 you would have said I was a conspiracy nut.  And yet here we are.

And the amazing thing is, almost no one even notices.  As far as most Americans are concerned, things are about as they've always been.  As a friend put it, things have always been this corrupt.  I don't think so, but then again I'm just an anonymous student of history in flyover country, so my opinion doesn't matter.

Enjoy the last months of the emperor's reign.  Get ready for the empress.

Tuesday, April 19

Emperor announces $19 million program to make "immigrants"--including illegals--citizens as soon as possible

Your emperor and his minions have found yet another way to turn taxpayer dollars into Democrat votes--and as quickly as possible.

Officially the program is described as "enhancing pathways to naturalization," by offering immigrants free citizenship instruction, English, U.S. history and civics courses.  "Naturalization," as virtually no one under age 30 who isn't an immigrant knows, means becoming a full U.S. citizen.

He's given his agents $19 million of your tax dollars to start a crash program to give as many illegal immigrants as possible full citizenship--meaning they would be eligible to vote in all elections.

The cash is being distributed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Homeland Security agency that oversees lawful immigration.  The obvious goal is to register more immigrant voters--including illegal immigrants who have been allowed to remain in the U.S. by the emperor's executive orders stating his empire would no longer deport them.  If the emperor's minions work quickly they may be able to round up another million Democrat votes before the November election.

Wow, think that might win 'em at least one key swing state?  Sure.

This is all part of the brilliant strategy devised by the emperor's advisors to a) trigger a flood of illegal unaccompanied alien "children" across the border, by announcing they wouldn't be deported; b) then decree that their parents could join them, without being deported; c) then starting a crash program to turn as many as possible into U.S. citizens.  Who will vote Democrat until they die.

And it's working.

Monday, April 18

University bans students from chalking "political" messages on sidewalks--at least for candidates that scare 'em

The insanity of "special snowflake" college students claiming to be (gasp!) offended by any of a huge list of normally inoffensive things is starting to have "knock-on effects," as the Brits say. 

In this case the offense claimed is due to a two-word phrase chalked on some sidewalk of a university--a word that supposedly reduces these "special snowflakes" to quivering masses of offended jelly.

It's not "support life," or "traditional marriage" or anything similar.  Instead it's "Trump 2016."  And the snowflakes claim to be both horrified and traumatized.

So they went running to the (solidly leftist) administration of their respective universities.  And at DePaul, instead of being told in no uncertain terms that this was legally protected free speech, they found support from the (solidly leftist) administration.

Who proceeded to...wait for it...ban the chalking of political messages on campus sidewalks.

Actually they've just banned chalking of political messages the university officials don't approve of.

Funny, that.  Almost like a...um...symbiosis between the hard-left, anti-capitalism snowflakes and the university administrators.

This is how a free nation becomes, by degrees, a totalitarian state.

The impact of taxes on American citizens, 2016

How burdensome are taxes in America?  Consider this:
In 2016, Americans will pay roughly 20% more in total federal, state and local taxes than what they spend on housing, food and clothing combined, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research organization.
Interestingly, this huge burden has a "disparate impact" on Americans.  Specifically, 45% of Americans pay no federal income tax. The rest of us pay their tax for them, while they vote to decide how much tax we should pay to support them.

It's interesting that the emperor's henchmen have decreed that anything that has a "disparate impact" on people of different races is by definition discrimination.  Yet the tax system has such an impact.  Wonder why *that's* not considered discrimination--and thus illegal?

Oh wait, I think I know....

UTx student nearly killed by illegal-immigrant who'd been previously deported but re-entered; media ignore story

Let me show you a tiny example of how the media deliberately slants their stories to either gloss over things that would damage an agenda they support, or else make trivial things into huge "OMG" stories that dominate the news cycle for days.

This story is an example of the former.  Here's how Houston's channel 39 reported it--under the headline "What a drag: Austin cyclist gets dragged thru the streets":
AUSTIN, TX - Getting dragged out of bed is a horrible feeling . . . what's even worse is getting dragged through the streets.

In Austin, Elizabeth English, was riding her bike when a truck hit her on MLK Blvd. According to attorney, Brad Houston, "Her body was literally being ground by the pavement; the driver of that vehicle . . . I'm sure he heard it".

Although the driver, Artemio Avila, says he only heard a slight bump -- witnesses say English was screaming for dear life.

English is slowly recovering, using a dry erase board to communicate.
That's it.  Given the humorous lead 'graf, apparently it wasn't too serious, eh?  But if you look at some Austin sources, turns out English--a student at U of Tx Austin--was horribly injured, critical condition with her spine exposed and half her pelvis ground off.

Austin station KXAN gave a bit more detail, under the headline "Bicyclist dragged for blocks by driver who failed to stop:"
AUSTIN (KXAN) — A bicyclist was left with severe injuries after a man hit her with a truck and dragged her several blocks [later stated more accurately as "half a mile"].  The driver, Artemio Avila, faces charges for failing to stop and render aid after hitting the young woman.

On March 29 just after 10 p.m., officers received reports of a crash involving a bicyclist. According to the affidavit, Elizabeth English was dragged underneath the vehicle for several blocks [again note the understatement of the seriousness] before the driver took off.  Police say the bicyclist was dragged for nearly half-a-mile, from Airport Boulevard to Greenwood Avenue.

Medical staff report that English is still listed in critical condition.

While the driver didn’t stop, witnesses reported hearing her screaming as the truck dragged her for four-tenths of a mile.
Witnesses were able get a description of the vehicle as a Dodge Ram pickup with an attached camper shell. The next day, an Austin Police Department officer on his way home from work noticed the suspect’s truck. He was familiar with the suspect vehicle because he was involved in the crash scene investigation the night before. Damage observed to the vehicle included blood on the hood and fresh paint scrapes.
An on-duty officer came and followed the vehicle into Kyle, where the driver was pulled over for a traffic stop. The driver, Artemio Avila, was arrested but he claimed he did not know anything about the crash, according to court documents.

During police questioning Avila said he was home the night of the crash by 6 p.m. and had allowed his cousin to lend the truck to a man named Chago, continued in the affidavit. When police questioned Avila’s cousin, Jesus Aguilar, he told officers he didn’t know anyone named Chago and that Avila wasn’t home until after 10 p.m. on the night of the crash.

Avila eventually admitted to police he was involved in the crash, claiming to have heard a “slight bump on the passenger side of the truck,” as stated in the affidavit. “He was more worried about himself than the fact that he was killing a fellow human being and that is very disturbing,” said Houston.
Nowhere in the article is the phrase "hit-and-run" mentioned.  And not until the 11th paragraph does the station finally get around to mentioning that the driver was an illegal alien who had re-entered the U.S. a second time after being deported 8 years ago.

Wow.  You'd think "hit-and-run driver drags college student under his truck for 2000 feet; driver is an illegal who was previously deported and re-entered" would be the core of the story.  But not to the mainstream Democrat media.

Now:  I'm well aware that "accidents happen."  Thanks.  The problem is that when an illegal causes an accident, they're highly motivated to flee the scene, since being caught will cause them a lot of hassle even if--as is usual in these cases today--the emperor refuses to deport them because of his new policy on such things.

Also, Mexican men seem to have a far higher rate of DWI than locals.  I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason for this, but that doesn't help the victim.  But the real point of this post is that the media won't tell you the whole truth about things like this--because it damages their party and their agenda.

If some Republican state rep committed a hit-and-run on a college student in Austin, it would be headline news for three weeks, with breathless updates on the victim's condition as she struggled to recover from her devastating injuries.  Jail time would be certain.  The station would do an update on the anniversary of the crime to tell viewers how the victim's life had been affected by the horrible accident.  So why does the same crime warrant almost no coverage at all when committed by a previously-deported illegal who re-entered illegally a second time?

But you already know why.

Now for the predictions:  He won't be deported, and won't get any jail time.  Local cops will be mystified.  Prosecutors will know, because they'll get the word from the emperor's ICE: We'll handle this--no need for you to spend your limited, valuable resources prosecuting it.
Other stations that had stories that showed up on a google-search have removed 'em from their sites.  But I'm sure it's just an accident.  I could only find two actual, surviving news stories about the accident.

Here's a pic of the hit-and-run driver:
 Is charged with hitting bicyclist Elizabeth English.

Remember the flood of illegal "kids" three years ago. Wonder if it's still happening?

Remember how about three years ago there was this absolute flood of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children just pouring across the border?  Ring any bells?

The flood started when your emperor--he who makes laws by executive order, in brazen defiance of the Constitution--totally changed U.S. immigration law by decreeing that his administration would no longer deport illegal immigrants.

Forgot that did ya?  Wait, it gets worse:  As conservatives predicted, after he didn't get impeached for that he then decreed that in addition to allowing the kids in, his minions would no longer deport parents of illegal-immigrant kids in the U.S.

See how neatly that tied together?  I mean, if we didn't allow the parents of the poor waifs to stay here we'd be "breaking apart families," right?  And that just, well, you know, heartless and mean.  And raacist.

So it was a neat two-step, planned from the beginning:  Let any illegal-immigrant kid who sets foot on U.S. soil stay, and then let his or her parents come in legally, without having to even make the trek on foot.  The Democrat party was absolutely thrilled.

But at least the flood of illegal-immigrant kids has ended, so...  Wait, do we know that?  Well sure, because if it was still going on at the same pace as three years ago your unbiased mainstream media would still be reporting it, right?  Right?  And you haven't heard a peep out of the media about this in a couple of years, right?

In that case you'll probably be surprised to learn that the flood of illegal-alien kids hasn't ended.  In fact the numbers even seem to be a bit higher than in 2011.

Um...how much higher? 

Glad you asked:  between 2011 and 2014 the number of euphemistically-named "UAC's" entering the U.S. rose 1200 percent.

For those who dodged math in school, that's twelve times higher than in 2011.  And even with a much less aggressive border patrol this year, apprehensions of UAC's so far this year are running at 2014's record pace.

Wait, I hear you say:  That's gotta be bullshit--a scare story from Faux News designed to peel votes away from Democrats.  Cuz if it were true we would have heard about it from the alphabet networks.

Sorry, that's from the Congressional Research Service.  But maybe they're lying.  You might wanna ask 'em.

You liberals either still don't see it, or don't believe it, or don't think this is a problem because it will ensure election victories for Democrats--your party--for the next fifty years or so. 

Do remember to thank the emperor for his brilliant policy decision, would ya?  I mean, it's a huge win for your party, eh?  A bit hard on your kids and grandkids, maybe, but that's a small price to pay to control all branches of the government for the next 50 years.  Besides, we hear La Raza--the group of Mexican activists who want to take over California, Arizona and New Mexico--are really just kidding.  They actually support America and its values and just playin' with your head with this talk about a "takeover."

Thanks, Barack!

h/t Washington Free Beacon--definitely not part of the mainstream media.  But definitely click on their link to the Congressional Research Service to confirm that they're not lying to ya.

Friday, April 15

New imperial decree: Landlords will face fines if they decline to rent to convicted murderers

For 30 years or so I rented a small house I owned.  No longer.  The emperor's Housing czars have convinced me to stop.

They did it by issuing new "guidelines" on who I have to rent to.  (Or would have had to, now.)  The one that finally convinced me to get out of that business said landlords could be fined if they refused to rent to...convicted criminals.

Of course you think this is nonsense--a Faux News story designed to stir up anti-emperor sentiment or something.  But of course it *is* true--you just haven't heard about it because the media don't want to publicize it, since most Americans would instinctively recognize it as an outrageous violation of the Constitution, as well as an absurdity.

So if you're the sort of person who gets all your news from television, click on the link above and see for yourself.  The opening 'graf says the purpose of the "guidance" is to tell "housing providers" what will happen if they fail to rent to, or renew a lease to, criminals.

Go to section III, in which the emperor's Housing czars decree that
A housing provider violates the Fair Housing Act when the provider's policy or practice has an unjustified discriminatory effect even when the provider had no intent to discriminate.
      Under this standard, a facially-neutral policy or practice that has a discriminatory effect violates the Act if it is not supported by a legally sufficient justification. 
Of course most adults familiar with the arcane language of "bureau-babble" immediately understood from that clear language exactly what they meant, so I don't need to explain it.  But for the benefit of any highschool students who might stumble on this crazy blog, what they mean is this:  If you're a private individual who has even a single room to rent, and you decide not to rent to someone who's been convicted of even the most serious crime--like murder, or writing articles suggesting the theory of global warming might not be totally sound--the emperor's czars can fine you.

My liberal friends (and I actually have a few) will counter that this isn't at all what the 'graf says.  Rather, it simply says if you "discriminate," it's a violation of The Act.  Surely no sane adult could possibly claim that declining to rent your house to a murderer, for example, is "discrimination" in the bad sense of the term.

But in case you've been in a coma for the past seven years, sanity is in damn short supply in the U.S. today.  And sure enough, elsewhere in the "guidance" they define discrimination in a way that ensures that simply declining to rent to a murderer qualifies.

Specifically, they define it as "...if the burden [of "restrictions"] falls more often on [people] of one race or national origin over another." (p2, middle of the first full 'graf)

Since the "guidance" began by noting that African-Americans and Hispanics are convicted of crimes at three or four times their percentage of the population, it absolutely ensures that the effects of declining to rent to convicted criminals will fall 3 or 4 times more often on members of those races than on people of other races.

So the emperor's czars have devised a policy that essentially defines declining to rent to a convict as discrimination--and thus a violation of the Act. 

At this point recent law-school grads will likely note that the defendant in such an action could easily win acquittal if he'd rented to blacks or hispanics in the past.  Presumably this would demonstrate that he wasn't discriminating on the basis of race.  In the absence of any such intent, the "old laws" said you weren't guilty of a crime.

Before the reign of the emperor this would have been an effective defense.  But re-read the quote from section III above:  the "guidelines" say failure to rent is a violation of the law "even when the provider had no intent to discriminate."

So with the stroke of a pen the emperor's minions have a) created a new "protected class," and b) have rewritten a couple of centuries of case law that said if you didn't intend to commit a crime, it wasn't a crime.  (It could still be a tort, of course, but that's a civil matter and a much different critter.)

I certainly agree that not being able to rent where you want due to a criminal record is a burden, but compelling landlords to rent or be fined into oblivion isn't the way to fix that problem.

On the other hand, there's probably a way to get this unconstitutional policy junked fast:  There must be some prominent Democrat congresswhore who lives a few houses away from rental property in, say, Georgetown.  Donald Trump's team should find a released rapist, say, and offer to pay the guy's rent for three years, and have him apply to rent the home near the politician's home.  I suspect the emperor's men would decide to re-think the policy.

Official emperor policy: schools can't discipline a greater percentage of black students

Under pressure from the emperor's Department of Education, public school districts are no longer suspending even violent students. 

Instead they're suspending teachers who have complained about violent students in their classrooms.

Of course you think that's bullshit--hyperbole.  Faux News stuff.  Sadly, you're wrong.  You think it's untrue because you haven't heard it before, but the reason for that is simple:  The national media doesn't have the slightest interest in telling you about it.

Because that story would expose the utter stupidity of yet another liberal policy.

In St. Paul, Minn., a high school teacher was put on administrative leave last month after Black Lives Matter threatened to shut down the school because the teacher complained about lenient discipline policies that have led to a string of assaults on fellow teachers.

Last month, two students at Como Park Senior High School punched and body slammed a business teacher unconscious, opening a head wound that required staples.  Earlier in the year another student choked a science teacher into a partial coma that left him hospitalized for several days.

In both cases, the teachers were white and the students black--hence the interest by Black Lives Matter, who never met a policy that wasn't racist.

Theo Olson, a teacher at the school, complained on Facebook about new district policies that fail to punish kids for fighting, or selling drugs.  But like dozens of cities across the country — including New York — St. Paul has adopted new discipline "guidelines" issued by the Obama administration. The feds have threatened school districts with lawsuits and funding cuts if there are any "racial disparities” in suspensions and expulsions.

Short answer is that schools can lose millions if they suspend more blacks than whites.

Now, I know this is a goofy notion but...in the *extremely* hypothetical case that black students were to beat up teachers and other students, or steal stuff, or sell drugs at five or ten times the rate for white students--like I said, way hypothetical--wouldn't the emperor's policy force school systems to either not discipline the offenders, or else lose millions of dollars?  And in that event, would anyone care to predict which decision the schools would make?

Let me add that race is not the determinant here:  Many black students are hardworking and not disruptive.  I meet excellent, dedicated, hard-working black students every day.  And when it comes to class disruption, theft and drug sales, all races are certainly represented.  What I'm looking at here--critically, obviously--is what seems to be a dumb policy.  If someone can explain why the emperor's policy is more likely to be helpful than harmful I'd love to hear it.

Analysts warn that huge increases in Obamacare premiums are coming "soon"

Do you like how Obamacare is working?  Or are you one of the tens of millions of Americans who has lost employer-sponsored health insurance--cancelled because the requirements of Obamacare made it far more expensive for employers to provide health insurance.  And now, forced to go to the government for your insurance, you find the average deductible for a family is closing in on $10,000.

Some deal, eh?  Government set up a system that made it punitive for companies to continue to provide health insurance, then demanded (at gunpoint) that you buy crappier insurance, at a higher cost with a crippling deductible.  WOW, THANKS!  

But if you thinks it's shit now, just wait a few months--cuz it's about to get worse.

Companies that sell health insurance are warning that unless they get approval for huge increases in premiums soon, they may drop out of the market.  They say they're losing money on their ObamaCare plans.

Analysts had hoped premiums wouldn't have to increase if enough young (thus overwhelmingly healthy) people signed up.  But most young people are bright enough to realize that health insurance isn't something they're likely to need for awhile.  And if they do, the utterly perverse provision of the law that bars insurers from refusing to sell policies to people with "pre-existing medical conditions"--and for the same cost as healthy people--suggests that 20-somethings aren't likely to rush to sign up.

Now for the benefit of liberals and Democrats--most of whom know nothing about economics--here's a quick review of Econ-101:

When the cost of something goes up, what happens?

If you said "With very few exceptions people buy less of it" you win the prize.

So if companies increase health-insurance premiums (or deductibles), what effect is that likely to have?

Yep, fewer folks signing up.  Which would increase losses for the companies, leading to more companies getting out of the market.  This is known in the insurance industry as a “death spiral.”

But don't worry, citizen:  Neither the emperor nor any congresswhore will allow the complex, crappy, inefficient system forced on us by that wonderful law to die.  Cuz that would a) show that the whole enterprise--rammed down our throats entirely by Democrats--was a lousy idea, thus damaging Democrats; and b) would be used to paint any Republicans who voted to allow it to die as heartless, eeeevil, raacist monsters who were trying to kill off minorities.  So it ain't gonna happen.

Instead the money to cover the losses will be created by executive order (imperial decree).  Cuz your emperor is just that good.

Just kidding.  The feds will raise taxes.  Which will come mainly from the middle class.

That would be you, citizen.

One thing you can be sure of is that insurers won't say a word to the public about needing big premium increases until after the November elections, since doing so before then would damage the election chances of Hillary and all Democrats.

One of the causes of the big losses by insurers is that people signing up for Obamacare have had much higher medical costs than expected.  In other words they've been sicker than the historic average of all policyholders.

And of course that was totally unexpected.

Just kidding:  It was not only predicted, it was utterly obvious well before the law was rammed down our throats.  Because the law demanded that insurers sell policies to people with pre-existing medical problems--people who often couldn't get health insurance before, or only at much higher prices.  Now I totally agree that that's terribly unfortunate, and that a majority of American citizens might well agree to some sort of tax to fund either medical care or affordable health insurance for their unfortunate neighbors.  But the point is that the law's pushers--like the infamous lying Jonathan Gruber--deliberately ignored these and other obvious pitfalls, in their obsessive push to get the thing passed.

They were all either lying, incompetent or stupid.  If there's another explanation I'd like to hear it.

And you'll be paying for their incompetence (or whichever) for the rest of your lives.  Thanks, Democrats!

BTW, the source for this piece was NOT Faux News but the staunchly pro-Democrat rag "The Hill."

Is requiring a would-be voter to show photo ID "oppressive"? If it is, then...um...

Over at the blog "American Thinker" Jack Hellner made an interesting observation:

Seems his local housing authority was taking applications for public (i.e. taxpayer-subsidized) housing.  And you'll never guess what the housing authority was requiring applicants to provide in order to apply:

Yep, a photo ID.

Wait, Democrats have been screaming for a decade or so that requiring a photo ID was oppressing or disenfranchising to minorities!  If requiring a photo ID is actually oppressive, what the hell is the local housing authority--which deals almost entirely with poor minorities--doing requiring minorities to show one?

Good question.  Turns out that your emperor's *national* housing authority (HUD) requires it.

This prompted Hellner to wonder if there were other situations where the federal government demanded that a person show a photo ID.  And would you believe...

If you want to receive Social Security you have to have a bank account, since SS now requires direct deposit. And the emperor's own government demands that to open a bank account you have to have a photo ID on file--presumably to reduce fraud.

I'm...horrified! Oppression! Raaacists!

Want to take a tour of the White House? The emperor requires a photo ID.

Want to sign up for Medicaid?  The emperor requires that you show a photo ID--presumably to reduce fraud.

Want to fly on an airline? The TSA--which in case you've forgotten is controlled by the emperor-- demands that you show a photo ID before it will let you get on a plane.

These requirements clearly show that the federal government and Democrats know that requiring the poor and minorities to show a photo ID isn't remotely "oppressive." So why is it that when a state passes a reasonable law to require a photo ID to vote--to reduce vote fraud--the federal government immediately sues them on the entirely false charge that this "disenfranchises" voters?

The answer is obvious: Democrats want to prevent states from making people prove they're actually eligible to vote because investigation after investigation shows that people who vote multiple times in the same election are overwhelmingly voting for the Democrat candidate.  Also, surveys show that illegal immigrants are far more likely to support Democrat positions--so presumably they're motivated to vote Democrat. 

For better or worse, today all adults need a photo ID to function in society, so it isn't remotely oppressive to require people to show one to vote. The question is, if Dems are fine with having to show a photo ID for all the things listed above, why does the nation's corrupt, Democrat-packed judicial system keep supporting the Democrats' utterly bullshit claim that requiring would-be voters to show a photo ID to vote is unconstitutional?

Wednesday, April 13

15 state A-G's will prosecute any company that says anything critical of global warming?

Of course you think that couldn't possibly be true.  After all, didn't the First Amendment supposedly guarantee "freedom of speech"?  
Yes it did.  But that was when the Constitution was the "supreme law of the land."  Under the emperor that's no longer true--because last Friday the A-G of the Virgin Islands demanded that a think-tank (the Competitive Enterprise Institute) turn over ten years of its records on every communication with any energy-related company, in an effort to see if the think-tank had tried to coordinate a strategy for countering the relentless push by the Left/Democrats to raise taxes on carbon-based energy to sky-high levels.

The A-G of New York noted that his office intended to prosecute any company found to be writing or publishing opinions debunking the idea that global warming was caused by humans.

If this isn't slapped down by a federal court, it will mean the government can prosecute anyone for saying or writing anything they don't like.

"Ridiculous," you may well say.  "The government isn't infringing on MY right to free speech, it's merely trying to prevent huge, evil corporations from lying about global warming."

That misses the entire point:  If the government can criminalize speech on this topic, what would keep it from criminalizing speech on any other topic it didn't want discussed?


Wednesday, April 6

Chalk up three more Americans killed by an illegal alien who'd previously been deported but had illegally re-entered the country a second time. 

The crash killed a father and his two young daughters, ages 4 years and 22 months.

From the Dallas News:
A 33-year-old who officials say is in the country illegally may face criminal charges after crashing into a volunteer firefighter’s car in Lavon last week, killing him and two children.

A van driven by Margarito Quintero struck fire Capt. Peter Hacking’s car, authorities said.  Hacking and two of his children, 4-year-old Ellie and 22-month-old Grayson, died at the scene.

Quintero, a Mexican citizen, entered the U.S. illegally in August 2006.  He was arrested on criminal charges and deported in 2008, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Now before any liberal whiner goes all whiny and wails that this was simply a tragic accident and that it's outrageous to blame the illegal for an accident, be advised that I'm well aware of that, thanks.  That wasn't the point I'm gonna make.  Two, actually

First is this:  If a *legal* driver falls asleep and his/her car crosses into your lane and kills you, your wife can sue him/her and at least get some financial compensation so she won't be impoverished by your death.  But illegals virtually never have liability insurance.  After all, they've already shown that "laws" don't mean shit to 'em so why would they give a damn about driving without a license or insurance?

Second:  It should be obvious to even the most dimwitted liberal by now that deportation isn't remotely a deterrent to illegals re-entering the U.S.  And almost no one wants to saddle taxpayers with the cost of jailing 'em for an effective number of years.  So what types of solutions are left?

Liberals will reply, "This isn't a problem.  And even if it was, there is simply no way to stop it.  You dumb, whiny, xenophobic conservatives must simply submit to the continuous flood of illegals into the country.  Oh, and we need to give them citizenship too.  So they can vote liberal/Democrat.  Sweet!"

This is why liberals are the enemy--they want to let anyone in the world come to the U.S. and get citizenship (except whites or Christians).  They want this because of "virtue signalling," and because it ensures that liberals and Democrats will run the government for the next 50 years or more.

Of course there IS a solution.  It's just that Democrats/liberals don't want to do it, and in fact don't even want it to be discussed, precisely because it IS a workable solution:

Build the fucking border fence.

Whatever it costs, it'll be billions less than the cost of supporting an endless flood of illegals.  Plus it gives conservatives at least a fighting chance at slowing down our nation's anvil-like plunge toward socialism and dictatorial, unconstitutional rule.

And for the record I'm not a Trump supporter.  But even wackos sometimes have good ideas.  Building a formidable border fence is a good one.