Friday, March 31

Diversity is great--except for liberal outfits

"Diversity is great," right?

At least that's what so-called liberals keep saying.

Of course that command doesn't apply to liberal outfits.  Cuz, consistency is...well, they ain't.

Here's one of a million examples: 

Okay, libs say, you found ONE example.  "That's just a fluke!  A statistical quirk!"

Really?  Here's the staff of leftist rag "Salon:"

" us, diversity is GOOD.  You conservatives really REALLY need more of it!  But we don't--because...because...LOOK, RUSSIAN HACKERS!"

Student "activists" at pricey private college demand "Diversity Coordinator," mandatory black studies course

"William and Mary" is a private college in Virginia.  Which means it's infested with far too many "snowflakes"--students whose most highly-developed skill is their sense of entitlement:  They're the people who expect to be offered a job with a six-figure salary right out of college.

Last Wednesday student activists representing Black Lives Matter met with the president of the college to demand that the college hire a "Vice Provost of Diversity and Inclusion, require all students to complete courses in "social justice" and "black history," create an "Africana Studies department," hire more staff for W&M’s "Center for Student Diversity," and recruit more black students. 

The complainers noted that the University of Virginia has a "Vice President and Chief Officer for Diversity and Equity," who was paid an astonishing $338,800 last year. 

Nice gig, eh?

When the president noted that "demands" weren't a good approach, the snowflakes sneered that his response was “white supremacy” and “patriarchy.”  One student--a "student coordinator at W&M’s Center for Student Diversity"--wrote “This is what being censored looks like.  This is what white supremacy looks like. This is what patriarchy looks like. This is what condescension looks like. This is what being told ‘you, your issues and your life don’t matter’ looks like.

Excuse me?  "Censored"?  What a crock!  It's clear that this creature--the whiny complainer--doesn't know the meaning of "censored." 

It's also clear that W&M will be soon be diverting half a million bucks per year from actual productive teaching to total wastes of time and money.  But whiny students with lists of demands will have pressured another university president into capitulating to utter bullshit.

Black student "activists" are appeased for ten minutes--and encouraged to push more demands.

College president feels virtuous for doing what they demand.

Other students pay more tuition and get less useful education for it.

Percentage of employable college grads declines.

Sounds like a great plan.

Wednesday, March 29

Obama denies ever spying on Trump...or any other elected leader. Uh...wait...

Tuesday, March 28

Head of "Feminist Initiative" party in Sweden wants unlimited immigration, amnesty for all

There's a political party in Sweden called Feminist Initiative (FI).  The president of that party is Victoria Kawesa, who's from Uganda.

According to Kawesa, her party will push for unlimited immigration and amnesty for all immigrants.  Kawesa also wants to ban the deportation of criminal immigrants from Sweden.  Her "rationale" is that native Swedes who break the law aren't deported, so no one should be.

FI will also push for eliminating defense spending.

You probably think this is a spoof...a fabrication.  Unfortunately it's not.  This is what happens when immigrants take over your country.

Here's Victoria:

Sunday, March 26

After the latest attack in London, one Brit columnist gets it

After Muslim "extremists" bombed the airport terminal at Brussels last year, residents of that city gathered to remember those killed.  Row on row they stood, hands making those cute little hearts.

Who knows what they were trying to communicate with that.  Love?  If so, for whom?

Last week in London another follower of Islam killed 5 innocent residents.  Some he killed with his rented car, others with a knife.

One columnist and London resident despairs that this is the future--that foolish westerners will keep tolerating this, keep turning a blind eye to the philosophy behind it, will keep making empty gestures--like making hearts with their hands in memorials for those killed-- instead of acting to prevent it, or at least reduce the number of attackers to the truly insane.

London, she says, is a city so desperate to be seen as tolerant--so dominated by liberalism and the command to be politically correct--that no one is even allowed to name the problem.  Liberals believe multiculturalism works, and because they run things that's the end of it.  And innocents are killed--again and again.

Meanwhile the same liberals ban ads on the Underground if they show women in bikinis.  (You have to wonder if they think someone is forcing the models to wear one.)

Liberal pols are endlessly tolerant of those who harm us--while the Home Office tries to shift the focus of public fear to white nationalists).  Anyone who criticizes the killers is called a racist, "Islamophobe," xenophobe.

Like Swedish pols, UK politicians adamantly refuse to admit the truth about the threat we face, the horrors being committed by the foreigners we allowed to become residents. They refuse because to admit that anything's wrong--and desperately wrong--would be to admit that one of the core policies of the liberals is a disaster.  That multiculturalism has not worked. That it is a huge failure and one big lie.

How many more attacks must happen before we acknowledge these are no longer the acts of ‘extremists’? 

These events are no longer extreme. They are commonplace, almost an everyday occurrence.

The attackers are no longer extremists.  They are simply more true to their beliefs. Beliefs which will be supported endlessly by the government's radio and television networks for the next few months until we buy into the narrative that this has nothing to do with any religion.

That in fact we should blame, say, Brexit supporters.

Anything but the truth.

How much longer will the west tolerate these attacks?

(Adapted from Katie Hopkins, in the Daily Mail.)

This will re-direct you to the GoFundMe page for Venezuela set up by American Social Justice Warriors

Donate to help the starving people of Venezuela!

The ordinary people of Venezuela are starving, because the country doesn't produce enough food to feed itself and no longer has the cash to import enough food! 

Or toilet paper, for that matter.

It's so bad that people have been sneaking into the zoos at night and butchering the animals for food.  Really.

You might think this crisis could have something to do with the policies of their socialist government, but that's absolutely untrue.  Socialism is great, works great, and you need to support it.  Really.  Just ask Hillary or Obama or Bernie or damn near every entertainer and member of the media.

And that's about all the parody I can muster:  You'd think that as much as all of the above love socialism, and are trying to send this nation down that path, that they might, conceivably, reach into their own pockets to help.

Not a chance.  They love their money, but they're quite willing for the U.S. to bail out the socialists if they can force you to contribute your hard-earned bucks--via federal taxes, obviously.

Remember this parody the next time one of the folks on that faux donation list whines that the government needs to provide free _____ to people.  Cuz nothing's free--everything is paid for by someone, sooner or later.  And in this case by taxpayers, under threat of prison if they don't pay.

Social justice warriors start GoFundMe page to send food to starving Venezuelans

This is a hoot!  Social-justice warriors set up GoFundMe for starving Venezuelans!
If you've been reading the news you know the people of Venezuela are starving.  The exact reason isn't clear but we know, right?  It's because the oil companies and the banks and the crazy maniac Trump have conspired to starve them into voting out their socialist government!

The oil companies did this by dropping the price of oil.  Since oil is the main source of money for Venezuela, that cut their income terribly!

We can't let Trump and the oil companies win!  So we've set up a GoFundMe page to raise money for food for Venezuelans!  When we reach $1 million we'll charter a freighter, fill it with organically-grown food, harvested by Fair Farm Wage companies, and send it to Venezuela.

We know all good-thinking Americans--all Democrats--love socialism, and since Venezuela is the newest socialist country in the western hemisphere it's a tragedy that they have so little food through no fault of theirs.  So donate as much as you can afford, right away, so we can help these poor people.

Remember, their plight isn't their fault!  They're totally innocent.  Some bigots and racists are whispering that their crisis is due to socialist policies, but we know that's just a big lie, pushed by the Trump administration.  The fact is that all their problems have been caused by the U.S. government and the oil companies.  U.S. oil companies--at the direction of the Trump administration--unilaterally cut the price of oil to bankrupt Venezuela!  It's just one more example of eevil capitalism cutting prices to hurt little countries.

The response by U.S. Democrats and fans of socialism to the plight of Venezuela has been absolutely huge:  Our GoFundMe was only set up two days ago and we've already raised $137!  And a lot of  very prominent Americans have donated early, and we'd like to give a big shout-out to our early donors: 
  • Nancy Pelosi -- $25  Thank you, congresswoman!  We knew we could count on you to lead!
  • Sean Penn -- $15
  • Senator Chuck Schumer -- $15 
  • Senator Diane Feinstein -- $10
  • Barbra Streisand -- $10
  • Michael Moore (film maker) -- $8
  • Hillary Clinton -- $7.50
  • Senator Bernie Sanders -- $5
  • Barack Obama (winner of Nobel peace prize and former president) -- $5
  • Chelsea Clinton (winner of Lifetime achievement award and future Senator) -- $4.50
Thank you all so much!  You're the best!  You're showing the world the true spirit of socialism--generously sharing your wealth with people in dire need! 

Wednesday, March 22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It kills them.  By the thousands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Tuesday, March 21

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, March 19

Is war on the horizon? Nah, surely not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, March 18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Venezuela blames bread shortage on...bakeries?

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

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

Why, folks who own bakeries, of course.

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

Why, because they're business owners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then repeat as needed until American socialists figured it out.

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

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

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

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

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

How indeed, comrade.

Friday, March 17

"Change the people, change the civilization"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, March 16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad either way.

Wednesday, March 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H/T Jeffrey Lord in The American Spectator.

Tuesday, March 14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, March 13

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

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

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

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

Here's USAToday's take.

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

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

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

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

Here's the oh-so-unbiased CBS.

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

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

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

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

Where we stand 15 years after 9/11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NY State scraps literacy test for teachers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, March 12

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

Carolyn Flowers was Obama's Federal Transit Administration chief.

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

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

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

Team Obama and the wiretaps, part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moreover, another Obama order underscores his real goal:

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

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

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

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

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

H/T Steve McCann at American Thinker

"Queer person of color" at $66,000-per-year college asks white people to pay for her spring break

Pitzer College costs $66,000 per year.  A totally charmless gal from Brooklyn who got a free ride to that "institution" decided she wasn't getting everything she was entitled to, so she decided people should send her money to go on spring break.  Particularly white people.  So she tweeted this:

Ah, gotta love the brilliance of asking for cash from "white allies" by telling them "Remember that everything you are/have is due to the genocide and enslavement of our ppl." !  BTW, Leandra is hispanic, so not sure who she's blaming for "genocide and enslavement of our ppl." 

But really, does it even matter?  SHE thinks it's true, so you're not permitted to ask her for the proof or details.  You raaacist!  After all, whites like Rachel Dolezal can pretend to be black, so you can't complain when a hispanic gal wants to do the same.

And love the frosting: "Yet all I'm asking for is a bit of cash..."  Cuz her free ride of $66,000 per year--courtesy of taxpayers--isn't nearly enough!

Oh, and ya gotta love her description that she needs to go on break to get away from her "toxic institution."  Of course no one told her she could simply drop out, but...well, you know.

In fairness, Pitzer gave her the free ride cuz she scored in the top one percent on her SAT and was taking college engineering courses in high school, so... 

Wait...I mean, she's a world-class pianist who wants to hit the concert circuit.

Oh wait.  She's a rapper.  And lots of folks think that's music, so...  And you don't have to create a resume to hit it big in rappin', so there's that.

So if you find Leandra's demand to be...brazen and...deserving drop her a line and throw some guilt-cash her way.  Cuz she deserves it.

Saturday, March 11

Hilliary campaign manager claims to know contents of wiretaps of Trump phones

We're living in interesting times, no question about it:

If you've been paying attention you've heard claims that
   a) Trump or his aides were talking with Russia or Russian financial figures about something; and
   b) that someone wiretapped one or more of Trump's phones.

Virtually all Democrats believe (a), while Repubs believe (b).  So let's see if the Mainstream Media or Dem officials can shed some light on this:

The Narrative the Dems are going with is that IF any Trump lines were tapped and recorded, it was done solely because Team Obama had excellent, excellent info that Trump was conspiring with the Russians to do...something.  Probably steal the election.  In any case, really really bad.

This Narrative claims there was never any intention to wiretap Trump himself, but the taps may accidentally "picked up" a few words from his assistants.  But purely by accident, see.

Lest you think I made that up, Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook said exactly that, on video.

Mook's statement clearly implies that he knows what's in the wiretaps.

According to journalists Sara Carter and John Solomon (formerly of the the Washington Post, the Washington Times, and AP), a FISA court warrant was granted to federal investigators in October of 2016.

In addition to the FISA warrant in October, the FBI obtained a separate warrant that same month to look into a computer server tied to then-candidate Donald Trump's businesses in Trump Towers (but not located in Trump Towers). According to the report, the feds used traditional investigative techniques to examine allegations of computer activity tied to two Russian banks and there had been no intercepts of Trump’s phone or emails.

The FBI quickly concluded that "the computer activity in question involved no nefarious contacts, bank transactions or encrypted communications with the Russians." 

Of course it's illegal for any federal employee to provide the contents of a wiretap to anyone.  It would be interesting to put Mook under oath and ask him who gave him the contents, since he can't claim any privilege.

In any case, here's what seems to have happened:  Obviously Obama and his minions wanted Hilliary to win, and to do so they decided to wiretap Trump.  To do that, in mid-2016 they went to the FISA court claiming they had really, really good information that Trump was colluding with the Russians about...well, anything...and seeking a wiretap under the provisions of the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

The FISA court examined Team Obama's claims--and denied the request for a wiretap.  It was only the 12th time that has happened out of 25,000 requests.

But Democrats and totalitarians are never inclined to take "illegal" for an answer, so in October Team Obama went back to the court a second time, again seeking a wiretap.  But this time they didn't name Trump as a target, and the FISA judges approved the tap.

But now a huge problem arises:  Against every single prediction, Hilliary loses the election.

As every expert did, Team Obama assumed Hilliary would win--in which case no one would ever even try to investigate the lies about not wiretapping Trump, or the coverup.

But when Trump won--against all odds--everything changed.

So if the above turns out to be substantively true--and of course that's not known now--it raises several questions for the Dems:
   1.  Did Team Obama omit "material information" in their second request to the FISA court to wiretap Trump's phones?
   2.  How can Robbie Mook--or anyone on Team Obama--legally know the contents of the wiretap?  (They can't--totally illegal.)

One has to wonder whether Mook and the Dems just haven't thought this through, or whether they know they won't be prosecuted or compelled to testify as to the source of this illegal information.

Personally, I suspect the Dems have damaging information on Trump that they haven't released, and are using this to blackmail Trump into not prosecuting even if an investigation turns up solid evidence of a fraudulently-obtained wiretap.  One obvious possible source of that info would be his tax returns, which are almost certainly in their possession, since IRS head Koskinnen has shown that he believes himself to be above all laws.

Analyst claims 120,000 Fakebook comments were made by just 100 people

Recently former CBS reporter (and straight-shooter) Sheryl Atkisson had a guy named Ken Brown as a guest.  Brown had posted a criticism of Obamacare on the Obamacare Fakebook page, which generated an avalanche of negative comments.

The experience prompted Brown--a data analyst--to study 225.000 comments on the Obamacare Facebook page.

He claims that 60% of those 225,000 comments--posted under 40,000 different names--were actually done by just 100 people.  And that most of those posts were posted between 9 AM and 5 PM.

Brown also discussed "zombie posts"--comments generated by a computer and posted under a fake profile.
He says it's rampant on social media, and that the programmers have even provided that when a zombie comment is posted, it'll quickly be supported by hundreds of "zombie likes."

I have no idea if this guy is legit, but this squares with my own experience:  Whenever some event critical of a Dem policy or goal is in the news, you'll see the exact same comments--word for word--on a dozen different sites, under different names--supporting the Dems and criticizing the critical story.

Now, I can understand someone posting the same comment on different sites, but why do it under different names--unless you were trying to hide the source?

Friday, March 10

The case against AGW / global warming / "climate change" being caused by human activity, part 17

The theory that human activity is causing the earth's climate to warm by more than an insignificant amount is called "AGW"--anthropogenic global warming--and for this theory to be correct, four things must be true: 
   1.  the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere must be increasing;
   2.  the climate must actually be warming by a significant amount;
   3.  any such warming must be caused by CO2, rather than other gases;
   4.  a significant percentage of this CO2 must be emitted by the burning of carbon fuels.

Measurements (in Hawaii) have shown that atmospheric CO2 has been increasing for the past 50 years or so, and that fact alone causes concern among members of the public and the scientific community.  Nevertheless, many, many things could refute this theory:

   1.  If it can be shown that the earth's climate had natural cycles of average global temperature before humans started burning a significant amount of carbon fuel;
   2.  If it can be shown that at many times in the past, increasing CO2 did NOT precede a temperature increase;
   3.  If it can be shown that gases *other than* CO2 have a much larger "greenhouse effect";
   4.  If it can be shown that the climate is not actually warming significantly.

I've done several posts showing how NOAA and NASA have actually *changed* temperatures originally reported, making the new "official" temp different from what the person reading the thermometer actually wrote down.  In every case, the changes made by both agencies have made temperatures from the last couple of decades warmer and temps from decades earlier cooler, which has the effect of making the trend look like the climate is warming a LOT more than it really is.

This time I'd like to call your attention to a different metric of climate change:  Glacier retreat.

A mainstay of the AGW crowd is that all over the world, glaciers are retreating!  Which obviously means the globe is getting warmer, right?  But take a look at the historical locations of glacier faces {"terminii") at Glacier Bay, Alaska, below.  As you see, the glaciers there have been retreating since the bay was first mapped in 1760 or so.

So...these glaciers were retreating since 1760.  But humans didn't start burning gazillions of tons of fossil fuels until 190 years later.  But...but...but... if CO2 causes global warming, how can that be?
And that's the point.

Thursday, March 9

Hillary campaign manager was a 'first'--but the media didn't tell you

Robbie Mook managed Hilliary's campaign.  He's gotten scads of air-time on every network except Fox, which is because he refused to appear there.

Did you ever hear any network or media outlet note a major 'first' about Mook-- that he was the first openly homosexual guy to manage a presidential campaign?

No, you didn't.  Of course there's nothing wrong with a campaign manager being gay, but that's not the issue.  Rather, it's that the networks and the Lying Media LOVE to  report "the first ____ to do _____."  This is a big 'first' deal, but not a single media outlet told you about it.

Why not?  Why wasn't this particular 'first' worth noting, though all the others are?

Gee, I can't imagine why they wouldn't have told us.

The link is to Wiki.  I realize...but the page hasn't been edited for over a week, and you'd think if it had been hacked, someone would have caught it in a day or two.

Leftist site admitted that a top Clinton advisor sent TOP SECRET emails to Hilliary's private server--9 months before the election!

With the election far over, the details of whether Hilliary's private email server contained any material classified TOP SECRET or higher don't seem to be of huge importance now.  But...

If you listened to FBI director James Comey's testimony to congress you learned that all the discussion of classified info on her server hinged on just four paragraphs, each of which had the letter "(C)" in the margin to show it was "confidential"--which is indeed the lowest level of classified info.  And Democrat members of the committee spent much time emphasizing that Confidential was the lowest classification, so there was presumably no reason to be upset at the violation. 

Not a single congresscritter stated that Hilliary's server also contained TOP SECRET material--even though it did.

"Wait.  What??  When did this come out?  You're just making this up, like all Rethugs!" 

Really?  Consider the following article, from the left-wing website Politico, published a full year ago.  You need to read it to see how the shills at Politico--and all MSM outlets--covered for Hilliary.
Politico posted the following story in February of 2016--long before Comey testified to congress--under the headline

Top Clinton adviser sent 'top secret' messages to her private account

Hillary Clinton's top national security and foreign policy staffer Jake Sullivan was one of the authors of messages that appeared on several Hillary Clinton email chains recently labeled "top secret" by the State Department, according to multiple intelligence sources who have seen the correspondence.
Sullivan, then deputy chief of staff to the secretary of state, is now senior policy adviser to the 2016 Democratic front-runner.

Sullivan’s lawyer did not respond to a request for comment.

Sullivan both initiated email conversations and also forwarded along messages with sensitive information, and he sometimes added additional content on the email chains in question, according to the sources. Those chains are now maintained at the highest classification level for national security information, though the campaign has long maintained they were not marked classified at the time they were sent.

The news that Sullivan was among those sending sensitive information is in some ways unsurprising, given his position at the State Department and his closeness to Clinton. But if the emails show that he mishandled sensitive information, one of Clinton's closest aides could come in for further investigation and scrutiny by congressional investigators.
1.  Note Politico's effort to minimize the potential damage: "unsurprising" that Sullivan would send Top Secret information because of his position at State;
2.  Note that if there is to be any blame, the authors put it on Sullivan, not Hilliary. 
A third source said that Sullivan was one of about three individuals who sent such content to Clinton.

It is unclear who else was involved in the email discussions.

In a statement for this story a State Department official said, "We are not going to speak to the content of these documents, including who sent them.
So they admit that the docs exist.
The Clinton campaign said the controversy around Clinton's email has been orchestrated for political gain.  "For months we have had to stand by while prejudicial leaks have attempted to create a false narrative from sources hiding behind a cloak of anonymity" said Nick Merrill, a Clinton campaign spokesman. "When nothing else is known about the content of these emails, it's a remarkably irresponsible practice to be engaging in for political gain."
The State Department less than two weeks ago said for the first time that “top secret” intelligence had passed through Clinton’s personal email server. Previously, the department had spent months pushing back against claims by intelligence agencies that some of her messages should be classified at such a high level.
Note that the article never claims the Top Secret messages were originally unclassified and only retroactively upgraded to Top Secret, but the phrase "...pushing back against claims...that some of her messages [emails] should be classified..." the reader is left with that clear impression.

That continues in the next 'graf, with "Now...State has moved to classify...."  Again, clearly implying that the emails were originally unclassified, but without saying so.
Now, though, State has moved to classify and withhold a total of seven email chains and 37 pages of messages — including 22 emails in total — from its monthly release of Clinton's correspondence mandated by a federal court. State has also told lawmakers privately that the department is also launching their own internal probe into how such “top secret” information wound up on Clinton’s server.

The FBI, meanwhile, is continuing its investigation of whether Clinton’s homemade email set-up ever put classified information at risk. The agency is also interviewing top Clinton aides about whether they had any concerns about the content of some of the messages. The campaign would not say if Sullivan has been interviewed by the FBI.

Congressional Republicans probing Clinton's email setup have two main questions: how the information got on an unclassified system, and whether anyone ever instructed aides to send such sensitive content through unsecured means.

Senate Intelligence Ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last week said Clinton was not the originator of any "top secret" email chains. Sources told POLITICO, however, that she did chime in and the conversation flowed both ways, a point Feinstein also acknowledged to Bloomberg.
Asked Tuesday about Sullivan, Feinstein said "I don't know anything about Jake Sullivan and the emails," she said. "I've never heard it before... I've seen the emails but I don't register on Jake Sullivan."
Hell, I expect by next week State will deny that there ever was a deputy chief of staff by the name of Sullivan. 
Sullivan has been Clinton’s top policy aide for years and sent Clinton a large chunk of the nearly 1,600 emails that have now been upgraded to “confidential” — a lower level of classification. 
Minimizing again.  And note this isn't the crux of the claims against her.  The crux is about TOP SECRET emails.
In two other instances Clinton had asked Sullivan to send sensitive information. In early January the State Department released a June 2011 email exchange where Clinton asked Sullivan to send her a talking points document on an unsecured network for convenience. The document was scheduled to be forwarded over to Clinton over State’s secure network, but the secure fax machine appears to have been broken.

“If they can't, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure," Clinton wrote when they were having problems. "Non-paper" is a diplomatic term for a discussion draft or memo that does not represent the official position of a government or negotiator.
This is the smoking gun:  Hilliary asking her deputy to strip off any headings (that's where the classified markings are) and send "non-secure."  And a much more common interpretation of "non-paper" would be to scan and send as a jpeg or pdf instead of faxing.
Republicans on Capitol Hill seized on the message, arguing that it showed “intent” and indicated Clinton may have violated laws that cover how classified material is handled. Clinton’s campaign responded that she never would have instructed an aide to send classified information on an unclassified system.
Isn't it interesting that neither Clinton nor her top aides were interviewed under oath.
Regardless, the State Department said it found no evidence that the document was ever sent via unsecured fax.
Of course there wouldn't be any record of "the" doc going out on unsecured fax if they sent it as a pic or pdf attached to a text.
Clinton has repeatedly called for her messages to be made public — even the ones State now says are “top secret.” She and her defenders argue that at least some of the information being classified is in fact widely available or common knowledge. They note that under government rules, even newspaper articles can be deemed “top secret” if they reference a program or information that is so designated and has never been formally declassified.

One Clinton spokesman has called the situation “overclassification run amok.” However, one source said some of the email exchanges may have begun by simply relaying news reports, but the back-and-forth wound up including sensitive classified information that went beyond the contents of the underlying article.

House Intelligence Republican Mike Pompeo (R-Kans.), who has seen the messages but would say nothing about the senders and content, agreed with that specific point.

“Some of the information contained in these emails is not merely about newspaper articles, but rather presents risk to American national security and to our warriors assigned around the world," he said. "Those tasked with addressing this lapse of security must assume that the Chinese, Russians, Iranians or hackers around the world have been able to obtain this information held outside of secure channels. This is expensive, time-consuming and presents risks all its own.”

More recently, Democrats have pointed out that State’s inspector general also found 12 messages with information now deemed classified on a private email account of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and that of staff for Condoleezza Rice — though none reached the "top secret" level. Still, Democrats say those revelations show that the issue of retroactively classified material showing up on private servers is not restricted to just Clinton.
Finally, the article closes with the obligatory "Rethuglicans did it too" defense.  Although the article admits that none of the Powell or Rice emails were TOP SECRET, the takeaway is that "retroactively classified material" can show up on anyone's private email server.

Wonder why no members of the House committee that examined Comey's decision not to indict Hilliary mentioned these TOP SECRET emails?  Why was every member content to let the record only note four paragraphs of emails with the lowest possible classification?

Trump should get a new FBI director immediately, and should ask the new director to interview Jake Sullivan--under oath--with threat of jail time.  Only by making some dem lackey pay a significant price will the rest start ratting out the bad people in government.

Clapper lies. But you can totally believe him when he says...

James Clapper is the director of the National Security Agency (NSA).

By every account from former employees--and a few current employees who have secretly leaked information--the NSA monitors all phone calls in the U.S., looking for "trigger words" ("attack", "chemical weapons" etc).

So...director Clapper testified to congress a few years ago.  He was asked if the NSA did anything remotely *like* that. 

He denied that the agency did anything like that.

So...if he'll lie to congress (which he did), how can you believe him when he a) claims the Russians interfered with the 2016 election; or b) claims the Obama administration didn't order wiretaps on Trump's phones?

Saturday, March 4

Obama is running an organization which has declared its intent to either impeach or remove Trump

You may have noticed almost-nonstop news coverage of violent, disruptive protests across the country since Donald Trump was elected.  Journalist Michael Goodwin claims it's part of a deliberate plan to wreck Trump's presidency, regardless of the cost to the country.

The first shot by the Dems was forcing the resignation of Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as Director of National Security--done by intelligence-community employees who want the U.S. to continue to mostly ignore Muslim-extremist terrorism.

Barack Obama is the first ex-president in history to structure and lead a political organization explicitly intended to sabotage his successor.  The main vehicle for this is "Organizing for Action" (OFA), founded in January 2013 by Michelle Obama and her husband’s 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina, with input from David Axelrod.

Recent funding records aren't available but according to IRS filings OFA took in over $40 million in just its first two years.

The modus operandi of OFA comes right out of Obama’s support and sympathy for Marxism and his background as a left-wing community organizer. It’s a combination of agitation and propaganda -- much like old-style Soviet agitprop, and Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

For Alinsky, the rules start with an ends justifies the means quest for power, which can entail lawbreaking, deception, and concealing the true revolutionary agenda; militant obstructionism; and deflecting debate on substance while relentlessly attacking the character and legitimacy of the opponent.

Agitprop and community organizing both involve stirring up public anger over some issue. The anger mobilizes that constituency to join like-minded people to protest and demonstrate, which provides made-for-TV drama scenes portraying supposedly “spontaneous” mass protests that in turn get transmitted to millions through the media.

This feedback loop is a key driver of fake news: "This must be a big deal cuz all those people are demonstrating."

For instance, immediately following President Trump’s late January executive order temporarily banning refugees and visitors from seven Muslim-run states that harbor terrorists, OFA kicked into action, mobilizing people to “spontaneously” demonstrate, causing utter chaos at nearly a dozen of the busiest airports across the country. Of course the demonstrations weren't remotely spontaneous but carefully orchestrated by Obama's OFA crew.

The same thing happened in late February when members of Congress held town-hall meetings across the country. A week before the town halls started, OFA released a “Congressional Recess Toolkit,” a training manual for activists and demonstrators,instructing them to get to meeting halls early and “spread out… throughout the front half of the room, [which] will make the perception of broad consensus a reality for your member of congress.” So staged demonstrations drive network news, which shapes public opinion.

Marxist theory holds that for socialist revolution to succeed, the old order must first be destroyed. Obama understands this well: Having encouraged Black Lives Matter and the war on police and law enforcement, having facilitated ballooning welfare rolls and doubling student loan debt to $1.35 trillion, having actively encouraged a flood of foreigners to illegally enter the U.S, and having pushed unprecedented deficit spending that has doubled our national debt in just eight years, he's brought the U.S. nearer to collapse than at any previous time.

Obama follows not only Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals but also the revolution-creating theories of neo-Marxist professors Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who believe the easiest way to destroy the U.S. is to overload the welfare state. Vastly increased expenditures on welfare would require the government to borrow far more money, causing ruinous interest costs and financial collapse.

Looks like we're well on the way.  Thanks, Obozo.

H/T American Thinker