Saturday, April 22

HuffPo publishes (and deletes) article literally stating "Trump supporters deserve to have their towns annhilated"

Two days ago the socialist revolutionaries (morons) at the Huffington Post published an article declaring that Donald Trump voters deserve to have their “Podunk towns” destroyed by nuclear weapons.

That's a direct quote: “These are the people who deserve to have their towns annihilated."  Written by Oakland artist Chris Cali, the article was titled “Trump Supporters Deserve to Die More Than I Do.” 

Cali was angry at Trump’s letting the Air Force drop the largest conventional bomb, dubbed the “Mother of All Bombs,” on a tunnel complex in Afghanistan.  Cali said he feared that would bring America to the brink of war with...North Korea??  Yep.  Not sure how that was supposed to connect but shrieking liberals don't need to have any actual "reasoning" to call for American's to be nuked.  Cuz they're so compassionate or something.

Once he "solved" the problem of how to link the big conventional bomb with nuclear war, everything else was relatively simple, and he could indulge his fantasy about Trump supporters dying in a nuclear war.

In his now-deleted piece (archived here, and first reported by Free Beacon), Cali speculated on whether President Trump personally profited from the use of the MOAB, and wailed that the President’s actions were enough to provoke North Korea into starting a nuclear war.

Cali was worried because he was sure the place where he lives is a higher-priority target "than some s***hole town in Nebraska.” 

Cali vehemently disagreed with liberals who call for compassion towards the working-class voters who support Trump, claiming
They want you to know how much they hate immigrants and Blacks and Jews and gays and women and trans people in public bathrooms.  The ones who actually deserve to have a nuke dropped on them first are the ones who voted to get us all into this mess. Honestly, the human species will be better off without them. It’s practically Darwinian.       --liberal "artist" Chris Cali, in the Huffington Post
These are the people who are trying to destroy the elected president of the United States.  Their hate is consuming, overwhelming, white-hot, so they project it onto others.  They lie that Trump supporters "hate immigrants"--cunningly omitting the fact that it's opposition to illegal immigration that fires up ordinary Americans.

But do go on, liberals:  Keep telling hard-working Americans who live outside your liberal paradises that they're evil, hateful, deserve to be nuked.  Cuz that worked so well for you in the last election.

the author of the article

More Venezuela

Venezuela:  mass riots since the first of April.  Lying liberal shill Rachael Madcow and her producers at MSNBC claim the riots are due to the fact that Venezuela's state oil company donated a big chunk of cash to Trump's inauguration.  Intelligent people know that's utter crap, and that the people are rioting to protest a) no food; b) 700 percent annual inflation; and c) the socialist regime having removed all authority from the elected national legislature.


How can a country possibly run short of food?  Well that's what happens when the socialist regime issues a decree that businesses that sell food must sell at cost--or less.  You can see the result in the next photo:


The socialist president, Maduro, blames the food shortage on "U.S. price speculation."  Oh, certainly.  He doesn't bother explaining how this actually happens, because there's no need:  His ardent followers believe it, because they've heard that repeatedly for decades.  Never the fault of horribly stupid socialist policies, of course.  Perish the thought!

Of course you think it can't happen here--the Democrats have repeatedly, constantly assured you that socialism is faaabulous, and will work beautifully if only the right people are in charge.

Uh...no.

A lesson here--for those who would learn from it

What follows is a tale of how stupid our "leaders" have gotten.

A bank robber was convicted in 2008 of robbing eight banks and was sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.

Because of people demanding that we treat criminals leniently, he was released in August 2011 after serving less than 3 years of his nominal sentence.

Less than a year later he started robbing banks again.  By mid-2016 he'd robbed 11, grabbing almost half a million bucks.  He was finally arrested Thursday.

So what can we learn from this story?  First, that far too often, criminals return to a life of crime.  And it doesn't take a PhD to deduce the reason:  It works for 'em.  Lots of money, plus they're sticking a thumb in the eye of the system.

How often does this happen?  Lots--three days ago in Paris a Muslim who'd shot cops in 2002, was sentenced and then released, shot another--this time fatally--on the most prestigious street in the city.

It comes down to a choice:  Our bleeding-heart "elites" can keep demanding that we release known criminals early, with exactly predictable consequences; or we can keep convicted bad guys in prison for their full terms--which at least reduces the time available to 'em to kill or steal again.

Of course the elites live in gated communities with guards, so never suffer from the depredations of the people they demand be released early, so the chances of anything changing are zero.

Friday, April 21

MSNBC's Maddow lies that the riots ("unrest") in Venezuela are because of state oil company's donation to Trump inauguration!

Remember the NY Times and NBC and CBS and MSNBC all warning you repeatedly to beware of "fake news"?  The inference is that you must trust *them*, but you can't believe what you read or see from other sources.  Like videos of the Berkeley riots, that sort of thing.

Example:
   Venezuela has been having huge protests for days, triggered by the ghastly policies of the socialist regime.  There hasn't been enough food in shops for a couple of years because the government demands that the folks that make food sell at cost or less.

So they're rioting.  But the riots have NOTHING to do with Donald Trump.

And sure enough, last night on her nightly bullshit show, ultra-liberal Rachel Maddow was talking about a report that Venezuela's state-owned oil company donated $500,000 to Trump's inauguration--which is apparently true.   But when Maddow showed video clips of the riots in Venezuela, the huge graphic at the bottom said the people were rioting because of the donation to the inauguration!

In other words, the riots were indirectly about Trump.

Of course you can't believe a "major" television network could lie so effing blatantly about something so easily researched.  But you'd be wrong.  What your guess overlooks is that people who watch Maddow almost certainly doesn't know jack about the world.  When Maddow reports--and the graphic confirms--that the huge riots in Venezuela were caused by the donation to Trump's inauguration, most of her viewers would simply assume she was telling the truth.  But of course the truth is that they're rioting because of shitty socialist mis-rule.

Of course Maddow can't admit the real reason--that socialism doesn't work--cuz, Democrats.  Here are a couple of screencaps:



If you're still skeptical, take a look at the video and see for yourself.

So remember, citizen:  Beware of that fake news--from the professional liberal propagandists at every mainstream-media outlet! 

Venezuela: Have the starving people finally had enough of socialism?

Socialism--the Democratic party loves it!  "Free" health care, subsidized food, lots of "free" welfare for those who either can't or won't work.  Sounds wonderful, right?

But virtually every socialist government eventually runs into the same problem:  As Margaret Thatcher said, "The only problem with socialism is sooner or later they run out of other peoples' money."  And of course corruption is always a problem, because socialist governments end up ruling with an iron fist and the corrupt pols are never punished.

Sorta like here, where the CIA leaks from the top in an effort to overthrow Trump.  Oh well...

Venezuelan pol Hugo Chavez knew that if he promised the people "free" health care, ten-cent-per-gallon gasoline, food at artificially-low prices due to government subsidies, and free college, they'd elect him president.

He was right.

So how is it that now, 19 years after he took power--at a time when Venezuela had the highest per-capita income in all of Latin America--Venezuelans are starving?


The list of incredibly dumb rules and policies ordered by the government is a very long one.  If you wanted to utterly destroy a once-thriving economy you couldn't do it faster than Venezuela's socialist rulers have.

How can a country with the world's largest oil reserves be poor?

If you're not familiar with the oil business you have no idea of the magnitudes of the numbers.  When Chavez was elected, Venezuela produced about 4 million barrels of oil every day--most of which was exported.  And in Venezuela the government owns it all.  At $50 per barrel, exporting 3.5 million barrels per day would bring the government $175 million every day.

That's five Billion dollars every month.  Nice.


Today the country's oil production has fallen to 2.5 million barrels a day.  Still a huge revenue stream, but a lot less than before.  Even so, oil still accounts for about half of the country's revenue.

When world oil prices plummeted from $115 a barrel in 2014 to nearly half that--due almost entirely to a huge INcrease in U.S. production due to innovative drilling techniques developed by private industry--the government saw a huge drop in revenue.  A prudent leader would have cut spending and taken every possible step to encourage economic activity.  But socialists don't worry about where they'll get necessary money--it's up to the people to pay whatever they demand.  So Chavez and company kept showering "free" things on the population to keep winning elections.

Great for Chavez and his family, not great for the country.

The huge drop in oil production is due mainly to Chavez's thirst for revenge: in 2002, after a coup failed to remove Chavez from power, experienced employees of Venezuela's state-run oil company staged a strike.  Chavez retaliated by firing 18,000 of them. 

Like all socialists, it never occurred to him that oil doesn't just jump out of the ground and into a pipeline.  It takes a LOT of skill--and experiencce--to keep wells producing.  And in fact most Venezuelan oil is "heavy"--thick--so it has to be coaxed out of the ground by heating it with steam.  The replacement workers--many of them political supporters of Chavez--didn't have the skills, and the result was predictable. 

But the mismanagement was just beginning.  As revenue declined, the first thing Chavez cut from the budget was replacement parts for the wells and pumps.  After all, pumps couldn't vote, so....

Wanting more cash, Chavez began "nationalizing"--i.e. seizing--the properties of foreign oil companies in Venezuela.  Without cutting-edge technology from foreign companies, production dropped further.

When Chavez died, his vice-president--the stupid, cunning and charmless Nicholas Maduro--took over, intent on keeping all the socialist policies of his mentor.  Faced with lower oil revenue and unwilling to cut the "freebies" that kept them in power, he ordered government agencies to delay payments to foreign vendors.

Among the companies he stalled was the Russian state-owned shipping conglomerate Sovcomflot, which provides 15 percent of Venezuela's oil transportation.  When the unpaid bills reached $30 million, the Russian company refused to release a tanker carrying Venezuelan oil until the bill was paid.
  
Why are Venezuela's troubles relevant to us?  Simple: the relentless propagandizing of young Americans by public schools, universities, Hollywood and the Democrat party has made young people think socialism is great, and prompted a dislike of free markets.  When Bernie Sanders says "I will make college free to everyone--an idea now being echoed even by so-called "mainstream" Dems like NY governor Andrew Cuomo--and when Dems call for the government to forgive all student loans, the people who would benefit are 100 percent in favor.

How can those of us who see the real outcome of these policies reverse this disastrous trend? 

One possible avenue is to ensure that the disastrous results of socialist policies in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and others are thoroughly known by young Americans.

And stop voting for pols who push socialism--regardless of their political party.

Thursday, April 20

Venezuela seizes GM plant, eliminating thousands of pesky "jobs" created by eeevil capitalism

Yesterday a court appointed by the socialist government of Venezuela seized a General Motors plant in Valencia, Venezuela.

The company said that after the seizure its bank accounts were "out of its control," meaning it couldn't pay workers or suppliers.

GM has been operating in Venezuela for almost 70 years, providing great jobs at top wages. You'd think keeping good-paying jobs would be a goal of virtually any government. But when a socialist government runs out of money it starts grabbing any source of funds it can find to keep its unsustainable Ponzi scheme going a week or two longer.

And of course half the people love it when Dear Leader clobbers "greedy Yankee capitalists."

Sorta like here.

Do ya think U.S. leftist feel any sympathy for the workers whose jobs just vanished? Oh, certainly. Really. Because leftists keep saying they care so much about the ordinary working stiff. Oh, wait....that's just lipservice. What the left wants are all-powerful socialist governments, working in glorious solidarity with other socialist regimes to ensure that "all power goes to the people!"

Uh...no.

To be sure, the socialist government (via the thug-controlled court) will have some superficially-plausible excuse for the seizure: They'll say the company violated Rule 3723.147/d/4 by charging more than the government-set price for cars or some such.

Sorta like here, where during Obama's reign a guy was fined for catching rainwater running off his own roof and (gasp!) having the gall and greed to actually use it.

Record number of "migrants" arrived in Italy last weekend--with the help of big, fast boats run by western NGOs


Last weekend a record 8,300 "migrants" arrived by boat to Italy--the most in a single day.

The reason for the record numbers is that the longest leg of the "people-smuggling" voyage--which was formerly done by shady criminals--is now being done by dozens of European liberal organizations--"NGO's." 

Seriously.  Instead of the smugglers having to make the 250-mile voyage in their own boats, the smugglers simply ferry the "migrants" from Libya a few miles offshore, where they're transferred to larger, faster boats run by the NGO's.  This allows a single thug-boat to make several round-trips per day to feed the waiting NGO boats, maximizing revenue for the smugglers.  And the smugglers have far lower fuel bills!

Hey, win-win, eh?

Well, except for the working-stiffs in Europe, who end up carrying the welfare load of 100,000 new, unskilled, unassimilated, unvetted immigrants this year.

Officials say the comfortable shuttle service offered from just off the Libyan coast all the way to Italian ports has led many migrants to attempt the crossing who might not have done so otherwise.

Immigrant arrivals in Italy are 30 percent higher in the first quarter of 2017 than in the same period in 2016--which also set a record. 

Last fall the Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi cautioned that Italy would not survive another year of mass immigration like 2016--yet the pols have done nothing to stop the wave.

Last month the European agency in charge of border control, accused the NGO's of material complicity with human traffickers by lowering their costs.
So let's ask liberals:  When do you think people from countries with crappy standards of living will stop wanting to come to Europe and the U.S.?  When do you think the flood will stop?

Either you haven't thought about that, or you're happy with the result--which is unlimited open borders.

Some of you have already declared you're fine with that.  In fact, many liberals, Democrats and "progs" have demanded open borders.  Do you think that will improve the quality of life here? 

Do you think the flood has improved life in, oh, Sweden, France, Germany and the U.K.?

Do you think you're so much smarter than their libs that you'll be able to engineer a different result here in the U.S.?

Have you given even a moment's thought to this crucial question, or are you just unquestioningly demonstrating your wonderful virtue to your fellow liberals--showing your moral superiority compared to those you consider unenlightened?

Have you put ads on Craigslist offering rooms in your own home to house Syrian or Somali "migrants"?  Do your kids go to inner-city schools, or suburban or private ones?

Seriously, if you've worked out a solution for the problems Europe has been suffering because of unlimited immigration--problems we're beginning to see here in the U.S.--then by all means tell us your brilliant solution.  If you don't have a platform, tTell Elizabeth Warren, or the faaabulous Tom Perez (DNC chair), the details and let them explain to the rest of us.

We're willing to listen to your brilliant solution.  But we're getting damned tired of your repeatedly bleating that our side "hates immigrants" or is xenophobic or whatever.  It's the "illegal" part.

But you really know that, right?

Wednesday, April 19

Professor who called for Trump to be hanged doubles-down on his comments

Recently a history prof at Fresno State professor tweeted “Trump must hang, the sooner and higher the better.” 

Really, not kidding--many, many leftists have openly called for the president's assassination.

Do you recall hearing anyone calling for Obama to be assassinated?  I don't.  But now, with a (nominal) Republican president, the normal rules of civil behavior don't apply--to leftists, at least.

Far too many professors are leftists--drawing a state salary and indoctrinating your kids.  Wow.

Once Lars Maischak's tweets were noticed, he deleted 'em--and had the gall to tell a local TV station “I can assure you that I do not condone or advocate for murder or violence."  “From the context of the entirety of my tweets, this should be evident to anyone reading them in good faith (as opposed to malicious intent).”


Wait, asshole:  Your own twitter account showed that you wrote “To save American democracy, Trump must hang. The sooner and the higher, the better.”  And “Has anyone started soliciting money and design drafts for a monument honoring the Trump assassin yet?”

Here's how this lying piece of crap "explained" his denial:
Based on my conviction that a majority of Americans are committed to democracy, it therefore follows that ‘Trump must hang’ (the partial text of one of my most-quoted tweets), with the word ‘must’ expressing a logical necessity, rather than a demand or wish.  --professor Lars Maischak, Fresno State University
So to this guy the word "must" doesn't constitute a wish or demand?  Wow, that's nuts.  Wonder how a jury would respond to that?

The professor also had tweeted that “justice = The execution of two Republicans for each deported immigrant.”

Hey asshole, you left out the key word "illegal."  But of course that was your intent, eh?  Cuz your kind routinely lies to make people think folks wanting actual borders are xenophobes.

He added that deporting illegal aliens is "akin to ethnic cleansing.” Really, he said that.

Does anyone think this professor and his communist/Democrat allies will ever stop wanting to kill the president and Republicans?  I don't think that's bloody likely.

Unless conservative Americans surrender, does anyone see this ending in other than Civil war?

Tuesday, April 18

Students demand the right to ban speakers--claim free speech is "a tool appropriated by hegemonic institutions"

If you think radical black students can be reasoned with, you may want to consider an open letter--signed by 30 black students at Pomona College--to the president of that college.  The letter attacked the president for affirming Pomona’s commitment to free speech, and demand that all five colleges in the group “take legal action” against conservative journalists on the college newspaper.

The students wrote in response to an email from the president supporting “the exercise of free speech and academic freedom” after student protests that shut down a scheduled appearance by an invited speaker, scholar and critic of Black Lives Matter.
“Protest has a legitimate and celebrated place on college campuses,” the president's email said. “What we cannot support is the act of preventing others from engaging with an invited speaker. Our mission is founded on the discovery of truth."

The letter-writing students sharply disagreed.  “Free speech...has recently become a tool appropriated by hegemonic institutions. It has not just empowered students from marginalized backgrounds to voice their qualms and criticize aspects of the institution, but it has given those who seek to perpetuate systems of domination a platform to project their bigotry,” they wrote.

Astonishingly, the students' letter contended that free speech didn't help "the discovery of truth.”  In fact the students claimed truth was not only a “myth” but also a white supremacist concept.

“Historically, white supremacy has venerated the idea of objectivity.... This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny. The idea that the truth is an entity for which we must search, in matters that endanger our abilities to exist in open spaces, is an attempt to silence oppressed peoples.”

Referring to the protests that prevented Mac Donald's invited speech, the open letter claimed that allowing Mac Donald to speak would have amounted to a debate not “on mere difference of opinion, but [on] the right of Black people to exist.”

The open letter concludes by demanding that Oxtoby apologize for his April 7 email and instead announce that the college “does not tolerate hate speech and speech that projects violence onto the bodies of its marginalized students and oppressed peoples.”

The letter also demanded that the Claremont Colleges “take action” against the staff of the Claremont Independent for their “continual perpetuation of hate speech, anti-Blackness, and intimidation toward students of marginalized backgrounds.”  They demanded “disciplinary action” against conservative journalists from the Claremont Colleges.

“We demand that this institution and its constituents take legal action against members of the Claremont Independent involved with the editing and publication process, as well as disciplinary action, such as expulsion on the grounds of endangering the wellbeing of others.”

So...let's review:  These people believe they have the right to a) bar anyone they don't like from speaking in public; b) to demand an apology from the university president for writing an email supporting free speech and its use in "discovering truth;" c) to demand the expulsion of students who release the names of the students who made the demands.

Do these demands sound reasonable?  Do the people who made them sound in any way rational or reasonable? 

Do you think they can be reasoned with?

These are the folks who get absolutely crazy with rage if someone says "All lives matter."  Seriously.

At this point it seems to me that unless we're willing to give up the right of free speech, these demands--and the crazed anger behind them--can only be settled by civil war.

Notes from last Saturday's clash in Berkely between thugs demanding an end to free speech, and Americans defending it

Unless you're a real fan of the war between leftist thugs and freedom-loving Americans you probably didn't hear much about the brawl in Berkeley last Saturday:  Supporters of free speech held a rally, and predictably, hundreds of black-masked thugs amusingly calling themselves "Antifa"--supposedly "anti-fascist" but in reality exactly like Hitler's brown-shirt fascists themselves--showed up to fight.

Their goal was to break up the free-speech rally, and they were armed with six-foot poles which they used to bash heads.

The Berkeley cops had issued oooh-so-stern letters warning people that weapons--including clubs or two-by-fours--would result in the arrest of anyone carrying 'em.   But when the shit started up, the cops ran away.  Literally, they hid in their squad cars and did nothing.

The cops set up orange plastic fencing to keep the groups apart.  Antifa thugs promptly pushed the fence down and marched over it.

The cops did...nothing.  Just as they did nothing when a conservative speaker tried to give an invited speech at the university a month ago.

And of course Antifa leaders knew this.  They knew the cops wouldn't lift a finger to arrest them for bashing heads with poles, for throwing M-80's and bricks (you see that in the videos), because the university administrators and the mayor and police chief of Berkeley all support the Antifa thugs and their ability to overpower conservatives.

And sure enough, in the first hour or so, Antifa thugs were able to surround single free-speech supporters and beat them bloody.  The cops watched but didn't arrest any Antifa, of course.  So predictable.

But then...something amazing happened:  Watch the videos at the links below and see for yourself.  The free-speech folks started to form up and fight back.  Slowly, the thugs began to realize that for the first time in ANY of their attacks on conservatives, they were outnumbered.  So...after a few got caught and beaten, they ran away.

The video clips are amazing--and inspiring.

With few exceptions the Lying Mainstream Media reported the clash as a "riot by Trump supporters," totally inverting the facts.  (Antifa crashed the permit-issued free-speech rally armed with weapons.) And the Lying Media ALL ignored the stunning fact that after the thugs beat as many lone patriots as they could, the true Americans rallied and chased the leftist thugs out of the area.


As should be obvious, our nation is at a crucial crossroads:  the Left and their enablers in the universities, the media and congress want to rule everyone in this nation.  The want to ban--to literally criminalize--any speech they don't like.  They start by calling it "hate speech" but then pass laws against it--as has already happened in Europe, the UK and Canada.  This ban would also extend to printing articles the Left doesn't like, or posting such articles on the internet.

The Left wants open borders, in which anyone in the world who wanted to enter the U.S. would be free to do so.  They want amnesty and full citizenship for all illegal aliens here now.

If you oppose any of these things, the Left will try to silence you--either through having universities pass "anti-hate-speech" rules or by physically assaulting you.

And frighteningly, half the public--judging from voting results--seems to be okay with this.

The majority of Americans ignored the rapacious, rapid erosion of the Constitution under the Obama regime.  Aided by leftist judges in federal courts, and congresswhores whose main interest seems to be re-election for life, and enriching themselves, "normal" Americans haven't had much reason for optimism.

Through their organizations and their actions over the past 8 years, Obama and Soros have been signaling illegal aliens that this is really their country, and that they just need to rise up and take it.  University professors have echoed this claim, and the same goal, and have demonized anyone who opposes it--as with the professor at Fresno State who tweeted "Trump must hang--the higher and sooner the better."

The clash at Berkeley was the first sign that there may be hope that the Left might possibly be defeated in their efforts to take over.  But they won't stop trying.  Once someone has embraced the seductive ideas of socialism it's rare to change.  I suspect this fight will continue for decades.

Links to videos: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqFVXZsdl_A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIKZ_E0QvYA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbmjFD4KBjc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLrb8fxzvYY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcTgJrxzkoE

Monday, April 17

Supporters of open borders claim ICE arresting illegal aliens at the courthouse violates their constitutional rights. Seriously??

Suppose a group in the U.S. with a huge financial interest in, say, maximizing the profits of drug cartels held a press conference to say
If our drug-smugglers go to the courthouse to respond to some legal matter, the cops sometimes arrest 'em.  It's totes UNFAIR for the cops to do that, beccause EVERYONE in the U.S. has the right to, uh, 'petition the government for redress of grievances.
Most Americans would just laugh:  You broke the law but you're whining that it's unfair for the cops to arrest you if you happen to show up at the courthouse for some reason?  Drop dead, whiner.

But that's the reasoning pro-open-borders folks have used to rouse public opinion against the Trump administration.  On a conference call last week an organization calling itself "America's Voice Education Fund" asked open-borders folks to sound off about the recent actions of ICE officers under the Trump administration. 

It might help to know that stated mission of the America’s Voice Education Fund is to push to guarantee “full labor, civil and political rights for immigrants and their families.”  Sounds very noble until you realize when they say "immigrants" they include illegal aliens.  "Full civil and political rights" means citizenship.
Typical was the comment of Joanne Lin, senior immigration policy counsel at ACLU: “The First Amendment... extends to everyone in United States, including immigrants…[and includes] the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Certainly, Joanne, but why do you believe that should bar the government from apprehending a criminal at the courthouse?  One could as reasonably claim that since we can't deny people the right to eat, cops couldn't nab a lawbreaker while he or she was shopping for groceries.  Lin's argument is designed to make low-information voters think the administration is somehow violating the constitutional rights of illegals.

Lin added “We’re hearing from advocates on the call right now that you can be an undocumented woman [she means "illegal alien" of course, but that would expose the absurdity of her argument, so...] who's  seeking a restraining order or child support,” she added. “The state courts are open to you and they should be open to you and your children in order to protect your lives."

And those courts are open.  But again, does that give illegals immunity from arrest?  If one extends immunity from arrest to this venue, you could as easily argue that the immunity would extend to all normal activities.

Which, of course, is just fine with the illegals and their supporters.


Anti-Trump demonstrators: "Drive out Trump/Pence regime!"

Over the weekend a bunch of asshole communist/socialist members of the Democrat party held demonstrations against the president.  Here's a pic of one:


Notice the signs:  All but a handful are commercially-printed.  Meaning they were done by one central organization and simply handed out to the demonstrators.  Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it shows how centrally-organized and funded this crap is.

Now look at the message on the center one: "Drive out Trump/Pence regime!"   Did you ever see anyone in any of the photos of Tea Party rallies saying "Drive out the Obama regime!"? 

No?  And if there'd been a single one you know the Lying Media would have run it on the front page or led the evening news with breathless, OMG-video footage.  But you still didn't see it.  Hmmm....

"Drive out...."  Not "Vote Democrat in future elections" but "Drive out..."

These people are inviting war.  I doubt they realize that, because I've never met a single one who bothers trying to reason through the consequences of their actions.  Like pushing for open borders, for instance.  Or amnesty for twenty-million illegals now in the U.S.

Or electing a socialist who sealed his college records, passport and travel records and birth certificate (until he decided to get his IT munchkins to create a screamingly bad pdf fake--which they put on the internet but refused to let any critics examine.  Gee, wonder why?

Sunday, April 16

Nevada installs machines to give heroin addicts free syringes

As you may have heard, heroin use among young Americans has more than doubled over the past decade.  And between 2002 and 2013 heroin overdose deaths quadrupled.  So...crisis.  Everyone in the "disease" biz looking for a solution, right?

So here's how NBC reported the latest idea:  let's give heroin addicts free "works"--that would be syringes and even rubber tourniquets to find a nice fat vein to inject.  Very thoughtful.  Very...enabling.

Now, most people have heard that when junkies need a fix and don't have a needle, they share.  And that sharing needles spreads HIV and hepatitis.  So giving free needles to addicts is indeed likely to reduce the number of people getting AIDS.  Can't argue with that.  What I have a problem with is how NBC repeats the soothing propaganda that the program is "a new approach to combat rising heroin...rates."

It's not anything of the sort, of course.  In fact giving heroin addicts needles does nothing to reduce the number of heroin addicts.  But the clear implication of NBC's headline--"Heroin crisis"--implies that what follows is at least a partial solution to that crisis, when nothing of the sort is true.

Heroin Crisis: Nevada Becomes First State to Install Syringe Vending Machines

Las Vegas is betting on a new approach to combat rising heroin and HIV rates: vending machines of clean needles.

But the syringe exchange vending machines, a first in the United States, aren't open to just anyone walking by. They are accessible to clients of Trac-B Exchange, a program run by the "Las Vegas Harm Reduction Center."

And the machines don't take money. Instead, drug users scan a card and enter a unique ID number in order to vend one of the colorfully gift-wrapped boxes inside.

[A program manager said] "People are already [engaging] in these behaviors, and anytime someone's engaging in a behavior that could cause them some potential health side effects, we want to encourage them to reduce their risk of harm." 
Of course by giving them free "works" we'll encourage them to keep using heroin, because we don't want to criticize personal choices.  Might hurt our "clients" feelings.

For harm reduction workers, though, needle exchange is about a lot more than just lowering disease rates.

"It's a philosophy of service at the front end, and adjusting the way we look at drug users," said Liz Evans, the Executive Director at New York Harm Reduction Educators. "Too often we fail to see drug users as human beings, and they become defined by that and get called all these names like junkies and addicts. It becomes harder as a society to respond to them with kindness."
"A philosophy of service at the front end," eh?  Sounds great.  How 'bout if we give 'em free heroin too?  That would reduce the number of times addicts would have to rob people or steal stuff to get money for drugs.  And why not give 'em a nice comfy place to shoot up?  With taxpayer-funded medical staff on-site for the occasional overdose.  After all, we're all about "a philosophy of service."

In 2014, a harm-reduction group installed crack pipe vending machines in Vancouver, Canada.  And the same city opened a comfortable, taxpayer-funded injection site with medical staff.  If libs in Canada can get this done, why not here too?




Saturday, April 15

Last Thursday the former "communications director" for both Obama and Hilliary--Jennifer Palmieri--gave a talk at Yale about the 2016 election.  Among the gems was this one:
When I started the Clinton campaign, I thought I was a great person to do the campaign. That’s why I left the Obama White House: I have a lot of crisis experience, I can manage a story well and direct a narrative a certain way.  --Palmieri
Ah, yes:  "Manage" a story.  Please elaborate.  Would that be anything like telling the papers and networks what to print or broadcast, and what not to?  As your friend Ben Rhodes--Obama's hand-picked deputy national security advisor--famously said, when they wanted something printed they'd turn to their stable of sycophant "journalists" and...bingo.

But Palmieri wasn't finished.  To further signal her great devotion to the Democrat party she dismissed a) the initially non-working Obamacare website; b) the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and c) "the horrible ISIS beheadings" as "manufactured press stories"!
There were the obvious crazy things happening like the website melting down, Ukraine, and the horrible ISIS beheadings; these sort of manufactured press stories that hopefully you all have forgotten about.
Ah, yes, I see:  According to Clinton's communication director the stories of ISIS beheading prisoners was "manufactured."  Yes, I see why Hilliary hired her.  Very astute.  Good at "managing a story well and directing a narrative a certain way."

Kinda like "fake news."

I suspect it's crap like this that caused so many voters to either sit home or vote for anyone but Hilliary.
 


 

Doc in Michigan charged with performing FGM on girls as young as 7; Washington Post deliberately doesn't identify the group that does that

If you pay any attention to current events you've probably heard about "fake news."

According to Democrats and the liberal media (Washington Post, NY Times, all TV networks) fake news is anything published on the internet or said on any talk-radio show.  To the lib media, if they didn't print or say it, you don't need to know it.  And by inference, you are to take anything they do say or print as "truth."

Okay, let's see how that works:  two days ago a female doctor in Michigan was charged with performing "female genital mutilation" on girls as young as 7 years old.  FGM is a ghastly procedure forced on young girls by Muslim parents to remove pleasure from sex.  Muslims think this is necessary because they don't think girls should enjoy sex, or...something.

So how did the flagship liberal paper--the WaPo--spin this in their "report" of the event?  They avoided even mentioning the word "Muslim"!   Even when the Post noted that the press release by the DOJ on the indictment said "members of a particular religious community are known to use the procedure," the Post didn't see fit to tell you what everyone in the Detroit area knew:  that the doctor and all the victims were Muslim.  Here's how the Post dodged:
According to the complaint against Nagarwala, members of a particular religious and cultural community are known to use the procedure — which some see as a way to curb sexuality in girls. The complaint did not identify the community but said Nagarwala was a part of it.
So if you were a young American looking for information about, oh, barbaric mutilation of young Muslim girls forced on them by their Muslim parents, you wouldn't know jack from reading the Post.

So if the Post won't tell you the facts of this case, what in the world leads you to foolishly believe they'd tell you the truth about anything that the thought might harm their Narrative ("Dems and progressives good; conservatives and Trump and bloggers and the internet bad")?

I wish that just once some "real" journalist--say Tucker Carlson--would invite a reporter from the Post to appear on his show and ask 'em why they routinely avoid calling out Islam for the ghastly things devout Muslims feel they're ordered to do by their "religion."

Friday, April 14

HuffPost writer: We need to ban white males from voting for, oh, 20 years or so. And she's serious.

The Huffington Post is a cesspool of socialist idiots.  They're the type of people who think food comes from the grocery store and electricity comes from a socket in the wall.  They believe if the West disarms unilaterally, all will be well because no communist or socialist nation would ever get territorial ambitions or use force to get what it wants.

Of course you think this is way too harsh, and that the ultra-Left, self-proclaimed "liberals" at HuffPo are actually nice people who just support a different candidate and party.

Okay, let's turn to the tape:  Here's an article in HuffPo's South African rag, in which the author suggests that all that's needed for so-called "progressives" to fix things is a trivial fix:  she urges barring white males from voting for a short period--which the author starts at 20 years but later widens to "between 20 and 30 years."

Now, liberals and Dems and social justice warriors and feminists may well counter that because this article was posted in the rag's South Africa edition it's unfair to ascribe the same views to the American staff.  This is horse-shit:  The article got the endorsement of the editors of the SA website, and who do you think hired those worthless wastes of oxygen?

Why, that would be the owners of the parent (American) version of the rag.  Think they would have hired women who disagreed with the owners?  Not damn likely.

So as you read this, keep in mind that a) this is how these people really think; b) this is what they really want to do; c) they won't spontaneously stop seeking that end unless forced to see the error of their ways.

Now I'll admit, a lot of men are worthless pieces of shit who should be shot as soon as possible:  the socialist president of Venezuela, for example.  That fat dictator dictator of North Korea who's been starving a few million of his fellow citizens for years.  That charmless goblin who claims to be the head of ISIS.  Hell, every ISIS thug who's played any part in beheading or drowning or burning caged prisoners.  But to suggest that all problems are generically caused by white males is nuts.

Anyway, the article:

Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men.

If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa's biggest cities. [see end-notes]

If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened.  It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world. 
Wait...this implies the gal thinks "neo-liberal" is bad?  I thought they pushed that liberal was good.  Sounds like she's referring to liberals who aren't revolutionary enough.
The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.

At the same time, denying white men the vote could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners.
And who does she think determines the "rightful owners"?  Why, anyone who sits on their ass and demands that the gruberment give 'em stuff they want but can't pay for.
After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce capitalism. 
Getting a message that the author hates capitalism.  What a surprise!
Twenty years without white men in the world's parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world's wealth far more equitably shared. The violence of white male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.

This redistribution of the world's wealth is long overdue, and it is not just South Africa where white males own a disproportionate amount of wealth. While in South Africa 90 percent of the country's land is in the hands of whites (it is safe to assume mainly men), along with 97 percent of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, this is also the norm in the rest of the world.

In the United States ten percent of the population (nearly all white) own 90 percent of all assets – and it's likely most of these assets are owned by males. Although statistics by race are difficult to find from other parts of the world, it is very likely that the majority of the world's assets are in the hands of white males, despite them making up less than 10 percent of the world's population.

It is obvious that this violent status quo will not change without a struggle, and the only way to do so will be through the expropriation of these various assets and equitably distribute them to those who need them. This will not only make the world a more equitable place, but will also go some way to paying the debt that white males owe the world.

Over the past 500 years colonialism, slavery, and various aggressive wars and genocides, have been due to the actions of white men. Redistributing some of their assets will go some way to paying the historical debt that they owe society.
*I* don't owe you--or your snowflakes--a fucking thing, bitch. 
 It is no surprise that liberalism – and its ideological offshoots of conservatism and libertarianism – are the most popular ideologies among white males. These ideologies with their focus on individuals and individual responsibility, rather than group affiliation, allow white men to ignore the debt that they owe society, and from acknowledging that most of their assets, wealth, and privilege are the result of theft and violence.

Some may argue that this is unfair. Let's be clear, it may be unfair, but a moratorium on the franchise for white males for a period of between 20 and 30 years is a small price to pay for the pain inflicted by white males on others, particularly those with black, female-identifying bodies. In addition, white men should not be stripped of their other rights, and this withholding of the franchise should only be a temporary measure, as the world rights the wrongs of the past.

A withholding of the franchise from white males, along with the passing of legislation in this period to redistribute some of their assets, will also, to a degree, act as the reparations for slavery, colonialism, and apartheid, which the world is crying out for to be paid.

White males still believe that they are in control, and people who aren't white or male (particularly black female-identifying people) have to bow to their every whim. There are numerous other examples of white angry male violence in South Africa and abroad, often against black bodies (Dylann Roof's terrorist actions in the United States is only one of many examples). It is time to wrestle control of the world back from white males, and the first step will be a temporary restriction of the franchise to them.

Although this may seem unfair and unjust, allowing white males to continue to call the shots politically and economically, following their actions over the past 500 years, is the greater injustice.
==
To put this piece of absurdity into context you need to know that 20 years ago a coalition of western nations and virtue-signalling liberals forced the government of South Africa--once a world-class nation-- to hand the keys over to the communist "ANC."  The latter has ruled ever since, but with so much corruption and mismanagement that everything's turned to shit.

That's what her reference to the Democratic Alliance running the nation's four largest cities is:  The DA is the main opposition to the thoroughly corrupt ANC, which is becoming more and more desperate in its determination to retain total control of the government.

One of the tools the ANC wants to use to keep control is to confiscate land owned by white farmers and "redistribute" it to blacks.  They've been doing this for 20 years, but because the top thugs of the ANC have stolen so much cash, they don't have enough to buy land at a fast rate.  So the head thug has proposed to simply confiscate the land without paying the owners anything.  This is called "stealing" but in the communist dictionary it's perfectly legal.

So in pushing "redistribution" the author is shilling for the communists.

Finally:  imagine the howls of outrage if a conservative outfit had written "What's needed is to ban women and blacks from voting for, oh, say 20 years."  Liberals would be screaming their damn heads off.  But hey, two parties, two sets of standards.  And safe spaces for snowflakes.

Harvard law prof tweets that death of NY black female judge was murder by either a racist, Islamophobe or misogynist. Wait...

In Chitcago a couple of days ago a black judge was killed by a black robber.  Then a day later a black female judge in New Yawk City was found dead in the Hudson River.

After the second incident, Harvard Law professor and rabid Trump-hater Laurence Tribe did what we expect leftist conspiracy-mongers to do:  Suggested she was murdered, either by a racist, an Islamophobe or a misogynist.
Apr 12
Laurence Tribe Retweeted New York Law Journal
  She was a remarkable woman and a promising judge. This smacks of a racist Islamophobic misogynistic murder. Comey needs to investigate
A day later it was found that the woman wasn't Muslim (she'd married a Muslim and changed her name to Muslim-sounding), was severely depressed and had lost both her mother and brother to suicide.  But did Tribe apologize for his bullshit incendiary comment?

Hahahahahaha!  He's a fucking communist, so not a chance in hell!
 
But hey, free speech, no harm, right?  Uh...no.  Watch the totally intended effect of Tribe's paranoid, anti-American idiocy as two useful idiots--footsoldiers for what seems to be a likely race war--jump on this idea:

Tariq Nasheed @tariqnasheed
They are now trying to claim the Black judge-Sheila Abdus-Salaam- who was found dead in the Hudson River, committed suicide. That's bulls**t pic.twitter.com/3kzTadhxhA
@tariqnasheed they lying two judges murdered in one week New York and Chicago judge shot dead. Both black, both prominent in the community.

Just FYI, Tribe is one of the leftist crowd who claims--literally--that Trump is not president.  Hard to see how he can seriously believe this after all the legal efforts by Dems to overturn the results, but that's what he claims.

This guy is totally deranged.  And he's typical of far too many of the people teaching your kids--at Hahvahd, no less.

Thursday, April 13

Hollywood Dems give record amounts of campaign funds to some guy running for congress from...Georgia? Wait...

Most people think that when it comes to electing your state representatives to the U.S. House, voters of each state should choose people to represent *them,* who reflect *their* values.

But because of the huge increase in the the last 40 years in the number of things controlled by the federal government, control of congress now carries so much power that the national party organizations started contributing increasing amounts to congressional elections.

This is bad enough, because it can easily result in a known scoundrel being elected due to massive contributions from people whose only knowledge about the candidate is his/her party affiliation.

And it's getting worse:  Voters in Georgia's 6th district are about to select a new congressman, and Democrat candidate Jon Ossoff is getting record contributions directly from scores of Hollywood people.  In fact, ninety-five percent of contributions to Ossoff's campaign have come from sources outside of Georgia.

Ossoff is a former congressional staffer and investigative filmmaker for Al Jazeera.

Of course Hollywood Democrats funding the election of Dems in distant states isn't considered "interfering in our elections" because, Democrats.  Hmmm....

Illegals in detention center *demand* more leisure time, entertainment, higher wages, lower canteen prices


In Tacoma, Washington, there's a "detention center" for illegal aliens. 

Of course the lying, pro-Dem media call illegal aliens "immigrants" instead of "illegal aliens" cuz, you know, Obozo and the Dems tol' ya' you couldn't call 'em "illegal aliens" even though that's clearly the correct term. 

Cuz, you know, calling 'em illegals might hurt the feelings of those who have broken U.S. law by entering the country...um...illegally.

Now 100 or so of these "immigrants" (i.e. illegals) being detained at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma have started a hunger strike to protest conditions at the facility, according to an "immigrant rights group" (i.e. a group of communists determined to flood the U.S. with illegal aliens).

The purpose of the strike is to get concessions in terms of food, care and legal access, according to a letter from detainees released by the communist group "NWDC Resistance."

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article143832854.html#storylink=cpy

Here's what the illegals are demanding:
▪ Changes to the food menu.
▪ Lower commissary prices.
▪ Improve hygiene.
More recreation time.
▪ Have schoolwork "and other programs" to keep detainees occupied (entertained);
▪ Improve medical attention.
▪ Higher wages for working detainees.

The leader of the "NWDC Resistance" said "detainees held a similar strike in 2014 and got some changes they wanted."  So they know how to work the system, especially when they get help from communists on the outside to feed the anti-Trump media bleeding-heart stories.

SO...here's even more proof that Trump is rounding up illegals for deportation!  Gosh, if we just had Obama back, none of this would be happening!  Just one more indication that...  wait, did that last 'graf say "detainees held a similar strike in 2014"??

That can't possibly be right.  Cuz...well, it seems like Trump has been preezy for years, but a Google search says he just took office less than 3 months ago.  But that would mean the "detention center" was running when Dear Leader Obama was prez!  But...but...but...Trump=Hitler!!  Dems are double-plus-good!  Trump is double-plus-UNgood!

Gee, this is all SO confusing!

Okay, sarc off.  Look at the demands being made by the illegals:  demanding lower commissary prices, more leisure time, entertainment, higher wages.  Can you say "entitlement mentality"?

Fingerprint 'em and deport--and tell 'em if they re-enter illegally it's prison for five years.

Legal immigrants are great.  Illegals, not so much.  "Gimmeedat" illegals...deport ASAP.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article143832854.html#storylink=cpy


Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article143832854.html#storylink=cpy
 
The list of demands in the letter were:
▪ Change the food menu.
▪ Lower commissary prices.
▪ Improve hygiene.
▪ Increase recreation time.
▪ Have schoolwork and other programs available to keep detainees occupied.
▪ Improve medical attention.
▪ Increase wages for working detainees.
▪ Help speed up the legal process for detainees.
Detainees held a similar strike in 2014 and got some changes they wanted, Mora said.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article143832854.html#storylink=cpy
 

Wednesday, April 12

Swedish "culture editor" claims Sweden's economy would collapse if pols halt unlimited importing of "refugees"

Sweden was once one of the most crime-free countries in the world.  But on the orders of its liberal politicians, Sweden has taken in more Muslim "refugees" per capita than any country in Europe--and the amount of crime is skyrocketing.

Last week a Muslim "refugee" hijacked a truck and drove it into a crowd of pedestrians at a shopping mall, killing 4 or 5 Swedes.  Finally Swedes started getting angry.  Would they finally change their immigration policy?

Uh...probably not.  Two days ago the "cultural editor" for a major Swedish newspaper wrote an op-ed claiming the Swedish economy would "stop working" if "undocumented immigrants" (i.e. illegals) were kicked out.

Though this "cultural editor" claimed migrants are vital to the Swedish economy, various reports have shown the opposite is true and that migrants are often the most likely to be unemployed in the country.  One report that by the end of next year six out of every 10 unemployed people in Sweden would be foreigners. 

Of the 163,000 migrants that Sweden took in during the "refugee" crisis in late 2015, fewer than 500 had found jobs as of June 2016. 
    
Linderborg claims Sweden is “exploiting” the migrants who do work because many of them are low skilled and are paid low wages. She then called on the prime minister to invest in migrants to improve their job prospects.

Wonder if it's significant that Linderborg was a member of the Left Party and a member of the “Communist Youth” during the 1980s? 

Tuesday, April 11

Black female prosecutor in Orlando refuses to seek death penalty for perp who killed two women--one a police officer


Last December in Orlando a charmless goblin by the name of "Markeith Loyd" fatally shot his girlfriend, critically wounded her brother, and vanished.  On January 9th a female police officer spotted Loyd and tried to arrest him.  He fatally shot the officer, then hijacked a car and fled.  He was captured ten days later.

Now, with his trial approaching, the Florida prosecutor who was handling the case has said she won't seek the death penalty in *any* capital cases, even though Florida law allows the death penalty. 

Democrat Aramis Ayala won an upset victory in November after receiving $1.38 million from a political-action committee called Florida Safety & Justice PAC.  About $1 million of her funds came from liberal billionaire George Soros.

Ms. Ayala was one of at least 11 candidates for prosecutor in 2015 and 2016 who received generous contributions from a network of state Safety & Justice committees funded by Mr. Soros, a staunch opponent of the death penalty and supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement.  Nine of the 11 candidates, most of whom were black or Hispanic, in 10 states won their races thanks in part to large contributions from Soros, allowing them to vastly outspend their opponents.

At a March 16 press conference Ayala said "While I currently do have discretion to pursue death sentences, I have determined that doing so is not in the best interest of this community or in the best interests of justice.”

Florida governor Rick Scott responded by removing Ayala from all 21 first-degree murder cases she was assigned to.  Ms. Ayala countered by accusing the governor of abusing his power.  Her attorney said she plans to fight the governor’s order.

The NAACP's Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Florida Legislative Black Caucus are supporting Ayala.  Members of the Black Caucus held a press conference last month blasting Mr. Scott’s decision to pull the Loyd case “an unfettered and uninformed power grab.”  Democratic state Sen. Perry Thurston, chairman of the black caucus, said “Gov. Scott’s hasty response to State Attorney Ayala’s announcement set a dangerous precedent and is a slap in the face of the voters who carried her into office,”
Here are pics of Ayala and Markeith Loyd:


So let's review:  Perp kills a black female police officer, as well as his girlfriend, nearly kills the girlfriend's brother, hijacks a car and so on.  But the state's attorney says seeking the death penalty "is not in the best interest of this community or in the best interests of justice.”

Hmmm...I wonder if she expressed her opposition to the death penalty before her "upset election"?

Monday, April 10

Connecticut high school allows male who "identifies as female" to compete on girls' track team

The craziness of public schools under the suicidal push of transgender activists continues.  This time a high school in Connecticut has allowed a 15-year-old black male who "identifies" as female to compete on the girls' track team.

Not surprisingly, the guy wins every race.

What the coach of the girls' team said speaks volumes about how fucked up the public schools are: “I have a spectacular female athlete,” coach Brian Calhoun told the Hartford Courant. “There’s nothing more to say. To approach it in any other way might create some sort of issue or conversation.”

Funny stuff, eh?

Wonder what the feminists who pushed "Title 9" for female sports in schools will say when enough guys claiming to be girls start playing girls' sports that no actual, biological girls are able to make the team?

Of course that can't happen, right?

Wait... no one ever thought the government would have been insane enough to let biological guys claiming they "identified" as girls to compete against biological girls either, and yet that's what happened, right?

Wonder if sanity will ever return to the U.S.  And in time for the next crisis.

Key Democrat advisor snarks about GOP changing filibuster rule, forgets he "celebrated" a "reform" when Dems did it 4 years ago

Unless you're a political junkie you really can't appreciate what total, utter hypocrites Democrats are.

This isn't to say that Repubs aren't occasionally hypocritical, but Dems seem (to me, at least) to be hypocrites virtually every day.

Today's example:  Paul Begala was a Dem advisor and strategist for both Clintons and is still active in the party.  When Gorsuch was sworn in as a judge on the Supreme Court this morning, Begala put out a very sarcastic tweet:

He's calling the change of filibuster rules by the GOP "breaking the rules."  Got it?

Okay, let's go back to November 21st, 2013, when Dems controlled the senate:  Democrat Harry Reid used exactly the same procedure to prevent appointments of lower-court judges from being filibustered.  So of course Begala thought this was breaking the rules too.

Oh wait, he didn't:  He called this "filibuster reform," and something to be celebrated.

Yep, back then Begala touted the rule change on filibusters of judicial nominees as a "reform."  

Why would he now do something that shows how utterly hypocritical he is?  Isn't he worried that voters will see what a hypocrite his is--and by extension, the party he advised and supports?

The answer is, he didn't think anyone would find his earlier statement.  This is how Dems always think.  They think voters are stupid.

And for at least half the electorate, they're right.

Sunday, April 9

Afghan "refugee" who murdered German med student will be tried as a juvenile, despite having claimed to be "17" for three years

In October of last year in Freiburg, Germany, a German girl--a medical student--named Maria Ladenburger was raped, strangled and thrown in a river. 

A so-called Afghan "refugee," Hussein Khavari, has been charged with murder and arrested.  Police found his DNA at the crime scene.

Turns out the "culture-enricher" (as ordinary Germans call them) had tried to kill a young European woman before.  Khavari's first stop in Europe was in Greece, and in May of 2013 he threw a 20-year-old woman off a cliff on Corfu.  The victim was severely injured but miraculously survived and was able to identify her attacker.

The victim said she was walking home when the perp "suddenly appeared in front of me. I gave him my purse. Then he grabbed me at the hips and legs, lifted me up and threw me over the cliff."

In February of 2014 a Greek court sentenced Khavari--who claimed to be 17 years old--to a 10 year jail term.  But instead of prison he was placed in youth detention, and shortly afterward--for reasons unknown--he was released after serving barely a year of the supposed ten-year sentence.

After his release he headed for Germany, and barely a year later his DNA seems to show he killed the 19-year-old German medical student.

And here's where it gets crazier:  The German court system has decided to try the perp as a juvenile.  The reason?  He claims to be...17 years old.  But this is three years after he claimed to be 17 when he entered Greece three years earlier!

I'm not making this up.  This really is how nutty the German politicians are now.

Doctors say the perp is almost certainly 22.  But the German pols insist that because he had nothing to verify his age when he arrived in Germany, they simply can't try him as an adult.

Now:  Do any of you see a pattern here?  A systematic weakness, perhaps, that might be used by a clever "refugee" to game the system to avoid being deported, or sent to jail for murder and rape?

Saturday, April 8

Washington Post: Democrats have a new POWER: They can shut down the govt and we'll blame the Republicans for it!

Unless you're a political junkie you may not have heard that the federal government's spending authority will expire April 28th, unless congress votes to raise the statutory limit on the amount the government can borrow.

If congress doesn't manage to do that, the world ends.  At least that's what Democrats claim.

But according to the lying rag the Washington Post, congressional Democrats have a new source of amazing power: In fact the headline is

Democrats have a new and surprising weapon on Capitol Hill: power

And the power is--drum roll--the power to force Republicans to compromise with Dems to keep funding of programs Dems favor, and block funding of programs Trump and the Repubs favor.

Isn't that marvelous?

Here you probably thought that having majorities in both chambers of congress, and the White House, Democrats couldn't force Repubs to do much of anything.  But the Post has found a secret weapon:  the ability to shut down the government and blame it on the Republicans.

Seriously, that's the great power of the breathless Post article.
 
It's funny: When the Republicans shut down the government the lying media screams that the Repubs are "obstructionists" or "hostage takers."  But when the Post and Chuckie Schumer and Nancy Pelosi openly chortle about this, suddenly the media has nothing but good things to say--about the Dems.

Seriously.  Here's the core of the article:
Democrats in Congress have a new and surprising tool at their disposal in the era of one-party Republican rule in President Trump’s Washington: power.

It turns out that Republicans need the minority party to help them avoid a government shutdown at the end of April, when the current spending deal to fund the government expires. And Democrats have decided, for now at least, that they will use their leverage to reassert themselves and ensure the continued funding of their top priorities — by negotiating with Republicans.

“I think we have a lot of leverage here,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). Republicans “are going to need our help putting together the budget, and that help means we can avoid some of the outrageous Trump proposals and advance some of our own proposals.”

The fact that Republicans need Democrats to vote for a temporary spending measure to avoid a shutdown gives Democrats leverage to force the GOP to abandon plans to attack funding for environmental programs and Planned Parenthood. And it also allows Democrats to block Trump’s top priority — the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border — which the president seeks to factor in to this latest round of budget negotiations.

It comes at a time when Republicans on Capitol Hill are badly divided and President Trump’s ambitious agenda — a health-care overhaul, his 2018 budget blueprint, a tax proposal and an infrastructure program — has yet to get off the ground.

Since the failure of the House GOP’s health-care plan [which no Democrats supported, naturally], Trump has signaled he may work with Democrats to achieve major goals. Coupled with the negotiations over the spending measure, such a statement could foreshadow a major and unexpected power shift in Washington in which the minority party has far more influence in upcoming legislative fights than was initially expected.

“I think most of our caucus wants to work with them,” said minority leader Schumer, referring to the GOP. “But it requires working in a compromise way.” 
Schumer means he believes the Republicans should be willing to compromise and give Dems what they want.
Hill Democrats are betting voters will view any attempt to compromise on spending as further evidence that the fractured GOP is unable to govern. If the talks fail and a shutdown approaches, voters might then blame Republicans for failing to keep the government open despite their control of the House, Senate and White House, several Democratic aides reasoned.
Let's review: If Republicans don't support Dem programs, Dems won't vote to raise the debt ceiling.  "Non-essential government employees get a vacation, Obama shuts down national parks and sets up barricades to bar veterans from entering the WW2 memorial on the DC mall, and...oh wait, that piece of crap is out of office.  Maybe Trump will do the same thing as Obama did?  Oh, absolutely.  Cuz Obama was so...brilliant.  He understood the country so...nah, all he understood was how to threaten political opponents.

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democrats think voters see Democrats taking steps to defend existing policies — such as battling the American Health Care Act or blocking funding for a border wall — and understand the big picture.

Without Democratic help, Republicans are unlikely to unite behind a temporary spending plan to keep the government open past April 28.

Democrats have already flexed their muscle by refusing to support the funding of Trump’s border wall as part of the temporary measure. They also rejected a proposal by the Trump administration to include in that measure a $30 billion spike in defense spending and $18 billion in cuts to domestic programs.


Didja get that?  Trump's proposal will "potentially force shutdown showdown."  Even though the showdown arises from the refusal of Democrats to support raising the spending limit!  The Post wants you to believe the Dems can refuse to support the measure, yet not get any blame for a shutdown.  And the Post is confident they can make you believe it.
But that doesn’t mean Democrats won’t support some minor compromise on defense spending and border security. “We would not be opposed to any border security measures that are not the wall — increasing technology,” Pelosi said.

Schumer was similarly supportive. “If they asked for $200 million for more electronic surveillance and drones on the border, I don’t think that would [be a problem for us],” he said.

Republican leaders appeared in recent days to be open to that kind of compromise. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said leaving defense spending increases and money for the border wall out of the short-term spending negotiations wouldn’t be a dealbreaking problem.

Fallout from the very public battle over Gorsuch could play a critical role in whether spending talks stay on track. Democrats privately fear Trump will grow angry over the spectacle and demand funding for the wall, aides said.

There is also a chance GOP members and Trump will cool off during a two-week Easter recess just before a final spending deal is expected. Members of the Appropriations Committee hope to spend that time negotiating roughly 200 remaining issues, including Republican attempts to roll back some Obama-era financial regulations.

Clashes over similarly tacked-on provisions, typically known as “riders,” have for years prevented Congress from completing the regular appropriations process. Democrats have uniformly rejected Republican attempts to attach to spending bills riders that attack Planned Parenthood, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street regulation legislation.

“We want legislation that meets the needs of the American people and does not have the poisonous riders in it,” Pelosi said Thursday. “We have to see the substance of what is in the bill.”
This is the Pelosi who famously said of Obamacare, on live TV, "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it."  Seriously, she said that.  And at the time she was Speaker of the House.  Madness.


Democrats bet Republicans will be willing to ignore demands from their most conservative members, many of whom routinely vote against spending bills over objections to all government spending. They also are convinced Republicans are quickly growing tired of being bullied by Trump.

Schumer said Trump’s idea of compromise is to propose something and give Congress no chance for input.
Would that be like the Dems did with Obamacare, where Reid and Pelosi didn't allow a single Republican amendment?

That approach may work for now, but Democrats hope Republicans will eventually grow tired of Trump’s dictating their path and instead turn to Democrats to begin legislating.

Ah yes, the obligatory claim of Trump "dictating" to congress.  Uh-huh.  Would that be like Obozo did, telling congressional Republicans "I won.  Deal with it."  And "Elections have consequences."

The Post's writers and editors loved it when Obozo said it.  Now?  Oooh, how awful!  Or would be if Trump actually said either of those things.