Monday, July 31

UK judge fines woman $3,000 for "hurling abuse at a Muslim"--seriously

Military officers study what the military of other nations is doing so we don't make a stupid mistake if we have to go to war against them.

In research, the first thing one does is evaluate the current state of the art by studying all the research papers and patents you can find on your area.

By the same token, most people would think it's a good idea to study the experiences of other nations, to see what kinds of problems they have due to their policies, to try to learn and not make the same mistakes.  And with that background, let's look at the U.K.

The UK is technically still a member of the EU, and like most nations in that ghastly body of socialist morons, it's got a huge problem with crimes committed by Muslim "immigrants."  And like the other members of the EU, it's gone far, far into prosecuting, not the criminals, but ordinary citizens who have the gall to (gasp!) say anything critical of Islam.

In the latest outrage, a goofy judge has fined a female leader of a pro-Britain party called "Britain First" almost $3,000 after finding her guilty of "religiously aggravated harassment," claiming the woman "hurled abuse at a Muslim woman."

According to the UK paper "The Independent," the woman was fined nearly £2,000 for "wearing a political uniform and shouting at" a muslim woman last January.  By the way, what's this crap about "wearing a political uniform"?  Is that really a law in the UK?  If so, what does it take to be considered a "political uniform"?  Who gets to make that call?  That would seem to be far too vague to pass muster, and I think the paper may have just thrown that in.

Fransen admitted that she told the muslim woman that muslim men demand that women cover themselves from head to toe to avoid being raped "because they cannot control their sexual urges", adding "that's why they are coming into my country raping women across the continent".
  Fransen denied that her words were intended to be offensive, saying "From everything I have studied, I understand them to be true."

District Judge Carolyn Mellanby said she believed the group had gone to the area "looking for trouble."  "I have no doubt the words used towards [the Muslim woman]...represented everything against her and what she believes in," said the judge.  "In other words, offensive, insulting, abusive and, in my judgment, intended to cause offence and alarm and distress to her religion."

Did ya get that, dear reader?   If you say that Muzz men demand that women cover themselves from head to toe if they want to avoid being raped, this batshit-crazy judge will consider that "insulting, abusive and intended to cause offense."  And will fine you thousands.

Now, why should this be of interest to you as an American?  Because every indicator says the same exact thing is coming here, with unbelievable speed.  Politicians are utterly, cravenly pandering to Muslims, and judges come from the same insulated, politically-correct, goofy class as most pols.

Of course, you may believe American politicians won't act in exactly the same ways as their EU counterparts--which would indeed spare us.  So tell us:  Exactly what is it you believe makes more than one percent of U.S. politicians substantively different from those in the UK and EU?

Take your time.  I'll wait.

Couldn't come up with a single reason, could ya?  Yeah, didn't think so.

The experience of Canada is instructive.  Our two nations share many values, yet Canada has already fined and jailed people for criticizing Islam.  Unbelievable, but sadly true.

I'd put the chances of the U.K. not completely and totally succumbing to Islam within ten years at way under ten percent.

By contrast, with our far stronger religious tradition and the don't-tread-on-me attitude of many Americans, I suspect the U.S. has at least a 30 percent chance of not becoming Muzz ruled within 30 years.

Thank liberalism, with their bullshit saying that "all religions are equal" and "Christians and Muslims worship the same god, despite having unique names in each culture."  No, we don't.  Not even close.

With Obamacare imploding, Dems now want to try "single payer"--which will be worse

Obamacare has proven to be ruinously, disastrously expensive.  Plus the all-Democraat-passed law  forced millions of perfectly good healthcare policies to be cancelled because they didn't have all the bells and whistles that the Dems demanded--like birth control for 65-year-olds.

SO...with the failure of congress to repeal that piece of crap, we're about to see a new debate, between Dems and Repubs on one side, and the few real conservatives on the other.  The Dems will be pushing a monstrosity called "single payer."  The Repubs will be pushing "individual responsibility," which is what we had before Obama.

The Democrats and their allies in the Lying Media will tell people that “healthcare is a right”--an idea that's hugely appealing to their base, since once you get away with declaring something is a "right," it means that if you can't afford it, the gruberment will force taxpayers to pay for it FOR you.  Meaning it's "free to you."

Hugely appealing.

Calling health care a "right" also makes it possible for Dems to force taxpayers to give "free" healthcare to illegal aliens, again with the same arguement:  because they've declared it to be a "right."  And just so we're clear, the Dems *promised* you that Obamacare wouldn't give subsidies to illegals.  California is giving them subsidies.  Hmm, another lie.  Well color me shocked.

The Dems and their media allies will also try to achieve  make emotional appeals along the lines of "MILLIONS WILL DIE if we don't pass this!!!!!"  Except, of course, this wasn't happening before Ozombiecare.  By law, hospitals couldn't deny care to people unable (or unwilling) to pay. The poor weren't dying due to lack of health care.  But I guess the Dems believe that today Americans just aren't as healthy as they were before ZombieCare.

They will also brazenly lie by saying the government--the sole payer in "single payer"--can provide health care at lower cost, due to the gruberment's legendary efficiency.  It's a brazen lie, of course, but 95 percent of Dem voters don't have enough education and information to realize that.  And of course inconvenient facts have never deterred liberals before.  (See "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.")

If you have liberal friends or relatives, try asking 'em this:  Despite far higher premiums than before for virtually everyone, Obamacare is almost insolvent.  Over half the state "exchanges"--started exclusively by states wanting to get three years of "free" federal money (i.e. taxpayer funds) to fund expansions of their state's Medicaid rolls--have gone bankrupt.  Insurance companies issuing gruberment-approved policies are dropping out of areas like mad, such that hundreds of counties now have only one company licensed to sell health insurance there.  So with that as background...

OvomitCare purported to "give" health insurance to 20 or 30 million people.  It's essentially bankrupt.  BY CONTRAST, "single payer" aims to provide health care to *everyone.*  How many trillions more do you think that will cost?

And where do you think that money can be found?

Answer:  If single payer passes, they'll raise taxes on you--maybe take ten or 15 percent of your income at first.  But when that isn't enough, they'll jack it up.  Won't help to argue, cuz "everyone has to have health care, right?"  And "it's a right."  So once it starts, they'll never stop.

This prospect doesn't bother Democrats in the slightest.  Cuz "it's a right!"  And "we'll simply have to find the money, even if we have to borrow it."  They don't look ahead to certain inevitable results, cuz if "it's a right!" then no objection will be deemed sufficient to make them choose a different path.

If the Dems pick up five more seats in the senate and 30 more in the House, this will be a done deal, because there are too many Republican senators who are actually disguised Democrats--RINO's, Republicans in name only--and they'll vote with their Democrat friends to get their virtue card punched.  But mainly cuz they believe that will get them re-elected.

So congress will be able to override a veto.  And will.

One more thing you can try on your lib friends:  Ask 'em how long most Canadians have to wait for an MRI.  At last report it was six months.  By contrast, here in good ol' flyover country I got an MRI on a holiday after 30 minutes of diagnostics suggested a possible minor stroke.

The United Kingdom has had national health care for over 30 years.  Hospitals routinely withhold food and water from terminally ill patients.  In the recent case of baby Charlie Gard, who doctors diagnosed as having a fatal brain disease, they refused the parents' request to take their baby home to die in friendlier surroundings.  Yep, flatly refused.  Welcome to national health care.

Oh wait, silly me:  [clears throat, puts on best politician speaking voice]:  "Our single-payer system will never do anything like that.  We also won't ever have to ration health care.  Cuz we're Democrats, and we're WAY smahtah than you deplorables.  And as always, be assured that 'if you like your doctor, you can keep...' "

"Wait, someone's been screwing around with the Teleprompter again."

Sunday, July 30

French spend millions on facility to rehabilitate jihadists; close it because no clients, but vow...

Aren't liberal policies super, citizen?  They're so elegant, so well thought out, so...brilliant.  So effective.

Hahahahahahahaha!

France had planned to spend $47 million to build a dozen "rehabilitation facilities" designed to help "radicalized" Muslims give up violence.  Maybe that would have been a good idea, except... 

They're now closisng the first and only one after no one signed up to get "deradicalized."

The French government launched its first de-radicalization center last October.  It attracted a grand total of 9 people--all of whom dropped out of the year-long course.  It has been empty since February.

So the program lasted all of 5 months before the government pulled the plug.  Hey, as leftist ideas go that's actually a pretty good learning curve!  Consider that Obamacare will end up costing Americans hundreds of billions before it collapses.

And with the charm and flair that characterize leftist governments everywhere, the French government offered this elegant, well-thought-out conclusion about the woefully bad experiment: “The experiment has not been conclusive.” 

Mmm, I'd say it's been totally conclusive, but that's just me.

And with the classic determination of leftist regimes everywhere to show that by golly they were absolutely, totally right after all!, the government added that despite this allegedly "inconclusive" result, it hasn't given up on the project, instead saying it will study the possibility of opening smaller deradicalization centers "to host individuals in criminal custody and to develop alternative solutions to incarceration."

That's the spirit, comrade!  Never admit error, never apologize.  That governing style has been working for leftists for, oh, six decades now.

Portland: Guy with long rap sheet attacks two women; TV station takes 15 'grafs to tell us...

Liberals are nuts just haven't thought through the consequences of the policies they support.  If you're not sure whether you're a liberal, there's a simple, foolproof test below.  If, when you finish reading the test, you're quite calm, you're a liberal.  If you're conservative it should make you very angry.

Portland TV station KPTV reports that a few days ago a man broke into the home of a 65-year-old woman, gagged the victim, tied her up and sexually assaulted her, punching her and slamming her head into the floor.  He took her keys, phone and credit cards and stole her car.

That same evening the same guy accosted a woman in a basement parking garage, saying he wanted to talk.  Realizing this was crap, the woman offered the man money, her phone and laptop but he threatened to kill her and forced her to get into her car at knifepoint,

Before she got in the car the woman hit the panic button on her car key fob.  She then jumped out of the car and tried to flee, but the man tackled her and slammed her head into the ground.  People nearby heard the woman's screams and rushed to help, prompting the man to run away.

While fleeing he broke into a nearby apartment but was caught by police.  He was carrying a 6-inch knife and items stolen from both victims.


The perp has a long history of arrests, including at least one felony conviction, six misdemeanor convictions and multiple parole violations.  He'd also been arrested in March for failure to appear on a trespassing charge and possession of methamphetamine.  But with the classic efficiency of liberal shitholes everywhere, where those guilty of serious crimes are released on bond while those guilty of letting their kids play in the park more than ten feet from Mom are jailed, they let the guy walk.

Okay, so far it's just standard liberal-state dumb-assery.  It isn't until the 15th f'n paragraph that the story gets around to telling us the oh, not-at-all-important facts:  The perp, Sergio Jose Martinez, is an illegal alien who'd been deported 20 times!  Each time he's been "given probation" on the "nth" re-entry.

Martinez' most recent deportation was in November of last year.

Now:  As shown above, he'd been arrested in March.  If the idiots in the government of Oregon hadn't decided not to cooperate with ICE detainers he would have been turned over to ICE in March and possibly thrown in prison instead of simply being deported for the 21st time--which everyone realizes is no deterrent whatsoever.

Wait, it gets worse:  According to ICE officials Martinez was also jailed as of December 7th, 2016.  ICE issued a specific immigration detainer that would normally have required jail officials notify ICE prior to his release so federal agents could take him into their custody.  Instead he was released by Multnomah County officials the next day without providing any notification to ICE.


So thanks to idiot liberal policies of Oregon politicians--trying to get their virtue cards punched--  two women were traumatized, assaulted, battered and robbed.  One was "sexually assaulted."  KPTV didn't say if that was rape--in effect covering for the illegal since "sexual assault" includes a wide variety of lesser offenses.  You have to go to a competing station to find that the 65-year-old victim was sodomized instead.

Frankly, the two victims are lucky to be alive, as the perp had a knife and had threatened to kill.  If not for the incredibly lucky break of people nearby who were willing to get involved, the second victim would probably have been murdered.

So...conservatives have warned--as if it wasn't obvious to anyone with an IQ over 80--that when politicians in liberal cities ordered their cops not to cooperate with federal immigration laws, the inevitable result would be more American victims of heinous, ghastly crimes by illegals.

But since liberals are SOooo much smarter than the rest of us, they didn't listen, and these two women paid the price.

And these two victims of this idiotic policy are FAR from the first ones.  And won't be the last.

Virtually all liberal policies are stupid, stupid, stupid.  They produce awful results.  But they'll keep trying.  Like nationalized health care--which the Democrats cunningly, euphemistically call "single-payer."  Which produces results like baby Charlie Gard, with the f'n hospital refusing to let the baby's parents take him home to die in peace after the hospital insisted there was no chance of his survival.

Oh wait:  Before his latest attacks Martinez had been treated for meth-induced psychosis, and admitted daily use of meth and weekly use of heroin.  So we can expect his court-appointed attorney to argue "diminished capacity" and "did not know right from wrong" and all the other bullshit.  Except Martinez had enough clarity to flee when people came rushing to help.  He knew he was doing wrong.  So F that excuse.

Using illegal drugs, as a matter of law, doesn't excuse crimes.  But in sanctuary cities it's often used as a defense--successfully.  Go figure.

Trump jokes about "don't worry about being too nice" when arresting gang members; Lying Media goes ape

The Daily Caller reports that while speaking to law-enforcement officers about arresting violent gang-members, Trump said officers shouldn’t be “too nice” when putting them in the “paddy wagon.”
“Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put the hand over. Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody, don’t hit their head. I said, ‘You can take the hand away, OK?’” 

The audience got the joke, but virtually every leftist Lying Media organ immediately claimed the president was endorsinpolice brutality.

“TRUMP ENDORSES POLICE BRUTALITY,” blared HuffPost’s front page, featuring a story titled “Donald Trump Endorses Police Brutality In Speech To Cops.”

The headline in the Daily Dot (?) was “Trump promotes police brutality in speech to cops.”

In the slimy rag ThinkProgress:  “Trump praises police violence to audience of laughing cops.”

HuffPo editor Emma Gray: “Trump endorsed police brutality in a speech to law enforcement while officers laughed and cheered.”  Yes, because it was a JOKE you f'n leftist moron.

HuffPo editor Phillip Lewis:  “In a country that already has a pretty pervasive problem with police brutality, Trump endorses their behavior.”

The Left will twist everything, warp everything, trash everything, lie about everything, to hurt Trump.  And it's working.

Lebanese man in German jail set for release despite threatening to carry out terror attacks

Leftists, marxists, socialists and so-called "progressives" don't want us to draw any conclusions about what's happening to Europe.  We're not Europe, they say, so we shouldn't bother trying to analyze their problems, cuz there's no benefit.

This is total crap.  Reason:  We have the same pressures--from leftists and the leaders of the Dem party--to accept a horde of immigrants.  And politicians are virtually the same here as in Europe, in that 99 percent will do whatever they think (is best for the country?  Hahahaha!) is most likely to get them re-elected.  And in the current political climate--driven by the Lying Media and their army of Trump-haters-- that means politicians will pander to immigrants, since that punches their virtue cards with the media, and their goofy snowflake supporters.

So here's how bad things are in Germany, under the insane policies of comrade Merkel:

A 27-year-old Lebanese migrant is set to be released from prison in Berlin despite threatening to carry out terror attacks after his release.

Seriously.  Officials in Berlin say the guy has vowed to “use every opportunity for an attack on unbelievers after detention,” Die Welt reports.

Authorities say he already had a violent personality which made him “a threat to internal security in Germany and the people around him.”  Data gathered from the man’s mobile phone showed he was in close contact with violent Islamists across Germany.  He is also reported to have written that “unbelievers” should be punished.

The German government wanted to deport the man back to Lebanon, but haven't done so because... he has no documentation.  German officials went so far as to go to the man's home town in Lebanon and try to get local officials to issue new papers, but the local authorities refused.

Now, pay attention, folks:  The European Commission--run for and by leftist socialists--has decreed that member nations can't deport anyone to their nation of origin if the potential deportee claims to be at risk of persecution or death if returned.  The "migrants" instantly realized that a deportation threat could be defeated simply by claiming that you'd committed a crime back home and would be killed if you returned.  Or that you'd angered some powerful tribal leader who would kill you if you returned.

If you were from a country that was peaceful and you didn't know the name of any crazy tribal leader, the fix was to destroy any papers you had showing your home country, then claim to be from Syria, since the EU wouldn't let member states deport "migrants" back to that nation because it was and is mired in civil war.

So...if this is the way "migrants" beat deportation in Europe, you can bet they'll try the same defense here.  Oh wait, they already have.  And our courts are totally on their side.

What's really funny about the Germans trying to deport this 27-year-old jihadist is that officials took the time and effort to go to Lebanon to try to get permission to send him back, but Lebanese authorities refused.  But it shows how far the warped policies have the tail wagging the dog in the EU.

Chicago jail giving heroin-overdose antidote to released inmates; claims it's "combatting drug epidemic"

You may have heard that in the last two or three years there's been a huge increase in the use of "opioids"--drugs similar to heroin--in the U.S.  The Lying Media calls it an epidemic, and they're incensed that the Trump administration hasn't made $100 million available to fight it.

Okay.  So if a couple of jails in major opioid-epidemic cities decided to use taxpayer funds to give released prisoners inhalers of the anti-overdose drug, would you consider this a move intended to fight drug use, or something intended to keep heroin users alive and able to continue their addiction--thus doing nothing to fight the problem but garnering more votes for city pols from families of addicts?

Most people wouldn't have any problem answering that question.

By contrast, ABC news describes this move "as part of a multifaceted approach to combatting the nation's opioid epidemic."

For some reason I'm just not seeing the "combatting" part here.  What I do see is a move by politicians to describe this policy as "combatting" heroin use--which punches their virtue cards with every reporter and leftist.  Cuz the best way to fight addiction is to help make it safer for addicts to use potentially deadly drugs, right?

Honestly, I'm surprised LA and Chicago and NYC haven't followed the lead of Democrat-controlled Seattle and opened taxpayer-funded offices where junkies can shoot up using clean, taxpayer-provided syringes, with taxpayer-funded nurses standing by to give 'em an antidote if they OD.  Now that sounds like a great way to "combat the opioid epidemic," eh?

Democrat rep calls for Trump to be "eliminated," impeached

Take a look at this face.  Does this creature seem happy?  Well-adjusted?  Or does he look like he's quite prepared to kill someone?



Unless you follow politics closely or live in Illinois you probably don't recognize this lunatic creature.  It's Luis Gutierrez, a Democrat congresscritter from IL.

Luis has been enraged for years, and has been even further maddened by the results of the last election.  So in his calm, reasoned manner he wants Trump to be removed from office.

Gutierrez described Trump as a “major criminal” who must be “eliminated” and brought to his knees--something he says would happen if Democrats re-take control of the House of Representatives and begin the impeachment process.

Gutierrez is enraged by the possibility that Trump could undo former President Barack Obama’s executive order that allowed 1.2 million illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. indefinitely (cleverly given the acronym "DACA" so fewer voters would know what it actually did). 

Gutierrez angrily claimed that the "real criminal" is Trump, not illegal immigrants.  “And we’re going to take actions.... And there will soon be a majority in the House of Representatives, and I am going to make sure...that we write those articles of impeachment and take him to trial before the Senate and eliminate him as president of the United States.”

“Gandhi took on … the great British empire… and brought them to their knees,” Gutierrez said. “We can do the same thing to Donald Trump in the United States....”
He said he gets “angry,” “very frustrated,” and “very sad” when he thinks “of the implication of the 800,000 young people” whose hopes and dreams can be “destroyed at the stroke of a pen.”

Gutierrez conveniently ignores the fact that the emperor used "the stroke of a pen" to violate U.S. immigration laws to let the illegals stay here indefinitely.  But is enraged that Trump might undo that illegal act with a stroke of his own pen.  Cuz only Democrat presidents are allowed to ignore laws.

And his audience loved every word of it.

Civil war coming, folks. 

Leftist/Dem site deletes tweet predicting "98.1% probability" of Hilliary win

When people have made a prediction that turns out to be spectacularly wrong, a good indicator of their character--or lack of it--is whether they try to delete all evidence that they made the way-wrong prediction. 

Can you guess how people with character will react compared to those with no character?

Of course you can.

So with that established:  Below is a tweet the charmless leftists at HuffPo spouted two days before the election, predicting--as did every Hilliary-loving, Trump-hating, Democrat-loving, socialist-loving mainstream media propaganda organ--stating that the probability of Hilliary winning was (let's check the figure below, shall we?)  was...98.1 percent.

But now for some reason they seem to have deleted that tweet.  Guess it was probably taking up too much space on twitter's servers. 

No, wait, I got it:  Twitter was about to charge huge users for old tweets, and HuffPo was simply trying to save money.

Yeh, dat's it.  But why just delete that one?  Yeah, that's sorta' puzzling.  Couldn't just be that they didn't want people in the future to see evidence of their missed prediction, could it?

But hey, virtually every mainstream pollster and media outlet thought Hills would win.  It was an absolute miracle that she didn't.  I certainly didn't think there was any way Trump could win.  So to delete your wrong prediction seems...motivated by the desire to erase your mistakes.  

But hey, leftists.  No shock.

Saturday, July 29

Interesting ideas as the Lying Media continue to demonize Trump and conservatives

From commenters at Belmont Club:

It's not just Washington that's melting down. A new poll says that 41% of Americans and 70% of Democrats support impeaching President Trump.
THAT'S the consequence of our corrupt media's 24/7 big lie. It's hard to see how democratic institutions can function when an entire industry is devoted to lying to the populace in an effort to destroy those institutions.

Response:
We know from the general election that opinion polls are worthless. We also know from our experience of the last 30 years that the MSM always, constantly lies to advance the cause of the Left. The media is their propaganda organ.
President Trump's election was supposed to be a repudiation of the power of the MSM and the Leftist policies they support. Unfortunately, the Big Lie has kept Trump from draining the swamp.

Dr. Goebbels, Lenin, Mao, Schicklgruber and the rest all understood that if people hear the same lie often enough, eventually they come to believe it's true.

Nearly everyone now knows that almost everything the MSM says is a lie, but most people only hear the MSM repeating the same lies over and over again. They listen--and pay attention--because it is ***entertaining***.

The Left's message is still getting through.  And will always get through, since they have no competition in their field.

Repeat the big lie often enough and eventually it will destroy our democracy, as surely as a stream of water slowly wearing down granite.


Another commenter:
The hard Marxist left--or as they cunningly call themselves, "progressives"-- [Soros, Obama, Tides Foundation,CFAP/ Media Matters, CAIR, LA RAZA, SPLC, MoveOn, ACLU, the screaming whores of the MSM, the entire leadership of the Democratic Party, the OFA, etc...] want nothing less then to eviscerate the US Constitution, by any means possible.

When Trump won, their plan to do this by degrees failed and was immediately replaced by a carefully crafted, highly funded hissy fit--with the full cooperation of the Lying Media.

To remove our Constitutional Republic, four major changes must occur--and are occuring.
  1.  Anyone who wanted to post anything political on the internet would need a license from the government;
  2.  'Free Speech" would be limited to designated areas at the edges of public spaces, to reduce the number of listeners;
  3.  Vastly increase illegal immigration;
  4.  Make it increasingly difficult for citizens to use cash;
  5.  Either ban gun ownership or else stringently enforce gun registration (leading to confiscation);

If the Deep State (Marxists) can remove Trump, and use that giddy momentum to win in 2020, these things will happen within a matter of months.  And our Republic will be no more.

Friday, July 28

Another edition of "Fact or Fake"

It's time once again for "Fact or Fake"--the game where you're challenged to tell whether "news" items really happened or were just propaganda spewed by the Trump-hating, America-hating media.  So....

When the president's press secretary read a letter to the president, allegedly from a 9-year-old kid, the Left and mainstream media reacted how?
  • mostly said "Ohh, how cute!" and went back to covering charges of collusion with Russia;
  • ignored it altogether because they didn't want to detract from charges of collusion with...
  • claimed the letter was a fake, made up by Trump and staff, so the kid didn't exist;
  • asked handwriting experts to analyze the letter to see if a 9-year-old could have written it;
  • found it highly suspicious that the letter included a hyphen, which they felt was way too sophisticated for the average 9-year-old;
  • claimed it was extremely suspicious that the pic of the "alleged" letter released by the press secretary didn't seem to show any creases.  But it would have to have been folded to fit in an envelope, so...;
  • concluded that the letter was a fake;
  • were delighted to discover that the letter really was written by a 9-year-old.
When you've made your choices, here's how a mainstream fish-wrap reported the story.

When communism produces crap results, the defense is always "It wasn't REAL communism!"

Communism always produces an endless series of disasters compared to freedom, democracy and free markets.  When that happens, the people who forced communism on their country always say "The things we instituted were great ideas, and if some critics say it produced a disaster it was only because it wasn't *real* communism."

Trump rescinds Obama decree allowing wannabe transgenders to serve in military; ourtrage follows

Back in the old days, "open" homosexuals who announced they were gay weren't allowed to continue to serve in the military.  But Democrats decided this just wasn't fair, so Billy Jeff Clinton ordered that U.S. policy was to be "Don't ask, don't tell"--the military was barred from asking if a servicemember was homosexual, and homosexuals could serve as long as they didn't publically declare their, um...preference.

Of course this wasn't good enough for the gay mafia, so they prevailed on their Democrat and judicial allies to order that servicemembers could continue to serve even if they were openly, flagrantly gay.

If you think this would have been enough, keep in mind that we're talking about people--Democrats-- who firmly believe that a fighting force composed entirely of gay combat troops would be as effective as all straights.  (Note I'm not disputing that *some* gays are good at combat.  The question is, does having more gays in the military improve military effectiveness.)

Interestingly, even though virtually none of the Dem "leaders" have served in the military, the Lying Media nevertheless considers them to be experts on combat effectiveness, unit morale and similar.  That figures, since only about half of one percent of journalist are veterans.

So when the emperor took power, he realized he could do still more damage to the military even than had been inflicted by his earlier decree that homosexuals could serve even if openly, flagrantly gay.  So emperor Obama ordered that the military allow people who were determined to have a sex change operation to enlist.

But of course, the armed forces handle the medical care for active-duty personnel.  So about three weeks after the emperor's new decree, some essentially anonymous communist in the Pentagon issued a policy decreeing that 1) sex-change operations were medically necessary, so 2) the armed forces would be required to pay for sex-change operations for as many people as wanted them.

Which of course meant that taxpayers would be footing the bill.

People wanting to change their sex or gender or whatever the PC term is started seeing a chance to save $80,000 or more, by making the military pay for it. 
 
So...yesterday President Trump announced that after consulting with generals and "military experts," transgender individuals would no longer be allowed in the U.S. military.

Trump said the military should be focused on "decisive" and "overwhelming" victory and that the services cannot be "burdened" by the medical costs and disruption that would result from allowing transgender individuals to serve.

And as you absolutely knew would happen, reporters and celebrities--none of whom have served in the military and who therefore know absolutely everything about military strategy, tactics and personnel issues--immediately reacted to that decision with outrage!

Combat veteran Mia Farrow tweeted "No. My God, this must be challenged." Given Farrow's extensive military experience, not a single reporter disagreed with her.

George Takei--gay and extremely fluent in things military because of his years of service on the TV series "Star Trek"--tweeted "Invidious discrimination against any group must be opposed by all."

Yeah.  Obama gave wanna-be transgender folks a big freebie, which they never had before, so rescinding it is discrimination?  Don't think so.

Secret-cable-leaker Bradley Manning--who knows more about the military than most "celebrities" because he served briefly before demanding to be called "Chelsea" and putting on nylons and lipstick and demanding that the military pay for his sex-change operation--tweeted
So, biggest baddest most $$ military on earth cries about a few trans people but funds the F-35?  sounds like cowardice.
Just so ya know, Bradley was the poster "boy" for forcing the military (thus taxpayers) to pay for sex-change operations for the terminally dysfunctional.  Of course *he* didn't literally force the military to pay; it was emperor Obama who made that call.  Thanks, ya communist bastard!

Special snowflake Chris Hayes tweeted of Trump, "He's going to lean in to culture war the more threatened he feels and it will get far far uglier."  How do you think transgenders threaten Trump, asshole?  No, he didn't do it because he feels threatened, but because Obama's diktat hurt the military, period.  But I wouldn't expect a "metrosexual" like you to know that.

So...just for the record:  Obviously everyone is entitled to an opinion about everything, but paying attention to opinions about the military held by actors and reporters and Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi or anyone else who's never served makes about as much sense as non-pilots trying to tell Navy pilots how to land on an aircraft carrier.  It's insane.

But of course, that's what drives Democrats, their media allies and snowflake supporters.  To hell with all of 'em.




Wednesday, July 26

Minnesota Department of "Education" issues "transgender toolkit" for schools

at the Washington Free Beacon alerted us to this one:

A crazy-ass organization misleadingly called the "School Safety Technical Assistance Council" has formulated a "transgender toolkit" for public schools in Minnesota, supposedly to "ensure a safe and supportive transition" for children becoming a different gender at school.  Yes, that's a quote from  the organization.

The guidelines--which are to be distributed to Kindergarten through 12th grade public schools and charter schools throughout the state--tell teachers to refrain from call children "boys and girls," and suggest using scholars" instead.  Cuz, you know, using "boys and girls" might hurt the feelings of snowflakes who don't think they're either one, I guess.

The "transgender toolkit" tells teachers that boys who identify as girls must be allowed to use the girls' bathroom, and tells teachers to ask kids what their "preferred pronouns" are. 

That seems a bit...odd, since when you address someone it's pretty much "you."  Seems like gendered pronouns (he, she, his, hers) wouldn't be used when addressing someone, so not sure how this would be an issue, but that's probably because I just don't give a damn.

The Minnesota Department of Education encourages parents to "accept and support their child's gender identity" if they want their child to perform well at school.

The department says no legal documents are needed to change a student's name or gender in school records.  The toolkit states "When students are referred to by the wrong pronoun by peers or school staff, students may feel intimidated, threatened, harassed or bullied." 

Other tips include not picking a homecoming or prom king and queen—instead students should nominate "prom ambassadors," "homecoming court," or "homecoming royalty"--that is, anything that avoids the horrible, awful stigma of implying that there are males and females.  Cuz, you know...

The department explains, "Language around gender is evolving."  Well maybe for the liberal pinheads in power positions in government and its wholly-owned school system.  Not here, thanks.

The toolkit links to several outside resources, including a "Student Gender Transition Plan," where a child can fill out his or her "preferred name," gender, and assigned sex at birth.  The form asks what "requests" the student will make, such as a new name, pronouns, or using a different locker room or bathroom.
The plan also includes a schedule for sharing a child's new gender with the school and other parents, and a time for a "parent information night about gender diversity."

The department also references a "Guide for Supporting Transgender Students in K-12," developed by left-wing organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, the National Education Association, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.  It advises that students must be allowed to use the restroom of their choice.  And here's where it gets...even wierder:  The MN department suggests that school officials should "segregate" any students who feel uncomfortable when a biological male who identifies as a girl wants to use the girls' locker room.

Cuz if you're new to liberal diktats you might think they mean if some teenage girl is really uncomfortable about some six foot, 250-pound guy using her locker room, the school might let the guy use a transgender-only room or something.

Hahahahaha!  I see you're new to liberal school-dictators.  What they mean is, they advise school administrators to segregate the *biological girl* who raised the concern--taking her out of the locker room.  Here's the quote:

Privacy objections raised by a student in interacting with a transgender or gender nonconforming student may be addressed by segregating the student raising the objection, provided that the action of the school officials does not result in stigmatizing the transgender [or] gender nonconforming student.
You thought I was kidding, eh?  So in case it wasn't crystal clear before, the Minnesota department of stupidity has stated--in writing--that if your daughter feels uncomfortable when a transgender snowflake wants to use the girls' locker room, the schools will side with the snowflake and isolate your daughter.  If someone is to be forced to give way, it's your daughter, not the transgender.

Liberals, crap like this--multiplied a thousand-fold--is why Trump is president.

Europe committing cultural and social suicide thru mass immigration; and it's gonna get worse


While Democrats and their allies in the lying U.S. mainstream media continue obsessing over claims that Trump's people "colluded" with Russia to steal the election from the faaabulous Hilliary, Europe continues to commit suicide, thanks to clueless, treasonous heads of state (supported by their political parties).

What's happening in Europe will ultimately prove far more destructive than both World Wars combined.  Because of the delusions of their rulers, Europeans--the people who invented science, medicine and law, essentially building the modern world--are systematically turning the continent over to a group of people who are not only uneducated, but most of whom are members of a so-called religion that wants to conquer the world by force.

That's astonishing enough, but what's equally astonishing is that hardly any member of the Lying U.S. mainstream media or the "elites" is writing about it.  In fact anyone who does bring it up is immediately attacked by the elites as a raacist-- or equivalently, an "islamophobe."

Based on current trends, in thirty years most European nations will be majority-muslim.  Part of this is due to continued insane rates of African and mid-east immigration, but the rest is due to the huge difference in birthrates between Muslims--3.8 children per woman of child-bearing age--and the native Europeans (1.6 per woman).

Tweaking any of these numbers a decimal or two only changes the majority date by a few months.

It should be noted here that virtually all the heads of state in Europe have no children--which makes it far, far easier to be blase about the future.

European men will have to decide if they will follow their leftist leaders into oblivion or fight for their culture and their land.  If they decide to fight, they'll first have to fight their own governments, which have already been fining and imprisoning citizens for even posting comments on social media critical of Muslim attacks. 

If European men decide their culture is worth fighting for, they'll first have to replace their left-wing heads of state, to stop immigration completely.  Then it will take 30 years to remove everyone who doesn't support western values.

Of course you don't live in Europe so you don't think any of this matters to Americans.  Let me tell you why it does--hugely:

Right now Africa has about a billion people.  Due to the high birthrate of the least-educated Africans, demographers tell us that barring a major war or famine, in 30 years that population will triple. 

If a million Africans are leaving for better, more generous societies every year right now, with one billion people, what will happen when Africa has an additional two billion people in thirty years?

It should be screamingly obvious--even to a liberal/democrat--that tens of millions of them will try to go to a country where the government will feed them, give them an apartment and cash. 

As long as European nations will accept them they'll go to Europe because it's closer.  But if Europe closes the door, the only other place where half the natives are dumb enough to have open borders is... the U.S.  And if a Democrat is president, they'll come here by the tens of millions, just like they're overwhelming the nations of Europe today.  (Remember Africa will have another two billion people by 2050.  Why would they stay in Africa if they can come here?)

Now here's a question for Democrats and liberals:  Do you believe life here in the U.S. would be better if the U.S. became much more like Africa and the middle-east, or do you think it would be worse?  Right now virtually all Dems say "better"--but only because they've been conditioned that giving any other answer or opinion means the speaker is raaacist.

If you're NOT a Democrat or liberal or "progressive," are you willing to let mush-headed Democrats and liberals make the decision on keeping our borders open for you and your children?  Seems...kinda harsh for your kids.

By contrast, liberals--many of whom believe children contribute to that horrible bullshit catastrophe called "climate change" (formerly "global warming") and don't plan to have any, don't have nearly as great a personal stake in what happens to the U.S., or who ends up running our society.  After all, in their view Christians are awful, and all religions are equally valid, so they think Islam can't be any worse.

Another thing to consider is health care:  Obamacare charged middle-class working people huge premiums to try to pay the health insurance costs of the 30 million "residents" the emperor and the Dems claimed didn't have insurance.  In just seven years, costs are far higher than forecast, and most of the state "exchanges" (insurance sellers) have gone bankrupt.  It's a disaster, and most Americans are paying more for insurance with such high deductibles as to be almost unusable. What do you think will happen when the feds make you pay to cover another 20 million immigrants?

Tuesday, July 25

Ideas from a commenter on another site


From a commenter on a site I read:
In my county the Republican organization is run by the TEA Party, of which I am an active member. Candidates in both the primary and general elections come to us at our meetings. In the 2016 cycle our 10 year incumbent Republican Congresscritter did not set foot in our county. He promised to send a campaign spokesman as a surrogate, but never did. Interestingly enough, the Democrat candidate had the testicular fortitude to come to face us, at our meeting, twice. Again, the Republican candidate would not.

The consistent reaction at our meetings by grass-roots Republican voters is outrage at being lied to by the state and national Republican Party.  We're outraged about the state and national Republican Party's refusal to oppose the Democrats in anything, and the refusal of the state and national Republican Party to even pretend to try to do any of the things in their platforms.

The candidates and officials do not cope well with this. And they have no answer to questions about their studied and deliberate silence and inaction about the Democrat thugs attacking their own voters in the streets, rioting, and in the case of the attempted congressional coup by mass assassination in Alexandria, Virginia; the attempted murder of those same ones who are keeping silent.

These are not the actions of an honest opposing party in a two party system.  Rather, they are the actions of accomplices and subordinates in a criminal conspiracy.

When a government trashes the social contract, brute force replaces legitimacy until a new contract evolves.  If the public sees that the laws of this nation don't apply to the Elites, force returns, and most untidily.

Entropy can only be held at bay for a while through consistent, focused efforts. Our Elitists prefer to focus their efforts on maintaining their personal power above all.
Yes.  As a commenter at the New York Post put it
“The more liberals and Democrats hate Trump, the more I want him to succeed. Because what they hate about him is what they hate about me.”

Video of "brilliant leader" telling all of us "it's absolutely impossible to...

One of the many wonderful things about the internet is...you can view video clips of the so-called "experts"--including idiot politicians--making unequivocal statements about how things are or have to be, or "this can never happen," or "this will definitely happen"...and just a few years later we see they were absolutely, totally, horribly, absurdly wrong.

But they lectured us with such conviction!  Their tone was one of absolute certainty!  The NY Times and WaPo and the lying alphabet networks all echoed their predictions with nary a skeptical word, reinforcing the belief in the minds of a majority of voters that the predictions absolutely had to be true.

It's with this in mind that I submit the following clip, of the Democrats' faaabulous emperor, telling Americans "You know that we cannot just drill our way to lower gas prices."

And he tried as hard as possible to make that prediction true.

Today, nationwide gasoline prices are the lowest they've been in 12 years.  U.S. oil companies are producing 9 million barrels per day--a figure not seen since 1964.

Yet two days ago Democrat senator --and shameless liar-- Chuck Schumer said "gas prices just keep going up and up and up.  They never go down."  Hmmm....

I mention this because the average, hard-working American doesn't have time to fact-check Chuckie and the Dems--which enables them to brazenly lie without consequence.  Someone needs to call 'em on their shameless, brazen lying.  So I will--at every opportunity.

So here's your former emperor--who wants to keep guiding the Democrat party--making his blanket statement to Americans to convince us it simply wasn't possible to produce enough energy to become "energy independent."  Enjoy.  And remember:  The Dems tell you bullshit like this ten times a week.  And their allies in the Lying Media never, never correct them or call 'em what they are.

They're all too busy trying to impeach Trump.


Dems keep inciting hate of whites by blacks; do they ever stop to think where that will end?

War is hell.  But with the Left--Democrats and so-called "progressives" and their allies in the Lying Media--continuing to deliberately fan the flames of insane hate in their supporters, I think we're rapidly approaching a point at which it will be impossible to avoid civil war.  And I think this tragic conclusion is pretty obvious.

So here's a question for the rational folks out there:  Did any of the Democrats --or their Lying Media allies-- think there was a good chance inciting all this race hate would end in war, or were they too f'n stupid to realize the totally predictable outcome of fanning the flames of hate in their insanely angry followers?

In just the past week I've read a dozen posts by angry blacks in the U.S. demanding that whites kill themselves, or resign from their jobs.  Oddly, most of these angry people are nominally female; odd because biology suggests males are usually more aggressive, violent, have problems managing anger etc.  Maybe it's just a coincidence.

The actual shooting phase of the war is likely to start when a group of "youths of unknown ethnicity" try to rob a guy of a different ethnicity.  Every time they've done this in the past it's been a slam-dunk, since they both outnumber their target 5 or 10 to one and also have the huge advantage of surprise when they attack.  But this time--"unexpectedly"--the intended victim will not only be armed, but will also be an excellent shot--probably either a military veteran or law enforcement.  He'll have a 14-round mag and will shoot all of the attackers, several fatally.

At least one of the would-be robbers will survive.  Egged on by greedy defense attorneys looking for a big payday, the survivor will claim that he and his friends did absolutely nothing wrong but were simply walking down the street when the white guy started shooting 'em.  This story will immediately be posted on social media, and everyone in that community will believe it--exactly as happened in Rainbow City, Alabama.

But unfortunately, since the shooter wasn't a cop he won't have been wearing a bodycam, so there won't be any way to prove who's telling the truth.

Think Ferguson, Missouri, with a lot more bodies and fewer witnesses. 

Remember the insane amount of rioting and looting and burning that consumed Ferguson for weeks?  And in that case there was video of the so-called "gentle giant" doing a strong-arm robbery of a convenience-story owner hours earlier, tending to support the cop's version.  Didn't make any difference.  The hood was primed to riot, and riot they did.

Now imagine 8 or 10 bodies instead of one, and no video to show what really happened. 

If you think that won't set off a civil war don't feel odd:  not a single political analyst thought the assassination of a fairly low-ranking duke would touch of World War 1 either.

And I don't see how this can be avoided.  Democrats continue to fan the flames of hate from their always-outraged supporters, and don't show the slightest hint that they're willing to stop.  Cuz hey, it works for 'em--brings in scads of money and votes.  Why would they stop what they see as a winning strategy?

Sunday, July 23

Hidden flashpoint: Muslim demonstrations over metal detectors at Al-Aqsa mosque

Most wars start for one of two reasons:  Either two nations embark on policies that conflict, and neither wants to concede; or one nation backs another into a corner, and the smaller nation concludes that fighting a losing battle is better than surrender.

Now the relevance:  As you probably know, the third-most-important site to Muslims (after Mecca and Medina) is the Al-Aqsa mosque, which is in Jerusalem.  That mosque is built on what seems to be the historic site of "The Second Temple" of ancient Israel--the only remaining part of which is a huge stone wall called the Western Wall.  The top of this wall is level with an elevated plateau that's the ground floor of the mosque.

Between 1948 and 1967 Jerusalem was a divided city--literally, Israel controlled part and Jordan controlled part, and there were fences right down the middle of streets.  Then when Israel won the Six Day War in June of 1967, it "annexed" the part formerly controlled by Jordan, which was part of the defeated Arab coalition.  It took down the fences dividing the city and offered citizenship to all the residents.  Very few took the offer, for what are described as "political reasons."

Given the importance of the Al-Aqsa mosque to Islam, and Israel's realization that future peace required neighbors who weren't foaming for your destruction, Israel didn't dynamite the mosque, and didn't take control of it.  Instead they left it under Jordanian control.  They allowed Muslims to continue to control and use the mosque. 

Considering that Israel had just fought and won an existential battle against a far larger Arab coalition, the willingness to allow Jordan to continue to control the mosque and its plateau strikes me as amazing.  But in any case...  Israeli police patrol the plateau around the mosque, because on numerous occasions mobs of Muslims have used the plateau's elevation advantage to shower rocks on Jews praying at the base of the Western Wall.

About ten days ago two young Muslims armed with machineguns, seemingly on the way in to the mosque, suddenly shot two Israeli police, killing both.  Other police killed the shooters.  In response, Israel installed metal detectors in the entrances to the area around the mosque, so that one could only enter by passing thru one of the detectors.

Now:  Even though the installation of the metal detectors was prompted by the to Muslims shooting the two Israeli policemen, the Muslim reaction to the installation of the detectors was... rage.  The head Muzz called the installation an attempt to control the site (well, certainly to keep people from sneaking machineguns in, eh?), and called for constant demonstrations until Israel folded and removed the detectors.  He also called for his fellow muzz to *not* go to the mosque for Friday prayers but to fill the streets around the site.  Finally, he said the Muslims "would never back down."

The Israelis responded by deploying a reported 2700 extra police to checkpoints on every street leading to the mosque, and turning away muzz under age 50.

So far, tempest in a teapot, eh?

But in Jordan Friday, massive demonstrations by muzz angry at the detectors.

I think this is significant, just as Barack Obama's many cleverly-worded incitements of blacks to kill whites was significant for this country:  They're a source of foot-soldiers, potential suicide bombers or knife-attackers.  Or worse.

Take a look at the pic below.  Let's say 50,000 Jordanians were motivated enough to turn out for the demonstration.  Now pick a single-digit number for the percentage of muzz who respond to polls that they're personally willing to bomb civilians to usher in world domination by Islam.  Let's keep the numbers nice and round by saying five percent.  That's 2500 potential suicide bombers in that crowd alone.

Think that pic shows the only muzz in the middle east who are furious about this alleged "oppression" of their religion?

In the US. before Obama took the throne, how many times in a year were cops assassinated?

I don't mean killed in a gunfight, but assassinated from ambush, like the poor black officer and mother of two, shot thru the window.

Maybe one a year.

And how many per year now?

Incitement has consequences.  Sometimes people decide it's worth killing dozens or hundreds in ambushes to get what they want--that it's the only way to get what they want in the time they demand it.

The problem for the Israelis here is that either way they jump, they're screwed:  Concede, and you give the Muzz the smell of blood:  "We can win if we just make them suffer enough."  Hold your ground, and you have an extra 2500 suicide attacks.  And yes, the attackers are usually killed, but it doesn't bring back the dead Israelis.

The problem can be solved, of course, but it's not a solution the muzz are willing to consider.  Because the muzz leaders know all they have to do is keep the demonstrations up and wait until the useless but muzz-friendly U.N. demands that Israel remove the detectors.  The useless, cuck-riddled EU will jump on that, and the game amps up a notch.

And let me emphasize that I don't have a dog in this hunt.  I just watch the trends--and the scores of missed chances to chill and make things work peacefully without the west surrendering.  Of course the muzz don't want that.  Instead they want an endless series of confrontations, with the west constantly backing up, surrendering by inches.

It ain't hard to do the math.

Victor Davis Hanson has some ideas on what's killed California

Victor Davis Hanson is a historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.  He's also very likely the only conservative professor in California.

At least he's the only one brave enough to identify as one, since that's usually a career-ending move.

In any case, Hanson has lived in Cali for decades, loves the state and has written extensively about its decline and rapidly-approaching failure.

The observations he makes are interesting even if you don't live in Cali, because Cali represents the U.S. twenty years from now.

You think that's nonsense, and I don't want to take the time to convince you, so we'll leave that for another day.  In any case, here's my edited version of his latest: [original here; he's a much better writer.]  
Like Illinois, California has serious budget problems:  Some 62% of state roads have been rated poor or mediocre. There are new predictions of huge cost overruns-- and annual operating losses every year after operations start--on the vaunted high-speed rail line-- even before the first mile of track has been laid.

The total impact of California state taxes -- sales, income and gasoline -- is among the highest in the U.S.  The state's income tax rate on most employed people is a staggering 12%.  Yet California roads and K-12 education are near the bottom in national ranking.

After a decade of severe drought, the state hasn't even proposed--let alone started building-- a single new reservoir. Instead, scarce fresh aqueduct water is still being diverted to sea, by court order, as thousands of rural central California homes, in Dust Bowl fashion, have been abandoned due to a sinking aquifer and dry wells.

According to the census bureau California has 40 million residents, around 12 percent of the total population of the U.S.  Yet the state has 33 percent of the nation's welfare recipients.  Almost a quarter of the state population lives below or near the poverty line.  By coincidence, the state's gas and electricity prices are among the nation's highest.

Current state-funded pensions are among the most generous in the nation, and are woefully underfunded.  The state pays econ professors at Cal Berkeley more than $300,000 per year--and will have to pay them proportionate pensions when they retire.  They're among the highest paid academics in the nation.

One in four California residents was born outside the U.S.  In what is probably another coincidence, nearly half of all traffic accidents in the Los Angeles area are now classified as hit-and-run collisions.

Voters have tried to use the "initiative petition" method to steer public policy.  The initiatives pass handily, only to be thrown out by "progressive" judges.  As a result, voters now consider voting fairly pointless.

In impoverished central California towns such as Mendota, where thousands of acres of what was once some of the most productive farmland on the planet have been idled due to water cutoffs, once-busy farmworkers live in shacks.

How did California--once an unparalled paradise--manage to squander its rich natural inheritance?
Excessive state regulations, moronic legislators bent on expanding government control, and massive illegal immigration from impoverished nations.

The state government--which largely caused this mess--reacts by refusing to fix the critical issues, instead haggling over transgendered restroom issues and the aquatic environment of a 3-inch baitfish rather than dealing with a sinking state.

Can anything save California?

Theoretically, yes.  Blue-ribbon committees for years have offered bipartisan plans to simplify and reduce taxes, end burdensome regulations, reform schools, encourage assimilation and unity of culture, and offer incentives to build reasonably priced housing.

None of these ideas has a ghost of a chance of being adopted, because the entire state--including both chambers of the legislature-- is run by Democrats.

Logically, you'd think immigrants should welcome assimilation into a culture and a political matrix that is usually the direct opposite of what they fled from.  Instead they want to simply rule it.  And no poltician in the state has the courage to push assimilation.
When politicians (in this case almost all dems since they've controlled the state legislature for decades) pass laws based on bribing poor constituents for votes, rather than on the basis of *sound policy*, who can be surprised when the result is garbage--as it clearly is in California?

Fortunately current pols don't need to worry:  When the civil war hits, no one will have enough spare time to realize that it was the policies of the insane Left/Dems that flushed a lovely, rich state down the toilet.  All the pols will have enough stolen loot to flee to Vancouver or similar, and ordinary folks won't, so will be left to deal with the war as best they can.

But seriously, citizen:  Who really cares what happens to the folks our wonderful shoulda-been-president Hilliary labelcd "deplorables" anyway?  They're just so stupid and inbred and icky, dahling.

Venezuela: What if they called for a general strike and the economy was so bad no one noticced?

A week ago the opposition party in Venezuela called for a general strike to protest socialist thug Maduro's decisions to dissolve the legislature and refuse to hold elections.  Not to mention that tens of thousands of people are starving, and hospitals have no medicine or money to keep machines running, because of the insane, dictatorial policies of the socialist government.

Unfortunately, Venezuela's economy is now so bad that no one noticed any difference in economic activity during the strike.

Socialism:  Is there nothing it can't accomplish?

Once again it's time to play "Did that really happen?" a.k.a. "Fact or Fake?"

With the Lying Media resorting more and more to utterly fake news, it's hard to tell what's real and what's fake.  So once again, dear readers, we offer you a chance to practice your skill in telling one from the other.  You get to decide whether outlandish, too-crazy-to-be-true stories are "Fact or Fake."
  • Schools in San Francisco have removed chocolate milk from the lunch menu at all schools. 
  • Black Lives Matter is protesting this decision, saying that removing only chocolate milk, leaving white milk, is racist, discriminatory and oppressive.
  • City cops fined a 5-year-old girl $195 for...selling lemonade without a license.
  • A black city councilman in Jackson, Mississippi went on TV to urge his young constituents to "throw bottles, rocks and bricks" at police cars chasing fleeing perps into their neighborhoods. 
  • The day after the black councilman in Jackson called for that, unknown persons fired 30 rounds into the living room of a white cop, as he and his family dove for cover.  Local police chief says the shooting "may have been because he was a police officer," but not sure.
Scroll down for the answers.  No cheating!














All but item 2 are true.  But the real news of the day is that Trump's advisors have actually *talked* with the Russia ambassador!  This never happened when a Democrat was president--well, other than meetings between Hilliary and the Russians, of course.  But that was okay because, Democrats.  This Trump "collusion" stuff is an entirely different thing.

Entirely.  Different.  And the Democrats know the details of all the secret deals that Trump's peeps made with the Russians, cuz they had a mike planted in the sugar bowl.  And any day now, they'll tell you deplorables all those details.  Cuz they know 'em.  Really.  They're just waiting for the best time to spring it on him.

And hoo boy, then are you Trumpkins gonna feel dumb--actually "dumber" hahahaha!--for voting for him instead of The Most Qualified Person In History To Be President.  You will be begging us Dems to let you vote to impeach him!  Cuz the gays and blacks and Muslim protesters are, like, totes right:  "America was never great!"

In fact that's such a catchy--and clearly true--slogan that we're probably gonna use that to sweep the mid-term elections.  Oh, and we'll trademark it too.  Make a fortune off the royalties from the hats and tee-shirts.

Oh, here's a link to the article on the cop who had 30 rounds fired into his living room. 

Dem National Committee reports worst fundraising May in 14 years. But don't worry...

For May, the Democrat National Committee reported the lowest amount of "contributions" received in something like 14 years.  The national party spent slightly more for the month than they took in in contributions.

But never fear: When shoulda-been-president Hilliary Clinton and former emperor Bewwy Hussein Obama heard about this, both decided to come to the rescue of the party that put so many millions of dollars into their pockets--albeit indirectly, from the slush funds donated by people seeking to influence the policies of the federal government, and from huge book deals.

In any case, Barack pledged to donate $5 million, while Hilliary--much wealthier since she's been feeding at the trough a lot longer--pledged $10 million.  (Actually the pledge was from her totally self-controlled foundation, but she'll understandably get credit for it.)


Now:  If I were to give you a hint that part of the above story might be a teensy bit wrong, what part would you guess?

I mean really, is there anyone on the planet dumb enough to believe that either Hilliary or Bewwy would donate more than bullshit?  Although when Bill and Hill were in Arkansas they did claim a charitable deduction on their income tax for donating Bill's old boxer shorts to Goodwill.  You think that's a spoof but it's real.  Such is the top leader of the Democrat party.

Oh, and don't worry about the DNC.  George Soros has already promised them ten million to tide them over until the mid-term election--which, you'll be thrilled to hear, is just over 15 months from now.

The reason Soros only needs to get them to the mid-terms is that the Dems will regain control of both the House and senate, which will give them enough votes to impeach Trump, and all will be well again.  And cash will once more come rolling in to Dem coffers in river-like quantities.

Is this a great country or what?

Wednesday, July 19

California moonbat senator Kamala Harris running for president, say big Dem donors

Kamala Harris was the attorney-general of California, then won the U.S. senate seat from that state that opened when Barbara Boxer retired.

A few days ago Harris met in the Hamptons with a group of the biggest donors to Democrat candidates--including Hilliary's biggest donors (other than Russia).  Now a Democrat website is saying that Harris will "definitely" run for president in 2020.

The Dems have found their perfect candidate:  Harris is reportedly a rude, arrogant, fire-breathing socialist--none of which bothers Democrats a bit.  But on the plus side (for Dems) she's a) relatively young; b) female; c) socialist; and d) mixed race.  Thus she can be expected to do much better with young voters and blacks than Hilliary did.  She doesn't have any of Hilliary's baggage, so will do better with women; and her socialist bent will attract low-info voters and Sanders supporters.

Her personal negatives--abrasive and abusive to subordinates, arrogant--will be covered up by the Lying Media so won't be widely known.

As I said:  the perfect Democrat candidate.  If she does run I think she'll sweep the primaries.

Harris has the feel of a deal already made--a person who rises meteorically for no know reason.  Like your emperor, whose entire national experience when he announced his intention to run for president was a grand total of two years in the U.S. senate, after a couple of stealth terms in the Illinois state legislature.

His candidacy was so wildly improbable as to make you think the fix was in, and I get that same vibe with Harris.

Obama damn near destroyed the U.S. in many ways.  I suspect Harris will be Barack II.

Family of man terribly injured claims cops *threw him off a bridge*! Wait...bodycam vid??

In Rainbow City Alabama the cops stopped a car with black driver and passenger.  They asked for ID, which the occupants produced.  But the photo and stats on the ID produced by the male passenger clearly didn't match the person who produced it.

Cops sent a photo of the guy to dispatcher, and the system managed to figure out the guy's real identity--and that he had outstanding arrest warrants.

Hours later the guy is in the hospital with all sorts of injuries.  Looks terrible!

Immediately his family posts on social media that the cops "beat him half to death" AND  "threw him off a bridge!"  Naturally you don't believe that, so take a look at their post:



"We won't stop until these power-obsessed animals pay for their cruelty!"  And "PLEASE SHARE."

Naturally everyone in his community believes this, and a reasonable person would likely view this as an incitement to riot against the police "animals."  The first posts of "F da police" and "police brutality!" hit the Net.  Looks like Ferguson part 2 is about to start.

Fortunately, by blind luck the cops were wearing bodycams--turned on.  And just a couple of hours after the family posted their version of events (above), the cops released the footage.  Which showed a totally different story:

After the dispatcher tells the cop who the guy really is, cop comes back to the rear of the car he's pulled over, where the black male is standing.  Says "Okay, we know who you are, and you're under arrest for..." and at that point the black guy sprints across the highway and leaps over a 4-foot concrete barrier.  No cop was within 50 feet of him when he jumped.  (Video at bottom)

Fortunately the drop was just 19 feet, but the landing zone was totally rocks, and the guy was indeed badly injured on landing.  Cops walked to the end of the bridge, down the rocks and proceeded to call the medics.

Now the question is, how did the guy's family come up with the totally fabricated story they posted on social media?  If their injured relative told 'em, or if they simply made up the whole thing, that sure seems to me to qualify as a "reckless disregard for the truth," which would make the family liable for posting the incendiary lie on the internet.

Of course no one will bother charging them.  Which means the next time something like this happens, we'll see that invisible lottery wheel spin again.  And maybe next time the cops won't have bodycams to tell the truth.

Oh, and by the way:  Black Lives Matter has posted that they are now *opposed* to the cops wearing bodycams, now claiming it's raaacist.  They don't explain exactly why they claim that and I'll try to find out.

But it's so odd:  I could have sworn that organizations like BLM were the ones demanding that all cities spend the gazillion dollars needed to put bodycams on every police officer.  Were you under that same impression?  Seems odd that they've now done a complete reversal.

Gosh, I wonder why they'd do that?

For those interested, here's the vid, which is working at least now.  My guess is it'll be taken off the Net, as several copies already have been.  You have to wonder why.  Wait, no you don't.


Tuesday, July 18

James Hansen has a PhD. He predicted NYC would be under water by now

James Hansen is one of the biggest pushers of the idea that human activity--specifically the emission of carbon dioxide by burning oil, gas and coal--was fatally warming the planet.

In 1988 Hansen predicted that within 20 to 30 years New York City’s West Side Highway would “be underwater” due to a predicted rise in sea-level.  Details are at this link (Salon).

At last report none of NYC is underwater.  Of course the far end of his prediction is still a year away and *could* still be right, eh?  But hey, wrong predictions are universal among the Global Worming crowd, so this is par for their course. 

You might think that having been so spectacularly wrong about the underwater driving prediction, Hansen might have dialed it back a bit.  Nope.  Instead he's updated his prediction in a paper published last year, and now claime that if the United States continues to use fossil fuels, sea levels would increase by “several meters over a timescale of 50 to 150 years.”

So...from 1988 to today Hansen predicted a rise of a few meters, but the oceans have only risen a few millimeters.  But according to the Hansen, we're about to get a rise of "several meters" as soon as 50 years from now.

And he gets paid for being this bad.

Almost half of students at U.S. coastal universities think socialism is great. But....

While you've been busy working and paying your house payment and a gazillion taxes, the Lying Media and their allies in academia have managed a huge win:  They've convinced between 45 and 50 percent of American ccollege students in coastal states that "socialism is good."

One tiny, tiny problem:  None of the students who think socialism is wonderful can actually say what the hell socialism IS.

Oh, they're quick to tell you what they've been told it will DO--like, "erase the wealth gap in the U.S."  They have no idea how this will be done, but no matter:  the Lying Media and their socialist professors have told 'em socialism can and will do these things, so don't worry about little details like how it will work.  Just believe us, children.

When you think about it, this little oversight characterizes every Democrat/Liberal program:  Obamacare; banning or taxing carbon-based fuels; forcing the military to pay for sex-change operations while weapons are grounded for lack of spare parts; encouraging heroin use by providing clean needles and places to shoot up; and on and on.

You wonder how long the media and the Dems will continue to virtually ignore the disasters created by socialism in Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba, to name just 3.  Fabulous system.



Pelosi: Barring Pentagon from paying for sex-change operations hurts national security!

If someone had told you ten years ago that a former Speaker of the House had bitched to high heaven that the Defense Department simply HAD to spend taxpayer funds to pay for sex-change operations for military snowflakes, you'd have laughed.  But chief moonbat Nan Pelosi really said that.

Actually it's even a little crazier than that:  She claims that NOT paying for sex-change operations will actually hurt national security. 

Tell me, how in the hell does anyone think national security would be increased by forcing taxpayers to pay for sex-change operations?
 
This is absurd.  Insane.  The Russians must be laughing their asses off at the insanity of what seemingly passes for leadership in the Democratic party. 

But astonishingly, the Lying Media is sccreaming that Trump is the crazy one???  And virtually all the Democrats agree with 'em.

Folks, barring an actual miracle I think the U.S. as we knew it is dead, due to Democrat crap like this.

Saturday, July 15

Anyone see a pattern here?

In South Carolina a man who has been arrested for numerous crimes, and whose attorneys had negotiated a plea deal that would have sentenced him to four years in prison, instead was freed by a female judge for "time served"--just over 8 months.

Tyreek Lorenzo Bush-Robinson faced a maximum of 50 years in prison.  But instead of judge Alison Lee sentencing Bush-Robinson to the four-to-eight-year sentence agreed upon by his own attorneys as part of a negotiated plea, Judge Alison Lee ignored the negotiated sentence and instead sentenced po' li'l Tyreek to time served-- eight and 1/2 months-- and three years probation.

One month earlier a different judge sentenced one of ol' Tyreek's co-defendants to eight years on similar charges.  Hell of a difference, eh?

A deputy in the courtroom at the time of sentencing said a statement made in court by the perp's attorney just before judge Lee announced his sentence caused judge Alison Lee to shed tears.

After hearing the sentence the county sheriff said "People everywhere have had it with our 'justice system'. This is not an isolated incident.  On a regular basis, repeat offenders get a slap on the wrist and are released back into our communities by bleeding heart judges.”

The previous charges against Tyreek:
  • 2014: arrested in Richland County on two counts of breaking into motor vehicles.  Due to the Youthful Offender Act he served no jail time.
  • 2015: convicted of shoplifting and possession of marijuana; again, no jail time.
  • January 2016: while on probation for a felony charge under the youthful offender act, was charged with breaking into a motor vehicle and criminal conspiracy.  Even though he was on probation when arrested, he was released on bond.
  • February 2016: charged with two counts of receiving stolen goods, one count of possession of a stolen pistol and one count of unlawful carrying of a pistol.  Again released on bond, even though possession of the stolen pistol should have caused his bond to be revoked.
  • March 2016:  charged with three counts of breaking into a motor vehicle.
  • October 2016:  charged with possession of marijuana.
  • October 2016:  charged with two counts of breaking into a motor vehicle and unlawful possession of a firearm (which was stolen.)  His bond was finally revoked and he remained in jail for about eight months.
  • November 2016: charged with receiving stolen goods and breaking into a motor vehicle.
Anyone notice a pattern here?  Ya think maybe ol' Tyreek is now absolutely, totally, irrevocably convinced that he'll always be able to get away with his crimes?  I mean, what other conclusion can one draw?

I'm gonna go waaay out on a limb here and predict that Tyreek hasn't really even begun his life of crime yet.  He'll keep getting the magic get-out-of-jail-free cards until he kills somebody.

Judge Alison ("I'm a sucker for sad stories by defense lawyers") Lee could have given this fine young waste of skin four years to consider his life choices.  She decided it was more important to keep him on the streets, breaking into cars, stealing guns and fencing stolen stuff. 

Now, I'm not a stickler for laws.  And the fact that this one sly sumbitch beat the system isn't gonna change life in the U.S. by more than a micrometer.  But we're looking at analogies and larger issues here: look at the huge drop in the number of illegals entering the U.S. because of just one factor: we elected a president who decided our laws regarding illegal immigration should actually be (gasp!) enforced!  That's likely to persist. 

So what do you think would happen if the Alison Lees of our judicial system stopped coddling charmers like Tyreek and instead merely sentenced 'em to the deal their own attorneys made?

Tyreek Bush-Robinson, who keeps winning under "catch & release"



Seattle: Left-vs.-left as residents of homeless camp make a courthouse dangerous


Seattle has a strongly leftist electorate and is totally run by leftists.  So it's no surprise that the city is very friendly to the homeless.  Which is delightful, eh?

Except now the homeless are assaulting the people working at one of the courthouses of the King County Superior Court, and some judges aren't happy about it.  But since leftist gummints are totally unwilling to make the homeless obey laws, the fight has now become Left-on-Left.

Turns out a bunch of homeless have been camping the park across the street from this courthouse.  The squatters relieve themselves wherever, and the stench is a problem.  Also, judges say two jurors and half a dozen court employees have been spat upon, slammed against a wall or punched.

The judges asked the county to clean up the courthouse by power-washing the sidewalks, which reek of urine and excrement.  No sooner was this proposed than a member of the city council killed the idea:  Councilmember Larry Gossett--a former member of the Black Panthers--said he opposed power-washing the sidewalks because was "racially insensitive" because it brought back images of the use of firehoses against civil-rights activists back in the 1960s.

Yeah, he really said that.

Another suggestion was closing the courthouse entrance closest to the camp and turning an entrance on the other side of the building into the main entrance.  All the moonbats on the city council liked that because it solved the problem with no risk to their virtue cards.

But the prize for "Solving Problems by Making Them Sound Trivial" goes to Seattle police captain Mike Teeter, who said 1) "police already patrol the area heavily" (so problem solved!); and 2) that while there are certainly people in the area who "behave in ways that may make others uncomfortable," there is often no criminal activity involved.

See how well that works, citizen?  You complain about being spat on or assaulted, but you conveniently ignore all the greater number of people who didn't get assaulted that day.  He added that
statistically, a person is actually slightly less likely to be assaulted near the courthouse than in some other areas of the city.   So again, problem solved.

Teeter quickly checked his virtue card and added that he recognizes that the people who are "behaving in ways that may make others uncomfortable" are either "in crisis, or need."  So stop your complaining about your discomfort.


Finally one of the judges--female--who had brought the problem to the council's attention and was undoubtedly reconsidering her complaints because of all the reassurances from captain Mike
Teeter and friends, apparently decided her virtue card needed to be refreshed.  So she said “We need to do everything we can to make this courthouse welcoming to all,” she said.



Now, virtually everyone is sympathetic to the plight of homeless people.  On the other hand, is it reasonable to let a bunch of 'em camp out in a city park?  Moonbats think so.

Why do our politicians insist that we not blame Islam for terrorist murders by "Islamists"?

You've probably heard our lying, traitorous, bribed politicians repeatedly tell Americans that Islam is a peaceful religion, and that when Muslims anywhere in the world brutally kill non-muslims--which happens virtually every day--the killings never have a thing to do with Islam.

That's right, nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.  Instead our pols insist that we ignore the bloodbath committed by Muslims, saying the murderers aren't really Muslims but have instead "hijacked" (or alternately, "perverted") a peaceful religion.

The Lying Media--which reliably echo all Democrat/liberal talking points--repeat that lie endlessly.  As a result, most Americans--few of whom have the time or inclination to research the question themselves--believe Islam is peaceful.  

One of the reasons for the wide acceptance of this delusional notion is that for the last 3 or 4 decades liberals have been teaching kids that 1) all religions are equally valid;  2) no one has the right to criticize anyone else's religion; and 3) Christians and Jews--and anyone else backward enough to need to believe in a "sky friend" (/sarc)--need to recognize that they all believe in one God, so what difference does it make what name you use?  (Again, note the /sarc tag.)

Bruce Bawer at PJ Media wrote a very insightful piece on this, and I've reposted his thoughts that I thought were most telling.

He notes that millions of people--most of them (but not all) liberals and Democrats--sincerely think we shouldn't blame Islam after terrorist acts because "it would make things worse"-- it would make non-bloodthirsty Muslims feel bad, or nervous, or oppressed, or insulted or whatever.  They also claim that blaming Islam for terrorist acts by Muslims would increase the number of "hate-crime" attacks on American Muslims by angry, mentally-unbalanced rednecks looking for revenge.
 
Sorta' like that Bernie Sanders supporter who shot congressman Steve Scalise, eh?
 
Dems also claim blaming Islam would simply increase the number of Muslims who join the so-called "fundamentalists."  So according to the Dems and media we should never blame Islam but should just go along with the pretense that the terrorists have simply perverted a peaceful religion.

Bruce believes the truth is totally contra to this conclusion, and that when people build their society on lies, it inevitably leads to bad results.  Once an approved lie becomes policy it's not long before  assent becomes mandatory.  Shortly after that speaking the truth becomes a crime.  He then asks whether Americans want to live in such a society.

We've already seen this happen in the West, with people like Lars Hedegaard in Denmark, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and Ezra Levant in Canada being prosecuted merely for speaking the truth about Islam. 

Liberals describe telling the truth about Islam as "escalating the rhetoric," and claim it simply increases the number of our enemies. 

Here are some of the things people in Europe and Canade have already been fined or jailed for saying or writing:
  1.  polls show that large percentages of Muslims in the West support the use of violence to impose sharia law; 
  2.  under Islam women have considerably fewer rights;
  3.  large percentages of western Muslims accept women's subordination to men under sharia law;
  4.  large percentages of western Muslims agree that the proper punishment for leaving Islam, or homosexual acts, or being a victim of rape, should be execution;
  5.  large percentages of western Muslims believe sharia law permits wife-beating and so-called "honor killings"; 
  6.  large percentages of western Muslims believe democracy is bad, and want to replace the law of western democracies with sharia law;

Of course a handful of brave ex-Muslims in the West who saw through the lies, and recognize the Islamic roots of violent jihad.  These ex-Muslims are astonished that western leaders ignore the people who have lived under Islam and instead simply parrot the lie that violent jihad has nothing to do with Islam.