New Left rule: Insult a female and you'll be fired. But not if you insult someone we hate

In cancelling Roseanne Barr's show the Left has now firmly laid down a marker:  If you make a tasteless slur against a female you'll be fired.

Under this new, no-tolerance standard any so-called comedienne who, say, called former first lady Michelle Obama a "feckless c*unt" would immediately be fired, right?

Especially if the "comedienne" made the horrible statement on live cable television, and even worse if the line was part of a written and vetted script instead of a clumsy ad-lib, right?

But in this case Leftist elites will totally ignore the slur--because the so-called comedienne was leftist Trump-hater Samantha Bee, and her "feckless c*nt" slur was directed at the president's daughter Ivanka. 

Wow, it's almost like the Leftist elites are...uh...hypocritical or something.

Someone higher up at TBS finally pushed Bee to apologize, but Left/lib papers had already published their approvals.

Actual clip here.

Left/liberal organs like the Washington Post and USA Today ran stories that were either vague or downright approving.  USA-T simply said "Samantha Bee has a message for Ivanka."  Later they deleted it and replaced it with a backdated story about her apology, but too late--someone captured it.

I took a screenshot so later, when you’re sufficiently dragged for this offensively benign headline, there will be a record.

Not that you’ll feel shame. That would require a conscience. Just for the public record. pic.twitter.com/DtIGOAMW8t

— #SpyGate🕵🏻‍♂️ Annie (@bloodless_coup) May 31, 2018

The WaPo weighs in:

Samantha Bee called Ivanka Trump a vulgar word. Conservatives and the White House aren’t happy. https://t.co/HVQ0PFQ15X

— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 31, 2018

Conservative commenters immediately asked the Post why liberals, Democrats and Post editors weren't equally unhappy about Bee's slur.  But of course everyone knew why.

Bee is like a bratty 5 year old that curses in front of company.  Nothing will happen to her because Leftist "elites" have ruled that's it's perfectly okay for liberal comics to verbally assault conservative women.  Ask Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin. 

Would you have trouble telling these two logos apart?

Ok people, here's the question:  If you saw the two logos below, would you have trouble telling them apart?  That is, would you be confused as to which was which?

I suspect not one of you out of a thousand would have any trouble distinguishing between them. And yet the owner of the one on the left made exactly that claim, asking the court to make the owners of the logo on the right pay them for "trademark infringement."

That's bad enough, but it gets worse:  Astonishingly, a jury agreed with the plaintiffs that the two were enough alike to confuse a reasonable person.

And tragically, as best I can determine, these jurors are typical of at least half the population of this country.

If you wonder why campus police at Berkeley stand around while "antifa" thugs beat conservative speakers; if you wonder why we still don't have a border wall; wonder why so many states and cities are giving the rest of the nation the finger by protecting illegal alien criminals and yet judges don't let the federal government cut off all aid to them; if you wonder why state social-welfare agencies keep signing illegals up for welfare even though that's supposedly against the rules; this jury verdict helps explain it.

Uneducated or stupid people--and highly educated leftists--can be talked into damn near anything.

4 days after Clapper said FBI paying a "spy" was "hyperbole," he admits it on live TV

Democrats and the Lying Mainstream Media are in full-throated, contemptuously-dismissive denial mode regarding whether the FBI--and possibly other government agencies--paid someone to spy on the Trump campaign.

"Nonsense!" top Democrat "leaders yell.   "Never happened!" echo the Lying Media.  "Tinfoil-hat stuff!"

Oooh, problem is, on May 22nd there was a serious "narrative breach"--and by someone so high up the chain that he can't be dismissed as a "disgruntled former employee" (a routine defense tactic): Obama's "Director of National Intelligence," James Clapper.  Who flatly admitted there was a spy.

And this admission happened on live national television, on a program recorded by thousands of bloggers, so it's really, really hard for Dems and the Lying Mainstream Media to convince Americans that it simply didn't happen.

Of course that doesn't keep them from trying--and indeed, on Memorial Day the most powerful Democrat politician still in office--senator Chuck Schumer--warned the media that any story they ran that quoted anyone as claiming the FBI paid someone to spy on the Trump campaign should be accompanied by the caveat that

"it is only fair to immediately follow that by noting there is absolutely no evidence of a spy being inserted in his campaign. It seems to me, failure to do so is a disservice to your readers, viewers & the country."  --Chuck Schumer (source at end of article)

Of course this was a week AFTER Clapper had already admitted there WAS a spy.  But that hardly stops the top Democrat from lying about it (i.e. claiming "there is absolutely no evidence...; well, as long as you're willing to ignore the admission by Obama's director of national intelligence).

As a result of the double-hit --source being Obama's top official on national intelligence, and happens live, on a widely-viewed TV program--the usual methods the Dems and mainstream media use to neutralize a narrative breach won't work here.  So that leaves 'em with two options--both fairly effective: one is continue to lie about "no evidence" (like Obama's dismissal of the IRS targetting conservative organizations as "not even a smidgen of corruption"), and #2, spin like a top.

Now, for students, the term "spin" is a euphemism for "lie, but in a superficially-plausible way."  The mainstream media is very good at it, having practiced it for decades.  In this case the spin is one of 3 types (so far):
  1) "It's simply unbelievable that the FBI would do such a thing, but if they did, the person wasn't a spy but simply an 'informant.'"
  2)  Not a "spy" but a..."human intelligence source."
  3) "I don't like that term 'spying.' I think perhaps 'surveil' is perhaps a more important word." (And far less likely to bother voters!)
  4) "a whistleblower."
  5) "We did it to protect Trump, and he should be grateful."

In the video clip (below) it sounds to me like Clapper is free-associating, trying out different ideas to see if he can find a combination that will convince viewers that he and the rest of the intel community were doing a good thing. 

Clapper: "With the informant business, well, the point here is the Russians--not spying on the campaign, but what are the Russians doing?  And in a sense, unfortunately [sic], what they were trying to do is protect our political system and protect the campaign."

Joy Behar (2:15): "But the FBI started to look into Trump's ties to Russia in the summer of 2016. Trump tweeted that this spring -- this spying--rather, this spying that he claims is spying--other people say it's a whistleblower or informant.... So...was the FBI spying on Trump's campaign?"

Clapper: "No--I--it--No they were not.  They were spying on--a term I don't particularly like, but--on what the Russians were doing. Trying to understand were the Russians infiltrating, trying to gain access, trying to gain leverage or influence, which is what they do."
Behar: "Well why doesn't he like that? He should be happy."

Clapper: "He should be."

Behar: "Right"



Finally, contrast Clapper's May 22nd interview above with one he gave 4 days earlier, to one of CNN's shills:

In this interview Clapper says the president's claim that the Obama administration paid someone to spy on his campaign is merely "hyperbole."  "They [the Obama admin's FBI] may have had someone who was talking to them in the, uh, in, uh, the campaign.  But you know, the focus here... is not on the campaign, per se, but what the Russians were doing," Clapper said. 

"So IF there was someone that was observing that sort of thing, that's a good thing."

Hyperbole, of course, is exaggerating something.  Instead of a flat denial, Clapper's choice of words implies he knows the accusation is true but is looking to de-fuse the charge.

FYI, here's Chuck Schumer's tweet giving the media their orders on Memorial Day:

Memo to the press: When you quote the president saying “spygate,” it is only fair to immediately follow that by noting there is absolutely no evidence of a spy being inserted in his campaign. It seems to me, failure to do so is a disservice to your readers, viewers & the country.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 28, 2018

Okay, so where is this all leading?  Unfortunately, nowhere.  The Democrats have committed to their narrative that either a) it didn't happen; or b) that if it did, the guy was NOT a spy, merely an "informant;" and c) they did it to protect the campaign; and d) although charges of an FBI informant are mere hyperbole, "anyone who tries to reveal this alleged informant will do grave damage to our national security."  They will never admit the FBI paying someone to infiltrate the campaign and give all info the the FBI was a bad thing, so they will expend every resource needed to protect the people who authorized or ordered it.  Including Obama.

Black director: "There's something horrific about milk." Others explain: It's raaacist.

The newest outrageous push from blacks is:  "Milk is raaaacis'."

Seriously.  A black movie director named Jordan Peele is one of dozens now simultaneously pushing this insanity.  See below:



Of course this may just be satire. It's getting impossible to tell anymore.

Cities with the highest homicide rates per capita

How many of these cities are Democrat-ruled?  Gosh, if there was just some pattern we could identify, maybe we could find a way to reduce the problem.

UK man arrested and immediately jailed for reporting on a trial

Tommy Robinson is a conservative British activist and journalist. The British government has been trying to jail or silence him for years, because he exposes the complicity of the government in protecting Muslim "grooming gangs"--a deliberately, carefully sanitized term for Muslim men who plied young British teens with drugs and alcohol and exploited them sexually.

Over the last three years it has been well-documented that government authorities in England have tried to cover up the Muslim gang rape epidemic. The police in Rotherham ignored Pakistani gangs sexually abusing more than 1400 British children, as reported by Forbes four years ago, in order to not appear "racist."

When the perps were Muslim and the victimes British, any social worker or cop seeking to investigate the allegations would immediately have been accused of the dreaded bullshit "crime" of "Islamophobia."  Better to ignore the claims completely.

At this point the question is, when of the cops and social workers charged with protecting young girls ignored these crimes, were any of them acting on orders from Muslim-adoring government officials?

The British government has been doing everything possible to hide the widespread crimes from the public, by imposing draconian sanctions for reporting on these trials.  Robinson has been determined to find out how the abuse of over 1,400 teenage girls could have been ignored by the government for so long.

Twenty-eight members of one of those gangs are on trial now, in Leeds, charged with  offenses including rape, trafficking, sexual activity with a child, child neglect, child abduction and supplying drugs to children.  Robinson showed up with the crowd of reporters outside the courtroom and began "live-streaming" the proceedings.

He was promptly arrested, and after a 30-minute hearing was immediately taken to prison.

The reason is, unlike in America, the British government can (and does) order media not to report on certain trials.  Many believe the reason is to hide facts from the public that would embarrass the government.  The government hadn't banned media outlets from reporting on this trial, but only one guy--Robinson--was arrested for reporting on it.

So here's the twist:  The UK government promptly ordered all media outlets in the country not to publish anything about Robinson's arrest.  Several media outlets promptly took down stories they'd already filed.

This is the kind of bullshit done by communist governments.  What possible public purpose is served by ordering media NOT to report on this arrest?  None.  The government simply wants to hide the news of the arrest because it makes the government look like a dictatorship.

And if you think this isn't coming to the U.S. under the next Democrat president, you haven't been paying attention.  They will "manage" the news, and claim it's for the public good since the claimed purpose is to avoid stirring up "anti-government" sentiment.

Something that will get your attention, for Memorial Day

My dad taught me how to fly years before I joined the Air Force.  He'd flown a B-17 for 35 missions over Europe in WW2, and after the war he was an instructor at the new test pilot school, then at Wright-Patterson AFB. (One of his students--in academics--was Chuck Yeager.)

He shared many sayings with me, and one that stands out was "I'd rather be lucky than good."  It was tongue-in-cheek, obviously:  You want to be both.  Like the pilot in the clip below:



Hope y'all have a lovely Memorial Day.

Global-warming pusher Michael Mann: Someone's lying

Michael Mann is a PhD at Penn State who is one of the most aggressive U.S. pushers of the theory of "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" (CAGW). 

Summary of the CAGW theory:
    a) the planet is warming at an alarming, dangerously-higher-than-normal rate;
    b) if true, this warming is primarily or mainly caused by carbon dioxide;
    c) the source of this supposedly unprecedented, dangerous CO2 is human activity, mainly burning oil, gas and coal;

Mann's major contribution was a study that purported to show that after being essentially flat for centuries, in the last half of the 1900's the planet's average temp had suddenly, alarmingly swung sharply upward, like the blade of a hockey stick laying flat.

His study did this by using the width of tree rings, of trees less than 150 years old, as an indicator of global temperature, and splicing this data onto older proxy data from other sources.  And there are several problems with this:  First, the width of tree rings is hugely affected by rainfall as well as temperature, and it's impossible to determine the relative contribution of each factor.

Second, his team had samples from something like 238 trees.  But they only used something like 12 for their paper.  Probably doesn't strike you as a concern, but since measuring and including all the samples wouldn't have involved a big effort or cost, why just use 12?  Unless the samples were selected completely randomly (something not mentioned in the paper) one reasonably suspects he may have used just the trees that supported his desired result.  This is called "cherrypicking your data" and is evidence of either incompetence or fraud.

Third, he didn't convincingly match his tree ring data to his other proxy data.  Essentially he simply joined the early end of his tree ring data to the end of different proxy data collected by others.  Sketchy stuff.

Oh, did we mention that Mann has the full backing of Penn State?  And that when someone copied and released 50 megabytes of emails between Mann and his co-conspirators at the UK's University of East Anglia "Climate Research Unit," showing them discussing ways to use personal friendships with journal editors to prevent papers debunking CAGW from being published--literally, in that language--both universities clammed up.
 
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Cheers
Phil

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming That they Tried to Keep out of the IPCC Report.

No one at either university was disciplined in any way for engaging in what seems to be obvious fraud, let alone conspiring to prevent contradictory papers from being published.

Oh, but there's more!  The hacked emails reveal Mann and his main co-conspirator Phil Jones discussing how to "hide the decline" and how to make the well-known "medieval warm period"--the one that enabled the Vikings to grow grapes in Greenland for a century or so--vanish, so as to make it appear that earth's climate had never been warmer in the past, and was usually very constant.  Neither of these things was true.



Oh, if you want a quick primer on Climategate, don't bother reading Wiki.  I've personally read about 3000 of the hacked emails, and the Wiki piece is a total whitewash--its only resemblance to the truth is the statement that everyone was exonerated by their respective employers.

Of course, cupcake.

Source.

Is the FBI corrupt? Would you believe they'd shoot an unarmed woman in her own home without warning?

As some of you may have heard, the entire top leadership of the FBI and "Department of Justice" (sarc) has been accused of intentional lawbreaking, both in paying one or more people to spy on the president's campaign, and in deliberately torpedoing the investigation into Hilliary's email server.  The previous director and several deputies have been fired, and more have taken retirement. 

The Lying Mainstream Media is screaming as loudly and as often as possible that the FBI and DOJ are totally doubleplusgood, citizen.  (College students:  That's a reference to a *very* relevant novel.  Extra points if you know the name.)  But in fact the FBI has been corrupt from top to bottom for decades.

Example: If someone told you that a guy who'd never been accused of a single act of violence, or threat of violence, was on his own property with his wife and four kids, and that FBI agents came on his property, without announcement or warning, and fatally shot his dog and one of his sons; and then the next day, again with no warning, an FBI sniper a fatally shot the man's his wife, you'd probably think that was fiction.  Simply un-possible in this free country.

Remember, they guy they were looking for had never done anything violent, or threatened violence.  The only beef they had was a fake charge that he'd sold two short-barrelled shotguns (one-quarter inch less than the legal limit, by the FBI's admission) to an FBI informant.

This happened on August 21 and 22, 1992.  The bureau has been corrupt for decades.

American Leftists used to hate the FBI, and routinely charged them with being corrupt.  But somewhere along the line that changed.  Oh, yeah:  That happened during Obama's reign.  Suddenly the Lying Mainstream Media (the left's ally) decided the Obama FBI/DOJ was as pure as the driven snow.

Funny, that.  Anyway, if you wanna see what Wiki says about this (and Wiki is *totally* in the tank for the Left), click here.

Gay elite leftist (faux conservative) says the opioid crisis is essentially your fault

Andrew Sullivan describes himself as a "gay Catholic conservative."  Conservative?  Not even close. He's written for Time, The Atlantic and then The Daily Beast, and is one of the thousands of fake conservatives who keep the label to get paying jobs with liberal publications who want to prove that they're really ever-so-reasonable and unbiased.  He's a left-wing fruit-loop, married to a man, but has a huge body of published work, almost certainly due to the faux-conservative-working-for-liberal-rags position just explained.

Sullivan is certainly a good writer, great imagery.  My objection is to his lack of intellectual rigor.  In other words, his reasoning sucks.  I'll point out specific examples below.

Last February Sullivan wrote a piece for New York Magazine on the "opioid crisis."

There's no question that opioid overdose is killing far too many people--estimates are that opioids of all types will kill 52,000 Americans this year .  But Sullivan's position--which seems to echo the position of liberals and Democrats nationwide--is that the deaths are the fault of a) capitalism; b) layoffs; c) lack of face-to-face human interaction; d) giant corporations in general; e) big Pharma in particular; f) overworked doctors trying to see too many patients; g) greedy doctors becoming "pill merchants"; you get the idea.

In fact, these overdose deaths are the fault of...wait for it... everyone except the people who're using the stuff.  Hmmm, who could have guessed that?  Free will has nothing to do with anything.  We're all pawns, mere cogs in a cruel, all-powerful machine.

The scale and darkness of this phenomenon is a sign of a civilization in a more acute crisis than we knew, a nation overwhelmed by a warp-speed, postindustrial world, a culture yearning to give up, indifferent to life and death, enraptured by withdrawal and nothingness. America, having pioneered the modern way of life, is now in the midst of trying to escape it.

Now I'll readily admit that America almost certainly looks far, far different to a fit, healthy former jet pilot living in a low-stress, low-traffic college town in flyover country than to some poor whiny 20-something who refuses to get a job (or start, say, his own lawnmowing biz).  But wow..."a culture yearning to give up"??  "Indifferent to life and death"?  "Enraptured by...nothingness"??  WTF??

Gosh, project much, there, buddy?

He finds it significant

...that the drugs now conquering America are downers: They are not the means to engage in life more vividly but to seek a respite from its ordeals.

Ah, we may yet have some common ground.  If someone is in chronic physical pain, I can readily understand why any relief would be welcome--even death.  So is that what he means by "seek a respite from its ordeals"?  No.  And in the very next sentence he elaborates:

The alkaloids that opioids contain have a large effect on the human brain because they tap into our natural “mu-opioid” receptors. The oxytocin we experience from love or friendship or orgasm is chemically replicated by the molecules derived from the poppy plant. It’s a shortcut — and an instant intensification — of the happiness we might ordinarily experience in a good and fruitful communal life. It ends not just physical pain but psychological, emotional, even existential pain.

Ah...an "instant intensification of the happiness we might ordinarily experience in a good and fruitful communal life."  But wait--didn't he just say in the immediately preceding sentence that opoiods "are NOT the means to engage in life more vividly...."?  Gosh, it doesn't seem like "instant intensification of the happiness we might ordinarily experience in a good and fruitful communal life" is the same thing at all, eh?

That's what I meant by goofy reasoning.  First of many.

One of the many things Sullivan blames for drug addiction is industrialization.

As small armies of human beings were lured from their accustomed rural environments, with traditions and seasons and community, and thrown into vast new industrialized cities, the psychic stress gave opium an allure not even alcohol could match.

But wait--in the very next 'graf he says DEindustrialization is to blame:

If industrialization caused an opium epidemic, deindustrialization is no small part of what’s fueling our opioid surge.

Gosh, which is it, Andy?  It almost sounds like anything and everything caused this plague.  Well, everything except personal choices.  See, we're all just pawns...

He eventually throws in--without qualifiers--"Stable family life has collapsed."  Yeah, I don't doubt that in the northeast or Chicago or Atlanta or Memphis that's probably a real problem.  Here in flyover country that hasn't hit so much yet.  Hard to say why.

Oh wait, this may be it:

Meaning — once effortlessly provided by a more unified and often religious culture— is harder to find, and the proportion of Americans who identify as [having] no religious affiliation, has risen to record levels.

He notes that "a sense of...spiritual emptiness has become widespread."

So if one of the causes of the opioid epidemic is lack of meaning--wait, he didn't say "lack," just that it's harder to find-- could that possibly, possibly have any connection to the fact that the nation has fewer religious ties than ever?  Naw, surely there can't be a connection.

If you're not yet convinced that the problem is intrinsic to American society, try this: "The American project always left an empty center of collective meaning."

Yes, yes, I see it now:  "The American project" always left "an empty center."  That accounts for our longstanding lethargy, and explains why foreigners always head for China or Russia or Cuba, but so rarely try to come here.  They sense the same problem Sullivan so deftly identifies.

Another of Sullivan's observations: "The core habit of bourgeois life — deferred gratification — has lost its grip on the American soul."  You may well think "deferred gratification" is a good thing, since it's the logic that spurs people to work harder today instead of playing video games or getting high, in the belief that working now--delaying gratification--will pay off down the road. 

This just shows how unsophisticated you are, citizen!  You need to understand that in the clever code of the "elites," "bourgeois" is a subtle insult.  As Marx saw it, those in that class needed to be killed when the glorious revolution came.

But wait--in the sentence just before this he says "Addiction...to work...is all around us."  But if the old virtue of "deferred gratification has lost its grip on the American soul" it's clear that at least those people aren't all that addicted to work, eh?  So which is it?   Doesn't matter--Sullivan wants to condemn America for both alleged faults.  Cover all the bases, so to speak.

So yeah, as an unsophisticated resident of flyover country, I don't see the same America Sullivan does.  Certainly I know people here who've been so depressed and others who've been addicted to damn near everything.  But it also seems to me that some percentage of people commit suicide every year anyway, whether by handgun or running the car in the garage or...drugs.  And when someone is determined to commit suicide, I don't see how you can prevent it.

If a drug addict won't stop for parents or siblings or other family, what makes anyone think they'll give it up for someone unrelated?  It seems so unlikely. 

Finally, ignoring whether it's possible to get more than one percent of addicts to quit before they otherwise would, is there a fix for the easy availability of heroin and fentanyl?  I think so.  But no one in this country wants to do it.  So guess we'll just be treated to an endless parade of guys like Sullivan telling us it's all America's fault.

NY Times: Heroin addiction a problem in rural America, but they're mystified as to why

A couple of weeks ago the NY Times ran a long piece on the opioid epidemic.  Now, I trust everyone can agree that the Times is thoroughly liberal/Democrat/leftist.  It's largest stockholder is Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim.

After years of analyzing the type of stories the editors of the Times love, seems they want voters in flyover country to ignore what most of us out here in flyover country immediately recognize as the pathological dysfunction of the nation's largest cities.  One reason for doing this is that they don't want voters to make the connection between liberal/Democrat rule and pathological social problems.

A great way to do that is to publish stories showing that every part of the country has the same problems as big cities.  And nothing fits that narrative better than the "opioid crisis."

In any case, below are the main points of the Times' story on heroin addiction in Eureka, northern California:

A growing heroin scourge is gripping the remote community of Eureka in northern California, where a sharp rise in heroin use has raised alarms. 

In Eureka the problem is exacerbated by a sizable homeless population that is growing amid an extreme lack of affordable housing and a changing, weakened economy that relies heavily on tourism.  

"Changing"?  "Weakened"?  Why would that be?  Source for this claim?  Nope, just trust 'em.

The combined ills have devastated a particularly vulnerable community that is often overlooked in the state. Now those problems are spilling into public view, sparking grievances and anger among the town’s residents.

“I’ve lost so many people to this,” said Stacy Cobine, 46, who has battled her own chaotic drug use and been chronically homeless.

Intravenous drug use has been a persistent menace across rural California for decades, but longtime drug users who once sought methamphetamine — which is also often injected — are increasingly looking to score heroin or opioid pills instead.  

Why?  If users are "increasingly" looking for heroin or opioids instead of meth, there must be a reason, right?  Could it be that the former are now cheaper than meth?  If so, why?  Seems that the only way heroin would be cheaper would be if supply was high.  Gee, why would that be?  Seems like that would be a crucial part of the story, eh?  Nah.  Gotta be the terrible economy.  Let's see...who's president?

An astonishingly high rate of opioid prescription in Humboldt County has bred addiction, officials said, and the craving is increasingly sated by a growing market for heroin.  

If there really is an "astonishingly high rate of opoiod prescription" in the area, yank the licenses of the docs, and jail 'em.  Oh wait, "officials" won't do that?  Gee, that's...odd.

The Humboldt Area Center for Harm Reduction [great name!], which distributes clean needles, has also drawn the ire of many in the community who blame the organization for the proliferation of needles. Brandie Wilson founded the organization in part to combat the spread of hepatitis C, which is widespread in Humboldt County. The Center has distributed close to one million clean syringes since 2017.  

Surely "since 2017" must be a typo since it would mean just since the first of this year, and we're only thru 5 months.  But the Times said "2017."  Hard to figure.  Since the total population of Humboldt County is less than 140,000, "close to a million" syringes would be over six per resident--and just in the first 5 months of 2018.  I realize serious druggies often shoot up at least every day, but this is still a huge number.

Ms. Wilson said the organization has also distributed thousands of kits of naloxone, a medication used to reverse opioid overdoses.

The needle litter problem intensified two years ago when the town removed a homeless encampment along the Palco Marsh where somewhere between 250 and 400 homeless people had been sleeping.

The tent city, which was colloquially called Devil’s Playground, provided a place to sleep and to linger during the day, but it also saw severely unsanitary health conditions and, at times, violence. In 2016 the town decided to clear the camp and did not allow a new camp anywhere else.

Now “everybody wants to focus on syringes instead of lives,” said Ms. Wilson.

Ms. Cobine said that the town’s decision to clear the homeless encampment “tore us down emotionally and psychologically.” Ms. Cobine said she stopped taking her medications for bipolar disorder because she was afraid that a side effect, drowsiness, could leave her vulnerable to sexual assault when she did not have somewhere safe to sleep; she carries a hatchet around in her bag for protection.

“They shouldn’t have closed the playground down if they didn’t want homeless people all over town,” Ms. Cobine said. “They should have let them stay back there where they were, if they didn’t want drug paraphernalia all over town, or give us somewhere else to go.”

Steve Shockley said he and other homeless people in the area do not just use meth recreationally: they often use it to stay awake at night. The homeless in town have fewer and fewer places where they can sleep without risking a ticket for loitering, or having their few possessions seized by the police. So they take meth to keep moving at night, and take heroin during the day to feed their cravings.

Another homeless man, Michael Myers, said that heroin was easier to acquire than meth

“The state is failing miserably, and you can quote me on that,” said Mr. Stewart, the deputy coroner. “The state is failing miserably across the board. They are not putting enough funding and resources toward rehabilitation.”

Once there are more treatment options in place, the challenge will be getting the people who need them most to buy in, and to offer them mental health services as well.

Ms. Cobine, for her part, believes that housing needs to be the priority in a comprehensive program to deal with drug use in the area.

"Cuz, like, we wouldn't use drugs if you'd give us free housing!  Like, really."  And sure enough...

“I don’t know why treatment and rehab and these services always have to come into play first,” said Ms. Cobine. “If there was just affordable housing, people wouldn’t be using as much.”

Finding stable housing situations for those who are most vulnerable, to encourage recovery, is another challenge. Sally Hewitt of the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services said the county’s inability to expand public housing options will make that far more difficult, particularly because of local resistance. 

This echoes user Cobine: Democrats seem convinced drug use is caused by homelessness, rather than the reverse.  But it's hard to keep a home or apartment without a job, and virtually all chronic drug users can't hold jobs for long because they don't come to work when they're drugged out.  And since that's their main goal, keeping a job is a distant second on their priority list.  But by all means do, do give 'em homes, cuz that will let 'em get high in comfort and safety.  Like giving 'em needles and taxpayer-funded shooting galleries.

As a result of restrictions on public housing development in California, Ms. Hewitt said, county officials must largely deal with private landlords when seeking to house the homeless. Many of the landlords require potential tenants to have references, good credit and an income at least three times the cost of rent. Those are each obstacles for the homeless, particularly those with drug addictions.

The editors of the Times wanted to make sure you got the message, so here it is yet again: "The problem is there's just not enough public housing.  If you taxpayers would just pony up and build a few tens of thousands more units, drug addiction wouldn't be nearly so bad!"

Yeah, dat sounds really persuasive.  I mean, look how well public housing in, oh, New York or Chicago or St. Louis slashed drug addiction in those cities, right?
===

A local landlord comments:

“If addicts didn’t use drugs they could afford and get housing. No landlord wants a druggie as a tenant. They destroy everything they touch.  Even if they pay their rent, you often end up with more cost of damage than you make from the rent.  If addicts want housing the solution isn't hard to identify: stop using drugs and get a job.  But they refuse to do either, because they love the high the drugs provide. (Commenter is a landlord who has been burned and seen others burned by addicts.)”

The Times comments: "Many readers were unsure where to place blame, but are disheartened by the lack of action:"

“I have lived in Eureka my entire life. Addressing the lack of housing would be great, but I don’t think that is anywhere near a total solution [gee, ya think?].  I'm not convinced that giving a drug-user a home or free apartment will get them to stop using drugs [gee, ya think?] or even to cut back.  Instead it's likely they'd just damage a unit that could be used by a responsible family. This is a multi-sided issue and I do hope for these individuals’ recovery.  I just don’t see how.”

From a college student in the town:

"Does the responsibility fall on the users, does it fall on the dealers who exploit them, or does it fall on society for failing these people?” 

[It's clear that the editors of the Times want us to think drug use is the fault of "society."  Hard to get them to actually explain why they claim society is to blame, and I suspect they'd invoke a bunch of Marxist bullshit: "It's because the free market is too harsh."  "It's because of capitalism."  Bullshit.  If you love the high of drugs enough to jettison family and personal responsibility, ain't nothin' gonna' improve until you change that.]

But much more typical was the following--which exonerates personal choice and puts the blame where liberals clearly think it belongs:  On society.  That would be you, citizen.  And if you believe that, you must be responsible for fixing 'the problem':

   “In Eureka addicts are treated as criminals rather than having an illness. This community has forgotten that these are human beings. Can we save them all?  Probably not, but we do have to try. We need money to build rehabs, more [free] housing and support services for these people.  Addiction has hit every walk of life, not just the homeless. And it’s a shame on our politicians, pharmaceutical companies, and community members that this is so out if control.”

Here's another commenter with the same viewpoint:  Drug use and homeless are always someone else's fault:

   “I believe that the chronic lack of medical professionals and services in Humboldt County and other far Northern California rural areas is part of the addiction problem, along with poverty."

Leaving northern California for a moment, if you want to see how thoroughly, how utterly, how ridiculously many officials are doing everything BUT what's needed to solve the drug problem, check this out:  Prosecutors in 36 states have started charging people with involuntary manslaughter if they were using drugs with someone who died:

Between 2015 and 2017, the number of such prosecutions nearly doubled.  In Minnesota the number of such cases — sometimes referred to as “murder by overdose” — quadrupled in a decade.  Pennsylvania went from 4 cases in 2011 to 171 last year after making it easier to prosecute.

Now, I fully support prosecution of drug dealers, but this is different:  People who are getting a fix with friends clearly don't intend the friend's death.  And it's hard to imagine that other druggies will be deterred by such convictions.  After all, druggies are already willing to break the law to get a fix, so adding a (distant) possible downside isn't likely to change their calculus an iota.

What this shows is that prosecutors (and their political bosses) are willing to do lots of useless things in an alleged effort to "solve" the problem.  They'll do everything *except* the obvious:  Death sentences for heroin dealers.

===

This might shed some light. It's from the website of the Humboldt Area Center for Harm Reduction:

Harm Reduction is a set of practical strategies and ideas aimed at reducing negative consequences associated with drug use.  Harm Reduction is also a movement for social justice built on a belief in, and respect for, the rights of all people who use drugs.

Harm Reduction is a multi-faceted concept that incorporates a spectrum of strategies, including but not limited to:

• Safer Substance Use (via Syringe Exchange and Other Services)
• Managed Substance Use

The Humboldt Area Center for Harm Reduction (HACHR) is dedicated to Harm Reduction in the Humboldt County community, and in accordance with our partners at the HRC, our organization considers the following principles central to Harm Reduction:

• Accepts, for better and or worse, that licit and illicit drug use is part of our world and chooses to work to minimize its harmful effects rather than simply ignore or condemn them.
• Understands drug use as a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon that encompasses a continuum of behaviors...and acknowledges that some ways of using drugs are clearly safer than others.
• Establishes quality of individual and community life and well-being–not necessarily cessation of all drug use–as the criteria for successful interventions and policies.  [Translation from gobblespeak:  Continued use of drugs by our clients still counts as "successful intervention."  The sole criterion for what we call "successful intervention" is if the user has an acceptable quality of life.]
• Calls for the non-judgmental, non-coercive provision of services and resources to people who use drugs and the communities in which they live in order to assist them in reducing attendant harm.  [Trying to get druggies to stop using is not important to these liberals.]
• Ensures that drug users and those with a history of drug use routinely have a real voice in the creation of programs and policies designed to serve them.
• Affirms drugs users themselves as the primary agents of reducing the harms of their drug use, and seeks to empower users to share information and support each other in strategies which meet their actual conditions of use.
• Recognizes that the realities of poverty, class, racism, social isolation, past trauma, sex-based discrimination and other social inequalities affect both people’s vulnerability to and capacity for effectively dealing with drug-related harm.
• Does not attempt to minimize or ignore the real and tragic harm and danger associated with licit and illicit drug use.  [See, we admit that there's "real and tragic harm" associated with drug addiction.  But with that said, we'll help users keep using, because any harm is minimal as long as society provides the necessary support for users.]

It's hard to decide whether these people are just misguided do-gooders, or agents of destruction.  Seems to me they're totally encouraging drug use, and rationalizing that encouragement by saying "Hey, we're just trying to reduce the harm to users."  Okay, that sentiment gets 95% of the public to just nod approvingly and go away.  After all, who can possibly object to "reducing harm," eh?

But let's follow this to what seems to be its logical conclusion:  The people running this thing would seem to be happy if taxpayers would a) give drug addicts free homes or apartments; b) continue to give them free syringes; c) provide local police and other responders with antidote "kits" for use on overdose cases.  Ultimately the same argument can be used to have taxpayers provide whatever drug an addict wants, since that's a way of ensuring he or she won't get adulterated drugs, which after all would cause harm to an innocent user.

Is this what America wants?  Beats me.  Having had a family member who was addicted to coke and crack and meth for 20 years, my sense of it is that addicts won't stop using until they make that decision themselves.  Sorta' like cigarette smokers.  Seems to me the "let's help addicts use drugs safely" crowd is simply helping addicts use longer.

DOJ/FBI "redact" price of a conference table ordered by McCabe...cuz, national security

Democrats, echoed endlessly by the Lying Mainstream Media:  The only reason FBI and DOJ have "redacted" documents is to avoid the grave damage to our national security that would occur if they turned over the unprotected documents to the House or senate.  You can totally trust both us and the FBI/DOJ, because none of us would ever lie to the American public.  Swearsies.

Well...two days ago Sen. Chuck Grassley revealed that in one of the docs the senate had demanded that the FBI produce, the FBI had "redacted" (blacked out) the cost of an expensive conference table ordered by former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, who was fired for lying under oath. 

Cost of the conference table?  $70,000.

Ah, so this is what the FBI considers a "national security issue," eh?

But you can totally trust them, citizen.  Blacking out this number was just an accident.  The FBI and DOJ only black out something in a document to...how did that go again?  Oh yeah: "to avoid doing grave damage to national security."   Yeh, dat's it.  But of course accidental "redactions" do happen.  Cuz we're all just human, right citizen?  And besides, the task of redacting was left to some low-level minor bureaucrat, just like the guy in Hilliary's State Department who signed off on the sale of 15% of our uranium leases to a company controlled by Russia.  Cuz we can't expect top people to do that sort of trivial scut-work.

Oooh, wait: Grassley said many of the redactions within the documents made no sense, and clearly were not made to protect national security secrets.

But...but...but...you can totally trust the DOJ under the fabulously ethical Rod Rosenstein.  Yep yep yep.

Former Attorney-general: Mueller's appointment violated DOJ regs, was legally defective

Former Attorney-General Mike Mukasey has written an opinion piece for a national paper claiming that Rod Rosenstein's appointment of special counsel Robert Muller violated DOJ regs.  Here's the crux:

Justice Department regulations permit appointment of a special counsel only if (i) there is reason to think that a federal crime has been committed, and (ii) investigating it would present a conflict of interest for the Justice Department or there is another overriding public reason to take the investigation outside DOJ.

Because Attorney General Sessions had worked on the Trump campaign, he recused himself from the matter, and so the deputy A-G — Rod Rosenstein — made the decision to appoint a special counsel. 

The regulations require that all such appointments recite the facts justifying the conclusion that a federal crime was committed, and specify the crime. However, Rosenstein's initial appointment of  Mueller did neither, referring instead to a national security investigation that a special counsel has no authority to pursue.

Although Rosenstein apparently tried to correct his mistake in a new appointment memo, he has thus far refused to publicly disclose a complete copy of it. In other investigations supposedly implicating a president — Watergate and Whitewater come to mind — we were told what the crime was and what facts justified the investigation. Not here.

BTW, right in the middle of Mukasey's hard-hitting piece, USAToday inserted this piece of anti-Trump propaganda:

OUR VIEW: Mueller's investigation is so serious, let's hope he finishes soon

So how does this affect us now?  If Mueller had found any evidence of "collusion with Russia" that would have been leaked to the Lying Mainstream Media within two days.  OTOH, if he finds no evidence of any collusion, does anyone believe his final report will say that?  Of course not.  Instead the report--which will almost certainly be released a month before the mid-term elections--will say something like this:

"Despite overwhelming evidence *suggesting* collusion, and our doing everything possible to get members of the Trump campaign and administration to admit that the campaign colluded with Russia, no one would confess.  Thus we *reluctantly conclude* that recommending impeachment or indictment would be a waste of time. 

So 'for the good of the country' we will close this investigation by saying that while the president almost certainly did collud with Russia to rig the election and thus steal it from his overwhelmingly-favored Democratic opponent, any penalty for these likely acts must be left to congress or voters.

And with that deft bit of propaganda, the Trump administration will be hamstrung.

Mission accomplished.

 

Now: Surely some upper-level FBI agents know what happened.  They could come forward, first in secret, telling what they know.  Then once the tale of total, rampant corruption in the FBI had been completely revealed, their roles as honest men of integrity would be secured.

But as far as anyone here in flyover country knows, no such agent has come forward.

 

242 years ago the most forward-thinking men on the planet pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to found this nation.

Today the most important consideration is "muh pensionz."

Sad.  And it speaks volumes about what's happened to American society.

In the dim, distant past editors often quoted this phrase: "Our nation is a nation of laws, not of men." What that meant was that no one--regardless of power--was above the law.  The law was to be applied equally to all, regardless of a person's wealth or power.  Obviously that didn't prevent corruption, but as far as we can tell it worked reasonably well.

But today we have two sets of laws--one for Connected people and a second for Ordinary people.  If you're part of the Connected class you can get away with damn near anything, while members of the second group are hammered for breaking any of the 482,000 rules in the federal code.

Liberals seem to think there's nothing wrong with having two sets of rules/laws.  (At least no liberal "elite" has ever written anything critical of this condition.)  Never dawns on 'em that this could have any detrimental effect at all on our society.

Look around you, libs:  How's life in big cities?  Is crime up or down?  (In many cities the "official" stats say down.  Stories in the local papers suggest that's not true.  Say, you don't think Democrat rulers of the big cities would possibly be lying about crime rates to make themselves look better, do ya'?  Why, that's like claiming Dem-run school districts deliberately avoid charging young offenders of Preferred Pigmentation with crimes to curry favor with the Obama administration. Un-possible, citizen!)

If our society is getting more lawless, how do libs explain it?  Are incomes down?  Cost of living going way up?  People being forced to steal to survive?  ("Tale of Two Cities")  No to all.

So how so Dems and liberals explain it?

Can't possibly have anything to do with corruption, and "two sets of laws," right?  Cuz, how in the world would any member of the criminal class figure out that the elites--including top FBI and DOJ officials--were skating for crimes that would put anyone else in jail for 20 years?  I mean, it's just too, too esoteric.  No one could possibly make that connection.

But by all means, vote Dem in November.  We really, really need to reign in this awful, raaaacis' orange president and his party of scoundrels, so we can keep the "two sets of laws" principle on which this nation was founded.

WaPo: "IF the FBI use an 'informant' it was to *protect* Trump, not to go after him"

Actual headline in the totally Trump-hating Washington Post:

IF the FBI used an informant it wasn't to go after Trump; it was to protect him

Seriously.  And of course one day later James Clapper admitted they had indeed placed a "spy" in the Trump campaign.  Of course he quickly stammered that he really hated using that term, and preferred the term "informant."

Oh, yes, certainly.  The word "informant" instead of "spy" changes everything, from "Wow, this looks very nearly criminal" to "Hey, no problem."

And certainly, surely, all dumb deplorables who voted for Trump totally believe the Post's claim that IF the FBI did place...an informant...in the campaign, it was totally to protect Trump.

Uh-huh.  Yep yep yep.  Sure do believe that, libbies.  I mean, it just sounds so logical.  So reasonable.  So believable.  Especially if we conveniently ignore the thousands of emails between FBI special agent Peter Strzok and his mistress saying "We need an insurance policy" against the million-to-one chance of Trump winning--unless "we" take action to block even that tiny possibility.

Yeah.  You bet.

Y'know, I think every single shithead on the Post has been eating their own propaganda for so long that they really believe those of us outside the Beltway are as dumb and gullible as their incessant propaganda says we are.

Reported two-thirds of students aren't proficient in reading. But back in 1910...

You may have heard that two-thirds of the students in American high schools reportedly tested "below proficient" in reading.  But you may be more surprised to learn that back in 1910, in most states over 99% of school kids were reportedly proficient in reading. 

So what happened to make the percentage of proficient readers plunge so sharply?  Has the average intelligence fallen that much, maybe due to CO2 or pesticides in the air, or fluoridated water, or PCB's in drink containers?

Maybe.  But another theory blames a teaching method called "sight reading."  Introduced in the 1930's as THE hot new way to teach reading, its proponents wanted it to replace the "old" (thus allegedly inferior) way--called "phonics"--with rote memorization of the shape and length of words.

Seems crazy, eh?  There are so many times more words than just phonetic sounds that this supposedly NEW, IMPROVED! method would seem to all but the most committed ideologue to be far worse than the way people had learne to read for centuries.

But when the "experts" at the nation's allegedly top universities reaffirmed this new method, amazingly almost all local schools fell in line to do it the "improved" way.  Of course some school boards didn't surrender right away but argued with the "experts" that the new method was dumb.  As in, incredibly, obviously, screamingly stupid.  But the experts wouldn't relent....cuz, see, they were professors at prestigious schools like Hahvahd and Yale, so they must be right.  HAD to be right, eh?

It would be fabulous if some agency *not* associated with the federal government would survey, say, 10,000 random school systems and see how many had an official policy on this, one way or the other.  That would enable people to compare, y'know, actual results of the two teaching methods.

Somehow I suspect the school systems in big, Democrat-controlled cities would order their people not to respond.  Can't imagine why.

Dems claim the U.S. too tough on crime; do you agree?

Is the U.S. too tough on criminals?  Depends on who you listen to.  The Lying Mainstream Media say yes, and I suspect most liberals and Democrats agree.  Similarly, I suspect most Republicans say no.

So how often would you guess that a convicted felon is sentenced to more than, say, a year in prison?

You may be surprised to learn that in 2009, in the 75 largest U.S. counties by population, only 36 percent of convicted felons in 2009 were sentenced to prison.  Another 37 percent were sentenced to jail, where sentences top out at one year--but the felon is usually released in a few weeks or months. 

The other 27 percent of convicted felons got probation or "treatment."

And note that these aren't the percentage of those merely charged with a felony, but of those actually convicted of one.

What's even more astonishing is the number of people walking around free with 5 or more felony convictions who've managed to avoid all but a few months of jail time.  The system has left them free to rob and kill again and again, and can't seem to get around to putting 'em away for, say, 20 years as incorrigible, repeat offenders.  This despite 28 states having "repeat offender"/"three strikes" laws designed to do just that.

It would be great if someone would ask all politicians "Do you believe repeat violent criminals should be imprisoned for life after the 3rd or 4th offense, or do you think such laws should be abolished?"  Gosh, if only there was some sort of vocation that paid people for asking things like this.

"World Scout Movement" requires condoms be provided at U.S. scout jamboree; what sort of sex are they expecting?

This post will indeed get to the title point, but some background is vital:

For decades, Communists have been using a brilliant strategy:  Use liberals in target nations to destroy their own society.  One of the most successful ways to do this is to push the following idea:

We're all One World, all one people.  Since that's true, obviously there's no need for nations to have armed forces, because why would any nation want to go to war when we're all...one people, one world?  And in an era of "one world," 'nationalism' is totally...provencial.  Backward.  Primitive.  Stupid.  Instead, enlightened people--and you are enlightened, right?--need to demand more sophisticated ways of thinking:  All your national organizations should become "World organizations."

And as you might have guessed, when liberals agreed that "world" organizations were, y'know, so much more sophisticated, guess who had the rules and staff for every such organization already selected, written up and ready to go?

The staffers chosen for such organizations weren't Russian but were third-world nationals.  They didn't have any obvious ties to communism, but many had been educated in the Soviet Union and in fact were reliable assets.

Point of the above is, any organization with "World..." in its title is almost certainly controlled by the communists.  World Council of Churches, to name one of many examples.

Which brings us to a thing called the "World Scout Jamboree," to be held in West Virginia from July 21 to Aug. 1, with the theme “Unlock a New World.”

According to the official promotional material, the "World Scout Jamboree" is an "official event" of the World Organization of the Scout Movement--so your alarms should be going off.  The Boy Scouts (soon to be renamed "Scouts BSA") are co-hosting this event with scouting organizations of  Canada and Mexico. 

With "World..." so prominently featured, liberals are totally excited about this international festival.

But buried deep in the "World Organization of Scouting Movement" handbook is a...curious...requirement:  the host organization "must ensure that condoms are readily and easily accessible for all participants AND [International Service Team staff] at a number of locations on the site.”

Andy Chapman, vice chairperson [the World Organization used that PC term] of the "World Scout Committee," quickly tried to trivialize this bizarre requirement.  In a written statement Chapman wrote that this requirement has "been in place" for the past two World Scout Jamborees.

Ah, well, nevermind then.  If it's been a requirement for the past two "Jamborees" it must be perfectly innocuous and you shouldn't question it.  Because "settled, longstanding policy."

I just wish some reporter would have asked Andy Chapman (or any of the other dipshits in the "World Organization of the Scout Movement" this question:

Other than the joke use as water balloons, condoms have only one purpose:  to make sex safer.  Since there are not, as yet, any girls in this organization, tell us, Mr. Chapman, what kind of sex the World Organization of the Scout Movement thinks may or will occur at this event?

And why the specific requirement that condoms be "readily and easily accessible for...the International Service Team staff"?  This implies that the staff will be using same.  Can you explain why this is a reasonable thing for your organization to encourage?

One of the most effective ways to defeat a nation is to convince most of its young men that their way of life--their nation--isn't worth defending.  Oviously this requires a long time to do, but it does work.  And one of the ways you accomplish this is by convincing young men that many of the admired institutions around them are corrupt, fraudulent, not what they profess to be.

At that point they're "easy pickins."

Most Americans think this is tinfoil-hat stuff--simply nutty conjecture, without a shred of evidence.

If you agree, I suggest you study recent history:  In the period before WW2, "internationalists" had so thoroughly taken over the prestige universities of Britain that the leaders of the Oxford student union openly declared that if war came, they would refuse to fight.

There's a reason highschools don't teach real history anymore.

16-year-old runs over officer in suburban Baltimore

Americans, meet the future.  This particular future is named Dawnta Anthony Harris, and he is allegedly 16.

Young D's claim to his 15 minutes of infamy is that he and three of his homies--ages 15, 16 and 17--were robbing a home near Baltimore at 2pm.  Neighbor spotted 'em and called the cops, reporting the perps arrived in a black Jeep Wrangler.

Minutes later officer Amy Caprio--four years on the force--arrived and ordered Dawnta out of the vehicle.  Instead he ran over her.  She died 30 minutes later.

The officer’s body camera clearly shows the Jeep accelerating toward her. She fired one shot before being run over.

The Jeep--which had been stolen--was found abandoned nearby, and officers found Harris about a block away. Prosecutors said Harris had the keys to the Jeep in his pocket when police questioned him, and when they left, he tried to hide them under the seat.

Harris later admitted he was the driver while his three homies were robbing the house.  He told officers he saw the officer drive up, and that when she got out of her car and ordered him to get out of the Jeep he “drove at the officer."

Astonishingly, when Dawnta ran over officer Caprio he was on house arrest for car theft-- he'd stolen not just one but four cars just since December.  But because he was...um...young...the judge decided it would be just too, too traumatic to put the poor kid in any kind of lockup (including juvenile detention) and "sentenced" him to house arrest with an "ankle bracelet."

See, the judge was just sure that being under "house arrest" and wearing an ankle-bracelet would keep him home.  Clearly neither of these things deterred Dawnta a bit--which is to say, they worked as well as a rational person would have guessed.  Which is to say, not at all.

At his bail hearing prosecutors said Harris had vanished from his mother's house days before he allegedly killed the officer.

So, how do you think BLM, Antifa, Democrats, social justice warriors and similar will react to this story?  At the moment they're silent, trying to decide how to spin this.  My guess is these organizations will hail D as a hero of the resistance, who was simply "fighting for social justice" against brutal, raaacis' cops.  They'll claim the Jeep accelerated on its own.  Or that the poor, scared young man tried to step on the brake but accidentally hit the accelerator.

They'll praise him for killing a cop who was impeding him from exercising his right to commit crimes.

As I said at the top:  Meet the future.

Update:  Well that didn't take long: Dawnta's attorneys are saying it was an accident, that their client was in “survival mode” when he ran over the officer, and the officer had no reason to draw her gun because in their view this should have been regarded not as stopping a burglary but as simply "a traffic stop."  Yes, they really said that.

Illegal-alien driver flees from traffic stop, crashes; ACLU blames ICE

In Kern County, California, agents pulled over a car.  The driver initially stopped, then floored the accelerator and took off.  A short distance away the driver lost control and struck a power pole, killing Marcelina Garcia Profecto and Santo Hilario Garcia--both of whom "are believed to be undocumented Americans."

Surprising no one, pro-illegal-alien activists immediately blamed...ICE.

Using amazing telepathic powers, the president of the United Farm Workers union said "Once the family realized it was ICE, they got scared, more than likely, and took off."  He said the deaths were "a result of these aggressive actions by ICE."

The "director of immigrants’ rights" at the ACLU of Southern California joined in blaming the crash on ICE, citing “inhumane tactics and the fear it provokes in hardworking people who stand to lose everything if they are deported."

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said "This tragedy is entirely a result of the extremist, raacist policies of the Nazi president Trump, who has given his raacist ICE thugs permission to terrorize innocent undocumented Americans, under the guise of 'enforcing' unfair, outdated, Republican immigration laws.  We need to open our borders to anyone who wants to come here and vote Democrat."

Some of that last 'graf may have been garbled in transmission.  As anti-American as the Democrats have become since the election, it's getting harder to tell truth from satire anymore.

Leftist loon writing for fashion mag praises Rosenstein and his refusal to comply with congress's demand

If you think the Left isn't trying to depose president Trump, here's an article that may convince you.  It's from the mens' fashion mag Esquire, by one Charles Pierce, titled

For Now, We'll Trust That Rod Rosenstein Is Playing the President* Like a Five-Cent Violin

sub-head: "The indications are the Deputy AG is a crafty bureaucrat."

Before we start, you'll note Pierce's cute use of asterisks every time he uses "president" or "administration."  He doesn't explain the meaning, but undoubtedly it's an inside joke for regular readers of the rag.

Every day that Robert Mueller and his tunnel rats continue to labor under the foul mire that is this administration* is a day when the White House loses. Every day in which Mueller goes home at night still in the same job is a day when the president* is one day closer to possibly losing his.

So it’s easy to read too much into the meeting late Monday afternoon when deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and FBI director Chris Wray dropped by the White House to talk to the president* in response to the latest administration* fever dream about how the previous administration had gone all Gordon Liddy on the Trump campaign—and just because that campaign was lousy with crooks, mountebanks, and influence-pedding in a dozen different languages.

So, Rosenstein and Wray dropped by and, when the meeting was over, the three principals issued a very curious statement. It stated that the DOJ’s inspector-general will expand his ongoing investigation to include “tactics” employed by the FBI in its investigation of the Trump campaign. Further:

"It was also agreed that White House Chief of Staff Kelly will immediately set up a meeting with the FBI, DOJ, and DNI together with congressional leaders to review highly classified and other information they have requested."

Nobody seems to know what that second part means. The intelligence community would be out of its mind to hand over material vitally important to its investigation to the leakiest White House since before they put the roof on the joint. At the same time, it seems that Rosenstein et.al. have agreed to give to the administration* material that the FBI has fought tooth-and-claw to keep from the congressional Republicans. 

For the moment I’m going to give Rosenstein credit for being a gifted bureaucratic infighter and survivor who has played the president* like a five-cent violin.  There are a dozen ways for Rosenstein to slow-play the review of any classified documents. I think the president* got played on behalf of all of us. [italics added]

You really have to laugh at that last italicized phrase.  By "all of us," of course, he means all the insane Dems and leftists for whom no act is off-limits if it deposes the president.

Total venom.  And note that Pierce wrote this after the WaPo and NYTimes printed the name of the (first) FBI spy planted in the Trump campaign, yet he's wailing about how awful it would be for "the intel community" to give material vital to its investigation to the White House because there have been so many leaks from the White House!

Wow.  Hypocrisy much?  

These are the ravings of a totally deranged Leftist.  But then, that's the norm for the Lying Mainstream Media.  And while the WaPo would snark that a fashion mag doesn't belong in that category, the thinking is certainly all too common.

In Venezuela, prices are doubling every 17.5 DAYS; U.S. media refuse to cover it

People under about 60 don't have any real idea about how utterly, totally destructive inflation is, or what causes it.  And that's not your fault, cuz the Lying Mainstream Media totally ignore the whole topic.

And why does the media ignore inflation?  Because it's what eventually happens to countries that go all-in on what might be called "full socialist mania."

Many older Americans learned about one example of hyperinflation, and how it destroyed one of the most civilized nations in the world and set the stage for WW2:  In Germany after WW1 politicians foolishly believed governments could print as much currency as they wished, without consequence.  Didn't work out well:  inflation was so awful that companies ended up having to pay employees every DAY, because prices were doubling in a week.

One of the many horrible effects of high inflation is that it wipes out the value of saving money, and makes saving money foolish.  If no one saves, banks have no money to loan, making it impossible to get a mortgage, or start or expand a business.

Oooh, who could have foreseen those results, eh?

Fortunately politicians learned from Germany's horrible experience.

Hahahahaha!  Just kidding!  Politicians and learning?  Never happens.

And thus we segue to the ghastly train wreck that is...Venezuela.  Which in 1980 had the highest per-capita income in all of Latin America.  Now utterly wrecked, by idiot socialist dictators and their dumb socialist policies.  So now you can see why the Lying Media doesn't cover Venezuela:  Hurts the Democrats' narrative.

Thanks to the policies of socialist dictator Nicholas Maduro, prices in Venezuela are doubling every 17.5 days.

So inflation has totally wiped out Venezuela's middle-class.  (Hey, no big deal: Marx said the middle-class were all  "bourgeois shopkeepers" who should be killed when the revolution came.)

And yet the lower classes--who don't have any education and know nothing of history or economics--still seem to support Maduro.  At least the alleged results of the country's recent election (which may be fraudulent) showed Maduro getting about two-thirds of the vote.

See, the huge attraction of socialism for politicians is that stupid, uneducated voters--what we call "low-information voters"--love socialism, because it gives 'em "free stuff."  And in shithole countries so many people are poor and uneducated that pushing socialism is a sure winner for wanna-be dictators.

Which brings us to...the U.S.  Bernie Sanders is a self-admitted socialist.  Has never held a job outside of government.  An articulate, somewhat charismatic scammer--except he probably doesn't realize socialism is a disaster.  And is unable to learn from the experience of other countries.

So Bernie has proposed 1) free college for everyone; 2) a "guaranteed national income" (i.e. free money without having to work); 3) forgiving all student loans; and so on.  Who can be surprised that a huge number of young Americans--including college students--support him and his policies?

So how does he propose to, um, pay for all these so-called "freebies"?  Frankly no reporter has asked him--cuz they don't want to put him on the spot.  But surely he'll find a way--after all, the government owns the printing presses, right?  Why can't they just print off as much money as they like?

Why indeed.

 

Democrat congresstwirp claims idea of a spy in Trump's campaign is "nonsense"

Submitted for your consideration, a "tweet" from one of the more obnoxious Democrat congresstwits, Adam Schiff, just two days ago, in which he claims...

Trump’s claim of an embedded “spy” is nonsense. His “demand” DOJ investigate something they know to be untrue is an abuse of power, and an effort to distract from his growing legal problems. Never mind that DOJ has warned that lives and alliances are at risk. He doesn’t care. https://t.co/c1itPmiHnv

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) May 20, 2018

As you see, Schiff claimed "Trump's claim of an embedded 'spy' is nonsense. His 'demand' [that] DOJ investigate something they know to be untrue is an abuse of power....DOJ has warned that lives and alliances are at risk. [apparently Schiff means at risk if investigation reveals a spy, though the mechanism isn't clear]

The hoot is, Schiff tweeted this two days ago--after FBI leakers had told the Washington Post and NY Times "informant's" identity-- which they had already revealed before you tweeted your scathing opinion.

So which is it, Adam:  Is the president's claim of an FBI spy in his campaign "nonsense," as you claimed, or are the WaPo and Times wrong about the "informant"?

And if, as you so chillingly claimed, "lives and alliances are at risk" by this revelation, will you now blame the WaPo and Times?  I'm absolutely sure you won't. Yet you were eager to blame Trump if he'd done the same.  How...typical.

Can you say "hypocrite," Adam? Can you say "Typical Democrat double-standard"? Sure you can.

WaPo does total reversal in two weeks. Someone wants to protect something big

Washington Post, May 8:  "Revealing the name of the 'informant' the FBI put in Trump's campaign could endanger his life, do grave harm to national security!"
     subhead:  "Just demanding that the FBI provide unredacted information to congressional oversight committee would risk the life of FBI source."

Washington Post, two weeks later:  "Let's Talk About This Stefan Halper Fellow In Detail"
     subhead:  Here's the 'informant's' name & bio that FBI sources leaked to us. 

For the Post to totally reverse themselves in just two weeks--going from dutifully pushing the FBI/DOJ claim that revealing the name would do grave harm to national security, to revealing the guy's identity (which they claimed just two weeks earlier would do grave harm...), suggests they're willing to lose tons of credibility with undecided/independent voters.

Now think:  What would prompt them to reverse their oh-so-dramatic position so sharply and so soon?  My guess is that they're following orders from their friends/sources at FBI/DOJ.  And for those sources to demand this large a loss of face from the Post, the sources must be trying to conceal a much more important secret--and they're trying hard.

Either that or the editors at the Post don't read their own bullshit--i.e. they're incompetent.

And y'know, that is a tough call.

Democrat leaders Schumer and Pelosi outline their party's midterm strategy; wow!

When Democrat party leaders want to get propaganda out to voters, all they have to do is announce a "press conference" and invite their supporters from the various Democrat media outlets that masquerade as "entertainment networks."  The scribes will ensure that their bidding is done perfectly.

Sure enough, two days ago Nancy Pelosi and Chuckie Schumer held court on the capitol steps, and their media allies at NBC faithfully conveyed their propaganda to the peons.  (That would be us.)

NBC's website posted the astonishing performance under the title

Turning up the heat on Trump: Dems say 'culture of corruption' to be focus of midterms

Subhead: "The party has decided to go full drain-the-swamp on the president's administration, after debating whether to target economic issues or alleged wrongdoing in the coming elections.

The first thing one notices is, what are the Democrats doing echoing one of president Trump's most popular campaign slogans? You know they don't actually have even the slightest intention of "draining the swamp"--the cesspool of unelected, permanent "deep-state" left-wing bureaucrats that ensure the federal government just continues to do what the Left wants, no matter who's president--since it's exactly this pool of treasonous rat-bastard leftist holdovers that keep the Dems in power no matter who wins.

Then you finally realize that the Democrat whores didn't actually use that term.  Instead, NBC used it for them, knowing full well it was one of Trump's most popular campaign slogans.  Now why would the rat-bastards at NBC do that?

You don't suppose they did it to try to fool low-information voters into thinking the Democrats actually supported the president's efforts to get rid of the haughty, unelected, overpaid, over-pensioned super-bureaucrats who daily run roughshod over your rights, do ya?

Oh, but the malicious, lying sacks at NBC are just getting started!  To emphasize the fiction that the Dems are gonna "drain the swamp," NBC added they're promising they're going to

...make prosecuting what they called a "culture of corruption" in President Donald Trump's administration a central theme of this year's midterm elections.

You think I'm kidding. You can't imagine the useless liars at NBC would be so brazen, so dishonest, as to steal one of Trump's most popular ideas and put it forth as if it was the Democrats' idea.  It's just too, too brazen, too huge of a deception.  But sure enough, here's Chuckie:

"The swamp has never been more foul or more feted than under this president," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said at a news conference on the Capitol steps.

The strategy is a bit of a departure for Democrats, who have so far focused more on advancing their own economic ideas and middle-class pocketbook agenda rather than taking on Trump.

Really?  NBC wants you to believe "Democrats...have so far focused more on advancing...middle-class pocketbook agenda"?  Wow, that's a whopper!  Guess that's why not a single congressional Democrat voted for the Trump tax cuts, eh?  Cuz they're so focused on...what was that again?  Oh yeah: "advancing middle-class pocketbook agenda."

See, that last phrase is so stilted, so...um..."circumlocutory" (avoids saying something in a straightforward way)...that two minutes after you read it, you've forgotten what it meant.  Which of course is the entire point.

To drive the point home that the Dems are all about helping regular folks, here's another senior Dem congresswhore:

"The problem is that a lot of people hear that (economic) message, they agree with that message, but they're not convinced that we can actually get it done because they view Washington as captured by special interests," Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., who helped craft the new strategy, told NBC News.

Ummm...yessss, I can certainly see how a lot of Americans "view Washington as captured by special interests."  Kinda like why emperor Obama invited 50,000 Muslims to live in the U.S., while leaving virtually all Christians in the war zone to fend for themselves.

He added at the news conference: "The people know what happens when a culture of corruption takes hold. Government works for somebody else and not for them."

Yeah, congressman, I think we've all got that one figured out.  And better yet, we know who's been running that "culture of corruption" for decades.  And it's not conservatives.

It's an effort to provide an overarching framework of the myriad scandals in Washington, from Scott Pruitt's Environment Protection Agency to the Trump-Russia saga, arguing that they all come back to a culture in which donors are rewarded, not voters.

"Instead of delivering on his promise to drain the swamp, President Trump has become the swamp," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Republicans in the White House and the Congress are cravingly beholden to big money interest and the American people are paying the price."

Oh yes, certainly, dahling.  We believe you.  Really.  But the real howler came from Chuckie:

"Too many Americans don’t know what we stand for," Schumer said.

No, Chuck, I'm pretty sure we know what you stand for.  You still want to undermine American values, give illegal aliens more rights than citizens, trash our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, coddle and release terrorists, line your bank accounts in ways that would get normal citizens arrested, break laws that would put most of us in jail, undermine a duly elected president and spy on citizens who say things you don't like. 

In short, Chuck, you and your party support exactly the opposite of the principles America was founded on. So yeah, we know exactly what you stand for.

About those tax cuts and bonuses from the tax reform law? Not a single Democrat voted for it

Let's repeat that so everyone gets it: "Not a SINGLE Democrat voted for it."

"But...but...but...Democrats keep saying they're the party of the 'little guy' against the big corporations.  Why wouldn't they vote for a bill that would trigger such a massive benefit to the average working stiff?"

Yeah.  Why indeed.

It's with profound disappointment that I've come to the conclusion that most members of the Democratic party would rather see the U.S. conquered by Islam than support even a great Republican program.  To Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Hilliary Clinton, emperor Barack and Michelle Obozo and most others, any disastrous outcome is preferable to doing the 'right' thing, if that thing was proposed by Republicans.

More on massive Somali daycare fraud in MN

So, you've surely read about the massive ($100 Million) day-care-center fraud committed by an organized group of Somalis in Minneapolis to fund Islamic terrorism, right?

Oh come on, citizen.  How often does the nation see an organized fraud of $100 million that doesn't involve the federal government?  By all accounts this should have been a huge story.  Yet you never heard of it?  Why, that almost sounds un-possible, comrade.  Cuz our national media pushed it right to the front pages of all the big...

Hahahahahaha!  Just kidding.  The story got a little play in the Peoples' Republic of Minnesota, but quickly vanished because massive fraud by certain protected groups is just not a big deal, apparently.  Similarly, it barely made a ripple nationally.  Most people learned about it from the Net.

Here's a summary from the reliable City Journal:

In the past year airport authorities in Minneapolis noted that a stunning number of Somali passengers flying to that country had their carry-on bags stuffed with millions of dollars in cash.  This seemed to happen on a regular basis.

Surprisingly (to most of us ordinary folks, anyway), carrying millions in cash overseas is legal, but airport cops were curious to know the source of such huge amounts cash.  It soon emerged that the millions were from a scheme most people would think impossible:  fraudulent claims for state-subsidized daycare.

See, Democrats in Minnesota (as in many other states) decided to severely regulate day-care centers.  When that had the predictable effect of jacking up the cost of state-approved daycare to stratospheric levels, the same Dems had a very, very simple remedy ready to enable poor working parents to afford the cost:  Have the state pay the daycare centers for children of families making less than some arbitrary amount.

Of course by "the state" we mean taxpayers.  But then you probably knew that, right?

Last year the budget for taxpayer-subsidized daycare was a modest quarter of a BILLION dollars-- $248 million.

Now: Starting in the 1990s the U.S. State Department--directed by Bill Clinton--was keen to allow "refugees" from around the world to come to the U.S.  They paid various religious organizations hundreds of millions of dollars to settle thousands of refugees from Somalia’s civil war in Minnesota, which is now home to the largest population of Somalis outside Somalia itself--over 100,000.

State probably picked Minnesota because the native population is probably the most liberal outside of Berkeley.  No one was likely to complain.  And sure enough, no one did.

Then the law of unintended consequences started to kick in:  Left/liberal Minnesota had some of the most generous welfare and charity programs in the U.S.  And an endless number of leftist groups were eager to help the new arrivals take advantage of every possible taxpayer-funded program.

Minnesota's governor, liberal Mark Dayton, quashed public complaints by accusing critics of bigotry and intolerance. Indeed, he told native Minnesotans with qualms about immigrant resettlement “If you are intolerant, find another state”--implying that only racists were complaining.  After that statement, smart state employees quickly realized that investigating reported scams by the immigrant community was a career-ending move.

With all the pieces in place, a group of ten daycare centers (dozens more are suspected) began billing the state for taking care of kids from low-income (i.e. subsidized) families.  Search warrants show that each of these daycare centers billed and received several million dollars in state funds for this service.  But in many cases the centers weren't actually caring for, y'know, children.

According to public records and government sources, most of the centers are owned by Somali immigrants.  In some cases Somali investors helped fund new daycare centers for a cut of the huge profits.

Fortunately the financial damage is confined to Minnesota, whose residents arguably voted this on themselves.  Gosh, do you suppose elections really do have consequences?

But the cost of this fraud on Minnesota taxpayers is just part of the damage:  there are also the absolutely certain deaths of thousands in Somalia because of half a billion dollars or so going to buy arms and pay fighters.  But hey, minor downside, eh?