When plunder becomes a way of life for a group, they eventually create a system authorizing it

Hmmm...I can think of three groups in the U.S. who seem to fit this category:  Congress, the
DOJ and the FBI.

Democrat congresswoman re Supreme Court nomination: "We need to have the street rise up against them."

When some nobody on the Left says "We need to rise up and fight," everyone takes it as rhetorical.  But when a Dem congresscreep says something similar, one tends to pay a bit more attention.

On MSNBC yesterday, regarding the supreme court nomination a talking head asked a black female Democrat congresscreep from Maryland "How would you advise your colleagues to deal with this situation?"  Said creep replied,

It's time for Democrats to throw down.  We've been playing by the rulebook [SAY WHAT??  Cheating all the way, screwing Sanders out of the nomination, fabricating the false "dossier," falsely clearing Hilliary on the email server, etc ad nauseum] and the Republicans have been playing by street rules.  We need to play be street rules.*** We need to have the Street rise up against them... 

Hmmm....a decade ago we would have been fairly sure she was speaking metaphorically.  But today, given the Scalise shooting and people threatening to kidnap or kill the children of DHS employees, you have to think a few million moronic Democrats will take that statement literally.

MSNBC analyst urges Democrats to 'play by Street rules' to harass moderate Republican Senators to vote against President Trump's Supreme Court nominee pic.twitter.com/vZZinMlHCj

— Wired Sources (@WiredSources) June 27, 2018

Minutes after Annapolis shooting, Leftist sites and mainstream media rush to blame Trump

Around 2:15 yesterday a deranged guy entered the building of a newspaper in Annapolis and shot five employees.

Cynics started taking bets on how long it would take leftist leaders or websites to blame Trump.

Answer?  33 minutes.  At 2:48 the associate editor of the Leftist/"progressive" website "Think Progress" tweeted a pic of the shooting scene with the comment

The president of the United States has been actively promoting hatred of journalists since the first day he took office.

Aaron Rupar, associate moron of Think Progress

Of course the truth was that the shooter had a grudge against the paper since 2011, when he lost a lawsuit and the paper reported that correctly.  But the Left didn't bother to investigate actual causes when they had such a great, believable (by their supporters) chunk of FAKE news.

And Rupar wasn't the only one.  CNN’s Brian Stelter wrote “many people wondering if the incident was somehow inspired by [the president's] anti-media rhetoric."

Insanely-Trump-hating Cenk Uygur tweeted


Unhinged White House reporter Andrew Feinberg directly accused the president of causing the shooting:


Mollie Hemingway at the Federalist has collected about a dozen more of these, including from so-called "reporters" (propagandists) for the NY Times, Politico, CNN and similar.

They're all positively foaming at the mouth in their zeal to blame Trump for everything, and to tell the public he doesn't deserve credit for any good results.  Rat-bastards, the lot of 'em.

You gotta watch five minutes of Rod Rosenstein's appearance before congress yesterday

Yesterday the attorney-general of the United States, Rod Rosenstein--who's also head of the so-called "Department of Justice" and thus supposedly nation's "top law-enforcement official"--appeared before the House committee investigating what's now grown to a huge number of seemingly illegal acts by the FBI and DOJ.

If you give a damn about the future of the United States you simply have to see five minutes of his lying and dodging the questions of Florida congressman Matt Gaetz.  The transcript simply doesn't do it justice.  The guy refused to give a SINGLE responsive answer.  His performance was a masterpiece of evasion and dissembling. 

Rosenstein was the official who signed (i.e. officially approved submission of) a "FISA application," asking the FISA court to authorize wiretaps on officials of the Trump administration.  (FISA = "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act")  The Act requires that when the government seeks to spy on American citizens, the application for permission to do so must state all facts, and truthfully. 

But sources report that the application failed to disclose that the "probable cause" was the faulty "Trump dossier" which we now know was paid for by the Hilliary campaign, the DNC and almost certain by the FBI itself.  Since Rosenstein signed the application he would likely be at some risk, because in signing the app he warrants that the information is truthful and complete.  Problem is, it wasn't.

So when Gaetz asked Rosenstein straight out:  "Did you read the application before you signed it?", Rosenstein refused to answer--because if he read it, he's broken the law, and if he didn't, he proves that no one was actually doing what they were being paid to do up there.

Which, of course, we've known for several years.

MSNBC talker: Difference between U.S. and Venezuela or Cuba is, "they don't have internment camps for babies"

In their obsession to impeach Trump, or turn Americans against him enough to regain control of one or both chambers of congress, the Left has ramped up the hyperbole to an unprecedented level.

On MSNBC last Tuesday one of their talking heads said this:

The difference now between Venezuela and Cuba and the United States is this: Venezuela and Cuba don't have internment camps for babies and toddlers.

The speaker was a strange duck named Steve Schmidt.  If that name sounds familiar it's because Schmidt was the chief campaign advisor for John McCain when he was the GOP presidential nominee. 

Schmidt announced he was leaving the Republican Party last week but based on his horrible counsel to McCain and Palin I'm convinced he was never a real Republican but was a Democrat plant all along. 

And if you look around, other people who were supposedly Republican advisors have left the party.  Nicolle Wallace was White House communications director for George W. Bush and in his 2004 re-election campaign. In 2008, Wallace also served as a senior advisor for the McCain–Palin campaign. Now she's a Dem-supporting talking head for MSNBC.

Kinda makes you wonder.  My guess is that about a third of supposed "Republicans" were really plants.

Leftist website shrieks that Trump's tweet criticizing restaurant that booted Sanders is AWFUL!!

If you're conservative, then unless you're a political junkie you almost certainly have no idea how much the Left/Dems/"progressives" hate you, and are willing to do literally anything to make your life miserable.

For example, Leftists and Dems have decided that if you support Trump, they don't have to do business with you.  Meaning if you wanted to eat dinner, and the owner or manager learned you supported Trump, they feel free to ask you to leave instead of serving you.

Wait, did you think it had long been settled in America that a public business couldn't refuse to serve someone based on their race, creed or color?  Well, sort of.  If a business refuses to serve someone because of their race or color, or because they're flagrantly homosexual and you think that would bother the parents of young children who patronize your business, you'll be sued into bankruptcy.

And yes, you'd think "creed" would cover political beliefs.  But apparently Democrats don't think so.  So it's already happening: asking members of the Trump administration to leave restaurants because they work for the president.

As you may have heard, a week or so ago, the president's press secretary (Sarah Sanders) and her inlaws went to a Virginia restaurant--the Red Hen--for dinner.  The owner refused to serve them and insteaad asked them to leave--solely because she hates Trump and his policies.  Sanders wisely left, since eating at any restaurant that doesn't like you risks...um...let's just say "dangerous food additives."

If the courts allow refusal of service because a would-be customer works for Trump, what barrier remains to prevent ordinary citizens sporting a MAGA hat from being refused service?

Oh wait, that's already happened too, in a New York City bar.

So now for the kicker:  After word of Sanders being forced to leave the restaurant spread, the president tweeted

The Red Hen Restaurant should focus more on cleaning its filthy canopies, doors and windows (badly needs a paint job) rather than refusing to serve a fine person like Sarah Huckabee Sanders. I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it is dirty on the inside!

WELL!...the Left went into hyperbole drive:  A leftist website called "Quartz" posted this headline:

Trump’s attack on Red Hen sends a chilling message to 29 million US small businesses

Didja get that?  The president complains about one nut-case restaurant owner who illegally refused to serve his press secretary, and according to the shriekers at Quartz that "sends a chilling message to 29 million small businesses."

Really, cupcakes?  The only businesses that should be "chilled" are ones whose owners or managers are considering refusing service to conservatives--including members of the administration. 

But the headline shows how utterly unhinged the Left and Dems have become after their beloved queen lost to da eeebil orange Trumpkin.

As an aside, in the last week I've seen a dozen analysts say either that civil war is coming, or that we're already in the preliminary stages of one. 

Leftist editor tweets fake news blaming Trump for Annapolis newspaper shooting

Around 2:15 today a guy with a grudge against an Annapolis newspaper entered its building and fatally shot five of its employees.

Cynics said "Wonder how long it'll take for liberals to blame this on Trump?"

If you guessed "a bit over half an hour" you won, because at 2:48 the associate editor of the leftist website "Think Progress" tweeted this:

The president of the United States has been actively promoting hatred of journalists since the first day he took office pic.twitter.com/pQKjFJjf65

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 28, 2018

Yep, like clockwork this leftist asshole broadcasts that the shooter's rampage was due to "the president...actively promoting hatred of journalists."  

If Rupar had taken a minute to research the shooter's info he would have found that in 2011the shooter had sued the paper for libel after the paper correctly reported that he'd harassed a woman two years earlier.  Truth being a defense, the shooter lost the lawsuit--and had been steaming about it ever since.  

Of course since Rupar is a leftist, maybe he did know the truth and simply ignored it, since the facts debunked his perfect Trump-demonizing broadcast.  Gosh, does that sound like, oh...fake news?

Thank the Mainstream Media for Obama's "accomplishments"

If you don't believe the Mainstream Media is determined to cover for Democrats and destroy this country, consider this:  If not for them hiding the truth, or spinning it outrageously if it's too late to hide it, Obama would never have been elected.

They covered for him in so many ways.  And what marvels did the nation see for the media's basically enabling him to win?

• Benghazi
• Gun-running to Mexican drug cartels ("Fast and Furious")
• IRS blocking issuance of non-profit status to conservative non-profits
• Ignored ghastly negligence, mismanagement in V.A.
• Arming ISIS in Syria
• Fixing the "investigation" into Hillary to ensure she was cleared, to get her elected
• Flooding the U.S. with unvetted Muslim "refugees" while denying Christian refugees from the same nations;
• The "non-treaty treaty" with Iran ("The Iran deal")
• Illegally "unmasked" Americans who'd been recorded by NSA on phone conversations with foreigners
• Caught on open mic telling Russian V.P  "Tell your boss I'll have more flexibility after my election"
• Sale of 15% of U.S. uranium leases to Russia
• Flat lied "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" to blunt opposition to Obamacare
• Record high number of Americans on food stamps
• Record low percentage of Americans in the workforce
• Asked when he'd learned about Hillary's private email server, falsely claimed "I just found out from the news reports, like everyone else" when he'd been emailing her non-gov address for months.
• Had his DOJ offer prosecuted companies a discount on fines if they paid cash to selected liberal organizations
• Hilliary's State Department can't account for $6 billion
• $5 billion from HUD unaccounted for
• "Apology for America Tour"
• Bowing to foreign leaders
• Opened up distribution of classified information on unmasking to 17 Intel Agencies to make it harder for investigators to find the source of leaks
• Declared Syrian dictator's use of chemical weapons would be a "red line," then when he used 'em, Obama denied he ever said anything about a red line
• Ordered intel agencies not to pursue investigation of possible Russian election probes
• Used executive memo to allow 800,000 illegal alien "children" to stay in the U.S. indefinitely (DACA)
• Used same method to grant permanent residence to *parents* of DACA "children" ("Deferred Action for Parents of Americans")--slapped down by courts
• Used EPA to declare carbon dioxide (exhaled by all living critters) a "pollutant"
• Used that declaration to order U.S. utilities to close 187 coal-fired generating plants
• Ordered Minerals Management Service to stop issuing drilling permits in oil-rich Gulf of Mexico for two years;

Compare the media's coverage of the first 500 days of Obama 's reign with their coverage of Trump's: 95% positive for Obama vs. 80% negative for Trump.

But hey, not a smidgen of bias in the media.

Liberal so-called "comedian" Bill Maher openly wishes for a recession, to get rid of the president

Liberals--like Bill Maher and all the TV "comedians"--hate Trump and you so much that they're openly saying they hope the country's economy crashes--wishing for a recession.

You say you can't believe that--that no American would wish for a recession because it would cause hardship for millions?  Yeah, I understand that sentiment.  Hard to believe anyone could hate Trump (and you, if you think any of his policies have helped) so much that they'd do that.  But here ya go:

"I think one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy.  So please, bring on the recession.  Sorry if that hurts people, but it's either root for a recession or you lose your democracy."  -- Bill Maher, June 22, 2018

FBI counsel ordered Strzok not to answer many legitimate questions asked by congresscritters

Yesterday FBI chief counterintelligence officer Peter Strzok appeared before two congressional committees. 

"Yay, finally we'll get some answers!  Finally we'll learn what Strzok meant when he texted his mistress Lisa Page (a top FBI attorney) 'We will stop [Trump from being elected].'"

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!  That's a great dream, but if you really think the corrupt Deep State, anti-Trump, Dem-loving conspirators will ever give themselves up, you're naive.

Certainly the Republican congresscritters wanted Strzok to answer questions regarding his 50,000 text messages to Page while he was leading the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.  But buried deep in all the reporting of yesterday's circus was this from committee spokesperson Kathryn Rexrode:

Unfortunately, FBI counsel ordered Mr. Strzok not to answer many of the legitimate questions he was asked.

No one will confess unless threatened with really dire conssequences, like loss of their pension.  That penalty would cost top officials of the FBI and DOJ a few million dollars, so would be likely to get someone's attention.

But if you think anyone in congress will threaten the FBI you're too naive to...well, you get it.

In a sane world all these corrupt, lying officials would be tried and [         ] for trying to subvert the government of the United States.  But of course the Deep State will see to it that not a scintilla of punishment is meted out to its loyal troops. 

Democrat congresscreep lies about Trump travel ban after Supreme Court upholds it

In case you missed it, the Supreme Court upheld the president's barring people from seven foreign nations from travelling to the U.S.

Leftists had called it a "Muslim ban" and had screamed and wailed to high heaven that this was a totally illegal act--despite explicit, unequivocal U.S. law saying the president has that power.

Cuz, see, the Lying Media allows the Left--and their Democrat leaders--to tell brazen, outrageous lies on the air without a hint of disagreement--which leads low-information voters to believe the lies. 

(Ever heard someone say "I saw it on ABC so it must be true!  Cuz they're not allowed to lie, right?")

So if CNN, MSNBC and the other alphabets can lie constantly, Dem leaders can get away with lying even more brazenly--as Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) did yesterday after the SC ruling:


As you see with your own eyes, Ellison claims the president's order was a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entry into the United States," eh?

Except it wasn't.  Not even remotely close--because there are 57 Muslim-majority nations, and Trump banned travel from exactly FIVE.  Further, the ban included travel from non-Muslim Venezuela.

But Ellison's low-information followers will believe what he wrote.  "Cuz Twitter wouldn't let someone use its site to spread lies" or something, eh?  Not only will they believe Ellison's lies, they won't bother trying to fact-check his statement.  In fact if you were to show them that a presumed authority--like the Supreme Court opinion itself--said the president's order was NOT a ban on Muslim entry to the U.S., they simply wouldn't believe it.

Moreover, Ellison's brazenly false tweet can only further inflame low-info Muslims both here and overseas against the U.S. and Trump.

You have to wonder if Ellison himself is so stupid that he believes what he wrote.

Why are Dems shrieking about "separating children" on the border NOW, when they said zip when Obozo did it?

For decades the U.S. government was run by the Democrats.  But for the last 20 years or so the percentage of people voting for each of the two major parties has been very close.

The leaders of the national Democrat party were quick to understand that immigrants were a promising source of new voters.  And since most immigrants are poor, they'd be likely to vote for whichever party promised them the most "free" benefits.  As in, you pay for the benefits that the Dems give the illegals.

Thus from Dems' standpoint, the more immigrants the better.

So their goal is to allow anyone who wants to live here to come right in--which is "open borders."  Although the new border-crossers couldn't legally vote unless they became citizens, the idea was to get 'em in and then attack the voting question (cunningly phrased as "voting rights") later.

And sure enough, Democrat mayors and councils have already passed laws allowing illegals to vote in city elections.  This gets the illegals into the Democrat party and wins their votes in municipal elections, further solidifying Democrat control of big cities.

When Americans are raped orkilled by drunk illegals, or murdered by other means, the leaders of the Democratic party hurry to assure us that crime is found in all ethnic groups (which is obviously true). They then imply (but don't explicitly state) that crime by illegal immigrants is no more common than crime by other groups.  This is a brazen lie, but no one calls 'em on it.

Then consider gang violence: the ultra-violent MS-13 gang is composed almost entirely of immigrants from Central America.  When members of that gang commit some ghastly murder, leaders of the Democrats know that coverage of that story reduce their chances of being able to pass a law opening our borders or greatly increasing immigration.  So leaders like Pelosi hurriedly call a press conference to assure people that members of MS-13 are really no worse than anyone else--that each is gifted with "the spark of divinity" (her exact words).

Thus the Dems have made a choice--quietly, and never admitted--to ignore MS-13 violence, rape and murders, drug trafficking, human trafficking and robberies across the country by illegals, in order to bring more illegals into the U.S.  Because that will eventually win them a permanent majority.

The Democrat leadership is willing to allow all the misery to be inflicted on Americans--and the vast cost of welfare and housing for most--because it will win them permanent control of the U.S. government.  And from their viewpoint, that's a bargain.

Leftist/socialist website: Action against members of Trump admin should get more extreme

Ever since Trump was sworn in I've watched as the Left/Dems advocated more violence against conservatives.  In fact, unless you live in DC you've probably forgotten that on the very day he was sworn in, mobs of Dems/"progressives" rioted in DC, burning cars and breaking windows.  Virtually no one was arrested and charged.

Things ramped up considerably a year ago when a nut shot four people, including a Republican congressman, during a morning softball practice.  But apparently that wasn't enough for many Dems/"progressives," who are now calling for more violence.

Leading the incitement to violence is Dem congresscreep Maxine Waters, who urged her supporters to call out a crowd whenever they saw a member of the Trump administration at a restaurant, store or gas station.  "Tell them they're not welcome here or anywhere," she said.

When DHS secretary Nielson was surrounded by chanting demonstrators in a DC restaurant, the Left and media were giddy with delight. They "smelled blood," sensing a new way to defeat the eeeebil Trumpians:  use brute force to intimidate members of the administration.

Now on a Leftist hate-website a pencil-dick writer has called for more violence.  The article is titled "This is just the beginning," and it leads with a pic of a limo burned by demonstrators during Trump's inauguration:

Below are the main points of this leftist rat-bastard's rant.  (I've edited out a lot of the tedious stuff so if you doubt he said what I say below, feel free to read the original at the link:

Think being thrown out of a restaurant or having your meal interrupted or [having your cell-phone # being posted on-line by leftists] is bad?  My fascism-enabling friends, this is only the beginning. 

Ah yes:  To leftists, Trump = fascist, so anyone who voted for him or works in his administration is a fascist enabler.  You actually don't need to read any farther to understand what kind of mentality we're seeing in this guy.

People who have power don't know what it feels like to have power used against them. [example:] The people who design the economic system that inflicts poverty on millions are rich. 

A basic Leftist principle (claim): The System is deliberately designed (by da eeeebil rich, apparently) to "inflict" poverty on millions.  Has nothing at all to do with horrible personal choices, drug addiction, lousy parenting or anything the impoverished could change in any way.  Rather, their poverty was the designed result of the economic System.  Oh, you bet.

This insulation from the consequences of political and economic decisions makes it easy for powerful people to approve [policies] that they would never tolerate themselves. No health insurance CEO would watch his child die because they were unable to afford quality health care. No chickenhawk Congressman will command a tank in battle in Iran. No opportunistic race-baiting politician will be shunned because of their skin color.  Zealots condemn gay people—except for their own gay children. The weed-smoking of young immigrants should get them deported—but our own weed-smoking was a youthful indiscretion.

That's odd:  I don't recall any conservative leader who had a gay kid condemning gays.  One imagines the author imagining this, since it fits his paranoid worldview.  But I'd be interested in his source.

Same with deporting "young" immigrants for smoking weed.  I'd like to see a source for that.  We've certainly seen illegals deported for selling drugs or killing people while driving drunk, or fatally shooting Americans.  And we're seeing entire families of illegals turned back at the border.  But a million "Dreamers" are here, and so unafraid of being deported that some even carry signs when demonstrating saying "I'm an illegal immigrant."

Our political system needs a way to ensure that the people making decisions are also subject to the consequences of those decisions. Minor versions of this are floated every now and then: Put Congress on Obamacare! Pay elected officials what their average constituents earn!  But in aggregate we have nothing like this feedback mechanism. The powerful make decisions that often disenfranchise and impoverish and frustrate the dreams of people far away, and then they go to nice restaurants and go home to nice houses and have nice, well-paid careers for decades.

There is little incentive for those favored by this system to change it.  So any change must be done by the public.  Iin fact, forcing needed changes is a public service, and promotes good government.

Our government is headed by an ignorant billionaire narcissist, a man surrounded by enablers who have shown that no amount of racism or xenophobia or lies or warmongering or corruption will dissuade them from helping the boss do what he wants to do.  Some of those outrages, like ripping families apart at the border, show their costs immediately.  Others, like eschewing the fight against climate change and neutering the EPA and mainstreaming white nationalist ideas, will be manifesting their costs for decades to come.

We are the ones who are suffering--and will continue to suffer--from his policies.  The rich and powerful can insulate themselves from those costs--unless we force the powerful to bear those costs.

The Leftist/socialist/"progressive" author put it much more, uh...diplomatically: "We must see to it that they 'face' these costs."   Far more soothing than "force them to bear those costs" but same idea.

Poverty is an affliction of history and the failure to remedy history’s crimes, of greed and self-dealing and the tax code. 

This is a basic belief of Leftists.  They claim poverty has no connection whatsoever to making horrible personal choices (dropping out of school at age 16, for example), drug addiction or poor parenting.  Rather, the Left's theory is there's nothing at all that a person born into a poor family can do to escape poverty.  The author's claim that poverty is "an affliction of history and the failure to remedy history's crimes" is a push for "reparations."  Of course no amount of money will cure the problem, nor stop endless demands for MORE money.

Sickness is often an affliction of the political decision not to build a fair and equitable health care system, so that a small number of people can get rich instead. 

Ah.  So under an "equitable" system people who work and pay taxes pay for the health care of those who refuse to work.  Sure.  To a Democrat that sounds totally equitable.

Tens of millions of people around the world suffer under dictatorships that are supported by America to serve our own economic ends. 

Can you name even one?

Every day people die because of political decisions.  On our side: death, human rights, freedom, and equality.  The other side wants to eat at a nice restaurant without having anyone remind them they're ruining people’s lives. 

This is equivalent to saying that enforcing the law is ruining people's lives.  So by Leftist "logic" we shouldn't have any laws at all, since punishing those who break 'em would be ruining their lives.  Yes, it does make sense.

This is all going to get more extreme. And it should.  The harm that is being done by the people in the government is extreme.

Trump administration officials should not be able to live their lives in peace and affluence while they inflict serious harms on large portions of the American population.

Not being able to go to restaurants or parties is just the minimum baseline here.  The backlash is going to get much worse. Wait until the recession comes. Wait until Trump starts a war. Wait until the racism this administration is stoking begins to explode into violence more frequently.

In the 1970's the U.S. had thousands of domestic bombings per year.  This is what happens when citizens decide en masse that their political system is corrupt, racist, and unresponsive. The people out of power have only just begun to flex their dissatisfaction. The day will come when Trump administration officials will look back fondly on the time when all they had to worry about was getting hollered at at a Mexican restaurant.

When you aggressively f**k with people’s lives, you should not be surprised when they decide to f**k with yours.

So this Leftist claims that enforcing the law as written is "f**king with people's lives"?

Stop working for this man. Stop enabling him.  Start fighting him.  People who work for Trump are not going to get out of this with their lives unscathed. 

This pencil-neck is certainly fanning the flames of anger, and inciting violence.

Hamilton Nolan, fire-breathing revolutionary Leftist/"progressive"

In the U.K. you get fined or jailed for speech "critical" of a religion--unless you're Muslim

In the war zone formerly known as Great Britain, anyone who posts a single comment on social media that's even remotely critical of Islam can be fined or jailed for so-called "hate speech."

Yep.  The almighty "authorities"--politicians less honest than crooks--ignore rape gangs of Muslims preying on 14-year-old British girls, but will jail people for a critical remark they make about a protected religion (Islam).

So you'd think that to be logically consistent, if someone on an airplane went on a profanity-loaded five-minute anti-semitic tirade that had passengers in tears, by the "authorities'" definition that would qualify as hate speech.  So again, for consistency's sake the harasser should be either fined or jailed, right?

Well, if the offender was a native Brit, yes.  But if the haranging is done by a Muslim, no penalty at all.  Even more astonishingly, the excuse the guy used to get off free was that he'd been smoking pot during the Ramadan fast.  Here's the perp:

Shamraize Bashir, 34

Now, you don't live in the U.K. so you're certain this has no bearing on you whatsoever.  Unfortunately, it's coming here, fast.  The universities have been hugely pushing to only allow speech they like for years--and they don't like anything that remotely criticizes Islam or gays or liberals.  And in dozens of states they've persuaded spineless legislators to impose fines or jail for speech some political appointee deems "incorrect."  Which is always described as "hate speech," of course.

Oh, you say that couldn't possibly happen here?  That the First Amendment ("free speech") gives you the right to say what you want without penalty?  Sorry, you're wrong.  It's already happened here.  But it's being done by state "human rights commissions," not by the feds.

Now interestingly, in the entire history of this country it's been settled law that a state can't punish behavior that's allowed by the Constitution or by federal law.  So 30 years ago a federal judge would have slapped down any state that tried to criminalize speech, no matter how artfully, how cunningly, they did it.  But today federal judges aren't about to risk future promotions by making a ruling that would buck a "human rights commission."  So no one has slapped those states down yet.

Oh, you say you heard about a case just a couple of weeks ago in which the supreme court found in favor of a baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding?  And you think that ruling means the point I just made is wrong?

If so you should read the actual written opinion instead of believing what you heard on CNN or MSNBC or any of the alphabet networks.  The decision for the baker totally ignored the real issue, and was made on incredibly narrow grounds having nothing to do with the baker's right not to be forced to violate his religious beliefs.

Of course this wasn't a free-speech issue, but the same legal theory applies to both cases:  As in the baker's case, state human rights commissions have levied fines against people for saying something the commission didn't approve of, despite the first amendment.  Exactly the same legal theory applies to both.  Federal judges have shown no interest in slapping down the states for fining either bakers or people saying things the commissions don't like.  QED.

How do you ever clean up a corrupt organization? Management 101

It's a basic principle of management that good managers select the best people for key positions.

Conversely, incompetent or corrupt managers almost always put incompetent or corrupt people in key positions, since it makes it far less likely that the top exec's incompetence or corruption will be revealed by a subordinate. 

Honest, competent employees eventually recognize this and leave, as they know people who blow the whistle on either corruption or incompetence are almost always fired. 

By huge contrast, while incompetent low-level employees also recognize what's happening, they realize that the way to promotion is to support the corruption or fail to call out the incompetence.  So they stay with the organization, agency or company.  Which makes things worse.

The inevitable result is that any organization that by misfortune gets a corrupt leader will inevitably be corrupted from top to bottom.

So...when an agency or company is shown to be rotten, you rarely fix it by firing just one or two top bosses, because their assistants--who would usually be chosen to replace them--are also corrupt.  So if you want to reform the organization you typically have to fire at least the top 25 or 30 percent to have any shot at cleaning out the carefully-chosen bad employees.

Looking at the FBI here, and DOJ, and probably CIA (due to Brennan proteges) and NSA.

"We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor"

Sometimes all the damning texts, indictments and revelations of criminal behavior in the world don't make a point as well as a mundane vignette from a stupid TV show:

A commenter was watching Jeopardy yesterday.  Three contestants, all appearing to be in their 30's to early 40's.

The question was What is the source of the phrase "We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor,”

No one could identify the source.  No one even tried to guess.

Not one.  Not even a guess.

A 40-year-old would have graduated from high school 22 years ago, thus 1996.  By then most public school systems were thoroughly controlled by liberals/socialists/"progressives," and had stopped teaching anything meaningful about the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.  Because if you know those, you know socialism is a disaster, freedom is the key, and you have to keep your guns to ensure freedom.

Handwriting on the wall.

Latest revelation of damning texts by top FBI agents: "Trump supporters are retarded" "Pence is stupid"

The House Oversight Committee investigation of FBI lying and efforts to sabotage Trump and ensure Hilliary was cleared regardless of evidence is moving at a glacial pace, but is slowly peeling back layer after layer of lies by the top officials of the FBI and DOJ.


Of course Democrats and liberals are like, "Why are you wasting everyone's time talking about this?  It's boring and totally trivial!"  Well certainly it is to Democrats.  Of course if  the parties were reversed you'd be screaming bloody murder, so your disdain for the lawbreaking this time is unconvincing.  But in any case...

In the latest revelation we've learned the identity of two of the five FBI investigators cited in the recently released inspector general's report for expressing anti-Trump and pro-Clinton sentiment in work-related instant messages.  The FBI officials--which the IG report only called "FBI Attorney 2" and "Agent 5"--are Kevin Clinesmith and Sally Moyer.

The two were part of the team supposedly investigating Hillary Clinton's private email account on her unsecure server in her home.  Clinesmith also later worked as a top lawyer on the Trump-Russia "collusion" investigation, and on Mueller's investigation.

So if evidence shows outrageous pro-Hilliary and/or anti-Trump texts from these two, it would be reasonable to think they might not have been honest and objective in their "investigations."

IG Horowitz testified that the FBI was withholding the names of all the rogue agents from Congress and the public because "they work on counterintelligence," so revealing them would arguably damage their invaluable counterintel work.

But Rep. Meadows noted that in the case of Clinesmith and Moyer this was bullshit:  those two now work for the FBI's office of legal counsel, and are no longer in "counterintelligence," as the FBI falsely claimed.

Wait, wait, wait -- let me get this straight: The FBI is lying again?  That's simply un-possible!

Horowitz confirmed the two worked in the office of legal counsel, which was headed by Trisha Anderson.  Anderson also worked closely with lead investigator Peter Strzok, and was married to a top Obama White House official. So very unbiased, eh?

In a message just 12 days before the election Sally Moyer wrote that she was "sick" of Trump.  Later she called his supporters "retarded."  On election day she wrote that Clinton "had better win... otherwise i'm gonna be walking around with both my guns...and like quitting on the spot," adding, "Screw you trump."  But totally unbiased, right?

The day after the election Clinesmith lamented Clinton's loss, messaging several FBI employees, "I am numb." He added, "I am so stressed about what I could have done differently."  Done differently to what purpose?  To achieve what outcome?  Someone should ask him.  Of course he won't remember.  They never do.  But in any case, no bias at all, eh?

Clinesmith also expressed regret over Comey's decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation case 12 days before the election.  That move was forced on Comey by leaks reporting the discovery of 140,000 emails--some of which were highly classified--on a laptop belonging to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.  Clinesmith warned that the damage to Clinton could initiate "the destruction of the republic."

After Clinesmith messaged another FBI employee that he was "just devastated" over Trump's unexpected victory, he texted

"the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. Also Pence is stupid."

Later Clinesmith--one of the "Russia collusion" investigators--texted "Viva le resistance."  The "resistance" is the name that the group trying to impeach or otherwise sabotage the Trump administration calls themselves.  Thus in texting "Viva..." the FBI attorney seemed to be expressing approval of the Resistance movement.  But totally, totally unbiased in his investigative work, citizen.  Of that you can be sure.

Finally, Rep. Meadows made another bombshell claim during his questioning of IG Horowitz, saying there was "growing evidence" that FBI Interview Form 302s had been "edited and changed."

This is devastating because if true, that's falsifying evidence.  By the FBI.  And no low-level agent would do that without explicit approval from higher up, cuz it would be not just a career-ending move but would involve risk of going to prison.

"Wait...you say the FBI--supposedly the nation's "top law-enforcement agency"--may have falsified evidence?  No way!  Next you'll be claiming they lied to congress or something.  Un-possible."

The outcome of all this is by no means certain:  The Deep State has a huge number of government employees "working" for it (just like the lying sons of bitches at the FBI).  So they may be able to out-gun those who want truth and justice to prevail.  But just think, citizens:  If Hilliary had won--as everyone expected--NONE of this would ever have come to light.

Think about the implications of that.  Of course Dems don't see even a tiny problem there.  They're happy with a lying, corrupt FBI.  Cuz the FBI was helping their candidate.  Amazing.

Kevin Clinesmith, FBI anti-Trump attorney

Venezuela: Cities running short of running water due to lack of maintenance, little rain

Ah, the poor citizens of Venezuela make news again.  Food and medicine have been incredibly scarce for three years, and now even water is beginning to work only a couple of days a week.


With water only running one or two days a week even in fairly wealthy areas, residents must hire trucks to fill the storage tanks in their apartment building. With self-imposed rationing, the residents would have water — but only for an hour, three times each day.

Finally they decided to drill their own well alongside their apartment building in the tony Campo Alegre neighborhood near the city's most exclusive country club.

Venezuela's meltdown has been accelerating under President Nicolas Maduro's socialist government, prompting masses of people to abandon the nation in frustration at shortages of food and medicine, street violence, rampant blackouts — and now sputtering faucets.

Meanwhile, the poor struggle with dwindling public water supplies, hoping the sporadic flows will be enough to fill their storage tanks.

Caracas once had a world-class water system, pumping water from far-off reservoirs over towering mountains into the valley that cradles the city.  But a lack of maintenance has crippled the system, as has a lack of rain, experts say.

Officials at Hidrocapital and Venezuela's Ecosocialism and Water Ministry did not respond to requests for comment by The Associated Press.

Most of the private wells are going in illegally. The law requires a permit before drilling starts, but the paperwork can take up to two years, and few are willing to wait. When officials stick their nose in, a building's residents ask the best-connected among them to pull strings.

But drilling isn't an option for the vast majority of Venezuelans who have seen wages pulverized by a collapsing currency and five-digit inflation. The minimum wage amounts to less than $2 a month.

In one of Venezuela's sprawling slums, Carmen Rivero said her neighborhood recently went three months without tap water, and before that, a full eight months. Residents get by filling water barrels from a spring and service from city water trucks.



But by all means listen to Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, and vote Democrat in November.  Cuz that's the fastest path to full socialism.  And when our Democrats do socialism, they'll do it right.

Brilliant: Film maker hires actors to read the most damning texts between Strzok and Lisa Page. Wow!

Unless you're a liberal you may have heard about a thing called the "IG report."  It's the result of about 18 months of investigation into the DOJ and FBI by the inspector-general.  And it's absolutely, totally damning.  It show beyond doubt that, as many Americans suspected, the FBI is utterly, irredeemably corrupt to the very top.

Two of the key corruptocrats were Special Agent Peter Strzok, and his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page.  Both were married to others, but...well, stuff happens.  The two reportedly exchanged 50,000--yes, fifty thousand--text messages with each other over a period of about a year.

Now is a good time to mention that Strzok was...you won't believe it...the head "Counterintelligence Officer." And of course counterintelligence is supposed to mean smoking out spying by the nation's foreign enemies.  But in Strzok's case the title seems to have been a bit too...on the nose. 

Here's where it gets... weirder: The pair was worried that if they used their personal phones to send and receive text messages, their spouses would find out.  So in one of the dozens of absolute miracles surrounding the election of DJT, the two sent those 50,000 texts on their government phones. 
 When congress learned about this, and that Strzok, in particular, said some really incriminating things in them, they demanded that the FBI turn over copies of those text messages.

The head of the FBI, being very aware that the Constitution charges congress with overseeing the operation of the federal government, and being keenly aware that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, immediately turned over all....

Hahahahahahahahaha!  Just kidding!

In reality, the head of the FBI claimed his agency couldn't find a single one of the text messages.  Yes, that's right.  Seems the bureau's text file capturing system amazingly broke down just at the begining of the crucial texting storm.  So, well, gosh, there's not a thing we can do...

Congress sent some computer specialists in, and WOULD YOU BELIEVE...they managed to recover virtually all 50,000 texts between the two!

Told ya it would get weird.

So now with the messages in hand, the Director immediately turned them over to....

Hahahahahahahahahaha!  Just kidding again!  He actually told congress to fuck off.

Well, maybe not in those exact words.  Instead he did it in the classic diplomatic way:  He just ignored congress.  And the deadline came and went, with not a word from the FBI.  And congress bitched and growled and made another deadline.  And the director ignored that one too.  And the next three.

Finally someone in congress said "Get that GD stuff over hear RIGHT NOW or you're going to jail."  And FINALLY the son of a bitch complied.

Well, not completely, of course.  All the really dastardly comments were blacked out.  Including the comment when Page asked her lover, "Donald Trump will never be president, right?"  The reply from Strzok to Page was blacked out from the transcript sent to congress.

What Strzok said was "No.  We will stop it."

Wow, not a smidgen of bias there, eh citizen?

Okay, everyone who isn't a liberal should have known all that.  Here's the new stuff:  A film maker named Phelim McAleer came up with the totally brilliant idea of filming actors playing Strzok and Lisa Page reading 33 minutes of the most incriminating of these text messages.  And the effect is absolutely devastating.

If you don't have time to watch the whole thing you can get the feel in about ten minutes.  But if you can spare the time it's really, really worth it.  Because you see how utterly stupid, how totally incompetent, petty, vindictive, juvenile and basically dumb these two were.  One pictures the George Costanza character in Seinfeld.

The mind boggles.  Because you've been fed propaganda forever about how great the FBI was and is, you simply can't believe the bureau could have two so amazingly corrupt, incompetent people in such high-ranking positions.

If you ever wondered why the Russians so often outmaneuver the FBI, this explains it.

One keeps hoping that these were the only two incompetent dumbshits, but if there were honest, unbiased, competent people near them, their incompetence would have been discovered.  The only conclusion possible is that everyone around them was equally incompetent, and yet overcome with the belief of their own greatness.

So here's the YouTube.  Make this go viral!!

Another illegal doing...what so many of 'em do

The creature below--who is surely innocent, having the "spark of divinity," as Nancy Pelosi told us--is a 41-year-old illegal invader.  Reynaldo Mora has been accused of raping a non-verbal special needs girl while he was supposed to be babysitting her at her home.  He was arrested April 19 in Montgomery County, MD.

Some might find it curious that we're just seeing this now, on June 25th, more than two months after he was arrested.  You'd think that the whole idea of "news" is to print the story as soon as it happens, eh?  And yet in this case no one said a word for two months.  Why?

To add to the "curious" factor, although the judge initially denied bond, the perp's attorney file a motion to reconsider, and this time the judge released the guy on "own recognizance," meaning he'd be released without having to post bail.  Obviously he's a flight risk, so that's...odd.  Admittedly he was released into ICE custody, so didn't actually go free.

But with the number of times even the feds screw up and release people by mistake, I would have preferred the judge set a very large bail.  That way if he got away the bail bondsman could offer a sizeable reward for his capture.  Oh well....

But don't worry, citizen:  When we get the open borders your Democrat betters are so eager for, we almost certainly won't get more than a few thousand people like Reynaldo each month.  And most of 'em will live in LA or San Fran or Chitcongo or Texas or NY--places you don't live, so he's not likely to be a threat to your kids.

Separating children from parents NOW: "Horrible! Inhumane!" Four years ago? Not a peep

Separating children of illegal border-crossers from their parents is required by law.  It happened 80,000 times under Obama and no one said a critical word.  But suddenly leading Democrats and their media allies are screaming bloody murder about it.

Why the huge, total difference?  Hmmmm.....could it be...

• Screaming "Russia! Russia! Russia! Collusion! didn't result in Trump's impeachment;
• Screaming that Trump was colluding with the NRA to defend the second amendment, which was enabling crazed killers to murder school kids didn't result in Trump's impeachment;
• Screaming that Trump had an affair with a porn star didn't result in Trump's impeachment;
• Screaming that the GOP/Trump tax bill only gave "crumbs" to workers (as Nancy Pelosi literally called the bonuses and raises) didn't result in Trump's impeachment;

And now with the IG report--apparently with another one to come--has proven that FBI agents conspired to prevent Trump from winning (totally illegal, of course), and conspired again to clear Hilliary of any wrongdoing re her private email server before even interviewing her, and put a spy in the Trump campaign, do ya' think the Dems might be desperate to find something--anything--that might distract the public from this?

They're so desperate to find something to impeach Trump with that they're willing to use the "separating children" issue even though it's easy to learn that Obama did the same thing.  But hey, desperate times call for desperate measures, eh?

Headline in left-wing rag: "Hell freezes;" or something close to it

This is a screenshot of the leftist rag Huffington Post:

Never change, HuffPo. pic.twitter.com/YCE6kgze64

— Orwell & Goode 🇨🇱 (@OrwellNGoode) June 24, 2018

Whoa!  A female writer, for the leftist HuffPo, says "women are evil"??  I'm pretty sure something's up here, cuz she'd never get away with that otherwise.

And sure enough, one of the four women in the pic is the president's daughter and the others work in his administration.   Hmmm...anyone starting to see a pattern yet?

The text then complains that some women have the gall! to NOT be Democrats / liberals / socialists.

How DARE they?!

So what the author--and the rag--really means is..."Conservative women are evil."

Ah, now it all makes sense again.  For a second I thought that Hell had frozen or something.

He fundamentally transformed America, formalizing "double-standards"

Rising Dem star ordered battery-powered bus disaster, now trying to make all city buses battery-powered

One of the requirements for being nominated as a Democrat is that you have to enthusaistically proclaim that you believe the planet is warming by an unusual and dangerous amount, and that the cause is the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Further, you have to believe this increase isn't natural, but is caused by human activity--mainly driving, heating your homes and hot water, and using electricity.

Then if you're elected as a Dem, you're expected to do support every manner of idea that has as its stated goal reducing the amount of CO2 emitted.  Add the ability to write tax loopholes, throw in a few billion taxpayer dollars and presto!--forests of wind generators, electric cars and buses, and all the other schemes.

(Obama even forced the military to buy "biofuels" for ships, at a cost five times that of regular fuel oil.  This one is even more twisted since it does absolutely nothing to reduce CO2, but simply swaps  a far more costly fuel for regular petroleum.  But it's still a great thing for the planet because shut up!

By now the total spent by all levels of government to combat the fake crisis of global warming "climate change" must  be approaching $100 billion or so.  And now I'd like to tell you about one corrupt politician's personal crusade:

Eric Garcetti is the mayor of Los Angeles.  Being a good Democrat he's, like, totally down with the fight against global warming climate change, and to prove it he was (and is) determined to change the city's buses to battery power. 

LA actually began buying lots of electric buses before Garcetti was elected mayor in 2013.  When the city started buying electric buses in 2008--from a Chinese battery manufacturer called BYD Ltd--Garcetti a city councilman, becoming its president in 2006.  Of course the city council had to approve the bus buy, and Garcetti would become its pres two years later, so obviously he was for the buy and a big influence in getting his fellow council members to vote for it.

Last Wednesday the LA Times published a story saying the buses are an expensive disaster:  They
stalled on hills, required frequent service calls and had far less range than the company promised.   Although BYD promised the buses had a range of 175 miles, records show drivers only averaged 59 miles between charges.

In fact the first five buses from BYD were pulled off the road after less than five months of service.
Internal emails show Metro staff said they were “unsuitable,” poorly made and unreliable for over 100 miles.

But despite the awful record, the transit agency awarded BYD tens of millions of dollars more in orders.  By coincidence, mayor Garcetti chairs Metro’s board.  Records show two city departments gave BYD contracts without using competitive bids.  City managers told staff the purchases were “political."

Despite the awful results, Garcetti led an effort to force Metro to convert its entire fleet of 2,200 buses to BYD battery-powered versions.

If you're CEO of a company, and make a costly mistake, you get fired.  By huge contrast, if you're a Democrat politician--especially of Mexican origin, as Garcetti is--and push through a multimillion-dollar disaster, you get a pass, and can run for president (as Garcetti is considering doing) with the confidence that no reporter will ever bring it up. 

Why?  Because you were "trying to fight global warming," trying to "save the planet" from the eeebil oil companies.  And the most important get-out-of-jail-free card: you had good intentions.

Of course that only works for liberal or socialist politicians.  But hey, don't be an old-fashioned partisan, citizen.  Why do labels?  We're all in this together, right?  Besides, it's not like you peons citizens actually paid these millions yourselves, eh?

Oh, you did?  Eh, never mind.

Watch Maxine Waters inciting her followers to violence

Exhibit number 396,963 of Dem/liberal insanity:  The totally unhinged Maxine Waters, addressing a crowd, inflaming her supporters about the "inhumane" detention of the children of illegal border-crossers in other than adult jails, and inciting them to violence.

And Waters does a GREAT job of inflaming the crowd, calling the detained kids "OUR children." (at 1:35 and 3:18).  The more extreme her screamed words, the more enthusiastically her followers yell, cheer and applaud.

• "There will be no wall" 
• "We're gonna get you out of office"
• "History will reveal that we stepped on [Trump]\
• "That raaacist attorney-general Jeff Sessions"
• 4:28: "If you think we're rowdy now, just wait!"
• "We'll go to their houses [members of the administration]
• “Already you have members of your cabinet that are being booed out of restaurants. We have protesters taking up at their house who are saying, ‘No peace, no sleep. No peace, no sleep.’”
• 5:24: "If you see anyone from this cabinet at a restaurant, at a store, at a gas station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them.  Let them know they're not welcome"

You really need to watch the vid below.  This creature sounds very much like Hitler's filmed speeches.  She's inciting her naive, idealistic and often stupid followers to fight.



But in fairness we have to remember that, as our liberal friend constantly remind us, conservatives are just as bad.  We all remember how Republican congresscritters constantly called for their supporters to surround the homes of key members of the emperor's team and scream at them, and threaten to kill their kids, and surround and yell at them if they saw a member the of Obama administration at a restaurant.  Yes, certainly, we all recall that.

Wait...did someone say they don't remember leading Republicans urging their supporters to do things like that to members of the Obama admiinstration? 

But...but...but surely that must have happened, right?  Because the "conventional wisdom" is that both camps are equal, that "everybody does it," right?

Right?

Wait...you say you can't find a single video of Republican congressional leaders urging their supporter to violentc against members of the Obama administration?  Well you know what that must mean, right citizen?

It means the far-right must have cleverly managed to erase all those incriminating videos!  I mean, what else could account for it??

CNN, MSNBC cut away from Trump event with parents *permanently* separated from their children--by illegals

For a week now, top Democrat leaders (Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Eric Swallwell, Maxine Waters) and their media allies have been furiously fanning the flames of anti-Trump hate over the legally-mandated policy of not putting children in adult prisons.

As everyone knows by now, this was being done when illegals crossed the border surreptitiously with children.  The law requires that children not be detained in adult facilities. so the kids were taken to a children-only facility.

According to Dems and the media separating children from parents--even if temporarily--is inhumane and unspeakably cruel.  Of course they totally ignore the fact that a) this is what U.S. law requires; and b) that emperor Obama did the same thing.  But hey, let's run with their rules for a bit.

Last Friday the president held an event featuring the parents of Americans whose children were separated from them permanently--killed by aliens who were in the U.S. illegally (more concisely known as "illegal aliens").  Trump invited them to address the audience--including viewers on TV--telling the stories of how their beloved children were killed by illegals.

You'd think Americans should probably hear these stories, so they'd be able to put the Democrat screaming in perspective.  But the two biggest leftist U.S. cable-TV networks didn't want you to hear the stories from these parents, just the ones told by leftist/socialist/open-borders demonstrators.

So these two Democrat-loving, conservative-hating cable-TV channels--outfits that claim to bring their viewers "The News"--cut away from the president's event Friday with families of people killed by illegal immigrants, instead switching to coverage of Democrats and their demonstrators complaining about treatment at the border.

The moment American parents on stage with the president started telling viewers how  the self-proclaimed "news media" were ignoring their stories, CNN and MSNBC cut away from them--thus ensuring their viewers don't get to hear the truth.

Whoa, isn't that sorta' like "fake news" or something?

It's like the mainstream media only wants you to know about certain events.  If something doesn't help the Democrats, they don't cover it, or just barely mention it. 

Demonstrating a classic lack of awareness, the moment CNN cut away from the event, talking-head Brooke Baldwin questioned why the parents were complaining about the news media’s lack of interest in their stories.

CNN then went to a live shot from outside a Texas detention facility for illegal immigrant children.
The chyron read: “Thousands of kids in limbo as Trump’s order sparks confusion.”

‌

MSNBC returned to its continuing coverage of the family separation issue under the banner “families torn apart.”

Classic stuff.  It's how they roll.  Lying rat-bastards.

When did the policy of separating children of illegal border-crossers from their parents start?

The first PhD to scream "global warming"--a NASA director--was wrong on virtually every count

James Hansen was a PhD who worked for NASA for 32 years.  For a large portion of those years he. was the director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies(GISS) a division of NASA, and spent much of that time trying to develop computer models of earth's climate.

On June 23, 1988, Hansen testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, saying he had a “high degree of confidence” that carbon dioxide was warming the Earth, due to a phenomenon called the “greenhouse effect.”



Today, on the 30th anniversary of Hansen’s predictions, let's see how well his forecasts have turned out.

It turns out that global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16.
  What about Hansen’s other claims?  Well, in 2007, Hansen stated that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the next 100 years.  Hasn't even remotely happened.


1) In 1988 he predicted that the Hudson River would overflow because of rising sea level caused by CO2 and New York would be underwater by 2008.

2) In 1986 he predicted that the earth would be 1.1C higher within 20 years and then ...

3)...by 1999 he said that the earth had cooled and that the US hadn’t warmed in 50 years

4) He predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by 2000.

5) In March 2016 Hansen said seas could rise several metres in 50 to 150 years, innundating coastal cities.

6) In 2009 Hansen said Obama had just 4 years left to save the planet.

7) Hansen has published over 100 fraudulent climate studies with almost all of them using results from computer climate models that are woefully inadequate and that have never been validated except by the human modeler.

To summarize, Hansen was arguably the first PhD to wail that the planet was being threatened by global warming, caused by carbon dioxide, emitted by human activity.  None of his predictions have panned out, and his model predicted over twice the slight temperature increase that has happened since 1988.  Small wonder that most people are starting to doubt that global warming is unusual or caused by humans.   

Example #524,967 of how the Lying Mainstream Media lies to make readers/viewers hate Trump

This is just f'n outrageous--but then, no different from most other examples of media lies.

Below is Time magazine's latest cover.  As you see, it shows president Trump towering over a small girl, who's crying.  It's accompanied by the text "Welcome to America."  And as you can guess, the cover has fanned the Left's and Democrats' Trump-hate to even higher levels.

The cover immediately fanned the outraged Dems to amp up their demands that Trump end the practice of separating children of illegal alien border crossers from their parents when those parents were arrested, as they have been for the past dozen years, as prescribed by U.S. law.

The original photo of the crying child was widely used by media organizations, including CNN, to illustrate stories about children being taken from their parents after attempting to cross the border. But Time, with its iconic covers, became the center of a media ethics conversation.  Here's the original pic, which was picked up by many media outlets:



MSN cunningly describes the practice of separating children from arrested parents as "the Trump administration's policy," cleverly omitting to mention that this was also done routinely under emperor Obama, as well as under G.W. Bush, thus making the low-info or younger reader believe the policy began under Trump.

 
But as details about the little girl emerged this week, the real story emerged. 

As MSN cunningly puts it, "Critics claim the cover is misleading..." 

Not "The cover is misleading," but "Critics claim....," which makes it appear that the cover is telling a true story but that "critics" are claiming--presumably falsely--that it's misleading.

MSN then spends a few paragraphs telling you that the photographer has won a Pulitzer Prize, as if that somehow makes him unbiased. 

To begin with, the girl's mother was a foot away--her leg can be seen in the original photo--being searched by border patrol agents, and the two were never separated. 
Next investigators learned that the girl's father, who is still in Honduras, says his wife left him and her other 3 children behind and went to the U.S. to get a better job.  She brought her two-year-old along on the long trek because she'd been told that having a young child would mean the mother wouldn't be arrested if she was caught illegally entering the U.S.

So the real story was not at all what Time's cover implied.  But Editor-in-chief Edward Felsenthal said that even though there was no separation in this case, "Our cover and our reporting capture the stakes of this moment."

"Capturing the stakes of this moment" is apparently newspeak for "Fake but essentially accurate."

"What do Democrats call this person?"

Know what the leaders of the Democrat party call this charming young man?

A "Dreamer."

Really.  Isn't that delightful?  Reassuring?  Brings to mind inspiring images of young people dreaming about becoming doctors or pilots or researchers or firefighters, or about getting married, or....killing American kids by hacking them to death with machetes.  Cuz in reality this guy is a member of a gang whose actual, literal motto is "Rape, kill, control."

Seriously.

But then you surely knew that.  Cuz surely your honest, unbiased, never-fake-news mainstream media has mentioned that whenever one of these charmers killed anyone in this country, right?

Wait, you say you never heard that?  But surely it's relevant, dontcha think?  Oh wait, that's right:  Reading or hearing that bit of inconvenient truth would hurt the Democrat narrative.  Whoa, can't have that, eh?

You need to know that Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama and Hilliary Clinton and Chuck Schumer and Eric Swallwell and Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren want to let an UNLIMITED NUMBER of these bloodthirsty monsters  so-called "dreamers" enter the U.S.  Cuz that's what "open borders" would mean.

But do, do be sure to vote Democrat in November, citizen.  And join any pro-open-borders demonstrations in your area.  Cuz the most important thing this year is to help the Democrats achieve open borders.  After all, as the next president of Mehico says, "It's a basic human right!"

Leading Mexican prez candidate says anyone should be able to enter the U.S.--"basic human right"

Mexico has a presidential election scheduled for July 1.  The leading candidate is a communist, warmongering piece of shit named "Andrés Manuel López Obrador."

Those words were not chosen casually.  Obrador is a POS because, among other thing, in a speech Tuesday he called for mass emigration of Mexicans to the United States, declaring that a “human right” for all North Americans.

Obrador said Mexicans “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”  He declared that anyone should be able to go to the U.S. at any time, calling that “a human right we will defend,”

“Very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” he said.

The Mexican press reports that Obrador is by far the favorite to win.  If he does, things should get even more interesting.

One indicator of Obrador's total hypocrisy on this would be if his own nation had far more harsh laws on illegal immigration into Mexico.  U.S. Democrats and liberals might by surprised to know that under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

Obviously, Obrador knows this.  His complete, utter hypocrisy on immigration--'Mexicans have the right to go to the U.S. as they wish, but if someone enters Mexico illegally he or she will be sent to prison'--make him unfit for office.

Wait...he'd be a perfect choice to serve in any Democrat president's administration.

The Curious Case of Ilhan Omar

Minnesota politics is essentially controlled by the "Democratic Farmer-Labor" party (DFL), and its U.S. congresscritters vote with the Democrat party.  Whoever wins the DFL primary usually wins the general election.

Rep. Keith Ellison was the first Muslim elected to Congress, from far-Left Minnesota.  Two weeks ago Ellison abruptly announced his intent to resign from congress and instead run for attorney-general of that state.

Five DFL candidates are vying for the seat Ellison's anouncement leaves open. Four days ago the DFL endorsed one of those five--Ilhan Omar--who won 68% .  The actual primary election is in August.  Again, whoever wins the party primary is virtually guaranteed to win the election.

Ilhan Omar is a woman from Somalia who came to the U.S. in the late 1990s.  She's in her first term as a state legislator, and her district is heavily Somali-Muslim.  Local residents call it "little Mogadishu."

As many Americans are (belatedly) beginning to realize, the amount of corruption in all levels of government--but especially the federal government--is staggering.  Thus it would seem to be a bad idea to elect anyone to congress who seemed to be lying about their background, and refused to answer questions asking for clarification.

Finally, any candidate whose response to pointed questions was to scream "racist!" is probably hiding something.  And voters should know, since that would seem to bear on the question of whether the candidate was honest.

In Omar's case, attorney Scott Johnson found she is not legally married to the man she advertises as the husband and the father of her three children.  Instead, she is legally married to another man—who may be her brother. 

The local leftist newspaper--the miserably socialist "Minneapolis Star-Tribune"--which adoringly covers her campaign, has shown no interest in getting her campaign to clarify questions about this.

Specifically, a post on a Somali discussion board claimed Omar married Ahmed Hirsi, the man her website claims is her husband, in 2002, and then seven years later married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, a man the poster claimed was actually her brother, for fraudulent purposes in 2009.

The post, which seems to have been written by someone from Minneapolis’s Somali community, was quickly deleted.  By the time Johnson learned about it, someone had deleted it.  The post was only available via a Google cache, and now the cache has also been deleted--which is odd.  If the post is accurate, not only would the second marriage would be illegal, but would suggests that Omar had done it to get her brother into the U.S. by fraud.

Johnson checked out the discussion-board post by searching through the Minnesota Official Marriage System.  He says those records did indeed show the two marriages cited in the discussion board post, the first, in 2002, to the man she now claims as her husband, Ahmed Aden (later Ahmed Hirsi), and then a 2009 marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, who the Somali poster claimed is Omar’s brother.

Almost two years ago, attorney Johnson submitted written questions to the Omar campaign, citing the SomaliSpot post and asking if the two records in the state system were accurate.

The campaign itself didn't respond.  Instead Johnson got a letter from a Minneapolis attorney.  And instead of answering Johnson's question, the letter implied that Johnson had asked the questions because of racial prejudice against Omar running for public office.  Here's the letter:

Dear Mr. Johnson:

I have been contacted by the Ilhan Omar campaign. Their response to your email from this morning is as follows:

“There are people who do not want an East African, Muslim woman elected to office and who will follow Donald Trump’s playbook to prevent it. [Clearly implyling Johnson is a racist.] Ilhan Omar’s campaign sees your superfluous contentions as one more in a series of attempts to discredit her candidacy.

Ilhan Omar’s campaign will not be distracted by negative forces and will continue to focus its energy on creating positive engagement with community members to make the district and state more prosperous and equitable for everyone.”

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please direct them to me in writing so we have a record of any further communications.

Johnson  posted an account of all this on his blog.  Amazingly, a young reporter for The Star Tribune--who hadn't grasped that no one was to question Omar about this--tried to get the campaign to clear this up the following week.  But the candidate--usually eager for press coverage--wouldn't agree to be interviewed.

Instead, a Democratic operative (Ben Goldfarb) contacted the Star Tribune on Omar’s behalf: “Allegations that she married her brother and is legally married to two people are categorically ridiculous and false.”  The operative explained that Omar had never legally married Ahmed Hirsi, and flatly denied that Ahmed Nur Said Elmi--a man state records show her as having married--is her brother.

The campaign issued a statement that all questions about her marital status were prompted by “Trump-style misogyny, racism, anti-immigration rhetoric and Islamophobic division.”  When Star Tribune reporter Patrick Coolican requested a comment from Johnson for his story that day, Johnson asked him who Elmi is.  The reporter replied, “They won’t tell me.”

The next day Omar issued a formal written statement explaining that she had requested a marriage license for her first marriage, the one her campaign has publicly touted, to the man her website touted as her husband and the father of her children--—but never formally married him in the U.S.  She says she married him in an Islamic ceremony in 2002 but never filed an executed marriage license with the state.

Information Johnson found on official Minnesota records confirmed that Omar had in fact applied for a license to marry Aden/Hirsi.  But strangely, the entry on the Minnesota Official Marriage System has since been scrubbed.

The statement further explained that Omar had married her current legal husband—Ahmed Nur Said Elmi—in 2009. Though they split in 2011, with Elmi returning to the United Kingdom, Omar never got around to dissolving the marriage. The statement described her 2002 husband, Aden/Hirsi, as “the love of [her] life.” Campaign spokesman Michael Howard then declared that the statement would be Omar’s last word on the matter.

One specific, simple question Omar has never answered is: Does she have a brother named Ahmed Nur Said Elmi?

The above facts suggest that Omar married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009 to get him admitted to the U.S.  If she was already married, that's polygamy and illegal here.  If she wasn't, and he's her brother, it's similarly illegal.  Her website features husband #1 (Aden/Hirsi) and their three children.  By stark contrast, her campaign website doesn't mention husband #2.  Yet #2 is, according to her own statements, her current legal husband.

The mainstream media have no interest in questioning a minority Muslim female about...well, about anything, because they don't want to be accused of being raaacist, anti-Muslim or anti-female.  Johnson says local Somalis who have contacted him have said they're worried about their physical safety.

Only one local reporter is unintimidated by these tactics. Preya Samsundar writes for the Minnesota-based site Alpha News.  Using social media Samsundar has found information suggesting that Elmi, the man Omar married in Minnesota in 2009, is indeed her brother. Omar’s own Instagram photos from the summer of 2015 place her in London with relatives, and with a man later identified as Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. Soon after her marital history became an issue, however, Omar closed her Instagram account to the public. When the account became public again, Samsundar found that the original photo collage of Omar and Elmi was no longer included. Samsundar also discovered that accounts once connected to Elmi have disappeared since the controversy began. Even LinkedIn pages and Elmi’s professional portfolio pages have vanished. New accounts for Elmi have appeared under a different name, and without his identifying photo.

Samsundar emailed Ahmed Nur Said Elmi and asked if he'd been married to Omar.  Elmi replied  “[N]o way am I affiliated with anyone in your articles. Nor do I recall being married to anyone. At least, from what I remember. :)”

Omar fills every checkbox for Minnesota's ultra-liberal Democrats.  If a white married Republican candidate for congress had married a second woman to get her into the U.S., and then refused to answer any questions at all about it, the Dem-loving media would be screaming bloody murder.   By stark contrast,  no Democrat-run media is willing to demand that Omar answer questions about her past, since she holds a triple-preference card (female, Muslim, Somali immigrant).

Is it any wonder we get thieves and liars in D.C.? 

It seems to me to be an absolutely horrible idea for voters to elect a congresscritter who seems to lie so brazenly, and then who refuses to take questions that might clear up any "misunderstanding."

But then Omar is a Democrat, and Dems don't seem to have any trouble at all electing people who lie like a rug:  Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Hilliary Clinton, and John Edwards, to name just a few.

U. of Missouri continues to bleed students and cash after 2015 protests rocked the campus

If you're a college student, 2015 is, like, a century ago.  And unless you're a political junkie you probably didn't hear about the anti-white protests at the University of Missouri that year that caused utter chaos on that campus.

The cause wasn't police violence.  No one was shot.  Basically, black students were angry that Mizzou didn't have more courses in African studies, and there were threats of violence.  One student went on a hunger strike that lasted an entire week.  Naturally that made national news, which fired up the activists to increase their demands.

And they did, demanding that both the school's president and chancellor resign.  And both did.

White social justice warriors helped the demonstrators.   The creature with the glasses in the pic below is Melissa Click, who was some type of journalism professor.  When she saw a student photographer working as a stringer for a national paper taking pics, she DEMANDED that he cease.  He said "This is public property.  You have no authority to tell me not to take photos."  She totally freaked out (shocker, since she looks so calm and rational, eh?) and tried to smash his camera.  When she couldn't accomplish that she screamed to the demonstrators "Can we get some muscle over here?"  So the student photographer left.

Short answer: Mizzou hired a "diversity vice president"--huge salary, does nothing useful, since all faculties have been social justice snowflakes for at least 15 years.  And they've been trying to make a "diversity course" a requirement to graduate.  Ah.



But there was also one other effect that absolutely no one could have predicted--well, at least no liberal or academic would have:  Students about to choose a college, who saw what was happening at Mizzou, said "No, don't think I'll apply there."  And parents who were scouting colleges with their kids agreed. 

And can you guess the result?   Between the fall 2015 and 2017 semesters, freshman enrollment dropped 35%, resulting in a drop in tuition income of $29 million.  Even for a state school, that's a serious hit, and the school was forced to cut a few staff positions last year, as well as not re-hiring many non-tenured professors.

"A few" is actually 308.  And last week the school said it will have to eliminate another 185 positions. They've eliminated low-demand courses.

So what we have here should have been a great learning opportunity.  But it's doubtful any of the administrators at Mizzou did, as they're now inventing wild excuses to hide the real reason for the massive drop in enrollment.  As an example, they're now claiming the drop in enrollment is due to "more-aggressive recruiting by universities in adjoining states."  Ah.