Amazingly, Wiki article fairly well explains how dumb socialism killed Venezuela

When a humanitarian crisis becomes acute, one of the classic psychological tricks people use to avoid feeing guilty for failing to intervene is to claim they didn't have any idea the problem existed.

For the last decade many of the 31-million residents Venezuela have been suffering from shortages of everything, including food and medicine.  The reason is that they elected a socialist government--Hugo Chavez--because he promised the people more freebies.  A majority fell for it, and that was the end of that.

In what seems to be record time, Venezuela went from having the highest per-capita income in all of Latin America to utter poverty, starvation, disease and shortages of both water and electricity.

The cause of all this misery was dumb-ass socialist policies, by both Chavez and his hand-picked successor, former bus driver Nicolas Maduro.  Of course leftists won't believe this, so in a minute I'll insert Wikipedia's take.

Now, I don't recommend Wiki for anything having to do with politics, because as everyone with an IQ over room temperature knows, Wiki is notoriously left-leaning.  But I'll use them tonight because if even leftist Wiki admits there's a problem with one of their beloved socialist systems, you can bet it's a LOT worse than they're saying.  So here's what they're willing to admit, in a piece titled "Shortages in Venezuela."  [I've edited it for brevity.]

Shortages in Venezuela have been prevalent following the enactment of price controls in 2003, then currency controls and other policies by the government of Hugo Chávez.  Under the Maduro government, greater shortages occurred due to the government's policy of withholding United States dollars from importers.  The severity of the shortages has exacerbated the Bolivarian diaspora, the largest recorded refugee crisis in the Americas.

Shortages are occurring in food--milk, meat, coffee, rice, oil, flour, butter--as well as toilet paper, personal hygiene products and medicines.  As a result of the shortages, Venezuelans must search for food, occasionally resorting to eating wild fruit or garbage, wait in lines for hours and sometimes settling without having certain products.

Amnesty International, the United Nations and other groups have offered aid to Venezuela.  However, the Venezuelan government has refused such assistance.  Many Venezuelans have died due to the Bolivarian government's refusal of international aid.

By 2013 most citizens reported being hungry all the time, but the government continued to deny that there was a "humanitarian crisis," instead describing the problem as simply "a decrease in the availability of food."  The government blamed this "decrease in availability of food" on "an economic war," but insisted "we are still within the thresholds set by the U.N."

Now follow me here:  Their citizens are starving, but the socialist leader insist everything is within "thresholds set by the U.N."  This is a deadly charade, but the leaders demand the world believe it, because to admit the truth and accept food aid would be tantamount to admitting their socialist policies were a failure--something no socialist has ever done, or is ever likely to do.   Too much ego.

Of course the leaders can afford imported food.  They don't suffer a bit.  Instead the deadly price is paid--as it always is--with the lives of ordinary citizens.  Ain't socialism grand?

The term "expropriation" begins appearing.  You need to be familiar with that:  it's when the government simply takes something owned by a family or business.  Very common in socialist societies.  Wiki says "expropriation" of businesses by the socialist Venezuelan government caused...wait for it...a drop in the production of goods.

Gee, how...unexpected.

Wiki also notes that because of the government's massive printing of banknotes, inflation soared:  By 2017 the bolivar was worth only one-tenth of one percent of its value five years earlier.  Think about that for a bit.

Wiki also notes massive corruption, with businesses seeking to import products being forced to pay millions of dollars to government port bosses for a single cargo.

Going thru the entire list of ghastly, fatal policies pursued by the socialist monsters is too depressing, but the point here is that this is what socialism does.  When governments promise to give people things for free, the course is set for disaster.

You need to know this, but because Democrats like Hilliary and Fauxcahontas and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Kamala Harris are determined to bring socialism here.  If you allow that, don't claim you weren't warned.

How can a cup of coffee cost two *million* ??

Five years ago a cup of coffee in Caracas--the capital of socialist-ruled Venezuela--cost three bolivars.

Today, thanks to hyperinflation resulting from dumb-ass socialist policies, that same cup now costs an astonishing 2 million bolívars.

Even two years ago, residents who wanted to go out for a rare restaurant dinner had to bring a duffel-bag to carry the amount of case needed.

This was a problem because there were lots of citizens who had been alive five years ago, and recalled when a cup of coffee cost three bolivars.  So having to pay 2 million for one reminded these people of what total idiots were running the country.

Ooooh, can't have that, citizen!
 
But don't worry, citizen!  Because the same brilliant socialists who caused all this (by printing money the government didn't have--cuz that's how low-info voters believe government works, right?) have the solution:  They've introduced a new currency, with bank notes printed in a different color!

It's brilliant!  Okay, I didn't mention that people will be able to exchange "old" bolivars for the new ones.  The original plan was to set the exchange rate at 1000 to 1, but then people who could actually do (gasp!) math told the rulers that at this rate a cup of coffee would still cost 2,000 bolivars.  So the rulers decided to add two more zeroes to the exchange rate.

Brilliant!  So every citizen will now be required to exchange 100,000 "old" dollars bolivars for one new bolivar.

But remember, the exciting new currency is printed in a different color, so that makes all the difference in the world, eh?

Wait...do I hear you say "This can't possibly be true!  It's simply not possible that a cup of coffee that cost three "currency units" five years ago now costs two million.  This must be some of that "fake news" that the media have warned us about, where nutty right-wing-extremist bloggers make stuff up to scare voters into doubting what our media tells us."

Rats!  You got me.  The above story indeed came from a very shady organization--one that routinely publishes fake news.  They're kept in business by cash infusions from a foreign billionaire (probably the Koch brothers!).  Honestly, it's amazing that anyone pays any attention to what these sleazoids publish.

The story was published in the New York Times.

Okay, sarc off.  One of the absolute hallmarks of socialists is that they never learn from history.  If no country had ever experienced hyperinflation before, one might excuse the cunning thugs ruling poor Venezuela by claiming no one had any idea this would happen.  But in fact the world has seen this play several times--most recently in Germany between the world wars.  (Google "Weimar republic").  

Specifically, a government can only consistently spend more than it takes in by either borrowing, or simply printing billions more in banknotes than its tax revenue.  If it goes with the second option, inflation jacks prices sharply.  Clever people, recognizing this, exchange the national currency for either a stable foreign currency, or for material goods they can barter later.

Seeing this, the totalitarian government makes it illegal for ordinary citizens to do it.  And of course everyone stops at once, and the problem is solved.

Hahahahahaha!  Yes, the totalitarian government banning those things works just as well as when governments ban the sale of illegal drugs, or gun ownership, or murder.  Yeah, works like a charm.

At this point someone always asks, "Uh, why doesn't the government just reduce spending, to match the amount of its tax revenue?"

Whereupon large men in sunglasses, working for Democrats and socialists, hustle the questioner out of the room and he's never seen again.  Cuz Democrats and socialists won't cut spending--because they won election by promising voters "free stuff."  End the "free stuff" and they'd have to actually debate their ideas in public--which rarely goes well for 'em.

Of course a few Dems/socialists are bright enough to have a vague feeling that all the things they've promised to give voters "for free" may not, in fact, actually be, y'know, free.   Unless people start working for nothing--something I haven't seen catching on yet.  So how do the socialists propose to pay for all the new "freebies"?

Easy: print money.  Trillions of dollars or pesos or bolivars or whatever.  After all, the gruberment owns the presses, right?  Why can't it print as much currency as it wants, eh?

Which, of course, is exactly what happened to Venezuela.  And the Weimar republic.  And to dozens of other countries, though less severely.

Now, what does this have to do with you, dear reader?

Easy:  Democrats in the U.S. are going full-socialist, promising voters free medical care, free college for all, free housing, free internet, free...anything.  The Lying Mainstream Media has never asked 'em how they plan to pay for all that free stuff (and never will), because the media supports Democrats.

But interestingly, a few brave souls from non-mainstream media have gone to college campuses with a video crew and asked college students where they think the money will come from.  The question is always met with either blank looks or babbling Democrat-talking-point bullshit.   (A typical line is "Since single-payer (i.e. government-run) health care will cut out insurance companies, the costs will go way down!")

But at least some small percentage of college students are smart enough to understand that "free" doesn't literally mean that--that someone has to pay for everything.  Problem is, compare the number of people in the "skeptical" group to the far larger group of people who are either virtually innumerate (can't do numbers), or just dumb as rocks.  Both those groups are totally in the Dem/socialist camp--and always will be.  And they vote.

So this is what's coming up in the next election, and all the ones after that.  It's gonna be a fight between the "gimmeedats" and the group Hilliary called the "deplorables," who have enough intelligence to understand that despite what the Dem leaders say, there ain't no such thing as "free."

Unfortunately, lots and lots of Americans can't resist the lure of "free stuff."

Finally, another example of hyperinflation, as reported by the NYTimes:  On July 25th of this year it took 3.5 million bolivars to buy one dollar at the rate available to regular citizens.

By the time the story was published just 22 days later, that had sunk to almost 6 million bolivars to a dollar.   Meaning that in 22 days the bolivar had lost not quite 40 percent of its value.  Meaning any imported product would cost 40 percent more...in just 22 days.

Of course that could never happen here, cuz our Democrat/socialists are way smaht.

Do citizens ever take up arms to defeat legally-imposed socialism?

Many Americans believe--naively--that because Trump defeated Hilliary, the left has temporarily stopped trying to control American life.  That's false:  Between the "Resistance" (Trump-haters burrowed into government agencies) and the Lying Media constantly running anti-Trump stories, it appears as if the Left is actually winning.

If you're not convinced, look at the percentage of Lying Mainstream Media companies that are totally, slavishly Left-wing.

The Left controls the public schools, most school boards, every government agency (specifically including the FBI, CIA, NSA and DIA), virtually every university, and every social-media organ.  Even though Trump is president, he actually controls damn little.  Instead the agenda is being set by the Democrats and their socialist allies, and is being carried out by Democrat holdovers in government agencies (sometimes called the Deep State).

Conservatives support the Constitution, and believe one set of laws should be applied to everyone, instead of the two-tier system we clearly have now.  They recognize that between insane Democrat leaders (Pelosi, Schumer, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker) and the Lying Media, Trump will almost certainly be a one-term president, and we'll be back to the days of Obama.

I think history amply shows that 99 percent of the time, when a nation's own government goes totalitarian, no one opposed to the totalitarian regime will actually fight back until it's far too late.  Three examples should suffice:  first is Germany between the wars.

It's a cliche that most native Germans follow the law.  Thus because everything Hitler did to win power was legal, no one opposed him until far too late.

Next:  Venezuela.  No one can possibly be surprised to note that poor people want "free" stuff.  When socialist Hugo Chavez promised the poor lots of free stuff, he won election (just as Obama did).  When he rammed through laws and decrees that educated Venezuelans recognized as disastrous, no one revolted--because it was all legal.  (And because the government had confiscated privately-owned guns.)

So when Chavez changed the constitution to allow him to be president for life, no one revolted--because it was done perfectly legally.  Same for when he banned private gun ownership, and when he set up a board to control the price of every good sold by every business.  All totally legal, comrade.  So even though lots of people were angry, there was no open revolt.

Finally, Argentina during the Peron era.  (If you're under 50 or so you won't know anything about this, so--gosh, I was gonna say "Google it" but there's a great chance Google will carefully hide the truth.)  In any case, Peron was a dictator, but promised voters lots of "free stuff."  His wife, Eva (also called Evita, an affectionate diminutive) was pretty and charismatic, and the couple ruled imperiously, supported by groups of thugs armed with machineguns.  The thugs would regularly shake down businesses for cash--which the thugs claimed was "for Evita"--and would torch any that refused to pay.  (My father did business in Argentina for awhile and saw this first-hand.)

But because Peron was elected--i.e all perfectly legal--there was no armed revolt.  Instead everyone obeyed the law, like good citizens, and simply hoped the misery wouldn't last too long.

So...based on these fairly modern examples, I see little chance of anyone in the U.S. taking up arms to resist socialism.  Which means it's all on the voters.  But at least half the electorate is uneducated, and not smart enough to know history or economics.  (Researching those is similarly beyond their abilities.)  Instead their votes will be driven by a) the promise by Democrat/socialist candidates of a vast array of freebies (a trend you've been seeing since 1960); and b) by the Lying Media wailing about how eeeeevil da orange trumpkin and his allies are.

And boy, are we ever seeing that!

So where do we go from here?  Well, there's no chance at all of any member of the Lying Media or any communist professor suddenly seeing the light.  Similarly, there's zero chance of members of the Democrat base suddenly realizing "This plan the Democrats have of giving everyone "free" stuff seems like it might not be, um...economically sound."

So what does that leave for options?

Beats me.  But a commenter on another site had an interesting message.  Again, I don't think this will happen, but the guy's turn of phrase is inspiring:

Let me be perfectly clear:

If you insist on imposing socialism on this country, you are a threat to my life.

You will be met with overwhelming force.

You will not enjoy this.

You will not win.

Bring body bags.

First Venezuela's socialists ran out of toilet paper, then medicine, then food...and now?

As Democrat politicians constantly, enthusiastically tell us how wonderful socialism is, socialist Venezuela chalks up yet another milestone of its ghastly descent into misery, poverty, starvation and disease:

The capital city has only intermittent running water. 

Caracas--a city of 3 million--is about 3000 feet above sea level, and most of its water is pumped from lower sources.  But with the efficiency that characterizes all socialist systems, maintaining the critical water pumps was near the bottom of the priority list.  The socialist government was spending most of the country's oil revenue on other things, like scotch for top officials, and the water system managers eventually used all their spare parts.

Socialist president Maduro’s administration ignored warnings that the system desperately needed new spare parts to keep running.  The former head of the state-run utility in charge of the city's water system explained that “For many years this deterioration wasn't noticeable.  But now the water transport systems are very damaged.”

And as a result, in recent months many residents don't have regular running water.  In addition to the obvious problems, lack of water has triggered health concerns--particularly since Venezuela has very few supplies of antibiotics and no money to buy more, since any such medicines must be imported.

Unsurprisingly, the socialist government typically says problems with water service are due to "sabotage by right-wing terrorists.”

Intrigued, we asked a dozen leaders of the Democrat party how they would solve this problem.  Here are some of the responses we got:

• Democrat senator (and the favorite to win the party's presidential nomination in 2020) Kamala Harris:  "The U.S. should offer to buy Venezuela's entire cocaine crop, for $2 Billion.  That would enable the country to buy as many new pumps as needed from our friends in Mexico.
• Dem/socialist Bernie Sanders:  "If water is short, pass a law requiring all residents to catch rainwater and pour it into the city reservoir.  After all, the essence of socialism is community effort."
• Democrat speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:  "Letting those poor people suffer from a lack of water is a crime against humanity!  They need to do what we do here in Northern California when global climate change cuts rain: drink wine."
• Democrat rep Maxine Waters:  The fact that Trump hasn't already ordered the U.S. military to ship millions of gallons of water to Venezuela is a crime against humanity!  It's one more reason to impeach fody-fi!
• Wildly popular new Dem representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:  "Their president just needs to order the people who run the water system to fix it.  It's so obvious!"
• Dem senator Elizabeth Warren: "My people have always lived in harmony with nature, so when they needed rain they'd do a rain-dance.  It always worked."
• Dem senator Chuck Schumer:  "This is Trump's fault!  My sources in the intel community tell me Trump sent SEAL teams to Venezuela to sabotage the pumps.  The only way to solve this is to get rid of Trump and Pence and elect a good Democrat."
• Former Dem presidential candidate Hilliary Clinton: "I know exactly how to solve that problem, but I can't tell you.  But I'll tell Maduro.  Tell him to email me."

H/T One America.   Oh, and for those who can't tell, the quotes above are satire.  Unfortunately the water shortage in Caracas is real.

Re archbishop Theodore McCarrick and the Pope

If you're not a Catholic (I'm not) you may not know about the huge shockwave that's just hit the church:  The Vatican's representative to the U.S. has made a detailed statement that he told the current pope that an archbiship--Theodore McCarrick--who was recently revealed as a homosexual molester.  But on learning this, the Pope not only didn't remove the cardinal from the priesthood, but promoted him and posted him toWashington DC.

Pope Francis--who has a controversial background--hasn't denied this, but instead has said he won't  comment--which isn't reassuring.  After a previous pope had ordered the archbiship removed, Francis astonishingly reinstated him in his position, removing all sanctions that had prevously been imposed.

The Pope has merely said people should make up their own minds about the claims.  Asked in a follow-up question when he first learned about the abuse allegations against Archbishop McCarrick, Pope Francis responded cryptically,

"This is part of the statement. Study it and then I will say."

Part of what statement?  This is total bullshit.  Baffle-gab.  Classic deflection, just like political thieves caught in the act.  Word salad.

Many Catholics detect homosexual corruption in the church leadership going all the way to the top.  The thinking is that if the Pope himself is indeed protecting molesting archbishops (and presumably also cardinals), there's no chance of removing any bad priests from the church.

If Francis is indeed pro-homosexuality in the priesthood, it might explain what is otherwise a bizarre event: the resignation of the previous Pope, Benedict.  It's almost unprecedented for a pope to resign.  Some analysts of the Vatican have wondered if Benedict--who was fairly conservative--was forced to resign because of a threat from the pro-gay cardinals.

One of the big problems with trying to remove bad leaders from official leadership positions in the church is that many people who are emotionally invested in an organization or ideology (like socialism) are more than willing to rationalize away just about any behavior ... including the actions of corrupt leadership--to protect that organization or ideology.

I suspect at least half of all Catholics will rationalize that rather than throw out the bad leaders, less damage will be done to the church if members close ranks around this Pope and defend him.

This is what happened at Penn State.  It's what Democrats do when confronted with a real, living example of how awful socialism is--Venezuela:  They'll do literally anything to rationalize the ghastly human misery in a way that doesn't blame or even tarnish their beloved socialism.

The case gets even more twisted because the Lying Mainstream Media--who are all loud supporters of the gay community--are spinning this bombshell revelation as "homophobia," claiming it's just people getting over-excited because of a "perfectly normal, legal, accepted form of behavior."

Seriously.

Minnesota insanity: man cut from womens' football league sues for "emotional distress," wins $20,000

Minnesota has a women’s football league.  In what has now become a totally familiar scenario, a man claiming to be a woman decided he wanted to play.  The team and the league understandably said no.

 

So in the next utterly predictable act of this all too familiar play, the whiny son of a bitch sued, charging discrimination and emotional distress.

 

And in the final act, a jury in liberal-moonbat-ruled Minnesota awarded the whiny son of a bitch twenty-thousand bucks--ten thousand for emotional distress and another ten in punitive damages.

 

This kind of crap has become so routine in insane leftist-ruled states that it's no longer newsworthy.  And indeed, you didn't see it on CNN, MSNBC, ABCBSNBC, nor will you.  It's beome so routine as to have lost any shock value.  The reason I'm posting this is to show you how the Lying Mainstream Media in Minnesota reported the story.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune did an absolutely slobbering, adoring, fawning story.  Here's the opening sentence:

Christina Ginther, a transgender woman...

"A woman," eh?  This critter's no more a woman than I'm the King of England, but the moonbats will demand...you get it.

She thought she had found it in the fall of 2016 with the Minnesota Vixen football team, then part of the Independent Women’s Football League (IWFL). Team members welcomed her and cheered her on during an open practice before tryouts.

But when the team’s owner discovered that Ginther was transgender, the team yanked the welcome mat.

This week a jury found that the team and the league discriminated against Ginther because she is transgender, a violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Ginther was awarded $10,000 for emotional distress and $10,000 in punitive damages.

“These are the discriminatory things that happen to transgender people every day,” said Ginther’s attorney. “Even these small things can create significant mental health and esteem issues for transgender people.

Ginther, 46, transitioned to being a woman from 2014 through 2015, losing her marriage and many friends in the process. Wanting to rebuild her life in 2016, she searched for a supportive social group to join. She found that the Vixen team seemed to be a welcoming organization. Another publication had a story about a transgender female, Sabreena Lachlainn, who played for the IWFL after helping rewrite the league’s eligibility policy to allow transgender women to play.

At first the Vixen team seemed to embrace and encourage her, she said. But players acted differently toward her at the third tryout, she said. “Everyone was cold toward me.”

Apparently someone suspected that she was transgender and discovered one of Ginther’s social media accounts that documented her transition. A call Friday to the Vixen owner was not returned. “I don’t know what could have given me away,” she said.

After her transition, Ginther legally changed her name and the gender marker on her birth certificate. What she didn’t know, she said, was that the IWFL had changed its eligibility policy in 2012, requiring players to certify that they are and always have been legally and medically female.

“No trans person can say they are now and always have been,” said Ginther, who played in the Women’s Football Alliance (WFA) the last two seasons — the Minnesota Machine in 2017 and the Madison Blaze in 2018. The WFA league welcomes transgender athletes, she said.  The Minnesota Vixen is now a member of that league, according to its website.

On the surface, the case may seem to be just about a transgender woman who wants to play tackle football, Ginther said. But discrimination is never just about a seat on the bus or being allowed to use a bathroom, she said.

“I love my country,” she said. “But it’s a terrifying feeling when you see your rights are being taken away.”

"When you see your rights are being taken away"?  And this whiny bastard means what he claims are HIS rights.  

So let's review:  Real, genetically-authentic women wanted to set up a sports league for...wait for it...women.  They managed to do that, and then this jerk demands that he has the absolute right--due to a law passed by a bunch of cuckold, virtue-signalling Minnesota legislators--to use his genetic height, weight and strength advantage to compete in the...wait for it...womens' league.

And when the team and league declined, on the grounds that it was a...wait for it...womens' league, this jerk has the gall to claim that HIS rights have been violated??

Of course that's only part of the insanity.  Two other pieces complete this absolute insanity:  First is the state's "human rights" law which made it possible for a man to collect $20,000 on the grounds that his rights were violated by not being able to play in a womens' football league.  Second is the equally insane Minnesotans on the jury, who found for the jerk in question.

Welcome to the new U.S.  Used to be a fairly sane nation.  Unfortunately that's no longer the case.  And because of illegal votes and increasing illegal immigration, we won't be returning to sanity any time soon.

**mandatory Google warning:  "We haven't verified any of the above, so you should completely disregard it.  We're not actually claiming it didn't happen, since that could have some legal consequences.   Instead we're telling you that you can't trust news from goofy bloggers, because they have agendas.  

   In fact, some bloggers even include links to fake websites to make their fake news look believable.  Of course we're not actually claiming the link in the above story is fake, but you have no idea what the *real* Star-Tribune website looks like, do you?  So what you see at that site could be fake.

   Remember, if we don't verify it, or one of our Trusted Sources doesn't report it, it's probably fake.**

BBC does a long piece on disaster in Venezuela--without ever mentioning "socialism"

If a Mainstream Media outlet ran a story on, say, the problems caused by people camping on the sidewalks of San Francisco or Seattle, without saying a single word about the huge role of drug addiction in causing that problem, would you think they were doing honest reporting?  Or would you think maybe they were in the tank for a drug cartel?

Similarly, if a Mainstream Media outlet ran a story on the horrible, awful situation in Venezuela--which just 20 years ago had a higher per-capita income than the U.K. but now is a total disaster--and the story never mentioned "socialism" as the major cause, what would you think?

I think the only conclusion one can draw is that the organization that ran the story wants you to believe the election of a socialist (communist) president, followed by 20 years of amazingly, insanely dumb socialist policies, had nothing to do with their current problems.

If you doubt any media outlet would be so...mendacious...click here to read the BBC's story titled

Venezuela: The country that has lost three million people

In 3000 words the BBC totally avoids using the words "socialism" or "socialist."

Gee, that's...odd.  Until you realize:  The virtue-signalling editors and reporters in the MSM love socialism, and never miss a chance to praise it, or to ignore its disasters.

Yet the constantly tell you to trust them--and only them--to learn about things happening around you.  Cuz they constantly tell you they're the source of truth.  If they don't tell you something, you shouldn't believe it happened.  Uh-huh.

Skeptical?  Click on the link to the BBC story.  Down at the bottom is a link reading "Why you can trust BBC News."  Click it and you'll see this:

The BBC is recognised by audiences...around the world as a provider of news that you can trust.  Our website, like our TV and radio services, strives for journalism that is accurate, impartial, independent and fair.

"A provider of news you can trust," eh?

We are independent, impartial and honest. We are committed to achieving the highest standards of accuracy and impartiality and strive to avoid knowingly or materially misleading our audiences.

This is almost beyond parody.  If I hadn't read it on their own damn website I wouldn't have believed it.  They ran a long article on Venezuela's woes and never mentioned socialism as the main cause.

Our commitment to impartiality is at the heart of that relationship of trust. In all our output we will treat every subject with an impartiality that reflects the full range of views.

Well, unless it reflects badly on a cause we support, like socialism, transgenders, open borders, unilateral disarmament, imprisoning citizens for "hate speech," Sharia law, endless welfare for Islamic "immigrants" with four wives and 26 kids, among others.

Research shows that, compared to other broadcasters, newspapers and online sites, the BBC is seen as by far the most trusted and impartial news provider in the UK.

This is called "bandwagon effect:"  They claim "research shows" they're "by far the most trusted," because if you accept that, they know the vast majority of people will want to go along with the "cool kids" and trust them too.

BBC News is making even greater efforts to explain what type of information you are reading or watching on our website.... By doing so we can help you judge for yourself why BBC News can be trusted.

Notice how they phrased the conclusion above:  Not "we can help you judge whether we're telling you the truth," but stating the conclusion you are to reach: "why BBC News can be trusted."  If you think that's splitting hairs you need to study psychology.

This same drumbeat of "Trust us, trust us, trust us" is happening here in the U.S.  The fake-news outlets keep telling you they're the only source you can trust.  Like CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, Google and so on.  Yet they constantly lie.  Which is why they have to keep telling you how impartial they are, and that you should trust them.

How much more proof do you need?  That's okay, don't answer.  It was a rhetorical question.

NBC ignores most stories they call "local interest only"--but they ran a long piece on this one

Almost every day, somewhere in America an illegal alien murders or kills (while drunk-driving) an American citizen, but the major broadcast and cable networks almost never report it.

If you ask 'em--and people have--they say it's "just a story of local interest only, and we don't do that--because our viewers aren't interested in 'local interest only' stories."

Well...that's not exactly true.  Last January NBC posted a very long story about a Massachusetts man who murdered his wife.

Gosh, you'd think that would be exactly the definition of a "local interest" story.  So why would NBC devote a long piece to it?

Cuz the virtue-signallers who run NBC decided every viewer should see this one--cuz the victim--the "wife"--was a man who'd decided to become a female.  So naturally NBC felt this story was important.

Interesting that they think you should know about this tragic murder--and other "local interest" stories, such as when a selfish, savage man kills his innocent wife and two adorable children (Colorado)--yet they usually avoid running stories on the many hundreds of Americans killed each year by illegal invaders.

It's almost as though they have an agenda or something.

Democracy at work

 

This is Maxine Waters, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Maxine's district is majority black, so the fact that she was indicted for steering $12 million in "recovery money" to her husband's bank didn't damage her re-election chances a bit:  She won by 78 to 22 percent.

Now consider this:  Because voters elected a majority of Democrats in the House, then when the new congress is sworn in on January 3rd, Maxine will be the chair of the House Financial Services committee, which oversees...banks.

What could possibly go wrong?

With the number of Americans voting Democrat continuing to increase--thanks in part to illegals voting, dead people voting, Dem "ballot harvesters" talking senile people out of their mail-in-ballots and then filling them out all-Dem, and illegal multiple voting because Dems have succeeded in blocking "photo ID" to vote, I suspect we'll see the Dems control the House for at least 50 years.

EU tells member states and citizens what forms of speech are acceptable to the EU wusses

Well, you knew it was coming:  The EU has issued its newest guidelines for politically correct speech.  Some examples:

• Avoid saying or writing "mankind," but use "humankind"
• Avoid saying or writing "statesman" or "statesmen," but substitute "political leaders"
• Avoid saying or writing "man-made;" substitute "synthetic"
• Avoid saying or writing "businessman;" substitute "businessperson"
• Avoid saying or writing "tradesman;" substitute "tradesperson"

Of course this kind of insanity absolutely begs to be spoofed.  Like...

• Avoid saying or writing "humankind;" substitute "hupersonkind"
• Avoid saying or writing "manual;" subtitute "instruction brochure"
• Avoid saying or writing "emancipated;" substitute "freed"
• Avoid saying or writing "intake manifold;" substitute "intake personfold"
• Avoid saying or writing "woman;" substitute "woperson"
• Avoid saying or writing "female;" substitute "feeperson"
• Avoid saying or writing "person;" substitute "perxer"
• Avoid saying or writing "romance;" substitute "ropersonce"
• Avoid saying or writing "Roman empire;" substitute "Roperson empire"

Actually this exercise in insanity by the EU pencilnecks does tell us something many men have suspected for years: militant feminists don't consider themselves to be members of the human race.

After young Swedish girl beheaded by Muzz, Swedish govt TV totally re-writes the story

If you follow news from overseas you may have heard that 3 muslim males in Morocco murdered two Scandanavian tourists--one from Sweden and the other from Norway.

You may have heard that one was killed by beheading.  The killers made a video of them cutting off her head.

Now consider how Swedish national television reported these brutal murders:  They said the girl the Muzzscum beheaded died of "stab wounds to the neck."  The official state network also said "This had nothing to do with Islam."

Finally, the official state network warned that anyone who posted or shared the video of the horrible murder could be jailed for 4 years, under a law passed to prevent rapists from sharing videos of the attack on their victims.

Commenters on the network's website were scathing--which won't result in a single firing or change of policy.  Cuz, pencil-neck, craven, Muzz-loving, cringing gruberment lackeys, citizen.

"Evil oil companies"? Inflation-adjusted price of gas is the lowest it's been in 40 years

There's an inexorable pattern in this country:  Liberals and Democrat politicians warn you that DOOM awaits if you continue to do X (or fail to do Y--a distinction without a difference).  They DEMAND that the government spend literally billions of tax dollars to do as they want, or to stop you from doing what you want.

Meanwhile people in the so-called "private sector" come up with better, cheaper ways to solve whatever the Dems were screaming about--without using tax dollars.

This "free market" solves the problem.  But 20 years later--always--almost everyone has forgotten about the screechy demands by libs, and the billions of dollars they made the government waste.  So voters never learn the obvious lesson.

Example: There's an organization called OPEC.  If you're under 30 you've never heard of it, yet 40 years ago it was the most powerful organization in the world.  It could--and did--make the U.S. government jump thru hoops.  Anyone remember what OPEC stands for?

It's the "Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries," whose first members were Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.  In 1973 and 1979 this group declared an "oil embargo" on the U.S., cutting oil sales to the U.S, because of our support of Israel.

Not surprisingly, this caused a huge jump in gas prices, but that was just the beginning:  It also triggered lots of government action:  In some states you could only buy gas on odd or even dates, depending on the last digit of your license plate.  The federal government spent tens of billions on money-losing rail-based city transit systems (which Dems said would cover their cost from fares but which have always lost money and now lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year)..

President Jimmy Carter--a Democrat--signed a nationwide speed limit of 55 mph into law.

Now, if you're from the northeast a 55mph limit wasn't much of a burden, because cities are close together and traffic is often so bad that the average speed is less than 55, but for people in the western U.S. it was a different story.  No one wanted to drive 55 on a thousand-mile trip.  But hey, that was now the law.

Of course one way to counter an oil embargo is to increase supply.  But when industry experts suggested that we increase oil exploration in the U.S. and offshore, leftists and their media allies swore that this wouldn't help; was stupid; that it was totally impossible to change our nation's dependence on imported oil no matter how much exploration we did. 

The stock saying by Democrat pols--as recently as ten years ago--was "We can't just drill our way out of this problem."

Ah.

So..."We can't drill our way out of this," eh?  Then tell us, wonderfully smaht elites and Dem pols: why is the inflation-adjusted price of gas today lower than at any time in the past 40 years?

Wait, I hear Democrat "strategists" sneering that the above chart stops LAST YEAR!  "AHA!  The price of gas this year has to be higher, or you would have included it!"

Oooh, ya got me on that!  So let's see what the price of gas is, by state, today:

Wait, did you say you read that the AAA reported the average price of gas as $2.34 (still 5% less than 2017's average)?  Yes, because that includes California's insane state-tax-driven price of $3.36.  And when you look at that state's population of over 39 million--12% of the whole nation--that pulls the nationwide average up a LOT.

So why is the inflation-adjusted price of gas lower than at any time in the last 40 years?

Could it be because the Middle East is so peaceful now?  Certainly sounds plausible, right?

No?

Okay, try this:  It's cuz the world is awash in all that oil the U.S. stole from Iraq, right?  I mean, the Left absolutely assured us that's the real reason we invaded Iraq, right?  (Readers over 30 may recall nightly news footage of leftist demonstrators chanting "No blood for oil!")

Not due to stolen oil?  Hmmm....

Okay, try this:  The price of gas is low because the OTHER advanced nations of the world--all the leaders of which agree that humans need to stop using oil and other fossil fuels in order to stop global warming --pardon, "climate change"-- have drasticallly cut their use of gasoline, and switched to zero-energy electric cars!  Yeah, dat's it!

Wait...you don't suppose...yes, THAT'S IT!  It's part of Vlad Putin's diabolical plan:  Keep oil production high, to keep the price low, to make Americans resist changing to electric cars!  Yeah, dat's it!!!

No, it's not.

The reason is that because of efforts totally funded by the private sector, new technology has been developed that has doubled U.S. oil production in a decade.  At no increase in market price.

Doubled it.

Think about that for a second:  This is nothing short of a miracle.  And because the whole world's daily demand for oil was perfectly matched to daily production a decade ago, what do you think happened when the U.S. brought another 5 million barrels PER DAY on-line?

Yep: the price dropped--just like Econ-101 said it would.

And of course you've never heard a single word about any of this til now.  Which isn't your fault, of course.  You would only have known about this if your Lying Mainstream Media decided to cover the story.  But they didn't, because they didn't want you to know.  "Not of national interest, citizen."  They'd rather cover Hollywood.

Ah.

Of course oil-industry journals have extensively covered this amazing miracle, and the gruberment's "Department of Energy" keeps publishing the weekly and monthly stats.  So this isn't some right-wing fantasy.  All the information's out there, in the public domain, available to anyone who knows where to look.  But you don't know where to look, any more than I could tell one strain of wheat from another.

So the next time some leftist moonbat wails that oil is bad, and cars are awful, and gas prices are way too high, ask them if they know any time in the last 40 f'n YEARS when the inflation-adjusted price of gas has been lower than it is today.  Be prepared for a lot of deflection and attempts to change the subject.

Then ask 'em if they have the vaguest idea WHY the price of gasoline is so low.