March 30, 2019

Chicago "State's Attorney" who claimed to have recused herself from Smollett case lied, dismisses 16 felony counts

When does a word not mean what it's always meant before?

Answer:  When a corrupt District Attorney (or any politician) wants to undermine justice and make a corrupt ruling.

Today the word in question is "recusal."  As many of you know, when a DA or judge has a screamingly obvious conflict of interest in a case, every ethical code demands they "recuse" themselves from any decision-making regarding that case.

In the case of hate-crime-hoaxer Jussie Smollett, the "State's Attorney" (what most of would call a DA) for Cook county, IL (i.e. Chitcongo), Kim Foxx, talked with Smollett's family early on.  This was a screamingly big no-no, so she said she was "recusing herself" from the case.

Prosecutors went on to charge Smollett with not one, not two, but sixteen felonies related to his outrageous lie about being attacked by two men he claimed were wearing Trump-supporter hats.  Investigators had found two Nigerian brothers who admitted working with Smollett to fake the crime, and video of them buying the same type of rope Smollett claimed the attackers had tied around his neck.

The brothers claimed Smollett had paid them $3500 for their part in the hoax.  Sure enough, investigators found a check to them from Smollett for that amount.  The case against the Smollett was looking like a slam-dunk conviction.

That was before DA Kim Foxx got a call from Michelle Obama's chief of staff, Tina Tchen.  Suddenly Foxx--who had previously said she was recusing herself from the case--took control, and not only dismissed every single charge against the lying, race-hate-fanning rat-bastard Smollett, but also sealed the entire case file investigators had compiled!

Wait...hadn't Foxx (a black woman) recused herself from the case just a couple of weeks earlier?

Well that's what she SAID.  But when conneccted people are involved, statements have a funny way of becoming...inoperative.

So what happened to "I'm recusing myself from the case"?  Foxx's office has now released a statement that you may think is so brazenly outrageous in its contempt for the law and truth that you'll think it's satire:  The statement--in an email to Chicago Tribune reporter John Kass--is:
“The State’s Attorney did not formally recuse herself or the Office based on any actual conflict of interest.  As a result, she did not have to seek the appointment of a special prosecutor under (state law).”
“Although we use the term ‘recuse’ as it relates to State’s Attorney Foxx’s involvement in the matter, it was a colloquial use of the term rather in its legal sense.”
In other words, when State's Attorney Foxx claimed earlier to have recused herself....well, that may not have been, you know, precisely true.  In fact it wasn't true at all.  Wait, that doesn't sound good.  How about this: As former president Clinton famously dodged in his videotaped deposition in a lawuit claiming he'd sexually assaulted a woman (oh, you young gals didn't know about that?  Hmmmm.....), "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

In the case of State's Attorney Kim Foxx's statement "I am recusing myself from the case," her office is claiming that the seemingly unequivocal statement "I am recusing myself" actually has a second possible meaning in addition to the obvious one.  The other is the total opposite of the normal meaning, which the office is calling the "colloquial use of the term."

See?  Really, citizen, it's quite simple.  Words mean exactly what we Democrats want them to mean, and if that conflicts with what your tiny brains think, well, that's too bad.

So following this "logic," if a Democrat politician or official were to make a false statement to the FBI, for example, the speaker could avoid any charges of lying to the FBI by simply saying "When I said I didn't know anything about X, it was a colloquial use of the term rather than in its legal sense."

Is that cool or what?

But of course this only works if you're a member of the Democrat party.  If you're not, don't bother trying this "it was a colloquial use of the term rather than in its legal sense" defense.  Cuz they'll laugh at you, and then put you in jail.

Cuz, see, words have certain meanings.  Unless you're a Democrat "State's Attorney" in Crook county, Chitcongo.  Or Washington D.C.

Oh, and one more thing:  The files on the Smollett case that was quickly and mysteriously sealed?  Kim Foxx has now said--implausibly--that they were "sealed by mistake."  Seriously.  In an interview Wednesday night, Foxx claimed that the Cook County Prosecutor's Office did NOT persuade a judge to seal the records, and that the file was sealed "inadvertently" and was in the process of being unsealed.

Cuz, you know, judges just spontaneously seal records when they're bored or somethin'.  Hey, happens all the time, citizen!

H/T Daily Wire.

March 29, 2019

All Dem senators say they LOVE "Green New Deal;" not a single one votes for it in senate

According to EVERY Lying Mainstream Media outlet and EVERY Democrat politician, global warming ...uh, wait..."climate change" is the most dire threat facing planet Earth! 

And they've also ALL agreed that global warming ...wait, sorry: "climate change"... is NOT caused by any natural cyclic phenomena (think "ice ages") but by...CO2.  Further, liberal "scientists" assure you that the awful, planet-killing CO2 --which makes up 400 parts per million of the atmosphere--is caused NOT by a natural warming of the ocean, but by...humans burning fossil fuel.

And now for the final piece of the plot:  Nations with a high standard of living produce more CO2 than nations where everyone lives in a grass hut, with no electricity, and only travels by foot.

And the nation that produces more CO2 per person than any other is...us.  Because everyone not living in NYC has a car.  And since we live in a BIG country, we do long trips by...flying.  And we like a variety of food, which is transported by trucks, which are fueled by petroleum.

But never fear, citizen!  Your Democrat leaders have a great solution to all this!  It's called the "Green New Deal"--a play on FDR's "New Deal" that so endeared Americans to the Democrat party 80 years ago.  And what is this Green New Deal, you ask?

The person with that answer is the faaabulous freshman Democrat representative--and media darling--Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

AOC is a puppet who responded to a call by communists to audition for a role as...a young, photogenic, ethnic firebrand challenger.  Problem is, the people pulling her strings didn't realize that she'd believe their propaganda about her.  So now she fancies herself an intellectual, and they can't control her completely.  As a result, she released the specifics of the Green New Deal before they wanted her to.

The GND specifies that the U.S. is to totally ban all fossil fuel.  Wait...don't AOC and her handlers know that about 60 percent of our electricity is generated by fossil fuel?  If we killed fossil fuel, where would the electricity come from?

Why, windmills, citizen!  And solar panels!  But they're just getting started.  They also want to ban all commercial air travel (unless you're a congresscritter or high government official, of course). 

Oh, and by the way:  they wanna eliminate cows.

Why cows?  Cuz due to the near-magical ability cows have to digest cellulose (which humans can't), cows belch methane.  And methane is about ten times more effective at being a "greenhouse gas" than the dread CO2.  So AOC's handlers--being super-smaht sciency folks--felt thay had to ban cows too.  Cool, eh?

With this background established:  The senate majority leader decided that since the Democrats were screaming that global warming ... pardon, "climate change"...was gonna kill all life on earth in just ten years! if we didn't stop emitting CO2, it was absolutely critical to start a national debate on the subject.  So he put the Green New Deal up for a floor vote in the senate to open debate on the proposal. 

There are 45 Democrat senators.  Given the crucial, vital, life-and-death importance of CO2, surely the Dems would vote to open debate on the matter RIGHT AWAY.  Cuz, crisis!

Interestingly, the proposal failed--by a vote of 57 to zero.

Wait...that can't be right!  That must be satire!  You can't possibly mean that not a single Democrat voted for the proposition, can ya?  I mean, the NY Times has been telling us for years that 97 percent of all scientists believe the entire future of the human race depends on banning carbon fuels.  So surely the Dem senators would support this, right?

Nope.  Not one.  Were they all away from D.C. celebrating the marvelously fair decision of a State's Attorney in Chicago to drop all charges against Jussie Smollett?  Seems about right.  But no...they were in D.C.

The 45 Dems didn't vote for the proposal because even though the Dem media have assured us that most life on Earth will end if we don't act, they have something far more critical on their agenda:  getting re-elected.  And they were convinced that if they voted to ban cows and fossil fuels, they'd lose.

But they also knew that if they voted against the measure, their leftist base might vote for a primary challenger.  Ooooh, can't have that.  We're screwed either way we go!  What to do, what to do?

Ah, solution!  They all voted "present."

No, I'm not kidding.  On a measure the Lying Media--and every Dem presidential candidate--have declared "absolutely crucial, life-threatening," every single Democrat senator voted "present."

Cuz they're very ethical, principled people, see.  Given the chance to vote on what they've all been shrieking is a life-or-death issue, they took a deep breath, stood up very tall and...punted, to save their political careers.

Think they might not believe their own hype?  Think they might just be blowing smoke about the cause of global warming...pardon, "climate change"?

Perish the thought, citizen!  They all just knew the most important thing for our country was to keep them in power for as long as possible.  Cuz they're great leaders.

Barf.  Then watch the video of all these jerks signalling their great virtue, then voting "present."


March 26, 2019

Two video compilations of the Lying Media and Lying Dem leadership doing the Collusion Shuffle

I'd like to post an article blasting the rotten, rat-bastard members of the Lying Media for endlessly repeating things like "Trump is a traitor;" "Trump is a Russian agent;" "Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from Our pure, precious Queen Hilliary.

These self-styled "elites"--so ably assisted by corrupt Dem leaders (morons) like Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Jerold Nadler, Eric Swalwell and the rest of 'em--have been pounding us with "Trump is a traitor" when in fact they didn't have a scintilla of evidence.  What they wanted was to either impeach Trump or turn so many Americans against him that he couldn't get anything done.

So I wanted to really vent.  Fortunately someone with a LOT of skill and patience in video editing has essentially won the internetz with two classic clips that show the Lying Media and their Dem allies doing what we've watched 'em do for two years:



And this one:




H/T Ace of Spades.

March 24, 2019

Democrats polled want to support a candidate who supports...what???

If you're a young American trying to decide which party to vote for in 2020, consider this:  According to a recent poll, a huge majority of Democrat voters support "Medicare for all"--a cunning way of NOT saying "government will control everyone's health care."

Is that what you really want?  Ever heard of the VA?  That's the quality of health care you get when the government runs it.  (If you've never heard about how awful VA health care is, google it.)

Do you want to end air travel for anyone who's not a government official?  Sure you do, right?  Cuz the Dem-controlled media have told you endlessly that global warming climate change is caused by CO2, right?  So "we" need to banish all carbon-based fuels, right?

Oh, ya say you don't want any part of that?  Too bad, cuz a ton of likely Dem voters polled say they'd be "very likely" to support a candidate who adopts these policies.  So do ya think the likely nominee will buck that?  Nah, didn't think so.

Like the idea of your tax dollars being used to pay "reparations" to 4th-generation descendants of slaves?  Is that a reasonable thing to do?  Doesn't matter--cuz over 30 percent of Dem voters polled say this is a great idea.  Do you think any Dem candidate will walk away from that plum?

Nah, I didn't think so either.

"Wait...just because a lot of Dem voters support those things, doesn't mean they'll actually push 'em once they're elected!  This is just a scare tactic being pushed by Republicans to scare people into not voting for the faaaabulous Democrat nominee!"

Ohhhh, yes, citizen.  By all means.  And no one ever really imagined the amusingly mis-named "Affordable Care Act" would force individuals to pay for crappy government-run health-insurance, or would force people to ditch their doctor or health insurer--cuz Barky absolutely promised this could never happen, if we just passed his signature legacy act.

And of course no one thought the Supreme Court would ever uphold such an unconstitutional move.  But they did, and $100 billion of state "insurance exchange" bankruptcies later, Dems are STILL saying this is a HUGE success, cuz...mumble mumble mumble.  Tis' much better, citizen, cuz your tax dollars are being used to give illegal aliens health insurance they couldn't afford.  Much better.

Eh, no big deal.  We need open borders, citizen.  Cuz it's only fair that people all over the world get to come here for free gruberment handouts--not because Trump wants to do this, but because unelected federal judges in the 9th circuit court have ruled that we have to allow anyone in if they have a "child" with them, and must release the whole crew into the U.S.  Of course they have to sign a doc that says the promise to appear for a hearing 8 or 9 months down the road, so it's all good.

Except only about five percent bother to show up. 

Oh well...no biggie.  You need to support all this, because diversity is our highest goal, or something like that.  All your betters in the elite media keep telling you this, so it must be true, right?

https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2019/03/1862/1048/Poll-2-3.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

March 22, 2019

Democrats in congress introduce what they've cunningly named the "Equality Act." But what it really does is...

A week ago Democrats in the Dem-controlled House introduced "H.R.5," a bill they've called the "Equality Act."

Yay!!  I mean, who wouldn't be all for "equality," eh citizen?  I mean, wasn't there some document written by old white guys a thousand years ago that said "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...."  (And that was back when "all men" really meant "all people.")

So, the Democrat party claims to be all about equality.  They cleverly imply that the only people who could be against "equality" would be...Republicans and conservatives.

Okay then.  Let's take a look at the "Equality Act."  Clicking on the above link will go right to the House website with the actual text of the bill.  So, hard to fake that.   And what do we see?

After you strip out all the boilerplate language, you'll find that the sole purpose of this bill is to make "transgenders" a specially-protected class.

"Wait," you may say.  "Isn't it already illegal to assault people?  Why do men calling themselves women (and vice-versa) need a new law if its only purpose is to protect them from something that's already against longstanding law?

Ah, I see you're new to this planet!  Welcome, and enjoy your stay.

Among the effects of the bill will be to make it illegal for anyone to use the wrong pronouns to or about a man claiming to be a female, or vice-versa.

Oh, and to make it legal in every state for men claiming to be female to use womens' restrooms and similar facilities.  And to make it illegal for any state legislature to pass any law saying genetic men must use mens' facilities.

Oh, and to allow the federal gruberment to fine you if you use a male pronoun to refer to a man who claims to be female.

"Wait," I hear my liberal PhD friend saying.  "The bill doesn't say that at all!

That's because you're deliberately ignoring the history of how cunning legislators are at writing statutory language that says X but which everyone with an IQ over room temp knows will always be expanded by the courts to do things the writers absolutely ridiculed people for saying while the bill was being considered.

For example:  The stated purpose of Title 9 of  the Civil Rights Act was to ensure schools didn't discriminate against girls in sports.  But corrupt federal judges have now expanded that, claiming congress actually intended that language to apply to homosexuals as well.

Now that's...odd.  I'm absolutely certain that they had gays way back in 1964, and that if congress had intended the phrase to apply to gays they would have said so.  But the original language didn't.

No matter, citizen:  Your wonderful unelected judges will fix that for ya!  Stroke of a pen and done: the law now says something it never said when they wrote it.

Is this a great system or what?

Now:  In the text of what the Dems have cleverly called the "Equality Act," we see the authors repeatedly invoking the threat of discrimination against "women" and "pregnant women" to support their bill.  Example:
(4) Women also have faced discrimination in many establishments such as stores and restaurants, and places or establishments that provide other goods or services, such as entertainment or transportation, including sexual harassment, differential pricing for substantially similar products and services, and denial of services because they are pregnant or breastfeeding.

Or this:
(8) Both LGBT people and women face widespread discrimination in employment and various services, including by entities that receive Federal financial assistance.
But the law has already made all this illegal vis-a-vis women and homosexuals.  So why do the bill's authors mention women so often? 

Because it generates support for their new bill, despite the fact that their new bill doesn't do anything new for those classes.  The only new class the bill protects is...transgenders--which the bill's authors cunningly cloak as "LGBT."  Because that's so widely used in the press that no one actually takes the time to examine it.

Then a bit further down, the authors make a totally unsupported claim:  That the Constitution requires that anyone who "discriminates" against transgenders is guilty of violating their Constitutional rights.
(10) Discrimination by State and local governments on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations, and in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 
But what do they mean by "discrimination"?  Could that mean referring to a male-claiming-to-be-female by the correct term "man," or using brutal pronouns like "his" or "him" when referring to said tranny?  Could you be fined for doing that?

"OH NO, citizen!  That could NEVER happen!"

Except it already has.  And yes, right here in the U.S, in "regulations" and "ordinances" in shit-hole cities like NYC, and "prog" states like Colorado.  You can be fined into bankruptcy.

"Free speech?  Oh, of course, citizen!  We're all for "free speech."  But your speech is NOT free speech.  It's "hate speech," which is banned.  Says so right there in the Constitution."

That's bullshit, of course.  But the courts haven't overturned a single one of these regs or city ordinances.  Hmmm.....

The actual changes the Dems propose to the Civil Rights Act clearly show what's up here.  Here's one example of about 100:
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity),” before “or national origin”;
This exact language is repeated another 100 times, under sections like "Public Accommodation" and "De-segregation of Education."  The real beneficiaries of this act are transgenders.  Well, and plaintiffs' attorneys, who stand to make additional millions from claiming violations.

Oh, and way, WAY down in the so-called Equality Act is this little bomb:
“SEC. 1107. Claims.
“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 provided that ordinary people working in certain fields--like baking custom cakes--couldn't be forced to do things that violated their sincerely-held religious convictions.  This act has been used many times to defend against claims by gays that some baker violated their rights by declining to bake a custom-decorated wedding cake for their gay marriage.

Well guess what, citizen.  The Democrats just repealed RFRA--but without saying so. 

"Come now, citizen: We Democrats would NEVER try to repeal RFRA!  Cuz we really, really support religious freedom.  All we did here was simply insert a provision into our new Equality Act that will prevent deplorable, bigoted haters from using RFRA as a defense against a claim of discrimination under this faaabulous new Equality Act."

What does it tell you that the cunning authors buried this total gutting of the Religious Freedom Restoration act in the 200th paragraph of their cunning "Equality Act"?

==
The Democrat authors of the "Equality Act" cite three cases in which the federal Equal Opportunity Employment Commission--long ruled by left-wing Democrat appointees--ruled that "gender identity" is entitled to specially protected status.  Except that's not what the EEOC did.  But what that corrupt cesspool DID do is instructive:
In Baldwin v. Foxx, a federal sector employee alleged he did not receive a promotion because he was gay, and that that violated Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination. 
The EEOC allowed the employee to move forward with his claim, ruling that “sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex.” 
To reach this conclusion the EEOC declared that sexual orientation discrimination “is premised on sex-based preferences.  ‘Sexual orientation’... cannot be defined or understood without reference to sex.”
This is too, too precious!  The "progressive" totalitarians at the EEOC ruled that because "sexual orientation cannot be defined...without reference to sex," then any action based on "sexual orientation" was ipso facto illegal...because discrimination on the basis of SEX was illegal!

How's that for great legal reasoning, eh?
For those reasons, and despite [sexual orientation] NOT being explicitly listed as a protected class in Title VII, the EEOC nevertheless ruled that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII because “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ so a claim of discrimination because of sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.”  According to the EEOC, a “complainant alleging that an agency took his or her sexual orientation into account in an employment action necessarily alleges that the agency took his or her sex into account.”  The EEOC also held that sexual orientation discrimination is unlawful because it is associational discrimination based on sex, and because it “necessarily involves discrimination based on gender stereotypes.”
Because the EEOC’s holding purportedly is based on the extension of an existing protected class under Title VII, rather than the creation of a new covered class of individuals, Congressional action is not required to implement this decision.  Following this decision, there will likely be an increase in the number of charges of discrimination based on sexual orientation filed with the EEOC.
See how neatly they did that?  Define "sexual orientation" as a protected class "because" being homosexual is related to the word "sex," and sex discrimination is already barred by Title bullshit of the Civil Rights Act.  Too clever.

In "Lusardi v. McHugh" a male civilian Army employee decided he was female, and demanded the right to use female restrooms.  Army supervisors declined.  The guy sued, and the EEOC forced the Army to let the man use female restrooms.  So everything the Dems want in this bill is already being done-- but the outrageous mandates are being imposed by a Democrat-ruled agency.  The Dems want the demands to be imposed by federal law.  Which is the entire, exact purpose for the so-called "Equality Act."

Go read the bill.  See for yourself that the real thrust is adding trannies to the list of specially-protected groups.

T-shirt nails it


Absolutely.

March 21, 2019

Every top Democrat presidential candidate agrees that presidents should be elected by the winner of the national popular vote--and without having to amend the Constitution!

You may not have heard this but virtually all the leading Democrat presidential candidates have signed on to the idea of abolishing the Electoral College system of electing presidents.

If you know anything about the Constitution you may know that that document specifies virtually every detail of how the Electoral College system is to operate, and that it "shall be" the method used to elect the president.  So you probably think scrapping the EC would require amending the Constitution--something that's very hard to do.

So the cunning Democrat leadership has come up with a scheme to scrap the EC system without amending the Constitution.  It's called the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact."  If you're not familiar with the scheme I've posted extensively about it here, here, here and here.

The top Democrat presidential candidates have signed on to show their Dem base that they're totally cool with this total violation of the Constitution.  For example, Eliz Warren appeared on a CNN "town hall" (actually a Democrat pep-rally) to say she believed presidents should be elected by the winner of the national popular vote.

In an unintended, ironic lie, Warren said she supported this because "every person's vote should count."  This is a flat lie, because the Compact would require that member states would cast their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote EVEN IF A MAJORITY OF VOTERS IN THEIR STATE VOTED FOR THE OTHER PARTY!

So Warren claims electing presidents by the winner of the national popular vote ensures that every person's vote counts?  Well, except for the majority of voters in states that voted for the other party.  Her claim--and that of all supporters of this rape of the Constitution--is a brazen lie!

Because Dems have a tiny, trivial concern that abolishing the Electoral College may not be all that popular with residents of the small states, their allies at CNN ramped up their spin machine to show that pushing for scrapping the Electoral College and electing presidents by the winner of the national popular vote is something as healthy and normal as sunshine!

CNN did this by mentioning the number of times in the past when this idea was proposed--while obviously not mentioning that it never passed.  And there's a reason.  CNN's talking head also falsely quoted Constitutional drafter James Madison to imply that Madison thought the EC was "maximum evil."  This is utter crap, but just what we've come to expect from Fake News.
 To summarize:
  • The Electoral College system is specified in the Constitution.  
  • There's a way to change the Constitution--by amending it.  
  • Democrat leaders doubt they can get enough states to ratify an amendment to elect presidents by the winner of the national popular vote.
  • So they have proposed a way to scrap the EC without having to amend the Constitution.
What does this tell you about the leaders of the Democrat party?  Would an honest party that wanted to scrap an explicit, key provision of the Constitution even think about devising a cunning scheme that they claim allows them to change the Constitution without going through the well-known and specified process of trying to amend it?

Who's lying about "global warming"? (Oh wait--now they're saying it's "climate change")

In science, if you think you have a valid theory about something, you publish an article containing every item you claim proves your theory.  All of it.  Other experts then examine your alleged proofs.  If you've pulled a fast one, they'll call you on it.

BY CONTRAST, if someone has a theory they can't prove, the option is to bluster and bully, trying to build a contrived "consensus" by intimidation and coercion.  They claim "The debate is over--the science is settled" when this is actually a brazen lie.

They try to maintain their deception by demonizing anyone who disagrees, calling them "climate deniers."  They try to block or cut off funding of research proposed by those who disagree.  They even try to get those of opposing views fired. 

You might ask yourself:  Is this how honest scientists would behave?  Or is this how lying thugs behave?  When someone has a sound theory, does he or she need to engage in thug behavior?

The answer is self-evident, and tells you everything you need to know about "global warming" "climate change caused by CO2 caused by human activity (caused by Americans)." 

March 18, 2019

Who was Seth Rich, who killed him, and why do the media claim he was killed in a robbery where nothing was taken?

If you're a college-age American you almost certainly don't pay much attention to politics.  I'm not throwing rocks here--I didn't either when I was in college. We all had/have too many demands on our time.  But I digress...
You probably think the FBI, DOJ and the media are all reasonably honest and competent, and would never conspire to cover up a serious crime-- like the murder of a.27-year-old staffer for the Democrat National Committee.
The victim was Seth Rich, who was an information tech for the DNC.  He was killed at 4:30 a.m. on July 12th, 2016, in Washington DC in what the cops absurdly said was a "botched robbery." 
Except the so-called [bullshit] "robbers" didn't take his billfold, watch, cell phone or gold chain jewelry.  Also, strong-arm street thugs don't usually shoot a victim, since it vastly increases the risk of conviction and jail. 
So the murder made no sense.
But...about two weeks earlier someone had downloaded 2 gigabytes of damning emails from the DNC server.  The emails clearly showed top officials of the Democrat National Committee conspiring to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders, who was the only challenger to Hilliary Clinton for the party's nomination.
The emails were given to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who began releasing them on Wikileaks' website.
Interestingly, the chairman of Hilliary's campaign--John Podesta--was also a top official at the DNC.  And most of the emails published by Wiki, showing collusion to throw the nomination to Hilliary, were either sent by Podesta, or to him, or copied to him.
The DNC immediately claimed "the Russians" had hacked into their server and copied the emails.  But strangely, when the FBI offered to examine the server to confirm the claim, the DNC refused. This alone should have cast huge doubt on this Narrative.  But of course the mainstream media never asked the top DNC people why they refused the FBI's offer, or for their evidence of a hack.  Instead, every mainstream media outlet continued to echo the Narrative that the server was "hacked by Russians."
Independent researchers were skeptical.
When Wikileaks published the contents of the DNC emails, several analysts examined the metadata on those files--things like start and stop times, relaying nodes and so on.  That metadata established with great precision that on the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server in 87 seconds.
Simple division shows that's a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.
In 2016 no Internet service provider was even remotely capable of downloading data at that speed. 
These statistics are matters of record, and utterly disprove the Narrative that the copied emails were the result of Russians hacking the DNC server.
To summarize:  Someone with direct physical access to the DNC server downloaded the emails.  But the DNC and most of the Lying Mainstream Media continue to this day to insist that the emails showing corruption in the DNC were hacked by Russians, working for Trump.

After the information above was published by "The Nation," the Democratic National Committee wrote The Nation: “U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government hacked the DNC in an attempt to interfere in the election. Any suggestion otherwise is false and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration. It’s unfortunate that The Nation has decided to join the conspiracy theorists to push this narrative.”

The media also claim Seth Rich was just an unlucky victim of a "botched robbery." 

The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has said he didn't get the emails from Russian sources, but hasn't said how Wikileaks did get 'em.  But he seems to have inadvertently confirmed that the source was DNC computer tech Seth Rich:

In the interview with a Dutch television station, WikiLeaks’ founder Assange said this:
Assange: “Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, often very significant risks. There’s a 27-year-old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered, just two weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington. So…

Anchor: “That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn’t it?”

Assange: “No, there’s no finding. So, ah – “

Anchor: “What are you suggesting?”

Assange: “I am suggesting that our sources, ah, take risks and they, they become concerned to see things occurring like that.”

Anchor: “But was he one of your sources ?”

Assange: “We don’t comment on who our sources are.”

Anchor: “But why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?”

Assange: “Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States. Our sources, ah, our sources face serious risks, that’s why they come to us so we can protect, ah, their anonymity.”

Anchor: “But it’s quite something to suggest a murder. That’s basically what you are doing.”
Interestingly, Assange had offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the identification of Rich's killers.  If Rich hadn't been his source there's no reason for Assange to have had any interest in the murder.

It gets lots more interesting.  Within hours of the death the FBI had seized Rich's laptop from his apartment.  Why?  If the murder was simply a botched robbery, the laptop couldn't possibly have contained any information on the murder.  Yet the FBI seized it.

More interesting:  Even vaunted federal agents can't seize private property without a warrant--and any such warrant would have had to specify the reason the FBI was asking to seize the laptop, and the relevance to the murder.   It would be fascinating to know a) if a warrant was indeed issued; b) the name of the judge who allegedly issued it; c) the reason or reasons stated on the alleged warrant for seizing the private, unrelated property of a murder victim.

If Rich's murder was the result of a botched robbery--the Narrative relentlessly pushed by the media, DC cops and the DNC--none of this makes sense.

But if someone at the DNC suspected Rich had downloaded their emails--emails the DNC knew would incriminate them utterly--it was a good bet he would have copied them to his laptop.  If the DNC had told one of their friends in the FBI, that utterly corrupt agency could have seized the laptop to get rid of evidence that would have destroyed the Narrative that "the Russians hacked us, at the urging of Trump!"

One more twist:  Since the FBI normally wouldn't be involved in the murder of a non-federal employee, any seizure should have been done by the DC cops.  And sure enough, the FBI says they gave the laptop to the DC cops (after making an "image" of the disk).

The laptop is missing.  DC cops say they don't know where it is.

Yeah, da coincidences just keep on coming, eh?

Oh, and I love this one:  Recently a left-wing website claimed the DNC had nothing to do with Rich's murder.  But of course the only way to know that was if the killers had been found, and just happened to volunteer to investigators why they killed him in that so-called "botched robbery."

So every part of the Lying Mainstream Media continues to support the bullshit Narrative. 

And 95% of the uninformed, uninterested, gullible American public believes it.  Cuz the media keep tellin' 'em it's true.

March 17, 2019

The media uncovers a sick, twisted piece of writing proving Trump is unfit to hold office. Wait...

The wonderful investigators of the Mainstream Media have uncovered a piece of writing that proves beyond doubt that Trump is unfit to be president!  At the age of 15 the future presidential candidate wrote the following:
“One day as I was driving home from work, I noticed two children crossing the street. They were happy, happy to be free from their troubles…. This happiness was mine by right. I had earned it in my dreams.
“As I neared the young ones I put all my weight on my right foot, keeping the accelerator pedal on the floor until I heard the crashing of the two children on the hood, and then the sharp cry of pain from one of the two.  I was so fascinated for a moment, that when after I had stopped my vehicle, I just sat in a daze, sweet visions filling my head.
"Sweet visions filling my head" ??  That's SO sick!  See?  See?  We told you this guy was emotionally disturbed!  We told you he was crazy!  So do you believe us now?  Huh?

Wait...what?  Ya say that bit of creative writing was NOT written by OrangeManBad, but by...

No!  I don't believe it!  There must be some mistake!  This murderous fantasy could not possibly have been written by the dashing, Kennedy-esque Democrat presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke!  I simply refuse to believe it!  Cuz, he skateboards, fer cryin' out loud!  He's cool, not like that insane rich guy who colluded with his Russian friends to steal the election from our rightful queen, Hillary!

Okay, enough sarc.  How do you think the mainstream media would have reacted if any Republican had written the above "fantasy"?  Every talking-head would be screaming that whoever wrote it was clearly, obviously unfit to be president.  And you know it.

But Beto?  Don't worry, citizen:  The media will ignore this, or claim it's a hack, or invent some other reason to claim it's totally insignificant.  Cuz...well...

(If you're skeptical, click here.  "Cult of the Dead Cow" was O'Rourke's hacker group.) 

O'Rourke confirms authorship here.

Venezuela's misery continues; no mention that socialism had any role in causing it

A week after Venezuela's national electrical system failed, most of that country is still without electricity.  But don't worry, citizen:  That could never happen here!

Now the water system in that nation's capital has failed, people are drinking from sewers, patients are dying in hospitals, gasoline can't be pumped from underground tanks, food is rotting because refrigerators don't work.  Looting is spreading.  One Venezuelan described it like this:
This is what losing a war must feel like. Aren’t they going to help us with water? With food? How much longer until people start dropping dead in the streets?  I have to walk 17 km to get home.  When I get there I won’t have food or water.  I don’t even know if my family will be there. If they are, I won’t be able to feed them.  And if they aren’t there I won’t know how to find them.”
But don't worry, citizen: That could never happen here.
To the extent that the average American voter knows anything at all about the disaster in Venezuela, most probably  think "No surprise: third-world country, poverty, rickety systems. That couldn't possibly happen here."  I doubt more than one percent of Americans know that before Venezuela elected a socialist as president, it had the highest per-capita income in all of South America.  The people of that hapless nation never imagined their country could possibly disintegrate so quickly.  

And yet...it did.

Depending on which poll you believe, it's possible that about half of Americans believe Socialism is good!  All the cool elites say so.  They couldn't be wrong, cuz they're so...elite!  So it's fine if we vote for a socialist for president here, because what happened to Venezuela couldn't possibly happen here! 
Of course most Americans know literally nothing about the realities of socialism, so when they're assured by the Lying Media elites, and pols like Kamala and Fauxcahontas Warren and Cory Booker and AOC that socialism is faaabulous, half of U.S. voters will cheerfully vote for socialism here--i.e. for the Democrats. 

After the astonishingly dumb Dem congresscritter and mainstream-media darling  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said "we must overhaul America's 'garbage' status quo, which is enslaved to 'irredeemable' capitalism," not a single member of the mainstream media printed a critical word.
The socialist mayor of NYC, Bill de Blasio tweeted recently: "Brothers and sisters, there is plenty of money in this country. There is plenty of money in this world.  It’s just in the wrong hands.
The Lying Media is already covering for the progressive/socialist (i.e. Democrat) pols running for president, by avoiding any mention of the key role of socialist rule in causing disasters like the crisis in Venezuela.  I predict that very soon left-ruled organizations like Wiki will scrub their pieces on Venezuela of any mention of "socialism."  If Wiki even bothers to note the ghastly misery in Venezuela, they'll imply it's due to poverty, or too little rain, or Yankee imperialism--anything except the real cause: socialist rule.  The "elites" at Wiki will praise Hugo Chavez as a "heroic reformer" who was undermined by sinister "anti-socialist forces."
 
Similarly, Dem politicians pushing socialism for the U.S. will studiously avoid linking the misery in Venezuela to socialism.  Instead they'll blame that country's woes on Trump, or global warming, or the CIA, or U.S. oil companies.  We'll hear endless demands that the U.S. join other countries in promoting Venezuelan efforts to "achieve constructive dialogue and democratic solutions to the current political crisis."
Translation: "We demand that the U.S. give the heroic, struggling Venezuelan government billions of dollars to help them end the suffering of ordinary Venezuelans.  But note well, citizen: that suffering has nothing whatsoever to do with electing a socialist regime."

Labels: ,

March 16, 2019

Every Media outlet echoes Democrat talking-points: "The walls are closing in on Trump!!"

Every day Democrat strategists send the talking heads of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and the rest of the lying Mainstream Media "talking points" that the media uses for the next few days.  It's brilliant because it means virtually everyone in the country hears the talking points several times.

Hearing the claims on more than one network--sometimes on three or more--leads viewers to believe the talking points must be true, since viewers believe each of the talking heads reached the same conclusion independently.  Viewers don't realize that the talking points are actually carefully-scripted propaganda. And since almost no one watches more than one network "news" show at once, Americans don't realize that every talking head is spouting exactly the same phrases--talking points.

It works because the media is solidly pro-liberal, pro-Dem and hates Trump, conservatives, Constitutionalists, gun owners, Christians and virtually everyone in flyover country.

Thanks to the fairly recent ability of ordinary folks to capture and edit video, you can see how they do it.  And it's an eye-opener.  See for yourself:

Videos of illegal invaders crossing? Nah, must be "fake news" staged by Trump supporters

Another website posted three vids of illegals invading the U.S. across our southern border.  In the first vid, 52 cut through chain-link fencing in the middle of the day, in full view of a border patrol agent.  On getting thru the barrier they didn't surrender and ask for asylum but sprinted north.

Took border agents two hours to round them all up.  At which time they all asked for asylum.  Which they all know corrupt federal judges have ruled will let them remain in the U.S. indefinitely, until their cases are processed.  

As an indication of how little regard the illegals have for being caught, they video'ed their own invasion.

Embedded video

Border agents report that in El Paso alone, 700 illegals came across in a single day.  But don't worry, citizen, because there is no crisis at the border.

Repeat after me, citizen:  There is NO crisis at the border.  It's a fabrication by Trump supporters.  And all those people in the videos?  They're all Trump supporters, hired by GOP operatives to look like invaders.  See? 

You're instructed to ignore these videos, citizen.  We at CNN and Google will tell you which videos are "authentic" and which you are to ignore.  Remember, if it isn't from one of our Trusted Providers, you can't believe it.

March 14, 2019

Democrat heart-throb announces his candidacy--with a cover story from Vanity Fair; media swoons

Today will be remembered as "The Day the Seas Stopped Rising." The Day the Planet Began to Heal. 

Wait...both those declarations were made by Emperor Obama after he convinced 52% of Americans to drink his "cool kids" Kool-Ade of socialism, racism and free stuff for voters.

Okay, maybe Demcrats can't use those exact claims again, but surely the Earth shifted in orbit this morning, as the new darling of the Democrat party announced xer candidacy for president.

Wait, you say the new darling of the Dems is actually Alexandria Oddball Communist, and she hasn't announced?

Okay, you're right.  But this morning Beto O’Rourke officially announced his candidacy.  And everyone in the Lying Mainstream Media swooned!

Want proof?  Well by amazing coincidence, just a day before O’Rourke declared his candidacy he was the subject of a fawning 8,600-word love letter published by Vanity Fair.

Isn't that an absolutely amazing coincidence?  I mean, what were the odds?

Oh, and you'll be equally amazed that...he got the cover too!  And what a faaabulous cover pic it was, too.  All the beta girly-men in New York and DC were absolutley swooning over the pic.  Many liberal pundits have claimed he has an uncanny resemblance to Bobby Kennedy.






The fawning piece was written by Joe Hagan, who also wrote a similar profile slobbering on an earlier Democrat presidential candidate: John Edwards.  Hard to recall how Edwards turned out but it would appear Hagan has an excellent eye for presidential material, eh?

Pay particular attention to the composition of the cover pic (choreographed by experts and shot by famed photog Annie Liebovitz):  Authentic west Texas gravel road.  Solid, authentic, black Texas dog (not a poodle or wussy chihuahua) and a solid, authentic pickup truck.

I mean, you can't get any more authentic or masculine than that, eh citizen?  This guy just ooozes authenticity. 

I mean, doesn't every authentic, salt-of-the-earth, defender-of-the-ordinary-guy Dem presidential candidates launch his campaign with an 8,000 word cover story in Vanity Fair?

Of course they do, dahling.

March 12, 2019

The 2020 election will be socialism vs. capitalism

The biggest long-term threat to this nation is that polls show increasing numbers of America's young people--on the coasts it's over half--say they prefer socialism over capitalism.
Of course the respondents don't have the slightest idea of what socialism really is.  But that doesn't matter at all: They like it for two big reasons: First, it promises they can have everything they want without working; and because all their lives they've been taught how wonderfully fair it is.

Fairness is great, but American youth have been taught to value it over almost every other goal.

And of course how can anyone be against "fairness," eh?  I mean, what's more fair than "equal opportunity"?   Problem is, young Americans have been taught that "fair" requires equality of outcome. 

Worse, they've been taught by endless hours of movies, television and their school teachers that the most "fair" system--the one that will give equality of outcome--is... socialism.

The next election--and all others for the rest of our lifetimes--will offer America a choice between socialism and freedom/capitalism.
 
In fairness to young Americans, even most so-called adults have no real idea of what socialism does, and thus most have adopted a rosy view of socialism pushed by the liberal/progressive media.  Most believe businesses are bad, run by megalomaniacs who would cheerfully, literally destroy the planet for a ten percent bump in profits.

Most Americans need to be re-educated.  Unfortunately, that takes years, and we don't have that luxury.  People need to understand basic economics, and history, and psychology, and propaganda techniques, to know when they're being played.

The average college student has no idea who Mao is, or Lenin, or Stalin, or Pol Pot.  If you were to try telling them of the hundreds of millions of people killed by those four alone, you'd get a blank stare.  They really have no idea.  Because no one has ever taught them.

There's a reason most high school history stops at WW2 (sometimes a lot earlier).

But hey--socialism, baby!  It's just faaabulous!  Ask Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Cory Booker, Eric Swalwell, Richard Blumenthal, Adam Schiff, Barack Obama, Bob Menendez or a host of other leading figures in the Dem party.

Caracas water supply fails; no mainstream media mentions "socialism" as the main cause


Socialism!  It's what all the Democrat presidential candidates are pushing, and the new media darlings AOC, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.  So it must be a faaabulous system, right?  Way better than free markets and capitalism.  Cuz if it wasn't, why would they be pushing it so hard, eh?

So how is socialism working for Venezuela?

In socialist-ruled Venezuela, the collapse of that nation's power grid four days ago has caused the water supply system in the capital city to fail.  Residents have been reduced to scooping water from a dirty river and broken pipes.

Residents of San Agustin taking water from a a drainage pipe in the Guaire river west of Caracas on March 11.

But don't worry,citizen:  Socialist president Nicholas Maduro and his aides have everything under control.  They know all they have to do to bring the U.S. mainstream media--and the world's media giants--to their side is to...blame it all on Trump and the U.S.

Think I'm kidding?  Maduro actually did blame Trump for sabotaging the electrical system.  It's just a matter of time before the socialists blame Trump for the collapse of the water system too.

Caracas Goes Thirsty as Power Crisis Shuts Down Water Plants

Socialism, baby!  All the cool kids think it's just faaabulous!  And you DO wanna be one of the cool kids, right?  So when AOC and Bernie and Kamala and Corey Booker and Beto offer to give you "free" college and "free" money and "free" health care and "free"...anything, be sure and send them your money so they can defeat the eeeevil OrangeManBad, and make the U.S. a socialist paradise!

March 09, 2019

Olympic committee says it will allow men posing as female to compete against biological women

From Ace of Spades (edited, but RTWT):
A woman I know--a Hillary Clinton SuperFan--doesn't believe that any athletic organization allows trans "women" to compete with biological women in sports. She believes this because the channels she watches for news -- CNN, MSNBC, the networks, never Fox -- never report this.
Because they don't want her--or you--to know how completely this country has gone nuts.
She thinks the claim of men competing against women is a "Fake Fox News story."
She also thought tales about a gang called MS-13 was a total fabrication by "Fake FoxNews"--until MS-13 members murdered a victim near her.  That story wasn't covered by the mainstream press but by local news (which can't ignore local murders).
After that, she considered MS-13 as something that may have technically existed but which was probably greatly exaggerated by FoxNews.  In other words, if CNN and MSNBC didn't report it, it didn't happen.
Anyway, thanks to the IOC's decision, millions of stalwart Democrats (not all of whom are extreme Social Justice Warriors--will find out that sure enough, the IOC is allowing men to compete with women in "women's" sports.
So in July of next year--a couple of months before the 2020 elections--America will get to watch men pretending to be female almost certainly beating biological women in judo or track or whatever.
Of course most networks will studiously avoid saying that a competitor is a tranny, since that cuts agains the Dem narrative and would risk a negative response by viewers/voters.
At that point many Americans will begin to consider whether they agree with Dems that this is a reasonable situation, and one they imagined for their daughters.
How long before the U.S. fields a full team of six-foot men competing in womens' volleyball?

Ratings gold, baby!

I can't wait for the media to ask every single Democrat Presidential Candidate about this during the debates.

Oh, wait....

H/T  Ace

Why I'm voting Democrat in 2020

The 2020 presidential campaign has already started.  And I’m voting for  the Democrat.

I'm also gonna vote for all Dem candidates for senator and representative, because they have the best ideas.  Here's the list of reasons:

First is the Green New Deal:  As the NY Times and CNN assure us, "The science is settled" that the planet is getting scary-hot, and it's caused by CO2, which is produced mainly by stupid Americans driving SUV's.  They say 97% of all scientists agree with that, and that anyone who doesn't is a "climate denier."  I agree with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that the government needs to ban gasoline-fueled cars.  And air travel.  To go from one coast to the other we need "high-speed rail," like the smart people in California are building.

Of course the proposed law wouldn't ban all air travel.  No one would expect important politicians like Nancy Pelosi or Alexandria to spend their valuable time crossing the country that way, or going to important conferences overseas.  And of course Hollywood stars would still be allowed to charter jets to fly to Paris and Cannes to get important awards.  Because that's only fair, citizen.

The Dems' Green New Deal also wants to ban coal, and I totally support that.  Someone claimed that about half our electricity is produced from coal-fired plants, but I don't think that could possibly be true.  I thought the NY Times said most of our electricity comes from wind generators and solar panels, so we only need to increase this a little bit to get completely free of CO2-producing, planet-killing fossil fuels.

Rethuglicans don't even believe America is responsible for Global Warming. How stupid is that?

I agree with the Democratic leaders that the government would do a better job of spending my money than I would.   I agree that it's good for the government to "spread the wealth around."  In face, everyone I know agrees with this. 

I’m voting Democrat because I believe businesses shouldn't be allowed to keep any profit they might make. Only greedy people want to make a profit.  The government should seize all profits and redistribute them to the poor. (See "Spreading the Wealth" above.)

I’m voting Democrat because we need more regulations and higher taxes on businesses.  And if companies react by setting up factories overseas, we should levy a huge tariff when they try to import their products to the U.S. 

I'm voting Democrat because that awful Orange Man cut taxes for most Americans.  This is bad because our government needs more tax revenue, not less.   We actually need to raise taxes--say, to 70% for the rich!   Everyone I know loves this plan!

I’m voting Democrat because Democrats support the idea that every person in this country--including "temporarily undocumented Americans--is entitled to free health care.  Rethuglicans oppose this because they're being paid by huge health-care cartels.  Also, they claim it won't really be free, because the govt will have to pay for it with taxes, but that's silly:  if the government gives me health care at no cost to me, it's free.  (At least free to me.)

The result will be lots better than the unfair system we have now, under which poor people and immigrants can only get free medical care by going to the Emergency Room.

Of course this might require that the government set the amount doctors and hospitals can charge for services, but that seems quite reasonable.  I mean, why shouldn't doctors, nurses, drug companies, etc. work for whatever salary the government decides they should get?  If they don't like that, they should find another job.

I’m voting Democrat because Dems support product-liability lawyers--the nice people who are willing to file lawsuits on behalf of those injured by products.. I think it's just *awful* that ordinary people are injured every day by using products made by giant corporations that don't care if their products are unsafe.  Of course the companies try to squirm out of paying just because an injured person didn't read some silly warnings in the instructions.  Get real!  In this day and age, who bothers reading stuff like that?

I’m voting Democrat because I agree with Democrats that 9/11 was planned by George Bush to trick the American people into supporting his invasion of Iraq--a country that was never a threat us in any way.  All my friends agree that the *real* reason Bush invaded Iraq was to steal their oil.

I’m voting Democrat because I want to preserve the Social Security system. Democrat leaders say it's financially sound, and that rumors that the system is about out of money are just scare stories being pushed by Rethuglicans. I mean, how could that be true?  Dem leaders have assured us that the government puts our Social Security contributions in a 'lock-box' so the money will be there when we retire.  They wouldn't lie about something so important, right?

I’m voting Democrat because they want sensible gun control.  All my friends agree that the U.S. would be a far better place if we could get rid of guns.  The crazy Rethuglicans claim this won't reduce crime because people determined to break the law won't surrender their guns, but that's just silly.  After all, Americans obey laws.

I’m voting Democrat because Democrats support amnesty for undocumented residents and "mis-directed foreign travellers." ("Illegal aliens" is such a judgmental term!). Democrats believe undocumented residents deserve all the rights that the rest of us enjoy--free housing, schooling, food stamps, free medical care and the right to vote.   It's only fair.  And we Democrats are really big on fairness.

Oh, and I believe once someone is here from another country they should have the right to bring in as many of their family members as they like, because not letting them do that would be separating families--which is horribly cruel!

I'm voting Democrat because Democrats oppose racist laws like having to show a photo ID to vote.  Everyone knows that the only reason Rethuglicans want these laws is to keep minorities and undocumented citizens from voting.

I’m voting Democrat because Democrats believe that every person in this country--whether a citizen or an "undocumented resident"--deserves a fair share of our country's wealth.  The only people who object to spreading the wealth are the rich.  Except Hollywood stars, who routinely pay way more in taxes than the law requires because they care so much. 

I’m voting Democrat because Dems realize that we don't have any business having troops anywhere in the Middle East.  After we leave those countries the people there won't be mad at us any longer, and we can all live in peace and harmony.  After all, people say the only reason 9-11 happened was in retaliation for the U.S. invading Iraq.  No wonder they were mad at us!

I’m voting Democrat because Democrats understand that freedom of speech is NOT an absolute right.  Conservatives shouldn't be allowed to say things--either on campus on on the air--that hurt peoples' feelings.  That's just wrong.  How could anyone think we could all get along if people were allowed to say anything they wanted?  Conservatives say this is something written in the Constitution, but that's not true:  The Constitution just says Congress can't make a law infringing on free speech.  Doesn't say a campus or Facebook or Twitter can't ban "hate speech."  And Dems are the only people qualified to say what qualifies as "hate speech." 

In fact Canada even has a special court just to prosecute people who are charged with saying something that offends others.  I think we need that kind of system here.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe oil companies should be nationalized--taken over by the government.  After all, doesn't the oil under America really belong to all Americans?  And there's no doubt that this will reduce the price of gasoline.

The only people who should be allowed to keep profits are Hollywood stars and entertainers.

I’m voting Democrat because Democrats believe we need to end our dependence on foreign oil, and only the Democrats have a sound plan to do that.  They want to make ethanol from corn, and use solar panels to get hydrogen out of plain water! That *so* cool--and totally non-polluting. And it would only take two or three years to implement if the Republicans would just stop obstructing Democratic legislation.  Of course I'm not a tech person so I don't know all the details (I'm a "big picture" guy) but my brother knows this guy who says it's a slam-dunk.

The stupid Rethuglicans think we can solve our problems by *drilling* for oil. What a dumb idea! 

Oh wait...someone just said the U.S. is now a net exporter of oil?  But that can't possibly be true!  Must be yet another Republican lie!  Cuz President Obama (pbuh) said it was simply not possible to "drill our way to energy independence."  I'll check this out and report on the source of the seeming lie about the U.S. no longer being a net importer of foreign oil--cuz it just seems un-possible.

But it really doesn't matter, cuz oil is *so* last-decade.  We're much more advanced than that.

I'm voting Democrat because Democrats oppose Rethuglican attempts to increase offshore drilling, and to drill in the Artic Wildlife Reserve. Everyone knows drilling for oil is incredibly messy, so there's no doubt that drilling in either the Arctic or offshore would increase pollution. Also, Democrats know that drilling in either area won't produce any oil for at least ten years--so how can that possibly help solve energy problems?

And even if they managed to produce some oil from either place, it wouldn't reduce high gas prices at the pump. I mean, everyone knows gas prices are set by the oil companies. I don't know why the stupid Rethuglicans believe oil prices have anything to do with weird notions like "supply and demand." The Democrats need to pass a law that lets Congress set the price of oil, instead of the oil companies.

A fake conservative "reluctantly" converts to supporting one of the main Dem proposals--NYT

For years, David Brooks pretended to be conservative. 

It was a lie from the get-go, but it made his fortune.  And now he's written an article for the NY Times supporting the idea of "reparations"--the idea of paying descendants of slaves huge sums because slavery was the collective fault of all whites living today, eh?
The Case for Reparations A slow convert to the cause.
By David Brooks
...
[S]in travels down society through the centuries. Lincoln was saying that sometimes the costs of repairing sin have to be borne generations after the sin was first committed.
Really, David?  Somehow I don't recall Lincoln saying that.

Say, you don't suppose you just made that up, do ya?  I mean, it's absolutely un-possible that an America-hating progressive would just make up a quote from a revered historical figure to try to justify a pet progressive policy, right?  So...well, it just boggles the mind that anyone would do that.  So surely you...well, let's go to the tape, shall we?  Here's the Lincoln quote Brooks cites as saying "the costs of repairing sin have to be borne generations after the sin was committed."

The sentence is from Abraham Lincoln’s second Inaugural Address.
“Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’”
Um...am I the only person who didn't see this as saying what Brooks says it said?

Slavery and the continuing pattern of discrimination aren’t only an attempt to steal labor; they are an attempt to cover over a person's soul, a whole people's soul.
That injury shows up today as geographic segregation, the gigantic wealth gap, the lack of a financial safety net...
"The lack of a financial safety net"?  I thought we had Social Security and welfare.  Oh wait, what he really means is that different groups have vastly different average incomes.  Just like poor whites who drop out of high school have low incomes?  Why yes, that's right.  So...racism, eh?

And about your claim of "geographic segregation:"  Unless I've been misinformed, groups tend to live with people of the same tribe:  Chinatown, Little Italy, Germantown, Little Mogadishu ring a bell?  Was that racial discrimination, or did they live with others because they felt more comfortable?

Sorta' like you and the other millionaires living in gated communities, eh?
...but also the lack of the psychological and moral safety net that comes when society has a history of affirming: You belong. You are us. You are equal.
If you thought what Brooks cited as "the lack of a financial safety net" was WAY vague and open-ended (i.e. no natural limit on how far it could be stretched), he's just getting warmed up:  How far do you think progs will be able to stretch charges of a lack of a " psychological and moral safety net that comes when society has a history of affirming: You belong. You are us. You are equal."
Nearly five years ago I read Ta-Nehisi Coates’s Atlantic article "The Case for Reparations," with mild disagreement. All sorts of practical objections leapt to mind. What about the recent African immigrants? What about the poor whites who have nothing of what you would call privilege? Do we pay Oprah and LeBron?
Great questions, David.  Should recent African immigrants qualify for reparations, since as recent arrivals they were never slaves?  I suspect that demand would strike most Americans as sorta' unreasonable, eh?  (Although with prog schemes ANYTHING can be stretched to any result they desire.)  But if it's unreasonable to give reparations to recent arrivals, doesn't that same argument apply third-generation descendants of slaves?  Just asking.
But I have had so many experiences over the past year -- sitting, for example, with an elderly black woman in South Carolina shaking in rage because the kids in her neighborhood face greater challenges than she did growing up in 1953 -- that suggest we are at another moment of make-or-break racial reckoning.
"Face greater challenges than she did growing up in 1953."  News flash, David:  When your community makes multi-millionaires of people whose "entertainment" elevates drug sellers and people who shoot cops--and whose members refuse to help law enforcement find killers and drug dealers--most of those "challenges" are self-inflicted.
Coates's essay seems right now, especially this part: "And so we must imagine a new country. Reparations -- by which I mean the full acceptance of our collective biography...
"Full acceptance of our collective biography"?  What are you really trying to say there?  I suspect you meant "collective guilt."  But of course that concept has been totally, thoroughly discredited.  It's the kind of rationale the Nazi's used to execute innocent French villagers when members of the French resistance blew up a German train in WW2.  We condemed that bullshit rationale back then, but you've just sought to resurrect it today--but cunningly, calling it by a cryptic name.  Clever, David.

Here's more from Coates, quoted approvingly by Brooks:
...and its consequences -- is the price we must pay to see ourselves squarely.... What I'm talking about is more than recompense for past injustices -- more than a handout, a payoff, hush money, or a reluctant bribe. What I'm talking about is a national reckoning that would lead to spiritual renewal."
...
The need now is to consolidate all the different narratives and make them reconciliation and possibility narratives, in which all feel known.
Ace of Spades summarized Brooks' article essentially like this:
Lotta glittering generalities about making people "feel known."  And invoking the discredited theory of collective guilt.  So, really solid reasoning.
This is like someone who says "This isn't about the money, it's about healing our collective souls."  And then the guy says, "Just kidding!  It's about the money, but I figured if I came at you with this heal-our-collective-souls bullshit maybe you wouldn't notice I'm in your pockets again."
David Brooks: fake conservative.  For his entire career.

H/T Ace of Spades.

March 08, 2019

Democrats have scheme to kill the Electoral College system without trying to amend the Constitution

If you graduated from high school before about 1980 you may have heard about an old piece document called the Constitution, which the Founders once declared to be "the supreme law of the land."  Which means, any law passed by either the federal government or a state that violated the Constitution would automatically be void.

Of course the Constitution was written by old white males, so Democrats decided they could ignore it.  For example, before Trump's election they decided the Constitutional statement that the president "shall take care to faithfully enforce the laws of the United States" didn't apply to Democrat presidents.

In the latest outrage, a bunch of really, really smaht Democrat lawyers have found what they believe is a way to abolish the "Electoral College" system of electing our president.

Of course if you know anything about the Constitution you might recall that the Electoral College system is spelled out in that document.  It was the result of a compromise made to persuade small states to sign on to the agreement. 

The small states rightly feared that if the president was elected by popular vote, only residents of one of the big states would be elected--something the small states understandably believed would work to their disadvantage.  So the compromise was that each state would have a number of electoral votes equal to the sum of their senators and representatives.  This made a small effort to level the playing field between high-population states and smaller ones.

Democrats have decided they don't want to put up with such anachronisms, and want presidential elections to be decided by whoever wins the national vote.

Of course since the EC is in the Constitution, most of you probably think the only way to change that would be to amend that document.  And since proposed amendments only pass if "ratified" by the vote of the legislatures of a solid three-fourths of the states, the chances of that were vanishingly small.

But today's Democrat leaders are not only way smahtah than you, they're way smahtah than the Founders were!  Cuz they've figured out a way to ram thru what they want without the challenge of trying to pass a constitutional amendment.  

Truly, y'all have no idea how utterly implacable and determined the *leaders* of the Democrat party are to win perpetual power.  You think they're nice people, like your Democrat neighbors.  Nope.  Not even close.  So let's explain.

Around 2001 two law professors--Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar--proposed what they claimed was a legal way to junk the electoral-college system without having to amend the Constitution:  They suggested that a group of states could pass laws to form a "compact" under which they would agree to order their state's electors to cast their electoral votes for the party that won the national popular vote--even if a majority of voters in their own state voted for the other party.

Now, here's how the Founders--writing in the Constitution--said elections were to be handled: 
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President... [Article 2, Section 1]
It's at the very top of the section on the presidency.  And it goes into great detail.  But in all those specifics the Founders admittedly didn't say "and the Electors shall cast their vote for whichever candidate wins in their state."  But do you think they actually envisioned a time when cunning politicians would pass laws directing their state to vote for anyone other than the one who won the vote in their state?

Of course not.  They were all about a government "representing its people."  Moreover, they had specifically fashioned the Electoral College as a compromise to get the small states to sign on.  This shows--clearly and unequivocally--that the Founders and drafters of the Constitution rejected the idea of elections being won by the winner of the national vote.

And aside from adopting a mechanism the Founders specifically went to great lengths NOT to adopt,  it would never have occurred to them that anyone would seriously propose that a state's electoral votes be cast for the party that LOST that state's election.  It's breathtakingly insane.

Which brings us to...today's Democrat leaders.  They're all behind this, because the states that have the most people are almost entirely Democrat-ruled, so changing the rules to the winner of the national popular vote would give the Democrats the presidency in virtually every election.

So the Dem lawyers have cunningly seized on what they claim is a legal loophole:  the article quoted above says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."  The key phrase is "...in such manner as the legislature...may direct."  This is an unqualified--as in, unlimited--power.  The Dem lawers claim that this specific language allows a state legislature to order its electors to vote for whoever the legislature orders.

Couple of huge problems with this (gee, ya think?):  First, the unlimited power is to "appoint" electors, not to order them how to vote.  It's easy to make the case that the Founders never even contemplated that this language could be tortured to give the result claimed by the Democrats.

But there's a far larger problem:  Many, many contracts specifically state that the parties agree to do or not do X.  Then when one party decides they don't want to be bound by that agreement, they hire lawyers to look for some ambiguity on page 432 that they then claim overrides the specific, major thrust of the agreement.

A time-honored principle of law is that such stretches are rejected by the courts, for obvious reasons: if the parties specifically agreed to do or not do X, it's irrational to claim that they actually didn't want that outcome, as supported by a single word far removed from the main point of agreement.

In other words, courts are supposed to consider the entire agreement, not one phrase standing in isolation from the rest of the document.

Of course with today's liberal judges--including the fake conservative John Roberts--the result may be much different. But the logic is clear.

The Democrats are trying to do by indirect means something that the Founders and signers of the "contract" called the Constitution specifically rejected.  Draw your own conclusions.

In any case, bills invoking this NPV compact have been introduced in 42 states, and passed into law in 12, controlling 181 electoral votes.  So they're almost half-way to the 270 needed.

Now:  The courts are rarely willing to take a case before someone has been harmed.  Does anyone think that if the compact reaches 270, and claims to have gotten the popular vote winner elected (despite losing the "Constitutional" electoral vote) the courts would overturn the result? 

Not a chance.  And then it's too late.  Can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Interestingly, the Dems think junking the electoral college as set out in the Constitution is the virtuous thing to do. 

Interesting.



Another socialist success story

Venezuela once had the highest per-capita income in all of Latin America.  Their electrical system was the best on the continent.

Last night the electricity grid in virtually all of Venezuela went down.  The outage covered 22 of the country's 23 states.

Now, "acts of God"--big storms and such--can do lots of damage to a nation's power grid.  But this outage wasn't caused by a storm.  Instead the culprit appears to be a lack of maintenance on the system.

That problem, in turn, was caused by the country's socialist government diverting money from things the socialist morons don't think are pressing--like maintaining the electrical system--to stuff they feel is way more important--like continuing to subsidize basic foods for their ravenous supporters.

But the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, HuffPo, Slate, Vox, The Hill, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, ABC, CBS and NBC will either ignore this story or else insist that you not conclude that there's any connection at all between the nationwide blackout and socialist policies.

Cuz according to all the sources just listed, socialism is GOOD!  We NEED to adopt socialism here, because Democrat presidential candidates like Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Warren, Comrade Bernie Sanders and Corey Booker are pushing socialist policies.  They've found that offering free stuff to their supporters is the easiest way to get elected:  .

I mean, what reasonable citizen would object to FREE stuff, right?

Unfortunately all the polls claim Dem voters outnumber conservatives.  If so, the Dems will win, cuz their dumb-ass base will always vote for free stuff. 

And really, when a supposedly educated senator or congress-creep claims having the gruberment give citizens free stuff is a great idea, who can blame poorly-educated people for believing the elite politician?

Libs: "We need to ban guns, it's worth it to save *just one life.* But don't you dare deport all illegals!


If liberals and the "leaders" of the corrupt-but-oh-SO-virtue-signalling Dem party were consistent, the answer would be a resounding YES.  But of course...


March 04, 2019

A word or two on "cultural appropriation"

Wanna see how far down the politically-correct rabbit hole we've fallen?  Take a look:

South Dakota has really cold winters, so for the past several years the students at the law school of the state's flagship university have hosted an event called "Hawaiian Day" in the middle of their brutal winters.

This year the politically-correct, virtue-signalling adminishits at the university declared the event "culturally insensitive," saying the title "violated the school's policy on inclusiveness."

The student association--eager to demonstrate their sensitivity--quickly issued a fawning apology on Fakebook:  "We greatly apologize to those we offended; it was unintentional."

Apparently the adminishits were also aghast that students hosting previous Hawaiian Days gave leis--flower garlands traditionally given to tourists to Hawaii--to party-goers.  So the students agreed to stop doing that.  The administration also banned the wearing of colorful floral shirts--often called Hawaiian shirts--saying this was "cultural appropriation."

The controversy was sparked by a complaint from an unidentified person the administration described as "a concerned student."
  
But don't be concerned, citizen, because a spokeswoman for the university's Board of Regents described the matter as an “isolated instance.”  Gosh, that's a relief, cuz for a minute there I was concerned that universities all over the U.S. were starting to make a practice of shutting down all sorts of reasonable things on bullshit PC grounds.  Wow, feel so relieved!

Ya know, I'm way beyond pissed at all these snowflakes wailing about "cultural appropriation," and I think I see a way to stop it:  Let's take this to its logical conclusion and ban ALL instances of "cultural appropriation."  Some examples:
  • Like to fly commercial?  If you aren't a white American, no more air travel for you.  You didn't invent it.  We did.
  • Like your internet?  If you aren't a white American, no more internet, no more laptop, no more cell phone.  You didn't invent it.  We did.
  • Like clean, pathogen-free drinking water?  No more for you.  We pioneered chlorination.
  • Modern antibiotics are great if you get an infection, eh?  But no more for you.  Same reason.
  • Like the convenience of electricity?  Faraday was a white Brit who figured out how to do it.  No more electricity for you.
Point here is that all this crap about "cultural appropriation" is simply an effort by PC whiners to control the rest of us.  Y'all never gave a thought to how you'd be affected if the folks who developed the conveniences you enjoy pulled the same whiny crap on you.