Mueller and Comey both invented new standards--i.e. made shit up--to clear Hilly and "fail to exonerate" Trump

At least a few of you may recall the absurd bullshit FBI director James Comey used to explain to congress and the public--in his televised testimony in July of 2016--why he decided NOT to charge Hilliary Clinton with innumerable violations of the laws for mis-handling beyond-Top-Secret information:  His infamous excuse was essentially this:

"Yeah, Hillary is probably guilty of all kinds of sh* that would land anyone else in a Federal prison, but I have decided not to charge her with any offense whatsoever."

He then went on to invent a legal standard that was NOT part of the actual, written law:  He brazenly lied, testifying that the law required that someone could only be charged for violating the law covering exposure of highly-classified information if that person intended to break the law.  He went on to say that he didn't find any intent by the lying bitch to break the law--despite the fact that she absolutely instructed her lying aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin--among others--to email her beyond-Top-Secret information to her unsecure private email server. 

So we have two lies here:  First, unless she's a total idiot (something no one on the Left believes) and knows nothing whatsoever about the laws or rules governing the handling of classified information, then it's clear she did intend to break the law, since she ordered her aides to do so.  Second, Comey simply lied when he stated that the statute requires "intent." 

I've read it.  It doesn't.  Comey got up in front of the public and lied his ass off, to clear both himself (for failing to charge Hilliary--a decision he made before she had even been so much as interviewed by the FBI) and to clear Hilliary.

Now, just for laughs, fast-forward to Mueller's laughably-misnamed "press conference" yesterday.  Mueller pulled a total inversion on Comey:  He said his report did NOT exonerate Trump because they couldn't prove he didn't do things to collude or obstruct justice.

Let that sink in for a minute.

One of the most basic, vital premises of American law is that an accused doesn't have to prove that he or she is innocent.  Instead, the prosecution--the government--has the "burden of proof" to show beyond reasonable doubt that someone actually broke the law.  Mueller discarded this, fanning the flames of Trump Derangement Syndrome by saying--understandably--that he was "unable to show that Trump did NOT break any laws."

And yet when Hilliary provably broke the law regarding mis-handling beyond-Top-Secret classified information, his buddy Comey simply invented a new requirement, not in the actual, y'know, statute.

Like Comey, Mueller just pulled a whole new legal standard right out of his a$$. If you're Hillary, they have to be able to prove you intended to break the law and you knew you were breaking it before the FBI would even consider charging you.  But if you're Donald Trump, you must prove you didn't do X, or else special counsel Mueller will claim you have NOT been exonerated.

Both these legal tests were simply invented by the Left so it can get what it wants. They cloak themselves in a veneer of legitimacy to disguise their grab for power.

But it's all a sham. I'd sooner trust a Scientology affidavit.

H/T Ace.

New poll shows a stunning 43% of American respondents prefer socialism to free markets

How successful have the Mainstream Media been in pushing the faaabulous! benefits of socialism?

According to a new Gallup poll a stunning 43% of Americans think socialism would be good for the U.S.

One of the many reasons this is shocking is that when Americans are asked whether they believe free markets or government would do a better job in specific areas (below), a much higher percentage say free markets would do better for most things.  And yet overall, 43% of Americans polled say they think socialism would be good for the country.


So what can account for this discrepancy?  And how on Earth could any rational American believe "government" would do better than "free markets" in "protecting consumers' privacy online"?

Well for starters, about the only thing college-age Americans "know" (believe) about socialism is the propaganda that it will give them free stuff:  free college, free medical care, free housing, a guaranteed job--high-paying, of course--and so on.

Try asking college-age Americans if they're impressed with the health care delivered by the VA, or Cuba, or the UK's NHS and you're likely to get a blank look.  For years the mainstream media have claimed Cuba had the best health care in the entire world.  Same for socialized medicine in the UK-- the infamous NHS, which often makes patients wait months for something as routine as an MRI.

Same deal if you were to try asking college-age Americans about health care in Venezuela.  Hey, it's free, so end of story, right?  Except the government lacks the funds to make the system work.  No bandages, no antibiotics, no antiseptic cleaners.

"But...it's free, citizen.  Well, at least free to the voter-beneficiary, eh?  And that's all that matters, cuz math--the basis for financial analysis--is a raaacist construct of the European patriarchy!  We don' need no steenkin' math to know if somethin's a good idea, comrade.  If it wins elections for us, it's good.  End of story."

Think this is paranoia?  Take a look at a recent video produced by a socialist outfit called Means TV and promoted by the AFL-CIO with a tweet calling on workers to "seize the means of production."  Titled "The Middle Class is a Lie," it features the views of a "Marxist roofer."  Like so much of Leftist propaganda, this is class warfare--Marxist theory--disguised as social critique. 

Of course young Americans can be excused for not knowing about how ghastly socialism is.  If no one ever taught you, how could you know?  But the 50-ish newspaper editors and network producers should all know better.  Yet you've never seen a single story or read a single article in the mainstream media critical of socialism.

Never.  Interesting.

If the editors and producers know the truth about socialism, how can they keep praising it?  I think the reason is that the Democrat party has embraced socialism.  They know pushing the fact that some Americans are poorer than others garners lots of sympathy.  It plays well, so the media will continue to praise socialism.  And not surprisingly, Americans who have no other input take the praise as truth.

Interesting.


H/T American Thinker.
To see the full results of the poll, click here.

Female Democrat member of congress appears to have commited immigration fraud; Mainstream media uninterested

Using sham marriages to gain American citizenship is a felony--a violation of federal law.

If you're an "ordinary citizen" and arranged a sham-marriage to your own brother in order to (fraudulently) gain U.S. citizenship for him, you'd be prosecuted.

But surely everyone has noticed by now that the U.S. effectively has two sets of laws: one for "ordinary" citizens like you and me, and a second, far more lenient set for members of what can only be described as favored classes.

One of the mainstream media's new darlings is a Somali woman from Minnesota, Ilhan Omar.  Her darling status is due to the fact that she's a) female; b) an immigrant from Somalia; c) a person of color; and d) a newly-elected, virulently anti-Trump Democrat member of the U.S. congress.

Before the 2018 midterm election a Somali group noted that the candidate appeared to have married her brother to gain him U.S. citizenship, even though she claimed to be married to another man she claimed as her husband, and with whom she'd had 3 children. 

An attorney from Minneapolis, Scott Johnson, investigated these claims, found they were supported, and asked the then-candidate's campaign to comment.

The campaign simply declined to respond.

How do you think members of the Mainstream Media would have reacted if this same charge was made against a Republican female?  Sure: they would have demanded answers, and would have made the story front-page news until the candidate or campaign responded. 

If the candidate won, still ignoring the charges against her, every news story involving that candidate would mention the apparent felony immigration fraud she apparently committed.  But in this case, when the alleged felon is a Democrat and immigrant?  Crickets.

But you must trust the Mainstream Media, citizen.  If they don't tell you about something, either it didn't happen or it's not at all relevant to...anything.  Or they'll say they didn't tell you because "it's of local interest only."

Yeh, dat's da ticket.

They Lying Mainstream Media:  Where double-standards rule.

Dems find a way to stop construction of border wall built with private money on private land

How committed are Democrats to open borders?  Check this chronology:
  1.  Rulings from left/dem judges force the administration to quickly release anyone who enters the U.S. illegally if they have a child with them;
  2.  Word of this ruling spreads instantly, resulting in a ten-fold increase in the number of invaders bringing children with them.  Illegals who don't have kids can rent them (literally).
  3.  Trump asks congress for money to add more secure border wall (right now there are huge gaps);
  4.  Democrat-controlled House refuses;
  5.  Trump declares that the invasion of 100,000 illegals per month constitutes an emergency; uses his Constitutional authority to re-direct unused military funds to close gaps in wall;
  6.  Democrats sue to prevent Trump from using these funds, claim there is NO crisis at the border;
  7.  A private citizen sets up a fund to build lengths of wall using PRIVATE donations;
  8.  Mainstream media ridicules the man and the goal;
  9.  Americans concerned about 100,000 illegals entering the U.S. every month quickly donate $10 million; uh-oh.
  10.  Four days ago his organization begins construction, on private land; Democrats quickly huddle to find a way to stop wall being build with private funds, on private land.  "Oooh, what to do??  We had our judges block government funding, but how can they legally block private funding."
  11.  Solution!  Democrat mayor of the "town" where the wall is being built orders construction company to stop work--on the grounds that the fence's 18-foot height exceeds the city's allowed fence height of six feet.  Yay!  Mission accomplished.
  12.  Congressional Democrats rush to appear before cameras to assure Americans that they really really really support "border security" and are NOT for open borders, but that a wall does NOT increase security.  Instead what will make the border secure is...cameras.  Yes.  Because all good people agree that walls are cruel.  And they don't work.  That's why people like Nancy Pelosi don't build such useless, expensive things around their multi-million-dollar estates.

If you'd tried to tell people a month after 9/11 (for college-age Americans that was when 19 Muslims hijacked four passenger jets, crashed two into the World Trade Center towers and a third into the Pentagon) that less than 18 years later Democrats would be pushing for open borders/ unlimited immigration by anyone, no one would have believed it.

Looking into the future

Unless you're familiar with nuclear weapons or fluent in physics you probably know almost nothing about nuclear weapons.  Hey, fair enough:  Why would you need to, eh?  I don't know jack about decor or raising kids, so we're even.

Unfortunately, knowing almost nothing about nuclear weapons leaves most Americans with no idea about what seem to me to be absolute certainties in our future--at least if current trends continue.  And as you probably guessed, I see no reason to believe those trends will NOT continue.  In other words, what follows is my take on the most likely future.

To begin: there are two kinds of "atomic bombs:" one uses uranium, the other uses a man-made element called plutonium.  The second kind of bomb requires incredible precision to build.  Plus, you have to have a nuclear reactor to make plutonium, and then separating plutonium from the deadly byproducts is astronomically difficult.

By contrast, making a uranium bomb is almost trivially easy:  literally, you can make uranium go boom by smashing two halves of a grapefruit-size sphere together.  Smashing fast is better, but it will even work by hand if the user is willing to die.  (Hand-held detonation would be inefficient but simple.)

Fortunately there's a big barrier to a uranium bomb:  It's the fact that only about one percent of all uranium atoms will do "fast fission."  Thus to make a bomb requires separating the small fraction of these atoms from the rest--a process called "enrichment."

If you pay attention to world events that might ring some bells.

No?  Not too surprising, cuz the Mainstream Media has pretty much ignored this.  Maybe they don't want ya to worry, perhaps.  Or maybe they want you to reserve your anger and concern for impeaching OrangeManBad.  Ah well...

One middle-eastern country has been enriching uranium for a decade or so now, in a facility deep under a mountain and protected by a 20-foot-thick roof of reinforced concrete--a combination designed to withstand any conventional attack.  Significantly, for decades the leaders of this same country have called the U.S. "the Great Satan" (they call Israel "the little Satan").  That country is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

What is this likely to mean?

Given the fact that Iran already has enrichment lines operating, and given the implacable hostility of Iran's theocrats to the U.S. and Israel, it's vitually certain that Iran will keep enriching uranium, until they acquire enough for a bomb--a "critical mass."  Then the question becomes, what do they do next?

During the Cold War the USSR had roughly 30,000 nuclear weapons--most far more powerful than an entry-level atom bomb.  Possible good sense aside, the main reason they never used them was that the U.S. had so many similar weapons that we could absorb a first strike and still have enough warheads left to obliterate the attacker.

This was an explicit strategy, called "mutual assured destruction."

Facing a U.S. that still has a couple of thousand bombs, you'd think that even if Iran managed to make a dozen warheads the mullahs of Iran wouldn't even think of starting a nuclear exchange with the U.S., right?  But consider a few points:

First, the mullahs could destroy a U.S. city without being identified as the aggressor.

Seriously.  They simply announce that one or two of their warheads have been "stolen."  Of course the U.S. would imcrease security, but a how long can that be sustained?  And if a warhead was detonated in, say, New York harbor, the mullahs would shrug:  "So sad, but you can't blame us for the acts of these unidentified terrorists.  And besides, it was probably done by the Israelis!"  (Imams have already claimed ISIS is actually a false-flag op by Israel.)

Second, given the eagerness of the Democrats to blame the U.S. for everything in the middle-east, does anyone seriously believe a Democrat president would retaliate?  Not likely.

Third:  Even if the U.S.  has a Republican president, does anyone seriously think the prospect of a U.S. nuke on Teheran would dissuade the mullahs?  Of course when retaliation came they'd just happen to be visiting other cities, but it's likely that the mullahs would regard the death of half of the residents of Teheran as a propaganda win.

So from what I see, unless Iran deposes its Islamic government, this is unlikely to end well.

Female Democrat governor of New Mexico pulls her state's guard off border, then humor ensues

Back in January, as multiple columns of "migrants" headed for our southern border, Trump deployed National Guard and U.S. Army troops.  118 of the guard troops were members of New Mexico's national guard.

The governor of New Mexico is Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat female who hates Trump with a passion.  On May 7th  Grisham ordered all the state's national guard troops to leave the border, to show her Democrat credentials and to damage the president.

The official statement said the governor pulled the guard troops off the border to counter what she called Trump’s “charade of border fear-mongering,” and as a “protest” against Trump’s move to "ban transgender troops from the U.S. military." 

To the surprise of no one, the results are proving disastrous for her state.  Voters are furious with the governor's order, and now--astonishingly--she's begged the Feds to help intercept illegals crossing the border (though she didn't use the term "illegals").

You can’t make this up, folks.  As local station KOAT-TV reports:

Lujan Grisham met with acting-Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan to discuss the ongoing crisis.  She asked McAleenan to increase federal personnel at the border....
    A spokesman for the governor said “The governor wants to continue to urge the federal government to increase its personnel on the border as a means of improving the logistical and communications output.”

This entire statement is pure bullshit--particularly the end word-salad, "...as a means of improving the logistical and communications output."  WTF??  What nonsense.  And so typical: when you wanna dodge everything, throw out meaningless word salad.

"Baffle 'em with bullshit."

Trump asked the New Mexico Guard to send troops on the border.  The governor of that state removed them.  And now that she's taking major heat from her state's citizens, she's trying to quietly appeal to the feds to help her out of her self-inflicted foot-shot.

Utterly typical.

In which a feminist is asked, "What do you see in this picture?"

Me: "What do you see in the pic below?"



U.S. feminist: "Four girls.  I think the one on the left was one of my classmates."

Me: "Do they seem...oppressed to you?"

Feminist: "No more than every woman in the U.S. is oppressed by The Evil Patriarchy."

Me: "Do you think they'd be less oppressed--more free--if they were wearing identical uniforms?"

Feminist: "What kind of question is that?!   It's SO like you uptight, patriarchal American men to demand the power to dictate what women should and shouldn't wear!  You're all OPPRESSORS!"

Me: "How about if the eeevil patriarchy demanded that they cover their hair?  Do you think they should obey such an order?"

Feminist: "WHAT??  You're a dictatorial pig! A misogynist!  You must be a religious fanatic!  You're..."

Me:  "What if we just made 'em all wear a cover over both face AND hair?"

Feminist: "WHAT??  [calls to a passer-by:]  Can you call the police for me?  This pig is assaulting me with hate speech!  I feel triggered!"

Me: "So I guess you'd raise hell if someone proposed to change the law so it would take three women to counteract one man's testimony?"

Feminist:  "You're insane."

Me:  "So all those ideas anger you, eh?  Make you mad as hell?"

Feminist:  "What kind of dumb question is that?  Of course it angers me!  It's insane!  All those things you just proposed would hugely, outrageously oppress women!  I'll bet you're a religious extremist, a sexist, a..."

Me:  "What if I told you this pic was taken in Teheran before Islamic dictators took over?"

Feminist:  "...total pig.  Part of the oppressive patri-.... wait...what?

Me:  "This is a picture of Iranian women in Teheran in 1968.  It's how women dressed in Teheran before Islamic mullahs took over.  So do you think these women look more oppressed than Iranian women today? 

Feminist:  "Uh.... Actually women in Islamic countries say wearing a burka is, uh, liberating.  And that they feel safer wearing more-modest clothes.  But it's like, totally voluntary.  And liberating."

Me:  "Seems to me you've instantly reversed every position you were absolutely furious about just two minutes ago.  Care to tell us why you did such a quick, total reversal?

Feminist:  "You male chauvinist pigs just don't understand the dialetic flexibility of oppressor theory."

Guy who created the slanderous anti-Trump "dossier" refusing to cooperate with investigators. BUT...

Reuters has always been pro-Democrat, anti-conservative and anti-Trump.  So if Reuters says the key figure in the "dossier" that sparked all the FBI spying on Trump is refusing to cooperate with the DOJ investigation into who funded that slanderous effort and when, it's an "admission against interest."

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The former British spy who produced a dossier describing alleged links between Donald Trump and Russia will not cooperate with a prosecutor assigned by U.S. Attorney General William Barr to review how the investigations of Trump and his 2016 election campaign began...

Christopher Steele, a former Russia expert for the British spy agency MI6, will not answer questions from prosecutor John Durham, named by Barr to examine the origins of the investigations into Trump and his campaign team, said the source...

Steele...was hired in 2016 by Fusion GPS, a Washington-based private investigations firm working for lawyers representing the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.  [He] created...a set of controversial and sometimes salacious reports describing alleged contacts Trump and his team had with Russians before the election.
Democrats accuse Trump of trying to turn attention away from the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller, whose report into [alleged] Russian interference in the 2016 election described numerous links between the Trump campaign and Moscow, and said Trump had repeatedly tried to impede the investigation.

The source...said Steele would not cooperate with Durham’s probe but might cooperate with a parallel inquiry by the Justice Department’s Inspector General...

The Justice Department had no immediate comment....

The claim that Steele "might" cooperate with an investigator other than the presumably-honest Durham is designed to make Steele look like he's not stonewalling, that he "kinda sorta" wants to cooperate, and that he's simply concerned about the particular investigator, Durham.  But think about it for a moment:  If Steele has nothing to hide, why prefer one investigator over another?

One of two answer seems obvious:  Either Steele is lying about his willingness to cooperate with any investigation; or he's been told that the laughably-misnamed "Justice Department's" inspector-general is in on the fix, and won't ask the questions that need to be asked to determine who funded the slanderous "dossier" [great term, eh?  Sounds so...official!] and who in the FBI/DOJ decided to use it to justify numerous FISA spy warrants on members of the Trump team.

If we had an honest press (hahahahahaha!), you'd think they'd be asking questions about Steele's refusal to cooperate.  But of course they're not.  Cuz, reasons.  "Not important, citizen!  Nothing to see here!  Let's move on to the important questions, like 'Isn't Joe Biden wonderful?'"

Yeh, dat's da ticket.

A big indicator of the future is...what cases the Supreme Court declines to hear

One of the obvious telltales to know what direction your betters have ruled we should go is how the Supreme Court rules on crucial cases--because this effectively says what laws will be enforced or overturned, or how vague provisions will be interpreted, for the entire future. 

(For those new to rule-by-judges, EVERY law has several provisions vague enough to allow leftists to file suit--and if they lose in a lower court they can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.)

But another telltale is less obvious:  It's the cases appealed to the Supreme Court that the court declines to hear--because in most cases this means the court agrees with the ruling by the lower-court judge.  Which means (almost always) that the SC agrees with the ruling by the lower court judge.

Last Tuesday we saw one of these implicit agreements, as the Supreme Court declined to review a case involving a Pennsylvania school district that quietly allowed transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex, following the directive of Obama's department of education [spit!].  It's also significant that the district did this without notifying non-trans students or parents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that the "rights" of trans students outweighed any right to privacy by non-trans students.  The appeals court also seemed to be fine with the decision of school adminishits to implement this significant policy change without notifying parents.

It's also interesting that this significant policy change has not yet been put into writing--another indication that administrators were hoping to sneak this in under the radar.

Now:  If you don't have kids in this particular public school system, why is this of any significance to you?

Cuz it means the Supreme Court has decided the "rights" of transgenders--as decreed by a bureaucrat in the DOE, with the approval of Obama, outweigh the right of your daughter to not be forced to undress next to a biological male.

Now, I got no dog in this hunt.  But if you've got daughters or granddaughters, you might.

But don't worry, citizen: Your Democrat betters know what's best for your kids.
===

 [The case in question if you want to read more: Doe v. Boyertown Area School District]

"How can free markets possibly produce better results than socialism??"

One of the biggest failures of understanding by leftist/socialist/"progressive" leaders is, How can self-interest, free markets and competition produce such great results? 

They simply can't understand why the "poor" in Amerca are fat, have big-screen TVs, 500 channels, high-speed internet, air-conditioned homes and are driving cars, while most of those living under socialism are starving in the dark.  How on earth could the virtuous "command economy" of socialism--run by elite Hahvahd graduates--possibly produce worse results than the horrors of self-interest and free markets?  It's simply un-possible!

It must be all lies--perhaps witchcraft!  

When your ideas don't work, the first thing the pushers of those ideas do is invent a new excuse for the failure--like "REAL socialism has never been tried!"

A-yup.  You bet, sparky.

So to salvage the Dems' cherished socialist plans, the Lying Mainstream Media and party leaders have invented a new excuse: IF socialism has...um...had spots of trouble (maybe in some country south of the border, starts with a "V" but the mainstream media dare not speak of it), it's because anti-socialist forces (nations) are stealing from socialism. 

Yes, citizen, it's all the fault of saboteurs, capitalist wreckers and CIA plotters.   

Dem prez candidate wants to give everyone $1,000 per month. Yay!

Two centuries ago a student of history stumbled on this truth:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury."

"Wait," say all the Democrat presidential candidates and their supporters, "you say this like it's a problem or something!  Not only is it not a problem, it's a GREAT thing--cuz we're really really good at creating ways to give money to people if they vote for us.  Works great!"

Ah.  What you mean is, it works great for Dem political candidates.  Unfortunately giving money to everyone isn't sustainable.  Quite the contrary: It's a death sentence for a country.

Case in point:  Dem presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who has said he supports giving every American $1,000 per month, regardless of ability or whether the recipient is looking for work.

Anyone wanna take a bet on which other Dem candidate will try to out-bid Yang on this?

H/T Alexander Tytler and Moonbattery.

A division of USA Today carefully omits information about a "man" impregnating an 11-year-old

"AZCentral" is part of the "USA Today" network.  Three days ago they ran this headline:

Phoenix man accused of impregnating 11-year-old girl after sex in his car near elementary school

A "Phoenix man," y'say?

Say, you don't suppose a division of leftist- and open-borders-supporting "USA Today" would deliberately omit any, you know, significant facts about this kind of story, do ya?

Nah, they're "journalists," and an ethical journalist would never omit information that has a significant effect on your vote and decisions, right?

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!  [Gasp!]  Hahahahahahahahaha!  Just kidding--they Lying Mainstream Media will say or print anything to get you to vote Democrat...cuz we need open borders, citizen.

Okay, start here:  The perp, 20-year-old Carlos Jacinto Cobo-Perez.  Who confessed, by the way.



And AZCentral wouldn't tell you--and I know you'll find it almost impossible to believe it could be true--but according to the Daily Caller Carlos is...an illegal immigrant from Guatemala.

Yeah, I couldn't believe it either.  It's so astronomically unlikely, eh?

Ya know, I think this shows us something important:  That the Democrats are right--we need open borders.  Cuz illegal immigrants are willing to do the jobs far too few Americans will do--like having sex with 11-year-old girls.

We need to open our borders to these people.   Really.  Seriously.  So vote Democrat in 2020--and thereafter.  Cuz our wonderful leaders--like Pelosi, Schumer, Adam Schiff, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigeig, Eric Swalwell, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and all the others--assure us that we NEED open borders.

Brit government says anyone "making generalizations about Muslims" may be a member of the "XRW"

The British army has distributed a poster listing characteristics to enable troops tell if someone is a "member of the extreme right wing"--for which they've even created a cute acronym: "XRW."

Here are some of the things the British government says show one is probably a member of the "extreme right wing" now:

• If someone describes himself as a “patriot"
• Adding ‘-istan’ to the name of a British town
• Using the term ‘Islamofascism’
• Making generalisations about Muslims and Jews
• Claiming that immigration is harming vulnerable UK citizens (pensioners, veterans)
• Referring to political correctness as some left wing or communist plot
• Making inaccurate generalisations about ‘the Left’ or Government [caps in original]
• Using blatantly untruthful or incorrect references to immigrants, Judaism or Islam

One hardly knows where to begin.  Who will define what generalizations will be considered "inaccurate"?  Who decides what "references" will be deemed "incorrecct"?  The answer to both question is the same:  The Left, of course.  But that's moot because the 4th item is even broader: it effectively bans all generalizations, even if accurate.

Think this isn't coming here?  Too late, it already has:  In New York the city's "human rights commission can fine you for referring to someone with a pronoun xe doesn't like.

Can't wait til that piece of crap is taken to a higher court.  Will that court rule that using the "wrong" (right) pronoun is hate speech, thus not protected by the First Amendment?  (For those unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights, that's the one that theoretically protects"freedom of speech.")

Until that happens, the NYC ban on hate-pronouns is just a good threat the city could use to bankrupt any citizen who chose to defend free speech rather than pay a paltry $500 fine.

What happens when a society subordinates freedom to equality of *outcomes*?

Equality is great, but a society (or government) that subordinates freedom to equality of outcome will destroy itself. 

The reason is that the only way to get anything close to equal outcomes is for government to take the products of one group's productive labor by force, and give them to people who make ghastly, destructive life choices.

By contrast, freedom allows the most innovative and productive to create things that benefit everyone.  Everyone wins.

Virtually all politicians say they support equal outcomes, even for those who deliberately, consciously make destructive choices (like dropping out of school, using or selling illegal drugs, committing crime).  Of course they really mean equal outcomes for everyone but themselves.  They belong at the top.  Cuz they're special.

H/T Milton Friedman for the basic idea.

Dem-ruled Nevada legislature votes on party lines to elect presidents by winner of the national popular vote

I've been warning you for years about an unConstitutional scheme by Democrats to do away with the Electoral College system the Constitution specifies as how presidents are to be elected, changing it to the winner of the national popular vote.

Dems want this because it will virtually assure they'll win every presidential election from now on.

Sweet, eh?

Naturally you think this is a wacko conspiracy tale--in part because if this were serious you can't believe you've never heard about it, since it so clearly violates the Constitution.  "If this were real, the NY Times and WaPo and CNN and MSNBC would have told us!!!"

The reason they haven't said anything, of course, is that they don't want to de-rail the plan.  But it's real.  Click here for Wikipedia's totally approving explanation.

So the latest:  Nevada--which now has a Democrat majority in both houses and a Dem governor--just became the latest state to pass an NPV bill in both chambers.  The Dem governor is expected to sign the measure in a few days.  With Nevada's bill the scheme will have been signed into law by states totalling 195 electoral votes.  It will automatically activate when states with a total of 270 electoral votes have passed such a bill.

Colorado, Delaware and New Mexico joined the compact in the 2019 legislative session, and other Democrat-controlled states are poised to follow.  Last week Maine's senate passed a similar bill, sending it to the House.  A similar bill in Oregon has been passed by the that state's senate, and given Dem control of the House and governorship, passage seems assured.  Passage in both states would make 206 electoral votes, leaving the Democrats only 64 votes short of permanent ownership of the White House.

If you're not a liberal/Democrat, your country is being cunningly stolen from you--in total, brazen violation of the Constitution--which was once called the "supreme law of the land" but which Dems long ago discarded as raaaacist and obsolete.

Enjoy your last few years without socialism.  Cuz that's exactly what you're about to get.

But if you're a Democrat, it's "Yay!  We beat those dumb conservatives and that stupid Contitution thingy!  Good times!"

Just another day in a liberal/Democrat-run "sanctuary state"

If you love dogs you may not want to read this story.

No one denies that all races and cultures have a small percentage of absolutely insane, deranged people--who do insane, deranged things.  That seems to be a constant of nature:  There's no way to keep people from being crazy.

The question then becomes, What do the presumably sane people do when a monster--whether evil or "just" insane/deranged--commits a heinous, ghastly crime.

The answer, in case you just arrived on this planet, is that the idiot liberals who run far, far too many states and cities, quickly release the monster with barely a slap on the wrist.  Because, fairness, citizen.

After all, punishing a member of a "protected class" would be just too, too unfair.

Uh-huh.

Example #956,453:  In the Left-liberal cesspool that is Democrat-ruled Oregon, an "undocumented American" (i.e. an illegal alien invader) raped a Lhasa Apso to death.  But Fidel Lopez--an illegal alien and future Democrat voter--got the sanctuary treatment:  60 days.

Because Lopez was an illegal alien, ICE served local law enforcement with a "detainer," asking that this monster be turned over to them for deportation.  But as you already guessed (because we've seen it every time from "sanctuary states") the moonbats running Oregon ignored this request and released Lopez back into the community.

Sweet, eh?  Oregon is a sanctuary state for illegal aliens, though not for small dogs.

Insane.  But by all means, vote Democrat.  Cuz we need more of this type of awfulness.


H/T Moonbattery. https://moonbattery.com/raping-to-death-the-lapdogs-americans-wont/

Yet another Mexican national fatally stabs a 75-year-old woman; local TV sanitizes story

Illegal aliens murder a few thousand American citizens every year, but most of the time you never hear about it.

That's because the national TV networks regard these crimes as "local interest only," no matter if the murder is especially heinous.

This is interesting, since these same networks are eager to cover equally heinous murders committed by wacked-out whites, like the guy who killed the parents of teenage Jamie Kloss in Wisconsin and kidnapped the daughter.  That's news the suits deemed worthy of national broadcast.  But when an illegal murders a 75-year-old Christian grandmother, that's not of national interest.

But thanks to the internet, sometimes you can learn about some of these thousands of cases, because local TV stations can't ignore horrible crimes in their area.  Unfortunately, even local stations are starting to make their reporting on these murders conform to the politically-correct orders of their network bosses.

For example, here's how the ABC station in Houston headlined a story:

Truck thief stabbed 75-year-old and squatted in her home

Nowhere in the entire story does the "reporter" bother to mention these politically-incorrect details: that the "truck thief" asked the elderly woman for help with his broken-down truck, then fatally stabbed her, used her credit card to pay his cell phone bill and stole another $600 from her home.

Or that killer Marco Cobos was a Mexican national.

See, mentioning that would make Americans think, "Gee, there's another story about a Mexican national fatally stabbing an unarmed 75-year-old woman.  Seems like we're seeing that a lot more recently.  Maybe--just maybe--this "open borders" crap being pushed by every single Democrat presidential candidate isn't such a great deal after all, eh?"

So you can easily see why ABC wouldn't wanna do something like that.

By the way: the killer confessed, which makes it harder for Leftists to get away with claiming "He dindu nuffin.'"

According to details revealed in court, Cobos told authorities he stabbed the 75-year-old woman in the chest, but that didn't kill her--so he went to the kitchen to look for other knives to finish killing her.

Cobos told investigators that when he was searching for other knives he heard the front door and saw the victim trying to escape.  She made it to her front porch before he grabbed her in a bear hug and stabbed her "several more times" until she died.

Cobos also told police that he talked to her as she pleaded for her life.



But seriously, Dem presidential candidates have repeatedly told us that we really really need to let more people like this enter the U.S. at will, cuz they're willing to do the jobs Americans won't do, or something like that.  And we should believe them, cuz they've never lied to us before, right?

"Does Fakebook censor conservative speech?" Zuck: "No, we just..."

AOC claimed only 12 years left, then "kidding;" now 67% of Dems believe only 12 years left

If you follow politics you may recall that a few months ago--January, if you're picky--Democrat congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed the world would END in just 12 years if "we"--the U.S.--didn’t stop "climate change" (formerly "global warming").

When virtually all conservatives--and even a few Democrats--laughed about her "OMG-we're-all-gonna-die!" claim, she quickly claimed she was just kidding, and that conservatives were irredeemably dumb for taking her literally--unlike the cool kids who knew she was just kidding or something. 

Her exact statement was "You’d have to have the intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal."

Well apparently Democrats not only didn’t think she was kidding, but unlike conservatives, totally believed her "OMG" prediction of doom in a dozen years:  according to a Rasmussen poll released today a staggering 67 percent of Democrats believe Ocasio-Cortez’s dozen-years-to-doom warning was and is both literal and accurate.

Other than the shockingly high percentage of Democrats who believe the only-12-years-left prediction (i.e. apparently have the IQ of a sea sponge), another fascinating finding is how hugely the number of voters who believe her absurd claim has increased in just a few months. In Rasmussen's first poll on this issue right after AOC made her statement only 23 percent of voters agreed with it.  compared to 48% of all voters today, and 67% of Democrats.

What accounts for this huge increase?  Simple: The lying, Dem-supporting mainstream media.

"Wait," I hear my liberal friend saying. "If the media are biased in favor of the Dems, why would the media push AOC's absurd claim that we have only 12 years before the end of the world unless we..."?

Simple: Even though rational people realize AOC's claim is absurd, repeating it endlessly peels independent voters away from conservatives and toward the Democrats, with their insane "green new deal" scheme.

The mainstream media claims conservatives are trying to claim AOC is the new face of the Democrat party, yet her influence on the party is undeniable.  Her positions on climate change, impeachment, and other issues have become mainstream in the Democratic Party.  Pelosi may be speaker but AOC has become the de facto leader of the Democratic party.

H/T PJMedia.

U.S. natural-gas production hits new record; price of gas is 85% lower than 2005! Fake-news media ignores

Very few Americans have any idea what a fabulous luxury it is to be able to heat your house or shower water by turning a knob or pushing a button instead of walking a few miles to find firewood, then chopping it into small enough lengths to fit in your stove.

That lack of appreciation is one of the reasons a frightening number of college-age Americans foolishly believe socialism is better than free markets.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.

So consider the following facts:  Last month U.S. natural gas production set an all-time production record.  This is after gas production had peaked in 1972, when natural gas sold for about 60 cents per thousand cubic feet.  The price rose every year after that, peaking in  September of 2005 at $18.95 per thousand cubic feet.

If not for free markets and capitalism, the price of natural gas--the stuff that heats your home and hot water--should have continued to rise, like college tuition or the price of medical care.

Did the price of natural gas keep rising?  No.  Thanks to the magic of free markets and capitalism, last week prices hit a new annual low of $2.56 per thousand.  That's 85 percent lower than the 2005 peak.  

But of course you didn't hear about that (unless you're in the business or read the Wall Street Journal)--because the lying Mainstream Media decided not to tell you.  You might ask 'em why they didn't think this story was important.



The price of natural gas dropped NOT because Americans have reduced their use of the stuff, but because U.S. oil and gas producers are producing record amounts of it.  The price is obeying the well-known laws of supply and demand.

Well, those laws should be well known by every American school kid.  The fact that virtually no high school grad knows jack-shit about those principles should be grounds for firing every school administrator and school board member.

So what caused the huge increase in gas production?

Free market capitalism.  Back in 1973 Democrats in congress (spit) got incensed because energy prices were rising--a result of the OPEC oil embargo.  So they passed the Natural Gas Pricing Act, which set the maximum price producers could charge for gas ($3 per thousand cubic feet).  As a direct result, drillers dropped plans to try to find gas that would cost more than that to produce.

Almost immediately, prices started rising, as cities and industries started bidding for expected shortages.

Whoa, who could have predicted that, eh?

Finally the Republicans repealed that ghastly law, which made it economically worthwhile for companies to explore for deeper gas.

The unleashing of free markets, and the development and use of improved "fracturing" techniques, led to ample supplies.  With the supply recovering, the price of natural gas began falling.

Remember how much?  Nah, you probably don't.  It's down 85 percent from its peak in 2005.

This is nothing short of a miracle, and yet the Lying Mainstream Media didn't think it was worth telling you about.  Because they hate capitalism and free markets and Trump.

But they love low energy prices, eh?

Hypocritical, lying rat-bastards.  They'd rather tell you about them giving themselves Pulitzer prizes for their hysterical, fake-news articles about how Trump colluded with Putin to steal the election from their queen.

H/T American Thinker.

That guy Putin is VERY canny, eh?

Trump authorizes Barr to declassify everything; Dems shriek that this is "unAmerican" even though they were screaming for this

Democrats have been screaming "coverup!!" for a couple of years now, accusing president Trump of trying to conceal...something important--probably part of the Mueller report that was "redacted."  They've been pushing--loudly--for "transparency."

So how did Trump respond?

He asked the Attorney-General to de-classify everything--every document from the Mueller investigation.

So how did the Democrat leaders respond?

Total freak-out.  Rep. Adam Schiff tweeted this:

While Trump stonewalls the public from learning the truth about his obstruction of justice,

Trump and Barr conspire to weaponize law enforcement and classified information against their political enemies.

The coverup has entered a new and dangerous phase.

This is un-American.

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) May 24, 2019

Just in case Twatter has deleted this, here's the text:

While Trump stonewalls the public from learning the truth about his obstruction of justice,

Trump and Barr conspire to weaponize law enforcement and classified information against their political enemies.

The coverup has entered a new and dangerous phase.

This is un-American.

That is, he's complaining about the president taking very action Dems were screaming they wanted just a few hours earlier.

Ya think maybe--just maybe--the Dems were never arguing from a substantive standpoint but merely trying to peel away votes and support for Trump by throwing out as many unsupported claims as they can?

Why are Democrats suddenly against the transparency they so recently demanded?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tucker-carlson-accuses-democrats-of-trying-to-distract-americans-from-the-real-problems

Unrepetant U.S.-born pro-Muslim terrorist released early--cuz, reasons

On the lighter side...First "senior moment"

125 years ago you didn't need permission to...

Now you can't do any of these things without getting a permit from the government.  If you think this is good--or that this trend isn't gonna get worse--you're probably a Democrat/Liberal.

Literally, the EPA and Corps of Engineers have prosecuted Americans for catching rainwater on their own property.  Seriously.

Way back in 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that the government had the right to tell a farmer he couldn't plant more than X acres of wheat on his own farm because of the "commerce clause."  The court ruled this even though the farmer didn't sell any wheat over his "allotment," and used the rest of his crop to feed his own animals!  Really.

This is crazy.  And will likely get far worse.

"Toxic masculinity"?

Seattle: Long but VERY educational video on the problem

If you want to see how liberal policies ruin a city, watch the video below.  The team that made it works for a local TV station, so they're totally familiar with the problems--more than a parachute team from NBC or NPR would be.  They know who on the council is blocking the cops from doing their job.

They also know that the real problem is NOT "homelessness" per se, but drug addiction, combined with soft-on-crime liberal judges who release thieves with no punishment, even when the same guy is caught for the same thing 20 times a year!

Dems can't admit the real problem--drugs and insane judges--so they wail that the problem is "homelessness."  Dude, that's an effect of drug addiction.  Lock up the drug sellers and users, and watch your problems plummet.

Instead the Seattle city council has changed the law so people can carry up to 3 grams of heroin without penalty.  It's insane.  "But...but...drugs are totes cool, man!  No harm!  You ain't the boss of me!"