Dem presidential candidate shows his grasp of economic issues, says economy is AWFUL

After the big nothing of Mueller's report ("no evidence of Russian collusion") all the Democrat party leaders have neatly pivoted to calling trump a raaacist.  Or sometimes a "heinous racist."  Here's Dem presidential candidate Jay Inslee explaining that Trump...well let's let ol' Jay speak for himself:

Donald Trump is a failed president on the economy. He has failed to produce auto industry jobs in Flint. He has failed to bring back jobs in the coal industry and this is a distraction. His blatant, evil, heinous racism is an attempt to distract us from our mission statement which should unify this country and give people economic opportunities that they deserve.

Yeah, sure would be great if Americans were being given "economic opportunities that they deserve," eh?   Cuz this disastrously high unemployment rate--especially for minorities--and the ailing, anemic stock market, and the soaring numbers of Americans who are being forced onto food stamps, and selling body parts or illegal drugs or their children just to keep up with increases in the monthly cost of Netflix and DirectTV... I mean, where will it end?

There's only one thing to do, citizens!  We must vote to give the Democrats the presidency and control of both houses of congress in 2020! 
  

Two black female volunteers for anti-violence group gunned down while holding vigil on Chitcongo street corner; Dems blame Trump

In Chitcongo last Friday two black women who were volunteers in an anti-violence movement were working as "peacekeepers" at a streetcorner when they were shot dead in a drive-by shooting.

One woman had 3 children, the other had two.  They're orphans now.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca), congressman Elijah Cummings (D-Baltimore), Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit), Ayanna Pressley (D-New York), Ilhan Omar (D-Little Somalia) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) issued a joint statement blaming president Trump for "polarizing and damaging our society by his racist policies, and making racist comments."

When pressed by a reporter as to what specific comments the group considered "racist" Tlaib said "Everything he says is racist.  Haven't you heard him speak?  The man is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic and hates black and brown people!"

AOC added "He's ripped children from their mothers' arms and put them in cages!  He makes innocent refugees drink out of toilets!  He's set up concentration camps on the border that are worse than the ones set up by that guy who was in Germany in one of those wars!"

In Germany, illegal immigrant pushes mother and her son in front of train; media headline: "Boy killed"

In Frankfurt, Germany, an illegal immigrant from Ethiopia pushed mother and her 8-year-old son off a train platform just as a train was arriving. 

The mother managed to roll between the tracks and lived.  Her son was hit and killed.

Now:  How do you think German news media reported this outrage?  Was it
   Boy killed by train
   Boy falls off platform, hit by train
   Boy pushed onto tracks by unknown assailant, dies; or
   Illegal immigrant pushes mother and her 8-yr-old son in front of train

Here's a clue:  The Lying Mainstream Media in Germany has exactly the same goals as the Lying Mainstream Media here:

1. Protect the socialist party at all costs; and since the socialists want open borders,
2. ...Never, never, never publish any story that shows illegal immigrants killing native-born citizens.

Mueller report finds not a shred of evidence of "Russian collusion." Dems pivot to Plan B

For two entire years, every time the Lying Mainstream Media mentioned the "Mueller report" they invariably used the same word to describe its absolutely certain finding:  "Damning!"

As Tucker Carlson put it, "so damning you could block the Colorado River with it and create your own hydropower."  Yep yep yep.

Umm...so when the much-hyped "damning" report was finally made public, what did Mueller find?

Not a scintilla of evidence of "Russian collusion"--which was the entire excuse for appointing Mueller in the first place.

But Democrats weren't about to take that as clearing OrangeManBad.  No sir!  So they and their allies in the Lying Mainstream Media neatly, seamlessly pivoted to Plan B:  That the president was guilty of "obstruction of justice," either by firing Comey, or trying to get sessions to fire Mueller, or...really, would it matter?  They were determined to overthrow this president, and if the painstaking, costly investigation by Mueller and his Democrat investigators found no evidence of "collusion," the Dem leaders would find something else.  And no one explains this treasonous charade better than Tucker Carlson:

Idiot Dem tweets that whites own dogs cuz "deep down they miss owning slaves." Really, she said that.

Just when you thought liberals couldn't be any dumber:

Do you love dogs?  Have one?   Delightful, lovable critters.  Now: If you're WHITE, do you know WHY you love your dog?  No?  Well here comes a liberal to tell ya:

Yep...if you're white--but only if you're white--the reason this idiot bitch claims you love your dog is that you "deep down miss owning slaves."  You "love the owner/master dynamic, desperate for something to control."

Really, she wrote that.  It's almost impossible to believe that anyone could be that cynical and demented.  (BTW, have you met Nancy Pelosi, Alexi Cortez, Chucky Schumer, Jerry Nadler, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Eliz Warren, Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden yet?)

Danielle's tweet is so moronic that one is almost tempted to think she's a Trump supporter trying to demonize the Left/Dems.  Uh, no.  She really is a Democrat.

A commenter pointed out "Obama and Moochelle owned dogs. Did they want to be slave owners?"

Of course Danielle only ascribed "dog owners really miss being slave owners" only applies to WHITES.

Another commenter noted "I'm white.  I never owned slaves.  Neither did any of my ancestors.  But I own a dog.  Please explain how your comment is remotely rational, or even passingly sane."

Ya have to wonder how many liberals and Dems wholeheartedly believe this crap.

Well-known satire website lampoons black female snowflake; "fact-checkers" bitch about the satire

You probably read about the incident below...cuz it was the lead story on damn near every mainstream media outlet:

ATLANTA, GA—Georgia state representative Erica Thomas went on social media this weekend to express her outrage at a Chick-fil-A employee's comments to her in the restaurant's drive-thru.

According to her viral Twitter post, the black state legislator [yes, she was elected] claims that after she thanked the white cashier for her food, the cashier pointed his finger at her and angrily shouted, "Go back to your country!"

"This is what's happening in Trump's America," she concluded.

Thousands of online users shared and commented on the post, showing their support for Thomas and their outrage at the racist attack.

Chick-fil-A immediately investigated the claim, and security footage revealed the employee, who is of Chinese descent, said nothing even remotely close to the alleged comments.

In light of the security-cam footage Thomas walked back her claim a bit, saying "He definitely said something to me.  I thought it was 'go back to your country,' but now that I think about it longer he may actually have said 'My pleasure.'"

Even after the clarification the Chick-fil-A employee still wrote Thomas an apology for any misunderstanding, and the restaurant's manager gave her coupons for a week's worth of free chicken biscuits.

Wait...something doesn't sound right here:  I thought the eeeebil cuban man who had the gall to call this bitch out for having 20 items in the "max 10 items express line" happened at a Publix, not Chick-Fil-A.

Congratulations, you're right.  So what the hell is going on with the above post?

It's satire, baby--from the well-known satire website "The Babylon Bee."

But with great respect to the creative geniuses at the Bee, that isn't the funny part:  The funny part is that the supposed "fact-checkers" at the leftist cesspool site "Snopes" fell for the satire.

That is, when a reader asked Snopes if the story was true, instead of Snopes saying "Dude, everyone knows the Bee is satire," they whined that the story "muddied the waters."

Yeah, satire is definitely something Democrats and Leftists believe their opponents shouldn't be allowed to use, ever.  See, satire is way to close to revealing the truth about the Left.

"I have a dream! Or maybe 'had' a dream"

Supreme Court rules Trump can use funds to build wall; NPR and media sneer "This isn't over!"

When any court, at any level, blocks a Trump proposal to increase border security, every Lying Mainstream Media outlet crows with glee.  "Yay, we defeated da OrangeMan!!!"

By contrast, when Trump wins in the f'n Supreme Court, the Lying Mainstream media does its best to write stories that camouflage the victory, often emphasizing that "appeals against this disastrous decision continue," or even spinning the story as a defeat for Trump.

In the latest example:  Trump had proposed to use $2.5 Billion in "uncommitted" funds from the Defense Department to build more border wall.  A lower court judge had ruled that he couldn't do that--and the Mainstream Media crowed with glee. 

Of course the Constitution specifies that in an emergency the president can take whatever action he deems necessary to secure our borders against an invasion.  And sure enough, last Friday the Supreme Court--acknowledging the clear provision of the Constitution--overturned the lower court ruling, saying the president could indeed use the $2.5 Billion to build more border wall.

Predictably, the Left and Mainstream Media went nuts.  Here's how the leftists at NPR described it:

Supreme Court Lets Trump Border Wall Move Forward, But Legal Fight Still Looms

Got that?  According to NPR the SC "lets Trump wall move forward."  Not a word about the Constitutionality of the decision, cuz, reasons.  Also, to show their Democrat readers/listeners that this fight isn't over--by a LONG shot--the headline adds "the legal fight still looms."

Cuz, see, the Supreme Court saying "yes" don't mean squat to the Left.  NPR is convinced that there's a higher court than the Supremes--like maybe Hawaii or the 9th Circus--where this terrible decision that cruelly punishes all the innocent women and children in the world--can be put right.

Yeh, go wit' dat.  NPR continues:

The debate over the funding began earlier this year when Trump declared a national emergency along the country's southern border after Congress refused to appropriate enough money for him to build the massive structure along the U.S.-Mexico border, which Trump frequently touted he would do during the 2016 campaign if elected — though back then he proclaimed that Mexico would pay for it.

"Enough" money?  Think again, cupcake:  Congress didn't appropriate a single dollar for wall.  But we wouldn't expect to hear that from NPR.  Cuz to them "any" is a synonym for "enough."  Well, for now at least. 

Almost a month ago a federal judge ruled against Trump and sided with liberal groups...[including] the Sierra Club, California and 19 other states. In an earlier ruling over the issue, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam said the Trump administration's plans were "unlawful" and that such a re-appropriation of funds by the executive branch after a denial from the legislative branch "does not square with fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic."

And yet the Supreme f'n Court disagreed.  Hmm...who's right, eh?  Well to hear NPR tell it, the lower court is right.  And the only reason the SC reversed that court is cuz da eeeebil OrangeMan has packed the court with conservatives.  Ooooh, bad!!!

Following the Supreme Court's stay on Friday, the ACLU said it will now try to expedite the hearing before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals over the legality of Trump's actions.

"This is not over. We will be asking the federal appeals court to expedite the ongoing appeals proceeding to halt the irreversible and imminent damage from Trump's border wall," Dror Ladin, a staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, said in a statement. "Border communities, the environment, and our Constitution's separation of powers will be permanently harmed should Trump get away with pillaging military funds for a xenophobic border wall Congress denied."

How...interesting.  So did the ACLU sue congress when congress--with a huge vote from Democrats--including Hilliary--who voted to build a wall on the southern border back in 2006?  Why no, no they didn't.  Cuz the ACLU knew the Dems never intended to build the wall, and that their vote was simply to avoid losing votes from Americans who recognized we needed one.

But it's all good, citizen:  NPR and PBS and CNN and MSNBC and Rachel Maddow and Chrissie Matthews and Don Lemon and Chris Hayes and Chris Cuomo and the rest of the "elites" have reassured you--endlessly--that we need open borders and unlimited immigration from third-world thugs, murderers and drug dealers.

Cuz, "diversity is our greatest strength," eh?

Pelosi to president: "I want to see you in prison."

Start drinking now, cuz leftist site says we have just 18 months to save the Earth!!! Maybe only 14!

 Lord, what would we do without the leftist geniuses at "ThinkProgress"?
Oh wait, you may not have heard of the brain-trusts at ThinkProgress, so let me explain:  That site is a collection of the dumbest sons of bitches on the planet.

I mean, they'd lose a debate with a random panel of Somalis.  Really, really dumb.  And yet...

They "think" they know exactly what the U.S. and the world need to make "progress."

See, that's sort of an inside joke.  But I digress: 

If you're a hard-working American you may recall that a few months ago the brilliant AOC decreed that we only have ten years to save the planet from the dread "global warming" climate change.  Got that?  Cuz...well, just take her word for it.  If you don't believe 'em, you're a raaaaacist!  Or maybe a homophobe, or trans-phobic.  Wait, I got it:  You're a "climate denier."

See, I just made up a word.  Watch for that word to go viral on websites like "ThinkProgress."

Wait...are you saying the WaPo and NY Times and every other moronic leftist outlet have already coined that term?  Well damn...

So...one of the brainiacs at TP has decided that AOC's "We've only got ten years left..." isn't scary enough.  Ooooh, what to do, what to do?

I got it!  Shorten the window for action to save Earth to, oh, say, 14 to 18 months.


Yeh, dat's da ticket!  Ten years wasn't scary enough, so...

Okay, I can understand that you have a hard time believing any human could be that f'n dumb.  So to save you from the effort of clicking on their site, here's their entire story, titled

We don’t have 12 years to save the climate. We have 14 months!!

The deadline for protecting our children from a ruined climate is close at hand!!

It's by a really really smaht atmospheric physicist named Joe Romm.  Joe was actually a drama major at the South Chicago School of Drama and Climate Science before he decided to change his major to atmospheric physics.  But now he's published six highly-praised papers in that field and is widely recognized as one of the best climate scientists on the planet.  Really.

Okay, that might be a search result for a different Joe Romm.  Cuz, well, it's a common name.

So here's Joe's piece explaining why we have just 14 months to save the planet:

Scientific reality makes clear that the only plausible way to preserve a livable climate — and hence modern civilization — starts with aggressive national and global cuts in carbon pollution by 2030.

Really?  "Scientific reality" makes that clear, Joe?  Tell ya what, cupcake:  Meet me on any stage of your choosing, and I'll show you 14 unequivocal facts that demolish your alleged "scientific reality."  You're an idiot, and the scientists you cite are greedy frauds. 

Also, unless my math is rusty 2030 is more than 14 months.  Hell, I think it may even be more than 18 months.  But I thought you just got thru saying (headline) "14 to 18 months".  WTF?  But hey, I've only taken math thru calc-4 so what do I know, eh?  (Joe later makes clear that the "18 months" is the time to the 2020 election, which he claims is "our last chance to save the planet."

But political reality makes clear that such cuts can’t happen instantly — and that global action requires leadership from the United States. After all, the U.S. is the richest country in the world and the biggest cumulative source of heat-trapping emissions over the past century.

With eight years of a pro-science president, Barack Obama, the nation made steady progress on reducing emissions and committing to future reductions, enabling a global climate deal in Paris in 2015. But with just two and a half years of an anti-science administration, national and global progress have both stalled under President Donald Trump, who has begun to abandon the Paris Accord and undermine action here and abroad.

That means November 3, 2020 — the U.S. presidential election — is the deadline for Americans who do not want to destroy the health and well-being of  [everyone on Earth; actually Joe wrote "current generations, their children, and future generations" but it seemed a bit wordy]. If Trump is reelected, the prospects for the necessary national and global cuts in carbon pollution by 2030 will be gone.

Why are deep cuts by 2030 so important?  Back in October 2018, nations around the world unanimously approved a landmark report from scientists warning that we must make rapid reductions in global carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 in order to have any plausible chance of averting catastrophic climate change.

That report — published by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — led to headlines like “We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN” by The Guardian, and “The world has just over a decade to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say” from the Washington Post.

Yeah, cupcake, headlines equal scientific fact.  Really!  Just like all those articles back in the 1970s that screamed the planet was about to die from the "coming ice age!!!!"  So did you notice we're all still...how to put it?...alive?  Did ya notice how icy it got, and how we barely survived?  No?  How... interesting.  Almost like those headlines were hype--what you sophisticates would call click-bait or something.

But when freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) made the exact same point this January — that U.S. millennials "fear the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change”...

Stop right there, cupcake:  "...U.S. millenials fear that the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don't address global warming climate change."  Yeah, dat's da only scientific info we need, right?  If "U.S. millenials fear" something, adults better damn well pay attention and snap to, eh? Cuz dey all bees atmospheeeeric physiks expurts or sumpin'.

— the right-wing and even some in the media pounced.

Ever notice how when people who actually know about science try to correct morons on the left who majored in drama, the mainstream media describe it as "the right-wing pounced"?

So ThinkProgress contacted leading experts on exactly what the science says.

And you may be certain TP contacted a wide range of "experts" on both sides of the argument, eh?  Wait, you say they only contacted "experts" who were firmly on the side of  "all global warming climate change is caused by CO2, emitted by human activity, mostly by Americans"?

They confirmed that, yes, as Ocasio-Cortez said, the world must act fast if we are to maintain any plausible hope of avoiding the catastrophic impacts that come with warming of 2 degrees Celsius or more above pre-industrial temperatures.

This is a classic propaganda technique: Ol' Joe put the "warming of 2 degrees C or more" at the end of that sentence.  But that's the entire claim that's being debated here, so putting it at the end of the sentence saying "if we are to have any hope of avoiding" implicitly forces readers to accept the premise, without any proof.


But I'm sure every intelligent American reader caught that.

For instance, climatologist Michael Mann told ThinkProgress “Projected impacts look especially bad beyond 2°C or so of planetary warming.  And there is no scenario for stabilizing warming below 2°C that doesn’t require rapid reductions in carbon emissions over the next decade.”

Mann is one of the handful of utterly corrupt assholes running this scam who was caught asking co-conspirators via email to block publication of  papers announcing the discovery of huge holes in the global warming climate change hypothesis.  But you can, like, totally trust Mann to be objective.

The ’12 years’ rhetoric does not originate from the fact that we might hit 1.5 degrees C in 2030. It originates from the fact that if we don’t make very deep cuts by 2030, we have no possible chance of keeping below 1.5 degrees — and if we don’t make deep cuts by 2030 we are going to blow past 2 degrees.

But the people using the 2030 deadline aren’t saying any specific disaster will happen immediately after missing such a deadline. They are saying if we don’t make deep cuts by 2030, then we can’t stop catastrophic climate change in the ensuing decades.

They aren't naming a "specific disaster," just that we can't stop catastrophe.  Ah...

The fact is, all the major climate change impacts — like sea level rise, Dust-Bowlification, and temperature rise — are irreversible over a span of centuries if not millennia.

See, that's where that degree in atomospheric physiks is needed.  Plain ol' orrdinary folks couldn't have deduced that temperature rise was...what was that word again?  Oh yeah: "irreversible"

Ya know, it's interesting that MOST of the scientific community agrees that millenia ago, CO2 levels were about four times higher than today.  So if CO2 is "irreversibly" driving warming, how the hell did we ever get back to a "livable" temperature, eh?

You're not supposed to ask that.

The IPCC made that very clear in its big 2014 “synthesis” report. The summary of that report for policymakers, which was signed off by every major country, mentions “irreversible” 14 times and has extended discussions of exactly what it means and why it matters. Deadlines matter.

If the world is to have any plausible chance of saving the climate, we need the strongest possible action by 2030, and that means we need to elect a president in 2020 who understands the urgency, and who understands that deadlines matter in the face of irreversible catastrophe. 

Wow!  I never saw that one coming, did you?  It's almost like Joe and the cunning editors at TP were using "global warming" climate change to scare incredibly gullible voters into voting for whoever the Democrat nominee is in 2020.

Yeh, nevah saw that coming at all.
===

If you wanna read Joe's full piece click here.

Democrat leader Pelosi tweets that Trump is stealing money from our troops to build wall

Last Friday evening the Supreme Court issued a decision that allowed president Trump to use $2.5 Billion in uncommitted military funds to build another 100 miles of that beautiful wall.

Ten minutes after the decision was released I predicted that the Democrat party leaders would find a way to spin that to wail that a) the Supreme Court decision was EEEEbil; b) that this decision meant that da eeebil OrangeMan was taking bullets and food and flak vests and jet fuel away from our beloved troops (suddenly the Dems are concerned about the troops, where that's never, ever been the case before); and c) that the Dems were gonna appeal the decision to...uh...some higher court.  Or lower court.  Cuz, some f'n lizard would be inconvenienced by the wall--which actually has foot-wide openings every foot specifically to allow lizards and other critters to pass through.

Well...the cliche is that whenever you try to satirize Democrats, they out-do any satire you can imagine.  And sure enough, Nancy Pelosi--sometimes touted by the Lying Mainstream Media as the leader of the Democrat party--just issued the following "tweet:"

This evening’s Supreme Court ruling allowing @realDonaldTrump to steal military funds to spend on a wasteful, ineffective border wall rejected by Congress is deeply flawed. Our Founders designed a democracy governed by the people — not a monarchy.

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) July 26, 2019

If that was blurry, here's what the bitch said:

This evening’s Supreme Court ruling allowing @realDonaldTrump to steal military funds to spend on a wasteful, ineffective border wall rejected by Congress is deeply flawed. Our Founders designed a democracy governed by the people — not a monarchy.

Wow, the bullshit quotient on Nancy's tweet is so off-the-charts that it's hard to know where to start.  But since whining is for wusses, I'll volunteer to take this bitch on:

So you claim the decision of the Supreme f'n Court allowed Trump to "steal military funds," eh?   Wow, if that were true, isn't it amazing that the Supreme f'n Court didn't realize that, eh bitch?  That must be cuz you're so f'n smart and they're just dummies, eh?

You claim a border wall is "wasteful, ineffective," eh?  In that case why did your f'n party vote FOR the wall back when Bush was prez?  Oh yeah: cuz they knew voting AGAINST it would cost them dearly in the next election.  You bastards had to vote FOR it.  The record is public and unequivocal:  Y'all lied about supporting it.

Lied.  Lied.  Lied.  And if it's about to bite your party in the ass I couldn't be happier, bitch.

You claim the wall was "rejected by congress,"eh?  See the comment above:  As noted, your party previously voted FOR the border wall, because you.

Finally Pelosi writes "Our Founders designed a democracy governed by the people, not a monarchy."  Bitch, the Supreme Court was following a document you obviously don't know a thing about.  It's called "The Constitution," and it says the president is responsible for securing our borders against foreign threats.  You characterize the president's actions as those of "a monarchy," but it's actually Constitutional government, working as the Founders--whom you piously claim, for the moment, to revere--specifically prescribed in the...wait for it...Constitution.

Which, if I'm not mistaken, you swore an oath to protect.  But we all know that means jack-shit to Democrats.

Ya know, for the leader of the Democrat party, you don't seem to actually know jack about the Constitution.

Why am I not surprised?

Bet you've forgotten all the Obama appointees who were involved in destroying this country

Okay, the caption should have read "should have *hanged* them for treason."

Tomayto, tomahto.

A "trendy" new "fashion" from your elite betters in New York

As everyone knows, the fashion "industry" is totally dominated by homosexuals--which has...shall we say...some influence on their designs.  And in case you're young, let's explain:  In today's America those designs glorify turning men into metrosexual beta males.

I stumbled onto the tweet below by accident.  Tried using "brain bleach" (works like Hilliary's "Bleachbit") but it didn't kill all the neurons involved with the trauma.  Someone speculated that the "fashion" shown below is a sure sign of the "end times." 

Frankly, I wouldn't argue with that.

This is part of Thom Browne's 2020 Collection for men. Codpiece, shorts, high heel sneakers.

Pretty sure this is one of the signs of the Apocalypse. pic.twitter.com/zeZdTMuCqZ

— Mark Grant (@mgrant76308) July 26, 2019

Mueller report: Every single Mainstream Media claims it's..."damning"

For over a year the Democrat leadership and their Hollywood supporters sneered that Robert Mueller's 22-month, $20-million-dollar investigation would, like, totally prove that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election.

Last Christmas they sneered that in just a few months, when Messiah Mueller released the report he'd compiled, that would be the end of OrangeManBad, and the nation could go back to the loving, peaceful government run by Democrats and Deep State agents.

Well...how did that work out?

Seems Mueller a) didn't read his own report; b) that the report was written by his rabidly anti-Trump staffers--every one of whom was a radical Democrat; c) that the report found ZERO evidence of any collusion; d) that the only ray of hope for the Dem cause was that Mueller claimed his team "could not definitively exonerate" Trump from *other* charges.

Of course that's never been the issue.  But no matter:  The Dems were gonna run with that, cuz that's all they had left.  So watch below as 20 Lying Mainstream Media outlets--all of 'em totally kissing the ass of Democrats--claim the Mueller report was "damning:"

Wow.  Ain't it amazing how every media talking-head whore used the same term, eh?  "Damning."  Almost as if they were reading from the same script, eh?

But we assure you, citizen:  There is not a scintilla of evidence of bias in the Lying Mainstream Media.

Mandatory Google warning:  Viewers are advised that the above alleged video has nothing to do with anything.  You are advised not to draw any conclusions from it.  In fact it may well be a fake.

Robert Mueller is extremely honest and non-partisan, so if he says something, you should believe him.  His investigation was totally non-partisan, as were the members of his staff.  You are instructed to ignore right-wing bloggers who claim he only hired Democrats.  There is not a bit of evidence to support this.  While it's true that some of his staffers donated to the Clinton campaign, that isn't proof that they were Democrat supporters.  

A better explanation is that they were pro-feminists, pro-gay-marriage, pro-transgender and anti-war.  And because you believe in human rights, you support those causes too, right?  And of course Hillary supported all those causes.  So this just shows that Mr. Mueller's staff were "good Americans" just like you, citizen.

[As always, thanks to the folks at Streamable.com for their video posting service.]

Some foreigners come here and immediately try to make "here" like the shit-hole they left

Gang of blacks beat and stomp tourist at front entrance of DC Hilton; Lying Mainstream Media yawns

If you're a normal American, working hard to make your house payment and raise your kids right, and you don't live in a Democrat-ruled shit-hole city where monsters beat people for no reason other than meanness, you have no idea how violent black teens in those cities have become.

You need to know.  The reason is, uncivilized, violent savages are making this country unsafe for normal, civilized people trying to do routine things. 

Even more alarming, the attack captured on video shown below didn't happen in Baltimore, or Philly, or Chitcongo, but in...this nation's capital, just blocks from the capitol building.  If the monsters are so unconcerned about being caught and punished in Washington DC, it should tell you something.

So you need to watch the 46-second clip below, as a gang of about 15 black "teens" beat and stomp a white tourist at the DC Hilton.  Caution:  If you have high blood-pressure, don't watch it. 

Now, the chances of the corrupt DC cops identifying any of the attackers is less than one percent.  Worse yet, given the utterly morally corrupt liberal judges in DC, in the astronomically unlikely event that anyone were to be identified, anyone wanna bet on the "punishment"?  Something on the order of 20 hours of "community service," stuffing envelopes for a Democrat fund-raising group.

Say, you know what we need to stop things like this?  Why, more Democrats running things!  Cuz Democrats know that punishment doesn't deter mugging and other lawbreaking.  What's needed is... college scholarships for blacks!  More midnight bakkaball.  More welfare for single teen moms, to encourage more single teen girls to have kids.  Preventing schools from taking more disciplinary action against blacks than whites, regardless of the number of offenses committed by the two groups.

Yes, that's definitely the way to go.  So vote Democrat in 2020!

Pro-sex-change against parents' will, enforced by the courts, has come to the U.S.

If you're a parent you probably don't believe the tranny mafia, aided by the courts and the school system, would help your 15-year-old.daughter get a sex-change operation over your objections.

Well, not in the U.S, anyway.  It's been happening in the Peoples' Republic of Canada for about five years now, but no one believed it could happen here so quickly.  Silly us. 

So...in Minnesota a 14-year-old girl decided she wanted to be quasi-male, so she ran away from home, and a year later a state-supported legal-aid provider gave her a letter stating she was "legally emancipated."  (In most states that determination can only be made by a judge.)

Using that letter the daughter.was able to obtain what the liberal press cunningly calls "gender transition care," but which court filings make clear is sex-change surgery.

 

The mother sued the medical provider and the school system for violating her parental rights, but a district court ruled against her, and last March a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling . 

 

In the written opinion Circuit Judge Steven Colloton brushed off the mother's suit by saying that her claims were "moot" because the daughter had turned 18.

That is, the corrupt, pro-tranny judge ruled that EVEN IF the "legal-aid provider" and the medical center that performed the surgery interfered with mom's rights as a parent, the judge wouldn't let her sue BECAUSE while the mom tried to get her daughter back, the girl turned 18, so...neener neener neener.  Can't punish the pro-trans agents.  Can't even SUE 'em.

Such is the state of the United States today.  If I had kids I'd be really angry.

Judge supports Trump move to limit asylum; hours later an Obama-appointee reversed him, so open borders again

The Deep State is absolutely determined to give the Democrats the open-borders they demand.  To do this they'll file lawsuit after lawsuit until they find a judge who will rule for their open-borders demand.

Latest example:  The Trump administration proposed a rule change intended to reduce the number of foreigners who apply for "asylum" in the U.S.  Before the ink was dry on that proposal, Democrats pushing for open borders filed suit to have the rule blocked.

Amazingly, a federal judge in D.C. ruled that the government had the absolute right to change the rule as proposed.

Within literally hours of that decision the NY Times wrote that this ruling was merely "temporary," "until it could be reversed by a higher court."  Amazingly, the Times nailed it, as just hours ago a U.S. district judge/asshole/gay, Obama-appointed for the Northern District of California--the Constitution-hating Jon Tigar--overruled the D.C. judge.

Cool, eh?  So we're back to open borders again.

And the Democrats are laughing their asses off at once again blocking a Trump effort to secure our borders.  Cuz according to Dems, "diversity is our greatest strength."

Yeah.

Welcome to the new country

Gang of teen thugs brutally kick and beat a white couple.  Attack captured on security camera.

See, da couple was in da hood lookin' fo' a dime bag, but dey tried to haggle wit' da homey.  So ya gots to espect dis.  Cuz da boyz gots to keep da respek, eh homes?

Uh, no.  The white couple was taking their trash out to the curb outside their home.

Whole new world, eh citizen?  Welcome to da new Kalifornia, citizen.  You will learn your place--or you'll be beaten to death.  This was just a practice.

Mueller's testimony: Many think dud, but Dems got a HUGE win in what they wanted

The Democrats and their "progressive" and "Resistance" allies have been trying to torpedo Trump since early 2016--which is before he was even the GOP nominee, and at least nine months before the election. 

Among the dozens of illegal ways they tried to do that was by begging "electors"--the citizens who actually cast the electoral votes decided by each individual state--from states that went for Trump to cast their vote for Hillary instead.

Wow!

When that failed they tried to cripple him by claiming that he "colluded with Putin" to somehow rig the vote in his favor.  Two years later Mueller would report that he and his team of rabid Trump-haters found no evidence of that.

The Dems have also talked up the possibility of using the 25th Amendment to remove the president.  For those who aren't political junkies, that's a way to remove a president who's claimed--by congress--to be crazy.

But the Great Hope for the Dems--their easy shot at removing the president--was Mueller's two-year investigation into charges that Trump "colluded with Russia"--allegedly to somehow steal the election from Democrats.  They were absolutely certain Mueller would support the charge of collusion.

In case you hadn't heard, Mueller found no evidence of that.  But the hope among the "elites" and Hollywood [spit] and the Resistance was SO intense that last December the bastards made a disgusting (from their standpoint, "cute") video.  Watch these smug, smirking bastards as they gloat about what they're sure will be the impeachment of the most-successful president in over a century:

NOW:  In Mueller's appearance the clever, well-rehearsed Democrats on the committee hammered the claim that Trump obstructed justice.  In a series of brilliantly-scripted, leading questions they got Mueller to agree--with one-word "yes" answers--that all elements of obstruction were present.  This was their goal, and now they'll decide what to do with that gift.

For months now, the Lying Mainstream Media has been claiming that Nancy Pelosi opposes impeachment--i.e. she's the "good cop," the sole voice of reason.  The media did this to support Democrats.  But it's a lie:  Pelosi isn't the voice of reason; she and her fellow Dems want power, and will do anything to get it.  She couldn't care less about putting the nation through impeachment if she thinks that will get her party the power she craves.  And if the four whores of the apocalypse convince a majority of Americans to support impeachment, she'll "reluctantly" agree.

"Reluctantly."  Uh-huh.

Now the entire thing comes down to this:  If the Dems can show that the president "obstructed justice," does this qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" for purposes of impeachment?

Got a wild-ass guess how the Democrats will vote on that?

So...the Dems are perfectly positioned to flog "impeachment cuz obstruction" claim all the way to election day.  And they will, led by the four most visible, most radical, most Trump-hating Democrat reps.





[As always, thanks to Streamable for their great free video-editing service.]

Venezuela: starving adults fight kids to grab bananas, cuz...socialism!! Yay!

There's a nation in South America--which formerly had the highest per-capita income in South America but now a "shithole nation"  because it elected a socialist (communist) leader. 

Its people are now starving.  It's so bad that years ago they killed all the zoo animals for their meat.  No, I'm not kidding.

Of course you don't believe this, cuz you never saw it on your nightly news, nor read it in the NY Times or the Washington Post.  So...can't possibly be true, right?  Must be a right-wing conspiracy, eh?

Yeah.  Well, here--by the miracle of the internet and cell phones--we have a video of Venezuelan adults fighting children to grab bananas that fell off a truck.

Fighting over...bananas.  In f'n South America, where you'd think bananas...grew on trees or sumpin'.

But don't take my word for it:  As the saying goes, "Let's roll tape!"

A tragic scene out of the #socialist, horror movie. It’s real. It’s a documentary from the socialist paradise of #Venezuela. Children & adults alike battle each other for leftover bananas necessary for their survival. #SocialismKills pic.twitter.com/mOfnNGM9OY

— Prof. Steve Hanke (@steve_hanke) July 23, 2019

"So easy a congressman can do it!"

Democrat council member screams bloody murder about proposed "straight-pride rally"

"Gay pride."  Woo-hoo!!!  The Democrats have given 'em an entire month as "Pride month."

Note that in coining the term "Pride month" the Democrats cunningly omitted "gay."  That's not an accident, cuz if you're a good person--and you are a good person, right?--you absolutely support "pride," right?  Cuz how could any good American be against "pride," right?

Oh wait...not all "pride" events are good.  It's important that you recognize that, citizen.  Some "pride" is bad.  As in, good Democrats won't let you have pride in...anything they don't like.

Of course you think I'm kidding.  You literally can't believe that the Democrats would support such a brazen, obvious double-standard.

Hahahahahaha!  I see you just arrived on the planet!  Do enjoy your stay!

Okay, you need to be educated.  So here's what the Mainstream Media are saying:

MODESTO (CBS13) — The city of Modesto is considering awarding a permit for a straight-pride march in a local park--and residents have mixed reviews on the idea.

Wow!  In their very first sentence CBS13 plants the negative inference: "residents have mixed reviews" on the idea of a "straight-pride" march.

The city is reviewing the application and said phones are ringing off the hook.  Council member Kristi Ah You said “We’ve been getting letters, emails, comments, and phone calls all day about it.”  She said if it was up to her, this permit wouldn’t be considered because the message behind the event constitutes hate speech.

Didja get that, citizen?  This Democrat scrunt believes "Straight" pride equals "hate speech."  It's vital that you understand that this is the official Democrat position.  If you don't believe that, stop reading; you're too naive to breed.

So this Democrat/communist scrunt continues:

“I don’t think we need to give a permit for anything that when you go to the page it talks about whiteness, it talks about western civilization, it talks about being Caucasian. That’s all hate crime stuff to me, that’s not okay,” said Ah You.

Glad you clarified that, bitch:  If anyone discusses "whiteness," or "western civilization," or "Caucasian," "that's all hate-crime stuff to me.  That's not okay."

Yeah.  Glad you clarified that, bitch.

This is the official position of the Democrat party:  Supporting "gay pride" is praised.  But anyone who supports "straight pride" is condemned as homophobic, raaaacist and "nationalistic." 

The demonization of non-homosexual Americans is such obvious propaganda that anyone should be able to see it.  Of course...

But hey, citizen, if you don't join CBS in wailing that anyone who supports "straight pride" is...deplorable.  Homophobic.

Figure it out.  You're being propagandized, by the Lying Mainstream Media.  Every member of which supports anti-American, Democrat agendas.

Figure it out.  You can do this.  It isn't that hard.

Sometimes other bloggers make a point with a lot more flair than I could--in this case Kurt Schlichter:

The Democrats’ theme for 2020 is that you are terrible, and the party’s slogan will be “Americans suck, vote for us.” The precise candidate who will employ this slogan doesn't matter, because they all embrace the same idea:  that punishing the essential moral failure of you and me and every other Normal American is the key goal of the Donkey Party. That goes equally for the Handsey Old Prospector, the Socialist Squaw, Crusty the Commie, Spartacus Sharpton, Starchild, the Furry, Not Ms. Willie Brown, the Unfabulous Gay Guy, and the many Unfabulous Ungay Guys.

H/T Ace.

Tranny sues after salons that offer "waxing" decline to perform this on him; insanity ensues

I'm actually a pretty tolerant person:  It someone wants to set their hair on fire, or inject Drano into their vein, or mutilate themselves--hey, it's their life.

But that tolerance comes to a fast stop when some nutter starts telling me what he, she or it demands that I must do, under penalty of some bullshit law made up by other nuts and enforced by corrupt politicians pandering for votes by virtue-signalling.  Which brings us to the creature below.

The creature below is Johathan Yanniv, a Canadian, and biologically male.  He's wearing a tiara because he's pretending to be a woman.  And if that was as far as he went, I wouldn't have any trouble with that.



Problem is, Jonathan is one of these scrunts who's discovered that he can make a good living by suing any- and everyone, for anything.  If we had rational judges they'd hand him his ass a few times, and he'd learn not to do that, and the problem would be solved.

But in this case there's a huge obstacle to rational thinking.  It's called the Human Rights Commission of British Columbia, Canada, and they've found a way to get lifetime jobs--paid for by hard-working Canadian taxpayers--supporting insane lawsuits by insane people.

It's an amazing racket, and if you'd told people 20 years ago that this would happen, they'd have had you committed for mental problems.  And yet here we are.

In Jonathan's latest scheme, he looked up every "salon" in Vancouver that advertised "body waxing."  He found 18, which he then called and explained that he was a trannie but wanted his male areas waxed.  Not surprisingly, 15 of the 18 salons said they only performed that service for actual women.

WELL!!!  Tranny meltdown!  The guy sued all the salons that refused to wax him--even though he's still got all his original equipment.  At least one was forced to close because of legal bills.

Now the fun begins:  The BCHR commission always wants to support gays and trannies, regardless of the merits of the case.  To do that in this case they're gonna have to rule--and you need to know that their "rules" have the force of law, including the power to impose massive fines on those they rule against--that salons who only wax females must wax male trannies who claim to be female.

I look forward to reading the commission's "reasoning" behind its expected ruling.

AOC says "ALL people should be free to be here, in our communities;" Dem leaders panic

Democrat presidential candidates:

"We are NOT for open borders!  Not!  Absolutely NOT!  We want 'border security'!  Really!"

Democrat congressional leaders (Pelose, Schumer):

"We are NOT for open borders!  Really!  What we want is...'border security.'"

Democrat strategists:

"Republicans claim we Democrats are for open borders and unlimited immigration of unvetted foreigners.  Of course this is NOT REMOTELY true, and it's great that our wonderful leaders and presidential candidates have confirmed that they're actually in favor of...'border security,' even though they quite reasonably won't allow da eeebil Trumpkin to build any more border wall.
   Wait...what?  You say AOC just said “I think all people should be free to be here, in our communities” ?  Oh, don't worry about that, citizen.  When she said "I think ALL people should be free to be here" she didn't really mean open borders.  What she meant was...was...was...that she wanted..."border security"!
   You are absolutely warned NOT to claim that AOC wants open borders, or that our party agrees with her.  Cuz, reasons!"

Ocasio-Cortez on immigration: “I think that all people should be free, to be, here and in our communities” pic.twitter.com/GJIg3ihvMK

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) July 22, 2019

Commenter figures it out

Commenter Norris Allen on Weasel Zippers has figured it out:

• Hard-working Americans pay taxes
• Drug dealers (illegal drugs) don't report any income, so pay no taxes;
• Illegal-aliens who sell illegal drugs not only don't report income, and pay no taxes, they also get all the "free stuff"--welfare and free medical and dental care--paid for by American workers who pay taxes even if they can't afford health insurance for their own families.

When Bernie is challenged on cost of his programs, he has a ready response

I hear they grow all over the place in Venezuela.

Palestinian congresswoman introduces bill to "completely repeal the GOP tax" cuts

Freshman Democrat representative Rashida Tlaib brags that she's introduced a bill that will "completely repeal the GOP tax cuts."

Oh, wait:  She didn't quite say "tax cuts."  She said "tax scam, that is only helping the rich."

TLAIB: “Recently I introduced the BOOST Act. This legislation completely repeals the GOP tax scam that is only helping wealthy individuals, the rich, the corporations. And do you know what I did with that money?  Do you know what I said?  We are going to go ahead and put it into the pockets of folks like everyday Americans. If you make less than $100,000 you are going to get up to $6000 in your pocket, and if you make less than $50,000 you’re going to get $3000. That’s what we do with our public dollars. We give it back to the people, the people that earned it.”

First, consider her statement "And do you know what I did with that money?"  Hey, moron:  You didn't do jack-shit with it.  You introduced a bill--meaning you've proposed to do something. 

Either you're too damn stupid to know--or maybe just too deluded/crazy to know--that your bill has to go thru a LOT of hoops to become an actual, y'know, law--not least of which is that even if it passes the senate, it still doesn't become LAW unless the president of the whole f'n United States signs it.

But of course you're not worried about that, cuz if it passes both houses you're sure Hilliary will sign it straightaway, right?

Oh wait...remind me again:  who's president?

Tlaib calls her "free cash" bill "BOOST"--Building Our Opportunities to Survive and Thrive.  Cute, eh?  Of course the Communists are SO good at giving cutesie names to bills designed to take your hard-earned wages and give 'em to someone else--who will then vote Democrat, eh? 

Sleazy, corrupt presidential candidate Kamala Harris coined the "LIFT Act." 

Sleazy, corrupt presidential candidate Cory Booker coined the "Rise Act."  But all 3 bills do the same thing: they are--to use the Democrat euphemism-- "policy solutions to the rising cost of living and increased income inequality."

Or as the rest of us would say, taking your money and giving it to people who can't afford both their illegal drugs of choice and rent.  In other words, Democrat voters.  (Yeah, I know:  lots of non-Dems in the same wagon.  Ya got me.)

Oh, and hey Rashida, I've got an even better idea:  If you love taking money from earners and giving it to "the poor," why not give away, say, half of your exorbitant congressional salary, eh?  Would you do that first, and then tell us how you liked the result?  Sure, you bet.

So again, give away, say, just half your salary.

Ya know, Rashida, that's such a great idea that it may just catch on!  In fact, isn't there a guy in DC who goes that even one better?  I hear he gives away his ENTIRE salary.  Can't recall his name offhand but I'm sure you could find out.  I do have his address, though, if you're smart enough to figure it out from there:

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Say, as fired up as you are about giving money away--like yours--I really think you should match this guy's public spiritedness.  I hear he wants to Keep America Great.  You probably do too, eh?

Uh-huh.  And do let us know how that works out for ya, ya commie bitch.
===

[For Newsweek's take on this crap, click here.]

Prof who called MAGA teens "Hitler youth" given tenure--lifetime job at taxpayer expense

The tweet below is from a PhD prof --sociology, with a minor in "womens' and gender studies."

MAGA teens are modern day Hitlerjugend. Got a uniform and everything.

— JT 🌹 (@Insurgent_Prof) January 23, 2019

For those who don't read German, "Hitlerjugend" was the "Hitler Youth" organization of the Nazis.  So the guy is equating teens who wear MAGA hats with Hitler Youth.

Well... this intolerant, crazy asshole professor was up for a tenure decision at U.Mississippi.  Some might think there might possibly be a tiny bit of pushback there, but the morons who staff the tenure committee were just fine with it.  After a bit of debate about free speech, they gave him tenure.

Just five days ago the newly-tenured lifetime employee of Mississippi taxpayers decided he'd been way, way to vague with his January tweet, so he clarified:



If this is what passes for tenured profs at the University of Mississippi, imagine how batshit-crazy the profs are in New York and California.

Thug walks up to woman in broad daylight, tries to shoot her. Twice.

If you don't live in a Democrat-ruled shit-hole city you probably can't believe the scene below is real:  Middle of the day, guy with a black shirt over his face walks up to a woman on a porch and tries to shoot her.  Fortunately for her, the thug's gun jams. 

He runs back 20 feet, working the gun's slide trying to clear the jam, then runs right up to her and pulls the trigger again.

Again the gun doesn't fire.  God was looking out for this woman, eh?

Mandatory Google notice:  Viewers are advised that the above alleged video has nothing to do with anything.  You cannot draw any conclusions from it.  Plus it may well be a fake.

Large cities expertly governed by smart Democrat mayors have no more crime than small towns governed by stupid, racist Republicans.

Finally, many Americans falsely believe that some clause in the Constitution gives them the right to own a gun for self-defense, and that owning a gun will enable them to defend themselves in the extremely unlikely event that some other citizen with a gun gets confused about who owns some trivial piece of property. 

The fact is that you do NOT need to own a gun.  Further, the Constitution does NOT give you the right to own one.  And when Democrats finally succeed in banning gun ownership, studies by major universities prove that criminals won't be able to have one either.

Media: "Existential threat" to Trump and his family

According to the brilliant talking-heads at MSNBC, prosecutors at the Southern District of New York were about to take down not only president Trump but also every member of his family.  As they and all the other members of the Lying Mainstream Media repeatedly claimed, this was not just a "threat" to Trump, but "an existential threat."

They repeated that last phrase so often that it's almost as if someone had fed it to 'em as a talking point or something.  Watch:

Keep telling yourself "the Mainstream Media is reliable.  They are my friend.  They tell the truth."

Democrat propagandist repeatedly claims to be able to read Mueller's mind

Wanna see how committed operatives overthrow a president?

You don't, but you need to.  That's why I'm here.  So...

Mueller's testimony before a Democrat-controlled committee was delayed a week.

If you don't follow politics closely you probably think this delay "just happened"--that it was an accident, a coincidence; that the reason was trivial.  Like perhaps Mueller had already scheduled a session with his fitness trainer or something.

Yeah, dat's it.

Really?  Don't be stupid:  The Democrats delayed the show a week to tie up the loose ends in the script Mueller and the Dems will read on Wednesday.  After all, making a lie convincing is hard work, citizen.

Of course you don't believe that, which is understandable.  So consider the article published today by Democrat operative Mary Anne Marsh, preparing the battlespace for Wednesday.  Her own website says her company is "a Democratic public relations consultancy firm."  Here's what she said.  It's very long, but you need to see how propagandists persuade Americans to overthrow a president they hate:

Special Counsel Robert Mueller will testify Wednesday about his investigation into Russian interference in our 2016 election.

Now:  Have you ever heard a Democrat strategist praise a former Marine for a combat role in Vietnam??  No, you haven't.  But watch as Mary Anne extolls "Captain Robert Mueller" for his role there.  Why would a Democrat strategist gushingly praise a Marine in combat in Vietnam?  Because she wants to burnish his credentials as a True American Patriot.  He served in 'Nam, and won lots of awards, so you have to believe he's honest.

Captain Robert Mueller, United States Marine Corps, enlisted, served, and fought in the Vietnam War, rising through the ranks to lead a platoon into combat. He earned the Bronze Star with "V" for combat valor when he rescued a wounded Marine under enemy fire when half his platoon became casualties.

In a separate battle he was shot and wounded but returned to lead his platoon. For his service in Vietnam he earned a Purple Heart, two Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals with Combat "V", Combat Action Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with four service stars, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and Parachutist Badge.

Wow!  Normally Democrats hate the military, but Mary Anne lists every commendation Mueller was awarded from Nam.  Unprecedented, gushing praise.  You have to wonder if she ever praised any other soldier before--except perhaps John Kerry.

Robert Mueller always finishes the job and it is always a job well done.  But his job as Special Counsel isn’t finished…yet.

[Mueller's testimony on Wednesday] is the most important fight of his life and our country. [sic] The fate of our democracy rests on his ability to persuade Congress and the country to act on the Mueller Report--because the subjects of his investigation are a greater threat to us than the enemy he faced as a Marine.

Mueller must make clear to Congress, and the country, [that] the threat to our democracy posed by those he investigated, including Donald Trump, is one of the most serious in our history.

To succeed Mueller must understand that the terms of engagement have changed. It is incumbent upon Mueller to explain clearly and pointedly exactly what Trump, his associates, and Russia did to illegally interfere in the 2016 election.

This is beautifully crafted:  Notice the structure of her second sentence.  If she'd started a sentence by claiming "Trump, his associates, and Russia illegally interfered in the 2016 election" many readers would look for proof (which is missing).  But by inverting the sentence--putting the criminal phrase at the end--more readers accept her debunked claim as if it were true.

If you're skeptical--if you think the construction she used was just an accident--try reversing the roles:

"Prosecutors must explain clearly and pointedly exactly what Mrs. Clinton, her associates and the Chinese did to give beyond-Top-Secret information to China using her private, unsecured email server."

"WAIT...no one ever proved that happened!"  Yeh, dat's exactly the point.

Just as adjustments are made on the battlefield when facing enemy combatants, so too must Mueller change the way he makes his case before Congress.

Undoubtedly, Mueller believes he has already done it. Mueller’s public statement on May 29, 2019, was the equivalent of a hair on fire moment for him.

His quaking voice at the outset made clear Mueller’s disbelief about what he was about to share with the country, and the threat we face from Russia--as well as those who cooperated with them including numerous Americans.

So Mary Anne claims that Mueller's "quaking voice...made clear [his] disbelief about what he was about to "share," eh?  And she knows this...how?  Did she ask him?  Did he volunteer this touching bit of bullshit in an interview with someone else?  Or is she merely clairvoyant?

Nope, just all created propaganda--i.e. bullshit.

The urgency of each word Mueller spoke that day was a five-alarm fire pleading with Congress to act.

See above comment.  With mind-reading skill like that, she should be working for the CIA.

Yet, nothing has happened.  Why?

We are witnessing a classic chicken and egg situation. Mueller’s plea to Congress to open their own investigation is based on his belief that if the material from the Mueller Report, including unsealed indictments and underlying evidence, is publicly revealed then the support for impeachment will soar.

"...based on his belief," eh?  See above comment.  Again, she implicitly claims to be able to read his secret thoughts.  Cool, eh?

"...then the support for impeachment will soar."  This, of course, is her and her party's objective.

That is what Mueller is advocating.

Again, she claims the ability to read Mueller's mind.

That is why on Wednesday Mueller must explain in stark terms what he found in his investigation that makes this threat true and why during his nine-minute statement Mueller implored Congress to take his report and use it to investigate then impeach Trump…because that’s exactly what he said.

Wow!  Mary Anne just wrote that in Mueller's 9-minute statement to congress when he "delivered" his report, he "implored congress to...use [his report] to investigate then impeach Trump."  And she further claims "that's exactly what he said."

Really?  If that were true, how the hell did the NY Times and WaPo and the alphabet networks ALL fail to mention that, eh?  So were they ALL asleep when Mueller said "exactly that"?  Wow, that would be some amazing coincidence, eh?  Oh wait...Mary Anne lied.  Again.

But don't take my word for it.  In her very next sentence Mary Anne admits that "you wouldn't know it from the media coverage," nor would you know it from "watching him that day."  And why would that be, Mary Anne?  Because he didn't say what you just claimed he "exactly" said.  You're a liar and a propagandist an a shill.  But hey, look at your own damn website, eh?

Of course, you wouldn’t know it from the media coverage or perhaps watching him that day. But, if you read the Mueller Report and listened to what he said, there’s no question he was pulling the alarm.

For example, Mueller said, “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

Let me translate what Mueller said: “Trump committed a crime. The reason I didn’t publicly indict him at this time is a Department of Justice policy that won’t allow it while he is president.”

Someone should tell Mary Anne what quotes mean.  Of course she almost certainly already knows.  So she puts her bullshit, alleged "translation" in quotes, leading all moronic readers to believe that's what Mueller actually ("exactly") said.  But of course...

Mueller can change the dynamic by changing his approach to detailing what Trump, his associates, and Russia did to interfere in our election. If Mueller does that then the American public will understand the gravity of the situation and demand Congress act.

Support for impeachment will increase in the polls and when that happens Congress will act.

That is why the more that is revealed by Mueller, and the more clearly he makes his case before Congress, the more likely impeachment hearings will begin.

Furthermore, it isn’t enough for the House alone to start impeachment hearings. A symbolic gesture will only increase Trump’s political standing and do nothing to stop the same concerns we faced in the 2016 election in the 2020 election. In fact, it is the one way to ensure Trump returns to the White House.

Ya starting to sense a pattern here, citizen? 

That’s why the Senate must do the same. The more information that comes out of the hearing Wednesday from Mueller and his report the more pressure there will be on the Republican senators, especially the 22 who are up for re-election like Susan Collins (Maine), Cory Gardner (Colo.), and others who are in tough re-election fights.

That's an open threat.  Hey, fair enough.

In the face of the facts, any Republican who doesn’t support impeachment proceedings once the evidence is revealed must have their motives questioned.

That's in case you didn't pick up on the threat from the previous sentence.

Not one investigation they have participated in as Republicans in the majority, including the Benghazi investigation, ever resulted in one indictment, one conviction, or one jail sentence. Nothing.

That's because FBI director James Comey flat-out lied in his testimony to congress, saying that in order to be indicted for deliberately mishandling beyond-Top-Secret information, the perp had to have "intent."  A GOP rep then showed Comey the actual, y'know, law, blown up on a big white board.  He asked Comey to read the text, then asked "Do you see the word 'intent' anywhere in that law?"  Comey was boxed in, and had to admit the word "intent" or "intentionally" was nowhere to be found.  So he then neatly pivoted and said "Well, no prosecutor would ever indict her."

So you bet:  not a single indictment.  Because Dems were determined to protect the Democrats' presidential candidate at all costs, regardless of the lies needed.

That’s because all of those investigations were undertaken for political purposes.

Unlike the politically-motivated investigation of Trump.  Fictional claims in a "dossier" paid for by Hilliary's team, used by the corrupt FBI to get FISA warrants and spy on Trump's people.  You bet. 

Mueller should face them down just like the enemy combatants he vanquished as a commander in Vietnam.

Wow, more praise for the former Marine "vanquishing enemy combatants as a commander in Vietnam."  You've never heard a Democrat praise this before, nor will you again, I predict.

Robert Mueller is a patriot. He has always been a patriot. And he has one last mission in behalf of our country. God speed, Captain Mueller. God speed.

Ah..."one last mission..."  Almost brings tears to your eyes, eh?  Again, explicitly linking what Mary Anne wants Mueller to do with military service, since conservatives agree that military service is both patriotic and honorable.

Now for the kicker:  You'd expect that Mary Anne's propaganda piece would be found in the NYTimes or WaPo.  By contrast, the Lying Mainstream Media has convinced all of you that Fox supports conservatives.  If that's true, would you expect Fox would put such a long, Democrat-fellating propaganda piece on its website? 

And yet...it was published on Fox.

Wow, you don't suppose the Lying Mainstream Media has been...well, lying to you yet again, do ya?  Most of Fox stopped being conservative two years ago.

In AOC news today...

In other news, freshman Democrat congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was didn't make any public statements today.  She was seen staring at her orange juice container for most of the day.  The word "concentrate" was printed on it.

It was shower day for AOC. The shampoo bottle said "Lather, rinse, repeat."  She was in there all day, only leaving when she ran out of shampoo.

H/T to commenters FrankieR and KenFedUp.

NY Times scary headline: "Chinese Money in the U.S. Dries Up as Trade War Drags On"

The Trump-haters at the New York Times routinely tell you "We're all gonna DIE because Trump!!!!"  Example is this headline:

Chinese Money in the U.S. Dries Up as Trade War Drags On

Yes, Americans, life as you know it is about to end! because...um...Chinese "money" in the U.S. has dried up.  Which the Times implies is because of a "trade war."  Which as every good Democrat and Times reader knows was yet another stupid war started by da eeeebil OrangeMan.

Wait...did they say "trade war"?  What exactly does that mean?  The only factual event that could have bearing on a "trade war" is the tariffs Trump imposed on a few billion of Chinese goods.  Could that be what the Times means by "trade war"?

And of course every good Democrat knows that ALL wars are bad, right?  So, see?

Except...all Americans should have at least a rough idea of the balance of trade between the U.S. and China, right?  So you know at least the ballpark figures, right?  Cuz if you don't, how the hell can you rationally evaluate whether Trump's tariffs are good or bad, eh?

You can't.  Which is what the folks at the Times count on.  So...China exports far, far more to the U.S. than it imports from us.  For 2018 the Chinese sold us about $419 Billion more than we exported to them.  So if each nation puts equal percentage of tariffs on the other's goods, presumably causing sales to drop, China gets hit a lot harder.



But then you knew that, right?

So what does the Times mean by "Chinese money in the U.S. dries up"?  Cuz, like, "drying up" is bad, right?  So...well, as they imply: we're all gonna DIE!!

Uh, no.  If the Chinese were our allies, Chinese investment in U.S. companies might be a good thing.  But they're implacably opposed to the U.S., so under no circumstances do we want the Chinese to own any stakes in U.S. companies at all.  Like Google, for instance.

But hey, the Times wants readers to be vewwy vewwy wuwwied about "trade wars" and Chinese money in the U.S. "drying up."  So you should trust the Times.

I mean, have they ever lied to you before?

A parable: man fatally stabs his wife, released, fatally stabs another woman

For liberals, a parable:

In Maine in 1979 a maniac named Albert Flick murdered his wife, Sandra, stabbing her to death  while the woman's young daughter was nearby. 

He was convicted of murder and served 25 years in prison.  Cuz it would be cruel to jail someone for more than 25 years for murdering your wife, eh?

He was released in 2004.  Six years later, in 2010, Flick was convicted of assaulting two other women.  

Prosecutors asked that he be sentenced to eight or nine years, but Maine Superior Court Justice Robert Crowley, applying the prevailing view in generally-liberal Maine, sentenced Flick to less than four years, claiming the 68-year-old murderer would be too old in 4 years to commit any more violent acts.  Behold the wisdom of "Justice" Crowley:

"At some point, Mr. Flick is going to age out of his capacity to engage in this conduct, and incarcerating him beyond the time that he ages out doesn't seem to me to make good sense from a criminological or fiscal perspective," 

Sure enough, when Flick was released in 2014 he led an exemplary life, emulating Mother Teresa. 

Hahahahahahaha!  Just kidding.  One year ago Flick fatally stabbed a mother of two as her twin sons ran to aid her.  Flick stabbed the woman 14 times.

Witnesses testified that the Flick and his victim were not in a relationship.  Which was a great consolation to everyone in Maine.

Now:  Does anyone reading this short article think that after Flick fatally stabbed his wife, then assaulted two other women, it just might possibly have been astonishingly stupid to let him back out into society?

Anyone?  Okay, maybe a couple of liberals, but most people got the clue after the first murder and the next two assaults.

Now why have I bothered to tell you this story?  Because we see this same thing happen every single day in the U.S. with illegal alien invaders.  But the Democrats who run "sanctuary cities" and states, and the Deep State "resistance"--the permanent, unfireable bureaucrats who actually run all levels of government except for the Trump presidency--want the U.S. to continue to be overrun by illegals.

They want this because it will eventually "break the bank" due to mandated welfare payments.  And well before that it will give the Democrat party effective control of the government thru illegal voting.

It's funny:  everyone understands the stupidity of the idiot judge who let a man who murderered his wife off with less than 4 years for later assaulting two other women, and the guy fatally stabbed yet another woman.  But Democrats absolutely deny that open-borders--allowing illegal aliens to enter the U.S. and stay here at will--is an insane policy.

Legal immigration is fine.  Illegal immigration is a fatal disaster.

By bypassing the Lying Mainstream Media, Trump has changed the equilibrium

Richard Fernandez is a brilliant analyst, whose ideas I regularly steal.  And modify, after due notification to readers.

The post below is my edit of what I think is an incredibly perceptive piece by Richard.  Readers are encouraged to read his original (link at bottom).
===

Trump is fighting the Dems using a strategy never used before.  As far back as anyone can remember, political fights have taken place at a slow pace, dictated by the news cycle and warped by the media to favor Democrats.

The pattern was predictable.  The media used leaks to set up a story; talk shows filled in the blanks, and the nation had its narrative for the week.  But Trump is bypassing the old model: by using social media (i.e. the internet) the president can engage any part of the Democratic lineup, bypassing the air cover they've always gotten from the Mainstream Media.

By bypassing the Mainstream Media the president prevents the Democratic Party from communicating through carefully prepared spokesmen in controlled venues--a system that has always worked for them in the past.  This is so routine that it's been shortened to "talking points."

Bypassing the Mainstream Media also keeps the Democrats from getting their story straight. As Time Magazine noted, lying can be "cognitively demanding."  The party must both suppress the truth and construct a lie that is both plausible on its face and does not contradict anything known by the listener--nor likely to become known.

You must tell it in a convincing way, and must remember the story. This usually takes time and concentration, both of which may give off secondary cues and reduce performance on simultaneous tasks.

Lying is hard work. In a rapid exchange, people can accidentally tell the truth.  By drastically speeding up the pace of the exchanges, Trump pushes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her companions to be more likely to blurt out their unscripted, impromptu reactions.

Fascinating: On the one hand we have a group of people who think America is the source of all evil, and should spend the rest of its hopefully brief existence atoning for the mischief it has loosed on the world.  On the other hand is a group who believe that for all its faults, the United States is the greatest country in the world, and that those who want to destroy it should go back to Somalia.

Thus the newest controversy, prompted by AOC and her leftist, socialist comrades, is Who Owns America.  America, said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, "belongs to everyone"--and virtually all Democrats seem to agree.  When the New York Times asked the Democratic presidential candidates about border protection, not one said illegal immigration was a problem.

Again, I've edited Richard's piece extensively.  Click here to read his entire piece.

Yet another example of liberals and Dems bashing Buzz Aldrin's meeting with Trump

Below is yet another example of moronic, Trump-hating, America-hating assholes denigrating the amazing fact that Americans walked on the moon 50 years ago.

And in case you hadn't noticed:  Americans are the only humans who have EVER walked on the moon.

The first tweet below is from Buzz Aldrin, who had a very positive meeting with President Trump to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing.  (We went back five more times just to show the first one wasn't just luck!)

If you wouldn't think this commemoration would be objectionable to a single American, you haven't been paying attention to the hate, anger, vitriol, venom and insanity that exemplifies today's Democrat party.  So...read the comments under Aldrin's tweet.

Examples:

• "you're a coward for standing there with that awful excuse for a human being"
• "I used to greatly admire you, until now"
• "Why are you praising disgusting racist @realDonaldTrump?"
• "Buzz Aldrin is a jerk. This is well-known in the space community." (this was from a woman who has no experience whatsoever with the "space community.") 
• "Trump can go into space and never return." (from someone calling herself "Resister")

And it gets worse--a LOT worse.  Stuff I don't even wanna repeat.

Liberals, Democrats and self-titled "progressives" are insane.  They hate America, and you, and would as soon kill you as look at you.  Of course since you're a decent, tolerant American you don't believe that.  It's literally unimaginable.  But that's okay:  There may still be enough time for you to figure it out before it's too late.

Just had an excellent meeting with President Donald Trump! We discussed America’s future in space, ways to address space challenges, and the need to keep exploring beyond the horizon. Keep America Great in Space!! #Apollo50 #ApolloXI https://t.co/zv2LgoCheD

— Buzz Aldrin (@TheRealBuzz) July 19, 2019

Two women best known for not going to the White House

Twatter bans a mother for posting tweets critical of Democrat policies

As an American you supposedly have freedom of speech.  It's right there in the First Amendment.

But what few Americans know is that social media, like Twatter, can close your account if you say anything they don't like.

Oh wait, say Twatter supporters:  Twatter is generous, reasonable, willing to forgive (at least to some extent):  If you post something they don't like, they'll graciously give you the chance to apologize, by deleting posts you made that they don't like.

Let me repeat that:  These assholes will graciously GIVE YOU a chance to grovel and apologize, by deleting your own posts that the thought-limiters at Twatter have deemed offensive.

Surely you agree that Twatter is incredibly generous to let you do this, eh citizen?

For example, an ordinary, non-elite Twatter user--Mary Ann Mendoza--posted a "tweet" critical of Democrat darling Kamala Harris.  Twatter promptly banned Mendoza--but then generously offered the poster the chance to be un-banned, if she would just delete the tweets Twatter deemed offensive.

A Twatter spokesperson did not explain why Mendoza was banned, just that if she wanted to be un-banned she'd have to delete her own tweets that Twatter's thought-cops claimed were offensive.

Wow.  So some of you might be curious to know what Mendoza said that triggered the asshole snowflakes at Twatter, eh?  Okay, Mendoza accused Kamala Harris of...wait for it...pushing the "sanctuary state" policies that allow illegal aliens to live in various Democrat-ruled cities and states in the U.S.

Wait...isn't that a totally accurate description of Harris's position?

Why yes, yes it is, comrade.  But even though truth is a defense in libel law, something as trivial as "truth" isn't enough to keep the thought-cops at Twatter from banning you.

But of course you can't believe that.  I don't blame you.  As an American you've been taught that truth is pretty much the ultimate virtue.  You can't believe a company could ban you for telling the truth, eh?

Welcome to social media, comrade.

So let's take a look at what Mendoza actually posted:

SEE, citizen?  Mendoza accused Kamala and Pelosi (and by inference, all Dems) of favoring illegal alien immigrants.  So it's amazing that Twatter merely banned her, instead of sending Antifa thugs to her house to burn it down.

See how gracious, how generous Twatter is, citizen?

Now:  It should be clear that Mary Ann Mendoza is surely mentally unbalanced to criticize a Democrat presidential candidate, the Dem speaker of the house and any other person who supports letting illegal aliens stay in the U.S. forever.  So why do you think she's so...unhinged?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that in May of 2014 her 32-year-old son Brandon--a police officer in Mesa, Arizona-- was killed by a drunk illegal alien invader who was driving the wrong way down an interstate highway.

Nah.  She's probably just a raaaacist.

Wait... Brandon Mendoza--the officer killed by the drunk illegal alien--was Hispanic.  Hmmm...

The illegal immigrant who killed officer Mendoza had a criminal record in the U.S.  He was a Mexican national with a blood-alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit,

Before Corona crashed into officer Mendoza, he'd driven 35 miles along several Phoenix-area freeways in the wrong direction.

Initial news reports made no mention of the illegal alien being drunk, nor that he was illegally in the U.S, nor his criminal history after entering the U.S, cuz...reasons.  Back in 1994 Corona pleaded guilty to criminal conspiracy in Colorado, in a plea deal in which prosecutors dismissed charges of burglary, assault and leaving the scene of an accident.

But by all means, Twatter, ban the mother's tweets.  Yeh, dat's da ticket.