Amti-Americans at NPR actually seem sad that U.S. troops killed the head of ISIS

After U.S. troops chased the head of ISIS down a tunnel, moving him to blow himself up along with two of his children, National Public Radio gushed with praise--for Baghdadi.

After covering President Donald Trump’s announcement of the successful mission, NPR lavished praise on the ISIS thug, who was responsible for beheading three Americans and enslaving and killing an American woman.

Host Lulu Garcia-Navarro asked three NPR reporters to tell listeners about the terrorist.

“He led a movement we’ve never seen before,” said one. “ISIS had tens of thousands of members, fighters, coming in from all over the world.”

See, citizen?  He was popular, just like our own Hollywood stars!

 “They controlled massive amounts of territory, and had ”millions of people under their control.  They administered cities, they collected taxes.”

"Administered" cities, you say?  Wow, just like a legitimate government, eh?  Did the mention ISIS literally crucifying opponents in the central squares of the towns they were so professionally "administering?"  No?  Gosh...

Another "reporter"called the successful mission a “symbolic victory”--seemingly to show the distinction between this mission and an actual "real victory," which would be...way different, citizen.

Meanwhile the White House correspondent for NPR claimed real purpose of the president’s announcement was to "take the focus away from the muddle and confusion” of his administration.

Is it just me or is the crew of Trump-haters at NPR actually sad that the U.S. just blew the head of ISIS to hell?

Source: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/28/npr-praises-terrorist-baghdadi-he-was-a-real-leader-a-movement-weve-never-seen-before/

Illegal alien caught with enough fentanyl to kill 200,000 people. And that's not the shocker...

If you just arrived on the planet you may not have heard that the U.S. is seeing large numbers of deaths due to "opioid overdose."  Like, 50,000 per year.

One of the main causes of those deaths is a drug called fentanyl, most of which is made in China and smuggled into the U.S. illegally.  It's at least 50 times more powerful than heroin, and a lot of it is sold by illegal aliens working for Mexican cartels.

Because illegal fentanyl is extremely cheap, it's added to lots of street drugs to increase the kick.  But because it's so powerful, the amount needed to kill someone is microscopic--about two milligrams.

To get an idea of how much two milligrams is, pour out an individual serving packet of sweetener (roughly a gram) and use a razor blade to divide it into 500 equal parts (2 milligrams).  VERY small amount.

Last week the federal Department of Justice announced that they'd indicted a Mexican--in the U.S. illegally--for possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute.  The guy had over 400 grams of the stuff.  If divided equally that's enough to kill 200,000 Americans. 

But of course this guy would be, like, WAY careful to ensure that no single dose had more than a milligram in it, right?

Here's the shocker:  The illegal had been deported previously, starting in 2012.

Oh wait...my bad:  He's actually been deported NINE times.  But he keeps coming back, over and over again--because there's no actual punishment for re-entering the U.S. illegally...again and again.

RE-entering the U.S. after being deported is supposed to be a felony, carrying a prison term.  But for some reason this guy's never been thrown in jail.

You'd think some, uh...journalist... might ask some fed how this guy could have been deported NINE
TIMES without being thrown in jail.  Who's protecting him?

My guess is that Democrats and the so-called "resisters" in the Deep State want him here.  But maybe I'm wrong.  Just because every single Democrat presidential candidate wants to eliminate border enforcement and give all illegals free medical care doesn't mean they're pro-illegal or anything, eh?

In fact they keep telling us that what this country needs is MORE immigrants--carefully omitting to say whether legal or illegal.  And if you criticize illegal immigration they'll scream that you "hate immigrants."  Cool, eh?

Source here: https://www.conservativereview.com/news/9-time-deported-mexican-alien-charged-fentanyl-trafficking/

WaPo columnist wails that ISIS leader did NOT "die a coward," later retracts what he calls "unintentional impression"

The Lying Mainstream Media and Democrat leaders have been falling all over themselves in claiming that the death of ISIS leader Baghdadi is just SO  TERRIBLY SAD!!!

Typical of the media's slanders was WaPo columnist Max Boot, who wrote:

"The assertion that Baghdadi died a coward [as Trump claimed] was in any case contradicted by the fact that rather than be captured, he blew himself up,”

So the WaPo columnist claims that the ISIS leader blowing himself up--along with three innocent children--was a contradiction of cowardice?  Are you serious?  Rational people correctly realize that using women or children as human shields is almost a defining trait of cowards.  Who could possibly think killing children is a brave act that demonstrates the opposite of cowardice?

Many people correctly recognized that Boot's statement was outrageous--that blowing yourself up--killing three children--to avoid capture isn't in any way heroic or brave.  And after those comments started pouring in, the Post pressured Boot to retract.  But note how the lying Boot did it:

"An earlier version of this column included a sentence questioning whether Trump was right to call Baghdadi a coward because he blew himself up. The line was removed because it unintentionally conveyed the impression that I considered Baghdadi courageous.”

"Unintentionally conveyed the impression"??  No, that was exactly your intention, asshole.  You and all your anti-American, Trump-hating, terrorist-coddling comrades in the media have been trying non-stop to portray Baghdadi's death as an awful event.  Your particular message was just so over-the-top that people recognized it for what it was.  And your ridiculous disclaimer--"unintentionally conveyed the impression"--is totally false.

Lies, lies, lies from the Lying Mainstream Media..  F them all.

Story here: https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-max-boot-al-baghdadi

Top Dem sen. Chuck Schumer proposes scrapping current gas-powered cars for electric ones. Cost?

The brilliant men who painstakingly worked out the provisions of our unique Constitution were not only smart, but also keen observers of human nature.  They knew humans elected to office would try to use their power to buy votes, so they tried to have the Constitution limit the things government would be allowed to do.

Those limits were direct, and seemed to be unequivocal:  The central government was to have only the powers "enumerated" in the Constitution, and no others.

The Founders were indeed brilliant.  Tragically, their efforts were sabotaged...by corrupt, vote-buying politicians a century or so later.

See, the Founders optimistically believed the People would elect honest, faithful senators and representatives, instead of corrupt, self-serving, vote-buying scum.  They believed those who followed them in government would honor the Constitution's limits on the powers of government.

But when later politicians realized they could open the federal treasury to buy votes--and instead of being hanged in public for that crime, they'd be elected again and again--they went on a vote-buying spree that has never stopped.

In short, the ability to buy votes from dumb voters has corrupted leftist politicians, so that they now totally, smugly, gleefully ignore the limits imposed by the Constitution. 

In the latest example senator Chuck Schumer just announced that he'll introduce a bill that will have the federal gruberment deliver a new bribe to voters:  He wants taxpayers to "provide a large discount to buy an American-made electric vehicle when you trade in a gas-powered car."

Hey, that's SO WONDERFUL, eh comrade?  In the vid below, Schumer tells you that "all cars should be clean," by which he means scrapping gas-burning cars and replacing them with electric-powered ones.  This is SO cool, cuz electric-power is made from solar and windmills and unicorn farts, eh?  No nasty ol' CO2 will be emitted into the air!  Cuz electricity, like, just comes out of the wall, eh?

Is Schumer really that stupid?

It doesn't seem possible that anyone could be that stupid.  But what matters is that he knows that his constituents ARE that stupid.  They really believe that a) CO2--emitted by burning carbon-based fuel--is causing the planet to warm fatally; and b) electricity doesn't emit CO2, cuz it's produced by windmills and solar; AND c) that if the U.S. unilaterally switches to electric cars, that will save the planet.

But CO2 is NOT causing the planet to warm.  Even NOAA admits that there hasn't been any warming outside the range of data uncertainty in the past 18 years.  Yet CO2 has continued to increase slightly.

Also:  Changing all vehicles to electricity would add a huge demand.  The total generating capacity in the U.S. right now just barely covers demand.  Where does Schumer propose to find the extra electricity?

The enviros have killed new nuclear plants, and have banned new dams.  Wind farms produce about five percent of our electricity but can't provide power when the wind dies.  And they kill thousands of birds, but hey, enviros are fine with that.

That leaves coal and gas, which provide about 65% of our electricity today.  Schumer is silent on whether he and his Dem co-dictators will allow more carbon-fired electricity, but it's a good bet that any electricity will cost a LOT more than today.

So with these knowns, doesn't that mean that going to all-electric cars would be...dumb?

Don't these things suggest that Schumer's grand plan is just another gruberment boondoggle, designed to make him seem virtuous and relevant?  And to net him more votes from dumb folks who believe the bullshit about global warming?  And to give him more power?

Why yes, yes they do suggest those things.

And yet he's doing it anyway. 

Of course, citizen.  Cuz his base believes his plan will save the world.

Of course I'm just some poor dumb sumbitch from a Flyover state.  So don't take my word for it.  Instead, go to the EIA website and see how much of our electricity is produced from carbon fuels.  Then find some Smart Sumbitch with a PhD in atmospheric physics and ask him if CO2 is a more effective greenhouse reflector than, say, water vapor.

If he temporizes on this (i.e. puts you off by saying "Well, uh....") then you know what he's really saying.  Then ask him if there's any way to reduce the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. (Hint:  There isn't.)

Then ask yourself:  If Democrat pols (thanks to Chuckie Schumer and friends) ram this bill down our throats, what will that likely do to the demand for electricity?

And what will that vastly-increased demand do to the PRICE of electricity?

Then ask yourself:  Where will Schumer's "huge discount" come from?  And do I really wanns junk my wonderful Lexus--or Ford or Honda or whatever--for an electric car whose batteries will only last 4 years, and cost me $20-grand to replace?  Do I wanna pay double for electricity?  And is banning gasoline cars gonna improve the air to ANY measurable degree at all?

So who would support this?  Of course: Dem voters, in dense cities with lots of public transit.  They'll be getting a "huge discount" on a new electric car.  They don't care that it has to be charged every 150 miles or so, because they don't take car trips that far.  And you'll be paying for their "discount."

What a great plan, eh?  Just like Obama-care.  Remember?  The Dems rammed it down your throat, promising us that if we liked our doctor and/or insurance we could keep both, right?  And that "the average family will SAVE $2500 per year!"  How'd those promises turn out?

Now for the kicker:  Go to Schumer's twitter feed, and read all the comments from morons who are absolutely ecstatic about this absurdly expensive, wasteful, pointless con-job.

BREAKING: I just announced bold new plan to:

1. Make #CleanCars affordable

2. Make charging infrastructure accessible to all

3. Make America a leader in clean car manufacturing

And here’s how it works: pic.twitter.com/YhR02werTu

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) October 25, 2019

Dem darling: "Democrats know things most people can't understand..."

Ilhan Omar is a U.S. congresswoman from a heavily-Somali district of Minneapolis.  She's totally corrupt from top to bottom...but Democrats love her because she pushes the far-Left policies that the Democrat party loves.

So should we pay attention to her policy ideas?  Consider the following audio clip, in which she claims "Democrats know things most people can't understand."

Really?

Hollywood leftist tweets "We should be grateful" to neighbor who assaulted senator Rand Paul

Two years ago, as Republican senator Rand Paul was mowing his lawn, his Trump-hating next-door neighbor jumped Paul from behind, knocked him off the mower and proceeded to kick him repeatedly, breaking six ribs.

The senator eventually had to have part of his lung removed.

You'd think all Americans would condemn such an attack, right?  But leftists cheer it.

Last week a Hollywood leftist--Bette Midler--tweeted this:

"Rand Paul says the Kurds are being ‘ingrates’ for taking their frustrations out on US troops. Which is a good reminder for us all to be more grateful for the neighbor who beat the s--- out of Rand Paul.”

U.S. Leftists constantly tell you Trump supporters urge violence, and advocate violence against illegal immigrants or anyone they don't like.  But the truth is that as Midler's tweet shows, it's the Left that actually applauds violence against those it hates.

You really have to love Twatter:  It offers Leftists a chance to show their true colors.  And they can't claim to have been misquoted, or "taken out of context."

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/bette-midler-rand-paul-grateful-person-beat-him-2017

Leftists at Penn U. scream to block former director of ICE from speaking; "Freedom of speech"? Nah.

Most Americans take free speech for granted.  I mean, hey, it's a right that's explicity granted by the First Amendment to our wonderful, unique Constitution, right?

Ah.  But do you have a "right" if so-called "fellow citizens" can deprive you of that right without any punishment?

That's exactly what's been happening for years in the U.S.  Leftists--led by communists and Democrat pols--have been threatening speakers they don't like.  At which point campus cops, acting at the direction of liberal adminishits, clear the venue.

Voila, mission accomplished.  Which was to prevent the people the Left doesn't like from speaking.

In the latest example, shitty little leftist student AND FACULTY at U. Penn (not Penn State) screamed and yelled to prevent a former director of ICE from speaking.

Cool, eh?

Former ICE director Tom Homan was invited to speak at Penn as part of symposium on immigration.  But before he even got on the train to Philadelphia, Homan said he was warned that over 500 students and alumni had signed a petition  demanding the event be cancelled, and demanding that the university ban ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officials from speaking at the university.

The petition reads "Under Homan, ICE continued to be a violent organization responsible for terrorizing immigrant communities.... Inviting Homan to speak contradicts Penn's claim of being a sanctuary campus."

See how deft that was?  "We will shut down this man's speech because we claim this university is a 'sanctuary campus.'"

As the left sees it, this claim outweighs the First Amendment.

As a matter of law, of course, it doesn't.  But the shrieking Left wants to deprive you of the right to speak, so as far as the university adminishits go, that's all that matters.

Of course if you're over 50 you've probably always believed universities were places where people openly debated ideas.  Nope.  Universities have been ruled by leftist adminishits for decades, and they've gleefully banned all speech they didn't like.

You can't believe that, but it's true.  On many universities you can't speak even in open-air locations without getting permission from the adminishits.  And if you try speaking without their f'n permission, campus cops will haul your ass away.

Think this violates your right to free speech?  If the university is a state school, of course it does.  But the adminishits just laugh.  They don't give a goddamn what you think.  And they control the cops.  So your precious "right of freedom of speech don't mean squat.

Homan said the protests began as soon as the moderator of the event approached the podium.  Campus security eventually ordered everyone to leave the event room.

Bingo: Left succeeds in blocking speech from someone they hated.  Mission accomplished.

"But hey, citizen, you really REALLY have freedom of speech.  Except if those of us on the Left don't want you to speak.  But we're just doing that out of a sense of fairness.  Cuz the Left has always been about fairness, comrade.  History shows that we only kill people who've been Oppressing the People!"

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/media/tom-homan-penn-event-canceled-protests

Corrupt former FBI director implies he's moving to New Zealand if Trump wins in 2020

Great news, comrades!  Corrupt former director of the corrupt FBI during Obama's reign has [unfortunately jokingly] implied he's moving to New Zealand in the astronomically-unlikely event Trump is elected to a second term!

Hey Jimmy, you asshole, we're gonna help you pack. No excuses, you lying, corrupt jerk.  F U.

U.S. forces kill ISIS leader; Democrats complain, many OUTRAGED!

As everyone now knows, U.S. forces--at the direction of the president--invaded an ISIS compound and killed the leader of ISIS.

Most Americans were delighted. But as you could have guessed, dozens of troll commenters on news websites complained about it.  If you have a "smidgen" of understanding, this speaks volumes about the true feelings of the people who hate this president. Here are a few:

"Al-Baghdadi was contained and no longer a serious concern.  But now He’s a martyr. BRILLIANT!"
[Note the upper-case H on He's]

"BRAVO to the US intelligence community who has been insulted and belittled by DON THE CON daily!"

"Watching President Grandpa spill all the intel on the operation. What a Clown. Maybe he could say “Beautiful” again."

"I thought we are the number one energy country in the world....but I'm still paying 2.50 a gallon while Iraqis pay a dime a gallon. Someone's not being truthful...."

"Nothing confirmed until we see a body, Trump.  We've heard these lies from you before."

"Thank you President Putin for ordering trump to go ahead with the raid on ISIS." [Note the lower-case T on Trump]

"Trump abandoned the Kurds - he does whatever Putin tells him to do."

"The death of this ISIS leader changes nothing."

These comments go on for, oh, 4,000 or so. If you're surprised by the large number of negative, snarky, anti-Trump comments, you shouldn't be. So, so predictable. As some wag put it, if Trump donated his personal cash to find a cure for cancer, and found it, liberals would find a way to complain about it.

You can also be certain the Lying Mainstream Media media will start saying "Who? Al-Baghdadi? Never heard of him."

Of course they can't avoid reporting it this morning, but after today they'll say as little as possible about this.  Instead they'll say things like

"Al-Baghdadi's second-in-command is said to be a better leader.  By ordering U.S. forces to kill Al-Baghdadi, Trump has actually ended up making ISIS stronger..."

As noted above, the media and Democrat leaders hate Trump so much that they'd bitch if he cured cancer.

Lawsuit forces release of Hilliary emails hidden since 2012. And you'll never guess what they show

If you're a college-age American you might not know that on September 11th, 2012, terrorist forces armed with mortars attacked a U.S. "consular annex" in Benghazi, Libya, killing 4 Americans, including our ambassador.

This was a big deal, and properly so.  The Obama regime--facing a tough election in less than one month--didn't want to admit ISIS had killed Americans, so they claimed the attack was a "spontaneous demonstration" triggered by Muslim outrage over a video posted on the internet that showed Islam in a bad light. 

But defense experts were skeptical because the attackers used mortars--something a spontaneous demonstrator wouldn't have in their pocket.   Also, the story about "an anti-Muslim video on the internet" was skanky: while there was indeed a video on the internet, relatively few people had seen it, and even fewer in Benghazi.  So the idea that the vid had triggered a huge spontaneous demonstration was far-fetched.

Nevertheless, Obama minion Susan Rice hit five Sunday talk shows (i.e. all of 'em) to push the Narrative that the attack was "due to a spontaneous demonstration caused by an insulting video".  Yet the evening of the attack, Hilliary Clinton sent an email to her singularly talentless daughter saying that she already knew the attack was NOT a "spontaneous demonstration."

The amateur video did trigger protests in Egypt and elsewhere, but the timeline of Clinton's statements suggests that she and other Obama officials crafted a narrative blaming the planned attack on the "consular annex" on the video.  

Oopsie.

Now, most of you know that all our embassies and related facilities are operated by...the State Department.  And those of you of college age may not know that Obama's Secretary of State was... Hilliary Clinton.  Predictably, Hilliary supported the "spontaneous demonstration" narrative--even though she'd totally contradicted that in her email to her daughter.

Hearings on the attack--including live testimony from Hilliary herself--failed to shed any light on this glaring contradiction.  And Hilliary blew off any questions with the snarky remark "At this point what difference could it possibly make?"

A conservative watchdog group called Judicial Watch thought this was outrageous, and filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit to force the State Department to turn over ALL Hilliary emails.

So naturally the State Department immediately complied.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!  I see you just arrived on the planet!

Of course the truth is that State totally stonewalled Judicial Watch's lawsuit.  And normally that would have been the end of that, since the Elites--your betters--know the System lets them ignore any laws they don't like, with no consequence.

Well...by total longshot chance, the judge hearing the case was one of those wackos who thinks no one--regardless of status--should be above the law.  That is, he has this goofy idea that one set of laws should apply to everyone. And he ruled that the elites at State had to obey the law.

Image that!

So State was finally forced to furnish a few-thousand Hilliary emails.  And last week Judicial Watch released some of those previously-hidden emails from 2012.

The twist here is that if State had complied with Judicial Watch's 2014 FOIA lawsuit, it would have exposed Clinton's private email accoun then instead of years later.
 

One of the long-withheld emails shows Hillary misled the U.S. Senate on Benghazi, AND that the State Department--presumably on Hilliary's orders--wanted to hide the existence of Hilliary's private email account.   (She never--I say again, never--had an official dot-gov email account, but conducted ALL official government business from her private account.)

The question is, why would Hilliary and other Obama officials lie about the attack being the result of a "spontaneous demonstration" when that was so utterly implausible?

You'll never see the reason:  It's that the CIA had been collecting shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles in the "annex," and were shipping them to CIA assets in Syria.  Libyan Muslims saw a chance to grab the missiles and make a huge profit--whether cash or influence.

In any case: Last year U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered the State Department to produce the email on August 22, 2019.  Lamberth denounced Clinton's private email server as "one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency." He further pondered whether "the State Department's attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014" may have been "an effort to avoid searching — and disclosing the existence of — Clinton's missing emails."

Gee, ya think?
 

Source:  https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-benghazi-documents-confirm-clinton-email-cover-up/

Maxims from a "dead white guy"? Nah, Dem leaders say he was a loon

Some "old white male"--someone you may have heard of--is reported to have said...something:

“You can't help the poor by destroying the rich.
  You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
  You can't bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
  You can't lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
  You can't further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
  You can't build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
  You can't help people permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”

Of course the leaders of the congressional Democrats--and every Dem presidential candidate--think all these statements are horse-shit.  They absolutely, totally disagree with every one of the above statements.

Cuz according to liberals and socialists and SJWs, "old white males" can't teach us modern types a damn thing.

BTW, not that anyone cares, but the "old white male" who said this was...Abraham Lincoln.

But hey, what did he know, eh?

Google-owned YouTube kills Tulsi Gabbard's channel...in the U.S. only! But, like, accidental, man.

Youtube [aka. Google] is sabotaging Tulsi Gabbard with its search results. Gabbard’s channel appeared at the TOP of Youtube search results when accessing the website with a Spanish IP.  But when blogger Steven Crowder switched to a USA IP address, Tulsi’s channel no longer came up in the results AT ALL.

You can find her channel if you’re in Germany; you can find it if you’re Spain.  But in the United States?  Nothing.”

But hey, Google claims to be, like, totes fair.  Completely un-corrupt, right?  Not trying to sabotage any candidate in favor of any other--like Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden.

C'mon.  Don't be a dumbass.  Google CLEARLY, OBVIOUSLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY killed Gabbard's YouTube channel in the U.S. only.  If you think this is an accident you're too damn naive to breed.  They clearly have an agenda.

But hey, you can, like, totally trust Google to give you straight information, eh?

Like hell you can.  Open your eyes.

Sources: https://twitter.com/scrowder/status/1186728374963593216

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tulsis-youtube-suppressed

Democrat pol introduces bill to make it illegal--jailable--to call someone a...[CENSORED]

For the past decade or so, Democrats, socialists and/communists have been trying to kill your Constitutionally-guaranteed "freedom of speech."

Of course they know they don't have enough support to repeal the First Amendment, so they're doing what Democrats always do when they want to change the Constitution but lack the votes:  they either get dictatorial leftist judges to do what they want, or shit-head politicians to pass laws doing what they want. 

Much easier than changing the Constitution, eh?

One of the methods they're pushing is to pass laws criminalizing what they define as "hate speech."  In the latest case a state senator in the Peoples' Republic of Massachusetts has introduced a bill making it a crime--punishable by six months in jail!--to call someone a "bitch."

Naturally if you're not a Democrat you can't believe this would ever pass a Supreme Court test.  You can't believe any state legislature would be dumb enough to pass such a law.

Ah, I see you just arrived on the planet!  Enjoy your stay, if possible.

Cuz, coastal states (run by Democrats) are already arresting people for using words the Left has defined as hate speech.  In Connecticut two college guys were arrested for yelling "the N-word."  The actual charge was charged with "ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race."  That's indistinguishable from "hate speech." 

If the Left keeps getting its way you won't be able to utter a critical word about, say, corrupt politicians... or terrorists...  or judges who force 7-year-old boys to have sex-change operations.

MANDATORY GOOGLE WARNING:  Readers are warned that neither Google nor any of our Trusted Information Verifiers have verified this story.  This means you can't be sure it's accurate, so smart, sophisticated readers should ignore it.
   You should only trust infomation that we or one of our Trusted Partners have verified.  All other information has a high probability of being "fake news," designed to increase social conflict.  You don't want to increase social conflict, do you, citizen?
   Of course you don't!  Everyone knows that we all have freedom of speech, and it's just silly to claim that any politician would try to modify that.  Of course we at Google, and Facebook, and YouTube, are free to censor things we don't like, cuz we're not government.  And if we delete your account or take down your post, you can't sue us.  But that's only fair, cuz we're the Good People.  It was right there in our motto:  "Don't be evil!"  And we're not.  Really!

Latest court-ordered sex-change...on a 7-year-old boy!

For the past year I've posted stories about various power-mad pencil-neck government martinets ORDERING that a young kid be taken away from his or her parents because the kid wants to "be" the opposite sex.  Typically the parents are split on this:  One--usually Dad--thinks this is a passing craze that will sort itself out in a few years. 

By contrast, Mom is more attuned to the popular fad of "gender-reassignment surgery" so is much more likely to agree with the government ass-hat.  And poof! an idiot judge or bureaucrat orders that the kid--almost always a boy--shall be given hormone and surgery to make him a fake-girl.

Typically this happens in places like the U.K. or Canada or our east or west coast, where both politicians, the media and parents have submitted totally to the tranny lobby and the maniacal push to "change a kid's sex."  But between power-mad, pro-tranny, idiot judges and anti-male psychiatrists and docs, it's getting worse.

In the latest outrage a divorced couple had joint custody of a 7-year-old son.  The ex-wife insisted that the boy really wants to be a girl, who she's re-named "Luna."  The boy told dad he doesn't want that but has gone along with mom to keep her happy.  Hard to know how much is true, but as you'll see, that ain't the point.

Mom is a doctor, in fact a pediatrician, and told dad she planned to start the son on a full sex-change course, starting with puberty-blocking drugs, then female hormones, then surgery.  Dad objected, arguing that his ex-wife was forcing the son's sex-change against the boy’s will.

At the trial expert witnesses testified that a 7-year-old couldn't fully understand the potential side effects of such a course of action.   

A black female judge--Kim Cooks--led the jury to a ruling against the father, awarding full custody to the demented mother.  This means the mother, Dr. Anne Georgulas, has the full authority of the state gruberment to start him on puberty blockers and then female hormones.

She also asked the court to forbid the father from from calling his son by his given, legal name – and that he be prohibited from bringing James around anyone who refused to “affirm” the boy as a girl. 

The ruling means the father will be required to “affirm” James as a girl, despite his religious and moral objections--and in a crowning outrage will also be forced to take a class on transgenderism.

To add to the worry about this:  It happened in Dallas, Texas--which you'd think would take a dim view of letting a parent force a sex-change on a 7-year-old boy, regardless of whether the kid "identified" as female.  But judges have absolute authority, eh?

Hey, just go along, comrade.  After all, "it's for the children!"

Mom who got court to order 7-year-old son's sex-change

Full story here:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-jury-rules-against-dad-trying-to-save-his-7-year-old-from-gender-transition

Leftist Hollywood singer tweets cartoon of president impaled by "Pelosi" high heel; media yawns

Barbra Streisand has been a loony leftist forever, and two days ago she demonstrated the bloodthirsty insanity of her side yet again, tweeting the cartoon below:

pic.twitter.com/OopxTqtx2A

— Barbra Streisand (@BarbraStreisand) October 19, 2019

Imagine the howls of outrage from the Mainstream Media if, back when Obama was illegally changing laws with his pen, a conservative had shown Obama impaled by a sharp heel.

And yet another double-standard:  Twatter cancels accounts for what they fatuously claim is "hate speech"--including showing the dreaded "OK" hand sign.  The Streisand tweet is far, far worse than any posts made by people Twatter has banned...yet she isn't banned, or even suspended for a month.

Two sets of standards, baby.  It's how the Left rolls.

And in case some leftist ally of Streisand deletes her tweet, here's the capture:

Cali passes statewide rent-control law

When Rahm Emanuel was Barack Obama's chief of staff he said “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. It gives you an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before.”

If you've been off-planet for the last year you may not know that tens of thousands of druggies are sleeping in permanent tents on the sidewalks of west-coast cities (San Fran, LA, Portland, Seattle).  So-called "progressives" claim the main cause of this "homeless crisis" is that housing in these Democrat-ruled cities is too expensive.  And of course all the residents agree that housing IS too expensive.  They just don't know why.

The politicians claim they DO know why:  it's pure greed, comrade.  Not at all due to supply and demand.  So they claim the best way to address the problem of costly housing is...wait for it...to pass laws limiting how much landlords can rent houses and apartments for.  That's called "rent control."

Cali cities have had rent control laws for years.  Just a year ago, California voters voted on a statewide "ballot initiative" that would have extended rent control statewide.

Voters rejected it, by an almost 20-point margin. Every county in the state except for San Francisco voted it down.

Even the Democrat who was then running for governor, Gavin Newsom, indicated his opposition to the initiative. But now that he's in office Newsome has changed his position, insisting the state must respond to the homeless problem.

Never let a good crisis go to waste, eh?

Last week we learned of at least one of the actions the governor plans to take. Newsom signed a statewide rent-control law, overturning the will of the people. He followed the progressive playbook by using the homeless crisis “to do things that you could not do before.”

 The new law also bars landlords from evicting tenants without what the rulers decide is "good reason," and forces landlords to pay tenants if they are evicted due to renovation.

What liberal politicians refuse to recognize is that the main cause of most homelessness is mental illness and drug abuse. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 45 percent of homeless people are mentally ill.  The University of Pennsylvania found that about half suffer from alcohol or drug dependence.

Not surprisingly, drug users and the mentally ill have a hard time keeping a job, so only 18 percent of the homeless are employed. That means that for most, the cost of housing isn't relevant: They simply can't afford housing in large, trendy cities.

Politicians ruling on rent has been a proven failure in reducing housing costs. It deters people from investing their money and time in rental housing.  And as always, the laws of supply and demand prevail.

But hey, "Never let a good crisis go to waste," eh?

Hilliary claims Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein are "Russian assets"

Four days ago Hillary Clinton claimed Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party spoiler candidate in 2020. 

And why might the Russians do that?  Why, to help President Trump win reelection, obviously.  Cuz Trump is clearly a Russian asset too, right?  Must be.  Gotta be.  Really.  Just ask Mueller.

Clinton pushed this bizarre theory on a "podcast" run by leftist strategist David Plouffe--who also happens to have been Barack Obama’s campaign manager in 2008.

But Clinton wasn't through:  She went on to claim that not only Tulsi was "a Russian asset" but also 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein.  Here's Hilliary:

“She [Stein] is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she is also a Russian asset.”

Wow.  To think we could have had the brilliant, stable, not-too-alcoholic Hilliary as president instead of the allegedly mentally unstable Trump!  Missed opportunity, right?

How do Dem candidates propose to pay for "Medicare for all"? "Uh......"

It won't surprise any of you to hear that lots of people who don't have much money are eager to support pols who promise to give them "free" stuff.  And every single Democrat presidential candidate has eagerly jumped on the "I'll give you..." bandwagon.

Except...as everyone should know (but far too many don't), there's no such thing as "free."  Every good and every service costs something, and the government can't provide anything without paying for it.  And there are only two ways to do that: either use tax dollars, or borrow even more money.

Many Democrats understand that.  But a huge percentage of Americans don't.  So when Elizabeth Warren says her administration would give voters "Medicare for all," those people think "Wow!  Free health care for my entire life!  I'm SO supporting this person!"

But again, obviously, it's not free.  The only way to pay for it is to raise taxes on most Americans. 

Warren repeatedly claims that taxes would only increase on "the rich" and corporations, but every analysis has shown that this won't raise enough money to pay for Medicare for all.  Also, naive voters believe that if the government raises taxes on corporations, the corporations will eat the tax instead of passing it through as increased prices.

But Warren knows that admitting you'll raise taxes on the middle class is a losing proposition, so she adamantly refuses to admit that she'll do that.  Instead she argues that "total cost" will go down--an implicit admission that even though she'll raise taxes on the middle class, NET costs for families will drop--at least according to her--because they won't have to pay for medical care.

Cool, eh?  But wait a second...

In order to cover "free" medical care for all without borrowing more money, you have to raise taxes enough to cover the total cost, right?  So what's the difference between that and the current situation, where consumers pay their medical costs directly?

"Uh...well...uh....AH!  We'll be making 'the rich' bear part of the costs!  Yeh, dat's it!!!"

Okay, let's play:  Suppose Warren and congress succeed in raising taxes on 'the rich' (define, please) from 38% to, say, 70%.  And let's suppose that 'the rich' take no countermeasures to offset that, so that the government reaps another $500 Billion per year.  That's about one-seventh of the estimated cost per year of "Medicare for all."  Does anyone believe the cost of the added federal employees needed to "administer" this disaster won't exceed that fraction?

In other words, no net benefit to middle-class taxpayers after the increase in taxes.

Of course one group will benefit:  The 47% of  Americans and illegal aliens who don't pay any federal income tax but will get "free" medical care.  Needless to say, every one of those folks are all for the program.

Warren and the other Dem candidates all know this, and they're counting on them to elect the party's nominee to the presidency.

Watch the short video clip below to see how obviously Warren refuses to answer the direct question "Will you raise taxes on the middle class to pay for Medicare for all?"

Since when do adults take the rantings of 16-year-olds on policy seriously? Oh....

In the "bad old world," rational adults would have laughed at the idea of letting children lecture them on national policy.

Fortunately, our "betters" in the elite Lying Media and socialist/Dem party have determined that we need to listen to uneducated 16-year-olds lecture us on questions about atmospheric physics, thermodynamics and economics.  Your "betters" have determined that ignoring such a person   is...old, outmoded, silly.  Something only deplorables would support. 

Thus we have the autistic teen from Sweden lecturing both the U.N. General Assembly and the moronic congress of the United States, demanding that we all give up fossil fuels, because...wait for it....the planet is being fatally warmed by CO2. 

And not just any CO2, but CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels--oil, gas and coal.

Here's Greta.

Her first statement is right:  She shouldn't be there.  She should be back in school.

Second, she claims "You all come to us young people for hope."  No, only when young people say something the elite media want to publicize to further their political objectives.

Imagine how the media would react if an autistic 16-year-old said "It's totally insane that you morons are touting socialism as better than free markets."  Do ya think that kid would get to lecture congress or the U.N.?  Think they'd get hour after hour of air-time?

Not even close. The ONLY reason this scripted kid has gotten all the adulation, worship and attention from the Lying Mainstream Media is that she's saying something they like.  Period.

NBA defeated by...300 gutsy fans and a clever activist

If you just arrived on this planet you may not have known that the NBA has been sucking up to China.  Specifically, when a few fans have worn "Free Hong Kong" T-shirts to games, venue security has demanded that they take off the shirts. 

If they refused, security would throw the fans out.  Cuz in the U.S. we gots freedom of speech, right?  Cool, eh?

You may well wonder why the NBA has been sucking up to China.

Ooooh, it's a mystery.

Wait, no it's not.  The execs who run the NBA want China to pay 'em...anything...for the rights to broadcast NBA games in China.  Yay, money!!

So...the execs were scared witless that merely ALLOWING fans to be shown wearing pro-freedom, pro-Hong Kong T-shirts might jeopardize their chances of getting a (relatively paltry) million bucks from the Chinese government.  So they demanded that fans wearing these AWFUL, OFFENSIVE shirts take 'em off.  And if the fans refused, security would remove them from the arena.

Cool, eh?  Just like the government of China!  How...um...well, you fill in your favorite word.

Well...it seems lovers of freedom will find a way to express themselves.  In this case a guy in New York bought 300 tickets to a Nets game...and gave both tickets AND pro-Hong-Kong T-shirts to 300 lovers of freedom.

Guess what happened next.

The owners did a quick calculation and decided that trying to eject all 300 would cause...quite a fight.  So they did...nothing.

Quite a lesson there, eh?

Imagine if ten million Chinese citizens decided they'd had enough of shit-head dictators oppressing 'em.

Threatening another nation? Fine when done by Obama, now suddenly verboten

Back in 2011 Obama threatened to cut off aid to Nigeria over anti-gay legislation in that country.  And the emperor did it again in 2013 over corruption issues.

So since the Lying Mainstream Media has been screaming that Trump's conversation with the president of Ukraine was a "threat," how do you think the same Lying Media reacted to Obama's threats?

Not a single media outlet printed or uttered a single critical word.  "Threats to foreign nations?  Nah, that wasn't a threat-threat.  The U.S. pressures other nations all the time to get them to do the right thing, so why would anyone think this was a problem?  Only stupid conservatives would think that's a problem." 

Of course NOW, the Lying Media has decided it's totally unacceptable.  How...convenient.  Almost like they have different standards for presidents from the two parties, eh?

Five years ago, when the Ukrainian government was beginning to investigate shady bribes paid to Joe Biden's son, Vice-President Biden admitted on camera to threatening the president of Ukraine--by withhold a billion-dollar loan to that nation--unless the Ukrainian government fired their top prosecutor.

Not one Lying Mainstream Media outlet printed or uttered a single critical word--despite Biden actually bragging--proudly--that he'd threatened the Ukrainian president, and gotten that person to do as he demanded.

The next time the Lying Mainstream Media prints or broadcasts anything, keep this in mind.  They lie...brazenly, constantly.  They hate Trump, hate you, hate America....but somehow think they're the smart ones.

Interesting.  Psychotic, but interesting.

Company buys billboard in Times Square showing Trump being stomped by a female; media shrugs

How close to anarchy are we?  Consider the following event:

Times Square.  New Yorkers call it the "crossroads of the world."  Billboards around the square are viewed by tens of thousands every day.

A company put up a billboard in "the crossroads of the world" showing a Trump impersonator being dominated and hog-tied by a female.  Take a look:

#StandForSomething

We have some big news to share with you. pic.twitter.com/VTcm8AoW5I

— DHVANI (@DhvaniWear) October 15, 2019

Here's a closer look:

Now:  Imagine, if you will, if a company had done the same ad with Emperor Obama being dominated and tied by a white female.  Imagine how the Lying Mainstream Media would have reacted.  They would have been howling and screaming for MONTHS. 

They would have said/written "Even if you disagree with the president's policies, you MUST respect the office!!!!!"

So how did they react to this outrage?  Not a critical word by even one Lying Mainstream Media outlet.

Cuz they approve.

Lying, anti-American rat-bastards, every one of them.  F them all.

Again:  Just try to imagine a company having the gall to pay to run a billboard in Times Square showing Obama in this same situation.  Imagine the outrage.

Another brilliant California liberal plan: Stop prosecuting crimes under $1000. How's it working?

Five years ago liberals of the Peoples' Republic of California passed a ballot initiative cunningly named the "Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act."

Cuz who in the world would vote against a proposed law titled the "Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act," eh?  I mean, everyone want safe neighborhoods and schools, right?

Sure.  So how did the initiative (which would become law if passed) propose to do that?

By doing exactly what liberals always do to make schools and neighborhoods safer:  re-define a bunch of felony crimes down to misdemeanors.  Meaning no jail time for thefts up to $1000 or so, or drug sales or possession, and what Wiki charmlessly calls "property offenses"--include forgery, shoplifting and intentionally writing bad checks.

The measure also required that money saved as a result of the measure would be spent on "school truancy and dropout prevention, victim services, mental health, and drug abuse treatment, and other programs designed to keep offenders out of prison and jail."  Cuz who would vote against a bill that would reduce truancy and dropout rates, or spend more on "treating" drug abuse, eh?  The proponents pushed every hot-button on the planet.

Of course a few crazy conservatives were skeptical:  "If thieves don't get jail time, how are they deterred from committing crimes?"

"Oh, they'll have to pay a fine."

"What if they don't pay, saying they can't cuz they claim to be poor?"

"Don't worry, we make them promise to pay the fine when they can, and then we release 'em."

"Oh...."

"AND, the new law still allows repeat forgers to be charged with a felony IF they have a criminal record.  So hey, nothing's really changed, citizen.  You're all worried for nothing!"

Ah.

So how do you think this worked out?  If you're a liberal you'll never guess.

To the surprise of liberals, police stopped referring thefts and forgeries under $1000, and drug possession--and possession of the date-rape drug Rohypnol--to their DA's for prosecution, cuz it just irritated the DA's, cuz the new law didn't allow them to prosecute.

The next thing that happened--again to the surprise of liberals--was that it took thieves, shoplifters, forgers and druggies about a week to realize that the cops weren't even referring their crimes for prosecution.  (So that bullshit about "We'll make 'em pay a fine" never happened.)  As a result, residents of the Peoples' Republic of California are reporting that theft--both from stores and from homes--has skyrocketed. 

If you know where to look on the Net you can find endless videos of "smash and grab" thefts, where 20 or so thieves run into a store, grab as much as they can carry and run out.  Cool, eh?

Liberals call this a "victimless crime."  Ah.

Thieves are breaking into cars (smashing the glass) in broad daylight, knowing that they have no risk of prosecution.  Liberals counter that this actually makes neighborhoods and schools safer, cuz the new law was named the "Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act," right?  Much safer now, eh?

Of course the libs refuse to admit that their pet project--launched with so many glowing promises--has resulted in MORE crime, so a professor of "social ecology" at a Cali university has done a study that she claims found that the liberal initiative measure hasn't had a single negative effect!  Seriously.

You may be curious as to how this professor of "social ecology" manage to come to that conclusion.  First she prepares readers to accept her "not a single negative effect" claim by saying that there's no way to evaluate what would have happened if the policy hadn't been implemented.  Okay, that's obvious.  But there has to be more, eh? 

According to her university's press release, she "applied a cutting-edge statistical method, creating a “synthetic California” to serve as the control group for examining crime rates pre- and post-proposition 47."  She claims to have found that the the crime rates of states that didn't pass California's crazy prop 47 were "similar" to California's crime rate.

“When we compared crime levels between these two California’s, they were very similar, indicating that Prop. 47 was not responsible for the increase,” Kubrin said. “What the measure did do was cause less harm and suffering to those charged with crime. Of course we want to keep our streets safe, but we also want to be as humane as possible along the way.  And it’s good to cut criminal justice costs, especially when that money can be earmarked for crime prevention programs, as some of the money saved by Prop. 47 is supposed to be.”

Oh, absolutely, cuz the main goal of laws should be to cause less suffering to criminals. 

And to add insult to injury, some California cities claim theft, car break-ins and drug offenses have dropped slightly in their cities--which liberals are crowing is due to their wonderful Prop47.  The Lying Mainstream media doesn't bother to ask if the claimed result is really bullshit because cities are no longer even reporting the non-prosecutable crimes.

How do young people learn anything about "real" history?

How does anyone "know" about anything that happened in the past? 

That may strike many of you as a silly question, but follow me here:  The most direct way is if you were alive when something happened--and were old enough at the time to grasp it.  But if something happened before then, your only choices are a) books; b) movies; c) the school system; or d) stories told by people who were adults at the time.

Unfortunately most public schools stopped teaching "real" history at least 30 years ago, replacing it with ghastly lies.  As a result, young Americans are easy pickin's for leftist bullshit like "all the founders were awful, eeebil people cuz dey wuz white an' owned slaves!!!"  They believe socialism and communism are both wonderful, and "give" "free" stuff to citizens--free college, free medical care, free jobs, free housing and so on.

As a result, when Democrat presidential candidates promise people endless "free" stuff, young Americans believe it.  And why wouldn't they?  After all, the media constantly tell Americans that "Every advanced country gives free stuff to all their people.  We're the only un-cool nation!"

Yeah, why indeed.

Young Americans have no idea that tens of millions of ordinary citizens in communist countries have been executed or just starved to death by people like Stalin and Mao, or even by lesser communists like Castro or the ruling Kim dynasty in North Korea.  And our Lying Media doesn't have any interest in telling them.  The result is idiots like hugely rich bakkeball star Lebron James complaining about some NBA coach tweeting in support of the struggle for freedom in Hong Kong--and not a single media voice tells young Americans how dumb James is.

How can this be fixed?  I don't think it can.  It would take a revolution in the thinking of school boards and school officials, and in our Lying Media, and neither thing is gonna happen.

Video the media refused to air: socialist/SJW thugs attacking Americans who attended Trump rally

Last week the president of the United States spoke at a rally in the People's Republic of Minnesota.  Outside, a couple of thousand America-hating fascists--falsely claiming to be anti-fascists--attacked Trump supporters.

You never saw any of that, because the Lying Mainstream Media didn't want you to see it--because it shows that the socialists and snowflakes have already started Civil War 2.0.

According to the socialists and their Media supporters, only one political party is to be tolerated. Only one point of view.  And if you don't support that point of view, the thugs feel free to attack you--with the full support of the mayors and cops of shit-hole cities like Minneapolis.

Ask yourself why not a single mainstream media outlet showed footage like this.  Ask who it benefits.  Ask yourself why the cops stood around and took no action to stop the mob violence.

One of the great video compilations of all time: Talking heads absolutely assuring us Trump couldn't possibly win!

I absolutely LOVE video compilations of our nation's self-described "elites" in the media, Hollywood and congress absolutely promising that Donald Trump couldn't possibly even win the nomination, let alone the presidency against the invincible Hilliary!

And the expressions on their smirking faces, and the sneering, contemptuous tones of voice as they absolutely, positively assure us Trump couldn't possibly win...!  It's priceless!

Whenever I need a quick morale-boost I re-run the clip below.  Lord, what a hoot!

And of course if someone makes that big a public fool of him- or herself, then prove to be totally wrong, it doesn't take a great leap to realize those smirking fools are gonna have a white-hot hate for Trump, thinking that the sole reason he stayed in the race and won was to embarrass the fools...wow!

A tale of two attorneys-general

President Trump's attorney-general spoke at Notre Dame U last Friday, saying several areas of worsening social decline could be due to the fact that fewer Americans consider themselves religious.

Bill Barr cited drug addiction, mental illness, and suicide as having gotten noticeably worse in the last decade, and said he believes those increases are due to a dedicated campaign against orthodox religious belief.

“This is not decay,” Barr said. “This is organized destruction. Secularists and their allies have marshaled all the forces of mass communication, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.”

Barr said state and city governments have assisted that effort, noting the board of education in Orange County, California, recently ruled that parents could no longer excuse their children from mandatory school propaganda sessions praising homosexuality and LGBT issues.

Of course my liberal friend will snort that Barr is dumb, a knuckle-dragging fanatic who believe in invisible sky-friends, so we shouldn't pay attention to anything he says.  Well, unless he says how wonderful Islam and LGBT's and Obama and socialism are.  That would be just fine.

Gosh, it's a shame we can't get a competent, non-deplorable attorney-general in that office, eh?  Some with impeccable ethics, like Loretta "I won't let that investigation hurt Hillary" Lynch, or Eric Holder.  Yeah, dat's da ticket.  Get that Christo-fascist Barr out of there!

Heart-wrenching BBC program on the horrors the leaders of the former Soviet Union inflicted on citizens

Thanks to the constant efforts of the Lying Mainstream Media and effete, America-hating university professors, roughly half of American college students in east- or west-coast universities now believe socialism is better than free markets.

So when socialist congresswhores like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ayana Pressley and others tout socialism as wonderful, naive college-age Americans buy it, hook, line and sinker.

If you have a relative who thinks socialism is wonderful, you need to watch (and urge them to watch) a BBC program called "Red Empire"--a history of the Soviet Union.  If you have any shred of humanity it'll bring tears to your eyes.

Americans simply can't believe how evil of Stalin, Lenin and the whole damn lot of 'em were.  They tortured, executed or starved to death tens of millions of ordinary, innocent citizens, accusing them of being "enemies of the people."  They taught children to denounce their parents for the "crime" of saying a single critical word about Stalin.

Jealous true believers denounced neighboring farmers for hiding grain from government thugs who went to each farm, confiscating food, cows, pigs, horses and farm implements "for the good of the country."  These goods went to the great "collective farms," which promptly failed because the idiots who ran them didn't know jack about farming.

The parallels to modern Democrat radicals presidential candidates are impossible to ignore:  When a 16-year-old girl of no insight or brilliance whatsoever is invited to address both our congress and the f'n U.N. general assembly, ostensibly to lecture us on science and policy, rational thought is out the window.

Democrat presidential candidates who know nothing of science or atmospheric physics or thermodynamics or satellite measurements proudly support banning fossil fuels--claiming their use is causing global warming...and the Lying Mainstream Media fawns over them, while shrilly denouncing anyone who presents contradictory data as a "climate denier," it reminds me of the bullshit pushed by the communists in denouncing citizens as "wreckers," "counter-revolutionaries," "diversionists" and the like. 

Scream, denounce, seek to get the "heretic" fired.  Shades of the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Watch this whole series.  It's just seven 15-minute segments.  Listen closely to the recollections of those who lived through it, whose parents were executed for nothing.  In particular, note the man who recounts how the "collective police" took away his family's two cows and two plow horses.  He says his parents kissed all their animals as they were taken from them.

Eat shit and die, socialists.  You may think you're on the side of the angels, but what you're pushing is evil to its core.

And tragically, half of Americans don't believe it.  And wouldn't believe it even if they lived under it.

New term for California: "Calizuela"

A commenter at Ace's coined a new term for the Peoples' Republic of California: "Calizuela"--obviously a mashup of California and that sad, impoverished socialist shit-hole, Venezuela.

That's so dead-on that I expect Fakebook and Twatter-- the socialist-loving companies that totally control what we-the-people are allowed to post on the Internet--will declare that the term "Calizuela" is "hate speech," and will delete the account of anyone who uses it.

Sanctuary states: safe for undocumented Americans, not so safe for actual citizens

Democrats love illegal alien invaders SO much that several Democrat-ruled states have actually passed state laws ordering that no state law enforcement officer, at any level (state, city or county) is allowed to cooperate with federal authorities to enforce valid U.S. law.

Almost unbelievable, eh?

As a result, illegal aliens who repeatedly commit serious crimes aren't deported, but are intentionally allowed to remain in the U.S., free to commit more crimes against U.S. citizens.

Sanctuary jurisdictions have refused to honor ICE "detainer requests" even when the illegal alien has raped a U.S. citizen or commited child sex offenses.

Most conservatives think refusing to cooperate with the federal government to deport illegals who have committed serious crimes is incredibly stupid, but most Democrat political leaders support that policy.  Makes ya wonder what they're smokin'.

The following example is all too common: On September 14 an illegal alien, Nery Jovani Acevedo-Sanchez, stabbed a man in the back in Seattle.  The attacker was an illegal alien who should have been deported numerous times for his criminal record--but wasn't, because.local cops had been ordered not to honor "detention requests" from ICE.

ICE got hold of Acevedo-Sanchez twice in early 2013 after he was arrested on local charges. However, Obama ordered federal agents not to deport illegal aliens arrested for drugs or theft.  So under these illegal orders he was released, and promptly disappeared.

Acevedo-Sanchez wasn’t seen again until April 2017 when he was arrested for domestic violence. ICE issued an immigration detainer the same day, but again Washington state authorities refused to honor the detainer, and he was released again.

On April 26 of this year, Olympia police arrested him on theft and assault charges. Three days later ICE issued an immigration detainer.  Again Washington authorities refused to cooperate, and he was released yet again.

Thanks to "sanctuary state" policies, this illegal alien was able to continue his criminal career for six more years until he was arrested for stabbing the American citizen on September 14.

"So vote Democrat in 2020!  Because America needs more "undocumented Americans," cuz they love our values, work hard and assimilate so well! 

"Oh, and we note with great pleasure that our allies in the federal courts have ruled that the eeeebil Trump can't insist that "immigrants" be self-supporting.  Instead, they've ruled that "undocumented Americans" must be given every bit of welfare available to other Americans.  So we're still winning!, and are on track to have our judge supporters give 11 million undocumented Americans the right to vote Democrat by the 2020 election!  Yay!!!!!"
===

Full story here: https://www.conservativereview.com/news/illegal-alien-accused-stabbing-man-front-son-wasnt-deported-thanks-sanctuary-seattle/

"First test of "Green New Deal" was a total success! Our allies suppressed all negative comments"

To:  Speaker Pelosi
       Congressperson Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
       Senator Chuck Schumer
       Congressman Adam Schiff

Subject:  First test of Green New Deal

Someone noted that every person living in the green areas is powerless both politically and literally.
Note that affluent Marin county (just north of the SF bay) didn't have its power cut off.  Hmmm, wonder why?  Same for San Francisco, Oakland and Sacramento.  What a coincidence!

Fakebook subsidiary now removing all pics showing the "OK" hand sign, claiming it's "hate speech"!

As most of you know by now, the "OK" hand-sign is really a secret code showing that the signer supports "white power."

Oh wait, that's right:  That's nonsense.  That story was invented by some wags at 4chan to see if the Lying Mainstream Media and the perpetually offended snowflakes would be dumb enough to believe it.

And sure enough, they bought it, all the way.  Which brings us to the point:

"Instagram" is a social-media site owned by Fakebook.  And in their now-classic, "we're so tolerant that we have to tell people what we won't allow 'em to say" manner, Instagram has officially confirmed that they will REMOVE any photo of "white power hand signs," calling them "hate speech."  If you try it more than once they'll cancel your account.

Of course you can't believe a big-ish, supposedly sophisticated, hip, savvy company could possibly have fallen for the 4chan hoax, or that no one at the "sophisticated" company would bother to try to confirm whether the old, old OK sign was indeed being use by mysterious "white power" supporters.

Yeah.  Well, take a look below:



A commenter to the original article noted that it's likely that the "perpetually offended" would fall for even the most absurd hoax, if it supported the idea that there's some secret sign whites use to show that they're the cool kids.

Speaking of which, a friend tells me that "vaping" is used to show support for white power--cuz all those clouds of...wait for it...white smoke. 

Shhhh!  Don't tell anyone!

Original story here:
https://summit.news/2019/10/10/instagram-to-remove-photos-of-OK-hand-sign-as-hate-speech/

Yesterday's HIGH temp in Boulder was colder than the record by a whopping seven degrees! Media ignores

Well isn't THIS interesting: Yesterday the high temperature in Boulder, CO was reported as 27 degrees F.  The previous lowest daily high for this date was 34 degrees F in 1985.  So today's temp was a whopping seven degrees lower than the previous record!

That's a huge change.  So what do you suppose it means?

Consider this:  If a summer high temp was higher than the previous record by seven degrees, the lunatic Left and their allies in the Lying Mainstream Media would be screaming that it was absolute proof of imminent, fatal "Global Warming!" pardon..."climate change."

When a hurricane hits anywhere, doing more damage than previous hurricanes (because the local population has doubled and property values have increased ten-fold since the LAST hurricane of the same strength), the Mainstream Media screams that it's proof of...you guessed it.

But when someplace records a LOW that's 7 degrees below the old record for that day, Leftists like Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow never mention it--"It proves nothing, comrade!  Just a random anomaly."

Isn't it strange how the occasional higher temp proves global warming is absolutely REAL, but the AGW "experts" insist that setting a new record 7 degrees below the old one proves absolutely nothing?



Source: https://realclimatescience.com/2019/10/unprecedented-cold/

CNN "Democrat town hall" features 9-year-old tranny asking Liewatha a softball question; audience gushes

Last night CNN, in its endless efforts to support Democrats and boot Trump from the presidency, held a "Democratic town hall," which seems to have been devoted mainly to LGBTQ persons and policies.

The producers gave new Democrat darling Elizabeth Warren the plum softball of the night when a 9-year-old girl who wants to be a boy read a printed question, prompted by mom:  Essentially, "What will you do to protect me from being bullied by conservative haters who are killing my transgender comrades by the thousands?"

Okay, that wasn't quite the wording but it was the clear meaning.  I mean, every single day we hear about mobs of howling, MAGA-hat-wearing deplorables knifing some hapless tranny.

Oh wait...I've never heard of anything remotely like that.  Conservatives are pretty damn tolerant, unlike Antifa and the snowflakes, who will beat and burn anything that smacks of a normal nuclear family, and anyone who expresses a fondness for that sort of normalcy.

But never mind the false premise:  All involved clearly recognized this as a softball setup, and Warren was ready.  Watch the clip below, then read the slobbering, fawning comments:

“My name is Jacob and I’m a 9-year-old transgender American. What will you do to make sure kids like me are safe in schools?”@HRC Foundation Parents for Transgender Equality Council member Mimi Lemay & her son Jacob ask @ewarren about protecting trans kids at #EqualityTownHall. pic.twitter.com/wLMQptv0Fn

— Human Rights Campaign (@HRC) October 11, 2019

CNN slobbers over Beto as he says this...

Listen to the wild applause from the morons in the audience at CNN's love-fest for the charmless panderer Beto as he agrees that churches that don't support homosexual marriage should have their tax-exempt status revoked.

"Do you think religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax exempt status if they oppose same sex marriage?"

"Yes," Beto says, without missing a beat. #LGBTQTownHall pic.twitter.com/HJpnyrYfYY

— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) October 11, 2019

https://twitter.com/MaryMargOlohan/status/1182478492614742018https://twitter.com/MaryMargOlohan/status/1182478492614742018

Coastal American youth seem to be infected with...socialism

A fatal pathology seems to have infected U.S. liberals:  They've apparently come to truly believe the propaganda theyve been spouting for years, that the U.S. is evil, and has been since its founding.

This pathology is clearly visible in the hate-warped faces of media talking heads like Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow, and in Dem politicians like Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, Julian Castro, Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker.  They make no secret of their hate for America as most of us have known it.

It's also clearly visible in most professors at east- and west-coast universities, who claim whites should be replaced in all positions of power, or even killed.  It's hard to believe these people grew up in the U.S.

But the infection may be most easily seen in students at east- and west-coast universities--who say they're not at all proud to be American, and claim to prefer socialism over free markets and capitalism. 

Interestingly, there's a recent precedent for this: In 1938 a similar infection gripped students at the most exclusive British universities (Oxford and Cambridge) just before World War 2 started:  By a wide margin the members of the Oxford student union approved a motion stating that none would "fight for king or country."  And few did.

Today over half of young Americans of college age seem to have bought into the ghastly lie that socialism a) works; b) is superior to free markets, and c) can "give people free stuff."  And all the Democrat presidential candidates have enthusiastically endorsed this lie.  You'd think that at least a couple of them would buck the mob, but it doesn't seem to be happening.

Liberals, Dems and socialists are also caught up in the excitement (to them) of possibly impeaching the president.  They smell blood, and the Lying Mainstream Media eagerly stokes the fires of their blood-lust.  Whether they succeed or not, they're generating opposition to Trump, and firing up Dem voters who might otherwise have stayed home in 2020.  So for them, it's win-win.

Hard to imagine how this can possibly end well.

A question for people who believe global warming is caused by rising CO2

Communists and leftists keep telling you that the planet is doomed because of global warming no, wait..."climate change."  They claim it's being caused by CO2, and specifically the CO2 produced by burning oil, gas and coal.

They claim the danger is so huge that the planet will be unavoidably doomed unless we take drastic action within ten years!!!

And what do they want you to do?  For starters, ban all fossil fuels.  Which would mean no more air travel (except for elected officials, of course).  So how do they suggest you heat your home, or get hot water, without fossil fuel?

Why, that's not their problem, citizen.  Besides, you can always use electricity, even though it's twice as costly as natural gas.  Of course they don't realize that almost two-thirds of our electricity comes from coal and natural gas, and that banning fossil fuels will cause a huge shortage of electricity.  But hey, it's not their problem, right?

Ah.  But the greenies don't know history or science.  So the next time some leftist asshole starts yelling that you're killing the planet by doing...anything...ask 'em to explain the historic record below:

It's a map of Glacier Bay, Alaska.  When first mapped in 1760 the glaciers filled the entire bay.  But every year after that, the glaciers retreated, as you see on the map.  By 1907 they'd retreated to almost where they are today.

Now here's the problem for leftists:  From 1760 to 1907 there were hardly any automobiles, and virtually no significant sources of carbon dioxide.  So if glacial retreat is caused by global warming, how did the glaciers in Glacier Bay retreat so hugely between 1760 and 1907--a period when human output of CO2 was virtually non-existent?  

Feel free to send this link to any liberal/Dem friends you have who buy into the "OMG we have to ban all fossil fuels or the Earth is doomed!" bullshit.

th

Dem darling (socialist) introduces bill in House to give illegal aliens all welfare benefits

Democrat politicians and their allies in the Lying Mainstream Media constantly--constantly--tell you they're "the party of the working man and woman."  How many times have you heard that, eh? 

Let's see if that's likely true or total bullshit.

You work hard for your money, right?  I'm guessing your parents have also worked hard--probably are still working hard--for what they have.  So if Democrats really are the party of the working man and woman--as they and the Lying Mainstream Media constantly tell us--you'd think Dems would want to let you and your parents keep what they've worked so hard to earn, eh?

Sure.  Basic.  Logical.  Not at all controversial.

Well....  there's this idiot former bartender from New York--Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez--who's managed to get herself elected to congress (from a totally-Democrat district).  She's a socialist, which means she wants to take your hard-earned money and...give it to someone else.

Cool, eh?

She says she wants to do that because it's "fair."  Of course that's bullshit--it's not even remotely fair to take the earnings of people who have worked hard and give those earnings to people who have spent their youth not studying, and their adult lives sitting around getting high.  Instead there's a...trivial, totally unintended benefit to AOC:  By giving your parents' earnings to others, the recipients will vote for her.

Of course you can't believe that.  You can't believe anyone would be that cunning, that brazen.  It's just SO off-the-charts of reasonable behavior, eh?

Sure.  But cunning socialists/Democrat pols like AOC have an even more cunning goal:  They not only want to take your earnings and give 'em to other Americans, but also want to give your earnings to illegal aliens--because Dems know there's already a mechanism in place to allow illegal aliens to VOTE in our elections. 

Naturally you can't believe that either.  No one could possibly be that anti-American-working-man, eh?

Well take a look below:  It's a bill just introduced by the charmless socialist, AOC.

 

Note the cunning, feel-good title of this abomination: "This Act [eventual law] may be cited as the "A Just Society: The Embrace Act."

"Embrace."  "Just society."  Cuz AOC and her fellow socialist/Democrats are all about "justice," eh?

Well, as long as you accept their definition of "justice": taking your money and giving it to potential Democrat voters.  Is that cool or what?

Oh, and in case you think this is a fake--a satirical spoof by "far-right-wing conspiracy-mongers" to undermine those wonderful, compassionate Democrats...the above text of her bill is a f'ing screen-shot from her own website. 

Oh, and note that if you click on the above link, she says in the title that "A just society embraces OUR immigrants."  And of course that's true: we do welcome ("embrace") LEGAL immigrants.  But that's not who her bill is designed to benefit.  She wants to give money to "illegal immigrants."  But it benefits her to intentionally conflate legal immigration with illegal immigration. 

Now:  Earlier I mentioned that there was already a mechanism in place that allows illegal aliens to vote in U.S. elections.  I told you you wouldn't believe it, cuz that's so f'n outrageous.  But it's the truth.  Here's how it works:

Way back in 1993 Democrats in congress passed a cutsie act called "motor voter."  Of course the real name was more grandiose:  "The National Voter Registration Act of 1993."  The critical demand of this law was that whenever anyone applied for a driver's license, every state was REQUIRED to register that person to vote...unless the person specifically declined.

Of course back in 1993 very few Americans ever imagined illegal f'n aliens would be able to apply for a U.S. driver's license.  But the Democrat pols in California--who have had a veto-proof majority in the legislature of the Peoples' Republic of California for 30 years--figured out a New, Improved Twist:  They passed a law saying illegal aliens could now get drivers' licenses!

How cool is THAT?

They lying rat-bastards who pushed this TOLD Americans it would "bring illegal aliens out of the shadows," and similar lies.  Said their wunnerful new LAW would require all the illegals  scuse me, "undocumented Americans"--to buy auto liability insurance, which would supposedly solve the huge problem that not one of 'em had insurance before the act.

Yay!!!!

Except...it did no such thing.  The illegals didn't bother with insurance after the act either.  WHAT A SURPRISE!  (Actually a few would buy insurance to show the DMV, but then would immediately cancel it.)

Now here comes the totally-predictable result: Since the motor-voter law said people applying for driver's licenses would automatically be registered to vote unless they affirmatively declined, how many cared enough about our election laws--or spoke enough English--to "opt out" by checking the box that said "I do not want to register to vote"?

Surveys--not by the state of Cali--show that the overwhelming majority of illegals did NOT check the "I decline" box.  So by the terms of the faaabulous motor-voter act, they all automatically got registered to vote.

How cool is that?

And the real kicker is, illegal-alien advocates in other states have gotten several more states to pass laws mandating the issuance of driver's licenses to illegal aliens.  Meaning they get the same automatic voter registration.

Yay!!!

What bullshit.  Dem pols have found a way to ensure they'll eventually win all presidential elections.  And because illegals out-breed Americans by about two-to-one, we can't ever recover from this treachery.  Now all that remains is to ensure that the illegals vote Democrat.

Hence AOC's new bill--which will pass the Dem-controlled House easily.

Clever, clever Democrats.

Surprisingly, less than one out of 12 college students say they're proud to be American; well, 1 of 12 of one political party

Most college students are reasonably well off.  So you'd think most would be either very proud--or at worst merely "somewhat proud"--to be an American.

Yeah, you'd think that, eh? 

But when College Fix conducted a survey of 1000 college students, they found that some students weren't very proud at all.

Specifically, only 8 percent of college students who self-identified as Democrats said they were proud to be Americans.

By contrast, 74 percent of students who identified as Republican said they were proud to be Americans.

Wha...I'm...shocked!  Really!  Who could have predicted that, eh?

So maybe the reason so few Democrat students said they were "proud" to be Americans were, uh... just "mostly proud," eh? 

Not exactly: 22 percent of Democratic college students responded that they were not at all proud to be an American.  By contrast, just 2 percent of college students identifying as Republican said that.  And we know a lot of college students rebel against their parents, so it wouldn't be surprising that two percent would say...well, damn near anything outrageous.

A keen analyst notes that perhaps the reason for the low percentage is that lots of college students have never been to a shit-hole country, so have no idea how great America is.  This is plausible, but is there any reason to think more Republican students than Democrat students have had the eye-opening foreign-travel experience?

But here's another theory: students who identify as Democrats are far more likely to have Democrat parents.  And it's likely that Democrat parents agree with the ghastly ideas being pushed by Dem congress-creeps like Elizabeth Warren, AOC,  Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar (a.k.a. "the squad"), Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff et al that America and capitalism are evil and have been evil since forever.

It would be no surprise if their kids believed the same pernicious ideas--in which case it would hardly be surprising that they wouldn't be proud to be Americans.

Fortunately there's a fix for this anti-American sentiment among Dem college students:  All it will take to make America faaabulous again will be to elect a Democrat/socialist as president.  Just as the entire homeless  problem vanished when Obama was president.

Cool, eh?
===
For the original story click here.