Friday, March 23

Obama's former head of CIA uses a quote from Trotsky to undermine Trump

John Brennan was appointed by Obama as director of the CIA--a post he held for nearly all of Obama's second term.

In the 1970's Brennan supported the Soviet-controlled American Communist Party.  He has acknowledged that he voted for the Communist Party's presidential candidate Gus Hall.

Of course you never heard about that.  You think it's simply un-possible--totally insane--that an American president could appoint a communist supporter to head the nation's top spy agency, right?

Because it seems insane that a president would appoint such a person to head the CIA--and because you've never heard this reported by the Mainstream Media--you think the claim that he voted for the Communist Party's candidate must be false.

Tell that to Wiki--which goes to great lengths to protect liberals, marxists and Democrats:
John Brennan was Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from March 2013 to January 2017 [i.e. until Obama's reign ended]. He served as chief counterterrorism advisor to president Obama; his title was Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President.
     Brennan withdrew his name from consideration for CIA Director in Obama's first term over concerns about his support for transferring terror suspects to countries where they may be tortured while serving under President George W. Bush.  Instead, Brennan was appointed Deputy National Security Advisor, a position which did not require Senate confirmation.
In 1976, he voted for Communist Party USA candidate Gus Hall in the presidential election; he later said that he viewed it as a way "of signaling my unhappiness with the system, and the need for change."
Last week, after corrupt deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe was finally fired, Brennan tweeted this to president Trump:
“When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America… America will triumph over you.”
America will triumph over a president it elected?

Interestingly, this isn't the first time Brennan has openly called for subverting the president's administration:  In 2017 he urged executive branch employees to “refuse to carry out” presidential  directives if they didn’t agree with them.

And that phrase "the dustbin of history" sounds...odd.  I can't ever recall an American using the word "dustbin," and I'll bet you can't either.  But the phrase does ring a faint bell somehow.  Oh yeah:  It was coined by Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, who blasted his political enemies by saying
“You are pitiful, isolated individuals! You are bankrupts. Your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on — into the dustbin of history!” 
Brennan, dear reader, was a "plant"--a communist sympathizer who was appointed by Obama to head the CIA.  Obama did this knowing Brennan's background and sympathies.  And now Brennan continues his work, fanning the flames of Trump-hate, and resistance, and subversion of legitimate policies.  Absolutely predictably.

CNN propagandist Phil Mudd was quite open about it:
“You’ve been around for 13 months. We’ve been around since 1908. I know how this game is going to be played. We’re going to win.”
Wake the hell up, Americans.

Using Fakebook to create a database is either horrible or brilliant; depends on which party does it

Yesterday Elizabeth Harrington in the Washington Free Beacon wrote about the current wailing about how a company hired by Trump used Fakebook data to reach potential voters.  Harrington realized that the REAL story was the total reversal between how the Lying Media reported this story compared with how they praised Team Obama when they did exactly the same thing in 2012.

When the Obama campaign did it, the media fell all over itself praising the brilliance, calling the techies behind it "digital wizards" at the "forefront of campaign technology."

The media expressed starry-eyed admiration that Obama had the head of Google recruiting talent, choosing technology, and coaching Obama's campaign manager.  Another article praised Team Obama for having Facebook on their "side."

So when liberal Democrat Obama did it, the Lying Media gushed in praise.

But when the media learns that a consulting firm hired by the Trump campaign itself—did essentially the same thing, the media screams that this is a terrible thing that calls for a criminal investigation.

The media described Obama's Fakebook-fueled database as a "powerful tool."  By sharp contrast, they describe Cambridge Analytica as "harvesting your personal information" and "data abuse."

When the Obama campaign did it, the media described data as being "crunched."  Now they describe the same data as "stolen."

When the Obama campaign did it, the media said Facebook was the "ideal way" to reach voters.  Now they say Fakebook has been "weaponized."  What the media gushingly described as "genius" when done by Team Obama in 2012 was now called "evil genius."

Let me give my college students some background:  Back in 2012 y'all were 12 or 13 years old, so you don't know any of the history.  Without that, you can't really appreciate how outrageous the Lying Media's reversal is.

In 2012 the Obama campaign used "sophisticated computer programs" to mine data from social media, to create a "massive computer database containing personal data on millions of American voters."  Naturally you can't believe this, because for the media to be howling that the use of Fakebook data by Trump's campaign is, like, totally outrageous, when they praised Obama for doing the same thing just 4 years earlier would make them totally hypocritical, right?

And yet that's exactly what's happened.  NBC News explained how the Democrat operation worked:
Anybody who contacted the campaign through Facebook had their friends and ‘likes' downloaded.  If they contacted the campaign's website through mobile apps, cellphone numbers and address books were downloaded. Computer ‘cookies' captured Web browsing and online spending habits.
A left-wing paper was positively gleeful about this coup.  In a story headlined "Obama, Facebook and the power of friendship" they wrote
Every time an individual volunteers to help out—for instance by offering to host a fundraising party for the president—he or she will be asked to log onto the re-election website with their Facebook credentials.
That in turn will engage Facebook Connect, the digital interface that shares a user's personal information with a third party. 
[This transfers] all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page—home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends—directly into the central Obama database.
Fast-forward: Cambridge Analytica, the data company hired by the Trump campaign, paid Facebook users to take a personality test via a third party app.  The app then pulled personal data from all of the test-taker's linked Facebook friends without their consent--just as the Obama campaign did.

Short answer:  Using Fakebook data to compile a vast database of voters is brilliant; pure genius; innovative.  Unless, of course, a Republican campaign does it--in which case the Lying Media claim it's, like, totally awful.

Thursday, March 22

Media: "No such thing as the Deep State." Bill Kristol: I'd prefer the Deep State to Trump

If you're an adult who's been paying attention, you may have read about something called the "Deep State."  It's the whole division of liberal/Left Obama appointees who have been actively sabotaging virtually every Trump initiative.

Oh think that's tinfoil-hat stuff.  Crazy talk.  Can't possibly be true, cuz...conspiracies are just fantasy, right?

Well.  An attorney who writes a blog took a look at the facts that support the theory of holdovers, and summarized the evidence as follows:

1. Do you believe the EPA has, from its inception, been heavily staffed by activist left/liberals, determined to write rules that would favor the radical environmentalist side of things?

If the evidence you've seen supports that proposition, why do you claim it's impossible that the upper echelons of the DOJ, FBI and even many top generals-- ponds stocked with Obamaite fish for 8 years-- could similarly have a strong leftist political interest?  If so, would you be surprised that these operatives might push their agenda, without constitutional authority to do so, through their bureaucratic and managerial decisions?

2. Do you believe the Office of Civil Rights in the Justice Department is staffed with leftist Democrats who push their agendas through their bureaucratic and managerial decisions?

If the evidence you've seen leads you to believe the OCR has been stocked with Obamaites, why is it insane to think that the higher ranks of the DOJ might have been similarly stocked?

3. In 2003 unnamed members of the CIA investigated the question of whether Saddam Hussein sought to buy uranium in Niger.  Personable CIA employee Valeria Plame recommended that the best person to send to investigate this question was... Clinton loyalist Joe Wilson.  Who was, by amazing coincidence, the husband of Valerie Plame.

Many Establishment Republicans agreed that Joe Wilson was a biased investigator, and in fact had been hand-picked exactly for this reason.  And true to form, Wilson reported there was nothing behind the claim.  Later, other investigators found Wilson's "investigation" consisted of sitting in the hotel bar having drinks with friends in the local government.  Who naturally "knew nothing."

With this known, can people really think the intelligence community is honest?

4. Every intel agency in the world agreed that Saddam had a nuclear weapon development program.  But in 2007 the U.S. intelligence community issued a National Intelligence Estimate claiming there was never any evidence Iran was seeking a nuclear weapon.  This report was immediately leaked to the press.  The most logical conclusion is that they were trying to undercut Bush by claiming there was never any justification for a military strike on Iran.

This of course represented a complete reversal of their previous analyses, and the intel community actually reversed itself again a couple of years later, deciding that the threat of an Iranian nuke was now so dire and so close to succeeding that it justified secret talks with Iran--and a secret non-treaty treaty--to delay their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

If the intel community would  deliberately leak a bogus report to damage Bush hand in 2007, why is it hard to believe that the Deep State still exists?  And more to the point, look at how many "establishment" faux-conservatives have gone so far into Trump Derangement Syndrome that they openly claim they'd prefer the Deep State to Trump:

 Hat tip: Ace of Spades.

Yet another bullsh*t paper from leftist/liberal professors

Most rational adults would think scientific principles are universal. 

But to the mavens of academia, scientific principles are raaaacist, so the mavens demand that those principles give way to political correctness:

Naturally you think this is hyperbole.  But in a recent paper professors Cheryl E. Matias and Paul T. Le claim scientific principles are merely a construct of "whiteness" designed to thwart "our hope for diversity.”  Seriously.

They imply that scientific principles aren’t really valid, but are simply tools to "thwart our hope for diversity."  To the authors it follows that white people and Western Civilization are bad.
Much of the way western nations teach science erases the values and culture of indigenous people.  Therefore our science is out of touch with the experiences of our students of Color [sic] and instead represent [sic] post-colonial discourses of White power and control over people of Color [sic] via forcing the internalization of Western science knowledge.
Got it yet?  "Our science" is "out of touch with the experiences of students of Color," and thus represents "White power and control over people of Color," by "forcing the internalization of Western science knowledge.

Wow.  And here we thought science was based on universal principles and objective reality, and was colorblind, instead of being based wishful thinking and pernicious nonsense, like the bullshit hate-fanning papers being shoveled into young people’s heads by nutty leftist professors.

Seems to me western civilization flourished long before slavery became a black-vs.-white issue, and expanded precisely because western thinkers recognized science as being reality-based and universally discoverable.  Do the authors have what they believe is the real explanation for, say, gravity?  How about nuclear fission, cell biology or Faraday's law of induction?

How about any discovery in science?

Take your time.  I'll wait.

How much distance is there between "Western science represents white power and control over people of color" and "Don't you dare put any girls in school ever again!" (Nigerian Boko haram muslims on returning 100 school girls kidnapped two days ago)?

"The Equality Commission has been informed..."

The game plan for so-called "progressives:"
The Equality Commission has been informed that you have two unused bedrooms in your house, so we are requisitioning them to house homeless Americans.  You have the right to appeal this ruling to the Equality Commission.  The first step requires you to post a $10,000 bond.
The Equality Commission has been informed that you purchased a lot of food last month, so we are requisitioning half of it to help feed Americans who have less than you do.  You have the right to appeal this ruling to the Equality Commission, after posting a $10,000 bond

Car registration records show you have three cars.  It is the policy of the Equality Commission that no one needs three cars, so we are requisitioning one to give to a less-wealthy American.  You have the right to appeal this ruling to the Equality Commission, upon posting a $20,000 bond.

The Equality Commission has been informed that you make 23% more than the median income.  It is our policy that no one needs that much money to live a happy life, so we are fining you 23% of your income to give to those who do not make as much as you do.  You have the right to appeal this ruling to the Equality Commission, after posting a $40,000 bond
Naturally you think this is hyperbole.  But it's already happening, just with a different name.

Wednesday, March 21

Update on faked temperature data--faked by NASA and NOAA

The graph below is just the latest episode in the revelation of a huge, organized, government lie, run by left-wing lying rat-bastards in the "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" and NASA.

Yes, that NASA.

Here's how it works: The blue line shows actual measured average temperatures, going back 120 years or so.  The line shows temperatures are very slightly cooler than their peak in 1930's--the infamous Dust Bowl.

The orange line shows what NOAA calls "adjusted" temperatures, which it then publishes as the "official" temperatures.  And NASA's Goddard Space Center does exactly the same thing.

Notice any trend there?
"Oooh, I'll take "Brazen Bullshit" for $1000, Alex"

So a fair question here is, by what nutty, irrational rationale do NOAA and NASA lefty "scientists" claim that that the, y'know, actual temperatures read from actual, real thermometers back in 1927 are wrong, but that 60 or 70 years later, NASA and NOAA munchkins feel free to change those measurements?

Anybody?  Bueller?

But wait, citizen, you don't understand!  These, uh... adjustments weren't just guesses pulled out of someone's ass, but were all done by a...wait for it!  And as you should know, anything done by a computer is totally unbiased and accurate, right?

Except...folks who know jack-sh*t about physics and thermodynamics and heat transfer and infrared absorption and statistics said "Okay, that's fine.  Show us the algorithm your wunnerful computer used to make these adjustments."

And NASA and NOAA said "Oh, it's very complex.  You couldn't possibly understand it."

And the folks who know...all the stuff above said "Oh really?  Try us, assholes."

And NASA and NOAA said "Ah, well...even though we know you couldn't possibly understand it, we won't show it to you,'s proprietary.  We made it, so we own it, so we don't have to show it to you peon taxpayers.  So piss off."

And the folks cetera...sued NASA in federal court.  The judge ruled that since NASA is funded by the public, and they didn't claim any national-security exemption, they had to comply.

NASA still hasn't revealed the algorithm. 

This deception has been going on for about 15 years.  And the agencies are continuing to adjust both past and current temperatures--reducing past temps and raising more recent ones.  The graph below shows the average adjustments of temps that were measured in given years--both up and down:

As you see, recent "adjusted" temperatures (i.e. the new "official" record) have all been raised, while older ones have been lowered.  Very consistent.

Interestingly, in recent years many of these adjustments are due to simply making up data.  Every month, a certain percentage of the 1,218 United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) stations fail to report their data.  This missing data is marked in the database with an “E” ("estimated")  In 1970 about 10% of the data was missing, but in recent years almost half the entries are estimated.  In those cases the missing temperature is estimated by NOAA using a computer model--meaning that almost half of the current adjusted data is fake.
So to summarize:  Almost half the current data is missing, so "estimated."  Further, these "estimates" (fake data) are always higher for recent years.  Finally, the agencies altering this critical temperature data refuse to disclose the alleged "program" they claim is used to make the "adjustments."

Interesting.  Oh, wait...all together now:  "Government agencies would NEVER lie this brazenly!  Next you'll be claiming that top officials in the FBI tried to fix the 2016 presidential election!"

Post by London metro cops threatens charges if you do something NOT illegal but you did it because...

The U.K, as we once knew it, is dead.  What remains is something out of Orwell's "1984."

Here's a recent post on the UK Metropolitan Police website:

If someone commits a criminal offence and the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we class this as a ‘hate crime’. It means the offender can be charged for the crime itself and also their reasons for doing it.

If someone does something that isn’t a criminal offence but the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we would class this as a ‘hate incident’. Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence.

If you’ve witnessed or been the victim of a crime or incident you believe was motivated by prejudice or hate, visit our How to report hate crime page. 
Didja get that?  If you do something that ISN'T a crime, but someone--anyone--believes whatever you did was "motivated by prejudice or hate," you can be charged with an offense.

The Metro Police caught a lot of flak for this and reportedly have rewritten it, but the point is that someone--in the officialdom, with power and funded by taxpayer funds--had the insanity to think this was a reasonable, desirable policy.

Pure insanity.  And there are millions of idiots here in the U.S. who would agree with 'em.

Tuesday, March 20

Food for thought. RIP Kate Steinle.

The biggest political scandal outside the FBI that you never heard about

This is Yvette Clark, a Democrat member of congress from New York.

Congressperson Clark is one of the dozens of corrupt Democrat members who used a Pakistani con-man named Imran Awan and family to manage their office computers.  Another was former chair of the Democrat National Committee (and chair at the time the Dems wailed that someone had made off with copies of a bunch of emails). 

Still another powerful member who hired the Awans was California rep Xavier Becerra--who has since resigned from congress to become attorney-general for that state.  Hmmm....

Problem was, Awan was copying gigabytes of files of Dem members onto a remote server, from which those files could be sent to anyone.

Another problem was that Awan was stealing every piece of computer gear he could find.  Investigators found dozens of government Blackberries and other government computers in one of his homes.

Another problem is that Democrat members of congress are refusing to cooperate with investigators in trying to see how much data and equipment the Awans stole.  For example, after t $120,000 of equipment was found to be missing from Yvette Clark's office she had her chief of staff simply "removed it from the inventory."

Investigators think Dems may be refusing to cooperate because the Awans may have threatened to expose emails and files that would damage the Dem members involved.  This suspicion got a boost when attorneys for Imran Awan claimed invoices for the purchase of computer equipment were falsified at the request of the Democrat members of congress.  If true that should be a career-ender.

Still another problem....Wait, you say you haven't heard of any of this?  Well that's...odd, don'tcha think?  I mean, the Democrats and their media allies have been so squealy about "cybersecurity" after someone stole the emails from the DNC server, so you'd think Dems and the media would be really aggressive about investigating clear security breaches, right?

And the media would be all over it, cuz, like, the media was SO aggressive about covering the story about "the Russians" allegedly hacking the DNC.  And giving the emails to Wiki to help Trump.  So you'd think they'd be equally aggressive about this, right?

Oh, wait...yeah, now I understand:  It was important when the Dems and their media allies wanted to use "hacking" to damage Trump.  But now?  Not important, citizen.

Not.  Important.

Now imagine how the media would have reacted if exactly this same sequence of events had happened to Republicans.

Some excellent analysis from 1854 or so...

“The real issue...that will continue in this the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle.

It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.’ No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race [or class] of men as an apology for enslaving another race [or class], it is the same tyrannical principle.”   --Abraham Lincoln

Democrat solution to violence by males: Teach 'em to act like girls. How well is that working?

If an untrained 12-year-old--of either sex--were to try driving on the freeway, no one would be surprised if the results were deadly.

No one is surprised by the conclusion that if young people aren't trained, the results are often terrible.

Now:  The U.S. has been suffering from increasing levels of untrained, uncivilized, violence by young males.  In almost every case those males didn't have solid, responsible fathers in the home.

Liberals and Democrats have a solution.  It's so simple:  Teach boys to act more like girls.

Democrats, liberals and the "elites" think this is a totally great idea--in part because it supports the Dem narrative that men aren't needed to raise good, functional kids.  (That isn't to say that it's impossible to do that without men, but just very rare.)

Seems obvious--at least to some of us--that the main job of a father--second only to keeping your family safe--is to turn your sons into good men.  And it also seems obvious that far too often, boys aren't being turned into good men--in many cases because the father is absent.

No one would expect a person to, say, remove an appendix without being taught how to do it.  Yet Democrats and liberals don't seem to be at all concerned that far too many boys aren't being taught how to be good men.  So as noted above, the Dem/liberal solution is...teach 'em to behave more like girls.

You think I'm just being facetious.  Not at all.  Remember the teacher who went into panic mode because one of her first-graders took a bite out of a pop-tart and made a scary gun shape?  The principal suspended the kid.  Seriously.

Same with the third-grader who drew a picture of a gun in class.

Same for two highschool boys in New Jersey who were suspended for going to a gun range with their families.

How about the numerous teachers who have demanded that parents agree to put their boys on Ritalin because they were "too active"?

How about the huge number of elementary school adminishits who've banned dodgeball?

As I said earlier:  The "fix" proposed by Democrats and liberals for male violence is...teach boys to act more like girls.  But how well does that work?

Let's be honest here:  How often will thugs and crazies buy into the liberal idea of teaching boys to behave like girls?  They won't, ever.  The only boys who will go along are already feminized.  And rational Dems (I know, I know) must know this is true.  But they can't admit it, evah.  Cuz that would reveal the utter insanity of their core beliefs.

I'll readily admit that males are potentially dangerous.  They tend to be impulsive, daring, aggressive.  Without a strong father in the home, they're often violent.  Liberals classify all three of these innate male traits as bad--a decision strongly supported by the beta males who comprise many of the "elites" in this country. 

Teaching boys how to channel these traits into positive directions is what turns boys into good men.

Hat tip Ace of Spades.

Didja ever notice that those libs who wail about photo-ID laws for voting are...

Ever notice that the same people who wail that buying a gun at a store--which requires a government-issued ID and background check--is "far too easy" are the same ones who scream that requiring people to show photo-ID to vote is "an impossibly high hurdle to expect people to overcome"?

Hat tip to "No Moss Here" 

Monday, March 19

Lessons from a movie

Watched "Darkest Hour," the story of Churchill's selection as prime minister in May of 1940, at a time when Hitler's divisions had surrounded the entire British army at Dunkirk.

The movie was gripping because it showed how totally unprepared Britain was for war, despite everyone having watched Hitler take Poland and roll into western Europe nine months earlier.  It showed how strong the pressure was by Britain's conservative establishment--the equivalent of our RINO's today--to open peace talks with Hitler rather than fight.

The previous prime minister--Neville Chamberlain--had done everything possible to appease Hitler and very little to prepare for war.  In September of 1938 he had met Hitler in Munich and agreed to Hitler's demand to take over roughly a third of Czechoslovakia--without bothering to ask the residents.  Chamberlain claimed Hitler had promised that if he was given the Sudetenland, it would be the last of his demands for territory--an agreement Chamberlain claimed secured "peace for our time."

Less than a year later Hitler's divisions poured into Poland and western Europe, starting WW2.

By May of 1940 Germany had surrounded 300,000 British and French troops at the port of Dunkirk on the French coast.  This force constituted the entire Brit professional army, and the only French forces that hadn't already surrendered.  There seemed to be no hope--due to a combination of a well-equipped, well-led German army and the poor armament and tactics of the Brits and French.

Watching Churchill trying to fight the British establishment and try to devise a way to rescue at least some of the trapped soldiers was absolutely gripping.  And I thought: I've seen this, quite recently.  We're living it today.  Because for 8 interminable years the Democrats, led by Obama, allowed the US. military to languish.  The prevailing view--by Democrat leaders, the Mainstream Media and the "elites"--was that war was unthinkable.  Obsolete. 


So what lessons should we have drawn from WW2?   Lots.  But if anyone did, those lessons were never passed down:  Virtually no college student today knows a thing about any of it.  I routinely ask my students who we fought, what ideologies they represented and so on.  No one I've asked knows anything.

Churchill was brusque to the point of rudeness.  Drank too much.  Irritated lots of people.  If he were alive today the British establishment would surrender before letting him take power.

If he were an American the Democrats and the Mainstream Media would shriek that he was a xenophobic, warmongering nationalist relic from a bygone era, clinging to archaic, uncool patriotism.

And I thought:  Where have we heard this before?  Something along the lines of "Putting America first" or "Making America great again."

Definitely uncool.  Much cooler to just open peace talks with ISIS, eh?  Maybe they'll be satisfied with just taking Britain.  Yeah, dat's it.

Hey, it worked with that "Hilter" guy back 80-some years ago, dinnit?

Yes, I understand where you're coming from, professor

Liberal professor at any university in the California state system: "There are no differences between men and women!  And I will fatally beat anyone who disagrees with me!"

Democrats seem to think my beliefs are a problem; let's review:

I used to think I was just a regular guy, but...I'm white, and believe all lives matter.  So according to Democrats and Liberals that makes me a racist.

I'm a fiscal and moral conservative.  According to Dems and liberals that makes me a fascist.

I'm heterosexual, and don't believe transgenders should be in the military.   According to the Democrats that must mean I'm a homophobe.

I'm not a member of a union, so according to liberals and Dems that makes me an enemy of the working class and an ally of big business.

I'm a Christian, so according to Democrats and their Muslim comrades that makes me an infidel.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment, so according to the Democrats it means I support the mass murder of school kids by nuts who were barred by law from having the weapons they used.

I think and reason, so I'm very skeptical of what I see in the Mainstream Media.  According to Democrats that makes me a "reactionary."

I'm proud of my heritage and our American culture. So according to Democrats that makes me a xenophobe.

I believe I have the absolute right--explicitly conferred by the Second Amendment--to protect my family. So according to the Democrats that makes me a "right-wing extremist."

I believe every person who's physically able should have a job. So according to the Dems that makes me an anti-socialist (a label I'm happy to wear).

I and most of the folks I know got a decent education without student loans (it's called work) and no debt at graduation. According to Dems that makes me a "classist."

I believe the main purpose of the federal government is to defend our great nation. So according to the Democrats that makes me a xenophobe and a raaaacist.

I believe government employees and their agencies shouldn't try to rig elections to favor their candidate.  So according to the Democrats that makes me a "right-wing extremist."

After carefully considering the above points I'm beginning to think maybe the problem isn't me, but lies with Democrats and liberals.

Quote from black achiever Thomas Sowell

Fakebook yanking conservative posts is the attitude the FBI used; and Dems don't see a problem

For some months now Fakebook has been removing or restricting access to conservative posts.  But they're cunning, clever:  They disguise their campaign as simply "opposing hate speech."  And who could get upset about opposing "hate speech," right?

But wait...who decides what's defined or identified as "hate speech"?

Glad you asked, citizen.  Fakebook wants to make sure you know they're not just making this decision themselves.  Instead they've asked a number of "partners"--every one of which is a left-wing organ--to do that for them.  And Fakebook tells you that these partners are, ooh, totally unbiased, totally objective.

That's total horse-shit, of course, but Democrats and libs believe it.  And even if you showed Democrats the bias, the wouldn't have a problem with it.  Cuz, like, liberals and Democrats just know better than you, eh?

And finally it dawns on ya:  This attitude--"We know better than you, so you can trust us to ensure that you don't read stuff we don't want you to"--is exactly the "logic" Andy McCabe, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page et al employed to refuse to charge Hilliary, and to try to prevent Trump's election.

It's how all totalitarians work:  Stalin, Kim Jong-Un, the mullahs of Iran--you name it.  They just know best, right?  Why should they let you hurt yourself by making a wrong decision when they can make it for you, eh?   Saves so much trouble, so many mistakes!

If Fakebook was owned and run by conservatives, and yanked posts by liberals, how do you think the mainstream lying media would put up with it?  Think that might be a big story with lotsa screaming?

Update on the plot to rig the election for Hilliary

Agents of the FBI and other intelligence agencies are likely to find themselves accused of behavior that's illegal in a free republic. And it will not just be self-important, oblivious morons like Peter Strzok (who, astonishingly, was the director of counter-intelligence for the FBI) and his mistress, attorney Lisa Page, but is likely to include former FBI director James Comey, Obama's attorney-general Loretta Lynch, Obama's CIA chief John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice, and possibly even Obama himself.

All these people were willing to break the law for what they apparently considered a worthwhile reason: to prevent Donald Trump from winning the presidency over Hillary Clinton.

They were willing to use the power of the FBI and other intelligence agencies to fix the election.  And once their candidate lost, they went on to try to damage Trump's presidency as severely as possible.  That they didn't stop to think that they might be wounding America at the same time is infuriating.
Even more infuriating is that half of Americans--and the entire mainstream media--believe the plotters didn't really do anything wrong.  Yes, dear reader, most Democrats and the entire media actually claim to believe that it's fine for the top officials of what's amusingly called "the nation's top law-enforcement agency" to do anything they can to ensure their favored candidate--Democrat, of course--wins.

Leaving "unlawful" aside for a moment:  How would you bastards feel if the FBI had done the same thing, but trying to sink Hilliary instead of Trump, eh?  Do, do try to convince us deplorables that it would be just peachy with ya.  Really.  Try hard to make us believe that.

So many Americans have lost confidence in the FBI because of this that it's doubtful that the agency's reputation can recover.  Future Americans won't be able to avoid wondering if any given agent was in on the plot.  "Should I really cooperate with someone who was so cavalier about sabotaging a presidential election?"

Of course Democrats are all over Twitter attacking Trump for allegedly firing McCabe.  But in fact the firing was recommended by an FBI agency called the Office of Professional Responsibility, which isn't an ally of the Republican Party or even close.

While the far-Left media are having a fit, as far as I can see at this point the response of the WaPo and NYT has been...oddly muted.  I suspect they knew the truth all along (after all, McCabe, Strzok and other FBI officials were constantly leaking to those papers), and at this point they're not sure which side will win.

You'd think the media would want the FBI, DOJ and intel agencies to be both honest and accountable to citizens.  And unbiased.  But media coverage of the plot thus far shows that they don't care a whit about ordinary citizens compared to their Hilliary.

One always hopes the nation may have reached a turning point, where even Democrats and the media begin to agree that agents of the previous president in the FBI and DOJ shouldn't try to rig elections. Unfortunately, I think we're there yet.  Obama holdovers and RINOs may yet allow all the lawbreakers to escape unpunished.  We'll see.

Sunday, March 18

Suddenly the mystery is solved...!

Bumper sticker

If you put this on your car in Mexifornia the gruberment will charge you with hate speech.