Wednesday, July 19

California moonbat senator Kamala Harris running for president, say big Dem donors

Kamala Harris was the attorney-general of California, then won the U.S. senate seat from that state that opened when Barbara Boxer retired.

A few days ago Harris met in the Hamptons with a group of the biggest donors to Democrat candidates--including Hilliary's biggest donors (other than Russia).  Now a Democrat website is saying that Harris will "definitely" run for president in 2020.

The Dems have found their perfect candidate:  Harris is reportedly a rude, arrogant, fire-breathing socialist--none of which bothers Democrats a bit.  But on the plus side (for Dems) she's a) relatively young; b) female; c) socialist; and d) mixed race.  Thus she can be expected to do much better with young voters and blacks than Hilliary did.  She doesn't have any of Hilliary's baggage, so will do better with women; and her socialist bent will attract low-info voters and Sanders supporters.

Her personal negatives--abrasive and abusive to subordinates, arrogant--will be covered up by the Lying Media so won't be widely known.

As I said:  the perfect Democrat candidate.  If she does run I think she'll sweep the primaries.

Harris has the feel of a deal already made--a person who rises meteorically for no know reason.  Like your emperor, whose entire national experience when he announced his intention to run for president was a grand total of two years in the U.S. senate, after a couple of stealth terms in the Illinois state legislature.

His candidacy was so wildly improbable as to make you think the fix was in, and I get that same vibe with Harris.

Obama damn near destroyed the U.S. in many ways.  I suspect Harris will be Barack II.

Family of man terribly injured claims cops *threw him off a bridge*! Wait...bodycam vid??

In Rainbow City Alabama the cops stopped a car with black driver and passenger.  They asked for ID, which the occupants produced.  But the photo and stats on the ID produced by the male passenger clearly didn't match the person who produced it.

Cops sent a photo of the guy to dispatcher, and the system managed to figure out the guy's real identity--and that he had outstanding arrest warrants.

Hours later the guy is in the hospital with all sorts of injuries.  Looks terrible!

Immediately his family posts on social media that the cops "beat him half to death" AND  "threw him off a bridge!"  Naturally you don't believe that, so take a look at their post:

"We won't stop until these power-obsessed animals pay for their cruelty!"  And "PLEASE SHARE."

Naturally everyone in his community believes this, and a reasonable person would likely view this as an incitement to riot against the police "animals."  The first posts of "F da police" and "police brutality!" hit the Net.  Looks like Ferguson part 2 is about to start.

Fortunately, by blind luck the cops were wearing bodycams--turned on.  And just a couple of hours after the family posted their version of events (above), the cops released the footage.  Which showed a totally different story:

After the dispatcher tells the cop who the guy really is, cop comes back to the rear of the car he's pulled over, where the black male is standing.  Says "Okay, we know who you are, and you're under arrest for..." and at that point the black guy sprints across the highway and leaps over a 4-foot concrete barrier.  No cop was within 50 feet of him when he jumped.  (Video at bottom)

Fortunately the drop was just 19 feet, but the landing zone was totally rocks, and the guy was indeed badly injured on landing.  Cops walked to the end of the bridge, down the rocks and proceeded to call the medics.

Now the question is, how did the guy's family come up with the totally fabricated story they posted on social media?  If their injured relative told 'em, or if they simply made up the whole thing, that sure seems to me to qualify as a "reckless disregard for the truth," which would make the family liable for posting the incendiary lie on the internet.

Of course no one will bother charging them.  Which means the next time something like this happens, we'll see that invisible lottery wheel spin again.  And maybe next time the cops won't have bodycams to tell the truth.

Oh, and by the way:  Black Lives Matter has posted that they are now *opposed* to the cops wearing bodycams, now claiming it's raaacist.  They don't explain exactly why they claim that and I'll try to find out.

But it's so odd:  I could have sworn that organizations like BLM were the ones demanding that all cities spend the gazillion dollars needed to put bodycams on every police officer.  Were you under that same impression?  Seems odd that they've now done a complete reversal.

Gosh, I wonder why they'd do that?

For those interested, here's the vid, which is working at least now.  My guess is it'll be taken off the Net, as several copies already have been.  You have to wonder why.  Wait, no you don't.

Tuesday, July 18

James Hansen has a PhD. He predicted NYC would be under water by now

James Hansen is one of the biggest pushers of the idea that human activity--specifically the emission of carbon dioxide by burning oil, gas and coal--was fatally warming the planet.

In 1988 Hansen predicted that within 20 to 30 years New York City’s West Side Highway would “be underwater” due to a predicted rise in sea-level.  Details are at this link (Salon).

At last report none of NYC is underwater.  Of course the far end of his prediction is still a year away and *could* still be right, eh?  But hey, wrong predictions are universal among the Global Worming crowd, so this is par for their course. 

You might think that having been so spectacularly wrong about the underwater driving prediction, Hansen might have dialed it back a bit.  Nope.  Instead he's updated his prediction in a paper published last year, and now claime that if the United States continues to use fossil fuels, sea levels would increase by “several meters over a timescale of 50 to 150 years.”

So...from 1988 to today Hansen predicted a rise of a few meters, but the oceans have only risen a few millimeters.  But according to the Hansen, we're about to get a rise of "several meters" as soon as 50 years from now.

And he gets paid for being this bad.

Almost half of students at U.S. coastal universities think socialism is great. But....

While you've been busy working and paying your house payment and a gazillion taxes, the Lying Media and their allies in academia have managed a huge win:  They've convinced between 45 and 50 percent of American ccollege students in coastal states that "socialism is good."

One tiny, tiny problem:  None of the students who think socialism is wonderful can actually say what the hell socialism IS.

Oh, they're quick to tell you what they've been told it will DO--like, "erase the wealth gap in the U.S."  They have no idea how this will be done, but no matter:  the Lying Media and their socialist professors have told 'em socialism can and will do these things, so don't worry about little details like how it will work.  Just believe us, children.

When you think about it, this little oversight characterizes every Democrat/Liberal program:  Obamacare; banning or taxing carbon-based fuels; forcing the military to pay for sex-change operations while weapons are grounded for lack of spare parts; encouraging heroin use by providing clean needles and places to shoot up; and on and on.

You wonder how long the media and the Dems will continue to virtually ignore the disasters created by socialism in Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba, to name just 3.  Fabulous system.

Pelosi: Barring Pentagon from paying for sex-change operations hurts national security!

If someone had told you ten years ago that a former Speaker of the House had bitched to high heaven that the Defense Department simply HAD to spend taxpayer funds to pay for sex-change operations for military snowflakes, you'd have laughed.  But chief moonbat Nan Pelosi really said that.

Actually it's even a little crazier than that:  She claims that NOT paying for sex-change operations will actually hurt national security. 

Tell me, how in the hell does anyone think national security would be increased by forcing taxpayers to pay for sex-change operations?
This is absurd.  Insane.  The Russians must be laughing their asses off at the insanity of what seemingly passes for leadership in the Democratic party. 

But astonishingly, the Lying Media is sccreaming that Trump is the crazy one???  And virtually all the Democrats agree with 'em.

Folks, barring an actual miracle I think the U.S. as we knew it is dead, due to Democrat crap like this.

Saturday, July 15

Anyone see a pattern here?

In South Carolina a man who has been arrested for numerous crimes, and whose attorneys had negotiated a plea deal that would have sentenced him to four years in prison, instead was freed by a female judge for "time served"--just over 8 months.

Tyreek Lorenzo Bush-Robinson faced a maximum of 50 years in prison.  But instead of judge Alison Lee sentencing Bush-Robinson to the four-to-eight-year sentence agreed upon by his own attorneys as part of a negotiated plea, Judge Alison Lee ignored the negotiated sentence and instead sentenced po' li'l Tyreek to time served-- eight and 1/2 months-- and three years probation.

One month earlier a different judge sentenced one of ol' Tyreek's co-defendants to eight years on similar charges.  Hell of a difference, eh?

A deputy in the courtroom at the time of sentencing said a statement made in court by the perp's attorney just before judge Lee announced his sentence caused judge Alison Lee to shed tears.

After hearing the sentence the county sheriff said "People everywhere have had it with our 'justice system'. This is not an isolated incident.  On a regular basis, repeat offenders get a slap on the wrist and are released back into our communities by bleeding heart judges.”

The previous charges against Tyreek:
  • 2014: arrested in Richland County on two counts of breaking into motor vehicles.  Due to the Youthful Offender Act he served no jail time.
  • 2015: convicted of shoplifting and possession of marijuana; again, no jail time.
  • January 2016: while on probation for a felony charge under the youthful offender act, was charged with breaking into a motor vehicle and criminal conspiracy.  Even though he was on probation when arrested, he was released on bond.
  • February 2016: charged with two counts of receiving stolen goods, one count of possession of a stolen pistol and one count of unlawful carrying of a pistol.  Again released on bond, even though possession of the stolen pistol should have caused his bond to be revoked.
  • March 2016:  charged with three counts of breaking into a motor vehicle.
  • October 2016:  charged with possession of marijuana.
  • October 2016:  charged with two counts of breaking into a motor vehicle and unlawful possession of a firearm (which was stolen.)  His bond was finally revoked and he remained in jail for about eight months.
  • November 2016: charged with receiving stolen goods and breaking into a motor vehicle.
Anyone notice a pattern here?  Ya think maybe ol' Tyreek is now absolutely, totally, irrevocably convinced that he'll always be able to get away with his crimes?  I mean, what other conclusion can one draw?

I'm gonna go waaay out on a limb here and predict that Tyreek hasn't really even begun his life of crime yet.  He'll keep getting the magic get-out-of-jail-free cards until he kills somebody.

Judge Alison ("I'm a sucker for sad stories by defense lawyers") Lee could have given this fine young waste of skin four years to consider his life choices.  She decided it was more important to keep him on the streets, breaking into cars, stealing guns and fencing stolen stuff. 

Now, I'm not a stickler for laws.  And the fact that this one sly sumbitch beat the system isn't gonna change life in the U.S. by more than a micrometer.  But we're looking at analogies and larger issues here: look at the huge drop in the number of illegals entering the U.S. because of just one factor: we elected a president who decided our laws regarding illegal immigration should actually be (gasp!) enforced!  That's likely to persist. 

So what do you think would happen if the Alison Lees of our judicial system stopped coddling charmers like Tyreek and instead merely sentenced 'em to the deal their own attorneys made?

Tyreek Bush-Robinson, who keeps winning under "catch & release"

Seattle: Left-vs.-left as residents of homeless camp make a courthouse dangerous

Seattle has a strongly leftist electorate and is totally run by leftists.  So it's no surprise that the city is very friendly to the homeless.  Which is delightful, eh?

Except now the homeless are assaulting the people working at one of the courthouses of the King County Superior Court, and some judges aren't happy about it.  But since leftist gummints are totally unwilling to make the homeless obey laws, the fight has now become Left-on-Left.

Turns out a bunch of homeless have been camping the park across the street from this courthouse.  The squatters relieve themselves wherever, and the stench is a problem.  Also, judges say two jurors and half a dozen court employees have been spat upon, slammed against a wall or punched.

The judges asked the county to clean up the courthouse by power-washing the sidewalks, which reek of urine and excrement.  No sooner was this proposed than a member of the city council killed the idea:  Councilmember Larry Gossett--a former member of the Black Panthers--said he opposed power-washing the sidewalks because was "racially insensitive" because it brought back images of the use of firehoses against civil-rights activists back in the 1960s.

Yeah, he really said that.

Another suggestion was closing the courthouse entrance closest to the camp and turning an entrance on the other side of the building into the main entrance.  All the moonbats on the city council liked that because it solved the problem with no risk to their virtue cards.

But the prize for "Solving Problems by Making Them Sound Trivial" goes to Seattle police captain Mike Teeter, who said 1) "police already patrol the area heavily" (so problem solved!); and 2) that while there are certainly people in the area who "behave in ways that may make others uncomfortable," there is often no criminal activity involved.

See how well that works, citizen?  You complain about being spat on or assaulted, but you conveniently ignore all the greater number of people who didn't get assaulted that day.  He added that
statistically, a person is actually slightly less likely to be assaulted near the courthouse than in some other areas of the city.   So again, problem solved.

Teeter quickly checked his virtue card and added that he recognizes that the people who are "behaving in ways that may make others uncomfortable" are either "in crisis, or need."  So stop your complaining about your discomfort.

Finally one of the judges--female--who had brought the problem to the council's attention and was undoubtedly reconsidering her complaints because of all the reassurances from captain Mike
Teeter and friends, apparently decided her virtue card needed to be refreshed.  So she said “We need to do everything we can to make this courthouse welcoming to all,” she said.

Now, virtually everyone is sympathetic to the plight of homeless people.  On the other hand, is it reasonable to let a bunch of 'em camp out in a city park?  Moonbats think so.

Why do our politicians insist that we not blame Islam for terrorist murders by "Islamists"?

You've probably heard our lying, traitorous, bribed politicians repeatedly tell Americans that Islam is a peaceful religion, and that when Muslims anywhere in the world brutally kill non-muslims--which happens virtually every day--the killings never have a thing to do with Islam.

That's right, nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.  Instead our pols insist that we ignore the bloodbath committed by Muslims, saying the murderers aren't really Muslims but have instead "hijacked" (or alternately, "perverted") a peaceful religion.

The Lying Media--which reliably echo all Democrat/liberal talking points--repeat that lie endlessly.  As a result, most Americans--few of whom have the time or inclination to research the question themselves--believe Islam is peaceful.  

One of the reasons for the wide acceptance of this delusional notion is that for the last 3 or 4 decades liberals have been teaching kids that 1) all religions are equally valid;  2) no one has the right to criticize anyone else's religion; and 3) Christians and Jews--and anyone else backward enough to need to believe in a "sky friend" (/sarc)--need to recognize that they all believe in one God, so what difference does it make what name you use?  (Again, note the /sarc tag.)

Bruce Bawer at PJ Media wrote a very insightful piece on this, and I've reposted his thoughts that I thought were most telling.

He notes that millions of people--most of them (but not all) liberals and Democrats--sincerely think we shouldn't blame Islam after terrorist acts because "it would make things worse"-- it would make non-bloodthirsty Muslims feel bad, or nervous, or oppressed, or insulted or whatever.  They also claim that blaming Islam for terrorist acts by Muslims would increase the number of "hate-crime" attacks on American Muslims by angry, mentally-unbalanced rednecks looking for revenge.
Sorta' like that Bernie Sanders supporter who shot congressman Steve Scalise, eh?
Dems also claim blaming Islam would simply increase the number of Muslims who join the so-called "fundamentalists."  So according to the Dems and media we should never blame Islam but should just go along with the pretense that the terrorists have simply perverted a peaceful religion.

Bruce believes the truth is totally contra to this conclusion, and that when people build their society on lies, it inevitably leads to bad results.  Once an approved lie becomes policy it's not long before  assent becomes mandatory.  Shortly after that speaking the truth becomes a crime.  He then asks whether Americans want to live in such a society.

We've already seen this happen in the West, with people like Lars Hedegaard in Denmark, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and Ezra Levant in Canada being prosecuted merely for speaking the truth about Islam. 

Liberals describe telling the truth about Islam as "escalating the rhetoric," and claim it simply increases the number of our enemies. 

Here are some of the things people in Europe and Canade have already been fined or jailed for saying or writing:
  1.  polls show that large percentages of Muslims in the West support the use of violence to impose sharia law; 
  2.  under Islam women have considerably fewer rights;
  3.  large percentages of western Muslims accept women's subordination to men under sharia law;
  4.  large percentages of western Muslims agree that the proper punishment for leaving Islam, or homosexual acts, or being a victim of rape, should be execution;
  5.  large percentages of western Muslims believe sharia law permits wife-beating and so-called "honor killings"; 
  6.  large percentages of western Muslims believe democracy is bad, and want to replace the law of western democracies with sharia law;

Of course a handful of brave ex-Muslims in the West who saw through the lies, and recognize the Islamic roots of violent jihad.  These ex-Muslims are astonished that western leaders ignore the people who have lived under Islam and instead simply parrot the lie that violent jihad has nothing to do with Islam.

Wednesday, July 12

See any problems with this tweet from the faaabulously accurate New York Times?

While Trump was in Europe the assholes at the NYT were SO eager to nick him for something -- anything-- that they couldn't restrain themselves.  So they rushed out this petty, crappy comment on twatter:

SO...the Times couldn't wait to crow that a "body language expert" said "Putin had the edge over Trump."  And the caption on the pic began "Russians call Trump meeting Putin a win."

Remember all those vaunted f'n "layers and layers of fact-checkers" that supposedly make the Lying Mainstream Media SOOoooo much more reliable than any stupid, deplorable bloggers.  You can trust the Times for totally accurate crap, right?

So it took bloggers about ten seconds to notice that 1) the alleged "Putin" has sure gotten a lot taller recently; 2) isn't Putin nearly bald, with a fringe of blond hair?  And finally (3), did the Russians change their flag?  Cuz the one on the right side of the pic sure doesn't look like the official Russian flag, eh comrade?

Sure enough, it's not Putin, nor the Russian flag.  It's the president of Poland, and the flag of that nation.

Eat shit and die, Times.  Your vaunted layers and layers of fact-checkers aren't worth a crap.  You make just as many errors as anyone else.  You just try to bullshit us that you don't.

You lie, you lie, you lie.  Always have, always will.  Your bankruptcy can't come soon enough.

Prosecutor dismisses charges of wife-beating against immigrant, claiming "cultural incompetency"??

Many Americans have noticed that there are two sets of laws in this country: one for the Hilliary and Bill Clintons and the Nancy Pelosis--a very lax, forgiving set--and a far, far tougher, less forgiving set of laws for ordinary American citizens.

But now we find there's yet another set of laws--a third set--for foreigners.  It's much like the laws for our elites.

For proof, consider the case of Augustin Bahati, who immigrated to the U.S. from Congo.  Last year he was arrested on a charge of domestic violence charges in New Hampshire.  The victim told police Bahati hit her, pushed her, kicked her, and pulled her hair out.

But astonishingly, prosecutors decided to dismiss all the charges against him. Not because the victim recanted or wouldn’t testify.  Not because of new evidence exonerating him or throwing doubt on his guilt.

So why did the prosecutor recommend dropping all charges?  “Cultural incompetence.”

What does that mean?   Prosecutors don't want to talk about the case, but it appears to mean that Mr. Bahati comes from a culture where beating your wife is legal, and he allegedly can't understand that in the U.S. wife-beating is illegal.

On the strength of a finding of “cultural incompetence,” six charges went poof.  The dismissal was recommended by the prosecutor, and accepted by a nutty liberal judge.

Now, this may not strike most of you as a significant event.  After all, he didn't behead the woman, didn't even stab her or throw her off a building or run her over with his car get it.  So why am I taking the time to bring it to your attention?
Because it's actually a huge departure from actual U.S. law.  In the past there was a basic principle that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."  In other words, if no one has explicitly told some immigrant that murder is illegal in the U.S., he can't claim as a defense against a murder charge that he didn't know it was against the law.

That principle has been demolished here.

But worse, if it's allowed to stand--and New Hampshire is so f'n liberal that there's no chance the state will re-file the charges--every other criminal immigrant will use the same defense.

Like I said:  Three sets of laws in the U.S.

Tick tick tick tick.

120 years of Islamic progress vs. the West

Thought this spoof was pretty funny:

Just kidding. The oil-exporting nations have fabulous cities--all paid for by western nations who needed to buy oil.  For many years the U.S. alone paid mid-east nations tens of billions of dollars a year to import oil.  Now that's down to near zero, since American know-how has boosted our domestic production by almost 4 million barrels per day.

Thanks, Barack!

Oh, wait:  Barack didn't have shit to do with that huge paradigm-changing accomplishment.  Instead that was a bunch of entrepreneurs and gutsy companies willing to innovate and experiment.  Barack and the Dems (spit) just happened to be in power when that windfall showered us with riches.

BART execs refuse to release surveillance footage of mob attack, claim it would be "unfair"

California is a hotbed of absurd, extreme "political correctness," and the Bay Area is probably the worst.  It's not just that the Lying Media won't ever be honest about problems, but government at all levels has the same practice.  Including government-run entities like police and...BART.

A couple of months ago 60 young thugs boarded a BART train and robbed the white passengers, beating two.  The attack was caught on security-cams.  But despite repeated requests, BART refuses to release those videos showing the attack. 

You might be curious as to the "reasoning" of BART's executives.  They say the videos would reveal the race of the attackers.  They claim doing that would "promote stereotypes" and "stir up racial animosity." 

A BART official defended the agency's decision by saying information about criminal misconduct will be withheld "at this time" [Bullshit translator: "forever"] because of "the media's disproportionate elevation" of crimes that "unfairly affect and characterize riders of color." 

Bullshit translator:  "It's UNFAIR to release any evidence that would identify the race of criminals because that would unfairly affect members of that race."

“To release these videos would *create a high level of racially insensitive commentary toward the district, and would create a racial bias in the riders against minorities on the trains.”

According to BART spokesman Taylor Huckaby, state laws protecting “juvenile police records” prevents them from releasing the surveillance video, even though at least one of the people arrested for the April 22 attack is 19 years old.  Even if the faces of juveniles were blurred, Huckaby says watching the videos would be "pointless gawking."  [Bullshit translator: we'd be criticized by the black community, and we'd hate that.]

Unless these asshole executives are slapped down hard, this bullshit "reasoning" would mean that no surveillance videos would ever be released if the perps were black.  Same reasoning.

Ask yourself:  Would this policy be likely to reduce attacks, or increase 'em?

Tuesday, July 11

Oregon's Dem-controlled legislature "decriminalizes" possession of small amounts of illegal drugs

A few days ago the Oregon legislature passed a bill to decriminalize possession of "small amounts" of six illegal drugs, including heroin, cocaine and meth.  Their reasoning seems to be that a) addiction is like a disease, and no one can resist taking these drugs; and b) "our prisons are overcrowded, and costing the good citizens of our state too much money to operate, so we don't want to send folks to prison for "small amounts" of stuff."

That got me to thinking:  since liberals in Seattle have already established taxpayer funded locations for junkies to shoot up, the next logical step is for libs to introduce another bill--strictly as a way to reduce crime, of course--that would specify that if cold weather kept junkies from breaking into as many cars as they needed to buy their fix, the state should sell 'em the drug.

But only in the approved, taxpayer-funded shooting galleries, obviously.  Where there are paid nurses standing by to administer antidotes if you OD.

Now, I know this sounds far-fetched but follow me here:  See, *pharmaceutical* heroin--widely and legally produced right here in the U.S. to alleviate pain--probably costs a couple of bucks per dose.  So by having the state sell it at cost--and only in the already-set-up safe shooting galleries, of course--we'd be preventing junkies from being *forced* to steal so much stuff to pay the much higher prices charged by street vendors. 

So this law and program would actually be a way to *reduce crime*!  How cool is that?

Of course Republican lawmakers would be horrified, countering that it would be outrageous for the state to be in the position of selling illegal drugs to its citizens!  After all, that's what the justly-feared drug cartels do, so Heaven knows we can't have that!  It would be a tacit endorsement by the state that the use of illegal, "recreational" drugs was a Good Thing.

Now something really strange would happen:  Democrat legislators would listen politely to these arguments, and would appear to see this logic.  And the'd reach across the aisle to reach a "compromise"--which dems love, in some very rare cases. 

And the so-called compromise would be:  "You're right, we can't have the state selling drugs.  So instead let's simply *give* our poor, poor fellow citizens--who after all are victims of peer pressure or bad parenting or a too-hard life or stress or whatever--the fix they need.  After all, does the state not give insulin to poor people with diabetes?  Of course it does.  So why should this be different?"

And the Repubs will congratulate the Dems for compromising.  

Coming to Washington state, Oregon and California within a year.

Oh, and for those of you who counter that a state can't legalize the possession of drugs that are illegal by federal law?  Too late:  The feds, under the emperor's inspired command, made an informal agreement with liberal states proposing to legalize pot that the feds would ignore the federal law when it came to that drug.  Now, making pot legal may be a great idea, but the point is that now that the precedent has been set, Oregon expects their law will get the same treatment.

ACLU says it will sue to block a law due to "singling out Muslims"--and the law would ban...

I trust everyone knows what the hell "female genital mutilation" is by now.  It's the totally barbaric Muslim practice of cutting the genitals of girls as young as 7, allegedly to keep them from enjoying sex.  Cuz the mullahs seem to think it's wrong for women to enjoy sex or something.

This practice is increasing here in the U.S, so in Maine the state legislature passed a bill outlawing it.

Hard to find many people who'd find fault with that goal.

Ah, I see you haven't heard of the ACLU--which was originally supposed to be about "civil liberties" or some such.  They've denounced the bill and will sue to have it declared unconstitutional. 

And the reason?  The ACLU claims the bill "singles out Muslims."  Thus it allegedly discriminates.

Think about that for a second:  According to the ACLU's reasoning, if a certain barbaric act was committed by the members of one specific group, neither the federal government nor any state could pass a law making that act illegal--because the ACLU would claim that the law singled out the members of that group.

Let's look at a real example:  Back in the 1980s a new type of crime started, called carjacking.  The perps would pull up to someone stopped at a stoplight, shove a gun in their face and demand their car. It was virtually risk-free for the thugs, and the number of carjackings quickly went exponential.

Because it could happen anywhere, cities seemed powerless to fight it.  Finally congress passed a federal law making it a federal crime with a stiff sentence for it.  As a result its popularity among criminals finally faded as thugs realized it was no longer worth the risk of a long sentence. 

Statistics showed carjacking was committed almost entirely by blacks.  But according to the ACLU's "logic" the federal law against it should have been ruled unconstitutional, cuz it *had the effect* of singling out one race.  Or as many infamously idiot judges have phrased it, it had a "disparate impact."

A moment's thought will show that this type of thinking is getting close to some dire results.  For example, many school systems in liberal cities have established a policy that school disciplinary actions such as detention or expulsion must be imposed on all races at an equal percentage, regardless of whether one group is way more disruptive or threatening than another.  Cuz we can't have "disparate outcomes," right?  So the principle has been seeded and is working its way up the ladder of liberal concerns and their goofy judicial allies.

NYC mayor goes to site of G20 summit--to rally anti-capitalist rioters!

I'm actually not racist.  Rather, my opposition to people who hate this country and constantly bitch about living here is totally color-blind.  For example, consider NYC mayor Bill DeBlasio (a.k.a. Wilhelm Reich):

Reich flew to Hamburg, Germany--site of the G20 "summit."  He wasn't invited to speak or to actually attend meetings of the 20 national leaders.  Rather, he came to speak to the allegedly 100,000 anti-west, anti-free-market demonstrators.

This kind of dumbassery should be dealt with pretty damn firmly.  If I were Trump I'd have ordered DeBlasio's passport cancelled, and then alerted ICE that when he returned to the U.S. he was to be arrested for treason.  Or he could get back on the plane and head back to Germany.

He'd be welcome to continue as mayor of the cesspool that is NYC, but would just have to do it by phone or email from overseas.  Wouldn't want to deprive the Democrats of NYC of such a fine leader.

And when the Left and the MSM wailed about how awful this was I'd reply,
 "As our recent emperor said, 'I have a phone and a pen.'  You were fine with the president taking unilateral actions then, since you never printed a critical word.  But now that the shoe's on the other foot, suddenly you have this great FAKE desire to honor our great principle of checks and balances, and the law.  Interesting."
So yes, I oppose anti-American dumbshits regardless of race, creed, color or sex.

Newest demands from an organization for the perpetually aggrieved

An organization calling itself "The People in Solidarity to Secure Reparations for Oppressed People" has issued a list of demands to the entire population of the U.S. and the Trump administration.
1. Whites must be banned from eating watermelon, and white girls must not wear hoop earrings, as both these are "acts of cultural appropriation."  Failure to obey this demand must be considered a "hate crime" punishable by six months imprisonment.
2. We demand the removal of George Washington's picture from the one-dollar bill, since he owned slaves.  It is oppressive for us to have to look at his picture, and obviously people--even oppressed people--can't buy things in this oppressive and racist country without looking at the currency.  Washington's picture must be removed from the bill by the end of the year.  He should be replaced by Jesse Jackson or Malcolm X.

3. For the same reason, the name of the capital of the oppressive U.S. of Amerikkka is offensive to all non-racist people of the world. Accordingly we demand that the name of the capital be changed from Washington DC to "COSA" ("Capital of the Oppressive States of Amerikkka.")

4. The above demands--like all demands for social justice in this oppressive, racist country, made by the victims of that oppression, who actually built everything here-- is non-negotiable!

Our technical people say it's possible some of the above was garbled in translation, but it certainly seems to be as real as any newz on CNN.

Did the Russians--or anyone--hack the DNC's server?

Did the Russians--or anyone--hack the DNC's server?

You may have noticed that ever since the election the The Mainstream Lying Media have been determined to convince Americans that the reason Trump won is that the Russian government hacked the Democratic National Committee's email server and sent the contents to Wikileaks.  Oh, and the same hackers may well have actually rigged voting machines to record phantom votes for Trump.

At least that was the first total bullshit speculation fake-newz-from-anonymous-sources story.  But over time the Lying Media realized that one wouldn't fly, cuz that would have taken months of preparation before the election.  And guess who was preezy up until Jan 20th of this year?

Why, emperor Obama!  Which means since his team didn't detect these efforts, either they got totally snookered--duped, hoodwinked, dropped the ball--or else it didn't happen.

The Lying Media let that bullshit tale drop.  Ah, but the first charge--that the Russkies were responsible for the email leaks--seems plausible to most liberals and Dems, so the Lying Media is helping 'em keep that story at the top of the newz.

("Newz" is fake news--the only kind the Lying Media do.)

So let's consider a couple of known, admitted facts:  First, if the brilliant dummies at the DNC really believed they'd been hacked--even if they had no idea who did it--you'd think they'd have asked some hotshot gummint agency to investigate and find out for sure.  Unfortunately the gummint doesn't have a single agency with tons of computer expertise that's able to investigate computer-related crime!

Just kidding:  The FBI does just that.  And even though the DNC isn't officially part of the gummint, it's a good bet that with the emperor's men in charge, the FBI would have gotten right on the job--if they'd just been asked to do so.

But they didn't.

Indeed, to this very day the DNC hasn't asked the FBI to examine their email server for any evidence of hacking.  And of course if any evidence were found would likely shed light on the origin of any such hack.

So why didn't the DNC ask the FBI to help?  Because a thorough examination would have revealed no evidence of any hack. 

The entire loss of DNC emails came from Podesta falling for a phishing scam and giving the scammer his email password.  Of course Podesta doesn't want to admit this--much better to use claims that
"The Russianz hacked us 'n shit.  Which is why that awful Trumpkin person is president instead of "The Most Qualified Person In The World!"

Tuesday, June 27

The insanity behind the Supreme Court's opinion that Obamacare was constitutional

While we're on the subject of Obamacare (previous post):  It's worth noting again the astonishing way chief justice John Roberts was able to rationalize that Obamacare was constitutional.  If you think the Constitution actually means what it says, and can't be overturned even by the supreme court, you should be outraged at the Roberts opinion that decreed this ghastly horror constitutional.

One of the big pieces of controversy about Obamacare was its command that it commanded all citizens to either buy health insurance or pay a penalty.  This provision was short-handed to "the mandate."

There is no precedent in the law where the government forces citizens to buy any specific product--no matter how useful--and nothing in the Constitution supported this novel power.  So many constitutional experts didn't think the government could legally demand this.

Roberts recognized this was a problem.  But he saw a way around it, as I'll explain.  If you ever heard about it, you've forgotten.  Which is what the Democrats wanted.

Obama and the Democrats had repeatedly promised they wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class.  So when voters learned about Obamacare's "mandate," Obama and the Dems insisted that the "mandate" (forcing every American citizen to buy health insurance or pay a penalty) was NOT a tax, but just a "penalty."  So in their oral arguments before the court, Obama's own administration attorneys repeatedly claimed that the mandate was NOT a tax.

Roberts then solved the problem of unconstitutionality by simply declaring that contra to the repeated insistence of Team Obama that the mandate was NOT at tax, it was actually...a tax.  And the Constitution clearly gave congress the power to levy whatever taxes it wished.

Clever, eh?  Historically the Supreme Court has been extremely reluctant to "perfect" defective laws or defective arguments by parties to a case.  But under the new, improved system Roberts simply wrote an opinion that ignored the government's claim that the mandate was NOT a tax, and claimed the exact opposite!  Unbelievable.

This rejection of legal precedent was so totally goofy that many analysts suspected Roberts had been pressured to rule the law constitutional regardless of the arguments.

So Roberts' unprecedented disregard for the Obama administration's own insistence solved the question of the government lacking the power.  The decision was published, and that was that.

I'll just note one more...quirk...about Obamacare:  Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution begins, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."   Due to arcane political maneuvering in congress, the bill that was eventually passed was initiated by the senate.  To get around Article 1 Section 7 the Democrat-run senate took a House bill on a totally different topic, deleted every word in it, and substituted 2200 pages of health-insurance mandate.  The notoriously leftist source Wiki glossed over this by putting the 'deleted every word' at the end of the 'graf:
To formally comply with this requirement, the Senate used H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax changes for service members.  [This] became the Senate's vehicle for its healthcare reform proposal, discarding the bill's original content.
Of course the plaintiffs in the case--the folks claiming the law was unconstitutional--weren't moved to argue the question of the law's compliance with the Constitution if the mandate was ruled a tax because the government attorneys claimed the exact opposite.

Finally, here's how utterly goofy--crazy--Roberts' opinion was.  Here's his writing:
The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance.  [The mandate] would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command.
   The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. [The mandate] is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.
By this reasoning the government would have the power to compel anything it wanted--as long as it didn't couch the compulsion as a command, but simply imposed a punitive tax on failure to obey.

It's compulsion by a different name, and a classic example of the court letting the government do something by indirection that the Constitution clearly prohibits if done directly.  This is insane--and a totally politically-driven opinion.

Monday, June 26

Obamacare premiums rose an average of over 100% in past three and a half years, so...

Right now congress is trying to decide what to do about what the emperor and the Democrats laughably named the "Affordable Healthcare Act," better known as Obamacare.

The AHA is a disaster: Millions had health-insurance policies that they were happy with cancelled because they didn't comply with provisions of the new law.  Millions found that the new premiums were just as high as those on their old policies--but now came with $20,000 deductibles!  Meaning that the insurance essentially only paid in the event of a catastrophic illiness.

Over the last three-and-a-half years average premiums have more than doubled.  Ponder that one for a minute. 

Obama promised--numerous times, caught on video--that the average family would save $2,500 PER YEAR in premiums.  That was bullshit from the outset, yet the media have totally ignored it.  Doesn't help The Narrative, eh?  Can't have that!

One of the sales pitches for Obamacare was that before it was enacted only five or six big insurance companies served any given state.  Obama and the Dems promised that the new bill would increase competition among insurance companies by allowing them to operate in every state, and this competition would keep premiums down.

Funny that when Repubs suggest that if competition is helpful, and suggest the principle should be applied to public schools, the Dems scream bloody murder.  Fact is, Dems have always hated the idea of competition--except in the case of health care.  Oh well...

Unexpectedly (that word keeps popping up with Democrat programs), the insurance companies offering Obamacare policies lost money  hand over fist, and responded by cutting back the areas in which they operated.  As a result, in many parts of the country now, only one company offers health insurance.  So that didn't work out anywhere near the way the Dems promised it would, eh?  No matter....

Many Republicans in congress ran on a promise to repeal O-care outright, but senator McConnell and Speaker Ryan are afraid this will anger too many voters.  It's hard to see how that would happen since the Dems won't vote Republican in any case, and conservative voters are demanding that the repeal the disaster.  But of course ordinary voters mean as little to the RINO aristocracy as they do to Pelosi and Obama--which is to say, not at all.  So looks like instead of repealing it, the RINO leadership wants to...expand it!

Yes, yes, they're patching some smallish things that were really egregious, but the problem is way bigger than that:  It's unavoidable that if the law commands that insurance companies must cover those with pre-existing conditions at no higher premium, there's no reason for people to get insurance before they get sick.  This means fewer people paying premiums, but no reduction in health costs

Gosh, what do you suppose has to happen in that case?  Yep:  Higher premiums.  Which is precisely what we've been seeing under Obozocare.  BIG increases.  But wait--didn't they promise you your premium would go DOWN--"the average family will save $2,500 PER YEAR"? 

Yes, they did.  And how's that working?  Well, the average premium has more than doubled in the last 3.5 years.

Of course once the Dems rammed the law thru promising low-income people "free" health care, then as the Democrats planned and knew would happen, the poor would scream bloody murder if they thought the Repubs were moving to take that--or any other "freebie"--away from them.  As more than one hyperventilating Democrat congresscritter has screamed, "MILLIONS WILL DIE!!!!!!" if the repubs change a single word of the sainted emperor's magnum opus.

Then when some nutcase guns down a Repub congresscritter on a ballfield, Dem pols give this look of total, wide-eyed innocence and say they can't imagine what might have motivated the shooter.

Oh well....

Unfortunately, it's easy to see how this will play out:  Enough RINOs--worried about re-election rather than long-term good--will vote no on the revision.  The Dems will laugh uproariously, as this will force the repubs to "compromise" on the revision.  Dems love this because they are masters at so-called compromise with the GOP.  The answer is that the so-called compromise will give the Dems everything they demand.  Why?  Because they know how scared the RINO leadership is, so the Dems know they have no reason whatsoever to compromise, on a single point.  So they won't.

The result will be just as bad as the original.  But now the repubs will have signed on, so they lose all ability to criticize any disaster that results.  And result it will.

It's really too bad that no one in the repub party has the brains God gave a gnat, because it would be easy to turn the tables on the Dems.  Because Obozocare is imploding financially.  They should all read the same script:  "The Dems passed this disaster without a single amendment from our side.  It's their deal, and it's a complete, utter disaster.  They need to admit it, and compromise to fix it.  But they refuse.  So unfortunately, we can't pass a replacement.  If you want this revived, demand that they compromise."

But they won't.

Come with me to a fictitious country...

Come with me to a completely fictitious country.  We'll look around a bit, ask questions, make notes, then come home and discuss what we've seen.  Then each of you will be asked to predict the future of that fictitious nation.

Virtually all the citizens of the nation we're going to visit identify with one of two groups.  Call them "C"s and "L"s.  One group--let's say the C's, though the label is arbitrary--emphasizes the importance of children being raised by two parents whenever possible; the desirability of politeness; civility; the importance of education and hard work; belief in God; that using illegal drugs always has harmful consequences; that committing crime is bad.

They believe free speech is good even if some people don't like what someone else wants to say; and that people should be responsible for the choices and decisions they make.  Its members believe in equality of opportunity, but believe outcomes are mainly driven by individual effort.  They believe their nation should only allow people to enter and become citizens if the applicants follow a legal process that often takes years to accomplish.

By contrast, members of group L insist that children raised by two parents aren't measurably better adjusted and socialized than those raised by one parent; that in any case raising children shouldn't be left up to individual parents, but is everyone's responsibility (i.e. a collective responsibility); that swearing at someone is simply "speaking truth to power," and therefore is a very good thing.  They believe education in schools isn't particularly important because most adults don't really need it, and it's mostly propaganda anyway.  Children of group L often bully members of their own group who do well in school. 

Many members of group L believe work is a curse.  In fact one of the big goals of the leaders of group L is to make the government give people a "guaranteed income" so they can do whatever they like instead of having to work for a living.  Nevertheless, members of group L believe in equality of outcomes--i.e. that it's unfair that some people have much more than others.  Most members of this group believe there's little connection between hard work and higher income.

Members of group L think people who believe in a supreme being--a being they often refer to as "the sky fairy"--are superstitious and stupid, and only believe in a supreme being because they're emotionally needy.  Members of group L are not at all worried about the harmful effects of "recreational drugs," and compares society's current attitude on heroin, meth and crack to society's attitude toward alcohol during prohibition.  They are adamant that anyone should be able to use whatever drug they wish, without penalty.

This group believes crimes like theft, mugging, selling illegal drugs, rape and murder are simply understandable responses to inequality and/or oppression, and shouldn't result in serious punishment; and that members of the C's who are angry about such crimes really aren't worried about crime but are using this as an excuse to complain about the L's.  Members of group L believe anyone should be able to enter their nation and be able to vote there, with no restrictions.

Members of group L claim they strongly support free speech, though with the caveat that no one should be allowed to say anything that upsets members of their group.  But by contrast, they adamantly defend the right of L's to say things that "upset" the other group--like openly pushing for members of group C to be killed.

Finally, members of group L believe no one should really be held responsible for anything they do; that we're all products of our environment and simply act the way we've been programmed.

Now let's get to the test:
   1.  Do you think the differences between the two groups are significant, or trivial?
   2.  Do you see any benefits or drawbacks to the core views of each group?
   3.  What future do you predict for this fictitious nation if the main government is run by one group versus the other?