Sunday, February 18

Democrat governors vow to sue federal government to kep tax breaks for...the RICH!

On Feb. 1, Maryland’s attorney general signaled his state will join Democrat-run New York, Connecticut and New Jersey in spending scarce taxpayer dollars to sue the federal government over a provision in the Trump tax-cut bill.

You're probably thinking, "Wait, I thought the bill cut federal taxes for the average taxpayer.  How can politicians be screamin'-mad about that?  And I thought Democrat pols have always claimed to be "for the working man and woman."  So how could Democrats object to that?"

But remember that these are Democrats we're dealing with, and as Nancy Pelosi wrote to all Dems a couple of weeks ago, "We must oppose anything and everything Trump and the Republicans try to do!"  So yes, the treasonous sons of bitches ARE opposing part of the tax-cut bill.

They issue that has their knickers in a twist is a provision that limits the amount all taxpayers--nationwide--can deduct on their FEDERAL tax return for taxes they pay to states and local governments.  Before the change it was an unlimited amount.  The new law cut that to $10,000.

You should know that the only folks who benefit from unlimited deductions for state taxes are those who "itemize" deductions.

And who itemizes?  Almost exclusively high-income taxpayers whose state and local tax amounts exceed the value of the standard deduction.

So for example, a wealthy resident of New York City pulling down a cool $1.5 million bucks a year  might be paying almost $110,000 a year to the state, and probably another $50,000 in ad-valorem taxes.  So limiting the amount of this that he can deduct on his federal tax will cost him quite a bit.  But the average guy earning $150K a year won't see much difference.

"Wait...let me get this straight.  You're saying the Democrats are filing a lawsuit to preserve a tax break for the RICH?  That's a hoot, cuz every single time the Republicans propose a tax cut, Dems have screamed that the Repub proposal will mainly benefit "the rich."  But now they're suing the federal government for...making the rich pay more taxes??  Is this a joke?

Nope.  It's just the way the lying Democrat pols roll.  They'll reverse positions completely in a week if it lets them complain about some Republican effort--and then use their media cover to claim that their new position isn't a reversal at all. 

As many Constitutional experts have noted, the odds of success for such a lawsuit are incredibly low, since the Constitution gives congress the power to write any kind of federal tax bill it can pass, as long as the taxes are levied uniformly on all residents.  But the Dems may not actually care about winning, but simply want yet another way light a fire under their base by opposing Republican legislation, even if that legislation will greatly benefit the majority of Americans.

Friday, February 16

More fake news

After a crazy former student killed 17 students the Florida high school, headlines starting appearing at major news sites:
  • "There have already been 18 school shootings in the US this year" — ABC News
  • "18 school shootings in 45 days; Florida massacre is one of many tragedies in 2018"—CNBC
  • "18 school shootings in US in 2018"— AFP
  • "U.S. averages a school shooting every 2.5 days in 2018" — Politico
  • "We're Averaging One School Shooting Every 60 Hours In 2018" — Huffington Post
And when not in the headline, this same claim shows up in just about every story about the Florida shooting.  So, it must be true, right?  If not, why would every news outlet be reporting it?

And you may also wonder how it is that you only heard of one or two other tragic school shootings this year.  Maybe you were asleep?  Why weren't the other 17 reported?

Because the headline is "fake news."

The number comes from a gun control group called Everytown for Gun Safety, and they got the "18 school shootings" figure by calling shootings that had nothing at all to do with students a "school shooting."

For example, one of the events the group called a "school shooting" involved a student at Greyson College who accidentally discharged a weapon at the school's Criminal Justice Center during a class supervised by a police officer on how to use handguns.

Another on the list involved a third grader who accidentally pulled the trigger of a police officer's holstered weapon.

One of the claimed "school shootings" was a when a 31-year-old man shot himself in his car, which happened to be parked in the parking lot of a school that had been closed for seven months. 

Another was a student who deliberately killed himself in a school bathroom.

One "school shooting" involved a gun brought to school by a 12-year-old girl, that discharged while in her backpack.

Three "school shootings" involved fights that broke out between either adults or students in school parking lots — one of them at a college in North Carolina — in which one of the people arguing pulled a gun on the other.

Another student was shot by a robber, during a robbery that happened to take place in a school parking lot.

In fact, of the 18 so-called "school shootings," only five occurred during school hours, and only four — including the latest — are what most people would consider a school shooting; in which someone brings a gun to school with the intent of shooting students.  And of those three other "genuine" shootings, only one resulted in deaths, when a student at a Kentucky high school killed two fellow students and wounded 14.

The other two "genuine" shootings resulted in two injuries.

This is by no means meant to downplay the seriousness of this issue. These are all inexcusable.  But when you read the breakdown above, it's clear that the gun-control group deliberately contrived a misleading headline, in order to create anti-gun anger and unduly scare people.

And the press, most of whom enthusiastically embrace gun control, simply went along with the deception.

Fake.  News.

Gee, where have we heard that before?

Senate committee passes bill that would cut sentences for violent offenders--seriously

The insanity of the "leaders" of both parties in congress continues unabated.

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send to the full senate a bill almost unbelievably soft on crime.  Highlights:
  • reduces mandatory minimum-sentence laws, such as “three strikes and you’re out,” that were keeping repeat criminals in jail and off the streets;
  • offers early release to federal prisoners convicted of violent crimes;
  • reduces sentences for "juveniles" already serving time in federal prison for the most-violent crimes (often MS-13 members)
  • reduces the mandatory minimum sentence for those who use firearms in violent crimes
  • allows judges to seal and expunge criminal records for many juveniles;
Ironically, many of those who voted for this bill are the same creeps pushing broad gun control measures on innocent law-abiding citizens.  In other words, tough on law-abiding citizens. easy on violent criminals.  Wow, what geniuses!

Some of the most strident, shrieking pushers of gun control in the Democrat party-- Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and Kamala Harris-- voted to release convicted gun felons.  What geniuses!  And what screamin' hypocrites!  Tough on know.

The Lying Media is already hard at work selling this bill as “criminal justice reform.”  The claim is that there are "too many people in prison, particularly, non-violent offenders."  First, I'm pretty sure no schmuck is in federal prison for mere possession of small amounts of weed with no intent to distribute.  So by "non-violent offenders" the Dems mean people convicted of selling drugs.

Wait, I thought there was, say, an "opioid epidemic" killing tens of thousands of Americans every year!  That was so awful that "60 minutes" even did a story on it.  So how doya think those thousands of Americans get hold of illegal opioids?  Wild guess is that for all but a couple of PhD chemists, they bought the stuff from...wait for it...a seller. 

So do we wanna do something about that huge annual death toll, or not?

Dems apparently think it's just fine to let sellers out after a few months, and hope the opioid users will take up sailing or something.  In other words, they're being hypocrites.

This is my shocked face.

Another thing about the "too many people in prison" claim is that a whopping 32 percent of those inmates are non-citizens.  So we should start by deporting all criminal aliens, and telling them in very plain language that if they come back after deportation they'll be executed.  (I know, that would require a law the Dems wouldn't consider voting for, so we have to just make it hard as hell to waltz in.  Like, maybe, a wall or something.)

It's worth noting that almost all those who voted for this bill also support open borders.

It's also worth noting that nothing in this bill demands that all of the criminal aliens released would be deported.  So an MS-13 member who was convicted of murder could be let out on the streets at the stroke of a pen from a liberal judge, and still stay in the U.S.

Senator Ted Cruz devised a clever way to show the blatant falseness of the claim by Dems on the committee that the bill would only release nonviolent offenders:  He proposed an amendment that would bar violent felons from any reduction in sentence.  It was defeated 16-5.

Attorney-general Sessions wrote to the committee categorically rejecting the premise of this bill. Sessions noted that we are in the midst of the worst drug crisis in history and crime rates and drug deaths have been rising, at the same time that sentencing has already been diminished on a federal and state level.

As is self-evident from the past few decades, most of those convicted of drug trafficking on a federal level are involved in other violent crimes, but are often only convicted on drug charges.

It’s fitting in a perverse way for the Senate to vote for jailbreak at the same time they are voting for amnesty for illegals. Both issues have aggressive bipartisan support among the elites, but few people outside of the D.C. policy circles believe this nonsense. In fact, Chuck Grassley himself admitted that they didn’t vote on this bill outside of committee in 2015 because 5-6 members would have been at risk losing their seats for Willie Horton-style legislation.

As late as March 10, 2015, Grassley delivered a floor speech agreeing with Jeff Sessions every premise of the bill’s flaws. He even identified the toxic source of jailbreak – “the leniency industrial complex” – in his own words. Then six months later he flipped, and voted for the bill.

Maybe someone should ask RINO Grassley why he suddenly did a total reversal of his earlier position.

BTW, the media--the "leniency comlex"--are absolutely pushing this bill.  I've read several of their reports on it, and without exception they avoid any mention that the bill would put violent criminals on the street long before their normal release date.  In fact most stories are quite short and just push the idea that "we need to reduce prison population."  So read a few pages of the bill (link at the top) and see if you think the bill does the things noted above.  I think it's a disaster.  And I think it's not beyond the Dems to pass this just to cause crime to increase, which they will then blame on...Trump.

Dems and lying media: "We need to ban private citizens from owning guns!"

After the nutter shot up the school in Florida we're hearing from the Dems and Lying Media wailing that we should ban private ownership of guns.  So here's a thought:
Congresscreeps, judges, governors, banks, military installations and useless crap like the State Department and the Department of "Education" are all defended with guns.

By contrast, public schools are defended by...signs that plead "This is a gun-free zone."

See any pattern there?

When was the last time some crazy person shot a congresscreep, or a judge, or a governor, or shot up the State Department or the Department of "Education"?

If guns were inclined to shoot people all by themselves, wouldn't you expect congresscreeps and judges would be getting shot more often?

Oh, and have you also noticed that whenever some nutter shoots up one of the "gun-free zones," who gets called to capture the shooter?

Men with guns.

But to hear the Democrats and everyone in the Lying Media tell it, guns are the problem.  Not the crazies or criminals who use 'em to kill innocents.

Why do most citizens of socialist countries love nationalized health care?

Why are average citizens in places like Canada and the UK happy with socialized medicine?

Most obviously, they're comforted by the thought that if they get sick, they won't have to pay anything for treatment.  They constantly hear horror stories about the cost of medical care in the US.--pushed by their government-supporting media.

Second, the compromises used by the socialist governments to keep costs down are essentially invisible to the average citizen.  So for just one example, doctors don't tell patients about the procedure or drug that would cure them but that the nationalized system has declared it won't provide.

Third, wealthy people can use their wealth to buy better, private care.  Since they're not locked into the nationized system they have virtually no stake in changing it.

Look how long it took to get even the most basic reforms implemented at Veterans Administration hospitals.  Note how long they got away with lying--altering their records-- to keep themselves from look criminally incompetent.  Do you think that any national health service is any different?

A state run monopoly is far worse than a private one.  And once established they're impossible to get rid of.

Dems keep screaming that Europe's "nationalized healthcare" systems are just GREAT

Dems constantly claim that European countries--with their TOTALLY WONDERFUL nationalized health systems--are just super, which we poor fools in the U.S. suffer under horrible health-care.  Well here are some facts about socialized healthcare systems:

-12/12/11 "Canadians are being forced to wait almost 4 ½ months, on average, to receive surgical care, prolonging the pain and suffering patients and their families are forced to endure."

-4/28/12 UK Smokers and obese people denied breast reconstructions and hip or knee replacements.

-7/15/12 UK Thousands lose sight as NHS cuts cataract surgery.

-10/26/12 UK “Top doctor's chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year” Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial ‘death pathway’ into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly.

-11/29/12 UK The innocent children are being put on controversial “death pathways,” once only thought to have involved elderly and terminally ill adult patients."

-12/18/12 French Socialists want option to accelerate death for terminally ill patients.

-12/22/12 “Prince Charles’s intervention follows a series of reports of appalling treatment by NHS staff, including dying patients left screaming for water”; “Last month, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said there was a ‘kind of normalization of cruelty’ in the worst hospitals, with patients too often subjected to, resentment, indifference and even contempt.”

President Obama's favorite economist Paul Krugman: We're also "going to have to ... really make decisions about health care, (and) not pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits."
"Death panels and sales taxes is how we do this."

-6/17/13 Now, in the Netherlands, parents who cannot bear to watch the suffering of their dying child can have doctors administer muscle relaxants that will bring on death quicker.

UK's top court: OK for hospital to stop treatment without the consent of the family.

-12/12/13 The Belgian Senate voted today 50-17 to extend euthanasia to children with disabilities and people with dementia.

-2/11/14 Belgium Set to Extend Right-to-Die Law to Children

-5/10/14 UK Eight out of 10 GPs fear missing a serious illness because of their heavy workload.

-7/5/14 UK "New data documents for the first time that across large areas of the United Kingdom no patients above the age of 75 are “receiving surgery for breast cancer or routine operations such as gall bladder removal and knee replacements.”

-4/12/15 Euthanasia in Belgium: Doctors ‘Hasten the Death’ of 1,000 Non-Consenting Patients a Year

As several people have said:  If you think health care is expensive NOW, just wait til it's "free."

Weapons of mass...something


Double standards again? Watch how the AP describes Trump budget vs Obozo's

Is the Lying Mainstream Media biased against Trump, and FOR any lying socialist Democrat?

Democrats say that's ridiculous.  But take a look at how the lying Associated Press describes Trump's budget compared to how they described Obama's virtually identical number:

But Obozo's virtually identical budget?  The AP described virtually the same number in absolutely glowing terms:  Instead of condeming Obozo's budgets as creating "soaring deficits" the AP gushed that his budgets were gonna "combat terror threats, global warming" and "help middle class"!

Fortunately the internet's ability to store past claims reveals the treasonous bastards at AP for what they are:  Democratic shills.

Thursday, February 15

Leftists claim the government should run health care. How well does that work?

The blog "PJ Media" ran a story on how ghastly Britain's National Health Service was. 

The story prompted an American commenter to relate his own experience with health care here in the U.S., in an argument with a citizen of Canada--which has nationalized (i.e. government-run) health care:
I once had an argument with a Canadian woman about health care, before Obama and the Democrats destroyed the American health care system.

A few months earlier I'd gotten tired of my knee hurting, so on Monday I called my doctor, who referred me to an orthopedic specialist in town.  The Ortho's office set me up for an appointment Wednesday for an MRI scan.

They did the MRI, and the next day I met the ortho Dr.  On Friday they operatied for a torn anterior cruciate ligament and was home that evening.

At the time my private health insurance cost about $340 a month for my whole family [wife and 4 kids]. Whole thing cost me maybe $200 out of pocket.

The Canadian woman called me a liar, insisting it simply wasn't possible to get an MRI, diagnosis and surgery that fast and at such a low cost.  She insisted that by definition the American health care system had to be worse than the perfect Canadian one.
I had a somewhat similary experience:  I lost the ability to move one eye in one direction, giving me double-vision.  Because that can be caused by a brain tumor, I went to the ER on a national holiday.  In 30 minutes I'd been examined and was getting an MRI--on a holiday weekend.  Very impressive.

Citizens of socialist nations have almost a religious faith in the State, such that they will reject any fact that doesn't comport with their faith. 

Tuesday, February 13

Obama's official portrait is an unintended summary of his cluster-f*** reign

Barack Hussein Obama-- a Muslim socialist who claimed he was a "foreign student" (by definition someone NOT born in the U.S.) in order to get free money for college --was a disaster as president.  And sometimes karma has a way of getting back at assholes like Hussein in...interesting ways.

Latest example:  Recently the emperor sat for his official portrait, which they say is supposed to hang in the Smithsonian.  It shows the emperor in front of a hedge or something.  With apologies, here it is:

Wow, that is so...presidential!  The ivy growing over his feet is so...presidential!  His arms regally crossed across his imperial lap, strong hands showing his magnificent strength of char...Wait, is there something strange here (other than a self-proclaimed "foreign-student" as president)?

Drape your left arm over your knee. Is your left thumb toward you, or away from you?

Looks like the artist captured something we never noticed:  If his left thumb is toward his body, the sonofabitch has six fingers on his left hand.

Just kidding, and I'm sure the artist will correct this immediately, but what a picture-perfect summary of the emperor's 8 years of ghastly, race-baiting, divisive, negative, America-degrading misrule!

Hat tip to Leslie Ann Dowd for her sharp eye.

Monday, February 12

From leftists at Time: "What good is democracy if the result is Trump?"

Wanna see yet another example of how your self-proclaimed "betters"--the self-congratulatory, self-styled "elites" who infest every single position in the Lying Media and Deep State--are conspiring to re-take the presidency?  Here's the headline from yet another cunning piece of propaganda printed by  the Trump-hating socialists at Time magazine, 3 weeks ago:

'America No Longer Matters.' Davos Isn't Worried About President Trump

By Molly Ball     January 25, 2018 
[Poetic drivel about six feet of snow snarling traffic in Davos omitted.]

By week’s end, Donald Trump would be joining the gathering–a neat symbol of his ingestion by the globalist class.
Got that?  According to Molly Ball of Time, our president has been "ingested" by the globalists.
A year ago this group had been mortified by Trump’s election and the rise of populism around the world. But the destabilizing President who once seemed like an existential threat now seems more like a harmless diversion.
See what they're doing here?  They're claiming the president who once seemed like an existential threat but now is...harmless.  Merely a diversion.

Really, bitch?  Cuz I could have sworn that mere days ago a few hundred FBI traitors and their Dem congressional allies were sweating f'n bullets about Trump closing in on their plot to illegally spy on Americans, as part of their "insurance policy" to fix the result of the election in favor of their corrupt candidate.

"Harmless" my ass!  What they're trying to do here is make his supporters think he's betrayed them, so they'll be less likely to turn out in November.  It's why so many troll-bots in the comment section of Fox and other conservative sites are filled to overflowing with paid trolls baiting conservatives with "Where's that wall he promised, morons?"
A year after Trump’s election raised the prospect of revolution, the elites have regained their confidence. The revolt ha[s] been put down, stock markets are up, and globalism is making a comeback.
“The phenomenon of Trump is no longer interesting to people,” said Timothy Snyder, a Yale historian... “A year ago everyone thought Trump was just fascinating,” Snyder added. “What I see is that the Europeans have moved on.  America no longer matters.”
Got that?  "America no longer matters."  By couching this as a quote from a "Yale historian" Ball and her bosses can claim "Oh, we're not saying WE think America no longer matters," but in fact that's what they're claiming, since they never attempt to counter the quoted assertion. 

Make the president's supporters believe that their president has made America irrelevant and they'll be less likely to vote in the crucial mid-term elections. 

Ball quotes a Harvard psychologist saying Trump’s “America first” vision was “horrifying.”  The same pencil-neck claims the president derides expertise and multilateralism, and calls him “childish.”  He claims that despite pervasive gloom and negativity--which is fed entirely by Time and their Lying allies--the world is getting better in many ways–"an ineluctable trajectory of progress that Trump is powerless to impede."

If before November of 2016 a writer had tried to push these comments in a once-influential news magazine, no one would have believed it.  Ball is implying that Trump actually wants to impede "an ineluctable trajectory of progress." 

It's almost unbelievable--unless you know a few of these people.  They hate Trump and conservatives and straight males and religious believers (other than Muslims, of course) with an unearthly passion. It's truly amazing. 

Ball ends with this gem (broken into two grafs below):
And yet a shadow persists. The highlight of last year’s summit was a speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping, who earned ardent applause for his rousing defense of globalization.
Of course.  Because by couching the goal as "globalization" the Chinese gull morons like Ball into supporting their plans, when the real goal of the Chinese government is to corner all markets world-wide--a task which would be much easier if the U.S. would accede to Chinese demands.
With the U.S. receding from the world, China has raced to fill the vacuum, a development with troubling implications. “If you’re American now, you have to answer the question,” says the Yale historian. “Why is democracy a good idea if it brings you to this?” What good is democracy, the world wants to know, if the result is Trump?
Look at that last sentence again.  Notice it's not part of the quote from Snyder.

That last line is Time's position.  "What good is democracy...if the result is Trump."

Can you believe people like author Ball and her bosses at Time are even Americans?

And can you imagine the shrieks and angry screams from the Left if a wide-circulation magazine had printed this same thing about Obama?  No one did, of course.  No one would.  But with a Republican president, all the usual rules of civility and decorum are out the window.

If you think the U.S. is a great nation, with wonderful people and the best ideas, you need to realize that the people at Time and the rest of their comrades in the Lying Mainstream media are mortal enemies.

They know it.  They just hope you don't.

Leftist loon: Climate change affects immigration reform, LGBTQ rights, etc.

As those over 30 know, the scam called "climate change" was once called "global warming." 

The wacko Left had to change the name after a series of unusually cold winters started to make Americans think perhaps the planet's climate wasn't warming after all.  Because personal experience--in this case freezing your ass off for months--is usually a pretty effective teacher.

Well, unless you're a socialist/Democrat/liberal/"progressive," of course.  In which case nothing is an effective teacher.

Now a leftist female "activist" warns us that the updated/renamed threat of "climate change" is about far more than just the planet's climate.  Instead it supposedly drives or controls such unexpected things as "transgender justice," racism and immigration reform.

Really.  I'm serious.  Writing in the leftist rag The Nation, female activist Leehi Yona wails that so-called "climate change"--and remember, for years it was called global warming--actually has a huge impact on...immigration reform, LGBTQIA+ rights, and religious freedom??

Yes, she claims those things.

And naturally all the wailing and angst is caused by...wait for it...President Trump.

Oh, of course.  We should have guessed.

According to Yona his appointment of a string of “climate-change deniers” to key positions in his administration, his withdrawal from the Paris climate accord and what she claims is his “assault on public lands,” shows her (and by extension all enlightened beings) that “Trump’s policy is nothing short of...climate destruction.

During the past summer Yona writes, “I couldn’t think about wildfires breaking across the continent without thinking about trans rights. I couldn’t think about Hurricane Irma without thinking about DACA.  Climate change isn’t just about the planet. It’s about justice: racial, social, socioeconomic, reproductive, and environmental."  And don't forget "religious freedom."

I'd ask how she claims religious freedom is linked to climate change but it'd be a waste of my time.

And these people want to run the country.  Heaven help us.

Sunday, February 11

ABC ran a long anti-Trump piece when it broadcast the Grammies.

ABC is an American television network.  They hosted a broadcast of a thing called the "grammies," which is ostensibly an award show for the music industry.

One of the so-called "comedy bits" on that show was a fake tryout for someone to read passages from a virulently, salaciously anti-Trump book.  The network's producers got a dozen or so Hollywood or music stars to read some of the most slanderous things you can imagine.

Is there anyone on the planet who thinks the same network would have ever attacked a Democrat president this way?  If not, I think we just settled the question of whether the Lying Media is biased against Trump and every Republican.  Not that this was ever in doubt, but the Lying Democrats keep wailing that the media is biased FOR Republicans.

Utter horse-shit, of course.  As the clip below shows:

Saturday, February 10

Five reasons why Russia would MUCH rather have helped Hilliary win, not Trump

I've about had enough of the idiots who claim that Russia (=Putin) would have done anything to help Trump win the presidency.  This is so absurd as to be ludicrous.  Some reasons:

1. Trump had signalled that he would be all for opening more government land--including offshore on both coasts--for drilling.  Russia's biggest foreign-exchange earner--by FAR--is exported oil.  If U.S. production increases, world prices either fall or don't rise.  Either way, Russia would stand to lose billions if Trump was elected.

2.  Trump gave every signal that he would be a hard-ass on foreign policy.  "America first!", right?  By huge, glaring contrast, Hilliary would have continued in the "Obama style" of foreign policy: don't do anything to piss off Russia or China, but let them do anything they want.  That was Obama's policy to a T, and it even extended to Russia's client states, as in Obozo's infamous "red line" regarding how the U.S. would regard use of chemical weapons by Syrian dictator Assad against Syrian rebel civilians.  Obozo said if Assad used such weapons that would be a "red line," a "game changer."  Assad promptly used those weapons, and Obama did nothing--no strikes, no sanctions.  So again, Russia would far, far have preferred Hilliary to Trump.

3.  Trump signalled that he was for a strong military.  He pledged his strong support for the armed forces.  By strong contrast, Hilliary has always hated the military.  If you were the Russian head of state, which candidate would you rather see elected?

4. Open borders weaken a country, for hundreds of reasons.  Hilliary favored open borders, and supported Obama's amnesty for illegals.  Trump promised to build a wall and end amnesty for illegals.  If you were Putin, you'd have to realize that Hilliary would weaken the U.S., thus would be a better choice for Russian interests.

5.  Obama succeeded in forcing the U.S. military to allow open homosexuals and transgenders to serve--a policy guaranteed to reduce morale among the troops and cost millions of dollars (free sex-change ops for trannies).  By contrast, Trump opposed both.  If you were Putin, who would you rather see win the presidency?

So next time some liberal asshole in your family starts in with that "Trump colluded with Russia" bullshit, go down the list of the above points and see how they respond.

Jesse Jackson scolds olympic committee for deciding flag-bearer by coin toss. Didn't like result?

After a 4-4 tie vote failed to determine who would carry the U.S. flag in the opening ceremony, the  U.S. Olympic Committee decided the matter by flipping a coin.

Black rabble-rouser Jesse Jackson was absolutely incensed about this decision.  He thought it was inappropriate.  I guess that's a euphemism for "unfair." 
"The choice to represent our country as in the should never be determined by the flip of a coin. The Committee should immediately institute a more appropriate system to make such a significant determination."
And of course he would have complained the same way had the coin toss favored the black skater, right?

Right, Jesse?  Sure, you bet.  Aaaabsolutely.

NY Times puts out cover story to lie to you on why NSA paid a Russian $100K

The New York Times loves and covers for Democrats, and they hate Trump.  And with that said, everything they print becomes far more understandable.

Example:  Yesterday the Times printed an article titled

U.S. Spies, Seeking to Retrieve Cyberweapons, Paid Russian Peddling Trump Secrets

Seems a year or so ago, Russian hackers broke into the supposedly-super-smart-NSA's computers and stole a copy of a "toolbox" containing scores of computer routines used by the NSA to hack other computers.  It was a devastating loss.

So the premise of the article--that when a mysterious Russian contacted the NSA offering to sell the tools back, that the NSA jumped on the offer and paid the guy $100,000--merely the first installment of a reportedly-agreed one million bucks--is superficially plausible.

But in fact it's utter hogwash.  Bullshit.  A cover story.

Reason:  As everyone with an IQ over 100 should know, data is infinitely replicatable, meaning that the offer to sell the tools back to the NSA would obviously not retrieve all copies already made by the hackers.  So no rational "intel" agent would make such an offer.

Oh, the agency did make an offer, and paid $100,000.  But if it wasn't to recover the "hacking tools," what was the real purpose of the payment?

They were buying more anti-Trump information.

Oh wait...right up near the top of the story the Times says that even though the "shadowy Russian" "insisted" that the tools the NSA was supposedly buying back would come with the bonus, at no extra cost!, of anti-Trump info, "Several American intelligence officials said they made clear that they did not want the Trump material from the Russian."

That's the lead sentence of the 3rd 'graf, so you know reporter propagandist Matthew Rosenberg thought it was damned important to make sure every reader saw and understood it.  Yep, the splendid, scrupulously honest, fair, non-partisan NSA people made clear that they didn't want any of that anti-Trump stuff. 


But they paid the cash, and that almost always creates a paper trail. 

If Hilliary had won, no problem.  But...ooops.

Oooh, what do we do now?  So they concoct this utter bullshit story about "buying back data"--a story that sounds superficially plausible to morons and Democrats, but is obvious bullshit to anyone who knows jack-shit about computers and data.

They can get away with that because they refuse to answer questions from any critic who knows c'mere from sic-em. 

But wait, you say:  They can be subpoenaed to appear before a congressional committee, where they'll have to answer the hard questions!  So there, mister smarty!

Uh, no.  Didja watch how IRS commissioner John Koskinnen smirked and told congress to go f itself when they asked him why his agency didn't save copies of all of Lois Lerner's emails, as required by federal law?  And whether he found it at all odd that Lerner claimed to have suffered 3 crashed hard drives in four years?  And whether he found it odd that one of the hard drives was smashed with a sledge hammer, since otherwise there are ways of getting data off even a crashed drive?

He smirked and told 'em to go pound sand.  And they didn't do shit to him.  He's still walking around free, still has his pension.  You really think the intel guys will be more forthcoming?

But no matter:  The Times has put the Narrative out there, as ordered.  Yay!  Adam Schiff and Chuckie Schumer have another talking point they can use to delay and obfuscate.

A so-called "sanctuary city" is one that refuses to cooperate with federal law enforcement. 

Specifically, when the city arrests an illegal alien who is wanted for breaking the law in some other state, or merely for violating a deportation order, federal agents issue a "detainer," asking the city to hold the illegal for 24 hours, until the feds can come get him.

In sanctuary cities the mayor has directed the cops not to cooperate, so they release the illegal right away.  He (most are male) vanishes back into the general population, usually to be arrested again for committing another crime.

Los Angeles has been a "sanctuary city" even before California's totally Democrat-controlled legislature passed a LAW barring any government employee or private business from cooperating with the federal government regarding gaining custody of an illegal.

Recently a conservative outfit asked LA mayor Gil Garcetti if he worries about potentially facing federal charges. Here's what he said:
Not at all. I think it’s a political circus. I think it’s about stirring up, you know, blowing a dog whistle – not about anything real. There’s not a single document we’ve ever cut back, and they know that. There’s not a single city in America that has done that, so it was kind of a weak and pathetic move.
Consider the sentence bold-faced above:  What does he mean by "There's not a single document we've ever cut back"?  Let me help you:  It's bullshit--designed to make the listener believe the guy answered the question in a meaningful way. 

The statement that "There's not a single document we've ever cut back" has nothing to do with the charge that they are refusing to cooperate with federal law.  And of course Garcetti knows this.  He knows that if he admits the truth--that California (as well as LA) is refusing to cooperate to help the feds remove people illegally in the U.S.--it stirs up conservative Americans--who, amazingly, don't like it when illegals murder their kids or spouses, or when members of the thuggish MS-13 gang terrorize and murder, or when illegals driving with three or four times the legal blood-alcohol limit kill an entire American family.

So Democrat Garcetti will go to great lengths to avoid admitting the truth--at least when he's not in front of a friendly audience of Mexican supporters.  There he'll brag about how his policies have protected all the "undocumented" people here (Demspeak for illegals).  But outside those venues he's all about gobble-speak:  Say words that don't actually mean anything but sound like a firm denial of any wrongdoing.

If I were Trump I'd direct federal marshalls to arrest every member of the California legislature, and Garcetti and Jerry Brown and the mayor of San Francisco.  Put 'em in a federal prison until trial.  No bail.  Then repeat as needed.  We need to see if the states have to comply with federal law.

Interesting observation:

Incompetence is its own kind of bad.

The fact that a politician may have had good intentions, and didn't intend for his or her policies and decisions to cause a disaster, doesn't matter a whit.  The disaster doesn't care.

Is concealing evidence to get a warrant to spy on Americans a big deal? Not to Democrats

Democrat party leaders and their stalwart defenders in the Lying Media have been trying mightily to get Americans to ignore the brazen lawbreaking by Obama's laughably-misnamed Department of "Justice" and its wholly-owned sub-agency, the FBI.  Specifically they want to trivialize the huge efforts of those two agencies to destroy the remote chance of Trump winning, by hiring a Brit to fabricate a salacious "dossier" depicting the Republican candidate as perverted.

In other words, the Democrats used the FBI to try to fix the 2016 election to ensure Hilliary won.

To see how absurd the media's efforts to sweep all this under the rug are, imagine how they'd be reacting if the roles were reversed:  If a Republican candidate had paid foreign agents to produce a file of unverifiable accusations against the Democrat candidate, and agencies controlled by a sitting Republican president had conned the FISA court into granting a warrant to spy on an associate of the Democratic nominee’s campaign, the media would be calling it the most terrible political scandal in the history of the nation.

Every little development would be blared in two-inch headlines at the top of every front page, and would lead every nightly news broadcast, as the newspapers and networks did in the Watergate case that eventually forced Nixon to resign.

But when the Democrat does it?  Trivial, citizen.  Nothing to get worked up about.

Laws?  Well, citizen, the law is...complicated.  Probably too complex for you to understand.  So when the Republicans tell you that Obama's justice department and FBI applied a different test to avoid charging Hilliary for something that ordinary military troops have been jailed for, you're just not well-educated enough to grasp the nuances.

Some extreme, far-right, tinfoil-hat-wearing Republican congressmen on some trivial committee have claimed that when one of Mueller's top investigators, FBI special agent Peter Strzok, texted FBI attorney Lisa Page,
I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40…
it showed that the FBI was doing something unusual--possibly even trying to sabotage Trump's candidacy.

The text came after a meeting involving Ms. Page, Mr. Strzok and the f'n Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe.
But is it really evidence of anything shady?  Come now, citizen, you're not a conspiracy theorist, are you? 

Don't believe the Republican propaganda, citizen.  After all, government employees are just like you.  You wouldn't deny an honest, hard-working government employee the right to buy insurance, would you?  After all, you have insurance, and they need it too.  Right?

Besides, our sources in the FBI (which we can't name because we care about national security) tell us that Peter Strzok was actually talking about an upcoming election for the coveted post of Director of Parking Place Assignments.  Agent Strzok was concerned that a guy who didn't like him would be elected.  So...see?

Also, it should be clear to you that when Republicans criticize our wonderful, honest FBI, they're simply betraying our great nation into the hands of Russia's evil Vladimir Putin--just like we've been telling you Trump did.  See??  They're all conspiring to sell your country to Russia.

Russia, Russia, Russia!  Keep your eye on Russia, because that's what's important here.  Russia is our enemy, right?  Of course Russia wasn't always our enemy:  Back when the wonderful Hilliary Clinton--who, by the way, won the popular vote and should be president--was SecState, and signed off on the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium leases to Russia, Russia wasn't our enemy at all.  Not a bit. So Hilliary didn't do anything even a tiny bit questionable.

But two years later, when Trump started conspiring with Russia, that's when they became our enemy.

Got it?

If you don't understand how Russia went from friend to enemy in just two years, don't worry:  It's very complicated.  Probably too complex for ordinary voters to understand.  So you'll just have to trust your friends in the Mainstream Media and the Democrat party.

After all, we've never lied to you before.

Friday, February 9

"Racial activist" demands that DC be renamed, and statue of Jackson in New Orleans be removed

Anyone know who Andrew Jackson was?

If you graduated from a public high school after 1980 it's almost certain that the only thing you know is that he's a figure from American history.  And if you've ever been to New Orleans you may know that there's a square named after him.

In the middle of that square is a statue of Jackson. a racial "activist" is screaming that he demands that the statue be destroyed.

Oh, and he wants Washington D.C. to be renamed.

If you have trouble believing that anyone would seriously demand that Washington be renamed, you haven't been paying attention.

Go ahead and click the link to see the guy say that he wants DC renamed.