Big statue of satan to be unveiled in...Detroit?

When I saw this story this morning I thought it had to be satire: A group calling themselves the Satanic Temple announced that it would unveil a statue of their impression of Satan this Saturday.  And this grand event was to take place in the Democrat stronghold city of...Detroit.

There was a photo with the article:  Seems the statue doesn't just depict a goat-headed apparition, but puts on the final touch by also depicting two children gazing up in wonder at the goat's head.

You'd have to see it to believe it.

Oh, and the press release says the thing “is not only an unparalleled artistic triumph, but stands as a testament to plurality and the power of collective action.”

Now I'm getting even more convinced this is a spoof, since "collective action" is often a euphemism for socialism:  Detroit has been ruined by the "power of collective action," as expressed in political corruption by the ruling party, unparalleled percentages on welfare, corrupt government unions and the power of manufacturing unions to cripple and ultimately kill companies.  So I thought "this is just too spot-on."

And it still may turn out to be a clever hoax.  But if so it fooled a local Detroit TV station.  Oh, wait,..that's it:  Probably Faux News, cuz they're always riling up viewers with goofy stories like this.

Wait...you say it wasn't Fox?  That the piece appeared on the web page of...[gasp!] a CBS station?  Whoa!  But of course most of us out here in flyover country don't believe a word CBS broadcasts, so you'll just have to decide for yourself.

Meanwhile here's the link.  Click at your own risk, cuz it's a pretty ugly statue.

One more step closer to the end

What would you think of a U.S. president who negotiated a binding agreement on our nation--a treaty in every respect save the bullshit assertion that it's not a treaty--but refused to tell you all its provisions?

Would you suspect that it contained something the emperor didn't want you to know? 

Well obviously, or they would have made the secret, binding terms public.

Would you suspect the hidden provisions were ones that most Americans would find intolerable?  Of course, or they wouldn't have tried to hide those provisions.

Would you think a president who made such a treaty was trustworthy, or would you think he was trying to pull a fast one on America and her citizens? 

Of course you couldn't trust him--a trustworthy president wouldn't have hidden ANY of the provisions, but would have been honest with the American people and said "We had to agree to these burdensome provisions to get the other side to agree to a deal--and we felt we had to get a deal because...um...legacy or something."

But Obama decided it was better to negotiate a deal with terms kept secret from you.  If you've got an IQ above that of the average Democrat, this should make you so mad you can't see.  You should be demanding impeachment.

Unless you've been off the planet for the last month, you know that the emperor's people negotiated a deal with Iran that lifted every last, painstakingly negotiated sanction and frozen bank account, in exchange for allowing them to develop an atom bomb.  What you don't know--and what the Lying Democrat Media won't tell you--is that there are two secret provisions.

"Oh wait," I hear you say:  "I'm sure you're just not telling us that the president will brief congress on the secret terms, and of course the senate then gets to vote on whether to approve the deal.  You know, that 'advise and consent' thing.  Takes a two-thirds majority, so I think we're protected against a bad deal.  So you're just a wing-nut. 

Aw, isn't that cute:  Of course you heard that by mis-naming this thing as NOT a treaty the emperor got the senate to agree that it would take effect with just a vote of one-third of the senators instead of the constitutionally required two-thirds, right? 

No?  How could you not have heard that?  Oh that's right: it got very little coverage in the Lying Media.  Because they all knew Obama was trying to pull a fast one.

But it gets even worse:  As of now, the emperor will NOT be briefing congress on the secret terms.

"Wait," you say.  "If the terms are secret, and no one has briefed congress on them, how in the world can you know they even exist, huh?  Huh?  Stupid wingnut, we gotcha!  Ha!"

The secret terms are known to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and were found by accident when senator Tom Cotton and GOP rep Mike Pompeo visited that agency's office in Vienna on June 17th.

You gettin' the picture yet?  Obama is a lying, treasonous, Constitution-shredding bastard.  Who has brilliantly given Iran a green light to develop a nuke, and arranged to blame the GOP-controlled senate for it!

Pretty cool, eh?  Well, if you're a Dem or a Muslim, anyway.

Oh, and those stories of the head religious leader of Iran giving speeches saying "We will destroy the U.S. and Israel"?  Probably just "Islamophobia."

See, your betters know that even a nuclear Iran would never actually use a bomb on, say, Israel.  Or put one in a shipping container for New York harbor.  Because...well, "Islam is the religion of peace" or something like that.

4 Marines killed in Chattanooga by muzz: The pace accelerates

The murders of 4 U.S. Marines by a 24-year-old Muslim were inevitable, as the pace of Muslim attacks on non-muslims accelerates.

Leftists and children deny this, first because most don't believe it (fair enough)--but a significant number simply refuse to admit it, because to do so would be to admit that their world is founded on unreality and deception,

In France three days ago, two huge petroleum storage tanks were set afire by explosive devices, detonated by cell phones.  The event didn't make the front section of a single U.S. paper.  And in Muzz-cowed Europe all official source sought to pin the event on anything *but* Muzz terrorists.

A week before that, another Muzz attacked an industrial facility and beheaded the plant's manager.  Surely you heard about that on the nightly network "news," right?  No?  Ah, well...why would an American viewer care about overseas events, right?

Now with the Chattanooga murders, the emperor has umm'd an uhh'd his way through an emotionless speech in which he said something like, Well, you know, all shootings matter.

Wow!  Another Churchillian moment for Duh One.  But it was obvious he really wasn't much concerned.  Of course the Left was blase:  To them, one or two or a dozen dead Marines is no big deal.  So when their leader took the same position they were fine with it.

Is there a pattern here?  Don't be ridiculous, citizen!  The killer was simply a "domestic terrorist."  Or a "troubled youth."  Or perhaps the lack of jobs radicalized him.

So you can now expect the lying, traitorous U.S. media to go into protection mode, circling around Dear Liar to explain that the killer in Chattanooga wasn't really Muslim at all.  Yes, his name may have been Mohammod [sic], but that proves nothing.

And his parents may have been muzz, but really, that's just a coincidence.

And so what if his social media page may have touted his anger against American society and his desire to commit jihad?  Lots of confused young men do stuff like that, eh? 

So see, nothing to do with Islam at all, citizen.  And if you think there IS a connection, you're a deranged hater.  Tea partier.  Anti-government.  Probably a domestic terrorist.

Say, do you have all the permits needed for those guns you own?  Have your children had all their shots?  Can you prove it?  Do you have a license for your dog?  Do you collect government-owned rainwater from your gutters?  We fined some anti-government troublemaker in Oregon ten grand for that last year, and you may be next unless...

Have you ever displayed a Confederate flag?  Ever made a favorable comment about the South?  Do you own a scoped rifle?  More than one box of ammunition?  Have you ever gone to a shooting range?  Ever made a comment critical of "undocumented immigration"?  Ever made a comment critical of the president?  Critical of his wife's lavish vacations, perhaps?

You don't want to make trouble, do you, citizen?  Because you've now violated, oh, 23 laws that could put you away for, oh, five years easy.  So sit down and STFU.  We done tol' ya the "little thing" [1] in Chattanooga had "nothing whatsoever to do with Islam," so you will believe us, and sit down.

[1] re: "little thing:"  the exact words Democrat rep Luis Gutierrez used to describe the murder of Kathy Steinle in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant last week.  Gutierrez is the embodiment of evil.

Article from last year shows how much things have changed in 18 months

Last year Rolling Stone ran a piece titled "5 economic reforms Millenials should be fighting for.  Although it's old, I wanted to show how much the author's ideas and recommendations have become policy in barely 18 months.

In essence the author recommends that the U.S. adopt full-on Communism.

Of course you think I'm kidding.  Wish I was.  For a couple of minutes I thought maybe the author was doing satire but his bio indicates he's serious. 

He lists "things we might want to start fighting for if we want to grow old in a just, fair society, rather than the economic hellhole our parents have handed us."

"Economic hellhole"?  Well it's certainly true that the country's gone downhill a LOT after five years of King Obozo's misrule, but even with the socialist emperor running things I'm not sure the U.S. is ...how did you put it? an "economic hellhole"?   I'll bet this whiny prick hasn't actually been to a real hellhole or he'd realize the U.S. is a relative paradise.

But some people are slow learners.  Anyway, here's what this prick is pushing:

1. Guaranteed jobs.  He thinks the government should guarantee that everyone who wants to can earn a "decent living" in the public sector.  He compares this to the WPA under Roosevelt.  Somehow I don't think he'd consider WPA-level wages a "decent living."  Enough to stay alive, but scarcely more than that.  But comparing his proposal to Roosevelt's WPA reassures readers that this isn't a new or scary or expensive idea:  "Yes, the WPA was good, and helped everyone!"

"A job guarantee that paid a living wage would anchor prices..."  

First you need to know that "living wage" is socialist code.  Whatever you think that number is, think higher.  They've already demonstrated for fifteen bucks an hour.  So what does the author mean when he claims doubling the minimum wage will "anchor prices"?  If he means it would "anchor" a burger at McD's at ten bucks, somehow I don't think a lot of folks will be thrilled.

"...and target employment for the poor and long-term unemployed."

Like most of the article, this is nonsensical.  Does he really think raising the minimum wage to $15/hour will result in hiring lots and lots of new servers or cleaners?  It sounds like that's what he wants to claim, but follow me here, Sparky:  If there aren't enough jobs now, what in the world would make millions of new jobs magically appear if the government simply orders businesses to pay double the current minimum wage?

Of course I don't expect this argument would slow him down for a moment--because the guy isn't trying to map out a feasible economy, but simply asserting a feel-good idea, without regard to outcome.

Then, having argued (badly) for jobs for everyone, he suddenly does a U-turn:

"But let's think even bigger. Because as much as unemployment blows, so do jobs."

Wait, didn't you just argue that the gummint should create jobs for everyone?  But now you say jobs "blow"?  Then why did you take the time to argue that gummint should create one for every person?

"What if people didn't have to work to survive? Enter the simple idea of a universal basic income, in which the government would just add a sum sufficient for subsistence to everyone's bank account every month. 

Ah yes, those simple ideas are the best, eh?  He calls this "Social Security for All" since everyone knows and loves social security, and isn't scared by it.

A universal basic income would provide everyone "time to cultivate new needs for pleasures, activities, senses, passions, affects, and socialities that exceed the options of working and saving, producing and accumulating."

This guy's too, too precious.  Yes, exceeding the options of working sounds cool.  And for the payoff pitch:

A universal basic income could make participation in the labor force truly voluntary...

 Short version:  "Y'all need to give us everything we want.  Period.  So we don't need to work."

"3. Abolish private ownership of land."  (And everything else, apparently.)
Ever noticed how much landlords blow? They don't really do anything to earn their money. They just claim ownership of buildings and charge people who actually work for a living the majority of our incomes for the privilege of staying in boxes that these owners often didn't build and rarely if ever improve.
   Think about how stupid that is. The value of the land has nothing to do with my idle, remote landlord; it reflects the nearby parks and subways and shops, which I have access to thanks to the community and the public. So why don't the community and the public derive the value and put it toward uses that benefit everyone? Because capitalism.

4.  Abolish private ownership of stocks.  (Or as the author disarmingly puts it, "Make Everything Owned by Everybody.")

There's a way easier way to collectivize wealth ownership than having to stage uprisings that seize the actual airplanes and warehouses and whatnot: Just buy up their stocks and bonds. When the government does that it's called a sovereign wealth fund.  Alaska actually already has a fund like this in place. If it's good enough for Levi Johnston, it's good enough for you.

5. A Public Bank in Every State
You know what else really blows? Wall Street. The whole point of a finance sector is supposed to be collecting the surplus that the whole economy has worked to produce, and channeling that surplus wealth toward its most socially valuable uses. It is difficult to overstate how completely awful our finance sector has been at accomplishing that basic goal. Let's try to change that by allowing state governments into the banking game.

This is what passes for sound thinking in the world of Rolling Stone, NY Times and the Left.

Obozo advisor caught lying--on camera--about Iran nuke agreement

Does the name "Ben Rhodes" ring a bell?

Obama appointed Rhodes as "deputy national security advisor," because of his extensive experience in the intelligence community and his long military service.

Hahahahahahaha!  This of course is utter bullshit.  He got the job because his brother David is president of CBS's propaganda division--sometimes called the "News" division.

Ben is nothing if not stupid.  You think I'm just being mean, but consider this:  Two days ago Obama officially confirmed the disastrous nuclear agreement (actually a total giveaway) with Iran.  The *stated* reason for negotiating was to prevent Iran from developing an atomic bomb for as long as possible.  A key provision would have been to demand that the west would only remove the painstakingly negotiated system of international economic sanctions on the Iranian regime if it allowed no-notice inspections of suspected bomb development sites.

The actual agreement does not contain that provision.  Also, no Americans will be allowed in the inspection teams.

Getting the picture yet?

Immediately after the cave-in was announced, critics noted what I just wrote, and began to criticize the thing as a disaster for the U.S.  At which point Rhodes went on CNN to defend Obozo's treason, and said

 "We never sought 'anytime, anywhere' inspections."

It took blogger Stephen Hayes about three minutes to unearth the same Ben Rhodes, again on CNN, back on April 6th--just over 3 months earlier--saying of the nearly-negotiated agreement,

"We will have anytime, anywhere access across the nuclear facilities."

Compare the two quotes above.  A total contradiction.  Rhodes can't remember what lies he told 3 months earlier.  Just another lie from the emperor's regime--just like "If you like your health insurance you can keep it."  Remember that whopper?

It's bad enough that the entire Obozo regime utters one huge lie after another, but the *really* worrisome thing is that they're so brazen about it--like the architect of Obozocare, Jon Gruber, making videotaped speeches saying that they counted on the stupidity of the American public to pass the thing.

Of course if you're a liberal/Democrat/"progressive" this is all just dandy.  All is proceeding according to plan.

Congratulations, Democrats.  You must be SO proud.

Can we learn any lessons from policies in other nations? Leftists: No, not a thing.

Can Americans learn any useful lessons from events in, say, Greece or Tunisia or Libya or Egypt or...fill in the blank?

Leftists, socialists, "progressives" and Democrats want you to believe nothing useful can be learned--that government policies in other nations that produce disastrous results will have totally good results here in the U.S.  Because Obama or something.

This of course is insane:  While different cultures have different values, human nature itself is pretty constant.  So bad policies in one country are likely to be bad if instituted anywhere else.

The Left insists that you avoid drawing that conclusion, because their policies almost always lead to disastrous outcomes in other nations.  Thus most rational adults would conclude that those policies should be avoided here.

For example: Bureaucrats in Greece can retire at age 58 on very generous pensions.  Moreover, they get 14 "monthly" paychecks per year, both before and after retirement.  (Two bonus checks for being such fabulous people.)  The Greek government doesn't want to change this, and as long as they can borrow from financially solvent nations, why should they?

Can you say "Ponzi scheme"?

Before about six years ago Egypt was a popular tourist destination, reasonable stable and reasonably safe.  Now the Muslim Brotherhood has started a terror campaign--much like the communists in South Vietnam back in the 1960's.  But the U.S. Left wants you to welcome many more hundreds of thousands of muslim immigrants into the U.S, because...well, they're the "right" kind of people.  And look what they've done for Egypt!

Oh wait--according to your emperor the Muslim Brotherhood has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.  In fact, they're not really authentic muslims at all!  It's a mystery why they took that name for their group, since they're not really Muslims, eh?

In South Africa--totally run by the communist African National Congress party--half the dockets of criminal cases ready for trial mysteriously disappear forever.  The cops are thoroughly corrupt.  But don't worry, citizen:  There are absolutely NO useful lessons Americans can learn from South Africa.

The European Union has been overwhelmed by illegal immigrants from North Africa, who set out for Italy in old, overloaded boats.  But since the politicians of the EU have announced that their policy is to rescue all such voyagers, the boats keep coming.  But don't worry, citizen:  There is absolutely nothing in this event that would be relevant for Americans.

Polygamy is legal in many Muslim nations but theoretically illegal in Britain.  But because of stupid government policies--often defended as "religious tolerance"--Muslim immigrants with 4 wives and dozens of offspring are living on the dole in the U.K.  That is, the taxpayer is supporting multiple, current wives of the same man.

Values?  You don't get to have any.  But immigrants can break laws with impunity.  And get the taxpayers to support them as they do so.  But no possible lessons for Americans in this disaster.

Not to worry, citizen.  Just ignore it, and everything will be fine.  Let Hillary and Bill and Chelsea and Bernie Sanders run things.  Because "Democrats care about the common man."  Or so they keep saying.