Friday, April 28

Leftist chancellor of Berkeley and leftist mayor claim they really *REALLY* support free speech--after saying they couldn't protect Coulter

Imagine if some Democrat wanted to make a speech on the DC Mall blasting Trump.  Suppose Trump got the security guys for the Park Service to say "We really really support free speech but we've heard that some people who don't like the politics of the speaker or audience have vowed to wade into the crowd and hurt people.  We can't guarantee your safety on the day you want to give the speech."  And they deny the speaker permission to use the venue.

"But don't worry," they add.  "Because we really, really support free speech we'd like to offer you a different day when you can speak.  It's New Year's Day at 5am."

Imagine how the Dems and their media liars would react!  They'd go nuts, because they'd see the obvious:  that Trump was trying to prevent a political opponent from drawing a big crowd to their speech.

Trump didn't do that, of course.  But two hard-left Democrats--backed by the entire party--did:  U.Cal chancellor Nicholas Birks and the leftist mayor of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin.  Here's their written statement on the topic of refusing to guarantee the safety of conservative Ann Coulter:

This is complete, total bullshit and self-serving propaganda from start to finish.  These two left-wing, liberal rat-bastards want to permit only speech THEY favor, from their allies.  They're totally in favor of silencing all conservatives.  They're thrilled that they were able to get Coulter to cancel with their claim that 'neither city nor campus police can guarantee your safety if you insist on speaking here.'

That's infuriating enough, but they go on to shamelessly lie that they really, really support free speech, and claim to be totally blameless in Coulter's decision to believe them and cancel her speech.

Free speech in this country is dead, dead, dead.  And for the president (yeah, I know, chancellor) of Berkeley to help kill it is an abomination.  Everyone should know what a crap communist sellout the chancellor is.  His name should go down in history as one who put left-wing causes before the Constitution's First Amendment right to free speech. 

I'm becoming convinced that sadly, war is the only thing that will correct this type of behavior.

Dem congresscritter praises Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran, despite Team Obozo lying to him about its terms

On his show last night Tucker Carlson asked California Dem congresswhore Eric Swalwell about the story--posted by leftist site Politico--showing how Team Obama lied to the country about the terms of the Iran nuclear deal.

Back when the deal was first announced, Obama's people briefed Swalwell and other Dems on what they claimed were its terms.  But the briefers left out the fact the Obama was withdrawing warrants for the arrest of 14 Iranians or Iranian-Americans who had been buying prohibited tech items and shipping them to Iran.

The prohibited items would make it easier for the Iranians to build nuclear weapons, or better missile guidance systems.  Carlson asked the Dem if he felt that Team Obama had lied to him to get the deal passed.  Naturally the Dem said "Not at all."  Swalwell wouldn't concede an inch, but simply dodged one question after another, claiming he knew Iran wasn't working on nukes (he doesn't know that) and that we're "safer" because of the deal.

Watch the vid below to see stupidity combined with arrogance in action.  Swalwell is absolutely convinced that a) Obama didn't lie to him; b) we're way safer now than without the crap agreement; and c) this wonderful agreement will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

It's really an amazing demonstration of partisanship and hiding one's head in the sand to avoid admitting an unpleasant reality.




Thursday, April 27

What happens when the pols don't do as they promised?

When people are betrayed by the pols who begged for their support and promised to fight for the things they held to be crucial, what happens?  Consider this:

1) Republican congresswhores vowed that if only we gave them money and elected them, they'd eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood.  So we voted them control of both houses of congress.  Now the republican speaker of the house, Paul Ryan, says the republican-controlled congress will vote for a budget that will continue to fund Planned Parenthood, yet again--a complete reversal fromwhat they promised when begging for your support and your vote.

2) Speaker Ryan says the republican-controlled congress won't fund the wall on the Mexico border until next year at least.  On some occasions he's said they won't fund it at all--a complete reversal from the promises.

3) Republicans promised to repeal the wasteful, inefficient, freedom-depriving program called Obamacare.  But now, after we voted them control of congress, turns out they won't be repealing it, but will be leaving most of it in force--despite their repeated promise to repeal it if only we would give them control of both chambers of congress.  Again, a commplete reversal.

4) Despite having a majority in the senate, which confirms top Presidential appointments, the Republicans have not voted on more than a handful of those appointments, largely because of debate rules asked for by the Democrats and eagerly agreed to by Republican Senate Majority Leader McConnell. In April, Congress is only in session 8 freaking days. This is deliberate.

5) Democrats and their street-thug allies have repeatedly used violence to block conservatives from speaking.  The thugs have no fear of prosecution because mayors of socialist cities have ordered the cops to take no action. 

6)  When Democrats controlled the presidency their media arm repeatedly told Americans it was terrible, awful! for Republicans to take a stand over proposed ghastly spending pushed by the Democrats.  If Dems refused to compromise and the government shut down, the media screamed that it was the Repubs' fault.  But now, with the Republicans in control, suddenly the media tells us how noble it is for Democrats--now in the minority--to take a stand over the budget, opposing spending proposed by Republicans.  If Republicans refuse to cave to the Dems demands and Dems refuse to vote for the budget--shutting down the government--who does the mainstream media blame this time?  Why, the Republicans, of course.

When the game is so rigged that elections change nothing, policy will be determined by violence.

One--just one--Dutch politician grasps what's going on

One of the problems with trying to make westerners understand that we're in a war is that unless an attack devastates them personally--say a family member being killed by a goblin--most people have a very short memory. 

Ask most Americans to summarize the most recent attack in Nice, France, or London or Paris or Berlin, most will only have a vague recollection.

Only two or three European politicians "get it."  Here's one.  Pay attention:


Tuesday, April 25

Obama-supporting webzine posts a story extremely critical of Obama. Okay, what the hell is going on?

An "admission against interest" is when a suspect or defendant admits something in court that hurts their case.  It's given special weight by prosecutors because logically, one wouldn't admit something damaging unless they were trying to conceal something even more damaging.

The story at this link is by a commercial left-wing blog, Politico.  It's a bombshell because it excoriates the Obama administration for something Obama and Kerry and Hillary and every single mainstream media organ praised as one of their most FANTASTIC, AMAZING achievements.

Unless you've read Politico for years, you won't realize how totally bizarre this is.  It's as strange as if Vladimir Putin were to denounce communism.  As strange as if Chuck Schumer were to criticize Nancy Pelosi.  As unexpected as Lois Lerner giving a straight answer.  Totally unprecedented.

Here's the gist--but you really need to click the link to see it for yourself:

The headline is "Obama's hidden Iran deal giveaway."  Sub-head is
By dropping charges against major arms targets, the administration infuriated Justice Department officials — and undermined its own counterproliferation task forces. 
And keep in mind, this is from an Obama-loving website, one that has never criticized a single action by a Democrat!

Short version:  Obama's Justice Department had charged 20 Iranians or Iranian-Americans with helping Iran buy various prohibited items that could be used in making nuclear weapons or in ballistic missiles.  Some were in jail in the U.S. but most the the 20 were fugitives, and the DOJ had issued international warrants for their arrest.

To convince the Iranian government to make the agreement he wanted so badly, Obama announced that the U.S. was releasing Iranian-born prisoners who “were not charged with terrorism or any violent offenses.”
 
But as with so much that Obama wanted to do, the president and his representatives weren’t telling the whole story.  In his Sunday morning address to the American people Obama described the seven men he freed as “civilians.”  A senior official described them as businessmen convicted of or awaiting trial for mere “sanctions-related offenses, violations of the trade embargo.”

In reality, some of them were accused by Obama’s own Justice Department of posing threats to national security. Three allegedly were part of an illegal procurement network supplying Iran with U.S.-made microelectronics with applications in surface-to-air and cruise missiles like the kind Tehran test-fired recently. 

But in addition, in a series of unpublicized court filings,the Justice Department dropped charges and international arrest warrants against 14 other men, all of them fugitives. The administration didn’t disclose their names or what they were accused of doing, but used an unattributed, 152-word statement to note that the U.S. “also removed any Interpol red notices and dismissed any charges against 14 Iranians for whom it was assessed that extradition requests were unlikely to be successful.”

One of the fugitives, Behrouz Dolatzadeh, was charged with conspiring to buy thousands of U.S.-made assault rifles and illegally import them into Iran.
 The biggest fish, though, was Seyed Abolfazl Shahab Jamili, who had been charged with being part of a conspiracy that from 2005 to 2012 procured thousands of parts with nuclear applications for Iran via China. That included hundreds of U.S.-made sensors for the uranium enrichment centrifuges in Iran whose progress had prompted the nuclear deal talks in the first place.

When federal prosecutors and agents learned the true extent of the releases, many were shocked and angry. Some had spent years, if not decades, working to penetrate the global proliferation networks that allowed Iranian arms traders both to obtain crucial materials for Tehran’s illicit nuclear and ballistic missile programs and, in some cases, to provide dangerous materials to other countries.

In its determination to win support for the nuclear deal and prisoner swap from Tehran — and from Congress and the American people — the Obama administration did a lot more than just downplay the threats posed by the men it let off the hook, according to POLITICO’s findings.
Through action in some cases and inaction in others, the White House derailed its own much-touted National Counterproliferation Initiative at a time when it was making unprecedented headway in thwarting Iran’s proliferation networks. In addition, the POLITICO investigation found that Justice and State Department officials denied or delayed requests from prosecutors and agents to lure some key Iranian fugitives to friendly countries so they could be arrested. Similarly, Justice and State, at times in consultation with the White House, slowed down efforts to extradite some suspects already in custody overseas, according to current and former officials and others involved in the counterproliferation effort.

And as far back as the fall of 2014, Obama administration officials began slow-walking some significant investigations and prosecutions of Iranian procurement networks operating in the U.S. These previously undisclosed findings are based on interviews with key participants at all levels of government and an extensive review of court records and other documents.

“Clearly, there was an embargo on any Iranian cases,” according to the former federal supervisor.
“Of course it pissed people off, but it’s more significant that these guys were freed, and that people were killed because of the actions of one of them,” the supervisor added, in reference to Ravan and the IED network.

The saga of how the Obama administration threw a monkey wrench into its own Justice Department-led counterproliferation effort continues to play out almost entirely out of public view, largely because of the highly secretive nature of the cases and the negotiations that affected them.
That may be about to change, as the Trump administration and both chambers of Congress have pledged to crack down on Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Last Wednesday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced a government-wide review of U.S. policy toward Iran in the face of “alarming and ongoing provocations that export terror and violence, destabilizing more than one country at a time.”
====

Why in the world would Politico report something so damaging to Obama and the Democrats whose support was so crucial to his ability to pass so much of his agenda? 

It wasn't because they were out of stories and needed something to fill the internet.  Instead the most likely reason is that with a new Attorney-general and new president, the few honest people in Justice started coming forward to tell what had been happening.  On learning about that, the Dems realized they couldn't keep this story hidden much longer.

When a damaging story is about to break, standard procedure is to have a friendly outlet break it.  This allows other Dem outlets to delay a couple of days and then minimize the story by calling it "old news."  Also, by breaking the story first the Dems prevent Trump and Sessions from claiming a win, since the public will think it was the honest, non-partisan reporters at Politico who uncovered the story.

Strange times indeed.

The career-criminal who shot the French policeman in Paris last week

A week ago a Muslim terrorist murdered a French policeman on the Champs-Elysées in Paris.

Okay, most of you are probably thinking "So what?  Muslims are killing westerners every week now.  What's noteworthy here?"  Read on.

The French criminal-"justice" system shares much with the way California handles criminals: a lenience that can only be described as insanely negligent.

In this case the killer--Karim Cheurfi --started his criminal career early in life:  by age 23 he had been convicted 20 times--often for violent crimes.

At 23 he was sentenced to 20 years in prison for the attempted murder of three police officers.  He shot two after a car chase.  Then as he was being held in jail he jumped an officer who entered his cell, grabbed the officer's gun and shot him five times.  The policeman was lucky to survive.

Having shot three cops--one five times at point-blank range--you'd think the guy would have never have been let out until he'd served all 20 years, right?   I mean, how much more proof of "murderous intent" is needed?  Twenty wouldn't be long enough, but at least that would be 20 years when he wouldn't be killing and robbing, right?

Hahahahaha!   Silly human!  The guy was paroled in 2013 after serving just 12 years of his nominal 20-year sentence. 

Within weeks he was back to committing serious crime, this time aggravated burglary, for which he was sentenced to four years, but amazingly, with two suspended.  This for a guy who'd tried to kill cops.  He was released in 2015 after serving less than two years.

The conditions of his parole forbade him from leaving the country.  But now knowing that the French criminal system was totally incompetent and could be rolled, he went to Algeria for a month.  When he returned he was brought to court for violating his parole.  He told the magistrate he had a good excuse—he'd wanted to get married.  The judge nodded and simply reminded him of the conditions of his parole.

Again, he got the right message:  the justice system was terminally incompetent and unserious.

In December 2016, Cheurfi again came to the attention of the authorities when he was overheard threatening to kill police.  The authorities did nothing.  Barely four months later he killed the policeman on the Champs-Elysées.

The case of Karim Cheurfi is far from an isolated one: indeed, such stories emerge regularly.
Meanwhile people like Cheurfi view themselves as victims rather than as perpetrators.  After all, at the time of his arrest in 2001 he had only stolen a car and a gun in his possession.  If the police had left him alone, no one would have been hurt.

Sounds just like U.S. liberals.

Couple attacked on public transit in Sydney--transit cops watch but don't stop the assault, because...

The Sydney (Australia) Daily Telegraph  reports that a couple was attacked by four middle-eastern-appearing men while riding the a city train through “Muslim enclaves” in south-west Sydney.
The victim said the four men ripped his cross from his neck and stomped on it while beating him. Two women attacked his girlfriend at the same time.

Five uniformed transport officers stood by and watched the attack but didn't try to intervene.

According to a local reverend this was not an isolated incident. “Gangs of young Muslim males have been assaulting people on public transit that they identify as Christian.  You don’t hear about it because no one’s reporting it.  They act like it’s their territory,” he said. “They don’t want Christians there.”

A police spokesman said: “We remind the community that any bias-motivated crime will not be tolerated.”  Which of course is rubbish--no one is ever caught for such attacks.  Too much trouble.

Transit system officials defended the transports officers who stood by as the attack took place, telling the Telegraph their job is catching fare evaders, and that they've been told to "observe from a safe space” if passengers are assaulted.
Think about this:  If a gang of 4 whites had attacked a Muslim couple on public transit this would have been headline news.  And if five transit cops had simply watched instead of stopping the attack, the newpapers and politicians would have demanded someone be fired.

But when a gang of Muslims attacks, the reaction is 'We recommend Christians who wear a cross hide it inside their shirt when riding public transit.  We don't want to provoke those Muslim "youths."'

Pols in the western world continue to bend over backwards to appease Islamists.

Monday, April 24

NYT avoids the term FGM in recent Michigan story, claiming term is "culturally loaded"

Ten days ago the New York Times ran a story about a female Michigan doctor--apparently Muslim--for performing a procedure the United Nations calls "female genital mutilation" on two girls 7 and 8 years old.

"FGM" refers to a horribly painful procedure forced on young girls by their parents, in which part or all of the victim's genitals are removed for no medical benefit.  The purpose is solely to eliminate any pleasure from sex.  As if that's not horrible enough, in Africa it's done without anesthesia.

Because the ghastly torture is described in the emotion-free language of sociologists as a "traditional African practice," and "a ritual," liberals who one would expect would be raising hell about this are...unusually tolerant.  After all, one of the foundational beliefs of liberals is that all cultures are equal, and equally valid, right?


And sure enough, rather than using the term FGM, the Times story referred to the procedure as "genital cutting."

A Times reader noticed, and wrote to complain about the headline and body of the story.  The Times public editor responded to the letter by asking the story's editor, Celia Dugger--who has the title of "Health and Science editor"--to explain.

Dugger explained that she avoided the term "female genital mutilation" in the story out of concern that it would "widen the chasm" between Africa and the West.  "I began writing about this back in 1996," Dugger wrote back. "I decided...to call it genital cutting rather than mutilation."

"I never minced words [back then] in describing exactly what form of cutting was involved...and the terrible damage it did...but chose to use the less culturally loaded term, genital cutting," Dugger wrote.  "There's a gulf between [people] who campaign against the practice and the people who follow the rite, and I felt the language used widened that chasm."

Well thank you so much, Ms. Dugger.  It's so very, very considerate of you to use a less-graphic, less-upsetting term to describe what these two poor girls--and another estimated 500,000 in the U.S. alone--have suffered because of a hideous "traditional African practice."  After all, if you'd used the "culturally loaded term" some of your readers might have actually understood what was really happening, and might have been moved to some sort of action.

Nah, wouldn't happen.  After all, "all cultures are equal, and equally valid" has been a foundation of liberalism for decades.  Can't reject it now, eh?


Click here for full story in the Washington Free Beacon, April 24, 2017

Liberal rag claims Trump voters never realized how much the elites hold 'em in contempt til Trump "taught them"

"The Atlantic" is a trendy magazine.  It's read by--well, by absolutely all the elites, dahling. They're evah-so-cool, so hip. Sophisticated. Unless you live near either coast you wouldn't understand.

What?? Of course we know there's a coast on the south. No, we're not talking about that one.

Anyway, as everyone knows, all of the folks who read the Atlantic were absolutely horrified by the results of the election, when the most qualified person in history won the popular vote but somehow ended up losing the election because of some bizarre "rule" called the "electoral college."

Conservatives whine that because the electoral college is mentioned in the Constitution, we have to keep using it.  But of course all the really hip people know that the Constitution was written by white males two centuries ago so that needs to be changed.  But back to the story:

A month after the election the host of The Daily Show--which is must-viewing for hip "progressives," you know--wrote an op‑ed that was published in the Times--well of course the New York Times; is there another one? The title was “Let’s Not Be Divided," and it ostensibly lamented the fact that Americans are so sharply divided. It quickly went viral among "progressives"--the same elites who read the Atlantic.

The host of the Daily Show wasn't sure how we got so divided, but the Atlantic managed to notice that for months before the election the Daily Show constantly blasted the Republican candidate--among other things, for tweeting with “those fat little tiny fingers of yours.” And for trying to think with “that stupid head.” And when the host sneered about Trump “maybe you should look in the mirror, asshole.”

The audience, of course, roared with laughter every time.

The Daily Show was hardly alone in blasting Trump: All the late-night political-comedy shows, including Samantha Bee’s Full Frontal, and John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight—joined in firing crude, nasty, humiliating screeds against Donald Trump.

So here's what the Atlantic had to say in its current issue:
Fair enough. Trump is a man who on any casual summer day during the campaign could be found inciting a crowd to violence. This isn’t the slippery slope; this is the ditch at the bottom of the hill. Once a man stands before a mob and exhorts the powerful to beat the outlier, it’s all over except for the cannibalism and the cave painting. “Knock the crap out of them,” said Donald Trump.

So Trump has it coming, and so do the minions pouring out of his clown car, with their lies and their gleeful disregard for...“the fundamental decencies.”

Lies, eh?  Wow!  Say, where was that outrage when Susan Rice went on five Sunday talk shows to falsely blame the killing of 4 Americans in Benghazi on an internet video when the Obama regime had known for days that that was a lie? Or how about "If you like your doctor or your insurance plan you can keep them" 18 times--on video--from your hero Obama?

In their drive to blast Trump at every turn--both before and after the election--the hosts of the late-night shows routinely insulted not just the people within this administration, but also ordinary citizens who supported Trump, and even those who merely identified as conservative. Last month Samantha Bee’s show finally made a formal apology to a young man who had attended the Conservative Political Action Conference and whom the show had blasted for having “Nazi hair.” As it turned out, the young man was suffering from Stage 4 brain cancer—which a moment’s research on the producers’ part would have revealed: He had tweeted about his frightening diagnosis days before the conference.

During the campaign, "Full Frontal" sent a writer to the Western Conservative Summit, which the reporter described as “an annual Denver gathering popular with hard-right Christian conservatives.” He interviewed an earnest young boy who talked about going to church on Sundays and Bible study on Wednesdays.

The boy spoke with the unguarded openness of a child who has assumed goodwill on the part of an adult.

The show described him as “Jerry Falwell in blond, larval form.”

The late-night comedy shows are aimed at liberal sophisticates--who find the anti-Trump and anti-conservative insults hysterically funny. The hosts, writers and their viewers are convinced that they're far superior--intellectually and morally--to everyone on the political right.  And just one day before the election, every TV talking head assured us that Trump didn’t have a chance.

Ah, so that's an example of their "intellectual superiority." Explains a lot.

When hard-working, tax-paying folks in flyover country--let's call 'em the "non-elites"--hear crude, nasty jokes about conservatism day after day, they don’t just see a handful of comics mocking them. They see HBO, Comedy Central, ABC, CBS, and NBC.  But the folks at the Atlantic don't get it.  Here's how they explain it:
In other words they see exactly what Trump has taught them: that the entire media landscape loathes them, their values, their family, and their religion.

No, you clueless fucks, we didn't need Trump to teach us that. It's screamingly obvious--to all of us. The author of the Atlantic article repeats the mistake made by all the self-styled "elites": They think we can't see--without any help at all--that they hold us in utter contempt.

You live in NYC and/or graduated from Hahvahd or Columbia so you're smart, hip, sophisticated. You watch hip shows and laugh at the jokes, so you think you're informed, nuanced.  Most of went to state schools, don't know trendy restaurants or wear designer clothes.  As you see it, we're stupid.

You're so convinced this is true that you can't believe any of us would realize that the media and Hollywood and folks who write for rags like the Atlantic hold us in contempt. Your brilliant analysis is that we had to wait for Trump to *teach us* the obvious.

Is that another example of your "intellectual superiority"?

In case you think I misinterpreted the article, here's the Atlantic again, doubling down:

No wonder so many of Trump’s followers are inclined to believe only the things [Trump] or his spokespeople tell them directly—[that] everyone else on the tube thinks they’re a bunch of trailer-park, Oxy-snorting half-wits who divide their time between retweeting Alex Jones fantasies and ironing their Klan hoods.

In what the Atlantic calls "this bizarre new political reality"--not realizing that they've created it with their constant contempt and sneering jokes--any late-nite host who treats Trump the way other presidents have traditionally been treated commits the unforgivable sin of “normalizing” him, as Jimmy Fallon did last fall:

Trump had appeared on Fallon’s Tonight Show before the primaries, in September 2015, back when he was still the joke candidate, back when a lighthearted interview with him wouldn't make the elites go crazy. But when Fallon had him on again a year later--just before the election--that had changed. And Fallon didn't see the trap. Here's the Atlantic:
Now Trump was the Republican nominee, and his bag of tricks—inciting violence in crowds, threatening religious tests, calling the press a pack of liars—was no longer so amusing.
    In a scripted gag Fallon leaned toward Trump and said, “Donald, I just wanted to ask you if there’s something we could do that’s just not … presidential, really.” After Trump agreed, Fallon reached over and mussed up Trump's hair.

The next day twitter was loaded with venom for what the elites saw as an effort to "normalize" the awful Republican nominee. The Atlantic adds, approvingly
...and rightly so. By then Trump had exhibited enough ugly and norm-breaking behavior to have made treating him as a lovable bridge-and-tunnel celebrity...beyond the pale. Trump had already revealed himself to be a dangerous person; perhaps the best thing that can be said about the man is that he let America know exactly what it would be getting if he were elected. It was a huge mistake on Fallon’s part, one he has been paying for ever since—his ratings have not recovered from it.
That's not just reporting. It's a warning to other late-night hosts:  Get with our program or us cool people will stop tuning in.

Contrast this with how the media reacted to Bill Clinton’s 1992 appearance on The Arsenio Hall Show, where he played the saxophone. The media swooned.

The Atlantic implies that no one out in flyover country noticed the difference.

The author says Trump’s appearance with Fallon
...was the last fleeting glimmer of anything approaching goodwill—and possibly of anything deserving it—between political factions. Since then it’s been a race to the bottom, as the crudeness of the president is matched by that of “the resistance,” with all of us being judged by how well—how thoroughly and consistently and elaborately—we can hate each other. Nothing about this time is elevating. It’s just all of us—on the left and on the right—sworn to our bitterness and our anger.
As I [started] writing this essay Trump had just made what was then the latest in his endless series of preposterous moves: He had tweeted, without evidence but with certainty, that Trump Tower had been “wiretapped” by Barack Obama in the final days of the campaign.... The episode was one more stunning reminder of how this impulsive, self-obsessed leader—who holds grudges, lies recklessly, and appoints family members to substantive positions—is making America into a laughingstock around the world. We are a country with the greatest creed in all of history—the Constitution of the United States—yet we are looking more and more like a banana republic.
One hardly knows where to begin: The Atlantic writer calls the Constitution "the greatest creed in all of history," while ignoring the constant, unrelenting efforts of "progressives" and Democrats to destroy it--most recently by calling for abolishing the electoral-college system. He castigates Trump for lying "recklessly," ignoring Obama's and Hilliary's many lies. Perhaps he thinks those were careful lies rather than reckless. Perhaps his complaint is with the "reckless" modifier rather than lies per-se.

And notice the sudden ability to recognize "self-obsession"--which the Left absolutely could not see in Barack Obama.  Their hypocrisy is beyond parody.

But perhaps the most amazing thing is that the Atlantic--like all the elite mags and talk-shows and network talking heads--is totally convinced that none of us out here in flyover country ever noticed--indeed, weren't capable of noticing--the contempt and the double-standards of the elites and their media comrades until Trump "taught us."

This, liberals, is why Trump is president. He may only last one term--maybe not even that, given the huge media and "entertainment" armada arrayed against him--but he's fired up a lot of people who've tolerated your liberal bullshit forever.

That could change.

Saturday, April 22

HuffPo publishes (and deletes) article literally stating "Trump supporters deserve to have their towns annhilated"

Two days ago the socialist revolutionaries (morons) at the Huffington Post published an article declaring that Donald Trump voters deserve to have their “Podunk towns” destroyed by nuclear weapons.

That's a direct quote: “These are the people who deserve to have their towns annihilated."  Written by Oakland artist Chris Cali, the article was titled “Trump Supporters Deserve to Die More Than I Do.” 

Cali was angry at Trump’s letting the Air Force drop the largest conventional bomb, dubbed the “Mother of All Bombs,” on a tunnel complex in Afghanistan.  Cali said he feared that would bring America to the brink of war with...North Korea??  Yep.  Not sure how that was supposed to connect but shrieking liberals don't need to have any actual "reasoning" to call for American's to be nuked.  Cuz they're so compassionate or something.

Once he "solved" the problem of how to link the big conventional bomb with nuclear war, everything else was relatively simple, and he could indulge his fantasy about Trump supporters dying in a nuclear war.

In his now-deleted piece (archived here, and first reported by Free Beacon), Cali speculated on whether President Trump personally profited from the use of the MOAB, and wailed that the President’s actions were enough to provoke North Korea into starting a nuclear war.

Cali was worried because he was sure the place where he lives is a higher-priority target "than some s***hole town in Nebraska.” 

Cali vehemently disagreed with liberals who call for compassion towards the working-class voters who support Trump, claiming
They want you to know how much they hate immigrants and Blacks and Jews and gays and women and trans people in public bathrooms.  The ones who actually deserve to have a nuke dropped on them first are the ones who voted to get us all into this mess. Honestly, the human species will be better off without them. It’s practically Darwinian.       --liberal "artist" Chris Cali, in the Huffington Post
These are the people who are trying to destroy the elected president of the United States.  Their hate is consuming, overwhelming, white-hot, so they project it onto others.  They lie that Trump supporters "hate immigrants"--cunningly omitting the fact that it's opposition to illegal immigration that fires up ordinary Americans.

But do go on, liberals:  Keep telling hard-working Americans who live outside your liberal paradises that they're evil, hateful, deserve to be nuked.  Cuz that worked so well for you in the last election.

the author of the article

More Venezuela

Venezuela:  mass riots since the first of April.  Lying liberal shill Rachael Madcow and her producers at MSNBC claim the riots are due to the fact that Venezuela's state oil company donated a big chunk of cash to Trump's inauguration.  Intelligent people know that's utter crap, and that the people are rioting to protest a) no food; b) 700 percent annual inflation; and c) the socialist regime having removed all authority from the elected national legislature.


How can a country possibly run short of food?  Well that's what happens when the socialist regime issues a decree that businesses that sell food must sell at cost--or less.  You can see the result in the next photo:


The socialist president, Maduro, blames the food shortage on "U.S. price speculation."  Oh, certainly.  He doesn't bother explaining how this actually happens, because there's no need:  His ardent followers believe it, because they've heard that repeatedly for decades.  Never the fault of horribly stupid socialist policies, of course.  Perish the thought!

Of course you think it can't happen here--the Democrats have repeatedly, constantly assured you that socialism is faaabulous, and will work beautifully if only the right people are in charge.

Uh...no.

A lesson here--for those who would learn from it

What follows is a tale of how stupid our "leaders" have gotten.

A bank robber was convicted in 2008 of robbing eight banks and was sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.

Because of people demanding that we treat criminals leniently, he was released in August 2011 after serving less than 3 years of his nominal sentence.

Less than a year later he started robbing banks again.  By mid-2016 he'd robbed 11, grabbing almost half a million bucks.  He was finally arrested Thursday.

So what can we learn from this story?  First, that far too often, criminals return to a life of crime.  And it doesn't take a PhD to deduce the reason:  It works for 'em.  Lots of money, plus they're sticking a thumb in the eye of the system.

How often does this happen?  Lots--three days ago in Paris a Muslim who'd shot cops in 2002, was sentenced and then released, shot another--this time fatally--on the most prestigious street in the city.

It comes down to a choice:  Our bleeding-heart "elites" can keep demanding that we release known criminals early, with exactly predictable consequences; or we can keep convicted bad guys in prison for their full terms--which at least reduces the time available to 'em to kill or steal again.

Of course the elites live in gated communities with guards, so never suffer from the depredations of the people they demand be released early, so the chances of anything changing are zero.

Friday, April 21

MSNBC's Maddow lies that the riots ("unrest") in Venezuela are because of state oil company's donation to Trump inauguration!

Remember the NY Times and NBC and CBS and MSNBC all warning you repeatedly to beware of "fake news"?  The inference is that you must trust *them*, but you can't believe what you read or see from other sources.  Like videos of the Berkeley riots, that sort of thing.

Example:
   Venezuela has been having huge protests for days, triggered by the ghastly policies of the socialist regime.  There hasn't been enough food in shops for a couple of years because the government demands that the folks that make food sell at cost or less.

So they're rioting.  But the riots have NOTHING to do with Donald Trump.

And sure enough, last night on her nightly bullshit show, ultra-liberal Rachel Maddow was talking about a report that Venezuela's state-owned oil company donated $500,000 to Trump's inauguration--which is apparently true.   But when Maddow showed video clips of the riots in Venezuela, the huge graphic at the bottom said the people were rioting because of the donation to the inauguration!

In other words, the riots were indirectly about Trump.

Of course you can't believe a "major" television network could lie so effing blatantly about something so easily researched.  But you'd be wrong.  What your guess overlooks is that people who watch Maddow almost certainly doesn't know jack about the world.  When Maddow reports--and the graphic confirms--that the huge riots in Venezuela were caused by the donation to Trump's inauguration, most of her viewers would simply assume she was telling the truth.  But of course the truth is that they're rioting because of shitty socialist mis-rule.

Of course Maddow can't admit the real reason--that socialism doesn't work--cuz, Democrats.  Here are a couple of screencaps:



If you're still skeptical, take a look at the video and see for yourself.

So remember, citizen:  Beware of that fake news--from the professional liberal propagandists at every mainstream-media outlet! 

Venezuela: Have the starving people finally had enough of socialism?

Socialism--the Democratic party loves it!  "Free" health care, subsidized food, lots of "free" welfare for those who either can't or won't work.  Sounds wonderful, right?

But virtually every socialist government eventually runs into the same problem:  As Margaret Thatcher said, "The only problem with socialism is sooner or later they run out of other peoples' money."  And of course corruption is always a problem, because socialist governments end up ruling with an iron fist and the corrupt pols are never punished.

Sorta like here, where the CIA leaks from the top in an effort to overthrow Trump.  Oh well...

Venezuelan pol Hugo Chavez knew that if he promised the people "free" health care, ten-cent-per-gallon gasoline, food at artificially-low prices due to government subsidies, and free college, they'd elect him president.

He was right.

So how is it that now, 19 years after he took power--at a time when Venezuela had the highest per-capita income in all of Latin America--Venezuelans are starving?


The list of incredibly dumb rules and policies ordered by the government is a very long one.  If you wanted to utterly destroy a once-thriving economy you couldn't do it faster than Venezuela's socialist rulers have.

How can a country with the world's largest oil reserves be poor?

If you're not familiar with the oil business you have no idea of the magnitudes of the numbers.  When Chavez was elected, Venezuela produced about 4 million barrels of oil every day--most of which was exported.  And in Venezuela the government owns it all.  At $50 per barrel, exporting 3.5 million barrels per day would bring the government $175 million every day.

That's five Billion dollars every month.  Nice.


Today the country's oil production has fallen to 2.5 million barrels a day.  Still a huge revenue stream, but a lot less than before.  Even so, oil still accounts for about half of the country's revenue.

When world oil prices plummeted from $115 a barrel in 2014 to nearly half that--due almost entirely to a huge INcrease in U.S. production due to innovative drilling techniques developed by private industry--the government saw a huge drop in revenue.  A prudent leader would have cut spending and taken every possible step to encourage economic activity.  But socialists don't worry about where they'll get necessary money--it's up to the people to pay whatever they demand.  So Chavez and company kept showering "free" things on the population to keep winning elections.

Great for Chavez and his family, not great for the country.

The huge drop in oil production is due mainly to Chavez's thirst for revenge: in 2002, after a coup failed to remove Chavez from power, experienced employees of Venezuela's state-run oil company staged a strike.  Chavez retaliated by firing 18,000 of them. 

Like all socialists, it never occurred to him that oil doesn't just jump out of the ground and into a pipeline.  It takes a LOT of skill--and experiencce--to keep wells producing.  And in fact most Venezuelan oil is "heavy"--thick--so it has to be coaxed out of the ground by heating it with steam.  The replacement workers--many of them political supporters of Chavez--didn't have the skills, and the result was predictable. 

But the mismanagement was just beginning.  As revenue declined, the first thing Chavez cut from the budget was replacement parts for the wells and pumps.  After all, pumps couldn't vote, so....

Wanting more cash, Chavez began "nationalizing"--i.e. seizing--the properties of foreign oil companies in Venezuela.  Without cutting-edge technology from foreign companies, production dropped further.

When Chavez died, his vice-president--the stupid, cunning and charmless Nicholas Maduro--took over, intent on keeping all the socialist policies of his mentor.  Faced with lower oil revenue and unwilling to cut the "freebies" that kept them in power, he ordered government agencies to delay payments to foreign vendors.

Among the companies he stalled was the Russian state-owned shipping conglomerate Sovcomflot, which provides 15 percent of Venezuela's oil transportation.  When the unpaid bills reached $30 million, the Russian company refused to release a tanker carrying Venezuelan oil until the bill was paid.
  
Why are Venezuela's troubles relevant to us?  Simple: the relentless propagandizing of young Americans by public schools, universities, Hollywood and the Democrat party has made young people think socialism is great, and prompted a dislike of free markets.  When Bernie Sanders says "I will make college free to everyone--an idea now being echoed even by so-called "mainstream" Dems like NY governor Andrew Cuomo--and when Dems call for the government to forgive all student loans, the people who would benefit are 100 percent in favor.

How can those of us who see the real outcome of these policies reverse this disastrous trend? 

One possible avenue is to ensure that the disastrous results of socialist policies in countries like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and others are thoroughly known by young Americans.

And stop voting for pols who push socialism--regardless of their political party.

Thursday, April 20

Venezuela seizes GM plant, eliminating thousands of pesky "jobs" created by eeevil capitalism

Yesterday a court appointed by the socialist government of Venezuela seized a General Motors plant in Valencia, Venezuela.

The company said that after the seizure its bank accounts were "out of its control," meaning it couldn't pay workers or suppliers.

GM has been operating in Venezuela for almost 70 years, providing great jobs at top wages. You'd think keeping good-paying jobs would be a goal of virtually any government. But when a socialist government runs out of money it starts grabbing any source of funds it can find to keep its unsustainable Ponzi scheme going a week or two longer.

And of course half the people love it when Dear Leader clobbers "greedy Yankee capitalists."

Sorta like here.

Do ya think U.S. leftist feel any sympathy for the workers whose jobs just vanished? Oh, certainly. Really. Because leftists keep saying they care so much about the ordinary working stiff. Oh, wait....that's just lipservice. What the left wants are all-powerful socialist governments, working in glorious solidarity with other socialist regimes to ensure that "all power goes to the people!"

Uh...no.

To be sure, the socialist government (via the thug-controlled court) will have some superficially-plausible excuse for the seizure: They'll say the company violated Rule 3723.147/d/4 by charging more than the government-set price for cars or some such.

Sorta like here, where during Obama's reign a guy was fined for catching rainwater running off his own roof and (gasp!) having the gall and greed to actually use it.

Record number of "migrants" arrived in Italy last weekend--with the help of big, fast boats run by western NGOs


Last weekend a record 8,300 "migrants" arrived by boat to Italy--the most in a single day.

The reason for the record numbers is that the longest leg of the "people-smuggling" voyage--which was formerly done by shady criminals--is now being done by dozens of European liberal organizations--"NGO's." 

Seriously.  Instead of the smugglers having to make the 250-mile voyage in their own boats, the smugglers simply ferry the "migrants" from Libya a few miles offshore, where they're transferred to larger, faster boats run by the NGO's.  This allows a single thug-boat to make several round-trips per day to feed the waiting NGO boats, maximizing revenue for the smugglers.  And the smugglers have far lower fuel bills!

Hey, win-win, eh?

Well, except for the working-stiffs in Europe, who end up carrying the welfare load of 100,000 new, unskilled, unassimilated, unvetted immigrants this year.

Officials say the comfortable shuttle service offered from just off the Libyan coast all the way to Italian ports has led many migrants to attempt the crossing who might not have done so otherwise.

Immigrant arrivals in Italy are 30 percent higher in the first quarter of 2017 than in the same period in 2016--which also set a record. 

Last fall the Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi cautioned that Italy would not survive another year of mass immigration like 2016--yet the pols have done nothing to stop the wave.

Last month the European agency in charge of border control, accused the NGO's of material complicity with human traffickers by lowering their costs.
So let's ask liberals:  When do you think people from countries with crappy standards of living will stop wanting to come to Europe and the U.S.?  When do you think the flood will stop?

Either you haven't thought about that, or you're happy with the result--which is unlimited open borders.

Some of you have already declared you're fine with that.  In fact, many liberals, Democrats and "progs" have demanded open borders.  Do you think that will improve the quality of life here? 

Do you think the flood has improved life in, oh, Sweden, France, Germany and the U.K.?

Do you think you're so much smarter than their libs that you'll be able to engineer a different result here in the U.S.?

Have you given even a moment's thought to this crucial question, or are you just unquestioningly demonstrating your wonderful virtue to your fellow liberals--showing your moral superiority compared to those you consider unenlightened?

Have you put ads on Craigslist offering rooms in your own home to house Syrian or Somali "migrants"?  Do your kids go to inner-city schools, or suburban or private ones?

Seriously, if you've worked out a solution for the problems Europe has been suffering because of unlimited immigration--problems we're beginning to see here in the U.S.--then by all means tell us your brilliant solution.  If you don't have a platform, tTell Elizabeth Warren, or the faaabulous Tom Perez (DNC chair), the details and let them explain to the rest of us.

We're willing to listen to your brilliant solution.  But we're getting damned tired of your repeatedly bleating that our side "hates immigrants" or is xenophobic or whatever.  It's the "illegal" part.

But you really know that, right?

Wednesday, April 19

Professor who called for Trump to be hanged doubles-down on his comments

Recently a history prof at Fresno State professor tweeted “Trump must hang, the sooner and higher the better.” 

Really, not kidding--many, many leftists have openly called for the president's assassination.

Do you recall hearing anyone calling for Obama to be assassinated?  I don't.  But now, with a (nominal) Republican president, the normal rules of civil behavior don't apply--to leftists, at least.

Far too many professors are leftists--drawing a state salary and indoctrinating your kids.  Wow.

Once Lars Maischak's tweets were noticed, he deleted 'em--and had the gall to tell a local TV station “I can assure you that I do not condone or advocate for murder or violence."  “From the context of the entirety of my tweets, this should be evident to anyone reading them in good faith (as opposed to malicious intent).”


Wait, asshole:  Your own twitter account showed that you wrote “To save American democracy, Trump must hang. The sooner and the higher, the better.”  And “Has anyone started soliciting money and design drafts for a monument honoring the Trump assassin yet?”

Here's how this lying piece of crap "explained" his denial:
Based on my conviction that a majority of Americans are committed to democracy, it therefore follows that ‘Trump must hang’ (the partial text of one of my most-quoted tweets), with the word ‘must’ expressing a logical necessity, rather than a demand or wish.  --professor Lars Maischak, Fresno State University
So to this guy the word "must" doesn't constitute a wish or demand?  Wow, that's nuts.  Wonder how a jury would respond to that?

The professor also had tweeted that “justice = The execution of two Republicans for each deported immigrant.”

Hey asshole, you left out the key word "illegal."  But of course that was your intent, eh?  Cuz your kind routinely lies to make people think folks wanting actual borders are xenophobes.

He added that deporting illegal aliens is "akin to ethnic cleansing.” Really, he said that.

Does anyone think this professor and his communist/Democrat allies will ever stop wanting to kill the president and Republicans?  I don't think that's bloody likely.

Unless conservative Americans surrender, does anyone see this ending in other than Civil war?

Tuesday, April 18

Students demand the right to ban speakers--claim free speech is "a tool appropriated by hegemonic institutions"

If you think radical black students can be reasoned with, you may want to consider an open letter--signed by 30 black students at Pomona College--to the president of that college.  The letter attacked the president for affirming Pomona’s commitment to free speech, and demand that all five colleges in the group “take legal action” against conservative journalists on the college newspaper.

The students wrote in response to an email from the president supporting “the exercise of free speech and academic freedom” after student protests that shut down a scheduled appearance by an invited speaker, scholar and critic of Black Lives Matter.
“Protest has a legitimate and celebrated place on college campuses,” the president's email said. “What we cannot support is the act of preventing others from engaging with an invited speaker. Our mission is founded on the discovery of truth."

The letter-writing students sharply disagreed.  “Free speech...has recently become a tool appropriated by hegemonic institutions. It has not just empowered students from marginalized backgrounds to voice their qualms and criticize aspects of the institution, but it has given those who seek to perpetuate systems of domination a platform to project their bigotry,” they wrote.

Astonishingly, the students' letter contended that free speech didn't help "the discovery of truth.”  In fact the students claimed truth was not only a “myth” but also a white supremacist concept.

“Historically, white supremacy has venerated the idea of objectivity.... This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny. The idea that the truth is an entity for which we must search, in matters that endanger our abilities to exist in open spaces, is an attempt to silence oppressed peoples.”

Referring to the protests that prevented Mac Donald's invited speech, the open letter claimed that allowing Mac Donald to speak would have amounted to a debate not “on mere difference of opinion, but [on] the right of Black people to exist.”

The open letter concludes by demanding that Oxtoby apologize for his April 7 email and instead announce that the college “does not tolerate hate speech and speech that projects violence onto the bodies of its marginalized students and oppressed peoples.”

The letter also demanded that the Claremont Colleges “take action” against the staff of the Claremont Independent for their “continual perpetuation of hate speech, anti-Blackness, and intimidation toward students of marginalized backgrounds.”  They demanded “disciplinary action” against conservative journalists from the Claremont Colleges.

“We demand that this institution and its constituents take legal action against members of the Claremont Independent involved with the editing and publication process, as well as disciplinary action, such as expulsion on the grounds of endangering the wellbeing of others.”

So...let's review:  These people believe they have the right to a) bar anyone they don't like from speaking in public; b) to demand an apology from the university president for writing an email supporting free speech and its use in "discovering truth;" c) to demand the expulsion of students who release the names of the students who made the demands.

Do these demands sound reasonable?  Do the people who made them sound in any way rational or reasonable? 

Do you think they can be reasoned with?

These are the folks who get absolutely crazy with rage if someone says "All lives matter."  Seriously.

At this point it seems to me that unless we're willing to give up the right of free speech, these demands--and the crazed anger behind them--can only be settled by civil war.

Notes from last Saturday's clash in Berkely between thugs demanding an end to free speech, and Americans defending it

Unless you're a real fan of the war between leftist thugs and freedom-loving Americans you probably didn't hear much about the brawl in Berkeley last Saturday:  Supporters of free speech held a rally, and predictably, hundreds of black-masked thugs amusingly calling themselves "Antifa"--supposedly "anti-fascist" but in reality exactly like Hitler's brown-shirt fascists themselves--showed up to fight.

Their goal was to break up the free-speech rally, and they were armed with six-foot poles which they used to bash heads.

The Berkeley cops had issued oooh-so-stern letters warning people that weapons--including clubs or two-by-fours--would result in the arrest of anyone carrying 'em.   But when the shit started up, the cops ran away.  Literally, they hid in their squad cars and did nothing.

The cops set up orange plastic fencing to keep the groups apart.  Antifa thugs promptly pushed the fence down and marched over it.

The cops did...nothing.  Just as they did nothing when a conservative speaker tried to give an invited speech at the university a month ago.

And of course Antifa leaders knew this.  They knew the cops wouldn't lift a finger to arrest them for bashing heads with poles, for throwing M-80's and bricks (you see that in the videos), because the university administrators and the mayor and police chief of Berkeley all support the Antifa thugs and their ability to overpower conservatives.

And sure enough, in the first hour or so, Antifa thugs were able to surround single free-speech supporters and beat them bloody.  The cops watched but didn't arrest any Antifa, of course.  So predictable.

But then...something amazing happened:  Watch the videos at the links below and see for yourself.  The free-speech folks started to form up and fight back.  Slowly, the thugs began to realize that for the first time in ANY of their attacks on conservatives, they were outnumbered.  So...after a few got caught and beaten, they ran away.

The video clips are amazing--and inspiring.

With few exceptions the Lying Mainstream Media reported the clash as a "riot by Trump supporters," totally inverting the facts.  (Antifa crashed the permit-issued free-speech rally armed with weapons.) And the Lying Media ALL ignored the stunning fact that after the thugs beat as many lone patriots as they could, the true Americans rallied and chased the leftist thugs out of the area.


As should be obvious, our nation is at a crucial crossroads:  the Left and their enablers in the universities, the media and congress want to rule everyone in this nation.  The want to ban--to literally criminalize--any speech they don't like.  They start by calling it "hate speech" but then pass laws against it--as has already happened in Europe, the UK and Canada.  This ban would also extend to printing articles the Left doesn't like, or posting such articles on the internet.

The Left wants open borders, in which anyone in the world who wanted to enter the U.S. would be free to do so.  They want amnesty and full citizenship for all illegal aliens here now.

If you oppose any of these things, the Left will try to silence you--either through having universities pass "anti-hate-speech" rules or by physically assaulting you.

And frighteningly, half the public--judging from voting results--seems to be okay with this.

The majority of Americans ignored the rapacious, rapid erosion of the Constitution under the Obama regime.  Aided by leftist judges in federal courts, and congresswhores whose main interest seems to be re-election for life, and enriching themselves, "normal" Americans haven't had much reason for optimism.

Through their organizations and their actions over the past 8 years, Obama and Soros have been signaling illegal aliens that this is really their country, and that they just need to rise up and take it.  University professors have echoed this claim, and the same goal, and have demonized anyone who opposes it--as with the professor at Fresno State who tweeted "Trump must hang--the higher and sooner the better."

The clash at Berkeley was the first sign that there may be hope that the Left might possibly be defeated in their efforts to take over.  But they won't stop trying.  Once someone has embraced the seductive ideas of socialism it's rare to change.  I suspect this fight will continue for decades.

Links to videos: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqFVXZsdl_A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIKZ_E0QvYA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbmjFD4KBjc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLrb8fxzvYY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcTgJrxzkoE

Monday, April 17

Supporters of open borders claim ICE arresting illegal aliens at the courthouse violates their constitutional rights. Seriously??

Suppose a group in the U.S. with a huge financial interest in, say, maximizing the profits of drug cartels held a press conference to say
If our drug-smugglers go to the courthouse to respond to some legal matter, the cops sometimes arrest 'em.  It's totes UNFAIR for the cops to do that, beccause EVERYONE in the U.S. has the right to, uh, 'petition the government for redress of grievances.
Most Americans would just laugh:  You broke the law but you're whining that it's unfair for the cops to arrest you if you happen to show up at the courthouse for some reason?  Drop dead, whiner.

But that's the reasoning pro-open-borders folks have used to rouse public opinion against the Trump administration.  On a conference call last week an organization calling itself "America's Voice Education Fund" asked open-borders folks to sound off about the recent actions of ICE officers under the Trump administration. 

It might help to know that stated mission of the America’s Voice Education Fund is to push to guarantee “full labor, civil and political rights for immigrants and their families.”  Sounds very noble until you realize when they say "immigrants" they include illegal aliens.  "Full civil and political rights" means citizenship.
Typical was the comment of Joanne Lin, senior immigration policy counsel at ACLU: “The First Amendment... extends to everyone in United States, including immigrants…[and includes] the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Certainly, Joanne, but why do you believe that should bar the government from apprehending a criminal at the courthouse?  One could as reasonably claim that since we can't deny people the right to eat, cops couldn't nab a lawbreaker while he or she was shopping for groceries.  Lin's argument is designed to make low-information voters think the administration is somehow violating the constitutional rights of illegals.

Lin added “We’re hearing from advocates on the call right now that you can be an undocumented woman [she means "illegal alien" of course, but that would expose the absurdity of her argument, so...] who's  seeking a restraining order or child support,” she added. “The state courts are open to you and they should be open to you and your children in order to protect your lives."

And those courts are open.  But again, does that give illegals immunity from arrest?  If one extends immunity from arrest to this venue, you could as easily argue that the immunity would extend to all normal activities.

Which, of course, is just fine with the illegals and their supporters.


Anti-Trump demonstrators: "Drive out Trump/Pence regime!"

Over the weekend a bunch of asshole communist/socialist members of the Democrat party held demonstrations against the president.  Here's a pic of one:


Notice the signs:  All but a handful are commercially-printed.  Meaning they were done by one central organization and simply handed out to the demonstrators.  Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it shows how centrally-organized and funded this crap is.

Now look at the message on the center one: "Drive out Trump/Pence regime!"   Did you ever see anyone in any of the photos of Tea Party rallies saying "Drive out the Obama regime!"? 

No?  And if there'd been a single one you know the Lying Media would have run it on the front page or led the evening news with breathless, OMG-video footage.  But you still didn't see it.  Hmmm....

"Drive out...."  Not "Vote Democrat in future elections" but "Drive out..."

These people are inviting war.  I doubt they realize that, because I've never met a single one who bothers trying to reason through the consequences of their actions.  Like pushing for open borders, for instance.  Or amnesty for twenty-million illegals now in the U.S.

Or electing a socialist who sealed his college records, passport and travel records and birth certificate (until he decided to get his IT munchkins to create a screamingly bad pdf fake--which they put on the internet but refused to let any critics examine.  Gee, wonder why?

Sunday, April 16

Nevada installs machines to give heroin addicts free syringes

As you may have heard, heroin use among young Americans has more than doubled over the past decade.  And between 2002 and 2013 heroin overdose deaths quadrupled.  So...crisis.  Everyone in the "disease" biz looking for a solution, right?

So here's how NBC reported the latest idea:  let's give heroin addicts free "works"--that would be syringes and even rubber tourniquets to find a nice fat vein to inject.  Very thoughtful.  Very...enabling.

Now, most people have heard that when junkies need a fix and don't have a needle, they share.  And that sharing needles spreads HIV and hepatitis.  So giving free needles to addicts is indeed likely to reduce the number of people getting AIDS.  Can't argue with that.  What I have a problem with is how NBC repeats the soothing propaganda that the program is "a new approach to combat rising heroin...rates."

It's not anything of the sort, of course.  In fact giving heroin addicts needles does nothing to reduce the number of heroin addicts.  But the clear implication of NBC's headline--"Heroin crisis"--implies that what follows is at least a partial solution to that crisis, when nothing of the sort is true.

Heroin Crisis: Nevada Becomes First State to Install Syringe Vending Machines

Las Vegas is betting on a new approach to combat rising heroin and HIV rates: vending machines of clean needles.

But the syringe exchange vending machines, a first in the United States, aren't open to just anyone walking by. They are accessible to clients of Trac-B Exchange, a program run by the "Las Vegas Harm Reduction Center."

And the machines don't take money. Instead, drug users scan a card and enter a unique ID number in order to vend one of the colorfully gift-wrapped boxes inside.

[A program manager said] "People are already [engaging] in these behaviors, and anytime someone's engaging in a behavior that could cause them some potential health side effects, we want to encourage them to reduce their risk of harm." 
Of course by giving them free "works" we'll encourage them to keep using heroin, because we don't want to criticize personal choices.  Might hurt our "clients" feelings.

For harm reduction workers, though, needle exchange is about a lot more than just lowering disease rates.

"It's a philosophy of service at the front end, and adjusting the way we look at drug users," said Liz Evans, the Executive Director at New York Harm Reduction Educators. "Too often we fail to see drug users as human beings, and they become defined by that and get called all these names like junkies and addicts. It becomes harder as a society to respond to them with kindness."
"A philosophy of service at the front end," eh?  Sounds great.  How 'bout if we give 'em free heroin too?  That would reduce the number of times addicts would have to rob people or steal stuff to get money for drugs.  And why not give 'em a nice comfy place to shoot up?  With taxpayer-funded medical staff on-site for the occasional overdose.  After all, we're all about "a philosophy of service."

In 2014, a harm-reduction group installed crack pipe vending machines in Vancouver, Canada.  And the same city opened a comfortable, taxpayer-funded injection site with medical staff.  If libs in Canada can get this done, why not here too?




Saturday, April 15

Last Thursday the former "communications director" for both Obama and Hilliary--Jennifer Palmieri--gave a talk at Yale about the 2016 election.  Among the gems was this one:
When I started the Clinton campaign, I thought I was a great person to do the campaign. That’s why I left the Obama White House: I have a lot of crisis experience, I can manage a story well and direct a narrative a certain way.  --Palmieri
Ah, yes:  "Manage" a story.  Please elaborate.  Would that be anything like telling the papers and networks what to print or broadcast, and what not to?  As your friend Ben Rhodes--Obama's hand-picked deputy national security advisor--famously said, when they wanted something printed they'd turn to their stable of sycophant "journalists" and...bingo.

But Palmieri wasn't finished.  To further signal her great devotion to the Democrat party she dismissed a) the initially non-working Obamacare website; b) the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and c) "the horrible ISIS beheadings" as "manufactured press stories"!
There were the obvious crazy things happening like the website melting down, Ukraine, and the horrible ISIS beheadings; these sort of manufactured press stories that hopefully you all have forgotten about.
Ah, yes, I see:  According to Clinton's communication director the stories of ISIS beheading prisoners was "manufactured."  Yes, I see why Hilliary hired her.  Very astute.  Good at "managing a story well and directing a narrative a certain way."

Kinda like "fake news."

I suspect it's crap like this that caused so many voters to either sit home or vote for anyone but Hilliary.
 


 

Doc in Michigan charged with performing FGM on girls as young as 7; Washington Post deliberately doesn't identify the group that does that

If you pay any attention to current events you've probably heard about "fake news."

According to Democrats and the liberal media (Washington Post, NY Times, all TV networks) fake news is anything published on the internet or said on any talk-radio show.  To the lib media, if they didn't print or say it, you don't need to know it.  And by inference, you are to take anything they do say or print as "truth."

Okay, let's see how that works:  two days ago a female doctor in Michigan was charged with performing "female genital mutilation" on girls as young as 7 years old.  FGM is a ghastly procedure forced on young girls by Muslim parents to remove pleasure from sex.  Muslims think this is necessary because they don't think girls should enjoy sex, or...something.

So how did the flagship liberal paper--the WaPo--spin this in their "report" of the event?  They avoided even mentioning the word "Muslim"!   Even when the Post noted that the press release by the DOJ on the indictment said "members of a particular religious community are known to use the procedure," the Post didn't see fit to tell you what everyone in the Detroit area knew:  that the doctor and all the victims were Muslim.  Here's how the Post dodged:
According to the complaint against Nagarwala, members of a particular religious and cultural community are known to use the procedure — which some see as a way to curb sexuality in girls. The complaint did not identify the community but said Nagarwala was a part of it.
So if you were a young American looking for information about, oh, barbaric mutilation of young Muslim girls forced on them by their Muslim parents, you wouldn't know jack from reading the Post.

So if the Post won't tell you the facts of this case, what in the world leads you to foolishly believe they'd tell you the truth about anything that the thought might harm their Narrative ("Dems and progressives good; conservatives and Trump and bloggers and the internet bad")?

I wish that just once some "real" journalist--say Tucker Carlson--would invite a reporter from the Post to appear on his show and ask 'em why they routinely avoid calling out Islam for the ghastly things devout Muslims feel they're ordered to do by their "religion."

Friday, April 14

HuffPost writer: We need to ban white males from voting for, oh, 20 years or so. And she's serious.

The Huffington Post is a cesspool of socialist idiots.  They're the type of people who think food comes from the grocery store and electricity comes from a socket in the wall.  They believe if the West disarms unilaterally, all will be well because no communist or socialist nation would ever get territorial ambitions or use force to get what it wants.

Of course you think this is way too harsh, and that the ultra-Left, self-proclaimed "liberals" at HuffPo are actually nice people who just support a different candidate and party.

Okay, let's turn to the tape:  Here's an article in HuffPo's South African rag, in which the author suggests that all that's needed for so-called "progressives" to fix things is a trivial fix:  she urges barring white males from voting for a short period--which the author starts at 20 years but later widens to "between 20 and 30 years."

Now, liberals and Dems and social justice warriors and feminists may well counter that because this article was posted in the rag's South Africa edition it's unfair to ascribe the same views to the American staff.  This is horse-shit:  The article got the endorsement of the editors of the SA website, and who do you think hired those worthless wastes of oxygen?

Why, that would be the owners of the parent (American) version of the rag.  Think they would have hired women who disagreed with the owners?  Not damn likely.

So as you read this, keep in mind that a) this is how these people really think; b) this is what they really want to do; c) they won't spontaneously stop seeking that end unless forced to see the error of their ways.

Now I'll admit, a lot of men are worthless pieces of shit who should be shot as soon as possible:  the socialist president of Venezuela, for example.  That fat dictator dictator of North Korea who's been starving a few million of his fellow citizens for years.  That charmless goblin who claims to be the head of ISIS.  Hell, every ISIS thug who's played any part in beheading or drowning or burning caged prisoners.  But to suggest that all problems are generically caused by white males is nuts.

Anyway, the article:

Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men.

If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa's biggest cities. [see end-notes]

If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened.  It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world. 
Wait...this implies the gal thinks "neo-liberal" is bad?  I thought they pushed that liberal was good.  Sounds like she's referring to liberals who aren't revolutionary enough.
The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.

At the same time, denying white men the vote could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners.
And who does she think determines the "rightful owners"?  Why, anyone who sits on their ass and demands that the gruberment give 'em stuff they want but can't pay for.
After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce capitalism. 
Getting a message that the author hates capitalism.  What a surprise!
Twenty years without white men in the world's parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world's wealth far more equitably shared. The violence of white male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.

This redistribution of the world's wealth is long overdue, and it is not just South Africa where white males own a disproportionate amount of wealth. While in South Africa 90 percent of the country's land is in the hands of whites (it is safe to assume mainly men), along with 97 percent of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, this is also the norm in the rest of the world.

In the United States ten percent of the population (nearly all white) own 90 percent of all assets – and it's likely most of these assets are owned by males. Although statistics by race are difficult to find from other parts of the world, it is very likely that the majority of the world's assets are in the hands of white males, despite them making up less than 10 percent of the world's population.

It is obvious that this violent status quo will not change without a struggle, and the only way to do so will be through the expropriation of these various assets and equitably distribute them to those who need them. This will not only make the world a more equitable place, but will also go some way to paying the debt that white males owe the world.

Over the past 500 years colonialism, slavery, and various aggressive wars and genocides, have been due to the actions of white men. Redistributing some of their assets will go some way to paying the historical debt that they owe society.
*I* don't owe you--or your snowflakes--a fucking thing, bitch. 
 It is no surprise that liberalism – and its ideological offshoots of conservatism and libertarianism – are the most popular ideologies among white males. These ideologies with their focus on individuals and individual responsibility, rather than group affiliation, allow white men to ignore the debt that they owe society, and from acknowledging that most of their assets, wealth, and privilege are the result of theft and violence.

Some may argue that this is unfair. Let's be clear, it may be unfair, but a moratorium on the franchise for white males for a period of between 20 and 30 years is a small price to pay for the pain inflicted by white males on others, particularly those with black, female-identifying bodies. In addition, white men should not be stripped of their other rights, and this withholding of the franchise should only be a temporary measure, as the world rights the wrongs of the past.

A withholding of the franchise from white males, along with the passing of legislation in this period to redistribute some of their assets, will also, to a degree, act as the reparations for slavery, colonialism, and apartheid, which the world is crying out for to be paid.

White males still believe that they are in control, and people who aren't white or male (particularly black female-identifying people) have to bow to their every whim. There are numerous other examples of white angry male violence in South Africa and abroad, often against black bodies (Dylann Roof's terrorist actions in the United States is only one of many examples). It is time to wrestle control of the world back from white males, and the first step will be a temporary restriction of the franchise to them.

Although this may seem unfair and unjust, allowing white males to continue to call the shots politically and economically, following their actions over the past 500 years, is the greater injustice.
==
To put this piece of absurdity into context you need to know that 20 years ago a coalition of western nations and virtue-signalling liberals forced the government of South Africa--once a world-class nation-- to hand the keys over to the communist "ANC."  The latter has ruled ever since, but with so much corruption and mismanagement that everything's turned to shit.

That's what her reference to the Democratic Alliance running the nation's four largest cities is:  The DA is the main opposition to the thoroughly corrupt ANC, which is becoming more and more desperate in its determination to retain total control of the government.

One of the tools the ANC wants to use to keep control is to confiscate land owned by white farmers and "redistribute" it to blacks.  They've been doing this for 20 years, but because the top thugs of the ANC have stolen so much cash, they don't have enough to buy land at a fast rate.  So the head thug has proposed to simply confiscate the land without paying the owners anything.  This is called "stealing" but in the communist dictionary it's perfectly legal.

So in pushing "redistribution" the author is shilling for the communists.

Finally:  imagine the howls of outrage if a conservative outfit had written "What's needed is to ban women and blacks from voting for, oh, say 20 years."  Liberals would be screaming their damn heads off.  But hey, two parties, two sets of standards.  And safe spaces for snowflakes.

Harvard law prof tweets that death of NY black female judge was murder by either a racist, Islamophobe or misogynist. Wait...

In Chitcago a couple of days ago a black judge was killed by a black robber.  Then a day later a black female judge in New Yawk City was found dead in the Hudson River.

After the second incident, Harvard Law professor and rabid Trump-hater Laurence Tribe did what we expect leftist conspiracy-mongers to do:  Suggested she was murdered, either by a racist, an Islamophobe or a misogynist.
Apr 12
Laurence Tribe Retweeted New York Law Journal
  She was a remarkable woman and a promising judge. This smacks of a racist Islamophobic misogynistic murder. Comey needs to investigate
A day later it was found that the woman wasn't Muslim (she'd married a Muslim and changed her name to Muslim-sounding), was severely depressed and had lost both her mother and brother to suicide.  But did Tribe apologize for his bullshit incendiary comment?

Hahahahahaha!  He's a fucking communist, so not a chance in hell!
 
But hey, free speech, no harm, right?  Uh...no.  Watch the totally intended effect of Tribe's paranoid, anti-American idiocy as two useful idiots--footsoldiers for what seems to be a likely race war--jump on this idea:

Tariq Nasheed @tariqnasheed
They are now trying to claim the Black judge-Sheila Abdus-Salaam- who was found dead in the Hudson River, committed suicide. That's bulls**t pic.twitter.com/3kzTadhxhA
@tariqnasheed they lying two judges murdered in one week New York and Chicago judge shot dead. Both black, both prominent in the community.

Just FYI, Tribe is one of the leftist crowd who claims--literally--that Trump is not president.  Hard to see how he can seriously believe this after all the legal efforts by Dems to overturn the results, but that's what he claims.

This guy is totally deranged.  And he's typical of far too many of the people teaching your kids--at Hahvahd, no less.