Wednesday, May 31

How Trump's 11-year-old son reacted when he saw the pic of Kathy Griffin holding a prop of Trump's severed head

As many of you have heard, 11-year-old Barron Trump happened to see the infamous shock-pic when CNN broadcast it (for 16 seconds).  He immediately screamed for his mother.   An FBI bug captured the conversation:
Barron: "Mommmm!  Did you see that?  It was horrible!  I'll be having nightmares for the rest of my life!  How could anyone be so *cruel* to put something like that on television?!"
Melania: "You're right, honey, it was awful!   But what you saw wasn't real.  What she was holding was just a prop, not your dad's head."

Barron: "Wait...that *horrible, scary zombie* in the blue dress was holding up somebody's head?"

What do you really know about former FBI director James Comey?

What do you know about Comey, Trump and alleged Russian meddling or hacking before the election?

If you get your "news" from the mainstream media here's what you probably believe ("know"):

   1. The Russian government--or people acting on their orders--broke into the server at the Democrat National Committee, copied lots of emails, and gave 'em to Wikileaks, which resulted in a crucial few thousand morons voting for Trump instead of Hilliary; i.e. it cost her the election.
   2. Trump's key aides conspired with the Russian hackers.  You're not sure how, exactly, but every mainstream media outlet says so, so it must be true. 
   3. Trump fired Comey because the investigation--spearheaded by the honest, impartial FBI director was getting too close to discovering all the evidence.
   4. Comey worked his way up through the FBI and was admired and respected by FBI agents.

In reality, public records suggest James Comey has been a corrupt tool of the Democrats for decades--first for the Clintons, then for Obama, then for Hilliary.   He's been highly paid to provide cover for high-level corruption by the Clintons and Obama.  He is as dirty as they come. 

In the late 1990s Comey was an assistant US attorney.  The event that put him on the road to a fortune was his appointment by the DOJ to investigate former president Bill Clinton's pardon of billionaire criminal financier Marc Rich less than one day before Clinton left office.

Rich and his various companies failed to report hundreds of millions of dollars of income.  He was indicted on 65 criminal counts, including income tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and trading with Iran during the oil embargo (at a time when Iranian revolutionaries were still holding American citizens hostage). At the time it was the biggest tax-evasion case in U.S. history.

Learning of the plans for the indictment, Rich fled to Switzerland and never returned to the U.S. to answer the charges.  His companies eventually pleaded guilty to 35 counts of tax evasion and paid $90 million in fines.

On January 20, 2001, just hours before leaving the presidency, Bill Clinton pardoned Rich. 


Clinton's critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought, as Rich's wife had given more than $1 million to the Democratic Party, including over $100,000 to the Hilliary Clinton's senate campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton Library foundation.

Several of Clinton's strongest supporters criticized the move.  Former President and fellow Democrat Jimmy Carter said "I don't think there is any doubt that some of the factors in his pardon were attributable to his large gifts."  Carter called the circumstances of the pardon disgraceful.

The government named Mary Jo White to investigate the pardon, but White stepped down before the investigation was finished.  She was replaced by James Comey.

Rich's lawyer, Jack Quinn, had been Clinton's White House Counsel and chief of staff for Clinton's Vice President, Al Gore, and had had a close relationship with Eric Holder--who would later be named by Obama as attorney-general of the U.S.  According to Quinn, Holder had advised that standard procedures be bypassed and the pardon petition be submitted directly to the White House.

Congressional investigations were also launched. Clinton's top advisors, Chief of Staff John Podesta, White House Counsel Beth Nolan, and advisor Bruce Lindsey, testified that nearly all of the White House staff advising the president on the pardon request had urged Clinton not to pardon Rich. 

Comey cleared Clinton of any wrong-doing in the pardon.

For Clinton to pardon Rich after all his advisors said they didn't think it was reasonable makes one wonder what would move Clinton to disregard all those recommendations.  One obvious conclusion is that Rich or his companies gave money to Clinton to obtain the pardon.

Immediately after Comey cleared Bill Clinton, he resigned from the DOJ and took a position as the lead attorney for Lockheed Martin, a huge military contractor.  While he was in that position Lockheed became a major contributor (millions) to the Clinton Foundation and its various "charities." By coincidence, during this same period Lockheed received huge contracts from Hillary’s state department.

In late 2012 Comey stepped down from Lockheed.

In 2013, the largest bank of England, HSBC Holdings, was deep into a scandal. Investigations by federal authorities and law-enforcement had revealed that for years HSBC had been laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels, channeling money for Saudi banks who were financing terror, moving money for Iran in violation of the sanctions, and other major criminal activity. HSBC’s criminality was pervasive and deliberate.

While under investigation, HSBC gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, and paid Bill Clinton large fees for speaking at HSBC events.  Later Eric Holder--who'd been appointed by Obama as head of the Justice Department--negotiated a settlement with the bank for $1.2 Billion--which was of course paid by the company's stockholders.  Not one officer or director of the bank was fired or charged with any crime.

While the investigation was underway, the bank named James Comey to its board of directors.

After about a year as a member of the board, and despite having no experience in law enforcement and never having been in the FBI, Obama appointed Comey as the head of that agency.

This was about the time the Inspector General of the State Department found over $2 billion “missing” from the State Department finances during Hillary's tenure.

In late 2015 information began to come out about the Clinton Foundation and its use by the Clintons as a slush fund for corruption and political favors.  (For example, the Foundation paid for Chelsea’s wedding.)  It was revealed that the Foundation had never completed required reports or had an audit. Supposedly the FBI, under Comey, began an “investigation” of the Clinton foundation.

An accounting firm was brought in by the Clintons to do a review, file missing reports and make recommendations to the foundation's board.  By amazing coincidence, one of the partners in the accounting firm was the brother of FBI director Comey.

Over 2 years later, nothing has happened as a result of Comey's FBI “investigating” the Clinton Foundation.

Around this time non-government investigators discovered that Hillary had been conducting all state department business on a private, unsecured server in her home.  Since the state department routinely handled Top Secret cables, it seemed likely that some of this information had been sent to Hilliary's private email server.

This information started to come out in the middle of the 2016 presidential campaign. For anyone else, this would destroy the person's chances of winning the election, but Hilliary had far more tools than regular people.  What was needed was a mock investigation that would appear to look into the matter and clear her of any wrongdoing.  Who better to do that than the director of the FBI?

The FBI's so-called investigation violated every convention of that agency, from start to finish.  To begin with, Comey and his lackeys gave immunity to all of Hillary’s aides, even though they didn't provide any information.  The agency didn't use a single subpoena or warrant, didn't seize her server until her team had totally erased all data on it, failed to do any searches or seizures of evidence, did not use a grand-jury and--the kicker--didn't put a single witnesses under oath before interviewing them.

The FBI agents did not record any testimony.  Also, they allowed Hilliary's top aide at state--Cheryl Mills--to sit in on Hilliary's interview as well as those of other witnesses, which would enable all the witnesses to coordinate any lies.  Everything that could be done to botch the FBI investigation and to cover for Hillary was done. 

The FBI investigates, but the decision on whether a case merits prosecution normally rests with the attorney-general of the U.S.  But in another departure from normal practice, Obama's new A-G, Loretta Lynch announced that she would leave that decision to the director of the FBI. 

Testifying before a House committee, Comey declared that although Clinton broke the law on handling classified information, he found that she didn't do so intentionally.  Under very detailed questioning from members of the committee with experience as prosecutors and judges, Comey admitted that the statute in question didn't say anything about whether "intent" had to be shown for the statute to be violated.  He tap-danced around this point by saying "no prosecutor would bring such a case."

For all practical purposes Comey's clever testimony cleared Hillary.  While his decision could have been reversed by the Justice Department, with Obama as president this wasn't about to happen.

Hilliary's campaign had survived the scandal.

If Hillary had won, Comey would have kept right on providing cover for the corruption of the Clinton machine. He would have kept the FBI paralyzed, prevented the Clinton Fund from being investigated, and continued to do his job as the Clinton’s personal scandal eraser at the FBI.

But to the astonishment of virtually everybody, Hilliary lost the election.

So now it's time for "Plan B:"  force Trump out of office before his new attorney-general can build cases against all the Democrat lawbreakers.  As part of this effort, every day Dem agents in the CIA and NSA leaked supposedly-secret information about the surveillance of the Trump campaign to their media allies.  Obama lackey Susan Rice illegally demanded that the names of Americans captured in wiretaps of conversations be “unmasked,” then illegally leaked those names throughout the government and to the media.  And the battle continues.






The number of coincidences in how Comey has managed to be the get-out-of-jail-free card for the Clintons seems far too high to be honest.

Hat tip to Lisa Frank.

Tuesday, May 30

Hollywood leftist poses as if she's just beheaded president Trump; Leftists rush to condemn her. Oh wait....

Leftists claim they're really, really all about "tolerance."  And non-violence.

This, as anyone with an IQ over room temperature knows, is pure horse-shit.

Exhibit "A" to demonstrate this is very graphic, and if you want to see it you'll have to hit page-down a couple of times.  It's a skanky liberal "comedian" posing as if she's just cut off President Trump's head.

Still waiting for a single leftist or Democrat to publicly say "This is way over the line."  They won't.

And imagine how the Lying Media would have reacted if anyone on the right had held up a prop of Obama's severed head.  The entire media would have been screaming bloody murder for six weeks!






















Skank's name is Kathy Griffin.  Appears on TV talk-shows and such, from what I gather.

Looks like a barrel of laughs.  Hope she's out of work soon, but given the twisted nature of Dems, leftists, socialists and related skanks my guess is this will just increase her bookings.  Sick fucks.

Monday, May 29

TV station sees "flashing red lights on second floor of White House;" Lefties go crazy!

Yesterday a DC television station with a camera trained on the White House caught what seemed to be a red light flashing thru one of the windows.

They put the vid on their website--and the Leftists went totally nuts!

Honestly, you need to click on the link and read ALL the crazy theories from the lunatic Leftists.  Flashing red lights are used to treat Alzheimer's, or dementia, see?  They're not telling you the truth!  OMG!

Just go read it.  The Left is totally insane.


Illegal-alien students at Columbia U **demand** free everything--cuz, Democrats love this shit


Illegal immigrant students at Columbia University have issued a 13-point list of demands to the university, including free health insurance ($3,000 per year for American students), free summer housing, funding of scholarships reserved for illegals, and mandatory “sensitivity training” for faculty and staff.

The illegals complained that right now the university only pays part of the health insurance fees.”

“We refuse to amend or change any of these demands,” the group declared. “We expect the university to act.”

[RELATED: DePaul hikes student fees to fund scholarships for illegals]

The illegal aliens are also upset by the use of the term “illegal,” and demand that this term be banished.  They also demand that the university hire an ombudsman “who understands the psychological, financial, administrative, and all other dimensions” of the illegal immigrant experience.

[RELATED: Cal Poly student gov endorses ‘safe space’ for illegals]

Having presented all these demands, the group also wants illegal-immigrant students to be designated as domestic students, claiming their current status as international students could expose their personal information to the Department of Homeland Security.

Columbia has already taken numerous step to support illegal-immigrant students.  [See: Columbia pledges to shelter illegal immigrants from Trump] In fact an entire page on Columbia's website is devoted to listing the resources it offers for such students, noting that it has designated a liaison between undocumented students and the administration, offers illegals free legal representation, and even provides support from Counseling and Psychological Services.

Understandably, the illegals didn't respond to a request for comment from Campus Reform.  Equally understandably, a spokesperson for Columbia declined to comment.

The outcome is all too predictable:  University administrators, being good little dickless liberals, will give the precious snowflakes everything they demand--since it doesn't cost the adminishits a penny, and has the added benefit of demonstrating how virtuous they are.

The university will pay for the freebies by raising tuition on American students.  Which doesn't bother me at all since only liberals would attend Columbia, and if it's fine with them, great.

The problem is, winning at this level will just encourage the precious-snowflake whiny, ungrateful, unassimilatable illegal-immigrant assholes to demand more and more and more.  After they "graduate" they'll insist on free housing, guaranteed income, free medical care.  It'll never stop.

Thanks for letting these greedy, ungrateful little shits stay in the country, Obama!  This is your fault.  You and the Democrats who let you run the country for 8 years.

A list of excuses by the "global warming" crowd for the 18-year "pause" in warming

Highlights from the list of excuses/explanations for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming (by WUWT and The HockeySchtick)

1) Low solar activity

Note that the "Believe the Science: global warming is caused by us burning fossil fuels" crowd has always claimed the sun's output is, like, totally constant, so global warming cannot possibly be attributed to the sun."  But when they need an excuse for the pause in GW, suddenly the sun isn't constant at all!  No sir!  And that science is, like, totally settled, li'l dudes.

2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

3) Chinese coal use [debunked]

4) If there's really a pause, it's due to the success of the Montreal Protocol

5) There is no ‘pause’!  [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

6) Volcanic particles in the atmosphere [debunked]

7) Unusual amount of water vapor in the atmosphere 

11) Pine aerosols in the atmosphere!

8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]

25) Slower trade winds [debunked]

9) Stadium Waves

10) ‘Coincidence!’

12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”

13) “There's no pause because you're looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data” http://

14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere

15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]

16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation

17) AMOC ocean oscillation

18) “Global brightening” has stopped

19) “Ahistorical media”

21) Fewer El Ninos since 1999

24) The wrong type of El Ninos

22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”

23) “Not scientifically relevant” (i.e. if we don't think it's relevant, it's not)

26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]

27) "natural cycles" and here

But remember when the skeptics said "Climate has always been changing; it's a normal, natural cycle"? The warmies wouldn't hear of it. "Un-possible!" But when *they* need to invoke "natural cycles," suddenly that explains any shortcomings SO well!
28)  "different natural cycles"

29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations

30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific

[paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]

31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”

32) Natural variability again

33) Natural oscillations--again

34) "Solar cycles"--i.e. natural variability yet again

35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”

36) (not an excuse but) "Our climate models are so good that they really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – resume their normal strength, the world will start warming again (oooh, natural variation *yet again*)

38) All the “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific
[debunked] [Dr. Curry’s take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]

39) It's not a pause, just a “slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum”

40) The “pause” is “probably just barely statistically significant” and not “meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change”

41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:

The “recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate” because “anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 2010 has surprisingly warmed rather than cooled the global climate.”
[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they “surprisingly warm” the climate]

42) The ‘missing heat’ really is missing--but there's no *real* pause--we just need to find that missing heat

Story quotes Joshua K. Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory: "If you are wondering whether [evidence of a pause] is meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change,...no. The basic story of human caused global warming and its coming impacts is still the same: humans are causing it and the future will bring higher sea levels and warmer temperatures."

43) Ocean Variability: [NYT article]

45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:

47) Could be natural variability or increased CO2; or both

this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future.” [Andrew Dessler in an NYT article ]

48) Missing heat is either in the Atlantic or Pacific

It’s the Atlantic, not Pacific, and “the hiatus in the warming…should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke” [John Michael Wallace]

49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:

” If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.” [Carl Wunsch]

50) The observational data we have is inadequate (but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway): [Carl Wunsch in an NYT Article]

51) (not an effort to rationalize the pause but) “We could have forecast ‘the pause’" (i.e. our climate model is scary-accurate!)” [NCAR press release]

[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] [“pause” due to natural variability]

52) It's an ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend

"Global warming"-- now callled "climate change"--revisited

In case you haven't noticed, the Democrat party is still at full-scream on an idea called "climate change."

That theory was originally called "global warming," but after several record-breaking cold winters began to make a majority of Americans think the notion of global warming was horse-shit, the warmies didn't miss a beat:  they simply changed the name of the alleged crisis from "global warming" to "climate change."

Then someone--actually a few thousand someones who knew how to do a thing called "google search"--noted that the Earth's climate was constantly changing--had always changed--so to get upset about this was--well, sort of insane.

This took the warmies aback:  The sheeple weren't supposed to know that the climate of the planet changed naturally.  The goal was to make the sheeple believe "climate" was constant, so if it suddenly began changing, that was very, very dangerous!

But the warmies had more ammunition:  proof that this particular change wasn't natural, but was caused by human activity!

Specifically, the warmies noted--correctly--that human activities like driving cars and heating homes and hot water, and making stuff--and breathing--all emitted CO2.  Then they pointed to data showing that between 1964 and 2000, CO2 levels in the atmosphere had risen from 350 parts per million to 400--an astonishing 14 percent increase.

They also noted--again correctly--that the use of carbon-based fuel by humans rose exponentially after 1945 or so.  So there ya go:  use of carbon fuels increases, then atmospheric CO2 increases!  Even a child could see the connection!  Now if they just had a scary effect that could plausibly be blamed on CO2, the stage would be set for destroying western economies.  (You'll see why later.)

What was needed was for some PhDs to claim that the CO2 was causing something to happen that was just awful, terrible, fatal.  It didn't take long.

If you're new to the "climate change" circus it's time to introduce you to Michael Mann's infamous "hockey stick" graph--which arguably sparked the hysteria of alleged "global warming."

Sorry..."climate change."

Mann is a PhD at U. Penn.  In 1999 he and a couple of colleagues published a paper that included the graph below, which he claimed represented global average temperatures for the last 1000 years.

Mann's "hockey stick" graph (adapted from IPCC's "Third assessment"
Note the steep increase in (alleged) steep rise in global temperatures since 1900.  If true--and who would doubt an honest scientist?--it looks like the end of the world is near.  Which was exactly the kind of reaction one would expect.

Here was the final link in the chain of absolute proof that CO2--caused by humans burning carbon-based fuels--was causing a disaster.  To review:
  1)  Burning carbon fuels--oil, gasoline, natural gas, jet fuel and coal--produces CO2;
  2)  Beginning around 1945, use of carbon-based fuels has grown steeply;
  3)  Atmospheric CO2 increased by about 14% between 1960 and 2000;
  4)  CO2 warms the planet by trapping heat that would otherwise escape (a greenhouse gas);
  5)  Since 1900, the average temperature of the entire Earth had risen incredibly steeply;

Voila: What more proof could one possibly need?

Which leads us to the final claim, and the warmies "conclusion:"
  6) Surface temperature is higher than ever before, which will lead to "feedback" and "runaway increases" due to positive feedback (instability); and we'll all die.  Or something.

But once again, in the era of the internet, people who would normally never run into something like Mann's paper do in fact see it.  And a few of those folks--with lots of expertise in statistics, among other things, think "Wow, that claim seems to be SO unusual that I wonder if the guys who published it were...honest."  And they download a copy of the paper and data (rarely posted) and start analyzing.

That's exactly what happened, and the result was a decade of dueling papers.  Except the people who thought Mann was--at least in large part--faking it had a really hard time getting published.  Later we would find out that the reason for that was that Mann and his co-conspirators were friends with the editors of practically every scientific journal--and leaned on those editors to get them to refuse papers that disagreed with Mann et al.

Of course you think that simply must be a wacko conspiracy theory.  Couldn't possibly be true.  Among other reasons, one couldn't possibly keep that sort of thing from eventually being known outside the group of conspirators, eh?

Aaaand turns out that last part was right:  Eventually their lies were exposed.

The UK's main site for climate study was at the University of East Anglia.  In November 2009 someone hacked into that group's email server and copied over 1,000 emails--which were quickly posted on many climate-study websites.

The emails showed Mann and one of his friends--a key player in the research group named Phil Jones--discussing ways to "hide the decline"--a reference to the fact that actual *measured* temperatures on earth weren't rising, as Mann et al claimed, but had actually been falling over the last decade.  They also discussed the need to "eliminate the MWP" (medieval warm period)--a period around 1200 A.D.  when Greenland was warm enough to grow grapes.

The emails also showed Mann discussing how to get friendly journal editors to refuse to publish papers critical of Mann's work or GW in general.

And just as happene after the release of the DNC emails, neither Mann nor UEA disputed the authenticity or content of the emails, but simply explained to friendly reporters that the emails simply didn't mean what they clearly said.

Just like the Democrats after their emails were exposed, eh?

Now let's return to those four links that supposedly prove that global warming, caused by humans burning carbon fuels, is warming the planet by a significant and dangerous amount:

No one on the "AGW-skeptic" side disputes the first 4 links.  The problems are with the last two.

The first thing we need to point out is a logical pitfall that used to be taught to college freshmen: "correlation does not imply causation."  Even if temperatures were indeed rising (and as you'll see, they're not), it doesn't mean any alleged rise was caused by rising CO2.  Further, while no one disputes that humans have been burning far more carbon-based fuels since 1945--indisputably producing more CO2--that doesn't show that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due mainly to human contributions.

Next, about that claimed big increase in temperatures Mann (and others) claimed happened since 1900:  First,  a big part of Mann and colleagues' conclusions relied on the thickness of tree rings.  They had cross-sections of a hundred or so, but picked only the ones that supported their theory.

 As you might guess, honest science really frowns on that.  It's called "cherry-picking data."

Next, the people reporting "official" temperatures lied--and continue to do so.  The two U.S. government agencies responsible for gathering and publishing temperature data--NOAA and NASA--have systematically changed *measured,* reported temperatures, both past and present.  In 99% of the cases those changes reduce past measured temps and increase current ones.

The agencies claim these changes are made not by capricious human order but by an absolutely fair, neutral computer algorithm.  So naturally the folks running AGW discussion sites asked to see the computer code allegedly used by the agencies to make those changes.

You may be surprised to learn that the agencies have refused, claiming the code is "proprietary" (i.e. "we own it"), even though development of the *alleged* code was clearly paid for with taxpayer money.  So unless it's a national secret, it ain't proprietary. 

I'll try to finish this later.  Meanwhile, here's a good summary of a *few* of the problems with "global warming" by Bill Whittle:



By contrast, here's an article from 2013 on the Leftist site "Slate," purporting to explain the "hiatus" or pause in global warming.  As you read it, keep in mind that most of the warmie crowd has been screaming furiously that there has been NO pause in the increase in global temperature, and that claims that there's been a "pause" are lies by eeeevil Rethuglicans to thwart our Savior Obama's (pbuh) efforts to enact a crucial "cap and trade" law.

But isn't it odd: if CO2 causes global warming, then if there HAS been a pause, we should have seen a corresponding drop--or at least a flattening--in atmospheric CO2 level.  So did that happen? 

Why YES, yes it did!  So there ya go!  Proof!  Just like we said to you stupid deplorables!

Just kidding.  No drop or flattening in CO2 was observed.  Which seems to do major damage to the theory that global warming is caused by rising atmospheric CO2.

Sunday, May 28

California farmer reportedly fined $2.8 million for plowing his own field

I'm damn near speechless over this one:  In California the federal gummint has reportedly fined a farmer $2.8 million for plowing his own field.

I'm not even gonna try to summarize this one.  Click the link.

AP says U.N. health organization spends more on travel than on...you won't believe it


https://apnews.com/1cf4791dc5c14b9299e0f532c75f63b2/AP-Exclusive:-Health-agency-spends-more-on-travel-than-AIDS

The Associated Press hates conservatives, capitalism, America and the west.  Loves socialism and the United Nations.  So if the AP puts out a story critical of the U.N., you can guess it must be pretty bad.  An "admission against interest."

In this case the AP says the U.N.'s "World Health Organization" "routinely" spends more on travel for its 7,000 staffers than it spends to fight AIDS, hepatitis, malaria, tuberculosis and drug abuse combined.

The U.N. is a racket--a scam.  Thoroughly corrupt.  Its main purpose is to give communists and socialists a weapon to beat free nations with.

I wouldn't be outraged if the Health Racket people spent as much on luxury hotel suites as it did on, say, treating malaria.  But to spend more on travel than the total amount it spends to treat all the diseases listed above COMBINED seems highly outrageous.

Vermin.  Scum.  But well-paid.

A week after Manchester, UK feminist declares that the problem isn't Islam--it's *men*

A refusal to recognize reality could be a useful indicator of insanity.  It can actually be quite entertaining and charming.  I've known people who were totally divorced from reality who were indeed fascinating and fairly harmless.

Since insanity is fairly common I normally don't do posts on it, but in this case I'll make an exception--because this particular insanity, if not stopped very firmly, will get you and your family killed.

The particular moonbat I have in mind is Janey Stephenson, who bills herself as a "campaigner" and tireless slinger of feminist bullshit.  In this case, less than a week after Manchester she wrote a long article for the UK Independent titled

It's not Muslims or people with mental health problems who are most likely to kill you in a terrorist attack – it's men

Let's parse that for a bit:  A 20-something Muslim male, trained in Libya, uses a nail-bomb to kill 22 mostly female concert-goers.  Before that it was a Muslim driver on a bridge over the Thames, killing 4.  Before that, a Muslim driving a big truck in Nice who killed 70.  Before that, ten Muslims armed with AK-47s who shot 131 civilians in Paris.  Before that, Muslims killed ten cartoonists in Paris.  Before that...you get the picture.

And yet Janey--that too, too precious feminist snowflake--can't bring herself to make the obvious connection.  Which, in her mind, is that the common thread is that the attackers are all men. 

Not "Muslim men."  Just "men."

Janey claims there is no problem whatsoever with Islam.  Rather, the problem is...men.

See, this is why we need people like Janey to guide our national policies:  They can see to the core of problems the way no one else can.  Here all you dumb deplorables were thinking that the problem was Islam.  No wonder we haven't been able to stop 'em!  We needed Janey to show us that the problem wasn't and isn't Islam!  It's...men!   

And here we thought western men--at least the alphas--were good guys for being willing to sacrifice their lives to save others--particularly women and children--whereas Islamic terror fighters routinely use women and children as human shields, and strap bomb vests on kids to send 'em to death.  Real stand-up guys.

Janey, you ignorant bitch, take a year off and go to an Islamic shit-hole country.  I hear Iran is nice.  Tell 'em you fully support Islam and realize they're not the problem.  Stick around for a year, then report back on your findings and conclusions.  Cuz I may be all wrong about this, but I think after a year living among the guys who you claim are NOT the problem, you'll change whatever you're using for a mind.

Politicians in most western nations continue to refuse to recognize the obvious

The Manchester bomb attack demonstrates yet again that most politicians--one is loathe to call them "leaders"--in both Europe and in America are determined to avoid identifying the problem.  Instead they utter platitudes.

For example, just today (May 28th) the NY Times tweeted "What led [Manchester bomber] Salman Albedi to bomb the Manchester arena?"  Really, they're pretending to be mystified.

They'll probably guess he didn't like the music.  Yeah, dat's it, you clueless cucks.

A few weeks ago French voters had a chance to elect a president who seemed determined to take stronger action.  Instead they chose more of the same platitude-mouthing wastes of oxygen...more endless denial, where the only allowable response to people who want to kill you is open borders and a strong commitment to doing nothing.

These pols are people who claim the greatest threat we face is not ISIS or al-Qaeda but...climate change.

These are not rational people.  Safe behind high walls in their gated communities, their "reality" bears little resemblance to what the rest of us experience.  In their grand offices, surrounded by adoring sycophants, reality is whatever they say it is.  And their sycophants eagerly agree.

We are supposed to be impressed that British and French ‘intelligence services’ say they had the bomber was on a ‘watch list,’ that they knew he took trips to Libya and Syria and had links to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.  Which accomplished what, exactly?  The result is still 22 dead, 100 or so injured.

Under emperor Obama his appointees and other liberals in the federal government actively worked to cripple our ability to counter Muslim terrorists.  They insisted that training manuals remove all references to Islamic terrorism.  Police and FBI weren't allowed to look any more closely at mosques than at any other location.

By contrast, Muslim strategists know how to play on the soft-heartedness of American liberals. At the first sign of criticism they start wailing "Islamophobia"--a chant amplified by their allies in the Lying Media.  When was the last time anyone saw Muslims demonstrating against Islamic terror?  Their silence is telling.

USAA pulls ads from Hannity after liberal pressure; then lies that "company policy" is no ads on opinion shows; but then we discovered...


Last week insurance giant USAA--which provides all lines of insurance for members of the U.S. military--announced it was pulling from Sean Hannity's show on Fox.  Hannity had been targeted by liberal groups because of his interest in the case of murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, who was fatally shot in what DC cops called a "robbery."

Oddly, the alleged "robbers" didn't bother actually taking the victim's billfold, credit cards, watch, cell phone or a gold chain.

In any case, USAA's announcement triggered a huge backlash from the firm's customers. 

The company hastily explained that it had a policy of not advertising on "opinion-based television programs."

This excuse was quickly shown to be crap after the conservative watchdog Media Research Center noted that USAA ads had run in recent weeks on shows hosted by Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and Chris Matthews--all leftist talkers.

Confronted with this troublesome fact, USAA spokesman Roger Wildermuth claimed the ads on those three left-wing shows were placed in error, and that this alleged "mistake" would be corrected.

Wildermuth didn't clarify how the ads could have been placed on at least four opinion-based shows in violation of the company's policy.  Significantly, he didn't immediately respond to a question about whether the company had advertised on more opinion shows.  He also said the company's decision to pull ads on Hannity "was not the result of outside pressure."

Really?  Then why did you pull the ads?  Because it certainly wasn't the company's horrified discovery that someone had been placing ads on opinion shows, since you didn't disclose the fact that you advertised on the three Left-wing talk shows and immediately pull thosse ads too. 

Here's the response one USAA member got from the company after he asked for an explanation:
Our decision to stop advertising on the Hannity TV show was not the result of outside pressure. It is our policy to not advertise on any opinion programming, whether it is associated with politics, religion, race, biases regarding gender or otherwise. There was an error which led to our ads running during Hannity, and as soon as that was discovered, the error was corrected.
--Social Media Team
--SOCIALMEDIA@usaa.com
So "not the result of outside pressure" but instead a claim that it was company policy.  Bullshit.  Lies, lies and more lies.  You'd think you guys were working for the DNC.
As a USAA customer for 50 years, I'm outraged at the company's blatant lies--not to mention their advertising on leftist talk shows.  This shows yet again corporate America's support for the Left.  And it's doubly infuriating when almost all of USAA's customers are either active-duty or retired military.

Some people need to be fired.  Right away.  Can't wait for the fireworks at the annual meeting!

Despite the Left's constant denigration of the military, as a group, military officers are really well informed.  And you fuck with 'em at your peril.  I suspect there'll be some really pointed questions at the company's annual meeting.

NY Post says president of "Manhattan Young Democrats" busted for child-porn; almost no other mainstream-media coverage


A rising young star in New York's Democrat party was busted having for child porn on his computer.

Jacob Schwartz, 29, was busted at the end of March.  He’d been under investigation since March 29.

Schwartz wasn't just "some guy:"  He was president of the Manhattan Young Democrats, and the downstate region VP of the New York State Young Democrats.  Of course his name and photo were removed from both groups’ websites after his arrest.
  A photo posted last year on Twitter shows him posing with Robby Mook, who was campaign manager for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.  Schwartz’s father — Democratic insider Arthur Schwartz — called his son’s case “a personal tragedy.”

Now I think pretty much everyone thinks kiddie-porn is a bad thing, right?  And I'll readily agree that kinks afflict people from both sides of the spectrum.  But since kiddie-porn is so universally deplored, and since this guy isn't just some dumb 'deplorable' from Goatmuzzle, Kentucky, but a public figure--an officer in the Democrat organization of both New York city and the state, and the son of an influential Democrat insider, this just might be newsworthy, right?

So...the NY Post broke this story May 26th.  Let's see how many Mainstream Media organs cover it.

At the moment--two days after the story broke--google shows only one hit other than the NY Post and conservative outlets.  Try searching Google for +"Jacob Schwartz +"New York" +child and see how many mainstream hits you find.  My prediction is no more than the one I found.  Cuz if you're an editor and haven't covered it by now, the media won't cover it, using the excuse that it's "old news."

Beer maker's bottle pushes for open borders?

Saw this on the Interwebs today.  Thought, "This can't possibly be real, can it?  Who in their right mind would...?"

Then I realized the problem was that I made a big mistake assuming "...in their right mind."


Not sure this is real, but if it is...If you drink this beer, do let the company know how much you like their suggestion that what we really need is open borders.  And if you don't like the company's suggestion, let 'em know that too.

Lessons from Manchester--and earlier


For the last 50 years Western societies--run by liberals--have been using social conditioning to produce citizens who are group oriented and will obey authority.  The only form of aggressive behavior enccouraged by liberals is to savage anyone who deviates from their policies.  It follows that the only approved response to an attack is to run away and bleat for help from the authorities.

Animals having such characteristics are known as "prey."  No amount of soul-searching by the zebras to determine why the lions hate them--or how they can make the lions stop killing them--will change the nature of either beast.

How can anyone be surprised that such societies draw murderous attacks?

Focusing on who is killing our children would undermine the precepts and doctrines that many of those in power have built their careers championing.  Instead, all official efforts are intended to obscure the truth about who is attacking us.

To many politicians and leftists, "diversity" and multiculturalism are far more important than protecting the lives of their citizens.  How else can one explain politicians opening the borders and inviting into the country those whose religion demands that they kill everyone who will not adopt the invaders' religion?

These pols are so slavishly devoted to "diversity" that they even order the government to pay the invaders to immigrate.  They see that as virtuous, and who cares if a few people die?  As long as it's not their own children, why get excited?

Islam can't defeat us through force of arms, but our culture is so far gone in the irrationality of Islamophilia that our politicians seem likely to surrender to Islam anyway.  Need evidence of the irrationality of western societies?  Consider that many young women in Europe who were raped by Muslim men initially told authorities their assailants were white Europeans, because they feared telling the truth might stir resentment against Muslims.

Western "elites" need to stop claiming Islam is no different from other religions, and should start discussing Islam's obvious and profound dysfunction--and that this dysfunction lies at the core of Islam.  The crucial question is: How long will political correctness by the "elites" prevent western nations from recognizing the obvious?

It seems clear that Islam cannot be reformed enough to stop being a lethal threat to non-Muslims.  The reason is that for Muslims to stop trying to take over the world would require them to renounce their prophet's decree that infidels convert or be killed.  Muhammad repeatedly claimed that every word in what would become the Koran/Qur'an came directly from Allah.  To reject a word of it would challenge Muhammad's veracity.  Do that and Islam's entire theological foundation collapses.  It all falls apart

Virtually all American "elites"--including every talking head in the lying mainstream media--seem to consider belief in God or Christ as a sign of gullibility.  Stupidity.  They constantly make sneering  comments about religious Americans--though never about Islam. 

The contempt for those who believe in God lead them to reject notions of good and evil.  This leads pretty directly to their idea that Islam is no worse than any other religion.  Which is what they constantly tell us.

In the 1930's, as Germany was re-arming under Hitler, many people believed war was inevitable.  But with the huge death toll of what was then called "the Great War" (later changed to WW1) barely 15 years past, the offspring of British "elites" at the nation's top universities decided the best way to avoid a second war was simply (!) to pledge not to fight.

Simple, eh?

Thus on February 9th, 1933, students at Oxford (for students here that's their equivalent of Hahvahd) held a debate on the proposition "that this House will in no circumstances fight for King and country."  The students of Oxford Union voted 275 to 153 for the motion."

That vote was noticed--by everyone.  If the offspring of "the elites" voted not to fight, it sent a clear signal to anyone that the U.K. was unlikely to fight, regardless of provocation. 

Six and a half years later, Germany attacked Poland, marking the start of the second world war.

Today leftists, Democrats and the Lying Media in the west are making a huge push to ensure their nations take a neutral position on Islam.  I suspect most believe--foolishly--that if western nations adopt sharia law, little will change for the elites.  After all, to them all religions are equal.  And in any case our Constitution says our government must be neutral on religion.  It must follow--for the "elites" at least--that it doesn't matter whether the U.S. adopts sharia law.

Democrats and liberals have joined the U.K., Germany, France and the rest of the EU in effectively adopted a policy of refusing to protect their citizens from foreign invaders.  The reasons are unclear.  I suspect at least some national leaders honestly don't think there's a threat.  After all, all their elite peers believe in open borders and unlimited immigration.  It's the cool thing to do.

I suspect the main reason Trump was elected is that voters were looking for someone who would make our American government change course and start defending American citizens instead of paying to import invaders.  If the power of the State is only to be used to attack its own people, then that power is no longer legitimate.  If there is no rule of law or Constitutional supremacy, the elites can no longer presume to have the consent of the people.
 
A key idea of the American republic was that the common man was king--free to do as he wished as long as it didn't infringe on the rights of other.   Now the elites have decided that the course of the nation is to be decided by the editors of the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Hopefully a few tens of thousands of Americans will tell the elites--in unquivocal terms--that we strongly disagree.

Saturday, May 27

New ideas from the Left


Below are some of the ideas being pushed by the Left--in education, the media and politics--which have been eagerly accepted by virtually all Democrats:
  • When someone has more than you do, it's unfair; they don't deserve it, and you're entitled to *demand* that the government take what they have.  Or you can just take it yourself;
  • If someone succeeds, it's never a result of hard work and risk-taking, but instead is the result of a system that's rigged to benefit whites at the expense of all other groups;
  • You're entitled to get whatever you demand; if the System refuses to give you whatever you want, you're a "victim;"
  • No one should be allowed to say anything that upsets you, or that you disagree with--both of which are usually referred to by the Left as "hate speech;"
  • If "The System"--whether a university or an employer or the law--requires you to do something a certain way, and you don't do it that way, it's just unfair of them to criticize you.  Instead they should accept the way you did it--cuz whatever you do is "right"--cuz you're special;
  • You're entitled to a comfortable payment each month, regardless of whether you work or..."enjoy broadening your horizons without the curse of 'job-lock.'"  This is called a "guaranteed income" and is a core plank of the new Democrat party; 
  • You're entitled to be admitted to any university you like, regardless of your grades or test scores, since these are "tools of the white patriarchy/oppressor class."  Moreover, you're entitled to get this for free, because whatever institution you want to attend should be grateful that you decided to grace them with your presence--because you're really special;
  • You don't have to obey any laws unless you feel like it--cuz, like, laws are just tools of the patriarchial oppressor class.  After all, people at the very top of this corrupt society--like, um...that woman who ran for...something important but got cheated out of it--don't have to obey laws, so why should anyone else have to?
  • You are not just free to take over any business or university building you like, it's virtually required if you want to be part of the power-group.  Our wonderful recent preezie (pbuh) did this for amusement while he was waiting to be crowned, and look how well that worked for him!
  • If you decide to get a degree, don't get one of those goofy ones like "engineering" or stuff, cuz that's not where the power and money is.  You wanna get something that shows you're "down with the struggle."  Right now a trendy one is "intersectionality and the class struggle," but keep your eyes open for trendier ones;
  • The most promising careers are as a "diversity coordinator" or a member of congress, whichever you prefer.  If you play your cards right, both are stepping stones to higher office.

Snowflakes at private liberal arts school demand whites leave campus for a day; when one takes exception to that, they take over the library

Sometimes small events serve as a pointer to the direction of the nation.  In this case it's the events at an otherwise-forgettable private liberal-arts college in Goatmuzzle, Washington.

You should know about this.  By itself it's quite trivial, but as an indicator of what you're about to see a lot more of, it's useful.

Last Tuesday Evergreen College (in Olympia, Washington) held what seems to be an annual event, called "Days of absence."  The "tradition" is that on that day "students of color" don't come the campus.  Apparently this is designed to show how absolutely crucial they are to the proper functioning of that institution.

And "institution" turns out to be a very precise description.

So far, all is well.  But you know it's about to take a turn for the ridiculous.

This year the social justice snowflakes changed the game.  This year they demanded that *whites*--both students and faculty--stay away from the campus.  Because...well, they demanded it, so that's all the reason you need, eh?

Well...one professor--Bret Weinstein--a white (who turns out to be a leftist, although that's just amusing)--took exception to this demand.  Then he compounded his sin by actually (gasp!) sending an email saying he didn't think this was a proper thing to do.  Here it is:




As you probably guessed, the snowflakes thought this was utterly outrageous.  They cornered the guy in his classroom, screamed at him, cursed him and demanded that he resign--no doubt while congratulating themselves on how really, really tolerant they were.

By Thursday the snowflakes had barricaded themselves in the school's library.  The hoot is that one of the leaders of this group claimed they were *forced* to "retreat" to the library because they were in fear for their lives.  Really, not kidding.

Now professor Weinstein says police have told him to hold his classes off campus due to safety concerns.  “Police told me protesters stopped cars yesterday, demanding information about occupants, he told The Washington Times. “[The police] believe I was being sought."

A college spokesman declined to comment on Weinstein’s situation or any of the other activity on campus.

Evergreen student Blake Vincent, who said he was participating in the protests, said he was unaware of any students looking for Weinstein.

A video of the confrontation between the professor and the snowflakes shows the professor trying to reason with dozens of students, who respond by shouting him down, cursing him and demanding he resign.  When one protester asks the professor whether he believes “black students in sciences are targeted" Weinstein says “I do not believe that anybody on our faculty, with intent, specially targets students of color.”

That remark prompts shrieks of outrage.

According to protester Vincent, after the students barricaded the entrances of the library they "seamlessly turned the retreat into a political occupation."

That's faabulous.  We wouldn't want any seams to show.

After the successful retreat to the library, totally unexpectedly, "demands followed."

At a meeting between the administration and students later that day, university President George S. Bridges said no students would be punished for their involvement in the demonstrations.  This sent exactly the right message to students at all other universities, that screaming and cursing at faculty and taking over the library were just peachy.

On Wednesday, students crashed a faculty meeting.  A faculty member then demonstrated his virtue and dedicationto the struggle by inviting the students to the front of the room to share their stories.“Students are here right now,” the professor said. “Like, we need to listen to their voice. They are out there, their bodies are on the line, right?”

Right.  Down with the struggle to exclude white students and faculty from campus.  But hey, it's just for this one day.  And really, isn't that the least they could do to show their support for social justice?

In front of the assembled faculty members the students condemned the faculty for eating cake rather than supporting the library occupiers.  “Didn’t you educate us on how to do s—t like this?” one student said. “It was you that taught us that in class, right?  You taught us to go and change the world. Ain’t that what you all sell on that state college page?  That when s—t is wrong that we should try to change it? So why you all in here eating cake and chewing?”

One professor asked the protesters, “Would it be more helpful if we stayed and talked with you, or more helpful if we go over to the library?  ”The student said the latter, and everyone got up and left the room.

As the protesters demanded, college president Bridges promised to 1) institute a new student conduct code; 2) to "improve the quality of faculty evaluations," and 3) to enact an annual sensitivity training for all faculty, staff and police that emphasizes the eradication of racism.

According to protester Vincent, winning agreement to these demands was the original purpose of the protests.  As for the confrontation with professor Weinstein, Vincent said “We were trying to make an example out of him.”

"Unexpectedly," despite the spineless college prez agreeing to all the protesters' demands, Vincent said there’s no timetable for ending the demonstrations.  “In fact,” he said, “there have been and will be more walk-ins into different faculty’s classrooms.”

So what, if anything, can we learn from this?

First, we already knew that virtually all college professors and administrators are leftists/Democrats/socialists/marxists/"progressives" who are fine with destroying this nation as we've known it.  Cuz, like, y'know, America is just so totally bad--source of all evil and all.

Uh-huh.

Second:  as with all protesters, their demands will never stop.  Give 'em an inch and they'll take over the campus.  And the government.  And they have.

A clever way to have dealt with this would have been for the college pres to have smiled, said nothing, and waited for the students to get tired of occupying the library.  Oh, and stationed cops outside every door of the library and demanded ID from everyone wanting to leave.

But of course, no college prez will ever do this.  Cuz they're fine with it.

Friday, May 26

Denver city council votes to cut penalties for "low-level" crimes--to avoid triggering deportation of illegal aliens

Denver's city council just voted to reduce the penalties for *some* "low-level offenses."

That's nice.  So littering will no longer carry a huge fine, that sort of thing?  Letting grass on your property get longer than four inches?  Parking your car on the street?  Or in your yard to wash it?  Those sorts of "low-level offenses"?

Uh, no.  Instead they're cutting penalties on what they call "quality of life offenses."  Here's a partial list:
  • Sitting or lying in a public right-of-way
  • Unauthorized camping on public or private property
  • Urinating or defecating in public
  • Panhandling
  • Solicitation on or near street or highway
The city council reduced the penalties for these offenses to keep from triggering possible deportation of illegal aliens--a huge population in Colorado.

Denver mayor Michael Hancock released the following statement Monday night in support of what he and the city council brilliantly named "sentencing reform."
This ordinance...helps to keep families together by ensuring low level offenses... are not a deportation tool. With this ordinance we will ensure punishment fits the severity of the offense -- not just for our immigrant communities [the mayor cunningly omits the crucial word "illegal" here] but for all our people including those experiencing homelessness.
[W]e are sending a clear message that we will not sacrifice our values or bend to a broken immigration system.
Over the past four months the White House has issued a series of executive orders that have exacerbated our broken immigration system [really? enforcing laws is making the system worse?] and have had a real impact on our community.  Denver is committed to taking actions that will protect our people’s rights and keep our city safe, welcoming and open.
Well it'll protect *someone's* rights.  Just not those of American citizens.  And as far as claiming that keeping the illegal population in Denver as high as possible, not sure how the Democrat mayor things that will "keep our city safe."  Oh, wait, I've got it: "Safe for illegals."  Now it makes sense.
This is not about shielding violent people and I will not play political games with the safety of our community.
Oh NO, not a lying sack-of-shit Democrat mayor of a sanctuary city!  Heaven forbid!  Democrats always consider the safety of citizens before, say, ordering ICE to let admitted memebers of the MS-13 gang into the U.S., as the emperor's henchmen did.

But don't worry, citzien:  Your Dem congresswhores are working night and day to impeach or otherwise remove the One True Threat to world peace:  President Trump.

After the vote Mark Silverstein, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, acknowledged that cutting sentences was a good first step, but said more work should be done to "protect vulnerable communities."

“I think so-called  'quality of life offenses' should not be considered crimes and should carry no punishment."
.

FISA court unseal opinion showing Obama used NSA to illegally record calls involving Americans, then waited til 12 days before election to admit it

If the following is true, it's a bombshell.  And even more stunning is that--again, if it's true--the Lying Mainstream Media didn't breathe a single word about it--and haven't yet, for that matter. 

The story is that Trump's team has admitted it secretly conducted illegal searches on Americans.

Did that get your attention?  Anger you?  Make you want congress to impeach him?  Probably all three.

Oh wait...I mis-read that:  The story is actually that last October 26th--less than two weeks before the election--the Obama administration disclosed that the NSA had been using its unlimited ability to intercept phone calls to illegally search Americans--apparently with Obama's consent.  And had been doing so for years.

The National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community.

"The Obama administration self-disclosed the problems at a closed-door hearing Oct. 26 before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that set off alarm. Trump was elected less than two weeks later.

According to a document from the FISA court unsealed (i.e. made public) just one month ago (April 26, 2017), the normally supportive court excoriated Obama-administration officials, saying the failure to disclose the extent of the violations when discovered amounted to a “institutional lack of candor” and that the improper searches constituted a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”

But hey, nothin' to see here, citizen.  Move on.
 The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself and safeguard American’s privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.

“I think what this emphasizes is the shocking lack of oversight of these programs,” said Neema Singh Guliani, the ACLU’s legislative counsel in Washington. "

Now, I don't blame you for being skeptical as to whether this really happened.  That's very reasonable.  In that case you really need to click on the link above, which should go to a 99-page pdf.

This could be a hoax, but if so, someone went to extraordinary lengths in dummying up a 99-page court opinion.

So here's the point I'm trying to make:  The opinion was unsealed a month ago.  Yet you haven't heard a word about this in the Lying Mainstream Media.

Gosh, if the "legislative counsel" for the ACLU--which generally hates conservatives and defends Democrats to the max--says the newly-disclosed violations are "some of the most serious to ever be documented," do ya' think this news might be a big f'n deal?

You're damn right it's a big deal.  Yet...not a single word in the Lying Mainstream Media.

Think about that for awhile.

If the media will keep silent about this, can you trust them to tell you the truth about anything?

Not at all.

Next ask yourself:  Why would anyone at Obama's NSA admit these violations just 12 days before the election?  Simple:  It's a cover-your-ass move on the million-to-one chance that Hillary might lose the rigged election.

Why do I think it was a CYA thing?  Because the Obama administration waited until TWO DAYS before the court was scheduled (under normal procedures) to re-certify the NSA before "orally advising" the court of "significant non-compliance with...procedures" regarding revealing data on U.S. persons."  [Opinion, page 4, top]

Team Obama then waited until the actual day the court was scheduled to re-certify before it submitted a written account of the violations.




Wow, last day before re-cert, eh?  Evidently Team Obama thought the court would just give 'em a pass on the violations.  And if Hilliary had won--as everyone expected--no one would ever know or care that some arcane rule was broken. And all Team Obama lawbreakers would be home free.

Then the unthinkable happened:  Hilliary lost.

Now, my purpose here is not to make you aware of one more in an endless string of illegal acts committed by Obama and company, but just to let you see what lying sacks of shit the Lying Mainstream Media are.  The ACLU even said these violations are "some of the most serious to ever be documented."  If this had been done by a Republican it would be the lead story on every network for a solid week.

So it's now been a month since the court opinion was unsealed.  Not a peep.  Watch to see if you can find a single story about this in the Lying Media..


Thursday, May 25

Federal judge rules that Minnesota can give a teenage boy female hormones without informing a parent--let alone asking for consent

Think the feminist and "gender-changing" mafia are harmless?  Anmarie Calgaro disagrees.  She lives in the Peoples' Republic of Minnesota.  She had a son, who decided at age 17 that he wanted a sex-change operation.

The mother thought it would be a good idea to postpone such a crucial and irrevocable event until later.

The gender mafia infesting Minnesota state agencies had other ideas.  And without informing the mother, they began giving the boy female hormones--a "treatment" that makes males feel more feminine, and presumably more committed to a sex-change operation.  The mother says she was not consulted or informed about this proposed treatment in any way

When the mother found out, she sued multiple state agencies for giving her son female hormones. The suit accused school officials, health care providers and doctors of violating her parental rights for giving her son hormone treatments without her permission.  The suit challenged a Minnesota law that allows minors to access medical care and procedures without either parent’s consent.

Now, a few of you may think it would be totally illegal--impossible--for a state to give your under-age son female hormones without either parent's consent.  It's Orwellian.  Can't happen here, right?


The mother claims defendants began giving her son female hormones--always described as hormone "therapy"--without her consent last November.  When she asked the clinics for her son’s medical records they refused, she says. According to the suit, St. Louis County School District also rejected her request to see her son's academic school records.

The judge declared that the key issue was whether the son was "legally emancipated" from the mother.  Minnesota doesn't have a formal process to declare that a minor child is emancipated from his or her parents, but the law generally considers financially independent minors who don't live with either parent to be emancipated.

The son moved out of his mother’s home in St. Louis County in 2015 and has lived with relatives ever since.  He currently lives alone.

The mother's lawsuit said health care providers and the school district unilaterally decided her son was an emancipated minor, without notifying her and giving her a chance to rebut that decision.  She claims a county agency paid for her son's treatment, which would seem to show rather convincingly that he was *not* financially independent.

Using what must rank as among the most tortured "reasoning" in legal history, the judge rejected the mother's claims as “distracting,” saying that under Minnesota law neither state nor county agencies can terminate her parental rights, and that a minor child is not emancipated until a state court says so--despite the fact that Minnesota law has no provision for this. In other words, he seemed to agree that the child was NOT emancipated, yet still upheld the right of the state to give him female hormones without parental consent.

It makes no sense.

He also decreed that despite the state giving her son female hormones without informing her--let alone trying to get her permission--the mother somehow "continues to have the physical and legal custody of her child."

Again, utterly illogical.

“Even assuming defendants determined [the son] emancipated—as the court must do at this stage of litigation—defendants’ emancipation determinations did not terminate Calgaro’s parental rights. Only a court order can do so."

The judge also defended St. Louis County and its school district saying that the mother had failed to provide any evidence that they intentionally deprived her of her parental rights without due process.

Gosh, there's that "intentionally" requirement again.  Why is it that the Left keeps imposing this requirement when the act in question is something the Left wants to do?

According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune--a Leftist newspaper often satirically referred to as the "Red Star:" the judge
...rejected the idea that the defendants had determined [the son] to be emancipated. The judge also wrote that Calgaro failed to plausibly allege that the school district’s policy deprived her of parental rights and found that [two] private, nonprofit health organizations did not violate Calgaro’s parental rights because they were not acting as government actors carrying out a state law.

[The judge] also agreed with St. Louis County’s argument that the state, not the county, provided [the funds] for [her son's] care, and further dismissed any claims Calgaro might raise against her child, citing the failure of her claims against other defendants.
One of the son's attorneys--Asaf Orr--works for the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ Transgender Youth Project in San Francisco, which presumably took this case pro-bono.  With truly Orwellian inverted logic Orr summarized the case as showing “the resilience of transgender youth and the importance of access to appropriate health care.”

So where does this leave us?  Well, if the decision is allowed to stand it means the state can do anything it likes with your minor kids--including giving them a sex-change operation.  Yet the state will nevertheless decree that your kid is NOT emancipated, meaning you must provide for them.  Despite the fact that you can't make any decisions on their behalf if the state doesn't like those decisions.

Jesus H. Christ save us.

Now a few swamp-dwelling RINO repubs are calling for a tax on carbon !

Many analysts have warned that congress--mainly Democrats but aided by shitty RINOs--is hell-bent on enacting a tax on CO2 emissions.

If you think that's unlikely, you haven't been paying attention. 

And now, sure enough, a group of RINOs calling themselves the Climate Leadership Council (CLC) has joined CO2-phobes in calling for a tax on carbon-dioxide emissions. The group claims CO2 emissions are fatally warming the Earth, threatening all life on the planet.

Economic analyses of various carbon-tax proposals consistently show they would harm all Americans and would be detrimental for the U.S. economy.  Leftists and Dems reply "But it's just a tiny, itty-bitty tax.  How can anyone be so selfish as to complain about such a tiny tax?"

Except that "itty-bitty, tiny tax" won't stay tiny.  Once the government gets a tax passed, it can and will rachet up the rate as much as it wants.  That's what happened to the federal income tax, and if you don't think it would happen here as well you're too naive to breed.

The Left will tell their base--the people who can't add two 4-digit numbers correctly, and believe the government can tax corporations without that tax being passed on to consumers--that they should support this tax because it will be paid more heavily by the rich, who use more energy and energy-intensive products. 

And if that argument isn't enough of a clincher for the low-info base, the folks pushing a tax on carbon promise they'll give some of the revenue generated by the tax back to low-income people.


So as far as low-info Democrat voters are concerned, this is a superb deal:  tax would be paid mainly by the rich, and a chunk of that tax is paid to po' folk!  Win-win!

The taxers' plan would *begin* by taxing carbon at $40 per ton. And the tax-pushers instantly claim that a family of four Democrat voters would receive a cash payout of approximately $2,000 a year--due solely to this new tax!--as part of the tax law.  Wow! 

CLC loudly claims that the under its plan a whopping 70 percent of Americans would get more in payouts (which they call "refunds") than they'd pay in increased direct energy costs and higher costs for all products.

Really, how can any low-income person not LOVE this idea?  It's even got electrolytes!  (That's a reference to a VERY on-point movie about the future U.S.)

CLC seems extremely pleased with its tax scheme.

Of course the proposed carbon tax would also involve policing costs, as criminals devise more ways to get a government carbon-tax-rebate check.  Ever heard how many people have defraud the gummint on just the Earned Income Tax Credit alone?

And of course, like with every other government program there will be huge costs associated with collecting and tracking the taxes paid, and rebates paid out. New employees will have to be hired.  A whole new government bureaucracy will be created--which is fine with congress.

But we're just getting started:  To prevent businesses from fleeing the country to escape all these taxes and costs, CLC proposes imposing a "border adjustment" for the carbon content of imports and exports.  Companies exporting American goods to countries without a carbon tax would get rebates for carbon taxes paid, while those importing products from such countries would have to pay extra fees on the carbon content of their products.

Hey, no fraud potential or new bureaucracy needed for that, right?


It’s also worth noting that CLC’s proposed “border carbon adjustment” will likely not hold up when challenged under various international trade agreements the United States is already a party to, including the World Trade Organization.




But hey, all the Dems need is to get 20 members of the House and 3 senators to join them, and the tax is a shoo-in.


Unless President Trump vetoes it.  Oh wait, the Dems will have forced him out of office.

Enjoy paying your carbon tax, suckers.

Wednesday, May 24

Dem website cites unsourced report by leftist fringe site claiming the entire Weiner sexting deal was a *setup*

Herewith, another example of how the Lying Leftist Media works:  Two days ago a Democrat-fellating website called "The Hill" ran a piece titled

Report: Girl in Weiner sexting case lied to damage Clinton

As of today (two days after it was published) the article has been shared just under 20,000 times, so it's getting lots of traction.  Let's take a look:
The teenage girl who exchanged sexually explicit text messages with former Rep. Anthony Weiner lied about her age and political motivations to harm Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, according to a report by investigative news site WhoWhatWhy.

In a report published Monday, the website said the girl who exchanged the messages with Weiner was closer to 17 and not 15, as initial reports said. That also puts her above the age of consent in North Carolina, which is 16.
 Note the word "report":  The unsourced hit-piece by WhoWhatWhy isn't described as a "story" or an "article" but as a "report."  Makes it sound...official, eh?
In addition, she and her family were also not Clinton supporters, as the girl claimed in a letter published by BuzzFeed, according to social media posts unearthed by the website. The report also says the girl initiated the contact with Weiner.

The website suggests this could mean that Weiner was the target of a politically motivated plot.
“Seeing that Weiner is both a repeat offender and associated with one of the most important people in Clinton’s inner circle, it is conceivable that this was a set-up from the beginning, with the objective of embarrassing the Clinton campaign,” the WhoWhatWhy report reads.

The investigation of Weiner and his accuser led the FBI to announce just weeks before Election Day that it was again looking at Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of State. It did so because it had found a number of Clinton's emails on Weiner's laptop, some of which were forwarded to him from his wife, Human Abedin, a longtime aide to Clinton.

Clinton lost the election, and many in her camp have blamed the FBI and its then-director, James Comey.

Weiner last week pled guilty to a charge of distributing obscene material to a minor, which carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison.

WhoWhatWhy is a nonprofit investigative reporting site...
Ah, "non-profit"!  Leftists read this as code for "You can trust 'em," cuz everyone on the Left knows wanting to make a profit automatically means you're eeeeeebil.

Wonder what their staff uses to pay their rent and buy food?  Maybe food stamps?  EBT cards?  I doubt it.  There's money here, salaries.  Follow the money and you'll find out who these assholes are working for.  I guarantee they ain't doin' it for free.
...that describes itself as "forensic journalism" that looks to "unearth the facts interested parties want hidden." Its editor-in-chief and CEO is Russ Baker, who has written for The New York Times, The New Yorker and The Washington Post. Baker is also the author of a book called The Family of Secrets, which alleges connections between the Bush family and historic events like Watergate during former President Richard Nixon’s presidency.

The WhoWhatWhy report, citing a court record, says the girl was just shy of 17 when she approached Weiner, and not 15 as The Daily Mail cited when it initially broke the story.
It argues that this "lie" seems "clearly designed to produce the maximum public outrage and put Weiner in greater legal jeopardy."

WhoWhatWhy cites a number of social media messages and photographs to argue that the victim was from a Republican-friendly family and that this suggests a political trick may have been in play. 
It says that the victim celebrated Trump's victory on social media, that her father is a registered Republican and that “her mother tweeted derisively about the Black Lives Matter movement.”
“It’s not yet clear whether the motive was primarily money, a plot to smear Clinton, or both,” the report notes.
So, a major Democrat-supporting organ cites a "report" claiming the whole Weiner/sexting-teen-girl/his-laptop-held-600,000-Hillary-emails thing was a setup, eh?

To say there are several problems with this is a profound understatement.  First it would mean that neither the FBI nor Weiner's pricey law firm bothered to investigate the girl's age back when it could have been used to totally demolish the "underage" charge.  So, Democrats:  Was the FBI part of the plot against Hilly?  Of course since the FBI worked for Trump that would be very plausible...except, oooh, wasn't the Emperor in command of the FBI back then?

Oooh, yeah, dat's right.

Well maybe Loretta Lynch was a secret Trump supporter.  Yeh, dat's it.

Get real.

While Weiner's sexting did get law enforcement involved, what caused Comey to re-open the investigation into Hillary's emails wasn't Weiner sexting a girl he believed was 15.  Instead it was that when the FBI searched his laptop, they reportedly found tens of thousands of emails from Hillary--some of which reportedly contained classified material.

Unless the girl and her handlers had a remarkable level of ESP how would they know there were Hillary emails on the laptop of her estranged husband?  (Recall that all Weiner's "sexting" was done by phone texts.)

So why would leftist Russ Baker be taking the time to run this story now, after the election is long over?  My guess is it's part of the campaign to oust Trump, by peeling away just enough GOP senators to give Dems a shot at removal after the impeachment they're hoping for.

But with all that said, if this was all a superbly intricate plot to sink Hilliary, it's the best news I've heard since election night--because it means Trump has some people working for him who are FAR smarter than any of the media ever thought.

Fabulous!