Tuesday, August 29

Dems in congress refuse to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance

This is a pic of the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Why do you think some of the members are standing, and some are sitting?

It's because the House is reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.  The Dems refuse to stand for it, preferring to sit around, slumped in their chairs, picking their noses.

If this is what they truly believe, fuck 'em.  They shouldn't be drawing a salary from taxpayers.


You'd think the Dem leadership would tell their people "This makes us look bad.  Stand for the Pledge, even if you don't like it."

But of course the Dem leadership dare not do that. because they actually agree.  Telling their members to stand would cost them precious black and communist votes.

This is what the Democrat party is all about today.

Fuck 'em.

H/T Sherry

Monday, August 28

Socialists: "Venezuela has NOTHING TO DO WITH SOCIALISM"

Venezuela says they have a socialist government, and they say it's absolutely wonderful.

Of course now that Venezuela--under socialism--has turned into a disaster, what do socialists have to say?  Take a look:


Sunday, August 27

In Quebec, thugs in masks order news network not to film their riot, smash camera

https://mtlcounter-info.org/en/no-face-no-case-in-defence-of-smashing-corporate-media-cameras/
On August 19th in Quebec, Canadians angry about their socialist prime minister's open-borders policy tried to hold a rally.  Their meeting place was surrounded by Antifa and assorted assholes, who prevented them from leaving.

National network news teams were on scene, filming.  A masked demonstrator ordered one video crew not to film.  The camera guy replied that they had every right to film.  Whereupon the fascist thug grabbed the expensive commercial video camera and smashed it.

So now masked rioters laughably mis-named "Antifa" feel free to order news camera teams not to film their rioting, eh?  Hmm...

In any case, these thugs have a website, which posted their rationale for ordering the team to stop filming, and then for smashing the camera.  It's titled "In defense of smashing corporate media cameras," and you have to see it to believe it.

During the [self-proclaimed] anti-fascist mobilization against the racist far-right in Quebec city on Sunday, a Global News camera was destroyed by black bloc participants 1.  We’d like to offer an explanation for why this happened, and why it will continue to be a necessity in demonstrations where people will be breaking the law.

Sometimes it's necessary to...break the law in order to do the ethical thing.  Those who mask up...have decided, at great personal risk, that they will use any means necessary to shut down... organizing [by anyone they disagree with].

Many of us believe that the entire system needs to be abolished, that the laws are oppressive, or that those who make the laws are responsible for a serious and urgent problem; whether that’s the destruction of our planet, the hundreds of thousands of home foreclosures, murders carried out by police with impunity, etc.
==
Let's analyze this for a moment: These snowflakes "believe that the entire system needs to be abolished."  Does anyone think these assholes are amenable to a compromise?  Think you can co-exist with people who are determined to abolish the entire system?

They believe "that those who make the laws are [causing] a serious, urgent problem."  Actually most conservatives agree with you.  But there's already a system to replace the people who make the laws.  It's called "free and honest elections."  We agree that it's flawed, but if the elections are honest, it's far less destructive and deadly to use that method than to use violent revolution.

Right now you snowflakes think revolution is peachy.  That's because the only group beating people is you.  One of you out of 100,000 gets killed, and you're horrified, so you're convinced the people you're beating will simply continue to give ground.  Because you think you won't meet real violent resistance you have every reason to push for violent revolution.

Guy named Hitler went thru that same thought process.  You might want to research how that worked out for him and his army.
==
Every photograph that is taken of people wearing masks or doing illegal actions becomes evidence that can be used for repression. 
"Repression," eh?  Oh, dat's right: you snowflakes view laws as "repression."
Police routinely use footage from demonstrations found on social and independent media to criminally charge people and put them in cages.
"Cages."  Oooh, dat's cruel!  Oh wait, do you mean "jail"?  Yeh, dat's what happens to people who assault others and destroy property.  Surely you knew that.
To make demonstrations safer for [us masked thugs] we need to make our demonstrations camera-free zones.
"Camera-free zones" sounds so...genteel.  Like "food-free" to describe socialist Venezuela.  SO much more "information-free" than "we order you not to film."  Cuz, y'know, that would be...fascist, eh?
First off, discourage people from filming or taking pictures during a protest, and explain how it is harmful. 
"Discourage people from filming."  As in, "Stop filming or we'll smash your camera and beat you."  Or as the Left calls it, "persuasion."
On Sunday in Quebec City, a CTV journalist was told not to film people with masks, to which he replied that he had every right to (which, according to the State’s laws, he indeed does). When he was given a final warning that if he continued his camera would be smashed, he walked over to the police to point us out, and later ripped off the mask of a comrade (which he paid for with a sore face the next day).
Note the passive construction:  "A journalist was told not to film..."  Far less threatening to a reader than "We ordered him not to film..."  Gee, almost like they're trying to disguise their tactics.
Last Sunday several [of our revolutionary comrades] came equipped with water-guns full of black paint to spray in the faces of fascists. Using similar tactics to blind the lenses of corporate media cameras, or even plain-old spray paint, will come in handy in the future.
Saying you're willing to spray paint in the faces of your opponents sounds like "great bodily harm."  Hopefully your revolutionary comrades in the States will pick up this tactic--cuz in most states folks are allowed to used firearms if they're "in fear of GBH." 


If the fascist thugs in black masks feel free to order news teams not to film, what's next?   Ordering witnesses not to talk to cops?  Holding women and children hostage?  Throwing bombs?

Their own article admits that they believe breaking the law is justified to accomplish their goals.  There's a shorthand for that:  The ends justify the means.

If they believe they're entitled to break law X, why not Y and Z?  Think they won't kill you if you get in their way?  It's time the adults brought out the street-sweepers.

They hate cops, but betcha when they're being shot they'll suddenly decide they want cops to protect 'em.

SJW's at a Colorado U demand that veterans be banned from 4-year universities


A "newsletter" demanding that military veterans not be permitted to attend a four-year university  has been posted at a Colorado university.

The newsletter--titled “Social Justice Collective Weekly”--claims the military is "a white supremacist organization," that veterans "are usually associated with extremist right-wing groups such as the Tea Party,"  and that LGBTQQI2SAA snowflakes (I'm not making that up) "are frightened by the presence of veterans in their classrooms."

Of course this is such blatantly insane garbage that you think it can't possibly be real.  Okay, here's the text:
First off, many veterans openly mock the ideas of diversity and safe spaces for vulnerable members of society.... [T]he problem lies in their socialization into the military culture that is...a white supremacist organization.

They have been permanently tainted, and are no long [sic] fit for a four-year university.

Second, many students are frightened by the presence of veterans in their classrooms. Veterans usually have an overwhelming presence in the classroom, which can distract other students. This is usually true for vulnerable individual [sic] such as LGBTQQI2SAA [sic], who have been known to be the butt of insensitive jokes made by veterans.

Finally, veterans usually are associated with extremist right-wing groups such as the tea party and the NRA.  In order to provide a safe place for all students, extremist right-wing groups must be suppressed on campus. This would include their followers: veterans.

That is not to say that veterans should not be allowed an education.
Well that's real fuckin' generous of you, snowflake!  So what do you intend to allow?
Veterans should be allowed to attend trade schools, or maybe even community college. But, in order to protect our academic institutions we must ban veterans from four-year universities.”

The head of the university issued a long statement saying that although he disagreed with the points made, whoever posted it had the right to do so.

Now, I agree with free speech:  Let the deranged Leftist snowflakes, Black Lies Matter, La Raza (the group that demands that all southwest states be restored to Mexico) broadcast their demands as wide as they wish, so we can all see 'em.  But try this little thought experiment:

What do you think the asshole head of the university would be saying if a group sought to post a letter on campus bulletin boards claiming blacks, illegal immigrants and LGBTEITHGNGIE's were intimidating straight students, and saying "We must BAN these people from 4-year universities."

Think the asshole would be singing a different tune?  Of course.

"Double standards" aren't just a meaningless term--they illustrate the total, blatant hypocrisy of the Left on so many, many topics.

These are the real fascists, the real Nazis.

Saturday, August 26

How the Left brushes away warnings of bad outcomes of their policies: "slippery slope"

When the Left proposes some obviously flawed or dangerous new government law or program, conservatives often respond that "If you do that, X is bound to happen."

Leftist "intellectuals" airily, contemptuously brush that objection aside by citing "the slippery-slope fallacy," which holds that just because you take one step in the direction of disaster doesn't mean you'll necessarily take a second or third step.

And that's certainly technically true.  The problem is, Leftists never stop with the first step, but always take the second, third and fourth steps.  And five or ten years down the road most Americans have forgotten that the Left sneeringly dismissed the warning from conservatives as an absurd "slippery slope" argument.

Of course if society--at the command of the Left/Democrats--proceeds down the slope, the argument ceases to be fallacious.  But no one remembers that the Left dismissed the warnings. 

Examples:
In 1986 the Left demanded "immigration reform"--which was actually a push to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens already in the U.S.  Conservatives warned that rewarding people who had broken the law by entering the U.S. illegally would encourage millions of others to do the same, hoping that the amnesty would be repeated.

The Left swore this could not happen, because the amnesty was a one-time offer.

The Left won: congress passed the "Simpson-Mazolli Act" in 1986, legalizing illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982.  Candidates were required to have a minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language.  President Reagan signed the bill.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that about four million illegal immigrants would apply for legal status through the act and that roughly half of them would be eligible for the amnesty.  No one spoke about what should be done with illegal aliens who didn't qualify.

That was 1986.  By 2010 an estimated 11 million more people had entered the U.S. illegally, and Democrats and other liberals were hell-bent on granting citizenship to all of them.  Cynics claimed the push by the Left was designed to ensure Democrats would win the presidency and control of congress for at least 50 years.  In 2010 National Public Radio sought to win younger or less-informed conservative voters over to the pro-amnesty side by implying that Reagan was the main push for amnesty back in 1986.

In 2014 MSNBC echoed that claim, falsely asserting that "the grandfather of amnesty happens to be one of the Republican Party’s most beloved heroes: President Ronald Reagan."

In 2012 five robes on the supreme court ruled that Arizona--and by implication no state--could enforce known, legal federal immigration laws.  To say the reasoning was strained is a huge understatement.  (As an aside, the Wiki history is very poorly written.)

In June of 2012 the emperor Obama decreed--by executive order--what Wiki cunningly describes as "an American immigration policy."  That's because it wasn't a law but an imperial decree.  Cleverly mis-named "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" [nothing about "illegal aliens"--just people who mysteriously arrived in the U.S.], it allowed "certain illegal immigrants who entered the country as minors, to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and eligibility for a work permit."

In November of 2014 the emperor tried to expand DACA to another few million, and announced a new "policy" called DAPA, which is described either as "Deferred Action for Parents of Americans" or "Deferred Action for Parental Accountability."  You may find it odd that a law would have more than one name.  That's because once again, DAPA wasn't a law.  It wasn't even an "executive" (imperial) order, but was a directive Obama cunningly had Jeh Johnson issue, to disguise the true source.  As Wiki coyly puts it, "DAPA was neither a law passed by Congress, nor a Presidential executive order, nor even a regulatory ruling, but it had the effect of a new law passed."

You may also find the title astonishingly uninformative.  That's intentional.  DAPA was Obama's attempt to invite the parents of millions of illegal alien "children" who had managed to sneak into the U.S.--often at the urging of the parents themselves.  You may also wonder how the policy could ever be called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, when the children of those parents were in fact not Americans.  That would be because way down toward the end of the "policy" was a 'graf that declared that people covered by the "temporary, renewable" amnesty of DACA were--bingo!--Americans.

Some 26 states sued the emperor's administration over this.  As a result ONLY of the determination of these states, the courts ruled both the emperor's proposed expansion of DACA and the entirety of DAPA unconstitutional.  But of course this was merely a temporary delay for the Left.

By 2014 the emperor's regime declared that the federal government would no longer use the terms "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant."

Today we're in free-fall, with dozens of Democrat-controlled cities and the state of California having declared themselves "sanctuary cities" (or state) and have decreed that their law enforcement people must not cooperate with federal authorities.  We've gone from the emperor suing Arizona to prevent it from enforcing federal immigration law to declaring de-facto amnesty for everyone, to entire states declaring they won't cooperate with the feds in enforcing existing immigration laws.

It's interesting that back when the emperor's regime sued Arizona, the courts found that federal law overrode state laws; but now that cities and states are deciding NOT to cooperate with federal laws, no one has raised the same issue.  Eh, who cares?

Want another example of a slippery slope that turned out to be deadly?  Consider how fast the nation went down the tubes in terms of marriage and gender:

Gays had first pushed to decriminalize homosexual acts.  Right after that victory they began pushing to legalize same-sex marriage.  Conservatives warned that if that principle was established, there would be no rational barrier to polygamy, or marrying siblings, or animals.  The Left laughed off these warnings:  Gay marriage, they claimed, had no connection to anything else.

So surely it was mere coincidence that shortly after the Left won on same sex marriage, the next push was for the right of children to declare they were actually the opposite "gender."  The emperor's regime sent down a decree that all schools had to allow students who wanted to be the other gender to use the bathroom and locker room of their choice.

Shortly afterwards both New York City and California passed rules or laws making it a crime to address someone by their preferred pronoun.  Academic conferences in the social area printed name tags saying "my preferred pronoun is ___."  New York City decreed that there were 30-some "genders."

A former army private who was in prison (sentenced to 35 years) for giving 750,000 classified cables to Wikileaks insisted he was a she, and demanded that the Army pay tens of thousands of dollars for his sex-change operation.  The top Pentagon civilians--taking their cue from the emperor--agreed.  Shortly thereafter the emperor--in a move designed to reward leakers and traitors, and give the finger to actual dedicated soldiers--commuted this scrunt's sentence after he served less than four years.

Hmm...pardoning a leaker and traitor, versus Trump's pardoning of Sheriff Arpaio for enforcing the law.  Which outrages liberals more?

In only one state--North Carolina--did the legislature muster the courage to buck the emperor's order that transgenders be allowed to use whatever bathroom they wished--and the trans snowflakes quickly got their friends in high places to boycott that state.  The NBA pulled playoff games, NCAA pulled everything, snowflake-run states banned state employees from using state funds to attend meetings in NC.

Now a cable television network--eager to get its virtue card punched--has invited transgender members of the military to sit on the front row of its annual awards show.  This is another middle finger to the serious military, but all too predictable.

Shall we turn to the firestorm that's blown up over statues?  Nah, this is too long already, so I'll save that for another post.  The point is that whenever the Left demands one step down what's clearly a bad path, they'll always follow it with another, and another.  Then when disaster is unavoidable they piously wail "NONE of this is our fault!  It's all due to those damn conservatives!  If they hadn't tried to obstruct this faaabulous, glorious program/policy all would have been great!  Blame them, not us!" 

CNN article shows how the Left has convinced so many snowflakes to support open borders


When your children look back to determine how the U.S.--a nation supposedly governed by laws, under the Constitution--was lost, show them this article by the America-hating assholes at CNN.

Written five years ago, the article claims there's no such thing as an "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant."

Of course you don't believe any Mainstream Media organ could lie so brazenly, so click the link and scroll down the the lead sentence of the sixth 'graf:
Migrant workers residing unlawfully in the U.S. are not -- and never have been -- criminals.   (source: CNN)
The author rationalizes this seeming contradiction by claiming--falsely--that if someone breaks the law, they're not actually a criminal unless they're convicted.  It's a sophomoric sophistry that simply ignores the definition of the noun "criminal": "a person guilty or convicted of a crime."

But accuracy in definitions is the last thing on the mine of the CNN author.  He has far more important considerations--like demanding amnesty and open borders.  So he takes it on himself to define the custom-Leftist meaning "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant:"
When you label someone an "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant"...you are effectively saying the individual, as opposed to the actions the person has taken, is unlawful. The terms imply the very existence of an unauthorized migrant in America is criminal.  
See, once you let him get away with claiming that workers "residing unlawfully in the U.S." were NOT criminals, he can then claim that anyone who uses "illegal" with "alien" or "immigrant" must be claiming "the very existence of an unauthorized migrant in America is criminal."

That last phrase in quotes is quite accurate, of course, but not under his custom definition.  And he claims that must mean you're saying the person is illegal--a meaningless term.

Of course that's not what "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" mean.  But by this time the Left has already claimed they've won the argument.

The skills Leftist America-haters bring to these arguments are significant.  They're the kind of skills that persuade many--even supreme-court "justices."  For example, consider this line of argument:
In this country there is still a presumption of innocence that requires a jury to convict someone of a crime. If you don't pay your taxes, are you an illegal? What if you get a speeding ticket? A murder conviction?  No. You're still not an illegal. Even alleged terrorists and child molesters aren't labeled illegals.
He starts with statements generally acknowledged to be true:  When one is on trial there is a presumption of innocence.  One is only convicted of a crime by the vote of a jury.  But see what he does in the second sentence: "If you don't pay your taxes, are you an illegal?"  He switches terms from "convicted of a crime" to "illegal," but uses his custom (false) definition that the term "illegal" ONLY applies to someone who's been convicted of a crime.

As you saw earlier, that's not the only definition.  But by using his version of the definition right after "presumption of innocence" and "requires a jury to convict" he leads readers to conclude that someone who enters the U.S. illegally is NOT actually an "illegal immigrant."

This is how the Left wins debates: sophomoric tricks.  "But it sounds so convincing!"  Yes.  But on closer examination--which is very hard to do in a real face-to-face debate--you can see how the trick works.  A simple example shows the flaw:

    Every citizen who hasn't been convicted of a felony is entitled to vote. 
    Conservatives believe people should have to show a photo ID to vote. 
    Therefore conservatives must be racists.

"Gay Pride" organizers ban conservative gay group from marching in their annual parade


How often have you heard the media claim that so-called "gays" were all about trying to create “a world in which LGBTQ people are affirmed, respected, and included in the full social and civic life of their local communities, free from fear of any discrimination, rejection, and prejudice”? 

You've heard that line endlessly spouted by gay groups for years--dutifully repeated, ad nauseam by  the Lying Mainstream Media, right?

Well, guess what?  It's bullshit.  They say it, but the truth is that Leftist gay organizers really mean "We want a world in which liberal LGBTQ's are affirmed, respected and included in the full civic life of their communities.  But if you're a conservative LGBTQ, we won't let you march in our parades."   And of course they do this while still screeching--falsely--that they want acceptance for ALL gays.

You can't get any more hypocritical than that.

Of course you almost certainly don't believe any group would be so fucking brazen as to declare their demand! for acceptance while simultaneously barring conservative gays from their parades, right?

Ah, I see you've only recently arrived on this planet.  So here ya go:  Gays in Charlotte have an annual parade, called simply "Charlotte Pride."  [Note this is the new, approved term for "Gay Pride" parades, cuz no one can possibly object to "pride," right?]

Earlier this year the group banned a group of conservative gays--whimsically calling themselves "Deplorable Pride" after Hilliary's infamous declaration about Trump supporters--from marching in the annual gay-pride parade.

A spokesman for the parade organizers defended the group's decision to ban the conservative gays, saying "Charlotte Pride" has the absolute right to [bar] "any group it feels does not reflect the parade’s values of welcoming groups on the fringes of American society, including undocumented immigrants."

Actually the asshole said "exclude" instead of "bar" because everyone knows that "barring" is only done by fascists, right? [/sarc]  Whereas "exclude" is such a genteel term.  But the group wasn't done yet.

“In the past we have made similar decisions to [ban] other organizations espousing anti-LGBTQ religious or public policy stances.  Charlotte Pride envisions a world in which LGBTQ people are affirmed, respected, and included in the full social and civic life of their local communities, free from fear of any discrimination, rejection, and prejudice.”

Actually the asshole used the phrase "decline participation from," because that sounds SO much nicer than "ban."

So are the Left-wing gays accusing conservative gays of...how did they put it?  "Espousing anti-LGBTQ stances"?  Well, not quite:  the Leftists are assailing the conservative gays of not saluting the Left's "religious or public policy stances."  Which reveals the lie:  The gay movement has been hijacked by the Left, which considers allegiance to the Left far more important than pushing for much simpler gay acceptance.

Of course we knew this all along.  It's why you don't hear a peep of criticism from Leftist gays about Muslims throwing gays off buildings for being gay:  The gay Left cares more about helping Islam destroy the west than about standing up to Muslims for gay rights.


Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article169372487.html#storylink=cpy
If the Left didn't have double-standards they wouldn't have any standards at all.


Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article169372487.html#storylink=cpy

Theater group pulls "Gone With the Wind" from summer film series b/c of pressure from SJW's

As every American over the age of 30 knows, "Gone With the Wind" is an epic romance set in and after the Civil War.  Published in 1936, it won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 1937, and was the source for the amazing 1939 movie of the same name.

The movie is considered one of the greatest films of all time.  It won ten Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actress, and Best Supporting Actress--Hattie McDaniel, the first African-American to ever win an Academy Award.

Obviously the film was immensely popular.  When adjusted for inflation it's the most successful film in box-office history.

It's considered one of the greatest films of all time, placing in the top ten of the American Film Institute's list of American films.

If you haven't seen it, you'd better do it now--because if the social justice warriors get their way it'll be banned within three years.

Of course you think this is absurd.  Hyperbole.  How could the snowflakes succeed in banning one of the top ten movies ever made?  How could they get a movie made from a Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel banned?

Guess you've been asleep for the last 8 months.  But in any case, glad you asked.  Cuz in Memphis the Orpheum Theatre Group has declared that it will delete the movie from its 2018 summer movie series "after feedback from patrons."

If you think this is a "one-off" you're too naive to breathe:  the Orpheum group just got their "virtue card" punched.  And now every other group--eager to get theirs punched too--will jump on the SJW bandwagon.

So if SJW's succeed in pressuring virtue-signaling groups to pull one of the best movies in history, do you think they'll stop there?  "But surely," I hear you saying, "no one would dare pull a Pulitzer-prize-winning novel off library shelves!  That's simply un-possible!"

Oh, good--spoken like true virtue-signalers.  But try to find the classic novel "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" in a school library.  Most have pulled it off the shelves--because Mark Twain owned slaves!

Oh wait...he didn't.

Well, they must have pulled it cuz it wasn't a very good novel. Yeh, dat's it.

Oh wait...it's considered one of the greatest American novels--though snowflakes have criticized it (for over a century) for being "coarse" and "crude."  Yeah, dat makes sense, cuz we all know Americans absolutely will not read novels labelled "coarse."

I give it three years before the snowflakes start demanding that libraries remove the Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel "Gone With the Wind" from their shelves.  In ten years they'll be holding book-burnings in the public square.

They'll never be satisfied.  Never.  And fully half of all Americans--overcome by guilt about something they had nothing at all to do with--will multiply the size of the mob by a factor of ten or so.

Yessss, my pretties, tear your nation down, bit by bit.  Make your children hate themselves, make them hate the most amazing nation ever.  Surrender freedom of speech, private property, free markets, capitalism.  Teach your children how crucial it is to do these things--all because some Americans did what the entire world regarded as normal 150 years ago:  tolerated slavery.

Imagine seeing a 15-year-old thug taking a hammer to the Pieta.  Conservative thought says deck the ignorant thug, take his hammer and sit on him until the cops arrive.  By contrast, Liberals would stand by and murmur approvingly: "Yaaas, that sculpture is raacis', cuz it's made out of white marble!

"We approve, cuz it's raacis', cuz the artist owned slaves!"  (No, he didn't, but it's a great rationalization for destroying the priceless work.) 

"We approve, cuz the sculpture is displayed in a basilica owned by the Catholic church, and everyone knows that the Church has done horrible things!"

Slow-motion war.

I've lived a great life, and don't have any children, so my interest is academic, dispassionate.  But you readers almost certain have--or will have--kids.  So you have one hell of an interest.

Enjoy.

Friday, August 25

Illegal alien released from jail for beating g/f despite ICE detainer kills g/f two weeks later


Ah, the Lying Mainstream Media--slanting stories (amusingly called "the news") to favor Democrats, communism and illegals since 1882.

Latest example is from lovely Santa Rosa, CA, where an illegal alien turned himself in to the police, saying he had beaten his girlfriend and believed she might be dead.  So here's how the Santa Rosa "Press Democrat" headlined the story:

ICE flagged Santa Rosa man two weeks before he allegedly killed girlfriend 

Here's a summary of the first five 'grafs of the Press Democrat's story:

1.  They identify the killer as a "Santa Rosa man," when he's actually an illegal--but of course they don't want you to know that, cuz Democrats.  They also note that the killer was "flagged by federal immigration authorities while in custody early this month."
      Whoa!  The guy was in custody earlier in the month?  I smell a rat.

2.  Nery Israel Estrada-Margos turned himself in, telling authorities he had beaten his girlfriend after an argument and feared she might be dead.

3.  Officers found her body.

4.  Estrada-Margos was booked on murder charges August 18th.

5.  Estrada-Margos had been arrested two weeks earlier for domestic battery after his girlfriend reported that he beat her on July 31st.
     Wait...the guy was jailed on August 2nd for beating his girlfriend, but was released...only to beat her to death two weeks later?  WTF?

5, continued: While he was in jail, federal Immigration and Customs officials contacted jail officials and asked to be notified when he was released.
     
6.  Estrada-Margos posted $30,000 bail on Aug. 3.  The Sheriff’s Office notified ICE that day of his release, but federal agents did not come to the jail to pick him up.

So, according to the Lying Mainstream Media the reason the guy was able to go from jail to killing his girlfriend two weeks later was that ICE simply did not pick him up, even though the sheriff's office notified them!  So hey, don't blame our sheriff, or California's rat-bastard legislature--which has actually passed a law barring local law enforcement from cooperating with federal authorities.

So blame it on the feds.  Yeh, dat's da ticket!

Now here's what the Lying rat-bastards cunningly omitted from the story:  The rat-bastard sheriff notified ICE that they were about to release the admitted killer at 8:20 p.m.  The same sheriff’s office then released Mr. Estrada 16 minutes later.

This is exactly what critics of "sanctuary city/state" policies warned would happen:  Local cops have a bad guy in jail, ICE tells locals they want to take custody of the guy ("detainer").  Following the orders of their political masters, locals ignore the feds and release the guy--only to have him kill someone.

Hey, great work, Democrat assholes!  Now if the illegal would just start killing Democrat politicians or their immediate family members, they'd get the point pretty damn quick.  But that's statistically unlikely, so it's not gonna get better unless voters get sick of 'em.

But when you consider that only a few dozen or few scores of voters each year lose family members to illegals who were released despite an ICE detainer, the Dems won't lose enough votes to matter.

Sure sucks to have a family member killed by one, though.

Great policy, Democrats.  Hope you sleep well at night knowing what you've unleashed.  Ah, but you won't ever admit your policy is crap.  You'll blame Trump, or Republican-fueled gridlock in congress, or global warming climate change--anything but your own political party.

Dem senate leader demands that commission investigating vote fraud be disbanded

When is one American's death a "national tragedy?"

According to Democrat demagogue senator Chuckie Schumer that would be when a woman was killed when a diagnosed schizophrenic fleeing a threat drove his car into liberal/Dem protesters.

So how did Chuckie react when an illegal alien--who'd been deported five times but repeatedly re-entered the U.S. illegally--fatally shot Kate Steinle?  How about each of the hundreds of times an illegal alien, driving drunk, has killed Americans? 

In both cases, not a peep from senator Schmuck. No wails of "It's a national tragedy."

But in the case of the woman killed in Charlottesville, Schmuckie is using what he's calling a "national tragedy" to demand--can you guess?  He's demanding that president Trump disband the commission that's investigating vote fraud in the last election.

Not kidding.  Here's Chuckie giving us his version of logic:
[W]hat troubles so many Americans every bit as much as the president's shocking response to this national tragedy is the methodical and pernicious way in which his administration is promoting discrimination, both subtle and not so subtle, in its policies and actions — especially when it comes to undermining the universal right of every American to vote.
Schumer said if Trump refuses to disband the vote-fraud commission, congress should attach a "rider" to a piece of must-pass legislation killing the commission.

The only conclusion one can draw is that Schumer believes we shouldn't be concerned about people voting illegally in national elections.  But if we ignore that--as Schumer recommends-- why would the side that lost think the election was valid?  What reason would the losing side have to honor the results?

Remember his quote--and who said it--if the Dems succeed in removing the president from office.  Schumer's call to end the investigation into vote fraud is a prescription for civil war. 

Thanks, Chuck.

Thursday, August 24

NBC station confused on Pelosi's position

In the previous post I linked to a long, long story by "NBC Bay Area," a station owned and operated by the NBC network.

About a quarter of the way down this story is this 'graf (if they haven't figured it out yet):
Senator Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday joined the ranks of California leaders who condemned the National Park Service's move. 
Unlike the Lying Mainstream Media, with their vaunted "layers and layers of fact-checkers," I'm just one lone guy trying to figure out how to keep the Left from destroying the country with their bullshit.  But I'm pretty sure the vampire Pelosi isn't a senator.  She was, of course, the first woman to be speaker of the House.  But that was ages ago, way back when the country was ruled by an emperor, so no one expects people under age 30 or so to remember that long-ago time.

Right after "senator Pelosi" was another 'graf from NBC that struck me as equally unlikely--an alleged quote from the Undead One:
As we ponder where and by whom the ill-conceived decision to approve this permit in a national park was made, we must all pray it does not become an invitation to incite violence.   (attributed to Pelosi by NBC)
Someone pointed out that Pelosi would be most unlikely to know the meaning of the word "prayer."  And the fact that she didn't burst into flame suggests she didn't really say that.

Another wag pointed out that "It depends the entity to whom you're praying."  Ah.

As an aside:  Do you really rely on the people who print and broadcast stuff like "senator Pelosi" to tell you anything like the truth?

City leaders in San Fran openly oppose "Patriot Prayer" rally set for Saturday; invite mob action

If a bunch of communists or socialists wanted to hold a rally on federal land, in a city with a Republican mayor, and the mayor responded that he was "deeply disappointed" that the federal government issued a permit to hold the rally on federal land, and opposed to the permit, how do you think the media would react?

They'd go ape-shit, screaming about "fascism" and "hostility to the very idea of free speech."  They'd scream that the socialists had every right to hold their rally, and that it expressing "deep disappointment" was tantamount to being unAmerican.

Is there a single person out there who thinks the media wouldn't do exactly as I described above?

So what if the parties were reversed:  How do you think the media would report the story if the mayor of San Francisco said he was "deeply disappointed" that a group called "Patriot Prayer" was given a permit to hold a rally on federal land in that city?

Already happened, and the Lying Media didn't utter or print a word of criticism.

The rally--planned for this Saturday--is slated to take place on federal land on the edge of the bay.  And the famously socialist assholes who run the city are outraged!  How dare these awful "right-wing" creatures try to actually hold a rally in our beautiful city!

To counter this effrontery city leaders have invited so-called "counter-protesters" to City Hall the day before the prayer rally for what they're calling a "Unite Against Hate" rally.

The president of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors said "All of this"--apparently referring to the horrible injustice of having to allow non-Leftists to speak on federal land--"is because we have chosen to unite against hate, to push for love, to push for inclusiveness."  "We will not let this rally destroy our city."




Because Leftists know nothing destroys a Leftist-run city like letting someone else exercise the right to free speech.

NBC gave two criminal defense lawyers great free publicity by reporting that the two announced that if a "counter-demonstrator" was "charged with a violent crime against a Neo-Nazi or White Supremacist at the Patriot Prayer event, lawyers at our office will represent that person regardless of their ability to pay for our services."



Cool, eh?  Attack a member of Patriot Prayer--who have just been defined by the president of the city's board of supervisors and NBC and the lawyers to be Nazis and white supremacists (gotta love the capitalization in NBC's story)--and you'll get free defense.  Nice incitement, eh?

That incredibly well-preserved piece of shit Nancy Pelosi also condemned the National Park Service's issuance of the permit for the rally, calling the decision to issue the permit "ill-conceived."  Cuz again, Leftists believe no one should have the right to free speech except them.

NBC is just like all the other national media:  Lying rat-bastards.

The prediction I'm about to make takes no particular skill:  The communists in San Fran will not be able to let this rally happen without a fight.  Like Boston, they'll mobilize a few thousand street thugs--a move that will have been coordinated the day before at the alleged "Unite against hate" rally that city pols have invited the leftists to attend at City Hall.  The mob will be armed with clubs, rocks, cans filled with cement, sticks with nails--the usual stuff.

They will head to Crissy Field....where the National Park Service has ordered that anyone attending the "Patriot Prayer" rally won't be allowed to carry anything that could conceivably be used as either a weapon or as a shield.

If you think I'm kidding, here's the list of items the NPS won't let the rally-goers bring in:
    Aerosols / pressurized canisters
    Ammunition
    Backpacks and bags exceeding the size restriction of 18” by 13” by 7”
    Balloons
    BBQ grills (propane tanks with any open flame)
    Bicycles (what's the reasoning here?  Doesn't matter; "Because")
    Coolers
    Drones and other unmanned aircraft systems
    Explosives
    Firearms (**including licensed concealed carry firearms**)
    Gas masks
    Glass or metal containers
    Helmets
    Laser pointers
    Liquids (other than water in factory-sealed, clear plastic bottles)
    Mace / pepper spray
    Packages
    Pop up tents or canopies
    Selfie sticks
    Shields
    Signs made of anything other than foam core, cardboard or paper
    Structures
    Supports for signs, including sticks of any material
    Toy or replica guns or weapons of any kind
    Wagons or carts
    Weapons of any kind

The leftist mob knows this, obviously.

This has the potential to be a massacre.  And I'll be greatly surprised if the communists will pass up a disarmed, defenseless target.

Now: if the leftist mob attacks--as I predict--the Lying Media will absolutely, positively claim that the mob was attacked by the rally-goers.  That's guaranteed.  But if you know San Francisco and have an IQ above room temp you can easily prove this is a lie--by noting where the battles happen.  If they occur within the "Zone 1" area on the map below--the "permit area"--it means the mob of leftist thugs entered that area.

Watch carefully:  Not a single fight will happen outside Zone 1, meaning those attending the Patriot Prayer rally stayed within the permitted area, and were attacked.

Now, is anyone in the country dumb enough to believe that San Fran cops--run by the leftist politicians--will seriously try to stop the mob?  No way.  As in Charlottesville, the cops will have been ordered not to intervene.

With the cops out of the picture, how much personal risk do you think the career civil servants at the NPS would take to stop the mob?

None.  The most they'll do is nicely ask the mob to refrain from clubbing unarmed people.  Plus, the NPS only has 53 people assigned to the event.  So...no effect at all.

So, watch the internet Saturday from 2 to 5 Pacific time.  Hope I'm wrong.  And if there's fighting, watch where it takes place.

Lying Mainstream Media get a memo: Time to change the meme


And just like that, the Narrative dropped the discredited "Russian hackers!" meme and pivoted to a fresh one.

Liberals demand the right to burn and deface the flag cuz "free speech," but won't let you display a Confederate flag


And to be even more accurate, the blue-state guy really means "That's different because I'm offended."

Time once again to play "Fact or Fake?"

A week ago Joshua Witt pulled into the parking lot of a restaurant in Colorado. 

As he got out of his car a man yelled "Are you one o' them neo-Nazis?"  The man then swung a knife at Witt's head.

Witt threw his hand up to block the blow and was seriously cut on both hands, but then managed to jump back in his car and slam the door.  The man ran away.

Now you get to play CNN producer.  Here are your options for how to deal with this story:
  1. It never happened.  The pics Joshua Witt posted on his Fakebook page are photoshops.  Everyone knows the tolerant members of Antifa and BLM would never be violent.
  2. IF it happened--and to be clear, we at CNN highly doubt it did--we suspect the attack was really a "false flag" operation, with the attacker actually a right-wing supremacist who was trying to make Antifa and BLM look bad.
  3. We looked up "Joshua Witt" in the phone book, and he doesn't exist.

A photo the Lying Media would never let you see

Think the Lying Mainstream Media will ever show you THIS pic?


Not a chance. Cuz it would show which side is *really* pushing violence and murder.

Wednesday, August 23

Time once again to play "Fact or Fake?"

...the game where you get to do what CNN editors and producers do: They either make stuff up that fans the flames of race hate and hatred of conservatives, or else they kill stories about things that really happened but that either make Dems look bad or conservatives look good.  You decide.

1. What does this letter look like to you?

Sure--it looks like a collection letter.  Now, suppose I told ya this wasn't actually a collection letter, but a fundraising solicitation from a political party.  Which party would you guess?
  • Republicans, because as the Dems constantly tell us, people who vote Republican are so poorly educated--"deplorables," as Hilliary put it--that they'd think it was a real demand letter and they'd send lots of money immediately; or
  • Democrats, because as they constantly tell us, their voters are all highly educated, so all those who received it would know right away that this was...um..."a joke."  "Satire."  "Sophisticated humor."  Remember, these are the folks who think "Saturday Night Live" is actually funny.  So they must be really smaht.
2.  One party is trying to change the rules for EBT cards to let people make donations to political parties using the card.  Which party?

3.  One or more cable networks claimed Trump could be impeached for one of the things he said in Phoenix last night.  The choices:
  • ESPN, cuz they're now "all politics, all the time;" or
  • PBS, cuz they're all in on getting Trump removed via the 25th amendment; or
  • MSNBC, cuz they're looking to double their viewers from 34 to 68.
 4.  A Leftist organizer has called for a statue of Christopher Columbus to be removed from the center of a traffic circle that bears his name.  Is the city
  • New York
  • Austin
  • San Francisco
  • Los Angeles
  • Chicago
  • Atlanta
  • Seattle
  • Portland
  • All of the above
 5.  What's the capital of Ohio?
  • Cincinnati
  • Canton
  • Cleveland 
  • Toledo
  • Dayton
  • Is this a trick question?  Isn't it Columbus?
Answer:  It's Columbus, but only for another three weeks, until the snowflakes pressure the city council to change the city's name to Martin Luther King City.  Or Leningrad.  Or "Chairman Mao Memorial City of Peace."  They haven't quite decided.

Ohio city to abolish Columbus Day; NYC council member wants to remove Columbus statue

The city council of Oberlin, Ohio has voted to eliminate "Columbus Day." and rename it "Indigenous Peoples' Day."

This is a hot-button issue in Oberlin because of the large percentage of Native Americans in the city:  according to the 2010 census two-tenths of one percent of the residets were Native American. 

Actually the push is coming from the usual Leftist screamers, whose main agenda is starting a civil war in the U.S.  But hey, doesn't matter who's pushing it, right?  Tomato, tomahtoe, eh?

Next you can expect demands to rename Ohio's capital, which is now Columbus.

Not to be outdone, on Monday the infamous speaker of New York City's council, a charmless creature by the name of Melissa Mark-Viverito, said a 76-foot statue of the explorer at Columbus Circle in Manhattan could be the next to go "following a review."

Does anyone believe a review commissioned and staffed by Leftist city council members will recommend anything that contradicts the wishes of the head Nazi speaker of the powerful council?

Can't honor Columbus because he owned slaves, right?  Oh wait, he didn't.  But hey, no matter: He was a white European, and that's enough to put the snowflakes and Nazi's on the warpath.

Tuesday, August 22

Outraged black attacks statue of Columbus in Baltimore

An ignorant but outraged! moron in Baltimore took a sledgehammer to a monument of Columbus.  Does he think Columbus owned slaves?

Yeh, dat's it.

Listen to this moron say that "these monuments were built in the 20th century in response to a movement by African-Americans to..." bullshit.  Cuz this monument is 225 years old.

Guy's a moron, but outraged!   Like 19 Muslims with box knives, he can destroy but cannot build.



Ah, wait: the moron says he's destroying the monument because Columbus was the first European to get here, so he planned it all for the rest of the Europeans... or somethin'.  Yeh.

So here's a thought experiment for liberals:  What do you think will satisfy this outraged! moron?

Do you believe he and his comrades will be satisfied to take the homes of just certain whites, but will leave you alone?  (They've already formally "requested" that you give your home to blacks.)

When he and his comrades come to take your home, do you think your party membership save you?   Think the fact that your home is only 1800 square feet will persuade him and his howling, leaping comrades to let you keep it?  I know:  tell 'em you voted for Obama.  Surely that'll do it.

Six Flags removes all but the American flag, because of...


Most Americans have heard of the big theme-park chain Six Flags Over Texas.

If someone had told you in 2008 that just nine years later the execs of Six Flags would be forced to replace all the flags because they were afraid to risk violence from snowflakes outraged! over the Confederate flag, you'd have thought they were nuts.

Well, now that's exactly what's happened.
 Now, as a private entity they obviously have the right to do as they wish.  (Well, unless you're a baker opposed to gay marriage or a Catholic religious order that opposes the Obama administration.)  My point in posting this is to show how utterly impossible it is to predict knock-on effects of changes. 

"Social media" sites blocking / deleting content they don't like

Conservatives have long recognized the extreme liberal/Democrat bias of Mainstream Media, which reliably reports only the pro-Democrat side of every event.

Ho-hum, right?

Now we're seeing so-called "social media" --Facebook, Google, YouTube (owned by Google) Instagram and others-- blocking content that contradicts The Narrative.

Not all--not yet, anyway.

Of course the leftist assholes who run the above sites have the right to delete whatever they want.  But you should know they're doing it.

Sunday, August 20

Unprovoked, senseless murder in NYC; killer on the loose; Post doesn't print his description


Two days ago in New York City a young couple were walking on the sidewalk after apartment hunting.  They walked past two men sitting on steps.

Moments later one of the men fatally stabbed George Carrol as his horrified wife looked on helplessly.

The killer fled.  

The next day the New York Post ran a story about the murder.

Now, with the killer still on the loose and the wife having witnessed the fatal attack at close range, you'd think an absolutely crucial part of the story would be for the fable-writer "reporter" to include a description of the killer, right?

For some reason the Post didn't think that was important enough to bother including a description.

The next day, the Post ran a followup.  Surely, I thought, by then some editor would have noticed the glaring omission from the first story and would have edited the story.  But still no description of the killer in the totally unprovoked attack.

Until a few years ago--2004 or so--newspaper stories about murders where the killer was still on the loose included a description, which often resulted in useful tips.  But I guess the "journalism schools" have decreed that helping the cops locate killers is no longer worthwhile.  Yeah, dat's probably it.  Cuz I can't imagine any other reason to refrain from printing a description.

Anyone have any info on the new stylebook?

Bill Maher, Democrat propagandist


On Friday Bill Maher commented about the violence in Charlottesville.

Recall that every one of the rat-bastards in the Lying Mainstream Media blasted Trump for condemning violence "on all sides."  The media implied--though they very carefully didn't explicitly state--that all the violence came from one side only: from those protesting the removal of the statue of General Robert E. Lee from the park once named for him.

Like everyone who watched the hours and hours of rerun video of the fighting, Maher has to know his claim is bullshit.  So he elides the truth by joking that "liberals don’t form militias, they form drum circles.”

Gotta admit that's actually pretty funny.  But Maher can't let the joke go without complaining that "Trump kept saying, ‘There’s violence on both sides.’ [But] there wasn’t."

Bill, you lying sack of crap, I watched the endlessly-repeated videos for hours, and both sides were throwing punches.  To say that only one side was violent insults everyone's intelligence.  Oh that's right--your viewers believe your crap, without question.  Mission accomplished.

Maher completed his mission by adding that even if there was violence on both sides in Charlottesville, it doesn’t matter...because he compared Antifa and BLM to American soldiers in WW2.

Naturally you don't believe that, so here's the quote: "...because there was violence in World War II and the Allies were still the good guys."

I hate lying sons of bitches like Maher.

Democrats and MSM: "Conspiracies involving huge systems--like voting--can never happen." Ooops.

Whenever some poor, deplorable working stiff claims insiders conspired to rig anything big that operates in the public realm, how do the Lying Mainstream Media always react?

They ridicule him.  "Can't possibly happen," they claim.  "To do something that outrageous would require lots of people's help, and it would be impossible to keep such a conspiracy secret."

Ridiculing the possibility of a successful conspiracy is how Democrats make people refuse to believe massive, organized vote fraud can or has happened--and will happen again and again.

So if someone claimed insiders had rigged a state lottery, resulting in their winning at least five jackpots worth over $16 million, you can be certain your betters in the media would say "Couldn't happen.  Cuz winning numbers are generated randomly by a computer that's in a glass room with video security, and not connected to any outside network.  There's no way that could possibly happen.  And anyone who believes such a ridiculous story is a fool."

Ah.  Well....

Now a computer guy working for the "Multi-State Lottery Association" pleaded guilty to rigging the lottery so he and his friends could win over five state lotteries worth over $16 million.  Got away with it for at least five years.

The guy did it by inserting a program into the computer that generated the supposedly-random winning numbers. 

Oh, and did I mention that the guy was head of security for the lottery association?   Yeah.

The guy's own brother "won" $568,000 in the lottery, but no one in the association thought that odd.

But remember, citizen:  conspiracies involving big-stakes deals, in areas subject to intense public scrutiny, simply can't happen.

And also remember that if you ever heard any warnings from conservatives, back when your state was considering whether to start a lottery, that they'd become magnets for corruption, you are advised to ignore those warnings.  Because you can trust government officials to make sure things are honest.

Besides, half the proceeds go to funding schools.  So "it's for the children," right?








In Dem-run cities, Antifa and BLM have effectively banned any speech they don't like

One of the core tenets of the founders of this nation--one so vital that they put it in the First Amendment--is freedom of speech.  [Dems may need to read the Note at the end of this post.]

The events of the last two weeks have conclusively shown that te leaders of the Democratic party don't believe in that right--at least for speech they don't like.

Back in the 1960's, Democrats were totally in favor of free speech:  They wanted to be able to burn the American flag and call for the government to be overthrown by force, with no consequences.  Conservatives recognized the damage this would do to the nation but also realized the importance of free speech, so the Democrats were free to radicalize as many young Americans as possible.

But today, with Democrats totally controlling the Lying Mainstream Media, public schools, universities and most lower courts, Democrats have effectively eliminated the right of Americans to say anything the Democrats don't want said.

They've have done this by allowing mobs of leftists to attack speakers the Dems don't like.

Of course many Democrats will angrily deny that their party has done any such thing, but the fact is that in every case since the last presidential election where a speaker or group sought to speak in a Dem-controlled city, the police have either allowed the mob to attack without intervening, or else have removed the would-be speakers from the venue before they could speak, as happened yesterday in Boston.

Not one Democrat politician has condemned Antifa or BLM for their attacks--because all Dem pols know that condeming the mob attacks by BLM and Antifa would be political suicide.

Instead, Dems have followed the lead of their emperor, who got away with clearly violating the Constitution's mandate that the president "shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed" when he ordered federal agents not to deport millions of young illegal aliens.  When congress declined to impeach Obama for this, Democrats realized the Constitution was no longer the supreme law of the land. 

Now they have allowed the mob to block speech they don't like.  In doing so they have violated the Constitution and the rule of law.  To the Democrats, "free speech" only applies to speech they approve of.

Not surprisingly, a few million Americans are angry about this.

So here's what's very likely to happen:  Instead of choosing a Democrat-controlled city and state to hold a rally, the "free speech means what it says" movement will announce a rally in a smaller town with a Republican mayor, in a state with a GOP governor.  BLM and Antifa will call up their mobs as usual--but this time the governor will mobilize the state's National Guard to help city and county cops protect the speakers.

The mayor and governor will announce that anyone wearing a mask will be promptly arrested.  With their faces exposed and recorded, snotflakes will be far more likely to behave.

Of course the hard-core leftists won't be deterred, and will take on the cops and the guardsmen.  At that point things will get far more interesting.
====

Note on the First Amendment (for Democrat legal quibblers):  As everyone should know, it actually says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

Quibblers on the left may well claim that this amendment actually does NOT guarantee freedom of speech--nor of the press, nor freedom of religion, nor of the "right to assemble"--but merely bars congress from passing a law restricting those rights.

Literally that's obviously true.  However, back in the days when the nation's highest court actually believed in the Constitution, on numerous occasions the court held that no state could deprive any citizen of any of the rights enumerated in the Constitution.

Saturday, August 19

The true face of Antifa

A few days ago the Lying Mainstream Media and various Lefty blogs like HuffPo ran pics of American troops jumping off a landing craft to fight their way ashore on D-day. 

So were they honoring the bravery of American GI's?  Hardly.  They compared the anti-American thugs of Antifa to these troops!

Whereupon some blogger sought to...uh...correct the record:
Antifa=American GI's storming the beaches on D-day.  Yeah, sure.

Lying Media = cunning idiots

Vandals deface statue they think is Confederate hero; actually Christopher Columbus

In Houston last night vandals spray-painted a statue of Christopher Columbus. 

Word on the street is that the vandals believed the statue was of a Confederate general, so, you know....

After historians noted that Columbus pre-dated the U.S. civil war by three and a half centuries, the local TV station--anxious to avoid angering local residents screaming about being triggered by Confederate-era statues--defended the act by noting that "some consider Christopher Columbus to be a controversial figure."

Well there ya go then.  Everything's fine.  According to Liberals and Democrats all ya need to excuse vandalism is to claim that a statue is "controversial."  That also serves to excuse stabbing.  Or hitting someone on the head with a club.

The snowflakes have gone full-Idiocracy.

Idiocracy

Saw the movie "Idiocracy" a couple of days ago, for the second time.

The first time was a decade ago, and it struck me as sophomoric humor but fairly amusing.

This time it looked more like a documentary.  And not because of Trump.

Fact or Fake: Is the NAACP demanding a boycott of the NFL unless Kaepernik is signed?

Fact or Fake?  Things have gotten so crazy that it's hard to know anymore.

The NAACP (for those under 30 that's the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) has called for a boycott of the NFL unless some team hires America-hating washed-up QB Colin Kaepernik.

If Kaepernik isn't hired by an NFL team, the black organization will ask fans to not attend NFL games or even watch 'em on television.

A spokesman for the Georgia branch of the NAACP said
“There will be no football in the state of Georgia if Colin Kaepernick is not on a training camp roster and given an opportunity to pursue his career.  This is not a simple request.  This is a demand."  --Gerald Griggs, spokesman for Georgia NAACP
Wow, a "demand," eh?  Clearly the NAACP is feeling new power following the success in getting Democrat pols to remove statues deemed offensive to the black community.

I predict NFL owners and the commissioner will secretly arrange for some team to sign Kaepernik for over a million a year--with the cost secretly split by all owners--rather than risk a boycott by 12 percent of the population.

And of course this will prove to any blacks who weren't already convinced that you can do anything to show you hate the U.S. and still be paid handsomely.  Good lesson, eh?

Mayor of Baltimore refuses to say where the statues went; city council member wants them destroyed

Further to the story about the black female mayor of Baltimore ordering the before-dawn removal of four statues:  Some conservative reporter had the gall to ask the mayor where the statues were now.

The mayor refused to say where they were.

Also, an unnamed member of the city council has called for the statues to be destroyed.  The mayor commented that "no decision has been made" on whether to destroy them. 

The statues would like be worth hundreds of thousands if auctioned off.  But of course, that won't happen.

As I noted in a prior post, the most likely outcome is that after a few years the statues will have vanished, and no one in the city government will claim to know what happened to them, or even where they were stored.  In fact they will have been melted down for the value of their bronze, probably by a brother-in-law of a city council member.  But because the statues will have been out of public view for years, there won't be any way to find out who did it.

After murder of 14 by a van in Barcelona, will Dems demand a ban on vehicles?

Ever notice that whenever anyone, anywhere uses a gun to kill someone, Democrats and Leftists call for a ban on guns?  Sure.  Every time.

Now that Muslims have used vehicles to mow down over a hundred civilians in an near Barcelona, does anyone think we'll be hearing calls from Democrats and Leftists to ban cars, vans and trucks in city limits?  Of course not.

There's been a wave of fatal stabbings in Germany--virtually all by Islamic immigrants--capped by the stabbing deaths of two in Finland, by an immigrant.  Does anyone think we'll be hearing calls from Democrats and Leftists to ban knives?  Of course not.

Why the double-standard when it comes to guns?

Simple:  If Democrats didn't have double-standards they wouldn't have any standards at all.

When Norks threatened to nuke U.S. libs didn't say jack, but when Trump responded...OMG!


Pelosi calls for removal of statues of Confederate figures from U.S. capitol

In the capitol building of the United States there's an area featuring statues commemorating two residents of each state.  Each state gets to select the citizens its people want to commemorate.

Ah, but that was then.  Now Democrat and former speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has called for...well, let's get the exact quote:
The Confederate statues in the halls of Congress have always been reprehensible.  If Republicans are serious about rejecting white supremacy, I call upon Speaker Ryan to join Democrats to remove the Confederate statues from the Capitol immediately.    --Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi was joined by Dem senator Cory Booker, who said he would introduce a bill to remove the statues.

Oh wait--just now realized the above story and quote were published by a notoriously unreliable source, so you can't really trust it to be true, y'know?

Source is the NY Times.

In other news, Pelosi also called for everyone whose last name is "Lee" to change their name to something that won't offend people who are triggered by that name.  Pelosi said "If Seattle can remove the name "Lynch" from three of its schools, why can't I order the same thing?  After all, what difference is there in the principles involved?"

In still other news Democrat senator Chuck Schumer called for the word "lee" to be removed from dictionaries in the U.S.  Schumer said the phrase "lee side," meaning the side of a ship opposite from the direction of the wind, was a "gratuitous, totally unnecessary micro-aggression" for millions of Americans.

Schumer said "The courageous Democrats of Seattle have shown us that Americans don't have to tolerate names or terms that offend them."  He added that if Republicans refused to pass his proposed law, student activists should simply tear out the offensive pages.  "After all," he said, "that's what we do with offensive statues."

And as if on cue, in the middle of the night last night, Duke university removed a statue of Robert E. Lee from campus, on orders of the university's president.  In a written statement the president of Duke explained
The purpose of universities was to provide a safe, non-triggering space for people too young to have developed the personal skills required to enable them to cope with triggers, so removing this horribly offensive statue was the right thing to do.
===
Now:  You're well-informed, right?  Cuz you listen to the Mainstream Media, which tells you everything significant that happens they want you to know.  So you know which two of the above events actually happened. 

"We'll ban speech we don't like, destroy property, erase history...to suppress fascism"


And 99% of those on the Left are totally unaware of the contradiction.

Statue vandalized in California; CBS station buries the lede. See if you can discern the reason

In journalism, the most important part of a story is called the "lede."  Normally the lede is in the first sentence or paragraph.  When a paper publishes a story in which the "real news" is several 'grafs down, it's called "burying the lede." 

Back when reporters were fairly non-partisan this was ridiculed as an error made by newbie reporters.  It'd be like printing an article on the assassination of JFK that said "President's return to DC delayed by hospital visit."

But burying the lede is actually quite useful when the Lying Mainstream Media wants readers to NOT notice the "real" significance of an event.  Here's an example from two days ago:
MISSION HILLS (CBSLA.com) — Several people stopped by a statue of Father Junipero Serra in a park across from Mission San Fernando on Thursday after a photo made the rounds on social media appearing to show the statue had been vandalized.

A picture circulating Facebook showed the statue spray-painted red and the word “murder” written on Serra in white.
d0fe2e50a9fa41339f7d13c96458bf6b Junipero Serra Statue Vandalized In Mission Hills
While city officials would not confirm the authenticity of the photo or the clean-up, a CBS2 reporter saw red paint on Serra’s arm and a swastika on the statue of the child standing next to him.
The real story here is that some low-IQ revolutionary, following the lead of his comrades who are tearing down statues they don't like, vandalized this one.  But notice how the CBS station wrote the story: The first sentence tells us "Several people stopped by a statue..."

Whoa!  Stop the f'n presses!  If you find that to be...less than gripping, you're right.  That was deliberate.

Next phrase: "...after a photo made the rounds on social media..."  Wow!  "A photo made the rounds on social media," ya say?  Is that really an important element of the story?  Well, maybe to highschool students--cuz everyone knows how Americans are slavishly devoted to whatever appears on "social media."

Finally, CBS clues you to the significance of the photo:  it's "appearing to show the statue had been vandalized."  Not "vandals spray-painted a statue in Mission Hills," but rather that someone posted a photo appearing to show vandalism.

Note how careful CBS is here:  The photo clearly shows the statue spray-painted with the word "murder." Unless you're an idiot, that's vandalism.  But CBS wants to bury that fact.  Why?  Because admitting it up front would validate the predictions of dozens of conservative commenters who warned that vandalizing statues was a "slippery slope" guaranteed to have consequences far beyond what the current mainstream media and Democrats believe.

Conservatives warned Americans about this.  And it took about one day to be proven correct.

In fact, someone who wasn't from California could easily conclude that this "apparent vandalism" was just another example of snowflakes vandalizing a statue honoring a Confederate figure.  Nothing noteworthy about that, eh Sparky?

For those who are still naive enough to think this is paranoia, a brief thought experiment will show you the truth:  If someone vandalized a statue of MLK, what do you think the Lying Media's opening 'graf would be on that event?  Would it be
Several people stopped by a statue of Martin Luther King jr. after a photo made the rounds on social media appearing to show the statue had been vandalized.
Obviously not.  QED.

What MUST happen when Dem-controlled city governments allow Antifa to beat up others?

From a commenter on Belmont Club:
When the Antifa types learn that Democrat-controlled governments will allow them to attack others with impunity (something they've already learned), not only will they continue to attack, but will increase the violence of those attacks. 

If they can beat people with baseball bats while the police watch without responding, what is to keep them from shooting or stabbing those who oppose them next time?  In a Democrat run city, there will be no response, no arrest, no prosecution.

That's why the media has to jam that story, to keep Americans not on the Left from grasping that reality.
Another:
The public was starting not to believe The Narrative of "Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election," so on August 12th something the Media spins as a "racist riot" by "white supremacists" happens in Charlottesville. 
The Media instantaneously pivot out of "collusion with Russia" and into "Racism & Riot" without missing a beat. After nearly a year of Trump & Russia, all day, every day, the "collusion with Russia" narrative vanishes.  Trump is no longer a Russian.  Instead, Trump is now a racist.
Another:
Democrats and liberals claim not to believe there's any connection whatsoever between the thugs of "Antifa" and the Communist Party.  If you're one of those, take a look at this pic of the dais at the Communist Party's "Third International:"
 

Wait!  Be reasonable, comrade.  Anyone can see that this photo is CIA agitprop!

Another commenter:
Soon--if not already--just advocating for the local university to teach a course in western civ will get you labeled as a white nationalist, racist, terrorist.




Friday, August 18

Muslim terror attack in Barcelona bumps The Narrative off the headlines; Media will fix that soon

"The Narrative" is like the Matrix--it's what the Democrats and their media allies want you to believe.  Examples:
  • The Dem National Committee was hacked by the Russians.  
  • Mueller will conduct an impartial investigation.  
  • One must have "intent" in order to be prosecuted for violating laws for compromising classified material.  
  • Anyone who protests the removal of statues of Robert E. Lee must be a white supremacist and raaaacist.
Many, many more examples.

But once in a great while events can overwhelm the Narrative.  It's called burn-through, which is what happens when a radio signal is stronger than the power of a jamming station.

Narratives are powerful but not omnipotent.  For example, the public is all to willing to believe the narrative that all attacks by Muslims after 9/11 were carried out by "lone wolves."  But that only works when such attacks are fairly infrequent.  But if such attacks happen too frequently, the Narrative fails and the public begins to wonder if the attacks are really being triggered by a central authority. 

Even the immense resources at the disposal of the mainstream media--thus at the disposal of Democrats--can be overcome by a strong enough signal from events.  And in this case...

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the van attack on a popular tourist venue in Barcelona that killed 13 dead and injured 100.

Suddenly the war on statues has been bumped off the front pages by Islamic terrorism.

Oooh, can't have that.  And you may be certain that the Mainstream Media will do their best to get us back to The Narrative.  Cuz the Media know that if Americans see terrorism as a problem, the Media loses.  The Media desperately, intensely want you to believe that Trump and America-first policies are the greatest threat to your well-being.

So...you may be certain that the Barcelona attack will quickly disappear from the headlines, replaced by Russia Russia RUSSIA!  Or infighting by members of the White House staff.

Or that Trump is about to start a nuclear exchange with that peace-loving fellow who runs North Korea.

Wolf Blitzer is already on video wondering (i.e. trying to get you to consider it plausible) whether the vehicle attack that killed 13 in Barcelona was--listen carefully--a copycat of what happened in Charlottesville.

Naturally you don't believe that.  You don't believe it because you can't believe any reasonable facsimile of a human could make such an absurd statement.  Well, click here to read the story.  And it's not from some right-wing source, but from the totally Left-wing Huffington Post.  And since it represents an "admission against interest," it's a lot more reliable.

I really, really hate the Lying Mainstream Media.  And the party they work for.

Australian senator walks into senate chambers wearing burqa; no one asks to see her face

Many citizens of western nations correctly see that "protected groups" don't have to obey rules that members of non-protected groups are forced to obey.

A female senator in Queensland, Australia--Pauline Hanson--decided on a clever way of showing this:  She walked into the senate chamber wearing a "burqa"--worn by Muslim women and which covers the entire face and head.

Not a single security guard stopped her, asked her for identification or asked to see her face.

But her clever demonstration revealed a lot more about her fellow senators and the region's attorney-general, who screamed bloody murder--not at the security staff, but at Hanson, claiming her demonstration had "ridiculed Islam."


I'd say "You gotta be kidding" but this sort "some-religions-are-more-privileged-than-others" equivocation is all too common in almost all western nations.  Hard to figure.

Oz is rapidly undergoing Islamization, just like the U.K., Germany and most of Europe.

Dem-loving WaPo claims "we owe our country's very existence" to civil-rights movement or...

Three days ago the Washington Post ran this bizarre claim, penned by a college professor:
We owe our country’s very existence as an enduring political experiment to the work and sacrifice we now call the civil rights movement or the black freedom struggle, 
How...odd.  Somehow I'd gotten the impression that the existence of the United States was due to a war fought almost entirely by white males against the British empire.  Now along comes this fellow claiming that the U.S. REALLY owes its existence to "the civil rights movement or the black freedom struggle."

That's just...amazing.  But it was printed in the WaPo so it must be accurate, right?  And it was written by a....college professor, so it has to be accurate, right?  I mean, who would bullshit us about something so easily checked?

Oh wait...now I see the author is black.  In that case, never mind.  Cuz blacks and gays and militant feminists and similar get to make up their own history, and if you don't accept it you'll be accused of a micro-aggression or something.

Once again, yesterday's satire is today's demand by angry blacks and their white allies

Angry, hate-filled blacks--and their white allies, including Leftist blogs--are making so many war-urging statements that it's becoming hard to even log them all.

Latest example: An angry black guy named Wilburt Cooper wrote a piece for the leftoid website "Vice" originally titled "Let's blow up Mount Rushmore," in which the author complains that the men commemorated on Rushmore were evil. 

You get a quick sense of where this asshole's head is when you read his description of the inspiring Lincoln memorial in DC:  "...Abe Lincoln squatting on his throne or George Washington's phallus towering over everything in DC."  The author also whined that the president blamed violence on all sides rather than blaming ONLY the folks protesting the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee--a group the Lying Mainstream Media have dutifully, slavishly labelled "white supremacists" in every single article and story.

Well...a few hours after Vice published the piece, its leftist operators appear to have sensed, shall we say, murmurs of disagreement.  So they changed the title from "Let's blow up Mount Rushmore"  to
 "Let's get rid of Mount Rushmore."  
They didn't want to just delete the piece, of course, since they'd lose face with their leftist and black readers.  So as of now, anyway, it's still on their site.

But as everyone knows by now, the internet records stupid shit like this, so if you wanna see evidence of the original "Let's blow up Mount Rushmore" title--and a tweet from Vice showing how proud they were of the original title--click here.

The editors also added an oh-so-fake non-apology at the end of the article.
Editor's note: The headline and URL of this story have been updated. We do not condone violence in any shape or form, and the use of "blow up" in the original headline as a rhetorical device was misguided and insensitive. We apologize for the error.
They say they apologize for "the error."  But of course it wasn't an error.  The site's operators read the article and the headline, and posted it.  It was NOT an error (except tactically).  Stupid, yes, but not an error.

Let's take a look at some other brilliant, precious quotes from this crazed, white-hating son of a bitch:
At the same unhinged press conference in which Donald Trump again blamed both sides for the deadly violence in Charlottesville last weekend, he also painted a picture of a slippery slope where those fighting for the removal of Confederate statues today might be destroying tributes to more mainstream slave-owning icons like George Washington tomorrow.
The president turned out to be utterly prescient on that one, eh?  Cuz a week later your homies at Vice ran "Let's blow up Mount Rushmore."  Wow, Trump predicts your tactics yet again!
I'm not sure there is any American president worthy of being etched into the side of a 60-foot mountain with explosives and jackhammers. I mean, every single [president] has at least been partially complicit in horrific atrocities.
"Complicit in horrific atrocities," eh?  So I'm guessing you believe societies should only build monuments to people who were perfect, right?
Obviously Washington and Thomas Jefferson were remarkable individuals who helped usurp British rule in America... But they also enslaved their fellow man, committing special kinds of inhumane acts that should never be confined to footnotes. 
First is the guy's astonishing but predictable trivialization of the Revolutionary War to six words:  Washington and Jefferson "helped usurp British rule in America."  Wow.  So looks like you hate this country and don't want to be here.  Got it.

In case you weren't sure, this snowflake claims Black Lives Matter "...is actually doing work to make this nation more equitable."

Snowflake considers killing cops to be "Doing work to make this nation more equitable," apparently.

By the same metric, the emperors regime had "great optics," but the snowflake is puzzled that Obama's policies "seem to have done little to heal the wounds of racism in this nation."

Gosh, could that be because the emperor constantly fanned the flames of race hatred?  "Get in their faces," he said.  And surely everyone can understand what a great strategy that is for bringing the races together, right?
It's hard to be critical of a system when that system becomes an article of faith, filled with myths (the cherry tree), deities (Founding Fathers), and notions of salvation (the City on a Hill). It's going to be impossible to improve America if we can't be honest about its origins and its past. Her fruit is born from violence and greed, watered by the blood of my ancestors
Snowflake, how many white Americans died in the Revolutionary War?  How many blacks?

How many whites died in the war of 1812?  How many blacks?

How many whites served, and how many died, in the two World Wars?  How many blacks?

So if you enjoy living free in the U.S, you might open your eyes and quit complaining about how unfair life is for ya.
Trump and his white supremacist cohorts believe the reverence some Americans have for these statues is simply respect for history, and that tearing them down is tantamount to ripping pages out of a textbook. But monuments built by the state are not history—they manifestations [sic] of power. They don't tell you who, what, why, or how something happened. Instead, they just inform you who's in control. 
Back in the day there were "history teachers" in the public schools who actually taught the details of things like our War Between the States.  That got thrown out somehow.  I'm sure it was replaced by something more important, like the wonders of being transgender or something.
Erecting [statues to Confederate figures] amounted to power moves by white people who felt threatened. 
That's your theory.  Others believe they were honoring men who fought nobly for a cause--not slavery, but the right of states to secede from the Union.  You and your comrades demand that your theory prevail, to the point that you're not only perfectly willing to pull down the statues you don't like, but you scream that this is the only right thing to do.  And that if anyone should have the temerity to disagree with you, the ONLY possible reason must be that they're racist.  Interesting.
As a young man I was always skeptical of Martin Luther King Jr., in comparison to more radical leaders like Malcolm X. I couldn't help to notice how King was hailed by white people who wanted to avoid hard discussions about race. These people wanted to rely on a flimsy "dream"...
Yes, we can all see why you'd reject MLK's dream--the notion that a person should be judged on the quality of their character.
With the president of the United States basically justifying neo-Nazism...
Wilburt wants you to believe the people who got a permit to protest against the removal of the statue were "neo-Nazis," and that the president made a statement "basically justifying neo-Nazism."  Of course the only statement he can point to to support his utter bullshit is that the president condeming violence "on all sides."  At no time did the president even attempt to "basically justify neo-Nazism."

But we wouldn't expect an angry agitator to tell the truth.  Ever.