Tuesday, January 31

Guess who voted for the wall on the southern border? Obama and Hilliary, and 80 other Dems now bitching

Now a message from liberal Americans:
It's just AWFUL that Trump has signed that executive order to build that awful, terrible wall on the Mexican border, right?

Of course!  The very idea of building walls is just AWFUL!  And anyone who supports building a wall is an absolute knuckle-dragging idiot!

There!  Take THAT, you stupid, xenophobic Americans!

Wait...what?

Y'say back in 2006 congress passed a bill authorizing the same wall?  And that HILLIARY voted for it?

No no no no no!  I do not believe that!  Hilliary would never...

And y'say his Excellency Barack OBAMA also voted for it?  And Joe Biden??  And current Democrat senate minority leader CHUCKIE SCHUMER???

NO NO NO NO NO!  That can't be true!  I can not, will not believe that!  Because every good person knows that Trump's wall is an AWFUL, TERRIBLE thing!  The NY Times and the Washington Post have told us that every day since...well, since that day we never mention...so it MUST be true!  So you must be lying!

You must be one of those people who makes up FAKE NEWS we've been hearing about! 
Actually, in addition to then-senators Obama, Biden and Clinton, 64 House Democrats and 23 senate Democrats voted for the wall in 2006.  Many are still in congress, including newly-established senate minority leader Chuck Schumer.  Other senate Democrats who voted in 2006 to build the wall are Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown (then in the House), Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Mikulski, Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow and Ron Wyden.

So when you hear Democrats and the Times and WaPo and HuffPo scream and wail about how AWFUL the idea of a wall is, ask 'em to explain why they didn't utter a peep of protest when their wonderful open-borders Dem pols voted for the same damn thing back in 2006!  The sheer, stinking hypocrisy from Dems is enough to make ya gag. 

Friday, January 27

Mainstream media touts Obama popularity--ignores actual survey showing the opposite

As Obama entered the final month of his reign the mainstream press was awash with stories claiming how faabulously popular he was.  A typical headline was "Obama leaving office on a very high note."

But wait...what's this?  A Gallup report released last week showed that Obama's overall approval rating over his eight year reign was lower than all but 3 presidents since Gallup started doing these surveys in 1945:  the never-elected Gerald Ford (47.2%), the clueless Jimmy Carter (45.4%), and Harry Truman (45.4%).

Obama had a lower overall approval rating than George W. Bush, who got an average 49.4%.  It was even worse overall than Richard Nixon, whose average approval was 49%.

You didn't hear about this...because not a single mainstream-media outlet reported it.

They didn't report it because for his entire eight-year reign the Democrat-loving press desperately tried to avoid covering anything that made Obama look bad.

obama-approval
Again, only three presidents had a lower average approval rating than Obama.

Think that might be newsworthy?  Sure.  But again, not a single mainstream outlet reported this significant finding.  It took the conservative CNS News to break the media embargo.  After CNS reported Gallup's findings on Monday, that story got picked up by the Drudge Report and conservative blog sites.

But beyond that, total media blackout.

It's true that Obama's ratings started to climb as the end of his term neared. In the IBD/TIPP poll, Obama's approval rating was 57% in his last month in office. This got widespread coverage, with lots of comparisons about how he stacked up against other presidents as they left office.

Obama also had a very high approval rating when he came into office, because of his fantastic record of accomplishments as a senator and community organizer.

Hahahahahahaha!  Just kidding!  The guy had virtually no accomplishments prior to being elected president.  No one knew a single thing about him.  He was supported by all blacks, all Dems and a few percent of "elite" white Americans who wanted to show they weren't raaaacists.

Needless to say, the media touted this high initial approval rating to the skies.

Certainly the public had high hopes for Obama when he first took office.  Similarly, he had high ratings in his last few months, when he was largely irrelevant. But for most of the time that he was actually governing, a majority of Americans disapproved of the job he was doing.

Yes, he won re-election--but with 2 million fewer votes than he got in 2008-- against a weak Republican opponent and aided by a totally fawning media.  His approval rating fell again almost as soon as the election was over.

The real story here isn't Obama's overall approval rating, but that the Mainstream Lying Media deliberately, consistently hide news that shows any Democrat in less than a totally favorable light.

Wednesday, January 18

New course at Berkeley: Anti-Trump

A Berkeley professor has announced plans for a course bitching about "the racist and cognitive dysfunctions produced by Trump.”  It'll include an immigration lawyer who will discuss “the xenophobia of Trump’s campaign” and an economist who will touch on mitigation of the "impending climate catastrophe.”

The professor said he felt obligated to create the course, calling it a course that “must be done” because of the "concerns" surrounding a Trump presidency.

When asked if any pro-Trump professors would be participating, Sahlins dishonestly deflected, saying that the class “is not intended as a platform for people to air their political opinions,” when of course that is exactly what it is:  The professor gets paid by both students and taxpayers to 'wave the bloody shirt' and fire up volatile snowflakes, while shilling for the Democrat party.

Typical of most academics, frankly.

What do leftist thugs mean by "By any means necessary" to force Trump out of office?

People dedicated to overturning the rule of law in the U.S. have printed posters stating their plan not only to disrupt the inauguration "by any means necessary," but have added "Trump must go."  (See pic below.)  They want open borders, no deportations for any reason, and amnesty for all illegal aliens in the U.S.

Question:  Will they use force or violence to achieve their goal?

Keep in mind that they're likely to deny that, but they've certainly fired up the anger in lots of their supporters.  And because a lot of these people don't seem very bright, firing up a dumb-shit is foreseeably likely to result in one of said dumbshits shooting someone.

In most states it's totally illegal to "incite" another to violence.  You can go to jail for that. 

Of course no California DA is gonna arrest one of their homies.  Will any federal official intervene?  Probably not.

So where does this leave us?

Do anti-Trump protesters want to prevent the transition? If so, would that constitute sedition?

If some group advertised that they wanted to "Shut 'em down"--meaning the inauguration of the duly-elected president-elect--would that constitute an effort to "overthrow the government of the United States by force or violence"?

Sure seems like it to me.

So the question is, how should a goverment respond?


Wednesday, January 11

Cops on murdered DNC staffer: "Likely a robbery" even though killers didn't take his wallet, watch, phone, jewelry

Unless you're a political junkie the name "Seth Rich" probably doesn't ring any bells with you.

Rich was a DNC computer specialist who was fatally shot as he walked home from a bar in D.C.

Rich had left the bar about 1 a.m. to walk home, something that normally took less than 30 minutes.  But around 4:17 a.m. Rich was still about a block and a half from his home, talking with his girlfriend on his cell phone.

Two minutes later, Rich was shot in the back, twice.

Security footage from a nearby market showed two men following Rich through a crosswalk by his home moments before he was shot.

Here's where it gets odd:  "Police said Rich was likely the victim of a robbery, though nothing of value, including his wallet, phone, keys, watch or gold necklace, was stolen."

Let that sink in for a minute:  Cops say he was "likely the victim of a robbery," despite the known fact that the alleged [bullshit] "robbers" didn't bother to take his wallet, phone, watch or a gold necklace.

Does that sound like a robbery?

Second:  It's 4:17 a.m.  If the alleged "robbers" [bullshit] had taken the guy's cell, he wouldn't have been able to report the robbery to the cops fast enough to worry the robbers.  So why would they raise their risk by shooting him?

Next, note how absurd the "Cops say robbery" line is if nothing was taken.  Reporters should have been all over the cops for this absurdity--yet there haven't been any reports of a "mainstream media whore"--sometimes misleadingly called "reporters"--calling bullshit on the dismissive "it was likely robbery" claim.

But if not robbery, why was the guy shot?  Hate crime, maybe?  Hard to say.  But not robbery.

Tuesday, January 10

Classic law case: Supreme Court uses utter crap reasoning to declare no limit to congress and president's powers

Headlines

Latest politically-correct headlines, courtesy of The Peoples' Cube:

Congressional Democrats: "We cannot just simply replace Obamacare with freedom because then millions of Americans will suddenly become free"

"Schoolchildren jailed for building only white snowmen"

Hillary: "We lost, so I'm going to follow our democratic traditions--poison the wells and scorch the earth"

Children in Venezuela cook and eat their Christmas toys

Hillary suggests "fake news" could be countered by a government newspaper called "Truth" ("Pravda" for Russian speakers)

BREAKING: Millions of uncounted votes found on Hillary's private voting machine in her Chappaqua bathroom

Citing fears of "dangerous" Trump presidency, protesters pre-emptively burn America to the ground

Clinton Foundation declares bankruptcy after 1,250 foreign donors demand refunds

Hillary Clinton blames her unexpected loss on a "spontaneous voter uprising" caused by a video posted on the internet

Sudden rise in sea levels due to deluge of tears shed by climate scientists following Trump's win

After Trump's win Obama preemptively pardons himself for treason

The Evolution of Dissent: on January 20th the media will decide whether dissent will no longer be racist and will once again be considered patriotic, as it was for 8 years under George W. Bush

Venezuela solves starvation problem by making it mandatory to buy food

White House edits Orlando 911 transcript to say shooter pledged allegiance to NRA and Republican party

Trump proposes 'Muslim database'; Obama protests by shredding 8 years of White House visitor logs

University "cultural appropriation" researchers quit after they discover that "research" was appropriated from a culture that created universities

State officials improve chances of health-insurance actually paying by replacing ObamaCare with state lottery

"Progressive enforcement squads at U.S. universities issue humor flow-charts so students can determine if it's okay to laugh at a joke or if speech codes require expulsion of the speaker

Obama proposes 3-day waiting period for all terrorist nations trying to acquire nuclear weapons

Cuba opens to affordable medical tourism for Americans who can't afford Obamacare deductibles

   and finally...

President Obama says he just now learned from CNN that Hillary Clinton was actually his Secretary of State for four years

How the collapse of the USSR looked from the inside

The following essay was written by a guy who lived in Ukraine when the former Soviet Union dissolved.  It's also a spot-on analysis of what's been happening in the US for the past 8 years.  And accordingly, it's a warning and a model for what to watch for as the Left counterattacks.

And they damn sure are.

I've edited it extensively but it's well worth clicking this link to read the original.  This guy nails it.

How the collapse of the USSR felt--from the inside

A reflection by a witness 25 years later
By Oleg Atbashian     12/30/2016
 
25 years ago the European Union didn't exist, and neither did China's economic powerhouse. The Berlin wall had just come down.  Hillary Clinton was a little-known, mouthy First Lady of Arkansas.  The media were gleefully predicting that Donald Trump would never recover after the bankruptcy of his Atlantic City flagship.

On the other side of the iron curtain Vladimir Putin dabbled in minor corruption working for the mayor of Saint Petersburg, which had just been renamed from Leningrad. The KGB meddled in other countries' affairs as usual, spreading "fake news" and helping leftist politicians win elections--without a whisper of objection from the West's mainstream media.

Then suddenly the USSR disappeared.

Political scientists have speculated endlessly on how and why that happened.  I want to describe how it looked and felt from the viewpoint of a voiceless, powerless Soviet citizen trying to make sense of the universe.

History says the USSR ended on December 26, 1991, but for us Soviet citizens the dissolution began earlier and happened in stages.

By 1991 very few people feared or believed the Communists any longer, ridiculing their institutions and their lying media. A typical political joke at the time was about a man who always complained that Communists had run out of everything - food, toilet paper, consumer goods, and so on. So the KGB brought him to their office and tried to explain that the country was going through historic changes and we all needed to be patient. "You should be thankful this isn't the old days when you could be shot," the KGB officer said, pointing a finger to his head. To which the man responded, "Ah, so you've also run out of bullets."


Officially the Soviet Union was a model of international solidarity and brotherly love. Unofficially, it was a prison of nations. Any non-Russian nationalist sentiment was viewed as treason.  By contrast, Russian nationalism was encouraged; it was a glue that held the country together, which effectively turned ethnic Russians into jailers. What started as a maximum-security prison, however, towards the end degraded into a low-security facility with crumbling perimeter fencing and drunken jailers who no longer wanted their jobs.

The first inmates to get away were the three Baltic states, but those had been known malcontents who always kept to themselves and their escape wasn't critical to the empire's survival.  But when the second-most powerful republic--Ukraine--broke away, the compulsory "brotherly union" could no longer exist.

Secession from the USSR had been a matter of hypothetical speculation for months in all the Soviet states.  However, after a failed communist coup d'état in Moscow on August 19, that idea was upgraded from hypothetical to absolutely urgent and necessary.

A few days later, on August 24, Gorbachev dissolved the Communist Party, eliminating the force that held the USSR together.  On the same day, no longer bound to the Kremlin's masters, Ukrainian leadership declared independence from the USSR, pending a popular referendum in December.  Other Soviet republics quickly followed suit.

On December 1 90% of Ukrainian voters (including me) chose independence. Opponents of the referendum had tried to scare us with the specter of Ukrainian nationalism, which they said was as bad as Nazism. But a 90% vote for exit in a country where only 70% were ethnic Ukrainians proved that people feared staying in the USSR more than they feared the "scary" nationalists. All they wanted was to live as a normal independent European nation.

The U.S. Press Secretary Fitzwater cautiously congratulated us on the results of the referendum, but reminded us that the official recognition of an independent Ukraine would take time. Foreign governments expressed concern about 1.5 million soldiers and 176 nuclear missiles based in Ukraine, as well as about its industry producing aircraft carriers, heavy military planes, and missile launching equipment (these concerns were removed later after the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and demilitarized in exchange for guarantees of its territorial integrity).

But the real point of no return was crossed a week later, on December 8, when leaders of the three Slavic republics of the union - Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine - gathered behind Gorbachev's back at a mansion deep in the Belorussian woods and signed a declaration proclaiming that "the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics no longer exists as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality."
The declaration, known as the Belavezha Accords, announced the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, or the C.I.S., and welcomed other formerly Soviet republics to join. Ukrainian president Leonid Kravchuk called it a model for the European Community, based on "horizontal relationships" as opposed to the "vertical relationship" with the central government in the form of a pyramid with Gorbachev at the top.
 
The new country looked exactly like the old one: the climate, the buildings, the language, the people and their problems. And yet something was different, something in the air, something that pioneers must feel in new territories: a chance to start a new life.

Imagine being born and living an entire life in a bomb shelter, seeing everything in the artificial light, breathing filtered air, and learning about the outside world only from military reports. My generation was luckier than others - we were still young, in our early thirties, when we stepped out of the bomb shelter and walked on our shaky legs into the forbidden sunshine. Some of us couldn't get our eyes off of the sun and went blind, proving that our elders were right - the sun was dangerous! But the rest of us didn't care. Unlike the bulbs of measured brightness, the sun was also equally bright and warm for everyone.

Stalin dismembered

I grew up knowing there were things we shouldn't talk or think about.  Life would have been easier if the list of forbidden things existed, similar to the List of Forbidden Rock Bands.  But of course if such a list of forbidden things existed, we would by definition be forbidden to see it.

All we knew was that things on that list were always changing and so we had to be careful what we say and to whom, which taught us never to trust our own judgment. Instead, we were expected to check the Party newspapers for reliable updates on how to see the reality correctly on any day of the week. Once I entered the workforce, newspaper subscriptions became mandatory.

Our teachers--delivering the party line--taught us that individual liberty resulted in crime, violence and depravity.  They told us the Communist Party was the only thing keeping us safe from chaos and certain death.  Without guidance, people couldn't be trusted to make the right choices, which was why we needed a caring government.

"Everyone knew" that if the government stopped regulating society, the world would immediately end in a terrible bloodbath.

But at the same time our teachers told us that the Communist ideology was "historically optimistic." I remember thinking that a capitalist society that trusted people with their freedoms seemed far more historically optimistic than the bunch of misanthropic curmudgeons in the Kremlin who taught us to fear freedom and took everything away from us in exchange for a vague utopian promise.

We were taught to love our country for its beauty, mind, and soul - and so we did, while secretly hating it for its deformity, idiocy, and needless cruelty.  We were the last of the Soviet breed.

Gorbachev resigned seventeen days later, by declaring the president's office extinct. On the following day the Council of Republics voted the Soviet Union (and itself) out of existence. It was December 26, 1991 - a date forever stamped on the USSR's official death certificate.

POSTSCRIPT

I wish I could say "and everyone lived happily ever after," but that would be a lie.

The official breakup had gone so smoothly in part because the former Communist Party and government bosses were in a hurry to enjoy new opportunities offered by the independent economies within a quickly emerging private sector. The highly centralized Soviet system had been too bulky and riddled with nepotism and corruption, leaving those outside of Moscow fewer chances of advancement. The breakup gave the formerly disadvantaged bureaucrats a chance to be the rulers of their own corrupt domains.

My dreams to see Ukraine develop into a prosperous European country were dashed when I realized how thoroughly corrupted the society had become after decades of socialism. The way most people imagined capitalism was the ugly caricature painted for them by Communist propaganda. Instead of re-examining that wrong image, it was simply assumed that ugly was the new beautiful. So we ended up constructing a caricature of capitalism.

Our former Communist elites found this approach agreeable. In the absence of qualified experts, they were now in charge of transitioning to the market economy, which in their minds was indistinguishable from crony capitalism. Soon the former USSR had become a commonwealth of kleptocracies where billionaire thieves ruled over impoverished subjects, beset by high unemployment and hyperinflation. The only exception were the three Baltic states that had retained some memory of how life was before their 1939 annexation.
Stalin dismembered

Vladimir Putin called the breakup of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century." His idea to reassemble the USSR, albeit in a different format, is critical to the survival of the immense centralized kleptocracy he has crafted in Russia. His biggest fear is an emergence of a transparent, functioning government in any of the ex-Soviet states, which will make his loyal subjects wonder why Russia can't also be like that.

Putin's notion of "maintaining Russia's sphere of influence" most fittingly translates as "using bribes and threats to keep the neighboring corrupt regimes dependent on Russia's corruption, thus ensuring the continuation of his power."

For that very reason, when in 2014 Ukrainians revolted against their pro-Russian corrupt government, Putin punished them by annexing the Crimea and orchestrating a war in eastern Ukraine. His willingness to violate the Budapest accord (and thus suffer international sanctions) prove how critical for his power it is to keep his neighbors corrupt and dependent.

While the extent of Russia's meddling in American politics this year has been greatly exaggerated (for obvious reasons), such an interference isn't new and has existed since at least the 1930s. Imagine how much damage Russia's interference, multiplied tenfold, can do to a weaker neighboring country with a Russian-speaking majority and frail democratic traditions.

In 1994 I emigrated to America, hoping to raise a family in a country ruled by reason and common sense. But lately I've been noticing a shortage of these commodities in the U.S. as well. While the ratio of reasonable people in this country may still be greater than elsewhere in the world, the ignorant passion for Soviet-style politics is very alarming.

American media now publishes articles that read like Pravda's updates on this week's current truth. American entertainers and moviemakers are consistently pushing the politically correct party line. Social media giants are censoring articles if they don't like the political viewpoint. Indoctrination in American schools and colleges is worse than I saw in the Soviet Union. And finally, as in the old USSR, more people are beginning to resent the "progressive" establishment and mock the lying media.

I believe the increasing popularity of socialist ideas in the U.S. is mainly due to the decades-long Soviet meddling in American affairs, aimed at demoralizing the public and promoting the "correct" people and opinions in places where it mattered most. According to KGB defectors only about 15% of Soviet intelligence activities in the U.S. were actual espionage; the rest were what they call "influence operations." 

The seeds sown have now blossomed, and today's left-wing radicals in the Democratic party owe Russia a large debt of gratitude for the size of their political base.

History is still being written. In this country, where a citizen's voice still means something, we are a part of this writing process. Trump's victory and the movement it started makes me feel "historically optimistic" again. This winter it is America's turn to be a blank page. It is up to us what will be written on it.

Scarcity economics, Soviet style

As the former Soviet Union was reaching its end a typical political joke was about a man who always complained that Communists had run out of everything - food, toilet paper, consumer goods, and so on. So the KGB brought him to their office and tried to explain that the country was going through historic changes and we all needed to be patient.

"You should be thankful this isn't the old days when you could be shot," the KGB officer said, pointing a finger to his head.

To which the man responded, "Ah, so you've also run out of bullets."

Hat Tip to Oleg Atbashian at thePeoplesCube

Sunday, January 8

Thanks Comrade Obama!

Thanks you Glorious Leader, masterful global strategist, uniter, upholder of laws, defender of the Constitution!

Hat tip thePeoplesCube.com

Bill Ayers, Cornel West and other leftists urge supporters to prevent Trump from being inaugurated

When Obama was elected many Americans were horrified.  But in the time-honored tradition of our nation, they accepted it and went back to work.
No one tried to prevent him from taking office.  No one tried to shut down Washington DC to keep him from being inaugurated. 
But the petulant, spoiled children of the Left don't want to honor that "time-honored tradition":  Having prepped the battlespace by endlessly comparing Trump to Hitler, their leaders are now calling on followers to "prevent Trump-Pence from ruling," by staging "massive protests."
Amazingly, this isn't the "disruptJ20" movement that I posted about a few weeks ago, but is a different group headed by such charmers as Bill Ayers and avowed communist professor Cornel West.  Although they throw in the phrase "peaceful demonstration" a few times, reading their own words makes it quite clear that they want to overthrow the new government by force and violence.
If you think this is hyperbole I don't blame you.  I wouldn't have believed it either.  You need to click the link above and read their own words.  I've pulled the crux of it below, omitting most of the boilerplate stuff.  (Words in red are my emphasis.)
The amount of projection, hyperbole (endless comparisons to Hitler, "...literally putting at risk the existence of the world as we know it"), blatant lies about damn near everything ("...illegitimacy of the electoral college system," claiming the EC is a "legacy of slavery"), hypocrisy (complaining about virtually unbridled executive power after praising Obozo's refusal to enforce valid U.S. laws for 8 years)...one hardly knows where to begin.

Again, if you think this is satire or fake, click on the link and see for yourself.   To see the list of intellectual luminaries who've signed on to this call for violent revolution, click here.

If this call for the violent overthrow of the government had been written anonymously I'd dismiss it as the work of a lunatic, but this was authored by Bill Ayers, Cornel West and other named leftist revolutionaries, which enables the Lying Media to report it as a bona fide movement.

Thus what would have been an insane proposal the media couldn't embrace can now be reported as a "grass-roots movement of millions."

If Ayers and the rest of the Left manage to convince their mob of bomb-throwers to do as they've outlined, it's hard to see how this can end without bloodshed.  Perhaps more to the point, this is the kind of game plan that results in massive vote fraud, ballot boxes stolen and replaced with stuffed ones and the like in future elections.  After all, Leftists seem to feel their ends--power--justify the use of any means whatsoever.

Saturday, January 7

Amazing: WaPo uses black-on-white torture story to attack worldview of Trump supporters

By now everyone has heard about the four blacks who kidnapped, gagged and tortured a mentally-challenged white 18-year-old in Chicago--and posted their spree on Fakebook Live.

So how did the liberal/Democrat Washington Post report it?  Here are the first 3 'grafs of the Post's story:

"Pro-Trump narratives converge in one awful attack streamed on Facebook"

If you believe discrimination against white people is rampant, that Donald Trump supporters face persecution, that Chicago is a war zone, and the media is dishonest, then your entire worldview is likely to be confirmed by one awful story.

Chicago police have detained four black teenagers after one of them streamed a live video showing the group striking and shouting at a young white man, who was bound and gagged. In the video, the assailants say “f--- Trump” and “f--- white people” and say that the victim “represents Trump,” though it is unclear whether the man actually backs the president-elect.

The pro-Trump Infowars website described the episode under a provocative headline: “White man kidnapped, gagged, beaten by racist black anti-Trump gang.”
To the Post's "reporter" and editors the real story isn't the actual crime itself--though they manage to admit it's "awful"--but that it likely confirmed the worldview of Trump supporters.

And you have to love the Post's description of Infowars' headline as "provocative."  Yes:  It said the kidnappers were "racist, black" and "anti-Trump."  It's provocative because on their own video the thugs shouted "F__ Trump!" and "F__ White people!"  Seems like accurate reporting--except to the Post's writer--one "Callum Borchers."  This is a pic of the charming propagandist in question:


Let me quickly note that I no more believe the four thugs who did this represent black thinking any more than I believe Dylan Roof represents whites.  "Crazy" happens across all races.  My complaint is that the Post--and every other Lying Media organ--continue to twist every such event so that the thrust of the story is to blame Trump supporters.

And then the media whines that so few Americans believe the crap they spout.

Lib/Democrat logic

Let's see if we can summarize "Liberal logic:"

Tax anything and people use less of it.  Thus:
Put a big tax on tobacco and people will use LESS of it.
Put a big tax on gasoline and people will use LESS of it.
Slap a big tax on beverages--including orange juice--and people will use LESS of it. 
   ("Wait...do we really want that outcome?")
Start a tax on "carbon dioxide emissions" and people will make LESS of it.
   But...
Slap a big tax on businesses, in the form of a huge increase in the minimum wage, or forcing employers to pay huge fines if they don't provide health-insurance to employees, and this will create MORE jobs.

So, Dems and liberals:  Which is it?  How can you claim that in every case except taxing businesses, adding a tax causes people to use less of whatever you taxed, but with businesses and new jobs it's mysteriously the exact opposite?

And "Because we say so" is not a valid explanation.

Dem-run Philly adds new tax of over 100% on juice and other beverages

Democrat-controlled Philadelphia has instituted a tax on all beverages.

It's a modest 1.5 cents...per ounce.

Thus the new tax on a 3-liter (101 ounce) bottle of soda is...$1.52.
Price of the soda itself, before tax?  $1.39.



"Wait, wait..." say liberals.  "That can't possibly be true, because it would mean the soda was being taxed at over 100 percent of the sale price!"

Why yes, citizen, yes it would.  And if you think that's crazy, or a "regressive" tax (one that hits low-income people proportionately harder) you'd be exactly right.

"But how can the city get away with something like that?"

Simple:  Philly is run by Democrats, period.  If a Republican city council had imposed this tax (which, keep in mind, disproportionately hurts low-income residents) the media would be running this on the front page, and as the first story at news time.  But because Dems did it, the Dem-loving Lying Media just smiles and says nothing.

"Geez, that's quite a double-standard there!"

Why yes, yes it is, citizen.  It's how they operate.

BTW, the tax also applies to juice drinks--like orange juice and grapefruit juice.  So if you want to buy a gallon of OJ in Philly it'll now cost you an extra $1.92 in "beverage tax."

And sadly, the idiots who inhabit Philly won't take up pitchforks and kill the pols who passed this disaster--cuz da TV will tell 'em "It's for da chirren," and the low-info types will believe it.  And not a single lib will complain--cuz their party did it. 

Amazing.

Dem presidential hopeful pushes idea of "free" college tuition. NY Times applauds wildly

All disastrous government programs start with an idea that's so wildly popular with liberals and the "free-shit army" that politicians start falling all over each other to sign on.

In this case the wildly popular idea is... "free" college tuition.

As you may recall, this idea was pushed by socialist Bernie Sanders--and it's not a coincidence that Sanders was wildly popular with college students.

New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo--who the NY Times describes as "thought to have presidential ambitions--noticed.  As the Times reported it, this week "Cuomo promised to cover tuition costs at state colleges for hundreds of thousands of middle-and low-income New Yorkers."

Wow, Andrew, that's SO generous!  You're gonna "cover tuition costs" for all those kids yourself!  That's SO generous of ya!

Wait...y'say you're not covering jack-shit, but are gonna' make taxpayers fork over the tuition, even if they aren't sending their own kids to college?

Whoa, that ain't the same thing at all.  Why in the world would the Times report that "you" will cover costs" when it's really "taxpayers"?  It's almost like the Times wants to push your candidacy by lying to low-information voters, implying tuition will be "FREE!" when in fact they'll be paying for it themselves.

You don't suppose this is what the Times meant by warning us about "fake news" do ya?

Mr. Cuomo unveiled his proposal at a community college in Queens.  His aides said the program would allow nearly a million New York families with college-age children, or independent adults, to qualify.

In a classic understatement the Times reported "It was unclear how much the program would cost." The administration estimated $163 million a year by 2019, "though it acknowledged that estimate could be affected by participation and level of need."

[Translation:  No one has a clue.  But it's really a great idea, trust us!]

New York already pays nearly $1 billion a year in its tuition assistance program.

As the brilliant analysts at the Times note, "Costs for the state could also rise as enrollment rises."

Analysts not employed by either the Times or the state claim that costs would be even higher, but Cuomo aides said they "had calculated costs considering a variety of factors," a claim the Times found totally believable.
 
Mr. Sanders — who was greeted by shouts of “I love you, Bernie” and loud cheers by the crowd in Long Island City — was effusive in his praise of Mr. Cuomo’s idea, calling it “a revolutionary idea for higher education” that he envisioned would be emulated elsewhere.

So let's review:  Socialist prez candidate proposes "free college tuition."  Idea proves wildly popular with college students!  He loses--barely--but another Dem/liberal pol with eye on the Oval Office picks up the idea.  Every student and faculty member supports it, along with the usual Democrat propaganda outlets.

Think you've just seen a new plank in the Dems' platform?  Think they'll push this as hard as they can to lock in the youth vote?  After all, can't beat "free," eh?

Friday, January 6

All-powerful government decides to kill FM radio, citizens be damned; and surprisingly, it's not the emperor's regime

The following story shows how utterly faaabulous absolute government control is.  It's not about Obozocare, instead dealing with Norway, but you'll see the tie-in:
Norway is getting ready to shut down its FM radio network and force all citizens to buy digital receivers.
Critics have warned that this will leave an estimated two million cars on Norwegian roads--and millions of homes--with no way to get emergency warnings.

A poll by a national newspaper in December found that 66% of Norwegians were opposed to the switchover, and only 17% were in favour.

The change is being pushed through regardless.

Norway's parliament voted in favour of switching off FM radio after hearing it would lead to a greater choice of radio stations, as well as clearer sound.
"...would lead to a greater choice of stations"?  "...clearer sound"?  Both statements are obvious lies.  FM is already immune to static and has sound quality so superb that few people can tell the difference between it and digital.  But hey, governments never let the facts get in the way of their goals.  Remember "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.  If you like your health insurance you can keep it"?  Same shit.
 A good digital adapter for an FM car radio costs about $180.

Other countries will be watching with great interest.  The UK government says it will consider a switchover once 50% of listeners are using a digital radio.
See how well this works, citizen?  Government simply decrees that they'll kill a great existing technology--depriving you of more choices and great sound quality--and you don't get a say.  Instead they give you two choices:  either shell out $180 for an adapter, or do without radio.

End of parable.

Thursday, January 5

Preference cascade?

By now you've probably heard about the four 18-year-old blacks who kidnapped and tortured an 18-year-old "special needs" student--and posted a 30-minute video to Fakebook Live.

You may not be aware that People Magazine did a post on this story.

That's the unusual part, because before the election, People Mag wouldn't have touched this with a ten-foot pole, because it would have cut against the emperor's propaganda.

Similarly, if Hilliary had won, they wouldn't have touched it.  "Too divisive," or some such.

Hard to know why the change, but I think it could be the first indication of a "preference cascade."

If you're not familiar with the term, a "preference cascade" is what happens when people suddenly feel free to leave one paradigm and join a much different one.  An analogy would be the first trickle of pebbles that herald an avalanche.

My guess is that many, many Americans have been afraid to say what they really think.  Political correctness and a desire to be "cool" have kept them from voicing their true feelings.  And now that may be changing.  We shall see.

Leftist website claims DNC staffer told 'em FBI never examined the DNC's servers--or even asked to

If you get your information from the Lying Media you "know" that Russia hacked into the servers of the DNC and copied all their emails, then released 'em to Wikileaks, to throw the election to Trump.

Sound familiar?

The Lying Media convinced you of this by repetition, sweetened by claims like "The FBI has confirmed that the Russians hacked..."   And indeed, someone at the FBI released a statement saying just that.

Well there ya go then!  See?  We tol' ya the Russians hacked the DNC and interfered with our normally-secure election!

Of course no one gets to ask the FBI "How did you reach this conclusion?"  A good reporter would do that, but the Lying Media won't, since the answer would expose the whole propaganda effort.  (Bloggers have been asking, but the FBI doesn't respond to bloggers' questions.)

But one thing's likely:  It would be very hard for anyone to reach a sound conclusion about whether the Russians hacked the DNC without examining their servers.  And of course that's the first thing the FBI did, right?

Uh, no.  Turns out not only has the FBI not examined the DNC servers, the leftist website "Buzzfeed" is reporting that the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” according to the DNC’s deputy communications director, Eric Walker.

Wait...if the FBI has never examined the DNC's computers--in fact never even asked to do that--how could they realistically claim the DNC had been hacked?

Welcome to the real world, citizen.

Now watch:  The Buzzfeed story was posted yesterday at 5pm.  By this evening--a day later--another DNC staffer will have come forward to claim that Buzzfeed's story is wrong--that the source (the DNC's "deputy communications director" simply wasn't in the loop and didn't realize that the FBI examined their servers first thing.  They may even get Eric Walker to admit that he wasn't aware of this.

Who's running all this?  The election's obviously over, so why the interest?  Answer:  The Left--including the Obozo regime--wants to discredit Trump and the Republicans, and there's no better way to do that than to plant the story that Trump is in bed with the Russians.

The FBI and other agencies will go along with the scheme because no one wants to be fired.

Why should anyone credit the Buzzfeed story?  Because it's an "admission against interest."  That is, Buzzfeed is a leftist rag, so their story cuts against the interests of the Left and the emperor.   Why would anyone publish a story that would undercut their own position?

Wednesday, January 4

Obozo regime abstains on key UN vote; State Dept spokesman tapdances wildly

Well well well.  Once again Obozo's minions are caught in a brazen lie--this time about whether they had a role in bringing an anti-Israel U.N. resolution to a vote in the security council--a vote which the U.S. could have vetoed but instead allowed to pass.

The Lying Media have reported that the resolution (2334) ordered Israel to stop building homes for Israelis in East Jerusalem (which the Palestinians call "occupied territory"), but in fact the resolution did far worse.  (Full text of the resolution is at the end of this post.)

Israel's leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, claimed Israel's intel service had absolute proof that the Obozo regime "collaborated" on the wording of the resolution.  State denied that, saying they simply made the resolution more ‘balanced’ so that it didn’t "unfairly target Israel."

But...one of the hallmarks of regimes caught in a lie is that their "explanation" for what they've been accused of doesn't make any sense.  The "explainers" carefully parse words to avoid damaging admissions.  So watch as reporters ask State spokesman Mark Toner to explain the charge that the administration actively pushed the resolution:
QUESTION:  Tensions have been increasing since the UN vote on Friday.  Israeli officials are now being quoted as saying that they have evidence that they will lay out to the Trump administration of – in which the U.S., specifically Kerry, had discussions with the Palestinians before the vote, a few weeks before, during a visit to Washington where Saeb Erekat was around, and basically that he pushed them to go to Egypt and to move ahead with this resolution. That’s one of the things.  
   So the question is, was the U.S. hiding behind this other group of countries to submit the resolution? Were those discussions ever taken place? Because the Israelis feel that they’ve got evidence that there was meddling by the Americans.
MR TONER:  We’ve obviously seen the same reports...allegations that somehow this was U.S.-driven and precooked. What I’ll say is that we reject the notion that the United States was the driving force behind this resolution. That’s just not true. The United States did not draft this resolution, nor did it put it forward. It was drafted and initially introduced, as we all know, by Egypt, in coordination with the Palestinians and others.
  When it was clear that the Egyptians and the Palestinians would insist on bringing this resolution to a vote and that every other country on the council would, in fact, support it, we made clear to others, including those on the Security Council, that further changes were needed to make the text more balanced. And that’s a standard practice on – with regard to resolutions at the Security Council. So there’s nothing new to this.
   We also made clear at every conversation – in every conversation – that the President would make the final decision and that he would have to review the final text before making his final decision. So the idea that this was, again, precooked or that we had agreed upon the text weeks in advance is just not accurate. And in fact —
QUESTION:  We know the U.S. didn’t draft it or put it forward. But was the U.S. in any way coaxing on any – another group of countries to move ahead and go and move ahead with this resolution?
MR TONER:  [What follows is exact transcript]  Well, again, these are –
     I mean, again, I think it’s important to have the proper context, in that all through the fall there was talk about –
    and we often got the question here and of course we replied that we’re never going to discuss hypotheticals in terms of what resolutions or what is circulating out there –
    but of course there has been for some time in the fall talk about this resolution or that resolution with regard to the Middle East peace and the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
So of course, in the –
    of course, in the course of those conversations, we’re always making clear what our parameters are, what our beliefs are, what our –
    what we need to see or what we –
    in order to even consider a resolution. That’s part of the give-and-take of the UN.
QUESTION: But surely these countries, before they would move ahead, would want to get the view of an influential member of the Security Council of the UN of who – of what their position would be on this.
MR TONER: Well, again, I think we – of course, as the draft or the text was circulated, we said to those on the Security Council that – what further changes were needed to make the text more balanced.
   And in fact, we ended up abstaining because we didn’t feel it was balanced enough in the sense of it didn’t hit hard enough on the incitement-to-violence side of the coin.
This is critical:  Toner has just said the Obama regime was looking for possible further changes to make the text more balanced.  But then "We ended up abstaining because we didn't feel it was balanced enough."

QUESTION: At what stage did you intervene to try and balance? Was it after Egypt said they’d withdraw it?
MR TONER: I think it was once – yeah, I mean, once – I mean, I don’t have a date certain. It was once the Egyptians and Palestinians made it clear that they were going to advance this text or bring this resolution to a vote and that, in fact, it would be supported by other countries.
After Egypt initially introduced the resolution they actually withdrew it.  Toner says Egypt "and the Palestinians" made it clear they were going to bring the resolution to a vote.  Somebody seems to be wrong. 
QUESTION: Does that date predate Mr. Erekat’s visit to the State Department?
MR TONER: I don’t know the date of his visit. But again, I’m not – I’m not exactly – and I’m not necessarily excluding that when he did visit to the State Department that they didn’t discuss possible resolutions or anything like that in terms of draft language. But again, there was no – nothing precooked. There was nothing – this was not some move orchestrated by the United States.
QUESTION: Could you be clear what you just said? I heard a double negative in there. You’re not precluding that they didn’t discuss it. Are you saying they – that when the Palestinians were here —
MR TONER: I don’t have a readout. Yeah, I don’t have a readout of that meeting in front of me. I just – but I said I can imagine that they talked about Middle East peace broadly and efforts to reinvigorate the process. I don’t know that they discussed the possible action at the UN. But of course, as we – as I said in answer to Lesley’s question, that was something that was in the mix for some months now in New York at the UN that there might be some action taken there.
QUESTION: And what about New Zealand, when the Secretary was there before Antarctica?
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: And also I believe he had a meeting here with Mr. Shoukry at some point in early December.
MR TONER: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Was the resolution discussed at either of those meetings with those diplomats?
MR TONER: Again, I can’t specifically say whether the resolution –
but certainly, if a resolution or action at the UN was discussed, it wasn’t discussed in the level of detail where there was some final text. We always reserved the right with any text that was put forward, drafted and put forward, to veto it or to not take action or abstain, which is what we ended up doing.
QUESTION: But you advised them on how to put together a motion that the United States would feel comfortable abstaining or voting in favor of?
MR TONER: Well, I think what we said is – and this is not just unique to this process, but once a text, a draft text is to the point where it’s going to be put forward to a vote, of course we would provide input on what we believed were – was language that didn’t pass or didn’t allow us to vote for it or —

QUESTION: You didn’t just say bring whatever motion you like up and we’ll vote however we feel about it. You were encouraging them to bring forward a motion that you would feel comfortable not blocking.
Finally they get to the heart of the matter, and the spokesperson gets more defensive.
MR TONER: Well, but we have to be really careful in how we’re talking about this because what the allegations —
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR TONER: No, I know and I understand that. But no, no, but I’m saying that some of the allegations out there, frankly, are implying that this was somehow some – as I said, some orchestrated action by the U.S. to pass a resolution that was negative about settlement activity in Israel, and the fact is that that’s just not the case.
Actually it is.  The U.S. refused to use its veto, allowing the thing to pass.
Of course, we would always provide, when the final text was going up for a vote, our opinion on where the red lines were. But I think that – I think this is all a little bit of a sideshow, to be honest, that this was a resolution that we could not in good conscience veto because it condemns violence, it condemned incitement, it reiterates what has long been the overwhelming consensus international view on settlements, and it calls for the parties to take constructive steps to advance a two-state solution on the ground. There was nothing in there that would prompt us to veto that type of resolution.

QUESTION: — because you told them not to put anything in there that would cause you to veto it.
MR TONER: But that – but again, not at all. And I said we did not take the lead in drafting this resolution. That was done by the Egyptians with the Palestinians. But again, in any kind of resolution process, of course there’s moments where – or I mean, it’s not like our views regarding settlements or regarding resolutions with respect to Israel aren’t well-known and well-vetted within the UN community. There’s been many times in the past where we’ve not – or we vetoed resolutions that we found to be biased towards Israel. But that’s another point here is that there’s nothing – the other canard in all of this is that this was somehow breaking with longstanding U.S. tradition in the UN Security Council, when we all know that every administration has vetoed – or rather has abstained or voted for similar resolutions.
QUESTION: But it’s true then that you had opportunities to ask them not to bring it forward at all and didn’t take them.
MR TONER: I’m not sure what you’re —
QUESTION: Well, instead of saying why not write the motion this way, you could have said please don’t bring a motion.
MR TONER: Well, again, I think when it was clear to us that they were going to bring it to a vote and that every other council – every other country on the council was going to support that resolution, that draft text —
QUESTION: When did it become clear to you that it would —
MR TONER: I don’t have a date certain for that.
QUESTION: Okay.
Looks to me as though Toner is parsing words very carefully:  'We did not draft it.  We did not introduce it.  All we wanted was to ensure it was balanced.'  But he's protecting the truth.

Here's the actual text of resolution, minus a lot of "whereas" filler:

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;

2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;

3. Underlines that [the security council] will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;

4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution;

5. Calls upon all States to distinguish between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;

6. Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;

7. Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and their previous agreements and obligations, to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric, with the aim, inter alia, of de-escalating the situation on the ground, rebuilding trust and confidence, demonstrating through policies and actions a genuine commitment to the two-State solution, and creating the conditions necessary for promoting peace;

Monday, January 2

Video mix of the most obnoxious liberals being snarky about Trump. How sweet!

Normally after an election win I'd be polite and gracious.  But the jerks at MSNBC--like the entire Lying Media--were SO obnoxious, condescending, contemptuous, arrogant, smug and more that I can't resist posting a vid clip showing the worst of the worst.

If I had to choose just one comment as the most clueless it would be the guy who said Obozo was "the most noble man to ever occupy the White House."  Seriously, he said that.

Yeah, when I think of noble presidents, I definitely think of Obozo, our first emperor.


Sunday, January 1

Obama's advice to Trump

Classic.

Kudos/ hat-tip to cartoonist A.F. Branco: http://comicallyincorrect.com/

Collection of the Elites guaranteeing that Trump CAN'T POSSIBLY win the presidency

This is priceless:  A compilation of the Great Elite of the Democratic party and their media suck-ups, before the election, absolutely guaranteeing that Trump will never be president.  Too good to miss!

Also Barack Hussein Obama, emperor of the U.S., weighs in on the question on a "comedy" show.  It's near the end, and so SO well worth seeing. 

This is idiocy to the 4th power.  Idiocy on steroids.  That is, standard leftist twaddle.

There's no doubt that Trump's election was astronomically unlikely--a last-second gift from somewhere beyond this dimension.  But astonishingly, it happened.

Which leaves all the Great Elite looking like the idiots they are.

Wow, what a great start to 2017.  Hope he doesn't disappoint.