Black students demand a statue of Thomas Jefferson be removed

When blacks demanded that dozens of statues of statues of famous historic figures in many cities be removed, pandering Democrat politicians scrambled to obey.

Many adults warned that it was the height of stupidity to agree to these demands, predicting that doing so would just trigger an endless series of escalating demands.

Dem pols refused to listen.  Guess who was right?

Now: Most rational Americans consider Thomas Jefferson a strong voice for freedom, and one of the most inspirational of the Founders of the U.S.  Blacks--eager to fan anger over events two centuries ago-- disagree.

And predictably, the next step:  blacks at Hofstra University have demanded that a statue of Thomas Jefferson be removed from that campus.

Black activist JaLoni Amor released a petition calling for the statue’s removal on March 17, claiming Jefferson has been embraced by “white supremacist and neo-nazi organizations.”  A protest is slated for March 30th to push for removing the statue. 

Significantly, among the organizations listed on the event’s flyer are "Democrats of Hofstra," "Queer and Trans People of Color Coalition," "The Gender Identity Federation" and "Young Democratic Socialists of Hofstra."

It would be very informative if some reporter could find the courage to ask DNC chair Tom Perez and vice-chair Keith Ellison and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and Hilliary Clinton if they agree that the statue of Thomas Jefferson should be removed.  And if so, whether they believe other statues of Jefferson should also be scrapped.

This demand was as predictable as the sunrise.  And indeed, was predicted.  Democrats and related social justice warriors think this is great.  Hmmmm.....

Similar "activists" have called for George Washington to be removed from the dollar bill.

Here's another prediction:  No reporter will ever ask top Democrats the pointed question: "Do you agree with this?"

Homeless surges now that Trump is prez: Activists claim homeless in greater LA up 23% in one year??

http://moonbattery.com/los-angeles-considers-free-housing-for-all-transients/

https://www.theycountwillyou.org/

You may have heard that Los Angeles has "a homeless problem."

This problem began just after Trump was sworn in as president.  Under the brilliant, innovative polices of Obama the Great, homelessness had been eradicated.  But the moment Trump was sworn in he ordered his slumlord buddies to evict all low-income people, and de-funded all the homeless shelters.  The number of homeless in the U.S. jumped by 23 percent in a single day.

At least that's the story Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi tell.  And the Lying Mainstream Media lap it up.  Oh well....

But seriously:  Organizing the homeless is a huge business in California.  How big?  Well, each year the region hosts a thing called the "Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count," which is done by about 8,000 volunteers.  The count is a big deal because homeless people count toward winning additional congressional seats.  So more homeless people means more political power.

And guess what?  The 2017 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count found that the number of homeless in L.A. county jumped 23% from a year earlier.

Now, a 23% increase in a single year is huge.  Given the potential power increase, and the federal dollars given to states with more homeless, that may well be an exaggeration.  On the other hand, it may be accurate.  California has a great climate, and medical marijuana.  And drugs are cheaper in Cali because there's such a large supply.  In fact, if weed is now medically prescribed, how long til some hotshot law firm sues the federal government demanding that medicaid pay for their weed.

But still...23% more homeless in a single year?  That's...amazing.  Almost unreal.  Almost like...they might be inflating the count to get more federal (taxpayer) dollars or something.  Hmm....

A modest proposal for kids who wanna ban guns, or rifles, or semi-automatics, or...

For those of you busy earning a living and raising your kids, David Hogg is a 17-year-old shill for the Democrat party who's been the main spokeswhore for the folks who don't think Americans should own guns.

He wants to eliminate the right of Americans--explicitly granted in the second amendment--to keep and bear arms."  He demands that schools have "just more policies to make sure...students are feeling safe and secure in their schools."  But amusingly, when the adminish*ts in his school proposed an idea to make it harder to smuggle in a gun, pencil-neck prick Hogg squealed that HIS Constitutional rights were being infringed.

Yes, the pencil-neck who's trying to trash a *real* Constitutional right is squealing that he and his little classmante have the absolute Constitutional...wait, what??  To not be required to use a clear backpack?

Hogg claims that being forced to use a clear backpack "essentially" violates his First Amendment rights.  Doesn't make sense, but that's par for the course for teens--and Leftists of any age.  Here's Hogg in his own words:

After we come back from spring break they're requiring all of us to have clear backpacks.  It’s unnecessary, it’s embarrassing for a lot of the students and it makes them feel isolated and separated from the rest of American school culture where they’re having essentially their First Amendment rights infringed upon because they can’t freely wear whatever backpack they want .... It has to be a clear backpack. What we should have is just more policies that make sure that these students are feeling safe and secure in their schools and not like they’re being fought against like it’s a prison.”

If this strikes you as hypocritical, or nuts, or just weird, you ain't the only one.  Virtually no kids know the first thing about the law or the Constitution or...well...anything, other than how to score weed or steal dad's booze, any more than most of us did at that age.

The difference is that when I was a teenager no self-respecting adult would dream of giving me a national platform to spout absurd bullshit.  Let alone put my teenage drivel on national news.  The difference is, now the Mainstream Media is totally run by the Left, and Leftists want U.S. citizens totally disarmed.

Oh, of course they're not admitting that, but it's easy to see that's the goal.  And at least half the electorate is naive enough to agree with 'em.  So how's this for an idea:  Cell phones and cars kill 30 times more kids each year than are killed by school shootings.  And you wanna feel safe from all that carnage, right?  So how about we take away your cell phones.  Oh, and your cars.

Don't worry, kids--you can have both back when you turn 21.  Cuz that's apparently how old you need to be to be considered responsible, right?

"If only we had tougher laws against [fill in the blank]"

In the increasingly left-ruled Colorado a drunk driver on the interstate drifted onto the shoulder and hit and killed a man.  The driver had already been convicted of two prior drunk-driving charges.

The original judge sentenced the drunk driver (killer) to six years, but for some unknown reason allowed the drunk driver to remain free while he appealed the sentence.

Remember, this was the guy's third DUI.  He only got six years, instead of life.  And yet he appealed the supposedly-too-harsh sentence.  Wow.

And...some idiot judge reduced his sentence to....180 days.

After killing a man while driving drunk.  And after two prior DUI convictions.

Now for the quiz:  Do ya think the judge who reduced the already-ridiculously-lenient sentence...
   a) a conservative?
   b) a liberal?
   c) bribed?
   d) related to the driver?
   e) being blackmailed by the driver?

Beats me.  But it's pretty obvious that anyone who's serious about reducing drunk driving wouldn't go along with a slap-on-the-wrist sentence for a manslaughter conviction while drunk, after two priors.

Liberal: "If only we had strict laws against drunk driving, this kind of thing wouldn't happen!"

What about dreamers?

“Dreamers“ refers to illegal aliens allegedly brought into the U.S. before the age of 15 (which no federal judge will ever check) by their parents (which no federal judge will ever check).  Obama issued an executive "memo" allowing everyone who claimed to be a member of this category to stay in the U.S.  If the memo wasn't rescinded they could stay indefinitely.

That decree violated U.S. immigration law.  But hey, in our new America the law only matters when Democrats can use it to imprison, fine or kill someone who disagrees with them about something.

Of course Democrats claim that since these "children" were brought here “through no fault of their own,” we can't possibly deport them.

Democrats claim dreamers “are doing jobs Americans won't do."  So why aren’t we being bombarded with television interviews and profiles of these amazing human beings?  You'd think the airwaves would be filled with heartwarming stories of the fabulous work being done by the million or so wonderful “Dreamers.”  Who, Dems claim, must be given full amnesty and citizenship.

Aside from the female dreamer attorney hired by the state of California, I haven't seen any such actual, verifiable stories like that.  Surely the Dems have lots of candidates for such stories.  After all, their media allies portrayed a thug who tried to shoot a cop into “Gentle giant, Mike Brown.” They turned Trayvon Martin into an altar boy.

No doubt some are fine.  But what's the whole story?  What percentage have been convicted of a felony or killed someone in a drunk driving accident?  In 2009 The New York Times gushed over illegal alien dreamer Benita Veliz, whose crowning achievement was being top of a highschool class that was 98 percent minority students.  Less than half their students are “English proficient,” and only 16 percent are ready for college.

Three years later she was still the top achiever the Democrats could find: In 2012, she was a speaker at the Democratic National Convention.  Is this worth opening our borders?
 

Socialism in a nutshell--emphasis on "nut"

RIP, Britain. Your scum-sucking pols have sold you out

In WW2 Britain joined other nations to defeat the Nazi war machine.  A few years later traitorous leftist politicians rejected the nation's heritage and embraced leftist policies--with predictable results.

As a result the U.K. is now in the process of being conquered by illiterate third-world savages.  Below is a still from a video of one such skirmish.  The 8 guys in the black vests are British cops, being chased around by one third-world savage with a knife.

Either none of the cops has a taser, or a billy-club, let alone a gun, or they've been ordered not to use force.  Given those orders--violation of which is career-ending--it's understandable that none is willing to close on an aggressive savage with a knife.

You can't blame these cops.  The blame lies with the left-wing politicians who ordered the head of the police force to send officers out without any weapons.  "Don't hurt the poor, oppressed immigrants, just reason with 'em."  Yeah, that'll work.  Just like reasoning with Hitler prevented WW2.

Oh, wait....

RIP, Britain.

The Left uses children for...anything the Left wants to push; and there's a reason

"As long as government is perceived to be working for the benefit of children, people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty."  --Adolf Hitler

Do you think the spineless, self-serving scum who infest congress will resist the shrieking demands of the Left to ban more types of weapons when the Left screams that it's 'for the children' ?

16-year-old girl runs away to escape arranged marriage; parents pour hot oil on her--in Texas

This is the entire piece posted on the AP wire.  It's from San Antonio:

Investigators say the Iraqi parents of a 16-year-old girl who allegedly ran away from her south Texas home to avoid an arranged marriage have been charged with attacking her for refusing to wed an older man.

Bexar county sheriff Javier Salazar announced that the girl has been found and placed with Child Protective Services.

According to the sheriff the mother and father were arrested for allegedly choking the teen, beating her and pouring hot cooking oil on her. The parents allegedly were to receive $20,000 for the arranged wedding.

Officials say the family is from Iraq and has been in the U.S. for two years.

American feminists immediately expressed outrage that the parents of this 16-year-old girl wanted to force her into an arranged marriage, let alone that they'd pour hot oil on her and beat her for refusing to go along with their order.

Hahahahahaha!  Just kidding.  American feminists haven't said a word about this.

That seems...odd, doesn't it?  I mean, for anyone to force their teen daughter to marry anyone--let alone some guy she doesn't know--should make feminists furious, right?  And when you add that the parents were reportedly gonna' get $20,000 for the girl, doesn't that sound a LOT like what human traffickers do?

Then when you add that they (reportedly) poured hot oil on the poor girl and beat her for refusing to go along...you'd think feminists would be calling for the parents to be imprisoned for life!

Seriously, aren't feminists normally...um...outraged about this sort of atrocity against girls?  So why no press releases from U.S. feminists expressing their outrage over this?

It's because the leaders of the U.S. feminist movement are leftists, and the left totally refuses to criticize Islam.

You might well wonder why Islam gets a free pass from U.S. feminists (and everyone else on the Left) for atrocities like this.

You won't get an answer--because no member of the Lying Media will ever ask a leader of the feminist movement that obvious, logical question.  Because virtually every member of the Lying Media is on the left.

Great system they have there, eh?

Finally, how do you think feminists would react if some poor white non-Muslim family was found to have done exactly this same thing?  How many national newspapers would have put that on the front page?

The interesting alliance between the American Left and Islam

I keep seeing comments claiming that American Leftists are allied with either "Islam" or "radical Islam," depending on your definition.  Both seem determined to eliminate Christianity and western civilization.  Leftists will be happy to be rid of the former, and most of the latter.

I agree with the commenters to this point.  However, they almost always go on to claim the Left thinks that once this has been achieved, it will be able to defeat its former ally if necessary.

Here's where I think they're wrong, because the Leftist I know would never dream of such a thing-- because they truly believe Islam doesn't threaten them in any way.

For example, not a single Leftist is willing to admit that Muslims have declared certain parts of London to be "Muslim-controlled zones," in which alcohol, smoking and playing music are all banned.  According to the Left this is simply un-possible.

Same with the evidence that the incidence of rape in Sweden and Germany has skyrocketed, with virtually all that increase due to Muslim immigrants.

Eh, no matter, citizen.  Your betters have armed guards and live in gated communities, so won't be affected no matter what.  You, on the other hand, have to live with their decisions.

Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it

Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orban seems to get it:

“Europe is under invasion … The western half of Europe looks at all this with its hands raised in surrender. Those who raise their hands have laid down their weapons, and will never again decide their own fate. The history of the defeated will later be written by others. The young of Western Europe will see this when they become minorities in their own countries, and they have lost the only place in the world that could be called home.”

Orban warned that while birthrates in Europe have fallen to less than the replacement level, Africans continue to have far more children--and that over half of Africans surveyed wanted to emigrate to either Europe or the U.S.  He concludes that

If Europe does nothing they will kick down the door on us. Brussels is not defending Europe and it is not halting immigration, but supports it and organises it.  Brussels wants to dilute the [native] population of Europe, to replace it, to cast aside our culture, our way of life and everything which separates and distinguishes us Europeans from the other peoples of the world.

Meanwhile...40 years ago a man who suffered almost a decade of ghastly imprisonment in the Soviet gulag warned the West that our politicians were clearly starting to sell us out to "globalism"--a euphemism for socialism and open-borders.

The Western world has lost its courage.  [This] is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. There are many courageous individuals, but they have no [effective] influence on public life. 

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a Russian novelist who spent nine years in the communist prison labor camp system called the Gulag.  He was a critic of the Soviet Union and communism, and helped tell westerners about the horrors of the Soviet system.  In 1973 he published The Gulag Archipelago. 

Political and intellectual [elites] exhibit this depression, passivity, and perplexity in their actions and in their statements, and even more so in their self-serving rationales as to how realistic, reasonable, even morally justified it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice.  

[These elites] get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists. 

From ancient times a decline in courage has been considered the first symptom of the end.    -- Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, commencement address at Harvard, June 8, 1978

Wait, wait, citizen!  This must be propaganda by imperialist warmongers!  Solzhenitsyn was simply a disgruntled criminal who was justly imprisoned for criticizing Glorious Leader Stalin.  So naturally he has a warped view of Communism, as anyone would who had been in jail.  Besides, there is no basis for his warnings.  Your politicians and elites are certainly loyal to your imperialist system.

This view is certainly endorsed by Noel Ignatiev, a 20-year steelworker and union thug, who (interestingly) wound up teaching courses at Hahvahd:

The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.  Treason to the white race is loyalty to humanity."   -- Noel Ignatiev, former Harvard professor

In September 2002, Harvard Magazine published an excerpt from When Race Becomes Real: Black and White Writers Confront Their Personal Histories, about Ignatiev's role in launching Race Traitor. In the excerpt Ignatiev wrote that "[t]he goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists."

He wrote that the editors of "Race Traitor" were frequently accused of being racists, to which his standard response was "to draw an analogy with anti-royalism: to oppose monarchy does not mean killing the king; it means getting rid of crowns, thrones, royal titles, etc."  Ignatiev also wrote, "we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as "the white race" is destroyed—not "deconstructed" but destroyed.'"

Some conservative critics--surely all white supremacists--saw this as an example of institutional racism against white people by Harvard, by "progressive culture" and in academia.  One wrote: "Suppose Frontpagemagazine ran a headline 'Abolish the Black Race'? What do you think the reaction would be?  But at Harvard, demonizing whites is merely the standard curriculum."

One of the most-often quoted sayings in history is "Those who refuse to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it."  Solzhenitsyn recognized a lesson or two, and warned us.

Didn't do any good, apparently. Yes, yes, I know Trump is president, but the forces of the Left-- totalitarianism with open borders and good P.R.--are close to impeaching him.  Pence will try to appease those monsters by signing every bill they submit, no matter how horrible.  Whereupon the Republican base will stay home, just as they will this November because of the carefully-orchestrated "omnibus spending bill" that gave the Democrats everything they wanted, while agreeing to NOT use any concrete on the small amount of border wall authorized, and to limit the number of illegals we can deport.

You could say it's astonishing, but it's actually the Left's game plan.  There are clips of Schumer and Pelosi laughing that the Dems got everything they wanted. 

And so it goes.

Political essay by socialist party on how well socialism is working in Venezuela

The best way to see how insane socialism is is to read lots of essays by socialists.  They're like children in adult bodies--"Why doesn't the government just end poverty by giving all the poor people a million dollars?"

Why indeed?  That "solution" is so simple and elegant that I'm amazed no one ever thought of it before!

The reason socialist/communist articles are worth reading is that when they're in writing, their goals and ideas are pinned down--it's a lot harder for them to claim they didn't push policies that turned out to be disastrous.

The following article--"Is Venezuela Turning Further Left?"--is from the "Party for Socialism and Liberation" website.  I've edited it for length.

To understand how brazen are the lies in the article, you need to know that before the socialist takeover in 1998, Venezuela had the highest per-capita income in all of South America.  But in a mere 20 years since the socialists took power, the country has run out of food, medicine and everything else.  Inflation is averaging over 5000 percent per year, and the nation's murder rate is roughly 20 times higher than ours.  Citizens are killing zoo animals for food.

You also need to know that "Chavista" refers to supporters of the first socialist president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.  As you could guess, the PSL is hugely pro-Chavista.  When Chavez's hand-picked successor, Maduro, lost a majority of the seats in the National Assembly (corresponding to our congress), he dissolved it by decree, banned the opposition from meeting and created a totally new legislature, which he named the "Constituent Assembly" and whose members answered to him.

Classic communist tactics.

He then decreed that his new, totally-controlled Assembly should write a new constitution.  So with that in mind:

[Long intro blaming "U.S. imperialism" omitted.]

While Venezuela faces serious challenges... the opposition overstated its own popularity and failed to leverage violent street protests into a broader “regime change” operation. In the process they energized the Chavista-base behind the Constituent Assembly as an opportunity for the Bolivarian revolution to again take the initiative and deepen its radical character.

Now, although challenges continue, Venezuela faces the possibility of consolidating the Bolivarian movement and turning the opposition into a purely extra-parliamentary phenomenon.

Notice the phrase "turning the opposition into a purely extra-parliamentary phenomenon."  That's gobble-speak for "We've taken away their powers."  Of course that would be because the socialist dictator dissolved the original legislature.

Without opposition access to juridical levers of power, the Venezuelan revolution becomes much harder to overthrow without an outright coup or war, strengthening the hand of revolutionary forces.

Oh, certainly.  Nothing like dissolving congress and appointing a new body to "strengthen the hand" of the dictator, eh?

"The Constituent Assembly and the Crisis"

The [new] Assembly...began its work with political...matters. Venezuela had been in gridlock. The opposition-controlled National Assembly had been in a dispute with the Supreme Court and was unwilling to pass any legislation from the ruling United Socialist Party, but was unable to override President Maduro’s veto with their own bills.

The Constituent Assembly was already tasked with rewriting the constitution but also had the power to oversee the other branches of government [i.e. a rubber-stamp legislature].  The National Assembly refused to even appear at a meeting about coordination between the two bodies.

What kind of "coordination" was possible?  The National Assembly was being invited to sign off on their own dissolution by the dictator.

The Constituent Assembly quickly then gave itself specific legislative powers. The National Assembly is not technically dissolved, but exists in limbo since opposition legislators refuse to recognize the Presidency, Supreme Court, and Constitutional Assembly.

So the National Assembly wasn't dissolved but "exists in limbo," eh?  Interesting legal trick.  Reminds me of Bill Clinton's "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."  BTW, every non-Venezuelan publication said Maduro dissolved the Assembly.  Yet the commies insist it still exists.  Just "in limbo."

The Constituent Assembly’s action allowed governing to resume, breaking the deadlock. The Constituent Assembly also quickly removed Attorney General Luisa Ortega who had unsuccessfully sought to discredit the Constituent Assembly election and had come under fire for failing to prosecute the perpetrators of brutal opposition violence.

This...laid the foundation for the more specific work of the Assembly, dealing with the deep economic crisis the country has sunk into, and dealing more directly with the political issues regarding the transition to socialism.

In early September, President Maduro set the stage for this debate announcing eight laws and measures designed to break the economic deadlock.

"Break the economic deadlock," eh?  That's communist gobble-speak for a series of government policies so abysmally bad that they totally ruined what had been a thriving economy.  But styling it as "deadlock" clearly implies that the blame is with the older, legal, National Assembly.

All sectors of the Chavista coalition...assert that only by deepening the socialist project can Venezuela totally break out of its crisis phase.

Oh, you bet.  When you're in a jam, double-down on the ghastly policies that dug you into the hole.

The other principal issue is that the economy, oriented heavily towards imports and distribution, is almost totally controlled by private corporations, as is most domestic commodity and food production. A third pivotal issue is currency inflation and corruption.

Maduro’s recently announced actions are responses to those challenges. Some were
relatively standard measures, including maintaining price controls on a number of key goods...

Anyone who knows anything about economics knows price controls ensure shortages.  So either Maduro and his socialist cronies don't know this, or they're fine with it.  Ain't no third choice.  Again, socialists are mentally children in adult bodies.

...[and] a minimum wage increase that will principally benefit state workers to keep up with inflation...

So bribe the state workers with raises, paid for by the private sector.  Brilliant.

...also to try to crack down on underground market prices.

Yes, by all means.  Starving peasants have this inexplicable tendency to pay hugely inflated prices for bizarre things like...food.  Or life-saving medicine.  Hard for fat communist dictators to understand.

One major announcement related to the government program delivering subsidized food...to millions of people once a month to address the issue of shortages.  Maduro is expanding the program so the 6 million people receiving boxes once a month will now get two per month.

Ah, yes:  Every two weeks the dictator gives a box of food to the poor.  Called endless re-election.  Evita Peron had great success with this.

[Re the problem of price speculation:]  Rather than relying purely on bureaucratic... means, these measures turn the fight against price speculation into a mass movement, and gives the masses of people the power to strike directly against those who prioritize personal profit over the needs of the majority of people.

Ah yes, the eeevil profit motive.  It makes SO much more sense to expect owners of small businesses to work long hours for no profit; to risk their own funds to bring some new product or service to a locale.

Building the Commune

In his book Building the Commune author George Ciccariello-Maher gives a flavor of this process:

Classic communist propaganda follows--all fictional (the first is absolutely unrealistic) examples, all uplifting, inspiring, empowering:

“Sometimes a commune is sixty women gathered in a room to debate local road construction, berating political leaders in the harshest of terms. Other times it’s a textile collective gathering with local residents to decide what the community needs and how best to produce it. Sometimes it’s a handful of young men on motorcycles hammering out a gang truce, or others broadcasting on a collective radio or TV station. [And of course the dictator spends scarce funds to maintain this station solely so residents can use it, eh?]  Often it’s hundreds of rural families growing plantains, cacao, coffee or corn while attempting to rebuild their ancestral dignity on the land through a new, collective form.”

An essential question, then, has been how to combine these various levels of democratic participation into an integrated set of institutions for people’s power.

Absolutely, comrade:  An "integrated set of institutions for peoples' power."  Inspiring.

As Venezuela’s socialists try and move forward to alleviate the current crisis [one task is] to deepen democratic control over production and distribution of goods.

"Democratic control."  Wow, that sounds SO...inspiring, comrade.  And how's that working out for ya?  Everyone gettin' by?  Enough to eat for everyone, instead of just the fat apparatchiks at the top?

The reality that a significant amount of private production and imports are controlled by private corporations hostile to the government, alongside entrenched networks of corruption and a vast black market remains operative, magnify the overall economic challenges.

We're starting to get to the core of the lies here:  The reality is that the socialist government--eager to show "solidarity with the working class"--ordered businesses to sell goods at cost.  If they refused, the government seized the business.  This worked just as you'd expect.  And when it came time for businesses to re-order more goods--to be sold, by imperial decree, at cost--amazingly (to the socialists, at least), the owners were...um...less than eager to order more goods.

Which meant...bare shelves.

Whoa!  Who could have seen that one coming, eh? 

Socialism means the workers, as a class, have control of production and distribution, to plan for and provide the things people need to live. How to do that is a much more profound democratic process than the limited one-citizen, one-vote form of Western-style “democracy.”

Oh yes.  SO much "more profound" than that "limited one-citizen, one-vote" silliness.  And they're slowly gettin' closer to admitting the truth.

The Bolivarian process dreams of much more than that. The announcement of a CLAP distribution process accompanied by public prosecutors empowers people to investigate and take action themselves, on the spot. This is in strict contrast, conceptually, to the past when people were confined to file complaints with an official or representative about shortages, and black market extortion prices. Venezuela’s communal process has opened up a much broader process of democratization, ranging from informal agreements within communities, to collective management of workplaces, to much more formal levels of collective governance over whole communities.

Revolutionary currents inside the PSUV and in the broader Great Patriotic Pole are all emphasizing this shift.

For instance, there are essentially three national legislative bodies at this point. The dormant opposition-controlled National Assembly, the Constituent Assembly which now has broad legislative powers, and the National Communal Parliament-Presidential Council for People’s Government of Communes.

Most revolutionary forces seem to feel the dormant National Assembly should become defunct and a new national legislative body, one explicitly based on “popular power” be established.

And certainly you agree with this proposal, right, comrade?  Because we just told you "most revolutionary forces" feel this way.  This means anyone who disagreed would be a...counter-revolutionary.  And no thinking person would want to be that, right? 

How to integrate the communes is also a complex process. There are 24 Constituent Assembly members specifically representing the Communes although many from other sectors like the peasant sector, and individually elected constituents are involved in the communal process. Demands from the communal sector are multi-faceted.

...the most common being "We'd really like to be able to buy, um, food."

This translates into, involving the communal sector directly in the development of government plans and dedicating a percentage of the GDP to the communal sector.

Translation:  "The wonderful Socialist Party gonna' give you free sheeit."  Sounds like the U.S. Democratic party.

The latter is key because it requires more direct, conscious economic and social planning, attaching a partially autonomous socialist sector to the broader economy. On the one hand, this opens up broad new possibilities and experiments in furthering collective control over production and distribution. For example, there is a pending proposal about the communes forming and controlling national transport corporations.

"Our party has done such a great job by controlling all agriculture and food distribution that "the people" want us to form and control all transportation too!

What are the appropriate institutions, rights, responsibilities and duties of the two interrelated, but not totally harmonized manifestations of popular power, the electoral form and the communal form? These are the types of questions sure to be hotly debated in the Constituent Assembly, and will not be resolved with simplistic formulas.

Well, other than the formula "Capitalism bad, free markets bad, socialist rhetoric good."  That's pretty simple.  And has worked SO well for us.

The other issue revolutionary forces of all stripes are uniting around is a clearer articulation of the role and power of the popular militias.

This is socialist social media giving the 'cool kids' their talking points.  "Revolutionary forces of all stripes" couldn't be more clear.  'Get on the bandwagon or be labelled a counter-revolutionary.'

[Maduro's speech] is a confirmation from the top that the Chavista movement wants to push in a more radical direction. How far that goes will turn on the axis of how the difficult issues above are resolved.

"Our great Socialist measures have worked so well that our Movement wants to push in an even MORE radical direction."

Nothing is more dangerous to imperialism than living examples that the masses of people, as opposed to a tiny ruling elite, can control their own lives collectively.

The lying here is off the charts:  The people of Venezuela elected a majority in their congress who opposed the "tiny ruling elite" of the ruling socialist party under Maduro.  Who responded by dissolving the National Assembly and setting up a new one--in total violation of the nation's constitution--whose members were all loyal to him.  And yet the socialists have the gall to claim that under their rule the "masses..can control their own lives" instead of a "tiny ruling elite."  Wow!

The world economy is dominated by dollar-denominated trade. The use of the U.S. dollar as essentially a global currency gives the United State tremendous power. If for instance, most nations have to pay their debts in dollars, they then, of course, need dollars. This gives U.S. monetary policy coercive power and influence on other nations.  Barter or payment in other currencies limit what an “outcast” nation can buy since it has to convert anything, goods or hard currency, into dollars first, which may drastically reduce what they are able to buy or bring in.

Wait...by definition barter doesn't involve any cash exchange.  So your line about having to convert anything--and they specifically mention "goods" here--into dollars is horse-shit.  But then, they have exactly the same distorted view of everything in the world.  Like children.  If the results weren't so tragic it'd be sorta' cute to watch.

Now the next 'graf starts to show the influence of the communists who're really running this PSL website:  "We need to break the monopoly of the dollar."

Breaking the monopoly of the dollar, then, is a prerequisite for a more multi- polar world. Venezuela--a country with vast mineral wealth--is attempting to crack that monopoly. Being a major mineral hub gives Venezuela leverage to trade many things via a basket of currencies. It represents enough market share, or potential market share, in areas like oil to increase the importance to many nations of holding slightly fewer dollars, and slightly more Yuan, Rubles and Euros. This dynamic will potentially make those currencies more attractive to trade in. It also decreases the relative value of foreign investment in U.S. assets. This may weaken U.S. ability to manipulate and dominate the global economy, curtailing their ability to punish countries for their political, social and economic choices which diverge from Washington’s wishes.

So the popularity of the U.S. dollar for international trade is one excuse for any...um...problems we might be having.  Let's see if we can find another.  How about "the black market"?

The black market and corrupt networks are one of the principal enemies of any positive gain, and are breeding grounds for the worst kind of capitalist impulses. It is this corruption that has introduced a big gap between many revolutionary pronouncements and actual implementation, so the need to defeat this scourge is clear.

"...has introduced a big gap" is gobble-speak for "If you detect a difference (gap) between our lofty rhetoric about socialism and reality, here's why."  Baffle-gab at its finest.  Sort of like the announcement of "recovery summer" for six consecutive years under Obama.

The constituent process has clearly rallied the Chavista base, and renewed the forward momentum of a revolution that has lifted millions out of poverty...

Say what??  It's clearly thrown millions into poverty.  But then lying is Lesson #2 for socialists.

...and given tens of millions the first steps into a participatory future. Masses of people have much more concrete control of their own lives and can take action to improve their living standards. By consolidating and institutionalizing their gains, they are freeing themselves of capricious whims of Western-style electoral system, in which compromised leaders could roll back progress when it became inconvenient.

Say what??  It sounds SO reasonable to claim that under "western-style electoral systems" "compromised leaders could roll back progress" if it became inconvenient.  But you nee to understand that by "rolling back progress" they mean reversing steps toward socialism by previous governments.

Before concluding, we must interject a note of caution. It is clear the opposition is not going away. The upcoming elections on October 15th for state governors appear like they will be another win at the ballot box for Chavismo. It is also clear this may be exactly what a large section of the opposition actually prefers. If, as many predict, the vast majority if not all, governorships go to members of the Great Patriotic Pole, opposition propaganda will double down in its cries of “dictatorship.” Their argument, as is that of the Imperialists, is that the Constituent Process is illegitimate, and also that the Maduro regime is illegitimate, despite the clear democratic mandate behind both.

If they can now claim to be shut out of all official levels of power — given the dormant National Assembly which refused to continue to operate once the Constituent Assembly was installed— this will give them cover to return to the violent street demonstrations which failed to shake the government before. The ultimate goal of these demonstrations is of course a coup.

The Chavista leadership and masses know very well that Western media will ignore every example of democratic practice they undertake. They will call Venezuela a dictatorial one-party state.

Gosh, how could anyone think that?

For revolutionaries around the world then, the tasks could not be clearer. A people decided in 1998 to break decisively with neo-liberal capitalism, and to share their wealth more equally. They also decided to institutionalize and expand massively efforts at communal, popular power.  In that time ["since then"?] living standards have increased, poverty has decreased...

Keep telling the starving, impoverished peasants they're well-fed and eventually they'll believe it.

Indigenous communities and Afro-Venezuelans have been empowered to reclaim their culture and heritage and push back against the legacies of genocide and slavery. In effect, Venezuela has relaunched a worldwide discussion on socialism, what the next round of attempts to build socialism can and should look like, and what they can borrow from the past and must invent for the future.

If the Bolivarian movement is derailed, or overthrown, all that goes away. The cause of people being able to collectively decide how to best use their resources and talents for their own benefits will be irreparably set-back. There are challenges and contradictions to discuss for sure, but first and foremost the Bolivarian revolution must be defended.

This manifesto is so off-the-charts, so packed with lies that one thinks it must surely be satire.  But this really is how socialists/communists think.  Right up there with proposals from Democrats like Bernie Sanders: "We must have free college for everyone!"  Or Hilliary and Obama: "We must give free health care to everyone."  Except it's not free.  Someone--hard-working citizens taxed to death--ends up paying for it.

"But it clearly works for Venezuela!  So let's try it!"

Oh, you bet.

Obama's former head of CIA uses a quote from Trotsky to undermine Trump

John Brennan was appointed by Obama as director of the CIA--a post he held for nearly all of Obama's second term.

In the 1970's Brennan supported the Soviet-controlled American Communist Party.  He has acknowledged that he voted for the Communist Party's presidential candidate Gus Hall.

Of course you never heard about that.  You think it's simply un-possible--totally insane--that an American president could appoint a communist supporter to head the nation's top spy agency, right?

Because it seems insane that a president would appoint such a person to head the CIA--and because you've never heard this reported by the Mainstream Media--you think the claim that he voted for the Communist Party's candidate must be false.

Tell that to Wiki--which goes to great lengths to protect liberals, marxists and Democrats:

John Brennan was Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from March 2013 to January 2017 [i.e. until Obama's reign ended]. He served as chief counterterrorism advisor to president Obama; his title was Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President.
     Brennan withdrew his name from consideration for CIA Director in Obama's first term over concerns about his support for transferring terror suspects to countries where they may be tortured while serving under President George W. Bush.  Instead, Brennan was appointed Deputy National Security Advisor, a position which did not require Senate confirmation.

In 1976, he voted for Communist Party USA candidate Gus Hall in the presidential election; he later said that he viewed it as a way "of signaling my unhappiness with the system, and the need for change."

Last week, after corrupt deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe was finally fired, Brennan tweeted this to president Trump:

“When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America… America will triumph over you.”

America will triumph over a president it elected?

Interestingly, this isn't the first time Brennan has openly called for subverting the president's administration:  In 2017 he urged executive branch employees to “refuse to carry out” presidential  directives if they didn’t agree with them.

And that phrase "the dustbin of history" sounds...odd.  I can't ever recall an American using the word "dustbin," and I'll bet you can't either.  But the phrase does ring a faint bell somehow.  Oh yeah:  It was coined by Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, who blasted his political enemies by saying

“You are pitiful, isolated individuals! You are bankrupts. Your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on — into the dustbin of history!” 

Brennan, dear reader, was a "plant"--a communist sympathizer who was appointed by Obama to head the CIA.  Obama did this knowing Brennan's background and sympathies.  And now Brennan continues his work, fanning the flames of Trump-hate, and resistance, and subversion of legitimate policies.  Absolutely predictably.

CNN propagandist Phil Mudd was quite open about it:

“You’ve been around for 13 months. We’ve been around since 1908. I know how this game is going to be played. We’re going to win.”

Wake the hell up, Americans.

Using Fakebook to create a database is either horrible or brilliant; depends on which party does it

Yesterday Elizabeth Harrington in the Washington Free Beacon wrote about the current wailing about how a company hired by Trump used Fakebook data to reach potential voters.  Harrington realized that the REAL story was the total reversal between how the Lying Media reported this story compared with how they praised Team Obama when they did exactly the same thing in 2012.

When the Obama campaign did it, the media fell all over itself praising the brilliance, calling the techies behind it "digital wizards" at the "forefront of campaign technology."

The media expressed starry-eyed admiration that Obama had the head of Google recruiting talent, choosing technology, and coaching Obama's campaign manager.  Another article praised Team Obama for having Facebook on their "side."

Time magazine gushed over the brilliance.

So when liberal Democrat Obama did it, the Lying Media couldn't do enough to praise the cleverness.

But when the media learns that a consulting firm hired by the Trump campaign itself—did essentially the same thing, the media screams that this is a terrible thing that calls for a criminal investigation.

The media described Obama's Fakebook-fueled database as a "powerful tool."  By sharp contrast, they describe Cambridge Analytica as "harvesting your personal information" and "data abuse."

When the Obama campaign did it, the media described data as being "crunched."  Now they describe the same data as "stolen."

When the Obama campaign did it, the media said Facebook was the "ideal way" to reach voters.  Now they say Fakebook has been "weaponized."  What the media gushingly described as "genius" when done by Team Obama in 2012 was now called "evil genius."

Let me give my college students some background:  Back in 2012 y'all were 12 or 13 years old, so you don't know any of the history.  Without that, you can't really appreciate how outrageous the Lying Media's reversal is.

In 2012 the Obama campaign used "sophisticated computer programs" to mine data from social media, to create a "massive computer database containing personal data on millions of American voters."  Naturally you can't believe this, because for the media to be howling that the use of Fakebook data by Trump's campaign is, like, totally outrageous, when they praised Obama for doing the same thing just 4 years earlier would make them totally hypocritical, right?

And yet that's exactly what's happened.  NBC News explained how the Democrat operation worked:

Anybody who contacted the campaign through Facebook had their friends and ‘likes' downloaded.  If they contacted the campaign's website through mobile apps, cellphone numbers and address books were downloaded. Computer ‘cookies' captured Web browsing and online spending habits.

A left-wing paper was positively gleeful about this coup.  In a story headlined "Obama, Facebook and the power of friendship" they wrote

Every time an individual volunteers to help out—for instance by offering to host a fundraising party for the president—he or she will be asked to log onto the re-election website with their Facebook credentials.

That in turn will engage Facebook Connect, the digital interface that shares a user's personal information with a third party. 

[This transfers] all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page—home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends—directly into the central Obama database.

Fast-forward: Cambridge Analytica, the data company hired by the Trump campaign, paid Facebook users to take a personality test via a third party app.  The app then pulled personal data from all of the test-taker's linked Facebook friends without their consent--just as the Obama campaign did.

Short answer:  Using Fakebook data to compile a vast database of voters is brilliant; pure genius; innovative.  Unless, of course, a Republican campaign does it--in which case the Lying Media claim it's, like, totally awful.

Media: "No such thing as the Deep State." Bill Kristol: I'd prefer the Deep State to Trump

If you're an adult who's been paying attention, you may have read about something called the "Deep State."  It's the whole division of liberal/Left Obama appointees who have been actively sabotaging virtually every Trump initiative.

Oh wait...you think that's tinfoil-hat stuff.  Crazy talk.  Can't possibly be true, cuz...conspiracies are just fantasy, right?

Well.  An attorney who writes a blog took a look at the facts that support the theory of holdovers, and summarized the evidence as follows:

1. Do you believe the EPA has, from its inception, been heavily staffed by activist left/liberals, determined to write rules that would favor the radical environmentalist side of things?

If the evidence you've seen supports that proposition, why do you claim it's impossible that the upper echelons of the DOJ, FBI and even many top generals-- ponds stocked with Obamaite fish for 8 years-- could similarly have a strong leftist political interest?  If so, would you be surprised that these operatives might push their agenda, without constitutional authority to do so, through their bureaucratic and managerial decisions?

2. Do you believe the Office of Civil Rights in the Justice Department is staffed with leftist Democrats who push their agendas through their bureaucratic and managerial decisions?

If the evidence you've seen leads you to believe the OCR has been stocked with Obamaites, why is it insane to think that the higher ranks of the DOJ might have been similarly stocked?

3. In 2003 unnamed members of the CIA investigated the question of whether Saddam Hussein sought to buy uranium in Niger.  Personable CIA employee Valeria Plame recommended that the best person to send to investigate this question was... Clinton loyalist Joe Wilson.  Who was, by amazing coincidence, the husband of Valerie Plame.

Many Establishment Republicans agreed that Joe Wilson was a biased investigator, and in fact had been hand-picked exactly for this reason.  And true to form, Wilson reported there was nothing behind the claim.  Later, other investigators found Wilson's "investigation" consisted of sitting in the hotel bar having drinks with friends in the local government.  Who naturally "knew nothing."

With this known, can people really think the intelligence community is honest?

4. Every intel agency in the world agreed that Saddam had a nuclear weapon development program.  But in 2007 the U.S. intelligence community issued a National Intelligence Estimate claiming there was never any evidence Iran was seeking a nuclear weapon.  This report was immediately leaked to the press.  The most logical conclusion is that they were trying to undercut Bush by claiming there was never any justification for a military strike on Iran.

This of course represented a complete reversal of their previous analyses, and the intel community actually reversed itself again a couple of years later, deciding that the threat of an Iranian nuke was now so dire and so close to succeeding that it justified secret talks with Iran--and a secret non-treaty treaty--to delay their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

If the intel community would  deliberately leak a bogus report to damage Bush hand in 2007, why is it hard to believe that the Deep State still exists?  And more to the point, look at how many "establishment" faux-conservatives have gone so far into Trump Derangement Syndrome that they openly claim they'd prefer the Deep State to Trump:

Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) February 14, 2017

 Hat tip: Ace of Spades.

Yet another bullsh*t paper from leftist/liberal professors

http://moonbattery.com/academics-subordinate-science-to-cultural-marxism/

Most rational adults would think scientific principles are universal. 

But to the mavens of academia, scientific principles are raaaacist, so the mavens demand that those principles give way to political correctness:

Naturally you think this is hyperbole.  But in a recent paper professors Cheryl E. Matias and Paul T. Le claim scientific principles are merely a construct of "whiteness" designed to thwart "our hope for diversity.”  Seriously.

They imply that scientific principles aren’t really valid, but are simply tools to "thwart our hope for diversity."  To the authors it follows that white people and Western Civilization are bad.

Much of the way western nations teach science erases the values and culture of indigenous people.  Therefore our science is out of touch with the experiences of our students of Color [sic] and instead represent [sic] post-colonial discourses of White power and control over people of Color [sic] via forcing the internalization of Western science knowledge.

Got it yet?  "Our science" is "out of touch with the experiences of students of Color," and thus represents "White power and control over people of Color," by "forcing the internalization of Western science knowledge.

Wow.  And here we thought science was based on universal principles and objective reality, and was colorblind, instead of being based wishful thinking and pernicious nonsense, like the bullshit hate-fanning papers being shoveled into young people’s heads by nutty leftist professors.

Seems to me western civilization flourished long before slavery became a black-vs.-white issue, and expanded precisely because western thinkers recognized science as being reality-based and universally discoverable.  Do the authors have what they believe is the real explanation for, say, gravity?  How about nuclear fission, cell biology or Faraday's law of induction?

How about any discovery in science?

Take your time.  I'll wait.

How much distance is there between "Western science represents white power and control over people of color" and "Don't you dare put any girls in school ever again!" (Nigerian Boko haram muslims on returning 100 school girls kidnapped two days ago)?

"The Equality Commission has been informed..."

The game plan for so-called "progressives:"

The Equality Commission has been informed that you have two unused bedrooms in your house, so we are requisitioning them to house homeless Americans.  You have the right to appeal this ruling to the Equality Commission.  The first step requires you to post a $10,000 bond.

The Equality Commission has been informed that you purchased a lot of food last month, so we are requisitioning half of it to help feed Americans who have less than you do.  You have the right to appeal this ruling to the Equality Commission, after posting a $10,000 bond

Car registration records show you have three cars.  It is the policy of the Equality Commission that no one needs three cars, so we are requisitioning one to give to a less-wealthy American.  You have the right to appeal this ruling to the Equality Commission, upon posting a $20,000 bond.

The Equality Commission has been informed that you make 23% more than the median income.  It is our policy that no one needs that much money to live a happy life, so we are fining you 23% of your income to give to those who do not make as much as you do.  You have the right to appeal this ruling to the Equality Commission, after posting a $40,000 bond

Naturally you think this is hyperbole.  But it's already happening, just with a different name.
.

Update on faked temperature data--faked by NASA and NOAA

The graph below is just the latest episode in the revelation of a huge, organized, government lie, run by left-wing lying rat-bastards in the "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" and NASA.

Yes, that NASA.

Here's how it works: The blue line shows actual measured average temperatures, going back 120 years or so.  The line shows temperatures are very slightly cooler than their peak in 1930's--the infamous Dust Bowl.

The orange line shows what NOAA calls "adjusted" temperatures, which it then publishes as the "official" temperatures.  And NASA's Goddard Space Center does exactly the same thing.

Notice any trend there?

"Oooh, I'll take "Brazen Bullshit" for $1000, Alex"

So a fair question here is, by what nutty, irrational rationale do NOAA and NASA lefty "scientists" claim that that the, y'know, actual temperatures read from actual, real thermometers back in 1927 are wrong, but that 60 or 70 years later, NASA and NOAA munchkins feel free to change those measurements?

Anybody?  Bueller?

But wait, citizen, you don't understand!  These, uh... adjustments weren't just guesses pulled out of someone's ass, but were all done by a...wait for it!...computer.  And as you should know, anything done by a computer is totally unbiased and accurate, right?

Except...folks who know jack-sh*t about physics and thermodynamics and heat transfer and infrared absorption and statistics said "Okay, that's fine.  Show us the algorithm your wunnerful computer used to make these adjustments."

And NASA and NOAA said "Oh, it's very complex.  You couldn't possibly understand it."

And the folks who know...all the stuff above said "Oh really?  Try us, assholes."

And NASA and NOAA said "Ah, well...even though we know you couldn't possibly understand it, we won't show it to you, cuz...it's proprietary.  We made it, so we own it, so we don't have to show it to you peon taxpayers.  So piss off."

And the folks who...et cetera...sued NASA in federal court.  The judge ruled that since NASA is funded by the public, and they didn't claim any national-security exemption, they had to comply.

NASA still hasn't revealed the algorithm. 

This deception has been going on for about 15 years.  And the agencies are continuing to adjust both past and current temperatures--reducing past temps and raising more recent ones.  The graph below shows the average adjustments of temps that were measured in given years--both up and down:


As you see, recent "adjusted" temperatures (i.e. the new "official" record) have all been raised, while older ones have been lowered.  Very consistent.

Interestingly, in recent years many of these adjustments are due to simply making up data.  Every month, a certain percentage of the 1,218 United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) stations fail to report their data.  This missing data is marked in the database with an “E” ("estimated")  In 1970 about 10% of the data was missing, but in recent years almost half the entries are estimated.  In those cases the missing temperature is estimated by NOAA using a computer model--meaning that almost half of the current adjusted data is fake.
 
So to summarize:  Almost half the current data is missing, so "estimated."  Further, these "estimates" (fake data) are always higher for recent years.  Finally, the agencies altering this critical temperature data refuse to disclose the alleged "program" they claim is used to make the "adjustments."

Interesting.  Oh, wait...all together now:  "Government agencies would NEVER lie this brazenly!  Next you'll be claiming that top officials in the FBI tried to fix the 2016 presidential election!"

Post by London metro cops threatens charges if you do something NOT illegal but you did it because...

The U.K, as we once knew it, is dead.  What remains is something out of Orwell's "1984."

Here's a recent post on the UK Metropolitan Police website:

If someone commits a criminal offence and the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we class this as a ‘hate crime’. It means the offender can be charged for the crime itself and also their reasons for doing it.

If someone does something that isn’t a criminal offence but the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we would class this as a ‘hate incident’. Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence.

If you’ve witnessed or been the victim of a crime or incident you believe was motivated by prejudice or hate, visit our How to report hate crime page. 

Didja get that?  If you do something that ISN'T a crime, but someone--anyone--believes whatever you did was "motivated by prejudice or hate," you can be charged with an offense.

The Metro Police caught a lot of flak for this and reportedly have rewritten it, but the point is that someone--in the officialdom, with power and funded by taxpayer funds--had the insanity to think this was a reasonable, desirable policy.

Pure insanity.  And there are millions of idiots here in the U.S. who would agree with 'em.

Food for thought. RIP Kate Steinle.

The biggest political scandal outside the FBI that you never heard about

This is Yvette Clark, a Democrat member of congress from New York.

Congressperson Clark is one of the dozens of corrupt Democrat members who used a Pakistani con-man named Imran Awan and family to manage their office computers.  Another was former chair of the Democrat National Committee (and chair at the time the Dems wailed that someone had made off with copies of a bunch of emails). 

Still another powerful member who hired the Awans was California rep Xavier Becerra--who has since resigned from congress to become attorney-general for that state.  Hmmm....

Problem was, Awan was copying gigabytes of files of Dem members onto a remote server, from which those files could be sent to anyone.

Another problem was that Awan was stealing every piece of computer gear he could find.  Investigators found dozens of government Blackberries and other government computers in one of his homes.

Another problem is that Democrat members of congress are refusing to cooperate with investigators in trying to see how much data and equipment the Awans stole.  For example, after t $120,000 of equipment was found to be missing from Yvette Clark's office she had her chief of staff simply "removed it from the inventory."

Investigators think Dems may be refusing to cooperate because the Awans may have threatened to expose emails and files that would damage the Dem members involved.  This suspicion got a boost when attorneys for Imran Awan claimed invoices for the purchase of computer equipment were falsified at the request of the Democrat members of congress.  If true that should be a career-ender.

Still another problem....Wait, you say you haven't heard of any of this?  Well that's...odd, don'tcha think?  I mean, the Democrats and their media allies have been so squealy about "cybersecurity" after someone stole the emails from the DNC server, so you'd think Dems and the media would be really aggressive about investigating clear security breaches, right?

And the media would be all over it, cuz, like, the media was SO aggressive about covering the story about "the Russians" allegedly hacking the DNC.  And giving the emails to Wiki to help Trump.  So you'd think they'd be equally aggressive about this, right?

Oh, wait...yeah, now I understand:  It was important when the Dems and their media allies wanted to use "hacking" to damage Trump.  But now?  Not important, citizen.

Not.  Important.

Now imagine how the media would have reacted if exactly this same sequence of events had happened to Republicans.

Some excellent analysis from 1854 or so...

“The real issue...that will continue in this country...is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle.

It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.’ No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race [or class] of men as an apology for enslaving another race [or class], it is the same tyrannical principle.”   --Abraham Lincoln

Democrat solution to violence by males: Teach 'em to act like girls. How well is that working?

If an untrained 12-year-old--of either sex--were to try driving on the freeway, no one would be surprised if the results were deadly.

No one is surprised by the conclusion that if young people aren't trained, the results are often terrible.

Now:  The U.S. has been suffering from increasing levels of untrained, uncivilized, violence by young males.  In almost every case those males didn't have solid, responsible fathers in the home.

Liberals and Democrats have a solution.  It's so simple:  Teach boys to act more like girls.

Democrats, liberals and the "elites" think this is a totally great idea--in part because it supports the Dem narrative that men aren't needed to raise good, functional kids.  (That isn't to say that it's impossible to do that without men, but just very rare.)

Seems obvious--at least to some of us--that the main job of a father--second only to keeping your family safe--is to turn your sons into good men.  And it also seems obvious that far too often, boys aren't being turned into good men--in many cases because the father is absent.

No one would expect a person to, say, remove an appendix without being taught how to do it.  Yet Democrats and liberals don't seem to be at all concerned that far too many boys aren't being taught how to be good men.  So as noted above, the Dem/liberal solution is...teach 'em to behave more like girls.

You think I'm just being facetious.  Not at all.  Remember the teacher who went into panic mode because one of her first-graders took a bite out of a pop-tart and made a scary gun shape?  The principal suspended the kid.  Seriously.

Same with the third-grader who drew a picture of a gun in class.

Same for two highschool boys in New Jersey who were suspended for going to a gun range with their families.

How about the numerous teachers who have demanded that parents agree to put their boys on Ritalin because they were "too active"?

How about the huge number of elementary school adminishits who've banned dodgeball?

As I said earlier:  The "fix" proposed by Democrats and liberals for male violence is...teach boys to act more like girls.  But how well does that work?

Let's be honest here:  How often will thugs and crazies buy into the liberal idea of teaching boys to behave like girls?  They won't, ever.  The only boys who will go along are already feminized.  And rational Dems (I know, I know) must know this is true.  But they can't admit it, evah.  Cuz that would reveal the utter insanity of their core beliefs.

I'll readily admit that males are potentially dangerous.  They tend to be impulsive, daring, aggressive.  Without a strong father in the home, they're often violent.  Liberals classify all three of these innate male traits as bad--a decision strongly supported by the beta males who comprise many of the "elites" in this country. 

Teaching boys how to channel these traits into positive directions is what turns boys into good men.
===

Hat tip Ace of Spades.

Didja ever notice that those libs who wail about photo-ID laws for voting are...

Ever notice that the same people who wail that buying a gun at a store--which requires a government-issued ID and background check--is "far too easy" are the same ones who scream that requiring people to show photo-ID to vote is "an impossibly high hurdle to expect people to overcome"?

Hat tip to "No Moss Here" 

Lessons from a movie

Watched "Darkest Hour," the story of Churchill's selection as prime minister in May of 1940, at a time when Hitler's divisions had surrounded the entire British army at Dunkirk.

The movie was gripping because it showed how totally unprepared Britain was for war, despite everyone having watched Hitler take Poland and roll into western Europe nine months earlier.  It showed how strong the pressure was by Britain's conservative establishment--the equivalent of our RINO's today--to open peace talks with Hitler rather than fight.

The previous prime minister--Neville Chamberlain--had done everything possible to appease Hitler and very little to prepare for war.  In September of 1938 he had met Hitler in Munich and agreed to Hitler's demand to take over roughly a third of Czechoslovakia--without bothering to ask the residents.  Chamberlain claimed Hitler had promised that if he was given the Sudetenland, it would be the last of his demands for territory--an agreement Chamberlain claimed secured "peace for our time."

Less than a year later Hitler's divisions poured into Poland and western Europe, starting WW2.

By May of 1940 Germany had surrounded 300,000 British and French troops at the port of Dunkirk on the French coast.  This force constituted the entire Brit professional army, and the only French forces that hadn't already surrendered.  There seemed to be no hope--due to a combination of a well-equipped, well-led German army and the poor armament and tactics of the Brits and French.

Watching Churchill trying to fight the British establishment and try to devise a way to rescue at least some of the trapped soldiers was absolutely gripping.  And I thought: I've seen this, quite recently.  We're living it today.  Because for 8 interminable years the Democrats, led by Obama, allowed the US. military to languish.  The prevailing view--by Democrat leaders, the Mainstream Media and the "elites"--was that war was unthinkable.  Obsolete. 

Unthinkable.

So what lessons should we have drawn from WW2?   Lots.  But if anyone did, those lessons were never passed down:  Virtually no college student today knows a thing about any of it.  I routinely ask my students who we fought, what ideologies they represented and so on.  No one I've asked knows anything.

Churchill was brusque to the point of rudeness.  Drank too much.  Irritated lots of people.  If he were alive today the British establishment would surrender before letting him take power.

If he were an American the Democrats and the Mainstream Media would shriek that he was a xenophobic, warmongering nationalist relic from a bygone era, clinging to archaic, uncool patriotism.

And I thought:  Where have we heard this before?  Something along the lines of "Putting America first" or "Making America great again."



Definitely uncool.  Much cooler to just open peace talks with ISIS, eh?  Maybe they'll be satisfied with just taking Britain.  Yeah, dat's it.

Hey, it worked with that "Hilter" guy back 80-some years ago, dinnit?

Yes, I understand where you're coming from, professor

Liberal professor at any university in the California state system: "There are no differences between men and women!  And I will fatally beat anyone who disagrees with me!"

Democrats seem to think my beliefs are a problem; let's review:

I used to think I was just a regular guy, but...I'm white, and believe all lives matter.  So according to Democrats and Liberals that makes me a racist.

I'm a fiscal and moral conservative.  According to Dems and liberals that makes me a fascist.

I'm heterosexual, and don't believe transgenders should be in the military.   According to the Democrats that must mean I'm a homophobe.

I'm not a member of a union, so according to liberals and Dems that makes me an enemy of the working class and an ally of big business.

I'm a Christian, so according to Democrats and their Muslim comrades that makes me an infidel.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment, so according to the Democrats it means I support the mass murder of school kids by nuts who were barred by law from having the weapons they used.

I think and reason, so I'm very skeptical of what I see in the Mainstream Media.  According to Democrats that makes me a "reactionary."

I'm proud of my heritage and our American culture. So according to Democrats that makes me a xenophobe.

I believe I have the absolute right--explicitly conferred by the Second Amendment--to protect my family. So according to the Democrats that makes me a "right-wing extremist."

I believe every person who's physically able should have a job. So according to the Dems that makes me an anti-socialist (a label I'm happy to wear).

I and most of the folks I know got a decent education without student loans (it's called work) and no debt at graduation. According to Dems that makes me a "classist."

I believe the main purpose of the federal government is to defend our great nation. So according to the Democrats that makes me a xenophobe and a raaaacist.

I believe government employees and their agencies shouldn't try to rig elections to favor their candidate.  So according to the Democrats that makes me a "right-wing extremist."

After carefully considering the above points I'm beginning to think maybe the problem isn't me, but lies with Democrats and liberals.

Quote from black achiever Thomas Sowell

Fakebook yanking conservative posts is the attitude the FBI used; and Dems don't see a problem

For some months now Fakebook has been removing or restricting access to conservative posts.  But they're cunning, clever:  They disguise their campaign as simply "opposing hate speech."  And who could get upset about opposing "hate speech," right?

But wait...who decides what's defined or identified as "hate speech"?

Glad you asked, citizen.  Fakebook wants to make sure you know they're not just making this decision themselves.  Instead they've asked a number of "partners"--every one of which is a left-wing organ--to do that for them.  And Fakebook tells you that these partners are, ooh, totally unbiased, totally objective.

That's total horse-shit, of course, but Democrats and libs believe it.  And even if you showed Democrats the bias, the wouldn't have a problem with it.  Cuz, like, liberals and Democrats just know better than you, eh?

And finally it dawns on ya:  This attitude--"We know better than you, so you can trust us to ensure that you don't read stuff we don't want you to"--is exactly the "logic" Andy McCabe, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page et al employed to refuse to charge Hilliary, and to try to prevent Trump's election.

It's how all totalitarians work:  Stalin, Kim Jong-Un, the mullahs of Iran--you name it.  They just know best, right?  Why should they let you hurt yourself by making a wrong decision when they can make it for you, eh?   Saves so much trouble, so many mistakes!

If Fakebook was owned and run by conservatives, and yanked posts by liberals, how do you think the mainstream lying media would put up with it?  Think that might be a big story with lotsa screaming?

Update on the plot to rig the election for Hilliary

Friday's firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is just the beginning of what is likely to be the most explosive series of revelations in American history.
 

Agents of the FBI and other intelligence agencies are likely to find themselves accused of behavior that's illegal in a free republic. And it will not just be self-important, oblivious morons like Peter Strzok (who, astonishingly, was the director of counter-intelligence for the FBI) and his mistress, attorney Lisa Page, but is likely to include former FBI director James Comey, Obama's attorney-general Loretta Lynch, Obama's CIA chief John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice, and possibly even Obama himself.

All these people were willing to break the law for what they apparently considered a worthwhile reason: to prevent Donald Trump from winning the presidency over Hillary Clinton.

They were willing to use the power of the FBI and other intelligence agencies to fix the election.  And once their candidate lost, they went on to try to damage Trump's presidency as severely as possible.  That they didn't stop to think that they might be wounding America at the same time is infuriating.

Even more infuriating is that half of Americans--and the entire mainstream media--believe the plotters didn't really do anything wrong.  Yes, dear reader, most Democrats and the entire media actually claim to believe that it's fine for the top officials of what's amusingly called "the nation's top law-enforcement agency" to do anything they can to ensure their favored candidate--Democrat, of course--wins.

Leaving "unlawful" aside for a moment:  How would you bastards feel if the FBI had done the same thing, but trying to sink Hilliary instead of Trump, eh?  Do, do try to convince us deplorables that it would be just peachy with ya.  Really.  Try hard to make us believe that.

So many Americans have lost confidence in the FBI because of this that it's doubtful that the agency's reputation can recover.  Future Americans won't be able to avoid wondering if any given agent was in on the plot.  "Should I really cooperate with someone who was so cavalier about sabotaging a presidential election?"

Of course Democrats are all over Twitter attacking Trump for allegedly firing McCabe.  But in fact the firing was recommended by an FBI agency called the Office of Professional Responsibility, which isn't an ally of the Republican Party or even close.

While the far-Left media are having a fit, as far as I can see at this point the response of the WaPo and NYT has been...oddly muted.  I suspect they knew the truth all along (after all, McCabe, Strzok and other FBI officials were constantly leaking to those papers), and at this point they're not sure which side will win.

You'd think the media would want the FBI, DOJ and intel agencies to be both honest and accountable to citizens.  And unbiased.  But media coverage of the plot thus far shows that they don't care a whit about ordinary citizens compared to their Hilliary.

One always hopes the nation may have reached a turning point, where even Democrats and the media begin to agree that agents of the previous president in the FBI and DOJ shouldn't try to rig elections. Unfortunately, I think we're there yet.  Obama holdovers and RINOs may yet allow all the lawbreakers to escape unpunished.  We'll see.

Suddenly the mystery is solved...!

Bumper sticker

If you put this on your car in Mexifornia the gruberment will charge you with hate speech.

Yet another Afghan "refugee" kills yet another teenage German girl

Six days ago yet another young German girl was stabbed to death by yet another Afghan "immigrant."  The dead girl, identified only as "Mireille B," lived in a group home in the German city of Flensburg.  Residents of the home called police after hearing her screams as her killer stabbed her repeatedly.

Evidence pointed to an 18-year-old male from Afghanistan as the killer.  Other residents of the home said the Afghan also lived in the home and that the two had a "relationship."  They added that the two had argued about the Afghan's demands that the German teen wear a headscarf.

An activist for the local branch of "Refugees Welcome" confirmed that the man lived in the group home. 

One resident described Mireille as ‘defenceless and vulnerable’ and said she should never have been given her own apartment, even in a group home.  But "activists" for "Refugees Welcome" noted that one should not criticize whoever killed the girl, because all cultures are equally valid, and we need to always defer to the beliefs and customs of other cultures. 

"After all," said one, "diversity is our greatest strength.  And even if this poor, traumatized refugee somehow had something to do with the unfortunate death of this infidel, we must not criticize Islam.  Because the Chancellor has made it totally illegal to criticize Islam in Germany."

Okay, my German is rusty so I may have mis-translated some of those last two 'grafs.  But it's true that Germany is now jailing citizens for making Fakebook posts critical of Islam.  Seriously.

Fakebook removes video interview of woman who fled Sweden due to migrant violence

If you like Fakebook you should know it routinely removes any posts or videos that warn of danger from Islam.  Fakebook's founder and execs are devoted to the idea that anything critical of Islam or the Left will be taken down as soon as they learn about it.

Latest case:   A woman namedNatalie Contessa af Sandeberg took the rather arduous step of moving from Sweden to Hungary to escape migrant violence in Sweden.  She gave an interview saying this, which was posted--briefly--on Fakebook.

In just three days the video got one million views, before Fakebook took it down.

In the interview Natalie said Hungary is one of the safest countries in Europe, due to low number of migrants.  She said the Swedish media is deliberately slanting the news on the refugee crisis, presumably to keep Swedes from learning the truth about migrant violence against them.

She said that one morning while riding the subway to work she was attacked by a migrant.  She said  she cried for help but no one helped.  Finally, she managed to run away from the attacker.

She added that many policemen are also quitting their jobs because they're not protected either.

She noted that it was almost impossible for native Swedes to get a job at the university hospital where she worked because the hospital had a policy of offering jobs to immigrants, and that about eighty percent of the workers-- including doctors and nurses--were immigrants.  She said most companies favor hiring migrants, for unknown reasons.

She said teachers are regularly threatened by immigrant students  armed with knives, and children are being robbed on the street in broad daylight. This is yet another reason why many families planning to leave Sweden.  She noted that most of her friends have already left Sweden.

Again, Fakebook removed the vid after 3 days and 3 million views.  Cuz it hurts the Liberal Narrative.

At least the woman had moved to Hungary.  If she'd been in the U.K. or Germany she'd be facing prison time and a $10,000 fine.  For posting on social media.