The next "great" Democrat scheme: Universal Basic Income

Ever heard of a thing called "Universal Basic Income"?

It's the latest "great idea" by U.S. Democrats and so-called "progressives."  Got any idea what it is?

Well, Dems say they want to give every person in the U.S. a monthly check.  Wow!!

See, Dems think it's just awful that people have to work menial jobs paying minimum wage.  So they'll save people from that hell by paying them, oh, a couple of thousand bucks a month or so.

See, Dems don't think the government is spending enough on welfare now.  And of course the fed government only has a debt of, oh, $20 Trillion or so, so why not borrow a lot more billions from China and give the cash to people so they don't have to work, eh?

Like "free" health care and "free" college for all, this sounds absolutely fabulous to stupid people.  But even leaving aside the fact that we don't have the money to do it, the fact is it has absolutely awful results.

Obviously this doesn't stop "progressives" or Dems:  They don't give a damn what the results are as long as a program wins them more votes.  Unfortunately the pressure to give voters more "free stuff" infects even some conservatives and libertarians, so we'll see more pressure to do this.

Finland--a highly progressive Scandinavian country--has been experimenting with a guaranteed income for all, but is abandoning it. Starting in 2017, the two-year Finnish program selected 2,000 unemployed people and gave them about $678 every month for doing ... nothing. The government hoped many participants would flood back into the labor market.

But Finland is already backing off.  People simply did what most working people knew they would do:  they sat around and didn't work.

Yet here in the U.S. more pols--loving the idea of using taxpayer dollars to bribe voters--are climbing on the idea.  The city of Stockton, Calif., for instance, will launch its own basic income program this August, backed by a $1 million grant from Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. Other cities are toying with the idea.

Experience and common sense show that if you subsidize something, you get more of it.  But progs apparently don't believe this, and no amount of examples will get them to understand.

And when these programs produce awful results, progs will blame Republicans for not doing it right.

Interesting comparison between communism and free markets

Leftists keep telling you how absolutely wonderful socialism and communism are.  For the terminally lazy or stupid that may be true.  But how about for the rest of us?  Here's a comparison that may help you put it in perspective:

"Wait," say Leftists, "Texas can't possibly have 7 times the per-capita GDP of Russia!  That's simply un-possible!  This couldn't possibly be true!"

Ah.  Well then.  Maybe the Russians aren't as smart?  No, that can't be it--they've got great engineers, chess players, first-class intellects.

Maybe because Russia is too cold, or too sandy, or too...something.  No, Russia has just about the same climate we do.

Keep trying, Lefties.  You'll figure it out eventually.

Just kidding--you'll never admit the answer, because you so desperately hate free markets and the U.S., and want total equality of OUTCOME.  You'll keep trying to force that, and you'll get the same awful results.  But stupid people, and the lazy, will vote for your programs.

 

Female mayor (Democrat, of course) has great crime-reduction idea: Close earlier

Baltimore, Maryland, has been run by Democrats for decades.  It's been having a huge wave of murders and robberies.

The mayor of that cesspool of crime is a Dem female (Catherine Pugh).  Recently she toured a high-crime neighborhood.  At a convenience store she asked the clerk, "What time do you close?"

“11:30,” the cashier replied.
“Isn’t that late?” the mayor said. “That’s a little late. It keeps the crowds around here. Nine o’clock is nice. We need you-all to close at 9 o’clock.”

So the Democrat mayor's "solution" to the problem of high crime is "We need you to close at 9 o'clock."  What a brilliant idea!  I think she's really onto something!

Taking that to its logical conclusion, if core urban areas didn't have any businesses at all, and nearby businesses only opened between, say, 10 a.m. and noon, that would cut down crime even more, eh?

Oh, and while you're at it, we need more decals for stores saying "This is a gun-free zone."  Cuz that worked great too, right?

And while you're at it, would you like to reduce the number of illegal aliens "undocumented citizens" to zero without building that icky ol' wall?  It's simple!  Just open the borders!  Yay, problem solved!

If you want more "solutions" like Mayor Pugh's, elect more Democrats.

Yet another example of the Leftists at the State Department defying congress

The U.N. loves the Palestinians.  In fact the U.N. has an entire division--United Nations Relief Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)--devoted to getting western governments to give billions of dollars to what that agency claims is 5.2 million Palestinian refugees.

One small hitch: during Obama's imperial reign, the administration found that the actual number of Palestinian refugees is far smaller, closer to 30,000.

Wait...that must be a typo.  Surely you mean "3 million" instead of 5.2 million, right?  That's a huge error, but at least it's plausible.  If the true number is anywhere close to 30,000 that would be...well, it'd be fraud.

No, that 30,000 figure is the right one.  And guess who has that report?

The thoroughly corrupt, Palestinian-loving U.S. State Department.

That's the organization that was so carefully headed by Hilliary Clinton, Cheryl Mills and crew.

The report should have been made public as soon as State got it.  But State refused to release it to the public, because the Leftists who infest the place wanted to protect the billions of taxpayer dollars we give the UNRWA.  State is infested up to the eyeballs with Leftists, who defy any commands or laws they wish.  With absolutely no consequence.
 Congress just learned about the existence of this report, and asked State to make it public.  But some official at State apparently decided Congress (and the public) shouldn't see the report.  Hmmm, wonder why?

Answer:  Billions of dollars are at stake, since knowing the true numbers would likely result in a huge reduction in taxpayer funds congress allocates each year to the UNRWA for Palestinian welfare payments.

Congressional officials say the State Department refuses to release it in order to avoid reducing the billions of dollars that the U.S. government currently gives to United Nations Relief Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).  Earlier this month 50 member of congress sent a letter to the president asking the Trump administration to force State to make the report public, as the law requires.
The Free Beacon asked an un-named State Department official about the report's classification and whether it would comply with U.S. laws mandating its public release.  Here's the infuriating reply:

"As part of normal congressional interactions we routinely respond to requests for information."  [But] "we do not comment on any specific reports.  However, the Department takes Congressional reporting requirements very seriously."

Oh, certainly. "We take Congressional reporting requirements VERY seriously." 

You bet.

This is what conservatives mean when they talk about The Swamp--a putrid pool of law-defying Leftists who simply refuse to obey the law, and give Congress the finger.  You may have thought (by reading the Constitution) that Congress was supposed to oversee the operation of government.  But the Left simply refuses to comply. 

And the refusers--what the Left coyly, cunningly calls "the Resistance"--gets away with it.

UK judge bars parents from taking their toddler to Italian hospital, decrees death instead

You need to read the story below--because it shows how quietly, stealthily, the "legal system" (unelected judges) of a country that was once championed the rights of individual citizens has become twisted into a monstrous thing.  A thing one would never have imagined possible.

It's true that the government in this story is the UK, not ours, but if you think the Democrats, Leftists, socialists and so-called "progressives" aren't trying their damnedest to do this here in the U.S., you haven't been paying attention.

In the UK a 23-month-old baby was very sick.  He'd had a seizure and the doctors at hospital he was in were sure he wouldn't recover.  The doctors decided further efforts to keep him alive would only prolong the inevitable, and moved to take him off life-support.

Bizarrely, lawyers for Alder Hey Children's Hospital literally argued in court that keeping Alfie on life-support was not in his "best interests."

That is, they claimed it was in the baby's "best interest" to be deprived of oxygen, water and food, which would cause his death.  No bones about it.  Simple.  Logical, eh citizen?

The parents--as many parents are inclined to do--wanted a second opinion.  They found a hospital in Rome that agreed to try further treatment.  Italian authorities granted the baby Italian citizenship, and offered a military helicopter to fly him from the airport to the hospital.

But a British judge refused to allow them to take the child to the Italian hospital for treatment.  The judge ruled the toddler was "too ill to travel" to Rome for treatment.

See, being too ill, if the judge allowed the parents to try to fly him to Rome he might...y'know...die.  Far, far better to just take the kid off life support in the UK hospital and...let him die without all the fuss.

The frantic parents made every emergency appeal possible, but the UK legal system refused to budge. 

A week ago the hospital took the 23-month-old off life-support.  He lived--without oxygen or water--for five days--during which his frantic parents gave him mouth-to-mouth as they watched his lips turn blue from lack of oxygen.

Now the relevance for Americans:  The Left wants a thing called "single-payer health care"--something they've cunningly given a cryptic name so that ordinary Americans won't know what it is.  Which is "nationalized health care."   Which is what the UK, Canada and other nations have.

And as the case of Alfie Evans shows, nationalized health care means if a hospital thinks you can't be saved, they can take you off life support.  Now, if you're an adult, conscious, and have a good attorney there's a chance you might be able to go elsewhere for treatment.  But in the UK--and chillingly, also here in the U.S.--the courts have already decreed that they can bar parents from doing anything for their children if a judge so decrees.

So if parents want to take their child to a different hospital for treatment, and a judge says the child must stay in the government hospital, be taken off life support and die, claiming that's "in the child's best interest," that's the end of things.

And admittedly, sometimes--if a parent is crazy--that makes sense.  But how about when the judge decides your kid should be allowed to die, even when another hospital has said "We'll treat him/her and see if we can get a miracle"?

The judge won't let you.  As the law stands now, there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it.  Which, in this author's humble opinion, is an obscenity.

Which brings us to the U.S. presidential election of 2008.  Facing calls from Dems for some form of national health care, the Republican VP candidate warned that such a scheme would lead to..."death panels," with doctors and judges ruling when the government would take a sick person off life support.

The mainstream media--which then as now hated conservatives and totally supported the Democrat candidate--sneeringly proclaimed this was un-possible.  After all, other nations had national health and that never happened in those oh-so-sophisticated nations, right?

Oh, wait....

So when the Dems roll out their cryptic demands for "single-payer," remember this story.  The oh-so-smaht mainstream media absolutely assured you rubes that not only was X simply un-possible, but that anyone who thought it was likely was a rube...a dumb mouth-breather.  A hillbilly (a term they actually used).

"But...but...but...ALL the sophisticated nations have it!  It's gotta be a great idea!  We don't want to be the only backward country, right?  I mean, it's like open-borders:  that's so hip, so cool.  You wanna be cool, don't you?"

If you think the Dems aren't pushing for this to come here, wake the hell up.

Example 304,945,345 of Fakebook's obscene bias in favor of Leftist hate speech

If you rely on Fakebook for ANYTHING, you need to know that that outfit is totally Left-supporting.  It bans "members" who post things its socialist, anti-American employees and execs don't like, has been caught removing popular posts by conservatives from Fakebooks' "trending now" status (which means millions fewer people see those posts), and flat-out deletes conservative posts it claims violates its standards (i.e. Fakebook doesn't like the content).

Think that's hyperbole?  Conspiracy-theory stuff?  Well imagine a post saying "We need to kill Hillary, hang her, hunt her down."  Think that would violate "danger to the community" and "incitement to violence" standards?

Of course.  Such a post wouldn't last two minutes before Fakebook deleted it for violating its very, very malleable "standards."  And the poster would likely have their Fakebook account deleted.

BY HUGE CONTRAST, when someone made a Fakebook post saying "Kill Trump, hang Trump, hunt him down," Fakebook refused to remove it--even after the page was reported as "displaying hate speech."

Seriously.  Comedian Owen Benjamin reported the page, and posted a screenshot of Fakebook's response, below.  Note that other than saying the reported post "doesn't go against one of our specific Community Standards," the rest of Fakebook's response was about how anyone offended by it could arrange not to see such posts.

Interesting:  If that's Fakebook's solution, you'd think that would similarly be a "solution" to conservative posts people find offensive.  But of course it's not--Fakebook BANS posts by conservatives which are far, far less hateful and inciting to violence than the one below.



Eh, the image above may just be a careful hoax, right?  Yeh, dat's da ticket.  Couldn't be that Fakebook is biased.  Just un-possible, right?

Maine Dems defeat a bill that would have outlawed genital mutilation of young girls

Democrats and Leftists have Principles.  Just ask 'em. 

Two of their most highly-touted principles are 1) they support women, in everything; and 2) they sneer at religion as believing in magic, or "sky friends," and oppose any concessions to such silly, archaic, primitive, dumb beliefs.

Thus in Maine a couple of weeks ago, when the state senate passed a bill to outlaw the barbaric, painful practice known as "female genital mutilation," the House quickly rallied and...wait, turns out 65 Democrats in the House voted against the bill, defeating it.

Wait, that's...odd.  Don't the national media constantly tell us that Democrats support women?

Why yes, that's what the media tell us.  So why would Democrats defeat a bill to ban the sexual mutilation of young girls (widespread in Islamic communities)?

Answer: Muslim are screaming that the real reason the bill was introduced is raaaacism.  They want to keep doing this. and the Dems want to keep all minorities voting for them instead of for Republicans. 

It seems a bit odd that Democrats oppose all religions except one: Islam.  Guess for some pols, getting more votes is more important than principles.

Mainstream media, academics and Leftists: You can trust us. Really! Cuz...

Next time some moron starts screaming at you about how "climate change" (formerly "global warming" but now cunningly renamed by the Left to con the morons) is fatally changing Earth's climate--and insists that it's mainly your fault for driving so much, and demanding that you do penance for your sin by switching to a tiny electric car, ask 'em to take the following short test:

Around 1970, lots of really REALLY smaht folks--well, lots of magazine editors and network producers and an occasional economist and author--began warning us that the entire human race was facing DOOM! in just a few years, due to pollution.  Or massive, worldwide famine.  Or destruction of almost all rainforest worldwide.  Or capitalism.  Or eeeevil corporations.  Or the eeevil U.S. military (though oddly, no other military--always our fault). 

Oh, and that in just a few years the world would run out of every crucial metal.  Air pollution would reduce the amount of sunlight by half.  Hundreds of millions of people were certain to die in smog emergencies.  And...well, you get the idea.

So here's the test:  Below are about 17 apocalyptic predictions.  Some were actually made by the moonbat "savants" and editors and "elites" of the 1970's, and some are outrageous fakes. See if you and your friends (or targets) can tell which were really made.

1. “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,”

3. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,”  “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

4. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born.  By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

5. Between 1980 and 1989 some 4 billion people-- including 65 million Americans-- would perish in a “Great Die-Off.”

6.. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,”

7. “Demographers agree almost unanimously [that] by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000... South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

8.“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

9. “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

10. Decaying organic pollutants will use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

11. “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”  Predicted 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

12. DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” "Americans born since 1946…now have a life expectancy of only 49 years, and if current patterns continue, life expectancy will fall to just 42 years by 1980.  (As most of you probably know--unless you're a snowflake moonbat--average life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years.  Higher for women.)

13. “By the year 2000, if present trends continue...there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

14. , published a chart in that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

15. “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

16. "More than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed" by 2005.

17. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years.  If present trends continue the world will be about four degrees colder..by 1990, and eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice [the cooling needed] to put us into an ice age.”

18.  "All scientists agree that the Earth's climate is warming at a dangerous rate.  All computer models show conclusively that the Earth will warm so much over the next century that much of the polar icecaps will melt, raising sea level by as much as 20 feet.  So all coastal cities will be underwater, killing millions.  Thousands of animal species will die due to loss of habitat.  The cause of all this is carbon dioxide, produced by the burning of fossil fuels, mainly by Americans.

Ok, campers!  Scroll down to learn which quotes were real.

But first let's compare the DOOM predictions of the 1970's with what you're hearing today--from virtually every Lying Mainstream Media organ--about global, um..."climate change."  See any similarities to the quotes above?  Sure.  Back then "all scientists," and the editors of Scientific American and Life and Time and Look and the producers of NBCABCCBSPBS "news" assured us DOOM was just a decade away.

Their claims were essentially an "argument by authority:"  'We're smarter and better educated than you, so you can trust us.  The "in-crowd" believes us, and you want to be "in," right?  Your friends trust us, and you trust their judgment, right?'

All the doom-sayers were spectacularly wrong then, but they want you to believe them now when they tell you global warming--wait, climate change, is real. 

And if you don't believe 'em, when life on earth is killed off due to climate change it'll be your fault.
=====

Answers:  All the quotes were real.
1.  Prediction by Harvard biologist George Wald
2.  Washington University professor Barry Commoner, in the Earth Day issue of "Environment."
3.  Paul Ehrlich, in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle.
4.  Paul Ehrlich, in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe!"
5.  Ehrlich, in the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive (ah, so-called "progressives"!)
6.  Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.
7.  Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, in 1970.
8.  Life magazine, January 1970
9.  Ecologist Kenneth Watt, reported by Time magazine
10.  Barry Commoner
11.  Paul Ehrlich, 1970
12.  Paul Ehrlich, in the May 1970 issue of Audubon magazine
13.  Ecologist Kenneth Watt
14.  Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Science, in Scientific American
15.  U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson, published in then-national magazine Look (now defunct)
16.  Paul Ehrlich, 1975
17.  Kenneth Watt
18.  The entire mainstream media, thousands of times.

One of the first members of Mueller's team represented the guy who set up Hilliary's email server

Wanna see example #5,496,721 of how the Lying Mainstream Media covers for Democrats even as it savages conservatives?

The awful Washington Post has a "feature" it calls "notes"--which it describes this way

Notes are up-to-date, helpful background information from across The Washington Post.

Got it?  "Up-to-date"?  And "helpful"?  Well, that's what the Post says.  And certainly if you're looking to whitewash the background of, say, special counsel Robert Mueller's team of anti-Trump wackos, that would be true.

One of the first people Mueller hired was a guy named Aaron Zebley.  Here's the Post's "notes" on him, found today:

by Matt Zapotosky  (Updated Jul 2, 2017 at 12:29 P)

   Zebley is a former assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia and served as Mueller’s chief of staff when Mueller was FBI director. He came with Mueller from the law firm WilmerHale.
    Federal records show he has made no political donations.

So..."federal records show" he hasn't made any political donations, eh?  Why would the Post's Zapotosky include such a *seemingly* irrelevant statement about a presumably low-ranking gopher?

Because they're covering for Mueller and the Dems.  Zebley is the most pro-Hilliary hack you could find.  Among *many* other partisan signs Zebley represented a guy named Justin Cooper--who set up Hilliary's private email server.  Cooper was offered--and accepted--immunity by the FIB's in exchange for his testimony (meaning you can't then plead the 5th to avoid testifying), but then for a reason known only to his attorney (Zebley), he changed his mind and backed out of the deal.  And refused to even appear before the congressional committee investigating Hilliary's use of the email server to store beyond-Top-Secret information.

Who in their right mind would reject an offer of immunity?

Someone who was offered a sweeter deal.

By the way:  Cooper also reportedly smashed several of Hilliary's "Blackberry" phones with a hammer, even though they presumably held evidence relevant to the investigation.

Destroying evidence.  There's a really upstanding guy there.  And no one seems to have asked Zebley about that.

EU prez: "Europe is lost unless we import millions of Africans!" Really, he said that.

The guy on the left is an idiot.  If you either live in Europe or enjoyed visiting it this is unfortunate, since this particular idiot happens to be the president of the "European Union," Jean-Claude Juncker.

And if you had any doubts: yes, he's a socialist.

Why do I say he's an idiot?  Because he actually said "Without millions of African migrants, Europe will be lost."



Why did he say that?  Because native Europeans aren't having enough children to pay the retirement benefits for the number of people retiring.  So the president of the EU believed this could be solved by importing millions of Africans:  Allow them to come to Europe and they'd get jobs and pay taxes, which would pay for the pensions six decades of socialist leaders swore people would receive if they voted for the socialists.

And why was it an idiotic idea to let millions of Africans into Europe?  Because all but a tiny percentage of the immigrants simply refuse to work, since the governments of EU nations will pay them a couple of thousand Euros per month for doing nothing.  And that's in addition to getting free housing.

The socialists could fix this, by removing welfare benefits for immigrants, forcing them to either work, go home or steal to survive.

Of course the socialist pols won't do such a thing--because they claim (though may not actually believe) that all cultures are equal.  So if their taxpayers will just support the happy-to-be-getting-welfare immigrants for, oh, 30 or 40 years, the immigrants will all magically become hard-working taxpayers--whose taxes will keep the generous pensions funded.

Yay, problem solved!

Well, at least the socialist pols believe they've solved it.  Some of us aren't quite convinced.

But time will tell which of us was right, eh?

The Left lied again

You may have heard the screaming Left screaming that the ONLY reason the U.S. invaded Iraq was...wait for it..."to steal their oiL"

Seriously, they screamed that.  Thousands of times.  College students and morons believed it.

Well...

Still waiting for the US to take Iraqi oil. pic.twitter.com/WrpjmgmWX2

— Diesel (@R_Love317) April 20, 2018

The communists at Associated Press do it again

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/wtf-msm-associated-press-claims-new-cuban-president-elected/

Wanna know how corrupt, unhinged, detached from reality are the monsters running this nation's Lying Mainstream Media?

Actually you probably don't.  But because you need to if you want our nation to eventually survive, I'll tell you anyway.

Cuba is a communist "paradise."  They've never had a free election--something outfits like the "Associated Press" should know (and probably do).

So...yesterday the AP tweeted that Cuba had "elected" a new president.  Except there was no election.  Instead the ruling communist party *selected* the only candidate.

"Selection" by a ruling junta ain't "elected."  So why would the AP use the phrase they did? 

Because they want you to believe communist nations are just like us.

That way when some pencil-dick from Berkeley or Hahvahd or the Democrat National Committee says something like "We really need to be more like the advanced socialist nations, like Cuba and the EU," Americans will react positively.  After all, Cuba elects its president too, right?

Nope.

H/T Conservative Review.

Federal judge decrees transgenders are now a "protected class" with special rights

Way back in 1970 or so an officer with the USSR's KGB (for students that's their main spy agency) defected to the west.  Among the many things revealed by Yuri Bezmenov was that the Soviets (communists) were in the process of executing a careful plan to destroy the U.S, not through military force but by so debasing our culture that everyone from children to senators wouldn't have any idea of the principles which made this nation different from all others.

Lacking any sense of roots or tradition or purpose, the resulting creatures--government and media "elites," professors, judges, children--would be confused:  Having no idea if America was good or bad, or if the former, how it had come to be so, they'd start tearing down the country.  Poorly educated voters would start demanding more so-called "free stuff" from the government--despite the obvious point that nothing was actually free, and ignoring who was actually paying.

Equally rootless, corrupt pols--realizing the demanding poor would vote for them, and failing to grasp the damage caused by caving in to the socialist demands--would fall over themselves to pass laws decreeing that scarce tax dollars were to be diverted from such trivia as defense and border security to really important stuff--like forcing taxpayers to pay for sex-change surgery for "transgender" members of the military.  The destructive demands of the low-info groups would be further supported by unconstitutional rulings from deluded, moronic judges who--carefully mis-educated by their professors--would support traps like "equality of outcome" even if the outcome was insanely destructive.

In 1984 the Bezmenov gave a recorded interview, describing the communist "subversion" operation in great detail.  You can read it here.  He claimed the first phase--demoralization--had already succeeded.

The goal of the operation was to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite of the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community or their country.

Seems to me Yuri Bezmenov's revelations explain so much of what we see today.  In particular, a decision by a federal judge just 4 days ago that made so-called "transgenders" a "protected class," making it possible for them to win massive damage awards in lawsuits if they're not treated exactly the same as everyone else.

"Wait," you say.  "Everyone in the U.S. believes in equality for everyone!  In the interest of fairness, transgenders should be treated just like everyone else!  After all, America is about fairness to all!"

No problem with fairness.  But that's not what we have with this ruling, because when a judge awards "protected class" status to a group, it gives them special rights.  Very special rights.

Specifically, they then have the special power to win huge judgments in lawsuits by suing if, for example, a police force or club or military branch has fewer members from the protected class than whatever percentage the plaintiff group says they represent in the population.  (Which, by the way, can't be known.)

In other words, the existence of any sort of unequal result wins a directed verdict for them.

If you don't understand how warped that is, it's like a 4-foot-tall person with no basketball skills suing the NBA because they don't have any 4-footers--and winning ten million bucks.  Insane.

When emperor Obama unilaterally ordered the U.S. armed forces to accept openly transgender enlistees--by his decree--people who simply declared themselves to be the opposite sex began signing up, because their pressure groups told them the military paid all health expenses for active-duty members of the armed forces.  The trannies expected they could force the military to pay for the very costly sex-change operations. 

Uh...wow.

You thin that's absurd.  But under emperor Obama, that became official military policy.

So a year ago Trump ordered recognized this absurdity for what it was.  If Obastard could order this policy into being, unilaterally, without any legislation, you'd think a later president could undo that decree.  And Trump tried that. 

But what twisted, extremist, unelected federal judges will allow a president to do change vastly depending on which party holds the presidency.  And sure enough, a federal judge has ruled that Trump can't undo the policy Obastard imposed by decree.

The KGB defector was right:  Over half the people of the U.S. have become so un-moored, so devoid of principles and common sense, that we have a judge ruling that transgenders are now a protected class--and no one has revolted.

Absurd.

Canada's socialist press "solves" a problem for their loved Trudeau: just name it something else

Wanna know how Leftist reporters and editors protect the pols they love?

They tell lies to cover the pols' asses.

You think that's hyperbole?  The Toronto Sun has incautiously let slip one little peek of one tiny corner of that process:  Last year Canada's socialist president, Justin "Baby Doc" Trudeau decided he'd embarrass Trump by graciously offering to let Canadian taxpayers pay the cost of housing and welfare for anyone "fleeing" from the awful, awful Trump regime.

Canadian conservatives (and there are a few) said they thought that was a bad idea, but reporters and their editors--far smarter and more enlightened, obviously--thought it was wonderful, so that became the official line.

And now?  Well in the last year the number of people illegally entering Canada from the U.S. has tripled.  Welfare and housing costs are going exponential.

Oooh, can't admit any of that, eh?  Fortunately the solution was simple:  with the near-full support of Canadian media, this problem has been solved.  They "euphemized it."

Oh, you're not familiar with that term?  It's the act of calling some troublesome statistic by some other, incomprehensible name.  In this case the Trudeau gruberment has begun calling it “irregular entry” rather "illegal entry."

The media is now also calling all these "irregular entrants" (i.e. illegals) “refugees,” even though no court has granted refugee status.  Basically they're all just waltzing in and demanding to be given welfare.  Sweet. 

Much like illegals are doing in the U.S.  And will continue to do until we secure our border.

Code Pink protests what they claim is "war with Syria" one day after U.S. airstrike

One day after President Donald Trump ordered air strikes against targets in Syria, demonstrators from Code Pink gathered to protest outside the White House on Saturday.

Protesters chanted ‘hands off Syria’ and held signs saying ‘No war on Syria’ and ‘Endless war for empire.’  Other demonstrators from Code Pink held a sign reading ‘Illegal and immoral war is not heroic.’  Code Pink also organized anti-Trump demonstrations in San Francisco.

In downtown Los Angeles, demonstrators organized an ‘emergency protest’ on Saturday.  A crowd of a few dozen held signs or Syrian flags. More demonstrations are scheduled for Oakland, New York City, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Washington DC.

Interesting:  When Hilliary and the Emperor decided to order the U.S. Air Force to engage in the sustained bombing of Libya (lasting four months), and refusing to obey the so-called "War Powers Act, I don't recall reading about a single anti-war protest.  Of course they may have been happening all over the U.S., and we just didn't hear about it.  Same effect.

And for leftists to carry signs implying that we're "at war" with Syria--I don't recall hearing "Illegal war against Libya" when Hilliary and the Emperor were running the show.  Odd, that.

Y'know, maybe it's just my cynical nature but I'm beginning to think that the U.S. Left and Dems aren't actually opposed to all war, but just when we have a Republican president.  For example, I don't recall any "anti-war" demonstrations when Bill Clinton ordered our armed forces to strike what locals claimed was a baby-formula factory in Iraq.  Not a peep.

How...interesting.  But then, Code Pink ain't exactly known for being consistent:

Anti-Christian writer calls new NYC Chick-fil-A a "creepy Infiltration" of the city

"New Yorker magazine" is eagerly read by (unsurprisingly) trendy New Yorkers.  They're so, so hip.  Cool.  Trendy.  Elite.

Just ask 'em.

So naturally they think Christianity and "the suburbs" and the South, and "flyover country" are all absolutely...well, as their wonderful leader put it, "deplorable."  (That would be "Great Leader," Hilliary, who followed "Dear Leader," the emperor.)

And like all hip leftist Democrats they just loves 'em that "die-versity."  Cuz being a religious bigot is so un-cool, right?

But there's still one group that these enlightened folks--so hip, so cool--are encouraged to denigrate, to malign: Christians.

In fact, when the popular Chik-Fil-A chain (which is Christian-owned) recently opened a new location in Manhattan, a writer for the New Yorker wrote a piece that was so oozing with contempt that many non-NYC readers thought it might be parody.

The piece was titled

Chick-fil-A’s Creepy Infiltration of New York City

 The author--one Dan Piepenbring--set the tone like this:

[T]he brand’s arrival here feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism. Its headquarters, in Atlanta, are adorned with Bible verses and a statue of Jesus washing a disciple’s feet. Its stores close on Sundays.

Wait...isn't this a report about a restaurant in, um...New York City?  So how is that affected by the decor of the Atlanta headquarters?

Not at all.  The author included it because he felt that supported his lead theme of "creepy infiltration of New York City."

But the real offense, to confused anti-Christians like the author, is that in an interview four years ago the company's CEO was asked whether he supported same-sex marriage.  In the view of most Democrats he uttered the most offensive thing anyone can say:  "No, I don't."

When the first stand-alone New York location opened in 2015, a throng of protesters was on-hand. When a location opened in Queens a year later, socialist mayor Bill de Blasio proposed a boycott.  The repeated theme was "New York City doesn't have room for hate."  But the company had never refused to hire or serve homosexuals.  It didn't proselytize.  The sole alleged "offense" was not supporting same-sex marriage.

Outside, you can glimpse an earlier iteration of that skyline on the building’s façade, which, with two tall, imperious rectangles jutting out, “gives a subtle impression of the Twin Towers.”  This emphasis on community, especially in the misguided nod to 9/11, suggests an ulterior motive. The restaurant’s corporate purpose still begins with the words “to glorify God,” and that proselytism thrums below the surface...

You start to get a better feel for this author:  "the misguided nod to 9/11"?  Gosh, I thought most New Yorkers were grief-stricken by that attack, which devastated lower Manhattan--and killed 2,600 or so.  But author Piepenbringer sneeringly dismisses this as "misguided."

I'll bet this guy is one miserable son of a bitch.  Always miserably wailing.

Here's another of his gems:

Its arrival in the city augurs worse than a load of manure on the F train.

Of course he wouldn't say that about a Muslim restaurant.  Or Indian, or Chinese, or Tibetan.  Cuz those are cool, hip.  The New Yorker has even done gushing pieces on chicken places--but owned by blacks, not Christians.  Seems their contempt is reserved for Christian-owned businesses.

Oh, he bitches about "corporate chain restaurants."  But oddly, he doesn't complain about, say, Starbucks.  Nor about McDonald's, which regularly feeds rougly half the city's minority kids.

But he's not done yet:

[T]there’s something especially distasteful about Chick-fil-A, which has sought to portray itself as better than other fast food: cleaner, gentler, and more ethical,

Really?  I've never seen a single ad saying any of those things.  Rather, that reputation has spread by customer word of mouth.  My personal experience in scores of their stores is that the employees are far friendlier, more cheerful and more polite than in any other chain.  And if you've been to one, you probably agree.

And why do you suppose that might be, mister New Yorker author?  "Just luck," right?  Oh no, wait, I got it:  They must be discriminating in who they hire, only hiring religious white kids from flyover country.  Yeh, dat's da ticket.

Let me wrap this up:  If you don't think virtually every writer and producer for the mainstream or "elite" media loathes Christianity, and traditional values, you're naive.  They hate you.  It's one of the zillion reasons they love Islam and socialism, and hate conservatives.

In Sweden the cops, instead of investigating crime and arresting bad guys, are spending their time ferreting out 65-year-old retired Swedish women who quote a statistic on Fakebook that "immigrants" commit 95 percent of all rapes in that country.  The cops turn the ladies over to the state prosecutor, who levies $10,000 fines and threatens to puts 'em in jail if they don't pay.

If you think the same thing won't happen here if the sick fu*ks like Dan Piepenbring regain control of the entire government (as opposed to the 70 percent now controlled by the Democrat "Deep State") you're dreaming.

In 1984 a KGB defector explained what we're seeing in the U.S. today--and seems to nail it

Yuri Bezmenov was a KGB operative.  He gradually became horrified by the communist system, and in 1970 he defected to Canada.  In 1984 he was interviewed on video, which is the clip below.

He claims the former Soviet Union was carrying out a very long-range plan to de-stabilize the U.S.  The main thrust was not spying--he claimed only about 15% of the KGB's budget is spent on espionage.  He said the other 85% is a slow process called either ideological subversion or "active measures."  In effect it was psychological warfare.

The first phase was to begin corrupting the education system, so that young Americans would have no knowledge of the fundamental beliefs or morality of the founders, but would instead believe the highest goal was to achieve absolute equality of outcome--which would be enshrined above all else. 

According to Bezmenov, by 1984 all the "opinion shapers" in the U.S.--the media and Hollywood--were amoral idiots, products of the 70's.  These faux-intellectuals had no core beliefs, so would constantly be looking for causes they could get excited about.

I'll try to get a transcript up as soon as I have time, but meanwhile it's worth hearing this guy.  Clip is 15 minutes or so, and very much to the point.



Partial transcript--I've edited it to remove a lot of quirks in the language.

Interviewer:  You spoke several times before about ideological subversion.  When the Soviets use that phrase, what do they mean?

Bezmenov: Ideological subversion is a process which is overt and open.  You can see it with your own eyes. All you have to do-- all American mass media has to do-- is to unplug their bananas from their ears, open up their eyes, and they can see it. There is no mystery. [It has] nothing to do with espionage. I know that espionage intelligence-gathering looks more romantic. 

But in reality, the main emphasis of the KGB is not in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion and [the] opinion of many defectors, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower [are] spent on espionage. The other 85% is a slow process, which we call either ‘ideological subversion,’ or ‘active measures’—‘[Russian term]’ in the language of the KGB—or ‘psychological warfare.’

What it basically means is **to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite of the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community or their country.**

It’s a huge brainwashing process that happens very slowly.  It's divided into four stages.  First is demoralization.  It takes 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation, because this is the minimum time it takes to educate one generation of students.  In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged, or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism (American patriotism).

The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties (drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals) are now [this was in 1984] occupying positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, [and the] educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them.

They are contaminated--programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain way. You cannot change their mind[s].  Even if you expose them to authentic information, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.  For those people the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible.

To [rid your] society of these people, you'd need another 15 to 20 years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common-sense people, who would act in the interests of the United States.

Interviewer:  And yet you say those people who have been ‘programmed’ and [are] in place and who are favorable to an opening with the Soviet concept... these are the very people who would be marked for execution after a communist revolution?

Bezmenov: Most of them, yes.  Because the psychological shock when they finally see what the "beautiful society" of ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’ really means, they will revolt. They will be very unhappy, frustrated people, and a Marxist regime does not tolerate such people.

Unlike in [the] present United States there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America. Here you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg or filthy-rich like Jane Fonda for being a ‘dissident,’ for criticizing your Pentagon.  But in [the] future these people will be simply squashed like cockroaches. Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful, noble ideas of equality. They don't understand this so it will be a great shock for them.

The demoralization process in [the] United States is basically already complete.  For the last 25 years... actually, it's over-fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success.
Most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to [a] lack of moral standards.

And as I mentioned before, even being exposed to true information does not matter anymore, because someone who's been demoralized is unable to recognize such information as true.  Facts mean nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, documents, pictures; even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him [a] concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it, until he [receives] a kick in his bottom. When a military boot crushes his [gonads], he will understand. But not before that. That's the [tragedy] of the situation of demoralization.

So basically America is stuck with demoralization.  Even if you start right now, here, this minute, you start educating [a] new generation of American[s], it would still take you fifteen to twenty years to turn the tide of ideological perception of reality back to normalcy and patriotism.

The next stage is destabilization. This time [the] subverter does not care about your ideas and the patterns of your consumption; whether you eat junk food and get fat and flabby doesn’t matter any more. This time—and it takes only from two to five years to destabilize a nation—what matters [are] essentials: economy, foreign relations, [and] defense systems. And you can see it quite clearly that in some areas, in such sensitive areas as defense and [the] economy, the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas in [the] United States is absolutely fantastic. I could never believe, fourteen years ago when I landed in this part of the world, that the process [would have gone] that fast.

The next stage is crisis. It may take only up to six weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis. You can see it in Central America now [1984].

Finally, after crisis, with a violent change of power, structure, and economy, you have so-called "normalization."  It may last indefinitely.  "Normalization" is a cynical expression borrowed from Soviet propaganda. When the Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia in ‘68, Comrade Brezhnev said, ‘Now the situation in brotherly Czechoslovakia is normalized.’

This is what will happen in [the] United States if you allow all these schmucks to bring the country to crisis, to promise people all kind[s] of goodies and the paradise on earth, to destabilize your economy, to eliminate the principle of free market competition, and to put [a] Big Brother government in Washington, D.C. with benevolent dictators like Walter Mondale, who will promise lots of thing[s], never mind whether the promises are fulfillable or not. He will go to Moscow to kiss the bottoms of [a] new generation of Soviet assassins.  He will create false illusions that the situation is under control.  But the situation is not under control.  It is disgustingly out of control.

Most of the American politicians, media, and educational system trains another generation of people who think they are living in peacetime.  False.  [The] United States is in a state of war: undeclared, total war against the basic principles and foundations of this system. And the initiator of this war is not Comrade Andropov, of course.  It's the system.  However ridiculous it may sound, [it is] the world Communist system or Communist conspiracy. Whether I scare some people or not, I don't give a hoot.  If you are not scared by now, nothing can scare you.

But you don’t have to be paranoid about it. What actually happens now [is] that unlike [me], you have literally several years to live on unless [the] United States [wakes] up. The time bomb is ticking: with every second [he snaps his fingers], the disaster is coming closer and closer. Unlike [me], you will have nowhere to defect to.  This is the last country of freedom and possibility.

Interviewer:  Okay, so what can we do? What is your recommendation to the American people?

Bezmenov:  The immediate thing that comes to my mind is that there must be a very strong national effort to educate people in the spirit of real patriotism, number one. Number two, to explain [to] them the real danger of socialist, communist, whatever, welfare state, Big Brother government. If people fail to grasp the danger of that development, nothing ever can help [the] United States. You may kiss good bye to your freedom, including freedoms [for] homosexuals, [for] prison inmate[s]; all this freedom will vanish, evaporate.  Including your precious lives.

The second thing: [at] the moment at least part of [the] United States population is convinced that the danger is real. They have to force their government, and I'm not talking about sending letters, signing petitions, and all this beautiful, noble activity. I'm talking about forcing [the] United States government to stop aiding Communism. Because there is no other problem more burning and urgent than to stop the Soviet military-industrial complex from destroying whatever is left of the free world. And it is very easy to do: no credits, no technology, no money, no political or diplomatic recognition, and of course no such idiocy as grain deals to [the] USSR.

The Soviet people, 270 [million] Soviets, will be eternally thankful to you if you stop aiding [the] bunch of murderers who sit now in [the] Kremlin, and whom President Reagan respectfully calls ‘government.’ They do not govern anything, least of all such [a] complexity as the Soviet economy.

So basic[ally], two very simple... maybe two simplistic answers or solutions, but nevertheless they are the only solutions: educate yourself, [and] understand what’s going on around you. You are not living at [a] time of peace. You are in a state of war and you have precious little time to save yourself. You don’t have much time, especially if you are talking about [the] young generation. There’s not much time left for convulsions to the beautiful disco music. Very soon it will go--overnight.

If we are talking about capitalists or wealthy businessmen, I think they are selling the rope from which they will hang very soon. If they don’t stop, if they cannot curb their unsettled desire for profit, and if they keep on trading with the monster of the Soviet Communism, they are going to hang very soon.

I know it sounds unpleasant.  I know Americans don’t like to listen to things which are unpleasant, but I have defected not to tell you the stories about such idiocy as microfilm, James Bond-type espionage. This is garbage.  I have come to talk to you about survival. It’s a question of [the] survival of this system. You may ask me what is [in it] for me. Survival, obviously. Because I like... as I said, I am now in your boat. If it sinks, we sink together.

There is no other place on this planet to defect to.

First confirmed death due to fossil fuel burning warming the climate

Well finally, after 20 years of ominous warnings that so-called "global warming" was gonna kill the entire planet...Wait, the activists renamed that warming thing to something else.  What was it?

Oh yeah: "climate change."  Cuz actual, y'know, scientists found that the planet wasn't actually warming by an amount larger than the measurement error.  And of course by changing the name to "climate change" the former "warmies" would win no matter which way things went.

Is that a cool deal or what?  "Heads or tails, we win. Suckers."

Anyway, after decades of warnings that "global warming" was gonna kill people, someone has actually died from it.  And right here in the U.S!   And not just anywhere, but in the most powerful city in the nation:  New York City!

And significantly, the death was conclusively proven to be due not to some mythical "natural" cause, for example by something as silly and trivial as, um, the Sun, but was specifically tied to the dangerous, lethal, use of fossil fuels!

SEE?!!  We enlightened, educated "elites" told you knuckle-dragging, sister-marrying, gun-crazed mouthbreathers that burning fossil fuels was gonna kill people!  But did you listen?  NO!!!  So maybe now that someone has actually died from fossil fuel use, next time your betters tell you how things are you'll believe us, right?

Yes, beloved New York lawyer David Buckel was killed by the planet-killing burning of fossil fuels.  Buckel, a well-known “green” activist who was active in advancing gay and transgender rights … committed suicide by using gasoline to set himself on fire Saturday morning in a Brooklyn park.  He left a note saying he was burning himself to death using “fossil fuel” as a protest.

Interestingly, the average high-income New Yorker jets across the Atlantic or Pacific about twice a year, burning far more fossil fuel than you do.  In fact the really rich have their own jets  You'd think the guy would have started by protesting *that*.  But of course, that wouldn't have been well received by the glitterati.

It's also interesting that a) the planet isn't actually warming (outside the margin of error of the measurements), and b) the astronomy folks think there's evidence that the sun may be entering a long-term period of lower solar activity.  Which would likely mean....

Wait, what was I thinking?  Everyone with an Ivy-education--and of course that's the only education worthy of the term--knows the Sun has no effect at all on Earth's climate!  It's totally constant, never varies by even a fraction of a percent. 

But of course you wouldn't know that unless you'd graduated from Hahvahd.

H/T Moonbattery.com

Seriously, I'm not celebrating the death of a mentally ill person.  But sometimes all we can do in the face of tragedy is laugh.

How liberals view Mueller's raid on Trump's attorney

Remember, there's not a shred of evidence that Trump's attorney had a thing to do with Russia. The raid was simply designed to grab the attorney's "work product" with his clients--something that's never been allowed in the U.S. before this. Mueller's raid killed the "attorney-client privilege."

But the other key protections-- doctor-patient, spousal, and clergy-congregant--are no more protected than this one. If one out-of-control special counsel can so casually destroy this one, what is to keep the others from being as easily swept away?

Q to Comey: "Did Trump have the right to know..." Comey: I don't know"

When James Comey was director of the FBI he undertook to brief incoming president Trump on what the FBI knew about the infamous "dossier" that contained all manner of damaging claims against the new president.

Keep in mind that the FBI knew the origin of the information--a known Trump-hater--and that all the content was unsourced and unconfirmed.  Indeed, the FBI had paid a reported $150,000 for the thing. So wouldn't you think that would be part of any actual, y'know, briefing about it?

Apparently Comey didn't think that part was worth mentioning to the new president.

Comey knew about the FBI's role, and the bullshit content of the dossier, so his refusal to mention it in the so-called briefing shows that he was trying to hide the info from the president.

Oh, you didn't hear anything about that?  Gosh, that's...odd.  You'd think this would be a blockbuster revelation.  A game-changer.

So read the tweet below.  Seems a loyal Democrat propagandist--George Stephanopoulos--interviewed fired FBI director James Comey a few days ago.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Did you tell him that the Steele dossier had been financed by his political opponents?

COMEY: No. I didn’t...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But did he have a right to know that?

COMEY: That it had been financed by his political opponents? I don't know the answer to that.

— Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) April 13, 2018

George Stephanopoulos was press secretary for Bill Clinton.  He's a loyal Democrat.  When he left that position he was immediately hired by one of the alphabet networks, where he's been ever since.

Why would a loyal Democrat ask ANY question that would impugn the actions of the key agency leading the effort to cripple Trump?  Seems to me there are only two possibilities:
    1. Laundering the reputation of the network.  They want to be seen (by morons) as having been reasonably even-handed in reporting this astonishing scandal; or
    2. They're playing damage-control, setting Comey up to take the blame if the whole sordid, illegal mess unravels.  Of course this won't be a problem for Comey since he's already been fired, and his pension is secure.  And he won't lose any invitations or luster among his anti-Trump friends for trying to sabotage the president.

So...everything's still on track for the Dems and the Lying Mainstream Media.

Obama-appointed judge rules non-citizen without work permit can sue a company for not hiring him

In the latest blow to the rule of law and sanity, an Obama-appointed judge has ruled that illegal immigrants can sue an American company for refusing to hire them.

Yes, you read that right.

Federal employment law says that for non-U..S. citizens to legally work in the U.S, they have to have a "green card."  But in a classsic display of "I don't care what the law is, I'll rule for the result I want," judge Kathleen M. Williams--a former public defender appointed to the federal bench by Obama-- accused a U.S. company of discrimination for refusing to give a paid internship to an illegal immigrant who wasn't legally permitted to work in this country.

Amazing, eh?  But typical of liberal Democrat logic.  To Dems the so-called "rule of law" is just a set of suggestions, so they're free to ignore actual written laws they don't like.

In this case the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a leftist group that has Chicago ties to Obama, brought the suit on behalf of an illegal alien.  The group pushes for free college tuition for illegal immigrants and lowering highschool graduation requirements to allow illegals to graduated.  The group openly claims the enforcement of immigration law is racist, and strongly opposes building a fence on the Mexican border.

MALDEF filed suit on behalf of one of the million or so illegals that Obama allowed to stay in the U.S. under his cunningly named "DACA" order.  It claimed that Procter & Gamble discriminated against a Venezuelan immigrant, David Rodriguez, when it refused to give him a paid internship because he was neither a U.S. citizen nor a green card holder. 

Judge Kathleen M. Williams, a former public defender appointed to the federal bench by Obama, ruled that the claims match those in a 2014 suit against another company.  In that complaint a Mexican illegal alien and DACA winner claimed that a company's policy requiring employees to have a green card if they weren't U.S. citizens discriminated against him.  The federal judge hearing that case agreed, and Williams cited that decision to justify hers.

But significantly, the actual, y'know, written DACA order doesn't just give illegals carte blanche to work in the U.S., but permits them to apply for a green card.  And as far as can be determined, every DACA beneficiary who applied got one.  But you had to apply and go thru the paperwork.  Neither of the plaintiffs in the two lawsuits did, but merely whined that since the emperor's decree allowed them to stay in the U.S., they didn't need a green card.

Cool, eh?

Remember, citizen:  If you oppose illegal immigrants, or their demanding the right to work here or get free welfare paid for by you, you're a raaacist hater.  And as soon as the Left and Dems get rid of that eeeebil Trumpy, the new, enlightened Dem gruberment will fine or jail you for thoughtcrime.

But it's for your own good.  Really.

Obama's "dreamers"--committing crimes, getting released, committing more crimes

Democrats love the illegal aliens emperor Obama allowed--by his unilateral order--to stay in the U.S. under "DACA."  Obama (and all Dem leaders) knew that by giving the illegals amnesty, the Democrats would get an extra two million Democrat votes.


In classic Orwellian style, Obama and the Dems called his order "the DREAM act,"--"Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors."  "Development" was put in to make the faaabulous and oh-so-lovely acronym.

Because Dems love the prospect of a couple of million new voters, the Lying Mainstream Media has been flooding you with stories about how much "we" really really need to make these people American citizens (meaning they'll be able to vote, although many already do, illegally).  So the Media constantly churns out puff-pieces about the wonderful accomplishments of the so-called 'dreamers."  Thus we see stories about the "dreamer" who joined the military (there have been six, total, out of a million), or the one who made valedictorian, or one who got a full scholarship to Harvard.

You don't see nearly as many stories about the killers, drug dealers, drunk drivers, rapists and so on.


They happen, of course.  A lot more than you'd think.  But you don't see those stories because the Democrat-supporting, conservative-hating mainstream media doesn't want you to.



These stories do make the news, but only in local media.  The Lying Mainstream always ignores 'em.  Cuz it would show Americans that the Dems are supporting people who shouldn't be here.
  
But because of the internet, we all have access to stories that used to never get out of a 20-mile radius.  Ann Coulter listed five awful "Dreamer" crimes from just the last month:

 Child Rapist
     Police in Seaside, Oregon, arrested "dreamer" Anastacio Eugenio Lopez-Fabian, 24, for multiple rapes of a girl "younger than 14," plus assault and harassment.  Lopez-Fabian--a native of Guatemala--had been deported twice, in 2013 and 2014.

The same day he was arrested, some Oregon official ordered him released--without notifying U.S. Immigration and Customs.

So we have a twice-deported illegal who raped a child.  And the liberal morons release him without telling ICE, so they can't deport him.  Despite this outrage, this story was only in the local press.

Buying illegal handgun
    In Bowling Green, KY, dreamer Jaime Melchi-Sigas, 22, was sitting in the back seat of a car, examining an illegal handgun he intended to purchase.  He accidentally shot and killed the man in the front seat.

This item appeared in one small local Bowling Green, Kentucky, newspaper.

Rapist appeals conviction because...

   Three weeks ago, "dreamer" Alejandro Perez-Cortez, 26, appealed his five-year sentence for attempted rape, on the grounds that he was drunk at the time.

What's interesting about this case is that we have lawyers willing to bring utterly frivolous appeals on the grounds that a drunk illegal isn't responsible for attempted rape.

Drunk-driver "dreamer" kills
   In March, dreamer Ivan Gerardo Zamarripa-Castaneda, 26, was driving drunk.  He crossed the centerline and crashed into a semi, killing its driver.  This poor Mexican who was driving drunk on an interstate -- through no fault of his own -- fled the scene.

He was captured by the police the next day.  But in an all-too-common event, authorities in Colorado ordered him released without informing I.C.E.

Another child-rapist
    In Alabama, "dreamer" Juan Vazquez Cornelio, 38, was charged with raping a 10-year-old girl and sending her to the hospital.


This story never made it out of Tuscaloosa.


Now obviously, American citizens commit crimes like these too.  But illegals commit them at many times the "background" rate.  If the Lying Media told you about all the crimes committed by illegals, voters would realize what the Dems are trying to do, and they'd demand the wall be built immediately.


But the media won't tell you.  For an obvious reason.


H/T Ann Coulter

Democrats in Illinois have a bill to force all schools to teach the achievements of gays

Insanity by Democrat politicians, part #496,296:  The LGBT snowflakes in Illinois think it's just absolutely UNFAIR that taxpayer-funded schools don't teach about all the faaaabulous achievements gays have added to the U.S.  So they've persuaded their Democrat allies in the Illinois senate to introduce a bill that will force all public schools to take classroom time to teach this to all students.

Insane.  Every year highschool students learn less and less about the important things and more about bullshit like this.

Cowardly Democrat politicians--looking for votes, and to "virtue-signal"--are all too eager to go along.  They seem to think it's more important to force students to learn about the vital accomplishments of gays than to teach students things like math, history, the Constitution and so on.

You know, the things that might actually *help*.

And of course the teachers unions are absolutely fine with it.  Oh, and by the way, they've walked out of the classroom and are demonstrating the state capital for raises--which the Dem pols will give them (out of taxpayer funds) in exchange for their votes.

Hell of a system, eh?  Well, if you're gay or a teacher.

How Swedish authorities "responded" to this attack by Muslim immigrants is revealing

#Sweden again. Polish woman violently raped by two Arabs. Police made no attempt to investigate. Tried to see a psychologist. Was told by the clinic “Refugees have trauma too, and have priority.” #svpolhttps://t.co/9f5vFEElyV

— Pat Condell (@patcondell) March 26, 2018

Note that Swedish police made no effort to investigate.

And that the clinic the victim went to said "Refugees have trauma too, and priority."

A serious question for kumbayah Democrats:  What do you believe will change these thugs, these monsters, so that the ones who come here will suddenly, magically, turn into good citizens?

This is the Left, laid bare; content warning

Every shit-head leftist--Antifa, Democrats, "revolutionaries"--needs to stare at the pic below until it's burned into whatever useless mass of cells you call a brain.

The monster shooting the helpless women is your side's hero Che Guevara--the 'enforcer' for Fidel Castro.  Guevara was known for executing unarmed "enemies of the Left."

The image of two 20-ish women waiting to be killed--hands at their sides, simply standing there, helpless, not trying to run--should make you realize how idiotic, how evil, is your idolization of Guevara.  But for most of you, it won't.  You simply don't understand.  Anything.

Your evil idiocy is patently obvious from the fact that you idolize Guevara.  And Fidel.  And Stalin, and Lenin, and Nicholas Maduro (communist prez of starving Venezuela) and the whole corrupt regime of North Korea, and the bloody mullahs running Iran, and...anyone, anywhere who is thuggish and ruthless and trying to tear down civilization in the name of...what?  Shooting helpless women?

This IS the Left.  Laid bare.  It's what the Left wants.  And why we must never let the government take away our right of self-defense against monsters like this.

Two minute clip of Team Obama gloating about their "win" in ridding Syria of chemical...wait, what?

For two years Obama, his Democrat supporters and the Lying Liberal Media (a.k.a. the Mainstream Media--the scum who effectively own all the airwaves in the U.S.--the so-called "public airwaves) bragged endlessly about what they claimed was a "big, big win," a total coup:  They claimed they were such great negotiators that they were able to totally rid Syria of all chemical weapons.

The emperor gloated (really, you have to watch his face as he said it) that he'd managed to do this without a military strike--due to his unmatched skill, of course.  Click here to see two minutes of Obama and Kerry and the MSM crowing about their "win."

Hmm...in that case someone should tell those 40 dead Syrian victims of the chemical weapon attack that they're really not dead.

Global warming hits Antarctica. Wait...maybe not

Many "global warming catastrophe!" types believe temperatures in Antarctica are a very reliable predictor of what's happening to the overall climate of the Earth.

At least they did when they thought the data showed Antarctica was getting warmer.  And it IS getting warmer, right?  I mean, it HAS to be, right?  Cuz, you know, da eeebil oil kompanies und ze koal kompanies are destroying our lovely planet with their awful, awful CO2!  Right?

Um...maybe we'll have to re-think whether Antarctica is a good indicator after all--cuz new data show the place may not be  may not be warming at all.  In fact the data suggesting that a century ago the place was much warmer than it is now.

Wait, wasn't the CO2 level far lower a century ago?  Why yes, it was.

But if CO2 directly drives global temperature, how could lower CO2 a century ago have produced warmer temperatures?  Something seems...um...off here.

The Japanese Meteorological Agency reports their measurements show a slight cooling even though atmospheric CO2 levels rose sharply from 1985 until 2017, according to Japanese climate blogger Kirye.  And there are other examples.

The Australian research outpost, Davis Station, reports no warming in six decades.  In a study of 13 stations from all over the continent, 10 of the stations show no trend of temperature increase and some show a slight decreasing temperature trend. Three of the stations, all of them located on the Antarctic Peninsula, show a slight warming trend. Besides the raw data listed above, two recent scientific studies confirm these observations.

So, the Antarctic temperature variations appear to be natural. That’s all well and good, but what about the ice shelves falling into the ocean that the media scream about?  Didn’t a chunk of ice the size of Delaware or maybe Florida or Texas or France or the moon break off last year?  Seems to me the Lying Media were warning us this was gonna raise sea level enough to destroy most of Florida.

In July of last year, amateur climatologist Al Gore breathlessly tweeted that “The Larsen C ice shelf has broken away from Antarctica, a jarring reminder of why we must solve the climate crisis.”

But in fact the ice on the majority of Larsen C has been thickening. Also, the break-off of Larsen C will not do anything at all to sea level since the portion of ice that broke off was already afloat, and floating ice doesn't make any more water than the part already underwater.  Really.  So maybe Miami Beach is safe for now.

But you really need to stop driving and flying.  Cuz Al Gore said so.  But don't expect him to sell his private, ocean-crossing Gulfstream jet.  Cuz he's more important than you are.  Really.

Obama administration secretly changed rules for Social Security to encourage more illegals to apply for...

When people apply for "above-board" jobs in the U.S, they have to give their employer their Social Security number.  When illegal aliens do this, three-quarters of the time it's fake.  Yes, the Social Security Administration estimates that three out of four illegal aliens use a fake Social Security number.

For over 25 years, when the Social Security Administration found a mis-match between an SS number and the name of the person who had that number, it notified employers.  This wasn't to catch illegals but was intended to ensure that the employee's wages and SS withholding were credited to the correct account.  Because if a single digit is mis-copied or transposed, the employee's SS account wouldn't get credited with those wages, which could reduce SS benefits.

Now a law professor at Temple University claims the Obama administration very quietly ordered the SS people to stop sending out those mis-match letters--in order to encourage more illegal aliens to apply for the illegal, Obama-decreed amnesty program called DACA.  Otherwise known as "two million new votes for Democrats."

Obama ordered this change because when U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting DACA applications in 2012, applicants were required to list all Social Security numbers they'd ever used.  Since using a fake SS number is supposedly a felony (notwithstanding Obama's having an SS number from Connecticut--a state he'd never visited when he allegedly got it), many DACA applicants would have been admitting they'd committed a felony.

As soon as this disincentive to apply for DACA was brought to the administration’s attention, the Obama empire scrambled to fix it:  Just eight days after DACA commenced, the administration ordered the Social Security Administration (SSA) to stop notifying employers when an SS number didn't match the holder's name.

A day or two later USCIS rushed out a statement that they were “not interested” in identifying individual violations of “some federal law in an employment relationship.”

Read that again:  the Obama administration's official policy was to ignore possible felony use of a fake SS number.  Illegal as hell, and unconstitutional.  But no one said boo.

Shortly after that, USCIS changed their website, telling illegal alien applicants that they should only report an SSN if it was “officially issued to you by the Social Security Administration.”

To re-cap: DACA took effect on August 15th, 2012.  Days later the Obama administration ordered USCIS to stop requiring applicants to list fake SS numbers.  Then on August 23rd--just 8 days after DACA began--the Obama administration ordered the Social Security Administration to stop notifying employers that they'd found an SS mismatch.

Even more infuriating is the fact that although Obama's Social Security munchkins were ordered to stop notifying employers about SSN mismatch on Aug. 23, 2012, they didn't notify the public in any was until more than four years later, on Sept. 16, 2016, as Obama's reign drew to a close. Even then they made no live, recordable announcement, but buried notice of the suspension in a footnote to an SSA Records Maintenance notice and, until now, was virtually unknown outside the SSA.

Apparently Team Obama didn't want voters to know about their deed.

Remember how the Lying Media positively gushed when Obastard promised that his administration would be the most transparent EVER? 

Is that transparency? 

 H/T  the Washington Times, 

Do ya feel like the world has gone nuts? Well...

If you follow currents events (as opposed to the lies and drivel broadcast by the moronic Mainstream Media) you probably feel like the world is out of sorts. Insanity and class warfare seem to be the norm today. Politicians seem to be either corrupt, or at the least, unwilling to do what clearly needs to be done to avoid otherwise-certain disaster.

Conventional wisdom is that no one can predict the future.  Certainly it's true that we can't predict whether Sally Jones will be rear-ended on Elm street tomorrow, but major trends are quite clear, and their results easy to forecast.  The problem is that people refuse to accept signs that point to results they don't want.

The president of Western Union once famously said "The telephone has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication."

Paul Krugman--a moron who has found his level of competence writing for the NY Times--opined in 1998 that "by 2005 or so it will have become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.

As the first personal computers were starting to appear, a former president of IBM  said "Why on earth would anyone want color in a computer display?"  So...no trend can be discerned by someone unwilling to see it.

Fast-forward to the present:  Right now we're living through a quiet war for the future of our country.  The Left, including most Democrats, have gone from merely ignoring violations of the Constitution and the law, and now are openly claiming the right to violate Federal law in any area they control. 

This is the issue regarding self-declared "sanctuary states" like California.  For almost two centuries the courts have consistently held that federal law overrides state laws.  During Obama's reign federal courts ruled quite firmly that states had to defer to federal immigration law--even going so far as to rule that Arizona was barred from helping the feds enforce federal immigration laws.  But last year, when the governor of California signed a law declaring CA a "sanctuary state" and barring state employees from cooperating with federal agencies in apprehending illegals, the courts didn't lift a finger to slap this down.

Fascinating:  When Obama reigned, federal judges held that no state could violate federal law.  But now that a Republican is president, it's fine for a Dem-ruled state to violate federal immigration law.

This sort of schizophrenic behavior leads to disaster, for any number of reasons--not least of which is the fact that young people deduce that all laws can be ignored as the individual sees fit.

This is the sort of thing that leads to civil war.


H/T Richard Fernandez at Belmont

A little humor in perilous times

Thought this was funny:


The guys who made this clip nailed it:  The Left (and Democrats) seem to think it's perfectly fine to commit violence against conservatives--or anyone who disagrees with their views.

Group of 1,200 citizens of Central America marching north, determined to enter U.S.

As you may have read, by all accounts a gaggle of roughly 1,200 citizens of various Central American countries is marching north through Mexico--with the assistance and support of the Mexican government.  Their announced plan is to reach the U.S. border and walk in, like so many hundreds of thousands during emperor Obama's 8-year reign of error.

If they succeed, it will--with absolute certainty--trigger an avalanche of groups trying to do the same thing.

This is--simply and purely--an invasion, abetted by the Mexican government.  To his credit, Trump has said he'll mobilize the National Guard at the border to prevent the illegals from entering.

This has set the stage for a huge legal battle, since Democrats and liberals will do everything they can to get the courts to prohibit the president from mobilizing the Guard.  And as you all know, Democrats can rely on liberal judges in the 9th circuit to give them any ruling they seek.

If, as expected, the 9th Circuit court rules for the Dems, and if Trump ignores that unconstitutional ruling and uses his Constitutional authority to defend our border, the Dems will almost certainly use that action as grounds for impeachment.  But if Trump obeys the illegal ruling and lets the illegals waltz in, the nation is doomed to an endless flood of similar mass groups.

If the Guard does intercept the marchers, instead of sending 'em back where they came from there's an amusing alternative:  arrest the marchers as they enter, put 'em on buses and send em to San Francisco. 

Cuz after all, "California is a sanctuary state," eh?  Their own Dem-ruled legislature passed a law saying so, and governor "Moonbeam" Brown signed it. 

So....give Californians what their idiot lawmakers have said they want.

Democrat logic collides with reality: Murders in gun-free London match NYC

Leftists and Democrats constantly wail that we need to ban gun ownership by civilians...cuz, as they put it, "guns kill people."

Okay, Sparky.  So I guess since the U.K banned civilians from owning handguns back in 1997, London has to have far fewer murders than, say, New York, right?

Uh...no.  In Feb and March of this year the number of murders in London was virtually the same as for NYC (which has the same population).

"WAIT!" say lefties, "That's unpossible!  Cuz, GUNS kill people!  So OBVIOUSLY, if we just banned guns we wouldn't have nearly as many murders!  It's so obvious."

Except...it dowsn't seem to have helped in London.  And why?  Because the killers just switched to using knives.

But by all means, lefties and Democrats, keep lecturing us on how guns are the problem, and banning 'em is the solution.  Cuz we all know high school students are the go-to source of all wisdom when it comes to analyzing all problems, eh?

Wait, you say you don't let your teenage kid tell you how you should run the household?  You don't let 'em lecture you on budgeting, or the fine points of the legal system?  Why, I'm...shocked.  Not.