If it is made by HBO you can bet your ass it will be pro-democrat fiction

So after HBO basically produced a series of pro-DNC, highly fictionalized, propaganda pieces and tried to pass them off as accurate or documentaries, it seems that they now find the need to preempt the obvious accusation their latest attempt is not more of the same. HBO has been heavily advertising this dreg between their scheduled programs, and I can tell you that just from that content that this will be a giant pile of democrat fiction supporting garbage likely to make Michael Moore feel jealous he didn’t think of pushing this nonsense.

The problem with these tools at HBO is the same that infects the LSM: they would love you to believe that they are unbiased and objective, when nothing can be further from the truth. They are shills for the progressive side, and they want to hide that fact. Don’t buy the nonsense about how much research they did to depict this story accurately. If this mockumentary keeps in tune with the other crap HBO has produced, it will be replete with inaccuracies that favor democrats and their narrative and paints republicans as downright evil and corrupted. If it wasn’t for “Game of Thrones” I would have dumped this MSNBC clone a long time ago. I pity the morons that will get their history from HBO, because as usual, they will be liberals believing their own lies and hoping everyone else does because the lie has been told often enough.

The Anti-Gun Arguments Get Stupider

I’ve been pro-second amendment as long as I can remember. My dad owned guns. Most of the people I knew growing up either owned a gun or hunted. I try to engage the anti-gun arguments but I know I come at it from a bias: it didn’t occur to me until a relatively late age that there were people who wanted to rid our society of guns.

But as Americans continues to stock up on guns and gun violence continues to fall, the arguments of the anti-gun crowd are getting weaker and weaker. Samanatha Bee ran a bit on her show, demonstrating — to our supposed horror — that it’s easier to get a gun than to obtain a NRA mascot costume (although they didn’t actually buy any guns). Charles Cooke:

There are disagreements in politics. And then there is willful stupidity. This, alas, is an example of the latter. “Eddie the Eagle” is a private, trademarked, fictional character owned by an organization that is able to restrict his replication as much as it wishes. Firearms, by contrast, are constitutionally protected goods that cannot be denied to free people without good cause. Of course it is easier to get hold of one than the other. To buy a gun one needs to be of a certain age and to be without a criminal record; to obtain an “Eddie the Eagle” costume one needs to meet whatever conditions the character’s owners have imposed. One might as well ask why it is easier for a person to buy a machete than to take Jennifer Lawrence out for dinner. “But one is nicer than the other; surely that counts for something?!”

You can imagine, of course, how the Left Wing idiots praising Bee’s skit would react if Glenn Beck showed it was easier to get an abortion than to adopt a child. Some things are harder to do than others. This does not convey any kind of social commentary.

It is notable that when Bee finally compares like with like — that is, when both of the products within her comparison are available on the open market — she has to resort to debunked lies. “It turned out the organization that makes it easier to get a gun than Sudafed . . .” Bee claims at one point. This is false. In truth, both guns and Sudafed are regulated in all 50 states when they are purchased from a professional dealer. Moreover, as anybody who has bought both knows, it is infinitely easier to buy Sudafed from a pharmacy than to buy a gun from a dealer, and easier, too, to buy Sudafed from a secondary seller than it is to buy a gun privately.

I haven’t watched Bee’s show because I don’t watch much TV. I liked her on The Daily Show but the clips that show up in my social media are of a piece with this: condescending, incorrect and more smarmy than they are insightful. And liberals seem to love it. She had a recent bit responding to Rubio’s comment that some Democrats support abortion up until birth, saying, “Removing the baby on the due date isn’t an abortion, it’s a cesarean.” No, it isn’t.

The diaspora of Daily Show correspondents has been a mixed bag. John Oliver’s show is pretty good (and tackles issues that are in the libertarian wheelhouse, like asset forfeiture). Colbert’s show is OK. Whitmore’s show is OK at times. Bee’s show, from what little I’ve seen, mainly appeals to liberals who want more sass than fact. The Daily Show itself is struggling. Trevor Noah isn’t a bad host but he lacks Stuarts’ skill in making both sides laugh.

Well … it could be worse. We could be seeing this bullshit from a “real” news organization.

Update: A lot of the anti-gun foolishness these days is a result of desperation. The gun grabbers have lost the argument and keep losing it. Every time someone is hot, they try to milk the tragedy for more gun laws and it simply doesn’t happen.

How desperate are they? Well, the Brady Campaign has gotten shooting Alice in Wonderland in the face desperate.

Update: Oh. Guns are now racist as well.

Another one bites the dust

The Obamacare supporting retards a few months back were all pissed at those of us that pointed out the abysmal failure that the exchanges Obamacare were going to drive every insurer out of that scam. When United Health Group started talking like they would have to bail, we were told that this was all talk that would go nowhere, because in the end Obamacare was not just sound, but the law of the land. fast forward a few months, and we get an article titled “UnitedHealth Makes Good on Threat to Pull Out of Obamacare that points out just that:

The Affordable Care Act suffered another jolt late last week with the news that UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest health insurer, was making good on its threat to pull out of Obamacare, beginning with its operations in Georgia and Arkansas.

UnitedHealth roiled the market last November when it revealed that it was considering exiting Obamacare after incurring hundreds of millions of dollars in losses related to ACA business. Then UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley confessed to investors meeting in New York in December that the company should have stayed out of the program a little longer to better gauge its profitability potential.

The company had cautiously tiptoed into the market in January 2015 after sitting out the first full year of Obamacare operations in 2014. “It was for us a bad decision,” Hemsley admitted to his investors. “In retrospect, we should have stayed out longer.”

So it wasn’t a huge surprise on Friday when UnitedHealth spokesperson Tyler Mason confirmed to The Washington Post that the company, indeed, was pulling out of Georgia and Arkansas, two relatively small states that proved to be highly unprofitable terrain for the company.

This development is troubling, especially if it UnitedHealth pulls out of other bigger states, or if other major insurers such as Aetna and Anthem follow suit. But experts have cautioned not to make too much of UnitedHealth’s flight from the market. While it is one of the largest insurers on the national scene, UnitedHealth nonetheless is a bit player in Obamacare and holds a much smaller market share than other rivals like Aetna and Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Get the fuck out of here! This idiotic Ponzi scheme will fall apart as the major players all realize they got duped and pull out? Say it ain’t so! I guess I shouldn’t be celebrating this vindication, because after all, Obamacare was never about fixing anything that the collectivists claimed was wrong with our existing healthcare system or controlling costs: it was about destroying the existing system by creating so much tumult, chaos, and pain, that even the most adamant anti-single-payer system advocate would have no choice to accept the left’s takeover of this enterprise that comprises 1/6th of the economy and gives a government that has already shown it is willing to use its various branches against its political and other enemies, even more power to do so and control the uppity serfs. All of us better get used to our healthcare being crappy like this.

Shades of Lois Lerner and the IRS Scandal coverup

I guess that fearing the fact that the Hillary Clinton e-mail security scandal was getting traction, despite a massive campaign by the DNC controlled media to conceal the criminal activity that caused a massive breach of security, Obama took to the airwaves this past weekend to defend Clinton. I can’t say I am surprised. Hillary probably has evidence that will drag Obama down with her if she gets indicted, as she should be, and then convicted an locked up, so Obama is now covering his ass. From the article;

The latest example came this weekend, when Obama again insisted that Clinton hadn’t put the country at risk by using a private email server during her time at the State Department.

“I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America’s national security,” Obama said during a Fox News interview, going on to praise her job as secretary of state.

Even in those remarks Obama noted he needed to be “careful” in what he said, since his administration continues an investigation into Clinton’s email arrangements. He stopped short of declaring that Clinton hadn’t broken any laws, a conclusion that his Justice Department has yet to make.

Why does this all conjure up memories of the Lois Lerner, IRS Scandal insider job? It is as if these democrats all think and act as if they are above the law, because they know that they will never be held accountable or something. This country is run by a crime syndicate that seems compelled to hand off the baton to another crime syndicate. How the mighty have fallen. Love that fundamental change Obama promised us all yet?

Religious fanatic wants to punish heretics.

I had to laugh at this idiotic and dangerous article by another one of the SJW morons that form the AGW priesthood. If you were to just read this stupid article, you might come away thinking that the idiot that wrote it, Michael E. Kraft, somehow has a scientist background, and thus, is to be taken seriously and even believed. This retard sure makes a call to authority with his demand that anyone not willing to just suck the cock of members of the AGW priesthood should be punished by the authorities, because “Scientific Consensus”!

I tried googling the guy, and while most of the links when followed through come up dead, I was absolutely not surprised to find out that the guy has no real scientific background to speak off: his supposed field of expertise is a fucking political science! Color me unsurprised, but to me political science ranks right up there with Astrology in scientific rigor or scientific depth, and given a choice between the two, I would rank Astrology as the more scientific of the two on the simple notion that political science is nothing but the refuge of old time collectivist douchebags and people that feel instead of reason.

People should also not be surprised that when you dig deep you find that the bulk of the supposed members of the “scientific community” that sign up to the beliefs of the AGW cult, and those that defend it the most vehemently and make demands like this one that the heretics be punished for their lack of faith, tend to be the members of the breadth of idiotic faiths that have added the terme science to what amounts to a refuge for collectivist twits and grievance mongers (it is an insult and something that detracts from other fields of study that actually amount to real disciplines to call these fucking duplicitous and garbage hangouts for the collectivist and grudge carrying dregs of society that have appropriated the term “science”).

While they are smart enough to never do so in public, and definitely not in the academic community, members of the real scientific disciplines – physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, and the hard engineering disciplines (sorry social engineering) – laugh at those that belong those other jokes that have appropriated the word science to lend credence to the idiotic cargo cults, and they do so for a good reason. If you fall under the umbrella of “social” or “soft” science, you are part of a group of idiots that believes in and engages in practices that are anything but following rigorous scientific principles and/or methods. If you dare to point this out however, these fucking idiots will use the political correctness machine, by appealing to authority and resorting to the most mean spirited and despicable tactics you can imagine to destroy you. Which is exactly what Kraft is doing in this article.

When you have no real scientific claim to make a stand on, but you have a politically driven agenda you want to push, you are a faith. That’s also when you demand the heretics be punished for daring to defy your “scientific consensus”, a term that absolutely clarifies you are engaged in something wholly unscientific. Fuck the lot of you.

Minimum wage cronyism

I guess there is more than one way to skin a cat, but when you have a government system that is predicated on the idea of the big government machine ultimately picking winners & losers, people should not be surprised that practically all the “good things” the big government types push for involve someone carving themselves some special niche. Case in point the recent CA minimum wage hike which was heavily pushed by a whole slew of SJW types as helping people out. Sure they all told you this was the decent thing to do and that everyone opposing it had a nefarious agenda of their own – after all, SJW types point out that the only people that would argue against helping those making minimum wage out, are those that want to profit by robbing these unfortunates of their earned income – but, sooner than later, it comes out they had one of their own.

Yeah, the SJW big government types love to take the credit for helping minimum wage earners make more cash, but only an idiot thinks they do this to help/ Case in point the union that pushed the hardest for this new legislation, asking for an exemption for themselves from it:

The labor union that led the charge for a $15 minimum wage hike in cities across California is now moving to secure an exemption for employers under union contracts.

The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor buried the exemption on the eighth page of its 12-page proposal for the Santa Monica City Council to review Tuesday while deciding whether to follow Los Angeles and increase the minimum wage.

The loophole would allow employers with collective bargaining agreements to sidestep the wage hike and pay their union members below the proposed $15-per-hour minimum wage.

James Sherk, a research fellow in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation, said the exemption is a union attempt to encourage businesses to unionize by making themselves the only low-wage option as union membership continues to drop off.

Oh, this is far more than about encouraging others to unionize: it is about creating an unfair advantage for the unionized entities by actually creating a huge disadvantage for those that are not unionized. As most of us that knew higher minimum wages would negatively distort economic practices pointed out, the lies about wanting to help people were just that: lies. There always is a down and dirty agenda, and as things like this despicable maneuver shows it is always really about helping the big government nanny-staters enhance their power and create even more opportunities for graft.

The only real effect this move to jack the minimum wage to $15 an hour will have on way too many minimum wage earners will be the chance that they end up losing their jobs, as employers cut down or switch to use unionized labor. Similarly, people trying to get minimum wage low skilled entry jobs will find far fewer of those available. Ask the people in Seattle how well it worked for them. But hey, the big government types and their special interests sure as hell scored big with this job killing idea. Of course, when someone in traditional media finally gets to reporting that this was just another scheme to help the people feeding at the government trough steal more money from the productive, those of us that pointed out there was some ulterior and nefarious motive, are going to be the ones painted in a bad light again.

Got to protect the agenda…

No, You Can’t Sue, Part Duh

I’ve made it clear where I stand on global warming: I think it’s real, I think we are causing it, I’m pretty sure it’s going to be bad, I don’t think our government has a clue what to do about it. Yet, I feel very comfortable saying that this is bullshit:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) today denounced a subpoena from Attorney General Claude E. Walker of the U.S. Virgin Islands that attempts to unearth a decade of the organization’s materials and work on climate change policy. This is the latest effort in an intimidation campaign to criminalize speech and research on the climate debate, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and former Vice President Al Gore.

“CEI will vigorously fight to quash this subpoena. It is an affront to our First Amendment rights of free speech and association for Attorney General Walker to bring such intimidating demands against a nonprofit group,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “If Walker and his allies succeed, the real victims will be all Americans, whose access to affordable energy will be hit by one costly regulation after another, while scientific and policy debates are wiped out one subpoena at a time.”

The subpoena requests a decade’s worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEI’s work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information. It demands that CEI produce these materials from 20 years ago, from 1997-2007, by April 30, 2016.

This isn’t coming out of nowhere. Several climate activists have bene calling for precisely this sort of investigation for a while and several other AG’s have been pondering such a move. But while I strongly disagree with the CEI about the reality of climate change, this is an extremely chilling move (no pun intended).

Walter Olson again:

If the forces behind this show-us-your-papers subpoena succeed in punishing (or simply inflicting prolonged legal harassment on) groups conducting supposedly wrongful advocacy, there’s every reason to think they will come after other advocacy groups later. Like yours.

This is happening at a time of multiple, vigorous, sustained legal attacks on what had been accepted freedoms of advocacy and association. As I note in a new piece at Cato, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has just demanded that the Securities and Exchange Commission investigate several large corporations that have criticized her pet plan to impose fiduciary legal duties on retirement advisors, supposedly on the ground that it is a securities law violation for them to be conveying to investors a less alarmed view of the regulations’ effect than they do in making their case to the Labor Department. This is not particularly compelling as securities law, but it’s great as a way to chill speech by publicly held businesses.

Make no mistake. This isn’t about racketeering and it certainly isn’t about science. It’s about shutting people up. And as a defender of free speech, I will defend it for everyone. The CEI is not engaged in criminal conduct. Nor are they part of a shadow conspiracy of evil oil interests to wreck the planet. At worst, they are guilty of deception in talking about global warming. More likely, they are guilty of motivated reasoning, rejecting global warming because they don’t want it to be true. Neither of those things is a crime. McArdle, on the similar BS inquiry into Exxon Mobil:

State attorneys general including Walker held a press conference last week to talk about the investigation of ExxonMobil and explain their theory of the case. And yet, there sort of wasn’t a theory of the case. They spent a lot of time talking about global warming, and how bad it was, and how much they disliked fossil fuel companies. They threw the word “fraud” around a lot. But the more they talked about it, the more it became clear that what they meant by “fraud” was “advocating for policies that the attorneys general disagreed with.”

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman gave the game away when he explained that they would be pursuing completely different theories in different jurisdictions — some under pension laws, some consumer protection, some securities fraud. It is traditional, when a crime has actually been committed, to first establish that a crime has occurred, and then identify a perpetrator. When prosecutors start running that process backwards, it’s a pretty good sign that you’re looking at prosecutorial power run amok.

Frankly, the CEI is an odd place to start if we’re going to start bashing anti-science people. The CEI, at worst, is delaying action on a climate crisis that might have negative effects in the future (pushing aside pseudoscientific theories that global warming created ISIS and such). But anti-GMO activists, by contrast, are killing people right now. They’re preventing the use of the golden rice which could stop thousands of people from going blind right now. And don’t get me started on the anti-Vaxxers. But you don’t hear anyone talk of prosecuting them. Why not? Because they’re not associated with Evil Big Oil.

This is garbage. Attorneys General who engage in this sort of tyrannical lawfare need to hounded out of office. This is a companion to my post below on lawsuits against gun companies and it has the same principle: the law is not a weapon to use against people you disagree with. Because once we establish that it is, it will take about ten seconds for that law to be used against your interests.

No, You Can’t Sue

Hillary Clinton, feeling the heat of Bernie Sanders’ surging campaign, has decided to go after him for his support for the limited legal immunity given to gun owners. This attack became particularly sharp after Sanders gave an interview in which he said the families of the Sandy Hook victims should not be able to sue the gun manufacturers for damages, a statement that prompted this hysterical reaction from the New York Daily News:

LGF2440

However, this is one issue where Bernie is absolutely right and Clinton is absolutely wrong.

The liability protections for gun companies were created in the mid-2000s. The reason it was created was because Democrats like Richard Daley and Andrew Cuomo were trying to use the Courts to bypass the legislatures. They were filing massive suits against gun manufacturers to hold them liable for the cost of people getting shot. Such lawsuits have no basis in common law or American legal tradition. You can sue people for making defective products or breaking the law (or lying about their products as the cigarette companies did). But you can’t sue someone who makes a perfectly legal product because you don’t like what people do with it. This would be like suing airplane manufacturers over 9/11. Or suing Apple because someone wrote something libelous on a Mac.

Walter Olson:

PLCAA codified the common-law principles that have long applied in tort claims following shootings: if an otherwise lawful firearm has performed as it was designed and intended to do, its maker and seller are not liable for its misuse. (Exceptions permit liability in some situations where, e.g., a defendant has broken regulations or knowingly sold to a buyer intent on harm.) In other words, Congress acted specifically to preserve the law’s traditional handling of gun liability as against activists’ efforts to develop novel legal doctrine.

A good way of visualizing it was posted by Harley on Facebook earlier this week:

12957593_1162794513732785_6211668944986006261_o

While the lawsuits were bullshit and were mostly rejected by judges and juries, the hope was that either a) one jury would get stupid and open the door to multi-billion dollar suits; or b) the pressure of being sued by governments with effectively unlimited legal resources would force gun companies to make changes to their guns or sales procedures. In fact, this is exactly what happened in 2000, when Bill Clinton coerced Smith and Wesson into adopting more restrictive sales procedures. That’s what’s really going on here: having failed to get gun control through Congress, the gun grabbers want to use the threat of lawsuits to enact gun control through the back door.

And that’s why Congress was absolutely right to put a stop to it. Because allowing anyone to bypass Congress and legislate through the courts is an invitation to disaster. Once you’ve opened that door, there’s nothing to stop interest groups from using it to do whatever the hell they want. There’s nothing to stop President Cruz from effectively outlawing abortion by allowing thousands of wrongful death suits against abortion providers. There’s nothing to stop President Lieberman from enacting censorship on movies and video games by suing claiming it causes violence. When you’ve embraced the idea that companies can be sued for doing something legal because you don’t like it, the entire rule of law is upended. All that has to happen is for an industry to become unpopular and they can be crushed.

Hillary Clinton is not an idiot. She knows this. Any Democrat with two brain cells to rub together knows this. But the gun grabber hysteria on the Left is too strong right now for them to say, “Uh, no I favor gun control but we can’t upend the rule of law to do it.” This is effectively what Bernie Sander is saying. And for that, he’s being castigated by a gullible press and a desperate Presidential candidate.