How to Lie By Indirection

 10/1/25 AP:

A vote to end the government shutdown hours after it began failed Wednesday, as Democrats in the Senate held firm to the party’s demands to fund health care subsidies that President Donald Trump and Republicans refuse to provide....

Health care demands: Democrats want the health care subsidies extended now, for Republicans to reverse the Medicaid cuts that were enacted over the summer, and for the White House to promise not to rescind congressional spending. Republicans say there’s still time to negotiate on health care this year, but stopgap funding for the government is the priority. Republican claims that Democrats want to provide free health care to immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally are false.

If you click through the "are false" link you get a 10/1/25 AP news story that almost says that. 

But immigrants in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for any federal health care programs, including insurance provided through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid.

Hospitals do receive Medicaid reimbursements — which would be reduced under Trump’s mega-bill — for emergency care that they are obligated to provide to people who meet other Medicaid eligibility requirements, but do not have an eligible immigration status, according to KFF, a nonprofit health policy research polling and news organization. This spending accounted for less than 1% of total Medicaid spending between fiscal years 2017 and 2023.

So, not direct aid but hospitals treat illegals knowing they will get reimbursed.  The requirement that all hospitals that have ever received national government assistance must provide emergency medical care is a humane requirement.  At the same time, knowing that you will receive such care has to act as an encouragement to stay here.  That the amount of spending is small really means somewhere below $8.8 billion.  In the larger scheme of things this is not huge.  But we are running a huge deficit.  Americans are fairly sympathetic to those in need.  That includes those in need who have a right to be here.

Chutzpah: Once Defined As Someone Convicted of Murdering His Parents Throws Himself on the Mercy of the Court Because He is an Orphan

 The new definition, from 9/25/25 BizPacReview:

A former nonprofit executive who’s been credibly accused of embezzling money to fund her personal expenses is now suing the same nonprofit for allegedly not properly compensating her for her supposed work.

Kyra Worthy, the former executive director of San Francisco SAFE, filed a $26,000 suit against the nonprofit and its last board chair, Dan Lawson, in court last Friday, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

The nonprofit San Francisco SAFE, or SF Safe, was considered the nonprofit arm of the local San Francisco Police Department.

In January of last year, SF SAFE fired Worthy after an investigation by the city found that she’d “misused public money on luxury gift boxes, valet parking at an exclusive club, and limo services during a Lake Tahoe trip,” according to The San Francisco Standard.

This led to her termination, as well as the bombshell announcement by SF SAFE that its bank account was devoid of any money, which in turn led to the nonprofit being shut down “for the time being.”

 After her termination, Worthy immediately began demanding her final paycheck from the “very beginning,” according to Lawson.

Her former underlings are appalled at the fact that she’s filed suit. One of them told the Chronicle that they too never received their final paycheck, nor were they ever paid out for unused sick and vacation time.

But the underlings aren’t appalled at the nonprofit — they’re appalled by Worthy, the woman pretty much responsible for bankrupting SF SAFE with her selfish actions, now demanding the nonprofit pay her.

Speaking of her selfish actions, Worthy is also facing dozens of felonies for stealing from SF SAFE and misusing public funds. She was formally arrested on July 30, 2024.

 

 

Voter Fraud is A Fantasy

10/1/25 Federalist shows the voter status record for the Des Moines School District Superintendent.   He is an illegal alien with a criminal record.  He is listed as an active voter in Maryland--a state he has not lived in for many years.

Any guess on his party affiliation?

Intersectionality Across Sex and Ableness

 A couple years old when progressive insanity was peaking.  11/1/22 Reduxx: Feminist News & Opinion:

A man in Norway is sparking outrage on social media after he was sympathetically interviewed about his decision to begin identifying as a disabled woman.

On October 28, Good Morning Norway (God Morgen Norge, GMN) aired an interview with Jørund Viktoria Alme, 53, an able-bodied male who now identifies as a disabled woman. In the interview, Alme stated that he had always wished he had been born a woman who was paralyzed from the waist down.

 Will some progressive please explain why this is not sick?  Not intersectionality but madness?

Alme, a senior credit analyst for Handelsbanken in Oslo, has received positive coverage in Norwegian media since he first announced his trans-disability publicly on Facebook in 2020. He has given several interviews, often alongside his wife, Agnes Mjålseth.

Despite having no physical handicaps, Alme currently utilizes a wheelchair “almost all the time.”

In addition to gender dysphoria, Alme claims to have a Body Integrity Disorder (BID), citing a “dissonance” between how he perceives himself and how his body functions. “I have struggled with this every day my whole life,” Alme told Vi, a Norwegian outlet, earlier this year.

“It is a cognitive dissonance: in the same way that I experience being a woman in a man’s body, I experience that I should have been paralyzed from the waist down. This is not a desire to be a burden on society. It is about the wheelchair being an aid for me to function in everyday life, both privately and at work,” Alme stated.

 

 

 

The Future of America?

 9/23/25 BBC:

A Muslim man who attacked someone burning a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London has been spared jail.

Moussa Kadri, 59, saw Hamit Coskun setting alight the text and shouted: "I'm going to kill you" before slashing at him with a knife.

He later told police he was protecting his religion, Southwark Crown Court heard.

Judge Adam Hiddleston handed Kadri a 20-week prison sentence, suspended for 18 months.

The incidents happened on 13 February in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, when Coskun, 51, shouted "Islam is religion of terrorism" and "Quran is burning".

Coskun, who is half Kurdish and half Armenian, travelled from his home in the Midlands and set fire to the Koran at about 14:00 GMT, prosecutors previously said.

Kadri approached and asked Coskun why he was burning it.

Coskun could be heard in footage making a reference to "terrorists", and Kadri swore, called him "an idiot" and said "one sec, I'm coming back".

Kadri later returned holding a knife and slashed at Coskun, the court heard.

The judge said that the way Kadri lost his temper was "disgraceful" and that the "use of blades is a curse on our community".

Kadri said to Coskun: "Burning the Quran? It's my religion, you don't burn the Quran."

He later told police: "I protect my religion."

Greg Unwin, defending, said: "This was a response to a very unusual situation that Mr Kadri has demonstrated regret and remorse for.

"His reaction was in the heat of the moment to what he perceived was a deeply offensive act on a holy book."

 One might wonder if this guy belongs in civilized society.  He was not carrying the knife and responded in the heat of the moment.  He left and returned with the knife.  What about the victim?

Coskun was convicted at Westminster Magistrates' Court in June of a religiously aggravated public order offence.

An appeal was lodged with the Crown Court.

Coskun had argued that his criticism was of Islam in general rather than its followers, but District Judge John McGarva said he could not accept this, finding that Coskun's actions were "highly provocative" and that he was "motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims".

His case prompted campaigners and some politicians to say it was an attempt to bring back blasphemy law, but the government has said there are no blasphemy laws in England nor are there any plans to introduce any.

 Technically, this is not a blasphemy law but that a distinctio without a difference.

Burning something that is regarded as holy (like a cross, Bible, or American flag) is rude and unpersuasive.  Telling someone who engaged in a premeditated knife attack that his actions are understandable and not deserving of segregation from civilization is a sign of a society that is going down.