Sunday, June 29

After Obama rejected proposed Keystone line twice, Canada says "Don't bother--we'll sell our oil to Asia instead"

Hey, anyone remember a project called the "Keystone Pipeline"?

It was a pipeline proposed to run from Alberta, Canada, to Illinois--about 1,100 miles.  It would have shipped oil from "tar sands" to the U.S.  From Illinois the oil would join a southern leg of the pipeline and get pumped to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

The project would have created 20,000 construction jobs.  It also would have carried oil from North Dakota (which is now the third-largest oil-producing state in the U.S.)--oil that is currently shipped by rail, which is considerably more prone to accidents than totally buried pipeline.

Obama rejected the northern leg of the proposed line in both 2011 and again in 2014, claiming the project posed too much risk to the environment.  The southern leg went ahead, but of course without the connection to the oil fields it's not all that useful.

After two rejections, and no signal from the Emperor that the project would ever be approved, Breitbart is reporting that Canada finally got tired of waiting and acted in its own best interests:  It approved an all-Canadian line running to that nation's Pacific coast.  Canada will sell its oil to Asian buyers.

You need to know what just happened, so you'll know exactly who was responsible when gas here goes to eight bucks a gallon:  We could have bought oil from a friendly, reliable, trustworthy government.  And the economy would have loved the 20,000 construction jobs.  But thanks to Obama and the Democratic Party's veto-proof control of the senate, we'll now have to buy from either from militant socialist governments like Venezuela, or from the biggest funders of world terrorism (Saudi Arabia).

I guess this is what passes for brilliant strategic thinking by your Emperor and his handlers.  Surely there's a brilliant strategy in there somewhere.  We probably don't know enough to recognize it.

Yeh, dat's it.

Labels:

How it's going to end

Okay, I think I've finally gotten enough information to know how it all ends.

I'm talking about the fate of the U.S. and all the really enlightened nations.

The final pieces of the puzzle were Obama unilaterally overturning immigration law without being impeached; then Nancy Pelosi declaring that the wave of illegal immigrant teenagers being driven to the Phoenix bus terminal and allowed to go anywhere they want; and finally a post by Wretchard at Belmont that the number of people crashing the borders of virtually ALL first-world nations is at a record high.

People living in third-world shitholes, or simply in nations suffering from poor economies or dysfunctional governments or...well, anything traumatic...have found they can simply crash the borders of functional nations and claim refugee status.  The residents of *most* first-world nations will not only let them in, but will enroll them in every social-welfare program available to native citizens.

This isn't just a problem for the U.S.  Virtually every country Europe has the same problem.  Sweden, France and the U.K are in the worst shape, with Muslim immigrants running entire cities and terrorizing the locals.  Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy are struggling and seem to be only a few years behind Sweden, France and the U.K.

You'd think residents of the not-yet-so-invaded countries would be able to look at their neighbors in the EU and see the consequences.  But strangely, that doesn't ever seem to happen.

And the reason is easy to spot:  Liberals/"progressives" whine that "Those poor people are SO poor and unfortunate, and we're so undeservedly rich, that we just HAVE to give them asylum, welfare and citizenship.  It's the only humane thing to do."  And so it is done.

People who see the consequences of uncontrolled immigration try to warn their countrymen, but their arguments always lose to the liberals' wails of how "We simply CANNOT turn them away or send them back where they came from, because they're so unfortunate and have almost nothing, and there's so much violence and corruption in their home countries."

Why yes, that's right.  But rather than demanding that they stand up and fix their own problems, liberals predictably prefer to GIVE them what they demand.  "Teach a man to fish and he won't need you.  But GIVE a man a fish and you've created a guaranteed vote and constituent forever."

You might think that at SOME point citizens who aren't liberals would rise up and say "ENOUGH of this ridiculous, dangerous bullshit!"  But not only has this not happened, it's not likely to.  Because the host governments and police (understandably) defend the immigrants.  Look at the UK Independence Party:  Their leader is jailed simply for voicing the opinion that the government is coddling immigrants.

There was a time when people who came to the U.S., at least, were eager to become Americans.  And for some that's still true.  But most seem to have little or no interest in assimilating.  That's worrisome.

Oh well, why worry, right?  The Emperor and senator Reid will take care of you.

How do Democrats solve a huge, costly problem? Have the Media declare it's NOT a problem but an "opportunity"

In case you've been out of touch for the last month or so, a *new* wave of illegal immigrants has been flooding into the country across the largely-open Mexican border.  Most of this recent wave are teenagers unaccompanied by parents.

Republican lawmakers have blamed the surge on Obama's executive order to the Border Patrol to stop deporting illegals if they haven't committed a "serious" crime--and sneaking in without authorization doesn't qualify.

Once they're in the U.S. the teens are deliberately turning themselves in to the Border Patrol, which gives them a ride in air-conditioned cars to the nearest checkpoint, where they're given further transport to temporary housing at a military base or other commandeered facility.

Obama has requested $2 Billion just to deal with the wave.  By most standards that would make it a "crisis."

But the Democrats have a way to easily turn a "crisis" into a positive event:  Trot out a leading Democrat who will say it's really a welcome event, and have their friends in the Media serve the fable to gullible Americans.

And sure enough, Democrat rep Nancy Pelosi visited the Texas-Mexico border on Saturday and said the newest wave of illegals those crossing should be welcomed and not treated as a problem but as an "opportunity."

"This crisis that some call a crisis, we have to view as an opportunity," Pelosi said. "If you believe as we do that every child, every person has a spark of divinity in them, and is therefore worthy of respect -- what we saw in those rooms was [a] dazzling, sparkling, array of God's children, worthy of respect."

Pelosi acknowledged that the surge "does have crisis qualities," but again urged the public to use it as an "opportunity to show who we are as Americans, that we do respect people for their dignity and worth."

Wow, just like the problem becomes a non-problem.  That is absolutely magical!  

Well, except for the two Billion we'll have to borrow to cover the cost of dealing with the new non-crisis non-problem.  And if you think that will cover it you don't know politics or government.

Tell us, Nancy:  Is there a single person on this earth who isn't one of God's children, or doesn't have "a spark of divinity in them"?  By your logic, wouldn't everyone on the planet qualify to stay in the U.S. permanently?

After economy shrank 2.9% in Q1--when gov't initially claimed *growth*--2 of the 3 major networks ignored the story that evening

If you pay attention to the news you know that last Wednesday the Commerce Department released its final figures on the economy's performance in the first quarter.

You did know about that, right?  In the worst performance in five years, the economy shrank at a rate of 2.9 percent.

That's shocking.  And even more so when you learn that the first figure reported by Commerce was a full three percent above the final number--an error so large as to be almost unheard of.

Then a month ago Commerce made its first revision to the number, dropping it into negative territory --i.e. contraction.  And now this second revision--again downward, showing that the economy actually did three percent worse than first reported.  It should have been huge, shocking news, both for the performance and for the huge difference between initial and final numbers.

But if you depend on the major news networks for your news you probably didn't hear a thing about it:  On their nightly news shows Wednesday neither NBC nor ABC broadcast a single word about this shocking story.  And it's not a case of the news being released too late for the networks to react:  Commerce releases the news at 8 a.m.--more than enough time to easily make the evening broadcast.

ABC found time to air a story on North Korea’s condemnation of a new movie/comedy, and a story on TV programs that are most popular for “binge-watching.” But not a word about either the shrinking economy or the shockingly large error between first and final reports--an error so large as to raise questions about whether it could have been accidental.

How do you think the media would have reacted if the economy had turned in this terrible performance while a Republican was president?  Think they would have led every newcast for two days with the story?  Think they would have been screaming COVERUP! because the first figure released by the government was three percentage points higher than the real performance? 

Yet Democrats and leftists keep insisting there's absolutely NO pro-Democrat bias in the Lying Media.

The Lying Mainstream Media--protecting Democrats has always been their number-one priority.

SWAT units in Massachusetts use deadly force but claim they're NOT public agencies ?? WTF?!

About 240 cities and associations of smaller towns in Massachusetts fund and operate SWAT units.  These units routinely conduct raids on homes and businesses where illegal activity is suspected.

Shockingly, these raids are sometimes based on absolutely fabricated information, or the unit raids the wrong address.  In both cases people in the raided homes are sometimes accidentally fatally shot. 

The ACLU decided to look into such abuses, and asked SWAT units in the state to provide information about the raids they'd conducted, citing the Freedom of Information Act.  The response the ACLU got was...unexpected.

The SWAT units claimed they were not required to provide any information on their activities because they were private corporations, not public agencies.

If you have a hard time accepting that claim, join the club.  It's hard to see how any public employee, driving public equipment and wielding firearms purchased by taxpayer funds can be so brazen as to make such a claim.  But they did. 

Specifically, the dodge was made by Jack Collins, the general counsel for the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, who asserted that *technically* the SWAT units were operated not by police departments but by law enforcement *councils.*  These were indeed incorporated, as non-profit corporations, so...there ya go, citizen.

By the way, if you think this story is nothing but tinfoil-hat stuff from Faux News, think again:  It's from the Washington Post.

In other news the IRS is reportedly looking into incorporating.  Said the head of the agency, "Hey, if being a corporation lets SWAT units ignore FOIA requests it's gotta work for us too."

Saturday, June 28

Female human-rights activist votes in minor Libyan election. Local Muslim thugs don't approve

In Benghazi, Libya, three days ago there was an election for mayor.  A very courageous female lawyer and human-rights activist named Salwa Bughagis--who had denounced the demands by Muslim thugs that women must not go out of the house without the standard Islamic bag--voted and encouraged others to vote.

A very courageous woman.




After voting early in the morning she posted a pic on her facebook page showing her casting her ballot, presumably to encourage other women to vote.

That evening five armed Islamist thugs came to her house, stabbed her several times and fatally shot her.

This is what Islam is, what it does, what "moderate" Muslims tacitly accept, by almost never releasing a public statement condemning such ghastly, barbaric acts.

But never fear:  Your president--a person the Democrats and the Lying Media constantly shout is a tireless advocate of women's rights, and a stalwart opponent of those who hate democracy or oppress women-- released a statement showed his concern!  Here it is:
While yesterday’s vote demonstrates the power of individual Libyans in determining their future, we recognize that elections are just one step in Libya’s broader democratic transition.  Libya’s new government must now focus on building consensus to address the challenges of establishing security, providing effective public services, and ensuring an inclusive political process.  The U.S. calls on all parties to renounce violence and resolve differences through political dialogue and participation in the democratic process.
Did you catch that strong, unequivocal condemnation of the brutal murder of this courageous female human-rights leader? 

Yeah, I didn't either.  He never mentioned her at all.

Maybe he hadn't heard about it.  Because it got virtually no mention in the lying U.S. media.  And Barack constantly tells us that he never knows about anything until he hears about it in the media.

I'm beginning to get the impression Obama is a worthless, lying piece of shit who prattles and poses as an advocate for human rights, and the right of women to be free and to vote.  But when push comes to shove he can't even be bothered to condemn the murder of a real activist.

You talk about a war on women?  The murder of Salwa Bughagis is a war on women.

I'll be watching for American feminist and rights groups to condemn this murder in the strongest possible terms.  But you and I both know that won't happen.  The mystery is why not.

Thursday, June 26

Word on the street is Obama will grant amnesty by decree if Repubs don't cave

Democrat Nancy Pelosi is headed to the Mexican border for a series of photo-ops with illegal immigrant teenagers.  Setting the stage for lots of adoring pro-Democrat media coverage, she said this:
The humanitarian crisis unfolding across our nation’s southern border demands Congress come together and find thoughtful, compassionate and bipartisan solutions,” Pelosi said. “We must ensure our laws are fully enforced, so that due process is provided to unaccompanied children and the safety and well-being of unaccompanied children is protected. We must also work to address the root causes of the problem.
If you want to find the "root causes" of this "humanitarian crisis," look in the damn mirror or ask your president--because the word on the street in Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua is that Obama and his Democrat senate will give amnesty to all aliens here illegally.

Sweet deal for both the illegals and the Democrats, eh?  I don't think there's any question that this is enough incentive to set, oh, 90,000 of 'em off for the U.S. this year alone.  And the Democrats pick up new party members for life.

Wait, I think I hear Democrats/liberals/"progressives" screaming "The president *never said he'd do that*, and you can NOT hold us responsible for false assumptions by undocumented teenagers!!"

What utter bullshit.  Here's what the Dem-loving site The Hill reported at 3pm today--under the headline "Democrats:  No bluff, Obama will go it alone on immigration:"
The Obama administration is "not bluffing" in its intent to take executive action on immigration policy if House Republicans don't act soon, top Democratic leaders warned Thursday.

President Obama has delayed any potential changes to his deportation policy to allow House GOP leaders time to bring legislation to the floor this summer. But if the Republicans don't act in July, the Democrats say, unilateral changes by Obama are inevitable.

"We're not bluffing by setting a legislative deadline for them to act.," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)  "Their first job is to govern, and in the absence of governing, then you see executive actions."

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) piled on. Noting that a year has passed since the Senate passed a sweeping immigration reform bill with broad bipartisan support, he urged House Speaker John Boehner to bring a similar bill to the floor.

"I hope that Speaker Boehner will speak up today," Durbin said. "If he does not, the president will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration."
Durbin and Menendez are both long-term Democrat power-brokers, so you can be sure they didn't make these threats on Obama's behalf without clearing it with Obama.

Now, what do you suppose these top Democrats, and Obama, mean by "sweeping immigration reform?"  Hint:  They're not just proposing to change the color of the application form.  The only step that means anything to their illegal constituents is amnesty, amnesty, amnesty--accompanied by issuance of green-card equivalents, followed very shortly by full citizenship.

See why every resident of anywhere who wants U.S. citizenship is flocking over the border?  And having  kids do it is absolutely brilliant.  I suspect that if the Dems get their way on amnesty, within a month we'll start hearing the plaintive wail by the Left that "It's just not fair to separate families, so you mean ol' Rethuglicans absolutely *have to* let their parents come to the U.S. to join their lonely children!"

Count on it.

Why do all Democrat pols lie constantly?

Supreme Court delivers stunning rebuke to Obama: *Unanimous* decision against him

This morning the Supreme Court delivered a stunning rebuke to Obama's use of "recess appointments" to put ultra-liberal anti-business Democrats on the National Labor Relations Board two years ago.

Problem is, when Obama made the "recess appointments" the senate was still nominally in session.

But how could the senate have been in session when Emperor Barack decreed that they weren't in session?  Shouldn't his decree have settled the matter?

Apparently the court didn't think so, as in a unanimous decision this morning the court said Obama's attempt to decree when the senate was in recess was unconstitutional.

You need to understand that a unanimous decision--meaning (obviously) that even the court's most ultra-liberal members agreed--means the question of unconstitutionality couldn't even remotely be interpreted in Obama's favor.

But wait--didn't Obama say he taught constitutional law at the U. of Chicago?  (There seems to be some evidence that this claim is...surprise...overblown.)  Wow, let's hope his students didn't make the mistake of believing everything he said in class.  Because he was *way* off base with the NRLB appointments.

Unanimously wrong.

Of course we really don't need a supreme court when the Emperor can just interpret the Constitution as he sees fit, eh?

Oh, by the way:  According to one site this is the 13th unanimous Supreme Court decision against Obama just since 2012.  Anyone see a pattern here?

Tuesday, June 24

Final number on 1st quarter economic performance due tomorrow: And *unexpectedly*...!

Hey, remember how great the first quarter economic performance was?

No?  Well, that's understandable, since it was estimated to be a shocking 0.1% growth rate.  Nearly flat.

Ah, but wait!  The initial number is always revised--and almost always makes a Democratic president look much, much better.  So a couple of weeks ago it was revised.  So *surely* you heard about that, right?

No?  Well, that too is understandable, since it went DOWN.  To a *negative* one percent.  That is, the economy actually shrank!  Needless to say, this totally unexpected, shocking development got almost zero air-play and print exposure except in conservative publications on a few wacko-fringe blogs on the internet.

Now tomorrow comes the third and final calculation for the first quarter.  But since we've already had the big downward revision, surely it will be a slight upward tweak, right?

Ah, not so fast, citizen.  While it's still Tuesday evening as I write this, the consensus among economists seems to be that, again in a totally unexpected development, the figure will once more be revised... downward.

But surely not by more than a tiny bit, right?

Uh, the consensus figure is that the final number is expected to be revised downward by...another full percentage point??!! 

If true, that would mean the initial report overestimated the economy's performance by two percentage points.  That's a huge error.  I can't recall forecasters ever missing by this much before.

Now for how you can tell the media are all-in on supporting Obozo and the Dems, here's the lede of the Associated Press's pre-release spin.  It's titled "Why a grim U.S. economic picture is brightening."  See if you can spot the rosy glow:
(AP) -- When the government updates its estimate Wednesday of how the U.S. economy fared last quarter, the number is pretty sure to be ugly. Horrible even.  [Okay, that's not rosy, but keep reading.]

The economy likely shrank at an annual rate of nearly 2 percent in the January-March quarter, economists estimate. That would be its bleakest performance since early 2009 in the depths of the Great Recession.
So why aren't economists, businesses or investors likely to panic?
Because most agree that the economy last quarter was depressed by temporary factors - particularly the blast of Arctic chill and snow that shuttered factories, disrupted shipping and kept Americans away from shopping malls and auto dealerships.

Since then the picture has brightened. Solid hiring, growth in manufacturing and surging auto sales have lifted the economy at a steady if still-unspectacular pace. That said, sluggish pay growth and a stumbling housing rebound have restrained the expansion. But the economy's recovery continues.

"We had a very bad first quarter, but the first quarter is history," says Craig Alexander, chief economist at TD Bank. "It doesn't tell you where the economy is going, which is in a direction of more strength."
Ah, that's great:  It's going "in a direction of more strength."  That's SO reassuring!  Of course that's also what they said at the end of 2013 about prospects for the first quarter of this year.  And at the end of Q3 of 2013 about the 4th quarter.  And...well, you get the picture.

If you're over 30 or so, have you EVER heard the media pre-spin bad economic news as if it were good when a Republican was president?

Ace has a theory that the final figure will actually be revised just to -1.4%.  He thinks the minus-two-percent guess is because economists have been listening to disinformation from Obama-friendly sources who want to push the estimates down, so that when the official number comes in at -1.4% instead of, say -2%, they can say "Hey, that wasn't that bad at all! Why, just look--We actually gained almost half a point of growth overnight!!!! That's pretty awesome, isn't it?!"
  
That wouldn't surprise me a bit.

FLASH UPDATE:  Wednesday morning the final figure was released.  And the consensus figure of negative two percent was wrong.  Quite a bit wrong.  And Ace's theory was also wrong.  Because the final, official figure for first quarter GDP is...negative 2.9%.?!

That means the Commerce Department's first official estimate overestimated the economy's performance by a staggering THREE PERCENT?!

But of course none of this has anything to do with Emperor Barack, or Obamacare.  Or Democrat policies.  Or consumers worried about government lawlessness.  Or uncontrolled floods of illegal aliens.  Or IRS intimidation.  Or concerns about...well, practically everything.

Make sure you understand that, citizen.  It is NOT their fault.  None of it.  It was all the fault of that record-cold winter we had.

The one caused by (you know what's coming, right?) global warming.

Team Obama about to finalize agreement that doesn't allow inspection of Iran for bomb program

The Obama administration is trying to wrap up an incredibly generous deal--some would say stupidly generous--with Iran designed to prevent that country from developing an atomic bomb.  Here are the problems identified so far:

First, Team Obama lifted most economic sanctions on Iran and released holds on $6 Billion of frozen Iranian government funds, in return for nothing of substance.  Most people would conclude that this sends Iran the message that the administration is willing to concede everything just to get a deal.

Second, the agreement negotiated thus far provides that after a relatively short period (to be determined by the negotiations) of good behavior, Iran would be freed from any intrusive inspections measures.

If the final agreement keeps this--i.e. no provision for continued inspections--it will be virtually impossible for us to know if they're trying to develop a bomb.

I get this feeling that's perfectly fine with Barky.
 
Oh, and for those libs who think this came from Faux News, this is from a statement released by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Members of Detroit mob that brutally beat white driver not charged with "hate crime"

In Detroit a couple of months ago a man driving a truck accidentally struck a boy, who suffered a broken leg.  The driver immediately got out of the truck to render aid.

Whereupon he was assaulted by up to a dozen people (according to witnesses) and beaten almost to death.

Because you've lived in the U.S. for years, I'll bet you can guess the race of every single member of the mob.

If you guessed black, you're right.  Undoubtedly racist, but correct. 

Now let's try a second question:  Can you guess the race of the driver?

If you guessed white you're right again.

Now for the hat trick:  The assailants were hauled into court and charged.  Can you guess whether any was charged with any variation of a "hate crime" (definition infinitely vague, so as to invite highly selective abuse by government).

If you said No, you're right again.  That's just amazing, that you got all three right!

Now check this wrap-up by the local CBS TV station:
While it was widely reported the beating might have been a hate crime, Saffold’s attorney, Ray Paige, maintains that this was not an ethnic intimidation case.

“I never saw nowhere [sic], in all the discovery that we had, that they’d targeted Mr. Utash because he’s white,” Paige said.

“A kid was hit by a car and the community was out in the streets, and they were outraged by the fact — wrongfully —about his ordeal, and they attacked the man; and they should not have done that,” Paige said. “But if he had been a black male, the same thing probably would’ve happened to him.”
Ah.  The attorney for one of the assailants "never saw nowhere" that the mob "targeted" the driver because he was white.  Well that certainly settles it, eh?


Monday, June 23

California drunk driver--arrested 3 times before for DUI--kills again while out on bail.

In California in October, 2011, a drunk driver rear-ended another car, knocking it over an embankment and killing its driver.

The drunk had previously pleaded guilty to drunk-driving in 2006 and again in 2010.

Then just 11 days after pleading guilty to the second DUI, the Highway Patrol caught the driver doing 120 mph.  The officer reported her breath smelled of alcohol, her speech was slurred and she did poorly on a sobriety test so he arrested her.

But amazingly, she was never charged.

What would happen to you if you were pulled over for going 120 mph, apparently drunk, following two prior DUI convictions? 

Then just three months before the fatal collision the driver was charged with drunk-driving again, plus hit-and-run and driving on a suspended license after hitting two parked cars.  Amazingly, after pleading guilty to two prior drunk-driving charges and being arrested for doing 120 mph with alcohol on her breath, the California judge released her on bail.

What bizarre legal system would release someone with this sort of record after their 4th DUI?

Do you think you would get that kind of lenient treatment?


Saturday, June 21

Team Obama fires a warning shot across the bow of congress

Well Team Obama just fired a shot across the bow of congress.

You didn't notice, of course, because it happened a long way from where you live.  And virtually the only media that reported it was the WSJ--which you probably don't read.  But it absolutely did happen.  Here's the story from the WSJ:
WASHINGTON—The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to enforce subpoenas the agency issued to Congress in a possible insider-trading case, according to people familiar with the matter.
The SEC went to a New York court after the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means refused to comply with the agency’s request for information and testimony in the matter, the people said. 
The court challenge signals a major clash between the branches of government. Under the separation of powers provisions in the U.S. Constitution, Congress has several protections to guard itself from investigations by the SEC and other executive-branch agencies. 
By going to court, the SEC has signaled [!] it disagrees with the reasons that Congress gave for refusing to turn over evidence in the case. 
“It’s not unheard of for an agency to serve a subpoena to Congress, but for an agency to sue is—if not unprecedented—at least very rare,” said Michael Stern, who served as senior counsel to the U.S. House from 1996 to 2004. 
“It shows that there is a serious conflict; the SEC really wants the information and the House really wants it protected,” he said. 
The investigation stems from a 2013 leak of information about a health-care policy change that sent stocks on a tear. Investigators are trying to learn who may have passed along information about the policy change that ended up in the hands of a Washington, D. C., consulting firm, which then zapped the tip to its Wall Street clients.

Didja catch that?  This really is the equivalent of an atomic bomb.  As Stern said, this suit is 'Very rare, if not unprecedented.'  You can be absolutely sure that no agency of the Executive would *ever* do anything this...aggressive, this provocative, this offensive...without the explicit approval of Team Obama, if not their direct order.  And the SEC has absolutely, unequivocally, fired a shot across the bow of congress. 

Gosh, what message do you think they're trying to send?  Y'think it might be "Back off"?

Now, you have to understand the language of politics to know what's really being communicated by this lawsuit.  It doesn't just fire a shot across congresscritters who were involved in insider trading triggered by the passage of Obamacare.  Instead it's a warning to ALL members of congress that "if you press ahead with trying to find out who in the administration told the IRS to delay issuing non-profit status to conservative and Tea Party groups, you may just find yourselves under investigation for...well, anything you may have done that could be either illegal or embarrassing."

This lawsuit is analogous to a couple of beefy guys in dark suits coming into a business in New York or Chicago and saying "Nice business ya got here.  Be a shame if something happened to it."

If you don't understand that, let me know and I'll explain.

Congratulations, media

The evidence against Obozo and the Dems continues to build--yet none of it matters. The last chance to stop the collapse was 2012--and in that election too many "values Americans" stayed home, because the media convinced them that Romney, being rich, had nothing in common with them.

Great job, Mainstream Media.  You guys wanted Obama and by God, you managed to swing it!

Congratulations.  Hope your kids eventually discover what you did.  And what you've doomed them to.

IRS head testifies before congress. And you'll *never believe* how many coincidences...!

A couple of years ago congressional Republicans started hearing complaints from Americans that the IRS was demanding that they provide outrageously detailed, intrusive, personal information as a condition of applying for status as tax-exempt organizations.  The constituents believed the detailed questionnaires were deliberately designed to delayed the tax-exempt status, to keep them from acting before the next election.  Whereupon congress asked the IRS about these charges.

The IRS denied there was any such activity.

Those denials quickly proved to be lies.

After the IRS acknowledged the harassment, they blamed it on "rogue employees in one office in Cincinnati."

That too proved to be a lie.

The lead IRS official of the division examining tax-exempt applications was one Lois Lerner.  The House asked her to testify.

She took the 5th.

And then--by an amazing coincidence--just ten days after congress started investigating Lerner...well you're never gonna believe this but... her computer's hard-drive crashed, destroying two years worth of emails.

Not only crashed, but crashed so badly as to wipe out all the data.  And the crash didn't just destroy the data, but did so so thoroughly that even the most expert experts the IRS could find couldn't recover any of it! 

And you're really not gonna believe this, but again--by amazing coincidence, the two years of emails  supposedly wiped out were exactly the years that if there were any orders from D.C. to delay conservative organizations by demanding answers to lengthy bullshit questionnaires, this is when they would have been discussed extensively with higher-ups in government.

"Wow, congressman, this really isn't your day, eh?"
 
This hard-drive crash--that supposedly wiped out two years of crucial email evidence--supposedly happened in 2012 or so--a full year after the congressional investigation began.  Yet the IRS didn't bother notifying congress about it.  Cuz, you know...

But don't worry, congressman, federal law requires that we back up emails.  So we'll get those to ya right away.  Oh, wait:  we didn't bother backing up those emails. Cuz we're government managers, so we don't have to obey your stupid laws.

Here's what the rat-faced HEAD of the IRS actually said to the House committee investigating IRS lawbreaking:
"Emails aren't official documents, so we don't have to back 'em up."
I know you'll be absolutely astonished to hear that this...was also a lie.  The IRS manual says emails are official documents.  But you can't be upset with the head of the IRS for not knowing that, citizen, cuz...well it's obvious: he's so fucking important that he can't be bothered to be up to speed on trivia like that--even though that was the whole subject of the hearing.

And then the coup de grace:  The IRS told congress...and you're really not gonna believe this one, cuz...well, it's such a coincidence, but--the head of the IRS casually told the House committee that, by the way, the hard-drives of six other IRS employees close to Lois Lerner also crashed. And wiped out emails.

Yes, those same emails.

Hey, I told ya you weren't gonna believe it.  I mean, what are the odds of so many hard-drives, in this one division, all crashing at virtually the same time?  I mean, it's...almost unbelievable.

As the NY Post put it, this isn't just "the dog ate my homework" but “The dog ate my hard drive, broke into another building, ate the backup of the hard drive, then broke into six other top officials’ offices and ate their hard drives too.” 

Oh yeah.  You bet.

I can certainly understand if you have a hard time believing all this.  To say it's astronomically unlikely to be true is putting it mildly.  Virtually impossible.

Click on this link.  Then click on this one.  Watch this goofy IRS director testify and tell me he ain't laughing at the whole country.  Why?  Because he knows he's got protection.  Knows that the justice system will never hold him to account. This is how the game is played when the president blatantly breaks the laws of the land.

I gotta admit I'm sick to the eyeballs of all these assholes.  It wouldn't bother me a bit if they all were jailed for life.  Or executed.  At this point I don't care one way or the other.

How to break the law and get away with it

One of the signs that a theory or school of thought is flawed is if applying it doesn't produce the result it was supposed to.

Unfortunately when it comes to large undertakings such as nations there are so many variables that a leader whose policies consistently fail to do what they were touted to do can hide behind the excuse that a completely, totally unexpected event--a "black swan"--derailed what would otherwise have been complete, marvelous success.

The "excuse" event can be things like "My policies would have worked, but my political opponents have consistently sabotaged them.  So it's their fault."  Or "Under normal conditions my policies would have had economy booming by now, but unfortunately my predecessor dug us into such a deep economic hole that recovery has taken longer than expected."

Or "The economy would have been booming by now, except that huge hurricane that devastated the northeast coastal areas caused such huge losses.  No previous president has ever had to deal with a big hurricane like that.  This just shows that global warming is real, and anyone who says otherwise wants to destroy the planet."

Oh, we could do this all day!  And I'm sure you can add dozens more examples.  But no matter how many examples, devotees of the cult--both the mentally challenged and the Harvard-educated--will nod and smile happily...because it's impossible to prove that the excuse is bullshit. 

Fortunately there's another way to identify defective theories or schools of thought:  If a theory or system forces contradictory conclusions, it's not ready for...well, anything but the scrap heap.  And the more frequent the contradictions it demands, the worse the theory.

Example:  Leftists totally love Islam, and insist that you believe Muslims when they claim Islam is "the religion of peace."  Or when Iran's leaders insist their nuclear program is intended solely for peaceful purposes.  So evidently the principle here is:  Muslim leaders are telling the truth.  Believe them.

But when a TV broadcast in, say, Iran--intended for Iranians only--is intercepted showing the same leaders telling their people that the nation is determined to develop an atomic bomb, or when a Muslim terrorist being released from U.S. detention sneers "See you in New York," the Left insists that such statements must NOT be believed.

So according to the Left, Muslims are truthful and must be believed--except when the Left tells you NOT to believe a statement--which by bizarre coincidence is always one that, if believed, would cause the Left to lose credibility, power, influence or votes.

How do Leftists resolve this contradiction?

Simple:  They ignore it, and hope you won't notice.

Example #2:  "We are the government, and you must obey the laws and other orders we hand down.  And if you violate any of those we'll brand you a 'domestic terrorist' and bring the full weight of the justice system down on you."  But when *government employees* break laws, it's "Piss off, peasant:  We can't hand over the incriminating emails because a computer hard-drive crashed.  Haven't you heard of a computer crashing?  [That's an exact quote from Obama's incoming press secretary, the ironically-named Josh Earnest.]  We din't do nuffin wrong, and besides, you can't fire us."

So, for example, if a private business claimed it had "lost" emails that would shed light on an activity that the government charged was illegal, all the execs would like go to jail for obstruction of justice.  But when the head of the IRS appeared before a House committee yesterday and said the hard-drives of six of the people thought to be most involved in the illegal use of that agency to harass conservative groups had crashed, thus losing two years worth of emails--which by astonishing coincidence were not backed up on any other computer or server--he can go on to smugly say "I don't think we even owe you or the public an apology.  And by the way, fuck you, congressman" and not have even a scintilla of concern that someone might prosecute him.  Cuz he's part of the ruling class:  They don't have to obey laws.

(I may have mis-heard a couple of words in that last line.  Maybe I was reading that from the smirk on the face of the IRS head, Koskinen.)

Example #3:  The Constitution very openly says that war can only be declared by congress.  But starting with John F. Kennedy sending a few dozen "advisers" to Vietnam, the U.S. presence was gradually escalated under Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson, peaking at 543,000 U.S. troops in-country in the last year of LBJ's term.  Yet congress never declared war on Vietnam.

To prevent the U.S. from getting into another gradual escalation like that, way back in 1973 congress passed the "War Powers Act," designed to limit the power of a president to start a military action that could escalate.  (The Democrats who controlled congress cunningly waited to do this until Democrat Lyndon Johnson had been replaced by Republican Nixon, to avoid tying Democrats to Vietnam.)

This law acknowledged that as commander-in-chief the president could commit troops in emergencies without consulting congress, but provided that if this was done, he could not keep troops involved in combat overseas unless he sought and received congressional approval.  If congress didn't approve the action, the law specified that troops couldn't engage in combat for more than 60 days, with an additional 30 days for withdrawal.

So--good idea, right?  Could keep us from another Vietnam, right?  And in any event, it's the law of the land.  And the Constitution tasks the president with ensuring that the laws are faithfully enforced.

Well, Obama said "I am the emperor and your laws don't mean jack-shit to me," and proceeded to order the U.S. Air Force to bomb Libya for, oh, six months or so without seeking authorization from congress.

Of course congress knew this was in violation of the War Powers Act but no one wanted to trigger a crisis by so charging our first black president.  So they let the lawbreaking slide.

Fatal.  Fucking.  Mistake.

Because it confirmed what Obama already guessed:  That congress wouldn't hold him accountable regardless of what he did.  And he was right.

"Cult of personality" leads to bad outcomes, part 493,204

Most Democrats are enthusiastic members of a "cult of personality"--they love Barack Hussein Obama, and will continue to love him regardless of how he tramples your Constitutional rights or otherwise causes the demise of the nation.  He's their leader, their hero, and that's the end of it.

But when a cult of personality evolves around a leader, the outcome is almost always bad.  Consider Joseph Stalin: Everyone around him constantly told him he was the smartest person who had ever lived, and that he had never--indeed, could never--make a mistake.

History would have fun with that.  In 1939 Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler, secretly dividing Poland and neighboring countries between Germany and the Soviet Union. Stalin also agreed to give Hitler substantial quantities of material he needed to build the German army.

Alas, the supremely cunning, brilliant, infallible Stalin was duped by the equally cunning Hitler, who had decided to double-cross the Soviets and invade.  To prepare for invasion Hitler moved a huge army to the river dividing the German portion of Poland from the Soviet one .

Several German soldiers who were also ardent Communists decided they loved communism more than they loved their homeland, and slipped across the border to warn the Soviets that the Germans were about to invade.

The Soviet officers who received these warnings passed them up the chain of command to Stalin, but Stalin refused to believe them.  Instead he believed that the warning of an impending German invasion was a provocation intended to make *Stalin* attack first, breaking the treaty and giving Hitler an excuse to go to war against Russia.  Stalin reasoned that if he refused to take the bait, Hitler wouldn't attack.

So Stalin ordered that the German communist soldiers who had defected to warn him of the impending invasion be shot.  (There's a huge lesson there about the ruthlessness and ingratitude of rulers who have absolute power.)  But the warnings were correct, and in June of 1941 the Germans attacked Russia with 199 divisions. 

Stalin was utterly shocked and STILL refused give his officers permission to fight back, believing this was just a provocation.  He had to be right, because everyone told him he was always right. 

When it finally became clear that this was a genuine attack Stalin retreated to his country home. 

It fell to Molotov to announce that the Soviet Union was at war with Germany.  Finally, after 10 days members of the Politburo drove to Stalin's dacha.

Stalin admitted the Politburo members and quietly asked what they wanted.  From his choice of words it was clear that he believed they had come to arrest him for his staggering incompetence in making a deal with Hitler, then ignoring the warnings and other evidence of an imminent German attack and not making proper preparations for war.

But to his great surprise the Politburo members merely asked him when he was coming back to his office, saying they needed him to organize the war effort. They insisted he was the only one who could lead the country, and swore their allegiance.

It was yet another example of an astonishing incompetent escaping punishment for his incompetence.

Thankfully our "Politburo"--the useless congress--is a lot smarter than their Soviet counterparts.

Yes, that's sarcasm.

Friday, June 20

What U.S. state just reached a million barrels of oil production per day?

U.S. oil production peaked 44 years ago.  All downhill from there, right?  But recently U.S. production has seen a huge increase

It wasn't due to government grants (like Barry's crony grant-guzzlers who ran Solyndra and all the other failed DOE super-duper projects.

It wasn't due to government research, or government decree, or government anything.

Instead, private companies, risking their own money, have made one state go from producing 83,000 barrels per day to a million barrels of oil produced every day in just ten years.

Let that sink in for a minute.  That's a LOT of oil.  Right now that production is worth...are you sitting down?  $102 million dollars every day.  

That's three Billion bucks a month.

So guess which state is producing this bonanza?  Texas?  California?  Louisiana?

Nope.  North Dakota.

To get an idea how big a deal this is, the U.K. has a huge amount of oil production from the prolific North Sea.  At its peak, production from the U.K.'s North Sea fields was just under 3 million barrels per day.

North Dakota fields are producing a third of that.  From one state.  It accounts for about one-eighth of all oil produced in the U.S.

This huge bonanza is the result of relatively new technologies like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing of rock formations.
 
No wildcatter is getting a subsidy from the energy department. They do receive the normal tax deductions on equipment and expenses — but the government isn’t deciding who gets them.
You'd think Obama would be enthusiastically boosting this miracle--one of the very few bright spots in the U.S. economy.  (North Dakota has the lowest jobless rate in the whole nation, at 2.6%).  Of course you'd be wrong:  The Emperor can't very well praise the increase in oil production when his regime is making war on a by-product of petroleum use— carbon dioxide.  Plus he'd piss off the renewable-energy crowd.

The other reason Barry doesn't mention this success story is that government had exactly nothing to do with it.  Which cuts against one of the most fundamental fables the Democrats have been trying to push for decades.

But wait:  Barry basically killed the U.S. coal industry by simply ordering his EPA to issue regulation making most coal-fired generating plants uneconomical.  Surely, with the support of Harry Reid and the Democrat-controlled senate, and Nancy Pelosi in the House, Barry can kill the oil industry just as easily.  Maybe tighten CO2 emissions even more.  Or ban horizontal drilling.  Or just increase the federal royalty on oil production from 1/8th to, say, half.

(You did know that the federal government gets an eighth of the cash proceeds of oil produced from federal land, right?  North Dakota production is paying the federal government roughly $390 million bucks per month.)

Thursday, June 19

Did you know IRS employees have a union? Guess who they donate to...

If you're over age 30 or so you know that the IRS is a division of the Treasury Department.

And surely you also know that employees of this department have formed a union, called the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU).

Predictably, this union donates money both to sitting members of congress and to challengers.

Now here's the margarita question:  If I told you that this union--which includes people working for the IRS--gave WAY more money to members of one political party, can you guess which party got most of the union money?

I predict that every one of you somehow managed to guess the right answer.  (Amazing, huh?)

But the actual numbers may surprise you:  In the 2012 election cycle (i.e. the last election cycle) 94.5% of the union's contributions went to Democrats. 

Wow.

Y'think there might be some common interest between Democrats and unionized IRS employees?  Hmm... wonder what that could be?

In other news, the IRS is now claiming that not only can't it find two years worth of emails from Lois Lerner, they also can't find two years of emails from six OTHER IRS employees.

But don't worry, citizen:  The Democrats on the house panel investigating the use of the IRS to delay granting tax-exempt status to conservative groups--undoubtedly following orders that came directly from Washington--are gonna diligently help get to the bottom of...

Hahahahahaha!  What bullshit!  The Dems will do everything they can to delay, derail and sabotage the house committee.

It's just who they are.

All the Dems have to do is delay any final report until after the November elections--which should be easy:  They'll demand the right to call rebuttal witnesses--half a dozen or so.  Three of these witnesses will have schedules like John Kerry's:  "Gosh, I'm already committed to represent our division at the annual convention of Government Liars so I just can't testify on the 10th.  But I'm totally available on...let's see here...November 12th."

The Repubs will fume that such a delay is totally unacceptable, and will move to dismiss the heavily-booked witnesses.  But then the Dems will wail and scream to the media that the Repubs are being...are you ready?--UNFAIR!!! and are just using the investigation to score political points.  Cuz, you know, they're all racists who are trying to sabotage Duh Won.

And of course the Repubs don't want to be accused of either racism or being UNFAIR so they'll defer to the Dems, delaying any findings until safely after the election.

But I've got a final question:  You Democrats wail that you're all about fairness.  Where was all this noble sentiment when Lois Lerner and her cronies at the IRS were unfairly using their absolute power to unfairly delay issuing non-profit status to conservative groups?

Yeah, I thought so.  Lying bastards.


Wednesday, June 18

Team Obama wants to *quietly* send new illegals to *rural* locations

As you've all heard by now, there's a new wave of illegal immigrants flooding across the Mexican border.  The flood consists mostly of women and children, and sometimes unaccompanied children, and they're coming because the word is out that the Obama administration not only won't deport anyone with children, but will give you free transportation to anywhere in the U.S.

With a deal like that, the flood is hardly surprising.

Of the many, many problems this will cause, one immediate one was where to put all the new illegal border crossers.  But since Obozo is head of the military he simply ordered the military to house and feed 'em on military bases.  Unfortunately for Obie and the Democrats, rank-and-file members of the military started to tell the press details of the op, and that's...shall we say, problematic for the Dems.

But rather than doing something to discourage this new flood of illegal immigrants, Team Obama seems determined to let the flood continue, since that not only wins hearty approval from Hispanic voters but also adds tens of thousands of new Democrat votes for the next 60 years or so.

But with the military starting to quietly object to housing illegals, Team Obama has had to look for other places to put 'em.  Democrats objected to their cities and states being selected, but finally some politician seems to have found the Golden Solution:  Put 'em in facilities in rural areas, because there aren't enough voters there to raise a big stink.

Thus officials at HHS found St. Paul's College, a recently closed historically black college in tiny Lawrenceville, Virginia, and quietly--without notifying anyone in the town, let alone asking for public comments--signed a lease.

But word quickly got out, and Rep. Robert Hurt, the Republican congressman who represents the district, sent a letter to HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell asking her to halt the project.

I think two things are worth noting about this:  First is the fact that Team Obama deliberately selected the rural location to house the illegals.  You might be curious as to why.  Of course they won't tell you, but a fair guess is that they thought no one would have enough clout to stop them.

Second is the tone-deafness of Team Obama in ordering HHS to do this without asking for public comment, or consulting with local officials.  That is, they tried to slip this in as a "done deal."  "Gosh, if you'd only said something sooner we could have changed The Plan, but now it's too late.  Sorry."

A government that acts this way should worry you.

Is my memory bad or did Obama promise that this was gonna be "the most transparent administration in history"?  I guess "transparent" can be defined in different and often contradictory ways.  At least if you're Barack Hussein Obama.

Tuesday, June 17

Amazing news about first-quarter economic growth! You didn't know?

Well it looks like Obama's finally found just the right magic to make the economy do what he wants.  I mean, after that stunning first-quarter GDP growth, it looks like the future is in front of us again.

Uh, you did hear every analyst and pundit and talking head raving about the 1Q GDP growth, didn't you?

Geez, dude, 500 channels, plus the Net, and you people have no idea how much the economy grew in the first quarter?  That's...amazing.  Cuz, you know, that news was just about everywhere for the first two weeks of June.  Where were you people, Siberia?

Oh wait, that's right:  For some strange reason the GDP figure got virtually no air-play.  But why would that be, if it was such good news?  You'd think the pro-Obama media--which is to say, all of the media--would be shouting this good news on every corner.

The news was especially surprising because the initial report was off by over a full percent.  Wow!

Of course I suspect most of you have figured out by now why you heard nothing about how the economy did in the first quarter:  The economy didn't grow.  Not at all. 

In fact, the first report--which said the economy grew by an anemic one-tenth of one percent--ended up being  revised...downward.  The final figures showed the economy actually shrank by one percent.

When was the last time the U.S. economy contracted?

But don't worry, citizen:  CNN's in-house propagandist, Annalyn Kurtz, put the news in perspective with the headline

"U.S. economy shrinks, but it's not a big deal."


Well there ya go, Sparky. If you thought a shrinking economy was somehow bad, Annalyn has great news for ya:  "It's not a big deal."

And in case "not a big deal" wasn't reassuring enough, she adds
"A slump was entirely expected, and economists aren't too worried. They forecast a bounce back in the spring."
Wow, I am just SO relieved!  Cuz for a moment there I thought a shrinking economy was really reeeeally bad news!  And did you hear her say they're forecasting a bounce in the spring?  That is so fabulous!  I'll just tell my bank to expect my mortgage payments to resume "in the spring."  My family can mow lawns or something til then.  In fact my family has learned how to make 8 ounces of cheese last for a whole week!

But of course the economic contraction is actually fairly understandable, what with fighting two wars for all these years, and... What?  You say the last U.S. troops left Iraq two and a half years ago?  Um...well....Okay, I guess the shrink must be because the economy took such big hit when those planes that flew themselves into those surplus buildings in New York in September of '11. 

That was when it happened, right?  9/11?  So it's understandable that it'd take the economy more than three years to recover.

You say it was 2001, not 2011?  Are you sure?  Then why do they call it "9/ll"?  Oh well, I'm sure that whatever caused the economy to shrink wasn't our president's fault.  Cuz he's soooo smart.  And has all these cool friends.  Did you know he even won the Nobel peace prize after being president for just three weeks?  Now that is some major cool, eh? 

Okay, leaving the sarcasm for now:  Imagine how many tragic stories about struggling Americans we'd be reading and watching if the economy had contracted when a Republican was president.  But with Emperor Barack on the throne, suddenly the media is far more interested in Game of Thrones or anything except the economy.

Brown-nosing scum, all of 'em except Sheryl Atkisson.

Couple of final notes:  First, for those of you who were getting ready to send me money, I have a delightful job, thanks.  And second:  If your memory of 9/11 is hazy, think about this:  Kids entering college this year were five or six years old when it happened.  But don't worry that they won't know about it, because the public schools have ensured that their graduates know about the atrocity.

Uh-huh.  I'm pretty sure all they know from school is that George Bush and the Rethuglicans used the "event" as an excuse to invade Iraq.  So we could steal their oil, right?

Dog ate LOTS more emails: Now IRS claims it can't find emails from SIX MORE employees

The bullshit story about the IRS "losing" two years of email to and from Lois Lerner just got a lot more interesting.
 
That's because In addition to Lois Lerner’s emails, the IRS also conveniently claims to have lost emails to and from six other IRS employees involved in the targeting of conservative groups.  


One of those figures is Nikole Flax, who served as chief of staff to a man who at the time of the targeting was Deputy Commissioner and would later serve as Acting Commissioner of the IRS – a position from which he was fired for his role in the targeting of conservative groups.  

The timeframe for which Ms. Flax’s communications are purportedly unrecoverable covers when the Washington, DC office ordered the Cincinnati field office to send abusive questionnaires to conservative non-profit groups, while liberal groups weren't required to provide similar information.

You may recall that the first story was that Lois Lerner's emails couldn't be recovered because her computer crashed.  But clearly, the crash of Lerner's computer wouldn't have taken out all the emails of the six other key IRS witnesses.  So what piece of equipment will eventually get blamed?

Or do you think by some bizarre coincidence seven IRS computers crashed and took out thousands of emails covering the same time period?

Yeh, dat's it.

Team Obama flying illegal immigrants to Massachusetts before releasing 'em

It seems two planeloads of illegal aliens were recently flown to Massachusetts. The first reportedly landed at Hanscom Air Force Base in Bedford.  An informant reported that approximately 160 illegals arrived on that flight and stayed almost a week before being transferred to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) site (location unknown) and then released.

The second flight reportedly was diverted from Hanscom to Boston’s Logan Airport this past weekend.

A number of other military bases are stealthily being used to redistribute, house, process, and release illegal border crossers, but no one can get the Obama administration to say how many.  What we do know is that the Obama administration has converted barracks or hangars at several other military bases across the country into quarters for tens of thousands of illegal aliens from Central and South America.

San Antonio’s Lackland Air Force Base opened its doors as an illegal-immigrant camp last month. Port Hueneme Naval Base in Ventura County, Calif., will shelter nearly 600 illegal border-crossing children and teens. The Fort Sill Army post in Lawton, Okla., was ordered on Friday to take in 1,200 illegal aliens despite the objections of GOP governor Mary Fallin, who blasted the White House, saying, “The Obama administration continues to fail in its duty to protect our borders and continues to promote policies that encourage, rather than discourage, illegal immigration.”

Meanwhile a law-enforcement source in Texas says many illegal aliens are being released despite testing positive for tuberculosis. “The feds are putting them on public transportation to God knows where,” he said.

Another source, working for the Border Patrol in south Texas, says: “Our station, along with every other station, is flooded with women and small children.  And [the children] are coming over with pink eye and scabies. So getting them medically cleared becomes a priority. We provide them with formula and diapers. We have a catering service contracted to feed them.  And of course, they end up being released because every family housing facility is full. They’re supposed to show up for immigration court at a later date, but they don’t.”

The “notice to appear” letters — known as “run letters” — are a notorious joke in open-borders circles.

The newest flood comes just as Obama’s DHS announced a two-year extension of the program known as "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals"--an Obama program that has granted 560,000 illegal aliens amnesty.  They also have received the equivalent of a green card, allowing them to work in the U.S.

Amnesties for illegal aliens guarantee two things:  1) more illegal immigration, and 2) more Democrat voters. Now we have a president who's forcing our military to provide benefits and services to the illegals for political gain.  They have enough money and people to provide medical care to illegal aliens but allow veterans of the U.S. armed forces to die for lack of basic medical care.

And the flood shows no signs of stopping, as the word has gotten to every country in Central America that the U.S. government won't deport women or children under any circumstances.

One of the objections the Democrats have repeatedly raised to deporting illegals (except they said "future Democrat voters") was the huge expense.  But it has to cost a lot more to fly 'em to Boston than it would to  fly 'em back to Mexico.  In other words, refusing to deport isn't a matter of high cost.  It was never due to high cost, but about gaining Democrat votes from hispanics.

UN chief responds to mass executions of prisoners by ISIS

Well the UN has responded to the mass executions of bound prisoners in Iraq by ISIS (a.k.a. ISIL)--and the response is exactly what we've come to expect from that body:

The following statement was issued today by the Spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [the word "spokesman" was capitalized in the original]:

The Secretary-General reiterates his condemnation of the recent upsurge of violence in Iraq at the hands of terrorist groups including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).  Reports of mass executions by ISIL are deeply disturbing and underscore the urgency of bringing the perpetrators of such crimes to justice.

The Secretary-General warns against sectarian rhetoric that could further exacerbate the conflict and carry grave implications for the entire region.  In this regard, he welcomes the important clarification statement on the need for Iraqi unity of His Eminence Sayed Ali Al-Sistani, who represents a deeply influential voice of wisdom and reason.

The Secretary-General calls on all Iraqi leaders to ensure that their followers avoid acts of reprisal.  The Secretary-General urges Iraqi leaders to coalesce behind an inclusive national security plan as well as political and social measures aimed at addressing...the substantial threat to the country.

The Secretary-General once again urges the international community to unite in showing solidarity with Iraq as it confronts this serious security challenge.  He calls for full respect for international humanitarian law and human rights law in efforts to counter terrorism and violence in Iraq.
OMG, the dreaded "strongly-worded letter"!  That'll fix things really fast!

I know this is politically-incorrect of me but the UN is utterly, totally useless.  In fact it's far worse than useless because supporting the UN allows mutton-heads to wallow in the illusion that they're defending peace or human rights or women's rights or whatever, when actually the UN never does anything truly helpful.

And don't forget that ISIS was one of the groups Team Obama supported in their efforts to overthrow Syria's Assad regime. 

Ah, just f'n brilliant.

Terrorists invade Kenyan village, kill anyone who says they aren't Muslim

A couple of days ago, as residents of a village in Kenya were watching the World Cup, cars loaded with about 30 armed men pulled up.  The men got out and began going door to door asking males who answered if they were Muslim.

If the answer was no, the men shot the person.

The attackers killed 48 people.

Survivors said they believed the attackers were members of the Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab.  In any case the fact that they killed anyone who said they weren't Muslim is a strong clue to the identity of the attackers.

At about the same time Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan chopped off the index fingers of 11 men who voted in that country's just-held election.  The terrorists had warned people not to vote--because Muslims in the Middle-East believe democracy is incompatible with Islam.  Thus they order everyone not to participate in it.

Also in Afghanistan terrorists detonated a series of bombs to disrupt the election, killing 60 people.

The federal government keeps telling you Islam is a peaceful religion.  They tell you all this violence is caused by people who are not following the dictates of the Koran.  But oddly, the terrorists doing the shooting and bombing seem to think they're doing exactly what their religion commands its followers to do.

How...odd.  Oh, wait, I know:  The U.S. government knows more about Islam than Muslims do.

Yeah, dat's it.

There's a powerful message here for anyone with ears to hear.

You really should click on the link (goes to the U.K. Daily Mail).  It's loaded with photos you'll never see in American media--because the photos destroy the Official Fable. 

Saturday, June 14

Islamic thugs video themselves executing hundreds of unarmed men (surrendered soldiers); media silent

One of the theoretical "rules of warfare"--observed only by civilized nations, unfortunately--is that you don't kill enemy troops who have surrendered or have been captured.

Not surprisingly, Muslims don't recognize this convention.  (These are the folks who think it's reasonable to kidnap unarmed school girls and sell them, so no surprise.)

When ISIS forces captured Mosul, Iraq a few days ago roughly 4,500 Iraqi soldiers and police surrendered.

The victors freed all Sunnis, then trucked over a thousand Shi'ite prisoners outside of down, forced them to lie on the sand...and executed all of them.

And videotaped it.  You can see photos from the videos here.

According to ISIS (obviously impossible to verify) they executed one thousand seven-hundred young men.

This should be mind-boggling.  It should show western liberals, Democrats and "progressives" what you're really dealing with here.

But of course it won't, because they are too tightly bound to The Fable, the narrative, that all religions and all cultures are equally valid.  No earthly power is strong enough to shake that faith.

The only saving grace in this ghastly act is that the dumb bastards of ISIS posted videos of their mates executing the bound, prone prisoners--and with any luck at all Iraqi commanders will play this tape for their troops, telling them "The enemy posted videos of them machine-gunning 1,700 of your fellow soldiers.  This is who they are and what they do to you if you surrender."

"So never surrender.  Better to kill a dozen of them with your last bullets than to be executed on the ground like a goat."

Hopefully viewing the vid of this ghastly, inhumane act will motivate the Iraqi troops to never surrender.

Oh, Leftists?  Please do try to claim these videos are all fake, or photoshopped.  By George Bush and Karl Rove, no doubt.  Please try your best to convince sleepy Americans that executing 1,700 unarmed prisoners is not only un-Islamic but is no reflection on Islam whatsoever.  Please, please, please.

I just know one of you is brazen enough (and unhinged enough) to go on a Sunday talk show and try this.

NY Times advocates U.S. military intervention in Iraq to stop Sunnis from killing Shias??

In the last four days the world has quietly turned upside-down.  Here's an editorial from the NY Times three days ago:
The Obama administration must help the Iraqi government retake the city of Mosul from Islamists and stem their march toward Baghdad.  
You may want to read that again...cuz unless the Times thinks the "Islamists" who have taken Mosul--Iraq's second-largest city--and a dozen other cities can be driven out with unicorn farts and pixy-dust, I think they just pushed ("must help retake") for the U.S. go to war in Iraq!

Now if you're under 27 or so you may not know that the Times was vehemently against the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003--an effort that was approved by the United Nations after a dozen openly-debated votes and months of discussion and study, but which the Times always called George Bush's war. 

Before Bush replaced Clinton all Democrat party leaders--including Bill and Cankles--agreed that Saddam Hussein was a bloodthirsty tyrant who was torturing and killing dissenters, had used poison gas on his own people as well as on Iranians (it's a fact--killed five thousand or so; google it.) and was a clear and present danger to civilization.  If Bush had just gone with that argument, much of the opposition would have been left dangling because it would have been the Democrats' war as well.

Unfortunately someone added the international consensus intel conclusion that Hussein--that would be Saddam, not Buraq--was also "developing WMDs" (which of course he had already used).  And that was the poison apple.  Because now the Times could get away with calling the military action "Bush's war," which meant they could be (and were) dead-set against it.

And they didn't let a day go by without shrieking to the American people about what a ghastly thing this "illegal" war--a "war of choice," they called it--was.

But now--well, see, now things are different.  Cuz, you know, Obama.  Lightworker.  Bill Clinton but with a better speaking voice and more affirmative-action support.  And none of what were slanderously referred to as "bimbo problems."

Now, I don't expect that a single person at the Times has even the ghost of a fucking clue about what it would take to defeat ISIS.  [See end note on this.]  From what I've seen (video) and know about weapons and tactics I'm pretty sure the only way ISIS could be stopped is by American firepower (whether air-only or air and ground) or its equivalent--and I'm pretty sure the Times isn't seriously suggesting we send in troops. 

Instead I think the Times editors are simply posturing.  They've suddenly realized that an ISIS takeover of Iraq would not only be an utter bloodbath but would deliver billions of oil dollars to Islamic terr--uh..."extremists."  (To the reporters and editors of the Times there are no such thing as Islamic terrorists, merely "freedom fighters" or "militants," who are actually just like the men who fought the American revolution.) 

The Times doesn't quite know how the whole "beheading" thing fits into this narrative, but no matter.

So they're not serious, just posturing.  And I think an even more important reason for their posturing is because they've concluded this is a great way to bash Bush and the Republicans for going into Iraq in the first place.  "See, all the lives and expense was for nothing."  They know no one will recall that while Clinton was in office every last Democrat leader not only said but actually signed letter attesting to the fact that they regarded Hussein as a danger who should be taken out.

And of course in that last, at least, they're absolutely right.  You've never seen the letters the top Dems wrote.  I have, and posted them some years ago.  I'll go find the post and link it later.

But first, here's a revolutionary thought--one that would leave a huge impression on heads of state around the globe:  Every spokesperson in the U.S. government should wring hands, sadly touch back of hand to forehead and say this:
Wow, we are just sick about the fact that ISIS is killing so many Sunnis and civilians, and we really wish we could help y'all beat 'em.  But sadly, your prime minister--egged on by religious extremists--refused to allow any American troops in Iraq after December 31, 2011.

You were adamant that you wanted all Americans to leave, and since this was never about conquest, we left.  And now--so sorry but you're on your own.  We tried to train your troops but with the short time available it just wasn't possible to get enough seasoned troops into the field.

We're really sorry you're about to see your country destroyed, and we do hope you survive.  But if you should get surrounded and see you're facing certain death from ISIS, you need to remember that you could have avoided this harsh result if you'd been more flexible six years ago in 2008, when you were so pissy about negotiating a Status of Forces agreement.  You hard-dealt us then, and we obligingly turned our bases over to you and flew home.

But it gets better:  For the last two years rebel forces in Syria have been trying to overthrow the regime of Bashir Assad.  (Remember Syria?  It's the place Obozo wanted to send air-strikes to, to help overthrow the Assad regime.)  Among these rebel groups is...ISIS.  You almost certainly never heard this but for the last 18 months at least, Obama has been sending U.S. weapons and other aid to these rebel groups.  So Obama has been supporting...ISIS--the same group that's now threatening to turn Iraq into a totalitarian Islamic state.

But in an unbelievable twist, the Assad regime--members of the Alawite sect of Islam--has found a strong  supporter in the Shiite regime of...Iran.  Yes, the same Iran that's been calling America "the great satan" for about four decades now.

So why would Iran support the Assad regime?  Well, did I mention that ISIS are Sunnis?  And that the ruling factions in both Iraq and Iran are Shia?

And you should know that Sunnis and Shia are mortal enemies.

You can probably see where this is going, right?

Yep, Iran has already sent units of the Revolutionary Guard toward Baghdad, to help stop the Sunni pigs of ISIS.  And unlike the green, thoroughly infiltrated, untested Iraqi army, the Revolutionary Guard troops are well trained and disciplined.  So yes, sports fans, two of the groups who have been fighting us for decades have drawn swords on each other.  Both are well armed--the Iranians much more so, but remember ISIS has just picked up a Billion dollars worth of arms we'd given to the government of Iraq, so they're starting to close that gap.  And they're *really* highly motivated.

To see how motivated you really need to see ISIS fighters in action.  Please note that this link is totally gruesome, so don't click on it if you're queasy.  These guys are a civilized person's worst nightmare. Also be warned there's a beheading around 50 minutes in, and if you're normal all violent acts will haunt your dreams.  But if you're a guy, you need to know what we're up against.

If anyone thinks these people will negotiate in good faith, or compromise, this vid will cure you of that delusion.  These guys are like the Japanese army in WW2...before two small atomic bombs (and believe me, those were *very* small bombs compared to what we have today) convinced them that surrender was preferable to the death of every last Japanese on the planet.

In conclusion...it's so unfortunate that the Iraqis are gonna have to lose so many people and suffer so much needless destruction.  Especially since it could have easily been avoided had they not been so pissy about not having any American troops in the country after 2011.

Of course I'm sure the Times--and Slate, and HuffPo, and AlterNet and Daily Kos--will find a way to blame it all on the Republicans and Bush.

Meanwhile I've got a lot of popcorn stocked up.  And I'm gonna enjoy watching the Times backpedal after someone else on the Left realizes they just called for U.S. military intervention in Iraq to defeat a bunch of bloodthirsty savages who are killing...other Iraqis.

Wait, is this deja vu?  Isn't that really the main reason the U.S. invaded back in 2003?
====

Footnote to my speculation that the Times doesn't have a ghost of a clue on how to proceed in Iraq:  Buried about ten 'grafs down in the story is this gem:
the United States must compel the Iraqi Army to adopt a sensitive, population-centered approach to reversing the militants’ conquests. If the Iraqi Army sends Shiite militant groups or Kurdish forces to the heart of Sunni-dominated Mosul, or if it carpet-bombs the city and arbitrarily arrests or kills groups, it will alienate the hearts and minds essential to winning this battle.
Oh yes, Times editors, let's compel the Iraqi army to adopt a sensitive approach to "reversing the militants' conquests."  Sort of like how we sensitively persuaded the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese army to "reverse" their conquests?  Like that?  Or maybe you'd prefer the kind of sensitive approach the Union used to persuade the Confederacy.   No arbitrary arrests or--heaven forbid!--arbitrary killing.

No, Times morons, when people show the kind of merciless savagery clearly displayed in the ISIS propaganda clip, you can't persuade 'em.  You can't "rehabilitate" 'em.  You either kill them or they kill you. 

Maybe the Lightworker can successfully bullshit Americans and congress, but it's not gonna work with Islamic killers.  "Period."

Friday, June 13

IRS gives congressional investigators "The dog ate my homework" story

After stonewalling congressional Republicans for a whole year to thwart the investigation into criminal use of the IRS to intimidate and harass conservative organizations, the IRS is now claiming they can't locate many of Lois Lerner's emails prior to 2011 because her computer crashed that year.

Lerner, you recall, headed the IRS division that determined which political groups would receive "tax-exempt" status, which was crucial for fundraising.  By delaying conservative groups for up to three years (while waving liberal groups through in months) the agency was able to greatly diminish opposition to Democrat candidates in the 2012 elections.

Investigators wanted to examine Lerner's emails to see if anyone outside the agency was involved in the decision to use the IRS in this way--a decision that would be a serious federal crime.

While the IRS was able to recover emails Lerner sent to other IRS employees--from those computers--it was unable to recover emails sent outside the agency--specifically, agencies "such as the White House, Treasury, Department of Justice, FEC, or Democrat offices."

Gee, isn't THAT amazingly fucking convenient.

House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., suggests the Obama administration isn't being honest in claiming these emails have been lost.

"Isn't it convenient for the Obama Administration that the IRS now says it has suddenly realized it lost Lois Lerner's emails requested by Congress and promised by Commissioner John Koskinen?" Issa asked in an email statement. "Do they really expect the American people to believe that, after having withheld these emails for a year, they're just now realizing the most critical time period is missing?

You're right, congressman:  No rational person believes this bullshit lie, but Team Obama doesn't care--because they know no one in congress will do jack-shit about it!

Look on this bitch and tell me she's not only crooked up to her eyeballs but also knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that she'll never, ever be convicted of anything--because Obama and Holder will prevent that.


"LAWS?  We don' need no steenkin' laws!  We got POWER!"

Very sad, watching a great nation taken apart by mindless thugs.

Socialism doing predictable things in Venezuela, part gazillion

Socialism in Venezuela continues to do the things it does everywhere: economy contracting, prices soaring and the local currency slumping:  on the black market dollars are worth 11 times the official government exchange rate. 

The reason is that Venezuela imports 70 percent of the goods its people consume, and you can't buy imports with bolivars.  As a result, one in four basic products were unavailable in shops in January, the last time the government published scarcity figures.

On the black market the bolivar has fallen to 71 to the dollar from 23 when President Nicolas Maduro succeeded Hugo Chavez in April of last year--a drop of 300%.  The official exchange rate, reserved for imports of food and medicine, is 6.3 bolivars per dollar.

The dollar shortage is turning Venezuela into a two-tier society similar to the Soviet Union and Cuba.  Venezuelans with access to dollars--foreigners, tour agents, airport taxi drivers and prostitutes--aren't hurt much by inflation because they can trade their greenbacks at ever higher rates. But those who can’t are seeing their living standards decline.

Maduro claims the black market was designed by the bourgeoisie to destroy his Socialist government.

The shortage of dollars has led to shortages of everything from bottled water to toilet paper, and pushed prices up:  Last March--the last month for which figures are available--prices were 59 percent higher than a year earlier.

Rising prices, increasing shortages and a jump in crime have fueled three months of anti-government protests that have killed at least 42 people.

Drinks vendor Luis Alberto Paredes lives with his sister and their 85-year-old mother. His walls and roof are adorned with flags and posters of Maduro, Chavez and the Venezuelan Communist Party.  Paredes, who lives on a minimum wage of about 4,200 bolivars a month (about $60 at the black market rate), says he has to buy coffee beans for his stand from street hawkers for nine times the regulated price, because the supermarkets are always out of...coffee.   

In Venezuela.

That's like not being able to buy corn in Iowa.

So why is all this happening?  Are all these problem caused by some policy of the socialist government?  If so, what's the policy?

Well, being socialists they believe business is bad, and that businessmen are filthy rich because they exploit the rest of the population.  So they set a cap on what businesses could charge.  If this cap turned out to be too low for the businesses to make a profit, tough shit--the socialists believed the businessmen would still work hard to provide goods even if they didn't make a profit.

Surprise, morons.  The businessmen said "We quit."  And the shelves went bare in about two hours.

Wait, hasn't the Obama administration (I was gonna say "our government" but it sure as hell ain't ours) put price caps on things here too?  Hasn't the government dictated what kinds of insurance you can sell, and what the insurance has to cover, and who has to buy it?

Why yes, yes they have.

But given the experience of other government attempts to control markets, isn't that...uh...sorta risky?

Ohh, no, citizen.  Because the emperor is way smarter than the guy running Venezuela.  You have nothing to worry about!

Just ask Jay Carney, or Eric Holder, or Jeh Johnson, or Valerie Jarrett.  These people are all really, really smart.  They don't make mistakes.  And if you think they made one you're wrong.

Oh, and a racist.

Labels: , ,

Why does Obama say so *many* things that are so wildly untrue?

Unless you've been hiding you've probably heard that an affiliate of al-Qaeda called "The Islamic army of Iraq and the Levant" has captured Iraq's second-largest city.  An estimated 400 to 800 fighters defeated ten times that number of government security forces.

One key to their victory was that Iraqi government security forces dropped their weapons, shed their uniforms and fled.  Hard to blame 'em, really--who wants to be beheaded for defending a corrupt and useless government?

One result of this stunning victory is that the al-Qaeda forces seized roughly half a Billion dollars in gold and banknotes from banks in the captured city, along with roughly a billion dollars worth of weapons--many supplied by the U.S. to the government of Iraq.

So it was a huge coup for the al-Qaeda offshoot, comparable to Pearl Harbor in its surprise, speed and total defeat of Iraqi government forces.

Wait...didn't we hear some high-ranking U.S. official say a few months ago that "al-Qaeda is on the run all over the world"?  Who the hell was that?  I'll bet whoever it was really has egg on his face, and a hard time showing it on the D.C. party circuit.  What a moron!  Hope the guy got fired, cuz he obviouly isn't competent.

Oooh, wait...the guy who said that was...Barack Obama. 

More and more people have started to wonder how Obama can make so many statements that are so far removed from reality.  One theory is that he has a psychological condition in which he believes he is the sole arbiter of reality.  As a result the rest of the world and the people in it--what the rest of us consider reality--are of no importance.

So when he says al-Qaeda is decimated and on the run, and then an al-Q affiliate captures about a third of Iraq, he sees no contradiction--the events on the ground there are only important if they can be used to advance his political position.  Or he'll say it's not really al-Qaeda, and he was right with his first statement.  Or you misunderstood him--he never said it.  If you have it on video it must have been doctored or photoshopped.  Or it was true at the time he said it, but the eeevil Rethuglicans and George Bush shipped arms to the al-Qaeda fighters so obviously you can't blame Obama.

Yeah, dat's it.


If anything goes wrong, Obama convinces you it's someone else's fault.  Thus he'll tell you  Obamacare won't cost a penny, that you can keep your doctor, that al-Qaeda has been decimated and so on.  The fact that none of these things turn out to be true is your problem, not his.

He just wants to talk and have his listeners swoon over his words.