Saturday, December 20

Sony hack wasn't the first by a foreign power

Turns out the hacker attack on Sony wasn't the first multimillion-dollar hit on an U.S. based company.  Ten days ago Business Week ran a piece on an attack by Iranian hackers on the Sands casino empire last February that compromised terabytes of information and may have cost the company $40 million.

The hack was evidently in response to remarks Sands majority owner Sheldon Adelson made at a Jewish university on a way to resolve the problem of Iran trying to build an atomic bomb.  Several comments by the hackers suggest this was the impetus for the attack.

So an avowed enemy of the U.S.--the nation that overran our embassy and imprisoned 50-some Americans for 444 days--hacks a U.S. company.  There's no way in hell news of this didn't make it to the emperor.

How...interesting.  Team Obama continued to negotiate with the Iranians even after this hack, and has now twice extended the supposed "deadline" for an agreement--a sure sign of overeagerness to reach one.  Wouldn't you think that Iranian hackers attacking a U.S. corporation might have been taken by President Jarrett as some sort of indicator of bad faith?

And wouldn't you think that after having seen this demonstration last February, the emperor would have asked his brilliant staff to devise something pretty strong to retaliate in case there was a repeat?

Well, a rational, pro-American president would have.  The emperor?  Not so much.  His strongest statement after the recent hack on Sony was "I wish [Sony] had talked to me before caving."

But what did he propose?  You'd think with the Sands hack months earlier he would have had something ready.  Oh wait:  Sands owner Adelson is a strong supporter of Israel and Republicans, and donated $100 million of his own money to the GOP.   Maybe that could account for the emperor not being very concerned?

Corruption, once entrenched in government...

Richard Fernandez at Belmont Club notes that China's communist party is cracking down on corrupt party members.

Specifically, the Chinese version of the secret police have been showing up at a corrupt politician's home or office, bundling the accused into a car and taking him away.  The accused is tortured and always confesses.  This has now happened to about 75,000 party officials.

The accused's crime is not being too aggressive in carrying out the will of The Party, but plain old graft--typically taking bribes from developers in China's booming economy.

A second popular way communist party officials illegally enrich themselves at public expense is quite common here in the U.S: directing that public projects like roads or convention centers or other development be built on property owned by the official (or a relative), and pocketing huge sums of public money for selling that land to the government.

That story got me thinking about corruption in public officials:  Once it gets a foothold, it's almost impossible to stop it.  Reason is that only a politician with more power can direct the agents of the State to investigate and eventually arrest another corrupt politician.  This is problematical because if corruption has been an accepted practice for decades, the higher-ups are almost always members of that same club.  If they try to take down a lower-ranking official who happens to have evidence of corruption by his accuser, there's always a chance the higher-ranking guy will be caught in the same net.

The obvious solution is for top politicians wanting to look like they're rooting out corruption to only take on "little crooks" far from the center of power, since they're too far down the chain to be likely to have any solid evidence about the top man.

Of course you still have periodic anti-corruption campaigns, but they never root out corruption within several layers of the top, for the reason just explained.

And when the current leadership dies off, guess who inherits the top slot?  The corrupt leaders in the second tier who had just enough evidence on the corrupt top guy to avoid the last wave of show trials.

And thus it happens that once a government becomes corrupt, the chances of it becoming honest again are almost zero.

Sounds like that might explain a LOT. 

Dumb commenter in the WaPo

I don't usually post comments from idiot left-wingers because a) idiots don't represent the 'best' reasoning and positions of their respective sides; and b) there are idiots on both sides, so it's really not fair.  But I'll make an exception for a WaPo commenter calling itself "The ACA is here to stay," who commented on the emperor's decree wiping out U.S. law against American companies trading with Cuba.
 
Here he is (note the interesting use of capitalization):
[commenter "ACA is Here to Stay"]:
This will simplify the entire Caribbean --- removing a giant Wart.
We should be concentrating on our OWN Hemisphere right here.
Latin America is coming up strong and we have the chance to start a whole new relationship with the entire region.

Why don't we buy our Oil from Venezuela instead of Saudi Arabian Brutal Dictators?
ohhhh nooooo! hahaha ---- Crazy-Eye Saudis are just fine with our rock-stupid "conservatives".

Why don't we concentrate on buying products & developing South America?
Why buy cheap plastic poisonous/broken junk from Communist Chinese Slaves?
China does more Abortions than the USA & Europe combined.
What say ye to that, Conzos ?

haha --- Obama Chumped you yet again --- we live in the Future, not the Past.
Since this was wrong in so many ways, the next commenter politely showed him where:
We don't buy much oil from the Saudi's--so far away--and we do buy oil from Venezuela.  But that oil is "sour crude" and you have to be specially set up to refine that stuff.  Valero is a big customer of Venezuela.
Having been educated by facts (gasp!), the moonbat commenter responds not by citing alleged facts to support his original bullshit claims, but by...changing the subject completely:
[commenter "ACA is Here to Stay"]:
Then I guess we need to get off Fossil Fuels completely.

Emperor changes more "laws" by decree

Once again the emperor, with a wave of his magnificent hand, has changed U.S. law.

Well maybe not so much "changed" as "suspended."  Yeah, that's it.

Cool, huh?  This new "imperial" government is so much more efficient that our old one--the clunky one established by the Constitution, in which congress passed "laws" and presidents were directed by the Constitution to see that those laws were "faithfully enforced."

Of course that meant that if a president didn't like the effects of a law, he had to work with congress to amend or repeal it.  Our modern community organizer immediately saw the problem here:  That made it much harder for him to do what He wanted to do.  And it required icky, inefficient things like compromise. What nonsense!

A strong community organizer learns that you never compromise.  After all, when you've got 150 angry protestors blocking the lobby of a bank you've targeted for concessions, why on earth would you compromise?  You've got a knife to the business's throat.   Do muggers negotiate?  Of course not.

The emperor's supporters--the Left--have wanted normal relations with Cuba forever.  One of their slogans years ago was "End the blockade of Cuba!" even though there's never been a blockade by the U.S. on Cuban trade.  (For those under 40, a "blockade" is when one nation stations ships outside the ports of another and threatens to sink traffic to or from those ports.)

Other nations have always been free to to trade with Cuba, and have always done so.  And even our laws allowed the sale of food and medicine to Cuba.  But nothing else without specific permission.

Now, there may well be some good arguments for normalizing relations with Cuba.  If so, let's hear 'em.  Discuss thoroughly for several weeks, to allow enough time for any hidden agendas to be revealed.  Then if most people agree that this is a good idea, change the law.  At least that's how things were done before the reign of the emperor.

Eh, much better to just decree and jet off to a vacation where you can avoid pointed questions until the "stupid" public (Gruber's description) forgets about the whole thing over Christmas.

Sure glad we had that election six weeks ago, eh?  The one where voters sent a strong signal to Democrats that they were very displeased with the direction that party--under their president and leader, the emperor--was taking.  Cuz if voters hadn't sent that strong message, the emperor might do something really outrageous.

Like change more laws by decree.

Friday, December 19

Obama, June 13th: "The U.S. won't send troops back into combat in Iraq" Yesterday: "Uh, just kidding."

Last June 13th the Huffington Post ran a one-minute clip of the emperor--looking vewy imperial standing in front of his marine helicopter--absolutely assuring the American subjects that "The U.S. won't send combat troops back into Iraq."  The scrupulously non-partisan CNN joined the adoring chant: "Obama says no combat troops to Iraq."

ABC: "Obama rules out sending combat troops back into combat in Iraq."  The NYTimes noted that "he ruled out using ground forces."

Of course we all know by now that the emperor's promises have expiration dates.  In this case the word leaked out yesterday that U.S. ground troops had fought ISIS in Iraq for the first time.

Now I don't have a problem with the U.S. government ordering the U.S. military do what it does best.  What just slays me is how the Democrats and Liberals and Leftists are all breathless with those glowy promises just six months ago--"Obama promises he won't send ground troops back into combat in Iraq."  And now just six months later--whoops, there we are!

I keep waiting for the HuffPo or anyone on the Left to suddenly wake up and say "Wha...?  I think that man may have broken his promise to us!"  But of course that won't happen.  The guy will continue to say one thing and do the opposite, or do something and deny doing it, and the Democrats will all swoon! over how great the creases in his pants look, or similar nonsense.

It's actually funny.

Would't be if the Resident was a Republican, of course.  But then we didn't expect consistency.

Just out of curiosity:  After Ogabe sent U.S. ground troops back into Iraq, what did he expect they'd do if they were attacked?  Cuz, you know, he sent 'em into a combat zone where shit like that routinely happens.  So now is he gonna say "Well I ordered 'em NOT to shoot back but they did anyway?"

U.N. resolution proposes making Palestine a state and forcing Israel to return the West Bank

A U.N. resolution has just been introduced by allies of the Palestinians, calling for making Palestine a "state"--that is, a country with the same perks as others--within two years.
Oh, and the resolution would also require Israel to "withdraw to pre-1967 borders within two years."

If you're neither Jewish, military or a political junkie this probably doesn't mean anything to you.  In 1967 there was a very short war between Israel and a clutch of its neighbors.  Lasted six days.  Israel ended up with the Sinai penensula and the West Bank--an area that included roughly half of Jerusalem.  The are was home to lots of Arabs.  Some left, some stayed.

Six years later Egypt, Syria and other smaller states started a second war to take it all back.  Didn't work.  Lots of people killed on both sides.

Shortly thereafter Israel started pulling its front lines in the Sinai away from Egypt, and around 9 years later years later Israel completed its withdrawal from the Sinai.  However, there hasn't been any mention of a plan by Israel to return the West Bank.

Thus to say the Palestinian demand for both statehood and for Israel to relinquish the West Bank is a radical departure is like saying the emperor may have some blank spots on his resume.

In the past the only thing keeping the resolution from passing would have been the U.S. president instructing our U.N. rep to veto it.  But the emperor has made no secret of his hostility to Israel.  More to the point, Obama's base would probably react badly to a veto.

Interesting.  Unless the U.K. or France vetoes--highly unlikely--the final act may start in the Middle East.

Emperor chides Sony for folding; Sony says theaters bailed out first

Wow.  The emperor--Mr. "Red line in the sand"/"wait, I never said that"--has chided Sony for saying it won't release its comedy that prompted the North Koreans to hack the studio.

Lawmakers and others have described the hack as a major attack with immense national security implications.  Obama, addressing those concerns, said Friday the U.S. will respond "proportionally," in a "place and time and manner" of [the government's] choosing.

Are you wondering what that might entail?  I sure as hell am, and The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the government is considering dropping the hammer:  They're considering putting North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terror.

Why that's...that's...inhumane!  Isn't that as bad as waterboarding?  I mean, give the poor schmucks a break, eh?  It's not like they attacked the U.S. and threatened to bomb movie theaters that showed the...movie... Oh wait, I guess that's actually what they did.

Well the emperor will show 'em!  Yeah!  I'll bet these guys fold even faster than Assad did!

Wait...Syria's Assad is still in whatever passes for the White Hut in Syria.  Gosh, d'ya think maybe the rest of the world isn't quite as dazzled by the emperor's bluster as, say, our mainstream media? 

Wednesday, December 17

North Korea vetoes release of Sony comedy in New York. National media yawns.

How far has the once-powerful U.S. fallen under Emperor Barack Hussein Obama?  Far enough that now North Korea has been allowed to veto the showing of movies it doesn't like--in this country.

Of course you think that's impossible, paranoid, nutty and so on.  That's fine, but if you want to do just a smidgen of fact-checking...wait, you guys elected the Emperor, so you're clearly impervious to facts.  So never mind.

But for some barely-literate urchin reading this three decades from now, consider:  A reasonably competent, reasonably sane American movie company--Sony Pictures--made a comedy involving the dictator of North Korea and a couple of bumbling would-be spies.  The Nork dictator had his tech guys hack the studio's computers, apparently just as an indicator of seriousness.

Then it gets interesting:  A group calling itself the Guardians of Peace--seriously--has warned that they will attack any theater that shows the movie.  The movie chains decided not to take the risk, and that was that.  Sony has now decided not to release the film in theaters.

Now frankly, I don't care if Hollywood never makes another movie again.  But can you imagine how many millions of people around the globe have just learned a game-changing lesson here?  The U.S. can be intimidated so thoroughly that now, by simply threatening to use a terror attack, we can even veto the films they can show!

I have to say, I'm really glad I'm not in charge of things, because I would have dropped a cruise missile through that Nork bastard's bedroom ceiling before anyone had time to celebrate the victory.

But fortunately we're being run by His Magnificence, emperor Barack, who has decided that it's far better for us to cave in to threats than to vaporize people.  Because everyone knows that if we just keep doing whatever they demand, everything will be just fine.  Really.

Again, I couldn't care less about Hollywood.  And I suspect most of the people in Hollywood don't really care that Sony just lost a couple of hundred-million bucks, because it was Sony and not their studio.

And after all, how often does anyone want to make a film about that North Korean shithole anyway?  This part of it's no loss at all.  The problem is the precedent that just got set.

A few of you know what I'm talking about.  For the rest of you:  I hear American Idol has a great show next week.  Or maybe The Voice.  You'll know.

Who said this?

Who said this?
The cycle of violence leads to more violence and to nowhere. Peace is the only prospect, and people need to fight for it.
Wait...what??  Leads to nowhere, is the only prospect, and people need to fight for it?

Anyone else find this...muddled, contradictory?  Would any rational person tag the speaker as a solid thinker, a person to be trusted with anything more important than getting coffee?

So who d'ya think said it?
   1. Dwight D. Eisenhower
   2. General George Patton
   3. Abraham Lincoln
   4. Hillary Clinton
   5. William Jefferson Clinton
   6. Democrat senate leader Harry Reid
   7. Democrat and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
   8. Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein
   9. Democrat senator Barbara Boxer
  10. Emperor Barack Hussein Obama
  11. Democrat Secretary of State John Kerry

You thought I was gonna make it easy!  Looking at the last eight choices, one can easily imagine that statement coming from any of them.  But I'll end the mystery:  It was Kerry, speaking about the attack by Islamic thugs on a school in Peshawar, Pakistan, with the murder of 131 school kids.

"Peace is the only prospect," eh John?  So you'll surely outline a plan for achieving that, that doesn't involve war?  Oh wait, you also said "people need to fight for it."

I'm sure you're crystal clear on what you meant, instead of trying to appeal to both sides, as is the usual practice for Democrats.

Emperor's nominee to head ICE confirmed--despite agreeing that illegals "have earned the right to be citizens"

As everyone knows, Democrats still hold the majority in the U.S. senate until late January.

As everyone should know, the senate is supposed to vet presidential appointees, such as the emperor's nominee to head the agency called "Immigration and Customs Enforcement," one Sarah Saldana.

Of course with Democrats still controlling the senate the "review" process was a total charade whose outcome was never in doubt.  The nominee could have sworn to violate every law known and Dems would still have confirmed her.  (The nomination got through the committee on a straight party-line vote.  In the full senate only two Republicans voted to approve the nomination.)

Senate Judiciary Committee member Mike Lee (R-Utah) noted that Saldaña "demonstrated that her commitment to the rule of law may falter when it comes to faithfully enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
“In response to a question asked by several members of the Senate Judiciary Committee... Ms. Saldaña said she agreed with the position of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson that immigrants who entered the country illegally...have ‘earned the right to be citizens,’” Lee said.

“To assert that citizenship is a matter of right, and that it has been earned by the very act of breaking our immigration laws, is an unacceptable view for a person nominated to be head of immigration enforcement.”

“We have passed through the looking glass.  Today the president asks the Senate to install, as custodian of our border, a person who evidently believes that crossing our border illegally earns you the right to vote.”
But of course.  Because the Emperor has decreed amnesty for those who broke our immigration laws.

Appearing soon in your local paper

Watch for this headline late next year:
Supreme Court rules major parts of Obama immigration deal unconstitutional
Then in the body of the story look for this:
The Justice Department downplayed the significance of the opinion.

"The decision is unfounded and the court had no basis to issue such an order," a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement. "Congress lacked the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the immigration-related executive actions.  Our filing in this case made it clear that the executive actions were not taken directly by the President but were issued by the Director of Homeland Security.  Thus the entire case was brought against the wrong party and should not have been before the court. Moreover, the court's analysis of the legality of the executive actions is flatly wrong. We will respond to the court's decision at the appropriate time."
Count on it.

Tuesday, December 16

A novel college petition? Maybe not so novel in the U.S.today

Wanna see how whiny, spoiled and clueless a bunch of spoiled college kids are?

Check the wish list in this a petition at ultra-liberal Oberlin college.
“I would really like to see the normal grading system suspended for this semester and replaced with a no-fail mercy period.

Administrators should require professors to exercise complete flexibility in what students are saying they can produce academically.

Require that every professor listen to what their students are saying and if that means rather than writing a paper students instead meet with their professor to simply discuss in groups their paper topics or if tests are taken collectively with professors there are ways to make sure we are learning what we are supposed to be learning in ways that are not so taxing in times like this.

Students in this moment should have complete access to alternative modes of learning while we process what’s happening.

Basically, no student especially black students and students of color should be failing a class this semester. A ‘C’ should be the lowest grade students can receive this semester.

Professors should be required to work with students who would otherwise be at risk of failing, to create alternate means of accessing knowledge.”
 What special snowflakes.  By all means, college administrators should demand that professors "create alternate means of accessing knowledge."   And why make the poor dears actually write papers when it's soo much easier to simply discuss their paper topics in groups?

I'm seeing lots of real outside-the-box thinking here!  I'm thinking that students of color should be given free room and board for the rest of the school year to ease their stress.  Maybe the college could make taxpayers pay to give the poor dears daily massages.

Oh, and on graduation they should be given high-salary jobs without having to go through any of those stressful job interviews.  They should get whatever job they want, because Obama.  Or something.

Muslim terrorists kill 130 school children--Muslim school children, no less--in Pakistan.

In Peshawar, Pakistan last Tuesday Islamic terrorists entered a school and methodically killed at least 130 school children and 46 adults, going from one classroom to another killing anyone they found.

Here's a link.

I can hear my liberal relatives now, whining that this story is from a nutty right-wing rag like Faux News.  (Lord, that cracks me up every time I see it!)  Turns out the story was in the decidedly LEFT-wing, Democrat-loving, liberal "Daily Beast."

But not to worry, people--that does NOT mean the world is ending.  By tomorrow they'll have found a way to blame it all on the U.S.  Indeed, the comments are full of just those sentiments.

I mean, it's common knowledge among liberals that all those members of the terror group Boko Haram only kill all those Christians in Nigeria because of the horrible devastation the U.S. inflicted on that poor nation near the end of the VietNam war...  Wait, I'm pretty sure American troops haven't ever been in Nigeria.

But what difference does it make?  Why bother with facts?  To the left and liberals it's always our fault.

Frankly I'm about ready to say "In for a penny, in for a pound."  If they're gonna blame us when we've never been there, I suggest we give 'em something to really light 'em up.

Sunday, December 14

Hostages taken in downtown Sydney, Australia; perps hang black flag with Arabic writing

In Sydney, Australia about ten a.m. their time this morning an unknown number of gunmen entered an upscale cafe in the city's downtown business district, took at least 13 customers and staff hostage and demanded to speak with the nation's prime minister.

Oh, and the perps hung a black flag with Arabic writing on it in a window.

But the Obama administration quickly assured Americans that the perps had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, or Islamic terrorism or indeed, any group whose name began with the letter "I."

The Sydney Morning Herald quickly pointed out that it is not an Islamic State flag but simply "an Islamic flag that has been co-opted by jihadist groups.

Minutes later State Department spokewoman Jen Psaki sternly warned people not to "rush to judgment" about the hostage-takers, and that anyone who thought the perps had any connection with Islam was a racist hater, or something like that.  "We've heard lots of anti-Australian chatter from the Lutheran community recently," she said.  "It's really uncertain at this point who is responsible."

When Australian TV reported seeing the hostages with their hands up, Al Sharpton and NYC mayor Bill DeBlasio issued a joint statement insisting this was simply another case of The Man oppressing people who were trying to show solidarity with the thousands of "Hands up, don't shoot" protesters in NYC yesterday.

All kidding aside:  The attack is still in progress, and we may find out that this was just another isolated incident, like the Muslim army major who opened fire on a room full of unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood a couple of years ago, killing 17.  Or the attack on the shopping mall in Kenya that killed 60 shoppers.  Nothing at all to do with *organized* Muslim terrorism--well, except for the second one.

But seriously:  If you don't think this exact same thing is coming here, either you haven't been paying attention or you're a Democrat/liberal/"progressive."

Wonder how Obama would handle a hostage situation where the perps demanded to speak to him?  Think he'd take the call?

Saturday, December 13

Obama promising for the 23rd time that "the average family will save $2,500" if Obamacare is passed

An oldie but a goodie:  Someone who looks a lot like Obama promising that if only congress will pass his fabulous piece of smoke he and Gruber devised, the average family will save $2500.

Note particularly at 2:15 when he changes this to "all families."

How's that working for y'all?


Friday, December 12

Seeing higher electric bills this season? Thank the emperor.

Think you're paying more for electricity this year than you were a year ago?

Join the club--nationwide, electricity costs have risen about 15% since last year.

Hmm...wonder what could have caused that?  You don't suppose it might have been the EPA enacting a RULE--not a law, citizen, but a rule written by some faceless bureaucrat, not passed by congress, but which will result in your being fined or jailed if you violate it--that powerplants had to cut emissions of carbon dioxide--the same stuff you and all animals exhale with each breath--or they'd be fined into compliance or bankruptcy.

Gee, wonder what bureaucrat thought passing such a harmful piece of shit rule was a great idea?  I mean, doesn't passing a rule that raises electricity rates on EVERY American seem like a dumb idea?

Oh wait.  I think I found the answer!




Repubs cave on funding resolution

So, yesterday the worthless congress passed--not a two month funding measure, to keep the federal gummint running until the new congress is seated in January, but a full year's funding.  And they got no concessions at all from the Dems.

But if you have more neurons than a turnip it's clear that the strategy for the Dems was to demand everything and refuse to concede a thing--because they knew that if the GOP held the line on spending, their media allies would blame the GOP for a Democrat-led shutdown regardless of the facts.  And while last month's election seemed to show that voters were pretty tired of Democrat policies, a steady barrage of media stories about starving kids due to...well, it really wouldn't matter, would it?  The media would blame the Republicans.

So it was a win-win proposition for the Dems.  They could. Not. Lose.

And of course it helps that Boehner is either being blackmailed or is crazy.  Because he didn't even bring a two-month CR up for a floor vote.  Admittedly, he knew the still-Dem-controlled senate would vote it down, but least that would have put the Democrats on the record as voting for a shutdown.  But Boehner refused even do that.

Oh, one more thing:  Anyone with an IQ over room temp knows that one of the Democrats' core goals is to peel conservatives away from the establishment wing of the GOP.  The absolute best way to do that was get the Repubs to cave on the continuing resolution, by threatening to blame the Repubs for "shutting down the government" (which actually amounts to shutting about ten percent of non-critical (useless) positions).

That would give Boehner--not exactly a strong guy--the choice of caving or being blamed.  And naturally he chose the former.  Which utterly pissed off the conservatives who turned out in such high numbers a month ago and handed the Repubs a majority in both houses of this worthless congress.

Naturally this media is crowing like mad over his refusal to press the electoral message--with the utterly predictable result that more conservatives will abandon the Republican party.

Well played, Democrats!

NJ town agrees to pay Muslims $7.75 million so they can build a mosque???

This story is likely to surprise you.

If I were to tell you that city officials in a town in New Jersey had agreed to the payment of almost $8 million to Muslims so the latter could build a mosque, would you think this...unlikely?  Outrageous?  Unprecedented?

If so, you haven't been paying attention.

The payment is being made to settle a lawsuit filed my the Muslims.  Of the amount, $2.75 million will be paid so they can buy 15 acres of land on a main highway to build the mosque.

The other $5 million is an award for "damages"--supposedly a violation of their constitutional rights-- and legal fees.

Seems the Muslims originally proposed to build a mosque on a country road, but in 2011 the township's planning board denied the proposal, citing an ordinance that limited houses of worship to major roads. Township officials said they didn't object to building a mosque, but only to the proposed location.

Planning and zoning boards do stuff like this every day.

But last year U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp ruled against the town--effectively overturning the town's legitimate and previously uncontroversial ordinance.

Purely coincidentally, Shipp was appointed by the Emperor.

Shipp's decision held that after the Muslims applied to build a mosque at the original site, the project faced “anti-Muslim prejudice within the community, including Internet postings and e-mail correspondence."  Shipp noted that in one instance, someone even claimed the Muslim applicants might even be terrorists.

It's truly hard to imagine what could bring anyone to have such a strange opinion, eh?

Lawyers for the town argued that the purpose of the ordinance was to preserve the residential character of residential neighborhoods, but judge Shipp found the township had "rendered it nearly impossible for Al Falah and its individual members to adhere to the tenets of their religion." The judge sent the matter back to the planning board for further review, which continued until the settlement was reached.

Oh, there's a bit more to the story, too:  First, the town's insurers will pay $5 million of the award.  So that means it really doesn't cost anyone anything at all.

Oh, wait, that's bullshit--though obviously a huge relief to the town's officials.  A "trust fund" will kick in another $800,000 or so.  Which means the town's residents will only be left having to pay just under two million bucks, which will be raised by a bond measure.

Here's the kicker:  Town officials said they chose to accept the agreement to avoid using taxpayer money for legal costs.

Uhh...I think someone is unclear on the concept:  How does this "town official" think this bond will be retired (i.e. paid off)?  Hint:  Bond payments come from tax revenue.

Now let's look at the lesson here, shall we?  City officials are like pols everywhere:  Totally risk-averse.  The city attorney brings 'em a settlement that makes the city's cost "just" $2 mill instead of $8 mill.  And the risk-averse pols jump at the "great deal."

If you think this won't be repeated thousands of times across this wide nation, you're a liberal.  And it won't be limited to suits about a zoning ordinance--Shipp's decision sets a precedent that Muslims who find negative comments in a local paper can cite the same legal theory:  The local atmosphere will "render it nearly impossible for us to adhere to the tenets of our religion."

And politicians in EVERY sued town will test the prevailing winds, consult their city attorneys and agree that it's far better to pay a couple of million to settle instead of fighting.  After all, that way local residents won't have to pay any money for legal costs.

Or something like that.

And all the libs will smile and clap each other on the back for being so wonderfully tolerant.

Emperor's amnesty also made illegals eligible for two of the most fraud-riddled government programs


Obama's unilateral decree giving amnesty to over 5 million illegal aliens also contained language to cost taxpayers even more billions:  It makes the illegals eligible to get federal checks through two existing--and massively fraud-riddled--programs: the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC).

These two programs are already among the most corrupt and fraud-ridden federal programs--and that's saying a lot.  It's been widely known for years that the EITC was plagued with fraud, but a new report from the inspector general of the Internal Revenue Service reveals that the ACTC is just as bad.


The two programs give what is known as "refundable tax credits" to low-income workers  To most of us working stiffs a "tax credit" just reduces the amount of tax you have to pay, but in these two programs it means that at tax time, instead of paying taxes, participants get a check from the government.  Meaning, from you.

Sweet deal, eh?

So someone who had a modest $1,000 withheld to pay federal income tax could get an EITC "refund" check of $5,000.  [How the hell this can possibly be called a "refund" is never explained.]  The ACTC works similarly for low-income workers with children.

Supported by both political parties over the years, these two programs were ostensibly intended to encourage people to actually work.  The amount of money they the two have paid out has skyrocketed in recent years — payments increased 40 percent from 2007 to 2012, mirroring the rise in food stamp use.  And the amount of fraud in both is staggering: According to the inspector general, of the $63 billion in EITC payments in 2013, $15 billion was paid to people not eligible to receive a check, or who got more than they should have.

The rate of fraud is even worse with the ACTC.  Of the $26.6 billion in ACTC "credits"--bureau-babble for "checks"--given out in 2013, the inspector general says between 25 and 30 percent was improper.

Since federal law defines a program as having "significant improper payments" when such payments exceed 2.5 percent of all the money the program sends out, you'll be relieved to know that the director of the IRS fired 23 managers for incompetence and reduced the pay grades of 46 others, for letting these two programs continue at over ten times the fraud rate deemed "significant."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  Just kidding!  No one was fired or disciplined, because everyone at the IRS was busy looking for Lois Lerner's missing emails linking the IRS political scandal to the White House!  But you probably guessed that, right?

While fraud in the Earned Income Tax Credit program has been obvious for years, the IRS has insisted that the ACTC program had a "low risk" of fraud.  But the inspector general concluded that the IRS has known all along that this was wrong.

Both congress and the president have ordered the IRS to crack down on improper payments. But since the executive branch has ignored congress for years, and the Emperor winked when he gave his "order," the agency got the real message, and according to the IG report the rate of fraudulent payments in programs has stayed constant over the past few years. while the amount of EITC claims paid in error has grown.

The report estimates there has been somewhere between $124 billion and $148 billion in improper EITC payments in the last decade. That's more than the federal government pays for, say, veterans' benefits, or the justice system, or agriculture, or transportation in any given year.

If the administration's record with Obamacare is any guide, the emperor's minions will soon start an aggressive, multilingual campaign to encourage illegal aliens amnestied by the emperor's decree to apply for as many benefits as possible.  And if a million or so of them aren't actually eligible to receive your tax dollars?  Not to worry--no one in the government will be checking that too closely.


Thursday, December 11

Two key *Democrats* call for NO vote on funding government; media doesn't say a single critical word

Is shutting down ten percent of the government good or bad?

If you said "bad," which party is currently threatening to shut down ten percent of the government by refusing to vote for a year-long "continuing resolution" that maintains funding essentially at current levels?

The answer is that a handful of both Democrats and Republicans are pushing for a "no" vote on the thing.  But of course to the Lying Media, if Republicans vote no it's a bad thing.  Terrible!  Awful!

But how about Democrats urging a no vote?  In case you haven't kept up that would be both infamous faux Native American Elizabeth Warren, and former Dem speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and both are strongly urging their colleagues to vote against the funding measure *unless* a provision they don't like is removed.

Wait, isn't that bad, to threaten a shutdown because you didn't get your way?  Why yes, yes it is...when Republicans do it.  But not a single critical word is printed or uttered by the media when two key Democrats do the same thing.

But do not think, citizen, that this means the media is a bunch of partisan, lying hacks.  Cuz there is absolutely no proof of that.  None at all.  It's just a figment of your imagination.