Sunday, April 26

In South Africa, mobs are toppling or vandalizing statues. Pols shrug, say "We can't do nothin'."

In South Africa groups of...a certain political orientation... are systematically toppling or otherwise vandalizing statues of historic significance--a dozen so far.

Most liberals will probably claim this is a novel, imaginative and mostly harmless form of protest by the oppressed members of the...groups of unspecified race and political orientation.

These are the same liberals who claim the "knockout game" isn't real.  Or maybe it might be real but it isn't really hurting anyone.

If confronted with news articles they might backtrack a bit and say well, it might be real and maybe a few whites--who as every good liberal knows are absolutely rolling in "white privilege"--might be getting slightly hurt by "it," but certainly not enough to get irate about.

If you show them even more news stories they might admit that it's just barely possible that a couple of unlucky victims of these sneak attacks on unsuspecting whites may have been killed by their assailants, just because they happened to land on their head or something.  But that's really an accident--the perps never intended for that to happen so you can't possibly hold 'em responsible for what's essentially a mostly harmless form of protest by a mostly powerless group of people who may have had ancestors who may have been slaves.

So, it makes perfect sense, see?

Of course liberals will happily say and do anything to tear down western civilization, so you might want to keep that in mind.  And of course it wasn't their wife or daughter or son who got sucker-punched and knocked cold.  But even if it was, they'd probably use their imagined white guilt to rationalize it as being somehow deserved.

So back to South Africa:  The vandals are almost exclusively black, and the statues are of non-blacks (but not exclusively whites:  they damaged one of Mahatma Ghandi, which makes you wonder what insults or injuries they attributed to Ghandi).

A particularly sad example was a memorial to the "war horses" of WW1:  It was a statue of a soldier on one knee offering his faithful horse a bucket of water.  But of course the black communists of South Africa consider all works of non-blacks offensive, regardless of how benign the subject.

These are the folks who would burn the Mona Lisa, or blow up the Sistine Chapel.  Their counterparts in Iraq are already blowing up ancient churches and walled cities established by ancient civilizations (and not remotely white) for the same reason:  "If we don't approve of it, we'll destroy it just to show our unmatched power."

It seems clear this is nothing less than an attempt at intimidation.  Like the "knockout game" here.  It's "We can do this and get away with it, and if you don't do as we demand, we will increase the violence against you."

Interesting philosophy.  If whites were doing this to blacks liberals would be shrieking and screaming to high heaven.  But it seems as though liberal-pushed notions of "white guilt" have now made it possible for blacks to attack whites without a moment's fear of being either caught, prosecuted or jailed.

Seems to me that there's an easy and obvious fix for that.  And not hard to discern, either.

I do see the experiences of South Africa as an indicator of what will happen here in another 15-20 years, unless some big factor intervenes.  Like, maybe, a small percentage of whites who refuse to be victimized by thugs.

Saturday, April 25

Slow-motion national suicide


How would you characterize someone who offers to smuggle Africans from Libya to Italy, locks a thousand of them in the hold of a ship, and then... sinks the vessel?

Would you consider such an act so shocking as to be literally impossible to believe?

Or would you note that the murderous smugglers are from the same cultural cesspool that spawned the beheading monsters of ISIS and al Qaeda, and thus find this not only believable but unsurprising?

Transporting Africans to Italy is the new growth business.  Smugglers charge around $2000 per person, and they don't even try to dodge Italian patrols anymore.  Quite the opposite: smugglers head right for the Italian coast guard ships and then scuttle their own vessels, knowing the Italians will rescue their clients and take them to an Italian port.  Next stop: any European city.

It's a perfect crime, because the smugglers know the EU will not only rescue their clients but will also let them stay in the EU rather than send them back. 

Slow-motion national suicide.  Just as with our own porous southern border.

Hillary approved a deal to sell one-fifth of U.S. uranium to Russia after backers donated millions to her foundation

You may have heard some muttering about some sort of huge donations to the Clinton Foundation made by foreign governments or businessmen while Hillary was secretary of state. 

Of course if you like Hillary you immediately dismissed this as just malicious fiction concocted by nasty Rethuglican dirty-tricksters.  Or the favorite airy dismissal by liberals, "Faux News."  (That clever pun just cracks me up every time I see it!)

Or another well-known right-wing rag, the...NY Times??

Wait, that can't be right.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
  NY Times, April 23, 2015

If you click on the link you'll be greeted by 5,000 words of "...and then the sun set," interspersed with a few words of substance.  But the substance is--or should be--devastating.

Synopsis: A trio of wealthy Canadian businessmen assembled a very large bundle of uranium mining leases--like, one-fifth of all known U.S. uranium deposits, and lots more in other countries.  They did this with the very direct help of former president Bill Clinton.  Later, with their stock down 40% they sought to sell the company.

Russia wanted to buy it, but all sales of U.S. assets to foreign companies must be approved by a government "committee" staffed by representatives from State, Commerce and other agencies.

Minor deals are handled and approved by low-level staffers, but given the unique uses of uranium, a proposal to sell one-fifth of all U.S. uranium deposits to Russia would normally have been handled by the heads of the respective agencies.  It's that important.

But in this case, the deal was approved seemingly with very little debate or hesitation.  But the Times reporters couldn't find anyone who would say who handled the approvals, or who signed off on the deal.

Now here's the poser:  The Canadian investors contributed tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary was SecState.

Now, federal law bars federal employees from accepting any type of gratuity or bribe from anyone doing business with the government--and seeking necessary approval for a huge sale like this one certainly seems to qualify.

But when the law was written, no one thought to ban a politician from setting up a foundation, and accepting multi-million-dollar donations from people seeking government approval for deals.  "That's not a bribe, judge, I just wanted to support the great work of her family foundation."


To add to the seriousness, the Times reported that prior to appointing Hillary secstate, the Obama administration made a detailed agreement with her that her foundation would disclose all donors, and of course that Mrs. Clinton would not make policy decisions as secstate that would involve either a conflict of interest or the appearance of one.

The Clinton Foundation failed to disclose the Canadian donations.

Reporters seeking information from the dowager queen were told to check with State.  State told 'em to check with the White Hut.  The White Hut told 'em they'd have to ask Hillary.

Neat, huh.

Oh, you wanna know amounts, do ya?  According to the Times the donations were well over $30 million.

It is good to be queen, eh?

Now, it's no secret that the owners, editors and reporters of the NY Times love Hillary Clinton.  So for them to publish a story questioning some aspect of our dowager queen grandmother's imperial acts, something's afoot--they are definitely not trying to torpedo her candidacy.  So why run the story?

I suspect it's to de-fuse the story, which is part of a soon-to-be-released book.  By getting it out now her spokespeople can claim this is all "old news" and "sleazy innuendo" that "was shown to be baseless."  And indeed, this is exactly the line Clinton spokespeople are taking.  For example, the day the article was published a Clinton campaign said the uranium deal was "reviewed by lower-level officials at State," which would lead the casual listener to believe Clinton never saw or approved the deal--something that seems highly unlikely.

“This did not rise to the secretary’s level,” said Josh Schwerin, another Clinton campaign spokesman. “There was no matter presented to her to recuse herself from.”  In that case, what lower-level State employee took it upon himself to handle such a strategically vital matter without even consulting the head of his agency?  Should be easy for congress to ask.

Campaign strategists are well aware that unless the mainstream media tout a story on the front page for a month or so--like Abu Ghraib--95 percent of the public will literally forget all about it in three weeks.  So dismiss it now as "speculative" and it will sink without a trace long before the first primary.

Finally, imagine how this story would be playing in the press if the main character were, say, Mitt Romney instead of Hillary.  Do you think reporters would be satisfied with asking spokes-weasels for details and explanations, or would they be asking the candidate himself?  Would the story be surrounded by thousands of words of fluff and softening, or would it be far more direct and scathing?

Frankly, the Clinton campaign defense of "speculative" sounds a lot like "You don't have video of her being handed a bag of cash, so there's no wrongdoing at all here."

Thursday, April 23

Are we a nation of laws? Apparently not


Some Democrats and leftist media hacks are encouraging Obama to ignore the Supreme Court if it rules against any provisions of Obamacare.

Does that reassure you--make you feel all warm and fuzzy?  Or does that make your blood boil?

That should make you mad as hell--because the Supreme Court is set up by the Constitution to be the ultimate interpreter of the law.  If it rules that a law or provision is unconstitutional, that should be the end of it.  And if a dictator-president ignores the SC, that should be grounds for immediate impeachment and removal from office.

But it gets worse: A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 26% of likely voters say the president should be able to disregard federal court rulings "if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country."

When the Supreme Court ordered President Nixon to turn over the White House tapes, he complied, even though he had to have known the tapes would incriminate him.  Shortly thereafter he had the good grace to resign.

Now imagine how Obozo would react if he were to get an adverse ruling from the court on some aspect of either his illegal amnesty for illegal aliens, or on Obamacare.  Does anyone believe he'd comply with the court's decision? 

Of course not.  He's spent his entire life bluffing his way to victory, and he ain't about to change what he sees as a fabulous winning strategy.

You need to ask yourselves if you'd rather the U.S. be a nation of laws, or one in which the law means absolutely nothing.  Because if government officials flout the law you can expect the populace to feel the same way.

If our elected officials openly, brazenly ignore laws that would otherwise inconvenience them, how long can we expect the rest of society to obey those laws?

This is not a theoretical or academic question:  In some parts of the U.S. mobs of teenagers of certain unspecified ethnicity beat and rob whites with no consequence.  They seem to have gotten the idea that they can get away with such behavior--and so far they have.  Now where do you suppose they got that idea?

Actions have consequences.

Elections have consequences.

Corrupt media can swing elections.

The end of the rule of law means...the rule of force.

Are you ready for that?  Do you think that system would be better?

Now a final question:  Because it seems obvious to most of us that Obozo would never obey a court order invalidating one of his brilliant "accomplishments," what are the odds that the Supreme Court will vote that the clear, explicit language of the Affordable Care Act does NOT mean what it says, solely to keep from triggering a showdown between Obama and the the Constitution?

Wednesday, April 22

Hillary motorcade clocked at 92 mph in New Hampshire; U.S.mainstream media dead silent

If you're a liberal Democrat mom the chances are about 20 to 1 that you love the idea of a woman president.

Well, maybe not a conservative woman, but no matter.

So you love Hillary.  Oh, you may have heard stories that her foundation accepted hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments and wealthy foreign businessmen while she was secretary of state for our brilliant emperor, but you're pretty sure those are malicious tales concocted by the white-male-owned mainstream media.  And even if they were true, there's not a whit of evidence that any donor of those hundreds of millions ever got a single rule bent or ignored by the U.S. government because the secstate exerted pressure on their behalf, right?

Okay, you may--may--be just the tiniest bit uneasy about the notion that a secretary of state would accept donations from foreigners--in the hundreds of millions--to her personally-run foundation while she was serving in that position, but you tell yourself it's not that big a deal.  Of course if the NY Times found a conservative white male doing the same thing you'd probably join in the shrieks of condemnation.  But Hillary?  No.  Cuz you trust her.  She's female, a mom, a grandmother.  She's Just Like You.  You're honest and try to obey all the rules, so she must be honest and obey rules too.

And then there was that odd story about--gosh, it's hard to remember now.  Something about her emails--using a private email account to conduct government business.  You were puzzled as to why anyone would be upset about such a trivial issue.  I mean, email is email, right?  What possible difference could it make which internet provider one uses?  So you dismissed the story: it was probably just a smear campaign made up by rich white males.  A political dirty trick.  Cuz you know they'd do anything to keep her from winning, right?  They're nasty that way.

Okay, here's something far less critical, but it tells you who Hillary is and how she thinks:  Two days ago when her motorcade was darting between engagements in New Hampshire, her van was clocked at 92 mph.  In the rain.

Of course you won't see a word of that in the U.S. media.  (It's from the U.K.'s "Daily Mail.")

Now, obviously Hilly wasn't behind the wheel, but she could hardly have failed to notice that they were flying by all the "little people's" cars like they were standing still.  What does it say about her reckless disregard of rules--and about her judgment, which we'd like to have in a president--that she didn't tell her driver "I appreciate your trying to get me to the next gig on time but how about if we dial it back to just ten over the limit"?

Okay, okay, I know:  Rules are for "little people."  People like us.  Elites like Hillary don't have to obey rules that we'd get fined or jailed for breaking.  In fact they're above ALL rules.

Think about that when you pull that lever for Hillary.  And think about how angry you'd be if the same story involved a white male instead of Hillary.

Can you say "double standard"?

Wait, I thought liberal women absolutely hated double-standards.  Haven't y'all been complaining about double standards for years?  Lines like "A male exec is 'assertive' while the same behavior from a female is called 'bitchy,' and so on?

Good to know that some double-standards are fine with you, thanks.

Sunday, April 19

Liberal rag: "Why do we still tolerate the Supreme Court? All we have to do is ignore it!"

An article in the liberal rag Slate perfectly captured the attitude of many Obama supporters:  The author wrote, ”why do we still tolerate the Supreme Court?”
Already this term the conservative justices look poised to strike down an anti-gerrymandering law [apparently the author thinks gerrymandering--creating weirdly-shaped political districts to ensure a minority candidate gets elected--is a great thing].... The court could also strip 8.2 million Americans of their health insurance thanks to a malicious, mendacious lawsuit. … If we want to curb the Supreme Court’s power, all we have to do is ignore it.
"Why do we still tolerate the Supreme Court," says the liberal, when “all we have to do is ignore it.”

Say, that's a really simple, catchy solution.  And it doesn't get all tied up in that stupid "Constitution" thingy.  How very...liberal Democrat of you, Slate writers.

After all, the Supreme Court has no real purpose.  The Founders--who, as liberals never pass up the chance to tell us, were a bunch of dumb, privileged white men whose real goal was to maintain white male privilege--didn't actually have a good reason to establish the Court.  Maybe they felt having three branches of government made a triangle that offered more interesting possibilities than just two.  If it serves no critical purpose, of course, it makes it far easier to propose that we just "ignore it."

Life is so much simpler for people who can ignore and dismiss details.  Do the mullahs of Iran have a different understanding of the so-called "framework agreement" than Kerry and Obama? Don't worry, it's probably not important.
Should we bother checking?  Should Congress--aided by former diplomats like Kissenger--examine the agreement to see if it's merely vaporware?  Nancy Pelosi claims that's too much trouble.  According to her office the framework agreement is "founded on vigilance and enforcement, and these negotiations must be allowed to proceed unencumbered.”

Gosh, Nancy, I didn't know you'd read the framework agreement.  Oh that's right, you haven't.  Because not a single word is written down.  But you still feel free to claim it's "founded on vigilance and enforcement" because...?  Do please tell us.  Oh, that's right:  Because your emperor said so.  The perky, nuance-loving Marie Harf said so. 

When you have the media on your side a great many things can be airily dismissed with a wave of the hand.  Thus Al-Qaeda are just “some folks”--"a JV team."  The Constitution is a 200-year-old document--written by white men--that no longer has any relevance to the United States.  Obama spends four years presumably reading official emails from his Secretary of State without ever noticing they're not from a dot-gov address.  Indeed, no one in the entire White Hut ever noticed.

There’s an air of such unassailable invincibility and an eagerness to achieve “progress” by executive order, or with unwritten agreements that they're unwilling to allow the senate to review, that one wonders whether a single person in the administration has the slightest acquaintance with reality.

Like Tom and Daisy in "The Great Gatsby," members of Obama's regime go about governance with a kind of vast carelessness.  Others are left to clean up the wreckage they cause.  

The only thing certain is that if everything blows up, everyone in the emperor's administration will be utterly convinced that a) it's not their fault; and b) “someone will fix it.”  After all, someone has always fixed every problem in the past.  And great minds--like Obama's, Reid's, Pelosi's, Clinton's--should never have to worry about trivial details.

H/T Wretchard at Belmont Club.

Creator of long-running satirical cartoon strip condemns satirical cartoons lampooning Islam as "hate speech"

Garry Trudeau is a liberal Democrat cartoonist, author of the long-running political-satire strip Doonesbury. If you're looking for someone who could be said to fairly represent liberals, this guy would do it.

Last week Trudeau spoke at an ultra-liberal university, where he offered his opinion on free speech--particularly the kind expressed by cartoonists.

In this context he mentioned the executions in Paris of 11 unarmed civilian cartoonists by heroic Muslims armed with machineguns.  You may vaguely recall it.  Then again maybe not.

Now, you'd think that as a cartoonist who's used biting satire to lampoon and otherwise skewer anyone and everyone not firmly planted on the liberal/Democrat/"progressive" plantation, Trudeau would have been furious at the Muslim killers of satirical cartoonists.

In a logically consistent world, that would be the right guess.  Of course liberals like Trudeau don't feel the slightest need to be consistent.  And sure enough, Trudeau opined that the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo had committed the mortal sin of failing to use "judgment and common sense in expressing oneself."  Of course he didn't phrase it like that, but his meaning was absolutely clear.  Here he is:
 I...have spent a lot of time discussing red lines since the tragedy in Paris. As you know, the Muhammad cartoon controversy began eight years ago in Denmark, as a protest against “self-censorship,” one editor’s call to arms against what she felt was a suffocating political correctness. The idea behind the original drawings was not to entertain or to enlighten or to challenge authority—her charge to the cartoonists was specifically to provoke, and in that they were exceedingly successful. Not only was one cartoonist gunned down, but riots erupted around the world, resulting in the deaths of scores. 
No one could say toward what positive social end, yet free speech absolutists were unchastened. Using judgment and common sense in expressing oneself were denounced as antithetical to freedom of speech.
Damn those "free speech absolutists," eh?  Trudeau--who has made a luxurious living employing satirical cartoons to skewer conservatives and Republicans--just weighed in against free speech.

To be more precise, he clearly implied that the Danish editor who encouraged Danish cartoonists to satirize the founder of Islam failed to use "judgment and common sense," as a result of which "scores" of people were killed in riots around the world.

This of course was the point of the Danish editor's charge:  She recognized that all religion could be satirized except one:  Islam.  Because a big chunk of Muslims were fucking crazy and would riot or kill you if you said something they didn't like.

And they did.  She proved her point.

Trudeau continues:
And now we are adrift in an even wider sea of pain. Ironically, Charlie Hebdo, which always maintained it was attacking Islamic fanatics, not the general population, has succeeded in provoking many Muslims throughout France to make common cause with its most violent outliers. This is a bitter harvest.
"Now we are adrift in an even wider sea of pain" is lib-blather for "Now Muslims have killed another dozen people for drawing cartoons of their prophet."  Of course Trudeau's elegant euphemism allows the reader the luxury of having only a vague idea of what he's referring to.  Which of course is why he used it.  No liberal wants to face the fact that Muslims are implacably bent on taking over the world by any means, and killing non-Muslims is part of the program.
Traditionally, satire has comforted the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. Satire punches up, against authority of all kinds, the little guy against the powerful. Great French satirists like Molière and Daumier always punched up, holding up the self-satisfied and hypocritical to ridicule. Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny—it’s just mean.
By punching downward, by attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech....
In case you hadn't gotten Trudeau's message yet, there it is.  You can't have free speech if someone is offended by it.  Cuz that makes it "hate speech" [insert menacing group growl here]--something all politcally-correct types abhor.  And who gets to decide what constitutes "hate speech"?  Why, Garry Trudeau and his friends in the Democrat government, of course.  Who else could it possibly be?
The White House took a lot of hits for not sending a high-level representative to the pro-Charlie solidarity march, but that oversight is now starting to look smart. 
Notice how deftly Trudeau rewrites history here, so that the contempt shown by Team Obozo in not sending the emperor to the memorial service in Paris becomes not merely an innocent "oversight" but is "now starting to look smart."  That is, Obama was smart to stay home because...why?  Wouldn't want to support free speech or condemn Muzz terrorism, perhaps?  If not that, tell us how in the world not sending at least the VP could possibly be viewed as "smart"?

What free speech absolutists have failed to acknowledge is that because one has the right to offend a group does not mean that one must. Or that that group gives up the right to be outraged. They’re allowed to feel pain. Freedom should always be discussed within the context of responsibility. At some point free expression absolutism becomes childish and unserious. It becomes its own kind of fanaticism.
You can understand Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler saying something like this, but to hear someone who's gotten fame and fortune from drawing cartoons satirizing his political enemies say that "At some point free expression absolutism" becomes "childish" and "unserious" is surreal.

I'm kind of surprised that he didn't take this line of "reasoning" to its logical conclusion:  that the Democrats should create a government agency to rule on whether any proposed "speech" or cartoon may be uttered or drawn.  And of course said agency will rule that it's ok to satirize Christianity and conservatives, but never Muslims or liberals.  Surprise.

Garry, you're one hypocritical, clueless asshole.  But rich and liberal.  And you're invited to all the A-list parties.  And the media supports your view.  So rock on.

Saturday, April 18

Congress asked Hillary about use of private email for govt business back in 2012? She didn't reply

There's been another revelation about Hillary's utter contempt for oversight and lawful government:  Turns out congress was tipped off to Hillary's use of a private email account for official State Department business.  The House Government Oversight committee wrote her three years ago asking if this was true.

Can you guess what her reply was?

She didn't reply.

So the committee asked State.

State didn't reply.

Clever strategy, eh?  If you've done something against the rules and someone calls you on it, just don't answer the charge.  I mean, she knew congress wouldn't do anything, right?  Because "Republican war on women!!"

I predict that if in the 2016 election a hundred precincts in Democrat-run cities come in with ten percent more votes than registered voters--and Democrat operatives are caught on video stuffing ballot boxes and wheeling in wheelbarrow loads of bogus absentee ballots, no one will take any action whatsoever.  Because your officials have tacitly accepted lawbreaking--at least by Democrat pols and their agents.

Oh well.  The emperor's reign has been such a huge success that we might as well have another to follow on those huge successes.  Lord knows the GOP congress isn't doing jack-shit to bring the bastards to justice.

Thursday, April 16

Insanity on campus, part gazillion

Colleges and universities have been cesspools of leftist propaganda, misinformation, censorship and gross deprivation of human rights for several decades now.  Examples are too numerous to tally, but include students expelled without a hearing (for saying or doing something politically incorrect), being barred from speaking in public areas (when wanting to convey a conservative or constitutional message) and so on.

Now Katherine Timpf at NR has compiled a list of seven new examples--which confirm what you likely suspected: that universities are hives of liberal insanity disguised as political sophistication.  Here's the list:

1. Bill Maher
When the U.Cal Berkeley announced that Bill Maher would be its graduation speaker last October, more than 6,000 students signed a petition demanding that he be banned because he “perpetuates a dangerous learning environment” and “they cannot stand for any action that makes our students feel unsafe.”

Wait, wasn't Maher once a "hip" comedian of some sort?  How could someone once billed as cool and trendy "perpetuate a dangerous learning environment?  Ah, it seems Mahrer had the gall to utter some  criticism of Islam--the one religion on the planet that liberals approve of and which cannot be criticized in even the most diplomatic, mildest way.

2. Face paint of any color, at any event, ever
Last October Arizona State University’s athletics department banned facepaint — “whether the theme is black, maroon, gold or white” — because ASU is an “inclusive and forward-thinking university” and they must make sure that “everyone feels safe and accepted.” They did not explain whether any students had actually reported feeling threatened by the paint, and if so, how those students were handling their lives currently.

3. A petting-zoo camel (due to concerns over racial tensions)
Students at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota planned to bring a camel (one which had been trained for these kinds of events) to campus last spring as part of a fun “Hump Day” event celebrating the end of the year — only to be told that the idea was not fun, but actually so horribly racist against Middle Eastern students that it would be “possibly unsafe” for anyone to attend. It was canceled.

4. The word “bullet” (not to be confused with actual bullets, which are a perfect example of something that can actually be dangerous)
Last fall, the student newspaper staff at the University of Mary Washington in Virginia decided to change the publication’s name from The Bullet to The Blue and Gray Press on the grounds that the word “bullet” “propagated violence.”

5. Calling freshmen students “freshmen” 
Last November, the administration at Elon University in North Carolina instructed student orientation leaders not to call the freshmen “freshmen” — because the word makes women sound “vulnerable” and therefore suggests that they “might be targets” for sexual violence, according to the school’s Inclusive Community Wellbeing Director. (Yes . . . “Inclusive Community Wellbeing Director.”)
6. Cinco de Mayo–themed parties 
On May 19, 2013, Northwestern University’s Hispanic/Latino Alliance wrote a letter explaining why they were totally not ridiculous for having told students that they shouldn’t drink tequila or eat tacos at parties earlier that month: Sometimes people will be “drinking tequila shots while saying things like ‘cinco de drinko,’” and that contributes to a “campus climate” where Mexican students “feel unwelcome if not often unsafe.”

7. Posters 
Students at Boston College did something crazy last month: They put up posters advocating for free speech without officially registering as a campus group before doing so. School administrators called the cops, and Dean of Students Thomas Mogan explained that the posters were “a nuisance and in some cases a safety hazard.” What he thinks “safety hazard” means remains unclear. Maybe someone had to go into a Cinco de Mayo party to grab one.

Sunday, April 12

The country's biggest unions *support* Obama's illegal amnesty? Why in the world...? OH...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/12/unions-fight-to-preserve-obamas-immigration-actions-and-their-members/?intcmp=latestnews

"Unions fight to preserve Obama's immigration action."

Say what??  Let me see if I've got this right:  Obama had decreed--imperially ordered--that five to ten million illegal immigrants be allowed to stay in the U.S. and work.  Classic economic theory--well tested and uncontroversial--says these people will compete with unskilled Americans for basic jobs.

You'd think an American labor union would be *resisting* this huge influx of illegal workers.  Yet the AFL-CIO, SEIU, American Federation of Teachers and others are strongly in favor.

At first glance this makes no sense.

Then you realize that the folks to whom it makes perfect sense are the heads of the unions, who stand to make more money if there are more union members--regardless of how well individual members are doing.

Now it all makes sense.  The union bosses line their pockets at the expense of their members.  Perfectly understandable.

A liberal NY author tells what she's learned about life on reaching age 61

Anne Lamott is apparently a published author.  She recently turned 61, and posted some thoughts on her Facebook page.  Some highlights (edited by me):
I thought I'd take the opportunity to write down everything I know as of today.

1. All truth is a paradox. Life is a precious, unfathomably beautiful gift, and it is impossible here, on the incarnational side of things. It has been a very bad match for those of us who were born extremely sensitive. It is so hard and weird that we wonder if we are being punked. And it is filled with heartbreaking sweetness and beauty, floods and babies and acne and Mozart, all swirled together.

3. There is almost nothing outside of you that will help in any kind of lasting way.... This is the most horrible truth.
Really?  Perhaps you don't consider God to be "outside of you."  But on second thought, I think you mean this literally.  "The most horrible truth" indeed--if one believes it's true.
4. Everyone is screwed up, broken, clingy, and scared, even the people who seem to have it more or less together. They are much more like you than you would believe.... you can’t save, fix or rescue any of them, or get any of them sober.
Okay, we agree that you can't rescue people who don't want to be rescued.  But "Everyone is screwed up..."? Really, Anne?  Maybe that's true of all the people you know.  (She added that "The most degraded and sometimes nearly evil men I have known were all writers who’d had bestsellers," which may say something about her circle.)  But out here in flyover country most people seem to be genuinely friendly and to be hard-working and trying earnestly to raise their kids right.  We have relatively few muggings or junkies shooting up in doorways.  But I'm sure you're right: all the people I know are probably really screwed up, as you say your friends are, but we're just too dumb to see it.  Cuz, you know, all of us out here in flyover country are hicks who can't recognize nuance.
6. Writing: You are going to feel like hell if you never write the stuff that is tugging on the sleeves in your heart — your stories, visions, memories, songs: your truth, your version of things.... That is really all you have to offer us, and it’s why you were born.
"That is really all you have to offer us"?  Really?  Of course you're a writer--and a good one, from what I see--so I don't doubt that's your experience.  And it's understandable that one describes life lessons in terms of their own expertise.  (I use flying metaphors a lot.)  But the rest of us realize we all have lots of things to offer, in many realms--not just in our area of expertise.
8. Families: hard, hard, hard, no matter how cherished and astonishing they may also be. At family gatherings where you suddenly feel homicidal or suicidal, remember that... Earth is Forgiveness School.  You can do it.... You will be amazed.
11. God: Goodness, Love energy, the Divine, a loving animating intelligence.... You will worship and serve something, so...you gotta choose. You can play on our side, or Bill Maher’s and Franklin Graham’s. 
I don't know much about Franklin Graham, but from your phrasing I get the impression you find something objectionable about him.  I'd be curious to know what that is.  And when you say "our side," what side is that?
11. [sic] Faith:  If I could say one thing to our little Tea Party friends it would be this: Fundamentalism, in all its forms, is 90% of the reason the world is so terrifying. 
"Our little Tea Party friends"?  Looks like you and the editors at Salon are on the same page of the playbook.  So you feel members of the Tea Party are fundamentalists?  Do you feel the killers of ISIS are--and the 9/11 killers were--also "fundamentalists"?  Do you regard both groups as equally "terrifying"?
12. Jesus: Jesus would have even loved horrible, self-obsessed you.... But He would hope that you would perhaps pull yourself together just the tiniest bit....

14. Death. Wow. So f-ing hard to bear, when the few people you cannot live without die. You will never get over these losses--and are not supposed to....their absence will be a lifelong nightmare of homesickness for you. All truth is a paradox. Grief, friends, time and tears will heal you.

I think that’s it, everything I know.  I wish I had slipped in what Ram Dass said: that when all is said and done, we’re all just walking each other home.
Ignoring major differences of opinion, I like her writing style, and agree with most of her conclusions about life.  It would seem she's tormented and self-obsessed, so naturally it follows that everyone must suffer from the same things.  A very normal conclusion.  In any case, good writing.

Was there an agreement with Iran or not?

So Team Obama has labored mightily to bring about what it and the media describe as a "historic," "unprecedented" deal--to use the exact words used by virtually every mainstream-media outlet--that they claim will keep Iran from developing an atomic bomb for "at least a year."

Having succeeded so marvelously, so brilliantly, so...unprecedentedly...the emperor and his lackeys wasted no time telling the world about their brilliant success.  The State Department--so perfectly characterized by Marie Harf, Jen Psaki and John "Heinz" Kerry--issued a "fact sheet" listing the terms of this brilliant deal.

But then--unexpectedly (the media sure use that word a lot when writing articles about the emperor's administration)--the Iranians announced that the great deal included some crucial terms that directly contradicted the press releases issued by Team O.  Here's the pro-Obama USA Today:
Iran's "supreme leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, joined that nation's president Thursday in saying any nuclear agreement must include the immediate lifting of economic sanctions choking the country.
In his first public comments on the framework for a deal with world powers released last week, Khamenei told a gathering of religious poets he "is neither for nor against" the agreement. Because the agreement is just on a framework, not a deal itself, "nothing has been done yet," he said.

"What has happened so far neither guarantees a deal … nor does it guarantee the content of a deal," he said. "It doesn't even guarantee the talks will go on until the end and will lead to a deal." 
He said the punitive "sanctions should be lifted completely on the very day of the deal."

The United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany — the so-called P5 +1 group — reached an understanding with Iran last week on limits to its nuclear program in return for lifting crippling economic sanctions.  The U.S. State Department said the sanctions would be lifted in phases, but the details have not been negotiated.

Negotiators have until June 30 to fill in the critical details to assure Iran it will get relief from the sanctions as soon as possible and to guarantee world powers that Iran won't develop a nuclear weapon.

"The process of sanctions suspension or relief will only begin after Iran has completed its major nuclear steps and the breakout time has been increased to at least a year," State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said Thursday in Washington.  "That's consistent with what we said over the last week or so, and that was agreed upon by all the parties," he said.
If this situation wasn't so sad and serious it'd be funny watching the emperor throw all his spokeswhores under the bus--because that's what will happen.  Bullshit Barry wants his historic deal, dammit!  It's his bid for a legacy other than "inveterate liar and bullshitter."  He's determined to get it, and he will--regardless of whether it's merely an illusory agreement.

For his entire life Barry has operated with the same modus operandi:  Be cool and bullshit your way to what you want, knowing that your opponents--almost always white--will concede because you're black and can call down a rain of protesters and business-occupiers and picketers if you don't get your way. 

And it's always worked.

Every time.

Until he started negotiating with foreign leaders who are utterly unaffected by Barry's race card.  His mellow tones and hip speaking cadences move them not at all. 

So here we have a major disagreement on what was agreed--bearing in mind Khamenei's statement that the only thing actually "agreed to" was a "framework" for further talks.  And even these aren't guaranteed unless all economic sanctions are lifted immediately rather than in phases.

Okay, citizens, step right up and place your bets.  Whaddya think will happen?

But you know, don't ya.  Even diehard liberals know how this will end.  Barry will do anything to get some written deal with the Iranians.  Because he can't walk away from the table, since that would be tantamount to admitting either that he got snookered or that negotiating with the mullahs was a stupid idea to begin with.

Barry's ego won't allow him to do either of those things.

What's amusing here is that Iran's leaders are being so confrontational, so open about their demands.   They read Obama's eagerness to make any deal just like we can, but rather than advising the U.S.  quietly, diplomatically about remaining differences, the Iranians are being very public.  It's as if they're calling the world's attention to how they're about to make the leader of the ol' "great satan" totally capitulate to them.

A rational, self-respecting president would say "It appears the leaders of Iran don't want the sanctions lifted, since they've demonstrated no real desire to negotiate.  Therefore, after consulting with our allies, the P5 group will no longer participate in this meaningless charade, and the sanctions will remain in place.  If the leaders of Iran would like to negotiate openly and honestly, without trying to dictate, they know how to reach us."

Wow, would that be a historic speech!  But of course, it won't happen.  Barry will cave, and will pressure our allies to lift the sanctions "because...mumble mumble bullshit bullshit."

And the Lying Media will once again deluge us with stories loaded with words like "historic!"  "Unprecedented!"  And "Humanitarian considerations demanded that we lift the sanctions, which were hurting the average Iranian."  Hell, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if ol' Bullshit Barry was nominated for a second Nobel peace prize.
===

For my students:  Y'all were about 13 at the time so you might not know that just three weeks after the emperor's first inauguration, he was nominated for the peace prize.  Since his entire experience on the world stage to that point was four years as a U.S. senator--during which he did literally nothing noteworthy--one might reasonably wonder what the nominator felt Obama had done that merited being nominated, let alone winning the prize.  But the members of the Nobel committee--all leftists--were totally charmed by the idea and awarded him the peace prize.

Some great leftist propaganda, eh?  Gives ol' Bullshit Barry some major resume enhancement, some much-needed "gravitas." 

Story of the guy's life.

Saturday, April 11

March 9th: "National emergency! Venezuela 'extraordinary threat' to U.S.!" April 7th: No threat.

Thirty-three days ago Obama issued an "executive order," which the press secretary of the White Hut appears to have summarized below.  I say "appears to have" because often the press secretary leaves out key provisions of executive orders--at least when they break U.S. laws or take away rights from U.S. citizens.  Since neither appears to apply here, I'm guessing this really is what it says it is.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

FACT SHEET: Venezuela Executive Order

President Obama today issued a new Executive Order (E.O.) declaring a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Venezuela. 
He's "declaring a national emergency" due to the "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security...of the United States posed by...Venezuela."  This sounds really serious!
The targeted sanctions in the E.O. implement the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014, which the President signed on December 18, 2014, and also go beyond the requirements of this legislation.
We are committed to advancing respect for human rights, safeguarding democratic institutions, and protecting the U.S. financial system from the illicit financial flows from public corruption in Venezuela.
This new authority is aimed at persons involved in or responsible for the erosion of human rights guarantees, persecution of political opponents, curtailment of press freedoms, use of violence and human rights violations and abuses in response to antigovernment protests, and arbitrary arrest and detention of antigovernment protestors, as well as the significant public corruption by senior government officials in Venezuela.  The E.O. does not target the people or the economy of Venezuela.
Specifically, the E.O. targets those determined by the Department of the Treasury, in consultation with the Department of State, to be involved in:
  • actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions;
  • significant acts of violence or conduct that constitutes a serious abuse or violation of human rights, including against persons involved in antigovernment protests in Venezuela in or since February 2014;
  • actions that prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of freedom of expression or peaceful assembly; or
  • public corruption by senior officials within the Government of Venezuela. 
The E.O. also authorizes the Department of the Treasury, in consultation with the Department of State, to target any person determined:
  • to be a current or former leader of an entity that has, or whose members have, engaged in any activity described in the E.O. or of an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked or frozen pursuant to the E.O.; or
  • to be a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela;
Individuals designated or identified for the imposition of sanctions under this E.O., including the seven individuals that have been listed today in the Annex of this E.O., will have  their property and interests in property in the United States blocked or frozen, and U.S. persons are prohibited from doing business with them.  The E.O. also suspends the entry into the United States of individuals meeting the criteria for economic sanctions.
We will continue to work closely with others in the region to support greater political expression in Venezuela, and to encourage the Venezuelan government to live up to its shared commitment, as articulated in the OAS Charter, the Inter American Democratic Charter, and other relevant instruments related to democracy and human rights. 
So, according to this "fact sheet" Obama is "declaring a national emergency" due to the "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security...of the United States posed by...Venezuela."  Sounds pretty serious, eh?

Well, that was 33 entire days ago.  And six years into the reign of Bullshit Barry, everyone except diehard liberals/Democrats/"progressives" realizes all of Bullshit Barry's statements, pronouncements and declarations come with two things:  an expiration date, and a cadre of advisors ready to change the clear wording of any of those and instead substitute "What that really means is..."

And of course this is itself bullshit:  Ol' Bullshit either meant exactly what he first said in his fucking statements, or else was transparently lying but intended that YOU believe him, because it would let him do whatever the fuck it was he wanted to do in the first place.

Example:  "If you like your doctor or your health insurance, you can keep both."

So on April 7th, when a reporter asked Ben Rhodes--who has the lofty title of Obama's deputy national security advisor but whose real value is that he's the brother of the president of XX news--what prompted the declaration of national emergency and the finding that Venezuela posed an "extraordinary threat to U.S. national security," here's Rhodes' reply, according to Reuters:
"The wording ... is completely pro forma," Ben Rhodes, a national security advisor to Obama, told reporters on Tuesday. "This is a language that we use in executive orders around the world. So the United States does not believe that Venezuela poses some threat to our national security."
Well there's a great snapshot of seriousness and solid thinking by Bullshit Barry's advisors.  It's really quite simple:  The words simply don't mean what they say.  All "pro forma," you see.

If that was too vague for ya, here's ol' Bullshit himself, in an interview with the news agency EFE:
Venezuela is not a threat to the U.S. and the U.S. is not a threat to Venezuela.
      --Bullshit Hussein Obama

The meaning of this clusterfuck can't possibly be lost on our enemies:  Bullshit Barry never means what he says, including what he declares in a written "executive order."  So next time he issues one that sounds serious and all, you can safely ignore it.

I guess Barry's taken a clue from the mullahs of Iran:  Say and do one thing for "domestic consumption," but tell foreign leaders something else so they know your "domestic" statement was just fool the rubes.

Except with the mullahs it's the other way 'round:  They're telling Bullshit Barry one thing while telling their own citizens what they really plan to do.

====
Oh, you may notice that the press secretary's "fact sheet" doesn't mention the number of the executive order--an omission I found curious.  A thorough search failed to uncover any mention of the number.  But a Treasury Dept. press release contained a link to the thing.  Here's the intro:
EXECUTIVE ORDER - 13692
BLOCKING PROPERTY AND SUSPENDING ENTRY OF CERTAIN PERSONS CONTRIBUTING TO THE SITUATION IN VENEZUELA
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-278) (the “Venezuela Defense of Human Rights Act”) (the “Act”), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)) (INA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the situation in Venezuela, including the Government of Venezuela's erosion of human rights guarantees, persecution of political opponents, curtailment of press freedoms, use of violence and human rights violations and abuses in response to antigovernment protests, and arbitrary arrest and detention of antigovernment protestors, as well as the exacerbating presence of significant public corruption, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby order: 
 Thereafter is a detailed list that seems to match the statements in the fact sheet.

The biggest question about Obama: Are the results deliberate, or incompetence?


There's a tongue-in-cheek principle for military improvisation that says "Whatever isn't specifically prohibited is allowed."  Obama seems to operate on the principle that "Whatever I can get away with must be legal, because I did it and I'm the president."

Obama made no secret of the fact that he--like virtually everyone on the Left--blamed the U.S. for most of the world's problems.  His solution was equally open: He started his reign by making the "Apology Tour," bowing to foreign leaders (his 90-degree bow to the king of Saudi Arabia was particularly notable) and apologizing for America's alleged sins.

Then to ensure the U.S. wouldn't be able to impose its will on any other country ever again, he began crippling our armed forces.  He fired generals who didn't enthusiastically support liberal policies and promoted incompetent but politically reliable ones.  Cut the military budget.  Where Clinton had merely allowed homosexuals to remain in the military as long as they weren't obvious, Obozo ordered this policy changed to bar the military from discharging openly homosexual members.  He pushed to put women on all combat ships, including submarines. 

He ordered the exchange of 5 top terrorist prisoners at Gitmo for a wacko deserter--violating U.S. law by not notifying congress of that plan.  The exchange was widely seen in military circles as rewarding a deserter, as well as endangering our troops still in Afghanistan by making it possible for the 5 released terrorists to return to combat.

He instructed his trusted agents in the IRS to delay the issuance of tax-exempt status to conservative groups for years, making it far more difficult for them to raise money.  He allowed his EPA chief to use a government email account under a fake name--an act done to avoid those emails being subpoenaed in lawsuits alleging EPA corruption or other wrongdoing--without punishment.


But possibly the worst of his calculated damage to the U.S. is that he's effectively junked the Constitution, by exploiting a provision called "discretionary authority:"  Most laws have a provision that allows a president to waive that law's provisions in exceptional cases.  Obama has cited this as permitting him to grant amnesty to 5 million or ten million illegal aliens.

Such a use was clearly not intended by the congress that passed the law, and in cases where a law doesn't address some point, or is ambiguous, courts are required to look at the clear intent of the parties.  Obama should have known this (though given his sketchy, hidden academic background this is by no means certain).  If he does, his willingness to reject intent and stretch the principle to let him rule by decree is shocking.  It's the act of a man determined to rule, regardless of the damage to the nation, if it wins him an immediate benefit.

This is the very definition of shortsightedness, and can be attributed to ego and narcissism.  "I don't care if it ruins (X), I wanna do it!  And you can't stop me!"

All of the above triggers the question, Are all the bad results of Obama's reign due to malice, or mere incompetence? 

On the one hand the president seems very good at coercing domestic opponents, intimidating Republicans and fooling the general public. This argues competence. But on the other hand he is laughably outmaneuvered by men like Putin, Castro, the Iranians or the Saudis. The Chinese run rings around him.  If he's so clever at outmaneuvering the Republicans, his failure to be even minimally successful with foreigners suggests that these outcomes are intentional--that he's ‘taking America down’.

But let's not reject incompetence yet.  And it's not incompetence due to lack of intelligence, but due to mind-set and psychological defects. 

Until Obama, America operated largely on trust, public assent and the rule of law.  Thus good presidents were trustworthy, supported the rule of law and worked hard to create broad support for programs they wanted to implement.  By contrast, successful despots are skilled at lying and ruthlessness.  Anyone who makes a good despot will make a bad president.  Anyone who makes a good president will be a bad despot.

Now consider the case of an ambitious mediocrity in the Oval Office who is enamored of himself.  He sees no need to support the rule of law because it's easier if he can rule by decree.  When pushing a new program, like mandatory health insurance, he would have no qualms about lying, because he "knows" his program is the best possible bill ever--and anyone who disagrees is stupid and a hater.

By his breathtaking audacity of being able to lie so smoothly, and with the crucial help of a congress dominated by his party, he would succeed in getting his programs passed into law.  Breaking all the previous conventions and rules would be praised by the adoring media as proof of his intellectual superiority, and everyone would congratulate him on his cleverness in doing whatever was necessary to get the program enacted.
 
But when this canny liar--armed with a fawning media, a congress dominated by his party and a race card good against all domestic opposition--went up against foreign tyrants who'd risen to the top without any racial trumps, he'd be out of his league.  The pros would eat his lunch, seeing through his petulance and amateurish plots in an instant.  "Lawfare" and the race card would be useless against Putin, the mullahs of Iran, the Castros, the North Koreans and similar leaders.

And the results would be exactly as we've seen.

Normal incompetence is when someone screws up and then lets other people bail him out. Suicidal incompetence comes when someone screws up and then sabotages every effort to bail him out.  Thus in the case of the Iranian nuclear "deal," Obama seems clearly to be so desperate to get some sort of agreement that he'll sacrifice anything to get one. 

Given the total scorn shown by the Iranians, and their disinterest in anything other than getting the remaining economic sanctions removed immediately, a normal person might realize he was being taken.  But the narcissistic, arrogant Obama is certain whatever he wants is the best possible outcome--and thus he is utterly incapable of pulling out of the negotiations without getting his "deal."

After the White Hut press secretary blasted Wisconsin's Scott Walker for having no foreign-policy experience, it would be very interesting if someone in the media compared Walker's experience with what Obama supposedly knew about world affairs before he was elected President.  I suspect that back in 2007 no one in Obama's inner circle had experience or any great interest in foreign affairs. Their overriding goal--understandably--was winning the presidency.  Then they'd hire anyone needed to develop a foreign policy.

And now that we see that policy, it appears to be based on Obama's belief that the U.S. and capitalism are the greatest evils in the world.

That's some really nuanced policy, jack. 

So the answer the question of whether Obama's results are due to incompetence or malice is:  It doesn't make any substantive difference to the fate of our nation.

Friday, April 10

ISIS thugs stone gay to death. U.S. media ignore, prefer to continue blasting Indiana pizza parlor

The brutal terrorist murderers of Islamic State (ISIS) have stoned to death a man they accused of being gay.

The victim was led into a field in Homs, Syria--blindfolded, with his hands tied behind his back--and more than a dozen men hurled rocks at him from just a few meters away.

Now the first Obama/lib position:  "This didn't happen.  It's a hoax, a lie spread by fundamentalist Christians to embarrass our administration.  After all, you didn't see this on MSNBC or ABC or NBC or CBS, right?  It didn't appear in the Times.  So, see?"

Rebuttal to first lib position:  ISIS itself released photos of the stoning, on social media, and described both the charges and the execution.  Do you claim either that ISIS is lying about the event, or that the photos and text on social media are fabrications?

First Obama/lib fallback position:  "Christians are no better than ISIS, because the Crusades.  Because of the Crusades, Christians have no right to judge other religions or label them as barbaric.  Besides, all religions are equally valid."

Rebuttal to first lib fallback position:  "If you claim no difference between them and us, under what moral or ethical theory did you order the U.S. Air Force to fly bombing missions into Libya to help overthrow Khadafi?  Or are you claiming you and you alone are qualified to judge good and evil?

Second Obama/lib fallback position:  "ISIS is not Islamic, and does not represent the beliefs of true Islam."

Rebuttal to second lib fallback:  "We understand that YOU claim that ISIS is not Islamic, but *they* seem to think they are, as do tens of thousands of supporters around the globe.  They have stated they want to re-establish "the caliphate," a long-time goal of Islam.  They stone or behead anyone who does anything prohibited by Islamic doctrine.  They hate democracy, which is a position consistent with Islam.  Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that there's a substantive difference between ISIS and Islamic doctrine?"

Third Obama/lib fallback position: "You people are obviously just haters who hate people of color.  You're just like those neanderthals at that pizza place in Indiana who said they wouldn't cater a gay wedding!"

Rebuttal to third fallback:  "So you're claiming refusing to cater a gay wedding--with pizza--is comparable to ISIS thugs stoning a gay guy to death?"

Fourth Obama/lib fallback:  "You're obviously too dense to understand nuance and logic and science.  You probably don't even believe humans are causing the planet to heat up so much that life itself is endangered!  Now get out of our way, we have to fly to Switzerland for more negotiations."


Wednesday, April 8

The future can easily be predicted, part 904,505

The future is easy to predict, at least in broad terms.  For example, World War 2 was absolutely certain to happen, given Hitler's determination to grab all possible land.  While one couldn't know exactly when and where the first shot would be fired, the ultimate result was still certain.

Here's a more recent example:

Those of you who don't follow politics closely may not know that a few years ago "immigration activists" tried to get a bill passed that would let every illegal immigrant in the U.S. who'd been brought into the U.S. by their parents to stay here forever, and eventually to become citizens.  The propaganda team named this the "Dream Act" (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors--preciously cute, eh?).

Of course most members of congress knew voting for this bill would likely get them voted out of office, and it failed to pass. 

But of course in the reign of emperor Obama, if the emperor wants to do something he merely decrees it, regardless of whether the act is lawful.  So he simply ordered that the federal government enact the main provisions of the bill that congress had voted down.  This decree was given the wonderfully opaque acronym "DACA"--"deferred action for childhood arrivals."

But there's more:  He also ordered that parents of kids who were in the U.S. illegally, but qualified  under the provisions of his first order, could also stay in the U.S. indefinitely.  This decree was given the wonderfully Orwellian name "DAPA"--"deferred action for parents of...Americans."

Who could argue with that, right?  Of course the "Americans" referred to in the title weren't actually Americans, but would be decreed so if the first order--"DACA"--was allowed to proceed.  Got it?

It is good to be emperor, yes?

Amazingly, a few curmudgeons had the crazy notion that these two decrees were unconstitutional, as well as violating existing law.  Accordingly, 26 the states sued the federal government, asking the courts to rule the emperor's unilateral decree illegal.  The suit also asked the court to order the emperor not to give illegals legal status until the outcome of the lawsuit was decided.

Again amazingly, about two months ago a federal judge in Texas granted this injunction.  The terms were quite clear:  the emperor and his hirelings were ordered not to give illegals legal status until...well, you read it above.

Of course the emperor complied with the court's order.

Hahahahahaha!  Just kidding!  Obama comply with a court order?  What a joke.  If the emperor has no qualms about violating the Constitution, why would he obey a mere court order?  C'mon, laws are for little people, not for emperors.

So after attorneys for the laughingly mis-named "Justice" department got the order and agreed to comply, word reached the judge that after the injunction was issued, the emperor's agents had  granted legal status and work permits to 108,000 illegals, in defiance of the injunction.

Interesting.  If you or I violated a court order we'd get thrown in jail.  But laws are for peons, not...you get it.

Amazingly, after admitting the act noted above, the "Justice" department had the stones to ask the judge to lift his injunction, allowing the government to keep legalizing illegals in accord with Obama's decree. 

The judge declined the request. 

The White Hut didn't release any comment on the judge's latest order.


The "Justice" department has already filed an appeal with a higher court--the 5th Circuit--asking that court to lift the lower court's injunction.  That hearing is scheduled for April 17.
The first of Obama's orders -- to block deportation of illegals who were brought to the U.S. as children -- had been set to take effect Feb. 18.

The judge issued his injunction before Feb.18.  A month later the Justice Department admitted that after the judge's injunctive order, the administration had given three-year reprieves from deportation--and work permits--to more than 108,000 illegals.

DOJ attorneys insisted those actions were made under 2012 guidelines that weren't blocked by the injunction.  It apologized for any confusion.

So, citizens:  Can anyone predict the next move?  Sure you can.  The word will quietly go out to federal agents to keep on doing what the emperor wants to do, injunction be damned.  There will be endless "confusion" and "misunderstandings."  Letters from Washington ordering field agents to comply with the injunction will somehow be lost in the mail, or misrouted.  And the number of illegals "legalized" by imperial decree--in defiance of the court order--will continue to climb.

Why will this happen?  Because Obozo knows these actions are virtually impossible to undo.  Oh, it's theoretically possible, but it would take lots of effort and would put a lot of heat on congressional Republicans--who have repeatedly shown no willingness to fight the emperor.

Cuz if you do, you get indicted (Bob Menendez) or investigated, or audited, or smeared about some stupid decision back when you were in college.

Meanwhile the Obama Express rolls on.  And on.

Guy gets heart transplant, "second chance" at life. Results mixed...


Wanna see example number 284,954 of how the Lying Media primes members of the perpetually-aggrieved class to riot when some thug reaches room temperature because he shot someone, stole a car, robbed a bank or otherwise made a poor life choice?  Here's how the Associated Press--thoroughly liberal/Democrat--reported the death of one Anthony Stokes, age 17. 
Teen who got heart transplant dies in crash during chase
   Troubled Teen Dies in Police Chase after Receiving Heart Transplant  
Wow, poor kid was being chased by the cops and crashed.  And he was "troubled" to boot!  That's awful--pretty much the same deal as the "gentle giant" in Ferguson, eh?
ATLANTA (AP) — An Atlanta area teenager who said a heart transplant two years ago gave him a second chance at life died this week when he lost control of the car he was driving while fleeing police....
And would ya look at that: because the cops were chasin' this "troubled teen," they took away the guy's "second chance at life" after he got a heart transplant.  Tha's cold, man.
Anthony Tremayne Stokes, 17, died Tuesday when the car he was driving hit a bank sign.... An officer noticed the car fit the description of a vehicle involved in a home invasion a short time earlier. The officer tried to pull the car over but the driver refused to stop, the report said.

The car had also been reported stolen in a carjacking in nearby Dunwoody earlier Tuesday, the report says.

In August 2013 local news media quoted Stokes' family as saying that doctors at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta...refused to put Stokes on a transplant waiting list because of his troubled past and their belief he wouldn't comply with the strict plan for medication and follow-up treatment.

Stokes needed a new heart because he suffered from dilated cardiomyopathy. The news media reports at the time quoted the mother as saying that her son would likely die within months without a new heart.

The hospital...quickly reversed course and agreed to put him on the list [to get a heart transplant]. He received a new heart in August of 2013.

Later Stokes told a reporter the transplant would help him stay out of trouble.  "So I can live a second chance. Get a second chance and do things I want to do," he said.

Roswell police said they believe Stokes is the person wearing a mask who forced open the carport door of a home Tuesday afternoon and left once he realized an 81-year-old woman who lived there was home. Police believe he was fleeing that house when the chase began.
That's the substantive end of the AP piece--at least as posted on the net by Yahoo.  But you'll be totally surprised to learn that the AP left out a couple of things.

The thug didn't just "force open the carport door of a home" and leave once he realized the 81-year-old occupant was at home.  Instead he fired two shots at her.  But surely he didn't mean any harm by shooting at her.  Probably just a way of saying "Oh, excuse me, I seem to have mistaken this house for that of one of my friends.  So sorry!"

So, obviously all just a communication problem.

And the mask the guy was wearing probably made communication harder.  Poor guy probably just had really bad allergies or somethin'.

So it's clear that the police were overreacting, because why would anyone chase a troubled youth over a simple carjacking and mistaking one house for another?  And see, if they hadn't chased the poor troubled youth he never would have run the stolen car into a bank sign.

Sure glad taxpayers paid for the dude to get a heart transplant, so he could "do the things I want to do."

Tuesday, April 7

War on women?

According to the Washington Post a former member of the Bush administration who was charged with drugging and raping a female intern and then threatening her for months to drop her complaint has pleaded guilty but completely avoided prison.

Astonishingly the prosecutor argued that the rapist should escape prison and merely serve 4 years probation, on the grounds that the poor rapist was himself the victim of an attack some months later.

Wow.  Yet another instance of the GOP's war on women, eh?  How in the hell can a man who pleads guilty to drugging and raping a woman, and threatened her to try to get her to drop her complaint, manage to completely avoid any jail time?  Can you say FIX?  It's all part of that white good-ol'-boys network of people who are so connected they can commit any crime yet get off with virtually no penalty.

Are you mad as hell?  You should be.  It's ridiculous--an insult to our illusory notion that this is a nation of laws.  But you expected it from Bush, right?  Cuz, you know, rich Texan, right?

Oh wait...I seem to have mis-read a word or two of the WaPo article.  The rapist wasn't a Republican and part of the Bush administration, but a Democrat and one of Obama's empire.  And he's black.  So please disregard everything above.  It's completely reasonable for him to get no jail time, because he was a victim of an attack himself.  So, you know, it's only fair to give him a pass on any infraction he may have committed, like rape.

And now we totally understand why the prosecutor --an assistant U.S. attorney no less--would argue for leniency, because the idea that victims get a pass on crimes they commit is well known in the justice department.  Of course it's usually defense attorneys who play that card, but, well, you know.... Apparently in this case the federal prosecutor realized that the guy's defense team needed some help, so justice demanded that she be even-handed.  To the perp, anyway.  The victim didn't get quite as much consideration, but....

The Chicago Trib has the story too. 

In any case, next time you hear some talking head wailing about the GOP's "war on women" ask 'em if they've heard of Donny Ray Williams.  And the slimy fix that let him escape jail for rape.



Saturday, April 4

Our Constitution, and Iran's

Here's the opening paragraph of our Constitution:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Here’s what Iran’s constitution says:
“The Assembly of Experts for Constitution…fram[ed]
the Constitution…[after input] by the government…with the hope that
this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy
government and the downfall of all others.
Virtually the same, right?  Oh, well, maybe not quite.

Or not even close.  But they're just swell folks all the way round.  Sure, they hang gays from construction cranes in downtown Tehran, but that's just a minor policy quibble.  So trust us, you can trust the government of Iran to do exactly...what their constitution says.

Friday, April 3

"Militants" not known to be affiliated with any group kill 147 people at Kenyan college. Obama shrugs.

From the Associated Press:
ilitants who slaughtered 147 people in a Kenyan school appeared to have planned extensively, even targeting a site where Christians had gone to pray, a survivor said Friday.

One of the first things the assailants did, according to a survivor, was to head for a lecture hall where Christians were in early morning prayer.

The gunmen told students hiding in dormitories to come out, assuring them that they would not be killed.  Many students did, and the gunmen promptly started shooting them.

The masked attackers -- strapped with explosives and armed with AK-47s -- singled out non-Muslim students at Garissa University College and then gunned them down without mercy, survivors said. The gunmen took dozens of hostages in a dormitory as they battled troops and police before the operation ended after about 13 hours, witnesses said.
Supposedly, the world considers genocide a horrible thing.  Unless it's against Christians, committed by Muslims.  Then it's a minor event having no connection to anything.  Merely "workplace violence."

Yeah, dat's it.