Thursday, August 21

Student suspended for saying "Bless you" in U.S. classroom

If you want to know why so many parts of this nation are in such terrible trouble, look no farther than your nearest public school.

In Dyer County, TN, a classroom in the high school lists banned expressions--things the teacher has said you can't say in class.

One of those things is "Bless you."

Last week, after a student sneezed in class, senior Kendra Turner said "Bless you."

The teacher sent her to the principal's office, and she spent the rest of the day in in-school detention.

Her parents--understandably incense--demanded a meeting with the administration.  The teacher claimed--what a surprise--that Turner was being disruptive and aggressive.

Everyone else in the school district is ducking requests for comment.

Tuesday, August 19

If a government agency said adding water to your gas tank would increase your mileage, what % of Americans would buy it?

When the government--or any other source, for that matter--formulates a program or action based on something that's utter bullshit, what difference does it make whether they were merely stupid and incompetent, or brazenly lying to you?

Oh, certainly if you found out the whole thing was an outright lie you'd probably be a LOT madder than if it was just a mistake.  But for all practical purposes, the effect on you of a disastrous policy is the same either way.

Politicians and the permanent empire of government employees know that only a fraction of the public has both the education, the time and the motivation to forecast the likely result of any given policy.  That gives the government a big advantage.  But the really huge edge for the government is that the government can get its fable and claims in front of virtually everyone, while the number of people who will ever hear a critical voice by a competent expert is minuscule.

And of course when it comes to technical issues, in many cases only around five percent of the population has enough education to even grasp the arguments.  So basically if a politician or government agency makes some sort of declaration, most citizens are likely to accept it.

Example:  Candidate Obama was caught on tape saying that he intended to make it economically unfeasible to open new coal-fired generating plants, and to force existing plants to close.  At a fundraiser with rich San Franciscans he proudly said his policies would "cause your electricity bills to skyrocket."

The alphabet networks and other major media outlets didn't report it, so if you weren't a political junkie you never heard about it.  The public never batted an eye.

After Obama was elected he quietly directed the EPA to issue regulations on emissions of carbon dioxide by powerplants.  These were extremely punitive, and operators were forced to either make incredibly costly retrofits or shut the plants down.

That's all background.  The story here is the current statement from an EPA staffer.  Pressed about the loss of jobs in mining and power production, here's how they responded:
The EPA...has cited an array of benefits from the power plant proposal.  The agency says the plan will lead to “climate and health benefits” worth between $55 billion and $93 billion by 2030, including avoiding thousands of premature deaths and asthma attacks in children. Plus the EPA argues that the proposal could ultimately shrink electric bills and address the “costly effects” of global warming.

As for the impact on jobs, the agency claims that while fossil-fuel jobs will be lost, other jobs will be created. The EPA specifically estimates there may be [thousands of] fewer jobs associated with fossil fuels by 2020, but [more thousands of] new jobs associated with improving efficiency of existing plants and building natural gas-fired and renewable energy plants.

"We believe the United States has to lead on climate change," an EPA spokeswoman said.  "And this plan will spur innovation and investment to help us get there. It means more jobs not less in construction, transmission, clean energy and more. This plan is not about shutting things down -- it's about building things up. Coal will remain a third of our nations' energy makeup in 2030."
Here's what very few people outside the electrical industry know:  Except for hydroelectric (and there aren't any more sites for large dams in the U.S.), coal is the least-expensive way to make electricity.  So if you're a president intent on shutting down coal-fired power plants, anything you propose to replace that lost generating capacity will be more expensive, not less.

But in the story above, the writer has the EPA claiming "the proposal could ultimately shrink electric bills..."

Notice the qualifier "could."  If their analysis shows the cost of electricity will drop, why didn't they say "will"?

Because that's not going to happen.  And they know it.  But by feeding the AP propagandist that weasel-worded line, 99 percent of the public will think "Closing coal-fired plants will lower my electric bill."

The utter ridiculousness of that line doesn't occur to people unless they know something about commercial electricity generation.  And as you might imagine, that's a microscopic percentage of the population.

The EPA also says their plan "is NOT about shutting things down."  In an increasingly shaky economy that is SUCH a reassuring claim!  But is it true?  Why, it must be--they printed the number of jobs they claimed would be added by "construction, transmission, clean energy and more," and the number "associated with fossil fuels" and thus lost as a result of the policies, and the first one is bigger than the second, so doesn't that prove it?

What are the chances that the EPAs munchkins are wrong about those estimates?  Why, whatever would make you think that?  After all, it's not like the EPA bureaucrats are as incompetent as the ones in the Commerce Department, who officially estimated the economy's performance for the first quarter of this year--made during that same quarter--as one or two percent growth when the actual result was a 3% contraction. 

That would never happen with the EPA, because those folks are a lot smarter. And of course they'd never lie or torture an economic model to support the policies of a president from a party they rabidly support, eh?  Because that would be unethical, perhaps even illegal.  And we know that government employees are scrupulous about obeying our nation's laws. Just ask Lois Lerner and her comrades at the IRS.

So our lawless president has his agency issue rules that will force coal plants to close, but by the time that action causes shortages of electricity and skyrocketing electric bills he'll be out of office.  Virtually none of the public will connect those dismal, costly results to his policies and those of his party.  Instead it will be just one more thing that "just happened" all by itself.

A reporter with a technical background could explain it to the public, but such explanations will be confined to the pages of technical journals, and the story will be ignored by the mainstream media.  Editors will claim it's too technical, too complicated, to interest the public.

And when stories start appearing about poor people unable to afford air-conditioning, the Democrats will happily introduce a law to spend another $200 billion of taxpayer funds--really borrowed money--to give to low-income folks.

Win-win.  At least for Democrats.

Monday, August 18

Texas Democrats get grand jury to indict Republican governor for a veto

District Attorneys decide whether to bring criminal charges against people.  As a result, most people believe they have a frightening amount of power.  A crooked DA, or one who is known to have committed acts that could expose them to blackmail by criminals, is a huge danger to the community.

Here is one such story.

The District Attorney in Travis County, Texas, is Rosemary Lehmberg.  In April of 2013, after a phone tip to police, Ms. Lehmberg was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving.  Police noted she was weaving across traffic lanes.

She denied that she was drunk, but in dashcam video she was staggering and on several occasions officers had to support her to keep her from falling.

There was an open bottle of vodka in Lehmberg’s car--a violation of the state’s open container law.

In the video Lehmberg taunts the arresting officers and tells them to call "Greg" (the county sheriff).  "Does Greg know you've got the DA locked up?"  One of the officers said Lehmberg kicked doors and acted violently.

Her blood alcohol level would later be found to be 0.239.  (In most states a BAC of 0.08 is considered the legal limit, above which is considered "drunk" for purposes of driving violations.)

Lehmberg pleaded guilty to drunk driving and served 20 days of a 40-day sentence.  But stunningly, she refused to resign her position as Travis County DA-- a position she still holds to this day.

Now:  The video of the DA staggering and threatening police officers should be a huge embarrassment for her political party.  Had Ms. Lehmberg been a Republican, a day or two after the arrest but before the trial, someone higher up the food chain would quietly inform her that she had gravely damaged the integrity of the party and must resign.  She would be told that if she refused to resign she'd be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law instead of a trivial 40-day sentence.

But Travis County is run by Democrats, whose power is ironclad and invulnerable.  Being Democrats, in possession of an incredibly powerful office, they had no intention of losing an iota of that power by forcing their officeholder to resign.  Hence she stays in the post, providing precisely the worst kind of example to Americans in general, and young Americans in particular.

Which is, people with power who break the law never pay any price for doing so.  Thus by definition, the entire American system is thoroughly and irredeemably corrupt.

Ya like the sound of that?  Cuz that's precisely the conclusion kids draw from the facts of this case.

But wait!  It gets worse.

By some black magic the Travis County DA's office runs a unit that investigates "public integrity"--and presumably the lack thereof--for the entire state.  And the legislature--which is to say, state taxpayers--pay that DA's office several million bucks every year for this.

Texas governor Rick Perry was outraged at Ms. Lehmberg's refusal to resign after not only drunk driving but also trying to intimidate the cops.  Though Perry didn't have the authority to force her to resign, he threatened to veto the state's appropriation of $7.5 million to fund the public-integrity unit run by the Travis County DA.

When Lehmberg still refused, Perry did what he'd threatened, and vetoed the bill.

If you think that's the end of it you don't know Democrats.

Last Friday a Travis County grand jury indicted Perry on two charges related to this matter.  The grand jury charged Perry with "abuse of official capacity," a first-degree felony, and "coercion of a public servant," a third-degree felony. The first charge carries a punishment of 5-99 years and a fine of up to $10,000. The second charge is punishable by 2-10 years and a fine of up to $10,000.

Take a minute to wrap your mind around that.  The DA was driving drunk, tried to intimidate the arresting offices into releasing her, refused to resign--and the grand jury indicts Perry for "abuse of official capacity" and "coercion of a public servant"?

This is insane--an inversion of justice.  But it's how Democrats rule.  It's a warning shot to anyone else trying to root out bad public officials who happen to be Democrats.  "Just look the other way or you'll have problems."

It's exactly what the Obama administration did in siccing the SEC on congress after the Speaker of the House announced his plan to sue Team Obama to get the courts to rule on whether Obama's order to federal agents not to enforce U.S. immigration law was legal.

It's been said that people get the government they deserve.  That's a depressing thought, but probably accurate.

Thursday, August 14

John Kerry: "Climate change is the biggest challenge that we face"

Secretary of State John Kerry told an audience in Hawaii that climate change is “the biggest challenge of all that we face right now.”

Wait...does he really think "climate change" (formerly "global warming" but now re-labeled to make it even harder disagree with!) is a bigger challenge than the murderous thugs of the Islamic State killing everyone not on their side, trying to establish "the caliphate"?

With Kerry, who knows?  But from what he said, he must think that's true.

“The science is screaming at us,” he said. “Ask any kid in school. They understand what a greenhouse is, how it works, why we call it the greenhouse effect. They get it.”

Yeah, I always learn the answers to world-class problems by asking kids for the answer.  Works great.
“If you accept the science,” Kerry continued. “If you accept that the science is causing climate to change, you have to heed what those same scientists are telling us about how you prevent the inevitable consequences and impacts.  That’s why President Obama has made climate change a top priority. He’s doing by executive authority what we’re not able to get the Congress to do.”
Wait...did he say "the science is causing climate to change"?  What?  He can't mean that.  Does anyone know what he does mean?

Oh, wait..."Kerry."  Never mind.

One more thing, John--you slimy, pig-ignorant, treasonous motherfucker:  You whined that Obama is doing...something... by executive authority because Congress won't do anything.  But why did you care whether Congress acted--why do you need them to act?--if your Emperor can do everything by using his magical executive authority?

Seems to me this is an implicit admission that by law--in this case the Constitution--the government actually does need to get congress to pass laws to let it do things.  So by ignoring this requirement and doing it all by presidential decree, you're violating the Constitution.

Mind showing us where the Constitution gives your Emperor the power to make laws without congress?

Wednesday, August 13

ISIS beheading Christian children in Iraq

Of course you've heard of ISIS--now renamed the Islamic State.  Here are some photos of their work in Iraq.

Do NOT click the link if you're squeamish.

If you do click, you'll see some gruesome scenes--including a beheaded young Christian girl.

Wait, wait:  How could anyone possibly behead a young girl?  It's just not possible that a human would do that.  And the source is a Catholic site, so maybe this is propaganda? 

Wait, that must be it:  The pic must be a photoshop.

All those pics must be photoshops.

Yeah, dat's it.  Just keep telling yourself:  They're all photoshops.

Because the alternative--that the pics are real--is too horrible to believe.

All photoshops.  Gotta be. 

Keep telling yourself that.  That'll protect you.

Hussein: "No boots on the ground in Iraq!" Pentagon: We have 1000 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq

Obama:  "There will be no boots on the ground in Iraq."

Uh...did he bother checking with the Pentagon?  And remember, the military doesn't do jack-shit overseas unless explicit ordered by the civilians.

Cuz according to the Dem-loving rag "The Hill", the U.S. has 1000 troops in Iraq.

Ooops.  Is somebody lying or merely stupid/uninformed?

Oh wait, I got it:  the Pentagon doesn't know where its people are!  So Barry's right. 

Yeh, dat's da ticket.

Obama agents: You taxpayers will pay for schooling of illegal aliens. Period.


From the reliably Democrat-loving rag, The Hill:
The Obama administration is preparing the nation’s schools to accept thousands of new students who illegally crossed the southwest border and are now awaiting trials on their possible deportations.

A fact sheet from the Department of Education sent to states and schools on Monday highlights the children’s right to attend public school.

It says all children in the United States “are entitled to equal access to a public elementary and secondary education, regardless of their or their parents’ actual or perceived national origin, citizenship, or immigration status.”

The prospect of tens of thousands of children mostly from Central American countries attending school as they wait for their immigration status to be decided has the potential to be explosive after this summer’s emotional public debate about the border
Really?  Who you gonna complain to?  Try it in a school board meeting and they'll throw your ass out, pronto.  You're just a dumb-ass taxpaying citizen, so you ain't got the right to complain to your betters.
Francisco Negron, general council for the National School Board Association, said there is no question that schools will accommodate the children.
"Public schools are keenly aware of their obligations to follow the law," he said, the children "come to us to receive their services and they'll get them."
 
The average immigration proceeding in the past has taken an average of more than 500 days, but the administration has given priority to the children to move to the front of the line, in an attempt to speed up the deportation process.
But how you gonna make 'em show up for the deportation hearing?  Hell, the feds have no idea where a whopping large number of these kids actually are.  They just drove 'em to the Phoenix Greyhound terminal and turned 'em loose.  What they will tell you is that some number of 'em are with family.  Or some other adult.  But we don't know where that adult is either.  Oh well, what difference does it make?
The Obama administration has blamed the influx of unaccompanied children on drug-cartel-fueled violence in the three Central American countries, while Republicans in Congress have said White House policies have led many of the children to believe they will be able to stay if they cross the border.

They have particularly criticized Obama’s decision to not defer certain people brought to the United States illegally as children. The White House is considering additional executive actions on the border, and it is under pressure from some activists to broaden its policies deferring deportations.

Congress failed this summer to agree to legislation to provide additional support for agencies handling the deluge of immigrants, with the House approving a $694 million bill focused on security and the Senate not moving any legislation.

The Obama administration has urged people to welcome the new immigrants, though it has also said that most of the children who have fled to the United States will be sent back to their home countries.
Oh yeah.  Ohhhhh yeah, most of those kids are gonna get sent...back?

Is that before or after pigs fly, or Democrats start honoring the Constitution?

Oh wait, I forgot this is The Hill, so they're not about to give this bullshit claim the derisive sneer it deserves.

I realize that if kids are gonna stay in the U.S. for decades or longer, it makes sense to give 'em an education.

It doesn't make a lot of sense if they're gonna be deported.

Now consider this:  If you're a taxpaying American citizen and you try to enroll your kid in a school outside the "district" where you reside, the School Powers come down on you like a freakin' anvil.  You can't enroll your kid in a school without showing a water bill that shows you reside in that district.

But if you're an illegal alien you can go to any school you like--at least according to the Emperor and his Democrat supporters--without showing jack-shit.

Try that as an American and they'll try to throw your ass in jail.

This country is so fucked, at least under the current regime.  Maybe it won't improve when we get rid of Barack Hussein.  Hard to say when 53% of the electorate is so fucking stupid.

Sunday, August 10

Situation report

If you're an American, things are only moderately bad.

On the other hand, if you're a Christian in the middle east, your neighbors are being beheaded for their faith.

The American left has finally manufactured a world it likes, mainly because it's now "led"--at least nominally-- by the object of their adulation. How could they have known things would turn out this way?

How could anyone have known?  Virtually very day a headline uses that word "unexpectedly."  And now we are about to witness a clash between the “how could we know” PC elites and a bloodthirsty Islamic killers.

Christians in Iraq, Syria, Egypt and the rest of the middle east don't have any options. They're being killed in droves, their wives and daughters kidnapped. There is no way back; no way forward either except through the slave market or the mass grave.

Can what's left of the free world defeat the Islamic State? Or will they make good their boast to fly their flag over whatever's left of the White House?

Saturday, August 9

Is Obama malicious or merely incompetent?

If you were flying on a commercial jet and the pilot did something almost certain to cause the plane to crash, would you spend any time debating whether the action was malicious or merely dumb?

I suggest that while that question might be of interest to historians, it would make little difference to you.

Similarly, it makes little difference to me whether Obama is overtly *trying* to destroy the U.S. or is merely incompetent.  The outcome is likely to be the same either way.

Obama seems to have several policies that most rational adults could predict will lead to bad results:  Open borders; amnesty for illegal aliens; illegally using the IRS for political purposes; selectively deciding which laws federal agents won't enforce; cutting our armed forces; making it harder or more costly for business to hire; approving EPA rules that will make manufacturing more costly; taking over health insurance, and decimating the ranks of doctors; appointing education chiefs with crappy, anti-American records;

Simultaneously, reality is showing the crucial importance of border control, maintaining a strong military to combat genuine barbarian monsters; the need for secure energy supplies and a strong economy.

I don't know whether Obama is just inept and making dumb decisions or is trying to destroy the U.S.

Personally I think the first answer is more likely.  But it seems to me we end up with the same outcome either way.

Wednesday, August 6

Who said this?

Who said this?
... [W]hat I'm going to do is I am going to try to reorganize [the American health care system] to be more amenable to treating sick people. But that means you -- particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people -- you're going to have to pay more.

And by the way, we are going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive. So we're going to let you die.

Also, I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid... to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs.

But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you, are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents.
Why, that would be socialist/Democratic stalwart Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration, speaking candidly about health care at UC Berkeley on October 26, 2007.

Question:  Why was the Secretary of Labor speaking as if he was setting health-care policy two weeks before the 2008 election of Barack Hussein Obama?

As an aside, Reich is now a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley.  And he has a blog.

On Aug. 2 on his blog he lamented that there is “little or no relationship” between what someone is paid and their actual worth to society.  He continued, "The moral crisis of our age has nothing to do with gay marriage or abortion.  It’s insider trading, obscene CEO pay...."
According to economists, Reich is paid $240,000 for teaching just one class at Berkeley.  Nice.


That's certainly not "obscene CEO pay" but just plain "obscene."

Not to mention crashingly hypocritical.  But that's to be expected:  Look at his party, and who he worked for:  the husband of  "When we left the White House we were dead broke!"

Muslim in the U.S.: Boston bombing was "a blessing."

Hinda Dhirane is a Muslim living in Washington state.  Federal prosecutors say she funneled money to a terrorist group called Al Shabaab, which operates in Somalia.

As part of the investigation, the feds tapped her phone.

In court Tuesday, prosecutors say she called the Boston Marathon bombing a “blessing.”

Think about that for a minute. 

A "blessing," eh?

This is who we're dealing with.

But they wouldn't do this again, right?  Because "Islam is the religion of peace," right?

Liberals and Democrats support Islam's advance.  If you allow them to, they will have Sharia law operating in certain designated areas before you know it.  It's happened in Britain.  What makes you think it won't happen here?

Oh, that's right:  We have the Constitution--the supreme law of the land--and our leaders defend it.

Hahahahahaha!  Barry and his Dem enablers have long-since trampled that notion.  Barry and the Dems ignore laws they don't like, and let various agencies make "rules" that have the force of law despite having no basis IN our law.

It's on, folks.  Watch for Barry's next executive order, end of August, legalizing all illegal aliens.

Tuesday, August 5

Why would any government start a sperm bank to encourage women to become single moms?

Most people agree that it's very hard for a single mother to raise children to be well-educated, solid, productive adults.  Not impossible, obviously, but very hard.

All the statistics show that children of single mothers are far more likely to be on public assistance, use illegal drugs and become single mothers themselves.

So would it make sense for a government to *encourage* single women to become mothers?

Oh, wait...we're talking about *government*--where the only thing that makes sense is more taxes and more votes for the party in power.

In this case it's the U.K., starting a sperm bank specifically for lesbians.  But if you think that's not coming here soon you haven't been paying attention.

Why is this man hanging two kids from a fence in Gaza?

The photo below was taken in Gaza.  The man appears to be suspending the second of two young boys on a fence, hanging them by their shirts in such a way that they can't free themselves.

Question:  Why is the man doing this?

The caption says he's doing it to prevent the IDF from attacking the house inside the fence.  This novel use of children is effective only because the IDF has demonstrated that it does not want to kill innocent civilians.

But why would the IDF be interested in attacking this particular house?  The answer is that Hamas stores rockets in homes in densely-populated neighborhood, and often fires them from those houses at Israeli towns near the border.

Of course this novel "defense" depends entirely on the IDF seeing the children.  As small as they are, they're very hard to see from more than a hundred yards away--and virtually impossible to spot from an aircraft.  Accordingly, you might wonder how effective this "defense" can be. 

Logically, some of the time spotters would fail to see the children, and would order a strike on the target.  Instant propaganda victory for Hamas.

You may have heard stories about Muslim terrorists using children as human shields.  Because this is so outrageous, so contra to civilized behavior, you almost certainly dismissed those stories as propaganda.

Yeah, dat's it:  The man in the pic was probably just having fun with a couple of local kids. He probably took 'em both down before they choked to death.



Monday, August 4

Hamas has reportedly dug 40 tunnels...into Israel

As you may have heard, the Israeli army has been finding tunnels dug from Gaza.

Lots of tunnels

In the past you may have read stories about Gaza residents tunneling from Gaza under the border with Egypt.  Those tunnels were built to smuggle weapons and luxury goods from Egypt to Gaza, and the smuggling trade has apparently been a lucrative one for hundreds or thousands of Gaza residents.

But the new tunnels were *not* under the border with Egypt, but under the Israeli border.

You might well wonder who on the Israeli side would have helped smuggle goods into Gaza.  But of course that wasn't the purpose of these tunnels.

Rather, the tunnels into Israel seem to have been designed for a far more deadly purpose:  To enable Hamas terrorists to surface near Israeli settlements.

As to why that might be, consider that a number of the 40 tunnels reportedly discovered into Israel were packed with explosives, tranquilizer drugs and syringes.

Unless you're terminally stupid you can figure it out.

Six of the reported 40 tunnels from Gaza into Israel

If a Christian said...

"In the province of Venice, Italy recently a Catholic priest recited a prayer to “count the Muslims one by one and kill them to the very last one.”  He asked God to “turn their food to poison and make the air they breathe blazing hot.” The sermon was posted on the internet last week."

Of course if you're a rational person you're already pretty sure this is bullshit, for a couple of reasons.

The most obvious is that you're pretty sure this kind of rhetoric hasn't been heard from Catholics in, oh, 300 years or so.  Even in the worst of "the troubles" in Belfast decades ago, when a large number Catholics were bombing civilians in an effort to force the British to cede Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic, I don't recall a single member of the Catholic clergy calling for violence. 

While individuals of any faith can get bloodthirsty, that's just not a part of "official" Catholicism--or any other branch of Christianity.

But the second telltale that the first 'graf above was bullshit is that you didn't see it all over the mainstream media.  Cuz you know sure as hell that if a Christian cleric had said something like that, it would have been headline news.

Well if that's true, why didn't any mainstream outlet publish the following story:
In a Friday sermon in the Province of Venice, northern Italy, Sheik Abd Al-Barr Al-Rawdhi prayed to Allah to “count [the Jews] one by one and kill them to the very last one.” Al-Rawdhi, leading the prayers at Al-Rahma Mosque in San Donà di Piave, called upon Allah to “turn their food to poison and make the air they breathe blazing hot.” The sermon was posted on the Internet on July 29, 2014.
Cuz I can guarantee it wasn't moved by any wire service or network in the U.S.

Gee, wonder why not?

Wednesday, July 30

Democrat rep claims Dems never tried to impeach Bush, conveniently "forgets" she co-sponsored a bill to impeach Bush


Sheila Jackson-Lee is a Dem representative from Texas.  She is also arguably one of the dumbest people in congress--which is sayin' a lot.

Earlier today Jackson-Lee echoed the Democrat talking-point that the push by House Republicans to sue president Obama is sort of "impeachment lite" — something she claims Democrats never tried to do to President George W. Bush.  Here's Jackson-Lee speaking on the floor of the House:
I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is in fact a veiled attempt at impeachment and it undermines the law that allows a president to do his job. A historical fact: President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush because as an executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority.
Perhaps Jackson-Lee has been smoking crack.  For one thing, before a single U.S. soldier moved, Bush went to congress seeking congressional permission to commit troops to Iraq.  He received that permission, with "yes" votes from such Democrat whiners as Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and others.

Second, on June 10th, 2008, House Democrats--led by former Rep. Dennis Kucinich--actually did introduce a bill to impeach Bush.  

One would think Jackson-Lee would recall this--seeing as how she co-sponsored the bill.

But of course six whole years have passed since then, so either Jackson-Lee forgot, or she's simply lying, confident that not one American out of a thousand will have the resources to check her charge and call her out.

Which makes her a perfect fit for the Democratic party.

Lie with impunity, because no one will check.  And if someone does find you lied, no one will report it.  And if a few wingnut bloggers do report it, no one will care.  Because Democrats are cool.



Prior to current military operation, was Israel occupying Gaza as Hamas claims? What's your guess?

I don't have connections to either Israel or Palestinians, but I'm fascinated by the intricacy of the conflict and by the propaganda. 

For example, Hamas and all their allies--including the American media--constantly refer to Israel as "occupiers"--though in the case of U.S. media this is typically in the form of quoting Palestinian spokesmen without offering any kind of rebuttal.

Both the accusation and the way it's tacitly supported by U.S. media are brilliant.  I suspect that if you asked Americans whether Israel was occupying the Gaza strip (before the current military action), about 80 percent would agree.  (The same 80 percent who believe Obama has presented a genuine long-form birth certificate for examination.)

But in fact, Israel voluntarily withdrew all Israelis and IDF forces from Gaza in August of 2005.  This withdrawal included removing Israeli settlers from 21 settlements in Gaza.

Yep, the government of Israel offered Israelis who had settled in the strip compensation for their homes and property.  Those who refused the offer were forcibly removed by Israeli soldiers.

I remember being really surprised when the withdrawal was announced.  For one thing, military analysts predicted that removing all IDF troops from the strip would enable Gaza residents to fire rockets into Israel--a prediction that certainly turned out to be accurate.

Amazingly, Palestinian reaction to the plan was mixed, with some denouncing it as not going far enough because it didn't include withdrawal from the West Bank.  Some people will always find something to bitch about.

Tuesday, July 29

Islamic thugs release video of them executing new hundreds of bound teenage boys; U.S. media silent

No one likes distressing news.  In particular, women and feminized males have such a strong aversion to certain kinds of upsetting news that most husbands know not to tell them.  So if you're female or a feminized male, stop reading now.

But if you're a non-feminized male you need to know the truth about...well, damn near everything.

You need to know so you can develop countermeasures.  So your loved ones don't suffer because you were too stupid or lazy or scared--or worried that you might get bumped off the A-list of D.C. parties--to prepare such measures.

Islamic terrorism is old hat.  But a couple of days ago they ramped it up, as thugs of the self-titled “Islamic State” executed hundreds of Shi’ite Muslims in northern Iraq.

Even that's grown to be routine.  The twist is that the thugs videotaped their murders.  The 36-minute video shows several dump-trucks packed full of terrified young men--some appearing to be in their early teens. They're driven to a remote site in what is believed to be Tikrit. In the next scene, dozens of them are laying face-down in the sand with their hands bound behind their back. None of them move.

They are then told to stand up and walk with their hands behind their heads as one of the jihadists raises the Islamic State’s flag. After a short walk, the men are ordered to lie down on the sand before each captive is shot in the head one by one. At least 50 are killed.



Later fifteen young men are marched one at a time to a blood-soaked rock by a river, where masked gunmen await, one of whom is holding the Islamic State’s flag.  One by one the victims are shot in the head and dumped into the river.

Rational people are reluctant to allow themselves to be filmed doing heinous things.  The significance of this video is that the thugs of the so-called Islamic State seem to be eager to have the world see them executing bound and helpless prisoners.

Think about what this means.  Westerners haven't seen this type of behavior in living memory.  It suggests that members of this group can't be negotiated with.  Which in turn suggests there is only one solution to the problem.

Westerners--and particularly soft-hearted Americans--don't want to believe this.  They simply refuse to believe that any human could do such things.  "Oh," they swoon, "these poor souls are just like us, and are simply confused, misguided, mis-informed!  Yes, that's it!  We just need to understand them better!"

By all means, take your best shot at that.  In fact, all you kumbaya-crooning leftists should try your hand, since some of you clearly have far superior communication and negotiating skills.  Perhaps your comrades failed to pacify these fellows because they simply weren't up to the demands of the task.  Surely you will succeed where they failed.  It's definitely worth a try.

But seriously: No mainstream U.S. news outlet has reported on this.  After the terrorists posted the video on YouTube it was viewed by tens of thousands around the world, and copied by the U.K's Telegraph and others, but YouTube has now removed it.  No one in the U.S. media or government wants you to see it.

You might ask yourself why that is.

Wait...this just in:  A reporter asked Obama for comment.  The president replied,  “We condemn these tactics in the strongest possible terms and stand in solidarity with the Iraqi people against these horrendous and senseless acts of violence.”

Oh, sorry...trouble with the wire service.  That statement was actually made by Secretary of State John "I served in VietNam" Kerry.

Wait...it was made by State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki.

What?  You mean it wasn't any of these lofty folks?  It was an anonymous woman at State, who asked not to be named?

Wow, color me shocked.  No U.S. government official will go on the record, by name, condemning this atrocity.  You might ask yourself why that is.

Most of you simply cannot believe what's coming.  Literally, it is (understandably) not just far beyond your experience, but beyond the ability of most Americans to believe.

It's okay.  Just as 70 years ago, a few determined Americans will step up, arm up, make some hard decisions and make the threat go away.

And then five years later the Left will be wailing and bitching and moaning about how mean the American military was, to turn all those poor, misguided folks of the Islamic State into vapor.

 she said.

DC Appeals Court: Constitution's clear "origination clause" doesn't apply if a bill has any other purpose but just *happens* to raise taxes

Today a federal appeals court rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of Obamacare. 

Plaintiffs argued that the Affordable Care Act is a bill for raising revenue and that it violated the Origination Clause of the Constitution because it began in the Senate. The Constitution requires that bills to raise revenue must originate in the House.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the main purpose of the ACA is not to raise revenue but to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance.  Since it isn't primarily a revenue bill, there was no need for it to originate in the House.

Judge Judith Rogers wrote "The Supreme Court has held...that revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word...," and that bills designed for other purposes that increase taxes in an incidental way need not originate in the House.

This is too cute by half.  Let's go see what the Constitution says about it.  It's buried way down in Article 1 (that is, the very first article) Section 7, in the opening paragraph.  So it's not hidden or hard to find.  And it says
1. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Now, I can understand how all liberal judges would naturally interpret this paragraph as applying only to bills designed purely to raise revenue.  Thus if a bill merely, oh, doubled taxes incidental to accomplishing something else, like giving all folks on welfare a free home, the tax increase wouldn't violate this provision because the bill also had some purpose other than raising taxes, and the latter was just sort of accidental.

Makes perfect sense.  Especially when you consider that such a loophole would nullify the stated goal of paragraph one, and we know how much the Founding Fathers liked to screw around with things like that--writing in provisions that they knew would be nullified by logical interpretations, just to mess with future generations.

Those founder dudes really had a great sense of humor, eh?

Oh, Judith Rogers was appointed by Bill Clinton, while the other two judges in the case were appointed by the Emperor himself.  So just remember, citizens:  The Constitution does NOT require that all bills that raise revenue originate in the House.  As long as a bill has any other purpose, anything goes.

Wow, that's so EASY!  Let's try some more, shall we?

Federal court rules that a judge having an affair with a guy's ex--while hearing the man's child-support case!--*can't be sued*

About all you can say about the court system in the U.S. is a) it's not as bad as in most other places; and b) not all judges are corrupt.

With that said, consider the case of a judge named Wade H. McCree, in the notoriously corrupt shit-hole of Wayne County, Michigan.  McCree--son of a judge of the same name--was presiding over a hearing for child support and slapped the father with what were termed "high" child support payments and other significant restrictions on his travel.

Turned out that while McCree was hearing this case, he was having an affair with the man's ex-wife.  In fact, the ex-wife offered sex to McCree if the judge would squeeze the father and threaten him with jail time.

That's bad enough, but it gets worse:  The 6th Circuit Court has now ruled that even though the affair is a matter of record, the man can't file suit against the judge for anything about the judge's decisions while having the affair--even though it happened while the judge was hearing the man's case!

Who in their right mind would think any decision by this judge could possibly have been impartial?

It's shit like this that you'd think would eventually piss enough people off to start a revolution.  Won't happen for a long time of course--and perhaps it won't ever happen here again.  Rather, I think we'll see a steady trickle of smart, well-off people leaving the U.S. for saner pastures.

This is just outrageous.  I can't even understand how this guy can still be on the bench.  Oh wait--McCree's father served as U.S. Solicitor General and was the first black person to sit on the Sixth Circuit.  Doesn't lessen the outrage but now it makes perfect sense.

Judge Wade H. McCree