Wednesday, September 17

Unusual story for the Washington Post to run: 14-year-old Yazidi girl kidnapped by ISIS

The following story was in the Washington Post a week ago.  It's about a 14-year-old Yazidi girl after her village was taken by thugs from ISIS.

The thugs separated the villagers and shot the young men--including her brother.  She and her girlfriend were given to two ISIS commanders for pleasure.

I've condensed the story below.  Keep in mind that this was printed in the Washington Post, not some lunatic fringe publication with no journalistic integrity.  (That's a joke--I think the WaPo has zero integrity, but the majority of our self-styled "elites" seem to believe the things it publishes.)

Early on Aug. 3, relatives called us with terrifying news: Jihadists from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) were coming for us. ...We scrambled out of town on foot, taking only our clothes and some valuables.

After an hour of walking we stopped to drink from a well in the middle of the desert. Our plan was to take refuge on Mount Sinjar with thousands of other Yazidis who were fleeing there, because we had heard a lot of stories about Islamic State brutality and what they had done to non-Muslims. They’d been forcing non-Muslims to convert--or were killing them.

Suddenly several vehicles drove up and we found ourselves surrounded by armed men wearing Islamic State uniforms. We were scared for our lives. There was nothing we could do.

The men divided us by gender and age:  Young men in one group, another for girls and young women, and a third for older men and women. The jihadists stole cash and jewelry from this last group, and left them at the oasis. Then they ordered the girls and women into trucks.

As they drove us away we heard gunshots. Later we learned that they were killing the young men, including my 19-year old brother, who had married just six months ago.
They brought us to an empty school in Baaj, a little town west of Mosul near the Syrian border. There were many other Yazidi women there who had also been captured by Islamic State. They told us their fathers, brothers and husbands had also been killed.

Then Islamic State jihadists came in. They ordered us to recite a Muslim creed and said that if we did we would become Muslims, but we refused. They were furious. They cursed us and our beliefs.

A couple of days later we were taken to a building filled with dozens of Yazidi girls and women in Mosul, where Islamic State has its Iraqi headquarters. The ISIS leaders told us we were pagans.  They kept us in the building for 20 days.  We slept on the floor and were only fed once a day.  Several times an Islamic State man came in and told us to convert to Islam, but each time we refused. As faithful Yazidis, we would not abandon our religion. We wept a lot and mourned the losses suffered by our community.

One day our guards separated the married from unmarried women. My good childhood friend Shayma and I were given as a gift to two Islamic State members from the south, near Baghdad. They wanted to make us their wives or concubines. Shayma was awarded to Abu Hussein, who was a cleric. I was given to an overweight, dark-bearded man about 50 years old who seemed to have some high rank. He went by the nickname Abu Ahmed. They drove us down to their home in Fallujah.

Abu Ahmed, Abu Hussein and an aide lived in a Fallujah house that looked like a palace. Abu Ahmed kept telling me to convert to Islam. He tried to rape me several times but I was able to fight him off.  Instead, he cursed me and beat me every day, punching and kicking me. Shayma and I began to discuss killing ourselves.

The men handed us cell phones and ordered us to call our families.  They’d made it to Mount Sinjar, where ISIS surrounded them and tried to starve them to death. After five days Kurdish rescue forces evacuated them to Syria and then brought them back to northern Iraq. Our captors ordered us to tell our families that if they traveled to Mosul and converted to Islam we would be released.  Understandably, our families did not trust ISIS so they did not make the trip.

On our sixth day in Fallujah Abu Ahmed and the aide left for business in Mosul. Abu Hussein, Shayma’s captor, stayed behind. Around sunset the next evening, he went to the mosque for prayers, leaving us alone in the house. Using our cellphones, we call a Sunni friend of Shayma’s cousin, who lived in Fallujah, for help. It was too dangerous for him to rescue us from the house so Shayma and I used kitchen knives and meat cleavers to break the locks of two doors to get out. Wearing traditional long black abayas that we found in the house, we walked for 15 minutes through town, which was quiet for evening prayers. Then the friend came and picked us up on the street and took us to his home.

He fed us and gave us a place to sleep. The next morning he recruited a cab driver to take us all on the two-hour ride to Baghdad. The driver said he was afraid of Islamic State but offered to help us for God’s sake. We dressed like local women and covered our faces with a niqab, leaving only our eyes visible. Mahmoud gave us fake student IDs in case we were stopped at checkpoints.
After so much fear for so many days, hugging my dad again was the best moment of my life. He said he had cried for me every day since I disappeared. That evening, we went to Khanke, where my mother was staying with her relatives. We hugged and kept crying until I fainted. My month-long ordeal was over, and I felt reborn.

That’s when they told me that Islamic State had shot my brother at the oasis. My sister-in-law, a very beautiful woman, is still captive somewhere in Mosul. 
Okay, liberal readers, I'd like your take on this.  Do you believe the story is factual?  Remember, it was printed in one of your side's iconic papers.

Do I think the Post is always truthful?  Not at all.  I just don't believe they'd publish a lie that harmed The Narrative, as this story does.

If this is factual, tell us:  What force or entity or factor will keep what happened to this 14-year-old Christian girl from happening to you?  Do you think the Islamic State jihadists will miraculously abandon their violent tactics?  Are you serene in the belief that they don't have any way to get to the U.S.?  Tell us exactly what factor will keep you safe.

I keep hoping you liberals/Democrats/"progressives" see some miraculous, hidden factor I've missed.  But so far all I've heard is the usual deluded spoutings of liberal bullshit, like "They're really nice people who have been radicalized by awful, anti-Muslim U.S. policies!"

Or "The other nations of the middle-east will band together and defeat them."  Or "I'm not Christian so I have nothing to worry about."  Or one of my favorites:  "Everyone should be free to believe whatever they want, and if some people believe their religion requires them to cut off the heads of unbelievers, who are we to deny them that right?"

Tell us, liberals.  What's your plan to keep this from happening to you and/or your family?

Tuesday, September 16

Retired State Dept official says he walked in on Sunday document scrub of Benghazi documents at State headquarters

Well isn't THIS amusing!  A guy who was a deputy assistant secretary in the State Department has come forward to say he walked in on a document-scrubbing session in a basement operations center at State Department headquarters on a Sunday afternoon.

The division of "Near-Eastern Affairs" had been ordered to collect all documents--including cables and emails--relevant to the attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, which were to be turned over to the board investigating the attack, looking for security lapses or the origins of a cover story about how the attack started.

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell says he wasn't invited to the Sunday scrub but heard about it and decided to check it out.  He says a State Department office director, whom Maxwell described as close to Clinton’s top advisers, was there. Though the person technically worked for him, Maxwell says he wasn’t consulted about her weekend assignment.

“She told me, ‘Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that might put anybody in the [Near Eastern Affairs] front office or the seventh floor in a bad light,’” says Maxwell. He says “seventh floor” was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisers.

A few minutes after he arrived, Maxwell says, two high-ranking State Department officials came in.  One was Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton's chief of staff. 

“When Cheryl saw me, she snapped, ‘Who are you?’” Maxwell says.  After the other official identified Maxwell as a deputy assistant secretary for the department tasked with collecting documents for the investigating board, Mills seemed satisfied.

The reporter who uncovered this story--the amazing Sharyl Atkisson--asked all the people named by Maxwell for comment.  Predictably, not one responded.  But a state department spokeswhore reassured all you stupid taxpaying peasants that this couldn't possibly have happened.

Well, he didn't exactly say that, but implied that a document-scrubbing effort would have been, like, totally ineffective, because...let me get the quote exactly right here: 
A State Department spokesman told us it would have been impossible for anybody outside the Accountability Review Board (ARB) to control the flow of information because the board cultivated so many sources.
If you concluded that the spokeswhore's comment in no way denied the story, while leaving the impression that it "couldn't" have been true, you win.  That's called a "non-denial denial," and it's a Washington art form.

SO...what are the chances any of the Lying Mainstream Medial will pick up on this story?  How about the chances it'll be on any evening "news" broadcast?  Zero.  Because if Hillary's chief of staff was present, that ties Hillary firmly to the deed.  And the Democrat media will NOT let that happen.

Wait, couldn't this all be a lie made up by the eeeevil Koch brothers and Fox News?  Let's look into just who this "Raymond Maxwell" is.  Cuz he could be part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that Hillary talked about years ago.

Oh wait:  Maxwell is black.  Which means it's highly unlikely he's anti-Hillary.  Moreover, he "strongly supported" Obama and contributed to his campaign.  So the Media can't discredit him without violating Rule 2.

Houston, we have a problem.

Monday, September 15

Who said this?

Who said this?
Civilization as we know it today would be in jeopardy if the Republicans win the Senate.
Why, that would be top Democrat congresscreep and former speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, to Bill Maher.

Hyperventilate much, Nan?  Surely you don't really think that, do ya?  Cuz that's sorta one step away from babbling lunacy.

Of course maybe she's just taking a page from the playbook of the leader of the Democrat party:  Lies work.

Lies win votes.  Lies bring power.

Lies like "If you like your doctor and your health insurance you can keep them."

Lies like "I did NOT draw a red line in Syria.  That was the *world's* red line."

Lies like "Benghazi was caused by a video insulting to Islam."

People like Pelosi need to be called on their insane frothings.  But the Lying Media certainly won't do the job.

Saturday, September 13

President gives "major" speech on "the Islamic State"--never mentions the word "Islam"

The Emperor gave a speech last Wednesday night--and leaks from the White House to friendly media had both ABC and U.S. New (among many others) headlining it in advance as

Obama to give speech Wednesday on Islamic State

Naturally everyone thought that might be the topic.

The Emperor spoke for a long time.  I confess I didn't watch or listen--mainly because as far as I've been able to determine every single word the man says is not just a lie but a transparent, insulting lie, so why waste my time?  But I did do a quick "search" function on the actual transcript.

Much to my non-surprise, the computer couldn't find the word "Islam" anywhere in the text.

I found that so unlikely that I thought my browser's search function had stopped working.  But sure enough, the word "Islam" was never uttered.

By contrast, the word "Islamic" appears...exactly twice, as follows:
At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL — which calls itself the "Islamic State."
Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is not "Islamic."
So of the two times the Emperor said the word "Islamic," one was to flatly state that ISIL was NOT Islamic.

Well that's certainly a head-scratcher.  Cuz, you know, I could have sworn that in the immediately preceding sentence, His Worminess noted that ISIL calls itself the "Islamic State."

But of course, who would believe members of the organization itself against the word of the Emperor, right?  It's like, who could more reliably decide whether the Pope is a Catholic:  The Pope, or Barack H. Obama?  Of course--Obama, hands down.

If Obama had been alive in 1939, one imagines him reassuring Americans that this Hitler fellow was NOT representative of the Nazi party.  And certainly wasn't one himself.

His pronouncement on ISIL is equally absurd.

So the White House leaks that this speech will be about "the Islamic State."  But according to the Emperor, there is no connection whatsoever between "ISIL" and "Islam."

Other than the fact that actual, you know, members of ISIL call their group "The Islamic State."

And the Emperor immediately told ya ISIL was NOT Islamic.

But don't worry, Citizen:  The Emperor has a brilliant strategy to solve...whatever the hell is wrong over there, if anything.  He won't bother telling you what it is, simply because you couldn't possibly comprehend it, because he's so much smarter than you are.  But don't worry your head about that.

Oh, and that bit in the Consolution or Conflagration or Consternation or whatever that crumbling old yellowing sheet of rambling is called, where it says congress shall have the power to declare war?  The Emperor doesn't need that.  Cuz he's got a PEN--which folks back in 1789 never could have imagined.

Armed with this "pen" invention, the Emperor no longer needs the permission of congress to go to war.  Not that we'll be going to war, of course.  Unless critics say we're not being forceful enough, in which case yes, it's war, but just not war-war.  Or something like that.

See, I tol' ya you couldn't possibly comprehend his strategy.

Which totally proves he's brilliant.

Obama's non-strategy to fight/not fight a war/not a war, against non-Islamic non-terrorists is rock solid, baby

The American public has been thoroughly conditioned to believe several things:  That America (and particularly capitalism and freedom) is essentially bad.  That going to war is always bad.  And that thugs who have openly, repeatedly announced their intention to kill all of us--statements they've videotaped and posted on the internet--are just poor, misguided souls who aren't really serious.

Of course all these beliefs are utter bullshit, but the constant barrage of propaganda by the American media, plus left-wing professors and Dem pols, have convinced at least half of the public of their truth.

Those who study military history know that merely going into a country and breaking a few things doesn't ensure peace, but quite the opposite:  The people you acted against will rally their fellow citizens to try again. 

But liberal/"progressive"/socialist conditioning has caused Americans to forget that there's another approach:  to crush the other side so completely that the survivors are horrified even by the prospect of contemplating taking up arms again.  But of course, the conditioning noted above makes Americans unwilling to endorse that strategy.

So, Leftists, progs and Democrats:  if you're unwilling to defeat radical Islam so utterly and thoroughly that they never again even consider violence, what's your strategy?

To see if we have a ghost of a chance of agreeing on anything, how 'bout answering a couple of questions for us?  First, do you believe that numerous spokesmen for Islamic militants have said they want to take over the world and turn it into a "caliphate"?

Seen any of the clips where some imam or Sunni guru claims "democracy is evil" and anti-Islamic?

If you've seen any of those video clips--and there are LOTS--do you believe the speakers were just spouting bullshit that they haven't the faintest intention of actually doing--as U.S. politicians often do--or do ya think they were/are serious?

If you think they're serious, and you oppose killing enough of them to make them renounce suicide bombs and hijacking and the whole gamut of lethal shit they do now, are you willing to commit your children to living under a regime that bans women from wearing anything other than black bags?

How about a society that bans *music*?  (Y'all think I'm kidding, right?)

If you're not willing to consign your kids to those things, what kind of intervention are you counting on to save us from becoming part of the "caliphate"?  The U.N.?  The E.U.?  The so-far never seen "moderate" muslims?

Do ya think cutesie ads for Coca-Cola ("I'd like to teach the world to sing/in perfect har-mo-neee...") will make them see reason?  Think giving 'em lots of foreign aid will do the trick?

Do you believe that if we simply don't use force against them, they'll stop trying to make the whole world muslim?

Many (most?) "progressives" blame "root causes" for the determination of Muslims to kill westerners.  "They only hate us because we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan," say progs.  "So when we leave Afg at the end of the year they'll stop trying to kill us.  After all, the only reason those poor muslim guys flew those planes into those buildings was because we'd invaded Iraq!"


Root.  Fucking.  Causes, baby.  Explains everything.

So do you suggest we simply ignore 'em and hope they don't try to smuggle or deliver by missile a nuclear bomb into the U.S.?  How you gonna ensure that?  Is that a hit you're willing to take?  I mean, it's really not a problem for you *personally,* right?  You probably didn't know anyone who was killed on 9/11 either, so in the long run how much does it really matter, eh?

Do you believe having a few hundred American civilians killed each year by jihadi action is an acceptable price to pay to avoid using all-out military force against them?  I mean, people get killed every day, right?  So what are a few hundred civilian deaths each year?  We Democrats are quite willing to put up with that.  No big deal.

Of course that's will change if the rag-heads get an atomic bomb.  Or do you think muslim fanatics won't get their hands on an atomic bomb in your lifetime?  If you claim they won't, what's the basis for your belief?  Do you know--in detail--what it takes to make an atomic bomb?  If you do, what component do you think the fanatics are missing?

You're convinced you're smaht, because you're professors or media editors or such, and you voted for the emperor both times.  But do you know if any muslim-ruled country has atomic bombs now?  If one or more does, and if that nation has been credibly, seriously threatened by radical factions within its own population, would that change your risk calculations at all?  Because if the radicals got half-a-dozen of their members into the right posts, they could steal a bomb from the nation's stockpile fairly easily.

But you say even if the "militants" get an atom bomb it doesn't threaten us, because they don't have missiles with enough range to get it here.  SO THERE, SMARTY!

Surely you're not gonna count on that to save us, are ya?  Because thinking they'd need a missile to get a bomb to the U.S. is childishly naive.  And surely you know it.

So looks like you progs and Dems and libs are back to "Well, it's worth the deaths of a few thousand civilians to avoid going to war."

I disagree.  Strongly.

Monday, September 8

U.S. Media have decided Muslim atrocities are boring

The ghastly, wholesale massacres by Boko Haram and ISIS are proving to be too extreme for the media to obscure with their P.C. smoke screen.

Solution?  Ignore 'em.  Or at least move 'em from the front page to somewhere obscure.  "If we don't mention a threat, our Emperor won't be put in the "difficult" position of having to either do something or say it's not a problem."  What reporter would be brazen enough to ask the Emperor a pointed question about something no one has heard about for months?

Recent events in Rotherham--you all know about those events, right?--should be enough to convince feminists and other leftists that Islam is brutal toward women.  But of course it won't.

Did you know rape is epidemic in a handful of northern European cities with high Muslim populations?  Oh, leftists shrug, it's just a coincidence.

No, it's not.  99% of those rapes are being committed by Muslim immigrants.  Many aren't even reported, because the rapists threaten the family of the victim. 

You'd think the governments of those cities and nations would bring the hammer down, ending Muslim immigration and prosecuting the rapists.

You'd be wrong.  There has been no change whatsoever.  EU governments still welcome Muslim immigrants and give 'em all welfare, and in many cases "free" housing.  You might ask yourself why.

Saturday, September 6

The emperor gives a press conference in Europe, dodges simple question

Three days ago, after Islamic thugs released a second video of them beheading a bound American journalist, the incomparably brilliant emperor of the United States gave a a press conference in Estonia.  Reporters and liberals all over the world were hanging on His Majesty's every word.  So without further ado...
Q  [to the emperor]  Now that a second American has been slain, what is your response?  Will you have a full strategy now on ISIS...?

THE EMPEROR:  Well, keep in mind that from the outset, the moment that ISIS went into Mosul, we were very clear that this was a very serious threat not just to Iraq but to the region and to U.S. interests.  And so we’ve been putting forward a strategy since that time that was designed to do a number of things.
Wait...isn't he speaking just a day after he'd told reporters "We don't have a strategy"
Number one, to make sure Americans were protected in Iraq, in our embassies, in our consulates.  Number two, that we worked with Iraqis to create a functioning government that was inclusive and that could serve as the basis for Iraq to begin to go on the offensive.
And the airstrikes that we’ve conducted in support of protecting Americans conducting humanitarian missions and providing space for the Iraqi government to form have borne fruit.  We’ve seen that in Sinjar Mountain.  We’ve seen it most recently in the town of Amerli, which heroically held out against a siege by ISIL.  We’re seeing progress in the formation of an inclusive Sunni-Shia-Kurd central government.  And so what we’ve seen is the strategy that we’ve laid out moving effectively.

But what I’ve said from the start is that this is not going to be a one-week or one-month or six-month proposition.  Because of what’s happened in the vacuum of Syria, as well as the battle-hardened elements of ISIS that grew out of al Qaeda in Iraq during the course of the Iraq war, it’s going to take time for us to be able to roll them back.
Nice ploy to convince people that the insane butchery by the bloodthirsty fanatics of ISIS is "Bush's fault."  
And it is going to take time for us to be able to form the regional coalition that's going to be required so that we can reach out to Sunni tribes in some of the areas that ISIS has occupied,
Wait...I thought the bad guys--ISIS--were Sunnis.  So Obama's strategy is that we're going to "degrade and destroy" ISIS by...reaching out to other members of the same cult?  Yeah, I totally get it...
...and make sure that we have allies on the ground in combination with the airstrikes that we’ve already conducted.

So the bottom line is this:  Our objective is clear, and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL so that it’s no longer a threat not just to Iraq but also the region and to the United States.  In order for us to accomplish that, the first phase has been to make sure that we’ve got an Iraqi government that's in place and that we are blunting the momentum that ISIL was carrying out.  And the airstrikes have done that.

But now what we need to do is make sure that we’ve got the regional strategy in place that can support an ongoing effort -- not just in the air but on the ground -- to move that forward.

And last week when this question was asked, I was specifically referring to the possibility of the military strategy inside of Syria that might require congressional approval.  It is very important from my perspective that when we send our pilots in to do a job, that we know that this is a mission that's going to work, that we’re very clear on what our objectives are, what our targets are; we’ve made the case to Congress and we’ve made the case to the American people; and we’ve got allies behind us so that it’s not just a one-off, but it’s something that over time is going to be effective.

And so the bottom line is this, Ann -- it’s not only that we’re going to be bringing to justice those who perpetrated this terrible crime against these two fine young men.  More broadly, the United States will continue to lead a regional and international effort against the kind of barbaric and ultimately empty vision that ISIL represents.  And that's going to take some time, but we’re going to get it done.  I’m very confident of it.

Q    Did you just say that the strategy is to destroy ISIS, or to simply contain them or push them back?

THE EMPEROR:  Our objective is to make sure that ISIL is not an ongoing threat to the region.  And we can accomplish that. It’s going to take some time and it’s going to take some effort. As we’ve seen with al Qaeda, there are always going to be remnants that can cause havoc of any of these networks, in part because of the nature of terrorist activities.  You get a few individuals, and they may be able to carry out a terrorist act.

But what we can do is to make sure that the kind of systemic and broad-based aggression that we’ve seen out of ISIL that terrorizes primarily Muslims, Shia, Sunni -- terrorizes Kurds, terrorizes not just Iraqis, but people throughout the region, that that is degraded to the point where it is no longer the kind of factor that we’ve seen it being over the last several months.
Anyone remember the question?

"Q:  Did you just say that the strategy is to destroy ISIS, or to simply contain them or push them back?"

Did any of you hear a clear answer to that clear, straightforward, non-tricky question?  What I heard was a lot of buzzwords but no bottom line--nothing you could misinterpret as an actual, y'know...action.  But is anyone at all surprised?

Why is Obozo reluctant to say "Ann, it's clear that ISIL is populated by utterly amoral, evil fanatics.  Under normal circumstances we might go in carefully--as the last president did in Iraq a decade ago--find those who have beheaded and otherwise shot captured prisoners, try them and hang them--as we did with Saddam Hussein.  But at this point I think they're all equally guilty and not worth sorting out.  Thus our strategy will be to utterly wipe them out to the last man.  The only ones we won't kill are those who surrender and turn over every weapon they have.  Anyone who resists or lies will be killed on the spot, with no apologies."

Now I'll be the first to admit that it will take a major military effort to destroy ISIL.  I'll also admit that if the U.S. leads, some nations on the bubble will decide to sit on their hands and let the U.S. do it all.  But if the U.S. does NOT take a strong lead in military action, I don't see any other nation jumping in. 

If we do nothing, is there any other nation or coalition that can stop ISIL?  I don't think so.  If that's true, Obama must make a decision to either send our military to war, or shrug and let the rest of the world deal with the problem.  And as noted above, I think that's a dead end.
Interestingly, in stark contrast to his mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy, bullshit non-commitment on ISIL, Obama has no trouble articulating a strong, unambiguous position on illegal invaders into the U.S:  On Friday the emperor said illegal immigrants should not have to “look over their shoulder”...despite being in the U.S. illegally.

Which of course is consistent with his promise to give 'em all amnesty.

Interesting contrast, eh?

Feds release job report for August. Watch as liberal media spins bad numbers into great news!

The feds have released the preliminary job report for August, which showed that the economy added...

Wait, why am I telling you this, because you already know it.  Because it was on all the network "news" broadcasts and on the front pages of all your newspapers, right?

Wasn't it?

Gee, that's...strange.  Because the emperor's boosters and cheerleaders in the media keep telling you almost every day about what a roaring fucking economy the emperor has unilaterally created--because of his brilliance and strategic thinking and quiet determination to ignore congress and the constitution.

Well, we'll have to leave the investigation of the mysterious Mainstream Media blackout of the labor report for another day.  For now we'll just do the media's work and tell ya:  The economy added 142,000 jobs last month.

Yay!!!  Excitement!!  Happy days! that a good number or a bad one?

If the U.S. media were honest they'd explain.


Yeah, that was pretty goofy.

Okay, the consensus of most economists is that just to keep up with routine layoffs, the number of people just entering the job market and *legal* immigration, the economy must create about 240,000 jobs every month.  So 142,000 is barely over half what's needed just to keep the number of working Americans level.

Fortunately for the emperor and his lackeys, despite the fact that the "booming economy" created almost 100,000 fewer jobs in August than the number needed to break-even, a different factor magically intervened to ensure that the official unemployment rate actually dropped slightly.  And that saver was...drum roll please...that twice as many Americans stopped looking for a job in August as were newly hired.

Yes, the percentage of Americans officially not even bothering to look for a job has reached a level not seen in 36 years.  But you don't read much about that, because...well, who wants to read bad news?

Wait...when unemployment was 5.7% during the Bush administration the media were bashing him as being just terrible for the economy!  So guess the media are perfectly happy to trumpet "bad: economic news when a Republican is president.  Now?  Not so much.  Wonder what changed?

And of course according to the Media the current poor economy has absolutely nothing to do with the policies of Harry Reid, Barack Obama and senate Democrats--like more goofy regulation on businesses, EPA raids on companies, the economic disaster of Obamacare and the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.  No, citizen, it's Bush's fault.

Friday, September 5

You gotta be kidding. No, guess not.

Conservatives have been saying for years that the Mainstream Lying Media has been totally in the tank for the Democrat party.  So their stories--both print and broadcast--support Democrats and their policies, regardless of how damaging to the nation.

So here's the latest proof:  The lefty rag "Huffington Post" has hired a "9-11 truther."

Oh well, no big deal.  Except they hired this guy to cover...national security issues??

Almost every sane American understands that the World Trade Center was destroyed by Muslims who hijacked commercial airliners loaded with innocent passengers and then flew the planes into the buildings--as shown on live television.  The evidence is massive.

But here's what HuffPo's new national security hire says about it:

Oh yeah, rock-solid grasp of reality.  Cuz, you know, they claim to be the "reality-based community."

Sunday, August 31

U.N. "peacekeeping" forces captured or retreat on Israel-Syria border

The United Nations operates what it bills as "peacekeeping forces."  These of course do nothing of the sort, but the charade allows the U.N. to raise lots of money from idealists by claiming to help keep peace.  So-called "peacekeeping" forces from Fiji, the Philippines and Ireland are stationed between Israel and Syria.  

According to the general commanding the Fiji troops, last Thursday morning the on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights three vehicles carrying about 150 armed men--reportedly members of the Muslim "al-Nusra front" group--arrived at the Fijian camp.

The general said the men demanded the Fijian troops leave within 10 minutes and insisted they board the rebel vehicles. The Fijians were taken by the rebels to an unknown location and are still missing.
Shortly thereafter a group of armed men converged on a pair of encampments of Philippine "peacekeepers" a few miles away, ordering the troops to surrender their weapons and get in the rebel vehicles.

To their great credit the Philippine troops refused.  Reportedly there was a firefight, and the Philippine troops retreated into Israel.

The Fijians are still being held by the Muslim fighters.

I relate this story because until experience educates 'em, humans interpret names and titles as being descriptive of a thing's actual function.  Thus most people would thing a group said to be a "peacekeeping force" get it.

But as the above events show--for the thousandth time--U.N. troops are utterly ineffective at peacekeeping, because they are "armed forces" in name only:  Everyone knows their orders are to simply serve as sensors or tripwires.

Fair enough, but once the tripwire is tripped, then what?

The concept of U.N. "peacekeeping forces" is nothing more than a great fundraiser for U.N. officials--who, by the way, refuse to disclose salaries and bonuses they give themselves.

The U.N. may have been started with good intentions, but has become one of the most useless, corrupt, subverted organizations on earth.  If peace is to be kept it will be because group "A" decides attacking group "B" is suicidal--because B is not only armed to the teeth but has repeatedly destroyed any group that threatens it.

Not sure if Obama ever learned that.  His leftist parents surely didn't tell him, and he wouldn't have learned it in school in Indonesia.  Eh, not important.  Because "the world is much less dangerous today than it was 30 years ago."

At least that's what Barack Obama claims.

But don't worry:  Emperor Barack and his clever state department have a sure-fire plan: #Bring_back_our_UN_peacekeepers

Cuz a hashtag assault worked so well in recovering 300 school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram four months ago, right?

Saturday, August 30

Obama: "Things are *much* less dangerous now than 20 years ago."

With ISIS executing thousands of unarmed prisoners and beheading Americans, Russia gradually invading Ukraine and the largest outbreak of Ebola in history, a couple of days ago Obama spoke at a fundraiser held by the Democrat National Committee.  And here's how he says things *really* are:

Did you get that?  The fantasy president *promises* that not only are things less dangerous today than they were 20 or 30 years ago, they're "much less dangerous."

You will, of course, be suitably reassured.  Because the Democrat media will assure you that he's right.  Indeed, even now the U.S. media is starting to ignore the ghastly butchery by ISIS/ISIL/IS.  Ukraine has dropped off the radar.  Obama has already assured Russia that the U.S. has no treaties or interest in events there, so...

You have to wonder if he really believes what's written for him, or just doesn't care how unreal it sounds.

Obama administration orders school officials not to attempt to verify ages of illegal-alien "students"

The very informative Ace of Spades blog noted that the mayor of Lynn, Massachusetts gave a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.  She had something to say about the illegal-alien "children" Obama has allowed to stay in the U.S., and spent taxpayer funds to fly to cities far from the Mexican border.

These so-called "children" are enrolling in local schools--as expected, and which is required to qualify for the "deferred action on immigration."  And the mayor said this:
"One of the things we noticed when we were processing some of these students coming in was that they were adults.
In fact, one of the "students" turned out to be 35 years old.
"We were told through a directive from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that we were not to question or verify -- attempt to verify their ages."

Under what possible legal principle can the Obama administration--through its agents in the infamously lawless Department of Injustice--order school officials not to "question or attempt to verify" the ages of illegal immigrants enrolling in their schools?

Unless they passed one in the dead of night--as with Obamacare--there is no such law or authority.  Rather, this is one more example of lawless behavior by Ogabe's regime--a dictatorship in open rebellion against the laws of the United States.

A 35-year-old clearly can't pass as a highschool-age student.  But to take advantage of the Obama executive order allowing certain illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. forever, they must be students--and so must pretend to be teenagers, even if it's a ridiculous reach.

So they're pretending.  Local officials know it's a scam.  Obama knows it's a scam, and that people who actually interact with the so-called "children" recognize it as such.  But all that matters to Obama and Democrats is that no local official makes an official finding of adults posing as highschool students.

Obama knows that if anyone questions these so-called "children," a lot of them will turn out to be adults--which will cause a handful of negative headlines, and harm his "It's for The Children" cover story. So his government has ordered local governments not to attempt to verify the ages of these alleged "children."

Dear Democrats and media:  You sold this guy to voters.  You covered for every red flag, every warning bell, every gaffe.  You are totally responsible for the multiple disasters he's caused, whether through unconstitutional executive orders or through his infamous habit of refusing to make decisions to support national security.

Hope you're enjoying it.

Friday, August 29

Shocker: Lois Lerner's emails are on a server after all--but Obama henchmen say "too hard to find 'em"

If you're a normal, hard-working adult, probably trying to raise kids, chances are great that you've almost forgotten about the IRS scandal of a couple of years ago.  That was the one where a brazen Democrat head of an IRS subdivision used her agency's powers to delay approving tax-exempt status for conservative political organizations--for as much as three years--while quickly approving the same status for similar organizations that supported Democrats and progressive causes.

The person running that little empire was Lois Lerner.

When a House committee asked the head of the IRS to explain, the first story was "nothing of the sort happened."  Then as evidence trickled in, that changed to 'It was all because of a couple of rogue employees in a field office in some far-from-Washington city like Cincinnati.'  Too far away for us to monitor, see?

Then emails started surfacing between the far-away field office and IRS headquarters suggesting that the Obama administration was not only aware but may actually have hatched the plan to begin with, to cripple conservative fund-raising and political efforts.

If so that would have been extremely illegal.

A House committee subpoenaed Lerner to testify.  She took the Fifth.  Then they subpoenaed all Lerner's government emails--at which point the IRS claimed that Lerner's hard-drive had crashed, conveniently wiping out exactly the years of emails that would have held a smoking gun.  Then after computer specialists announced that since emails have both a sender and a receiver, emails Lerner sent would also be on the recipient's computer, the IRS announced that the hard-drives of seven close associates of Lerner's had ALSO crashed and been destroyed.

Rational adults began to suspect something was rotten with this string of coincidences.  But it got worse.

There's a quaint thing called a "law"--which supposedly limited what governments could do.  One such "law" required federal agencies to back up emails and other records.  But unbelievably, the IRS claimed that no such backups existed for their little kingdom.  Yep, we just said "No, thanks, we don't think we'll do that" and that was that.  Cuz laws are for the little people. 

And sure enough, while lots of Americans were stunned and outraged by this, the public's attention predictably turned elsewhere.  The Obama administration seemed to have escaped.

Then a week ago attorneys for the IRS told Judicial Watch that, um, all the IRS records--including Lois Lerner’s emails--were indeed backed up on a government server.  But the Obama administration said it would be too hard to search this back-up system to find Lerner's emails.

Ah, got it.  Too hard to do.  Check.  Well then, off you go.  Have a nice day.

This is a jaw-dropping revelation.  Shockingly, the Obama administration--through their appointees at the IRS--has been lying to the American people for a year in claiming no backups for IRS records existed.  Lois Lerner’s emails are NOT missing, but rather the Obama administration has lied and refused to provide them, despite a lawsuit and subpoena.

The Obama administration has known all along that the backup records existed – but chose to dishonestly withhold that information.  Their strategy appears to have been that destroying or withholding subpoenaed evidence wouldn't be discovered--or if it was, would cause less damage to Democrats than whatever is in the files they’ve so far concealed and lied about.

This is sure evidence of a government with nothing but pure contempt for the people.

Thursday, August 28

State Department: If someone claiming to be Muslim says something threatening, they aren't true Muslims

The leader of Nigerian Islamist group Boko Haram released a video in which he says
Democracy is worse than homosexuality, worse than sleeping with your mother.  You are all pagans and we will kill you, even if you do not attack us we will kill you … Allah commands us to kill without pity.  Allah has granted us success in Gwoza because we have risen to do Allah’s work.
In Washington a High Priestess for the State Department immediately issued a statement to reporters that the man who appeared in the video didn't represent Muslims and was not a true Muslim, because true Muslims would never dream of saying such things when the U.S. has such a brilliant, charismatic leader as President Obama.

Obama on ISIS: "We don't have a strategy yet." Press secretary lies to cover

"Business Insider" reports that Obama made some comments to the press today about a few of the current international crises, and when a reporter asked him about the next step his administration had planned to confront or contain ISIS here's what he said:
I don't want to put the cart before the horse.  We don't have a strategy yet.
Interesting, but not a bit surprising.

More interesting was the "tweet" sent by his press secretary said barely an hour later:
In his remarks today [Obama] was explicit--as he has been in the past--about the comprehensive strategy we'll use to confront ISIL threat.
Wait...didn't Obama just say an hour earlier that "We don't have a strategy yet"?  And yet his press sec brazenly says Obama "was explicit...about the comprehensive strategy we'll use to confront" ISIL.

I don't think stuff like this is just incompetence.  Rather, I think Obama's advisors had this statement crafted and ready to go, regardless of its total falsity.

Reality?  Who cares?

Transparency?  That's just a catchy sound-bite for the networks to use to win votes from the rubes.  You didn't seriously believe we meant that, did you?

The Constitution?  Irrelevant words penned by white men, so not binding on the Emperor.

Border security?  We'll let in whoever we want, and you can't stop us.

Your kids' future?  We couldn't care less.

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.