Tuesday, July 22

Administration spokesman tells reporter the percentage of illegal "children" that have been released

Kenneth Wolfe is deputy director of the Office of Public Affairs at ACF.

Of course most of you have never heard of this agency, and no wonder:  Who can keep up with the numberless federal agencies?  Seems like a dozen new ones a month.

Anyway, ACF is the "Administration of Children and Families."  Which is a branch of those zany health Nazis at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Another office under HHS is the Office of Refugee Resettlement.  Kenneth apparently speaks for that office too.  So Deputy Director of the ACF's Office of Public Affairs Kenneth Wolfe is the closest thing to a point man you're likely to find at Team Obama. 

Coupla days ago a nice middle-aged lady asked Kenneth how many unaccompanied children had come across the border since October of last year.  Of course neither Kenneth nor anyone else has anything other than a guess, but he did tell her that 45, 157 "children" had passed through the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement since October.

Okay, the nice lady asked, How many of those have been released in the U.S?

Because the nice lady looked like all the other female reporters who love Democrats, Kenneth assumed she was part of that group and that he could give her the real number instead of the lawyerized one:  96 percent had been released to a "sponsor" inside the U.S, he said. 

Except Kenneth didn't say "released" but used the less-inflammatory term "discharged.”  Cuz if we say "released" all them Tea Party terrorists will be down here with their assault rifles in two days.

As has already been noted, many of the "sponsors" the kids are going to are family members, and many of them are *also* in the U.S. illegally. 

Pretty neighborly of Team Obama to give the kids "free" transportation to join their illegal parents in the U.S, eh?

Now before Cheryl or Nancy goes off on me, let me quickly say that once a kid under 17 or so sneaks across the border and turns him- or herself in to U.S. authorities, no one wants to just bus 'em back to the nearest Mexican town and let 'em fend for themselves.  Instead, it would be great if the government said that anyone who *did* come here and had illegal family already here would result in the whole family being deported.

The benefit of this approach is that you wouldn't need to get the word out in Central American countries, but just here in the U.S., through public-service announcements.

Think that'd cut the flow of kids by about 97 percent?

Of course when Obama issued the executive order saying federal employees were to stop deporting "Dreamer" kids (what a public-relations coup *that* acronym was, eh?), just the opposite happened: every illegal in the U.S. who had a kid or nephew back home picked up the phone and said Hey, they just threw the doors wide open!  C'mon up and we'll pretend you're my kid!

But not to worry, citizen:  They're just here because they're fleeing bad conditions in their home countries.  So we just have to let them in and let 'em vote.  I mean, there can't be more than a few thousand people in that situation, right?  So what would it hurt to let a few thousand poor "refugees" in?  Besides, as soon as conditions improve back home I'm sure they'll all be *eager* to go back.

Meanwhile, Welcome to America!  This way to the Food Stamp office.  There's the free hospital.  Everyone gets free schooling, and schools aren't allowed to ask you if you're here legally.  Oh, and if you have a water bill you can vote.  But only in local elections.  No, I don't know what that means, and no one is allowed to ask you for ID, so...just remember to vote for everyone with a "D" next to their names.

I think it means "Us Dems is Dee-lighted you're here!"

Federal court of appeals for D.C. says Obamacare violating the ACA on subsidies for all

Well today another court decision came down today saying Team Obama is breaking another law.  And this ruling came not from a lower court but from a 3-judge panel from the court of appeals for the D.C. circuit--which legal observers describe as "powerful."

Background:  THE big draw of Obamacare--as everyone knows--was and is the provision that gives users a juicy subsidy.  The subsidy is absolutely crucial--it's how Obie could claim everyone would save thousands a year on health insurance.

Problem was, the actual *language* of the law says--quite clearly and specifically--that these subsidies were only available to people who joined a *state* "health exchange."

But as state governors and legislators started seeing what a monster this was, they realized creating a viable health exchange would probably cost 'em $200 million or more.  Thus 36 states decided they'd pass on this expense, and said their peeps would use the federal "exchange."

See the problem yet?  If you do, you're smarter than most Democrats.  Cuz it got by all of 'em.

Oh wait, that's right:  Not a single member read the whole bill before voting on it.

Even Nancy Pelosi--who was then the fucking Speaker of the House, fer cryin' out loud--said "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."

But no problem, citizen:  According to the Emperor and all Dem leaders the actual language of a law doesn't mean squat, since the Emperor can change anything he disagrees with.  Cool!

So when people signed up for Obammycare, that astonishingly competent ACA website gave everyone who claimed low income those sweeet, sweeeet subsidies regardless of where they lived.

Um...oops.  That wasn't what the law clearly stated.

But still, no problem:  The Emperor can change the law to whatever he wanted all along.  Cuz he's soooo smart!  Mind as sharp as the front end of a baseball.

Sadly, two of the three judges on the court of appeals said even the Emperor's people had to do what the law said.  Hard to know where they got that idea, but there ya go.

Team Obama is already arguing that it was NOT the intent of congress that subsidies could only be paid to people who had joined a State exchange.  You'll be shocked to learn that this is unmitigated bullshit.  That provision was absolutely intentional: congress inserted it to give the states a strong incentive to set up their own health care exchanges.

This attempt to coerce or bribe states into setting up their own exchanges had the double-benefit of  absolving the federal government of blame for any screw-ups--which of course turned out to plague the ACA website.  So 36 states declined the invitation (or, if you like, the bribe).

When it became clear that over two-thirds of the states would not be setting up their own exchanges, the administration could have asked Congress to rewrite the statute.  But of course this would have required another legislative battle, as by then the GOP had won a majority in the House.

So what did the Obama administration do?  In an all too typical pattern, it chose to act lawlessly, ordering the payment of subsidies never authorized by Congress.  I guess they all believed their own propaganda, that language only means what they say it does.

But still, no problem:  Team Obama has announced it will appeal to the entire court.  Dem leaders and "progressive" (i.e. socialist) strategists are confident they'll win there, since 7 of the 11 judges on the whole court were appointed by Democrats, and thus can be expected to put party over the law.

Even more telling:  Normally when a party to a case loses a decision in a high court, they stop doing the offending act until the next appeal is decided, since there's no guarantee the next appeal will support them.  But Obama's lawless Department of Injustice has already announced that the Obama administration will keep giving Obamacare subsidies to every low-income applicant, in violation of the clear language of the act--as well as today's opinion by the court.

Before the current administration this would have been a provocative and potentially impeachable act.  Today it's totally unsurprising.

Oh, for those of you who think this is all just crazy tinfoil-hat talk:  Click here.  It's the HHS website for the ACA.  Then scroll down a page or so until you see
Certified Full-Text Version: Affordable Care Act (PDF – 4.27 MB)

Download--at a svelte 4.27 megabytes it shouldn't take too long.  On page 237 (of 2,409) you should see the heading "Premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions."  Go to the next page at line 16, which should read "Premium assistance amount."  The bite is in lines 25-26.

Two thousand four-hundred and nine pages.  To essentially take over health insurance and compel all citizens to buy it.  What could possibly go wrong?

Sunday, July 20

"Religion of peace" strikes again--100 innocents killed

Muslim terrorists in Nigeria have attacked another village, killing over 100.  Witnesses said the attackers fired RPGs into homes and shops and then gunned down people trying to escape the fires.

Hundreds of villagers in another northeast area, Askira Uba, are fleeing after receiving letters from the Islamic extremists threatening to attack their areas.

Of course mainstream Muslim groups will quickly and loudly condemn these heinous murders, right?


Dem strategists pushing the lie that "Impeachment is the ONLY remedy available."

Most of us over the age of 40 or so were taught at least the basics of the Constitution in high school--that the federal government has three branches and that the Constitution created a system of "checks and balances" by which each branch can keep the others from exceeding or abusing their legal authority.

Guess what?  According to Democrats, that stuff about "checks and balances" was all a lie.  Because in the Age of Obama, we don't need congress to make laws.  Instead the president can make laws.  And ignore laws.  And according to Democrats there is no power short of impeachment to force the president to obey the law or the Constitution.

Now I suspect some of you older hands are thinking, "I recall a few cases where the Supreme Court ruled that the president had to obey a certain law--and the president then followed that decision."  Quite true.  But that was when we had a Republican president, and Democrats controlled both houses of congress.

And most importantly, it was before the Age of Obama.

Consider the arguments made by Democrats backing Obama's unilateral nullification of U.S. immigration law, and unilateral delay of the "mandate deadline" of Obamacare.  Here's the gist:
One of the barriers to standing is that in order to sue in court, an individual needs to suffer a concrete injury. The mandate delays have not caused a specific injury to any member of Congress. 
This lovely bit of rationalizing was at a website called "Newsweek"--a Democrat-fluffing "news" magazine that was sold for one dollar and ceased print.  The author is arguing that congress can't ask the Supreme Court to decide whether actions by the president violate the Constitution, nor whether the other two branches have the power to force the president to (gasp!) obey the Constitution and duly-passed laws.

For those of you under 30 or so, you may not know that impeachment is actually a two-step process:  Impeachment itself involves the House voting to send the president to trial in the senate.  The senate then votes on whether the president is to be removed from office.

Democrat strategists know full well that since they hold a majority in the senate, impeachment by the House is futile, since the Democrat-controlled senate would never vote to remove Obama from office.  Thus it's very much to their advantage to get the public to believe that the ONLY remedy for a rogue, Constitution-raping president is...impeachment.

Of course that's bullshit, but the Dems know they can count on their allies in the Lying Media to parrot their claims uncritically.  For example, here's Newsweek again:
Democrats repeatedly made the point that the suit is a political stunt. “The dividing line in this frivolous lawsuit is not the legislative versus the executive, it is Republican versus Democrat, and I hope that the courts will see that,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York.
Again, they're trying to get the public to believe that the only remedy for a president who is alleged to have violated the Constitution or the law is impeachment.

Dem strategists have a huge advantage here because they know that not one American out of a hundred has the faintest idea that the Supreme Court has always been used to settle disputes between congress the president as to what a law means and whether some specific action violates it.

In one of the most famous examples, the court ruled that a president did not have absolute immunity from judicial processes.  This of course was U.S. v. Nixon, in 1974, and it led to Nixon's resignation two weeks later.

The Dems don't want any court to turn up the heat on this lawless president, so they're pushing the line that "If the Repubs think our president has broken the law, the only remedy is impeachment.  Since they aren't doing that, he must be innocent."

Interesting argument.  But utter bullshit.

United States v. Nixon (1974).   The Supreme Court voted 8-0 against President Richard Nixon, leading to his resignation. It is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any US president.


On June 17, 1972, about five months before the general election, five burglars broke into Democratic headquarters located in the Watergate complex in Washington, DC.  Later a grand jury indicted several men close to the White House for the break-in.

In April 1974, Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski obtained a subpoena ordering Nixon to release certain tapes and papers related to specific meetings between the President and those indicted by the grand jury. Prosecutors believed those tapes contained damaging evidence involving the indicted men and perhaps the President himself.

Hoping Jaworski and the public would be satisfied, Nixon turned over edited transcripts of the conversations demanded by the subpoena.  Nixon's attorney then requested Judge John Sirica of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to quash the subpoena.

Sirica denied Nixon's motion and ordered the President to turn the tapes over by May 31. Both Nixon and Jaworski appealed directly to the Supreme Court which heard arguments five weeks later, on July 8. Nixon's attorney argued the matter should not be subject to "judicial resolution" since the matter was a dispute within the executive branch and the branch should resolve the dispute itself. Also, he claimed Special Prosecutor Jaworski had not proven the requested materials were absolutely necessary for the trial of the seven men. Besides, he claimed Nixon had an absolute executive privilege to protect communications between "high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in carrying out their duties."

Less than three weeks later the Court issued its decision.  After ruling that the Court had the authority to resolve the matter and that Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment," the Court went to the main issue of executive privilege. The Court rejected Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

Nixon resigned fifteen days later.

Wednesday, July 16

Elizabeth Warren shows why she's either a moron or incompetent

In an event of amazing improbility, Elizabeth Warren is a U.S. senator.  Recently she read a prepared speech on the senate floor, in which she said 
Remember last year’s government shutdown that nearly tanked our economy?  That fight started with a GOP effort to hold the whole operation of the federal government hostage in order to try to force Democrats and the president to let employers deny workers access to birth control.
One small problem:  The brief government "shutdown" had nothing to do with birth control, in any way, shape or form.  Even if Warren didn't know this, you'd hope that at least one of her staffers would know, and would have spotted this outrageous lie in her text before she gave it on the senate floor.

As an aside:  "Progressives" are pushing Warren to run for president.  Others want Obama to nominate her to fill the next Supreme Court vacancy.

Tells you everything you need to know.

WH: "we've doubled the number of BP agents nationwide." Truth: Up 20% since Bush left office.

It would seem that every single member of the Obama administration lies constantly and effortlessly.  Latest example is White House deputy press secretary Shawn Turner, who talked to the Washington Examiner about border security.  Said Turner,
We've doubled the number of agents nationwide ... more agents providing more eyes across the border. If you look at the boots on the ground on the Southwest border, there's been a 95 percent increase since 2004.

But the truth is that while the number of Border Patrol agents is indeed up sharply over the past ten years, the person responsible for the majority of that increase is President George W. Bush.

In 2008, the last year of Bush's presidency, there were 17,499 Border Patrol agents.  Today there are  20,979 Border Patrol agents—an increase of about 20 percent.  That's a far cry from the "95 percent increase" claimed by Obama's press secretary.  Moreover, not all Border Patrol agents are deployed to the southern border, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency.

But hey, everyone knows numbers are hard, right? 
Hey, you know those tens of thousands of illegal immigrants pouring across the border?

Well just forget you heard about that.  Because top Democrat senator Harry Reid has just declared "The border is secure."

Wait a second...how can it be considered "secure" if a thousand or so foreigners are pouring across illegally every week?  Well, see, it's because they're being apprehended.  And then quickly released, and Team Obama flies them to a distant northern city and releases 'em into the general population.

So the term "secure" has this special meaning to Democrats like Reid.  If you think "secure" has some other meaning it's because you're a bitter clinger.  And raaaacis'.  And a Nativist.  You're just unenlightened.

Listen to your masters.  The Border Is Secure.  Got it?

Some truths can't be uttered on television. Or in print.

You wouldn't think making a true statement would get you suspended, but in the Lying Media there are a lot of things that will do just that--things you just can't say without repercussions.

In New Jersey, TV reporter Sean Bergin was wrapping up a report on the ambush shooting of a rookie police officer by a black male, and commented on the prevalence of violence in the inner city.  He concluded,
The underlying cause for all of this, of course, young black men growing up without fathers. Unfortunately, no one in the news media has the courage to touch that subject.
And the station promptly demonstrated why no one in the media touches that subject, by suspending him.

The number one job of the Lying Media is to protect Democrats and the Left, their goals and priorities.  The Left has decided that children can be raised perfectly well without fathers, because all needs can be met by government--as long as it's run by Democrats.

This is a longstanding belief of the Left, and they will attack anyone who claims otherwise.

Another bombshell from the IRS re Lerner

New information about the use of the IRS by Democrats to gain political advantage keeps coming out.

Last week the IRS casually revealed that in addition to emails, IRS employees also had a separate "chat" system. 

On April 9, 2013, just days after seeing the draft Treasury Inspector General Report that revealed the IRS’s massive Tea Party targeting scheme, Lois Lerner, then director of exempt organizations at the IRS, sent an email to an IRS IT official asking whether the IRS’s internal chat system could be electronically searched.

Here's Lerner's question in context:
I had a question today about OCS [Microsoft Office Communications Server]. I was cautioning folks about email and how we have several occasions where Congress has asked for emails and there has been an electronic search for responsive emails – so we need to be cautious about what we say in emails. Someone asked if OCS conversations were also searchable – I don’t know, but told them I would get back to them. Do you know?
I-T specialist Maria Hooke replied,
No, the IRS does not routinely save chat communications – unless employees intentionally take steps to preserve their conversation. These chat communications are not saved – and this is critical – despite the fact that “the functionality exists within the software.”
To which Lerner replied, "Perfect."

The timing of this email is not coincidental. As mentioned, it came just days after Lerner reviewed a draft investigative report from the inspector general.  It would appear as though she was trying to see how much evidence remained to convict her after she reported her hard drive had crashed.

Corrupt.  Corrupt.  Corrupt 

Tuesday, July 15

In which Karma bites our Special Snowflake illegal

Jose Antonio Vargas is a "journalist," and an "immigration activist."   Worked for the Washington Post.

He's also in the U.S. illegally.  Which means he's automatically revered by everyone on the Left, and Democrats, and "progressives."

Not wanting to draw attention to himself and risk deportation, Vargas only revealed his "undocumented status" to close friends.

Oh, and to anyone who could read the New York Times.

Yes, in a move cleverly designed to draw the greatest possible attention to himself, the guy wrote a piece for the Times boasting about his illegal status and that he wasn't leaving.

Then two years ago, concerned that he hadn't poked his thumb hard enough in the eye of the American people, Vargas wrote a second article--this one for Time, called "Not legal, not leaving."  And BTW, kiss my ass.

Oh, and Time also put him front and center on the issue's cover.  With the too-cute tag-line "We are Americans--just not legally."  Here he is:

As you might guess, those two articles elevated the guy to what would be the equivalent of sainthood among the Left.

Having twisted Uncle Sam's beard into a knot, this charming attention-whore wasn't about to stop, but instead repeatedly taunted ICE and Border Patrol in tweets like this one:

As you can see from the guy's tweet, he's a really provocative dude.  As he wrote in the Time article, "It's my country too."

Wow, nice!  You waltz in and bingo! it's "your country too."  Hard to find more brazen behavior.

Well Karma finally caught up with our special snowflake yesterday:  Guy had been down at the border checking out how the other illegal aliens were faring, went to board a commercial flight back to the northeast and...ICE cuffed him and took him to a detention center.

Damned inconvenience.  But GREAT material for his next article:  "I was beaten, starved, mistreated, tortured and hassled by ICE and/or Border Patrol!"

I can see that on Time's next cover now!

But don't worry, Snowflake:  The Emperor will order that you be released.

You can fucking count on it.

UPDATE:  The guy was released just a couple of hours after I posted this.  And I suspect the Border Patrol will ensure he isn't arrested detained in the future.  Can't go detaining the Left's golden boys, eh?

Chicago pilot program for Obamacare *unexpectedly* costing millions more than forecast

Cook County, which encompasses Chicago and its surrounding suburbs, made a deal with the Obama administration to get an early start on the health care law’s Medicaid expansion in 2012.

The program, called CountyCare, was touted as likely to actually make money for the city.  Yes, they thought it would make money: In 2013, state officials projected it would bring in at least $28 million by November, Crain’s reported

But totally unexpectedly, the program is actually costing millions more than original projections. The prototype cost Cook County $21 million in the first six months of operation, and the loss is expected to balloon to $63.5 million by November 30, according to the Chicago Tribune.

The cost of caring for patients has skyrocketed far above projections, partially because the newly insured are seeking more costly medical care than officials expected.

Good heavens!  The $28 million profit "officials" predicted has unexpectedly turned into a $63.5 million loss!   You gotta wonder if these "officials" graduated from the same school as the buffoons in the Commerce Department whose forecast 0.1% growth in the first quarter turned out to be a 3% loss.  Lord, are these people all terminally stupid, terminally incompetent or merely corrupt?

But don't worry, citizen:  They missed their projections because it was a small-scale program.  They'll surely hit their projections when the program covers every American!  See, it's called "economy of scale." Unfortunately it can only be understood by people who have a degree from an ivy-league university. 

Man abushes, kills rookie cop, later killed in shootout. Killer's wife is angry...

In Jersey City, NJ early Sunday a man already wanted for a previous murder ambushed a 23 year-old rookie police officer outside a Walgreen’s.

The killer allegedly told a by-stander, “Watch the TV news later, I’m going to be famous.”

The killer was later killed in a shootout with police.

So far a pretty normal story for New Jersey, Chicago or any of a dozen other crappy, Democrat-run, Democrat-infested cities.  But here's the twist:  The wife of the shooter was angry that people were offering sympathy to the family of the slain officer, but not to her.

“Sorry for the officer’s family. That’s, you know, whatever,” she told a TV reporter. “But at the end of the day, [the killer] got a family too.  [But] all they care about is the officer.”


Welcome to the world of permanent perceived victimhood.  'I can't believe no one is sympathizing with me, after my husband done shot that cop.'

In amazing coincidence *another* lawbreaking federal employee's hard-drive crashes; agency destroys it

You may have heard that the IRS employee at the center of the ring that delayed tax-exempt applications by conservative groups claims her hard drive crashed.  And the IRS claims that in violation of federal law, it wasn't preserving emails, so...gee, sorry.  Guess you congressmen can't convict us of anything.

Then--by amazing coincidence--the IRS claimed that the hard-drives of SIX OTHER employees closest to Lois Lerner had ALSO crashed.  Beyond any possible recovery of data.  Oh, and the drives were quickly destroyed excuse me: "recycled."  Sounds so much less malevolent than "destroyed," eh?

Well turns out the epidemic of hard-drive crashes on computers used by federal employees being investigated for lawbreaking is continuing:  April Sands, an attorney who worked for the Federal Election Commission, admitted campaigning and fundraising on behalf of one party on government time.  That's against the law, and she resigned three months ago.

Sands--a black female--sent thousands of "tweets" from her government computer during office hours.  Here's a typical one:
“Dear every single Republican ever, When will U learn that Barack Hussein Obama is simply smarter than U? Stand down, Signed #Obama2012 #p2,” Sands wrote on May 1, 2012.

But now--amazingly, unbelievably--the FEC claims HER hard drive crashed, wiping out all evidence that she sent the brazenly pro-Obama tweets from her government computer.

Which means there's no direct evidence against her.

Finally, an interesting twist:  Before Lois Lerner went to the IRS, she worked at the FEC.  One of her subordinates there was April Sands.

Monday, July 14

Obama invites illegals to make a dash across the border, now asks congress for $3.7 Billion to deal with 'em.

By now you've all surely heard that Team Obama has asked congress for a special appropriation of $3.7 Billion to handle the "influx" of "children and individuals from Central America crossing the border."

Not gang members.  Not foot soldiers for drug cartels.  Not terrorists from Yemen or Somalia.  Just..."children from Central America."

Oh, and also some "individuals."

How...odd.  That term "individuals" is so vague--not to mention redundant--that one almost suspects it was deliberately chosen to add bulk while conveying absolutely no useful information.

In any case, Team Obama issued a "Fact Sheet" breaking out how it was planning to spend this $3.7 Billion.  The reader wades through paragraphs of a few million here--like an additional $300 million that would be given to agencies State Department--until at the very end you find the big line item:  $1.8 Billion will go to feeding and housing the illegals until they can be transferred to someplace else.

So the bottom line is that Obama's unilateral order not to deport illegals triggered a tidal wave of illegals rushing across the border, since they've concluded they'll be allowed to stay here forever.  And who can blame 'em?  After all, los gringos must not consider their immigration law very important if El Presidente can order that it not be enforced, simply with a letter, eh?

And how...interesting...that Obozo's unilateral, unconstitutional order will now cost taxpayers a cool $3.7 Billion that could have been spent on...well, anything else at all.

But that's okay, citizen.  The federal government is actually rolling in bucks.  Oh, and "the border is more secure than ever!"  And thanks to El Presidente's magnifico diplomatic skills, the Middle East is more peaceful than ever.  And Muslims are learning meditation.  And unemployment is at a record low.  And the economy is booming!  The oceans are receding!

In fact, with everything working this faaabulously it's a cryin' shame that stupid, outdated Constitution thingy bars our Emperor from serving a few more terms!  I mean, think of the possibilities if he could stay in office for another 8 or 12 years!

And now that we think about it, the Constitution isn't actually binding or anything, right?  It seems more like a set of suggestions.  I'll bet the Emperor could "amend" it (that is the word for it, isn't it?) just with a stroke of his pen!

Sunday, July 13

American citizens need photo ID to board a commercial jet. Illegal aliens don't. Sounds about right.

As many of you recall, that wacky federal agency called the "Transportation Services (?) Administration" (TSA) was created to prevent a repeat of 9/11. In addition to making you take off your shoes and belt, and banning liquids over 3 ounces and weapons like fingernail clippers, and subjecting Americans who simply wanted to fly to body frisks, one of their anti-hijacking policies was to require people to have lots of identification.

In fact, you had to show *photo ID*. And not just *any* photo ID--only certain hard-to-counterfeit types were acceptable to our third-Reich brownshirts of the TSA.

Well guess what, citizen?

According to the National Border Patrol Council, illegal aliens in the latest wave, after their release by Border Patrol or ICE, are being allowed to fly on commercial airliners without any valid identification.

Yep, the TSA allows them to board commercial airliners simply by showing their Notice to Appear form,” according to NBPC spokesman Hector Garza.

Note that we're not talking about government-chartered aircraft, but regular commercial flights.

The "Notice to Appear" form can easily be reproduced or manipulated on any home computer. It doesn't have a photo or watermark and is printed on regular paper with no security features. Anyone could make one.

But don't worry, citizen. It's not like the government is simply releasing members of gangs or drug cartels into the interior of the U.S. So as long as no one hijacks one of these flights, everything will be fine.

What? You say the gummint IS releasing illegal immigrants into the general population? Without even knowing for sure who they really are? Just taking their word for it? Are you sure? Cuz I can't picture a rational government doing something like that. It's just nuts.

Wednesday, July 9

Democrats suddenly find one particular example of govt spending they're against!

The House committee investigating the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi could cost taxpayers as much as $3.3 million this year, according to Democrat Nancy Pelosi's office.

A spokesman for the House minority leader slammed this as “an appalling breach of the public trust and a stunning abuse of taxpayers’ dollars.”
See?  Here you thought Democrats were all about spending your tax dollars, but this shows that they're really trying to aggressively cut unnecessary or wasteful government spending!

Meanwhile no reporter has yet asked Pelosi's office to comment on the Emperor's request for a staggering $3.7 Billion to house, feed, clothe and transport 50 or 60 thousand unaccompanied alien kids who've just poured across the open border with Mexico.  Nor is one likely to.

But by all means, let's try to generate a groundswell of public opinion against spending that $3.3 million to investigate Benghazi.

Oh, for those liberals who are just certain the above link is to some crazy site like Faux News--well you're partially right:  It's a crazy site all right.  It's to whitehouse.gov.

Finally, would anyone like to bet on whether Obama's latest $3.7 Billion request will solve anything?  The guy has told immigration activists he wants unrestricted immigration, green cards and "a path to citizenship" (i.e. amnesty).  Thus the probability of any of the new illegals ever being deported is virtually zero.

But hey, it's okay, citizen.  If you don't live in a border state you don't have a thing to worry about.

Well, except for the few tens of thousands that Team Obama has already flown to northern states.  But you won't hear about that in the Media...so again, why worry?

Ad shows DHS knew in January that 65,000 unaccompanied kids would be arriving soon. How did they know?

I assume by now every informed American adult knows about the solicitation ad posted by DHS last January 29th, seeking a contractor to provide escorts for "65,000 UACs" (unaccompanied alien children) expected to arrive on our southern border.

You did hear about that, right?  Cuz it led all the network "news" broadcasts, and the networks have been grilling Obama agency heads on the Sunday talk shows ever since the solicitation was revealed by bloggers.

Hahahahahaha!  Just kidding-- as far as I know the solicitation hasn't been mentioned by the Lying Media.  But the feds have confirmed that it's real.  Since you almost certainly haven't seen it (media blackout, remember?) here's a screen-shot:

 A description accompanying the solicitation--below--confirms the 65,000 figure.

This solicitation--and the 65,000 figure for the expected number of UACs--suggests a question that congress should ask the Emperor's peeps:  What event or development led you to predict this huge number of unaccompanied children--more than twice the number for 2013--would soon arrive? 

I suggest the obvious answer is that they knew that the Emperor's executive order to ICE and Border Patrol to stop deporting illegal immigrants who hadn't been found guilty of any "serious crimes" would open the floodgates.

Yet the Emperor went ahead and issued his unconstitutional executive order anyway.


But don't bother looking for any emails confirming that the White House was warned about this outcome.  That'll just cause another 150 perfectly-functioning computer hard-drives to be destroyed crash.

Click here for source.

Tuesday, July 8

Govt "solution" for problem of waves of "illegal alien children" crossing southern border: Stop using the word "alien"

One of the ways the Left and the media shape your thinking is by choosing the names used for things or policies or types of behavior.

Of course you think that's just ridiculous--tinfoil-hat conspiracy stuff.  You're thinking "No one has that kind of power, to tell me what to call something!  Ridiculous!"

If that claim strikes you as outlandish, consider this:  In the debate over whether there should be *any* restrictions on abortion, the Media often describe one side as "anti-abortion" (which is fair enough).  But what's the media term for the "there shouldn't be *any* restrictions" side? 

"Pro-choice."  You have *never* seen the term "pro-abortion" used in any mainstream media story.  Nor will you.  It's brilliant and effective.  Who in the world could object to "choice"?

You often see the term "right-wing extremists" in mainstream media stories.  But you never see that term applies to Leftists.

The Media always call government policies to confiscate wealth and give it to Democrat constituents "sharing the wealth."  Because who in the world could object to "sharing"?

The list is endless.  Because the Left/Democrats know that if every mainstream media story uses the same approved Leftist term for something, everyone begins *thinking* in the same terms.

And here's the latest:  the Center for Immigration Studies claims to have obtained an internal email from the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division to its agents, directing them to stop using the term "UACs" to refer to young foreigners who have entered the U.S. illegally.

“UACs” means "unaccompanied alien children."

Instead, the email instructs ICE personnel to use the term “unaccompanied children” in official correspondence.

Democrats have also used the terms "undocumented persons," "future Democrats" and "our lock on control of government forever" in their quest to find the phrase that's most effective in lulling Americans into helping them achieve amnesty and citizenship for all illegal border-crossers.

I may have mis-translated some words in that last 'graf.  But what the heck--words don't have any intrinsic meaning until defined by government anyway, right?

Sunday, July 6

Government climate agency caught changing temperature data to make it look warmer now, cooler during Dust Bowl!

Over the years I've made several posts on how both our government and others have been falsifying temperature data.  Yep, flat-out lying about it.

Now why in the world would they do that?

Gee, it's a complete mystery!

Nah, that's a joke:  They're doing it because the real temperature of the last few years isn't hot enough to scare Americans, so they want to make recent years even hotter, and to simultaneously decrease the alleged temperatures of Dust Bowl years.  Cuz if the earth is now hotter than the well-known and justly-feared Dust Bowl years, man, we're reeeallly in trouble.

Which means they can separate you from another trillion bucks of your hard-earned money.

You may be curious as to the "logic" of how the gummint can change the actual, observed temperature with a wave of the hand.  Glad you asked.

They won't tell you.

You think I'm kidding?  Think again.  They refuse to reveal their computer algorithm.

Seeing as how NOAA and the National Center for Climate "Data" are both public agencies, eating your tax dollars, a few folks are a bit puzzled by this refusal.  Seems like data collected with public funds, then "massaged"/changed/tortured by federal employees, paid with taxpayer funds should be subject to things like the Freedom of Information Act.  Nevertheless, here we are.

So skeptics--branded "climate deniers" by Democrats/liberals/"progressives" and other socialist scum--who want to know how the government changes the raw data have no choice but to download every scrap of so-called data and analyze it as the government changes it from year to year.

Here's a typical result:  A sharp blogger downloaded NOAA's map of average temperatures for a random state--Kansas--for this past May.  If you click on the link you'll see a map with three different temps for each reporting site:  The actual temperature recorded by the thermometer on the site is in black.  Then this is "corrected" for "time of observation," which is in blue.  Finally the "official" temperature recorded by NOAA is shown in pink.

And guess what?  In all but two cases the "official" temperatures are an average of four-tenths of a degree higher than the actual, recorded temperature.

If you're not a climate student this may sound trivial, but a global change of plus half a degree is considered worthy of three-inch headlines.

Wait, it gets better.

A bunch of stations that once reported temperatures are no longer operating.  You wouldn't think that would be a problem, but NOAA's "solution" might surprise you:  They assign fictitious temperatures to these "zombie" stations.

It's a solution tailor-made for abuse, because you can't check the fictitious number against any data at all.

Oh, but it gets better:  If you scroll down you'll see that NOAA also adjusted the previous high-temp record year of 1936.  But by some mysterious process never explained, THAT adjustment was...can you guess?  Yep:  DOWN.  In 2012 NOAA showed the official temperature for 1936 to be 77.4F.  But yesterday that had mysteriously changed to 76.8--a drop of over half a degree.

Now, mind you, this change was made some time in the last two years.  So you might ask 'em:  What happened in the last two years that made you think the temperature record of 76 years ago needed to be "adjusted"? 

And then ask, what equation did you use to compute each of these "adjustments" to a 76-year-old event?

I predict they'll tell you to fuck off.

So to recap:  They've adjusted 2012 temps up in several states, while adjusting 1936 temperatures down.  And they still refuse to reveal the equation or code or algorithm they use.

You might ask your congresscritter to invite these assholes to testify before congress and see if CONGRESS will accept their bullshit line, "We don't hafta show you jack-shit cuz we're government!"

"Will they be deported? "Director of Homeland "Security" refuses to give a straight answer

Okay, for the right to say you have an idea what's going on in the U.S. other than American Idol, who is the director of the department of Homeland Security?

If you said Jeh Johnson [sic], you win.  (Highlight the blank to see the answer.)

And on that note, here he is on a Sunday talk show, replying to a simple, direct question: "Will most of these children stay in America or will they be returned to their home countries?"  The director dodges and dodges.  To his credit the host--unlike most media faces--keeps trying to get a straight answer from the guy--but like a good Obamabot the guy just keeps dodging.  And after 90 seconds the host gives up and moves on to a different topic.

Of course, unless you're a diehard Democrat/liberal/"progressive," the DHS director's refusal to give a straight answer tell you everything you need to know about the true policy of the Obama administration on this matter.  His evasions simply confirm every other indicator.

For example, three days before Johnson's talk-show dodge a reporter asked Obozo's press secretary Josh Earnest if he could say “without ambiguity” if the children will be deported.  Earnest responded,
What I can say without ambiguity is that the law will be applied and there is going to be a due process that they’ll all be subjected to.  I wouldn’t stand here and say how those claims will be processed...but the law will be rigorously applied.
Oh, sure, got it.  "Wait...a followup, Josh:  This 'law' you say will be 'rigorously applied'--is that those actual laws passed by congress, or do you mean the more nuanced version that's whatever your boss decides it is?  As in, the executive order he issued nullifying a key provision of U.S. immigration law; or the 17 changes he's unilaterally made to Obamacare; or his permitting a branch of the Justice Department to violate laws against straw purchases of guns; or his administration giving money to Palestinian officials after congress passed a law explicitly prohibiting such an action?  So do you mean "rigorously applied" like your boss 'rigorously applied' those laws?