Friday, March 6

Hillary Clinton conducted all her official State Department business from a private email account?? Gee, wonder why?

Clearly, the ruling class in the U.S. believes rules and laws are for "the little people."

If you're not clear on that term, that would be you and me.  Definitely not Obama, nor the presumptive Democrat nominee for the White Hut, Hillary Clinton.

The latest example--of thousands--is the revelation that during Her Worship's entire tenure as Secretary of State, she avoided using an official government email account for official business.  Instead she used a private email account.

If you're a Democrat you're thinking, "BFD.  What possible difference does it make whether an official uses a government account or a private one?"

This, of course, is why you're a Democrat:  Logic and reasoning aren't part of your normal thought processes.

There are two huge reasons:  One is that private emails might not be secure against interception by a foreign power.  The second is to have a solid record of what the hell the government--in the persona of the SecState--is really up to.

For example, a couple of years ago we learned that Obama's head of the EPA had set up an email account in a fictitious name so she could discuss "real" agency policies and schemes.  The reason was that if someone who'd been sued or fined or jailed by the EPA filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to get the director's emails (something that normally requires naming the person's email account), the director could avoid having to turn over the ones sent and received by the fake-name account.

See how that works? 

Actually if you're a Democrat you probably don't.  Of course you'd immediately grasp it if a Repub was president or secstate and doing the same thing, but...hey, no one ever said Democrats had to be ethically or logically consistent.

Wait, I see the Dems' media allies are claiming "she didn't know that wasn't kosher."

But in June 2011, after it was learned that hackers believed to be in China were targeting e-mail accounts of prominent Americans, the State Department sent a cable under Clinton’s name to all embassies instructing diplomats to “Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts.” 

Wait, I know:  She never sent it, didn't know a thing about it.  Just some rogue employees in some out-of-the-way office in some hick town.  Not official policy at all.

Yeah, dat's it.

But wait, you say:  If anyone really needs to see Hillary's emails--not that there would ever be any reason for that, since she's never done anything the least bit illegal, nor lied to us, during her entire, illustrious career in government--couldn't they just get a judge to order her ISP to turn 'em over?

If it was you or me or some corporation the EPA wanted to sue, the answer would be "Of course."  But Her Worship is more canny than we are, which is why her foundation has received a billion dollars from foreign sources--much of it while she was Secretary of State, negotiating U.S. policy.

Oooh, no conflict of interest there, huh?

Anyway, back to the point:  Hillary's emails--all of 'em, for her entire tenure as SecState--weren't stored on a commercial ISP, but on a private server set up in her home!

Sweet, huh.

Now, that's not to say none of the emails she sent can be retrieved, because the recipient's provider would have stored 'em on the receiver's server for at least some short period of time.  But the only full record is in Her Worship's closet at her home.

Wait, it gets better:  The Dem Media is now trumpeting that Her Worship has graciously offered to turn over all her emails to State, and has actually asked State to release them to the public!

That is SO noble!  So gracious!  So...transparent!

No one in the entire history of the world has ever made such a generous offer!

What bullshit.  No one can possibly believe she'd release anything incriminating, any more than she released any of the Whitewater files that were found in a closet in the White Hut after Her Worship claimed they'd been lost.

Oh wait, no one under 40 knows that.  Eh, what difference does it make?

So now the media has shifted the story to covering the boring debate over who will sift through 55,000 emails to find...whatever.  And it's certain nothing will be found.  Whereupon Her Worship will strike a saintly, pious pose and claim "I told you I had nothing to hide, and that proved to be precisely true.  And this whole thing was a just another Republican war on women!"

And the Lying Media will cheer--loudly--and the Repubs will sheepishly look at their feet and mutter.

You think this is just crazy talk?  Long-term Democrat congressthief Elijah Cummings has taken the first step to spin this, praising Her Worship:
“As far as I am aware,” Cummings said in a statement, “no other Cabinet secretary in history has ever called for the release of his or her emails — in their entirety and throughout his or her tenure. I commend Secretary Clinton’s decision.”

Just keep watching.  The media know who they want.

Monday, March 2

Colleges giving financial aid to illegal aliens. But claim "it's not taking anything away from anybody."

It's been learned that several U.S. colleges are giving financial aid to students who are illegal immigrants.  This practice has grown since President Obama’s 2012 executive action eliminating deportation (technically, "deferring indefinitely") for millions of young people brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents.

New York University — which receives federal, state and city money — says the aid given to illegal immigrants is not at the expense of American students.  Here's NYU admissions officer "MJ Knoll-Finn" explaining this in the NY Times for those who don't understand basic math:
“This is not taking away from anybody. This is a formalized way of making sure these students know they’re welcome.”
This of course is utter horse shit.  Aid dollars are a finite number, and dollars given to one person or group aren't available to others.

And I love the instant rationalization/excuse that follows the bullshit line of not taking anything away from anybody:  Giving tuition assistance to illegals is merely "a formalized way of making sure these students know they’re welcome.”  Ah yes.  Just like wars started by Democrats--thus "good wars"--are merely "kinetic actions."

The only mystery here is, are all college administrators this dumb, or do they think we are?

Sunday, March 1

WH Plans to Develop a “Country Within a Country” of 15 Million “New Americans”

According to a White House staffer the Obama administration has plans to legalize 13 to 15 million illegal immigrants, who are then expected to establish a “country within a country.”

Cecilia Munoz is Obama's director of his Domestic Policy Council.  Recently Munoz and 16 members of Obama's team held three conference calls with supporters about upcoming immigration plans.  Unbeknownst to Obama officials, Baltimore radio persona Susan Payne was invited to listen in on the calls at an immigration rally.
Cecilia Munoz

The calls discussed a “Task Force of New Americans” and special “Receiving Communities” as part of a plan by the Obama administration to import millions of immigrants.  The calls made it clear that Obama is planning to legalize 13 to 15 million illegal immigrants who will then be moved onto citizenship.

When these “new Americans” come out of the shadows, the communities in which they’ve been placed will be designated as “receiving communities.”  One member of the task force said these “New Americans” will form a “country within a country.”

Participants in the meeting also discussed the fact that these immigrants would not be interested in assimilating. They would “navigate, not assimilate”.
The plan is to classify as many illegals as possible as refugees as soon as amnesty is pushed through.  These "refugees" would be given an allowance, housing, food, medical care, education, and an immediate pathway to citizenship.

Participants in the conference calls also discussed the need to convince state and local officials to give no-interest loans to the “refugees.”  You can listen to this shocking interview here.

Obama has often ruled by executive orders or memoranda, and he did so in the case of the task force and the "receiving communities."  On November 21, 2014 he issued the Presidential Memorandum — Creating Welcoming Communities and Fully Integrating Immigrants and Refugees for the purpose of creating welcoming communities and fully integrating immigrants and refugees.  It was established at the same time as his task force and its entire purpose was to provide entitlements for the “new Americans.”

The Obama administration carefully selected the neighborhoods that would take illegal immigrants last summer when he flew them all over the country and wouldn’t tell anyone where they were. They were not only children, there were many more adults.

Cecilia Munoz, who was on the conference call, is tied to LaRaza, which is pushing to force illegal immigrants onto neighborhoods and then treat them like a protected class.

A rule passed in July 2013 by Obama’s Housing and Urban Development (HUD) cited the Fair Housing Act as giving the government the power to redistribute illegal immigrants--including those who had been convicted of other serious crimes--throughout every neighborhood in the country.  It proposed setting quotas, and filing federal lawsuits against communities that refused to comply.

This rule has been declared invalid by Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who ruled that HUD had exceeded its authority and would produce outcomes never intended by Congress.  But the administration seems determined to continue even after the court's ruling.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide this issue soon. Whether the Fair Housing Act supports disparate impact claims is currently pending on writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., Case No. 13-1371.
But regardless of the Supreme Court's decision, Obama seems to be forcing illegal immigrants on neighborhoods throughout the country with or without the expanded HUD rule.

h/t Patrick Brown

Kerry says U.S. has "closer relationship with Israel than at any time in history" ??

Obama's hand-picked secretary of state--John Kerry, who by the way served six weeks in VietNam--said on Sunday’s “This Week” on ABC “We have a closer relationship with Israel right now, in terms of security, than at any time in history."

This strikes me as either utter stupidity or a brazen lie:  The Obama regime is furious at Netanyahu for accepting Boehner's invitiation to address congress.  They've asked congressional Democrats to boycott the speech, and many in the congressional democrat black caucus have agreed.

They've also authorized influential Dems in congress to say things like "The proposed speech is endangering Israel's relationship with the U.S."  That's a pretty serious threat.  Obama's so-called "national security adviser" Susan Rice said the same thing.

But of course the Lying Media all fell into line with "closer relationship than at any time in history."  Because they support the emperor, no matter what.

Saturday, February 28


The next Democrat prez nominee.  The best of the lot.  The standard-bearer.  A pillar of virtue.  A tower of ethics and sound judgment.  Yep.  I can *so* see her as president.  That is a face filled with lots of anger.

Team Obama pays $3 Billion to insurance companies without congressional appropriation, claims it doesn't need authorization

The avalanche of illegal and unconstitutional acts by the emperor and his supporters continues. 

The latest disclosed outrage involves some $3 Billion in payments made by Treasury to insurance companies, although congress had not appropriated any money for that purpose.

The law called Obamacare--rammed through congress in the dead of night back when both houses were Dem-controlled--forced insurers to subsidize out-of-pocket costs for low income individuals, thus capping the health care costs to those policy holders.   

In exchange for capping these charges, the federal government would compensate insurers so they didn't lose money.  Otherwise the big insurance companies would never have signed on to the deal.

Congress never authorized any money to make such payments to insurers in its annual appropriations for 2014, but--prepare to be shocked--the Department of Health and Human Services, with the cooperation of the U.S. Treasury, made them anyway.

On Feb. 3 House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan and Rep. Fred Upton, chairman of  House Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, asking for “a full explanation for, and all documents relating to” the administration’s decision to make the cost-sharing payments without congressional authorization.

Last Wednesday the Treasury Department replied by letter to Ryan, describing the program and revealing that $2.997 billion in such payments had been made in 2014, but didn't say where the money had come from.  The letter also failed to explain who made the decision to make the payments, or under what authority they were made.

Instead of detailing the basis for making the payments without appropriations, the Treasury letter claimed the matter was subject to a lawsuit by the speaker of the House, and referred Ryan to the Department of Justice.

In a brief filed in that lawsuit, DOJ lawyers claimed that the payments did NOT require annual appropriation. “The cost sharing reduction payments are being made as part of a mandatory payment program that Congress has fully appropriated,” the brief read.

But this argument is undercut by the administration’s own previous budget request.  For fiscal year 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (the division of Health and Human Services that implements the program), asked Congress to appropriate $4 billion for the reimbursements that year and another $1.4 billion “advance appropriation” for the first quarter of fiscal year 2015, “to permit CMS to reimburse issuers …”

In making that request CMS was in effect acknowledging that it needed congressional appropriations to make the payments.  But when Congress rejected the request, the administration went ahead and made the payments anyway.

The argument that annual appropriations are required to make payments is also backed up by a report from the Congressional Research Service, which has differentiated between the tax credit subsidies that Obamacare provides to individuals to help them purchase insurance, and the cost-sharing payments to insurers.

Over the next decade, reimbursements to insurers are projected by the Congressional Budget Office to cost taxpayers nearly $150 billion.

Oh, these payments are different from the *premium subsidies* paid by the federal government to induce low-income people to "buy" health insurance.  Those payments will cost another $400 billion or so over the next decade.

But...but...but...didn't Obama and Pelosi tell us the Affordable Care Act would provide health insurance to all the poor without costing the taxpayers a dime?  That *everyone* would save money?  If I recall correctly, the emperor's exact words were "An average of $2,500 per family."

Oh, I got it:  That was for people who didn't pay any federal tax.  Cool.

Media: "Economy is booming!" Say what?

I stopped watching network news 20 years ago, after it became clear it was all Democrat propaganda, all the time, but I sometimes listen to national radio news on the drive to work.  And inevitably, the mainstream media says the economy is booming. 

Huuuuge recovery.  Everything absolutely roaring.

Wait...could the media's definition of "booming economy" be...well...nuanced or something?

Remember those "lost" emails about the IRS Lerner scandal? Well, they've been found. And it gets better...

Brazen acts of lawbreaking by the emperor and his administration have become so frequent that we're starting to forget some of the big ones.  But yesterday the nation got a welcome reminder:

A few of you may remember that 4 years ago conservative political groups--like Tea Party organizations--that applied to the IRS for tax-exempt status charged that the IRS had delayed granting this status for up to two years, by demanding that they provide outrageously detailed information on the beliefs of their members, including names and addresses of members and donors.

By contrast, liberal and so-called "progressive" groups were never asked such questions, and were granted tax-exempt status in as little as two months.

This was significant for a number of reasons:  First, the unequal treatment violated the law.  And second, delaying the status of conservative groups almost certainly cost votes in the 2012 presidential election because the groups were organizing to educate voters on issues, and without tax-exempt status they were unable to effectively raise funds to do that, while liberal and Democrat groups--granted the status quickly--had no such trouble.

The big question was, who initiated the policy of having the IRS apply different rules to "political enemies" than to Democrat allies?

The IRS first claimed this was entirely done by "a few rogue employees in the Cincinnati office," but this cover story quickly collapsed as emails and letters proved Washington was in the loop the whole time.

Obviously *someone* made the decision to single out conservative groups for extra questions and delaying tactics, so the question remained:  Who initiated it?  Was the policy initiated by the head of the IRS, or was it ordered by someone in the White House?

To find the answer, Congress subpoenaed the head of the IRS division responsible for awarding tax-exempt status--a woman named Lois Lerner.  Lerner first refused to appear, but under threat of criminal prosecution she showed up long enough to invoke her 5th amendment rights to refuse to testify.  She then retired with full pension.

Unable to compel Lerner to answer questions, congress then demanded that the IRS turn over all Lerner's emails for the time period in question, along with those of her associates in that division.

The IRS told congress it could not comply because Lerner's computer's hard drive had crashed at the end of the period in question, wiping out all its data.  However, records showed that the agency had made no effort at the time to try to recover that data.  This is unusual because in virtually all cases of hard-drive failure other than crushing, most of the data can be recovered fairly easily.

But the *really* bizarre story told by the IRS was that not only had Lerner's drive crashed, but seven of her close associates had ALSO suffered hard-drive crashes within a few weeks of each other!

Tech-savvy Americans recognized that this was strong evidence of a conspiracy, since the odds of that many crashes in the same office within such a short time were astronomical.  But the mainstream liberal, lying media--most of whom wouldn't know a megabyte from a gigabyte--simply winked and shrugged.

Head of IRS, echoed by Mainstream Media: "Nothing to see here, citizen.  Move along."

But someone in the government's tech field noted that critical government agencies like the IRS were required by law to back up all their data on tape regularly.  The tapes were stored off-site specifically to keep data from being lost in the event a fire took out an entire building, for example.  So all the emails, said the tech, should be on the backup tapes.

"Oh no no no," said the head of the IRS.  "The tapes aren't organized for easy searching, and no software exists that would let us find one person's emails out of terabytes of data."

"And besides, there are so many reels of tape that it would take months and millions of dollars to even find the right tape."

Nothing to see here, citizen.  Move along.

And the mainstream media dropped the story.  So most Americans forgot all about it.

Then some government I/T guy said what everyone not on the Democrat plantation knew: "They said the tapes aren't organized for easy searching?  And that no software exists that would let us find one person's emails?  And that they can't find the right tape in any case?  All of that's complete bullshit."

Sure enough, yesterday during a televised congressional hearing of the House Oversight Committee we learned that a new investigator found the Lerner email tapes. 

At the regular storage facility in West Virginia. 

And it took him all of two weeks to find 'em, from a cold start (i.e. not knowing a thing about where to look).

And if that's not damning enough, the investigator was clever enough to ask the managers of the storage facility if anyone at the IRS had asked them to find Lerner’s backup email tapes.  Answer:  No one from the IRS had ever asked the storage facility to look for them.

Treasury deputy inspector general Timothy Camus confirmed to the House Oversight Committee that his office has found more than 30,000 of Lerner’s emails.  Investigators have said there is "potential criminal activity” in the case.

Predictably, Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney called the hearing a “waste of time.”

The White House has staunchly refused to cooperate with the IRS investigation, claiming they'd done all they possibly could by directing the IRS to cooperate.  White House counsel W. Neil Eggleston wrote to Rep. Paul Ryan last week,
It is my understanding that in May 2014, Commissioner Koskinen responded to this request by indicating that the IRS would be able to address new topics such as these following its completion of document productions already in progress.  To the extent that the committee continues to have an oversight interest in this matter, I encourage you to continue working with the IRS to address those questions.
Translation:  Congress should stop its investigation and wait for the emperor's hand-picked minons to complete their diligent, oh-so-unbiased and honest investigation.  Which will be finished about a month after next year's presidential election.  Because the emperor has a HUGE interest in ensuring that a) a Democrat wins the presidency, so no one will come after the emperor for criminal wrongdoing; and b) that the Dems re-take as many seats as possible in congress, for the same reason.

Eat shit and die, tyrants.

All of you.

Between this bullshit and Obama's executive order banning 5.56mm ammo, I'm starting to think there's no alternative to a civil war to take this nation back to the Constitution.  Sad and deadly, but seems to be no other way.

Cuz asking the president and all his corrupt Democrat enablers in congress to obey the fucking LAW sure ain't working.

ISIS destroys irreplaceable statues from 5,000-year-old civilization; mainstream American media yawns.

If you're a liberal Democrat, the prospect of ISIS monsters killing unarmed Christian civilians may not upset you.  On the other hand, the notion of ISIS thugs breaking into a museum and smashing hundreds of irreplaceable ancient statues from a long-vanished civilization may rile you up a bit.

Hell, you may even be as outraged as you were when that actress at the Oscars spoke out about unfairness to women or something.

Oh, and after the museum-smashing, the thugs strolled over to Mosul's library and destroyed an estimated 8,000 books--many of which were "registered on a UNESCO rarities list," (for whatever that's worth).  Then, apparently tired from their labors, they blew up the entire building, along with its 112,000 books and manuscripts.

Of course if we merely told you the ISIS thugs destroyed priceless books and antiquities, most liberals would assume it was a lie--propaganda designed to get the U.S. to fight ISIS for the Jews or some such.  In that case here's a video, so you can watch as the berserk killers of ISIS destroy ancient statues in the museum in Mosul.  (For a larger, higher-resolution version click here.)

The clip above is just part of the vid released by ISIS.  At the beginning of the full video an ISIS representative says the statues were destroyed because they were from a civilization of "polytheists"--which islam equates to devil-worshippers.

Wait...what does this have to do with islam?  Because your emperor has repeatedly assured you that ISIS has nothing whatsoever to do with islam.  So there.  (And if anyone knows what it takes to be Islamic it's Barack Obama.)  I guess that means the confused "militants" shown in the video destroyed the statues for some other reason--ran out of prisoners to behead or burn alive, maybe--and they merely cited "islam" as the reason because they don't really know who they are or what they believe.

Yes, that must be it.  Because the emperor says they have nothing to do with islam.

Friday, February 27

Democrats on the FCC pass 320 pages of SECRET rules. Mainstream media cheers.

Yesterday the three Democrat commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission voted to enact 320 pages of secret new rules to "regulate" (i.e. control) the internet.  Thus the vast new rules--which were kept secret from the American public--were passed by a three-to-two vote.

How is it that in what Obama claimed would be "the most transparent administration in history," his three appointees would pass such a sweeping package of rules without giving the public a chance to see them and comment? 

Why, it's just how dictatorships work.  What's your problem, citizen?  We know what's best, and we'll do what's best, and you need not be concerned.

Why would you object to our passing rules without telling what was in them?  Surely you're not questioning the president's intentions or integrity, are you?  Because that would be very risky.  You might find yourself called in for a tax audit.  Or your health insurance might have problems.

Just shut up and keep paying your taxes.  We'll tell you when you should be concerned.

Hail to the emperor.

Wednesday, February 25

ISIL won't allow UN to distribute food to refugees unless it's marked "Gift from ISIL"

You won't be surprised to learn that the U.S. has given the U.N. hundreds of millions of dollars to provide food to those displaced by war in the middle-east.  The program feeds roughly two million Syrian refugees living in areas controlled by ISIL.

What may surprise you is that ISIL won't allow this food to be distributed unless every box and sack is marked "gift from ISIL."

The UN has also found that ISIL is selling some of the relief food to raise cash. ISIL has told the UN to shut up and be grateful that ISIL allows any food to be distributed.

So the west is eager to provide food to refugees, while the self-declared Islamic thugs of ISIL are happy for them to starve if the food isn't marked "gift from ISIL."

That perfectly illustrates the huge disadvantage we're operating from when it comes to ISIL:  They're perfectly happy to starve innocent civilians, while we recoil from that prospect.


Emperor pushes for "cooperation" with congress, then vows to veto two key bills

The day after last November's huge election win for Republicans the emperor held a press conference.  Some highlights:
The Emperor:  "I’ve suggested to [congressional Republicans] before that where they think there’s areas of cooperation, I’d like to see us get some things done.  [T]he fact that they now control both chambers of Congress...means that...they have more confidence that they can pass their agenda and get a bill on my desk.  It means that negotiations end up perhaps being a little more real because they have [a] larger majority... in the House and they may be able to get some things through their caucuses that they couldn’t before.
     But the bottom line [is] number-one goal is just to deliver as much as I can for the American people in these last two years.  And wherever I see an opportunity, no matter how large or how small, to make it a little...more likely that somebody is finding a good-paying job-- even if I’m not getting a whole loaf, I’m interested in getting whatever legislation we can get passed that adds up to improved prospects and an improved future for the American people."
So, "areas of cooperation."  "Negotiations end up being a little more real."  'If I see an opportunity to make it more likely for someone to find a good-paying job...I'm interested in getting whatever legislation we can get passed...'

Lofty words.  Let's see what he's done to put those words into action.

Congress just passed a bill authorizing the long-blocked (by the previously Dem-controlled senate) Keystone pipeline.  Emperor I-want-jobs-for-Americans immediately vetoed it.

His press secretary has announced that the emperor will veto any bill funding the supposedly oh-so-vital department of homeland security if it contained any provision blocking or restricting the emperor's amnesty plans for five million illegal aliens.

The emperor has directed his Democrat appointees at the Federal Communications Commission to pass the 330-page set of rules charmingly mis-named "net neutrality," without making those rules public or giving the public the opportunity to discuss them and make comments.  This is stunning in its audacity and dictatorial nature:  Historically, agencies proposing new rules or regulations have make those public and offered comment periods of around 3 months before they actually issue new "rules."  But that's not the emperor's style.

After a federal judge issued a decision barring the emperor from proceeding with his illegal amnesty, the emperor has quietly ordered his agents to continue to spend money and sign contracts to get this done.  

Even Nixon obeyed court orders.  But the emperor doesn't.  Because he's always gotten away with it.

The "net neutrality" rules are a classic imperial move to control the internet.  If they can get away with this, the next step is requiring people who post opinions to get a federal license.  Hmm....

Tuesday, February 24

Liberal rag characterizes amnesty fight as Obama "making deportation less of a priority"

The Left-wing media lies so constantly, so effortlessly, that we barely notice anymore.  It's so common that pointing out an example seems like noting that the sun rose this morning.

I'd like to point out an example anyway, because I hate the Left for their largely-successful efforts to destroy the nation I love.

The Huffington Post is thoroughly leftist--they support anything the emperor wants, no matter if it's unconstitutional.  Yesterday they posted an article on the effort by conservatives in congress to block Obama's unconstitutional amnesty for illegal aliens.  In the article's second sentence the author described the controversy like this:
the GOP has resisted calls to fund the agency, citing objections to Obama's recent actions making the deportation of undocumented immigrants less of a priority.
But the emperor's announced and proposed action doesn't just make deportation "less of a priority."  It will stop deportation of illegals altogether.

Why the misleading phrasing?  After all, all their readers are in favor of the proposed amnesty, and Democrat bigwigs are salivating over the prospect of winning millions of new Democrat votes. 

They can't be candid because they know millions of voters who are relatively neutral about the emperor's policies would view an admission of the truth and get fired up.  And vote.

So they'll carefully mis-characterize...lie...about the true effects, just like they did about the bill that became Obamacare.  Lie to get it safely passed, because they know that once it's passed there's no practical way to undo it.

And they do this every day.

Why would they phrase it in such a misleading and innocuous-sounding  If you're a typical leftist/liberal/low-info voter

Sunday, February 22

Harrowing moments in history if Team Obama had been in charge

Harrowing moments in U.S. history if Team Obama had been in charge back then:
“Yesterday, December 7th 1941, a regrettable loss of life and dismantling of obsolete military equipment occurred during a peaceful airshow conducted by the Empire of Japan in the Hawaiian Islands. While the loss of life was regrettable, the United States Government recognizes that the accidental weapons discharges that occurred during this airshow does not indicate an aggressive intent by the Japanese. We will move forward with continued peace with Japan, so help us God!”

“The mass migration that occurred yesterday when large numbers of Koreans from the northern part of that country moved south in search of food and employment does not indicate a desire to commence hostilities. These people from the north are simply willing to do the jobs that the south Koreans are unwilling to do. The United States will not interfere with this internal migration.”

“It was regrettable that on September 11th a number of undocumented airline pilots felt that they had to overcome the widespread prejudice against foreign workers by taking control of a few airliners and attempting to demonstrate their prowess. As a result of this tragedy I have directed the Federal Aviation Administration to perform a thorough review of student pilot training techniques and standards. I also have directed the Department of Labor to investigate airline hiring practices--specifically corporate prejudice against undocumented workers of foreign origin. We must consign this kind of discrimination to the dustbin of history!” 
 See how much better that would have been?

Words can change facts. Uh...maybe. Okay, no--but they can convince voters that things are fine!

Facts are facts.  Does anyone believe that simply speaking words that contradict facts can change those facts?

Western politicians either believe that, or want you to think it's true.

One current example (out of many possible choices!) is the so-called "truce" between Ukraine and Russian-backed "rebels."  The EU and the emperor's team were oh-so-breathless in having negotiated this "truce"--which lasted about ten minutes.  The short life was due to the fact that Putin has absolutely no interest in ending the fight, since it so powerfully serves his own interests, and there is no risk to him in continuing to do so.

Everyone with an IQ above room temp could--and many did--predict the result that indeed happened.  But to hear the EU and Obozo pols squawk, they really really did a great thing.

Except it changed nothing.  Words don’t change facts, even though politicians act as if they do.  The fact is that Putin is winning and is not about to stop punching simply because the Europeans have rung the bell.  He’s going for a knockout, stomping on his foe lying on the canvas.  The political problem for the West is how to keep calling it a truce.

Having lost on the battlefield against the far better-supplied rebels, Ukraine now will appeal for the EU to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to order the rebels to stop firing.  But there is no pressure European leaders can bring to bear on Putin.  Oh wait, they can impose travel bans on a dozen Russian officials.

Laughable.  Ludicrous.  One has a hard time imagining a stronger proof of powerlessness.  And Putin reads this correctly.

According to Reuters the “rebels” have turned back European monitors trying to reach a pocket where 8,000 Ukrainian troops are surrounded.  It's clear why:  The monitors would be able to verify continued Russian supply and rebel firing.

But never fear, citizen:  The right words, spoken by Special Leaders, can change any silly "fact" thingies.

For example, the Obama administration refuses to describe ISIS as being religiously motivated.  Much more soothing to just call them ordinary folks; random guys, whose only reason for turning to terror is because they can't find good union jobs.  Call them anything but who they are.

But in fairness to both the Obama administration and the Franco-Germans, their spokesmen are torturing the language for a reason.  They are doing it to maintain a facade as long as they are able; to avoid the use of terms that, if uttered, might be interpreted as suggesting the need for action.  Certain phrases, once officially spoken, would make even the dumbest voter sit up and realize that something was wrong.

Solution?  Avoid the words and you avoid admitting the actual situation, which then allows them to avoid taking effective action.

Charles Krauthammer summed it up: “Churchill saved England because in 1940 he was able to enlist the English language, and he put it to work on behalf of civilization. What this administration is doing is precisely the opposite."

What Leftists believe

So-called "progressives"--indistinguishable from leftists, socialists and hard-core Democrats--have an interesting set of core beliefs.  Some of these they admit, others they're coy about:

1.  All differences between groups (thus, "inequality")--whether between social groups or nations--occur because one group "exploits"  another.  The idea that differences in results may be due to widepread habits or differences in social ethos or modes of behavior between the groups is totally rejected.  Instead, all differences in results must be due to immoral practices by the more succesful group. Period.

2.  Accordingly, the more a group can show they've been victimized, the more deserving they are of praise and sympathy.

3.  It follows that justice demands that the evil "exploiters" be punished.  It's easy to identify this group:  they're successful--if not economically, then socially:  Most of them have generally functional families and they generally shy away from crime.

4.  In order to redress the inequalities of results, government must redistribute wealth from the successful to the victims.  It would be great if government could also redistribute "privileges" too, but this is rather more difficult.  So government should and must simply take away any privileges its experts believe successful people have.  Making successful people feel guilty about their relative success is another great tactic.

5.  The only legitimate government is one which is committed to imposing this agenda.

Think whatever modest degree of success you've achieved is due almost entirely to diligent study, sound ethics, avoiding drugs and crime, and a strong work ethic--perhaps working long hours or studying hard when others were drinking and partying?

Why, not at all, citizen!  How dare you think such a thing!  Your work ethic and study and avoiding illegal drugs had nothing to do with it!  It was all because you're a member of the privileged class!

As a famous emperor said, "You didn't build that!"

But don't worry: this injustice can be rectified.  We'll just take your tax dollars and give 'em to people styles of living.  Cuz, you know, all lifestyles are equally valid.  You can believe us because our experts have degrees from Hahvahd, which means they're really, really smart.

And of course "professions" includes being a professional thief or drug dealer or mugger.  Because those folks work hard too.  And of course the only reason they took up those professions was because no one would give them $50,000-a-year jobs.  It was and is manifestly unfair.  So you need to fix it.

"Manifestly."  Gotta love that word.

Oh, and in case you missed it:  A new poll found that 48 percent of Democrats believed the president could and should do anything he felt was necessary, even if the proposed action was contra to the law.

No word on whether that belief would change if a Republican were president.

"Constitution?  Never heard of it."

Iranian group runs full-page ad in NY Times blasting Netanyahu's coming address to congress

Three days ago the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) ran what it described as a full-page ad in the New York Times, attacking John Boehner and congressional Republicans for inviting Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress. 

In a press release NIAC, a mouthpiece for the Iranian regime, described the invitation as "Boehner and Benjamin Netanyahu’s outrageous political stunt that could kill diplomacy with Iran and start a war."

Seriously claiming that a proposed act could "start a war" is the probably the most threatening scare tactic available.  (The word "war" appears four times in the ad.)  But who would start this alleged war?  No faction in the U.S. is pushing for war with Iran, but by contrast, Iran's religious leaders insist that the proposed deal--the details of which are still unknown--is the only alternative to war.  So it would appear that in their ad in the Times the Iranian group is threatening war unless they get their "deal."

Second, why is it an “outrageous political stunt” to hear from an opponent of the proposed nuclear agreement?  Assuming Netanyahu will make the case against the proposed deal, why is Iran so afraid of the prospect that Congress might hear both sides of the argument?  Of course the mullahs probably don't really understand that freedom of speech and open debate of policies are the way things are done in a democracy.

If Obama was about to sign an agreement that would prevent Iran from achieving their long-sought goal of building an atomic bomb, would the Iranians in the U.S. be supporting that, or opposing it?

The answer to that question reveals the hidden truth: the agreement the Obama administration is secretly negotiating is not intended to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  Rather, it will tacitly accept Iran as a nuclear power. This is why Iran's leaders are so enthusiastic about the agreement–and about Barack Obama–and why Netanyahu opposes it, as do many Republicans.

Democrats, by contrast, believe any agreement negotiated by the emperor will do exactly what the emperor claims, and that regardless of the actual terms, by signing it the Iranians will be agreeing to abandon their effort to build the bomb.

Oh, certainly.  Just like Neville Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler prevented the second world war.

The mullahs’ disingenuous ad is another reminder of how important it is for Americans to hear what Netanyahu has to say, and to understand the real purposes behind the administration’s insane and dangerous eagerness to "sign a deal" with Iran--no matter how bad for the West.

Finally, a thought experiment:  If the Jewish Anti-Defamation League wanted to buy a full-page ad in the Times supporting Boehner's invitation for Netanyahu to address congress, does anyone believe the Times would have agreed to run it?

Full disclosure:  I'm not Jewish, nor is any member of my family.  I'm not being paid by anyone for my writing.  I just hate hypocrisy and liars bent on destroying freedom--which seems to accurately describe the emperor and his henchmen.

Oh, for you leftists who are unalterably convinced this never happened, here's the ad the NY Times ran:

Saturday, February 21

Intellectual inconsistency never bothers Leftists

There's this stupid liberal asshole named Paul Krugman, who writes some dumb crap for the NY Times.  Like all good liberals, Krugman strongly agrees with the claim that raising the minimum wage won't reduce employment--whether entry-level or otherwise.

But also like all good liberals, Krugman firmly believes humans are causing significant, harmful global warming, mainly by the emission of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.  Like all good liberals, he's 100 percent behind the emperor's plans to tax the hell out of carbon--whether before or after it's burned.  Because imposing a nice tax on carbon will reduce the amount consumed.

Because, you know, raising the price of something reduces its use.

Uh...except when it comes to...entry-level labor.  In which case raising the price will have zero effect.

Yes, zero! 

And you can believe him because he's a columnist for the NY Times and once won a Nobel prize for economics.  You know, just like Obama's Nobel peace prize.

You know, the one he was nominated for a month before his inauguration.  Because of all the heroic work he did during his long 4-year career in the U.S. senate, fighting for peace.

Wait...what?  You say he never sponsored a single bill during his term in the senate?

Then surely it was for the hundreds of hours he spent trying to negotiate peace in the middle-east in the two months between leaving the senate and being inaugurated as emperor.

What?  You say he didn't do any such thing?  Then why the fuck would any sane person nominate the cunning, lying bastard for the Nobel?


Friday, February 20


This country is being run--into the ground--by a lying, scheming, lawless, Constitution-raping emperor, and his Democrat henchmen.

Of course you think I'm just being hyperbolic. Well, take a look at the vid below of Obozo campaigning for his first imperial election.  He slams G.W. Bush for adding [gasp!!] a staggering $4 trillion to the national debt.  As Obozo put it, "That's irresponsible!"

Hmm...Wonder how the emperor has fared on adding to the national debt--by spending more than the government took in in revenue?  During the emperor's reign the national debt has increased by roughly $8 trillion.

Okay, so is that increase also "irresponsible?"  Why, not at all, citizen!  In fact, Obozo didn't even  bother to push his Democrats in congress--when they controlled both chambers--to pass a budget for three years.  Gosh, that sound *very* responsible.  Not.

In fact, the Dem talking points for the entire period of the emperor's reign has been that any Repub who tried to reduce just the growth of federal spending is cruel and a racist for wanting to make the poor and minorities suffer!

Eh, no matter.  Or as the top Dem candidate said:  "At this point what difference could it possibly make?"

Monday, February 16

Another Obama success: Muzz terrorists behead 21 bound Christian hostages--in LIBYA !

Yesterday a video was released by muslim terrorist barbarians purporting to show the beheading of 21 bound Coptic Christian hostages. 

Read that again and consider it: The bastard muslims have been beheading Christians and others for years, but I don't recall them beheading even three or four at a time.  But now...twenty-one at once.  And the entire thing is on video.

You think this is just more of same, but the new news is that the hostages were beheaded in Libya.  You know, that country that our bastard muslim emperor violated the War Powers act to help overthrow Kadaffi--a guy who'd given up his nuclear program and was *really* no threat to us.

How'd that work out for ya, Barack?  Still pushin' that "Arab spring" bullshit are ya?

You are one fabulous strategic planner, eh?  An absolute wonder of foreign-policy brilliance.  You and Hillary, who pushed the same bullshit.

In a statement released Sunday evening White House press secretary Josh Earnest did not refer to the hostages as Christians, but only as "Egyptian citizens" and "innocents."  Do you suppose the emperor's team simply didn't know they were Coptic Christians?  Yeah, probably not an important factor to Team O.  Plus they wouldn't wanna rile up the bitter clingers in the heartland.

Wonder if the emperor and his team would have been so nonchalant if five or six muslims had been shot by Americans?  Yeah, somehow I'm seeing a *lot* different reaction.

Ya know, if you think about Libya, Iraq, arming rebels in Syria, kissing up to Castro and the totality of Obama's foreign policy it seems to be disaster everywhere you look--unless you consider his goal is really to advance Islam and reduce American power and influence.  In that case it makes *perfect* sense.

If you think the bastards will stop with Libya you're too dumb to live.  But don't worry, citizen:  Your emperor assures you ISIS isn't a real threat.  In fact it's did Barky put it?  Oh yeah:  A "JV team."

That Barky is one smart guy, eh?  Oh, did Boko Haram bring the Christian school girls back yet?

No?  You mean the hashtag campaign didn't work?  That is such a shock!  And it was so brilliant in its strategic deconstruction of the oblate enfarkiousness of the core psychology of the.... Oh, is that bullshit Barkybabble again?  Yeah,'s always worked before.

Gotta keep the Base happy, right?  And if you keep givin' the Base and the Lying Media words they can't make sense of, they'll never be able to poke any holes in your strategy.