Friday, July 3

Can we learn any lessons from policies in other nations? Leftists: No, not a thing.

Can Americans learn any useful lessons from events in, say, Greece or Tunisia or Libya or Egypt or...fill in the blank?

Leftists, socialists, "progressives" and Democrats want you to believe nothing useful can be learned--that government policies in other nations that produce disastrous results will have totally good results here in the U.S.  Because Obama or something.

This of course is insane:  While different cultures have different values, human nature itself is pretty constant.  So bad policies in one country are likely to be bad if instituted anywhere else.

The Left insists that you avoid drawing that conclusion, because their policies are the ones that lead to disastrous outcomes in other nations.  Thus most rational adults would conclude that those policies should be avoided here.

For example: Bureaucrats in Greece can retire at age 58 on very generous pensions.  Moreover, they get 14 "monthly" paychecks per year, both before and after retirement.  (Two bonus checks for being such fabulous people.)  The Greek government doesn't want to change this, and as long as they can borrow from financially solvent nations, why should they?

Can you say "Ponzi scheme"?

Before about six years ago Egypt was a popular tourist destination, reasonable stable and reasonably safe.  Now the Muslim Brotherhood has started a terror campaign--much like the communists in South Vietnam back in the 1960's.  But the U.S. Left wants you to welcome many more hundreds of thousands of muslim immigrants into the U.S, because...well, they're the "right" kind of people.  And look what they've done for Egypt!

Oh wait--according to your emperor the Muslim Brotherhood has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.  In fact, they're not really authentic muslims at all!  It's a mystery why they took that name for their group, since they're not really Muslims, eh?

In South Africa--totally run by the communist African National Congress party--half the dockets of criminal cases ready for trial mysteriously disappear forever.  The cops are thoroughly corrupt.  But don't worry, citizen:  There are absolutely NO useful lessons Americans can learn from South Africa.

The European Union has been overwhelmed by illegal immigrants from North Africa, who set out for Italy in old, overloaded boats.  But since the politicians of the EU have announced that their policy is to rescue all such voyagers, the boats keep coming.  But don't worry, citizen:  There is absolutely nothing in this event that would be relevant for Americans.

Polygamy is legal in many Muslim nations but theoretically illegal in Britain.  But because of stupid government policies--often defended as "religious tolerance"--Muslim immigrants with 4 wives and dozens of offspring are living on the dole in the U.K.  That is, the taxpayer is supporting multiple, current wives of the same man.

Values?  You don't get to have any.  But immigrants can break laws with impunity.  And get the taxpayers to support them as they do so.  But no possible lessons for Americans in this disaster.

Not to worry, citizen.  Just ignore it, and everything will be fine.  Let Hillary and Bill and Chelsea and Bernie Sanders run things.  Because "Democrats care about the common man."  Or so they keep saying.

Thursday, June 25

IRS destroyed evidence even after congress ordered 'em to preserve it.

How far have we fallen from a nation of laws?  Here's example 456,745:  When a congressional committee began closing in on the brazen harassment of conservative politica groups by the lying IRS division chief Lois Lerner, congress subpoenaed her emails to see if someone higher up in the emperor's administration had told her to do this.

Lerner then told congress that a hard drive crash had wiped out two years of her emails.  Oh, and bad luck, congressman:  The two years that were destroyed were exactly the period you were looking for, too.  Gosh, so sorry!

Then some congressional staffer noted that federal law required all agencies to preserve backups of emails, exactly to prevent crooked, lying bitch scum like Lerner from claiming what she claimed and getting away with it.  So where were the backups?

The head of the IRS himself appeared before congress and testified that no backups existed.  And no, it wasn't his fault.  Because, "Hey, way too complicated for you morons to understand."  The bastard actually smirked as he said the equivalent of this.

Oh, and we looked all over the place for the tapes but couldn't find 'em.

Oh, they may have existed at one time but have been overwritten by new data--because, you know, those big-ass reels of tape are expensive, and when the Rethuglicans did that thing with the budget a couple of years ago, well, we just couldn't afford new backup tapes so we had to write over the older ones.  So you know, it's your fault.

Then some investigator had the stunning idea to actually go down to the office that stores backup tapes for federal agencies and ask "Did the lying sack of shit who cashes a paycheck for nominally "running" the IRS ask you to look for these tapes?"

Answer:  "No one has ever asked us to look for anything."  And they proceeded to produce tapes containing, oh, 30,000 pages of emails.

Okay, now that you're up to speed:  The latest claim from the IRS is that well after congress subpoenaed tapes and any other media containing Lerner's emails, IRS employees destroyed 422 tapes containing another 24,000 Lerner emails.  And the excuse given?

"Ooh, was there some sort of search for these?  Oooh, a subpoena, you say?  Well, we had no idea.

In fact the destruction of the subpoenaed evidence occurred about three weeks before IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testified to Congress that they would provide documents to Congress.

Hey, we're just Soooo f'n sorry about that, congressdudes.  Gosh, if only we'd somehow known not to erase all those tapes, we could have been more helpful.  But no one up the chain ever told us y'all were looking for these things.  Wow, bad luck, huh?  Well, is there anything else we can do for ya?

 Firing squads.  Everyone from GS4 all the way to the top.  These lying bastards will keep doing it until the first thousand are executed.  Then and only then will the brazen lying and lawbreaking stop.

Court rules the clear language of the ACA on subsidies does NOT mean what it says

Well the long-awaited ruling from the Supreme Court on whether the clear language of the actual Obamacare *law* regarding who can get taxpayer-funded subsidies means what it says was issued a couple of hours ago.

If you haven't followed the controversy, it's that the part dealing with subsidies says that people are only eligible for a subsidy (a check from taxpayers) if they bought their insurance through an "exchange established by a State."

Does that seem confusing?   What do you think the law's drafters meant by that phrase?

The intent of this provision was to dangle a carrot in front of the states, to encourage all the states to set up their own exchanges.  This incentive didn't work:  Only a handful of states set up their own exchanges, and at least two that states spent over a billion dollars building have now been terminated as being too costly.

But back to the language:  If you don't believe that the restrictive language (only to "an exchange established by a State") was inserted to entice the states into setting up their own exchanges, the main architect of Obamacare has been captured on video--on two separate occasions--saying exactly that.  So if you're looking at the intent of the law's language, there it is.

But let's suppose he hadn't made those two statements (again, caught on video).  In that case courts try to use logic to divine the intent of congress.  So consider this:  If the lying asshole socialist bastards who wrote the actual language in the bill had intended that everyone who bought health insurance would qualify to receive a subsidy, why would the drafters bother inserting any qualifying language in the bill at all? 

If they intended that everyone would qualify for a subsidy, any "limiting" language would not only be unnecessary but inaccurate.  So the mere existence of any language that would restrict the subsidy in any way speaks to their true intent.

The only possible conclusion is that the bill's authors meant what they wrote in the bill--NOT what they now claim.

But the court ignored this bit of very obvious logic in favor of re-writing the bill to do what the drafters NOW claim they wanted to do.  Which was give subsidies to everyone.

If you're a Democrat, liberal, "progressive" or communist, this is just faabulous.  Those folks all love for the courts to rewrite laws to accomplish things the Left wants done.  Unfortunately the court has historically declined to do that, reasoning that if the language clearly says "X," but congress wails that they *really* meant "Y," congress is free to repeal or amend the defective law at any time.

This principle has been upheld so many times as to be considered a fundamental judicial mandate.

By contrast, this court ruled that doing what the actual, you know, language says could possibly make Obamacare unworkable.  Since the court considers it unthinkable that Obamacare NOT work, it will simply re-interpret the clear language to be...inoperative.

Folks, I can't adequately describe what a ghastly, horrible, dangerous, deadly threshold this court has just crossed.  Because I'll bet you the drink of your choice that the justices won't actually re-write the troublesome language, nor rule that "Section xxx, line y is hereby deleted."  They won't do that because doing so will make it too obvious that they've crossed the line into legislating.

So the inconsistent language will remain.  But now what does the law actually *say*?  The Left knows what effect they (now) want, and the justices agree, but how are the rest of us to know what the unwritten language of the law now says?

Admittedly this example isn't dire, but the precedent is.  For if the court can rule that a law that clearly says X "really means" Y--but without setting that out in the statute itself--then no one can know what the law is.

Here's what dissenting justice Scalia wrote about today's decision:
1. “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is [deemed to be] ‘established by the State.’”
2. “Under all the usual rules of interpretation...the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”
3. “Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of.”
4. "[T]he discouraging truth [is] that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

Eh, no matter, citizen.  As I've written many times, the U.S. stopped being a nation of laws about seven years ago.  When it comes to the law we're now no better than Kenya or communist-ruled South Africa or North Korea:  the people who run the government will decide what a given law means, and which should be enforced, and against whom.  And it's just bad luck that you're always on the wrong end of those decisions, while elites like Hillary are always on the right end.

Damn shame about that, citizen.  Oh, just leave your keys on the front table when you leave.  Your former house will make a dozen new U.S. citizens very comfortable.  Oh, and don't bother telling anyone about this--no one will believe you.

Wednesday, June 24

EU still negotiating to bail out Greece. Greek pols laughing all the way to the bar.

Big meeting taking place in Greece between European Central Bank reps, members of the European parliament and Greek politicians to see how much taxpayer money the pols can give Greece to keep the latter from leaving the common Euro currency.

Problem is Greece has a huge debt and insists on continuing to spend far more than it takes in in tax revenue.  (Sound familiar?)  For a big insight on the stupidity, click here.

Summary:  For several years now the Greek govt has been living off cash borrowed from the EU.  They've missed several repayment "deadlines."  Two or three years ago European politicians pressured Greece's lenders to write off a huge chunk of that debt in exchange for solemn promises from Greek pols to repay the rest.

How'd that work out for 'em?  Do you need to ask?

Basically the deal from a few years ago was "We'll loan you even more billions if you'll solemnly promise to tighten your policies and repay the old loans."

Of course the Greeks ended up using the new loans to make partial payments on the old loans and string the lenders out longer, and now they're even farther in debt.  But the stupid members of the European parliament--a bunch even less useful than our congress--are just so *traumatized* by the plight of the Greek people that they're determined to squeeze their members to bail Greece out yet again.

Politicians are absolutely determined to feel good about themselves, no matter how much of other peoples' money they have to spend to do so.

Democrats: They're always "for the little people," right?

Democrats claim to be "for the common man."  Their constant refrain is "I'm just like you.  I care about you."  And sure enough, that shows in the way they live.   For example, below are two homes belonging to presidential candidates. 

One's a Republican, the other's a Democrat.

See if you can guess which home goes with which candidate.  Should be easy, right?
Home #1:

And here's #2:

Well OBVIOUSLY the first one belongs to the Democrat!  Because it's small, unpretentious, on a tiny suburban lot.  The second one--far larger, on acreage--clearly belongs to the Republican.  Cuz, you know, they're all rich and elitist and would never be caught dead living on the end of suburban cul-de-sac.  So there's the proof that...

What?  You say the first one belongs to...Marco Rubio?  Wait, isn't he a Republican?  Clearly someone has made a mistake.  This can't be right.

But then that must mean the far larger home on the huge lot must belong to...a...a...a...Democrat?  But I thought there were only two Dem candidates.  Is that Bernie Sanders' home?  Say, socialism must pay pretty well!  But then Bernie never did claim to be "just like us," eh?  He's always struck me as sort of elitist, and...

What?  You say that's NOT Sanders' place?  But...but...but...that would mean it's Hillary's. 

"Just like us," eh?  "Dead broke," eh?  Hmmm....

Hat tip to Jason Stevens at Federalist Papers.

Tuesday, June 23

Hillary on live TV in New Hampshire, fumbles question about Bill taking half a mil from Russian bank for one speech

Two days ago Hillary Clinton gave an interview on local television in New Hampshire.  It appears to have been live.

Astonishingly, the host asked Clinton why "her" State Department--which she ostensibly ran during her term as Secretary of State--approved the sale of U.S. uranium mining claims to Russia, totalling 20 percent of total U.S. reserves.

Clinton responded, “I was not personally involved because that wasn’t something the secretary of state did.”

Wait...this is a group seeking government permission to sell a huge quantity of uranium reserves to Russia, and she's claiming she wasn't involved in the approval?  Hey, good thing we aren't talking about something of, you know, huge strategic importance here, eh?

If the Secretary doesn't get involved in something that crucial, why do we have one?  Who the hell made the decision--the janitor?  Marie Harf?  Jen Psaki?

But it gets a lot more interesting:  Writing in the NY Post, Peter Schweizer--author of Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich--notes that nine of the would-be sellers of these uranium-mining assets contributed a staggering $145 million to the Clinton Foundation in the months leading up to the approval they had to have to make the sale.

And she claims she wasn't involved in the decision?

Read Schweizer's article.  It's pretty damning.  It's pretty clear Hillary took a $145 million bribe to approve the sale of U.S. uranium mining claims to Russia.  She's a crook and a traitor.  And apparently a few media people are starting to question her constant lies.

Of course as soon as the questioners are fired I expect any such distressing behavior will stop immediately.

Raisin-growing couple objects to government demanding they give it 47% of their crop

Back in the 1930s, with the Great Depression and the Dustbowl, the federal government was desperate to find a way to fix things.  In doing so they passed some laws that were just as goofy as Obamacare or Cash for Clunkers.  Some of those laws and the programs they created are still operating today, with some...interesting...results.

For example, raisins.  If you grow raisins a federal program demands that you turn over a percentage of your crop--recently as high as 47 percent--to the government.  The government doesn't pay you for it.

You probably don't believe that, because "private property."  But it's true.

How in the world could such a program pass congress?  As you might have guessed, it purported to solve a crisis--the oversupply of food during the Depression.  The "oversupply" existed because people without jobs couldn't afford to buy a lot of things they formerly did.

One family--one--who grew raisins objected, and refused to comply.  The government fined them $695,000.

They sued, on the grounds that this was an "unConstitutional taking."  And yesterday the Supreme Court released a decision in their favor.

One "justice" dissented: Sotomayor, the self-proclaimed "wise latina."  In her written dissent she reportedly wrote that the raisin-forfeiture program did not deprive the plaintiffs of all property rights, but just limited the amount of potential income they could earn from growing their raisins.

Read that last statement again and marvel at how violently the Democrats have strayed from the principles of the Constitution:  Sotomayor is arguing, in essence, that the government can seize your property, as long as it leaves you *some* property rights.

Wow, what a fucking relief, eh?

If this is what passes for wisdom in the U.S. it's easy to see why things are rapidly going to hell.

Now I'll cheerfully admit that congress started this particular program 70-odd years before the emperor ascended.  It was unConstitutional from the outset and should have been so ruled decades ago.  Unfortunately what this shows is that blatantly unConstitutional  programs can persist for decades before a court finally finds the stones to shut 'em down.

But for the moment, let's celebrate a small ray of sanity.

Monday, June 22

Net effect of Obamacare, subsidies, and clear language in the bill that Obozo argues doesn't mean what it says

As the date approaches for release of the Supreme Court's decision on whether the clear and unambiguous language of the laughably misnamed "Affordable Care Act" means what it says, the beauty of the whole exercise from the Democrat/liberal/"progressive" standpoint is becoming clear.  Watch the chain unfold below:

This stinker of a law--forcing Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine--would never have passed without the explicit provision that low-income folks would have most of their costs reimbursed through "subsidies."

The law clearly states that such subsidies would only be available to people who bought insurance "through an Exchange established by a State."  (If a state didn't establish one, people could buy through the federal government's "exchange.")

Key drafter Jonathan Gruber (whose name has become a synonym for "liar") is on video several times saying this provision was deliberately included because it was an incentive for the states to establish their own health-insurance "exchanges."  The Democrats wanted this because it would spread the blame for any failures.  Angry voters would take their anger out on the states rather than the federal government.

Clever, huh.

But much to the surprise of Dem congresswhores, only a handful of states established their own exchanges.  Meaning residents of those states shouldn't have been eligible to receive subsidies.

Keep reading--we're about to close the loop:

At the order of the emperor, in violation of the clear language of the law, the government paid subsidies to everyone, regardless of whether they signed up on a state exchange or the federal one.

Now, behold the Great Rachet:  If the Supreme Court interprets the language as meaning what it says, the dems and their media army will scream to high heaven that the GOP has snatched money from the mouths of the poor--even though the GOP has zip to do with the Supreme Court and didn't vote for the ACA.

The united scream will cement another two million votes firmly in the Democrat column.

What's happened here is that the Democrats--led by and with full intent of the emperor--voted for taxpayers to give "freebies" to Democrat constituents.  So thereafter, any attempt to revoke the "freebies"--even if done by the Court rather than the GOP, and done to honor the clear language of the law, which itself was a ruse to win it the votes needed to pass it--will be blamed on the GOP.

In other words, it'll never be taken away.  The GOP will do anything to save it.  Which makes them complicit in the unconstitutional power grab.

Which was the intent all along. Along with the power grab, of course.

Government demands identity of website commenters--and slaps "gag order" on website owner

Two weeks ago a government attorney in New York hit a libertarian website with a subpoena, demanding it turn over information that would identify two commenters to an article on its website.  Apparently the commenters had written something like "the SOB's who did that should be shot" or something similar--and the U.S. attorney in NY took this as a serious threat, not protected as free speech.

This whole exchange is just background.  The bomb is that the same gummint attorney also formally demanded that the website not reveal to anyone--under penalty of law--that the government had demanded the information.  This is informally termed a "gag order."

A couple of days ago the gag order was lifted, and the website (and magazine) revealed the details.  But the question is, how many times has the government demanded information and simultaneously issued an order forbidding the defendant from saying anything about the demand?

And how would any of you know?

Anyone recall that infamous line, "Mine will be the most transparent administration in history"?  How's that workin' for ya?

Media bias, example number gazillion

Further to the evidence of extreme left-lib-Democrat bias in the media, exhibit gazillion, from the wretchedly-Dem-loving Associated Press.  It's for sale on their website:

The man whose head seems to be inches from the muzzle (for you gun-phobes that's the end the bullet exits from) is GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz.

Gosh, that seems pretty inflammatory, doesn't it?

The message is even clearer when you see the original, uncropped pic.  Here it is:

Either the AP or the photog intentionally cropped it way down to get their cunning, hateful message across.

Does anyone think the cropped version is more informative?  Newsworthy? Communicates a nuance, perhaps?  No, of course not.  The AP cropped it down to about 5 percent of the original for one reason: to get a message across.  And then denied they had any such intent.  Sure.

But not to worry, serfs:  The AP has done much the same thing with its pics of the emperor.  Some examples:

Oh, wait...those *aren't* guns pointed at him.  In fact they all look like...halos??

With so many artfully composed pics of the emperor you'd almost think the photogs were doing this deliberately, eh?  Now contrast the above pics with the one of Cruz.

Nah, no bias here, folks.

Leftist hypocrisy, example 452,328--this time from the beacons of (un)reason at Salon

Conservatives have long noted the hypocrisy of the Left:  One set of rules for them and a far different set for their opponents.  And here's the latest example:

Following the killings by the obviously deranged Dylann Roof in Charleston, liberals have been exploding in white guilt, angst and similar.  According to Salon, for example, ALL whites must share the blame for the murders.

Hmmm.... Seems t' me the leftists at Salon haven't always bought into the notion of "collective guilt."  For example:

If that image is fuzzy, the left one is from three days ago and says "White America must answer for the Charleston church massacre."

The one on the right is from two years ago, after the Boston marathon bombing by two Muslim brothers, the Tsarnaevs, killed 3 and ripped the limbs off others.  It reads: "Muslims don't need to apologize for the Tsarnaevs."

Before the internet no one could have proven that the Leftist assholes at Salon had such a blatant double-standard.  Of course those on the right already knew, and those on the left wouldn't mind a bit.  Anything's fair for their cause.

Friday, June 19

121 illegals who were convicted felons were released by Feds and went on won't believe.

Let me describe a scenario many of you have experienced:  Some organization or rogue newspaper or blogger discovers that the government is doing X--something so astonishingly stupid, harmful and bad that it's simply impossible to believe.

They duly report the finding.  At first no one believes it, but then slowly, drip by drip, the relevant agencies grudgingly, mumblingly admit that, um...well, maybe there's something to that story after all.

And then months later, the full story comes out.  And sure enough, the fucking government was doing exactly what the first investigator claimed they were doing--as stupid and harmful and crazy as it may have sounded.

But by that time the public's attention has shifted to some new bit of hotness, some new scandal, some the hell with it. 

In any case every editor at every paper and TV station claims no one is interested it that "old story" any longer.  It's boring.  "Who cares?"  So voters never hear or read about the full admission of stupidity, harm, damage and so on.  The story has effectively been tossed down Orwell's "memory hole."

(Extra chocolate rations if readers can tell me what that actually referred to.)

Want to see an example?  You probably don't, but I'll do it anyway, because you need to know what the hell is really going on in this country.  And you don't. 

No matter.  Anyway, the example is illegal immigrants.  The emperor's lackeys never detain them, but release 'em with a "court date."  They sign something saying they promise to appear.

Now this next part will stun you:  A full 94 percent of 'em don't show up.

And why would that be?  I'm sure you'll all be shocked to learn that there's no penalty for an illegal who doesn't show up for his or her court date

You'll probably need to read that again--because it's so fucking unbelievably stupid:  If you don't show up for the promised hearing, there's no penalty.

Oh, all manner of paperwork is duly generated and issued.  To no effect whatsoever.  The gummint only manages to find something like six percent of the no-show illegals.  And even then they have a good chance of being allowed to stay in the U.S. 

We call that "pencil-whipping a problem."

Now let's review:  Who out there thinks that once the illegals learned there was no penalty for not showing up, any other outcome was likely?  No one?  Yeah, pretty predictable.

So why didn't your betters in the immigration business--and it's one hellofa lucrative one, for sure--figure this out sooner?  Of course it could all be due to incompetence, but I'm betting it's intentional.  This isn't a bug, it's a *feature.*  The ACLU gets a chance to wail about how awful and unfair it is that the gummint doesn't just let everyone in who wants in, laws be damned.  And at that point the gummint usually caves and releases the three or four illegals it's actually detaining. 

Again, this is all a charade.  It's part of the emperor's plan to overwhelm U.S. agencies with infinite demands for money and resources--a tactic called "Cloward-Piven."  The goal is to collapse capitalism and create an electorate that will vote Democrat forever.

Most of you will figure it out, eventually.  At which point it'll be too late, of course.  But "What difference, at this point, could it possibly make," right?

Sheeit, that sounds SO familiar?  Who the hell said that?

No matter.  In any case, the bottom line is that the emperor's toadies have released 121 illegals who had previously been convicted of felony crimes.

Oh, wait:  My mistake:  The gummint has released not just 121 but *thousands* of illegals who had previously been convicted of felonies.  The 121 is just the number of those prior felons who went on to murder American citizens after the emperor's thugs released 'em.

Hmmm.  One almost believes this is deliberate.

Thursday, June 18

OPM computer "hack" seems to have been because they outsourced computer security to Chinese nationals!

You may have heard some vague murmurings about the computer servers at the federal government's "Office of Personnel Management" being "hacked," and files being copied on as many as ten million federal employees.  Early reports included speculation that the hack was done by the Chinese government.

Well, turns out there's more to the story.  It wasn't a cyber-attack as such.  It was worse: Turns out OPM--an agency totally controlled by the emperor--contracted out its computer security to a company heavily staffed by Chinese nationals.  And it gave those contractors what's called "root access" to OPM's computers.

For non-geeks that means the Chinese could change anything in the system--including uploading spyware, trapdoors and all manner of "malware."

Now even if computers aren't your area of expertise, you're probably wondering how an agency of the federal government could manage to give root access to Chinese nationals.  (And we don't mean "people of Chinese origin or ancestry" but current residents of China with Chinese passports.)  It seems either incompetent, insane or traitorous.

Well, here's a clue:  The person Obama appointed to head the OPM is one Katherine Achuleta--whose biography posted at reveals a background devoid of real management expertise but long on political loyalty.
Director Archuleta...was the first Latina to head this federal agency.
Director Archuleta [was] a teacher in the Denver public school system....[then]  an aide to Denver Mayor [D] Federico Peña. When Mayor Peña became Secretary of Transportation during the Clinton Administration, Archuleta [became] his Chief of Staff. Later, Peña was appointed to head the Department of Energy and Archuleta served as a Senior Policy Advisor.
After the Clinton Administration she went back to local government and became a senior policy advisor to Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.
Archuleta spent the first two years of the Obama Administration serving as the Chief of Staff to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.
Here's Ms. Archuleta:

In the Age of Obama the overriding rule of government is to put people in charge of government agencies not due to their competence, but because they have the proper symbolic value in terms of race and gender.  And of course political reliability is crucial.

The new fable is that Archuleta discovered the "hack" herself, as a result of investigating computer security at OPM.  This of course is being contradicted by numerous low-level employees who've said the problem with the entity in charge of computer security had been known for over a year, and many warnings about the Chinese nationals had been passed up the chain--and ignored.

Click here to get a non-political take on how this happened.  (Same as link above.)  The damning info is about half-way down.

If one were to propose this as a movie plot it would be rejected as being totally unreal, implausible.  And yet here we are.

Sunday, June 14

Government screws up A,B & C but wants to take total control of D, E & F

The emperor's administration has conclusively shown that they can't protect our embassies or consulates, can't protect the border, can't protect their own IT infrastructure, can't keep intruders out of the grounds of the White House, can't protect the Capitol Building, can't defend our allies....
and yet they want total control over:

  -health care for every American
  -every single puddle of water in the country, whether or not navigable
  -every detail of elementary and high school curricula
  -what can be transmitted over the internet
  -privately owned land
  -school lunches
  -our food choices
  -your right to bear arms
  -your alleged freedom of speech and expression
  -your right to free exercise of your religious beliefs
  -your right to be secure in our persons and free from unreasonable search and seizure

Here's a novel idea:  Once government starts doing a passable job on the items in the first 'graf, then we'll talk about the other ones.  Until then, fuck off.

Friday, June 12

Texas cops raid girls’ “Illegal” lemonade stand, shut it down for not having a permit

One of the big attractions of Texas is that the folks down there seem to be a lot more reasonable and a lot less intrusive/pissy/fussy than folks up north and out west.  Uh...maybe not...!

Last week two girls in Overton, Texas came up with an idea to raise $100 for a Father's Day present for their dad:  The decided to sell heroin.

Just kidding.  Lemonade.  The pair of novice entrepreneurs--ages 7 and 8--started selling to willing buyers last weekend.  After just one hour they'd made about 25 bucks, but then Code Enforcement showed up with the town's police chief and shut 'em down for operating without a permit.

Seems Texas has a law barring the sale of food that needs time or temperature control to prevent it from spoiling if the control isn't present. Since the lemonade would eventually grow mold after being left out for days, police said they needed both an inspection from the health department and a permit to sell it.

The cost of the permit alone is $150.  No word on whether putting ice in the lemonade would satisfy the law's requirement for temperature control.

Luckily neither the girls nor their dog were shot, tazed, tear-gassed or maced.  Neither they nor their parents were jailed, and they weren't hit with hundred of dollars in fines.  So it could have been worse.  And in a lot of states it would have been.

Such is the sad, sorry state of our mad governments today, when even Texas shuts down little girls for trying to sell lemonade.

Both the police chief and code enforcement need to be fired.  But of course they won't be.

Seven years ago ABC predicted NYC would be underwater, and lots of other things. Why?

Exactly seven years ago today, the ABC television network did a piece supposedly forecasting what things would be like just seven years in the future--i.e. today.  To say their forecasts were ludicrous is an understatement.  Here, see for yourself:
  * New York City would be underwater
  * Gasoline would cost nine bucks a gallon
  * Milk would cost $13 a gallon

A quick check shows that a gallon of gas costs about $2.40 here in flyover country (higher in coastal states but that's because of their taxes and regs, not the cost of the gas).  A gallon of milk averages about $3.40.   And last time I looked, the sea level around NYC was just where it's been for years, give or take a millimeter.

People often try to predict conditions 50 or 100 years ahead, because when that year rolls around no one remembers.  But why would ABC make such totally radical forecasts for a time so near in the future--since if they proven wrong, many people would remember (at least with the help of the wonderful internet)?

Oh wait--wasn't something fairly critical for the U.S. scheduled to happen just five months after ABC's apocalyptic predictions in 2008?

Oh, that's right: a presidential election. 

And which party would benefit from one of the big-three broadcast networks scaring people about the price of staples like milk and gasoline, or the alleged catastrophic effects of global warming--like rising sea levels submerging NYC?

Why, that would be the same party that wants to dismantle "evil" capitalism and the free market in favor of government bureaucrats controlling every aspect of life.

In case you're new to this country, that would be the Democrats.

Seems like the most likely explanation for ABC going so far out on a limb to make scary, absurd predictions was that they were trying to help elect the emperor.  What a surprise.

Millions of sensitive personnel records copied; govt implies no big deal: "such as birthdates"

Since everyone out here in flyover country is so busy working and raising their kids (etc), you may not have heard that someone--thought to be the Chinese government--hacked the computers of the federal Office of Personnel Management and made off with copies of files on millions of current and former fed employees.  (The data on file cover 4 million people and OPM still isn't sure how many files were copied.) [SEE UPDATE at bottom.]

I'm sure none of you will be surprised to hear that the OPM is downplaying the severity of the hack and the possible damage.  A spokesman said what was taken “could include” personal file information such as birth dates.

Gee, birth dates?  No wonder they're not very worried!  What a nothing story, right?

You need to think like an attorney: Parse the guy's words carefully.  He gave an example--totally unnecessary, of course--of personal information "such as..."  But in fact the real extent of the damage is huge--because the "personal data" includes the full contents of an innocuous little form called an SF-86.

That "little" form actually contains 127 pages of raw information from background checks of people who were either applying for a fed job or seeking a higher security clearance.

Now I know you'll all be shocked to learn that a few hundred thousand federal employees--like a lot of regular civilians--managed to get hired even though they have some very embarassing stuff in their background checks.  If a hostile government wanted to focus efforts to recruit spies based on vulnerability to blackmail, in the most efficient possible way, having this info would be an invaluable resource.  Or if a fed employee had relatives living in China who could be squeezed unless the employee agree to help the Chinese government.  You get the picture.

So that's bad enough.  But equally troubling is that OPM--following that wonderful model of "transparency" that your emperor promised he'd follow if he took the White Hut--has lied about how the hack was discovered.  In a *very* carefully worded press release they claim they discovered it after investigating their own system, but it's now been reported that the theft was discovered when a computer security company was demonstrating its latest software, designed to detect spy programs in large computer systems.

Apparently the company's software worked as advertised, and found the spying program.

Of course if you don't work for the federal gummint, no big deal, right?  Au contraire.  You have medical records, right?  And with Obamacare they're all on a federal computer somewhere.  Do you think your medical records are any safer than the OPM's?

The OPM lied about how this theft was discovered because the official fable made them look less incompetent.  So if your med records were stolen, do you think that gummint agency would tell you about it?  Do you think they'd lie to cover their asses?
UPDATE:  Two new developments now being reported.  First is that the original breach may have resulted in the theft of records on not just 4 million, but...14 million people.

And a second breach has been discovered, on a different computer.  Sources say files on about 2.9 million people may have been stolen.  More worrisome is that this attack was specifically on a database of people applying for security clearances.

OPM refused to comment on this latest report.

Whaddya wanna bet that if anyone is fired for OPM having poor security it'll just be some lowly GS-3 secretary or data fetcher.  None of the higher-ups will be tagged.  Why?  Because they know where the bodies are buried, so to speak.

Thursday, June 11

Gas price still moderate--because U.S. oil production is over 5 million barrels per day *higher* than 15 years ago!

As we head into the summer, gasoline is still hovering around $2.40 a gallon here in flyover country.  Great news for most of us.  (Except politicians, who motor on taxpayer-purchased gas, so couldn't care less.)

Here's the twist: If not for an amazing, brilliant effort by a stunningly competent group of folks, your gas would cost way over $8 a gallon by now.

And who is that amazing, brilliant, competent team that's responsible for saving you five and a half bucks a gallon?  Why, it's...the emperor's hand-picked energy secretary and advisors!

Hahahahahahahahaha!  That's some funny bullshit.  The emperor and company couldn't find their ass with both hands.  Instead the amazing, brilliant, competent group is...those hard-working souls who explore and drill for oil in the U.S.  And not a single one employed by government.

Stay with me here, because the truth is so unbelievable that you'll think I'm making it up.

The graph below shows U.S. oil production for the last 16 years. 
Put a ruler over the thing from its left edge--1999--to May of 2007.  Where that ruler intersects the right edge of the graph is the amount of oil the U.S. would have been producing today, based on that 8-year trend. 

You should get around 4 million barrels per day.  Production was falling for years because existing fields were being depleted.  But as you see on the graph (which is from the government's data-collecting people), last month the U.S. actually produced about 9.5 million barrels per day.

Unless you've been in the oil business you almost certainly have no idea of the effect the graph above has on the price of gas--and thus on your monthly expenses.  Example: If  a fire or terrorist act or hurricane anywhere in the world takes, say, half-a-million barrels per day (out of a total of about 94 million barrels per day) off the market, world prices go up a lot.  And of course the same trend also works the other way:  If a new field comes on line off Nigeria, adding half a million barrels per day to world production, the price of oil is pushed down.

Now, by some magic the United States alone is now producing roughly 5.5 million more barrels per day than would have been the case, based on the decline in conventional production.

This gain--by itself--has almost certainly cut the price you pay for gas by way over half.  Which means that without this extra production you'd probably be seeing prices in the $8 per gallon range.

What caused U.S. oil production to break the long depletion trend?  Where did all that extra oil come from?  From brilliant technology, pioneered by skilled companies both big and small, and improved by a long series of very costly trial-and-error wells.  Wells drilled and paid for by tax-paying companies, not government.  And some of those companies were very small family operations a decade ago, but have grown immensely--by being very skilled and diligent.

And this new technology can be--and will be--applied all over the world to find new fields and get more oil out of "mature" fields, keeping the world's economy humming for extra decades.

Remember the emperor's infamous line, "You didn't build that"?  Well, asshole, these folks *did* build that.  And because they did, Americans are saving billions.

You used the power of government to ram through Obamacare, promising that the average family would save $2500 per year.  That didn't happen, despite all the billions of taxpayer bucks spent on your pile of crap.  But these private individuals made a huge breakthrough that really is saving American families lots of money.  So tell us again why free markets suck?  Why government is so f'n great, the solution to all problems.

Horse shit.  Your emperor is a socialist moron.

Oh, and don't forget that Al Gore and the Democrats want to tax carbon when it's produced, and again when the products of its combustion (CO2) are emitted.  They want you drive electric cars with a range of maybe 120 miles.  Maybe that's fine for New York, but out here in flyover country it's not.

If you found this article informative, share it with a friend.

Wednesday, June 10

You won't believe the latest IRS defense to keep from turning over crucial emails

Does the name "Lois Lerner" ring a bell?

She was the IRS department chief whose department came up with those illegal, intrusive questions to ask conservative political groups to delay granting them tax-exempt status--some for as long as three years!--while leftist and liberal groups sailed through the entire process in as little as 30 days.

When congress tried to ask Lerner who instructed her to invent these tactics and to use them only to delay conservative groups, she refused to answer, taking the Fifth.  Congress then subpoenaed her computer and emails. 

Ooops, a mysterious hard drive crash took out exactly the two-year period when her program got started--the time you would expect to find any instructions from higher-ups.  Gosh, this is just soooo unfortunate for you Republican members of congress!

Well that's...uh...quite a coincidence, huh.  But shouldn't be a problem because federal law requires that all agencies not only preserve their emails but also have backups to prevent exactly this kind of loss.  And you folks at the IRS must be familiar with this federal law, right?  Cuz you sure as shit demand--demand--that us ordinary folk be up to date on every twist and detail of your ridiculously complex tax laws, on pain of fines.  Even if we don't subscribe to the absurdly costly Federal Register or whatever the fuck you people call the 100-foot-long shelf of fed rules.

So...produce the damn backups!

Oh, so sorry...there aren't any backups.  Which is hard to figure because we remember asking that new hire to set that up the very day the law passed, so...can't figure out why they aren't there.  Wish you could ask the guy but he was a drug addict who got killed in a drug deal.  Sad.
   And we looked really, really diligently for any.  Really.  But even if we'd found any, our tech folks say they wouldn't very well, so it would be almost impossible to search them to find the ones from and to Lerner.  I mean, you could maybe do it but it would cost millions and millions of dollars.  And sine you Rethuglicans are always whining about not wasting taxpayer money we know you wouldn't want to do that!
   But that's all moot 'cuz there aren't any backups.  Really.

WHAT??  But that violates federal law!

Fuck you, citizen.  We're the government, so we don't have to obey your stupid f'n laws.  Not only that, we're the IRS, so fuck all your relatives, too.

[Six months later a whistleblower reports says his department is the one that stores backup tapes of emails; that they DO have the tapes in question; and that they're easy to search for a specific email or sender or recipient.  But here's the bomb:  guy says that the IRS never asked 'em to produce the Lerner tapes.

Never.  Asked.

Someone should be executed for this kind of brazen lying, but we'll get to that later.  In any case, all the above is just background so you'll have a reference for this next bombshell, released yesterday.

Are you ready?

Now attorneys for the IRS are claiming that Lerner's emails--sent and received with her official, taxpayer supplied office computer--are her personal property and don't belong to either the IRS or any other branch of government.

One imagines the IRS attorneys saw Hillary get away absolutely untouched after stonewalling congress about her doing all official business on a private, non-government server in her home, and then refusing to turn over 95 percent of those emails on the grounds they were personal.

But of course no independent person was allowed toverify that.  You just have to trust her word.  Because she's always been so honest the rest of her life, right?

So I expect they saw Hilly's thorough lying work and said "Aha!  Here's what we'll do...!"

It's the Democrat way, baby.  And besides...Dude, that was two years ago!  That's not even news anymore.

Tuesday, June 9

Victor Hanson: "We're descending into a new Dark Ages."

Victor Hanson is an excellent student of history, and a good writer.  His analyses of our current national situation is chilling:  It's grim to the point that we're almost down to two options: surrender, or civil war.

As he sees it we're descending into a New Dark Ages.  The Constitution has been shredded, half of American voters are incapable of thinking past today, and will vote for the candidate who promises them the most free stuff.  Free speech is almost dead on campus--which was once the heart of the free-speech movement!

Obama's former attorney-general, Eric Holder, said Americans needed to have a discussion about race, but were too scared to do so.  Hanson notes that implicit in Holder's absurd charge was that no one would be allowed to examine the role government welfare had played in the destruction of the black family. Other presumably off-limits topics would be the epidemic of violence, crime and drug use, and the cult of the hyper-macho male.

Other forbidded topics include the dilemma of the Social Security system, our huge national debt, and the utter, hypocritical corruption of the leading Democrat presidential candidate, who set up a slush fund that let foreign countries seeking a favorable ruling from the State Department donate tens of millions of dollars to improve their chances of getting one.  But hey, no corruption or favoritism here.

A common theme supported by the media--albeit tacitly--is the acceptance of lies as if they were true--because the lie offers collective benefits, while truth either disrupts social justice or ruins a nice scam run by connected people.

Take Obamacare. Almost every promoted tenet of the Affordable Care Act proved false:  The emperor promised the average family would save $2,500 per year.  Instead premiums went up--along with deductibles. Millions lost not just their doctors but their existing health care plans as well. The much ballyhooed health care website was initially dysfunctional, and barely improved.  Numerous mandatory provisions of the new law were unlawfully delayed, because their stated start dates would have hurt Obama's reelection chances.

We've put up with garbage from Obama that would have gotten any prior president impeached.  And now the Republicans--who were finally given a majority in both houses of congress last election--are actually helping him pass bills like the Trans Pacific Partnership that no one is allowed to reveal to the American people.

Slow.  Learners.  Oh, and traitors.