Thursday, May 21

Obama's press secretary: Our strategy in Iraq has been "a success overall"

Unless you're under 30 or a Democrat you probably know that the merry beheaders of the muslim killers calling themselves Islamic State have taken the Iraqi city of Ramadi.  And a day later, the Syrian city of Palmyra.

If you know anything about the history of military conflict you probably think this is a bad sign.  But Obama's press secretary strongly disagreed.  His boss's strategy in Iraq "has been a success overall."

Yep.  At his daily press briefing Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told skeptical reporters that despite some “setbacks,” the U.S.-led coalition to defeat ISIS has been a success overall.

A reporter asked him “You said, ‘we’ve seen periods of progress an success.’ Would you say that overall it’s been a success?”  Josh Earnest answered, “yeah – overall yes. Doesn’t mean there haven’t been areas of setbacks as we saw in Ramadi….”

Earnest noted that the success of the president's strategy in Iraq is just one of dozens of similar successes by the president:  Iran's agreement to stop work on developing the atomic bomb in exchange for the U.S. ending economic sanctions and unfreezing a mere ten billion in Iranian assets in U.S. banks; the nearly one-trillion-dollar "Stimulus" bill that changed the U.S. economy from almost dead after the last president to the strongest level seen in decades; the brilliant use of advanced budgeting techniques that has produced year after year of surpluses and cut U.S. deficits in half; the regime change in Libya, which has enabled that nation to post record tourism income from visitors eager to see its legendary gardens and street mimes; the unprecedented level of racial harmony in the U.S. as a result of the colorblind application of the law, and many others.

Earnest added that the reason so few Americans understand all these brilliant successes is that the media is "totally controlled by Wall Street, and all those folks hate the president because he's black."

All the reporters present nodded in total agreement.

Dateline 2017: State Department plans to release Clinton emails "really soon"

Washington D.C, May 30, 2017--Today a spokesperson for the State Department announced that the first batch of emails turned over to State by president Hillary Clinton is scheduled for release "really, really soon now."  The emails have been undergoing a through review by security and legal experts in the State Department to ensure that nothing to be released contains anything that would embarrass a foreign government.

Another big concern is that no one anywhere wants to release any email that could be considered as containing personal information about the president.  For example, one email contained 678 words of Mrs. Clinton discussing whether anything should be done to provide military forces to help defend the consular annex in Benghazi, but also included a very warm personal greeting from Mrs. Clinton to the recipient.  Judge Winston Smith ruled that this greeting was unquestionably personal, and thus the email shouldn't be released.

One critic noted that while President Clinton was campaigning for the office she indignantly stated on several occasions that "I'd prefer it if State released those emails all at once," and asked why, now that she was president, she didn't simply end the suspense and order State to release the emails.

The president replied that while this would certainly be the best way to proceed, "Ours is a nation of laws, and no matter how much I personally believe all the emails should be released immediately, it would do great harm to our nation of laws if I were to try to influence independent branches of the government to shortcut the legal process."

"It's extremely important that our young people--both documented and undocumented--learn the importance of following our laws.  Except of course if they're undocumented, in which case they can stay as long as they like, become citizens and receive all the benefits available from our compassionate Democrat government."

NY Times spins story of Hillary emails into puff piece--her NPR listening habits, etc

Ah, the Mainstream Media!--covering for Democratic lies and crimes 24/7.  Watch how artfully the NY Times manages to change the story about Hillary illegally choosing to avoid an official government email account and instead run all her emails on her own private server, then refusing to turn over those emails to a congressional committee investigating her actions re Benghazi, and finally handpicking the ones she decided reflected well on her and deleting all the rest, into a Hillary puff piece!  It's both absolutely brazen and typical of how they spin for Democrats.
First Batch of Hillary Clinton Emails Captures Concerns Over Libya
  By Michael S. Schmidt, NYTimes  May 21, 2015

The State Department is expected to release the first batch of emails from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email address in the coming days.

The emails..., drawn from some 55,000 pages ...capture the correspondence and concerns expressed among Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, and her advisers following the attacks, which *claimed the lives of* the American ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans. 
"Claimed the lives of..." is SO much less distressing than " which attackers killed..."  Also note the careful phrasing of "concerns expressed among Mrs. Clinton..."  A far more normal wording would be "concerns by Mrs. Clinton..."  Unless of course she wasn't the one who expressed any concerns.  But to the casual reader the phrasing implies that she's the one with the concerns (other than deflecting any blame from herself, of course).
The emails also offer occasional glimpses into the private side of Mrs. Clinton’s life, such as her public-radio listening habits and the fact that she was complimented for how she looked in a photo that appeared on the front page of The New York Times.
Yes, surely that's the important part of the information here.  Honestly, fellow peasants, if one were to write this as dialog in a screenplay, it'd be ridiculed as too unbelievable!  Yet here we are living it.
The Times obtained about a third of the 850 pages of emails. They appear to back up Mrs. Clinton’s previous assertions that she did not receive classified information at her private email address.
Wait, how does finding no evidence of classified information in just one-third of the emails "back up" the assertion that she didn't get classified info via her private email server?  That's as dumb as claiming that if you didn't find an elephant in your yard this morning, they don't exist.
The emails show that even those at the highest levels of government engage in occasional flattering of those above them. In March 2011, Mrs. Clinton received an email from Ann-Marie Slaughter, the director of policy planning for the State Department, who was leaving her position.

“Gorgeous pic on the front page of the NYT!” Ms. Slaughter said, referring to a photo of Mrs. Clinton. “One for the wall...”
Message to correct-thinking readers: Hillary did nothing wrong at all.  Nothing.  As we at the Times and NPR and NBC and ABC and CBS and MSNBC have repeatedly implied, there wasn't anything in her emails except things like the above exchange.  See?  Only personal stuff!  So you need not be concerned about...anything her political enemies are saying.

See, it's really about the "Republican War on Women!"
The only official State Department, government business she did via email was to email things like "You're doing a great job!" to her assistants and employees at State.  Or "Isn't it sad that congress keeps obstructing programs that would ensure equality of opportunity and pay for all hard-working Americans in the middle class?"  That sort of thing.  But nothing else.  Really.  We've checked an entire third and there is nothing of interest in any of it.  Really.
[Finally: Most people with at least a highschool education have heard that newspapers are supposed to convey "news" by telling the reader "who, what, where, why and when" as early in the story as possible.  And it's possible that a few Americans still may not have grasped what the flap about Hilly's emails is actually about.  So here's the crucial "context" 'graf in the Times piece:]
The intense interest in the emails stems in part from the revelation this year that Mrs. Clinton exclusively used a private email address to conduct her government work as secretary of state.
And where does the times put this key context?  Why, at the very bottom of the story--it's literally the last 'graf.

And note that this alleged 'context-providing' summary fails to mention a) all government agencies are required by law to preserve emails of their employees; b) that Clinton had no official government email account; c) that she defied a request by congress to turn over those emails; and d) that rather than turn them over to congress, she picked out the ones she chose to turn over to congress and erased the rest!

Yeah, context, baby.

In fact nowhere in the entire article does the Times bother to mention that Clinton erased a reported 55,000 emails after a congressional committee ordered her to turn them over. nor that the private account was the *only* email account Clinton used when she was SecState.  Obviously without those emails there is no record of how Clinton conducted business on behalf of the government during that time.

And yet Democrats are absolutely thrilled with the prospect of her being president.

Wednesday, May 20

Predictable outcome

Monday, May 18

Interesting names for bills in South Africa

Seems like one of the tactics used by communists to get people to abandon the Constitution is to pass laws that violate that Constitution.  If the people don't immediately revolt and kill the communists, they win, because eventually the laws become more and more totalitarian, and freedom slowly disappears.

One of the hallmarks of this process is that the government gives the freedom-grabbing laws names that utterly belie their true purpose.  Thus a law that allows the government to arbitrarily take property away from one person and give it to another is named something like "the Affordable Care Act."

Did you think I was talking about the U.S.?  Well perhaps, but right now I'm looking at South Africa, where communism has pretty much taken over.  They found easy pickins as a result of the traditional tribal system--in which the chief is the absolute ruler, with total power--combined with the longstanding class envy blacks have toward whites.  It's hard to imagine a more effective combination.

Now the communist government is grabbing white-owned homesteads like mad, and giving the land to blacks.  You say that's not legal?  Pay attention, citizen:  the government took care to see that any complaints of "expropriation" would be found unsupportable.  Because what you think is "expropriation" isn't that at all.  It's merely "deprivation."  Surely you see the difference, right?

According to a constitutional court verdict of 2013 there is a difference between “deprivation” and “expropriation”. According to that verdict the state can take any property and give it to someone else as long as the state does not become the owner of said property but only plays a “facilitator” role.

Much like the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo, eh?

- According to the government’s Green Paper on Land Reform, from now on a "land control commission" will decide how all land is used.  It will have the power to make arbitrary decisions on title deed disputes.

- The Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill (Investment Bill for short) states that government may expropriate businesses at below market value all in the interestof “redressing past inequalities”. This means ANY property being used for a business can be seized.

- Under The Infrastructure Development Bill land can be expropriated within 57 days for any “development project.”  Will such a broad scope, this bill will likely open the door for further corruption.

- The Extension of Security of Tenure Amendment Bill will make it almost impossible for white property owners to evict anyone from "their" land.

- Under The Rental Housing Amendment Bill a home owner who chooses to rent a property will not be permitted to set the rent amount.  Rental housing tribunals will do that.

- According to The National Water Amendments Bill a Water Tribunal will issue licences to use water.  In effect this means the government will have the right to withhold water from any farmer, thus forcing him out of business.

Much like the feds in the Central Valley in California, eh?

I have to admit I'm not familiar with the bills Mike cites, but it all sounds very familiar.

No wait...(ahem)..."Don't worry, citizen.  None of that could ever happen here."

Repeat phrase as necessary to easy anxiety.

South Africa and electricity

A South African named Mike Smith blogs about the tribulations of life in that country.  Short answer:  A bigger version of Detroit.

Just as thousands of Detroit residents stopped paying their water and trash bills (and property taxes) but expected the city would continue providing water and trash service (as well as fire protection), a huge chunk of South Africans haven't paid an electric bill in years.  Others have never had an account but have electricity by making their own connection.

Now as it happens, all the electricity in South Africa is generated by one company.  Which is totally owned by the government.  So the government makes every decision about electricity.

And since Apartheid ended in 1994--just over 20 years ago--the government has been run by the all-black African National Congress.

I'll bet you can see where this is going.  That's right:  The ANC is claiming it's all George Bush's fault!

Just kidding.  But what's serious is that the country is now short of both electricity and the revenue needed to build any more powerplants.  Shortages are forecast in a month or so.

The response?  Residents formed the "Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee," which has as its core principle the notion that electricity must be free.  Members accept that it costs money to generate electricity, but claim that's irrelevant because the ANC "promised free electricity to people who needed it."  (I knew you could see where this was headed.)

No one knows just when this promise was made but it appears to hark back to the first open elections in 1994, which the ANC was determined to win.

Apparently Soweto residents owe something like 8 billion rand (about $700 million) in electricity bills.  But no one in the ANC is even thinking about cutting them off.

Of course when electricity is "free," people have no incentive to conserve.  Why bother switching the lights off if it's free?  So while raising the price of electricity would normally cut consumption--in accordance with well-known laws of economics--that tactic is utterly useless on people who refuse to pay but demand electricity anyway.

And they continue to get it because the communist government wants their votes.

But don't worry, Americans--your government could never make you pay for a good or service provided to someone else.  That's just right-wing crazy-talk!  It would clearly be un-,,, un-...

That's odd...I was searching for a word that used to be quite familiar to most of us as recently as five or six years ago.  But now it seems to have completely vanished.

Sunday, May 17

Where will the West find leaders with the moral clarity to defeat ISIS?

A few Americans are watching the atrocities committed by the killers calling themselves ISIS or Boko Haram and wondering, where will the West find leaders who will end this threat?

Frankly, if you're looking for moral clarity or a strength of character from the so-called leaders of the West today, you're probably going to be disappointed.  Not only the so-called "leaders" of the west but also our self-styled elites are completely anti-warrior, anti-military.  Instead they seem to believe that a magical combination of technology, liberalism and legalism can turn murderous thugs into peaceful neighbors.

We still do have a warrior class, of course.  But the politicians who rule them have them fighting for feminism, gay marriage and the insane notion that all cultures and religions are absolutely equal.  Very few warriors seem motivated by any of these--let alone strongly.  Rather, Western politicians and elites seem to systematically eliminate or undermine anything that would motivate our troops.  The philosophy of the pols seems to be "it's okay if you win, as long as you don't hurt anybody."

By huge contrast, Islam seems to have no problem motivating its followers to fight.  In a long, non-nuclear struggle, which group seems more likely to win?

If you have kids, you should probably be concerned.

This picture seems...odd somehow

Sure would love to know the story behind this!

Western politicians don't understand ISIS--and can't

ISIS is just the latest force in the 1000-year struggle by Islam to dominate the world. 

Many analysts focus on the fact that at the moment many of their efforts are to defeat their main Muslim competition--the Shia--but this is distraction, because the ultimate goal is to own the world.

Those who believe they're fighting for Allah have a huge advantage: they are far more determined than those fighting for any mere government.  While all soldiers know their job could possibly cost their life, ISIS fighters--as many other Muslim fanatics have shown--are quite willing to blow themselves up for the cause.  Thus just as we saw the suicidal hijackings of 9/11, we see ISIS suicide bombers blowing holes in city gates and barricades.  It's the Muslim version of the smart bomb.

And those who aren't chosen as suicide bombers are totally convinced that Allah will grant them victory.  What they lack in materiel and training they make up for in fanatical determination.  They will literally do anything to win.  Thus even before ISIS was formally organized we've seen Muslims wrapping explosives around 6-year-old kids, or mentally retarded kids, and sending 'em toward checkpoints.  Or hijacking jetliners and flying them into buildings.

The effeminate political "leaders" of the West aren't even remotely prepared to confront the truth of what the fanatics of ISIS are willing to do.  It's as if they've forgotten 9/11 happened.  Most western politicians, being totally non-religious, literally cannot truly believe this level of determination exists.  They can grasp it as an intellectual abstraction, but that's all.

ISIS will continue to kill and advance until stopped by a greater force, and exterminated.  By all indications it will take many more years for this realization to penetrate the consciousness of the "men without chests" who head the so-called Western democracies, and their ludicrously deluded Kumbayah-singing liberal/"progressive" supporters.

And until that happens, tens of thousands more innocents will be slaughtered who need not have been, because of this lack of moral clarity by western pols.

They will call for "surgical strikes" and precision raids to eliminate "key" leaders. But the leaders of these fanatics are interchangeable, so the war--and the needless deaths--will continue.


H/T to commenter

Saturday, May 16

Some odd things about the coverage of the Amtrak crash in Philly

In reading the stories in various papers about the Amtrak crash in Philly a couple of things struck me as...odd:  First, every story I've read has made several points seeking to absolve the engineer from any blame.  Editors thought it was important for you to know that the guy had been obsessed with trains since high school.  And that all his friends thought he was a great guy.

Despite it already being known that the train not only entered the long curve at 70 miles per hour--20 mph above the posted limit--but then, in defiance of logic, accelerated to 106 mph before flying off the curve, editors breathlessly speculated about a mechanical failure, or poor maintenance, or a shortage of funds, or something being thrown at the windshield for the crash.  Later stories even speculated that the crash might have been caused by a rock being thrown at the train, or a gunshot through the windscreen.  (Hey, leftist editors will do anything to blame a gun for deaths, right?)

Despite the clear and well-known connection between reaching twice the posted speed on a curve and being slung off to the outside of it, once the speed was mentioned in an article it was generally ignored after that.  Some editors even speculated that the train might have accelerated all by itself.  (Wow, that's some totally unsupported speculation.)

Then there's the matter of experience, or the lack of it:  This guy was hired as a conductor in 2006, and just 4 years later was running the thing.  I have no idea if this is routine progression, but I'm surprised that a guy can go from first touching the throttle to being made "the" engineer in just 4 years.

Then there's the attempt to pin the blame on the fact that the "automatic train control" system wasn't turned on in the northbound direction.  Come on, morons:  Did engineers just shrug and say "If the ATC ain't working I'm just gonna sit here like a muffin, cuz you just can't expect me to actually run this big sucker."  Yeah.

Then finally, a possibile explanation:  The guy is not just gay, but posts nude selfies on the net.

And like every federally-funded entity, Amtrak is a huge pusher of "diversity hires."

The guy may have been the top-scoring engineer in his class (if they had classes for getting those slots)--I have no idea--but I think it's interesting that not a single mainstream media story mentioned this.  It took some sleuthing by some blogger to find it.

At one point they used to have a name for that kind of digging.  Can't remember what they called it.  Oh yeah..."journalism."  Of course now that means boosting the Democrat party and any of its causes, and ignoring any failures or disasters.

I wonder: If the media had found that the engineer had donated to Republicans or to the Tea Party, or had bought a couple of acres in Idaho, does anyone think they'd have mentioned those things?  Or that they would have worked so diligently to avoid blaming him for letting the train he was controlling accelerate to twice the posted speed on a curve?

And before anyone screams that I'm claiming gays can't run trains safely, that ain't the point:  It's that the media seems to have worked overtime to exonerate the guy, despite the known speed problem, and the known fact that when you double speed on a curve you need four times more lateral force to stay on the track

But of course that's super-sekret physics, and editors and reporters wouldn't even know to ask someone about it.

The sad story of a five-year-old murder victim

Laylah Peterson was five years old when she was killed--shot to death as she sat on her grandfather's lap.  She lived in Milwaukee and was killed in a fusilade of a dozen gunshots.  At the age of...five.

Oh, and the killing was interracial.  Yep, white and black.  And given the way the media shrieked endlessly about poor Trayvon being shot by the "white Hispanic" guy, you'd think Laylah's murder would have generated a few thousand headlines at the least.

What's that?  You say you haven't heard a word about this? happened way back last November, so it's not like the Lying Media hasn't had time to gather all the details and write careful, factual stories on this tragic death.  So what in the world could account for the media's vastly different treatment of the two victims?

Oh, that's it:  Po' Tray was shot by a white cop, so...  Wait, that's bullshit.

Okay, you'd think that with Tray being a 16-year-old wannabe gangsta who'd posted selfies of himself brandishing a handgun and talkin shit, and if his death generated thousands of front-pages stories, and outraged top-story-tonight broadcasts, you'd think this far younger, truly innocent 5-year-old--who wasn't pounding Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk but was sitting on her grandfather's lap in her own f'n home--would be a much more sympathetic figure, and thus would get two or three times the coverage Travon got. 

And remember, this story also involves interracial killing, just like Travon.

But unless you lived in Milwaukee not one of you has heard even a single word about little Laylah's shooting.

Are you even a little curious as to why the national media--the outfit you count on to tell you what's "really" happening in the U.S.--decided to ignore this story?  What in the world would make ALL of them ignore this?


And the shooters were two black males, who walked up to the front door and opened fire.

This murder doesn't support The Narrative, see?  In fact, the local reports were quick to note that because there didn't seem to be any connection between the killers and the people in the house, it was probably just An Isolated Occurrence of No Significance Whatsoever.

RIP, Laylah.  We will remember your senseless murder.

"Islamic terrorism? I just don't see it."

In case you wondered why he can't see it...

Emperor seeks "Fast-Track authority:" congress couldn't debate or amend TPP

You may have heard some talk about a bill before congress dealing with a critter called the "Trans-Pacific Partnership" (TPP).  This is a trade agreement among about 12 Pacific nations, and Obama is pushing for congress to pass it.  Right now the terms are still being negotiated.

In early 2012, the Obama administration indicated that a requirement for the conclusion of TPP negotiations is renewal of "fast track" Trade Promotion Authority. This would require congress to introduce and vote on an administration-authored bill for implementing the TPP with minimal debate and no amendments, with the entire process taking no more than 90 days.

A bill giving this Fast-track authority to the emperor was introduced in congress about a month ago (mid-April 2015).

Now, free trade has some great benefits, but also some drawbacks.  So to demand that congress pass a law that would obligate them to vote on the full TPP agreement with "minimal debate" and no amendments, within 90 days, seems a guarantee that they're trying to slip in something very, very hostile to American interests.  On that basis alone, I'd vote against.

If Obama wants this expanded "trade" agreement, make the lawless, Constitution-shredding socialist come before congress and explain every last detail.  Take a year to study every twist and turn of it, before voting on whether to bind the U.S. to it.  Don't let the America-hating community organizer rush you into a bad deal.

How many repeats do we need that when Obama is demanding a favorable vote NOW NOW NOW!, it's because he doesn't want the American people to see the damning details?  First Obamacare, then the Iranian nuclear deal (the framework terms of which the Iranians immediately announced were lies), and now this.

Of course most of you are too busy making a living, paying the mortgage and raising your kids to follow arcane stuff like this.  You depend on the Media to tell you about it.  Which they don't, and won't.  But in the final analysis you depend on your reps in congress to do their damn job and carefully, thoughtfully, rationally analyze every bill before deciding how to vote.

Unfortunately 98 percent of all congress-critters are far more concerned with two other things: being re-elected, and getting more powerful committee assignments.  And they get re-elected by bringing home fed grants to their districts or states.  And guess who controls how those funds are spread?

Well in used to be congress itself, but the Republicans have now handed all that power to...the emperor.  Which means Obama can now have his minions award money at his whim.

Wow, do you sense that the fix is in?  Yeah, me too.

Obama: "I'd never ask the American people to sign off on something w/o knowing the details"

Two days ago, at the end of his regional security "summit" with six Gulf countries, your emperor held a solo press conference.  A reporter asked him if the representatives of the Gulf countries had decided to agree with the deal his administration made, or thought they made, with Iran about nuclear weapons.

Obama replied, “We didn’t have a — a document that we presented to them to sign on the bottom line, will you approve of this nuclear framework deal, because the deal’s not completed. And in the same way that I wouldn’t ask the United States Senate to — or the American people to sign off on something before they’ve actually seen the details of it."

What the hell??  For ol' Bullshit Barry to claim he wouldn't ask "the American people to sign off on something before they've actually seen the details of it" is an astonishing, brazen lie.  The details of the bill that eventually became Obamacare were not only totally unknown to the people, but even to some congress-critters.  Hell, the Democrat who was speaker of the House at the time, Nancy Pelosi, is on video saying "We had to pass the bill to find out what was in it."

Not only were the details not revealed, but they've since been changed something like 20 times by executive decree. 

If one example isn't enough, consider the Pacific trade bill being pushed by ol' Bullshit:  He's refused to reveal a single detail of the proposed bill, and won't even give copies of it to members of congress--they're only allowed to see it in a guarded room, and can't take notes out.

When an administration won't even give congress a copy of the draft, the emperor's claim that he "would never ask the American people to sign off on something before they've seen the details" is pure bullshit.

Friday, May 15

The emperor claims "Chlorine is not historically considered a chemical weapon" WHAT??

The demonstrations of ignorance and/or lies told by your emperor--endlessly touted by the Democrat media as the smartest president evah--just keeps on growing.  The latest demonstration came when a reporter asked him about the reported use of chlorine gas by the Syrian regime.

Ol' Bullshit Barry replied, in effect, that this was simply un-possible, because the regime had turned over all its chemical weapons to international monitors, in response to international pressure.  Hmm... Guess ol' Bullshit doesn't talk to his own Secretary of State--not that anyone could blame him, of course.  Cuz here's Kerry's prepared statement--not a careless slip during an ad-lib answer.
March 19, 2015
Allegations of Chemical Weapons Use in Sarmin, Syria
The United States is deeply disturbed by reports that the Assad regime used chlorine as a weapon again, this time on March 16 in an attack on the town of Sarmin. We are looking very closely into this matter and considering next steps. While we cannot yet confirm details, if true, this would be only the latest tragic example of the Assad regime's atrocities against the Syrian people, which the entire international community must condemn. ***
The Assad regime’s horrifying pattern of using chlorine as a chemical weapon... underscores the importance of investigating this allegation as quickly as possible....
But this was minor compared to ol' Bullshit's next claim:  He says "Chlorine is not historically considered a chemical weapon."

Wait...what the hell??   Chlorine gas was one of the first chemical weapons, and was used in the First World War (that would be "WWI" for those of you under 25 or so).  Here's what that noted right-wing nutjob organization--the U.N.--says about chlorine's history as a chemical weapon:
The modern use of chemical weapons began with World War I, when both sides to the conflict used poisonous gas to inflict agonizing suffering and to cause significant battlefield casualties. Such weapons basically consisted of well known commercial chemicals put into standard munitions such as grenades and artillery shells. Chlorine, phosgene (a choking agent) and mustard gas (which inflicts painful burns on the skin) were among the chemicals used. The results were indiscriminate and often devastating. Nearly 100,000 deaths resulted.
Ol' Bullshit went to probably THE best prep school in Hawaii--how can he not know that?  And with him supposedly being so f'n smart, you can't possibly think he'd forget, right?  Well, watch the video below, before the Regime has it pulled.  Skipping right to 2:25 will spare you an interminable amount of ol' Bullshit's deflections, but feel free to wade thru the whole thing if you must.

Now hold your breath and wait for any reporter to ask ol' Bullshit to clarify his patently false statement.  Was he lying, or just ignorant?  Since both choices--the ONLY two choices--put him in a bad light, you can bet the media will ignore his gaffe completely.

Imagine how the media would have reacted to this total bullshit claim if G.W. Bush had made it.  We'd never hear the end of it.  But ol' Bullshit Barry gets a pass.

Curious, huh.  Kinda makes folks who aren't liberals/Democrats want to know why the double-standard.

Thursday, May 14

The emperor invites six mideast nations to summit; heads of four of 'em say no thanks

Ah, the stunning victories and brilliant maneuvers of emperor Barack Hussein Obama continue.

As some of you know, he had called a "summit" with Arab leaders.  But then the king of Saudi Arabia backed out of the summit just two days after the White House announced he was going to attend.  The last-minute move was widely perceived as a deliberate snub, and the excuse used for the king's absence didn't change this conclusion.

But the Saudis didn't totally dis our magnificent emperor.  Instead the Saudi king sent two princes to attend this really, really crucial conference in his place.

Whereupon your brilliant emperor incorrectly introduced the deputy crown prince and misnamed the founder of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Imagine the shrieks from the Lying Media and the talking heads if Bush had done something like this.  Shit would have led every evening newscast for three days.  But under the emperor's reign...crickets.

The Saudi king's snub was followed by the same move by the heads of state of four of the six nations invited by Obama.

But don't worry--the weren't dissing Bullshit Barry.  Really.  Reeeeally.  The just had a buncha really important stuff they had to take care of, y'know?  Like, one head of state said he'd committed to go to a horse show with the Queen of England, so, you know....

Again, imagine the reaction from the media if Bush had invited six nations to a summit, and the heads of four of the six sent regrets.  Wow, the fireworks would have been amazing.  But ol' Bullshit gets a pass, because the media love their Bullshit.

Globull waming zealots petition AP to change style book to only use "Climate deniers"

The folks that run the media--the editors and reporters and wire-service execs--know how important words are.  Thus in most media quarters the cold-blooded murderers of ISIS and Boko Haram are referred to simply as "militants."  And for a short period the NY Times even called those who attacked Israeli settlements "freedom fighters."

Most Americans consider arguments over what something is officially called to be totally esoteric, like arguing whether the 70th digit of pi should be a 3 or a 4.  But the "elites" know that what you agree to name something can swing millions to or away from sympathy and support.

Thus it is that a group of folks who believe a) the planet is warming stubstantially and dangerously; b) that the warming is caused by rising CO2; c) that a huge portion of the evil CO2 is caused by humans; and finally d) that if Americans just stopped driving and reduced our electrical usage by, say, 80 percent, these problems would be solved; have launched a petition.

The purpose of the petition is to get the Associated Press to change their "stylebook" to end the use of the phrase "climate skeptic," and instead substitute "climate denier."

Naturally you think this is a spoof, a hoax to see how many people will believe something so utterly stupid.  But sadly, it appears to be all too real.  Here it is:

Precious, huh?  These are the people who won't stand and debate, because they know their theory is absolutely full of holes.  But if they can't win on the merits, they can score points by demanding that the media change the name of their opponent.

Hey, makes sense.

Tuesday, May 12

Greece and the Eurozone bailout, part 3,596,392.

One of the classic character defects of politicians in democratic countries is their habit of concocting absolutely stupid, unworkable schemes, and then pretending everything's going just fine as those schemes stagger to their utterly predictable end.

The examples are damn near endless, but for the moment let's take a look at Greece:  The country has had insanely generous public salaries and retirement pensions for decades, and when coupled with a thoroughly corrupt tax system (politically-connected people rarely pay any) and harsh regulations on businesses, the country has been an obvious financial disaster for the last decade or so.

But instead of just letting stupid or corrupt politicians suffer the consequences of their own mind-numbingly dumb policies, members of that bastion of solid thinking called the European Parliament wrung their hands in anguish and said "We simply cannot let the Greek government default, because in all likelihood they'll leave the EU--which will be a black eye for us.  So you hard-working taxpayers from solvent nations with sane economic policies simply must give them money."

Non-Greek taxpayer:  "Um, you said 'give' them money.  But of course you really mean loan the Greek government money, right?

Member of EU parliament:  "Er...yes, yes, of course.  Did we say 'give'?  Of course we meant 'loan.'  Yes, of course.

Non-Greek taxpayer:  "Wait, I see on this summary sheet that Greece has a foreign debt of 323 Billion euros, which they can't even begin to service now.  But you want us to give 'em...okay, 'loan' them another 7 Billion euros?  That's...insane.  They can't pay what they owe now, and they're even reversing the sham "austerity measures" they supposedly put in place last year--which consisted of laying of 30 cleaning ladies or some such symbolic nonsense.

Member of EU parliament:  "Ah, well, you see, you don't have any choice.  Your politicians will do what we say, because they want to get elected to the EU parliament just like us.  Which won't happen if they buck our orders.  You see, they answer to us, not to you lot.  You're just taxpayers--like cattle.  Not elites like us.

Non-Greek taxpayer:  "Ah, now we see why American voters are so big on that 'right to bear arms' stuff.  Cuz if we had firearms now you bastards would be very, very dead."

Member of parliament:  "Wait, you don't understand: the government of Greece is even now paying a whopping 750 Million euros in interest to all European lenders.  Whaddya think now, stupid rube?"

Taxpayer:  "I think you're all idiots.  They pay 750 million euros in interest because that will get you dumbshits to give 'em the last 7.2 Billion from the last brilliant deal you stupid assholes made with 'em.  And they'll still owe 323 Billion that they have no way to repay.  Yeah, you're all idiots."

MEP:  "Hey, it's not our money, so no big deal." 

And sure enough, that's exactly what happened yesterday.  Of course part of the 7.2 Billion euros came from the International Monetary Fund--as thoroughly corrupt a bunch as one can find.  And guess who gives the IMF a shitload of cash every year?

Why, the U.S. gummint, of course.  Which means your tax dollars aren't just funding the impossible schemes of lawless American pols but those of Greek politicians too.

Nice, huh.

Here are the near-term deadlines for Greek loan obligations:

    15 May: Greece has to roll over €1.4 Billion in maturing 3-month Treasury bills
    31 May: Government must find about €2.5 Billion to pay salaries and pensions
    June: €1.5 Billion interest payment due on loans from the IMF
    30 June: The €240 Billion "bailout agreement" with eurozone countries officially expires
    June and July: €6.7 Billion due to be repaid to the European Central Bank

No one is surprised that stupid politicians choose to ignore sound fiscal policies in favor of pumping up their own salaries and pensions, and those of government-employed voters.  Hell, we've got that right here in the U.S.  But what's insane is the demand by members of the Euro parliament that member nations simply must bail the dumb bastards out--which merely penalizes all the hard-working folks for the crappy decisions of the Greeks.

If not for Euro nations bailing out the Greek government, the people of Greece might well learn that socialism doesn't work, and that pols who inflate salaries and perks of government "workers" should be ignored and not elected--if not promptly strung up from the nearest lamp post.

But as long as the Euro nations bail 'em out, no such lesson is ever learned.

It's kind of like a half-dozen Democrat-ruled states and cities here in the U.S. that have spent more than their revenue for decades and will eventually whine to the emperor for federal funds.  Kinda like the $1.8 Billion "stimulus" grant Baltimore got from Obama.  Which did exactly zip.  And did that city's pols learn any lesson from this? 

Why yes: they learned the value of having friends in the White Hut.

Leftist claims honoring Charlie Hebdo has a chilling effect on free speech??

PEN is an association of authors, editors and similar folk.  It bills itself as defending free expression and human rights, and very much for international peace and understanding.  If this strikes you as an organization that would attract leftists like mad, you're right.

But free expression is good, so at its annual gala last week the association gave a free-speech award to the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo.  For those who don't remember, that was where two Muzz armed with machineguns walked into the magazine's offices and one by one, executed ten of the editors and staff.

On learning of the proposal to honor the magazine, some PEN members were horrified: "We strongly support freedom of expression, but you're taking the idea too literally.  We can't go giving awards to people who draw cartoons of the prophet Mohammed (pbuh), or satirize Islam, because...well, you just can't!  It's just awful to poke fun at one of the world's great religions! 

Well, except for Christianity.  That's fair game. know.  It's just different.  And did you hear what they did in the Crusades?

Francine Prose, a former president of PEN-America, was one of dozens of members who announced they would boycott the gala because of the planned award to the French magazine.   Here's Ms. Prose explaining her position in the left-wing Brit paper The Guardian:
The narrative of the Charlie Hebdo murders – white Europeans killed in their offices by Muslim extremists – is one that feeds neatly into the cultural prejudices that have allowed our government to make so many disastrous mistakes in the Middle East. And the idea that one is either "for us or against us" in such matters not only precludes rational and careful thinking, but also has a chilling effect on the exercise of our right to free expression and free speech that all of us – and all the people at PEN – are working so tirelessly to guarantee.
Francine characterizes the execution--by Muslim terrorists--of most of the magazine's staff as simply a "narrative"--one that "feeds neatly into the cultural prejudices" that she's certain afflict all non-Muslims.  This "precludes rational and careful thinking."

And then in the same sentence is this astonishing non-sequitur: "...also has a chilling effect on the exercise of our right to free expression and free speech..."

Wait, I thought the whole point of honoring the French magazine was to support freedom of expression, even if such expression offended people.  Yet Francine has clearly implied that honoring the satire magazine--which satirized all religions--would chill free speech?

This utterly reverses what really happened--which was that two heavily-armed terrorists executed the magazine's unarmed, civilian staff because they didn't like what the staff published.

How Francine can rationally claim honoring the magazine chills free speech isn't explained.  One hopes for a moment that what she meant was that the executions had a chilling effect on the willingness of other writers to criticize Islam, but if that was the case why would she be opposed to giving the mag an award? 

Wait, this might explain it:
Perhaps my sense of this will be clearer if I mention the sort of writers and whistleblowers whom I think would be appropriate candidates: Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, the journalists who have risked (and in some cases lost) their lives to report on the wars in the Middle East.
The bitterness...of the criticism that [those who boycotted the award] have received point out how difficult people find it to think with any clarity on these issues and how easy it has been for the media – and our culture – to fan the flames of prejudice against Islam. As a result, many innocent Muslims have been tarred with the brush of Islamic extremism.
Yep, that rounds out the picture.  This woman is a typical mush-brained leftist.  "Muslim good, western civilization bad."  Says she's a tireless supporter of free speech--but only if Muslims aren't offended.  But don't worry, it all makes perfect sense to her friends.

Monday, May 11

Wanna know where we're headed? Consider the experience of South Africa

Two of the great things about the internet are (1) in all but the most repressive, evil regimes, governments haven't (yet) stopped people from posting stuff; and as a result (2) you can read what "ordinary people" in some distant country are experiencing.

This can be hugely informative--in part because lots of times similar circumstances will cause country A to experience some dire crisis ten or 20 years before country B.  If you live in country B that might give you enough time to avoid the crisis--or at least reduce its impact--provided you 1) know what's happening in country A; and 2) you have a good idea of what they did that got 'em in trouble.

In this context, the situation in South Africa has chilling parallels for the U.S. under the emperor's rule.

South Africa was settled by whites from the Netherlands--the Boers, now called Afrikaners--and eventually South Africa became the largest and most successful economy in Africa.  Then after decades of white rule (apartheid), blacks in the country--largely communist and strongly supported by the former Soviet Union--began pushing to end apartheid.

Of course since blacks outnumbered whites by something like 5 to 1 it was well known that opening voting to all would usher in black rule.  Naturally most whites in SA were opposed but liberals in the both Europe and the U.S. totally supported this, along with many white residents of SA.

After years of guerilla warfare--in which whites, though heavily outnumbered, fared very well--a combination of international pressure, an arms and trade embargo by virtually every nation, and the help of liberals in the apartheid government led to the government agreeing to hold elections open to all in 1994.  The result, of course, was a sweep by black candidates of the African National Congress, who have held power since that time.

But as you might have guessed, having the white government peacefully hand over power to them wasn't enough for the communists in the ANC, and soon gangs of blacks were attacking, torturing and killing white farm families.  Being masters of propaganda, the ANC government took effective action:  They quickly stopped keeping records of farm murders.  But the whites know about every murder, and have kept their own records (click here).  Here's another ghastly compilation.

The last number I recall seeing was 4,700 since 1994.  That figure becomes even more ghastly when one realizes that the number of whites in SA is about 4.6 million.  A corresponding number for the U.S. would be about 200,000 murdered.

Attackers murder even 3- or 4-year-old white children--and not just on rare occasions but often enough to form a pattern.  And then you have charmers like the folks who posted this on Facebook (!):

If the screencap is too blurred to read, here's the content:
Nceba Sodo, May 25, 2010: "What can we do to protect our black babies from these future oppressors and racists?"
Mfundo Dlungwane: "We have no choice but to kill the white babies, simply because they are goin to grow and oppress our babies, so we kill the white babies...when the rite time comes we'll chop their heads off and they become headless little racist.  In the Bible it says "the sins of the fathers will fall onto the next generation"  we'll be not only liberating what belongs to us but als [sic] fulfilling prophecy you know what I'm sayin..."
Ncebo Sodo:  "Well said.  The seed of racism, hatred, colonialism and Apartheid was sown yesterday, and today is harvest time, so let the white infants/babies reap the harvest that their forefathers have planted.  I fully agree with you: kill them before they grow and oppress our babies."
Mfundo: "One bullet, one white infant."
Ncebo: "One bullet, one white infant."

Of course there are insane people all over the world.  Could all this murder and torture be the work of "lone wolf" nutters?

Well, not "lone" since they always attack in gangs.  But maybe gangs of only slightly crazed males led by one deranged, angry nutter, possibly?

A couple of facts strongly refute that explanation, and instead point to a deeliberate government policy:  in a huge number of cases, killers have been identified by survivors and arrested, but are released on low bond, and then...their cases mysteriously disappear.

Literally--government officials--all ANC members and all black--claim the case file can't be found.  Asked to elaborate or answer questions they either refuse comment or claim they're mystified.  Which suggests the government quietly approves of the murders.

Such a thing strikes westerners as shocking--about as unbelievable as the notion that the leading Democrat presidential candidate would conduct official business as Secretary of State using her own private email server for years without anyone in the administration noticing.  It's just unbelievable. But to South Africans this is an everyday occurrence, since the president of the ANC--an open communist--has been caught on video singing two songs popular with the ANC: "Kill the Boers," and "One white, one bullet."

Okay, so South Africa has become a disaster.  Hey, it happens, right?  I mean, that's an entirely different country, so how could we possibly learn anything useful from their experience?

So glad you asked.  The first thing we can learn is that if it can happen in South Africa the same can happen here.  Hell, it IS here.  Here's a black guy in the U.S. inciting blacks to kill white cops:

If you think we're not fast approaching South Africa's ghastly situation you're dreaming.

I hear liberals and Democrats saying we'll never be in that position because we have a decent economy and a good standard of living, or similar bullshit.  But South Africa was the best economy on the whole continent.  As was Venezuela.  Beirut, Lebanon was once called "the Paris of the middle east" until civil war destroyed it.  Such people are idiots, determined not to see.

Second:  When one group resents the wealth or acheivements or power or status of another group, demagogs always appear, and proceed to garner support among the resentful by promising them that under the "new" order they'll be able to simply take what the others have.  Yay, instant wealth! Reparations, right?  Communists and socialists (so-called "social justice warriors") push this line every time--and predictably gain huge support by pushing it.

Third:  There are always lots of members of the successful group--always liberal chowderheads--who will join the demagogs and help to usher in Glorious Socialism, with its Wonderful Equality.  The libs are unalterably convinced that by definition unequal wealth is unfair.  Most of 'em have good hearts and grieve for the lack of wealth among the poor.  And the profess to believe that, say, a doctor shouldn't earn any more than a fast-food worker or a professor of womyns' studies, despite the first requiring far more effort than the other two.

It absolutely never crosses their mind that paying engineers the same as waiters will result in fewer people doing the far more demanding work required to get an engineering degree.  And they can never grasp that some people simply prefer not to work, even if given a job, since it's so much easier to collect welfare or strong-arm weaker folks out of their cash.  Because the fundamental premise of liberal chowderheads is that "We're all alike," even when that's been demonstrated endlessly to be false.

This is not to say we're not all valuable, or that street sweepers aren't every bit as necessary as engineers.  It's just that the effort to become one of those two is a lot higher.

And in this particular assumption--as in most--liberals are unteachable.  If they were assaulted, robbed and then stabbed to death they'd believe to their dying breath that it was their fault.

As a lot of people have noted, you can't fix stupid.

Now, one can't reasonably blame people who don't have much from wanting more--including anything you have.  When you think about it, wanting better conditions is one helluva motivator for most people.  It can light a fire under 'em and motivate 'em to build a company or create a service or write a book or whatever.  But this motivator is totally removed when government gets into the act by giving people a living even if they don't work.

And communism doubles down on that, by telling people that the ONLY reason others have more is because they inherited their wealth, or they have "white privilege" or that some other fix is in.

So as you watch the steadily increasing number of murders and beatings and police abuse of whites here in the U.S. under Obama, remember the experience of South Africa under the ANC government, Tell us why you're absolutely sure things can't possibly get that bad here.  Tell us how the emperor is doing everything possible to uphold the rule of law, and strengthen respect for our laws, and to help make everyone equal under the law, would ya?

But of course you can't.  The evidence is overwhelming that Obama has bent or broken the law innumerable times, but Republicans in congress are afraid to defend the Constitution and the rule of law for fear of being called racists.

So lacking responsible representatives, and being too fucking nice to break out a thousand miniguns and sweep the streets clean, we will get the privilege of playing out our own version of South Africa.

But who knows--maybe a miracle will happen.

To answer the inevitable charge: The foregoing is not to indict all blacks.  Obviously not all blacks--either here or in South Africa--think assaulting and/or killing whites is a good idea.  Unfortunately this obviously hasn't stopped the assaults and killing.  I strongly suspect that any black person who criticized black-on-white violence would be immediately attacked by fellow blacks as being an "Uncle Tom."  And I further suspect not a single black person is willing to take that risk.

My guess is that the lure of reparations, and of getting revenge for injuries to one's ancestors, is simply too strong to prevent war between the races.  Sad, because a lot of totally innocent people are gonna die.

As an aside: To get an idea about how corrupt the ANC, its president, Jacob Zuma, and its allies are, consider one small vignette: Zuma--whose organization runs the government at every level--has used taxpayer funds to lavishly expand his private compound.  According to the country's "official ministerial handbook" a politician can tap the taxpayers for 100,000 Rand for security systems or other improvements on their own property, but must personally pay any amounts above that.

Zuma's upgrades to his compound were quite a bit pricier:  The current total is 246 Million Rand.  In other words, he exceeded the legal limit by a mere 245,900,000 Rand.

This is brazen corruption--almost on a Clintonesque scale.  So naturally a lot of South Africans wanted to know who approved the expense.  Zuma stonewalled--blamed the architechts and the contractors.  The case was referred to the Office of the Public Protector, one Thuli Madonsela.  This worthy understandably seems to have had little interest in taking on the all-powerful president Zuma, and her report was amazingly ambiguous.

That was January of two years ago.  Zuma is still stonewalling, and still president.  He rules the country virtually by decree.  Sound familiar?  This is what happens when the "rule of law" is replaced by tribal rule--meaning the chief rules by decree.

Which is what we have here in the U.S. now.