Monday, July 27

Big statue of satan to be unveiled in...Detroit?


When I saw this story this morning I thought it had to be satire: A group calling themselves the Satanic Temple announced that it would unveil a statue of their impression of Satan this Saturday.  And this grand event was to take place in the Democrat stronghold city of...Detroit.

There was a photo with the article:  Seems the statue doesn't just depict a goat-headed apparition, but puts on the final touch by also depicting two children gazing up in wonder at the goat's head.

You'd have to see it to believe it.

Oh, and the press release says the thing “is not only an unparalleled artistic triumph, but stands as a testament to plurality and the power of collective action.”

Now I'm getting even more convinced this is a spoof, since "collective action" is often a euphemism for socialism:  Detroit has been ruined by the "power of collective action," as expressed in political corruption by the ruling party, unparalleled percentages on welfare, corrupt government unions and the power of manufacturing unions to cripple and ultimately kill companies.  So I thought "this is just too spot-on."

And it still may turn out to be a clever hoax.  But if so it fooled a local Detroit TV station.  Oh, wait,..that's it:  Probably Faux News, cuz they're always riling up viewers with goofy stories like this.

Wait...you say it wasn't Fox?  That the piece appeared on the web page of...[gasp!] a CBS station?  Whoa!  But of course most of us out here in flyover country don't believe a word CBS broadcasts, so you'll just have to decide for yourself.

Meanwhile here's the link.  Click at your own risk, cuz it's a pretty ugly statue.


Wednesday, July 22

One more step closer to the end

What would you think of a U.S. president who negotiated a binding agreement on our nation--a treaty in every respect save the bullshit assertion that it's not a treaty--but refused to tell you all its provisions?

Would you suspect that it contained something the emperor didn't want you to know? 

Well obviously, or they would have made the secret, binding terms public.

Would you suspect the hidden provisions were ones that most Americans would find intolerable?  Of course, or they wouldn't have tried to hide those provisions.

Would you think a president who made such a treaty was trustworthy, or would you think he was trying to pull a fast one on America and her citizens? 

Of course you couldn't trust him--a trustworthy president wouldn't have hidden ANY of the provisions, but would have been honest with the American people and said "We had to agree to these burdensome provisions to get the other side to agree to a deal--and we felt we had to get a deal because...um...legacy or something."

But Obama decided it was better to negotiate a deal with terms kept secret from you.  If you've got an IQ above that of the average Democrat, this should make you so mad you can't see.  You should be demanding impeachment.

Unless you've been off the planet for the last month, you know that the emperor's people negotiated a deal with Iran that lifted every last, painstakingly negotiated sanction and frozen bank account, in exchange for allowing them to develop an atom bomb.  What you don't know--and what the Lying Democrat Media won't tell you--is that there are two secret provisions.

"Oh wait," I hear you say:  "I'm sure you're just not telling us that the president will brief congress on the secret terms, and of course the senate then gets to vote on whether to approve the deal.  You know, that 'advise and consent' thing.  Takes a two-thirds majority, so I think we're protected against a bad deal.  So you're just a wing-nut. 

Aw, isn't that cute:  Of course you heard that by mis-naming this thing as NOT a treaty the emperor got the senate to agree that it would take effect with just a vote of one-third of the senators instead of the constitutionally required two-thirds, right? 

No?  How could you not have heard that?  Oh that's right: it got very little coverage in the Lying Media.  Because they all knew Obama was trying to pull a fast one.

But it gets even worse:  As of now, the emperor will NOT be briefing congress on the secret terms.

"Wait," you say.  "If the terms are secret, and no one has briefed congress on them, how in the world can you know they even exist, huh?  Huh?  Stupid wingnut, we gotcha!  Ha!"

The secret terms are known to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and were found by accident when senator Tom Cotton and GOP rep Mike Pompeo visited that agency's office in Vienna on June 17th.

You gettin' the picture yet?  Obama is a lying, treasonous, Constitution-shredding bastard.  Who has brilliantly given Iran a green light to develop a nuke, and arranged to blame the GOP-controlled senate for it!

Pretty cool, eh?  Well, if you're a Dem or a Muslim, anyway.

Oh, and those stories of the head religious leader of Iran giving speeches saying "We will destroy the U.S. and Israel"?  Probably just "Islamophobia."

See, your betters know that even a nuclear Iran would never actually use a bomb on, say, Israel.  Or put one in a shipping container for New York harbor.  Because...well, "Islam is the religion of peace" or something like that.

Friday, July 17

4 Marines killed in Chattanooga by muzz: The pace accelerates

The murders of 4 U.S. Marines by a 24-year-old Muslim were inevitable, as the pace of Muslim attacks on non-muslims accelerates.

Leftists and children deny this, first because most don't believe it (fair enough)--but a significant number simply refuse to admit it, because to do so would be to admit that their world is founded on unreality and deception,

In France three days ago, two huge petroleum storage tanks were set afire by explosive devices, detonated by cell phones.  The event didn't make the front section of a single U.S. paper.  And in Muzz-cowed Europe all official source sought to pin the event on anything *but* Muzz terrorists.

A week before that, another Muzz attacked an industrial facility and beheaded the plant's manager.  Surely you heard about that on the nightly network "news," right?  No?  Ah, well...why would an American viewer care about overseas events, right?

Now with the Chattanooga murders, the emperor has umm'd an uhh'd his way through an emotionless speech in which he said something like, Well, you know, all shootings matter.

Wow!  Another Churchillian moment for Duh One.  But it was obvious he really wasn't much concerned.  Of course the Left was blase:  To them, one or two or a dozen dead Marines is no big deal.  So when their leader took the same position they were fine with it.

Is there a pattern here?  Don't be ridiculous, citizen!  The killer was simply a "domestic terrorist."  Or a "troubled youth."  Or perhaps the lack of jobs radicalized him.

So you can now expect the lying, traitorous U.S. media to go into protection mode, circling around Dear Liar to explain that the killer in Chattanooga wasn't really Muslim at all.  Yes, his name may have been Mohammod [sic], but that proves nothing.

And his parents may have been muzz, but really, that's just a coincidence.

And so what if his social media page may have touted his anger against American society and his desire to commit jihad?  Lots of confused young men do stuff like that, eh? 

So see, nothing to do with Islam at all, citizen.  And if you think there IS a connection, you're a deranged hater.  Tea partier.  Anti-government.  Probably a domestic terrorist.

Say, do you have all the permits needed for those guns you own?  Have your children had all their shots?  Can you prove it?  Do you have a license for your dog?  Do you collect government-owned rainwater from your gutters?  We fined some anti-government troublemaker in Oregon ten grand for that last year, and you may be next unless...

Have you ever displayed a Confederate flag?  Ever made a favorable comment about the South?  Do you own a scoped rifle?  More than one box of ammunition?  Have you ever gone to a shooting range?  Ever made a comment critical of "undocumented immigration"?  Ever made a comment critical of the president?  Critical of his wife's lavish vacations, perhaps?

You don't want to make trouble, do you, citizen?  Because you've now violated, oh, 23 laws that could put you away for, oh, five years easy.  So sit down and STFU.  We done tol' ya the "little thing" [1] in Chattanooga had "nothing whatsoever to do with Islam," so you will believe us, and sit down.

[1] re: "little thing:"  the exact words Democrat rep Luis Gutierrez used to describe the murder of Kathy Steinle in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant last week.  Gutierrez is the embodiment of evil.

Article from last year shows how much things have changed in 18 months

Last year Rolling Stone ran a piece titled "5 economic reforms Millenials should be fighting for.  Although it's old, I wanted to show how much the author's ideas and recommendations have become policy in barely 18 months.

In essence the author recommends that the U.S. adopt full-on Communism.

Of course you think I'm kidding.  Wish I was.  For a couple of minutes I thought maybe the author was doing satire but his bio indicates he's serious. 

He lists "things we might want to start fighting for if we want to grow old in a just, fair society, rather than the economic hellhole our parents have handed us."

"Economic hellhole"?  Well it's certainly true that the country's gone downhill a LOT after five years of King Obozo's misrule, but even with the socialist emperor running things I'm not sure the U.S. is ...how did you put it? an "economic hellhole"?   I'll bet this whiny prick hasn't actually been to a real hellhole or he'd realize the U.S. is a relative paradise.

But some people are slow learners.  Anyway, here's what this prick is pushing:

1. Guaranteed jobs.  He thinks the government should guarantee that everyone who wants to can earn a "decent living" in the public sector.  He compares this to the WPA under Roosevelt.  Somehow I don't think he'd consider WPA-level wages a "decent living."  Enough to stay alive, but scarcely more than that.  But comparing his proposal to Roosevelt's WPA reassures readers that this isn't a new or scary or expensive idea:  "Yes, the WPA was good, and helped everyone!"
"A job guarantee that paid a living wage would anchor prices..."  

First you need to know that "living wage" is socialist code.  Whatever you think that number is, think higher.  They've already demonstrated for fifteen bucks an hour.  So what does the author mean when he claims doubling the minimum wage will "anchor prices"?  If he means it would "anchor" a burger at McD's at ten bucks, somehow I don't think a lot of folks will be thrilled.
"...and target employment for the poor and long-term unemployed."
Like most of the article, this is nonsensical.  Does he really think raising the minimum wage to $15/hour will result in hiring lots and lots of new servers or cleaners?  It sounds like that's what he wants to claim, but follow me here, Sparky:  If there aren't enough jobs now, what in the world would make millions of new jobs magically appear if the government simply orders businesses to pay double the current minimum wage?

Of course I don't expect this argument would slow him down for a moment--because the guy isn't trying to map out a feasible economy, but simply asserting a feel-good idea, without regard to outcome.

Then, having argued (badly) for jobs for everyone, he suddenly does a U-turn:
"But let's think even bigger. Because as much as unemployment blows, so do jobs."

Wait, didn't you just argue that the gummint should create jobs for everyone?  But now you say jobs "blow"?  Then why did you take the time to argue that gummint should create one for every person?
"What if people didn't have to work to survive? Enter the simple idea of a universal basic income, in which the government would just add a sum sufficient for subsistence to everyone's bank account every month. 
Ah yes, those simple ideas are the best, eh?  He calls this "Social Security for All" since everyone knows and loves social security, and isn't scared by it.

A universal basic income would provide everyone "time to cultivate new needs for pleasures, activities, senses, passions, affects, and socialities that exceed the options of working and saving, producing and accumulating."
This guy's too, too precious.  Yes, exceeding the options of working sounds cool.  And for the payoff pitch:
A universal basic income could make participation in the labor force truly voluntary...
 Short version:  "Y'all need to give us everything we want.  Period.  So we don't need to work."
"3. Abolish private ownership of land."  (And everything else, apparently.)
Ever noticed how much landlords blow? They don't really do anything to earn their money. They just claim ownership of buildings and charge people who actually work for a living the majority of our incomes for the privilege of staying in boxes that these owners often didn't build and rarely if ever improve.
   Think about how stupid that is. The value of the land has nothing to do with my idle, remote landlord; it reflects the nearby parks and subways and shops, which I have access to thanks to the community and the public. So why don't the community and the public derive the value and put it toward uses that benefit everyone? Because capitalism.
4.  Abolish private ownership of stocks.  (Or as the author disarmingly puts it, "Make Everything Owned by Everybody.")
There's a way easier way to collectivize wealth ownership than having to stage uprisings that seize the actual airplanes and warehouses and whatnot: Just buy up their stocks and bonds. When the government does that it's called a sovereign wealth fundAlaska actually already has a fund like this in place. If it's good enough for Levi Johnston, it's good enough for you.
5. A Public Bank in Every State
You know what else really blows? Wall Street. The whole point of a finance sector is supposed to be collecting the surplus that the whole economy has worked to produce, and channeling that surplus wealth toward its most socially valuable uses. It is difficult to overstate how completely awful our finance sector has been at accomplishing that basic goal. Let's try to change that by allowing state governments into the banking game.
This is what passes for sound thinking in the world of Rolling Stone, NY Times and the Left.

Obozo advisor caught lying--on camera--about Iran nuke agreement

Does the name "Ben Rhodes" ring a bell?

Obama appointed Rhodes as "deputy national security advisor," because of his extensive experience in the intelligence community and his long military service.

Hahahahahahaha!  This of course is utter bullshit.  He got the job because his brother is president of NBC's propaganda division--sometimes called the "News" division by the ignorant.

Ben is nothing if not stupid.  You think I'm just being mean, but consider this:  Two days ago Obama officially confirmed the disastrous nuclear agreement (actually a total giveaway) with Iran.  The *stated* reason for negotiating was to prevent Iran from developing an atomic bomb for as long as possible.  A key provision would have been to demand that the west would only remove the painstakingly negotiated system of international economic sanctions on the Iranian regime if it allowed no-notice inspections of suspected bomb development sites.

The actual agreement does not contain that provision.  Also, no Americans will be allowed in the inspection teams.

Getting the picture yet?

Immediately after the cave-in was announced, critics noted what I just wrote, and began to criticize the thing as a disaster for the U.S.  At which point Rhodes went on CNN to defend Obozo's treason, and said
 "We never sought 'anytime, anywhere' inspections."
It took blogger Stephen Hayes about three minutes to unearth the same Ben Rhodes, again on CNN, back on April 6th--just over 3 months ago--saying of the nearly-negotiated agreement,
"We will have anytime, anywhere access across the nuclear facilities."
Compare the two quotes above.  A total contradiction.  Rhodes can't remember what lies he told 3 months earlier.  Just another lie from the emperor's regime--just like "If you like your health insurance you can keep it."  Remember that whopper?

It's bad enough that the entire Obozo regime utters one huge lie after another, but the *really* worrisome thing is that they're so brazen about it--like the architect of Obozocare, Jon Gruber, making videotaped speeches saying that they counted on the stupidity of the American public to pass the thing.

Of course if you're a liberal/Democrat/"progressive" this is all just dandy.  All is proceeding according to plan.

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 almost always 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 provisions of law be damned, no backups existed.  And no, it wasn't his fault.  Because, "Oh, it's 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.

Of course, they may have existed at one time, but have been overwritten by new data--because, you know, those big 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 copies of the missing emails 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 to...you 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 new...aw 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 opm.gov 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.