Sunday, October 27

Muslims murdering Christian civilians, part 284,853

Read the story at this link.  It's from a major German network, and is about Muslim "extremists" in Syria systematically killing Christians.

The victims aren't combatants but ordinary civilians.  They're being targeted simply because they're Christians, and in Syria most Christians supported the Assad regime because it nominally allowed religious freedom.

Of course leftists won't believe this story, because they've been told by that international Man of Mystery--Barack Hussein Obama, he of the super-secret sealed records--that Islam is a "religion of peace." 

For those who were raised to believe words actually had a reasonably consistent meaning, instead of whatever the Party wanted them to mean on any given day, the logical inference is that members of "the religion of peace" wouldn't go shooting unarmed Christians just for the hell of it.

But this is exactly the truth of the matter.  In fact the jihadists have used their websites to post the names of Christians they have vowed to kill.  I would suggest that shows that they don't have the slightest concerns about being prosecuted for any of these killings.

One can only laugh at the mental dilemma of the few hundred western leftists who are actually Christians as they struggle to reconcile stories like this with the soothing, mellow assurances of their Fearless Leader.

Here's a flash:  Historically, the so-called Islamic "extremists" are actually the ones setting policy.  Not a single Muslim in the world has the courage to openly oppose them, for fear of being killed.  Wishing will not make them go away.  Hoping will not make them stop murdering Christians. 

Of course if you're not a Christian you think that's no problem.  And it won't be, providing you're willing to become a Muslim.

And knowing leftists, that shouldn't be any problem at all.

Saturday, October 26

A Christian in Turkey

A story from Istanbul, Turkey, shows Islamic wackos doing what they always do:  Accuse Christians of blasphemy against their so-called prophet, and call for the Christian to be killed.  While such outrages are common in Pakistan, they've been rare in Turkey.  But Islamic fanatics are getting more aggressive around the globe.

In this case Irfan Masih, owner of a book store, asked his brother to mind the store while he ran an errand.  Brother Adnan, who has a master’s in English and studied at a Pentecostal seminary, was going through books in a desk drawer and noticed one titled, “I Asked the Bible Why Korans Were Burnt."

A source close to Adnan Masih said Masih saw several statements about the Bible that he believed were false.  He highlighted these and answered with verses from the Bible. The next day Masih learned that a case had been registered against him for blasphemy, for "outraging religious feelings, defiling the Koran and defaming Muhammad."

The book Masih commented in belonged to a Muslim worker at the shop, Abid Mehmood.  On seeing the notations the man not only went to the police but also notified an Islamic militant organization known by the acronym JuD, which issued a fatwa calling for the death of Adnan.

Masih, married and a father of two young girls, went into hiding after learning of the fatwa.  A source said he had no idea that simply “pointing out false references in a book"--not the Koran--would land him in such big trouble.
 
A spokesperson for the JuD said his group would not tolerate one word against their prophet.  “The police better arrest the blasphemer and hand him over to us,” the man said. “We will not be responsible for any law-and-order situation in the city if the police fail to [do this].  How dare someone use derogatory language against our beloved prophet … Don’t they know that the Koran orders us to slit the throat of whoever is disrespectful to Allah’s beloved prophet?”

Since last week JuD protesters have gathered at the police station and the superintendent’s office every evening, howling for Masih’s arrest.

Chillingly, police jailed Adnan's brother, the shop owner, even though he did nothing wrong and wasn't even at the shop at the time.

Asked why he and the police wanted Irfan Masih’s arrest when he was not present in the shop when the alleged blasphemy took place, the Muslim accuser said detaining the innocent brother would pressure Adnan Masih to surrender to police.

“Irfan has never been disrespectful to Islam, but he is the brother of a blasphemer and must suffer for his action,” he said.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police said officers were trying to keep tensions under control, and that “Adnan Masih’s arrest is important to prevent violence on other Christians.”

“Right now, it’s not a matter of whether Adnan Masih is guilty or not,” said the deputy. “He has been charged under all three sections of the blasphemy law and must surrender to us so that we can investigate the charges against him.”

The deputy said he had asked local Christian leaders to bring Masih before them to prevent rioting.

“Islamist groups have already started pressuring us, warning of massive protests in the city,” he said. 
Asked why police had jailed Masih's brother when he hadn’t been accused of any wrongdoing, the deputy said the shop owner had been "detained for questioning."
 
“He’s our guest until we have the main accused in our custody.”

An attorney who works at the Lahore High Court, told Morning Star News that police were committing an illegal act by keeping an innocent man in custody.

Pakistan’s blasphemy laws are frequently used against religious minorities, with frivolous accusations used to settle personal vendettas.

British couple with 4 kids gets $85K a year on top of child benefits

A British paper recently ran a story about a couple with 4 kids who were getting welfare benefits of $85,000 a year on top of income support and child benefits.

If that seems a bit high to you, just wait:  If you think those numbers aren't coming here you're naive. 

When the Brits started their welfare system, they didn't think this would happen either.  At least not this soon.

Isn't it predictable how gummint programs and benefits always grow.

Wednesday, October 23

Strategy for getting Obamacare to work

The Democrat strategy for Obamacare is shaping up nicely: 

  1. Ram a horribly ill-conceived bill through congress--without a single Republican vote,
  2. When the rollout looks as though it'll kill businesses--which are critical to making the program's economics work--simply delay those mandates as long as needed;
  3. Blame the program's troubles on Republicans, claiming they sabotaged it because they don't like a black president (i.e. they're all racists);
  4.  Have media allies start a campaign to shame Republicans into trying to "fix" the fatally flawed program;
  5.  Sit back with folded hands while Republicans do everything possible to "fix" Obamacare;
  6.  Take credit for a reasonably-working health-care "reform."

You gotta admire chutzpah like that.

Record number of Americans have stopped looking for work--yet official unemployment drops!

When Barack Obama took office there were 80,507,000 Americans who were unemployed and not looking for work.

Yesterday the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that number was 90,600,000.  Thus, the number of Americans not in the labor force has increased by 10,102,000 during Obama's regime.

But not to worry, citizen!  Because the regime also reported yesterday that the official unemployment rate *dropped* another tenth of a percent!

You may wonder how ten million more adults out of work--with 136,000 dropping out just in the last month--can produce a drop in the unemployment rate.  This simply shows that you're a raaaacist and hatemonger!  Do not question your leaders, citizen. 

Monday, October 21

Stealing from your children

Unless you're a political junkie with a strong math background--and that's a very small club--chances are that you know very little about government debt and compound interest.  So please let me try to remedy that.

It's a cliche in politics that if you want to steal from somebody, steal from future generations, since they don't vote yet and can't write letters to the editor.  Seriously, all pols know they can steal from future generations without anyone saying a critical word.

The federal government has been spending more than it take in--far, far more--for years.  But in the last decade the government's annual deficits have started to increase exponentially.  (See this graph.)
  So how in the world could politicians not recognize that their huge deficits were unsustainable?
  Did they just not realize the deficits were so large?
  Did they not realize that each wonderful, oh, absolutely necessary new federal program they voted into existence would make that deficit even worse?
  Were they so fatally dumb that they didn't think any of it would ever have a negative impact on the country?

Unfortunately it's hard to get a straight answer from any politician on those points.  In fact, not a single Democrat politcian will go on the record saying that our enormous debt is a bad thing--at least not while Duh Won is prez. 

Of course they saw things much differently when *Bush* was president. 

Example:  During King Barack's brief tenure as a U.S. senator he opined that deficits were baaad, very bad.  But does he still think so?  Obviously not.  So when was he lying:  then or now?

As John Gabriel put it,
Math doesn’t care about fairness or good intentions. Two plus two doesn’t equal 33 after you factor in a secret "Social Justice" multiplier. And if our current president accumulates debt at the rate of his first four-plus years, the national debt will be $22 trillion by the time leaves office.
Oh, and in case you missed it, after the shutdown ended the nation's debt increased by almost a third of a trillion bucks in a single day.

A third of a Trillion dollars.  In a single day.  Bet you hadn't heard that.  And if you hadn't until now, ask yourself why the media didn't see fit to tell you.  They must think it's trivial, not worth reporting.

Or they're covering for King Barry.  Which one do you think it is?

Sunday, October 20

Sebelius refuses to testify before congress about Obamacare disaster?

The shit being pulled by the Obozo crew just gets funnier--that is to say, crazier and more outrageous--with each passing day.

Really, I'm laughing so hard I can barely see to type.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has announced that it'll hold a hearing this Thursday to examine the...shall we say "interesting"...rollout of Obamacare on October 1st.  This is not the crazy part, inasmuch as one of the most crucial functions of congress is government oversight.

As one would absolutely expect, the committee sent a letter to Obozo's secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, asking her to appear and answer questions.  And no, this isn't the crazy or funny part either.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius - See more at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/administration-rebuffs-invite-testify-full-committee-hearing-health-care-law%E2%80%99s-botched#sthash.tySLlmcB
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius - See more at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/administration-rebuffs-invite-testify-full-committee-hearing-health-care-law%E2%80%99s-botched#sthash.tySLlmcB.dpuf

One of the things the committee planned to ask was how many people have actually, literally, signed up for Obamacare as of today.  That's the number of Americans who *actually signed up* for a plan, not the number who visited the site and tried to navigate the thing for a few hours before giving up in frustration.

As you might guess, revealing that top-secret number would probably have been a huge embarrassment to the Obozo crew, as they have doggedly refused to divulge that number to anyone outside the Chosen Circle.

Ooooohh, what to do, what to do?

You'll never guess what happened.

Obie's department head told the committee to go pound sand.

That's the spirit, Obie!  "This will be the 'most transparent administration evah!'"  Provided one defines "transparency" as "refusing to answer questions or explain your actions."  Good show, Barry!

And I'm just kidding about that being a hard decision for Barry's crew.  After all, they pulled the same bullshit with your lying, lawbreaking attorney-general:  After he said he had NOT briefed Obie on the operation that was selling guns to Mexican drug gangs (Fast and Furious), the House asked Holder to appear and testify about the op.  At which point Holder made an instantaneous, breathtaking pivot and asked Obie to shield him from having to testify--by invoking "executive privilege"--a legal theory similar to the "attorney-client privilege."

But as he'd just gotten through saying he'd never briefed Obama on the op, it would seem kinda impossible to claim executive privilege, eh?


In my humble opinion this kind of in-your-face bullshit should be a capital crime.  For those of you younger than 35 or so that means one that has execution as a penalty if guilty.  But when congress did nothing at all--probably in fear of being called raaacists--Obie knew he could make 'em back down every time.  

Now, there's still a chance Obama may reverse himself and allow Sebelius to appear before the committee--but only after making the committee agree that they won't ask her certain questions, and agreeing that she can't be given immunity (a tactic used to get witnesses to testify more honestly).

Oh, and if you think Sebelius herself made the decision not to testify, you're so dumb you probably vote Democrat.

One woman's response to a tragedy

I don't usually write about stories like the following because life is full of people undergoing personal tragedies.  They're usually random and offer no wider lesson for improving our future.

This one's different.

In Memphis last Thursday two women left two children--ages 2 and 3--alone as they went...somewhere.

A fire started in the apartment and the two children died.

A TV news crew was interviewing one of the women who lived in the apartment, who was also the aunt of one of the two children.  At the end of the two-minute interview the newser asked the woman if she regretted leaving the kids alone. 

It's the kind of standard question they ask just to get emotional footage.  No one expects any other answer than a wailing "Lord, I wish we hadn't left 'em alone!" or similar.

In this case, though, the answer was surprising:  The aunt of the 3-year-old who'd just been killed in the fire said she had no regrets about leaving the children alone.  Her concern was to get into the apartment to see if the fire had damaged...her EBT card.

I realize that after horrible events many people go into a state of shock and often say or do all manner of bizarre things.  Perhaps this woman was in such a state--although she seemed normal enough during the rest of the interview.

The link above goes to the video.  The woman appears about 20 seconds before the end.

Without the vid I wouldn't have believed it.

Saturday, October 19

Analyst predicted EBT card glitch would cause riots

In certain cases the future can be predicted accurately.

Those cases involve events with huge numbers of players, since the large number makes individual random outcomes "wash out."

One of the fascinating uses of the internet is that it enables individual analysts to make a public, dated prediction of how they think certain events will unfold.  Such individuals have always existed but in earlier times they could rarely get their predictions published.

With that background, consider this article by Matt Bracken, who predicted welfare recipients rioting after EBT cards stopped working.
What if an economic crisis, even a temporary one, leads to millions of EBT cards not working? This could also be the result of deliberate sabotage by hackers, or other technical system failures.

Since tens of millions of Americans now consider government-provided money for food as their right, their reaction to a cutoff of “their” food money will be immediate rage. Supermarkets, shops and restaurants will be looted, and the media will not initially condemn the looting. Unfortunately, the initial violence will only be the start.

The mobs will quickly move their activities to the borders of their ethnic areas, occupying major intersections and highway interchanges that commuters must use to reach what forms of employment still exist.

The clashes at these points will resemble the intersection of Florence and Normandie during the Rodney King riots in 1992, where Reginald Denny was pulled out of his truck and beaten nearly to death with a cinder block.  (If you don’t remember it you can watch it on Youtube.) 
But in 1992 Twitter and Facebook didn't exist.  So today instead of a few dozen thugs terrorizing the ambushed intersections there will be hundreds in just minutes.

Rioters will throw debris into the intersection, causing the more timid drivers to pause. Once the lines of trapped cars have been stopped, they'll be swarmed by the mob. Traffic will be frozen for blocks in all directions. Drivers and passengers from other ethnic groups will be pulled from their vehicles to be beaten, robbed, and in some cases raped and/or killed. It will be massive, hyper-violent and overtly racial.

Implausible, you say?  Not at all; this is just age-old human behavior patterns, adding flash mobs and 2012 levels of racial anger to the old recipe.  Consider that for the past five or six years urban black youths have been "playing the Knockout Game,” attacking people on the sidewalk just for kicks--and then smugly uploading the videos to the internet.  One can expect far worse when they can blame whites for taking away "their" rightful money.

Law enforcement won't go near the mob-controlled areas.  The police, with riot squad reaction times measured in hours, will be fighting flash mobs that materialize, kill and evaporate in 30 minutes. This difference in cycle times has been evident during the massive riots by immigrant French Muslim youths during the past few summers.

Many policemen will stay home to take care of their own families, as after Hurricane Katrina.  Overwhelmed with calls for help, they'll be forced to triage their responses.

Because of the avalanche of violence in minority areas, truck drivers will refuse to deliver to markets in those areas, delaying the recovery.  Most business will be looted of everything of even modest value.

The former Yugoslavia, with its Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim divisions, comes starkly to mind. The Lebanese civil war between the Christians, Sunnis, Shiites and Druze raged across Beirut (a city once called “The Paris of the Middle East”) for fifteen brutal years. Once a city turns on itself and becomes a runaway engine of self-destruction, it is difficult to impossible to return to normal pre-conflict life. It’s not inconceivable that the United States could produce a dozen Sarajevos or Beiruts, divided on racial instead of religious lines.


 Interestingly, Bracken wrote the above essay 13 months ago--over a year before the instant "food riots" that followed the brief interruption of EBT benefits in 15 states.

Numbers? Just tools to repress women and people of color...

Do numbers mean anything at all?

Apparently Lieberals [sic] and Democrats don't think so.  Reason?  The graph below, and how the Dems responded to it.

The graph is of U.S. government debt.  Clearly it's exploded exponentially.  Smart people would read the numbers, realize what was happening and cut spending.

So predictably, our gutless, corrupt political "leaders" conspire to keep the exponential growth right on track.

The stupid rat-bastards won't even cut spending a dime.  Democrat Harry Reid and Obama manage to block even the most modest cuts.  Which is why I wrote that they apparently don't grasp the significance of the numbers that produced the above graph.

That's okay, citizen:  Numbers are really just meaningless symbols used by insiders to repress women and people of color!  They don't mean anything.  Really.  Trust us.  You can trust us Democrats because we're really, really smart.  After all, we've managed to get government subsidies for ourselves to pay the higher costs of health insurance under Obamacare, so....uh...

Say it all together now:  "Yes we can!  Hope and change!
                                       Yes we can!  Hope and change!

Food riots?

One week ago an event billed as a "system failure” caused "EBT" cards--the the euphemistically-named cards that deliver welfare payments and food stamps--to stop working in 17 U.S. states. Within hours, people on welfare were rioting at Wal-Marts.

Eight hours or so later the system was back up and the rioters went home.

Now here's your assignment:  If the EBT system was down for, say, two weeks, how may people would be killed by rioting welfare recipients?

Mike Adams has been considering this.  He observes that most people on welfare have no financial or food reserves to speak of, but live from welfare check to welfare check. Thus if the government cash stops, they get mad and riot.

Before the latest dustup the speculation was that riots wouldn't start for a few days.  In realty they started within 3 hours.

Adams says about 50 million people have EBT cards.
Fifty million.  Consider that for a moment.  Most members of this group cannot conceive of the idea of government “running out of money” because they do not understand where money comes from.  Thus they see no reason to prepare for such an event.  (Almost no one else does either.)  To the extent they plan at all, their plan is to vote for Democrats, because they know Democrats will give them more handouts.
And they will always win the popular vote, because any politician even suspected of wishing to cut welfare--excuse me: "entitlement" programs--will be accused of being “mean” or of racism.  So government handouts will only ratchet higher and higher, luring and more people, until the entire system is unsustainable and collapses under its own weight.
When the welfare system inevitably fails, those who depend on it will be rioting in mere hours.
To make a bad situation worse, many of those on the bottom of the social pyramid believe there's nothing wrong with stealing food.  In fact, they believe they are "entitled" to anything WalMart or you has.  They're raised and trained by the Democrats to believe this.  After all, all Democrat pols--and most Repubs--call welfare payments "entitlements," right? 

If you think I'm being hyperbolic about low-info Americans thinking they're entitled to anything they can steal, read some of the comments at the linked article above. Or at Democrat Underground or Daily Kos. A huge number of commenters write that there isn't anything wrong with stealing food from Wal-Mart because it's "a rich corporation."   Indeed, anyone who points out that stealing food is wrong is accused of being racist or of hating the poor.


D.C. politicians--with the full support of Democrat voters--have built a huge, deadly bomb.  A human IED.  And now that it's been activated it can't be de-fused.  Hmmm...

Wait...Democrats have a secret trick to make everything better:  They'll pass Obama's so-called immigration "reform" bill (a.k.a. amnesty) and add 30 million *more* poor to our welfare rolls!  It's brilliant!

Oh, and in the event of widespread food riots:  Does anyone at all believe the Dems would mobilize federal troops *against the rioters*?  Let me make clear that I *don't*.  I think federal troops--incluing all military personnel--will be ordered to form defensive perimeters around federal offices and politicians' homes.  As far as the Dem leadership is concerned, the rest of us will just be *targets.*

Park Service: "No overnight camping in urban park. Oh wait, we'll just call it something else!"

Now that the so-called government "shutdown" is over we can forget about Barry's decision to lock Americans out of national parks and monuments.  With any luck, six months from now no one will remember a thing about it.

But in the wake of the lockout I'd like to revisit a post I made way, way back in 2010, when a bunch of folks from Occupy Wall Street were camping in a D.C. park called Macpherson Square.

Overnight camping isn't permitted in the park--a regulation prominently announced by signs--yet the OWS protesters managed to camp non-stop for the better part of a year without a peep out of the normally-fanatical Park Service.

You may well wonder how that happened.  Did the park service just not notice that people were camped there?  Uh, no.  Well if they knew, why didn't they enforce the regs--which were intended to keep urban parks from becoming--literally--crap-infested disasters?

You'll love the answer:  The Park Service simply re-named what was going on, in a way that would keep it from being a violation: 

They simply called the year-long non-stop camping a "24-hour vigil."

Isn't that too, too precious?  See, Barack wanted the support of the OWS crowd, so he didn't want the park service to enforce their no-camping regs.  In earlier times this would be called "selective enforcement of the law," which is unconstitutional.  But for a Lightworker like Barack it's no problem at all!  Just re-define what they're doing, thus turning illegal camping into something wonderful and protected.

"A 24-hour vigil" doesn't sound anything like overnight camping, right?  There ya go, citizen--problem solved!

If words mean anything the president wants 'em to mean, there's no more meaning to language.

Friday, October 18

Venezuela approaching economic crisis. But it can't happen here, because...

"Foreign Policy" magazine predicts that Venezuela is about to crash.  Their socialist government has ruined pretty much every aspect of the nation's economy.
Inflation is soaring, and basic staples are increasingly harder to find. Electricity blackouts are frequent, and crime presents an enormous problem for citizens and companies crazy enough to do business there.
The problem for Venezuelans is that their government has no clue as to what to do. …
Venezuela’s persistently high inflation has several root causes. Because of repeated elections and populist tendencies, the government continues to spend much more than it earns via taxes. Since it has few options to finance its deficit, it has been forced to devalue the currency twice this year, and this means producers – who mostly rely on imports to supply the market – are forced to pass this on to consumers.
Taming inflation would require the government to order their finances, but the administration seems reluctant to do so. For example, according to government sources, giving away gasoline for (practically) nothing costs Venezuelan taxpayers $24 billion in direct subsidies and lost revenues. This amount represents roughly a quarter of all spending included in the 2013 budget. But regardless of how dire the situation is, the government refuses to consider decreasing subsidies because it is fearful of a public backlash.
Let's see here:  Government continues to spend much more than it takes in.  Check.  Huge and costly subsidies to "the poor."  Check.  Government refuses to cut these subsidies because it wants to stay popular.  Check.

Gosh, this sounds SO familiar.  Where have we seen these things before?

But don't worry, citizen:  Other socialist regimes may go thru rough patches but nothing similar can happen here in the U.S.  Barack's regime can continue to spend 30 percent more than it takes in forever, with no adverse consequences, because Obama.

See, deficits are only bad when a Republican is president.  With Obama in charge, the normal rules of economics simply don't apply.  It's sorta like "laws"--they apply to Republicans but not to Democrat presidents, who can simply "waive" them and carry on as if nothing was amiss.

If you don't believe there's a double-standard about deficits, look at the NY Times or WaPo:  They were all over G.W. Bush about a deficit of $400 billion, but have no problem at all with King Barack running a deficit three times larger.  Because Obama.

Ah, socialism!  Is there nothing it can't do?  And now, with the gummint running health insurance--and forcing you to buy it or have any tax refund seized by the IRS--everything will be even better!

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, October 17

Yet another Obama agency chief spouts BS to congressional committee

Yesterday the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee summoned the head of the National Park Service to testify on why they chose to bar Americans from entering all of the open-air national monuments in the country.

The results were both revealing and amusing. Typical Obozo administration bullshit.

The guy said he had to shut down the open-air memorials on the Mall during the government shutdown because of terrorism, saying that closing them was the only way to protect them “in a post-9/11 world.”

Director Jonathan Jarvis told the committee his agency had received intelligence showing an increased threat since the shutdown began — but would not tell two House committees what those warnings were.

Yeah, right: With all the high-value targets in the country, terrorists are gonna attack an open-air monument. It's like attacking a parking lot or a field. But this guy wasn't gonna be shamed--they'd game-planned this story and were gonna run with it regardless.

Jeebus, they really do think we're stupid.

If I were Darryl Issa I'd go into closed session, demand that this evasive SOB reveal the *exact* intel==and provide a copy of the original warning to the committee.  And if he's found to be fabricating that, put the sonofabitch in prison.

Oh wait, Repubs don't do things like that.  So we'll just let this utter, brazen bullshit slide.  As Obama and Jarrett knew we would.

Enjoy your remaining few years of relative calm.


Tuesday, October 15

Barky: "I'll sign a short-term debt extension." Two days later: "No, I won't. But I'm the reasonable one."

You know your opponent isn't serious about negotiating if he takes one fundamental position one day and says the opposite two days later.

Background:  With the government slated to reach the legally agreed spending "ceiling" in a few days, House Republicans offered a six-week increase in the debt limit, to allow time for further negotiations without having to rush things.

The first reaction of Team Obama was to accept the House offer.

The blog "Politico44" bills itself as "A living diary of the Obama presidency," and so far as can be determined, publishes everything the administration suggests it publish.  Thus last Thursday, when it published the article "Obama would sign short-term debt increase, one assumes that was the Official Party Line of the day.

So what does it mean when just two days later the equally Obama-loving blog "The Hill" ran a piece titled "Obama rules out short-term debt hike" ?

Why, citizen, it means you're just not nuanced enough to understand the amazing complexities of the Democrat leadership, as epitomized in the Chicago community organizer.

See, Obama's experience has always been that he can squeeze concessions from his opponents by using the threat of an approaching deadline--beyond which surely lies catastrophe, certain disaster!!!!  So while the initial reaction to the House offer was "Wow, we got an extension," a few hours later the more experienced hands said "Don't be silly--with our media portraying the whole shutdown and debt fiasco as Republicans' fault, we've got 'em on the run.  Keep rejecting their offers--always for wunnerful reason, of course--and they'll totally surrender to us."

So let's review:  Obama says he'll sign a short-term increase in the debt limit.  The House gives him one.  Whereupon he says signing such a bill would be unwise.  But even though he is the one refusing to sign an extension, any consequences of the U.S. reaching the debt limit with no action in place is entirely the Repubs' fault, eh?  I constantaly amazed that they get away with this bulshit.

According to The Hill, here's what Obama said:
"It wouldn’t be wise, as some suggest, to just kick the debt ceiling can down the road for a couple months, and flirt with a first-ever intentional default right in the middle of the holiday shopping season," Obama said in his weekly address.

"Because damage to America’s sterling credit rating wouldn’t just cause global markets to go haywire; it would become more expensive for everyone in America to borrow money. Students paying for college. Newlyweds buying a home," he said.
How many of the propaganda bombs did you catch? 
  1. "First-ever intentional default...
  2. ...in the middle of the holiday shopping season."
  3. "Damage to America's sterling credit rating...
  4. Students paying for college would be hurt...as would
  5. newlyweds buying a home (sniff...that's just awful!  Heartless!  All GOP fault!)
It's not an "intentional default," but a negotiation to reign in the government from spending more than it takes in.  And OMG, not in the middle of the holiday shopping season!  Cuz, y'know, that'd just ruin Christmas...oops, can't say that anymore.  It'd ruin *someone's* holiday.  Fer sure.

Damage our sterling credit rating?  You mean the one that the rating agencies downgraded a year or so ago because Obama was running such huge deficits?  That credit rating?  Where was your concern back then?

And it's all gonna hurt students, newlyweds, puppies and kitties.  Man, what a play on the heartstrings.  Too bad you showed your true colors by ordering the National Park Service to go to the *extra expense* of closing damn near every open-air attraction in the country, deliberately to "make it painful" to the public.

Didn't see any compassion for vacationing families or honeymooning newlyweds then, eh Barky?

Your compassion is as fake as your resume.  And the people who support you are morons.

So begins the "race to the bottom"

Bad policies produce bad results.  It cannot be otherwise.

Socialism is a ghastly system.  It always produces crap outcomes.  It cannot be otherwise, because it requires that workers subsidize those who either don't work at all, or do as little work as possible.


Thus when politicians seek to "offer" health insurance to the people, and at least half the population correctly sees the new program as expensive bureaucratic crap and considers declining this wunnerful "offer," the pols are "forced" to make the program mandatory.

Cuz, like, their program was based on every citizen signing up and paying in, so....

But wait!  The poor--who either couldn't afford or chose not to buy health insurance before--can't afford the more expensive insurance of Obamacare either.  And we can't let 'em go uninsured because that was the whole whiny excuse for this monstrosity in the first place!

Ooooh, what to do?  So the pols put a provision in the law that the government will give them "subsidies" for their insurance.  But of course, there has to be an upper income limit past which you can't get a subsidy.

Surely every one of you--even my ideologically blinded liberal acquaintences--sees the inevitable consequence of this wonderful, flawless notion, right?

Yep, when people discover that simply by working less, making less money, they'll qualify for a thousand bucks a month in "subsidies" for their health insurance, they...work less.

Wow, who could possibly have seen that one coming?

And just in case any newcomers to the U.S. hadn't figured that one out yet, major newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle are actually running stories suggesting that people work less, specifically to qualify for the subsidies that Democrat politicians specifically built in to Obamacare.

I know you simply can't believe something that outrageous, that crazy, so click on the link and see for yourself.

And so the "race to the bottom" begins.  When a system is built on the philosophy "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," people become very good at needing things.

At the same time people tend to hide their abilities, since those more able are taxed more.  It's merely an unfortunate side-effect that this prevents them from enjoying the fruits of their more productive work.

But as we all know, comrade, one can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, eh?  And we need to "spread the wealth around," eh comrade?

Saturday, October 12

The dark night of the soul

There's a phrase that has often appeared in print:  “the dark night of the soul.”  It refers to periods of doubt and defeatism, always by a "good," spiritual protagonist.  One of my favorite blogs looked at the term, and the result was pretty poetic.

He'd gotten an email from a U.S. doctor just back from a year-long "medical mission" in Calcutta.  The doctor related the story of a woman who had been found on the floor of the train station in that city.  No one would take her in, until finally she was brought to the clinic where the doctor was volunteering.

An examination showed the woman had tried to commit suicide by drinking kerosene, and the doctor  described his efforts to save her with the crude materials available. He did everything he knew, but then had to leave to catch his flight back to the U.S.

Unfortunately, said the doctor, the woman died 4 days later.  He concluded "I guess all we can do is fight the good fight and leave the rest to God.”

The story raises the question: Is it worth continuing to struggle when things are hopeless?  My blogger friend summarizes,
Was it useless? How we answer the question of whether it is worthwhile to try the apparently futile and hopeless defines us. We moderns rarely face the problem squarely because it’s hard to accept that often there are no happy endings, at least in the way we understand such things. So either we contrive — for the sake of our own sanity — to hide the rough patches or deny that we stand in a terrifying place. A universe where, as Raymond Chandler observed, poisoned cats die behind billboards; where hawks swoop down and snatch up bunnies, and a woman too poor even to poison herself properly dies in Calcutta without anyone even remembering her name.


It’s too hard a question for most of us, and we can be excused for ducking behind the movie seat when the monster shows up. But some are prepared to stare reality full in the face, with neither the consolations of denial nor commonplaces to hide behind.  They continue to act in the belief that it will all make sense. Some continue despite never being sure if they will ever come out the other side--or even if there is another side. It's a kind of a spiritual heroism, and that metaphor is a illuminating one.
If faith has an operational meaning it is not far different from a determination to go on.
This seems resonate with a certain type of American.  One of his commenters noted
The Left seeks to turn faith in God into faith in government--which they, conveniently, control: "Don't struggle; we'll handle it and tell you what to do." The muslims throw the self away in a consuming insanity of destruction and death.

Christians carry on with life in the face of doom.
I certainly don't believe carrying on in the face of doom is unique to Christians, and I don't know if the U.S. is doomed, but after considering the numerous unlawful acts of the tyrant--the man of the carefully-sealed records--who occupies the oval office, and his wholehearted, unswerving support by the top Democrat leaders in congress, the "long dark night of the soul" seems an appropriate metaphor.

Two more examples of Obozo spite and intimidation of ordinary Americans

Two more examples of petty intimidation and thuggery by the Obama regime:  In San Francisco an organization called LEAP sponsors an annual contest in which city school kids build sand castles.  The contest generates somewhere north of $250,000, which is half of LEAP's annual budget.

The organization uses the money to create student arts programs in schools.  This year would have been the 30th annual competition and was slated to draw 500 kids to Ocean Beach.

You'll never guess what happened.  The Park Service--acting on direct orders from the Obongo administration--told the organizers that if they set foot on the beach, "local law enforcement would be 'empowered,'” according to Julie McDonald, the organization's executive director.

Believing this was about the Park Service not having enough money to provide security, McDonald said the group offered to supply its own security for the event, but was informed by the Park Service that anyone who stepped on the beach would be trespassing.

A commenter noted that there are no rangers on the beach, and normally no lifeguards.  The Park Service isn't saving a dime, just depriving kids of fun and a school-arts organization of half its budget.

But the media keep telling the sheep that this is all--ALL--the fault of Republicans who refuse to bow to Obozo's demand that they let him do whatever he wants with the "budget", Constitution be damned. 

Oh, wait...the above story was by the NBC affiliate in San Francisco.  So at least a few facts are slipping through the Media Wall, at least to the locals.  I suspect the station realized the story was already well known to the locals so they wouldn't hurt Obozo's image by reporting it

In the second example, San Francisco’s privately-ownd Cliff House--located on federal land--was similarly shut down.  The restaurant isn’t funded by tax money and its 170 employees are all civilians, so earlier this week the owners decided to defy the shutdown and reopen.

The owners said the restaurant was losing more than $10,000 a day and was being forced to cancel long-planned wedding receptions and private parties.

But two days after the defiant reopening the owners said they received the first of "numerous" calls from officials in Washington, threatening dire consequences if they kept operating.  (The NBC story diplomatically phrased it as "laying down the law," which is ironic as hell, seeing as how there's no lawfulness in any of this.)

“When it came to the point if we didn’t shut down we would possibly never be able to reopen,” said Hountalas, “we had to do it.”

Re-read the last sentence and consider its implications.

Consider that the Obozo administration will now threaten private parties with complete loss of their livelihood if they don't obey its executive diktats. 

You can read other examples here, here, and here.

Blackmail from the community organizer

The Diplomad is a retired State Department foreign service officer.  He has a blog by that name, and has been nailing analysis for quite awhile now.  Here's his take on recent acts by King Barry (slightly edited):
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called Republicans "modern day anarchists,'' all because they do not swoon at the prospect of a phony government "shutdown" such as the one we now see.

Everywhere we look in America we see the chaos and tyranny generated by progressive thought and policies.

Liberal welfare policies create havoc throughout our society. What slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, and racial discrimination could not do, liberal polices have done, to wit, destroy the black family and turn millions of blacks into permanent wards of the state and of the liberal political machines that control most of our cities.

Liberal immigration policies, beginning with the disastrous 1965 Kennedy-Johnson immigration law, insure a constant stream of poor third world immigrants, forcing poor Americans to compete with the ultra-poor pouring in from Mexico, El Salvador, Bangladesh.

Liberal minimum wage laws ensure the disappearance of the starter jobs, once an engine for the poor to take the first steps out of poverty.  No one is calling for an end to "social programs" and government aid, but at some point the burden on the productive sector from rising taxes, a labyrinth of regulations and the constant presence of hostile government regulators and enforcers kills private sector growth. Let the poverty and misery spread!

In the last few days we've seen many examples of the chaos brought to our shores by progressivism, all highlighted by the phony government shutdown and the despicable boot-licking mainstream media. The "shutdown" has targeted popular national parks and monuments not because it costs much if anything to keep them open--in fact, it costs more to close them--but to inflict discomfort, generate confusion, and, yes, chaos.

The administration is using our National Parks to force its will on the People.  Park Rangers, once admired for their knowledge of American history, geography, flora, and fauna are now tools of spiteful repression. They're rousting elderly veterans out of the monuments built to honor those elderly veterans, and to prevent taxpayers from viewing the great parks and historical locations in our country, many of them partially, mostly, or even entirely built with private funds.

In sum, what do we see? We see the community-organizer tactic of using lies and chaos as tools of blackmail and extortion.  The Democrat-controlled senate refuses to pass any of the dozens of "continuing resolutions" passed by the House to keep government running, and then blame Republicans for the resulting chaos.  It's blackmail, pure and simple.

The president is the Chicago community organizer threatening the local landlord or McDonald's franchise with instability, violence, and disruption if he does not get what he wants. Imagine what he can do to you if he controls your health care.

Chaos in the service of tyranny.
 Yep.

Thug Democrat politician finally sentenced to 28 years. Media yawns.

Kwame Kilpatrick was a mayor of a once-proud, major U.S. city that's since decayed into the corrupt crap-hole called Detroit.  Kilpatrick's corruption and thuggery were well-known to virtually everyone, but carefully ignored by blacks and liberal whites--and most of the Dem-loving Mainstream Media.

After far too long in power he was finally convicted for one crime among many, and sentenced to 28 years in prison.  Which has finally prompted a very few former supporters to reveal that...uh...they had second thoughts all along.

Richard Fernandez wrote a great summary of Kilpatrick's reign.  One of the most telling vignettes:
There was the restaurateur who bristled every time Kilpatrick’s wife led her entourage into his establishment, partook regally of his hospitality, and left with no thought of paying the check, much less tipping the staff.
"No thought of paying the check, much less tipping the staff."

And I think, Where have we sensed this level of noblesse oblige before?  That attitude that "I'm the King and you all exist to obey my orders"?

Oh, yeah:  The golfer, Barack Hussein Soetoro, and his hyper-vacationing wife.

A commenter on Richard's site summarized quite well:
Black politicians are not "equal under the law" or judged by the content of their character. [Instead,] any charges of corruption, theft, abuse of office, or disagreements over policy involving a black politician instantly trigger countercharges of racism, which shield the misconduct until it can no longer be ignored despite the best efforts of the Democratic Party and the Media [no small redundancy there].

Granting that incumbency provides a level of legal immunity to any politician, but that level gets more impenetrable based on how far Left you are, and how much melanin one has.

Sadly, the institutions that have historically protected society from corruption--law enforcement, various inspectors-general, auditors, the media and Congress--are now nothing more than part of the enabling process for corruption.

Yep.

And for the record:  I doubt there's a significant difference in the incidence of corruption between black and white politicians.  It's just that black pols seem to be so much more brazen about it.  Plus, as the commenter noted, the media and republicans aren't generally willing to pursue corruption charges against black pols because of the instant claims of raaaacism.

Another chickenshit move by the Park Service--presumably on orders from White House

We've seen numerous examples of the Obama administration ordering the Park Service to do chickenshit things designed to punish the public during the alleged "shutdown" while saving zero bucks.  Here's yet another:

The Presidio is a former Army post at the south end of the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco--arguably one of the most beautiful locations in the nation.  On the west end of the same land is a privately-owned restaurant called the Cliff House.

Ostensibly because of the government "slimdown" the NPS shut down the private restaurant.  But the golf course remains open.

Anyone else see a pattern here?  Chillingly, astonishingly--well, actually in the current regime, quite predictably--the same asshole government thugs gave owners of private homes on fed land on Lake Powell 24 hours to leave their homes.

Ten years ago would any of you have believed some jack-booted government bureaucrat could order you out of your private home ?

Friday, October 11

Amazing hypocrisy from Reid on death benefits

A few days ago the Defense Department announced that due to the government "shutdown" it wouldn't be able to pay the $100,000 "death gratuity" (now there's an interesting phrase) to the families of service members killed in war zones.

As soon as House Republicans learned about this, they quickly drafted and passed a bill authorizing the Pentagon to pay the death gratuity.  The bill went to the senate, under the command of Democrat Harry Reid.

Meanwhile a private organization--the Fisher House Foundation--thought the refusal to pay the benefit was outrageous, and announced that rather than abandon the families of dead servicement they would pay the death benefit to families from their own funds.

Now behold the words of Democrat Reid in the senate, as he lies his worthless ass off trying to make this look lke a tempest in a teapot--and entirely caused by Republicans:
the death benefit issue has been resolved. The Department of Defense stepped forward and took care of everything. [Only after the Fisher House volunteered to pay the families, making the Obama administration look petty and spiteful.]  And so this issue is largely moot.
It’s clear the action on this legislation [the House bill providing funds to have the DoD pay] is now just for show here. We all agreed that it was a bad thing that the government shutdown led to this added grief for the families who had suffered such a terrible loss. Now we need to do what we can to prevent any further bad results — and there have been plenty of them — in other areas.
The right thing to do is to prevent more of these in other areas, and the House should just vote and open the government. The issues have been taken care of and it’s terrible that we even got to this point.
Did ya catch Reid's zinger at the end there?  "the House should just vote and open the government."  But the House has passed about ten bills that would appropriate the funds needed to run the government--but the senate, controlled by Democrat Reid, has refused pass any of them.

It gets even worse:  Reid has refused to even *bring the House bills up for a floor vote*, so as not to put his fellow Democrats in the position of having to go on the record as voting to keep the government shut down.

That's either clever or unspeakably evil/hypocritical, depending on your party.

Update:  Democrat functionaries all over the country--including the abominable media--got the talking points from the White House and Reid and echoed the same point:  The government should NOT pay a death benefit to families of service members killed in action as long as it was (nominally) shut down. 

Oh, but they *support the troops.*  Really, they do.  Oh, believe us, they plead:  We reeeaally support the troops.  Really?  Here's liberal radio host Bill Press spouting the talking point:
When you shut down the government, a lot of great things are not going to get done. And why should we make an exception for those that just happen to pop up and get a lot of media attention?
If you're skeptical, click the link.

Monday, October 7

Jack Lew dodges a simple question--as usual

Obama's treasury secretary Jack Lew is a lying, dissembling, disingenuous rat bastard.  (More on that here.  And here.)  He's good at dodging questions and flatly lying with a big smile.  In other words he's a perfect fit for this administration.

Appearing on one of the Sunday news shows, Lew was asked "How many people have signed up for Obamacare?"  He refused to give a straight answer.  The host, to his credit, recognized he was being given a bullshit response and tried again:
Chris Wallace: "Forgive me sir, you haven’t answered it.  Do you not know how many people signeod up, which would seem to indicate another major software glitch, or is it that the numbers are embarrassingly small?” 
Obama's treasury secretary: “Chris, our metric for this week was, could people get online, get the information they need to make an informed decision.  They have been getting that information. We are confident that they are going to make the decision — they have 6 months to make the decision.”
Wallace tried again: “So do you not know, or is it that the number is –”
“Well, it’s obviously not my primary area of responsibility,” said the treasury secretary.
But at this point, what difference does it make?  No one has *ever* been able to get a straight answer from any member of the Obama administration.

Park Service closes scenic turnouts at Mount Rushmore

One by one, reports are trickling in from all over the country showing how petty and thuggish the Obama administration and its minions were/are in waging the "I will never negotiate" fight over the "continuing resolution" to fund the continued operation of the federal government.

Closing the fucking *overlooks* along the Potomac was just a small example.  The federal government--which was originally *our* government--has also shut down parking areas that provided
views of Mount Rushmore. 

Naturally a lot of liberals don't believe that, because...Barack the Benevolent would *never* do something so petty and mean-spirited.

Yeah.  Okay, here's a pic:

The cones first went up Oct. 1.  Federal officials told the state the cones were a safety precaution to help channel cars into viewing areas rather than to bar their entrance.

This is astonishingly chickenshit behavior.  Sort of along the lines of "occupying" a bank lobby to intimidate its executives into forking over cash "donations" for your "social justice" fund.

And I'm not a bit surprised.

I'm looking forward to the first FOIA requests for emails and letters from D.C. to field offices instructing them on exactly what actions to take.  Seeing the exact wording will expose the shit-heads in the Obama administration for who and what they are.

Saturday, October 5

Obama orders Park Service to close privately-funded and operated historical park

In McLean, Virginia is a historical attraction called the Claude Moore Colonial Farm, which replicates life in the U.S. in 1771.

Thirty-some years ago it was apparently a national park, but in 1981, after a government shutdown temporarily cut off its funding, a bunch of local volunteers got together and said "Hey, we have enough people to operate this thing without any fed funds.  Why not go private?"  So they did, signing an agreement with the feds to do so.

That was 32 years ago, and its been running successfully ever since, without a dime of taxpayer money.  Until last Tuesday, when the wannabe-Nazis in the White House ordered the Park Service to close it, following the so-called "government shutdown."

But wait, you may say...how can the feds shut down a park that doesn't belong to 'em?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  Clearly you haven't been paying attention for the last five years, because Obozo blythely ignores EVERY law he wishes to.  It's really a bit comical: laws apparently mean absolutely nothing to the Democrats--though they will sure as hell come down on YOU like avenging Death if you dare to break one yourself.

So the park is closed, and remains closed.

Now here's the funny part:  Not a single Lying Media outlet seems to have printed or published a word about this story.  A search for "Claude Moore colonia farm +closing" turns up lots of stories in conservative outlets, but not a single one could I find in the mainstream media.

Apparently they didn't think it was newsworthy.  Gee, what a surprise.

AP changes headline to remove mild criticism of Obamacare

If you're not a political junkie this story will seem trivial:  After Day Two of Obamacare enrollment, with the enrollment sites still returning the message "We're having trouble, come back later," two reporters for the Associated Press posted a story on the troubles.  It was originally headlined
PRESSURE MOUNTS TO FIX HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES
This headline lasted about two hours before being changed to
ON-LINE DELAYS SIGNAL STRONG DEMAND FOR HEALTHCARE
Interesting.  Someone at the AP realized that the original header--"Pressure mounts to fix"-- could lead gullible readers to think Obamacare was flawed in some way. 

Whoa, can't have that, right?

So someone at the AP changed it so that not only was the header not critical, it made Obamacare look like a wildly popular program!

Pretty slick.

Okay, most of you probably think this is trivial.  Who cares if a headline is changed, eh?  But multiply this by, oh, a million.  Because that's roughly how often the mainstream Democrat-loving media make decisions like that every year to favor the Dems and their positions.

Ever heard of a mainstream media organ changing a header to make it less critical of a Republican or conservative?  Hell no.  It would never even *occur* to 'em to do that.  But changing a story to favor Dems?  Normal operating procedure.