Sunday, November 30

Ferguson, Mexico

hree dozen bus drivers are being held captive by activists [communists?  revolutionaries?] from teachers' school, forced to act as chauffeurs for the people who hijacked their vehicles.

The drivers, some of whom have been held for more than a month, say they cannot abandon the buses because their companies hold them financially responsible for the vehicles, some of which are worth well over a hundred thousand dollars. And with authorities unwilling to inflame tensions, no one is coming to their rescue.

"They say we haven't been kidnapped because we can get out and walk around, or swim in the (campus) pool," said one driver who, like the others holed up at the school, refused to give his name for fear of angering the students.  [typical communist bullshit:  "You're free--well, by our definition.]

The students, who have a history of sometimes violent activism, have justified the mass bus seizure as "an expropriation" and say they need the vehicles [well there ya go, Sparky] to ferry them to and from protests.  Omar García, a second-year student at the school, acknowledged it has put the drivers in a bad spot, unable to leave or earn a living to feed their families, but told The Associated Press the students had no other choice, since they don't know how to maintain the buses or drive such large vehicles.

 Several bus companies with vehicles at the school declined to comment, except to acknowledge that they hold the drivers responsible for the vehicles as a matter of policy. The companies say hijackings have become such a frequent problem that some lines have cut back on runs through southern Guerrero state.

The plight of the drivers at the teachers college is just one example of the government's inability to keep the peace in Guerrero state.  Masked students also control toll booths to collect "donations" from motorists passing on the federal highway and hijack passenger buses for their own use. Protesters from a local teachers' union have burned vehicles, public buildings and the offices of political parties, all while federal and state police stood nearby.  [Startin' to sound familiar yet?]
"The police are not taking action at this moment to avoid giving the appearance of acts of repression," said Guerrero state prosecutors' spokesman Jorge Valdez.  The state's new governor, a former leftist rebel himself, is "looking for a mechanism of conciliation, negotiation, persuasion — a political mechanism" to control the groups, Valdez said.
The school has become a parking lot not only for the buses but also for seized delivery trucks that once held Coca-Cola and goods from milk, cheese and snack companies. The drivers said the students looted the goods and sold the merchandise to local vendors.

One bus driver said he has been held since Oct. 24 when he was stopped while driving about a dozen passengers to Acapulco. A group of students blocked a road near Chilpancingo and threatened to pelt the bus with rocks unless he opened the door. The students boarded and ordered the passengers to get off.

On a recent day, a hijacked gas tanker sat on the field near about 30 luxury buses from the lines that carry Mexico City vacationers to and from Acapulco. All of the buses are late model, with leather seats and individual televisions.
Associated Press reporters discovered the captive drivers while reporting on 43 missing students from another college, and had to talk quickly before students shooed them away.  One driver warned journalists, "if they see you talking to us, they'll break your camera." 
A pair of students approached reporters as they left the lot. "Who gave you permission to be here?" they asked angrily.

The drivers said their companies aren't paying them for their time as captives. While the students have promised to give them money when they are released, the drivers say that if they do receive anything, it won't come close to their normal earnings of nearly 20,000 pesos ($1,500) per month.

"I haven't had a check for a month. I've had to ask for a line of credit that I can't pay," said another. "I'm being ruined."
When a society sends a clear message that it will tolerate looting, burning, carjacking and robbery if done by a certain segment of the population, you're guaranteed to get not just more of it, but an endless stream.  Unless and until some entity--whether government or armed citizens--wins a firefight with the thugs, thug behavior will continue. 

And why would it not?  People getting "free shit" and swaggering around like kings of the jungle, screaming "fuck the police" a foot from a cop's face without a worry.  Who'd want to change?

Tell us, Democrats:  If someone had said back in 2008 that this shit would happen, would you have laughed?  Would you have indignantly insisted "That's impossible!  Our wonderful black president would never tolerate such!" ?

'Fess up, Democrats:  You would have called the speaker a crazy right-wing nut.  And you know it.

And yet, here we are, eh?  Hope you're enjoying the ride.

Gall's Law?

A guy by the name of John Gall came up with an interesting principle
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.
This principle--which has become known as Gall's Law--has been cited as being able to predict the fact that the government--despite spending something like a billion tax dollars on software contracts and in-house work to implement the Obamacare website--ended up with a non-functioning disaster.

Of course like most short "laws" there's a wide variation in outcomes and a lot of interpretation in the phrase "have to start over with a working simple system."   I suspect Democrats and "progressives" would yell that they did NOT start over with a working simple system, and that in fact the healthcare website works just superbly well, thank you.  Uh-huh.

From time to time I find myself hating all those lying bastards.  But the great thinkers tell me it's not healthy so I have a couple of drinks and check the batteries in my night-vision scopes.

Saturday, November 29

Religion of Peace bombs mosque during prayers, killing 120 and injuring...wait, it was someone else

Kano is Nigeria’s second-largest city.  A week or so ago the local muslim leader--the Emir of Kano-- called for people to arm themselves against the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram.   That's the group that kidnapped 270 school girls early this year--an act which created the latest U.S. defense strategy, the Hashtag missile.

Which had zero effect but allowed the Mainstream Media to swoon over how faaabulous their wunnerful, dreamy president was at out-thinking his opponents and sooo much better at diplomacy and negotiating than stupid Republicans like Boosh.

Clearly the Emir should have paid attention to Obama's real message, and said nothing against Islamic terror.  Because yesterday some unknown group attacked the mosque with bombs and machineguns, killing 120 and injuring 270.

As if that wasn't enough of an outrage, the attackers attacked the mosque while it was packed with the faithful attending Friday prayers.


Emperor Obama immediately held a press conference to assure Americans that the attack was NOT carried out by Muslims.  After all, he's told us innumerable times that Islam is The Religion of Peace, and he's never wrong.  Instead, the emperor explained that the attackers were most likely Israelis or perhaps Lutherans, trying to make it look like an attack by Boko Haram.  In any case he assured his listeners that no Muslim group could have been responsible.

Reporters seemed confused as to how this might have worked but were quickly reassured by the emperor's new Secretary of Defense, Jonathan Gruber, who said "We have satellite imagery that shows unequivocally that none of you is smart enough to understand it, so you'll have to trust us."

BBC's Nigerian correspondent asked the Emir of Kano to comment but got no response, inasmuch as the Emir was among the 120 killed in the attack.  By Lutherans.

Meanwhile the emperor's Department of Labor reported that U.S. unemployment reached 1.2 percent in November, attributing this to the emperor's announcement last week to stop deporting people who were dragged into the U.S. as children.  And to extend the same common courtesy to their parents, to avoid the crime of ripping families apart.  The next step is to extend the same courtesy to all relatives, for exactly the same reason.  And with unemployment at all-time record lows this will raise wages for everyone--whether native or immigrant.  Because no one outside the administration really knows how economics works anyway.

Teachers' union called for boycotting Staples to stop chain from opening postal counters

The U.S. Postal Service had an idea to increase convenience for consumers and reduce wait times in Post Offices:  They wanted to let the office supply chain, Staples, operate postal counters inside 1,500 Staples stores.

Seems like a good idea, right?  Why drive extra miles to a Post Office and face long waiting lines for service if you could fill your needs at your local Staples, eh?

So guess who opposed this idea and called for a boycott of Staples?  The American Federation of Teachers--one of the two big teachers' unions.

Wait...what in the world would move a teachers' union to oppose such a reasonable idea?

Simple:  Their first priority is protecting and advancing the interests of union members.  The union of postal workers hated the idea because Staples employees weren't union members, so letting Staples open postal counters could eventually cost union jobs, even if by the roundabout route of reducing the demand for additional unionized postal service jobs. 

Top executives of the AFT actually demonstrated in opposition to the proposal at their national convention last July. 

Like I said...their number one priority is advancing union interests.  And they're in charge of teaching your kids.

Think there's any chance unionized teachers are objective when teaching history or social studies?

But by all means, let's keep supporting unionized government schools.  And outlawing school choice.

Friday, November 28

Oops: Treasury IG office admits could be 2,500 docs showing IRS leaked tax info to the WHITE HOUSE!

Most Americans don't have a ghost of a clue about political events in this country.  That's actually understandable:  You have lives to lead, kids to raise, and between Constitution-trashing Supreme Court judges and Constitution-shredding dictators in the White Hut, you're pretty sure you can't do shit about it anyway.

I mean, you help conservatives win a landslide election and then the lawless president declares amnesty--serene in the knowledge that the repubs won't impeach because they can't get 60 votes to remove in the senate, so why bother?

Anyway, the point was that a LOT of outrageous stuff is coming out, and it's right out in the open, but you never hear about it.  Because the MSM doesn't want you to.  Here's one outrage of many:

The IRS has an inspector general, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).  In July of last year that office sent a letter to Senator Charles Grassley acknowledging eight instances involving potential unauthorized access or disclosure of tax records belonging to political donors or candidates since 2006.

This is a big damn deal.  By law (I know, Obama doesn't obey 'em), the IRS can't reveal taxpayer information to anyone except in very narrowly-prescribed cases.  Doing that without authorization is a FELONY.  If a non-government citizen did that, you'd go to jail.  This is illegal as hell. 

A conservative watchdog group, Cause of Action, filed a Freedom of Information request asking for copies of the information sent to Grassley.  The IRS told them, in polite legalese, to pound sand.

In August of 2013 Cause of Action filed a lawsuit over the IRS's failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act.  Treasury's lawyers managed to run the clock with that lawsuit-- long enough to get past the midterm election.  Then with the recent "discovery" of 30,000 emails to and from Lois Lerner--emails the IRS had claimed were lost when something like SEVEN computer hard drives belonging to Lerner and her comrades crashed--just a couple of days ago the IRS IG formally responded to the lawsuit by admitting that, uh, maybe 2,500 "potentially responsive documents relating to investigations of improper disclosures of confidential taxpayer information by the IRS to the White House” may exist.

Say what?

And did you notice that phrase "improper disclosures of confidential taxpayer information by the IRS to the White House” ??

Oh my.  Remember when Duh Won said there was "Not a smidgen of corruption" at the IRS?  You believed that, right?  Cuz, Obama, right?  Cuz he promised to run "the most transparent administration in history," remember?   And you believed that too, right?

Hey, what difference does it make, right?  The only people who were targeted were Republicans and their supporters and donors, so it's not like it offended anyone who mattered.

And of course there's no proof that Lerner or her colleagues gave or transmitted confidential taxpayer data to anyone of any significant rank in the White House.  Probably just leaked 'em to the third assistant wine-orderer on the staff.  Yeh, dat's it. 

Or maybe they meant to send the data to another IRS office but a computer mis-routed it to the White House.  Where no one ever opened the package or email, because that would be wrong.

Yeah, that's gotta be it.

What's it gonna take to convince those of you who bought what the Lying Media sold you back in 2008 and again in 2012 that you bought a lemon?

Thursday, November 27

NAACP prez says Mike Brown's call to rioters "Burn this bitch down!" was *not* a call for violence??

How delusional are the grievance-mongers?  Consider the following exchange:

A day after the announcement that the grand jury had declined to indict the Ferguson cop, Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, was caught on video yelling to a crowd of protestors to “burn this bitch down!”
On Tuesday a CNN "reporter" interviewed Cornell Brooks, president of the NAACP, about the situation in Ferguson.  One of the questions was whether the president of the NAACP considered Head's demand that rioters to "burn this bitch down" to be inciting violence.

The president of the NAACP replied “I don’t think that was a call for violence or it caused violence.”

Well there ya go, citizen!  You just thought the dude was serious when he yelled "Burn this bitch down" but it was really just satire.  Or something.  But definitely not a call for violence.

Who wrote this?

Who said this:
...many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before...
How about this:
The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century.  [This] threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.
Why, that's then-senator Barack Obama in his 2006 autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope.”

So, do ya think he was just bullshitting you to get elected to the nation's highest office?  Or do you think he was just bullshitting you because he thinks you wouldn't be smart enough to compare what he wrote in 2006 with his amnesty-by-decree eight years later?

But you can trust the Mainstream Media and the Democratic party, because they were the folks who vouched for Obama, and refused to vet him, and pushed his candidacy at every turn.  And ridiculed anyone who uttered a critical word about him.  And agreed with him and Jonathan ("Americans are stupid") Gruber about the fabulousness of Obamacare.

Because they're reeally smaaht.  

And they'll do the same in 2016 for Hillary.  And you can trust 'em then too.

Why is gasoline under $2.50 a gallon?

A month ago the BBC reported that the Russian central bank--which had been propping up the ruble by buying billions of them per week--would no longer do so.  Not exactly an oh-wow story and you probably didn't hear it, but...

Anyway, the story went on to note that the ruble was falling because a high percentage of Russian export earnings is from selling oil--and the price of oil has been slowly but steadily falling.

Wait--the price of everything else in the world is constantly rising.  Why would the price of oil fall?  World demand hasn't dropped, so that's not it.  Instead, for the last five years or so oil production--particularly in North America--has been increasing.

And why has oil production in North America been rising?  Because two American-developed technological innovations--horizontal drilling, and hydraulic fracturing--have made it possible to extract oil that otherwise wouldn't have been recoverable.

These two breakthroughs, in turn, were invented and developed by the federal government.  So the next time, I can't finish that line with a straight face.  Cuz the federal government had nothing to do with either inventing the technologies nor with developing, testing or commercializing 'em.  Instead all the risk and investment was done by companies, using the profits from normal business.

Of course Democrats and Obama are happy to take credit for current low gas prices.  But an hour later they're back to demonizing any company that produces carbon-based energy.  For example, they've gone to great lengths to kill the use of coal to make electricity in the U.S.  Is there anyone who doesn't think they'd do the same to oil in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it?

In the meantime, enjoy being able to find gas for under $2.50 a gallon.  That's especially nice if you're on the road for Thanksgiving.

And as you're filling up you might keep in mind why that gas price fell.  And government had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Wednesday, November 26

More on amnesty by decree

Many commenters have speculated that the emperor's amnesty-by-decree will backfire when blacks realize that the huge influx of new jobseekers will be competing with them for scarce jobs.

Very reassuring, but utter horseshit.  Reason is that everyone on welfare, and all government employees, are insulated from any negative effects of the new wave of amnestied illegals.  So they couldn't care less about competition.

The Democrats have mastered the message: "vote for us and your magic check will continue to arrive."  As a result, 40%+ of the people will ignore ANY unconstitutional act by the Democrats, up to and including property confiscation and murder.  The emperor's amnesty decree barely registers.

Not one EBT card will fail to work. Not one farm subsidy or grant to study cisgender patriarchal oppression will be interrupted.  Not one public employee will lose his or her job.  In fact, the amnesty will result in hiring MORE government employees  The publicly funded will allow the government to do far worse than this--as long as the Democrats keep promising that nobody will touch their magic checks. History allows no other logical conclusion.

Why didn't a single U.S. network carry the emperor's amnesty speech live?

A few of you may have noticed that when the emperor made his announcement of amnesty for 5 million illegal aliens, not a single U.S. network carried the emperor's speech.

Why would every U.S. network have declined?  After all, the new decree not only represented a huge change in U.S. policy, but also a huge challenge to the Constitutional separation of powers.  How could the U.S. networks decide not to broadcast it live?

The official excuse was that the nets didn't want to delay their precious evening shows.  Of course only Democrats believe that nonsense.  Instead the far more likely reason is that broadcasting the emperor's amnesty decree live would have infuriated even more Americans than it did.

Whoa, can't have that!

Media editors and producers wouldn't want the American people to actually hear the amnesty decree right from the mouth of The One.  Far better to (allegedly) summarize, with perhaps five seconds of video.  That way you'll never know exactly what he said in the rest of the speech.  So if MSNBC says the emperor was explaining how Republican policies were "ripping families apart" you won't have any contradictory evidence. 

Cuz, like, the Republicans forced the "greatest president since Lincoln" to rewrite U.S. immigration law, because they didn't pass a law the emperor liked when he told 'em to.  And Article XII of the Constitution gives him the power to do that.  Look it up, stupid Americans.

Yeh, dat's it.  It's all the Rethuglicans' fault!  Long live the emperor!

Tuesday, November 25

How to make embarrassing news disappear--if you're Team Obama

Wanna see how Team Obama buries news that would put them in a bad light?  Katherine Miller at Buzzfeed caught the following sequence showing how Team-O timed a presidential announcement to bury news that their year-long "negotiations" with Iran about the latter's nuclear program had failed:

Last Sunday reports began to emerge that after months of negotiations with Iran, no agreement had been reached by the agreed deadline.  Instead the talks would be "extended"--for the second time. Given the huge emphasis by both Obama and the media on the unequaled diplomatic and negotiating skills attributed to the former community organizer, it wasn't hard to see this as bad news.

At 8a.m. Monday morning, the failure and extension was confirmed. 

8:53 a.m: an administration official announced that Secretary of State Kerry would speak around 10 a.m.--barely an hour later--presumably about the failure of the Iranian talks.  Team-O swung into damage-control mode.

Barely ten minutes later the NY Times announces the resignation of Secretary of Defense Hagel.

9:28: The White House announces that Obama will announce Hagel's departure in a live speech at 11:10--just over 90 minutes later.

10:14  "An administration official" announces that Kerry is now expected to speak "around 11 a.m." ET instead of 10.

11:10 Obama and Hagel announce the latter's departure.

11:30 Kerry announces events in Iran.  His speech--and the Iran story--are totally swamped by the stories about Hagel's firing.

One wonders how well the media would have cooperated if the Bush administration had tried such an obvious maneuver.

Two women suicide bombers kill 30 in Nigeria. Govt assures you it has nothing at all to do with Islam.

in a crowded market in Nigeria's northeastern city of Maiduguri, killing at least 30 people.

The bomber were two females--dressed in full hijabs.  The first set off her explosives and killed about three women.  About ten minutes later, after a crowd had gathered to help the injured, the second bomber screamed and detonated a second bomb, killing about 30.

The Islamic group Boko Haram is suspected of carrying out the bombings.  So far this year attacks by that group have killed 1,500 people in Nigeria, according to Amnesty International.

But don't worry, citizen.  Your government assures you that Islam is "the religion of peace."  Just as Team Obama assured you that the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi just before the 2012 presidential election was not a terrorist attack by an al-Qaeda affiliate but merely a "spontaneous demonstration" triggered by a video posted on the internet that depicted Islam in an unflattering way.

You DO believe Team Obama, right?  Because they would never lie to you, such as by solemnly promising that under the so-called Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) if you liked your doctor or your then-existing health insurance you could keep both.  That would be wrong--like telling you the ACA "would the average family $2,500 per year."  They simply would not do something like that.

And if you thought you heard something like that, you're wrong.  Got it?  Even now websites--both government and media--are being carefully scrutinized for any indication that such things were said, and we haven't found a single frame that suggests any such statements were ever made.  By anyone.

On the other hand we've found a couple of sites run by right-wing-extremist-TEA PARTY-types that *claim* Democrats said such things, so we're pretty sure this is all a plot by TEA PARTY extremists to impugn the president's integrity.  Because they're all raaacists, you know.

Some sites even claim the President (pbuh) surrendered his license to practice law because he make false statements to a state bar association.  Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous in your life?  How could he make laws without a law license?  Stupid Tea Partiers!

Now if you'll excuse us, we have an empire to run.  Kindly step aside.

Sunday, November 23

Team Obama claims adding lots of new workers will make wages rise for NON-immigrant workers??

Very few low-information Americans seem to actually understand the twin laws of supply and demand--which is how Team Obozo can get away with issuing "fact sheets" claiming that among all the many, many fabulous benefits of his decree legalizing 5 to 6 million illegals is this gem:
Average wages for all workers, both U.S.-born and immigrant, will increase.  Increases in productivity and innovation caused by the President’s actions will translate into higher wages for all types of workers.  [The president’s Council of Economic Advisers] estimates that by 2024 annual wages for native workers will rise 0.3 percent, or approximately $170 in today’s dollars. CEA also estimates that the President’s actions would neither increase nor decrease the likelihood of employment for native workers.
Let me see if I understand what Team Obama is claiming.  That his decree giving millions of illegals green cards--enabling them to work here legally--will increase average wages for everyone?   Seems to violate the laws of supply and demand.  But of course, low-info Americans wouldn't catch that.

Wait, I forgot:  Obama and Democrats don't believe statutory laws apply to them, so why would we expect them to think their policies would be bound by any other laws?  Ah, now we understand.

And let's take a look at Team Obama's claim that "by 2024 annual wages for native workers will rise 0.3 percent, or approximately $170 in today's dollars..." (so no boost from inflation.)   First, note that this would represent an increase of just three one-hundredths of one percent per year.  That's so close to zero that one wonders if they think we're too stupid to notic that.

Also, I'm just one of Gruber's "stupid Americans" but in order for a 0.3 percent increase to be $170 in today's dollars, the average native worker today would have to be making $56,666 a year!  I wonder if the emperor's "Council of Economic Advisors" would tell us where they found that the average wage for native workers was over $56,000 per year.

Probably got it the same place they got that Gruber about "Under the ACA the average family will save $2,500 per year on health insurance."  That is to say, the emperor pulled it out of his ass.  But of course if you just look at the average salary of D.C. consultants and bureaucrats, maybe $56,666 is right.  Just thought I'd ask.

Pardon me for being suspicious of your truthfulness, mister resident, but after your team's disabling of the identifying code to track the national source of donations that enabled you to win in 2008, and your administration's unconstitutional violation of bankruptcy law in buying GM stock and giving control to the auto unions and illegally shutting out GM bond-holders, and in your lavish endorsement of giving half-billion-dollar taxpayer-guaranteed loans to the bankrupt "green energy" company called Solyndra (run by a big Dem donor) and others, and your asserting executive privilege for your lying former Attorney-General after he claimed he hadn't spoken with you about the gun-running operation to Mexican drug gangs, and your claim that the attack on our people in Benghazi "was because of an anti-Muslim video on the internet," and your "If you like your doctor you can..." and your unconstitutional decrees delaying the crucial, costly start dates of several "mandates" in Obamacare to push the penalties past the presidential election of 2012, and your administration handing out thousands of "exemptions" to that law to unions and corporations that supported you, and your claim that there wasn't even "a smidgen of corruption" at the IRS, and your recent amnesty-by-decree after repeatedly telling Americans--22 times at least--that you didn't have the power to do that, and...this sentence is already far too long but the point is you no longer have any credibility.


And I suspect most Americans--at least those who don't share your tribal affiliation--would agree.

Dems keep wailing about "our broken immigration system" How was it broken?

In reading the policy statements handed to the press just after Obozo's imperial decree I was struck by two things:  First, every one of the printed statements I've seen listed as the first objective some variation of "Strengthen border security."  This, of course, was not remotely one of Obama's objectives in decreeing amnesty.  Nevertheless, it's at the top of the list of media talking points.

Immediately after that is the phrase "We need to fix our broken immigration system."

Anyone heard that phrase before?  Like, a million times?  It's a constant drumbeat by the Democrats and Obozo.  For example, exactly one day after Obama's decree, the WH issued a "fact sheet" titled "The economic benefits of fixing our broken immigration system."  Here's the first sentence:
The President’s...Executive actions will help secure the border, hold nearly 5 million undocumented immigrants accountable and ensure that everyone plays by the same rules.  Acting within his legal authority, the President is taking an important step to fix our broken immigration system.
Of course everything in red is a brazen lie, but right now I want to focus on the "our broken immigration system" bullshit.

Question for you lying sacks of Gruber:  In what respect, exactly, do you claim our immigration system was "broken"?

C'mon, Gruberheads, tell us.  Exactly how you claim it was "broken."

Because of course it wasn't broken.

What Dems and liberals characterize as "broken" is that the system had the legal authority to deport those in the U.S. illegally.  Two years ago Obama issued an executive order allowing these former children to stay in the U.S. indefinitely, but the decree only applied to the former children.  So in theory their parents could still be deported.  Which would--to use the exact quote by Dems--"rip families apart."

See how neatly they did that?  Parents sneak into the U.S. illegally, and then if the U.S. were to deport one of those parents--even for the most serious crime--we would be guilty of "ripping families apart."

Not a whit of attention paid to the fact that said parent entered the U.S. illegally.  Not a moment of attention to the fact that the parents were free to take their "children" back home with them.  Because the Left wails that this would be taking the poor innocent kids away from their friends and schools and the place they'd grown up.  Can't have that.

So decree by decree, the Left set up the very conditions they now claim are the "broken" aspect of immigration law.  But the real "broken" part to the Democrats was that the then-existing system wasn't legalizing the flood of new Democrat voters that the Left wanted to cement their political lock on the presidency.

Of course they can never admit that because doing so would alienate a big chunk of hard-working, taxpaying Dem voters.  Can't have that.  So...

We're waiting, Democrats.  Tell us exactly how you think the system was broken.  Don't just keep repeating "It's broken!"--tell us exactly what you claim is broken.

Really, we're all quite curious to find what you consider was the "broken" part you keep wailing about.

Obama's amnesty decree is win-win for him

Historically, when an election results in a thorough defeat for the president's political party, the president realizes The People have spoken.  He then typically changes political course, dropping policies that irritate most voters.

The president does this because normal logic says that continuing on the prior course will cost his party even more seats in the next election.  A rational president doesn't want that to happen.

One of the many things that's unsettling about Obama's unilateral decree legalizing over 5 million illegal aliens is that he issued this huge "fuck you" to Americans barely two weeks after Democrats suffered historic electoral losses.

I think most Americans would agree that this is not the behavior of a rational man--unless the guy's goal is more important than improving his party's prospects in the next election.

Considering that Obama's pattern for the past six years has been to threaten and confront, and use his race to intimidate his opponents into caving in, I suspect this amnesty move is just one of many equally outrageous ones we'll be seeing for the next two years--because it's a win-win strategy for him.

Not for the country, of course, but that doesn't matter to him.

He's confident Mitch McConnell--a man whose entire career screams "surrender to Democrats"--won't try to impeach him, regardless of any outrageous rape of the Constitution.  Indeed, the incoming senate majority leader announced even before Obama's executive order of amnesty that congress wouldn't take any budget action to oppose the move.

Republicans correctly see this as a betrayal, as proof that voting Republican accomplishes nothing.  Thus acts by Obama that *should* increase GOP support actually have the opposite effect: Every time Obama gets away with another outrage, more Republicans stop supporting the GOP.  Thus more executive orders that infuriate conservatives will actually cost the GOP votes and support, instead of winning it support.

Further, if Obozo does finally goad Republican members of congress into impeaching him, Obama wins more support from previously luke-warm Democrats by claiming the action is entirely because conservatives hate the idea of a black president.  Again, a good result for the Democrats.

Finally, one would be hard-pressed to find a single rational adult who doesn't believe that the 5 or 6 million illegals Obama just gave de-facto amnesty to won't start pushing to be able to vote within the next year.  And of course even if this doesn't happen for another 4 years or so, they'll be able to vote illegally in states without voter photo-ID, or in states that allow voting by mail without verifying US. citizenship.


You gotta give the guy credit:  He wanted to destroy the U.S.--made no secret of it--and the Democrats voted him president.  And now that he's doing what he promised to do, Democrats are not just totally fine with it, they're positively thrilled to have 5 million new Dem voters.

Just as they'll be thrilled if Obozo uses an executive order to outlaw gun ownership by private citizens.  It'll happen in stages, of course:  First he'll ban so-called "assault weapons."  Then semi-automatics (which are unfortunately incorrectly called just "automatic weapons.")  Then guns that can hold more than 4 rounds of ammo.  Then guns that can aren't purely for hunting--you get the drift.

This is what he did with his executive order allowing "Dreamers"--foreign kids who were brought into the U.S. illegally while young--to stay here indefinitely despite their illegal entry.  "It wasn't their doing," wailed the Left.  "We shouldn't punish them by deportation when they had no choice in coming here in the first place," they wailed.  Then after that was accepted the chant instantly changed to "Republicans who want to deport the parents of these poor kids are destroying families, ripping them apart!  Which shows that all that Republican talk about being 'pro-family' is just hypocrisy!"

Now, remember the 80,000-odd "unaccompanied minor children" who sneaked into the U.S. this past summer?  The Left is already demanding that we allow their parents to enter the U.S. "without fear of being deported," because if we don't do that, again we're destroying families.  No mention made of the fact that the parents were the ones who told their kids to go north in the first place!

You gotta hand it to the communists:  They know incrementalism and guilt are tremendously effective against well-meaning, short-sighted, naive, stupid people.  And they eagerly, energetically used those tools to destroy the U.S.

Oh, I hear you, liberals: "What a nutcase, to think that this li'l executive order destroyed the U.S!"  That's because most of you only look at the immediate victory and don't see the long-term effects.  Because if you agree with Obozo's premise that being poor and figuring out how to enter the U.S. illegally qualifies you to stay in the U.S. legally, what logical basis is there to refuse to extend the same privilege to *any* similar crasher in the future? 

What's that you say?  There isn't one?  Bingo.

Also, I hear some Republicans saying that blacks and young people of all races are beginning to realize they've been screwed by this amnesty, since 5 or 6 million more people will be competing with them for entry-level jobs.  First, I highly doubt anyone in the black community will *ever* link low wages or black unemployment to the amnesty, because of racial loyalty. 

Second, research has shown that most unskilled people have virtually the same disposable income from welfare as they would by working, meaning unemployment is no great loss.  Indeed,  unemployed people have sometimes admitted that they enjoy not having to work, and being able to spend their time as they wish.  And frankly, as long as you can live about the same way, that's pretty rational.

Finally, making the connection between increased unemployment to issuing "work permits" (a.k.a. green cards) to 5 or 6 million amnestied illegals requires the listener to have a solid understanding of the laws of supply and demand--concepts that leftists and low-information Americans seem not to believe.  The chances of this link getting across to the average low-info American are very, very low.

Saturday, November 22

AP: Hillary Clinton backs Obama immigration farce

AP via ABC News: "Hillary Clinton backs Obama immigration move."
Speaking at a swanky event in New York Friday night, Hillary Clinton endorsed President Obama’s recent move to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

The Associates Press quoted Clinton as saying “I think the president took an historic step and I support it.”
You know the difference between Obama and Hillary?

I don't either.  So by all means, let's have four more years of Democrat rule beginning in 2016.

Armed men hijack bus, separate non-Muslims and shoot 28 dead. WH says "Probably Lutherans"

NAIROBI, Kenya — Suspected Islamic extremists from Somalia hijacked a bus in Kenya’s north and killed 28 non-Muslims on board after they had been singled out from the rest of the passengers, police officials said Saturday.

The bus traveling to the capital Nairobi with 60 passengers was hijacked at dawn Saturday about 50 kilometers (31 miles) from the town Mandera near Kenya’s border with Somalia, said two police officers.

About 20 gunmen ordered all the passengers out of the bus and separated those who appeared to be non-Muslims from the rest before shooting them at close range, officers said.
Message from Barack Obama:

1.  This regrettable act was not carried out by Muslims.  The fact that the attackers separated Muslims from non-Muslims is merely a coincidence.  My national security advisor, Susan Rice, informs me that the misunderstood attackers were actually Guatamalans who were trying to get to the U.S. in time to get green cards under my new executive order.  They were simply trying to get seats on the bus but because of a poor translation all the Christians on the bus incorrectly thought they were being ordered off the bus.  Then a dangerous automatic weapon somehow fired and struck 28 of the unfortunate passengers.

2.  Christians have nothing to fear from Muslims.  Because

3.  Americans have nothing to fear from Guatamalans, since they are Americans just like I am and would never harm a fellow American.

4.  This unfortunate incident shows yet again how dangerous guns are.  Accordingly, I am issuing an executive order banning the private ownership of guns by U.S. citizens.

5.  There is no point in calling or writing your congressional representatives because they can do nothing after the landslide win by my party in the recent election.  Rumors that Republicans won control of the senate and additional seats in the House must be false because if they were true the Republicans would have moved to impeach me after my last executive order.  Since they did no such thing you may be sure the rumors are false.

6.  When the president does something, that makes it legal.  This is a principle relied on by numerous presidents of both parties, going back to FDR and later made explicit by Richard Nixon.  So shut the fuck up or you'll be sorry.

Friday, November 21

Imperial decree shreds whatever remained of Constitution

Last night the marxist Muslim announced his decree giving amnesty to another 5 million illegal aliens--foreigners in the U.S. illegally.  

All an illegal alien needed to win this prize was to have a child who was either a U.S. citizens or legal permanent resident, and to have lived in the U.S. for at least five years.

Predictably, the lying sack of Gruber looked right into the camera and denied this was amnesty. 

Of course you think I'm kidding, because no rational person can imagine such a breathtaking lie from a president of this country.  Well, except for "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."  And "If you like your health insurance policy you can keep it."

Well, here's the quote, directly from the Gruber-stain's mouth:
"I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty," Obama said. "Well, it’s not.
"Progressive" mouthpieces instantly defended the decree, arguing that the president's hand was forced by the refusal by House Republicans to pass an amnesty bill passed by the then-Democrat-controlled senate.

The imperial decree also gave amnesty to another million or so illegals who were brought to the U.S. as children, by broadening the time window of eligibility for a previous imperial decree back in June of 2012.  To get amnesty under the old terms, a minor had to arrive in the U.S. before 2007.  The emperor has now decreed that any young illegal immigrant who arrived in the country before 2007 now qualified.  No one knows how many more that adds.

The Emperor described his act as simply exercising "prosecutorial discretion."

"The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every... president for the past half-century," he said. "And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.”

He then cited his experience as a constitutional law professor, saying "Article seven, Section 8 gives the president the power to take any action he feels is helpful if congress doesn't pass laws he wants passed.  I warned my opponents in congress that if they didn't pass amnesty by election day I would use that power, so they knew what they had to do.  If you have a problem with this order, blame the Republicans.  This is entirely constitutional, because I know the Constitution better than the people who wrote it, and certainly better than any judge.  There's only one guy who runs this country, and that's me.  And if you don't like it you can fucking well wait for 2016 and if I may allow another election.  Unless you piss me off."

Hmm...a few sentences in that last 'graf may have been garbled in transmission.  I'll get right on that to clear it up.  I'll have it done just before the Injustice Department announces the results of its investigation into the IRS targeting of conservative political groups.

Wednesday, November 19

Muslims kill 4 jews in a synagogue--CNN graphic on story reads "attack on *mosque*

The Grubering mainstream media frequently express their sense of superiority by saying they have "layers and layers of fact-checkers and editors" who ensure they don't make mistakes. 

Really?  Yesterday two Muslim males entered a synagogue in Jerusalem and killed four jews.  CNN ran a brief video clip of an interview with a witness, with a large graphic saying
Ah yes.  What would CNN and the rest do without all those fact-checkers.

Tuesday, November 18

Gruber compilation vid

I've posted several quotes and video clips by the lying sack of Gruber known as Jonathan Gruber, but the clip below takes the prize for most damning summary.  I especially recommend the part where Obozo says "completely transparent" and the vid cuts immediately to Gruber saying "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage."

Liberals, this is your proudest achievement?  Kindly eat shit and die, you lying sacks of Gruber.

Team Obama scurrying to deny Gruber had any input whatsoever to Obamacare

As Team Obama scurries to try to distance their leader from the contemptuous statements by the amazing sack of Gruber, the defense is shaping up:  1) the president never knew Gruber before the man's statements hit the internet; 2) Gruber "never worked on our staff;" and 3) he had nothing to do with the bill's provisions or wording.

Roll tape from 2006:

Asked about the discrepancy between his comments on the tape--crediting Gruber--and his current position, the president said "You mean the guy in the internet clips is JON Gruber?  See, in the articles about the current internet flap he's always called 'Jonathan,' but he was introduced to me as 'Jon', so that's why I never made the connection.  I mean, it's such a common name that I naturally assumed it wasn't the same guy."

Just kidding.

Now about the claim that Gruber "never worked on our staff:"  The press secretary said "That's absolutely true--the White House itself never cut a check to Gruber.  And of course Obama had absolutely no way of knowing if some small, hidden government agency might have been paying Gruber.  I mean, how can anyone know what some small, distant, unsupervised bureau in some distant, unknown, invisible corner of the country is doing with the president's money?"
"Finally, we can tell you this Gruber person--who the president didn't know and didn't pay--had nothing whatsoever to do with the language of the bill.  And as for claims by evil Republicans that until recently there was a press release on quoting some guy allegedly named 'Gruber' saying he had a great deal to do with the bill since he was the architect of Romneycare in Massachusetts, and that the ACA is just a larger verson of that state's health care system, we can tell you the website doesn't not have such a post, and as far as we know never did.  And you can see for yourself that it's not there.  Because we're the most transparent administration in history, that's why!

And you can't prove it was ever there.  Stupid Rethuglicans!"

Just kidding.  There's a thing called the "Wayback machine" that saves pages from the internet, so if you remove something the proof remains.  And the press release was on until "the most transparent administration in history" pulled it a few days ago.  (At the link, search for "Gruber")  Gee, wonder why they would have done that?

Well, we asked 'em.  And they said it "mysteriously vanished" and they have no idea why.  It's a mystery.  They suggested right-wing hackers may have been responsible.

Yeh, Tea-Party hackers!  Dat's da ticket!

Sunday, November 16

Obamacare promises, 2009, vs. reality today: quite a difference!

Five years ago, as part of the huge propaganda blitz to generate support for Obamacare before the bill was rammed through congress, Team Obama claimed the ACA would have many specific and marvelous effects.  Among these was to:
Protect Access to Care in Rural Communities:
  • [the act will ensure] that hospitals and other providers in rural and remote communities receive the reimbursement they need to offer quality care to patients and keep their doors open.
  • [tbe act will ensure] that rural health care providers receive appropriate Medicare reimbursements to address longstanding inequities that exist among providers from different geographic regions. 
  • [the act will help] the many small and rural communities where patients must travel long distances between health care providers to receive medical care.
Fast-forward to three days ago: USA Today tells us what actually happened:
Since the beginning of 2010, 43 rural hospitals — with a total of more than 1,500 beds — have closed, according to data from the North Carolina Rural Health Research Program. The pace of closures has quickened: from 3 in 2010 to 13 in 2013, and 12 already this year. Georgia alone has lost five rural hospitals since 2012, and at least six more are teetering on the brink of collapse. Each of the state's closed hospitals served about 10,000 people.
Rural hospitals are closing because Team Obama took a roughly $500 billion dollars out of Medicare and used it to partially fund Obamacare.  The de-funding deprived hospitals of cash they desperately needed to keep operating.

But no big deal.  What difference does it make if stupid rural voters have to drive an extra hundred miles or so to reach treatment for a stroke or heart attack?  It's not like they're important people, like economists from a prestigious university (that would be Jonathan Gruber, who gave Team Obama the blueprint for how to game the scoring to make Obamacare look economically feasible.)

Besides, rural folks--especially in "flyover country"--typically vote Republican anyway, so closing their hospitals is simply payback.  Sort of like "reparations."

Yeh, dat's it.  Next time they'll think twice before voting Republican if they know what's good for 'em, eh?

Saturday, November 15

More on Gruber and Obamacare

I've put up several posts about the lying sack of shit named Jonathan Gruber, who conspired with Team Obama to lie to you in every possible way about the workings of that sack of shit called Obamacare.  Now evidence has emerged that Gruber was deliberately hired by Team Obama because he'd developed a cost model that mimicked the methods of the Congressional Budget Office--the govt agency that "scores" proposed laws to see what they're likely to cost.

Specifically: in 2009--just a month after President Obama took office--the Department of Health and Human Services put out a sole-source solicitation titled "Technical Assistance in Evaluating Options for Health Reform." The contract would be with Gruber, who the document said was the only person "reasonably available to satisfy agency requirements."

"Sole-source" contracts are a giant red flag:  They mean the government agency has *directed* that one and only one entity will get the contract.  They suggest a fix is in, that the government wants a specific outcome and know who to hire to get it.

Team Obama knew that Gruber knew how to game the CBO's scoring system to make a proposal look less costly than it really was.

And it turns out Obamacare made Gruber a multimillionaire, at taxpayers' expense.

At the University of Pennsylvania last year Gruber was caught on video saying that the details of Obamacare were hidden until Team Obama was able to ram the bill through the Democrat-controlled congress without giving anyone a chance to actually read the whole bill. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” said Gruber. “Call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever. But basically, that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”

Now it has emerged that Gruber has gotten quite rich courtesy of those “stupid” American voters.  First there's the $297,600 that the Department of Health and Human Services paid him to sing the praises of the health care scheme.  Officially, he was paid only to “analyze various health care reform proposals and identify cost and coverage implications.”

Predictably, after the bill was nefariously rammed into law, several states began throwing huge amounts of taxpayer money at Mr. Gruber in return for cookie-cutter reports describing the likely impact of Obamacare on each contracting state.

Minnesota, for example, used federal Obamacare grants to pay the lying sack of Gruber $329,000 to attend one meeting, participate in a biweekly email list and print a copy of the report.

Wisconsin paid him $400,000 for the same material, requested by the office of then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat.  Vermont is paying him another $400,000. Such a deal!

West Virginia, Maine, Colorado and Oregon have also paid Gruber for the same service. The money bought lies and deception. That’s Mr. Gruber’s characterization, not ours. “If you had a law which made it explicit that healthy people are going to pay in and sick people get money,” said Mr. Gruber, “it would not have passed.”

Let's play that again:  The language of the bill that became Obamacare carefully--deliberately-- avoided explaining what should have been obvious to everyone:  That the proposed law would take money from healthy middle-class taxpayers to pay the medical bills of sick people who previously wouldn't have been able to afford health insurance.  And to add insult to injury, those who would benefit from the deal would pay nothing for their insurance, which would be paid for by taxpayers.

Socialism, pure and simple.  Such a deal!

Of course *all* insurance is based on the principle of collecting premiums from healthy policy-holders to pay the costs of people who get sick.  This is not a revelation.  The twist was forcing taxpayers to pay for the insurance of people who don't make any money.

Now if Democrats can manage to convince a majority of voters that this is a great idea, fine.  But the notion of lying to make it appear as though the bill wouldn't do what it clearly would do strikes me as fraud, pure and simple.

This strikes me as impeachable.  But then I'm just an average poor, hard-working taxpayer.  I have no voice in government, since my vote is rendered useless by lies from people like Gruber.  Lies uttered to advance a so-called "greater good" perhaps, but lies nevertheless.

Finally, a compilation of Gruber lying, lying, lying.

This lying sack of shit is what inflicted Obamacare on you.  Well, this and Democrat majorities in both houses of congress. 

Friday, November 14

Suicide bomber at Nigerian school kills 47

Terrorists bomb school in Nigeria. 
At least 47 people were killed and 79 were wounded Monday by a suicide bombing at a school in the town of Potiskum in northern Nigeria.  The attacker was disguised as a student.
The bomb was detonated outside the principal's office, where students had gathered for a daily speech.

Officials suspect the Muslim terrorist group Boko Haram was responsible.  The group has carried out a large number of deadly attacks on government schools.  In February Boko Haram gunmen killed at least 40 students when they opened fire and threw explosives in student hostels in a government boarding school in the town of Buni Yadi, and last year 42 students were killed when Boko Haram gunmen attacked dormitories with guns and explosives in another school near Potiskum.
Tell me, "progressives" and Democrats: What kind of savage ghouls bomb schoolkids?  Such an act has no military purpose, but is purely intended to inflict terror on non-Muslims.

And why would Boko Haram want to do that?  Why, to win control over territory, by either killing non-Muslims or forcing them to flee.  And to get the government to turn "education" over to Muslim imams.

Tell us, "progressives":  Do you believe setting off bombs in schools will be confined to Africa?  If so, can you state a rational basis for that conclusion?

Oh, but by all means let's keep our borders wide open.  Because Obama.

Of course my liberal friends will squeal that this story is from the horrible, unreliable Faux News.  Well it's from a sketchy, largely unreliable source all right:  CNN.

Monday, November 10

Architect of Obamacare says American voters are stupid. Astonishing.

I've written before about the arrogant socialist con-man Jonathan Gruber--generally acknowledged as the architect of the ghastly piece of shit law called Obamacare.

Gruber doesn't even try to conceal his contempt for the American voter.  He laughs about "the stupidity of the American voter."  That's a literal quote.  This guy is a contemptuous asshole.

In October of 2013 the University of Pennsylvania held a discussion on Obamacare featuring Gruber.  Here's the crux:
GRUBER: This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure that the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay. So it was written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law that said healthy people are going to pay in -- if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in sick people get money it would not have passed. Okay.

Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical in getting the thing to pass, and, you know, it's the second best argument. And I wish Mark was right, we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not.
Now I have to say, no one but a dedicated communist could possibly believe this guy would be fuckin' BRAZEN enough to say this.  Well, roll the fuckin' TAPE:

Interestingly, after this vid was discovered by conservatives a few weeks ago and posted on the Net, U Penn removed it from their site.  Gee, wonder why?  But of course by the time they did so copies were already all over the Net.  Sorry, fascist fraudsters, you were too late!

If the vid says "This video has been removed" I guess Penn decided to take it down again.

So do you think this guy--and the regime he works for--have your best interests at heart?  Well, if you're a member of the favored Democrat constituency, I guess maybe so.  But if you're a hard-working taxpayer, then no way.  An honest, "transparent" regime would have been...well, honest about the bill and its costs and effects.  These thugs weren't--because they knew they could fool stupid voters into seeing it as "something for nothing."

This guy hates you, and holds you in utter contempt.  He thinks you're stupid, which is pretty standard for people who want to dismantle America as we've known it.

And of course, considering the electorate as a whole he's got a point:  a majority of the votes cast in 2008 and 2012--whether legally or not--resulted in the current piece of marxist shit occupying the White House.

Okay, you really need to click here.   The link is to a *really* damning piece on Gruber, showing him on two separate occasions saying the bill means two totally opposite things.

This Gruber piece of shit is a total snake--a total liar.  A con man.  He's totally untrustworthy.

Sunday, November 9

Celebrating the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall--liberals ignore Reagan's role

To commemorate the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall the liberal mag Atlantic published 36 photos.  Included was one of Martin Luther King at the wall.  But no mention of Ronald Reagan or his famous speech in which he inspiringly intoned
Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
Cuz, you know, Reagan's philosophy and integrity and determination had nothing at all to do with inspiring thousands of East Germans to flee to the West.  It was that flood that finally convinced the Soviets that keeping the wall was simply showing the world the stupidity of the whole enterprise. 

But libs would vastly prefer that young people never know any of that.  Far better to let them believe the collapse of East Germany--and the willingness of the Soviets to let that happen--came about because liberalism was such a powerful influence, or because MLK visited the wall, or because America unilaterally disarmed (which, of course, isn't true).

Eh, no matter.  It's ancient history, and there's no reason for anyone to know history because it has no bearing whatsoever on anything that's likely to happen in the future.

As one wise person put it, "Those who cannot learn from the lessons of history are assured of becoming leaders of the Democratic party."

Rioters loot business near Ferguson; local mayor says "Not really our concern."

Wanna see the future?  This story is a couple of months old but offers some clear lessons.  Some things are easy to see:
Rioting and looting went beyond the borders of Ferguson Sunday night. The mayor of Dellwood says eight businesses in his community were hit as well. The Dellwood Market was one of those locations ransacked and burned by looters.

Surveillance video of the attack on the store shows a group of fifteen to twenty people outside, throwing items at the glass windows and doors trying to break in. When that doesn't work, the video shows two men shooting the glass with handguns.

A camera inside shows people pouring in. A large number of them run behind the counter, grabbing cigarettes and liquor.

Owner Muntaz Lalani got a call from the alarm company and watched the video live online. He was horrified by what he saw.  “I felt so helpless, watching my livelihood going up in flames.  They stole everything. I couldn’t do anything.”

He called police but no police arrived.  It wasn’t until his store had been totally looted and set afire that any government employee arrived: the fire department.

Dellwood’s mayor, Reggie Jones, says the widespread damage to businesses was the result of a couple of factors. First, the conflict between protestors and police on West Florissant Avenue saw everyone facing off with police pushed into Dellwood.

In addition, Jones says, there was miscommunication between the county police unit that contracts with Dellwood and the Missouri Highway Patrol. He says he assigned his officers to patrol Dellwood’s neighborhoods [not businesses]. He says he was under the impression state troopers had businesses covered, but those troopers had apparently responded to what was happening up the street in Ferguson. That left the businesses in Dellwood uncovered.

“It wasn’t really a concern of ours as far as our patrol guys patrolling the businesses because we thought they were being taken care of,” he said.
That last line is telling--classic buck-passing deflection:  "It wasn't really a concern of ours..." because mumble mumble bullshit bullshit.

A history lesson:  A couple of decades ago a thug looking for an easy score accidentally hit on the idea of jumping a driver stopped at a light.  Thug jumps in and orders driver to go someplace remote and then steals everything, including the victim's car.

Days after the story, other thugs started doing the same.  It was virtually risk-free.

One county back east saw 400 carjackings in a single month.

The only thing that finally stopped the wave of this new crime was that prosecutors and cops pushed it to the top of their priority list.  They started solving some and putting the thugs in prison for longer-than-usual terms.  Others got the message and went back to simple muggings and break-ins, which often resulted in plea bargains of a couple of months instead of five years.  Better deal.

Because looting and rioting are "property crimes" that don't normally involve danger to innocent victims, DA's aren't interested in prosecuting.  And what message do you think thugs get from that?

Worrisome agency figures on number of illegals stopped this year vanished 5 hours after being posted

According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, on Oct. 10 the U.S. Customs and Border Protection put figures on its website showing that almost a half-million people were caught trying to enter the U.S. illegally in 2014—a number far higher than in 2013, and higher than had been thought previously.  And most of the illegals caught by the Border Patrol were from countries other than Mexico, according to that agency.

The post reportedly lasted for just five hours last month before disappearing.

The question is whether the huge numbers were yanked to protect the administration before crucial midterm elections three weeks later.

But how could anyone even imagine the Emperor's folks would order the figures removed to avoid damaging Democrats?  I mean, haven't y'all learned to trust everything the Emperor does?  After all, he did promise the "most transparent administration in history," right?  And didn't he promise (back when his party controlled both houses of congress) that he'd have Dem congressional leaders post the complete text of all bills at least 72 hours before a vote, so The People would have a chance to see what sort of socialist crap wonderful benefits were about to be forced on given to us?

So how could any enlightened person possibly believe someone from the administration would have ordered the figures from CBP to be taken off their website?

Oh, wait, here's the explanation:
CBP Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske said in a statement on Thursday that the stats were only taken down because the information was incomplete.
"This year some of CBP's data was posted on the website prematurely and removed later that day," he said. "One of the statistics released was the number of Southwest border apprehensions by the Border Patrol, which was 479,371." 
Fuckin'-ay right "prematurely."  Guy didn't check with his political bosses before posting that figure.  Premature indeed.
Kerlikowske said Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson already announced a similar estimate a day earlier, but said the "incomplete statistics were taken off the website because it is important that the numbers released to the American people be presented in context and reflect the full range of CBP's border operations."
And Jeh Johnson's announcement was seen by, oh, 30 people and made no visible record at all.  By contrast, numbers posted on a gummint website can go viral and be viewed by millions.  Can't have that, eh?
He said the agency will publish the full report "as soon as possible."
Of course "as soon as possible" means "safely past the crucial elections."  Or perhaps never.  Because those po' gummint folks are so overworked, they just might not get around to the complete figure until mid-November of 2016.

But don't worry, citizen:  If it was important, they'd tell you about it.

Fucking mind-boggling that anyone would believe such utterly transparent lying by these shit-heads.

Saturday, November 8

The big question now: Will Obozo declare amnesty by executive order?

With the elections over the biggest question now is, Will Obozo use an executive order to declare amnesty for between 12 and 30 million aliens now in the U.S.?

It's impossible to overstate the importance of this issue, because amnesty would tilt the electorate firmly to the Democrats for decades, and would "legalize" (at least so the Dems would have it) the presence of thousands of gang members. 

Moreover, it's clear that ordering amnesty always encourages millions more aliens to enter the country illegally, since they have an excellent reason to believe amnesty will be granted again the next time a Democrat president feels like it.

Obama has specifically said that if congress won't pass an immigration "reform" bill he'll accomplish immigration "reform" himself, by issuing an executive order.  And it seems clear that the only reason he didn't do that before the election was because his advisors warned him that doing so before the election would surely cost Democrats control of the senate and lose more seats in the House.  Obviously with the elections over that's no longer a factor.

In considering possible ways to prevent this, Americans need to ask every Republican member of congress whether they support the president granting amnesty.  If there's a strong showing of opposition, congress needs to have a strategy already devised and ready to go when Obama pulls the trigger.

The first step is to realize that now that Obozo doesn't have to worry about any more elections there is absolutely no down-side for him to declare amnesty by executive decree.  Since the Department of Injustice is part of the executive branch, the government agency theoretically responsible for enforcing our laws will heartily endorse anything the traitorous bastard does.

The ultimate restraint on a lawless president, of course, is impeachment.  But even with Republican control of the senate, it's virtually impossible to remove him from office that way because even though the House could impeach, that's only part of the process.  Next would be a trial in the senate, and a president can only be removed from office if two-thirds of the senators vote to do so.  Obviously that would only happen if at least 14 Democrats voted for removal--which won't happen.

Without the restraining force of elections or impeachment, what options remain to restrain a lawless president bent on granting amnesty by executive order?  I see only three--and they're all longshots.    

The first is for congress to have a motion already prepared, asking the Supreme Court to declare the amnesty order unconstitutional, and to order the executive branch not to act to carry out amnesty until the court has had a chance to rule on the question. 

If the Court grants this motion it would give time for voters to flood their congressmen with phone calls, letters and emails for or against.  If these contacts are hugely against amnesty (as seems likely), congressional leaders would have a chance--admittedly faint--to persuade the president to rescind the order, on the grounds that obeying the Constitution overrides the benefits of ordering amnesty.   It would give Obama the "out" of nobly agreeing that it's more important to uphold the Constitution than to grant amnesty.

As I said, it's a longshot.

The second option is equally faint:  Democrat senators who won close races know that amnesty will almost certainly cost them their seat at the next election.   There's a chance that if 14 senators were to quietly let Obama know that in the event of impeachment by the House, they wouldn't sacrifice their political careers to defend his action, he might reconsider.

This is even less likely than the first option, for several reasons.  But the clincher is that given Obama's personality--extreme narcissist, believes he can pull off anything he wishes because he's The One--he's unlikely to back off what he wants to do, no matter the threatened consequences.

The final option is if leaders of, and huge donors to, the Democrat party decide that amnesty will cost them control of the government in the short run, they might threaten to release all the damning information on Obama--his real birth certificate, college records, name changes and his applying for and accepting scholarships as a "foreign student."

It's naive to think that the Clintons don't have all this information.   Hillary didn't use it in 2008 because it was a no-win situation for her:  Releasing it to win the nomination would have caused virtually all blacks to stay home, which would have cost her the presidency in any case.  Better to stay quiet and hope for another shot after His Excellency's second term.

The difference now is that Hillary is to old to wait any longer, so it's "use it or lose it."  And of course she can arrange for the information to be "leaked" by people far down the food chain, and by the time this ever became known she'd presumably be safely in office.

Frankly I think this is the most likely outcome.  And again, it's a longshot.  But wishing for a better set of choices won't help.

In any case, the GOP has be ready to instantly file a motion with the Supreme Court asking for an emergency stay while the court considers the legality of amnesty for millions by executive order.

And of course you know that months ago the government issued a request for bids to supply 34 million new ID cards, right?

Wednesday, November 5

Obama officials tell reporter Obama will push "executive order on immigration"

During ABC’s election coverage yesterday the network's "White House correspondent" Jon Karl said that WH officials told him Obama will move forward with an executive order on immigration "reform" regardless of how well Republicans do in the elections.

Karl said “White House officials are saying that you can expect the president to set an aggressive, and defiant tone tomorrow. You're not going to see any mea culpas, no firings, no change in direction.”

“Officials tell me the president is prepared to aggressively pursue his agenda using his power of executive authority, where he can't work with Congress, and the big one is going to be on immigration reform. White House officials tell me that the president will move forward with an executive order on immigration reform no matter how big a shellacking Democrats get tonight.”

One can only marvel at the arrogance, the cluelessness, the tone-deafness of that remark.

But is anyone really that surprised?  This attitude has characterized Obozo's entire reign, from his first day in office.  Remember how he rejected Republican attempts to compromise during his first month in office, telling a leading GOP congressman "I won.  Deal with it"?

Oh, and the Lying Media is now running *tons* of articles on how the absolutely most critical task for the Republcans now is to offer to compromise.  And of course you all remember how they ran the same articles after Obama won in 2008, right?

Wait, they didn't publish a single article pushing compromise back in 2008.  But suddenly...compromise is the most important thing in the world of politics.

Funny how that wasn't at all important in 2008 but now is suddenly Priority One.  What in the world could account for this sudden change?

Update: Here's what *former* senate majority leader Harry Asshole Reid had to say:
I’d like to congratulate Senator McConnell, who will be the new Senate Majority Leader. The message from voters is clear: they want us to work together.  I look forward to working with Senator McConnell to get things done for the middle class.
This is pure bullshit--pure propaganda, designed to intimidate Republicans.  The results of the GOP blowout signal that a majority of Americans are sick to death of Obama, Reid, Pelosi and every one of their wretched, ghastly policies.

"Work together"?  Absolutely not.  Lying Asshole Reid said this solely to get Republicans to cave on vital issues.  Absolutely predictable. 

Oh, and just for the record:  It's been 68 years since the GOP had this many members in the House.  But Harry wants you to believe this result really means the public "wants us to work together."

Keep pushing that bullshit, Harry.  Lies seem to work well for ya.  You don't know any other way to operate, eh? 

Sunday, November 2

Boko Haram leader: "Oh, you heard we promised to release the 200 school girls? Stupid people!"

Last Friday Abubakar Shekau, the leader of the Nigerian Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram, announced that more than 200 kidnapped schoolgirls had been married off and converted to Islam, rejecting claims by the Nigerian government that it had agreed to release the girls in exchange for a truce.

Some 276 school girls were kidnapped in the early hours of April 15 from a boarding school in the remote town of Chibok.  Dozens escaped but 219 remain missing.  There have been reports that the girls were forced to marry members of Boko Haram who paid a nominal price equivalent to $12 for them.

Addressing the parents of the kidnapped girls, the terrorist leader sneered "If you knew the state your daughters are in today it might lead some of you ... to die from grief."  The girls were kidnapped from a remote boarding school more than six months ago.  He claimed the girls had been married off and converted to Islam.
I can already hear American liberals squawking "This story is a crock--a scary story created by Faux News!!!"  That's so sweet, defending those poor innocent Muslims!  But sorry, libs, the statement was in a video received by The Associated Press in the same way as previous messages.
 On Oct. 17th Nigeria's military chief announced that Boko Haram had agreed to an immediate cease-fire to end a 5-year war in which thousands have died and hundreds of thousands have been driven from homes in northeast Nigeria.  Nigerian government officials said they expected the Chibok girls to be released any day.

But in the video the terrorist leader denies that he agreed to any truce and says he is dedicated to fighting and dying a martyr's death to guarantee him a place in paradise.

"You people should understand that we only obey Allah, we tread the path of the Prophet. We hope to die on this path ... Our goal is the garden of eternal bliss," he says.  He said Boko Haram is interested only in "battle, hitting, striking and killing with the gun, which we look forward to like a tasty meal."

Boko Haram is a nickname meaning "Western education is forbidden" in the Hausa language, and the terrorists have ordered girls not to attend Western-style schools.  In August Shekau announced that Boko Haram intended to establish an Islamic caliphate, along the lines of the IS group in Syria and Iraq.  In the new video Shekau stands next to the black flag of Al Qaeda.
  The kidnapping of the girls triggered international outrage, and demands that Boko Haram free them.  The Obama administration weighed in with a devastating hash-tag attack, drawing admiring sighs from Democrats and members of the Lying Media.  But astonishingly, this brilliant hashtag attack had exactly the effect on Boko Haram that a rational person could have predicted.

SO...a question for our self-declared "elites:"  Can *Boko Haram* be considered "real" Muslims?  I mean, you've screamed that the murderous, head-chopping thugs of ISIS ain't real Muslims.  And the 19 throat-cutting hijackers of 9/11 weren't "real" Muslims.  So are these guys Muslims?

I mean, their leader says they "only obey Allah" and he's flying the Al Qaeda flag.  He says he's determined to "establish the caliphate" (eh, he probably means the Lutheran caliphate) and says the girls "converted to Islam."  Do you still wanna claim this group ain't Muslim?  Do tell us.

The terrorists who tortured and killed over 60 shoppers at a mall in Kenya claimed to be Muslim.  But according to our "elites" none of these people are *really* Muslims.

Interesting.  Seems that anyone who claims to be Muslim, but cuts throats or shoots bound, prone captives automatically becomes "not Muslim."  At least according to our "elites."


Things are getting scarier. But don't worry, citizen.

Watching things spiral down in the once-great USA is like watching a slow-motion train wreck.
As if Obama's refusal to ban commercial flights OUT of Ebola-infected countries isn't dumb enough, a couple of academics studied a really large sample of non-citizens in the U.S.--legal as well as illegal--and found that over six percent of 'em admitted voting in the 2008 election.  Given the number of non-citizens in the U.S, the academics concluded that about 700,000 aliens voted illegally.

But wait...haven't all the Democrats been telling us there's no vote fraud?  That passing laws requiring people to show a photo ID in order to vote is unfair and raaaacist?

I know this isn't the way to win friends or influence people but if y'all don't stand up and take back the country from this whiny, politically-correct bullshit you deserve to lose it.  And if we don't demand voter ID the Democrats will keep turning this country to shit.

Of course you heard this story about 700,000 illegal alien votes on the news, right?  Or read it on the front page, right?

No?  Well, don't worry.  It's not your fault.  The media didn't tell you.

Virtually all of us are limited by what we believe.  And for 99 percent of us that's limited entirely to what we were taught or read or heard.

And at least half of everything you were taught or have heard or read is utter bullshit.

Please allow me to explain:  The *entire body* of what you believe to be true comes from one of five sources:
  • What you were taught in school; 
  • what your parents taught you; 
  • things you've read
  • things you've experienced for yourself.
It shouldn't shock you to hear that the people who teach you have a *huge* vested interest in biasing the truth to make you reach conclusions they want you to reach.

Personal experience usually trumps everything; then what parents teach, then schools, then as a distant fourth, what you read.

The reason that what you read is a distant fourth is that only a small percentage of the population is intelligent enough to both understand what they read and to weed out the bullshit.

Don't worry about that.  You're smart enough.

School is a different matter.  If you're under 50 most of what you were taught in school is total bullshit.

You're like..."How can he make that claim?"  Because I know what you were taught.

"Whoa!  How can he know that?"

Because we all know who runs the useless union-run government schools.  And that would be:  The Left.  And the Left hates the U.S.

Hates capitalism.  Hates free enterprise.

You think that's bullshit.  Frankly I don't wanna take my precious time to argue with you about that.  Get your head out of your ass.  As the youth used to say back in the day, "Question authority."

Most public-school teachers hate capitalism and free enterprise because they're fucking union members.  *NATURALLY* they regard corporate execs--and business owners--as enemies.  And they hate anything that makes individuals responsible for their own performance.

Don't worry, you'll figure that out eventually.  For now, no matter.

People whose core policies produce bad results look for excuses.  The handiest excuse is that some Great, Hidden, Sinister Force caused the faulty performance or screw-up or whatever.  People like this never say "Sorry, I made a bad decision."


The excuse is always that "the System" caused it.  "The Man."  "Whitey."

These people are morons.  Prisoners of their own imagined bars.

To say they don't have your best interests at heart would be a huge understatement.

I have a lot less problem with what your parents taught you, because that's usually pretty solid, based on their own hard-won experience.  Unless you're black or from either coast, in which case it's always global warmening, or Whitey, or Eeeeebil Corporations.

Oh, just so we're clear:  To claim *race* determines *anything* is bullshit--an attempt to intimidate you, to make you back off what you know to be true and right.  Race and sex are used as an excuse and a shield by incompetents and socialists looking for a scapegoat to blame for their own failures.

This leaves...your own experience.  No one will dispute that experience is the most powerful teacher.  Things that cause us pain are remembered essentially forever.

In fact, it's a rare person who can experience pain and *not* say the equivalent of  "Wow, not ever gonna do *that* again."  And with good reason!  If something hurt you once, chances are it'll hurt if you do it again.

And that's usually right:  The odds are if it was a bad decision once, the same choice won't be much better if you make it a second time.


Whoa, there's a huge chasm.

There's a huge difference between doing the right thing and something derails the desired result; and making choices that from the outset were stupid and would clearly lead to bad results.

Sometimes good choices produce bad results.  By contrast, bad decisions and systems produce bad results in virtually all cases. 

Unfortunately Leftists simply can't make good decisions.  Whether that's due to a lack of logic or the lack of a moral compass I have no idea.  And frankly, I don't think it makes much difference.

You know those 36,000 illegals Obozo allowed in this year? There were *another* 36,000 in 2013

Well, well, well!  What have we here?

Y'all remember the minor dust-up this past summer when some Republican watchdogs discovered that the Obozo administration had allowed something like 36,000 illegals who had entered the U.S. to stay--and better yet, had paid to transport 'em to whatever U.S. city they wanted to go to.  In several cases the gummint--using your tax dollars--actually paid to FLY the illegals to their city of choice!

Sweet, eh?

Well it turns out that wasn't the first lawbreaking act by Team Obozo concerning immigrants.  Oh, and remember the press release from Team Obozo saying they would only release illegals convicted of "minor" crimes?  Well I know you'll be shocked to learn that that too turns out to be complete and utter bullshit.

I'm pretty sure you haven't heard that back in 2013 the Obozo administration not only released 36,000 illegals into cities far from the Mexican border, but that this group included 38 illegals who had been convicted of murder.

But Team Obozo didn't lie to you, citizen.  You just need to understand that when it comes to illegal immigrants (only), Team Obozo doesn't consider murder a "major crime."  Using raaacis' language or declining to perform gay weddings or trying to claim nonprofit tax status for a Tea Party group, now those are major crimes.  But murder?  No biggie.  At least not to Team Obozo. At least not when it comes to illegal immigrants, anyway.

So where did all this new info about 2013 come from?  Hey, it's very sophisticated of you to ask.  Cuz there are lots of sources of bullshit information out there--like "Faux News."

Lord, that cracks me up every time I hear it!

But in this case the info is straight from the bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

And yes, that IS a sub-division of the Obozo administration.

But hey, don't worry.  Cuz, you know, the Obozo administration sent all those convicted of murderer to San Francisco, Washington and Martha's Vineyard.

Hahahahahahaha!  Just kidding.  Can you imagine how the libs would be roasting Obozo if that had happened?

Instead Obama sent 'em to the barrios of LA, New York, Miami.  Oh, and lots of small towns too.

But don't worry, citizen.  They're not near you.  No matter where you live, there are *no* illegal alien convicted murderers near you.

Because Barack said so, that's why.

And you can trust him, citizen, because...well, has he ever lied to you before?

I mean, if you liked your doctor and your health insurance Obama let you keep 'em, right?  And the cost of your health insurance has gone way, WAY down, just like he said it would.  Right?

Saved you an average of...what was it?  $2,500 per family, right?  So trust him, citizen.

By the way, wonder why this information wasn't uncovered by the Mainstream Media back in 2013?  Eh, probably too cleverly hidden for them to ferret out.  I mean, it couldn't possibly have been that that they weren't interested in finding out, right?