Wednesday, December 31

In 2014 Venezuela's inflation rate was 64%. No connection to socialist policies at all.

Socialists keep trying socialism.  And the results are uniformly awful.

I've written a lot about the disaster that is socialist Venezuela here, here and here.  Now the latest lesson in Venezuela--a nation that went socialist under the dictatorship of the late Hugo Chavez and continues under current president Nicholas Maduro.

Venezuela has been deteriorating for several years--shortages of everything, then food rationing; massive civil demonstrations against the repression, government thugs killing demonstrators and so on.  Currency falling in value, inflation, the socialist president nationalizing businesses because he and his lackeys are convinced that will magically make goods appear on the shelves.

One pictures Maduro holding a gasoline nozzle at an empty filling station:  "I have this nozzle in my hand!  I control it!  So I demand that it give me gasoline when I squeeze the lever!"  And then staring at the pump in dull, dim-witted surprise when no gasoline comes out.

Anyway, short answer:  The nation's central bank announced inflation was almost 64 percent this year.  Oh, and in case there could be any doubt, it announced that Venezuela's economy is contracting.

There are endless examples of the fruits of socialism.  They're right out in the open, for anyone to examine.  Problem is, our schools don't examine those societies, those inevitable failures, so your kids graduate thinking socialism is absolutely fine.  Instead they're taught that all ideas, all cultures, all religions are equally valid,

They are totally defenseless against the bullshit peddled by socialists.  Things like "No one needs to work, yet everyone can have everything they want, for free, if you just elect us."

Most adults instinctively recognize that that's utter bullshit--an ancient siren song, sung by con artists and scammers for millenia.  But highschool kids--and I suspect about half of college students--know nothing about history, so if they haven't personally experienced it, it's not real to 'em.

This isn't an indictment:  If no one has taught you, and you're not old enough to have experienced something directly, how are you supposed to know its easily-predicted outcomes?

So back to Venezuela:  The socialists won an election, then got a socialist legislature to change that nation's constitution to remove term limits and allow Chavez to stay on as president.  They've done all the things socialist thugs do, and the effects are just as non-socialists predicted.

Sort of like Obamacare:  "We have this great plan:  We force everyone to buy health insurance, and if you're one of our favored groups we'll give you a nice fat check which will make yours almost free.  So 30 million more people will have health insurance, but everyone will pay less.  And it won't add a dime to the deficit!  Isn't that great?!

And half the country applauds wildly.  "What a brilliant idea!  The Democrats care Sooo much about ordinary Americans!"   And against that kind of wide-eyed adoration, trying to point out that this is fiscally impossible gets nowhere.

Finally, if you want to see how far gone the U.S. Left is, here's how a writer for "The Nation" sees the situation in Venezuela.  You won't believe it.

Labels: ,

Monday, December 29

France continues downward spiral

Dateline-- France:  More than 1000 French supermarkets, including major chains, have been selling Islamic books that openly call for jihad and the killing of non-Muslims.
Gosh, ya sorta wonder how on earth the French government could let 'em get away with that.

A well-known Islamist website created a poster that read:
To our lone-wolves in France, assassinate the president of disbelief and criminality, terrify his cursed government, and bomb them and scare them as a support to the vulnerable in the Central African Republic.
Let's do a mental exercise:  If the head of the French Nationalist Party sold books calling for holy war on Muslims, and for the killing of Muslims, how many minutes do you think it'd take before he was jailed on charges?

So why is there a different standard for Muslims?  By what insane perversion of reason can a Muslim website openly call for followers to assassinate the president of France, and not be jailed?

Can you say P-R-O-T-E-C-T-E-D  C-L-A-S-S ?   Can you say "Political Correctness by spineless liberal politicians"?

Nah, it's probably just Bush's fault.

Oh, and watch how the French government has mastered the art of rationalizing crimes committed by Muslims:

On January 1 [2014], Interior Minister Manuel Valls announced that 1,067 cars and trucks were burned in France on New Year's Eve.  Now here's the rationalization:  This figure was a "significant reduction" from the 1,193 vehicles that were burned on the same day in 2013.

It's estimated that 40,000 cars are torched every year in France.

But don't worry, citizen.  These acts are NOT representative of Islam.  They're just "Hey, this year was Soooo much better than last year!"

Can you say "Dhimmi"?

And keep in mind, gentle reader:  This isn't some goat-muzzle country in the middle of nowhere.  This is France, fer cryin' out loud--home of some of the clearest exponents of freedom.  And they are absolutely, totally dead.  At this point nothing short of a bona fide miracle can save them from becoming Muslim-ruled.

Hey, no big deal, right?  The sidewalk cafes will still be there.  They just won't be allowed to serve wine. big deal.

On June 8 of this year a 28-year-old man in the northeastern city of Reims was attacked on a train by two Muslims who said they were upset that he was eating a ham sandwich in their presence.  But no big deal, citizen:  You probably don't eat ham sandwiches very often, so what does it matter if your Muslim rulers ban them?

Ever seen the Eiffel Tower?  Heard of the world-famous museum called the Louvre?  Ever thought about seeing it?  Well, better hurry:  On July 9, it emerged that 29-year-old Algerian living in France was plotting with a "senior member" of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb [AQIM], to blow up the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre Museum.

But no need to be concerned, citizen:  They were merely "lone wolves."  Which explosives can't destroy...wait, that's crap.  Nevermind.

Not sure if they'll blow up Notre Dame--normally they don't want those cathedral thingies competing with their mosques, right?  Wait, I know:  They'll turn it into a mosque.  Brilliant!

Imagine a world without music, wine and dancing.

Don't worry, you'll get used to it.

Let me guess: You think I'm just being facetious.

Of course you know that "Islam" literally means "submission."  In theory it's submission to the will of Allah, but there's some uncertainty as to how one determines what that will is.  Wait, it's whatever some dickhead ayatollah says it is.  So hey, no problem!

Of course there IS a solution.  It's just that no one in western nations wants to consider it.

Makes no difference to me, since I'll be dead before the Muzz take over the U.S.  But if you have kids, you might have second thoughts.  Also, you might take a look at how much the Muzz have already taken over in this country.  Your emperor is the prime mover.

You think I'm just being facetious.  But you'll figure it out.  Eventually.

Postscript:  in Columbus, Indiana, three churches were vandalized on the same night. The words most frequently spray-painted were "Infidels!" and "Koran 3:151," which says "We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve....  And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers."

But of course, it can't happen here.

Labels: ,

Sunday, December 28

Socialist senator hires chief economist whose pet idea currency??

Bernie Sanders is a self-avowed socialist who is also a senator from Vermont.  Not to put too fine a point on it but the guy is nuts.

And in that vein, ol' B.S. has hired a new "chief economist for the minority on the Budget Committee" by the name of Stephanie Kelton.  Whose claim to fame is pushing a goofy economic theory called "modern monetary theory."

Not having heard of this hot new thang, I googled it and's simply "fiat money."

Now, unless you're a historian or economist, this probably doesn't mean anything to ya.  So listen up:  "Fiat money" is a fancy term for a government simply printing whatever amount of currency it wishes, with no consideration whatsoever to revenue.

Did that register?  For the entire history of this and most other nations, governments have been limited to spending only as much as the total they took in in taxes and other fees, plus whatever they could borrow from willing lenders.  This constraint served to keep inflation in check most of the time.  But now with new, improved fiat money! there's no need for such silly constraints.

I mean, if the nation can work with the president making laws, why be concerned about something as trivial as trying to work within a budget?

You can probably guess how well this has worked when it's been tried before, right?  So you'd think no one in their right mind would... Ah, well, there ya go.

Now, if everyone with more than a dozen neurons knows that going to fiat money is a disaster, why should we be concerned that a nutty socialist senator has hired a nutter as chief economist for the senate budget committee?

Because going to "fiat money" would remove whatever tiny sliver of illusory constraint remains on unchecked Democrat/RINO spending.  Government spending would go even crazier than it is now.

"What's the problem with that," say Leftists?   Anybody know what happens in countries that have tried simply printing as much fiat currency as they wanted?  Google "Weimar Republic."


"Oh, but that can't happen here.  Because, Obama!  And you can believe that cuz he promised he didn't have the authority to amnesty all those illegals, and...he did it anyway.  Oh, and he promised "If you like your doctor, you can keep...oh, wait, he lied about that too.  But you can believe him this time.

But wait, you say:  Obama isn't pushing this, it's some nut from Vermont. 

Yeah but...the idea is like crack to the Left:  Imagine a country where the preezy can spend as much money as he wants, without any restraints!  Cool, huh?  Which means the Mainstream Media will be utterly thrilled with it, and will talk it up.  Which then makes it attractive to "regular" liberal Democrats.

Fiat money, baby.  Just when you thought there was nothing worse than Obamacare and amnesty.

Mark Steyn, cowbirds, demographics

No one wants to face facts when they're scary or harsh.  Far more fun to "eat, drink and be merry" until the last possible moment.  Yes, certainly.

Unfortunately that course of action ensures the feared (and never discussed) outcome is far more likely to occur.

If that outcome is something simple like paying a bill or having a needed operation, avoidance might not be fatal.  But what if the scary fact involves death of your civilization?  Because that outcome is might think a handful of that culture's members might want to shake off the paralysis and try to act like adults--as in, doing something to try to avoid it.

Just got through reading a few pages of Mark Steyn's "America Alone" (subtitled "The end of the world as we know it").  Steyn looks at how Muslims are interacting with Brits and Europeans.  He presents a few of the violent and totally unprovoked attacks by Muslims on non-Muslims in Europe, and extrapolates.  Finally he looks at birth rates for Muslims and everyone else, and sees that in just 30 years virtually all of Europe will be majority Muslim. 

Example: The fertility rate for native Italian women is 1.1 child per woman.  For Muslims it's between 3.5 and 6, depending on country and survey.

The difference between these numbers doesn't sound like much, but consider that if a population grows 4% a year, it will double in 17 years.   By contrast, a level of 1.1 is below the replacement level.

But birthrates are only part of the problem:  Muslims immigrants are flooding into virtually every European country, because they immediately start drawing generous social welfare benefits, sometimes including free housing.

And that's only the tip of the problem:  In some European countries merely asking the question "Should we keep immigration from Somalia as high as it is now?" is enough to get you charged by the government with one of the many variants of "hate speech."  Politically-correct politicians at all levels are hell-bent on keeping the influx as high as possible, and no one seems to know why.

One popular theory is that in Europe pols are overwhelmingly liberal, and many seem to be afflicted with a fatal case of white guilt, but the literal cause doesn't matter a great deal except to historians.

If you read European analysts you've seen that almost every nation over there has at least a couple of cities with sections that are almost exclusively Muslim immigrants.  In many cases police won't enter these areas for fear of starting a riot.

Leftists and liberals: Do you think that can't or won't happen here?  If so, would you be so kind as to state your reasons for that conclusion?  Because it sure ain't "Because Muslims in the U.S. are just so much more into freedom and democracy and interfaith outreach and coexistence and..."

Spare us.  That argument is basically wishful thinking.

The day after Christmas I met four of my nieces and nephews for a late lunch.  All of them are late 20's, incredibly smart, college grads, good career starts.  I found myself wondering what loss of freedom--whether of speech or worship or just the choice of what they could eat or drink or see at the movies--could make them angry enough to take up arms to stop an invasion.

Sadly, the answer seemed to be:  nothing.  They've been so cunningly conditioned by their schools (and most private ones are no better) to believe that all ideas, all religions and all cultures are equal and that anyone who denies this is raacist and a hater.  They're adamant on this point.

Not wanting to ruin a pleasant lunch I didn't press them on the logic of that position.  Female genital mutilation?  Making women wear the burqa?  Banning alcohol?  Banning music?  Even banning people from watching the World Cup?  "Oh, none of those things is representative of real Islam."  (One wonders where they got that conclusion.  MSNBC?  Jon Stewart?  Obama?)

And of course bringing up any of those topics would kill the pleasant conversation in a hurry.

Plus, for the first 20 years the loss of freedoms will be so incremental as to be barely noticeable:  Cab drivers in Minnesota refusing to carry passengers with dogs or liquor, for example.  "Who cares?"  "Tempest in a teapot."  "A local problem, doesn't affect us a bit."

You see how the reasoning goes.  Some of us would be quick to peg that as rationalizing.  But to leftists, all such concerns are merely the fevered nightmares of conservatives or Jesus-freaks or similar.

Ever heard of a cowbird?  It's about the size of a crow and has a very unique nesting behavior:  They don't build nests.  Ever.  Instead the cowbird finds a nest painstakingly built by another bird species, waits til both members of the mating pair that built that nest are away, then slips in and lays its egg.

Then it rolls one of the eggs laid by the pair that built the nest out of the nest.  When the mating pair return they don't notice anything amiss.

When the eggs hatch, the cowbird chick--larger and more aggressive than the others--competes with them for food.  As if that isn't enough, nature photogs have tons of footage of cowbird chicks actually throwing the chicks of the nesting pair out of the nest.

It's a brilliant strategy--at least from the cowbird's standpoint.

If you think that's an absurd analogy I'd be glad to elaborate.  But for now, have a happy new year. 


Saturday, December 27

Turkish Muslim operates 130 charter schools in the U.S??

In November of 1979 a Turkish Muslim named Fethullah Gulen was taped giving a speech in which he said
A believer should be like a bomb even if the United States of America opposes him/her! He/she should continue by exploding and smashing the head of the infidel!
Yeah, well, so what, right?  I mean, it was, like, decades ago, dude.  What possible relevance...?

Well, you might find this relevant:  In 1999 Gulen moved to the U.S. where he hit on the gold mine of opening government-funded charter schools, with wonderful, innocuos names like "Lisa Academy" and "Magnolia Science" and "Frontier School of Innovation."

Why that's jus' wunnerful, eh?  The guy now has about 130 of these schools--including 18 in Ohio and 37 in Texas.  He's raking in $150 million a year in taxpayer bucks.  And most of the teachers are Turkish.

If the guy had had some great conversion, some epiphany that changed his ways, I'd cut him some slack.  But he's never claimed such, nor repudiated his earlier sermons.  But claims to be in favor of "interfaith outreach" and similar wholesome-sounding goals.

Eh, probably nothin' to worry about.

Friday, December 26

All ideas, all cultures, all religions are equal?

"All cultures, all ideas and all religions are equal."

At least this is what the Left tells us.  What do you think:  True or not?

Is slavery as good an idea as freedom?

Is forcing women to wear a black head-to-toe covering as "good" as letting them dress as they wish?

Is banning music as good as being able to listen to music?

Is beheading bound captives as good as building them soccer fields and cooking them religously approved food?

But wait...the Left keeps telling us all cultures, all ideas and all religions are equal.  Are they lying, or have they simply never thought about the questions posed above?

Is it reasonable to believe Leftists are totally unaware of the examples above?

Maybe there's some other explanation for the apparent contradiction.  Wait, I know:  They'll tell you that none of the above acts represents "real" Islam, and in fact have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

Count on it.


Statue of baby Jesus stolen from Nativity scene at Massachusetts church

Sacred Hearts parish church in Haverhill, Massachusetts, put up its annual manger scene for Christmas.

Early on Christmas morning someone stole the figure of baby Jesus and replaced it with a pig's head.

There are a bunch of sick people in this world.  And a larger group that merely hates Christians and Christianity.

One has to wonder what it is with these people that makes them hate Christ, and those who believe.

If Christ had preached hate, or exhorted his followers to kill those who didn't follow Him, or to loot their possessions, or to impose a tax on them, it would be understandable.  But He did none of those things, instead preaching love and forgiveness even to one's enemies.

Hard to figure.  And sick.  Whether or not mentally ill.

And maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me these incidents are becoming more frequent.


Ever watched "It's a Wonderful Life"?

On this day after Christmas, 2014, I'm trying to compare America today with the nation and society in which I grew up.  Frankly it's hard to do that without getting depressed, which is a good reason not to do it much.

This morning I was reading a piece about the Frank Capra classic movie "It's a Wonderful Life," in which Jimmy Stewart--on the brink of suicide because he feels he's failed at life--is visited by an angel who shows him how many lives he's affected in a hugely positive way by staying in his little hometown of Bedford Falls and doing good. 

In one sequence the angel shows Stewart what his town would have looked like had he not been born: it's become a sleazy place named Pottersville.  It's an effective comparison.

While the movie has become sort of a classic at Christmas, the author noted that many leftists seemed to find it not inspiring and sentimental, but pretty ghastly.  He quoted two writers from Salon:
In a 2010 piece, Richard Cohen described It’s a Wonderful Life as “the most terrifying Hollywood film ever made.”  [?!]  In the “Pottersville” sequence, he wrote, George is not “seeing the world that would exist had he never been born”, but rather “the world as it does exist, in his time and also in our own.”
Hard to tell without knowing something about Cohen, but it seems clear that he's not bemoaning the sleazy fate of Stewart's hometown had he not been born.  Rather, he's expressing his disdain for the fact that Capra idealized what Cohen sees as a stultifying small town whose residents--most of 'em, anyway--have classic values.

Nine years earlier another Salon writer, Gary Kamiya, had expressed basically the same view:  that the sleazy town of Pottersville rocks compared to dull Bedford Falls.  “The gauzy, Currier-and-Ives veil Capra drapes over Bedford Falls has prevented viewers from grasping what a tiresome and, frankly, toxic environment it is…"

A "tiresome and frankly toxic environment"?  Really?  Lord, that explains so much about the elites.  How many of you would rather live in a place where you weren't surrounded by needles, heroin, crack, meth and the like?  How about a place where you didn't have to worry about drive-by shootings?

How about a town where your kids could play in the local park without Child Services giving you a ticket for reckless endangerment?

Maybe it's just the time of year, or maybe it's a personal thing with me right now, but I wish we could somehow go back to the America of Bedford Falls and "It's a Wonderful Life." 

Hat tip to Ed Driscoll. 

Lawsuit insanity, part 457,496

A deli owner in New York got drunk and wrecked his car.  Most of us would have been arrested but in this case the cops liked the guy because he let 'em eat free at his deli, so they just drove him home.

Thirty minutes later the guy got in another of his cars--still drunk--and soon crashed a second time, this time killing himself.

Now his mother has filed a $30 Million dollar lawsuit against the cops, claiming her son's death is their fault.  See, they should have known the guy would get in another car right away and go get in another wreck, I guess.

I realize anyone can sue for anything, but given the current state of insanity in this country it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the town council settled the case for a few million.  After all, it's not their money.

Labels: ,

Thursday, December 25

Claudia Rosett saw "The Interview"--and loved it!

Claudia Rosett has written serious pieces for the Wall Street Journal for years.  Today she reviewed the now-well-known Sony comedy about North Korea, "The Interview." 

She loved it.

I'll tell you why but if you plan to see the movie there are spoilers below, so...

Ok, the sub-plot that seems to have won Rosett over was where Franco's character arrives in North Korea and is taken on the usual carefully guided tour, on which he sees a grocery store seemingly overflowing with all manner of luscious-looking food.  As intended, he comes away thinking this is reality in the country.

But later, at night, he manages to find the store again--only to find that the food is all fake, made of plaster and wax.  This triggers an epiphany, with Franco yelling "You're a liar!" at the night sky.

Then later, as the pair are interviewing North Korea's dictator on live TV, they depart from the careful script and Franco asks "Why don't you feed your people?"

That's about as close to the truth about totalitarianism as Hollywood has gotten since WW2.

Yes, we know the line should have been "Why don't you let your people feed themselves" but at least it's a start.  Can't expect Hollywood to suddenly do a U-turn on all fronts at once, right?

Also, consider the main intended audience: boys age ten to 18.  Kids into food and with razor-sharp hypocrisy detectors.

That one scene will do more to spread the truth than anything else I can imagine.

Now imagine if Hollywood turned that kind of weapon on other ghastly Cuba or Saudi Arabia or Iran or...well, it's a long list, but there's still time.

Anyway, best news of the month, by far.

THE hot new sociological theory: Men are avoiding marriage because...??

A small group of sociologists has looked at the increasing age of marriage in the U.S. and have concluded that men are marrying either later or even not at all because of...pornography?

Yes, this is the hot new theory du jour.  Researchers surveyed 1,500 American men aged 18-35 and claim to have found is that porn makes marriage unappealing.

That theory is SO great for the elites in so many ways:  It's clearly superficially plausible--if you buy the notion that men get married in order to have sex, then the link is totally obvious.  And it makes men look like superficial idiots--another plus for it in fashionable circles.  Oh, and "afraid of commitment."  Cases of "arrested development."

As I said, lots of *very* attractive features to virtually all academics and elites.

Except it's horseshit.  Talk to men--not 22 year-olds who have never married--and the message is clear:  For most men (excluding a lucky few percent), it ain't worth it.  Far too many wives don't appreciate their husbands, and make no secret of it.  In fact most women don't seem to appreciate men in general.  There's the constant drumbeat of denigration.  And "I'll spend whatever I damn well please and if you don't like it you know how to find a divorce lawyer."

As everyone knows, conflict over some unknown amount kills relationships.   And women are quite clear that they don't need men.  With that communicated, I suspect men will accommodate them.

On top of which I think a lot of men have gotten sick of that attitude "The one with the pu**y makes the rules."  I realize that probably started as a cutesie, tongue-in-cheek thing but it seems to have become an article of serious belief among far too many women.

And in fairness, everyone knows some men will do anything for sex.  It's sad to watch but then it's probably how most males are wired.  A survival positive, I guess.  But it sure does lead to some super-dumb stuff. 

Anyway, because this latest theory fills SO many squares on the want-list of the elites, I suspect it will become the received wisdom for at least a couple of decades.   Meanwhile, even though lots and lots of people will continue getting married or cohabiting long-term, I suspect we'll see the rate slowly drop over time.

Eh, no matter.  Our elites have long claimed that marriage and families are anachronisms, not needed.  Government can do whatever fathers traditionally did.  And you can see how well that's working.

This Christmas 46 years ago

Forty-six years ago three Americans flew around the moon.  They became the first humans to leave earth's orbit and the first to see the far side of the moon.

And coming around the far side they captured the famous "earthrise" photo below.  On Christmas Eve the crew made a live TV broadcast where they read the first 10 verses from the Book of Genesis.

It was watched by more people than any broadcast to that time.

This all happened 46 years ago this month--well within the memory of tens of millions of Americans living today.

Now a couple of questions for ya:  If the government we have today had been in power in 1968, does anyone believe the astronauts would have been allowed to read verses from (GASP!) the Bible to the watching world?

If anyone had told you in that magic December that 46 years years later the U.S. would have amassed $17 Trillion in debt, and that almost two-thirds of all government expenditures would be "transfer payments," would you have believed it?

Finally: If anyone had told you back then that the U.S. would be ruled by a president who both made de-facto laws and unilaterally ordered federal agents to ignore terms of laws he didn't like, would you have believed it?

Oh, and by the way:  Even after Americans showed the world how to do it 46 years ago, no other nation has sent men outside earth's orbit.

I'm sure the Left will tell you that's somehow our fault.


Notice a pattern here?

Notice a pattern?

Wait, didn't the Mainstream Media constantly tell everyone this guy was gonna be a "great uniter"?  Seems like the only thing he's managed to "unite" are the wallets of his supporters with tax dollars.

But "at this point what difference does it make?"

Another leg of global warming exposed as garbage

Suppose some PhD--funded by a government grant, of course--claimed to have solid data--scientific proof!--that Disaster was certain unless we did...something really painful and expensive.  Suppose further that a grad student noticed that the PhD's paper just used data since 1988 and ignored the same measurements going back a century.

Finally, suppose that when the grad student asked the PhD "Can you explain why you truncated your data?" the PhD suddenly got *very* defensive and replied with things like "it is wrong of you to try to impugn the motives of our research" and "if you continue in this manner you will not last long in your career."

Would you think the PhD knew he'd just been called out for committing scientific fraud?  And would you believe whatever theory he was pushing?

Well, that's pretty much what's happened with the heavily-screeched claim by the global warming crowd that the oceans are becoming more acidic (as a result of man-made CO2).

One of the main papers cited as helping to prove this claim is by PhDs Richard Feely and Christopher Sabine, who claim that a) the oceans are becoming more acidic; b) at a frighteningly rapid rate.

For the benefit of reporters--most of whom presumably aren't familiar with pH but needed a dramatic "hook" for the expected news stories, Feely added that this
...could negatively affect marine food webs, and, when combined with other climatic changes, could substantially alter the number, variety, and health of ocean wildlife. As humans continue to send more and more carbon dioxide into the oceans, the impacts on marine ecosystems will be direct and profound.
Very scary stuff.  But a hydrologist named Mike Wallace, with 30 years of experience and now working on his own PhD, saw something troubling about the Feely paper:  The data on ocean acidity (measured by pH) only went back to 1988.  This struck Wallace as odd because he knew scientists had been measuring ocean pH for at least a century, and in fact had amassed over 1.5 million measurements.  So why would Feely and Sabine truncate their data?

Here's Feely's graph.  His data are the blue and green plots:
Wow!  If pH actually dropped from 8.12 to 8.08 in just 18 years, and that trend continued, and we'd never seen that before, that really would be scary!  But if we include pH measurements before 1988, the picture changes radically.  When Wallace plotted ocean acidity data going back to 1905 instead of starting with 1988 the picture changed completely.  Wallace's curve is blue, Feely's in red:

For those unfamiliar with how acidity is defined and measured, pure water has a pH of 7 and is considered neutral.  A pH below 7 is acidic.  So at 8.1 or so, seawater is actually less acidic than pure distilled water.  In fact since pH is a log scale, pure water has ten times more hydrogen ions--the things that make acids acidic--than seawater with a pH of 8.  Even blood is about five times more acidic than sea water.

Of course the average person doesn't know any of this.  One suspects most people hear "the oceans are becoming more acidic" and envision battery acid or some such.  And of course that's exactly the effect editors and scammers want--twist, warp, shade and lie if it gets more people to believe that global warming is going to kill life on the planet, and that it's caused mainly by humans.

Now, I don't know whether the pH of the ocean is higher or lower than it's been over the last thousand years or so.  Nor do I know how fast pH is changing.  What I do know is that cleverly omitting over 1.5 million known, public pH measurements that don't support your claim isn't science but bullshit.  Any scientist who ignores data that cuts against his theory isn't doing science but is pushing an agenda.

One of the core lessons taught in statistics--as every scientist certainly knows--is that truncating data can appear to show "trends" that aren't really there.  So if you want honest results, you don't truncate data.

Oh, and I also know--as you do--that any so-called scientist who gets defensive when asked why they made a decision to do something a certain way is trying to hide something.  Because honest science needs no defense:  The truth will out.  But people who know they've done something shady will always be defensive about it, and will try to discourage questions by attacking the questioner.

As an aside, Feely isn't just some small cog.  In 2010 he received a $100,000 cash prize from the Heinz Family Foundation. The award touts Feely’s work: “Ocean acidity is now considered global warming’s ‘evil twin,’ thanks in large measure to Dr. Feely’s seminal research on the changing ocean chemistry and its impact on marine ecosystems.”  The powers that be won't let this key pillar of the scam be refuted by mere data. 

Here's a hint at how the PTB will protect the Narrative: Wallace met with staffers for both of his senators, Martin Heinrich and Tom Udall (both Democrats) and shared his findings with them — but got no response.  Both Democrats are firmly on board with the global warming (now "climate change") narrative.

Congratulations to Mike Wallace in exposing Feely's data truncation.  One more in a long and growing list of shady or shaky papers pushing man-made global warming.


Wednesday, December 24

Flashback: The emperor calls for a "civilian national security force as powerful as the military."

Look at the eyes on this guy.  Tell me what you think he's thinking as he's speaking.  He's saying  

We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. --Senator Barack Hussein Obama  July 2008


Editor of grad-student paper at CUNY openly calls for violence. Media and government yawn.

The editor of a university newspaper for grad students at City University of New York (CUNY) wrote an editorial in the Dec. 3 issue of "The Advocate" titled "In support of violence."  In it the author--who somehow managed to study in Cuba at some point--openly calls for violence against "state representatives."  Here are his words:
The acts of looting, destruction of property and violence directed towards state representatives is not only warranted, it is necessary.

The problem with the protesters’ violence in Ferguson is that it is unorganized. If the violence was to be organized, and the protesters armed — more so than the few that sparingly are — then the brunt of social pressures would not be laid onto middling proprietors [of looted small businesses], but unto those deserving the most virulent response of an enraged populace. 
What is needed now is to take the next step from indiscriminate attacks to ones directly pointed at state power as well as at the lackeys and apologists who allow it to prosper.
As the title says, this asshole is clearly encouraging violence.  If a white guy wrote this the Department of Injustice would have him in jail so fast it'd make your head swim.  But this asshole gets a free pass.  Gee, wonder why?


What makes a nation great?

I've always been fascinated by the dynamics of nations.  What makes a nation great, noble, a beacon of innovation and human rights?  By contrast, why do some nations seem to stay trapped in backwardness, misery and barbaric, inhumane acts?

If a nation in the first group suffers some catastrophe that destroys its civilization, do its citizens have some inner qualities that will enable them to recover, if not to power, at least to nobility and civilized behavior?  If so, would it take decades?  A century?  Longer?

The classic model is the Roman empire:  After ruling the known world for at least three centuries they fell to invasion.  Never recovered.  Shortly thereafter all the marble facings on the buildings and temples had been stripped off and sold, and shortly after that scavengers started chiseling out the bronze clips that had attached the marble facing, to sell the metal.

Does that ring any bells?  In California thieves have been wrecking irrigation pumps to steal the electric motors--to sell the copper in the windings.

A thousand bucks in damage to steal 40 bucks worth of copper.  Is there anything you can call that except insanity?  Yet that's now happening routinely.

Many people have tried to decipher the keys to what makes a people, a nation, great.  Leftists claim it's all just accidental--countries with lots of natural resources and good barriers to invasion will always do well.  They claim the system of government doesn't matter--except a communist or socialist one would always do better, of course.  (Oh, of course.)

At the opposite end are those who think greatness is a matter of inner character:  Hard-working, freedom-loving, God-following citizens teach their kids the same ethics, and over time the entire nation prospers.

The Left--a group that claims to have embraced the core beliefs of liberalism--now appears to totally and enthusiastically support authoritarian rule, in which a single ruler either mandates rules or discards them, as he alone sees fit.

And people who should know better--a few honest, non-socialist liberals as well as conservatives--let them get away with praising this as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Meanwhile the spineless Republican "leadership"--handed control of both houses of congress in the last election--meekly goes along with the emperor, worrying that if they don't they might lose control of the senate in 2016.

Here's a flash for you spineless assholes:  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.  Mitch McCon is a RINO leading you to doom, but you won't revolt.  And you think the voters will reward you for letting the emperor destroy the nation.  And maybe you're right.

It's starting to look like Gruber was actually right.

When the words in laws don't mean what they say....

Maryland CPS Threatens Dad: Let Your Kids Play Outside and We'll Take Them Away

In Maryland a mom let her kids, ages 6 and 10, play at the park two blocks from home by themselves. Later county officials charged her with "allowing a child under age 8 to be locked or confined in a dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle while the person charged is absent."

You probably think this was just some sort of computer error:  How in the hell does allowing kids to play in a park amount to being "confined in a dwelling, building, enclosure..."?

It wasn't a computer error: The state agent--unable to find a specific statute against letting kids play in a park-- unilaterally decided that playing in a park was really being "confined in an enclosure."

Simple, eh?  The law means what any government employee says it means, regardless of what the actual, you know, words are. 

In this case the parents threatened to sue, and supervisors at child services had second thoughts and the case was closed—until this week.

But if you thought that was the end of the fight, you haven't been paying attention.  When ANY government agent gets pissy, they'll find a way to get back at you.

Sure enough, the mom emailed an update to a reporter at
It seemed that we had called their bluff and they were going to leave us alone. Not for long. This past Saturday while I was out of town, my husband dropped my kids off at a park about 1 mile from our house and said they could walk home together. They got 1/2 way when someone called the police.
"Shots Will Be Fired"
The kids were picked up in a patrol car and brought home. The policewoman asked to see my husband's ID. When he refused, she said she was going to call for back-up. He said he would get his ID and went to go upstairs. She said - in front of the kids - that if he came down with anything else, "shots would be fired."
At this point 10 yr old. called me crying, saying that the police were there and that Daddy was going to be arrested. My husband stepped outside to continue the conversation away from the kids. When he disagreed with one of the officers about the dangers that walking alone posed to the kids, she actually asked him: "Don't you watch TV?" (The answer was no). They took notes and left.
"Sign This or We Take Your Kids"
Two hours later someone from Child Welfare showed up with a temporary plan, which they wanted my husband to sign, stating that he would not leave the children unsupervised until Monday when someone from their office could contact him.
He refused.
She called the police, saying that if he didn't sign they would take the kids away right then.
He signed.
This is outrageous. We refuse to deprive our children of critical opportunities to develop responsibility and independence, and have no intention of fundamentally changing our parenting to accommodate this kind of paranoia and bullying, but it's not going to be easy. We are now looking for someone who can give us legal advice on these issues in Maryland.
I have to admit when I read stories on your site and elsewhere about CPS threatening to take kids away, I never thought it could happen to us. I'll keep you posted.
Best, Danielle Meitiv
One hardly know where to begin on this one.  The bullying speaks for itself:  "You will sign this paper promising to do X, right now, or we'll take your kids away."  

And that bullshit about playing in the park being "confined"--insane!  Again, laws being interpreted by some unelected official in a totally bullshit way.  It's everywhere.

But it shouldn't surprise you that crap like this is now routine in whatever the emperor calls this country.  Sort of like that whole section of the ACA that says federal subsidies for health insurance are only available to people who sign up through a State exchange.  Gruber is on video saying that this provision was deliberately included in the law as an incentive to get states to create their own exchanges--thus reducing the workload for the feds, as well as shifting the blame if it didn't work.

But now the emperor and his assistant Grubers have assured us that this is absolutely NOT what the law actually means.  Not at all.  Even though the exact words are there on the page, it doesn't mean what it says.  And Gruber simply dismisses his videotaped statements:  "I don't remember saying that."

Well there ya go, sparky!  That explains everything.  No problem!

This is obvious, in-your-face bullshit, but the emperor has armies of taxpayer-funded attorneys who will argue exactly this before the Supreme Court:  That the words actually present mean NOTHING.  That the ONLY thing that matters is what the emperor says the law means.  "Period."

When any government argues that the words in laws--or in a Constitution--don't mean what they say, how can it claim any legitimacy?  How can laws be coped with if no one but the emperor gets to say what they mean?

This nation's founders would not have believed it possible that what they so carefully planned and debated and bled and died to accomplish would be brought to this state.

I weep for what has been lost. 

You don't see it yet.

But eventually some of you will.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, December 23

Survey of 16-19 year olds shows a majority thinks everything should be free

Recently a Boston university released a study of "Generation Z"-- 16-to-19 year olds.  Some of the results are both easily predictable and don't bode well for the continuation of the U.S. as a viable nation.

Among the results:  Over half said anyone who wants to should be able to become a U.S. citizen.

Interesting.  I'm not surprised:  College students are known to be woefully naive in terms of how big systems work in the long term.  This is not an indictment:  We were all there at that age.  Fortunately back then at least a fair number of our professors weren't ultra-leftists and showed us how to analyze such things.  Hint:  The answer was *not* "If it feels good, do it."

Almost two-thirds (64 per­cent) of the subjects said they thought health­care should be free.  We suspect this group did not include people trying to go to med school, but we could be wrong.

One wonders why the study didn't ask 'em if they thought food and housing should also be free.  After all, you can die just as quickly for lack of either of those two as for lack of free medical care, so wouldn't the same argument apply to all three?

One wonders how farmers would react to such a plan.  Wait, I'm pretty sure our Z respondents would simply say "the government will pay them a fair price for growing food, and everything will work just fine."

But if that's true, why isn't Cuba awash in food?  They have a great, warm climate with plenty of rain, and lots of people looking for jobs and food.  Why isn't it working for them?

Wait, I know the Left's answer to that one:  The eeevil U.S. "blockade"!  Except no such blockade ever existed.  Other nations have always been free to trade with Cuba, and have.  Yet Cuba--with all salaries officially capped at $20 per month--yes, special snowflakes, you read that right--is short of everything.

But other socialist paradises exist.  At least paradise for the ruler and members of his family.  Consider Venezuela--like Cuba, shortages of everything.  They even ration coffee, fer cryin' out loud.  In one of the biggest coffee-growing nations.  How does this happen? 

The former Soviet Union has had communism/socialism longer than anywhere else--and had shortages of *everything*, including food.   But no one tells you about it.  You might wonder why that is.

Another totally unsurprising result:  By 53 to 30 percent, they said college should be free for everyone.

And finally, by an even wider margin (53 to 25) they agreed that "Government needs to do more to help students pay for college if they can't afford it, even if it means raising taxes on other people."

One has to ask:  Who ARE these alien teenagers?  Surely you've raised your kids far better, right?  Where did these people get the notion that everything they "need" (want) should be "free"?

Which of course really means someone else pays for it.

Wait, isn't that exactly what socialism promises?

Isn't that what the emperor promised with Obamacare?  How can it be possible to give health insurance to "millions" of people who couldn't afford it, and still have the average family save $2,500 a year?  How many idiots bought that outrageous bullshit?

Wait, I know:  The parents of 53 percent of Generation Z.

Lord, our nation is doomed without Your help. 

Labels: , ,

Terrible story to start the day--you may want to wait

A new video from the Muslim terror group Boko Haram shows gunmen killing civilians lying face down in a dormitory.  One of the executioners announces to the camera that the people are being killed because they are 'infidels' or non-believers.

Don't click on the link if you're queasy.

"We have made sure the floor of this hall is turned red with blood, and this is how it is going to be in all future attacks and arrests of infidels," the group leader says.  "From now, killing, slaughtering, destruction and bombing will be our religious duty anywhere we invade."

The story is from the U.K. "Daily Mail."  You won't see it in any U.S. paper because it doesn't fit the emperor's narrative.  Because the emperor says this group has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

Gosh, if that's true I wonder what religion the group's leader meant when he said "From now, killing, slaughtering, destruction and bombing will be our religious duty anywhere we invade"?

And yes, I realize only a few tens of thousands of Muslims are executing people in cold blood, and one doesn't want to tar the whole religion for the acts of a few tens of thousands.

Oh wait...their prophet told 'em to kill non-Muslims--the ones they call "infidels."  Now what?


Sunday, December 21

Thoughts as the end of the year approaches...

As this shocking year nears a close, a couple of thoughts:  Too many of us go through life without knowing how the things we do--or don't do--affect others.  Most of us don't say "I love you" nearly enough, or "You're amazing," or "I really appreciate you."

We too seldom reflect on the most important things in life--things most of us take for granted until a tragedy turns everything to black.  What's left is regret and a fervent wish to somehow turn back the clock.

I sincerely encourage all of you to look at what's really important and show them.

Wishing all of you a Merry Christmas and a joyous and fulfilling new year.

Saturday, December 20

Sony hack wasn't the first by a foreign power

Turns out the hacker attack on Sony wasn't the first multimillion-dollar hit on an U.S. based company.  Ten days ago Business Week ran a piece on an attack by Iranian hackers on the Sands casino empire last February that compromised terabytes of information and may have cost the company $40 million.

The hack was evidently in response to remarks Sands majority owner Sheldon Adelson made at a Jewish university on a way to resolve the problem of Iran trying to build an atomic bomb.  Several comments by the hackers suggest this was the impetus for the attack.

So an avowed enemy of the U.S.--the nation that overran our embassy and imprisoned 50-some Americans for 444 days--hacks a U.S. company.  There's no way in hell news of this didn't make it to the emperor.

How...interesting.  Team Obama continued to negotiate with the Iranians even after this hack, and has now twice extended the supposed "deadline" for an agreement--a sure sign of overeagerness to reach one.  Wouldn't you think that Iranian hackers attacking a U.S. corporation might have been taken by President Jarrett as some sort of indicator of bad faith?

And wouldn't you think that after having seen this demonstration last February, the emperor would have asked his brilliant staff to devise something pretty strong to retaliate in case there was a repeat?

Well, a rational, pro-American president would have.  The emperor?  Not so much.  His strongest statement after the recent hack on Sony was "I wish [Sony] had talked to me before caving."

But what did he propose?  You'd think with the Sands hack months earlier he would have had something ready.  Oh wait:  Sands owner Adelson is a strong supporter of Israel and Republicans, and donated $100 million of his own money to the GOP.   Maybe that could account for the emperor not being very concerned?

Corruption, once entrenched in government...

Richard Fernandez at Belmont Club notes that China's communist party is cracking down on corrupt party members.

Specifically, the Chinese version of the secret police have been showing up at a corrupt politician's home or office, bundling the accused into a car and taking him away.  The accused is tortured and always confesses.  This has now happened to about 75,000 party officials.

The accused's crime is not being too aggressive in carrying out the will of The Party, but plain old graft--typically taking bribes from developers in China's booming economy.

A second popular way communist party officials illegally enrich themselves at public expense is quite common here in the U.S: directing that public projects like roads or convention centers or other development be built on property owned by the official (or a relative), and pocketing huge sums of public money for selling that land to the government.

That story got me thinking about corruption in public officials:  Once it gets a foothold, it's almost impossible to stop it.  Reason is that only a politician with more power can direct the agents of the State to investigate and eventually arrest another corrupt politician.  This is problematical because if corruption has been an accepted practice for decades, the higher-ups are almost always members of that same club.  If they try to take down a lower-ranking official who happens to have evidence of corruption by his accuser, there's always a chance the higher-ranking guy will be caught in the same net.

The obvious solution is for top politicians wanting to look like they're rooting out corruption to only take on "little crooks" far from the center of power, since they're too far down the chain to be likely to have any solid evidence about the top man.

Of course you still have periodic anti-corruption campaigns, but they never root out corruption within several layers of the top, for the reason just explained.

And when the current leadership dies off, guess who inherits the top slot?  The corrupt leaders in the second tier who had just enough evidence on the corrupt top guy to avoid the last wave of show trials.

And thus it happens that once a government becomes corrupt, the chances of it becoming honest again are almost zero.

Sounds like that might explain a LOT. 

Dumb commenter in the WaPo

I don't usually post comments from idiot left-wingers because a) idiots don't represent the 'best' reasoning and positions of their respective sides; and b) there are idiots on both sides, so it's really not fair.  But I'll make an exception for a WaPo commenter calling itself "The ACA is here to stay," who commented on the emperor's decree wiping out U.S. law against American companies trading with Cuba.
Here he is (note the interesting use of capitalization):
[commenter "ACA is Here to Stay"]:
This will simplify the entire Caribbean.  We should be concentrating on our OWN Hemisphere right here.  Latin America is coming up strong and we have the chance to start a whole new relationship with the entire region.

Why don't we buy our Oil from Venezuela instead of Saudi Arabian Brutal Dictators? ohhhh nooooo! hahaha ---- Crazy-Eye Saudis are just fine with our rock-stupid "conservatives".

Why don't we concentrate on buying products & developing South America?
Why buy cheap plastic poisonous/broken junk from Communist Chinese Slaves?
China does more Abortions than the USA & Europe combined.
What say ye to that, Conzos ?

haha --- Obama Chumped you yet again --- we live in the Future, not the Past.
Since this was wrong in so many ways, the next commenter politely showed him where:
We don't buy much oil from the Saudi's--so far away--and we do buy oil from Venezuela.  But that oil is "sour crude" and you have to be specially set up to refine that stuff.  Valero is a big customer of Venezuela.
Having been educated by facts (gasp!), the moonbat commenter responds not by citing alleged facts to support his original bullshit claims, but by...changing the subject completely:
[commenter "ACA is Here to Stay"]:
Then I guess we need to get off Fossil Fuels completely.


Emperor changes more "laws" by decree

Once again the emperor, with a wave of his magnificent hand, has changed U.S. law.

Well maybe not so much "changed" as "suspended."  Yeah, that's it.

Cool, huh?  This new "imperial" government is so much more efficient that our old one--the clunky one established by the Constitution, in which congress passed "laws" and presidents were directed by the Constitution to see that those laws were "faithfully enforced."

Of course that meant that if a president didn't like the effects of a law, he had to work with congress to amend or repeal it.  Our modern community organizer immediately saw the problem here:  That made it much harder for him to do what He wanted to do.  And it required icky, inefficient things like compromise. What nonsense!

A strong community organizer learns that you never compromise.  After all, when you've got 150 angry protestors blocking the lobby of a bank you've targeted for concessions, why on earth would you compromise?  You've got a knife to the business's throat.   Do muggers negotiate?  Of course not.

The emperor's supporters--the Left--have wanted normal relations with Cuba forever.  One of their slogans years ago was "End the blockade of Cuba!" even though there's never been a blockade by the U.S. on Cuban trade.  (For those under 40, a "blockade" is when one nation stations ships outside the ports of another and threatens to sink traffic to or from those ports.)

Other nations have always been free to to trade with Cuba, and have always done so.  And even our laws allowed the sale of food and medicine to Cuba.  But nothing else without specific permission.

Now, there may well be some good arguments for normalizing relations with Cuba.  If so, let's hear 'em.  Discuss thoroughly for several weeks, to allow enough time for any hidden agendas to be revealed.  Then if most people agree that this is a good idea, change the law.  At least that's how things were done before the reign of the emperor.

Eh, much better to just decree and jet off to a vacation where you can avoid pointed questions until the "stupid" public (Gruber's description) forgets about the whole thing over Christmas.

Sure glad we had that election six weeks ago, eh?  The one where voters sent a strong signal to Democrats that they were very displeased with the direction that party--under their president and leader, the emperor--was taking.  Cuz if voters hadn't sent that strong message, the emperor might do something really outrageous.

Like change more laws by decree.

Labels: ,

Friday, December 19

Obama, June 13th: "The U.S. won't send troops back into combat in Iraq" Yesterday: "Uh, just kidding."

Last June 13th the Huffington Post ran a one-minute clip of the emperor--looking vewy impewial standing in front of his marine helicopter--absolutely assuring his subjects that "The U.S. won't send combat troops back into Iraq." 

The scrupulously non-partisan CNN joined the adoring chant: "Obama says no combat troops to Iraq."

ABC: "Obama rules out sending combat troops back into combat in Iraq." 

The NY Times noted that "he ruled out using ground forces."

Of course we all know by now that the emperor's promises have expiration dates.  In this case the emperor has sent U.S. ground troops back to Iraq. 

That's the same Iraq that he crowed so loudly about removing all our troops from just three years ago.

It's just a hoot how the Democrats and Liberals and Leftists are all breathless with the emperor's glowy promises just six months ago--"Obama promises he won't send ground troops back into combat in Iraq."  And now just six months later--whoops, there we are!

I keep waiting for the HuffPo or anyone on the Left to suddenly wake up and say "Wha...?  I think that man may have broken his promise to us!"  But of course that won't happen.  The guy will continue to say one thing and do the opposite, or do something and deny doing it, and the Democrats will all swoon! over how great the creases in his pants look, or similar nonsense.

It's actually funny.

Would't be if the Resident was a Republican, of course.  But then we didn't expect consistency.

Just out of curiosity:  After Ogabe sent U.S. ground troops back into Iraq, what did he expect they'd do if they were attacked?  Cuz, you know, he sent 'em into a combat zone where shit like that routinely happens. 

I suspect he'd say "Well I ordered 'em NOT to shoot back but they did anyway?  So those who disobeyed orders will be punished."

Labels: , ,

U.N. resolution proposes making Palestine a state and forcing Israel to return the West Bank

A U.N. resolution has just been introduced by allies of the Palestinians, calling for making Palestine a "state"--that is, a country with the same perks as others--within two years.
Oh, and the resolution would also require Israel to "withdraw to pre-1967 borders within two years."

If you're neither Jewish, military or a political junkie this probably doesn't mean anything to you.  In 1967 there was a very short war between Israel and a clutch of its neighbors.  Lasted six days.  Israel ended up with the Sinai penensula and the West Bank--an area that included roughly half of Jerusalem.  The are was home to lots of Arabs.  Some left, some stayed.

Six years later Egypt, Syria and other smaller states started a second war to take it all back.  Didn't work.  Lots of people killed on both sides.

Shortly thereafter Israel started pulling its front lines in the Sinai away from Egypt, and around 9 years later years later Israel completed its withdrawal from the Sinai.  However, there hasn't been any mention of a plan by Israel to return the West Bank.

Thus to say the Palestinian demand for both statehood and for Israel to relinquish the West Bank is a radical departure is like saying the emperor may have some blank spots on his resume.

In the past the only thing keeping the resolution from passing would have been the U.S. president instructing our U.N. rep to veto it.  But the emperor has made no secret of his hostility to Israel.  More to the point, Obama's base would probably react badly to a veto.

Interesting.  Unless the U.K. or France vetoes--highly unlikely--the final act may start in the Middle East.

Emperor chides Sony for folding; Sony says theaters bailed out first

Wow.  The emperor--Mr. "Red line in the sand"/"wait, I never said that"--has chided Sony for saying it won't release its comedy that prompted the North Koreans to hack the studio.

Lawmakers and others have described the hack as a major attack with immense national security implications.  Obama, addressing those concerns, said Friday the U.S. will respond "proportionally," in a "place and time and manner" of [the government's] choosing.

Are you wondering what that might entail?  I sure as hell am, and The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the government is considering dropping the hammer:  They're considering putting North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terror.

Why that's...that's...inhumane!  Isn't that as bad as waterboarding?  I mean, give the poor schmucks a break, eh?  It's not like they attacked the U.S. and threatened to bomb movie theaters that showed Oh wait, I guess that's actually what they did.

Well the emperor will show 'em!  Yeah!  I'll bet these guys fold even faster than Assad did!

Wait...Syria's Assad is still in whatever passes for the White Hut in Syria.  Gosh, d'ya think maybe the rest of the world isn't quite as dazzled by the emperor's bluster as, say, our mainstream media? 

Wednesday, December 17

North Korea vetoes release of Sony comedy in New York. National media yawns.

How far has the once-powerful U.S. fallen under Emperor Barack Hussein Obama?  Far enough that now North Korea has been allowed to veto the showing of movies it doesn't like--in this country.

Of course you think that's impossible, paranoid, nutty and so on.  That's fine, but if you want to do just a smidgen of fact-checking...wait, you guys elected the Emperor, so you're clearly impervious to facts.  So never mind.

But for some barely-literate urchin reading this three decades from now, consider:  A reasonably competent, reasonably sane American movie company--Sony Pictures--made a comedy involving the dictator of North Korea and a couple of bumbling would-be spies.  The Nork dictator had his tech guys hack the studio's computers, apparently just as an indicator of seriousness.

Then it gets interesting:  A group calling itself the Guardians of Peace--seriously--has warned that they will attack any theater that shows the movie.  The movie chains decided not to take the risk, and that was that.  Sony has now decided not to release the film in theaters.

Now frankly, I don't care if Hollywood never makes another movie again.  But can you imagine how many millions of people around the globe have just learned a game-changing lesson here?  The U.S. can be intimidated so thoroughly that now, by simply threatening to use a terror attack, we can even veto the films they can show!

I have to say, I'm really glad I'm not in charge of things, because I would have dropped a cruise missile through that Nork bastard's bedroom ceiling before anyone had time to celebrate the victory.

But fortunately we're being run by His Magnificence, emperor Barack, who has decided that it's far better for us to cave in to threats than to vaporize people.  Because everyone knows that if we just keep doing whatever they demand, everything will be just fine.  Really.

Again, I couldn't care less about Hollywood.  And I suspect most of the people in Hollywood don't really care that Sony just lost a couple of hundred-million bucks, because it was Sony and not their studio.

And after all, how often does anyone want to make a film about that North Korean shithole anyway?  This part of it's no loss at all.  The problem is the precedent that just got set.

A few of you know what I'm talking about.  For the rest of you:  I hear American Idol has a great show next week.  Or maybe The Voice.  You'll know.

Who said this?

Who said this?
The cycle of violence leads to more violence and to nowhere. Peace is the only prospect, and people need to fight for it.
Wait...what??  Leads to nowhere, is the only prospect, and people need to fight for it?

Anyone else find this...muddled, contradictory?  Would any rational person tag the speaker as a solid thinker, a person to be trusted with anything more important than getting coffee?

So who d'ya think said it?
   1. Dwight D. Eisenhower
   2. General George Patton
   3. Abraham Lincoln
   4. Hillary Clinton
   5. William Jefferson Clinton
   6. Democrat senate leader Harry Reid
   7. Democrat and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
   8. Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein
   9. Democrat senator Barbara Boxer
  10. Emperor Barack Hussein Obama
  11. Democrat Secretary of State John Kerry

You thought I was gonna make it easy!  Looking at the last eight choices, one can easily imagine that statement coming from any of them.  But I'll end the mystery:  It was Kerry, speaking about the attack by Islamic thugs on a school in Peshawar, Pakistan, with the murder of 131 school kids.

"Peace is the only prospect," eh John?  So you'll surely outline a plan for achieving that, that doesn't involve war?  Oh wait, you also said "people need to fight for it."

I'm sure you're crystal clear on what you meant.  Trying to say something that will win the support of voters from both camps, as usual.

Emperor's nominee to head ICE confirmed--despite agreeing that illegals "have earned the right to be citizens"

As everyone knows, Democrats still hold the majority in the U.S. senate until late January.

As everyone should know, the senate is supposed to vet presidential appointees, such as the emperor's nominee to head the agency called "Immigration and Customs Enforcement," one Sarah Saldana.

Of course with Democrats still controlling the senate the "review" process was a total charade whose outcome was never in doubt.  The nominee could have sworn to violate every law known and Dems would still have confirmed her.  (The nomination got through the committee on a straight party-line vote.  In the full senate only two Republicans voted to approve the nomination.)

Senate Judiciary Committee member Mike Lee (R-Utah) noted that Saldaña "demonstrated that her commitment to the rule of law may falter when it comes to faithfully enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
“In response to a question asked by several members of the Senate Judiciary Committee... Ms. Saldaña said she agreed with the position of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson that immigrants who entered the country illegally...have ‘earned the right to be citizens,’” Lee said.

“To assert that citizenship is a matter of right, and that it has been earned by the very act of breaking our immigration laws, is an unacceptable view for a person nominated to be head of immigration enforcement.”

“We have passed through the looking glass.  Today the president asks the Senate to install, as custodian of our border, a person who evidently believes that crossing our border illegally earns you the right to vote.”
But of course.  Because the Emperor has decreed amnesty for those who broke our immigration laws.

Appearing soon in your local paper

Watch for this headline late next year:
Supreme Court rules major parts of Obama immigration deal unconstitutional
Then in the body of the story look for this:
The Justice Department downplayed the significance of the opinion.

"The decision is unfounded and the court had no basis to issue such an order," a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement. "Congress lacked the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the immigration-related executive actions.  Our filing in this case made it clear that the executive actions were not taken directly by the President but were issued by the Director of Homeland Security.  Thus the entire case was brought against the wrong party and should not have been before the court. Moreover, the court's analysis of the legality of the executive actions is flatly wrong. We will respond to the court's decision at the appropriate time."
Count on it.


Tuesday, December 16

A novel college petition? Maybe not so novel in the

Wanna see how whiny, spoiled and clueless a bunch of spoiled college kids are?

Check the wish list in this a petition at ultra-liberal Oberlin college.
“I would really like to see the normal grading system suspended for this semester and replaced with a no-fail mercy period.

Administrators should require professors to exercise complete flexibility in what students are saying they can produce academically.

Require that every professor listen to what their students are saying and if that means rather than writing a paper students instead meet with their professor to simply discuss in groups their paper topics or if tests are taken collectively with professors there are ways to make sure we are learning what we are supposed to be learning in ways that are not so taxing in times like this.

Students in this moment should have complete access to alternative modes of learning while we process what’s happening.

Basically, no student especially black students and students of color should be failing a class this semester. A ‘C’ should be the lowest grade students can receive this semester.

Professors should be required to work with students who would otherwise be at risk of failing, to create alternate means of accessing knowledge.”
 What special snowflakes.  By all means, college administrators should demand that professors "create alternate means of accessing knowledge."   And why make the poor dears actually write papers when it's soo much easier to simply discuss their paper topics in groups?

I'm seeing lots of real outside-the-box thinking here!  I'm thinking that students of color should be given free room and board for the rest of the school year to ease their stress.  Maybe the college could make taxpayers pay to give the poor dears daily massages.

Oh, and on graduation they should be given high-salary jobs without having to go through any of those stressful job interviews.  They should get whatever job they want, because Obama.  Or something.

Muslim terrorists kill 130 school children--Muslim school children, no less--in Pakistan.

In Peshawar, Pakistan last Tuesday Islamic terrorists entered a school and methodically killed at least 130 school children and 46 adults, going from one classroom to another killing anyone they found.

Here's a link.

I can hear my liberal relatives now, whining that this story is from a nutty right-wing rag like Faux News.  (Lord, that cracks me up every time I see it!)  Turns out the story was in the decidedly LEFT-wing, Democrat-loving, liberal "Daily Beast."

But not to worry, people--that does NOT mean the world is ending.  By tomorrow they'll have found a way to blame it all on the U.S.  Indeed, the comments are full of just those sentiments.

I mean, it's common knowledge among liberals that all those members of the terror group Boko Haram only kill all those Christians in Nigeria because of the horrible devastation the U.S. inflicted on that poor nation near the end of the VietNam war...  Wait, I'm pretty sure American troops haven't ever been in Nigeria.

But what difference does it make?  Why bother with facts?  To the left and liberals it's always our fault.

Frankly I'm about ready to say "In for a penny, in for a pound."  If they're gonna blame us when we've never been there, I suggest we give 'em something to really light 'em up.


Sunday, December 14

Hostages taken in downtown Sydney, Australia; perps hang black flag with Arabic writing

In Sydney, Australia about ten a.m. their time this morning an unknown number of gunmen entered an upscale cafe in the city's downtown business district, took at least 13 customers and staff hostage and demanded to speak with the nation's prime minister.

Oh, and the perps hung a black flag with Arabic writing on it in a window.

But the Obama administration quickly assured Americans that the perps had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, or Islamic terrorism or indeed, any group whose name began with the letter "I."

The Sydney Morning Herald quickly pointed out that it is not an Islamic State flag but simply "an Islamic flag that has been co-opted by jihadist groups.

Minutes later State Department spokewoman Jen Psaki sternly warned people not to "rush to judgment" about the hostage-takers, and that anyone who thought the perps had any connection with Islam was a racist hater, or something like that.  "We've heard lots of anti-Australian chatter from the Lutheran community recently," she said.  "It's really uncertain at this point who is responsible."

When Australian TV reported seeing the hostages with their hands up, Al Sharpton and NYC mayor Bill DeBlasio issued a joint statement insisting this was simply another case of The Man oppressing people who were trying to show solidarity with the thousands of "Hands up, don't shoot" protesters in NYC yesterday.

All kidding aside:  The attack is still in progress, and we may find out that this was just another isolated incident, like the Muslim army major who opened fire on a room full of unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood a couple of years ago, killing 17.  Or the attack on the shopping mall in Kenya that killed 60 shoppers.  Nothing at all to do with *organized* Muslim terrorism--well, except for the second one.

But seriously:  If you don't think this exact same thing is coming here, either you haven't been paying attention or you're a Democrat/liberal/"progressive."

Wonder how Obama would handle a hostage situation where the perps demanded to speak to him?  Think he'd take the call?

Saturday, December 13

Obama promising for the 23rd time that "the average family will save $2,500" if Obamacare is passed

An oldie but a goodie:  Someone who looks a lot like Obama promising that if only congress will pass his fabulous piece of smoke he and Gruber devised, the average family will save $2500.

Note particularly at 2:15 when he changes this to "all families."

How's that working for y'all?

Friday, December 12

Seeing higher electric bills this season? Thank the emperor.

Think you're paying more for electricity this year than you were a year ago?

Join the club--nationwide, electricity costs have risen about 15% since last year.

Hmm...wonder what could have caused that?  You don't suppose it might have been the EPA enacting a RULE--not a law, citizen, but a rule written by some faceless bureaucrat, not passed by congress, but which will result in your being fined or jailed if you violate it--that powerplants had to cut emissions of carbon dioxide--the same stuff you and all animals exhale with each breath--or they'd be fined into compliance or bankruptcy.

Gee, wonder what bureaucrat thought passing such a harmful piece of shit rule was a great idea?  I mean, doesn't passing a rule that raises electricity rates on EVERY American seem like a dumb idea?

Oh wait.  I think I found the answer!


Repubs cave on funding resolution

So, yesterday the worthless congress passed--not a two month funding measure, to keep the federal gummint running until the new congress is seated in January, but a full year's funding.  And they got no concessions at all from the Dems.

But if you have more neurons than a turnip it's clear that the strategy for the Dems was to demand everything and refuse to concede a thing--because they knew that if the GOP held the line on spending, their media allies would blame the GOP for a Democrat-led shutdown regardless of the facts.  And while last month's election seemed to show that voters were pretty tired of Democrat policies, a steady barrage of media stories about starving kids due to...well, it really wouldn't matter, would it?  The media would blame the Republicans.

So it was a win-win proposition for the Dems.  They could. Not. Lose.

And of course it helps that Boehner is either being blackmailed or is crazy.  Because he didn't even bring a two-month CR up for a floor vote.  Admittedly, he knew the still-Dem-controlled senate would vote it down, but least that would have put the Democrats on the record as voting for a shutdown.  But Boehner refused even do that.

Oh, one more thing:  Anyone with an IQ over room temp knows that one of the Democrats' core goals is to peel conservatives away from the establishment wing of the GOP.  The absolute best way to do that was get the Repubs to cave on the continuing resolution, by threatening to blame the Repubs for "shutting down the government" (which actually amounts to shutting about ten percent of non-critical (useless) positions).

That would give Boehner--not exactly a strong guy--the choice of caving or being blamed.  And naturally he chose the former.  Which utterly pissed off the conservatives who turned out in such high numbers a month ago and handed the Repubs a majority in both houses of this worthless congress.

Naturally this media is crowing like mad over his refusal to press the electoral message--with the utterly predictable result that more conservatives will abandon the Republican party.

Well played, Democrats!

NJ town agrees to pay Muslims $7.75 million so they can build a mosque???

This story is likely to surprise you.

If I were to tell you that city officials in a town in New Jersey had agreed to the payment of almost $8 million to Muslims so the latter could build a mosque, would you think this...unlikely?  Outrageous?  Unprecedented?

If so, you haven't been paying attention.

The payment is being made to settle a lawsuit filed my the Muslims.  Of the amount, $2.75 million will be paid so they can buy 15 acres of land on a main highway to build the mosque.

The other $5 million is an award for "damages"--supposedly a violation of their constitutional rights-- and legal fees.

Seems the Muslims originally proposed to build a mosque on a country road, but in 2011 the township's planning board denied the proposal, citing an ordinance that limited houses of worship to major roads. Township officials said they didn't object to building a mosque, but only to the proposed location.

Planning and zoning boards do stuff like this every day.

But last year U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp ruled against the town--effectively overturning the town's legitimate and previously uncontroversial ordinance.

Purely coincidentally, Shipp was appointed by the Emperor.

Shipp's decision held that after the Muslims applied to build a mosque at the original site, the project faced “anti-Muslim prejudice within the community, including Internet postings and e-mail correspondence."  Shipp noted that in one instance, someone even claimed the Muslim applicants might even be terrorists.

It's truly hard to imagine what could bring anyone to have such a strange opinion, eh?

Lawyers for the town argued that the purpose of the ordinance was to preserve the residential character of residential neighborhoods, but judge Shipp found the township had "rendered it nearly impossible for Al Falah and its individual members to adhere to the tenets of their religion." The judge sent the matter back to the planning board for further review, which continued until the settlement was reached.

Oh, there's a bit more to the story, too:  First, the town's insurers will pay $5 million of the award.  So that means it really doesn't cost anyone anything at all.

Oh, wait, that's bullshit--though obviously a huge relief to the town's officials.  A "trust fund" will kick in another $800,000 or so.  Which means the town's residents will only be left having to pay just under two million bucks, which will be raised by a bond measure.

Here's the kicker:  Town officials said they chose to accept the agreement to avoid using taxpayer money for legal costs.

Uhh...I think someone is unclear on the concept:  How does this "town official" think this bond will be retired (i.e. paid off)?  Hint:  Bond payments come from tax revenue.

Now let's look at the lesson here, shall we?  City officials are like pols everywhere:  Totally risk-averse.  The city attorney brings 'em a settlement that makes the city's cost "just" $2 mill instead of $8 mill.  And the risk-averse pols jump at the "great deal."

If you think this won't be repeated thousands of times across this wide nation, you're a liberal.  And it won't be limited to suits about a zoning ordinance--Shipp's decision sets a precedent that Muslims who find negative comments in a local paper can cite the same legal theory:  The local atmosphere will "render it nearly impossible for us to adhere to the tenets of our religion."

And politicians in EVERY sued town will test the prevailing winds, consult their city attorneys and agree that it's far better to pay a couple of million to settle instead of fighting.  After all, that way local residents won't have to pay any money for legal costs.

Or something like that.

And all the libs will smile and clap each other on the back for being so wonderfully tolerant.