Saturday, May 30

CNN, Cuomo, liberals all referring to "the prophet mohammed"

A universal feature of public transit is the ads covering virtually every surface.  They're a big source of revenue.  And there's no problem buying space for controversial ads--provided, of course, that the ad is on the politically-correct side of the controversy.

So Washington DC's public transit system has always welcomed ads--until someone sought to post an ad featuring a cartoon of mohammed. 

"OME!  (That's "Oh My Emperor!")  We can't possibly do that!"

But to decline this one ad would show that they'd caved in to the threat of Muslim violence, such as the two goofs who tried to kill people at Pam Geller's conference in Garland, Texas before being shot by a well-trained officer.

Since they didn't want to show they were caving to the "shooter's veto," the brilliant minds at DC Metro Transit came up with a brilliant plan:  We'll just say we changed our policy--as of right now we will no longer accept any "issue-related" ads.

Yay!!  Problem solved!

Uh...wait:  If you think this fooled the jihadists you're too fucking stupid to breathe or reproduce.  They know you caved.  Conservatives know you caved.  The only people who don't know are liberals, because they don't even understand that there's an issue here.

Second: Exactly what criteria will be used to decide if an ad will be considered an "issue" ad?  Will you continue to accept ads for, say, Planned Parenthood?  Ads pushing for tighter gun control?  Pushing for reducing CO2 emissions?

Will anyone at your vaunted, dhimmi agency be willing to put the criteria for determining this in writing?  Yeah, didn't think so.  But by golly you showed that intolerant Pamela Geller, eh?  You won't let those intolerant folks tell you enlightened ones what to do, eh?

But you're happy enough to let the Muzz have a veto on what kind of ads you'll accept.

If the rest of you don't see a problem here, you deserve what's coming.

Oh, and about the title of this post: When CNN and the wonderfully dim Chris Cuomo reported on the DC transit cave, both used the term "the prophet mohammed" in referring to the person depicted in the ad they refused to allow on their equipment.  Because it's very important to TV networks and commentators to always refer to mohammed by the full title used by Muslims: "the prophet mohammed." 

And that's only fair, since they've always referred to Jesus as "the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," right?

Wait...they've never used that term.  Gosh, why does mohammed always get the full, careful honorific while Christ doesn't?

The obvious reason is that Christians won't shoot dead those who fail to honor Christ.  While more than a few hundred Muzz are willing to kill for slights to their religion.

Oh, here's the cartoon Geller wanted to run on DC transit.  See if you can spot the offensive part:

Why does the Pentagon keep echoing the emperor's "ISIS is on the defensive" bullshit?

As ISIS takes one city after another, and sets off bombs outside mosques of other branches of Islam, spokesmen at the Pentagon are increasingly making statements that seem...well, divorced from reality.

Specifically, they're echoing the White House line in saying ISIS is "on the defensive," when it's obvious to anyone with an IQ over 80 that this is bullshit. 

Since saying obviously false things like that makes the entire military look stupid, why in the world would military officers do it?

Simple:  their bosses order 'em to.  And unless you want to retire, you follow orders.

But why would their bosses--who you would think would want the U.S. armed forces to have the best possible reputation, instead of being viewed as goofy political hacks and know-nothings, like the hapless "Baghdad Bob"...

Stop right there.  The civilians at the very top of the Pentagon are NOT military.  In fact they've often never served in the military.  They're chosen for their political allegiance to the president.  And of course they can be fired by the emperor if they don't do what he wants.

And when it comes down to the choice of "Do I order colonels to make obvious bullshit statements, and keep my excellent job, or the opposite?" the answer is pretty clear.

The requirement that appointees obey or risk being fired is why all heirarchical organizations take on the character of the top person.  If that person is a weaselly, lying, cover-his-ass political sack of shit, his orders quickly cause the entire organization to deteriorate.  If you're a wing commander and the actions of the people above you show that they're far more concerned with, say, achieving diversity goals than being operationally ready to accomplish your mission, that quickly becomes your main goal.

Eh, no big deal, citizen:  After all, the Cold War is over, and ISIS is way over the horizon from our shores.  Why do we even need the military anymore, eh?  Just think how many daycare centers and social-justice studies programs and World Peace Centers we could fund with all the money we'd save by eliminating the military.

Meanwhile, your media is dutifully echoing the White Hut line of portraying ISIS as "on the defensive."  "A JV team."

A few thousand residents of Ramadi beg to differ.

Friday, May 29

Hypocrisy at the NY Times? Who would have believed it??

When Muslims armed with machineguns killed a dozen staffers of a satirical Paris magazine last January, allegedly because they ran cartoons of Mohammed, the NY Times refused to reprint any of the allegedly offensive cartoons.  It printed the following as justification:
Under Times standards, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities. 
Oh, but that was WAY back in January.  This is almost the end of May--an entire five months later.  So you won't be surprised to learn that during that long, loooong period of time the folks at the Times have evolved incredibly.  In fact, they've "evolved" so fucking much in five months that their new position is that it's perfectly wonderful to print "art" that offends "religious sensibilities."

Of course you think I'm using "hyperbole" to make a point.  Well, you're right: the brave editors and owners of the Times are perfectly willing to print pics of hideously offensive "art"--as long as it offends...Christians.

See, modern art loves to offend Christians because that's "edgy."  What they used to call "avante-garde."  So when some collector decided to sell a painting of the mother of Jesus covered with elephant dung (so the dipshit artist says, anyway), the Times had to run a pic of the "work."

When it came to cartoons of mohamhead, though, the Times was hugely considerate:  It decided readers didn't need to actually, you know, see the cartoons that allegedly prompted the massacre in Paris, because--and this is a verbatim quote from the paper:
After careful consideration, Times editors decided that describing the cartoons in question would give readers sufficient information to understand [the story of the January mass murder by Muslims in Paris.]
But when it comes to a story about the forthcoming auction of a painting of the mother of Jesus covered in elephant dung, merely describing the piece in question was totally inadequate to convey the masterful work of this faabulous artist.  Or something.

As I said:  They've evolved.  That is so faabulous.  Us ordinary folks in flyover country would just say they were hypocritical cowards.

But then, we're not nearly as evolved.

A fatal traffic accident in Harlem

Barely-noticed hit-and-run, Harlem, NY:
Two days ago a neuroscientist--described by his colleagues as "brilliant"--was killed when his bike was struck by a hit-and-run driver fleeing a traffic stop in East Harlem in New York City.

Sergei Musatov, a 42-year-old assistant professor of neuroscience at Weill Cornell Medical Center, was struck from behind by a speeding Mercedes around 11:30 p.m. Wednesday on 129th Street in East Harlem.

The Mercedes driver, who had two passengers, then turned onto Madison Avenue--against traffic--and smashed into another car which was stopped at a red light.  At that point all three occupants jumped out of the crashed car and fled on foot.
Minutes before the fatal crash court officers had tried to pull over the Mercedes nearby after it ran a red light.  The driver refused to stop.  Officers didn't pursue.
A neurosurgeon at Weill Cornell who worked with the victim said the pair had been working on a way to use gene therapy to treat Huntington’s Disease.

“He was on the verge of making extremely important contributions in this area,” said the colleague. I’ll never know what more we could’ve done together.’’
Now normally an auto-pedestrian fatality in Harlem wouldn't get my attention, but this one did.  Because I think this is a sign of things to come.

Who refuses to stop when a cop tries to pull you over for running a light? 

No one sane and rational, unless they've stolen the car or have arrest warrants.  In either case it's worth the risk to them to flee.  These guys did, and they got away with it.

The guy who died due to their totally selfish, anti-social act might have helped find a cure for--well, doesn't matter now.  But if you think this is a one-off you haven't been paying attention.  Crooks have discovered the cops are no longer going after "minor" offenses--like running a red light.  The obvious conclusion there is: don't stop.  Take off, and count on their unwillingness to buck the clear policies of people like the communist mayor of NYC, the black attorney-general of the U.S. and the emperor.

Unless something changes--radically--this is the new normal for the rest of your lives.

Condolences to the family of the criminally-slain neuroscientist.

Three persons of undetermined origin shoot cop in the head while fleeing

In northern Oklahoma late last night a police officer tried to stop an SUV but the vehicle sped away. The SUV, with three occupants, headed for for the Kansas border with the officer in pursuit.  During this chase someone fired shots at the pursuing officer, striking him in the head.

Officers in Kansas were able to use stop-spikes to stop the vehicle and capture two occupants, but the third managed to hijack another vehicle, shoot its driver and escape.  He was eventually captured.

Now in custody are Alejandro Garcia, Cesar Rios and Roxanna Mendoza.  The U.S. department of Just-us said it will investigate and look for possible civil rights violations by the cops.  DHS warned that speculation about the legal status of the three was dangerous, and added that there was some indication that they were Lutherans returning from a church camp.

Okay, those last two sentences were sarcasm.  But does anyone wanna take a bet on their status?

One thing's for sure:  If you ask the media and get a vague non-answer you'll know for sure.

But keep those borders open, Democrats!  Apparently you still think we need more illegals to do the jobs that Americans won't do--like shooting cops.  Gosh, you'd think enough Americans were already doing that, wouldn't you?  But I guess not enough for Team Obama and their supporters.

Mainstream media: The economy is BOOMING!!

Hey, did ya hear the great news, citizen?  The economy is BOOMING!  Absolutely rocketing!

And if you don't believe it, just ask your emperor's minions.  They'll set you straight in a flash!  For example, you may have heard that in the first quarter of this year the economy (as measured by GDP) grew by a whopping 0.2 percent.   SEE???  It's growing!

Now, you may think you read or heard that an annual growth rate of, say, 2.5% was absolutely horrible way back when G.W. Bush was president, but that's just a figment of your imagination, citizen!  Those alleged growth rates never existed.  Never.  Your memory is just playing tricks on you, citizen. 

Growth rates that high would cause all sorts of inequalities and dislocations.  So you never actually saw a headline in the NY Times (peace be upon them) or the WaPo claiming those growth rates existed, or anyone saying they were lousy.  It's all in your mind.  Got it?

So back to the current good news:  The economy is GROWING!!  Yes, that's right!  And after all, we wouldn't want it to grow too fast, right?  Because that would mean making more of that terrible pollutant called "carbon dioxide," and we all know that the science is settled that CO2 is making our planet frighteningly hot, right?  Plus it would mean you consumers would be hogging more than your fair share of the world's precious natural resources!  Which means you'd have to feel even more guilty than you already do.

And of course, that 0.2 percent growth in GDP was just an estimated figure that will be revised any minute now, so we'll see that the economy is really doing even BETTER than you thought!  In fact, the revision has just come out this minute, and it's...

Uh...this can't be right.  It says GDP actually *fell* in the first quarter.  By seven-tenths of a percent.  Well that can't be right--because the economy is BOOMING!  Every right-thinking American knows this is true, don't want to be the only one marching in the wrong direction, do you?  You want to be a team player, right?  You want to support your president and his wonderful, brilliant economic policies, right?  Of course you do!

And really, if you think about it, this insignificant easing of GDP--yes, that's the proper term--is a good thing.  Because it means we're not polluting the planet as much with that nasty CO2.  Just like higher meat prices are good because they mean you consumers won't be eating as much harmful meat.  See, this is all going perfectly according to Our Leader's plan.

Also, if you look at the link you'll see that this slight easing was perfectly understandable: It was caused by an unusually cold winter!  There was so much snow that very few people could get out to shop.  So see, the slightly less aggressive growth rate wasn't due to our Dear Leader's policies being flawed at all!

What?  No, Science isn't sure why there was so much snow when the planet is suffering under major global warming.  And you can be sure global warming is still happening, so you still need to stop driving and flying so much.  And you should support a tax on carbon, and a thing called "carbon credits."

What?  No, if you don't already know what carbon credits are I don't have time to explain them to you.  You probably wouldn't understand anyway, unless you went to a really exclusive university, like our Dear Leader.  It takes nuance.  And you clearly aren't nuanced enough.

And of course, this tiny revision will almost certainly be re-revised next month--almost certainly upward.

But you can be sure that whatever it says will be absolutely perfect.  Trust us.  We're your American media and we're smarter than you are.

Thursday, May 28

Police-dog saves deputy from ambush and planned murder by three thugs--national media yawns

Hancock County, Mississippi is just east of New Orleans.  At 10 pm four days ago a county deputy noticed a Lincoln town car at a rest stop.  It didn't have a license plate.

The deputy walked to the driver's side and began talking with the driver.  At that point two men ran out of the woods toward the deputy.  When the deputy turned to engage the two runners the driver jumped out of the car and all three men began beating the deputy.  One of them had a knife and inflicted a three-inch cut to the deputy's forehead.

The men overpowered the deputy and began dragging him toward the woods.  According to his supervisor one of the men said they were going to cut his throat.

At that moment the deputy managed to reach his electronic key fob.  He pressed a button that released his police dog from his car. 

The dog charged the attackers and bit at least two.  The three men dropped the deputy, fled back to the Lincoln and sped away.

Now the miraculous details:  Like most counties, Hancock County is short on funds for its sheriff's department.  They have four K-9 units, but had only been able to afford to install the remote release on two of the cars.  The deputy happened to be driving one of those.

Also, the remote release had only been installed recently.

But for these two incredibly lucky coincidences this deputy would have been killed.  By 3 thugs in what was clearly a planned ambush.

Now:  I'll bet you the drink of your choice that not a single one of you heard or read about this outrageous, brazen ambush.  Which is odd, because it has every element needed to make a great news story:  Three-to-one fight, heroic police dog, million-to-one odds of the deputy not only having the remote release but also being able to reach it while being dragged to certain death.

So why didn't it get picked up in most of the major papers in the U.S.?

Because it doesn't fit the narrative.

Wait, I can hear my liberal acquaintances mewling:  The guy didn't get killed, so it's just a simple assault.  No wonder it didn't make national news.

Bull shit.  Go back and read the 'graf about all the "hooks" this story had.  Imagine the victim was a black teenager who was saved from kidnapping by his faithful dog.  Think that would have made every paper in the country?  Damn right it would have.  And justifiably so.

So why not a word of this ambush attack and miraculous save?

It doesn't fit the narrative.

So this planned ambush and miraculous escape--made possible by the heroic, well-trained dog and the just-installed remote release--only appears in local papers like the Clarion-Ledger and the Sun-Herald, both of Hancock County.

Still don't think there's a national narrative?

Wednesday, May 27

NYTimes front-page article supports president's ability to change a law unilaterally; intent governs

Rarely has the utter mendacity of liberals/Democrats/"progressives" been so clearly evident as in a story the NY Times published on its front page yesterday, concerning case before the "supreme" court of the U.S. on the meaning of the Obamacare law.

Here's the headline: "Four words imperil health care law; all a mistake, its writers say."  Here's how it starts:
They are only four words in a 900-page law: “established by the state.”
Just four little words.  Practically irrelevant--trivial, meaningless when you look at the huge size of the whole law.

Four little words.  (Like "shall not be infringed," perhaps?)  Easy to ignore and deny if you're a Democrat.  And wow, do they ever seek to deny 'em.
But it is in the ambiguity of those four words in the Affordable Care Act that opponents found a path to challenge the law, all the way to the Supreme Court.
Well of course, if the words are ambiguous any rational person would agree that they mean whatever the Democrats now say they meant when the bill was passed.  Cuz, you know, if the Dems actually intended a different effect than they now claim, that would be outright fraud, right?  Oh wait, that only applies to those of us who aren't Democrat politicians and bureaucrats.

And about that claim of "ambiguity:"  Let's take a look at the whole paragraph they're claiming is ambiguous:  In Section 1411 of the ACA--titled "Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan"--we find the "Premium assistance amount"--the subsidy, the "free" part of the act--defined as
"the lesser of...the premiums for one or more qualified health plans offered...within a state...which were enrolled through an Exchange established by the State..."
Wait...when one has seen the crucial four words in the sentence where they're used, how in the world can anyone claim they're "ambiguous"?

You can't, of course.  The phrasing is not ambiguous in the slightest.  So what prompted the Times reporter and editors to lie to you and say it was?

Simple: the Dems don't like the words their people put in their own bill.  But rather than admit that not a single congresswhore read the damn thing, and than none had more than a vague idea of what it actually said--let alone what the words *meant*--the entire Democrat establishment immediately pivoted to a new position:
 "It was a drafting error."  
"See, we really didn't mean what that sentence clearly and obviously says.  In fact we meant the opposite--we meant 'every low-income person in the country gets free health care,' not just those who enrolled through an "Exchange established by the State."  What's more, you stupid conservatives should have known that, because it's, like, totally obvious what we really meant.

"What do you mean a law must say what it means?  Who says so?  You're not the boss of us!  What matters is what we intended.  And the sole authority on that  So, you're just a racis' hater."

Essentially the Democrats are arguing that the actual words in a statute are meaningless.  Instead what matters is what those who drafted the language actually meant.

Now, some of you may well counter that such a novel legal theory would wreak havoc with the country, since no one could possibly look at the language of a law and reasonbly guess what it was making either mandatory or illegal.  Ah.  Well thank you, but now sit down and shut up, because you're obviously not nuanced enough to see how much this approach will streamline Democrat governance.  Because in the event that the words in a law don't, you know, actually say what the Democrats meant, they can simply declare a new meaning and that'll fix everything.

Wow!  Neat, huh.
How those words became the most contentious part of President Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment has been a mystery. Who wrote them, and why? Were they really intended, as the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell claim, to make the tax subsidies in the law available only in states that established their own health insurance marketplaces, and not in the three dozen states with federal exchanges?
Notice a new theory just made its debut:  We don't know who wrote the four mysterious, ambiguous words.  But we know that Republicans are determined to take this magnificent gift away from the American people.  So it's almost certain that the four words were inserted by the Republicans.  In the dead of night.  Yeh, dat's it.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, a Dem "consultant" named Jon Gruber is on video--twice--saying that the provision was inserted deliberately as an incentive to each of the 57 states [what?  No, that's what He said, so it must be right.] to get them to create their own exchanges.  Which would have two magnificent effects:  First it would reduce the cost and overhead to the feds.  And second, it would allow Dems to blame the states for any errors.

But the Times has decided Gruber doesn't exist, and that his tale that the provision that subsidies would only be available to those enrolled in a state exchange is...wrong.  Instead here's their explanation:
The answer, from interviews with more than two dozen Democrats and Republicans involved in writing the law, is that the words were a product of shifting politics and a sloppy merging of different versions. Some described the words as “inadvertent,” “inartful” or “a drafting error.” But none supported the contention of the plaintiffs, who are from Virginia.
So according to the Times, the crucial, allegedly "ambiguous" words were a product of shifting politics!  Wow, talk about blaming the ghost!  No better way to shift blame from the people who controlled all three branches of government and refused to even consider a single Republican amendment.  Propaganda, pure and simple.

And did the Times reporter really just claim that no Democrat supported the contention that the words mean what they clearly say?  Well he didn't say that but he clearly seems to be implying it.  The phrase "none supported the contention of the plaintiffs" references the antecedent "Some described...,
which in turn has its own antecedent, "from interviews with more than two dozen Democrats and Republicans involved in writing the law..."  Assuming the guy never literally interviewed Gruber--and that readers will find the two antecedents--then he's not technically lying.  But...

And of course the first quote after this is from a RINO:
“I don’t ever recall any distinction between federal and state exchanges in terms of the availability of subsidies,” said Olympia J. Snowe, a former Republican senator from Maine who helped write the Finance Committee version of the bill.
"I don't recall...."   Wow, that sounds like a Democrat line.  Like, a presidential candidate?  Trying to explain why critical law firm billing records missing for two years showed up in her closet in the White House.  Or why she supposedly had a string of 50-some consecutive winning trades in...cattle futures?...while her husband was governor of Arkansas.  "When did you have time to study futures, that you got so astonishingly good or lucky at trading?"  "I don't recall."

Snowe was also extremely helpful in pushing the "inadvertent" theme:  The four words, she said, were perhaps “inadvertent language.”

Well, except for Gruber saying they were intentional, sure.

The Times then quotes former Democrat senator Jeff Bingaman as saying there may have been “some sloppiness in the drafting” of the bill. Mr. Bingaman, who was a member of both committees that developed the measure, said he was surprised that the lawsuit had reached the Supreme Court because the words in dispute appeared to be a “drafting error.”
“As far as I know, it escaped everyone’s attention, or it would have been deleted, because it clearly contradicted the main purpose of the legislation,” Mr. Bingaman said. He added, “In all the discussion in the committees and on the floor, I didn’t ever hear anybody suggest that this kind of distinction between federal and state exchanges was in the bill.”
"I didn't ever hear..."  Which is why all conservatives hate 900-page bills.  (Interestingly, the official record shows something like 1206 pages, so one wonders where the smaller figure came from.)  And we warned ya.  But of course against the power of Democrats controlling the entire government at the time, that had no effect at all.  But it's still fun to note.
And btw, I suspect he didn't hear 95% of the crap that's in the bill.  Not a single congresswhore ever read the fucking thing.
After the obligatory 'graf about how many gazillion people would lose taxpayer cash if the court were to interpret law as meaning what it clearly says, the Times adds this:
The plaintiffs say the law allows subsidies only where marketplaces have been “established by the state.” It is a distinction that those who drafted the law say they did not intend to make.
Oh, well, in that case, carry on.  Once again the Democrats want to call do-overs and have the court modify the law so it does what they NOW claim they intended all along.

Well, except for Gruber.

So ask your Democrat friends whether they think it's a great idea for one party to pass a law and then later their president can simply change any provision he and his party didn't intend, without going back to congress and fixing it that way.  Don't tell 'em which party or what bill.  See what they say.

For my part, I'm done with the lot of 'em.

Tuesday, May 26

Emperor's defense secretary says the emperor is a great leader??

At the Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery yesterday, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter praised our troops.  But then added this:
Troops of such caliber demand great leaders, and there’s no doubt they have one in our commander in chief.
This is pure political brown-nosing--the kind of statement you hear from toadies in North Korea praising their Dear Leader.  Something you heard from lackeys of that other Hussein--Saddam. Because while Obama is certainly leading the transformation of the United States from freedom and free enterprise to socialism and government control of every aspect of life, there's no way he could possibly be considered a leader in a military sense.  Which is clearly the context of Carter's speech.

It's recorded that near the end of the Roman civilization, senators would give speeches heaping praise on monsters like the emperors Caligula and Nero.  And it doesn't surprise me a bit to hear one of your emperor's appointees singing his praises.

What would surprise me greatly is if Ashton Carter has any integrity or competence.  It's hard for me to imagine finding either of those qualities in such a shameless suck-up.

Monday, May 25

Cultural marxists and fires

Wanna see how prizing and prioritizing "political correctness" eventually gets people killed?  Like this:

New York City mayor Bill de Blasio and his comrades in the courts have ordered the city's fire department to hire on the basis of race and gender.  Which of course means prudent FD bosses are essentially unwilling to fire employees of the protected classes lest their own careers be ended.

Which leads us to a so-called "fireman" named Michael Johnson.  According to the NY Post, Johnson goes to fires but doesn't fight them. Instead he stays out of harm's way while his colleagues rush into burning buildings.

Several anonymous firefighters expressed concern about the danger Johnson poses to his colleagues and the public.  They're reluctant to complain or criticize Johnson openly because Johnson was
was one of 282 “priority hires” who had previously been passed over for hiring.

A federal judge decided this was due to discrimination, and ordered the department to increase minority hiring.

So now the department has a guy who won't do the job he was ostensibly hired to do, but they can't fire him.  Eh, no matter--other firefighters will do the work he refuses to do.

But what happens when, say, half the folks in the firehouse have the same outlook?

Nonsense, say the cultural marxists, that can't possibly happen.  Oh and by the way, you're a hater.

Okay, then, cultural marxists:  explain how Johnson happened.

Sunday, May 24

South African government's solution for its electricity shortage: Fire 3,000 skilled whites

Let me show you how a once-advanced society goes down the tubes.

No, I'm not talking about the U.S.--not this time, anyway.  Instead it's poor, doomed South Africa, which is a decade or two farther down the road of insanity.

Turns out all the electricity in the country is produced and sold by just one company, Eskom.  And after 21 years of communist mismanagement, lack of investment, and letting the poor and the connected have "free" electricity, Eskom doesn't have enough generating capacity for everyone.  The temporary "fix" is rolling blackouts.

The real solution, of course, would be to build more powerplants.  Of course that takes a great many skilled engineers and lots of skilled labor.  And money.  Which neither the company nor the government, of course, has, since most revenue goes to welfare and bureaucrat salaries.

Now the black-run communist government, which for the past dozen years has had an official policy of firing white workers and putting government supporters in their place, has a plan to save money:  They've ordered the company to fire 3,389 whites over five years--over a thousand engineers and over 2,000 skilled workers.  They're to be replaced by non-whites.

Years ago the government ordered Eskom to only hire non-whites, as part of its program to boost black employment. Unfortunately the company says it's having a hard time finding enough qualified non-white applicants.

The government has also ordered Eskom to reduce its safety requirements to make it easier for non-white applicants to qualify for jobs.

Now I have no idea who's telling the truth in South Africa, and I don't doubt there are qualified black engineers there, but if the company is correct it's not at all hard to predict the future:  No new powerplants will be built, so electrical production won't increase.  And ageing equipment won't be maintained, so failures will increase.  But population will most certainly continue to increase, increasing demand, so rolling blackouts will increase. 

Whereupon the communist politicians will scream to their followers that any shortages are de fault of de white debbils.  Which, amazingly, will cause electricity production to increase by a totally percent.  (Although according to government figures it will have risen substantially, and everyone will be baffled that with all the alleged extra capacity, rolling blackouts will be more common than ever.).

The NY Times and The Atlantic will weigh in with thoughtful articles on how hard this tragic state of affairs has hit the poor, and how it's almost certainly due to the policies of apartheid (which ended 21 years ago but you know....).  The congressional black caucus will introduce a bill for the U.S. to ship modular nuclear powerplants to South Africa, gratis, as foreign aid.  Congressional Republicans will vote for the measure unanimously, lest someone, somewhere accuse them of being racist.

And by 2030 or so, electrical production in South Africa will be back to 2002 levels.

Oh, and Eskom will have seven new vice-presidents--all of whom, by amazing coincidence, will be found to be related to the communist president of South Africa, will pulling down six-figure salaries and driving the biggest BMWs or Mercedes made.  They'll have titles like "VP in charge of equitable workplace sharing" and the like.

And the NY Times will publish glowing articles about yet another huge success for socialism.

And lest you think this report is fiction:  The source is a very gutsy television station in SA.  (Link at the above link.)

Leftist website: "The greatest threat to U.S. security is the U.S. military."

On this eve of Memorial Day--a day originally created to honor the soldiers who died on both sides in our Civil War, but since broadened to honor all our soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice--the leftwing website tweeted this:
The greatest threat to U.S. security is the U.S. military.
My first thought was "This has to be a parody.  No American could actually believe this."  But on clicking the link, there it was.

Way to go, leftists.  Your true colors for all to see.

Saturday, May 23

Venezuela's currency has lost half its value just since the first of this year

I've written half a dozen posts on the ridiculous and worsening situation in socialist Venezuela.  And it seems to be due entirely to the socialist policies of former president Hugo Chavez, and his hand-picked successor, Maduro.

Years ago Venezuela once had the highest per-capita income in South America, due almost entirely to its vast oil reserves--developed by American companies.  But the socialists convinced half the country that their current situation just wasn't fair.  So he nationalized all foreign drilling companies.  And fired employees of the state oil company who weren't strong supporters, replacing them with incompetent supporters.

So here's the latest update:
"Venezuelans look to unload bolivars as currency continues to tumble"
   May 23, 2015

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) –  Venezuelans are dumping their rapidly-depreciating currency at a quicker pace, leading to a staggering plunge in its free-market value, as the crisis-plagued economy edges closer to an outbreak of hyperinflation.

DolarToday, a popular website that tracks exchanges made near the Colombian border, reported Friday that the bolivar had lost a quarter of its value in the last seven days.

The DolarToday app, which most Venezuelans have, sent out a series of messages announcing the new rates, under the headline "hyperinflation!"

At the start of this year Venezuela's currency was trading at 173 bolivars per dollar.  On Friday it was around 420 bolivars per dollar, according to the site.  Just ten days earlier the rate was 300 bolivars per dollar, meaning the currency has lost 40 percent of its value in ten days.

It's not immediately clear what triggered the latest bout of panic buying and selling. But  many Venezuelans feel buying dollars is the best way to protect themselves from inflation, which was 68 percent last year.  Economists say this year inflation is already
over 100 percent.

A Barclay Capital Inc. report issued Friday pointed to government expansion of the money supply as an underlying cause for inflation. The bank projected the bolivar could fall to 600 to the dollar this year.

"This risk should make Venezuelan authorities reconsider their policies, but we do not see any signal of change from them," the report said.

President Nicolás Maduro's government tightly controls the legal exchange of bolivars with a byzantine three-tier system. The system was intended to subsidize crucial imports, but has led to widespread corruption and speculation.

One official rate is 6.3 bolivars per dollar. The weakest government rate has inched up to 200 bolivars per dollar. The fact that so many people are willing to pay twice that on the black market indicates how much Venezuelans want unload bolivars.

DolarToday is openly hostile to the socialist government and frequently runs articles attacking Maduro's administration. But the site insists its exchange-rate reports are based on actual trades at the border and are not manipulated to undercut the government.

Last month Maduro repeated his assertion that the site's authors, whose identities are not public, are collaborating with the speculators and opposition leaders he blames for the country's problems. He accused them of purposely sowing chaos and promised to have them arrested.

"We're going to put those people at DolarToday who are waging an economic war against Venezuela behind bars sooner rather than later" he said.
Now pay attention:  Did you see the bit about the Barclay Capital report, saying the "underlying cause" of the inflation was "government expansion of the money supply"?

What other government has been expanding its money supply by leaps and bounds?  Why, that's right:  Emperor Barack's regime.  But...but...but if that caused inflation in Vz, wouldn't it do the same thing here too?

Oh NO, citizen.  Couldn't evah happen here.  Because Obama can suspend the laws of economics as easily as he can issue decrees forcing powerplants to close because they emit CO2.  Or ordering his minions not to deport illegal aliens.  Or banning our armed forces from discharging open, flaming homosexuals, as opposed to the far less disruptive policy called Don't Ask, Don't Tell. 

He's just that fabulous.

So...don't worry, citizen.  Everything's just swell.

ISIS takes Palmyra; NY Times conflicted

The editors and reporters of the NY Times, like all right-thinking liberals, have strongly supported  the emperor of the U.S. in minimizing the horrors of ISIS and trivializing its military victories, particularly its capture of the large city of Ramadi, Iraq.

But as many historic figures would confirm, trying to ignore a dangerous truth leads to disaster.

Below are the first two paragraphs of a story two days ago in the Times:
Frantic Message as Palmyra Fell: ‘We’re Finished’
   NY Times, May 21, 2015

The Syrian Army soldier had long served in Palmyra, but he was on leave when he heard that Islamic State militants had attacked a village northeast of the desert city, killing dozens of his comrades. He sent frantic text messages, trying to reach them. No one answered.

He shared his anguish last week in a series of texts as he slowly pieced together bits of the story from survivors of the massacre. Soldiers told him they had run out of ammunition. One officer radioed to headquarters, “We’re finished.” Worst of all, the soldier said, was the photograph he was shown of the decapitated body of a friend, the 19-year-old daughter of a Syrian general.
Couple of points:  First, it should be obvious that the daughter of the Syrian general is--was--a civilian.  She obviously had no part in anything her father may have done.  And yet the murderous thugs of ISIS cut off her head.

What monster beheads a female teenage non-combatant?

Of course you almost certainly think--as the charming idiots at the Times think--that the thugs of ISIS would never do the same to you or your family, because...why?

Oh yeah, got it:  Because you're willing to convert to Islam.  Hey, enjoy.

Nah, you think they'd never do that to you or your children because you don't believe they can ever reach you here in the U.S.  Because oceans.

And of course you have no plans to visit Europe.  You've probably already been there, so no reason to go back.  And why would your kids need to see Europe?  After all, you brought back lots of pictures from your trip, right?

Now: I'm quite certain that the editors of the Times haven't had a sudden awakening to the horror that is Islam, so I expect they've already published the counter to this story--that to the extent ISIS is bad at all, it's G.W. Bush's fault because they were created by his invasion of Iraq.

Another favorite liberal counter-story is claiming that to the extent that ISIS may be winning militarily, it's only temporary; that in reality ISIS is actually losing, but this fact is being cunningly concealed from you by the Republicans.

And sure enough, right on cue, here's the Times headline on an op-ed piece 3 days ago:  
"Calm down.  ISIS isn't winning"
Amazingly predictable, eh?

And of course the Times doesn't need to add that the Republicans are claiming ISIS is a serious threat because they want to commit U.S. troops to another ground war in Iraq.  This doesn't need to be explicitly said because every true liberal and Democrat "knows" it's true.

So until the editors at the Times have a sudden epiphany, we can expect to see them continue to trivialize ISIS's military victories; to rationalize their destruction of irreplaceable antiquities, to ignore the group's capture and rape of thousands of Yazidi Christian girls, and...the beheading of the general's daughter.

They do this because the main mission of the Times--as with the entire mainstream media--is to support the emperor--and the emperor obviously doesn't want to order our forces--specifically air power, both USAF and Navy--to take effective military action against ISIS.  Thus any criticism of ISIS by the Times will continue to be rationalized and muted.

To use the term favored by sophisticates in NY and DC: nuanced.

My guess is that the emperor is condoning ISIS as a means of pressuring the Israeli government to support the creation of a Palestinian state.  But I'm cynical that way.

Thursday, May 21

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

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

If you know anything about the history of military conflict you probably think this is a bad thing.  But Obama's press secretary disagrees.  He says the emperor's strategy in Iraq "has been a success overall."

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

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

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

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

And all the reporters nodded in agreement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, context, baby.

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

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

Wednesday, May 20

Predictable outcome

Monday, May 18

Interesting names for bills in South Africa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeat phrase as necessary to easy anxiety.

South Africa and electricity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, May 17

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

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

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

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

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

If you have kids, you should probably be concerned.

This picture seems...odd somehow

Sure would love to know the story behind this!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


H/T to commenter

Saturday, May 16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

RIP, Laylah.  We will remember your senseless murder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, May 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, May 14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, makes sense.

Tuesday, May 12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice, huh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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