Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Hits and misses

Is it that they really don’t know, or that they just refuse to say it?

The vast majority of 50,000 unaccompanied youths and children who have illegally crossed the Texas border during the last few months have been successfully delivered by federal agencies to their relatives living in the United States, according to a New York Times article.

A second New York Times article report revealed that officials have caught an additional 240,000 Central American migrants since April, and are transporting many of them to their destinations throughout the United States.

The deluge of 290,000 illegals — so far — are exploiting legal loopholes that allow them to get temporary permits to stay in the United States.

Experts say that President Barack Obama’s administration has failed to close the loopholes and is unlikely to deport more than a small percentage of the illegals, despite the high unemployment rates among American Latino, African-American and white youths, and the strapped budgets of many cities and towns.

The president’s policy has caused protests by frightened citizens in towns such as Murrieta. But Obama’s allies — such as La Raza, an ethnic lobby for Latinos — are eager to escalate the conflict and to paint the protestors as racists. Those protests may escalate before the November elections.

The “president” hasn’t failed to do anything, least of all “close the loopholes”–he has refused to. As with all his other supposed failures, this was intentional, and accomplished exactly what he hoped to accomplish. The only failure here is Munro’s, for refusing to see what is right in front of his damned nose.


Finished! part the Second

I mentioned this one in passing in the previous post, but as a long slice of howling outrage from a damned smart and well-spoken fella, it really needs to be quoted in a post of its own.

You can tell the tidal wave of illegal aliens, many of them unaccompanied minors, surging across the southern border is causing a bit of political discomfort for President Obama, because he briefly felt obliged to pretend he’s not happy about it. ”Briefly” means last Friday, when the President gave us the hilarious vaudeville pantomime act of asking the people of Central America to stop throwing their kids across the hemisphere.

“They’ll get sent back?”  How stupid does this man think we are? Tell you what, Mr. President: how about you personally travel aboard the first mass repatriation flight to Honduras, and give your “they’ll be sent back” warning in a speech from there, surrounded by the thousand minors you just hauled back from the refugee camps you want American taxpayers to spend $2 billion on. Then people might start paying attention to your rhetorical “messages.”

Obama was back to his Cloward-Piven strategy of deliberately overloading the U.S. immigration system on Monday, promising to use more executive orders like the one that launched this invasion, his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, because Congress won’t give him what he wants. The Democrats’ enthusiasm for “enlightened” despotism, and their hunger to keep that flood of illegals coming in, reached insulting lows when Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said that if House Speaker John Boehner doesn’t get a “comprehensive immigration reform bill” cooking soon, “the president will ‘borrow’ the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration.”

That’s the new euphemism for dictatorship: “borrowing” powers forbidden by the Constitution, because Congress won’t do what the dictator wants. Perhaps smarting from the long string of Supreme Court decisions that have made a mockery of his claims to be an expert in constitutional law, the President didn’t endorse this novel theory of power-borrowing in so many words on Monday, instead opting to pretend that he’s deeply sorrowful that he must trample on the separation of powers to get what he wants, because the American system refuses to obey him.

As for the Supreme Court smackdowns, it’s debatable just how “sharp” those limits on executive power are, especially since Obama and the Democrats show absolutely no sign of being chastened by their defeats, nor is their friendly media interested in shaming them. Attacks on the American constitutional order that get partially repelled years later by Supreme Court decisions cannot be judged entirely ineffective.

Exactly. And the guy who successfully enacted so much of an agenda the Left has only dreamed of for decades can hardly be dismissed as a “failure,” either. There’s plenty more here, it’s all excellent, and you shouldn’t skip a word of it.

Update! Herschel boils it down:

The goal of the administration is for the local and state governments to demand federal dollars, but with federal dollars comes federal control. The ultimate aim of Obamacare wasn’t to work or function, it was to fail, thus driving America to a single-payer system. Unless one understand everything this administration does within the framework of Cloward-Piven, you cannot understand them at all.

Bingo. Bing-fucking-O. Understanding why Barrack Hussein Obama does what he does was never difficult, as long as you were willing to forego giving him the benefit of the doubt or assuming he was just another greedy, self-serving, banal American politician rather than the committed hard-Left ideologue he is, and always was. He’s been completely transparent since Day One, to anyone with the intestinal fortitude to take an honest look. As with the marauding Muslims, there are countless examples of him expressing his intentions and ambitions openly, in plain language. It’s just that so many of us have been unwilling to listen, or to take him at his word.

Oh please update! Krauthammer is definitely smart enough to know better.

President Obama “checks out” on immigration and border-control issues, Charles Krauthammer says, because he simply doesn’t know what to do.

Horseshit. He knows exactly what to do. He’s doing exactly what he wants to do, and what is happening flows from that.

“We have a crisis at the border. He does nothing for a couple of weeks. And then last week he comes out [to make a statement]. So what is his statement? The first three-quarters of it is an attack on Republicans,” Krauthammer said on Wednesday’s Special Report. But, he explained, it’s Obama’s policies “of loosening the deportation of people who came here as children” that are encouraging the current influx of young children.

“He is lost on these issues, lost on the issues abroad, doesn’t know what to do — and thus, he goes out and plays golf,” Krauthammer concluded.

He’s going out and playing golf because he’s lazy–and he knows his work is pretty much done. Meanwhile otherwise smart guys like Krauthammer are absolutely baffled over why a fundamentally dishonorable “man” acts dishonorably, why someone who lies because of political necessity about his supposed love of country actively seeks to destroy and remake it….as he promised all along he was going to do.

None so blind as he who will not see. Likewise this guy:

The White House is not planning to reassess its strategy for handling thousands of unaccompanied minors streaming across the border amid mass protests.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said he had not spoken to President Obama about protests in California that blocked buses full of immigrant detainees from reaching a processing station. But Earnest said there was no expectation of changing strategies to deal with the flood of minors “at this point.”

“At this point, what we’re focused on is making sure that we can ramp up the resources that are necessary to meet this growing need,” Earnest said.

The resources made necessary by a crisis of Obama’s own making, as the direct, predictable, and hoped-for result of his illegal-alien reconquista strategy.

It seems to be inconceivable to a certain kind of well-meaning Righty pundit that Obama might actually be an open-borders, One World neo-Marxist. But what the hell, one can understand their confusion; after all, all they really have to go on is almost everything he says, and absolutely everything he does.

Honestly, it’s a much bigger strain on credulity to assume that these “crises” just somehow descended on Obama out of the blue because he’s incompetent and confused, and now he just doesn’t know how to deal with them. At some point, you can no longer write this stuff off to mere happenstance, and I’d say we’re well past it by now. When every single “coincidence” works to advance a Lefty narrative or ambition–open borders; a weakened military; an economy controlled entirely by the central government; knuckling under to UN aims rather than pursuing American interests; loss of US prestige and global leadership in favor of spurious international “coalitions” in which we do all the heavy lifting at the behest of (often nominal) allies; abandonment of our true allies, especially Israel; assumption of dictatorial powers because of a “gridlock” that is part and parcel of our national design, a feature and not a bug–it’s safe to assume they’re not really coincidences at all, don’tcha think?


Insult to injury: of course

I’ve mentioned this several times over the past few years: one of my favorite movie quotes is from The Pope Of Greenwich Village, when Diane tells Charlie, “You don’t even bother to lie to me carefully anymore. It’s insulting to be lied to so obviously.”

Yeah. That.

Who knew that the Obama administration had a penchant for black humor? Earlier this year, in February, President Obama told Bill O’Reilly during an interview on Fox News that there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS scandal involving the targeting of conservative nonprofit groups. In July 2103, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew foreshadowed his boss’s nonchalance by insisting that there was “no evidence” that any political appointee had been involved in the scandal.

Now we may know why. After months of delay in responding to congressional inquiries, the IRS now claims that, for the period of January 2009 to April 2011, all e-mails between Lois Lerner — the IRS official at the center of the scandal — and anyone outside the IRS were wiped out by a “computer crash.” As House Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp wrote in a statement, this loss means that “we are conveniently left to believe that Lois Lerner acted alone.” After all, there isn’t a “smidgen” of e-mail evidence to suggest otherwise.

Of course not; they destroyed it all.

A growing number of computer professionals are stepping forward to say that none of this makes sense.

Of course not. It’s a lie, and not even a very good or sedulous one.

Norman Cillo, a former program manager at Microsoft, told The Blaze: “I don’t know of any e-mail administrator [who] doesn’t have at least three ways of getting that mail back. It’s either on the disks or it’s on a TAPE backup someplace on an archive server.” Bruce Webster, an IT expert with 30 years of experience consulting with dozens of private companies, seconds this opinion: “It would take a catastrophic mechanical failure for Lerner’s drive to suffer actual physical damage, but in any case, the FBI should be able to recover something. And the FBI and the Justice Department know it.”

Of course they do. Unfortunately, they have an interest in hiding the truth, being up to the eyeballs in this treasonous gangster-government corruption–wherein the very legitimacy of our ersatz representative republic has been entirely subverted–themselves.

In March of this year, John Koskinen, the new IRS commissioner, testified before Congress that all the e-mails of IRS employees are “stored in servers.” The agency’s own manual specifies that it “provides for backup and recovery of records to protect against information loss or corruption.” The reason is simple. It is well known in legal and IT circles that failure to preserve e-mails can lead to a court ruling of “spoliation of evidence.” That means a judge or jury is then instructed to treat deletions as if they were deliberate destruction of incriminating evidence.

Of course they are. Because in this as in many other cases, that’s precisely what it was.

Why is the loss of the Lerner e-mails particularly important? Last year’s report by the IRS inspector general set out a timeline of the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups. A full 16 of the 26 non-redacted events in the inspector general’s timeline took place during the period for which all of Lerner’s e-mails were “lost,” and these 16 instances refer to “e-mail” as the source for information on that event. As tax expert Alan Joel points out, much of the context about how the IRS scandal developed and who may have known about it is now “lost” in the black hole the Lerner e-mails are supposed to have been sucked into.

Of course it is. That is neither accident nor coincidence; they weren’t “sucked” into any “black hole,” they were stuffed into it, with malicious intent and full foreknowledge. The IRS’s dog-ate-my-homework defense isn’t merely feeble, it’s outright laughable. As was mentioned here the other day: try a defense like that yourself against the IRS when they’ve gotten their teeth thoroughly into your nether regions. See where it gets ya.

If there is an ongoing cover-up of the IRS scandal, it’s obvious why some folks would be desperate to continue it.

“If”? IF“?!?

Last year, Time magazine’s liberal columnist Joe Klein wrote that the IRS scandal placed President Obama “on the same page as Richard Nixon.”

He is far worse than Nixon ever dreamed of being, in both his core corruption–which is entire and unmitigated–and his arrogant lawlessness, his belief in his own divine right to rule in any way he sees fit–which is absolute and unswerving. Proof? Nixon at least had the decency to resign once his complicity and the concomitant disgrace was obvious. Who out there could even dream of Obama ever doing such a thing?


No deal

The war that wasn’t:

That’s the point to remember about this debacle: There is no deal. None. Washington gave away five war criminals who are already pledging to get back to killing – and the superpower got nothing in return. The deserter and his kooky dad are merely the cover for the fact that the United States entered into an end-of-war prisoner exchange without ending the war; or an agreement with terrorists without persuading the terrorists to agree to anything; or a criminal-justice suspended sentence without getting the criminals to suspend their criminality.

This is a disgraceful dereliction of duty. The President has always been a remarkable narcissist. Two years ago, he referred on ABC News to “those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf”. We didn’t know how literally he meant it. But Barack Obama supposedly did his no-deal “deal” because he pledged way back when, six years ago, that he would close Gitmo – and putting himself back in good order with his anti-war base counts for more than his responsibilties as commander-in-chief or the national interests of the United States – or even those “international norms” he claims to be fond of.

Watch that Rose Garden ceremony again and ask yourself Shannon Allen’s question: Which guy is the hero? Pace Susan Rice, there are three dishonorable men in that short photo-op: a deserter who broke his oath, a father who sympathizes publicly with the enemy…and a president lying before the nation, to make them complicit in that dishonor. Mr Obama is unworthy of the men who fight on “his” behalf.

For myself, I’ll say that getting the hell out of Afghanistan just as quickly as we can is about the only thing Obama’s ever been right about–and that, for all the wrong reasons. I’m suddenly reminded of the traitor Kerry’s quote about nobody wanting to be the last man to die for a lie, for some odd reason.

Update! We have met the enemy, and he is us:

The incentive structure across that chain of command is perverse: At the bottom are the gentlemen coming out of places such as Camp Pendleton, ready to do such ordinary and extraordinary things as duty necessitates, up to and including the sacrifice of their own lives; at the top of the chain are the voters, who, when such sacrifices become necessary, cannot bear the heavy burden of hearing about it for 97 seconds on the evening news. As the readers of The Huffington Post sway in the wind like a field of ripe corn, the man who is known as the commander-in-chief, but who is not in fact at the top of the command structure, must mediate between the soldiers he commands and the easily distracted citizens who command him.

Mosul is lost, with, likely as not, most or all of the rest of Iraq to follow it; Afghanistan, too, is well advanced on the road to reversion. Jihad is not to be denied — at least, not by us. Not by you, American voter.

The critical difference between the Middle East and the Far East is that the Japanese mostly stopped fighting at the end of the war, and the Koreans, though often begrudgingly, welcome our assistance. Furthermore, Japan and South Korea are full of Japanese and Korean people who are corporately committed to building free and prosperous societies. Iraq and Afghanistan are full of Arabs and Pashtuns who are corporately committed to building a caliphate on their high-minded days but the rest of the time are apparently happy to settle for a particularly nasty sort of tribalism dressed up with a bit of jihad ideology held with varying degrees of sincerity. President Bush was simply incorrect in saying that freedom is “the hope of every human heart.” Some hearts harbor other, savage hopes.

But President Bush was right about this much: “The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations.” About that there can be little doubt — but what are we to do about it?

Cringe and cower-in-place whenever we’re attacked again here at home; talk tough about bringing Muslim killers to “justice” without ever doing one damned thing about them that might actually matter; and roll over and “respect” Islam, that’s what. Kevin has a better idea, though:

Perhaps there is something to be learned from that view, namely that — the democracy project having failed — our best strategy is a quarantine. Middle Eastern occupations are not going to prevent another 9/11, but border control and immigration reform would go a long way toward achieving that. Visitors who are coming from jihadist hot spots, or who have some connection with them, should be subject to an extraordinary degree of scrutiny and supervision. Student visas, in particular, should be severely restricted: Access to an American university education is a coveted commodity, and denying it is our version of an oil embargo. Beyond that, immigration from the Middle East to the United States should be radically curtailed. That such actions would unfairly burden some citizens of those countries should be considered at most secondary to the fact that they would protect citizens of this country. Terrorism requires terrorists to be in proximity to targets. If the Middle East is indeed to be an exporter of terrorism and violence, we need not be an importer of it.

President Bush was not wrong in his desire to take the fight to the enemy; this was, in fact, an admirable inclination. But a more effective and prudent strategy would be to exclude the enemy rather than seek him out.

We’re not going to eradicate the anti-human scourge of Islam from the face of the earth, which is the only thing that will ever truly end the ongoing slaughter and subjugation inspired–demanded–by that gutter pseudo-religion. As such, the quarantine Williamson suggests is the only thing that will protect us long-term from its vicious, troglodytic adherents. Too bad we lack the will to even do that much, and are too politically-correct to allow for the honesty to look the enemy in the face and call him by his right name.


Obama: just another victim of Obama’s incompetence

Like Howard the Duck, he’s trapped in an administration he never made. Like Pogo, he has met the enemy, and he is us.

As many have remarked here, Barack Obama has a strange habit of acting like somebody else has been president these past years. It’s really odd.

In his speech on the VA, the president said that he would not stand for things that he clearly and undeniably has stood for some years now, and swore that he would not tolerate that which has has been tolerating since 2009.

He’s been described as acting like a bystander to his own presidency, but it’s more like he’s a victim of it, as though the presidency were this terrible thing that just happened to him one day that he’s now courageously dealing with.

So Barack Obama has sworn that he will not tolerate the incompetence of the Obama administration. I’d like to think that that means he is going to resign, but I don’t think that’s what he meant.

Oh, I think we can count on that right enough. Moochelle may think of the White House as a “nice prison,” but she doesn’t seem in any real hurry to relinquish its power or its perks despite her whining about how awful it all is. All just more deflections and lies, from the lyingest liars ever to afflict the White House and the nation.


Accountability at last!

King Sleazeball’s self-serving notion of it, anyway:

News quiz: President Obama and his communications team hope that Americans are: 1) Dumb; 2) Distracted; 3) Numb to government inefficiency; 4) All of above.

Answer: 4, all of the above.

That answer along with utter incompetence are the best explanations for why the White House thought it could get away with claiming that the departure of Veterans Affairs official Robert Petzel was a step toward accountability for its scandalous treatment of war veterans.

Fact is, the department announced in 2013 that Dr. Petzel would retire this year.

It being Ogabe and Pals we’re talking about here, of course there’s more and worse. After Lois Lerner, it’s looking like this early-retirement ploy is beginning to be the Liar In Thief’s preferred MO when it comes to protecting his hatchet-men, stooges, and stalking horses in the bureaucracy after they’ve done his dirty work for him.

Attaboy, Barky–you “bring ’em to justice” now, y’hear? We all know you’re “madder than hell” at everything your ruling junta has been caught doing at your sly behest, and we’re relying on you to “get to the bottom” of it all. Three groans for our scrupulous and incorruptible Dear Leader, everybody!

Update! Of course and also as usual–this being another of the lying son of a bitch’s usual dodges–Barky only heard about all this when he read it in the newspapers. Y’know, just like all the other scandals he’s eyeballs-deep in. This, despite having been informed of the mess at VA many years ago.

It’s perhaps our greatest national disgrace that this villainous, amoral scumbag ever became president in the first place.


Your efficient, competent FederalGovCo tyranny: it just works!

Sad, pathetic, and hilarious all at the same time.

Judicial Watch today released a 106-page document obtained on May 1 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), revealing that on its first full day of operation, October 1, 2013, Obamacare’s received only one enrollment. The document, obtained in response to a November 25, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against HHS, also reveals that on the second day of operation, 48% of registrations failed.

The Affordable Health Care Act website, which officially launched on the Tuesday, October 1, immediately encountered substantial problems typical of those reported by the Chicago Tribune: “Consumers seeking more information on their new options under the Affordable Care Act were met with long delays, error messages and a largely non-working federal insurance exchange and call center Tuesday morning.” Pressed for an explanation in a conference call with reporters Tuesday afternoon, Marilyn Tavenner, head of the HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, refused to disclose the number of people who had purchased insurance through the site saying, “We have just decided not to release that yet.”

The full extent of the failure, however, is reflected in the details provided by the Judicial Watch FOIA document revelations. They include:

  • On October 1, there were 43,208 accounts created and 1 enrollment. (Page 49)
  • As of October 31, 2013, there were 1,319,425 accounts created nationwide – but only 30,512 actual enrollments in Obamacare. (Page 19)
  • On October 1, 2013, at the end of the first day (4:30), the Senior Advisor at Center forConsumer Information and Insurance Oversight, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Brigid M. Russell, sent out an email to her staff with a subject line celebrating “2 enrollments!” The body copy of the email read: “We have our second official FFM enrollment! The first two Form 834s sent out are to: 1) CareSource in Ohio, 2) BCBS of North Carolina. (Page 90)
  • Official figures contained in the HHS report provide conflicting figures as to the number of enrollments. FFM [Federally Facilitated Marketplace] statistics show 23,259 cumulative to-date applications submitted as of 10/2/13 and 286 completed plan selections. Earlier numbers show 356 enrollments createdas of 7pm on 10/2/13 that were completed with Form 834s sent. (Pages 91-92)
  • An October 2, 2013, email from HHS Special Assistant Marianne Bowen indicated serious problems with congressional enrollments: “The Congressional issue (68 attempts for Direct enrollment) was an issue stemming from incomplete applications being sent through (started, not finished, sent anyway) and the way the issuers are assigning unique numbers. Turns out there were only 4 complete Direct Enrollment applications that went through, the other 64 were not complete.” (Page 93) [The U.S. Congress has approximately 24,000 professional staffers.]
  • On October 2, 2013, the Obamacare website had 70,000 page views but only 5,000 were unique visitors, and 48% of registrations failed. The large number of page views may have been the result of visitors repeatedly hitting the “refresh” button due to long waiting times. (Page 106)

On April 17, 2014, President Obama announced that eight million people had signed up for health insurance on Affordable Healthcare Act exchanges. That figure, however, may be substantially over-inflated.

Gee, ya think? I dunno; he and his fellow socialists have only been lying about every single aspect of it for his entire misbegotten pResidency. But hey, I hear it’s all better now.

(Via Insty)


“The scandal itself is not very difficult to understand, unless you have a personal commitment to not understanding it”

But then, you could say that about so many of the scandals the Democrat Socialists find it useful to wax pedantic over in hopes of sowing obfuscation and confusion.

“Where’s the scandal?” Bill Maher shouted, and if you want the voice of the incoherent and self-satisfied progressive id, you could do worse than to take the temperature of Bill Maher. The scandal, if you don’t know, is the White House’s maliciously misleading the American public about four dead Americans killed by preventable al-Qaeda attacks on the anniversary of 9/11 in order to serve its own narrow political purposes. The scandal itself is not very difficult to understand, unless you have a personal commitment to not understanding it. Such commitments frequently are rooted in partisanship and ideology, but in the case of our supine media and Democrats occupying the commanding heights of culture, it may be simple shame. They were intentionally misled by an administration that holds their intelligence in light esteem even as it takes for granted their support.

The odd thing is that Benghazi did not have to be a scandal. We may be used to, if not exactly resigned to, politicians who distort the facts or fabricate outright lies when it seems politically necessary to do so; nobody really expected Bill Clinton, a man constitutionally incapable of honestly answering a question about what he wants for lunch, to simply confess to what he was up to with the White House intern pool. What’s unusual in this case is the unnecessary dishonesty, as though the Obama administration simply reflexively recoiled from the truth.

That’s a pretty good description of both the “man” himself and his entire misbegotten ruling junta, the comprehension and acceptance of which is an absolutely essential prerequisite to understanding both him and them.

In other words, the Obama administration did not mislead the American public about Benghazi out of political necessity; it misled the American public out of habit. And why wouldn’t it? From the economic effects of the stimulus bill to the GM bailout to blaming last quarter’s poor economic numbers on the fact that it is cold during the winter, the Obama administration has an excellent record for wholesaling fiction to the American electorate, which keeps enduring it. There is apparently enough collective intelligence in the Obama administration to hold in general contempt the wit and attention span of an American public that has elected it twice. Or perhaps the administration is fooling itself, too. A good huckster knows that he is a huckster, but a great huckster comes to sincerely believe in his own shtick, and perhaps somebody at the White House has read Good to Great.

If Americans have grown tired of being lied to, they are not showing much sign of it.

Which of course is the real problem here, and one that will continue to plague us and poison our sordid, depraved, and dysfunctional politics long after the Benghazi atrocity has been forgotten more completely than it already has been.


Halp is (not) on the way

McCarthy, righteously apoplectic…and dead on the money.

You couldn’t help but feel for Robert Lovell. The retired brigadier general is haunted by the failure of AFRICOM, the U.S. military’s Africa Command, to respond when Americans were under siege in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. His congressional testimony this week was somber — no faux “What difference, at this point, does it make?” indignation, no “Dude, this was two years ago” juvenilia for him.

Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the State Department’s Sean Smith were killed in the early stage of the jihadist attack. By then, the actions that would surely have saved their lives — e.g., an adult recognition that Benghazi was no place for an American diplomatic facility, or at least the responsible provision of adequate security — had already been callously forsaken. It seems unlikely AFRICOM could have gotten there in time for them on that fateful night, though that does not come close to excusing the failure to try.

Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are a different story. They fought valiantly for many hours after our military learned, very early on, that the battle was raging. Unlike AFRICOM, the SEALs did not stand pat. They ran to the sound of the guns. After saving over 30 of their countrymen, they paid with their lives. The armed forces, General Lovell recalled, knew that terrorists were attacking them. Yet no one came to their aid.

Lovell bears the burden of their abandonment with a heavy heart. His moving testimony made that clear. Still, his version of events is deeply unsatisfying. Why did AFRICOM fail to respond? “Basically,” he stammered, “there was a lot of looking to the State Department.” Unfortunately, we’re told Secretary Hillary Clinton and her minions were unclear “in terms of what they would like to have.” Come again? “They didn’t come forward with stronger requests for action.”

This Foggy Bottom focus had me groping for my pocket Constitution. Sure enough, Article II was as I remembered it. Much as Hillary Clinton may desire to be the commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces, that job does not belong to the secretary of state.

Read the rest of it, which his certainly good, if ultimately futile. Thus:

Benghazi is not about what Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta or Susan Rice or Ben Rhodes or Jay Carney or Robert Lovell did or didn’t do. The only question is: What was President Barack Obama doing, and not doing, during the critical hours when his sworn duty required decisive action? Mr. Obama owes Americans a detailed answer. Now.

Yeah, well, we’re never going to get it. It would take something along the lines of red-hot branding irons applied to the bottoms of the miserable punk’s feet, and even then he’d probably just lie about it.


Whatcha gonna do?

Big fuckin’ deal.

The explosive e-mails that have surfaced thanks to the perseverance of Judicial Watch make explicit what has long been obvious: Susan Rice, the president’s confidant and ambassador to the U.N., was strategically chosen to peddle the administration’s “Blame the Video” fairy tale to the American people in appearances on five different national television broadcasts the Sunday after the massacre. She was coached about what to say by other members of the president’s inner circle.

One of the e-mails refers expressly to a “prep call” that Ambassador Rice had with several administration officials on late Saturday afternoon right before her Sunday-show appearances. The tangled web of deception spun by the administration has previously included an effort to distance the White House (i.e., the president) from Rice’s mendacious TV performances. Thus, Carney was in the unenviable position Wednesday of trying to explain the “prep call” e-mail, as well as other messages that illuminate the Obama White House’s deep involvement in coaching Rice. The e-mails manifest that Rice’s performances were campaign appearances, not the good-faith effort of a public official to inform the American people about an act of war against our country. Her instructions were “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy”; and “To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges” (emphasis added).

Carney risibly claimed that the “prep call” was “not about Benghazi.” Instead, according to him, it was “about the protests around the Muslim world.”

Two points must be made about this.

Actually, there’s only one that matters, in the form of a question: just what are you gonna do about it? These are patently impeachable offenses, the more so because it is absolutely clear that the Obama junta is going to go right on lying, secure in the knowledge that nothing whatsoever is going to come of any of this. Republican congressional shitweasels aren’t going to impeach His Royal Majesty because there’s no political support for such a move, and there wouldn’t be even if more than a handful of Americans were even aware of or cared about any of this, which they aren’t, and don’t. He damned sure ain’t going to resign, no matter how vociferously truth, justice, and even the barest modicum of decency may demand it.

Much self-congratulatory, exultant puffing and blowing all this past week about Obama’s “cratering” poll numbers, which are now down to a “catastrophic” low of…41%. This happens every time he takes a “nosedive” of a percentage point or two, as if that meant anything at all. It still adds up to the same thing: half the damned country agrees with the guy–likes him, approves of what he is doing to the (small) degree they’re even conscious of it in the first place, and will support him no matter what. Until that sad, sorry fact is addressed, everything else is just pissing in the wind, and no amount of high dudgeon about Obama’s high crimes and misdemeanors is going to make any difference at all.

Not that we shouldn’t continue pointing out that he’s a lying, communist reprobate every chance we get, mind. It’s just that sometimes, the truth has to be its own reward.

Update! What difference, at this point, does it make?

In Sir Henry Wotton’s famous formulation, an ambassador is a man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country. In the case of Susan Rice, a UN ambassador is a broad sent to lie to her country for the good of her man — President Obama. Happily, it worked.

Steyn, of course. He continues:

Decency, I argued, required that Obama & Co be voted out of office as an urgent act of political hygiene. The electorate felt differently – and still does. Democrat spinners openly giggle when a TV interviewer uses the word “Benghazi”: It’s a big nothingburger; the American people have, in that Clintonian formulation, “moved on”; this is the tired old “partisan politics as usual…”

In that sense, this week’s emails are superfluous. The facts about Benghazi have been clear to anyone willing to see them, as those Autumn 2012 columns of mine illustrate. But the American people were disinclined to see them – like the dysfunctional rural family in that Sam Shepard play where everyone knows there’s a baby buried in the backyard but they’ve all agreed not to talk about it.

Well, Benghazi’s a long way away. Who cares? It’s not like Washington’s Libya policy makes any difference to the average guy in Des Moines, is it? Ah, but if you swallow Benghazi you’re not really in any position to complain about the IRS or if-you-like-your-plan-you-can-keep-it or whatever’s next down the pike, are you? Healthy political cultures punish the first lie – because otherwise it never stops.

The truth is, not all that many of us ARE complaining about the IRS, or Obamacare, or ubiquitous spying by an omnipotent and invulnerable federal leviathan, or any of the rest of the statist reverse-décolletage creeping up to wind ever more tightly around our throats; we’re fatalistic about it, we expect it in a grim, helpless way. Our political culture is anything but healthy. In the end, that’s what really matters.


Figure it out already, ferchrissakes

If you truly are, to wit, “speechless, shocked. Stunned. Horrified. Befuddled. Aghast, appalled, thunderstruck, perplexed, baffled, bewildered and dumbfounded” at learning that the Obama administration is chock-a-block top to bottom with brazen liars who have no problem at all with falsifying anything and everything to promote their agenda and consolidate and expand their power, up to and including the Liar In Thief himself–well, sorry to have to say it, but that says a lot more about you than it does about them.

There’s just no possible excuse at this point for not being well aware of exactly who and what they are. I would hardly call McCardle a dope, and I’ve always liked her. But this is just ridiculous. And, frankly, embarrassing.

Update! Related? Yeppers, in that it’s just a restatement of something those of us non-ostriches already knew all too well.

The US government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country’s citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern Universities has concluded.

After sifting through nearly 1,800 US policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile) and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the United States is dominated by its economic elite.

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

Researchers concluded that US government policies rarely align with the the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying oragnisations: “When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.”

Yeah, well, that’s just how fascism works. The pitiful fact that some of us still prefer to erroneously refer to it as “crony capitalism” doesn’t change the reality of what it actually is.

You all be sure to vote in the show-elections this and every year, now. Otherwise, sanctimonious idiots will wag their fingers in your face and tell you you have no right to complain as your economic lifeblood continues to be sucked away by Republicrat politicians and the rigged machine they’ve established purely for their own benefit.

Hopeless update! Back to McCardle for a moment here: “I mean, I can certainly think of explanations, but I can’t quite bring myself to believe the worst of them.” Well, there you go, then. No matter how obvious and incontrovertible a plain fact is, if you “can’t quite bring” yourself to believe it, well, that’s all on you, I’m afraid. There are words and phrases useful for describing such an attitude, “willful blindness” being one of the more polite of them.


“It just doesn’t make sense”?

Sure it does. There’s only one way it does, and perhaps some people don’t want to confront that, or are too shocked by it to believe it. But once you do, it makes nothing but sense.

I believe in a strong national defense. I believe in Ronald Reagan’s policy of “Peace through Strength.” I believe there are many ways to achieve savings in all aspects of our budget, including the Pentagon. But for America to remain strong and at peace, we must cut smartly and from the right places.

In the current budget, the Obama Administration called for the elimination of the Tomahawk missile. This missile protects our troops and allows us to avoid much direct person-to-person combat. Our navy has depended heavily on them.

Now President Obama wants to get rid of them rather than do the harder work of finding the waste and fraud in our bloated Pentagon bureaucracy. This is a mistake and will weaken our defenses.

Obama’s fiscal year budget for 2015 would make significant cuts to the Tomahawk program and would eliminate it completely by 2016. There are reportedly no plans to replace it with another comparable weapon, or any weapon, for that matter.

If President Obama had plans for next-generation weaponry that might take the place of Tomahawks that would be one thing, but giving up such an essential combat tool without such a plan is dangerous and quite frankly, baffling.

We can have a better military and a better defense, including all the weaponry our armed forces need, if we learn how to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, and end our nation building overseas.

Our priority should be defending our country, not policing others.

President Obama refuses to confront both waste and bad strategic choices of recent years, and instead focuses on a weapons program with a proven track record. It just doesn’t make sense.

Obama despises the Founders’ America and wants to see it weakened, destroyed, and remade. What’s so damned radical about admitting it at last…when every single scrap of evidence currently extant–everything he’s done, not only in office but his whole damned life–demonstrates precisely that?

As for Paul, there ain’t much in this article to lend credence to the “weak on defense” or isolationist charges flung at him now and then by the old guard GOP, at least some of whom probably still wake up in a cold sweat now and then over his father’s more loony ideas. He sounds pretty sensible and correct to me.

At any rate, if you’re a patriotic American who believes strongly in Constitutional government, you most likely already know that of all the enemies you might have out there, Obama and his ilk are some of the most dangerous, dedicated, and ruthless. So to say his moves to render America That Was effectively helpless won’t surprise you at all. Or shouldn’t.


The most corrupt, dishonest, secretive, lawless regime in US history?

Yep. Next question, as Glenn would say.

Back atcha update! Throw in sanctimonious, priggish, domineering, and arrogant for good measure:

WASHINGTON — The first lady, Michelle Obama, is soon to lose her executive pastry chef, Bill Yosses. And she is partly to blame.

She has piqued his interest in the relationship between food and health, he said in a recent telephone interview, so the man who made the Hawaiian chocolate-malted ganache for the White House state dinner for the president of France is now headed to New York with an aim to teach children and adults about eating better. In the meantime, he has given up his usual breakfast doughnuts for a smoothie made with apple, kale, spinach and ginger — from time to time.

“It’s a bittersweet decision,” Mr. Yosses said of his move to New York.

Yeah, I bet. Talk about out of the Marxist frying pan and into the commie fire.

Hired by Laura Bush in 2007, when he was already acclaimed in New York for the raspberry and pear soufflés he created at restaurants like Montrachet and Bouley, Mr. Yosses began moving beyond the traditional sugar sculptures and cookie plates after Mrs. Obama arrived at the White House. He was directed to make more healthful desserts, and in smaller portions, that were to be served only sparingly to the first family.

“She has done it with humor and good will, without preaching, just the way you would hope the ‘Mom in chief’ would do,” Mr. Yosses said. He called her “definitely an inspiring boss, a combination of spontaneity and seriousness.”

Nonetheless, Mr. Yosses has hardly turned his back on his old, sweet life. “I don’t want to demonize cream, butter, sugar and eggs,” he said.

“Mom in chief”? Umm, thanks for caring and all, but…no. I already have a mom, and she’s nowhere near as interested in running my life for me as the liberal-fascists are, thank heavens.

(Via Glenn again)


Great minds

Looks like Codevilla has about as little use for dictator-fellating blowhards as I do.

Being human, politicians lie. Even in the best regimes. The distinguishing feature of totalitarian regimes however, is that they are built on words that the rulers know to be false, and on somehow constraining the people to speak and act as if the lies were true. Thus the people hold up the regime by partnering in its lies. Thus, when we use language that is “politically correct” – when we speak words acceptable to the regime even if unfaithful to reality – or when we don’t call out politicians who lie to our faces, we take part in degrading America.

The case in point is Television personality Bill O’Reilly who, in his pre-Super Bowl interview with Barack Obama, suffered the President to tell him – and his audience of millions – that the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups had been a minor “bonehead” mistake in the Cincinnati office, because there is “not even a smidgen of corruption” in that agency. O’ Reilly knew but did not say that both he and the President know this to be a lie, that the key official in the affair, Lois Lerner, had made sure that the IRS’s decision on how to treat the Tea Party matter would be made in Washington by writing: that the matter was “very dangerous” and that “Cincy should probably NOT have these cases.”

O’ Reilly did not call out the lie. Nor did he just remain silent. Rather, he said of Obama that: “his heart is in the right place.”

Which is first-water horseshit, and irrelevant anyway; a whole lot of damage has been done to liberty and Constitutional government over the years by (ostensibly) well-meaning people, after all.

Why then do we not call lies lies, and liars liars? Because there are consequences. Had O’Reilly told Obama something like “You know that this is false. You are insulting me by lying to my face. What makes you think that I, or any other American would stand for that?” he would have been ostracized by the Establishment – and lost his prized access to the White House.

For ordinary Americans, calling the regime’s lies by their name, deviating from political correctness, carries far stiffer penalties, because the regime has labeled each such deviation as an antisocial pathology: racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, “denialism,”etc., any of which mark you as an opponent of those who count. They may fire you, pass you over, or just exclude you from that to which you wish to be included.

This is new and incomplete. But only in America. It is the very routine, the very constitution, of totalitarian society.

I’d just repost the whole thing here, but you really need to click through and read it all. O’Reilly’s unctuous egotism is far worse than mere masturbation; he’s aiding and abetting the undermining not just of what little is left of the legitimate Republic, but of the very idea of integrity itself. He’s making a chump not just of himself, but of all of us.

(Via Bill)



A perfect metaphor, for all sorts of reasons.

While we thought the health care act was a train wreck, it’s more like cancer.

Discovering you’ve got a problem should be the first step on the road to recovery. You’re supposed to go in and confront it like you would if you found a tumor.

You wouldn’t just leave it there, wondering what it was up to, hoping it would go away on its own. No, you’d enlist some help and take care of business.

Well, you would if you were truly, deeply opposed to it, instead of just pretending to be. Thus:

With all the anti-Obamacare rhetoric coming out of Republican leadership, they funded it for another year in the budget agreement.

Why can’t we all just get along, guys? But there’s another excellent metaphor for the Obamacare swindle: Potemkin villages.

One guy ruined the plan after he purchased health insurance on the California exchange and then had the gall to call doctors to set up an appointment. His temerity drove him to call every doctor listed as in-network, and none of them were.

In the normal world, this would be called “fraud.” In Obama’s America, it’s called a “snag,” and on a national scale, the Obama regime labels it “Shut up, Fox News!”

After all, isn’t the goal getting everyone insured? Who cares if you can’t actually see a doctor or get health care, because everyone will get a terrific piece of paper that says “health insurance policy.” Equality, at last — everyone’s got the same thing; namely, nothing at all.

One California woman — an avowed Obama and Obamacare supporter, and cancer patient — was quite taken aback by the disaster.

Danielle Nelson dutifully enrolled in an Obamacare plan, and then went to see her oncologist, but was greeted at the door by a sign announcing they did not accept any Covered California plans.

“I’m a complete fan of the Affordable Care Act, but now I can’t sleep at night,” Ms. Nelson told The Los Angeles Times. “I can’t imagine this is how President Obama wanted it to happen.”

Well, she doesn’t have to imagine. She simply needs to accept that her hero and his minions actually did have something else in mind — single payer, which would require the destruction of the individual marketplace.

And Ogabe and his henchmen will get it, too. We’ll see how happy “liberal” idiots are once they get the full dose of untinctured socialism at last–good and hard. My prediction is for much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth akin to that we’ve already seen from the stupes and dupes in the “I didn’t know I was going to have to pay for it!” crowd.

Popcorn, anyone?


Just another SOTU I won’t be watching

At this point, what difference does it make?

This time, President Barack Obama is going to have to actually talk about Obamacare in his State of the Union address.

No more touch-the-base-and-keep-running treatments, the way he’s handled it the past couple of years. This time, he’ll be expected to linger on base a bit, at least long enough to acknowledge the launch of the biggest domestic achievement of his presidency — and do it in the least awkward way possible.

That’s the consensus of Democratic strategists, health care experts, pollsters and crisis-management experts, all of whom will have reasons to listen closely when Obama brings up the health care law on Jan. 28. It will be Obama’s most high-profile address since the clunky rollout began, and although it has come a long way since the worst days of October, it’s still not enough for him to say, “Nailed it.”

Instead, Obama will have to find an uplifting message about the law that doesn’t imply that everything’s suddenly back on track. The most he can say, based on the latest developments, is that “it’s moving back toward the track,” said Len Nichols, director of the Center for Health Policy Research and Ethics at George Mason University.

You really think so, do ya? Those of us who have been paying attention and aren’t suckered by the Ministry of Truth’s absurd blandishments know that he’s just going to lie about it some more, as he has been all along. And we know that damned near half the country will go right on swallowing what he’s shoveling too, and claiming to absolutely love the taste.

(Via VP)

Update! Steyn: who cares, and why would they?

These days, the edicts are issued by commissars deep in the bowels of the hyper-regulatory state, and most of them are, like King Charles, a little too bald in their assumptions of government power to be bandied in polite society. So, in public, the modern ruler issues goals, orders dreams, commands unicorns. People seem to like this sort of thing. No accounting for taste, but there we are. “America moves forward only when we do so together,” declared the president. I dunno. Maybe it’s just me, but the whole joint seems to be seizing up these days: The more “activist” Big Government gets, the more inactive the nation at large.

But the president’s sonorous, gaseous banalities did serve notice that the Republicans don’t want to get too far behind on his “goals.” He’s right that Washington “moves forward” like a pantomime horse lurching awkwardly across the stage and with the Republicans always playing the rear end. A “bipartisan” agreement means that the Democrats get what they want now and Republicans at some distant far-off date. Try it: New taxes and government programs now, alleged deficit reduction of $2.5 trillion a decade hence. Illegal-immigrant amnesty now, alleged rigorous border enforcement the day after tomorrow. Washington has settled into a comfortable pattern: instant gratification for spending binges that do nothing for any of the problems they purport to be solving assuaged by meaningless commitments to start the twelve-step program next year, or next decade, or next century. No other big spender among the advanced democracies lies to itself about the gulf between its appetites and its self-discipline.

“Tonight, let’s declare,” declared the president, “that in the wealthiest nation on earth…” Whoa, hold it right there. The “wealthiest nation on earth” is actually the Brokest Nation in History. But don’t worry: “Nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime.”

“Should”? Consciously or not, the president is telling us his State of the Union show is a crock, and he knows it. Under Magical Fairyland budgeting, Obama-sized government “shouldn’t” increase our debt. Yet mysteriously it does. Every time.

And Grond crawls on: spending goes up; freedom goes down; government gets bigger and more powerful; success is punished more harshly; we keep losing wars by refusing to fight them; and we edge ever closer to banana-republic status with each new edict (or “goal”) while we go right on telling ourselves we’re still “the greatest nation on Earth.” It’s worse, far worse, than merely a piss-poor joke. Steyn notes this at the end of his post:

If all that sounds familiar, it’s because I wrote it this time last year. I could file my SOTU column a month early and go to the Bahamas, as all self-respecting commentators should do. I do not expect this year to depart from the script.

And neither will His Majesty.


INCREDIBLE: Two “liberals” tell the unvarnished truth

It just might be a first.

CUOMO: And the moderate Republicans in Washington can’t figure out how to deal with the extreme Republicans, and the moderate Republicans are afraid of the extreme conservative Republicans in Washington, in my opinion.

You’re seeing that play out in New York. The SAFE Act. (Cuomo proudly calls “The SAFE Act” [The Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013] the “toughest” gun control law in the nation. — Ed.) The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act. It was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate!


CUOMO: Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York —

ARBETTER: So this –

CUOMO: — because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

Some people are throwing a hissy fit for some reason, but he’s correct: New York is one of the nation’s leading citadels of blockhead Leftism, and blockhead Leftists are famously tolerant of NO point of view other than their own. The handful of conservatives still languishing there are probably already considering getting the hell out, and they damned well ought to be; there’s no future in New York for them. Which leads me to Cap’n Smith’s question:

I’ve said it many times before, and I’ll say it again. I plan my gun purchases around not buying products made in New York if possible.

So Remington, Kimber, and any other gun manufacturers still in New York – I have one question. Why? Why haven’t you relocated to another state where I can once again consider doing business with your company?

And where they may actually be allowed to stay in business without attempts being made to choke them out of existence by minions of the fascist police state with the full and enthusiastic support of the ignorant, cowardly, hand-flapping “citizens.”

They should all be getting out while they still can; those who stubbonly stay on will be gradually forfeiting the sympathy and support of freedom-loving Americans (all five or six of us) by hanging on.

Elsewhere, another stunning moment of clarity and honesty from a “man” far more renowned for the opposite:

There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President,” Obama said. “Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black President.

Again: true, on both counts. Only thing I’d take issue with is the supposition that both those groups represent roughly equal portions of their respective demographics. I would submit that there’s only the merest handful of people who dislike Obama, his policies, and his ideology purely because he’s black; they represent a truly insignificant fringe of Obama’s opposition that nobody really needs to be bothered with or about. On the other hand, the number, both as a sum total and a percentage, of people both black and white who support him mostly because of his race is FAR higher.


More SHOCKING than ever!

Saw a good comment earlier this morning on one of the news channels from a retired general on the Gatesgate dustup, the gist being: of COURSE Obama despises the military, and the general/flag officer class particularly. Those guys spent their whole careers–their whole lives–training to fight Communists, and since 2001 actually fighting Muslim terrorists. Meanwhile, Obama was mentored by a Communist (Frank Davis) and a terrorist (Bill Ayers). Who could possibly be surprised that such a worm would harbor antipathy and distrust for people he’s spent his entire miserable, worthless existence defining as his sworn enemies?

The only thing shocking in all this is the number of supposedly smart people out there unwilling or unable to identify Obama and Pals as anything other than what they are: dedicated enemies of liberty, the Constitution, and everything this country is supposed to stand for.


Fake phony fraud

It’s called “governing against the will of the people,” and it’s the hallmark of illegitimate tyrannies throughout history. Not excepting our own, natch.

The White House systematically delayed enacting a series of rules on the environment, worker safety and health care to prevent them from becoming points of contention before the 2012 election, according to documents and interviews with current and former administration officials.

Some agency officials were instructed to hold off submitting proposals to the White House for up to a year to ensure that they would not be issued before voters went to the polls, the current and former officials said.

The Obama administration has repeatedly said that any delays until after the election were coincidental and that such decisions were made without regard to politics. But seven current and former administration officials told The Washington Post that the motives behind many of the delays were clearly political, as Obama’s top aides focused on avoiding controversy before his reelection.

I can scarcely write about Obama being “elected” without damned near choking on the words, and I almost always use sneer quotes when I do. What with using FedGovCo agencies to suppress and intimidate the opposition, the lies about things like Obamacare and the cratering economy, the usual massive Democrat Socialist fraud, and now this wholly unsurprising revelation, to seriously posit that the reprobate was actually elected amounts to a lie in and of itself, and an insult to the very idea of representative democracy. The only reason the man is in office at all is subterfuge and deceit, and the only reason he remains is timidity on the part of better men than he’ll ever be.


Barky to Bibi: shut up

This is one dissident His Majesty can’t shut down with a quiet word in the right bureaucratic ear:

President Obama has sent a query to Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, asking the fiery and blunt-talking prime minister to take a break from his criticism of the U.S.-forged deal with Iran.

The Washington Post reported that Mr. Obama made the request during a phone call with the Israeli leader.

Mr. Netanyahu has publicly slammed the deal, saying Iran has won concessions that put Israel’s security in jeopardy. In the phone call, Mr. Obama said he’d keep Israel authorities in the loop on the final settlement arrangement —which could come as early as in six months — if Mr. Netanyahu could quiet his rhetoric a bit, The Hill reported.

It wasn’t immediately clear how Mr. Netanyahu responded to Mr. Obama’s telephoned request.

Gee, what a deal: you Israelis pipe down with the complaining on your imminent destruction, and we promise–PROMISE!–we’ll keep you informed every step of the way as we sell you out for another agreement that isn’t worth the simple chronic halitosis expelled to defend it on our Sunday morning MSM circle-jerks.

Don’t trust him, Bibi–you know as well as we do that he’s a liar, and would as soon see Israel wiped out by his Muslim terrorist butt-buddies as not. He regards you and your “shitty little country” as a problem, not a partner. Tell him to go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut–and next time he calls, don’t answer, that’s my advice.


The easiest person to con is another con artist

Q: in this case, how do you tell who’s lying? A: they all are. Which doesn’t preclude this from being absolutely hilarious.

Update! Diplomad: “Of course the text favors the Iranian interpretation. If, furthermore, it didn’t, who believes we would do anything about it?” As I’m so fond of saying: ahh, there’s the rub. Nobody needs to be kidding themselves that any Republican would be any more likely to take forceful, effective action against our Iranian enemies than Obama is.



Saturday Steyn:

It is a condition of my admission to this great land that I am not allowed to foment the overthrow of the United States government. Oh, I signed it airily enough, but you’d be surprised, as the years go by, how often the urge to foment starts to rise in one’s gullet. Fortunately, at least as far as constitutional government goes, the president of the United States is doing a grand job of overthrowing it all by himself.

On Thursday, he passed a new law at a press conference. George III never did that. But, having ordered America’s insurance companies to comply with Obamacare, the president announced that he is now ordering them not to comply with Obamacare. The legislative branch (as it’s still quaintly known) passed a law purporting to grandfather your existing health plan. The regulatory bureaucracy then interpreted the law so as to un-grandfather your health plan. So His Most Excellent Majesty has commanded that your health plan be de-un-grandfathered. That seems likely to work. The insurance industry had three years to prepare for the introduction of Obamacare. Now the King has given them six weeks to de-introduce Obamacare.

“I wonder if he has the legal authority to do this,” mused former Vermont governor Howard Dean. But he’s obviously some kind of right-wing wacko. Later that day, anxious to help him out, Congress offered to “pass” a “law” allowing people to keep their health plans. The same president who had unilaterally commanded that people be allowed to keep their health plans indignantly threatened to veto any such law to that effect: It only counts if he does it — geddit? As his court eunuchs at the Associated Press obligingly put it: “Obama Will Allow Old Plans.” It’s Barry’s world; we just live in it.

The reason for the benign Sovereign’s exercise of the Royal Prerogative is that millions of his subjects — or “folks,” as he prefers to call us, no fewer than 27 times during his press conference — have had their lives upended by Obamacare. Your traditional hard-core statist, surveying the mountain of human wreckage he has wrought, usually says, “Well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.” But Obama is the first to order that his omelet be unscrambled and the eggs put back in their original shells. Is this even doable? No. That’s the point. When it doesn’t work, he’ll be able to give another press conference blaming the insurance companies, or the state commissioners, or George W. Bush…

He needn’t bother; the NYT, as always, has his back:

Health Law Rollout’s Stumbles Draw Parallels to Bush’s Hurricane Response
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama won the presidency by exploiting a political environment that devoured George W. Bush in a second term plagued by sinking credibility, failed legislative battles, fractured world relations and revolts inside his own party.

President Obama is now threatened by a similar toxic mix. The disastrous rollout of his health care law not only threatens the rest of his agenda but also raises questions about his competence in the same way that the Bush administration’s botched response to Hurricane Katrina undermined any semblance of Republican efficiency.

But unlike Mr. Bush, who faced confrontational but occasionally cooperative Democrats, Mr. Obama is battling a Republican opposition that has refused to open the door to any legislative fixes to the health care law and has blocked him at virtually every turn.

They just voted for one in the House, you lying douchebags. And there’s one other teeny, tiny, minor little flaw in your analogy as well: Bush didn’t create Katrina and deviously use his party’s majority in Congress to ram it down the people of New Orleans’ throats. One more: Bush’s response to Katrina was by no means “disastrous”; the liberal media distorted it to make it appear so, while studiously ignoring the real disaster, which was the Democrat Socialist mayor of New Orleans and the Democrat Socialist governor’s response–not Bush’s.

But hey, when did the NYT ever let the truth get in the way of a good narrative? Back to the Steyn article, which is as chock-full of good rips as the Jonah G bit on schadenfraude the other day:

Until October 1, Obama had never done anything — not run a gas station, or a doughnut stand — other than let himself be wafted onward and upward to the next do-nothing gig. Even in his first term, he didn’t really do: Starting with the 2009 trillion-dollar stimulus, he ran a money-no-object government that was all money and no objects; he spent and spent, and left no trace. Some things he massively expanded (food stamps, Social Security disability) and other things he massively diminished (effective foreign policy), but all were, so to speak, preexisting conditions. Obamacare is the first thing Obama has actually done, and, if you’re the person it’s being done to, it’s not pretty.

Well, remember that for socialists, the only possible answer to the messes they make is: more of the same, and fast. So expect more lies, more obfuscation, more malfeasance, more redefining of terms, more lawlessness and corruption, more trampling of the Constitution, and more disaster. That oughta fix it.

Update! Forgot to include the link to the NYT piece o’ crap, which is here, if you care. Call it a Fraudian slip.


His Majesty King Barrack the Just kisses boo-boo, makes it all better

Our Most Puissant Lord has seen fit to allow us to keep the plans we like–for a little while. So you hapless schlubs with your subpar, inferior policies that meet your needs and that you can actually afford have just that long to shape up and get yourselves up to His Li’l Majesty’s more exacting standards.

WASHINGTON – Facing mounting pressure to “fix” a provision of ObamaCare that forced millions of Americans to lose their existing health coverage, President Obama said Thursday that anyone whose coverage was canceled has up to a year to renew their old policies.

White House officials said they will send a letter to state insurance commissioners specifying that current plans sold to existing customers will not be considered out of compliance with the health care law in 2014.

That means insurance companies can’t drop current customers – at least, not for a year.

It isn’t going to work any better than any of the rest of Obama’s Albatross has, but it ought to be enough to get Chrissy Matthew’s leg tingling again, at least, and I’d guess it’ll do for getting a lot of other blue-state mouthbreathers back into line as well. So baa-baa, little sheep; fret not, the Lord your God cares enough about your widdle feelings to feign concern about you briefly. And just don’t you worry about the rest of it; all that wool will grow back just in time for next year’s shearing.


“But it can’t just be political assertions that aren’t substantiated when it comes to the actual details of policy, because otherwise we’re going to be selling the American people a bill of goods”

He knew all along he was lying. That’s all there is to it. He’s a con artist, and you have been swindled.

Period. Unlike Obama, I will NOT be trying to worm out from under that flat statement in a few years by claiming to have said something else (another lie). Not in a few years, not ever. But then, I’m not a conniving Progressivist liar.

I mean, the easiest thing for me to do on the health care debate would have been to tell people that, “What you’re going to get is guaranteed health insurance, lower your costs, all the insurance reforms, we’re going to lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, and it won’t cost anybody anything.” That’s great politics. It’s just not true.

Compare that to “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.” Taranto has another comparison to make:

There is ample evidence that the plans to be sold on the vaporware exchanges will frequently, perhaps usually, be poorer values than the canceled ones. And the 5% figure is very much a lowball estimate. Among others, it excludes people who’ll lose employer-provided insurance or see it downgraded as a result of ObamaCare’s mandates and incentives, as well as those affected by Medicare cuts.

But for the sake of argument, let’s accept the 5% figure as the number of Americans Obama now acknowledges having victimized with his “If you like your plan, you can keep it” swindle. The U.S. population is just over 317 million (that includes children, but so does the population affected by the ObamaCare cancellations). Five percent of 317 million is just under 16 million people.

Imagine if Bernie Madoff had swindled 16 million people.

No, that doesn’t quite do it justice. Imagine if Bernie Madoff had swindled 16 million people, many of whom never agreed, or had any desire, to do business with him in the first place.

That doesn’t quite do it justice either, because James is still shying away from saying the rest of it: “…never had any desire to do business with him in the first place, but were forced to do so by a tyrannical government which has far overstepped the bounds of anything resembling its legitimate Constitutional authority.” Via CDR M, Bookworm runs through a nowhere-near complete (because that would be a Herculean task) catalog of Obama lies, and then makes another important comparison:

Ron Fournier, who has stood by Obama rather steadfastly for the past five years, is disturbed to find that is idol has feet of clay. He rightly calls Obama on precisely what I’ve described above: the lie about the lie. I agree with everything Fournier has to say about Obama’s lie, except for the very last thing: “On history’s scale of deception, this one leaves a light footprint. Worse lies have been told by worse presidents, leading to more severe consequences, and you could argue that withholding a caveat is more a sin of omission.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong, Mr. Fournier. This is the worst lie a president has every told the American people. To the extent presidents have lied before, they’ve done so for national security (every wartime president, including Obama himself); because they themselves were lied to, as was the case when Saddam Hussein’s self-created Potemkin village of WMDs led the Bush administration and most world leaders to believe that Hussein did indeed have WMDs; or because they were protecting themselves from their failings, as Nixon and Clinton did. Obama marks the first time ever that a president provably committed an act of fraud against the American people: He deliberately lied to people, knowing that they would believe that lie, in order to get them to change their position to their detriment based upon that lie.

It’s not this lie that destroys Obama’s credibility. This is the typical retrenchment lie of someone who was caught doing something bad. It’s the original lie — the enormous fraud committed against America — that should outrage every citizen.

Should, yeah. Yet despite the usual desperate, pathetic hoo-rawing over his slightly (and temporarily, likely enough) lower poll numbers, nearly half the people still like the guy who impoverished them by selling them a bill of goods. STILL. But this BR commenter highlights something that’s worse yet: “They were complicit in the cover up of the murder of people that they use apparently only as stage props when it fits an agenda.”

The Obama regime, the Democrat Socialist Party, its Court Media/MSM apparatus, and the Left itself all amount to a criminal conspiracy against not only the Constitution, but freedom and self-determination entire. They may not have descended to Stalin/Hitler/Mao/Che levels of pure evil–yet–but it’s not from want of the desire to do so. You can put a “period” after that statement too, if it helps.

Lock his ass update! McCarthy: “How would the Justice Department be dealing with it if it had been uttered by, say, the president of an insurance company rather than the president of the United States?” Well, I guess that would depend on who’s running the DoJ at the time, now wouldn’t it?




"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Subscribe to CF!
Support options


If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards


RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix