Translate

Picture 2

Picture 2
Based on solid evidence, CIA has high confidence Russian hacks were intended to help Trump win.

Jun 28, 2014

43 Senators Want to Change Bill of Rights

There is actually a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate free speech.  Here’s the most important part of the text: “Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections.”  This amendment, S. J. Res. 19, was introduced byTom Udall on June 18, 2013.  It has 43 cosponsors, all Democrats, in the Senate.  Harry Reid enthusiastically supports the proposed amendment.  Basically the Democrats have a problem with political spending by any incorporated group.  The amendment also says, “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”  If passed, this amendment would mean that Congress would enact legislation that would define corporations that agree with them, like the New York Times, as “The Press.”  In turn they could legislatively define the communications of other corporations, like for example Citizens United, as “speech.”  So Congress could use legislation to muzzle opposition “speech” while allowing friendly opinions to appear in “The Press.”  If this was enacted, say goodbye to Freedom of Speech. Even low information voters can understand this. It's not that this will ever be enacted. It's the fact that they would seriously propose this that should open everyone's eyes to what they really want to do. 
The text of the amendment
Article commenting on it

Guerilla Lawfare to Harass The One

Conservatives clearly need better legal tactics to bring home just how lawless Mr. Pen and Phone is. I think we need to act more like Mean Green Environmental groups and aggressive tort lawyers in a guerrilla lawfare campaign of harassment against the Prevaricator in Chief. What's at stake here is the survival of Constitutional government in America. The One's unilateral changing of the Obamacare law, as well as a lot of other laws, is a precedent for the complete destruction of Constitutional limited government. To paraphrase Joe Biden, this is a BFD. Checks and balances are being smashed, while the Chicago Hack in Chief pretends he's mayor of Chicago. If our current Dear Leader gets away with this, no future Dear Leader will feel bound by any law. Future presidents will be elected dictators. This is not the time to say nobody has standing to sue without filing a ton of lawsuits using every possible theory, no matter how far fetched, to find someone with the legal standing to sue. Sue early and often, just like the Mean Green Environmental groups do to preserve the delta smelt. To solve the legal standing problem, find some employee of a 50-99 employee exempted company who is willing to sue. Do as the tort lawyers do and advertise for people injured by the delays of Obamacare or other unilaterally changed laws. Keep filing using different theories until we get a favorable ruling somewhere. File in multiple circuits, so if you lose in one but win in another the Supremes will have to hear the case. Shamelessly shop for the most conservative venues. Don't you think the environmental groups do just that for every dam they want to stop? Ask for temporary injunctions to stop the lawless behavior. Just like the Mean Green groups, even if you lose, the free publicity is worth it. It would be a big tactical mistake to have only one lawsuit. Boehner's House lawsuit should be only one of many lawsuits filed.  If any outrage of the last 50 years deserved a conservative full court press, this is it. Why are we just rolling over and playing dead? 

Jun 22, 2014

Iran is Bigger Threat than ISIS

I think negotiating with the Iranian Mullahs about their nukes is going to be a far bigger disaster than Iraq. Coupled with doing as little as possible in Syria after Assad used poison gas, the policy of nuclear negotiations with Iran is pressuring the Saudis and Qataris to buy some Pakistani nukes. It is also encouraging Israel to nuke Iran. The Chicago Prodigy in Chief has no clue what he's doing. All he can say is Bush did it. Even if it were true, what difference, at this point, does it make? What's our Dear Leader going to do to mitigate the mess? 
High value Iranian nuclear sites are burred very deeply with a lot of concrete hardening. The only effective non-nuclear weapon that can destroy these sites is a 30,000 pound bunker buster. Israel does not have the capability to deliver a 30,000 pound bunker buster bomb against the Iranian air defense system even if the US gave them a few. F-16 airplanes can't destroy hardened targets with conventional weapons. I agree that Israel is closely watching Iran, but the only way Israel can destroy hardened Iranian nuclear sites is to use its nuclear weapons. I don't find the prospect of nuclear war in the Middle East comforting. I also don't believe the Chicago Hack in Chief is ever going to order a US strike on Iran, even if Iran successfully tests their own nuclear bomb.

No Woodward & Bernstein for IRS Scandal

The Pravda Press has taken support for our Dear Leader to new heights.  The article in the link below flunks the Nixon test so badly it hurts. If you change the names from the Chicago Prodigy in Chief and friends to Richard Nixon and his minions, there is no way you can imagine an article making excuses for the current administration.  I work in IT. In order to lose emails under normal conditions, someone has to delete them in multiple places. There is no way that a crash on a single PC wipes out all copies of a year's worth of emails, let alone 2 years. In private business, Sarbanes Oxley records have to be retained for 7 years. What retention of IRS records is required by law? Does IRS truly reuse backup tapes every 6 months? If so, they have moved back to the Nixon era from a technological point of view. So the best interpretation of the known facts is that the government can't run any technological operation. Backing up an email system is not rocket science. So the best interpretation leads to the conclusion that the government should be radically downsized to keep them out of activities they have no ability to perform. If we take off the article's rosy colored glasses, the facts reek of cover-up. The article reeks of a search for any possible scenario for plausible deniability, no matter how unlikely. I had no idea that Bloomberg is a front for the Democrats. I don't see Woodward and Bernstein or a Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism in this article.

In the private sector, the lack of a legal hold on the emails would be a crime. If there was a legal hold, how did all of the email backup tapes get erased? So obviously there was no legal hold, or at least none that was actually complied with. I think the best possible interpretation of the known facts is that the government is incompetent technologically. If that's the case, then government needs to be radically downsized to remove functions that it is technically incompetent to perform. If instead this is the cover-up that I believe it to be, then people ought to lose their jobs, starting with Koskinen and ending with most of the management of the Information Technology email functions at the IRS. The ranks of the fired should include all IRS civil servants above GS-12 who don't know enough to backup an email system. Since this is unlikely as long as the Chicago Hack in Chief is running things, Congress should reduce all of the civil service managers responsible by 2 pay grades, and cut the IRS budget to match. 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-20/camp-calls-for-special-prosecutor-in-missing-irs-e-mails.html

Global Warming Explains Bergdahl Trade

I have finally figured out the real reason for the Bergdahl trade.   I now know that the release of the Taliban 5 is part of our Dear Leader's environmental strategy. The Chicago Machine Prodigy is recycling terrorists! I'm sure Tom Steyer and all the other Mean Greens are thrilled at this new way to preserve the environment. Think of all the carbon dioxide released in the breathing required to produce one terrorist. This policy should be continued until Global Warming is stopped cold, period! (snark)

Jun 15, 2014

Liberals Want to Amend Free Speech

Democrats hate the Citizens United case, where the Supreme Court said that restrictions on political spending by incorporated groups were unconstitutional.  Democrats say the decision will allow the Koch Brothers to “Buy Elections.”  The One All Liberals Were Waiting For has said we need a Constitutional Amendment to fix the problems created by the Citizens United decision.  In response, Senator Mark Udall (D, Colorado) has introduced a Constitutional Amendment to change the Bill of Rights so Congress can regulate corporate free speech.  Harry Reid, the Democrats' Leader in the Senate, supports the amendment.  Whatever Democrats say or think, Bush never even considered amending the Bill of Rights.
The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It does not say except for any organized groups that incorporate. If pornography has to be allowed in order to preserve free speech, and I think it does, then incorporated organizations of all types have to be allowed to buy political ads. If the New York Times (incorporated) is allowed to publish Liberal trash talk as "news," then Citizens United has to be allowed to make movies that rebut the Pravda Press. Anything less is censorship. Liberals seem to believe in censorship, as long as it's the Tea Party and Republicans being censored. The Koch brothers do not buy elections. If they influence elections it's because their arguments make sense to the majority of voters
Let me explain what "Buying Elections" historically means, at least in Chicago.  It means bribing voters to vote your way using "walking around money." It usually involves "Vote early, vote often" fraud where voters cast ballots for people who have died. In the old days, this was done with chain voting. The paid voter is given a marked ballot before entering the poling place. To get paid, he has to bring out a blank ballot. At the next poling place, the party hack marks the blank ballot, then sends the bribed voter to vote again. He brings out a new blank ballot. This continues until all the ghosts have voted. "Buying Elections" does not mean buying ads on radio and TV to explain your reasons for wanting certain political outcomes. Buying ads is Free Speech.  From the Democrats’ comments, it sounds like Liberals don't really believe in Free Speech. They instead believe that the opposition needs to be silenced. Could this be the result of Liberal arguments for "Hope and Change" are no longer fooling the public? 


Hillary's Record on Benghazi Stinks


What difference, at this point, does it make? As a veteran I'm sure everyone will want to serve under a commander in chief that sleeps through 3 AM phone calls, then lies to cover it up. We really need somebody who judges 5 Diplomatic Protection Service agents to be sufficient for the most dangerous diplomatic post in the world. Someone who is willing to cut a military protection detail to the bone so we can spend more on domestic programs no matter who gets killed. (snark)

Hillary’s book assures us that she bore no accountability for Benghazi because the cables requesting more security for Libya didn’t land on her desk.  She also still maintains that nobody could have known about the attack in advance.  She even expects us to believe that it was a demonstration triggered by an obscure internet video that turned into a riot. I'm sure all of this blather is supposed to excuse Hillary's dereliction of duty, but it doesn't. The Libyan Tripoli Embassy and Benghazi Consulate had to be two of the most hazardous diplomatic posts in the world. The fact that the Libya security detail was cut before the attack shows Hillary Clinton's dereliction of duty. Hillary was in charge, so whether she saw the cables or not, it was her responsibility to make sure her folks were as safe as she could make them. She wants to be commander in chief. Commanders take the responsibility for failure even if they didn't get the memo. The confusion about the attack is also fabricated. There was a live video feed from the Benghazi Consulate to DC that covered the start of the attack. It showed no demonstration and no riot. The Secretary of State should have reviewed the video before sending Susan Rice out to prevaricate. The video lies served Hillary's interests by obscuring her dereliction of duty. A rogue video was not predictable, so Hillary and her boss are blameless. However, the 11th anniversary of 9/11 was predictable. The violent instability of Libya in general and Benghazi in particular was well known. The whole story is a self-serving cover-up. When the 3 AM phone call from Benghazi came in, neither Hillary nor her boss answered the call.

Liberals should try this thought experiment.  It's 2004.  On September 11, Bush's Ambassador to Algeria is killed in a consulate at a port city.  Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice go on national TV and say it was a demonstration against an obscure anti-Muslim video on the web.  Bush says the same thing in a televised speech to the UN a week or two later.  The Bush Administration claims "Mission Accomplished" against Al Qaeda.  Bush has Texas imprison the sponsor of the video on a trumped up charge of parole violation.  Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb claims responsibility.  No effort was made to help defend against the attack, despite repeated requests both before and during the attack, which lasts 7 hours.  After Bush wins the election, Colin Powell tells a House committee, "At this point, what difference does it make whether it was a demonstration or some guys out for a stroll who decided to kill some Americans?"  How would liberals view it?  I call it the "Bush did it" test. 
Hillary’s talking points, as advanced in the "mainstream" Pravda Press, say it was not her fault because the Secretary of State controls no security assets. This is not true.  For starters, the Secretary of State directly controls  the Diplomatic Security Service, which has about 2,000 agents.  The Secretary of State can also request military guards for dangerous posts like Libya.  In the months just before the attack, the State Department rejected requests to extend the tours of both soldiers and State Department Protection Service agents in Libya. A 16 man US Army security detail was withdrawn in August, 2012, just before the attack. Both the commander of the army unit, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, and the embassy’s security chief, Eric Nordstrom, objected but were overruled by the State Department. See the links below.

The Democrats are also arguing that since Congressional Republicans cut the Diplomatic Protection Service’s budgets, the lack of security in Libya is the Republicans’ fault.  However, the State Department cutting the security detail in Libya using the excuse of budget cuts is absurd. There are countries, like France, Germany and the UK, where the security provided by the host government is great. Why not take the cuts there, and keep the agents in possibly the most dangerous US diplomatic post in the world? Is this a case of Washington Monument Syndrome, where the government shuts down the places that hurt the public the most in response to budget cuts? If it is, it went terribly wrong and 4 people died.

To sum up, four Americans died from criminal neglect. Before the attacks, repeated requests for more security people were ignored or denied. Even though it was the 11th anniversary of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, there were no military assets on alert. There was no military effort to support our people in Benghazi once the attacks started, not even any fighter jets to provide air support. The attacks lasted about 7 hours. Afterwards, the Prevaricator in Chief refused to comment on what he was doing during the attacks. The immediate explanation of the attacks was a totally false narrative of an internet video causing a demonstration that turned into a riot, an explanation that just happened to benefit our Dear Leader's reelection campaign. Finally, there was an extensive cover-up of the original cover-up. Yup, it was either George Bush or global warming that caused this mess. Either way, any further investigation is racist and sexist. (snark)