Previous month:
November 2015
Next month:
January 2016

ASSAULT ON YOUR FREEDOM: BY CURTAILING YOUR MOBILITY, YOU MUST RELY ON GOVERNMENT-REGULATED SERVICES

The old West is dead. The progressive socialist democrats are doing everything in their power to deny us access to our cars, by refusing to upgrade the infrastructure (e.g. building sound-deadening walls to limit road width instead of expanding roadways) to scheming to sell us on the benefits of “paying by the mile.” Code words for “taxation by the mile” and population mobility control.

bb2

What is being sold as convenience is nothing more than control …

The most important issues are never mentioned.

  • Behavior control – congestion pricing and implementing price incentives to follow government dictates as to travel.
  • Privacy violations – near real-time tracking of location by government-accessible backdoors.
  • Forced electronic payments – accountability or something more nefarious?
  • Tethering – restricting an individual’s mobility by the use of “electric vehicles” and limited availability of transportation.
  • Security – forcing residents to “shelter in place” (mostly without protective weapons) and follow government dictates rather than moving toward safety in a fast and effective manner.
  • Socialism – forcing individuals to use union-dominated public transportation. One look at the union-dominated New York is ample proof of the power of the unions to cripple the city’s businesses and personal mobility. Here in California, it has always been Governor Moonbeam’s progressive socialist democrat wish to destroy private vehicles and force everyone into government-controlled mass transit – and, in some cases, move people into high-density inner city housing.

 

People should take this Wall Street Journal article seriously, starting with the concept of “paying by the mile” which is code for being taxed by the mile and monitored by the minute.

The Wall Street Journal: Private car ownership is on the road to becoming a rarity <Excerpts>

[My comments in bracketed blue italics.]

In 25 years, the only people owning cars will be hobbyists, hot rodders and Flat Earthers

Driverless cars, a dream since the mid-20th century, will soon become reality and ultimately commonplace — and can be counted on to accelerate the recent trend away from private automobile ownership.

The absurdity of our century-old, ad hoc approach to mobility is captured in one statistic: The utilization rate of automobiles in the U.S. is about 5%. For the remaining 95% of the time (23 hours), our cars just sit there, a slow, awful cash burn, like condos at the beach.

[Until you need personal vehicles in an emergency – to save your life or the lives of your family. To drive yourself to the emergency room when a limited number of ambulances are available and triaged to the most important events. To remove yourself from regional natural disasters or civil insurrection where the gangs are better armed than you and more than willing to take your life and possessions. And, then it seems like rather prudent, cost-effective insurance. The absurdity of the author’s contention can be easily proven. You use your alarm clock for only seconds during a day – does that mean you are willing to miss important appointments by discarding your alarm clock for a newer smart watch?

Perhaps the Wall Street Journal might take a look at those executive jets, helicopters, and limousines? Surely the TSA can provide security for high-powered executives?]

But what if, like condos, automobiles could be shared? It’s one of life’s first lessons—how to share toys, parents, rooms, feelings. But as little consumers grow into adults, they forget the joys of selflessness. That’s about to change. And I don’t mean the collaborative consumerism we see around us—peer-to-peer transportation like Uber—which is symbolic and transitional, lasting only until automation happens, at which point we can get rid of the wetware. And by wetware, I mean us.

[Sharing is great for the gatekeepers and toll-takers, not so much for the dynamic man in a hurry. “Wetware,” how cutesy is that, the author has adopted slang from the computer industry that describes the collective existence of users. To trust in automation is akin to hopping aboard the Disneyland Monorail – sold to everyone as a demonstration of the future of transportation, but which went nowhere in Southern California]

Within a generation, automobiles will be endowed with what’s known as Level 4 autonomy—full self-driving artificial intelligence for cars—which will not so much change the game as burn down the casino. Autonomy will make it possible for unmanned automobiles to be summoned, via app, to your location. And not just any passing tramp steamer, but exactly the vehicle you need for the occasion, cleaned and fueled, for as little or as long as you need (offers may vary in your state). When you’re done—poof!—it will go away.

[Pie in the sky similar to cloud services. It’s affordable, present when you need it, and it is not a fixed asset. Until the cloud vendor has a massive security breach when the system is hacked or the vendor of critical infrastructure goes bankrupt.]

You don’t pay for the car. You pay for the miles. And only the miles. It’s a whole new way to fly. Let’s start small. Need a pickup for three weekends a year but don’t want to pay for the other 49? Autonomy can make that happen easily without a visit to the dreaded U-Haul depot. Need a car to take mom to the doctor’s, or fetch a spouse from the airport? A decade hence, major auto makers and smaller players will be at each others’ throats for the privilege of sending consumers vehicles a la carte, for a one-way trip, an afternoon, a weekend, a month. These transactions will move through the glowing bowels of your monthly credit accounts, and you won’t even feel them.

[And this is what the are really selling. Government-regulated mobility of the population. Albeit a lazy and apathetic population that is willing to empower the government to implement the low-cost solution; unmindful and uncaring that things will change as the political will in this country changes. And, from what we have seen with President Obama, California Governor Jerry Brown, and there cadre of progressive socialist democrats along with their remora-like parasitical unions, the change will not be beneficial to “we the people.”]

Americans will look back on pre-autonomy like the age of Casio calculators and DOS prompts. Remember cab drivers? Remember traffic jams? Remember when parents lived in dread that their children would die in a car accident? Death and major injury from traffic accidents will drop drastically. The automobile’s other costs—decreased productivity, fuel burned in uncoordinated traffic—will be swept away. “Beyond the practical benefits, autonomous cars could contribute $1.3 trillion in annual savings to the U.S. economy alone,” wrote Ravi Shanker, a Morgan Stanley analyst covering the U.S. auto business. Global savings? Somewhere in the neighborhood of $5.6 trillion.

[All of the sales pitch of the socialist con-men: “safety,” “security,” and the ubiquitous, “it’s for the children.” Remember the over-charging cab cartels dominated by politically-connected wise guys? Remember the traffic jams created by the politicians who refused to build out the infrastructure in order to force us from our personal vehicles? (Yes, I am referring to California’s Governor Moonbeam and his union cronies.)]

These same benefits would return mobility to millions on the margins, including the elderly, the working poor and those who have lost their driving privileges due to a criminal record. (It’s not hard to see the throughline between autonomy and the hobbling economic effects of mass incarceration.)

[More socialist rhetoric. The poor, the disenfranchised, the elderly, AND THE CRIMINALS? Mass incarceration is when you are denied your freedom, in this case the freedom and mobility of a private vehicle. Perhaps we should be speaking of the mass incarceration of bigger government, higher taxes, and more rules and regulations.]

In August 2015, Morgan Stanley nearly doubled its price target for Tesla TSLA, -0.26%  , to $465 per share, based on an analysis of Tesla’s so-far secret shared-mobility plan. “We view this as a business opportunity,” wrote Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas, “[that could] more than triple the company’s potential revenues by 2029.” 

[Speaking of Elon Musk – how many people know that his ventures would be insolvent if not for the government’s grants, subsidies, and mandated usage? And, I like Elon Musk. Speculation by the politically-connected Wall Street Wizards who produce nothing but apocalyptic or rosy stories to encourage the volatility that facilitates profitable trading and market manipulation.]

At this point a fair reader might wonder if I have ever been to America. The notion that we as consumers will forgo the awesome pleasures of the automobile—the privilege, the mobility, the identity—to share vehicles is, I grant, unfamiliar.

But America’s much-sung-about love affair with the automobile has grown cold. Rates of motor-vehicle licensure are already plummeting among young Americans. The obligations and costs of transportation—an average 17% of household budgets—are driving them out of automobility altogether. And enthusiasm for automotive culture is waning too, as the empty seats at Nascar events attest.

[This is effing crazy. Of course, vehicle licensing has declined – as more and more illegal aliens drive without licenses and an aging population bubble forgoes vehicles for nursing home transportation. Nascar is a Southern phenomena and has little or nothing to do with the transportation needs of a nation. It is a sport, and just like most other entertainment, it is a niche market not a national market.]

Personal-vehicle ownership isn’t going away. Some people will own and cherish cars. But those people and their cars will be considered classics. Rates of ownership will decline, an artifact of an era of hyperprosperity and reckless glut. Twenty-five years from now, the only people still owning cars will be hobbyists, hot rodders and Flat Earth dissenters. Everyone else will be happy to share.

[More socialist rhetoric about income inequality, the excess of the rich, and the need to dial back our standard of living to embrace collective misery? Screw them.]

Source: Private car ownership is on the road to becoming a rarity - MarketWatch

Bottom line …

We are not living in the future and political corruption runs rampant in the land. Why cede greater control over your life in exchange for a little convenience. Once the government has their hooks into an ongoing revenue stream – it only gets worse as you feed the beast.

Unless you are a progressive socialist democrat, there is no future in being controlled by systems that respond to their true owners, the people who license the software and follow the government’s dictates.

Maintain your independence and your vehicle.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



IS THE CEO OF SAM'S CLUB A RACIST: PUTTING COLOR BEFORE COMPETENCE, SEX OVER SUBSTANCE?

rms

“Just today we met with a supplier and the entire other side of the table was all Caucasian males. That was interesting. I decided not to talk about it directly with [the supplier's] folks in the room because there were actually no female, like, levels down. So I'm going to place a call to him.
~Rosalind Brewer, CEO of Sam’s Club          <Source>

As the CEO of a division of a public corporation, it is her duty to provide leadership, manage sales, promote the brand, and secure salable goods at an attractive cost that ensures a profit. It is not to coerce vendors into supporting your personal political agenda.  

PAYBACK: Sam’s Club CEO Makes Anti-White Remarks, Instantly Learns Brutal Lesson About Racism

Rosalind Brewer, CEO of Sam’s Club, has come under fire for remarks she made in an interview with CNN recently about the diversity of the hiring process and condemnation of white males.

“It has to start with top leadership,” Brewer told CNN recently, according to Yahoo Finance. “My executive team is very diverse and I make that a priority. I demand it within my team.”

Basically, Brewer demands putting the color of a person’s skin over the quality of work someone can provide. That’s not only bad management; it’s racism.

“Just today we met with a supplier and the entire other side of the table was all Caucasian males,” she also said. “That was interesting. I decided not to talk about it directly with (the supplier’s) folks in the room because there were actually no females, like, levels down. So I’m going to place a call to him.”

So, Brewer is going to call the supplier’s CEO to discuss the lack of females representing his company; we call that sexism.

Upon the publication of these comments, thousands have called for a massive boycott of Sam’s Club. Twitter is going 100 miles a minute with tweets asking people to stop shopping there. Many people are waiting for some sort of corporate punishment, while some are curious to know why she hasn’t been fired already.

As Americans, we must be intolerant of racism and sexism elitists like Rosalind Brewer and allow every American — regardless of race or gender — to succeed or fail on the basis of his or her hard work, skills, experience and abilities.

Source: PAYBACK: Sam's Club CEO Makes Anti-White Remarks, Instantly Learns Brutal Lesson About Racism

Bottom line …

I am not calling for a boycott of Sam’s Club, but pointing out that a powerful corporation exerts a tremendous influence on a vendor and to use that power to coerce others into supporting your political, racial, or sexist agenda is not only immoral, but is ultimately destructive as color trumps competence, sex trumps substance, and unqualified personnel place the enterprise at risk.

If anything, Brewer should be counsels about leaving her personal causes at home and promoting the company’s interests.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



IS DR. DOUGLAS HOWELL QUALIFIED TO LEAD THE POCATELLO/CHUBBUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT?

If you are searching the name Douglas Howell, you may wish to ask why he lacks the ability to solve simple matters and whether or not this is the man you want to lead a school district? If you ask me whether or not he is qualified to lead the school district, I say, “apparently not.”

Here is a man with a good background, with over 23 years serving the school district as a teacher, coach, principal, and for the last nine years, the director of human resources. It is this last position that concerns me. Is this man so callous and hidebound as to sit idly by while his former department fires a cafeteria school worker over a $1.70 hot lunch provided to a hungry child? And, to charge the worker with  theft and for making inaccurate transactions.

As the interim superintendent, he lacks the certification to be the superintendent, he was graciously allowed by the board to complete his coursework for certification within a two-year period. And, he appears unwilling to intercede on the cafeteria worker’s behalf, telling the media, “it’s a personnel matter” and did not comment.

I say this man is unqualified to lead the district if he can’t resolve a simple personnel matter with a phone call … and deal with a now national story involving tens of thousands of people signing petitions.

dh

isj
Lunch lady fired for giving free lunch to hungry student

Last week, Dalene Bowden, a food service worker at Irving Middle School, was placed on leave after she gave a free hot lunch to a 12-year-old girl who said she was hungry and didn’t have any money.

Bowden has now received a registered letter from the Pocatello/Chubbuck School District informing her that she has been fired.

The brief, one-page letter was signed by District 25 Director of Human Resources Susan Petit. It states that Bowden was dismissed due to her theft of school district property and inaccurate transactions when ordering, receiving and serving food.


Bowden said she offered to pay for the $1.70 lunch, but her supervisor rejected her offer. And she was placed on termination leave last Tuesday pending a meeting with the District 25 School Board.

“I broke the rules, but I offered to pay for the meal and I don’t think I deserved to lose my job over it,” Bowden said.

Last week, Interim Superintendent Douglas Howell said District 25 works to make sure children who live in economically disadvantaged homes receive free or reduced hot lunches.

District 25 also participates in the Idaho Foodbank’s weekend backpack program that sends food items home with students in need each Friday.

Shelley Allen, spokeswoman for the district, said last week that students who exceed an $11 charge limit are provided something to eat, such as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and milk.

Parents are notified once the lunch bill reaches the $11 cutoff.

Bowden said if a child is over the credit limit, workers are supposed to take their tray away and dump it.

“I know I screwed up, but what are you supposed to do when the kid tells you that they’re hungry and they don’t have any money,” Bowden said. <Source>

Is this the way to treat children … or adults? It appears that the school district is employing people who lack common sense and have the compassion to deal with children.

Bottom line …

I anyone should lose their job, it is the interim superintendent who could have administratively stopped this brouhaha without urging from the national media. He has clearly demonstrated he lacks both commonsense and the ability to solve simple personnel issues that may pop up from time-to-time. Why fire the interim superintendent? Because he headed human resources for the past nine years and this is the type of idiotic, ineffective department he leaves. He has become a bureaucrat with a rule book and thus deserves little or no sympathy.

What a way to enter the holiday season.

-- steve 


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



CLIMATE CHANGE: NOAA IS ABOUT POLITICS AND NOT SCIENCE

Once again, we find that an agency of the United States government is making public announcements of major scientific impact, without honoring the time-tested scientific method of controlled skepticism. By publishing public statements without providing information on the scientific methodology, the data, and some insight into how the conclusions were developed; the scientific community cannot replicate, corroborate, or falsify the experiment, the findings, or the conclusions. Hence it is not science, even if it is published in a “peer-reviewed” journal. For the layman, “peer review” is a publishing process designed to prepare an author’s work for publication. The reviewers provide feedback on suitability, sufficiency, clarity, and completeness; they do not replicate an author’s work or express an opinion of on the author’s findings or conclusions. 

sky

Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal

Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)). The lawsuit sought the same documents unsuccessfully subpoenaed by a House committee.  Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress.

Judicial Watch sued the Department of Commerce after the agency failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on October 30, 2015 – NOAA is a component of the Department of Commerce.  The timeframe for the requested records is October 30, 2014, through October 30, 2015, and requests all documents and records of communications between NOAA officials, employees, and contractors regarding:

  • The methodology and utilization of night marine air temperatures to adjust ship and buoy temperature data;
  • The use of other global temperature datasets for both NOAA’s in-house dataset improvements and monthly press releases conveying information to the public about global temperatures;
  • The utilization and consideration of satellite bulk atmospheric temperature readings for use in global temperature datasets; and
  • A subpoena issued for the aforementioned information by Congressman Lamar Smith on October 13, 2015.

Judicial Watch is investigating how NOAA collects and disseminates climate data that is used in determining global climate change. NOAA collects data in thousands of ways – from temperature gauges on land and buoys at sea, to satellites orbiting Earth.  Considered the “environmental intelligence agency,” NOAA is the nation’s leading collector of climate data.  In July, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) asked NOAA for both data and internal communications related to a controversial climate change study.  After the agency refused to comply with the document request, Smith’s committee issued a subpoena on October 13According to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee:

In June, NOAA widely publicized a study as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in climate change. After three letters requesting all communications from the agency surrounding the role of political appointees in the agency’s scientific process, Chairman Smith issued a subpoena for the information. Smith subsequently sent a letter on December 1st offering to accept documents and communications from NOAA political, policy and non-scientific staff as a first step in satisfying the subpoena requirements.

Information provided to the Committee by whistleblowers appears to show that the study was rushed to publication despite the concerns and objections of a number of NOAA employees.

Judicial Watch sued the agency on December 2 and served the complaint on the agency on December 8.  Less than a week later, on Tuesday, December 15, NOAA finally began to turn over documents to the House committee.  That same day, NOAA called and told Judicial Watch that it would begin searching for documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

On November 26, Smith published an opinion editorial in The Washington Times, which accused NOAA of tampering with data to help promote global warming alarmism:

NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.

Judicial Watch previously investigated alleged data manipulation by global warming advocates in the Obama administration.  In 2010, Judicial Watch obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

Source: Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal

Bottom line …

Before Congress or any agency makes public policy based on science – especially if those policies promote a political agenda of larger government, higher taxes, more restrictive rules and regulations, higher costs, reduced standard of living, and restrictions on individual freedom and liberties, then we must demand that the science be clear, unambiguous, and clearly not refutable by reputable scientists. If any experiment, finding, or conclusion has been falsified, it should be rendered null and void for the purpose of arguing public policies.

There is no doubt that President Obama’s “czars” have side-stepped Congress and have placed unelected and unvetted individuals in places of power and responsibility. Unfortunately, their loyalties are to the administration rather than to the Constitution, our nation, or our fellow citizens.

Beware of what you are told. The output of incomplete or falsified computer models using suspect and dodgy data, does not produce facts – it produces talking points for the political class and their mainstream media talking heads.

Unless we can control political corruption and cronyism … we are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



DEMOCRATS: FORGET HILLARY CLINTON, WRITE IN YOUR VOTE FOR FRANK UNDERWOOD ...

Want to vote for a progressive socialist democrat, a corrupt, lying scumbag? …

No, not Hillary Clinton – although she is all of those things too – Frank Underwood!

Yes, Frank Underwood …

  • He can fake sincerity.
  • He can seamlessly read the words written by others and spin tested by focus groups in a TelePrompTer.
  • He will say anything or do anything to be elected.
  • And, he has integrity: when bought by the special interests, he stays bought.

fu

But seriously folks …

HTLC

Bottom line …

Just because Hillary gave back things she stole from the White House, doesn’t make her innocent of theft.

Just because Hillary tells the same lies over and over again, does not make them true.

And, just because “the bribe money” went to her non-profit foundation, does not make her not guilty of selling her office and selling out the American people.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



MUSIC: AUSSIE TAKE-DOWN OF ISLAMIC WANKERS ...

Another musical opinion on Islam …

Bottom line …

Many a truth is told in jest, and many a song sets the subject to rest.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



IRAN-CONTRA II -- DID BARACK OBAMA AUTHORIZE HILLARY CLINTON AND THE CIA TO RUN GUNS OUT OF BENGHAZI, LIBYA?

HTLC

It appears that President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice all deliberately lied about the terrorist attack in Benghazi being a spontaneous uprising caused by an obscure, little-seen video. In the following months, there was no explanation of why we had a lightly-protected compound in a known hot-zone and why Ambassador Stevens was present and meeting with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin.

It is widely believed by the pundits that this deception over the 9/11 anniversary attack in Benghazi was to avoid highlighting the broader diplomatic failures and al Qaeda terrorist activities in Libya in the run-up to President Obama’s re-election bid.

But, could there be an alternate explanation. That the CIA/State Department covert operations were unsanctioned by Congress and did not have a presidential finding – so as to be an illegal act, punishable by criminal penalties such as those meted out to Iran-Contra participants? 

Or, did Hillary go rogue and do a deal with the CIA?

What a respected military/intelligence reporter is saying …

Military to Military: Seymour M. Hersh on US intelligence sharing in the Syrian war <Excepts>

In July 2013, the Joint Chiefs found a more direct way of demonstrating to Assad how serious they were about helping him. By then the CIA-sponsored secret flow of arms from Libya to the Syrian opposition, via Turkey, had been underway for more than a year (it started sometime after Gaddafi’s death on 20 October 2011). The operation was largely run out of a covert CIA annex in Benghazi, with State Department acquiescence. On 11 September 2012 the US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed during an anti-American demonstration that led to the burning down of the US consulate in Benghazi; reporters for the Washington Post found copies of the ambassador’s schedule in the building’s ruins. It showed that on 10 September Stevens had met with the chief of the CIA’s annex operation. The next day, shortly before he died, he met a representative from Al-Marfa Shipping and Maritime Services, a Tripoli-based company which, the JCS adviser said, was known by the Joint Staff to be handling the weapons shipments.

Barack Obama’s repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office – and that there are ‘moderate’ rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him – has in recent years provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff. Their criticism has focused on what they see as the administration’s fixation on Assad’s primary ally, Vladimir Putin. In their view, Obama is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China, and hasn’t adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both countries share Washington’s anxiety about the spread of terrorism in and beyond Syria; like Washington, they believe that Islamic State must be stopped.

The military’s resistance dates back to the summer of 2013, when a highly classified assessment, put together by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then led by General Martin Dempsey, forecast that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to chaos and, potentially, to Syria’s takeover by jihadi extremists, much as was then happening in Libya. A former senior adviser to the Joint Chiefs told me that the document was an ‘all-source’ appraisal, drawing on information from signals, satellite and human intelligence, and took a dim view of the Obama administration’s insistence on continuing to finance and arm the so-called moderate rebel groups. By then, the CIA had been conspiring for more than a year with allies in the UK, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to ship guns and goods – to be used for the overthrow of Assad – from Libya, via Turkey, into Syria. The new intelligence estimate singled out Turkey as a major impediment to Obama’s Syria policy. The document showed, the adviser said, ‘that what was started as a covert US programme to arm and support the moderate rebels fighting Assad had been co-opted by Turkey, and had morphed into an across-the-board technical, arms and logistical programme for all of the opposition, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State. The so-called moderates had evaporated and the Free Syrian Army was a rump group stationed at an airbase in Turkey.’ The assessment was bleak: there was no viable ‘moderate’ opposition to Assad, and the US was arming extremists.

Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in control of the opposition. Turkey wasn’t doing enough to stop the smuggling of foreign fighters and weapons across the border. ‘If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic,’ Flynn told me. ‘We understood Isis’s long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State inside Syria.’ The DIA’s reporting, he said, ‘got enormous pushback’ from the Obama administration. ‘I felt that they did not want to hear the truth.’

‘Our policy of arming the opposition to Assad was unsuccessful and actually having a negative impact,’ the former JCS adviser said. ‘The Joint Chiefs believed that Assad should not be replaced by fundamentalists. The administration’s policy was contradictory. They wanted Assad to go but the opposition was dominated by extremists. So who was going to replace him? To say Assad’s got to go is fine, but if you follow that through – therefore anyone is better. It’s the “anybody else is better” issue that the JCS had with Obama’s policy.’ The Joint Chiefs felt that a direct challenge to Obama’s policy would have ‘had a zero chance of success’. So in the autumn of 2013 they decided to take steps against the extremists without going through political channels, by providing US intelligence to the militaries of other nations, on the understanding that it would be passed on to the Syrian army and used against the common enemy, Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State.

The military’s indirect pathway to Assad disappeared with Dempsey’s retirement in September. His replacement as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Joseph Dunford, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in July, two months before assuming office. ‘If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I’d have to point to Russia,’ Dunford said. ‘If you look at their behaviour, it’s nothing short of alarming.’ In October, as chairman, Dunford dismissed the Russian bombing efforts in Syria, telling the same committee that Russia ‘is not fighting’ IS. He added that America must ‘work with Turkish partners to secure the northern border of Syria’ and ‘do all we can to enable vetted Syrian opposition forces’ – i.e. the ‘moderates’ – to fight the extremists.

Obama now has a more compliant Pentagon. There will be no more indirect challenges from the military leadership to his policy of disdain for Assad and support for Erdoğan. Dempsey and his associates remain mystified by Obama’s continued public defence of Erdoğan, given the American intelligence community’s strong case against him – and the evidence that Obama, in private, accepts that case. ‘We know what you’re doing with the radicals in Syria,’ the president told Erdoğan’s intelligence chief at a tense meeting at the White House (as I reported in the LRB of 17 April 2014). The Joint Chiefs and the DIA were constantly telling Washington’s leadership of the jihadist threat in Syria, and of Turkey’s support for it. The message was never listened to. Why not?

Source: Seymour M. Hersh · Military to Military: US intelligence sharing in the Syrian war · LRB 7 January 2016

Some have suggested that Turkey was complicit in the 9/11 attack, but the U.S. has too much invested to bring about sanctions …

Exclusive: Did Turkey Play a Role in Benghazi Attack?

If reporting from the Washington Times is accurate, it looks like the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin was in on the plot to attack the U.S. mission in Benghazi. According to an October 27, 2012 report, Libyan witnesses from the Benghazi neighborhood where the U.S. compound was located told reporters from the Associated Press (AP) that “150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants began sealing off the streets” leading to the facility “around nightfall.”

The Department of State “Background Briefing on Libya,” provided by telephone to reporters on October 9, 2012 states that Ambassador Christopher Stevens held his last meeting of the day on September 11 with the Turkish diplomat from 7:30pm to 8:30pm and then escorted him out to the compound gate to bid farewell. At that point, the briefing states, “Everything is calm at 8:30 p.m. There’s nothing unusual.”

But the AP witnesses said that, “The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints around the compound at about 8 p.m.” The checkpoints were described as being manned by bearded jihadis in pickup trucks mounted with heavy machine guns and bearing the logo of the Al-Qaeda terror franchise, Ansar al-Shariah.

That means that the Turkish Consul General would have had to pass out through the blockade as he departed the American compound and left the area. There is no record that he phoned a warning to his American colleague, the one he’d just had dinner with, Ambassador Stevens. Given the description of the blockade around the American compound and of the jihadis and their trucks that were manning it, it seems unlikely that the he somehow just failed to notice. “[N]o one could get out or in,” according to one neighbor interviewed by the AP.

<Source>

Bottom line …

Is it possible that President Barack Obama, ever the community organizer bent on promoting a socialist agenda, outsourced the war on terror to total incompetents like Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Jake Sullivan, Hillary Clinton, and others who so bungled foreign policy as to bring about the birth of ISIS and exacerbated international terrorism?

Is it possible that Hillary Clinton and her posse is guilty of more than just obstruction of justice, but being complicit in an illegal operation that could bring criminal sanctions?

Could this be another Iran-Contra type scandal where someone, possibly Hillary Clinton and others, did something akin to what Marine Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North did when he transferred weapons to Iran in an effort to help fund rebels?”

North was tried in 1988. He was indicted on 16 felony counts, and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and ordering the destruction of documents through his secretary, Fawn Hall. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours of community service. North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony. <Source>

Sort of sounds like Hillary – and a great reason she did not want her official email traffic captured and reviewed by the State Department or members of Congress with oversight obligations.

HILARY SHOULD BE UNELECTABLE, BUT THERE SHE IS … WITH THE FULL SUPPORT OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. NOW WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

We are so screwed.

-- steve 


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



OBAMA CRAZINESS: RESTRICTING TERRORISTS MAY VIOLATE IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT

jackie

Stephen Mull, the career foreign service officer that serves as the United States’ Lead Coordinator for Iran Nuclear Implementation, has warned members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that congressional efforts to restrict visas to curtail terrorist’s access to the United States “could have a very negative impact on the deal.” Mull appears to be speaking about congressional reform of the visa waiver program so that individuals who have traveled to Iran would not be eligible for automatic visas and would receive additional scrutiny.

Visa waiver reform efforts include “a naming of Iran such that individuals who have travelled to Iran will no loner be eligible for the visa waiver program,” Murphy said. “There has been a suggestion because there is an element of the agreement that obligates us to not to take steps that would stop economic relations between other nations and Iran that we could perhaps be in jeopardy of breaching the agreement.”

Representative Chris Murphy (D-CT) has claimed, “There has been a suggestion because there is an element of the agreement that obligates us to not to take steps that would stop economic relations between other nations and Iran that we could perhaps be in jeopardy of breaching the agreement.” And, Mull apparently agreed, stating ““I have heard from very senior, and Secretary Kerry has as well, from very senior officials of differing European allies of ours that it could have a very negative impact on the deal.”

Mull is one of the good guys in a very difficult position. A career diplomat with a good record who is unfortunately directed by incompetents such as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and a cadre of elitist useful idiots.

If it were up to me, there would be no travel to or from Iran as long as the Mullahs keep chanting Death to America and sponsor worldwide terrorism.

Bottom line …

President Obama and his cadre of progressive socialist democrats will do or say anything to keep Obama’s signature foreign policy alive to validate the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded without any significant accomplishment in foreign relations or foreign policy. The biased socialists on the Committee that awarded Obama the prize have been removed.

Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama in 2009 failed to achieve what the committee hoped it would, its ex-secretary has said. Geir Lundestad told the AP news agency that the committee hoped the award would strengthen Mr Obama.

Instead, the decision was met with criticism in the US. Many argued he had not had any impact worthy of the award. Mr. Lundestad, writing in his memoir, Secretary of Peace, said even Mr Obama himself had been surprised. "No Nobel Peace Prize ever elicited more attention than the 2009 prize to Barack Obama," Mr Lundestad writes. "Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake," he says. "In that sense the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for". <Source>

It is widely known that Secretary of State will do or say anything to get his Nobel Peace Prize. And, apparently compromising the United States or its key allies, especially Israel, is of little concern. Kerry has a blemished record when it comes to earning and receiving awards. many believing that his service medals were unearned and Kerry disrespected U.S. forces when he claimed Americans were guilty of atrocities and war crimes.

When is Congress, especially the Republicans in the House and Senate, going to tell Obama when to step off. He should have been impeached long ago and if it wasn’t for party, his skin color, and Joe Biden as his Vice President, he would have been long gone. Along with his traveling freak show of incompetent and corrupt surrogates.

To even consider Hillary Clinton’s nomination for the Presidency is an abomination.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE

What  you need to know about climate change …

  • Nobody denies that the Earth has been slowly warming in an inter-glacial period since emerging from the Little Ice Age. What is at dispute is: one, the degree of warming since there are serious questions about the accuracy of datasets and the discrepancy between satellite measurements and ground-based measurements; two, measuring man’s contribution to the climate signal against the background noise of climate’s natural variability; and three, whether or not the global warming hypothesis as developed with incomplete computer models comports with the manipulated observational data to reasonably allow for conclusions to drive public policies.
  • That the entire activist/agitator regime is driven by politics and money rather than science. The United Nation’s IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) is a political body, not a scientific body, that uses “selected” scientific data to promote its political and financial agenda. And, more importantly, the charter of the IPCC is not to examine the entirety of global climate change, but only that portion of global climate change that is attributable to man (Anthropomorphic Global Warming).
  • That the science of global climate change has been corrupted and biased by the political agenda of the government sponsors of research. That is, institutions, projects, and personnel who are most likely to support the popular viewpoint of global warming are more likely to be funded than those who set out to replicate existing work to confirm or falsify published results.
  • That the Earth has been hotter, colder, with more atmospheric carbon dioxide and less atmospheric carbon dioxide, and all before the industrial revolution and the increase in the use of fossil fuels in increasing industrialization.
  • That the most likely gross drivers of climate change can not be affected by man’s efforts. (The Sun’s energy output in all spectral bands, cosmic ray production, behavior of the magnetosphere, the Earth’s orbital dynamics and position relative to the Sun, the Earth’s precessional and rotational dynamics, the Earth’s vulcanology and plate tectonics, the behavior of the deep ocean currents, and the greatest greenhouse gas –water vapor.)
  • That the range of temperature fluctuation is relatively small +/- 1.8 degrees Celsius, and that these fluctuations appear to be normal and customary are nature regresses to a mean value. It should also be noted that some degree of warming and higher atmospheric carbon dioxide is preferential and beneficial to man than a colder climate with less atmospheric carbon dioxide.
  • It appears that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide lags the rise in temperature; therefore it cannot be causal, and can be explained as the outgassing of dissolved oceanic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the ocean warms.

 

 Some interesting points to consider …

  • Scaling and Presentation  

Even the charts used by climate-change deniers show that temperatures are getting warmer

Temperature anomalies since 1880 show Earth getting hotter.

t-1

Source: 2015 charts, statistics on global temperatures, climate change

Notice that the scaling (-0.0 degrees C to +0.8 degrees C) is a very small range made more dramatic by the scale used to display the data. And, notice that the temperature is given as an anomaly, its deviation from an infinitesimally short baseline of 30 years which is ludicrous when you see climate cycles in hundreds, thousands, and millions of years.

  • Data Manipulation: Garbage in – Garbage Out …

NOAA Relies On ‘Compromised’ Thermometers That Inflate US Warming Trend

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s reliance on poorly-sited weather stations to calculate surface temperatures is inflating the warming trend of the U.S. and maybe even the rest of the world, according to a landmark study looking at three decades of data.

“The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts,” Anthony Watts, a seasoned meteorologist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Thursday.

These “compromised” weather stations run hotter than stations that are well-sited, and are used by NOAA as a benchmark to make upward adjustments for other weather stations that are part of the agency’s official temperature record.

Watts and his fellow researchers found only 410 “unperturbed” weather stations out of the 1,218 stations used by NOAA to determine U.S. climate trends. These “unperturbed” stations don’t need to be adjusted by NOAA because they had not been moved, had any equipment changes, or change in the time temperatures were observed.

Watts found well-sited stations show significantly less warming than poorly-sited stations from 1979 to 2008 — the time period was chosen in order to respond to NOAA papers from 2009 and 2010 justifying its weather station adjustments. Now, Watts has years of evidence showing NOAA is relying on shoddy weather stations to make its temperature adjustments.

What’s more troubling, is that similar siting problems have been observed at weather stations around the world, meaning the global warming present in the surface temperature record may be overblown. Watts’ study comes after NOAA published a June study making further adjustments to temperature data and purported to eliminate the “hiatus” in global warming.

Watts’ new paper casts more doubt on NOAA’s temperature adjustments — which always seem to increase the warming trend. Correcting for these poorly-sited stations could also bring surface warming trends more in line with observations from satellites, which show no statistically significant warming for about two decades.

“We believe the NOAA/NCDC homogenization adjustment causes well sited stations to be adjusted upwards to match the trends of poorly sited stations,” according to Watts’ study. “The data suggests that the divergence between well and poorly sited stations is gradual, not a result of spurious step change due to poor metadata.”

Watts says the warming trend at well-sited stations was “found to be collectively about 2/3 as large as U.S. trends estimated in the classes with greater expected artificial impact.” NOAA data adjustments greatly reduce those differences but produce trends that are more consistent with the stations with greater expected artificial impact.”

NOAA has come under fire in recent months for “homogenizing” the temperature data, a process used by scientists to correct for biases in the data. Scientists go in and either ratchet up or down temperatures from thermometers up or down based on things like changes in the time of day temperatures are observed, the equipment used to take readings, or changes in the actual locations of thermometers. NOAA has defended its data adjustments are necessary to get more accurate data.

Source: NOAA’s ‘Compromised’ Thermometers Inflate U.S. Warming Trend

This is the data used for input into the various climate models that do not appear to agree with the homogenized observed historical results.

CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT

  • The sad truth about climate mitigation: it’s all for show and dough…   

John Kerry’s Surprising Comments on International Regulations and Climate Change

Although he probably didn’t mean to, Secretary of State John Kerry made a compelling case for why the U.S. and other countries should not go down the path of shutting down coal-fired plants, raising energy prices and stunting economic growth to combat global warming.

Speaking in Paris, Kerry said:

The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions – remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions – it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.

He’s exactly right. Paul Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels estimate that the climate regulations the Obama administration are imposing on the energy sector – costs that will be passed down to households – will avert a meager 0.018 degree Celsius of warming by the year 2100.

In fact, the U.S. could cut 100 percent of its CO2 emissions and it would not make a difference in global warming.

Using the same climate sensitivity modeling as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world would only be 0.137 degree C cooler by 2100. What’s worse is that if you included100 percent cuts from the entire industrialized world in their modeling, then you would only avert warming by 0.278 degree C by the turn of the century.

Source: John Kerry's Surprising Comments on International Regulations and Climate Change

There it is folks. An admission that the billions American consumers will be forced to pay to the government to mitigate climate change will be squandered on public policies that drive a political agenda and do absolutely nothing to affect the global climate change.

Bottom line …

Global climate change may be real, but the scientific underpinning for public policies is disingenuous and dishonest. King Canute conclusively demonstrated that he could not stop the tides, and President Obama’s corrupt public policies cannot alter the climate in an measurable manner.

It is all a political scam based on political power and money – and the promotion of international socialism/totalitarianism on the world stage.

The science has been corrupted by those who excoriate and demonize so-called climate “deniers” while conveniently overlooking the FACT that the scientific method is one of controlled skepticism. Where one puts forth an hypothesis, conducts experiments, publishes their findings along with the data and programming sufficient for other scientists to replicate, refute, and falsify. That science is not conducted by consensus, counting scientific papers is not doing science, and the output of computer models is not FACT. And, that “peer review” is a publishing process to correct pre-publication frauds and errors, and not a confirmation of the author’s scientific method, findings, or conclusions.

Before we use science to justify public policy, we need to eliminate the corruption in both politics and climate science.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



WHY SHOULD ANYONE TRUST THEIR REPRESENTATIVES WHEN THEY DON'T READ OR UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON?

Forget outright political corruption, how about political incompetence and malfeasance …

(1) Hyper-technical referential language that is impossible to read without looking at other legislative references.

(2) Overlong and complicated bills running to thousands of pages that makes reading and comprehension almost impossible.

(3) Unintended consequences arising from amendments, technical corrections, and legal opinions.

(4)  Waiting until the last minute to push through legislation even though spending bills can be calendared like all other reoccurring events.

(5)   Brinksmanship: Democrats daring to shutdown the government or promising a presidential veto to to coerce compromise and capitulation.

Playing to the crowd …  

Conservatives ‘Shocked’ by Change to Immigration Law Tucked Inside Spending Bill

House conservatives are up in arms over a provision in the omnibus spending bill that could allow more than a quarter-million temporary guest workers into the U.S.  

As a significant change to immigration law, the measure stunned conservative lawmakers, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told The Daily Signal.

“It came out of nowhere, completely out of nowhere,” Jordan, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, said, “[and] everyone was shocked there was a change and no one had talked about it.”

The provision is the most recent aspect of the $1.1-trillion package to rile conservatives. Congress hopes to pass the omnibus by Friday, before heading home for the holidays.

Tucked into the 2,009-page spending bill, the measure would increase the current federal caps on H-2B visas for low-skilled foreign workers seeking blue-collar jobs in the U.S.

The provision would quadruple the number of foreign workers allowed annually from 66,000 to 264,000.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in courting conservatives just weeks ago in the speaker race, promised he wouldn’t push immigration changes while a Democrat is in the White House.

Read more at: Conservatives ‘Shocked’ by Change to Immigration Law Tucked Inside Spending Bill

Just like Captain Renault in Casablanca:  I’m shocked

Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]

Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.

[aloud]

Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!

Pelosi’s “big lie” letter to her cadre of progressive socialist democrats …

logo-white

December 17, 2015

Dear Democratic Colleague,

As Members of our Caucus continue to review the Omnibus bill, I write to urge support for the legislation.

First, I commend our appropriators, led by our outstanding Ranking Member Nita Lowey, for their strong, principled leadership for hard-working families in these tough negotiations.

The Appropriations Committee Members developed the legislation in bipartisan sessions, with some issues referred to the House and Senate Appropriations Chairs and Ranking Members. The remaining controversial measures were negotiated by Leadership staff with input from our Members. Contrary to tradition, there was never a meeting of the four House and Senate Leaders on the Omnibus.

Personally, I was dismayed by Republicans’ insistence on lifting the oil export ban in the Omnibus. However, Republicans’ desperate thirst for lifting the oil export ban empowered Democrats to win significant concessions throughout the Omnibus, including ridding the bill of scores of deeply destructive poison pill riders.

I commend to your attention a letter from our Appropriations Ranking Members detailing Democrats’ sweeping successes for America’s working families in the Omnibus, enclosed here.

Furthermore, while lifting the oil export ban remains atrocious policy, the wind and solar tax credits in the Omnibus will eliminate around ten times more carbon pollution than the exports of oil will add.

For myself, after long and serious study of the bill’s details, I concluded that while I detest lifting the oil export ban, I will not empower Big Oil to upend so many victories for hard-working American families.

As you pray and think over this decision, I hope you will join in making these critical achievements a reality for the American people.

Thank you for your leadership and friendship.

Best regards,

<Source>

Bottom line …

Political theatre of the absurd played by poltroons who are afraid of losing the cushy positions with profits, prestige, perks and privileges. They are not afraid of their constituents or the voters, they are afraid of their party’s leadership, the special interests that fund their campaigns, and the media who might shed light on their more nefarious activities.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell