Look over there!

All this fuss about fixing immigration.  Why the rush?  Was something about to expire?  Were masses of illegal immigrants about to be shipped back over the border in a week, in Nazi cattle cars?  No, other than politics there was no pressing need to do anything about a problem that the president himself hasn't put that much effort into for six years and one he only recently said wasn't even possible to fix from the White House.

But it's a big story, and other things aren't.  Other stuff they'd rather not talk about.

Like having their butts whipped, for one.  And others.  But give these guys credit, they know how to make things an issue and whip up the stuff they want to discuss, not the bad stuff. The best defense is a good offense, and it's a good political strategy as long as there's a willing press to help.

Oddly enough, the notion of going on offense in a defensive setting is written all over the recent email release regarding Fast and Furious the DOJ was just forced to FOIA out to Judicial Watch.  Their communications slap dashers made it clear they were bothered by former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson for being a crack reporter and were focused on getting their boss in front of more 'reasonable' reporters to help him explain to the American grubers what he didn't know and when he didn't know it.

But is anyone in the media reporting about this release or what it might mean to press freedoms or what it might say about their role with this administration?  Only the right leaning bloggers, pretty much.

How about Iran?   The president is on record numerous times saying that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be a "game-changer" and that he will not allow them to acquire a nukular weapon on his watch.   But we are only 2 days away from the extended deadline (the first one passed almost unnoticed) in the almost invisible "P5+1" talks designed to get the Ayatollahs to stop making said nuke.

Should this deadline pass (and there has been almost no reportage about it) our country will be right back to square one with Iran, except the sanctions will be lower because the president relaxed them to induce a deal.  So they would have to be revamped.  Or, we would have to start bombing because after all, the administration has never formally taken the military option off the table. Yes, that was a serious comment.

Surely John Kerry will finagle another extension by maybe lowering more sanctions, but won't that signal extreme weakness on our part?  Will anyone on the Sunday Shows mention the fallout from another feckless red line issued by America?

And if the Ferguson, MO Grand Jury decision is released on Sunday as some predict, that's it.  Hell, they could announce an agreement to fund Iran's nuke program and provide Hizballah with Fast and Furious guns and nobody would notice. 

Speaking of South Asia, there are reports the DoD paid a phony ransom to some Afghan terror con man thinking they were going to get Private-Sgt Bowe Bergdahl in return.  They deny it of course, because we don't pay ransoms otherwise we would have paid to not have our folks lose their heads, but they only deny it insofar as calling it a ransom.  Hey look over there, it's 10 feet of snow in Buffalo!  

How about Obamacare?  The HHS just came out yesterday and admitted their enrollment numbers were pretty much bullcrap. Overestimated by almost a half a million.   In other words, more empty words.  Almost no mainstream media outlets are covering it.

And now mysteriously, on a Friday evening before the coming riots, some of Lois Lerner's emails have been found.
 
Let's face it, this administration knows how to play the GOP.  The media helps. Obama's unambiguous but nakedly political declarations made before the mid-terms that he couldn't legally and constitutionally do what he just did would sink any other president, but not this one.  And that makes the GOP even madder and more frustrated. That gives skilled politicians like Obama a huge advantage.

The recent mass shooter at Florida State is yet another example of this bias--since he was black and was known to recite scripture while referencing Black Panther figures the story is pretty much over now, at least from a marketable aspect to bash the Tea Party or "gun nuts" or paranoid wingers thinking the government is out to get them, or something else for Obama to yell "pass a bill" about.  Nothing to see, move along, over here, to this nice immigration story about the nice president who cares about everything more than anyone and the courageous struggling workers changing "yes we can" against those evil xenophobes who don't know their butts from a broomstick when it comes to this kind of trench warfare.  

MORE  11/22/14

Add this one to the other things going on list..

President Barack Obama has quietly approved guidelines in recent weeks to allow the Pentagon to target Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, broadening previous plans that had limited the military to counterterrorism missions against al-Qaida after this year, U.S. officials said late Friday.

Part of ending the war responsibly, no doubt. And of course, this was in the works for a year despite nobody being told about it.

Anyway, back to immigration. Where is the Executive Order? Obama was photographed signing something on AF1 yesterday, but what was it? According to the various sites showing presidential EOs there are no recent orders. The WH is calling these things 'actions', ie, Executive Actions, which NPR almost seems curious about while saying that actions hold far less legal weight than orders. And if he signed something on the plane that means there was no EO signing ceremony, odd for such an historic move (yes there are signing ceremonies for EO, which the NPR link shows).

Immigration Two-Step

As the nation holds its collective breath over what the Emperor-in-Chief plans to do with illegal immigration, some context should be noted.   

Obama's many admissions that he couldn't simply put on a king's hat and change laws by himself is being cited as a reason he can't actually change things now because after all, he was a constitutional scholar.  And he said so.  So he should know.  Even the NY Times has noticed the inconsistencies.  But he was almost surely lying again.

The Dream Act executive action was precedent--illegal aliens were granted a reprieve from prosecution and given perks.  Other previous quasi or direct amnesties via EOs by Republican presidents are also precedent, as pointed out by the Democrats.  It can be done.  It's been done.  Obama knew he could gift the Dreamers' parents with their own 'deferred action' whenever he wanted to, without causing a constitutional crisis.

So why didn't he?  Naked politics.  

He needed the Blue Dog Senators to win their mid-term 2014 elections and keep the Senate blue.  Many voters in those blue dog states oppose immigration reform so when talking to immigration/Hispanic groups, who always pleaded with him to just use his pen, he pretended his hands were tied by the Constitution and blamed the GOP for not signing a bill.  This was designed to hold them off until after the election. 

The politics worked both ways. In 2013 Boehner was stringing Obama along on whether the GOP House might take up the Senate bill or make some new attempts, leaving the door open.  Then he closed it.  But immigration groups were madder at Obama because after all, he's had the chance to do reform as early as 2009 (as he had promised) and did not, so once again he was putting off the Hispanic lobby.

The mid-term shellacking results make it appear his ploy didn't work--they lost the Senate anyway (with many candidates winning by opposing blanket reform).  But maybe it didn't need to. 

The president has certainly realized there is a very good chance that Boehner and McConnell can simply stall any immigration bills until 2016, leaving reform for the next president's legacy and leaving Obama and perhaps the Democratic Party shut out.  What to do!?

Well, he did what he always does--announce that a blue ribbon panel of experts has been tasked with studying the legal issue so when he takes executive action it will be legal and proper..  In other words, Obama 2013 was wrong--a blue ribbon commission says so.  But Obama 2014 doesn't have to win anymore elections.  The embarrassment of a constitutional scholar being wrong about such a plain vanilla issue will mostly be short-term, trading it for a long-term legacy gain and a divided and angry GOP.  What's to lose? 

Besides, the ruse is ensured because the same liberal media who haven't been interested in exposing any lies or scandals since 2009 (that of Candy Crowley fame) are not about to change horses now.  They will point out a few inconsistencies here and there but will be more than happy to divert their full attention to covering the GOP 'melt-down' or 'temper tantrum' or whatever else results from Obama's 'courageous' humane action right before Thanksgiving, etc. etc.   The GOP caucus is going to have to get real creative, real soon.

MORE  11/19/14

Here's what the White House is counting on after this is announced...

It will be demagogued to death, with the hopes of painting the GOP as a wild pack of racist xenophobes. They will push the impeachment button over and over--they being the Democrats. Anything to besmirch the recent shellacking. They are craven.

MORE 11/19/14

The AP telegraphs how they are going to cover this--from the human side, complete with fabrications about the GOP's intent. Danger, Will Robinson, it's a trap. The electorate that voted-in the GOP majority are those who pay attention--the ones who didn't bother to vote are a Gruber-like wave in the making for 2016. Those are the ones Obama2014 is trying to rile up with actions that Obama2013 said were unethical and unconstitutional.

ISIS fighters in Mexico and Maloof

The WaPo's fact checker Glenn Kessler gives the recently hyped reports about ISIS-linked fighters being captured at the Mexican border, specifically claims by Arkansas congressman Tom Cotton, four Pinocchios:

As we’ve noted, just because something is on the Internet doesn’t mean it’s true. As a lawmaker, Cotton needs to be careful about making inflammatory statements based on such flimsy evidence. At the very least, he needs to expand on his sources of information. He earns Four Pinnochios for trying to turn idle speculation into hard facts.

In doing so Kessler mentions a World Net Daily article by Michael Maloof as contributing to the hysteria, reminding the readers that Maloof was a Neocon working for Doug Feith to find a link between AQ and Iraq immediately after 9/11.  He ended up getting his clearance pulled for associating with a Lebanese-American gun runner involved with arming former Liberian strongman president Charles Taylor:

The whole thing seems to have started with a highly speculative account on July 4 in WND, labeled an “exclusive” and titled: “New Border Risk: ISIS Ties to Mexican Drug Lords.” (ISIS and ISIL are other names for Islamic State.) The article quoted Michael Maloof, who it described as a former “top Defense Department analyst” and “expert on the Middle East...”Who is Michael Maloof? He gained notoriety in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as one of the key people involved in a DOD intelligence effort to demonstrate that Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaeda and was likely to provide weapons of mass destruction to terror groups.

In other words, he's probably a boogeyman spreading more false info on Iraq.  What Kessler could not do is actually refute the ground reports evidently originating with actual Border Patrol agents (who have not been identified and likely will not be), but since US officials with security agencies say it ain't so, it ain't so.  As a result these congressmen will not likely be vindicated anytime soon.

Whether this is hype or truth is still not settled.  Secretary Johnson was not completely candid when first asked about the four 'terrorists' who were busted on 9/10 at the border--they have now been identified as PKK Kurds, with much emphasis on their stance against ISIS.  Kessler could have activated his James Comey spidey sense regards government truth and pointed to the obfuscation coming from some of these same type of officials after Border Agents told Breitbart that illegal aliens were being allowed to use "notice to appear" papers as valid ID to fly commercially (at taxpayer expense), a story later verified.

But while researching the evil Neocon Michael Maloof, a man who helped lead us down the primrose path to the dumb war, some interesting stories popped up.  Keep in mind Mr. Maloof was not front and center at the Office of Special Plans back in the day--that honor went to Douglas Feith, Stephen Cambone and Rummy.  Maloof and his partner in research (one has to be careful using the singular word partner anymore) David Wurmser worked under the radar for the most part.  In 2006 PBS Frontline interviewed Maloof, who said the intelligence had always pointed more to a nexus between AQ and other terror groups and certain Islamic states, including Iraq, than it did to Saddam having WMDs. Matter of fact, he called into question the 2002 NIE, which talked about the threat of Iraqi WMDs:

Tell me about the NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] in October of 2002. Was it flawed?

I thought it was flawed. It basically talked about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I just didn't see it, and I wrote a memo up to my immediate boss saying this is not correct, but it was something that came out. Until August of 2002, we were talking about terror as the basis [on which] to deal with Iraq. Then this NIE comes out in October 2002, and then, by December, you have George Tenet, the former director of CIA, going in and personally briefing the president, saying that Iraq had all this WMD.

I'm told that even he questioned how solid the information was, and that's when Tenet gave the infamous statement that "It's a slam dunk; the evidence is a slam dunk." ... To this day I don't know what prompted their October 2002 report. It's something they did on their own. ... What changed between August and October of 2002? What happened? To this day I don't have it. I think it might have been their desire to try to take back the initiative. It's the only thing I can conclude. ...

Maloof also told Frontline that all their data was cross-checked with CIA for accuracy but the animosity was so strong they never got back much confirmation.  He thinks they were simply afraid to say they missed it (9/11) and didn't want somebody second-guessing.  Maloof claims his group was working to get policy makers useful info on a tight timeline--they all thought AQ or others would attack again very soon.  One could even wildly speculate that Maloof and his outfit might explain the entire Plame affair--an attempt by CIA to get back at Cheney and these guys.

Anyway, it's impossible for a yahoo blogger on the internets to independently vouch for his overall credibility but based on the interview he certainly doesn't sound like a crazy kook fantasist.  Fast forward to 2013; Maloof is interviewed by RT about the chemical weapons attack in Syria that prompted Obama to nearly go cowboy on Bashar Assad. His contention at the time was that the Sarin gas was being produced in..... Iraq:

RT: Can you tell us more about that classified document you’ve seen, which shows that the US knew that Al-Qaeda linked rebels in Syria had sarin gas?

MM: The document itself was published in August 2013 by the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC). It’s part of the intelligence community. The fact that some of it was actually captured in May along the border in Turkey and it was actually Al-Qaeda, and since it was disseminated my sources are telling me that production has probably increased significantly and sarin gas is being produced quite widely now. That it's actually ongoing and there's actually a Saudi financier whose name I’m trying to obtain right now.

There's that crazy Neocon, blaming WMDs on Iraq again!  But wait, this time his information was also mentioned by a former UN inspector, the head of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, and by none other than Pulitzer Prize winning liberal journalist Seymour Hersh, in a blockbuster expose completely ignored by US mainstream press outlets, which actually pissed off the socialists!

So OK, the stories about the ten ISIS fighters at the border or reports about ISIS working with Mexican drug lords may or may not be true.  There doesn't seem to be any hard evidence other than a few anonymous sources.  But certainly such a concept cannot be out of the realm of the possible, considering the ISIS-inspired terror attack that Canadian and American authorities claim they recently stopped in Canada.  Matter of fact, those concerned with Islamic terrorism should probably be more concerned on the northern border considering history.

But singling out a Neocon relic of the Bush years now working for World Nut Daily in an attempt to tamp down anti-Muslim hysteria (regardless of whether that person is credible or not), is something that usually works pretty well in today's vacuous media, unless or until disproved by actual events. And sometimes not even then.  So we will have to wait and see on this one.

Follow the Money

Age old phrase, but mostly true.  As to illegal immigration, most certainly true.

And if this story is true--it's too good to check--then 'follow the money' goes all the way inside the church and ends up in the pews:

Between Dec 2010 and Nov 2013, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Galveston received $15,549,078 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Project” with a program description of “Refugee and Entry Assistance.”

Last year, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth received $350,000 from Department of Homeland Security for “citizenship and education training” with a program description of “citizenship and immigration services.

Think about it.  We have a president in office who was sent from the Chicago political machine, a system where back-scratching occurs before people get up in the morning.  This illegal alien thing is the classic back-scratch win-win-win-win, etc.

The president wins by being seen as a compassionate savoir and hero to the left wing of his party, who wins by importing more potential voters that justifies growing the government bigger to support them.  The illegal aliens basically win the lottery by getting here and the largesse that comes with it, part of which they send back to their home countries as a sizable portion of their GDPs.  

The coyotes smuggling them win by getting paid by the illegals, part of which may include fine print saying they can be used to help the cartel once in America.  The cartels and gangs win by deluding the border and gaining a wider distribution network.  The Mexican officials allowing trainloads of illegals to pass unnoticed win by getting payoffs and the Mexican politicians win because they probably made deals with other governments to allow this to occur in the first place.

US business people win by an influx of cheap labor while unions win by a promise those workers will someday be unionized.  Republican politicians win by getting more contributions from business people to look the other way and allow their cheap labor.  US consumers win by the downward pressure on prices due to using the cheap labor versus higher paid citizen labor. 

And finally, certain US religious institutions, including the Catholic church, win by getting grants to help the new immigrants become productive citizens that will come to mass every week.

The only loser is the rule of law and the bedrock principles that built the nation. But those documents are old and yellow and besides, there were periods where commas should be so who really knows what the founders meant?  Didn't they talk about welfare? 

In other words, there's no way this problem is going to be solved soon.

Hola, Mexico

As the US Government continues to dump illegal aliens in cities and towns all over America (often without consulting local officials) this kind of push-back is patriotic and expected, but it can also lead quickly to blood in the streets. 

So, since we've been told by various people in the know that the bulk of the illegal border-crossers are coming from Central American countries south of the Mexican border one has to wonder why the President of the United States hasn't publicized any contacts with his counterpart in Mexico about this lawlessness.

After all, the Mexicans have pretty stiff penalties regards illegal immigration:

Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals. The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy” or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.

The obvious question from our president to Mexico's would be "why are you allowing those people to cross your border?" Seems pretty easy.

HT (JOM)  

Risk? What Risk?

A presumptive GOP candidate for 2016 sets his table:

Bush said immigrants capture the entrepreneurial spirit of America. “People who come here legally and illegally are the risk takers,” Bush said. “If you’re living in a rural area of Guatemala and you come, you’re a bigger risk taker than those who stay.”

There's just so much wrong with that comment. One, what other criminal activity does he consider to be 'risk-taking' and worthy?  Two, he grouped both legal and illegal activity in the same breath.  Does he consider people who follow the law no different than those who can't be bothered?  Three, what risk is there for illegals coming into the country anymore?  If they get past the Border Patrol and settle somewhere they immediately become knighted saints with absolute moral authority, often held in higher esteem than tax-paying law-abiding citizens who suggest they be deported for breaking the law. 

As to education reform:

Aside from immigration, Bush’s advocacy for Common Core State Standards has earned him enmity on the right.

Bush isn't the only Republican jumping on Common Core, many Republicans have embraced it. One of them is the Republican governor of Tennessee. Ads have been running on local radio in the state pushing CC. Why? Do the various characters involved in the development of the program not bother these guys? Or have they been convinced otherwise?  Or something else?  Someone should ask them. 

And here's a potential question-- why do we need new national standards when the US education system has a long history of training some of the most brilliant minds in history that gave rise to a great nation?  Sounds like the problem is more with teachers and parents, not inadequate national standards.

Say What?

Did the new Director of the Department of Homeland Security really just say that illegal aliens, just by being in America, have earned the right to become citizens? Sounds like it...

“It is also, frankly, in my judgment, a matter of who we are as Americans,” he said, “to offer the opportunity to those who want to be citizens, who’ve earned the right to be citizens, who are present in this country--many of whom came here as children--to have the opportunity that we all have to try to become American citizens.”

Any fair reading would suggest he was talking about those 'in the shadows', ie, illegal aliens--those his department has a responsibility to apprehend.  Said another way, people who have repeatedly ignored our laws have earned a perk. He's basically calling people who go through the legal naturalization process chumps.  Maybe Bob Schieffer or someone in the real media can get to the bottom of this. 

Oh well, in a non-Orwell world Mr. Johnson would have already been asked for his resignation. In our newspeak reality laws are merely suggestions, upheld only if the Supreme Rulers deem them worthy.

Actually, one has to wonder what's going on at the White House. Here's a tweet they sent out today. Notice the typo..

Hmm.  Queso is muy bueno, especially with Tostitos.  Maybe the First Lady will be endorsing it soon.  

A Nation of Laws?

....news from California..

The California Supreme Court granted a law license on Thursday to a man living in the United States illegally who graduated from law school and passed the state bar exam. The decision means Sergio Garcia can begin practicing law despite his immigration status. ...

Garcia arrived in the U.S. illegally 20 years ago to pick almonds with his father and worked at a grocery store and in the fields while attending school.

Oddly, the US Government was a party to the case, arguing against allowing Mr. Garcia to be state certified. This sets up an interesting scenario for 2014.  Will the administration, while promoting visions of a comprehensive illegal immigration reform bill, take Jerry Moonbeam Brown back to court for flaunting US law and the rule of law in general by allowing this abomination to stand?  After all, they sued Arizona after that state passed the ID bill they felt was improper. 

Caught a little bit of the Limbaugh program while driving around today, wherein he mentioned this story in context with Obama flaunting US law as to Obamacare and immigration (which pegs the irony meter in this instance) along with Peyton Manning's passing record story.  The Manning pass was clearly a lateral but they are going to let it stand for obvious political reasons even though Manning might have come out in the second half and been injured on the first play without getting the record (Manning himself knows it was a lateral and should have spoken up).  The same league will allow the Steelers to miss the playoffs on a blown call. 

All of these things point towards a future where the rule of law that has held America together for over two centuries--and is partly why illegal immigrants flock to our shores--will become so watered down as to become virtually meaningless.  And here the networks seem shocked that polls show that Americans have less and less confidence in their government going into 2014.  They are helping produce it. 

Family Ties

Another one of Obama's illegal alien relatives is in the news today, this time "Uncle Omar":

President Barack Obama's Kenyan-born uncle, who ignored a deportation order more than two decades ago, was granted permission to stay in the U.S. on Tuesday.

Judge Leonard Shapiro made the decision after Onyango Obama, 69, testified that he had lived in the U.S. for 50 years, been a hard worker, paid income tax and been arrested only once.

OK, no surprise there. No way were Omar or Auntie Z going to get deported with 'immigration reform' still pending.  So they simply got away with breaking US law and the President of the United States seems completely fine with it (just as he seemed fine visiting illegal aliens on hunger strikes in DC the other day).

The more interesting tidbit here is a credibility issue, not reported in the NBC piece but picked up in a WaPo "blog":

WaPo goes on to mention..

The White House said following Omar Obama's arrest that he and the president had never met. The president was not close to his father's side of the family given his father's absence in his life.

The NBC report mentions that Obama claimed to have met an Uncle Omar while on a visit to Kenya, according to "Dreams from my Father".   So what's the calculus here?

Well, Dreams was written in 1993-94.  Uncle Omar was still living in the United States at the time, having blown off deportation orders.  Obama was back from Harvard, evidently after bunking with illegal alien Omar to save cash.

So maybe Obama (or Ayers) had to lie in the book.  Then they lied again on the campaign trail.   If so these will be described to us as "noble lies", meant to protect both Obama's political future as the bringer of health care and Omar from the racist policies of xenophobic white Americans clinging to their god and guns.

The real question is whether Uncle Omar was using that little lie, ie, Obama did know him after all, as leverage against the administration to prevent deportation or whether it was something a little bigger.  Keep in mind Omar threatened to call the White House after he rammed his car into a police cruiser under the influence, as if such a call might accomplish something.  Whether that was just a drunken taunt to the police as in "do you know who you're dealing with" or a drunken taunt to the administration as in, "don't reject me or I'll spill some beans" remains unknown.  Like so many other things.

SOMEBODY SHOULD BE FIRED...AGAIN   12/6/13

So Omar spilled the beans and admitted that Obama actually roomed with him while attending Harvard back in the 90s--AFTER he had blown off two deportation orders.  Ed Henry of Fox News was the only reporter yesterday to challenge this, to which our own Baghdad Bob crafted a fiction so ridiculous and unbelievable that even a child might not attempt it..



So let's get this straight.  The president's staff is saying they responded to a question in 2011 about whether the president had ever met his Uncle Omar by not actually asking the president, rather, they did their own research, including looking through Obama's book, this despite the fact Obama's book suggests he met an Uncle Omar in Kenya.   Now they ask American adults to believe that this time they asked the big guy himself, and lo and behold!   He said 'yeah, we met'.

Yes, liberals and John McCain might say "who cares", "small potatoes", "there are bigger issues" and "all presidents lie".   But when presidents get caught lying they usually pay a price for it because it reflects on their character and represents breaking trust with the public.   That's the only reason this matters, although some might be looking for more under the rock.    

As to firings, IF this story is true (which seems about as likely as fast food workers getting 15 dollars an hour anytime soon) then the staffers who originally answered the question are incompetent and perhaps would be better served working in the fast food industry.

Law of the Land

CNN is running a teary-eyed puff piece on a broken family in Florida, separated because some ICE jackboots came in and took daddy away and deported him back to Nicaragua because he was an illegal alien.   His wife was snatched away five years earlier.  Now the kids are afraid.  You can read the piece if you want, it's right here.

The more interesting part was the comments section.  Those are provided free of MSM-CNN spin, at least giving somewhat of an idea of how people react to the article.   What do people think?  Are they sympathetic to the rule of law of the scared children?  Well, here's a screen shot of the first round of replies I came across after reading the story...  they pretty much speak for themselves...

John Boehner and friends may perhaps want to keep such sentiments in mind, going forward. 

Waving A Flag...

Apparently according to some media outlets there was either a KKK or Neo-Nazi rally at the Mall in Washington this past Sunday..

Someone actually thought it was a good idea to bring a Confederate flag to protests at the White House, ones attended by Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz. Shockingly the flag's presence is backfiring for conservatives who hoped today's protests would be the big momentum turn in their favor.

Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee, flanked by former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin, headlined protests at the World War II Memorial on the National Mall Sunday morning... blah blah etc etc

Yes, yes, it's unfortunate that one guy with a battle flag gives the media a reason to focus on their presumed Confederate roots of the Tea Bagger movement instead of focusing on a legitimate act of civil disobedience from some veterans. 

But hey, free speech can get messy at times.   Take for example the La Raza/SEIU illegal alien rally at the same National Mall last week. There were people there also waving flags that didn't feature stars and stripes..

So where was the saturation coverage of those flag wavers? People (probably some illegal aliens) were rallying on the National Mall, just a few hundred yards from the closed World War II Memorial, waving Mexican flags, and the media can only find a few political show arrests?   Shocking.

If this doesn't show the importance of independent media sources and cell phone cameras, nothing does. Even still, if it doesn't get national coverage it doesn't inflict damage to narrative, so it's almost as if it never occurred.

Obama Presser

Main takeaways from today's presser: (summary of his responses with reaction underneath):


1.  Obama was going to ask for a reform of the secret programs before Snowden ever showed up, so Snowden is no hero.  Obama is the hero.  He himself wanted reform and heck, he might even have leaked the program himself had more time elapsed.

Of course this is impossible to prove, which is why it was used.  It's also complete and total BS.  The guy ran on bashing Bush's trashing of the constitution and secret programs--that's where 'transparency' came from.  He was going to be different.  But he found some of the Bush programs useful after all.  And he was going to tell everyone if not for Snowden.   Except he was never going to divulge his continuation of any of those Bush programs, ever.  The assertion that he asked for this in his speech at the NDU speech in May is preposterous and should be vigorously fact-checked by the press. 


2.  Snowden didn't solely affect the decision to cancel the one-on-one with Putey Poot.  Heck, they might have canceled anyway without him due to all kinds of things (forget about that reset, Putin messed it up).

Could comment, but Condi Rice--a Russian expert--is a lot more clear-eyed and authoritative on it. 


3.  Benghazi culprits not caught yet?  Don't worry, I got bin Laden but it took more than 11 months.

At least somebody asked.  Of course bin Laden was one man without forces surrounding him; these Benghazi jihadies were likely part of the overall AQ non-Core network (despite taking phone calls and orders from Zawahiri) so there are likely hundreds or even thousands involved, ie, it might take military action.  Indicting and even capturing one guy isn't going to be'justice'.   It's also interesting that CNN's correspondent didn't bother to ask about their own bombshell story involving the massive CIA participation at Benghazi, but such is life in DC when careers and book deals are on the line versus asking the tough questions.   


4.  AQ 'decimated' with 22 embassies closed?   Yes, Core AQ is still decimated but the others are still dangerous, which we've said all along.


Well yes they might say it, but not prominently.  It's not like Biden yelled at the convention, "Osama bin Laden is dead, except for some very dangerous affiliate branches who are still pulling off attacks and might cause us to close embassies and issue travel advisories, and GM is alive!!!   Doesn't have the same ring.

But let's take a second to expose this giant red herring known as 'Core AQ'. They've singled out AfPak so they can show progress and remove the troops but it's really meaningless.  Bin Laden, Zawahiri and a few hundred jihadies scattered into Pakistan after Bush blasted out the Taliban in 2001.  Zawahiri's original group, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, merged into AQ before 9/11 but guess what, they were based in Egypt.  Several "top lieutenants" of EIJ are still at large.  Other AQ affiliates, such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, were around on 9/11--their early leader Belhadg is now a Libyan government official (with a possible tie-in to Benghazi).  Of course KSM and his nephew Yousef were basically lone wolf contractors for AQ who did a lot of damage without an army.  So please with this core AQ stuff.    


5.  Republicans don't want 30 million people to have health care.


There are no words available to destroy this strawman.  He should have said they want dirty air and dirty water too, and dead puppies.

Clearly the president tried to use this presser mainly to diminish Snowden, both as an important leaker and someone who impeded our diplomacy with Russia.   He didn't want it to seem like Snowden, just some hacker, took out an important one-on-one meeting or spurred a debate on NSA spying.  Not sure he succeeded.   Putin certainly won't buy it nor will any Libertarian.  

And the press corpse?   Some improvement but still lacking.  No questions on IRS, the AP phone logging, Rosen, the Yemeni leaker, the leaker of this information on Zawahiri's phone call, and far too many softball setup questions that allow the president to filibuster for minutes about punishing his enemies (not the terrorists) while getting all his talking points in.   Pretty much same ole same old.  

MORE  8/9/13

Wasn't one of the biggest takeaways that Bush was right?   Not one reporter made the point, but Obama in discussing the secret programs (and his former press sec Gibbs on MSNBC tonight) tacitly admitted that things looked different once they got read-in to the amount of threat reportings a president is privy to see.  Something O kept quiet while he was hammering Bush on torture and the economy.

Also, there really wasn't a lot about the current threat we are supposedly under.  Jon Karl from ABC asked about the dronings in Yemen but the president cut that off; someone could have asked what it will take to come out of the embassy closings (which is being done this weekend).   But they didn't.   Still thinking there might be something big we haven't been told they are holding onto, which might have become more evident had someone forced a curt reply or some kind of facial gesture. 

Disgraced AG Being Asked to Overturn Jury Verdict

Indications are that the Attorney General will investigate the Zimmerman case to see if any "civil rights violations" occurred.   This despite the president coming out today and calling for calm, saying "we are a nation of laws and a jury has spoken".

Let's see, would that be same AG who was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to come clean (and probably lying) in the Fast and Furious case, where two federal agents died?   The same guy who allowed the AP's phone records to be trolled in a case of suspected administration leaks for political gain?  The same one who judge-shopped to get to James Rosen's emails and phone calls by convincing a federal judge he was a "flight risk"?   The same one who recommended that international financier and wanted criminal Marc Rich be pardoned by his old boss Bill Clinton (then Rich's wife later donated heavily to the Clinton library)?   That one?

Well, have at it.  Chances are they won't end up doing anything, though.  The election is over--Obama's 'son' helped stimulate black turnout (along with Biden's 'chains' comment) and it worked. 

On the flip side there's always the possibility they think a protracted racial 'conversation' could help benefit turnout again next year while taking away coverage from all the still-unresolved scandals.   But perhaps it's not smart to go to war against a guy who is part-Hispanic while trying to politicize immigration and paint Republicans as wild-eyed xenophobes.  Decisions, decisions.  Where is Bush?

MORE  7/15/13

Is there another word besides "craven" that explains the political hay being made with this case?   I'm not talking about average everyday black people, who have long dealt with the idea of profiling, of which is a part of this case.  No, I'm talking about people like Angela Corey, Barack Obama, the Rainbow fools, Al Sharpton, and of course our distinguished Attorney General.   Just think--they empaneled a Special Prosecutor in Florida to waive procedure and indict Zimmerman but Eric Holder gets to investigate himself.

Anyway, nothing should surprise anyone anymore.  Occupy Wall Streeters are mobilizing and of course the Socialists have now joined in, providing signage and probably protesters.   Any ole agitprop will do.  Just don't call them racists for using the tragic death of the 'child' to push their left-wing political agenda.    

Getting It

"It" being the bottom line (mind out of the gutter).   There are a couple of stories out there rife with narrative manipulation that deserve some IRS-like Tea Party scrutiny, so here goes.

Story one, immigration.  Law-abiding, tax-paying citizens are getting the daily shaft in this country.  They have to follow the laws and rules or they lose their jobs or are thrown in jail.  But there's a huge class of others who break the law daily, not just by their mere presence in the country, but in how they collect their wages, pay taxes, insure their vehicles and other basic things expected of good citizens. 

The law abiding citizens are made to feel guilty about this.  Through no fault other than raising their voices against this inequity they are called names that begin with x, r, and b (when not being told that America is a land of immigrants as if the INS has never existed).  Some folks in government even have had to endure a mob coming to their home to demand that illegal activities be made legal.  Outrage and coverage are limited.
 

And now the law abiding folks are being fed a rasher called amnesty legalization and told that if they don't swallow it the Democrats will have control of America power levers forever.  Maybe they deserve it. 

Rush Limbaugh spoke out on this today, playing the role of Sarah Palin in bashing some of the big money men like Sheldon Adelson and gasp, the Koch Brothers for applying pressure on this..

"All of the Republican major donors want this bill," he said. "I'll give you some names. The Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson. I mean, they want the bill, because they want the influx of new labor. They want it. They're not concerned with how anybody's gonna vote down the line. As long as these guys can stay aligned with whoever is running government, they're in fat city."

That's called 'speaking truth to power', folks.  It's dangerous, even for him.  It probably helped take out Palin.  But the "it" here--the bottom line--is this:  if there were only 100,000 illegal aliens in the country would congress be bending over backwards to legalize them?  This isn't about legalization, it's about money and power just like everything else.  Even for the Catholic church.   

---


On the NSA spygate story, good news.  Obama has decided to hold a huge press conference and let everyone, including bloggers, ask questions. He's going to limit his replies to 3 minutes or less and go on as long as necessary until everyone's question is answered.  It's all about his "national debate" on the matter and a showcase of his administration's unprecedented transparency.

Actually no, I made that up.  His real plan to get back control of the issue is to use his golden voice to bash Bush/Cheney, mainly Cheney, while giving limited syrupy interviews to selected journalists, ie, same old same old. Part of the effort is to get the military and law enforcement types out to remind us how scary the terrorists still are despite Biden cackling that Bin Laden was dead and GM was alive, right before his boss announced that AQ was on the run and it's safe to draw down the GWoT and retreat (negotiate) from the war zone in Afghanistan, all while calling Benghazi a reaction to a hateful video. 

Today, officials from the NSA and FBI testified about the 50 or so plots the program has thwarted. That's good, but that's not the actual debate. The debate is HOW MUCH LIBERTY we want to sacrifice for this security effort.   Surely we could ramp up the program and eliminate almost all attack possibilities, just like we could physically disarm the population and decrease gun violence to near zero.  The bottom line is this:  were the 50 plots worth it based on the loss of liberty suffered?  That's the real debate. And the one nobody will be having anytime soon.

The Fabric of the Nation...

...appears to be unraveling before our very eyes.

This Edward Snowden thing has turned blue to red and red to blue.  On the NSA thing we've got Lindsay Graham siding with the likes of David Axelrod while Elijah Cummings sides more with Rand Paul; on Syria we have John McCain agreeing with Susan Rice and Samantha Power about Responsibility to Protect, while Obama doesn't want direct involvement; many Democrats are siding with the Tea Party on the IRS thing while Obama true believers are left to bizarrely defend the very Bush policies they claimed made them vote for the One in the first place. Many Bush-era neocons are now misremembering their once rabid support for programs like TSP.

Meanwhile the president himself has been put in the position of almost prosecuting himself for the outing of a program he said the country shouldn't have and he would eliminate.  Er Sir, about that liberty versus security debate you think we should have--it's over, you won, twice, by coming down against secret spying.

Giants Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and company are probably lying about their role in the spy backdoor thing since they are compelled to cooperate.  That leaves Glenn Beck to praise Glenn Greenwald.  On the IRS, people have always hated and feared them, now they can't be trusted.   

Wait, sorry, I'm losing track of all the scandals.

OK, back to Snowden. China now appears to hold custody of a guy who dumped US secrets about possible spying on them via the PRISM program and other drag-the-net routines while we have been complaining about Chinese hackers attacking internet companies.  This as Obama said he was going to "pivot to the Pacific" in the second term, well the Chinese just hoisted a big F you sign, with a capital F.   The Russians have launched nuke subs into their southern waters again.  Picture Kevin Bacon saying all is well.   


But wait, could all of these scandals simply be an elaborate "look, squirrel" setup designed to allow Congress to slip immigration reform under the radar while nobody is watching?  All of them have magically appeared on the horizon since the three people testified over Benghazi and it began to hit the fan on Friday May 10th.   Benghazi is the only one the administration calls a side show and has declared over, despite lingering questions (like where was the president that night).

Of course for that to be true we'd have to establish a connection between Eric Holder, whose department sent the letter to AP on that fateful Friday just as Benghazi was beginning to blow up (and the Paid Liar had a special private meeting with 14 select news orgs), the same day the IRS planted a question to allow that scandal to break out (which was likely coordinated between the IRS and some in the White House), and Snowden, who was purportedly in the process of arranging for a liberal newspaper to take his story, to be written by a liberal advocate journalist.  Even the James Rosen email spying revelation seemed to come out of the blue, released after erroneously being held for years---right as all this Shiite was going down.

Maybe, just maybe Mickey Kaus is right.  Maybe the biggest things going on are Benghazi and immigration and somebody doesn't want anyone focusing on them anymore.   This will be proven soon, if true.  If so, expect more outrageous, shocking stories to blast out as the bill crawls through the Senate to the House.   Personally I'm not convinced, sounds too elaborate with a very large circle of knowledge, but stranger things...

A Willing Suspension of Disbelief

...to quote someone famous.  That's what Americans need right now (at least those with half-functioning brains who are paying attention) to navigate through these scandals. 

Let's see, we are being told..

• The emails released on the Benghazi "side show" prove that the Republicans are partisan carnival barkers, despite the emails showing exactly what they had said-- the State Dept wanted facts removed from the talking points and the White House facilitated it

• Kathleen Sebelius is acting "on precedent" in soliciting donations from the health care companies she regulates.  And any criticism of her actions is the same as being a Birther

• The president believes strongly in the freedom of the press to do their jobs despite his Justice Dept classifying a high-profile Fox reporter as an un-indicted co-conspirator to espionage for doing his job

• Ditto for the AP, and maybe a CBS reporter

• The president, Jay Carney and a White House janitor were the only ones who didn't know an IG was auditing the IRS for violating the rights of conservative groups during an election season

• The president can never be given a heads-up on an ongoing issue of great import if an IG is studying it--he must either find out through press reports based on planted questions on a Friday evening or wait until the IG audit is done..no matter what, and everyone agrees this is proper

Meanwhile, as folks try to make sense of everything the Senate is busy passing a bi-partisan bill to make millions of illegal aliens legal, perhaps the largest amnesty not called amnesty in US history.

Sheer madness.  Squirrels are darting in every direction but it's hard to figure out which where to look right now.   And maybe that's as intended.   

Are You a Citizen?

Reason is trying to make this viral..
 


We came across one of these on a trip across the southwest last year.  It was at least 50 miles from the border, in the middle of nowhere.  We had no idea what it was about while pulling up.   They asked if we were citizens of the US, we said yes, they said move along.  OK.   But after driving off the comment was "why did that just happen"? 

Basically they are suspecting everyone driving down the interstate of being an illegal alien until you say otherwise.  They aren't asking anyone to prove it by showing ID, but chances are if someone looks nervous--or maybe Hispanic--they will try to detain you if they don't like the reply.  

Even the Arizona bill didn't allow cops to ask for proof of citizenship without having a valid reason to pull someone over or detain them on the street. The Obama administration sued over it, yet their own CBP agents are out on the interstate asking everybody in every car about their citizenship without any probable cause to suspect they aren't citizens.

And now, the DHS has released actual detained illegal immigrants from lockup--an illegal move--to score political points.  Yeah, good thing that ole Bush is not still in power. 

Various and Monday

A few things....

Hillary, and Obama and Stevie, sitting in a tree.  Coronations aren't a news function.  CBS should be ashamed of itself.  When liberal pundits use analogies like this it's time to reshuffle the news department.   Well, if they care about real news reporting.  

As it is, Madam Hillary is now the best SoS since Jefferson or something.  Yep, she rescued the country's rep, evidently cleaning up after the two black people who preceded her.


----

The Boy Scouts to consider allowing gay scoutmasters and kids?   Well first, if a boy scout is engaging in sex he's already breaking the Scout Oath.  Second, gay men should not be in charge of Scout Troops.  Yes, that sounds intolerant; there are some decent people who happen to be gay and only a few are pedophiles (probably in line with the overall population).  And yes, God is in charge of judging, me as well.  But I'm just not going to be tolerant on every issue.  The Boy Scouts should simply disband if it comes to violating their own principles.    

-----

Comprehensive immigration reform?   Still politics.  Still an attempt to isolate the bitter clingers, clinging to their guns, religion and xenophobia, etc.   My opinion hasn't changed one atom since the 2006 attempt at doing this.  A smart society does not reward illegal behavior.  If there are fines and green cards, it may be do-able, assuming the borders can be controlled.

----

From the NRO:  Office Established by Obama with the Intent to Close Gitmo, closes.   Hey, that could have been a question from Stevie Kroft as well. 


  

Portland Shooting and other Crazy Things

Welcome to upside down world.

So there's a random shooting at a mall--during Christmas shopping season--by this guy...

By the way, is that a keffiyeh he's wearing?  And yet, there no mention of possible terrorism.  The media scratches its collective head and says, "we may never know the motive".  Well hell, other than some kind of insane crazyperson justice there are a few other possibilities.  Perhaps he just saw the Mohammed video. 

Apparently we've reached a point where the media doesn't even bother quoting an FBI guy ensuring it wasn't connected to terrorism before an investigation has even begun anymore.   Now the media is perplexed because he had no apparent connection to the victims.  Yeah--just like the 9/11 hijackers, Major Hasan, Abdulmuttalab, Abdulhakim, Shehzad and almost all jihadists or highway serial killers.  But don't worry, evidently Barney and Andy up there in the Clackamas PD will be handling it.

MORE..  Jawa says "crazy guy".  Yessir, he's crazy regardless of whether he's a lone nut, lone sudden jihadist, lone wolf, lone hockey mask killer, lone mall killer, etc.   That fact has never been in question.  During the Clackamas Sheriff press conference the spokesman did address the terrorism angle--adamantly dismissing a report that the FBI had taken the lead on the case as a terrorism investigation. 

Other items--his birth name was not Roberts, he was raised by a woman named Roberts, no mentions of his father or background in the press reports so far.  Questions remaining would be who he reportedly stole the gun from and his ancestry.  It's looking like loser snap syndrome.  Not sure which is worse to consider for the future--sudden jihadists or nuts who for some reason can't just kill themselves in a stairwell without first trying to take out scores of others.     
------

Here's a headline for you...

"Tea Party protesters punch Democrat, tear down Center for American Progress tent".

Or how about this one...

"Andrew Breitbart declares a coming 'civil war'".

Yet we have the Crowder punchout and Hoffa, Jr. stories being covered a little differently.  You remember Hoffa, who once appeared at an Obama rally and said they had to 'take these son-of-a-bitches out' referring to the violent, gun-toting "Tea Baggers".     


-----

Finally, Senator Robert Menendez allegedly had an illegal alien sex offender working for him in his office.   The stuff is now hitting the fan--perhaps delayed intentionally until after the election, which he won.  The illegal is in the process of being deported. 

Contrast that to Meg Whitman, who employed an illegal maid through an employment service.  The maid, possibly coerced by the Brown campaign into coming out in return for something, splashed herself all over the media and was likely instrumental in taking out Whitman's bid to become the California governor.  As far as is known that Maid, Nicky Diaz, is still in the country.   She was even honored at a 'gala'.  

Friendly Fire

After relegating the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal to a secondary story until an IG report seemed to exonerate president Obama the mainstream press is now locking arms to report today about the death of Border Patrol agent Nicholas Ivie as being caused by 'friendly fire'.

Tragically, it may turn out that way.   But the stories are attributing this finding to a 'preliminary report' from an FBI investigation.  Preliminary means not final.  NBC's Pete Williams included this blurb at the end of his report:

State and federal officials said immediately after the incident that the shootings were committed by armed criminals. And since then, Mexican authorities have said they arrested two men in Agua Prieta, northern Sonora state, a few miles from where the shooting occurred.

Those were preliminary reports as well, but they certainly suggest more than just friendly fire.

If one were a cynic one might say that the press is falling all over itself to report this possible finding because it removes the notion that a F&F gun might have killed another agent (one they hardly reported about when it occurred) so close to the election and right after an IG report cleared the held-in-contempt Attorney General.

MORE  10/7/12

The BP Union is now saying that agent Ivie was the one who opened fire on his two fellow agents, which caused them to return fire, killing him.   

According to the explanation it was "dark" and scrub brush was in the way--no doubt both true.  But was it any darker than normal?  According to the moon phases it was between a full moon and half moon.   So assuming it wasn't cloudy there was some natural light available.  During the wee hours of October 2 the weather near Bisbee, AZ appears to have been clear.  Perhaps the brush was a bigger factor than light.   

Early reports suggested the officers, stationed at the Brian Terry BP station, were responding to motion sensors tripped along a known smuggling trail used by Sinaloa Cartel members. Suspects were rounded up. The LA Times reported on Oct 5 that two weapons had been found in the general vicinity, a Bushmaster 223 on Wednesday the 3rd and a Titan handgun on the 2nd, but had not been traced directly to the shootings.  The SFGate paper had reported on Oct 3 that no guns had been found:

A federal law enforcement official who spoke on the condition of anonymity told The Associated Press that no weapons have been found. The official requested anonymity because information on the search hasn't been publicly released.

That was the day after the Times claimed they had found a weapon.  Very few recent stories mention the weapons, which admittedly may not have been associated with the event. The Mexican suspects?  They may still be in custody, hard to say.   Meanwhile there has been little explanation of why the motion sensors were tripped; whether the agents were in radio contact with each other; whether they were wearing night vision goggles; whether the ballistic reports conclusively prove the bullets that killed Agent Ivie came from a BP weapon.  And most of all, what caused agent Ivie--who can no longer speak for himself--to open fire.  As with Libya the FBI is still investigating.

Predictably this story has had political implications from day one.  Republicans were quick to jump to conclusions while reporters in the same news media that largely downplayed Fast and Furious were busy pointing out the rank politics.  Like terrorism, it shouldn't be that way.  But here we are.