John Kerry - Cargo Cult Politician

From the Neo-Neocon via Ace of Spades HQ:

And it struck me also that this might be the sum total of why he has risen to the heights he has, that and his ability to promote himself. He has never seemed especially bright or accomplished, and certainly never especially likeable. But he always looked like a senator, and so instead of playing one on TV he became one.

Politics isn't the only thing Kerry ever did; he was a prosecutor for a while. But it's the main thing he's done, and although it's hard to point to any specific accomplishments of his even in politics, he still managed to almost become president. I maintain that it's because he's the perfect cargo cult senator, presidential nominee, and now Secretary of State. He looks a certain way, and sounds a certain way, and our society has devolved to the point where looking like something is considered good enough. Why should skills be necessary, as well? The simulacrum of the thing is enough.

He has been a relentless self-promoter, but the blogger does ask a legitimate question, what has he really accomplished? Could he resume in the sentae, where he serve for several term be as thin as Hillary? or Obama?

Now IRS Reports EVEN MORE Computer Crashes, Doesn’t Know If Emails Still Exist

From The Daily Caller:

IRS Deputy Associate Chief Counsel Thomas Kane said in transcribed congressional testimony that more IRS officials experienced computer crashes, bringing the total number of crash victims to “less than 20,” and also said that the agency does not know if the lost emails are still backed up somewhere.

The new round of computer crash victims includes David Fish, who routinely corresponded with Lois Lerner, as well as Lerner subordinate Andy Megosh, Lerner’s technical adviser Justin Lowe, and Cincinnati-based agent Kimberly Kitchens

What a coincidence! ! !

Hillary Clinton's $275K Speaking Fee Comes with Diva Demands

From Breitbart's Big Journalism:

Former Secretary of State and almost-certain 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton not only demanded $275,000 to speak at the University of Buffalo, her nine-page contract is filled with the kinds of demands that Pop Divas like Madonna are regularly mocked for.

Show me the money show be her campaign slogan.

Tales From the Once-Golden State: Couple Will Face Fine If They Water Their Lawn, or Pay Another Fine If They Don't

From Ace of Spades HQ:

There's a drought global warming in California and so the state has, not objectionably, levied fines for using water for non-essential things, such as watering lawns.

Of course, there's also a pre-existing fine for permitting your lawn to become brown and thus an eyesore.

Is this law suspended during the period of water conversation?

Of course not. The State doesn't care if it is now levying impossible commands on its subjects. Either way, the State wins. Catch-22's are only hardships for the party they're levied on -- but they have nothing but upside for the power that levies them.

"I don't care, pay me," the State said, Goodfellas-style.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Plus it seems all about revenue generation now a days.

The Week in Pictures - Negligence Edition

From the guys at Powerline Blog:

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

The “Affirmative Consent” Trap

From Instapundit:

The “Affirmative Consent” Trap -- California lawmakers take on “rape culture” at the expense of rights

The reigning assumption in Sacramento—and Washington, D.C., for that matter—is that universities aren’t taking the problem of campus sexual assault seriously enough. A state audit released in June drew precisely that conclusion, and recommended that California’s state universities “do more to appropriately educate students on sexual harassment and sexual violence.” Every campus has a rape crisis center of some kind, with counselors on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Every campus police department offers rape defense programs. “Take Back the Night” programs are ubiquitous. Is more training and “education”—meaning more bureaucracy—really the answer?

Neither the legislature nor the state auditor seems to challenge the claim, unchanged and virtually unquestioned for nearly 30 years, that either one-in-four or one-in-five college students is a victim of sexual assault. As Heather Mac Donald has pointed out, if that figure is correct, “campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions.” But it’s almost certainly not accurate. “No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years,” Mac Donald observes. Consider the one-in-four or one-in-five figure in light of the number of sexual assaults reported in the nation’s most crime-ridden cities. Mac Donald notes, for example, that the rape rate in New Orleans was .0234 percent in 2012.

Do the math, the conventional wisdom is a lie. Remember Sandra "The Slut" Fluke and her figures on birth control costs for a law student?

Operation Choke Point Hearing Reveals DOJ Threats And Strong-Arming

From The Daily Caller:

“Operation Choke Point is one of the most dangerous programs I have experienced in my 45 years of service as a bank regulator, bank attorney and consultant, and bank board member. Operating without legal authority and guided by a political agenda, unelected officials at the DOJ are discouraging banks from providing basic banking services…to lawful businesses simply because they don’t like them,” said William M. Isaac, former chairman of the FDIC.

Thursday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing focused on the legality of DOJ overreach. Letters have poured in from company owners in support of these suspicions, noting startling cases where the DOJ reportedly has directly strong-armed banks into dropping clients not engaging in fraud.

Virginia Republican Rep. Robert Goodlatte revealed that one of the more egregious examples sent in to the committee was a meeting between the DOJ and a bank regarding the continued provision of financial services to a payday loan company.

The DOJ official reportedly told the banker, “I don’t like this product, and I don’t believe it should have a place in our financial system. And if you don’t agree, there will be an immediate, unplanned audit of your entire bank.”

The Justice Department has now served over 50 subpoenas on banks, and Alabama Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus expressed considerable concern that dragging banks into a long and expensive process is just an underhanded way of encouraging banks to drop clients as an easy-out.

What ever this Regime can't get done legislatively, the act administratively, with little to no scrutiny.

From t he most transparent Administration ever.

45 Years Ago, Ted Kennedy Left Mary Jo Kopechne to Die in the Shallow Water of the Chappaquiddick River

From Ace of Spades HQ:

And, of course, walked away with a slap on the wrist. Less than that, really -- a two month suspended sentence for leaving the scene of an accident.

To some extent I understand how that happen -- understand, not condone.

The Kennedys were an extremely famous and wealthy political family. For many Democrats, they were the Democratic Party.

Also, I suppose there was the sentiment that the "Kennedys have suffered enough."

So I can understand how justice got corrupted.

Nevertheless, justice was indeed corrupted. And while I understand that -- corruption happens, the rich get breaks, powerful scions of political dynasties get away with things that everyday citizens don't -- what I don't understand is why the media treats this as a "controversial" story, which must be avoided.
It's only "controversial" because it hurts the Democratic Party.
...................

But of course the media are almost all Democrats. They don't want to bring stuff like this up.

Brian Cates, aka @drawandstrike, has been tweeting the timeline on that night in 1969, and it's pretty gripping, pretty horrible stuff.

T. Becket Adams has collected those tweets into a Storified format. It's worth reading.

She may have lived for two or three hours trapped in the car.

And didn't Ted Kennedy declare a war on women by leaving Mary Jo to die?

Barack Obama - "I'm Not Interested in Photo Ops"

From Ace of Spades HQ:

"I'm Not Interested in Photo Ops"

RT @daveweigel: This president doesn’t do photo ops! By the way here’s http://t.co/i9fSqMkUWP right now: pic.twitter.com/1y3wXQurAI

— Matt Connelly (@MattConnelly) July 9, 2014

#IllinoisSlim After sinking several balls, POTUS wanted to make sure press recorded his win. (Photo by @scotthorsley) pic.twitter.com/mGbI46XkYU

— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) July 9, 2014

President Obama isn't interested in photo ops? Here are 5,498 reasons why this is nonsense. https://t.co/uESTzMO91a

— Morgen (@morgenr) July 9, 2014

"I'm not interested in photo ops." pic.twitter.com/05Ka0XOFR3

— Josh Perry (@MrJoshPerry) July 9, 2014

"I'm not interested in photo ops." pic.twitter.com/uj8QCHXlTB

— Josh Perry (@MrJoshPerry) July 9, 2014

"I'm not interested in photo ops..." - Obama pic.twitter.com/X1O7qmbhFu

— John Sexton (@verumserum) July 9, 2014

Not interested in photo ops pic.twitter.com/KC8Bd7RIyJ

— olliander (@ollieblog) July 9, 2014

I'm not interested in photo ops http://t.co/A4h2CANEza

— Wodeshed (@Wodeshed) July 9, 2014

"I'm not interested in photo ops." pic.twitter.com/sLuMeXb8Uj

— Josh Perry (@MrJoshPerry) July 9, 2014

"I'm not interested in photo ops." pic.twitter.com/Dne2RcIh7e

— Josh Perry (@MrJoshPerry) July 9, 2014

#ImNotInterestedInPhotoOps Obama honors Chipotle. pic.twitter.com/izfpazx2KS

— rdbrewer (@rdbrewer4) July 9, 2014

Sure! ! ! !

And the IRS, NSA, Fast and Furious, Associated Press, EPA, Obamacare, Children flooding the boarder scandal are not scandals, but lies created by Fox News and the Koch Brothers.

Iowahawk --Tweet of the Day

From Instapundit:


Iowahawk captions the photo of Elizabeth Warren riding a parked motorcycle...

Elizabeth Warren says "Vrooom vrooom!"

Still no proof that anybody in Elizabeth Warren's family has ever ridden an Indian http://t.co/bLy0SKLf
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) August 19, 2012

The ultimate poser.

USAToday Reporter Calls Border Surge Obama's "Katrina Moment"

From Ace of Spades HQ: The chaos just won't stop.

MSNBC panelists on Monday seemed puzzled by the president’s refusal to visit the U.S.-Mexico border while he fundraises in Texas, with USA Today reporter Susan Page calling the decision Mr. Obama's "Katrina moment." Appearing on "The Daily Rundown," Carolyn Ryan of The New York Times argued that the crisis on the border, in which thousands of immigrants are crossing illegally in record numbers, goes to question the president’s competence...

[Chuck] Todd said the administration has been "defiant" in refusing to visit the border while the president attends a fundraiser in Texas on Wednesday.

"It's a Katrina moment, right?” Ms. Page asked. "And you're going to a fundraiser and not going to the border where there’s this crisis?"

Now that was an unexpected take.

Will the Drive-By-Media finally stop protecting the Dear Leader?

The Hobby Lobby Decision Demystified for Your Liberal Acquaintances

From Ace of Spades HQ:

Something that most people, who vote Democrat, don't get. Someone has to pay for it.

Their entire schtick to that it's "free", what ever "it" is, as long as the Democrats in power aren't paying for it. However, sooner of later, OPM (other people's money) runs out.

How Old Were the Founding Fathers on July 4, 1776?

From Ace of Spades HQ:

We tend to always think of them of them as old men based mainly on portraits made later in their lives but in 1776 they were surprisingly young. But then revolution has always been a young man's game.

Marquis de Lafayette, 18
James Monroe, 18
Gilbert Stuart, 20
Aaron Burr, 20
Alexander Hamilton, 21
Betsy Ross, 24
James Madison, 25
John Paul Jones, 28
Thomas Jefferson, 33
Thomas Paine, 39
John Adams, 40
Paul Revere, 41
George Washington, 44
Samuel Adams, 53

Benjamin Franklin was the old man of the revolutionaries at 70 years old.

Wow, they were so young. It really puts a new perspective on what these men risked, doesn't it.

Why Does Obama Want to Reduce CO2 Emissions?

From John Hinderaker at Powerline Blog:

As his policies, foreign and domestic, are collapsing on pretty much every front, President Obama has increasingly sought refuge in talk about global warming. He wants the U.S. to reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide, and the EPA has done its best to bring this about via increasingly stringent regulations on coal-fired power plants. The Democrats wanted to enact cap-and-trade, but couldn’t get it through Congress, so Obama is doing the best he can through administrative action. Simultaneously, the administration has poured billions of dollars into specious “green” energy projects, many of which can’t be kept alive even with lavish subsidies, although their developers always walk away with their pockets full.

But why?.................

So what’s the point? I don’t have a high opinion of President Obama’s abilities, but he isn’t a complete idiot. So I assume he understands that his war on CO2, and his provision of billions of dollars in subsidies to “green” energy, won’t make any perceptible difference to the Earth’s climate, if you assume the alarmists’ models are correct. So why does he do it? I think there are two reasons.

First, the Left has made an enormous investment in promoting misinformation about global warming. You can’t get through elementary school in the U.S. without being hectored about your family’s carbon footprint. (“I will never live in a house bigger than John Edwards’,” my then-third-grade daughter wrote in response to a question about what she, personally, intended to do to change the Earth’s climate.) Those millions of misinformed people are now voters, and Obama is secure in the knowledge that the newspapers and television networks haven’t done anything to educate them.

Second, to the Obama administration, the fact that “green” energy cannot survive without government subsidies and mandates isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. It allows the Democrats to slide billions of dollars to their cronies, like Tom Steyer, the left-wing billionaire who is now the number one financial supporter of the Democratic Party. Steyer made his first fortune by developing coal projects, and is making his second fortune as a Democratic Party crony, developing uneconomic but heavily subsidized “green” energy projects. So the war on coal and other sources of CO2, while it can’t have any impact at all on the climate, has turned into a funding mechanism for the Democratic Party.

Well, that make sense.

It's the most logical answer I've heard.

Under pressure, Hillary is donating all her (University) spealing fees to her own foundation.

From Ace of Spades HQ:

But Ann Althouse has questions:

What is her salary from the foundation? How much of her expenses are covered by family foundation money? How many members of her family make salaries from that foundation? To what extent is the foundation an income tax dodge? And didn’t Hillary Clinton recently portray herself as not truly rich because she and Bill pay income tax on their money?
Taking from your foundation and putting it in my foundation… what a lovely, arrogant metaphor for a liberal’s view of government! I can spend your money better than you can. The universities have money that they might spend to improve education for their students and to advance scholarship, but it could be shifted into the Clinton Foundation which does whatever it does, some charitable things that maintain and advance the Clintons’ political fortunes.

One New Class hand washes the other.

It's a double windfall. Hillary donates her income to her tax free foundation, gets a tax write off, yet still is able to control the money.

Dirty, dirty, dirty! ! ! !

The Week in Pictures - Disbarment Edition

From the guys at Powerline Blog:

Hobby Lobby's boycotters aren't crafty enough

From Instapundit:

Culture warriors face two additional problems:

They tend to want to boycott places they never shopped at in the first place.

The company’s actual core demographic takes umbrage about the boycott and stages a much more effective counterboycott.

I can’t tell you how many times I have had some version of the following conversation:

Angry person on the Internet: Wal-Mart’s treatment of its workers is shameful. I am not going to give that company any of my business!

Me: How much did you spend at Wal-Mart before you realized its treatment of workers was shameful?

The modal answer to this query is sudden disappearance from the conversation. I’m not sure anyone has confessed to spending as much as $1,000 a year at the stores. Of those who claim to shop there, most seem to do so almost entirely on vacation in rural areas.

If this describes you, you are not Wal-Mart’s core demographic, and its executives don’t care whether you boycott the business; the loss in sales is less than they experience from miscalculating what sort of sunscreen to buy. They care very much about what their core demographic thinks, but those people are, by and large, not interested in these boycotts; they’re interested in paying 12 cents a can less for tomatoes.

Indeed.

I suspect this is the case with Chick-fil-a as well.

Democrats were in favor of religious freedom before they were against it

From The American Thinker Blog:

Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media are in a dither over the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision. And driven by either agenda or ignorance, they don’t even remember that at one time they were all champions of the same religious freedom they are now against.

The SCOTUS ruling is not about contraception, but instead it affirms a law dating back to 1993. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a law, “to protect the free exercise of religion,” according to the U.S. Senate. Specifically, the purpose of the law is “to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is burdened by government.” That is the crux of the Hobby Lobby claim. Congress passed this law almost unanimously.

The RFRA was introduced following an unpopular SCOTUS decision curbing the religious freedom of Native Americans to use peyote. Congressman Charles [Chuck the Schmuck] Schumer introduced the bill in March 1993, a time when liberals were strongly in favor of religious freedom. The bill was cosponsored by many of the same Democrats braying the loudest about the SCOTUS decision, including Rosa DeLorio, Luis Gutierrez, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. The Senate passed this bill by a vote of 97-3. Voting in favor were Senators [Joe "Bite Me"] Biden, [Babs] Boxer, [DiFi] Feinstein, {Dingy} Reid, and Mikulski among many others. {Editor's Note: And signed into law by President Bill Clinton]

What a difference a couple of decades makes. Harry Reid was in favor of religious freedom before he was against it. Voting for the RFRA in 1993, he is now indignant that the SCOTUS upheld the same law he voted for. Ditto Nancy Pelosi, who is fussing about “a gross violation of workers’ religious rights.” What religious rights are being violated? Are the Hobby Lobby workers members of a religion with a commandment, “Thou shall be provided abortifacients paid for by someone else”? Or is it the employer whose religious rights are being violated – “Thou shalt not kill” – by making him or her purchase these drugs for employees?

Hillary Clinton also found the Hobby Lobby decision “deeply disturbing.” How ironic that her husband, in November 1993, signed the RFRA into law, and when upheld 20 years later, she finds it disturbing.

Intellectual consistency has never been a strong suit of the Democrat Party. or the Drive-By-Media. or Liberal/Progressive Activists.

4th of July -- Patriotic Swimwear

Some pictures of why I love the 4th of July! ! ! !