Warping History for Ego and Political Gain.

If I believed in any type of spirit world, I would have to conclude that George Orwell was the greatest prophet of all time. There is so little left of his 1984 world left unrealized.

Like all big news stories, throngs of Americans want so badly to insert themselves into the narrative, as if they were integral to the reality.  Last week a racist nut bag killed nine people in a church in South Carolina.  Within days, the nine were forgotten.  Real follow-up about the nut bag is forgotten.

The story has undergone mitosis and spawned deformed meanings at the hands of uninvited participants.  We now here that racism still exists in this country.  To that one can only say, well, no shit!  But Hilary, the most obnoxious of interlopers says that institutionalized racism is still a problem, and says it in context of the nut bag killing people.

This is, of course, total bullshit. In a country where the largest and most racist employer (the federal government) has strict quotas and point rigging in favor of minority hiring, where private companies no longer care who you are so long as you enhance their bottom line, where public figures are easily ruined for the least missteps on the subject of race, you can no longer honestly say that racism is institutionalized.  You are free to lie about it in order to inspire hatred between races for your own political gain.  That's what Bill Clinton's sex partner from the early 1970s was trying to do in order to take advantage of the nine dead people.

But there is also another malformed message.  We are trying to un-write history. Historical events that offend our fragile sensibilities are now to be expunged from visibility.  Flags, we are told, must be eliminated. And it is being done by people who know almost nothing of the "history" they are trying to erase.*  We want to tear down monuments that represent our past, good and bad, that are a part of our national conversation, and de-memorialize historical figures.  Where there is a statue of a historical figure that doesn't represent everyone (little secret: no memorial does or ever will) tear it down.  Only keep memorials to people who never offended anyone. This will accomplish what?…forgetting that bad stuff?  Well, what better way to see that very history repeated?

Hell, if you want to un-write the positive contributions of slave-holders, why not just un-write slavery?  No one in this country can say they experienced it.  So why should we ever acknowledge its existence.  It's bad, so let's just get rid of it.

FDR was a four-term president.  He was popular at the time. More so than even Robert E. Lee.  He also exacerbated and prolonged the Great Depression much the same way our present wing nut has done. Save your breath, I won't say the two are equal.  FDR was a much better president.

But FDR was also a fan of eugenics, not unusual at the time, but still a dangerous and ethically corrupt concept.  He was incredibly arrogant and as much a dictator as he could get away with being.  If you don't believe me, read The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes. He was the king of dividing and subdividing the population for political exploitation. He was also in the top tier of the hated 1%.  We should definitely put him on the list of people to un-remember.

And JFK; total whore monger. The name of that airport has got to change.

You see where I am going with this.  No one alive has experienced slavery so to say you are traumatized by its mention, you're lying.  You are just trying to make a splash; maybe stroke your own ego. But we are a nation with a history. This attempt to make some of it go away sets an insane precedent that no thinking person would want to see.  Read 1984 by the great prophet, himself.

What's more, we are once again becoming that which we say we reject. Who doesn't remember our reaction when the mouth-breathing sons of pigs (Taliban and ISIS) blew up ancient statues and destroyed countless artifacts because they didn't represent their stupid religion?  Why, dear reader, isn't that justification to destroy images of the past?  I mean, this is religion we are talking about.  That's supposed to be the most important of all things in this life.  Now, I grant you, the muslim religion is a concoction lifted from several earlier man-made constructs, as all religions are. But we are told that there is nothing more sacrosanct than the way one worships and the precepts they keep.  Shouldn't we celebrate the way the sons of pigs proudly showed their devotion to allah with this childish vandalism writ large? This is spirit world stuff here!  Waaaay more important than the worldly tribulations endured by people 150 years ago.  C'mon!  Get some perspective!

Or should we say that the world would do better to clean up its modern day act by taking the lessons of history rather than trying to make history go away.

*

For the benefit of the ignorant:  This is the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.  Thousands fought and died honorably under it.  Less than 1% of those people were slave owners.  They fought valiantly in a losing cause.

This is the flag of the Confederate States of America as of 1863.  This is the emblem of a society that among other things wanted to preserve slavery. Coincidentally, it was also in 1863 that ending slavery became an official part of the Union Army's pursuits. Before that the war was being fought to prevent the destruction of the established political system. In the long view of history (there's that word again) I would contend that the war probably didn't need to be fought.  But the politicians at the time were pretty darn serious about keeping the lion's share of trade in the north.  Can't have those dirt scratchin' southerners setting up foreign trade and competing with the North now. …And, oh yeah, that slavery thing is bad too.

So if you want to hate a part of our history so badly that you want the symbols un-remembered by all the other proles, at least get it straight what the hell it is you hate.

Canard of the Week: A Little Privacy in Exchange for Security.

Let me give you my down and dirty regarding the government collecting anything it wants electronically.  Yes, I did say anything it wants.  There are no legitimate controls in place.  One would hope that NSA domestic spying is dead, but let's not assume anything.

We use this information to stop terrorism.  Urm, uh, Yeah.

• The government has been vacuuming up your electronic data like my wife vacuums up my breakfast crumbs, for years.  I'm a very sloppy eater.  According to the FBI this has never led to a major breakthrough in a case to solve or prevent terrorism.
• The Civil Liberties Oversight Committee has stated that there appear to be no instances where an attack has been thwarted by the use of mass data collection (probably true)…
• …and that there have been no instances of abuse of the system.  This one is not true. There were cases of the very agents responsible for the collection and storage of the data using it to spy on their girlfriends and wives.  It is also too narrowly defined.  It doesn't allow for patterns of abuse that would make the existence of this data a moral hazard.

Last year, the Obama administration through its drooling guard dog, Eric Holder used a similar program, far older than the NSA data mining program with greater safeguards, to illegally dig into the private life of James Rosen who was running a story uncomplimentary to the American Emperor.  To do this, they named Rosen as an un-indicted co-conspirator.  The NSA's program needs only the approval of the rubber stamp FISA court to dig into anything it wants.

In any case the system is not designed to do any of the things listed above so it is no surprise that it hasn't been of much value to date.

Why It Can't Work as Sold:

Imagine you are an intelligence analyst responsible for gathering intel on Godammistan, an ancient sand pile in the armpit of the world whose government and other "bad actors" have it in for the United States.  You have a pile of information on the country and dossiers on the government and powerful citizens.  But you want to "spot patterns".  So you tell your agents to get you every word ever written about the country, about every citizen, about every street corner, every pet, etc.  The more successful your agents are, the less successful you will be as an analyst. The reason is that you have burdened yourself with too much information.  From it you will not be able to produce a decent recipe for egg nog.  Good intel is knowing what you don't need more than what you need.

Our government will have you believe that they are collecting everyone's metadata so they can spot patterns and foil attacks on the homeland.  The problem is that such a mountain of data cannot be used for that purpose and they know it.  Its ONLY usefulness is to be stored for LATER use. They don't need to keep such a gargantuan database to spot patterns.  It is too much information.  The assumptions needed to program a search in such a sea of data would be outlandish and unrealistic; worthless.  So would be the product.

Another reason they don't need the metadata is that is already exists.  For all that data to be useful, the analyst first needs a name or a number that is already suspicious.  This can be presented to a phone company or service provider. And voila (that's French for TA-DAAAA!) you have everything you need on your subject.

If there is a pattern of requests, even under warrant, that seems spurious or capricious, the provider will start to understandably balk and fight the requests.  ATT has.  This is because they have competitors that customers can go to if a provider seems to fast and loose with information and because of a fear of lawsuits.  In the case of ATT there is even talk about something called…let me think…the 4th amendment.  It's in some kind of constitution thingie.

Government employees have only their jobs and pensions to think about. They will dig up anything they are told to dig up.  A warrant from a FISA court protects no one. 

One warrant sent to Verizon asked them for everything they had on all their customers. What kind of a bullshit warrant is that?  Verizon, of course, asked for a tad more specificity.

But, you say, what if the information requested is time-sensitive?  The existing law already allows for post facto warrants.  Get the request in, get your info and cover everyone's ass with a warrant later.  

This is fishy too, but you can at least leave the government out of the spy-on-every-American business and still know they can access the stuff they need when they need it.  And we should require real specificity in these requests.  Besides, if I wanted a minute data point or an email based solely on a name or phone number, I damn sure would't ask a govvie to get it.  Cheese ages faster.  I'd ask a professional at a private company.

Is it Google's job to protect my interests?  No.  But it is in their best interest to not look like an extension of the FISA court lap dogs.  It is the governments job to protect us, you might argue.  Why not exchange a little privacy in the face of grave danger?

Kaffee:  Grave danger?

Jessup:  Is there any other kind?

God, I love that movie!

Two reasons:  It does not provide the protection and the system will not be used in that way anyway.  The system has only one value.  

How Mass Metadata Will Work as Designed:

Let's go back to Holder and his circus stunt warrant against Rosen.  To compel a real judge to grant his warrant, he had to LIE and say the Rosen was a target of a criminal investigation.  His excuse was that everyone does it and that he was going to correct the record later.  He then tore into every aspect of Rosen's life that technology would allow.  But he is just a slimy, corrupt cog in a larger machine that has in recent years slouched into a norm of corruption.  

When you find yourself at odds with these unethical creatures, do you think for one minute that they won't use the data collected to pick you apart?  Do you really believe that every GS-9 clerk in DC or Fort Meade is another Snowden, ready to trade his career, and life as he knows it, to save you from harassment or character assassination?  If so, I will put you in for the Naive Dupe of the Decade Award now.  Of course the data will be teased out one way or another.  I trust Verizon more than Mary Punchkey in the NSA records department. 

But it's only "metadata" like the kind of information you find on the outside of a piece of mail.  It's not like they are listening to our phone calls*.  Well, it's a bit more specific than that.  As Charles Cooke says in his 29 May 15 National Review article:

"They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret. 

"They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don’t know what was discussed. 

"They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of those calls remains safe from government intrusion. 

"They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and then called the local Planned Parenthood’s number later that day. But nobody knows what you spoke about."

In my case they may know that I subscribed to a dating site called "Middle-aged Leather Queers" and exchanged 42 emails with a guy named DungeonPete.  But they cannot, from that, determine my shoe size.

And again, FISA is not a real court set up to protect your rights. It is a sham to provide a paper trail for the government official hacking into your life.  But I suspect that when we finally see someone caught with their hands in the cookie jar, we'll find they had been swimming in files without even a FISA warrant.  Sort of like Bill Clinton's wife and the hundreds of FBI files she had hidden and then "found" in the White House residence.  Try a stunt like that in your residence and see how quickly you find yourself trading cigarettes for "favors" in poorly decorated surroundings. 

So Rand Paul is on the right track.  He is pounding away at this issue.  He is trying to make it as difficult as possible for the government to continue the practice of mass data collection.  His detractors say that his argument is invalid because he is running for president and this is meant to bolster his numbers.  That is not a valid argument.  He is running for president, and a stunt this may very well be, but that doesn't validate or invalidate Paul's argument.  And he's been standing up for these kinds of things for years.  The fact is, political stunt or not, he is the loudest voice standing against the government prick who will one day tear your life apart because you're for gay marriage or reject global warming.

* A note about phone calls.  In the course of this debate, TV talking heads have said repeatedly that, "It is only metadata.  It's not like they are listening to our phone calls." (commentator smirks). That is half true. Under the Patriot Act there is no provision for warrantless wiretap of just anyone.  But the NSA has been listening to phone calls for decades.  Mostly these are calls between government officials, ours and theirs, members of the military, etc.  But they can listen to anyone they wish. So can any phone repair guy checking a line or looking for good stories for happy hour.  Both are true.

Uncle Sam Wants Gutless, Witless Yes Men!

This year marked the second commencement address at a military academy during which the Muslim-in-chief wasted the time of all present and insulted the hard work of graduates, not to mention set back the concept of national defense immeasurable by telling the future offices of the Unites States Coast Guard that the greatest threat to our security is climate change.  What a world-class moron!  This while what is left of Iraq sinks into the dark age grasp of Obama's Iranian or ISIS allies.  He doesn't seem to actually care which one wins.  As far as this administration is concerned, nut bag Muslim domination is nut bag Muslim domination.  It's a win for Obama either way.

Yep. We Know All This. So?

I love being right!  I really do.  I don't pretend not to be smug at times like this.  The part I don't like is that every day we have times like this.

I kicked off the idea here, but I let two moves in 6 months derail the process.   But I'm  all settled in now, so stand by.

Did you read this last election night?  Either way, check out the updated link.

Is the Bikini the Burkha of Western Culture?

In the civilized West, Americans are hands down the most prudish about the silliest things.  It seems hard to believe, but we are so squeamish about the female breast it's almost embarrassing to any critical thinker.  Fortunately, there is the uncivilized world where women are beaten by sons of pigs for showing their ankles.  So by comparison we're still pretty forward-thinking.

I just read the article about Elle magazine and the picture of a model breast feeding that was pulled off the cover.  Pathetic.

The last time public breastfeeding raised its natural and benign head, I guess around January, I was on my morning commute, listening to my favorite morning talking heads, Brian Wilson and Larry O'Connor in DC.  When the subject was raised these two otherwise worldly guys took a position that surprised me.  Still, they did poke a bit of fun at the visceral reaction such a simple and correct activity sparked in some of the listeners.

But then Larry, who is usually the edgier of the two said that while it might be okay to breastfeed outside the house, he suggested the mother find a discreet place to "do it".  That was silly enough.  Then he said, "I mean have a little modesty."

Modesty?  Really? Are we all the delicate?  Is the fact that a child needs food a secret?  Is the source of the proper food an object of immodesty?  Well, come to think of it, in this twisted world it actually is.  Think about that.  How twisted is our sense of imagery?  How odd are we in a world where the UFC is among the most highly rated sporting events, that a woman holding their child to her nipple should evoke the least reaction in all but the most stupid and backward among us.  Meanwhile, porn is still the most streamed online entertainment.  50 Shades, the Movie, sold out in record numbers in Mississippi and Alabama to mostly married, "Christian" women.

During that morning radio segment, a caller asked why women couldn't go to the rest room if they - get this - thought they had to do that kind of thing.  Thought they had to?!  I'll check the statistics and get back to you, but the actual feeding part is probably important for the baby.  And using your breast is not only considered the healthiest but also an economically sound idea.

Soldiers blown into vapor?   Sure!

I just watched Saving Private Ryan on commercial TV.  The carnage depicted is both a cinematic achievement and gruesome.  Can you imagine the uproar, if they had a segment with the troops having a weekend pass before D-Day and one of them has realistic looking sex with his British girlfriend?  Oh, the do-gooders, most of whom would watch the rest of the movie and just say that such is life, would be apoplectic that Ed Burns might have played with a woman's tits and might have been shown humping.  The director's cut of Apocalypse Now had the sex scenes that had been deleted from the original because they were too racy for a movie about a half crazy soldier being sent into the jungle to kill a fellow officer.  There were beheadings, a brutal animal sacrifice and death in all sorts of entertaining forms.  But nudity?  Gasp! We are at the point, as a society, that the human body and in this case, sex would have been off-putting.  The carnage? Meh…

Anyway, all his got me thinking.  What is our fascination with the female breast?  And why the phony revulsion?  And yes, it is phony.  Guys love boobies, so do lesbians and even most gay men and straight women can appreciate a firm knocker.  And I believe the answer is a simple one.  It is the denial of the thing that makes it an object of lust and fascination.  The moralist, especially the religious moralist will tell you it is the other way 'round.  They are wrong, of course.  The simple fact is that long term exposure to a thing renders it mundane and hiding it, while ironically enhancing it as women often do, makes it a more valued commodity.

When put in those terms, the whole hide-the-tits thing becomes wrong on so many levels.  First, it is clearly a dark ages prohibition and a loony double standard.  Why can a man walk down the beach without a covering his chest and a woman cannot?  Who legitimately gets to enforce that one? This especially when many men work so hard to make theirs the object of desire and admiration and others are so out of shape that they have bigger, baggier boobs than many women. It is because the milk they may sometimes contain is to feed offspring, which is a markedly female attribute.  When man discovered private property near the beginning of our agricultural development, the woman was added to that property.  That thing that feeds my young is not going to be the purview of competing males.  Thus, put a top on, bitch!

Some are finally saying, "Stop the silliness"

Did you know that it is legal for a woman to walk topless in Washington DC?  I wouldn't recommend it considering the nature of some to the scum that populate the city.  And I don't mean just the politicians. Having been taught the boob is an object of sexual desire and an exposed boob makes the owner fair game, they may grope you.  But every August, women take part in an annual demonstration for the right be as uncovered as men can be, and topless they do march.  Brace yourself!  There are boobies behind this link!

We tell ourselves that we make women cover more of their bodies out of respect for women.  Right.  And Muslims bury their women in blankets for, according to them, the same reason.  You don't really buy that when Habib says it.  Why do you pretend to buy the notion here?

The answer is simple peer pressure.  Your church buddies will label your wife a hussy and you weak if she shows a goodly portion of boobie.  Your friends will secretly ogle your wife and envy you and then say that's disgraceful.  The golf buddies, because of our dark ages prohibitions, would be fascinated and therefore a threat to your property.  If you are a woman, you may have a man with the insecurities listed above, as well as being around a lot of women afraid for whatever reason to bear their own chests. They will therefore berate the woman who would.

We pass this social silliness to our offspring and teach them to be ashamed of their bodies, telling them that god wants them to be or that society expects them to be.

Enough about pretending to be afraid of boobs.  Let's return to the woman who breastfeeds her kid.  We'll say she's in a Pizza Hut. It's time to feed the kid.  How many of you ever saw a woman stand, remove her shirt and bra and hold the kid up in the middle of the room to feed?  None of you, that's right, very good.  The fact is she will raise her shirt enough to let the little tyke get to the nipple, manipulate her boob just a bit to keep from giving the kid brain damage from a lack of oxygen, and some will even take the extra step of laying a small towel or cloth diaper across knowing that there might be a cry baby around waiting for a chance to be a loud, self-righteous cry baby.

She is hurting no one.  She is providing critical nutrients to her child.  If you are one of the cry babies I mention here, do the world a favor.  The next time you see a woman breast feeding her kid in a restaurant, grab your Big Mac and fries, go in the rest room and eat there.

For the rest of us; it is time to demystify the boob. Unless you are prepared to admit that you are deep down, as backward as the old school Muslim, let women dress by the same standard we apply to men; at work, at the gym, on the beach, wherever.  I could go on with suggestions about quitting the prohibitions on the male or female body in ads and TV shows, but you get the idea already.

Don't Eat Your Young! Please, No Fratricide!

My goodness!  Operation Moron is waaay behind schedule.  Give me a break on that.  My day job kept me away and I just moved to a new house.

Let's Employ the Reagan Rule.

The Republican field is shaping up nicely.  Pay no attention to the early poles.  Especially where it applies to your favorite candidate.  You don't want your guy to peak too early. I have my favorites and will do my level best to NOT trash the others too forcefully.  There are two exceptions to that. (Oh hush! There are always exceptions.)  One is Huckabee.  How in the hell did he ever get himself seen as a conservative.  He's a progressive who uses Jesus a lot in order to pander to the Christian right.  He's not a conservative.  My Christian friends will have to look elsewhere for a candidate who is both Christian - the authenticity of which is hard to measure - and a conservative which is easy to measure.  Cruz, maybe?  The other exception is Santorum.  This guy has theocracy written all over him.

Other than those, I will argue policy and ideas with the Republican field, but I won't break their stones.
I'll save my real wrath for people like Bill Clinton's old lady.

In a previous post I admonished my fellow voters to not spend their time bashing every republican wannabe who is not their guy (or gal).  I have similar advise for the candidates.  Let's start now to get candidates thinking along those lines.  That's part of what Operation Moron is about.  Not just dumping the big four in congress (good for every single American) but having a more civilized and productive approach to politics (which is good for Republicans). That means layout your positives and comparing yourself positively to all opponents.  But save the big guns for the slime that currently hold the highest offices right now.

 

When a Broken Clock Gets It Right

Hand me down my foil hat!  Conspiracies abound!

It has been said by the religiously inclined that the biggest trick the devil ever pulled off was to make people think he didn’t exist.  It allows him to run wild and wreak havoc unchecked.   Unaware of the source of evil, people can’t stop him.

Similarly, the greatest ally of a corrupt government is the conspiracy theorist. Often labeled conspiracy freaks, these folks – if they are not too nutty in their appearance – tend to grab some headlines at first.  If their complaints don’t pass the smell test, they quickly fade from the public forum.  The more outrageous and easily dismissed, the quicker that happens, and the moniker freak is assigned.  This is often well-deserved.  The most egregious that comes immediately to mind is the video of the twin towers with the second 767 digitally removed.  The viewer sees a whole shaped like an aircraft suddenly appear, for no apparent reason, in the side building followed by a fiery explosion.  It was quite an effort to promote a silly argument, but sociopaths are often determined people.

The Devils in DC

The problem with having these freaks gaining press is that when real life gets too uncomfortable, we can simply label the speaker a conspiracy freak and feel good about ignoring their complaint.  And that is where the real trick lies.  In the case of our current government, we have been played for idiots time and time again because when confronted with serious charges, the target would either treat the story as a conspiracy theory or come right out and label the herald a freak.  From Fast and Furious to Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton’s emails, legitimate charges have been thwarted by thin straw man arguments and amused dismissal.  White House press skank, Josh Earnest does this every single day.  And he gets lots of practice because this administration is by far the most corrupt, totalitarian cabal in our history.  Earnest doesn’t spin from that podium; he lies from behind a smirk that is utterly contemptuous of criticism or honest discourse.  And our pathetic press; they simply record the moment and go for cocktails.  The few who do challenge the administration will only go so far for fear of loosing their press passes to the fetid sewer that our executive mansion has become.   They are not digging for information, nor for that matter reporting what is occurring right in front of them.

Just look at Mrs. Clinton’s email scam.  She erased them.  She said so. Her staff said so. The State department said so.  The explanations were so childish, so breathtakingly disingenuous that one is left yelling questions at the TV that the press should be asking.  Among the questions would be:  What charges will the former Secretary be facing?  What would the likely sentence be if she were found guilty?  What about her lying to congress about Benghazi (the US was running guns to Syria via Turkey, as it turns out, to the wrong people)? 

Of course, such questions about that woman being charged with anything would be met with the freak treatment mentioned above – and most of the press would go along with it.

But when the truth is this obvious, a sycophantic press is not the problem.  We are.  It’s easy to dismiss unpleasantness with dismissive labels, but in the case of this government, it is perilous to do so.  We need to stand up.  We need to deal with what has happened and is happening to our country.

But the above complaints are all prologue. The most immediate priority is relieving Obama of any dealings with Iran.  We have watched idly as he lied about his intentions to deal with their nuclear program.  The entire three-year production has been a lie.  When the administration said at the beginning of negotiations that Iran was 7-10 years from breakout (that point at which they could weaponize nukes) every literate human being knew that was a lie already.  And yet, when he said he intended to prevent them from attaining a nuke, the press pretended to believe that too.  Late last year, the breakout point was 12 – 18 months.  Still a lie, and we were already lifting sanctions!!!!  When congress said they wouldn’t allow Obama to enact an agreement on his own the American Emperor said that it is silly at this point to quibble because Iran was only about a month from breakout so we need to have this agreement to keep the genie in the bottle for ten more years.  News flash:  Nothing will stop Iran from weaponizing.  That was never the point.  More on this later.

Devil Dorks

While witnessing lie after lie, what did Boehner and McConnell do?  They “compromised” with Obama in the way in which they would be “allowed” to review this worthless sham document.

Here are the two greatest offenses.  One, McConnell and Boehner are the loyal opposition representing a separate and equal branch of a constitutional government.  They do not work for the White House.  They marshal votes for their position and issue orders, in the form of bills, to the White House. Such orders can be vetoed and that veto possibly overridden, but the bills carry the weight of the American will.  Yet these two ineffectual idiots ask for allowances rather than insisting on doing their duty.  In behaving this way all through these years, they have facilitated offense number two.

The Devils Holds a Fire Sale

Here, I stand corrected on the piece I wrote earlier about losing Egypt.  I allowed for cowardice and incompetence as the reason for the United States losing our influence in the Middle East and North Africa; and cowardice may be a part of it.  Sadly, there seems to be a more devious reason.  The Obama/Jarrett cabal is not and has not been working to protect the interests of the United States abroad.  Quite to the contrary, they have been actively seeking the advantage of a few Muslim countries over ours.

Look how far the administration has perverted its original stance on Iran.  Since declaring his unwavering determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes in 2012, we have been watching Obama lobby congress, directly and through the press.  They are working strenuously to protect Iran's nuke ambitions and produce an agreement that provides this country with absolutely no satisfaction while facilitating the production of nuclear weapons by Iran's phony religious nut bags (read: ayatollahs.)

Don’t take my word for it.  Watch the pattern develop.  From their starting point, Obama has steadily backed away from the original plan of complete prevention of Iranian nukes and possible regime change to accomplish that goal.  From the very start the administration fought against sanctions.  Throughout the process, they nagged congress to lessen and then lift sanctions.  While the Kabuki Theater they called negotiations played out and sanctions were reduced, Iran became more bellicose.  They were downright cocky.  They were clearly told that Obama was in their corner, not in ours.  “Negotiators” would meet in plush surroundings in Geneva and go on record with phony positions, none of which was intended to go on paper in any real way.  And as Iran raced to improve their nuke program, the Administration dug in its heels – against the United States Congress!

UPDATE: As of this week, the Jarrett administration has announced through their the spokesbitch Josh Earnest, that the June 30th deadline (now the 4th deadline?) isn't really the deadline.  Whatever deal they come away with will require further negotiations to really, REALLY get right.  Please, no sanctions on our Iranian friends during this delicate period.

We are watching your president, the C-in-C of your armed forces, and naked Islamophile, slow walk a scam to ensure that our sworn enemy, total religious nut bags, get a nuke to lord over the world.  When it is over, they'll say, "Well, golly. We did our best, but they got the Bomb anyway.  Sneaky bastards."

And have Boenher and McConnell stopped all action on any bill to address this insanity?  No! during this time, they have voted to give Mr. Executive Authority enhanced trade negotiating authority!  Why are those two morons still in their seats?  Why are they not out of power?  House and Senate: Grow balls! Dump the morons and throw a stick in the spokes of Obama's girl bike!  NOW!

And elsewhere…

And it gets worse my friends, much worse.  Question: If Obama/Jarrett really wanted to keep Iraq stable and not make a mockery of the loss of American lives there, why would they have waited until 30 days before the expiration of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to do anything to maintain our interests?  And when they finally decided to act, why did they send Joe “Duh” Biden to do the heavy lifting?  My previous answer allowed for stupidity.  I now repudiate that assertion for one much clearer.  Barack Obama, Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, the Chief Executive for the government of these United States, fully intended to leave behind a power vacuum for his friends in Iran to fill.  The same Obama wants the vilest of Muslim countries to have a nuke.  The same Barack Hussein Obama and Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett fought the United States Senate in an attempt to preserve the power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Fortunately for the citizens of Egypt, better people who don’t think religious nut baggery makes for good governance prevailed and ousted the nut bags despite the assistance provided to the MB by Obama.

The insanity continues.  Obama knew he couldn’t just walk away from Afghanistan.  But even with his “surge”, a lame pretense of force costing American lives, Obama made it nakedly clear to those he favors there that they should just sit tight, we’ll be gone soon.  Hell, he announces every withdrawal with each strategic adjustment.

And those who know better, Republican and Democrat have allowed this to happen.  Whether watching the cabal gather power unto itself domestically with Obamacare and illegal immigration activity, or allowing the cabal to ignore the law in the cases of Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, Bill’s wife and her emails, those senators and congressmen have done the United States and their own institutions a grave disservice.  And they have compounded that immeasurably by allowing the President to sell us out to the power mongers in countries like Iran.

Allow Me a Broad Extrapolation.

Here’s the foil hat part.  Why, since Clinton, have we had elections where the county is so closely split on Election Day?  The whores and hacks of the political class tell us it is because we are so polarized.  But when have there not been at least two poles of influence in politics? There is nothing inherently wrong with polarization. That’s just a talking point both parties indulge in, much like both parties exploiting illegal immigrants for their own gains – Dems for the illegal voters and Reps for the slave labor the Chamber of Commerce loves.  Why is the vote always so close? With a White House devoid of ethics and congress behaving like a nakedly corrupt lapdog, does it become plausible that the leadership in both parties have rigged the paperless vote to reflect a slowly modulating split of power between themselves?  With paperless ballots, it’s easy as hell to do.  We have never had a period of so many four-year cycles where one party just barely beats out the other and only those who seem to be already out of favor lose their seats.  Clearly, if I am only half right about what I’ve written, this government has no ethical or constitutional compass.

Have we reached that point?  Have we become more debased than Mexico? Does the reader even give a damn that I ask? Or am I just one of those freaks?

Next Time:  How do we take our country back?