Tuesday, December 29, 2015
The Best Funny Political Tweets of 2015
What a long, strange year it's been. As the presidential election campaign season heated up, the world got progressively more bonkers, and lots of people tweeted about it. So, here you have it: The Funniest Political Tweets of 2015, as nominated and voted on by a panel of experts - well, really just one expert - me. Enjoy!
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Paul Ryan Can't Win on Omnibus Bill
Paul Ryan The poster boy for P90X workouts fiscal responsibility just achieved his first big spending bill agreement as Speaker of the House.
The omnibus spending bill funds the federal government through September of 2016, to the tune of $1.1 trillion. Its 2,242 pages are nothing to sneeze at - especially since voting will happen today, when members of Congress have had all of two days to go through it.
The reaction to Speaker Ryan's omnibus bill has been lukewarm. It's packed full of goodies - expensive goodies, natch, but it does keep the government open. So, there's that.
This is why Paul Ryan can't win: If he writes a conservative bill, it won't pass, and the government shuts down. The only bill he can get passed through the Democrat-controlled Senate is one that is deeply flawed, and continues down the path of overspending that Ryan has spent his whole political career trying to fix.
No wonder nobody wanted this Speaker gig.
If passed, the bill would lift the ban on exporting crude oil. FINALLY. It's 4 decades old, and it makes no sense.
Two Obamacare taxes are postponed for another two years. As in, after the 2016 election. As in, people won't realize just how bad Obama's signature legislation is, until after they've already voted. I'm sure Hillary is thrilled about this.
Republicans wanted to defund Planned Parenthood and to block some forms of Iraqi and Syrian refugee resettlement - this bill gets them neither of those things. Democrats get to keep their wind and solar power subsidies, too.
At least one prominent conservative (Rep. Justin Amash, for those of you keeping score at home) has come out against the bill, saying it allows for too much cybersurveillance.
One Democrat Senator (Tom Udall, from New Mexico) got his pet project into the bill, namely, preventing the slaughter of wild burros. So, the country is going for broke, but the wild burros are safe.
It looks like Paul Ryan got one big win in exchange for several smaller losses. Oh, and Congress finally did something good for the 9/11 First Responders! A fund for their health care has been established through 2090, so they're covered for as long as they'll need.
Personally, I wouldn't mind another government shutdown. The shutdown only closed "non-essential services" - the government shouldn't be doing anything non-essential in the first place! But knowing how poorly that played for the GOP, I'll settle for a government cutdown - a gradual shrinking, which Paul Ryan is working toward.
Sources:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/12/paul_ryan_s_first_deal_is_just_like_john_boehner_s_old_ones.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/15/politics/ryan-announces-deal-averting-shutdown/index.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/budget-house-freedom-caucus-216876
The omnibus spending bill funds the federal government through September of 2016, to the tune of $1.1 trillion. Its 2,242 pages are nothing to sneeze at - especially since voting will happen today, when members of Congress have had all of two days to go through it.
The reaction to Speaker Ryan's omnibus bill has been lukewarm. It's packed full of goodies - expensive goodies, natch, but it does keep the government open. So, there's that.
This is why Paul Ryan can't win: If he writes a conservative bill, it won't pass, and the government shuts down. The only bill he can get passed through the Democrat-controlled Senate is one that is deeply flawed, and continues down the path of overspending that Ryan has spent his whole political career trying to fix.
No wonder nobody wanted this Speaker gig.
If passed, the bill would lift the ban on exporting crude oil. FINALLY. It's 4 decades old, and it makes no sense.
Two Obamacare taxes are postponed for another two years. As in, after the 2016 election. As in, people won't realize just how bad Obama's signature legislation is, until after they've already voted. I'm sure Hillary is thrilled about this.
Republicans wanted to defund Planned Parenthood and to block some forms of Iraqi and Syrian refugee resettlement - this bill gets them neither of those things. Democrats get to keep their wind and solar power subsidies, too.
At least one prominent conservative (Rep. Justin Amash, for those of you keeping score at home) has come out against the bill, saying it allows for too much cybersurveillance.
One Democrat Senator (Tom Udall, from New Mexico) got his pet project into the bill, namely, preventing the slaughter of wild burros. So, the country is going for broke, but the wild burros are safe.
It looks like Paul Ryan got one big win in exchange for several smaller losses. Oh, and Congress finally did something good for the 9/11 First Responders! A fund for their health care has been established through 2090, so they're covered for as long as they'll need.
Personally, I wouldn't mind another government shutdown. The shutdown only closed "non-essential services" - the government shouldn't be doing anything non-essential in the first place! But knowing how poorly that played for the GOP, I'll settle for a government cutdown - a gradual shrinking, which Paul Ryan is working toward.
Sources:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/12/paul_ryan_s_first_deal_is_just_like_john_boehner_s_old_ones.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/15/politics/ryan-announces-deal-averting-shutdown/index.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/budget-house-freedom-caucus-216876
Monday, December 14, 2015
U.S. Policy Requires Officials to Ignore Visa Applicants' Jihadist Social Media Rants
Several high-ranking DHS officials have stepped forward with information on a secret government policy, which banned security officials from looking at the social media accounts of visa applicants.
One of those visa applicants was Tashfeen Malik, wife of Syed Farook and one-half of the terrorist pair that murdered fourteen Americans in San Bernardino.
The K-1 visa process required Malik to undergo three background checks. Not only did the checks fail to catch her social media activity, but they didn't even look for her online accounts. The oversight was intentional: A U.S. policy bars security officials from looking at visa applicants' social media during the visa process.
John Cohen, former acting under-secretary at DHS, is breaking the silence around this absurd social media rule. Of it, he said, "it was primarily a question of optics." The government didn't want to look like it was discriminating.
That's a problem, because the entire point of the visa process is to discriminate between people who should be allowed into the country, and people who should not. It is a process of discrimination. As long as it's discriminating on basis of actual safety threat and not of race/creed/color/sexual orientation/favorite Starburst flavor, that discrimination is a good thing.
When people tell you who they are, you should listen. Malik brazenly stated her pro-terrorism, anti-America stance on social media - even on a dating site, which has got to be creepiest way to flirt, but I digress. For the government to willfully turn a blind eye to terrorist threats made online is infuriating.
Even with the failure of the visa process - failure guaranteed by bad policy - Farook and Malik still could have been caught as they planned their attack. One neighbor noticed "suspicious activity," including that the pair received many packages in a short amount of time and always seemed to be in their garage. The neighbor said nothing, out of fear of being labeled a racist.
Twice, these people could have been caught - once during the visa process, and once by the concerned neighbor. Twice, good people were dissuaded from speaking up because of "political correctness." There is nothing "correct" about a system that allows terrorist threats to go unreported.
We have a government that tells us "See something, say something," and a culture - even within the government itself - that says "If you say anything about a Middle Easterner, you're a racist, and we don't care what you saw." It's a toxic way to think - and it only makes it easier for bad people to get away with terrorist activity right under our noses.
One of those visa applicants was Tashfeen Malik, wife of Syed Farook and one-half of the terrorist pair that murdered fourteen Americans in San Bernardino.
The K-1 visa process required Malik to undergo three background checks. Not only did the checks fail to catch her social media activity, but they didn't even look for her online accounts. The oversight was intentional: A U.S. policy bars security officials from looking at visa applicants' social media during the visa process.
John Cohen, former acting under-secretary at DHS, is breaking the silence around this absurd social media rule. Of it, he said, "it was primarily a question of optics." The government didn't want to look like it was discriminating.
That's a problem, because the entire point of the visa process is to discriminate between people who should be allowed into the country, and people who should not. It is a process of discrimination. As long as it's discriminating on basis of actual safety threat and not of race/creed/color/sexual orientation/favorite Starburst flavor, that discrimination is a good thing.
When people tell you who they are, you should listen. Malik brazenly stated her pro-terrorism, anti-America stance on social media - even on a dating site, which has got to be creepiest way to flirt, but I digress. For the government to willfully turn a blind eye to terrorist threats made online is infuriating.
Even with the failure of the visa process - failure guaranteed by bad policy - Farook and Malik still could have been caught as they planned their attack. One neighbor noticed "suspicious activity," including that the pair received many packages in a short amount of time and always seemed to be in their garage. The neighbor said nothing, out of fear of being labeled a racist.
Twice, these people could have been caught - once during the visa process, and once by the concerned neighbor. Twice, good people were dissuaded from speaking up because of "political correctness." There is nothing "correct" about a system that allows terrorist threats to go unreported.
We have a government that tells us "See something, say something," and a culture - even within the government itself - that says "If you say anything about a Middle Easterner, you're a racist, and we don't care what you saw." It's a toxic way to think - and it only makes it easier for bad people to get away with terrorist activity right under our noses.
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Obama's Crisis of Confidence
President Obama's Oval Office Address to the nation is now being compared to Carter's "malaise" speech, also called his "crisis of confidence" speech. Both were meant to rally the nation, and both came off as lecturing, not leadership.
President Obama stood behind a podium in front of a desk (weird), appeared exhausted, and got a key fact wrong - he said that Tashfeen Malik was here on a visa waiver, when in fact she was here on a fiancee visa. President Obama also noted that he's been working to combat the terrorist threat for his entire presidency...that's good that he's been paying attention, but why are we still losing?
This is President Obama's "malaise" speech, and here's why: Nothing he proposed in the speech would have prevented the horrific terrorist attack in San Bernardino.
Parts of the speech were good. This President finally sounded committed to this war - and asked Congress to authorize sending ground troops. (If he had acted decisively a few years back, we would have never needed them, but here we are.) President Obama also noted that we're working as part of a coalition of countries to ultimately reach a ceasefire in Syria.
Now here's where it gets dicey: President Obama also advocated barring anyone on the No-Fly List from purchasing a gun. Terrorists shouldn't have guns (because if you're committed to war against the United States, you've forfeited your constitutional rights, so no tasty Second Amendment for you!). It sounds like a good idea, until you realized that the No-Fly List is a mess. In 2005, an internal audit found that it was riddled with false positives. Among them were Senator Ted Kennedy, a nun, several deceased people, a commercial pilot (HA!) and a six-year old girl...just to name a few. Many innocent people were listed simply because they had similar names to suspected terrorists, and the problem persists to this day. You know who wasn't on the list? Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik.
There are compelling national security reasons for a No-Fly List, but that list will be useless if it's inaccurate. And even if the No-Fly List was accurate - it is still unconstitutional to deny someone their 2nd Amendment rights when that person has never been charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. The idea of the government putting people on a list, without due process, and then using that list to deny Constitutional rights is just...no. No no no.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want terrorists to have guns - so, find those terrorists and charge them with the crimes they have committed. This doesn't mean waiting until an attack has taken place, since making terrorist threats and conspiring to commit terror are both crimes for which these people could be charged. THAT is how you keep guns out of their hands - legally.
President Obama also lectured us about Islamophobia. The tone was patronizing (lecturing law-abiding Americans who are generally quite tolerant folks), but the content was at least partially right: ISIS does use instances of Islamophobia to recruit fighters from the West. If you do something dumb against a Muslim out of fear, then you're helping ISIS drum up more propaganda.
Here's the thing, though: Nobody is doing that. I keep hearing about an "anti-Muslim backlash," but so far the evidence is extremely thin. There is absolutely zero evidence that the San Bernardino terrorists ever experienced racist or anti-Muslim hatred. In fact, the same coworkers they slaughtered had recently thrown the pair a baby shower. A pervasive climate of political correctness helped them plan their massacre unimpeded: neighbors of Farook and Malik considered reporting them to law enforcement, but were so afraid of being smeared as racist or Islamophobic that they said nothing.
A climate of acceptance and tolerance is an important and good thing to have, but it does not stop terror. Nor will the No-Fly No-Buy rule stop terrorists. We tuned in tonight expecting a stronger plan to fight ISIS, a more detailed policy outline, at least a strong dose of leadership. Instead, we got a crisis of confidence.
President Obama stood behind a podium in front of a desk (weird), appeared exhausted, and got a key fact wrong - he said that Tashfeen Malik was here on a visa waiver, when in fact she was here on a fiancee visa. President Obama also noted that he's been working to combat the terrorist threat for his entire presidency...that's good that he's been paying attention, but why are we still losing?
This is President Obama's "malaise" speech, and here's why: Nothing he proposed in the speech would have prevented the horrific terrorist attack in San Bernardino.
Parts of the speech were good. This President finally sounded committed to this war - and asked Congress to authorize sending ground troops. (If he had acted decisively a few years back, we would have never needed them, but here we are.) President Obama also noted that we're working as part of a coalition of countries to ultimately reach a ceasefire in Syria.
Now here's where it gets dicey: President Obama also advocated barring anyone on the No-Fly List from purchasing a gun. Terrorists shouldn't have guns (because if you're committed to war against the United States, you've forfeited your constitutional rights, so no tasty Second Amendment for you!). It sounds like a good idea, until you realized that the No-Fly List is a mess. In 2005, an internal audit found that it was riddled with false positives. Among them were Senator Ted Kennedy, a nun, several deceased people, a commercial pilot (HA!) and a six-year old girl...just to name a few. Many innocent people were listed simply because they had similar names to suspected terrorists, and the problem persists to this day. You know who wasn't on the list? Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik.
There are compelling national security reasons for a No-Fly List, but that list will be useless if it's inaccurate. And even if the No-Fly List was accurate - it is still unconstitutional to deny someone their 2nd Amendment rights when that person has never been charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. The idea of the government putting people on a list, without due process, and then using that list to deny Constitutional rights is just...no. No no no.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want terrorists to have guns - so, find those terrorists and charge them with the crimes they have committed. This doesn't mean waiting until an attack has taken place, since making terrorist threats and conspiring to commit terror are both crimes for which these people could be charged. THAT is how you keep guns out of their hands - legally.
President Obama also lectured us about Islamophobia. The tone was patronizing (lecturing law-abiding Americans who are generally quite tolerant folks), but the content was at least partially right: ISIS does use instances of Islamophobia to recruit fighters from the West. If you do something dumb against a Muslim out of fear, then you're helping ISIS drum up more propaganda.
Here's the thing, though: Nobody is doing that. I keep hearing about an "anti-Muslim backlash," but so far the evidence is extremely thin. There is absolutely zero evidence that the San Bernardino terrorists ever experienced racist or anti-Muslim hatred. In fact, the same coworkers they slaughtered had recently thrown the pair a baby shower. A pervasive climate of political correctness helped them plan their massacre unimpeded: neighbors of Farook and Malik considered reporting them to law enforcement, but were so afraid of being smeared as racist or Islamophobic that they said nothing.
A climate of acceptance and tolerance is an important and good thing to have, but it does not stop terror. Nor will the No-Fly No-Buy rule stop terrorists. We tuned in tonight expecting a stronger plan to fight ISIS, a more detailed policy outline, at least a strong dose of leadership. Instead, we got a crisis of confidence.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
San Bernardino is a Battle in the War on Terror
This post hinges on two things - first, we are at war. Second, the government and media refuse to tell us the truth about it.
What happened in San Bernardino yesterday - a coordinated attack, by two radical Muslims, on a county facility - is an act of war. It was a battle. A siege on innocent people.
This wasn't a lone wolf, mentally ill person. That's not to say that those murderous sickos don't exist - just that this is a different brand of murderous sickos. They didn't act alone. This was a husband and wife team; Sayeed Farook and wife Tasheen Malik dropped off their baby daughter at grandma's house before ambushing an office and killing fourteen people.
We know that Farouk was a US citizen. That doesn't matter - this war is being fought not on national lines but on cultural ones. It's the West vs. the Rest, and every one of us has to pick a side.
San Bernardino is just one battle in this war. Paris was another. So was Fort Hood. So was the radical Muslim in Oklahoma who beheaded his former coworker - just another incident of "workplace violence."
And the war rages in the Middle East, too. A President who promised "no boots on the ground" is now mobilizing the military, including Special Forces. Either the military has changed their uniforms (maybe they've switched to sneakers?), these troops are all levitating, or there are in fact "boots on the ground."
Obama and his proxies keep telling us ISIS is contained, and yet the radical Islamic death cult only seems to be growing. They're spreading and recruiting.
The press is all too eager to help the current administration obfuscate this war. Yesterday, they blamed the NRA, white men, and the GOP for hours on end. Then the suspects' names came out, and a legion of lefty activists fell silent. They had so much to say, when nothing was known! And as soon as the facts came out, they fell silent. It's supposed to work the exact opposite way.
And just one last note, for the record: I am pro-thoughts and pro-prayers. I'm also pro-honesty. This country need all three.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
The Most Shocking Findings in Sen. Langford's "Federal Fumbles" Waste Report
Senator James Langford (R-OK) has listed 100 instances of reckless federal spending in his new report, "Federal Fumbles." This is the latest installment in a publishing tradition started by Langford's predecessor, Senator Tom Coburn, who would release a "Wastebook" catalog of federal excesses each year.
The report contains 100 different instances of federal overreach, from excessive beetle protection (really) to agencies effectively repeating each others' work - on our dime. I've picked out the most shocking, and listed them by category.
Billions
The government issued $6 billion in subsidies to the wind power industry. THAT'S SO DUMB. Wind power is great and all, but it's great because wind is 1) everywhere, 2) free, and 3) renewable. The wind power industry is also profitable - it doesn't need a subsidy in order to grow. Leave it to the Washington bureaucrats to subsidize LITERAL AIR.
Identity theft: It's a huge crime, and a profitable one. The federal government, particularly our beloved IRS, gave out $5 billion in fraudulent tax refunds last year.
There was also $5.6 billion in fraud over the "American Opportunity Tax Credit" - a tax credit that allows $2,000 to be deducted from your tax bill if you're in college or graduate school. That credit itself is a good idea - the feds have done so much to jack up the cost of college, that they might as well help us pay for it. Problem is, thousands if not millions of people claimed that tax credit when they weren't enrolled in school, and the IRS just caaaasually decided not to verify enrollment, so they got away with it.
Millions
Not to be outdone by the billions category, the millions are truly outlandish. Let's talk about a $2.6 million weight loss program for truckers. How about a $247 million FEMA system, that nobody at FEMA is using?
A real standout in this category is the $48 million in supplies intended for Yemen, which are still sitting in a warehouse in Virginia.
There's also the Essential Air Service, which was meant to expire in 1988. It's still subsidizing flights to and from rural airports, even though hardly anyone is taking them. It's not an "essential" service at all, but we still paid $263 million this past year to fly mostly empty planes.
Thousands
This is where we get the weird studies conducted by federal agencies - one on dating patterns among the elderly ($374,000), a documentary on a fiddler ($5,000), and a study of the history of cigarette use in Russia ($48,500). The National Science Foundation also spent a cool $50,000 on creating a card game about snails.
Our federal government needs to slim down and shape up. We're already careening towards $19 trillion in debt. Reckless waste makes the problem needlessly worse. It's also an insult to taxpayers that while we have to live on less, the government continually takes more.
The report contains 100 different instances of federal overreach, from excessive beetle protection (really) to agencies effectively repeating each others' work - on our dime. I've picked out the most shocking, and listed them by category.
 |
| If fiscal conservatives are the Plastics, then this is our Burn Book. |
The government issued $6 billion in subsidies to the wind power industry. THAT'S SO DUMB. Wind power is great and all, but it's great because wind is 1) everywhere, 2) free, and 3) renewable. The wind power industry is also profitable - it doesn't need a subsidy in order to grow. Leave it to the Washington bureaucrats to subsidize LITERAL AIR.
Identity theft: It's a huge crime, and a profitable one. The federal government, particularly our beloved IRS, gave out $5 billion in fraudulent tax refunds last year.
There was also $5.6 billion in fraud over the "American Opportunity Tax Credit" - a tax credit that allows $2,000 to be deducted from your tax bill if you're in college or graduate school. That credit itself is a good idea - the feds have done so much to jack up the cost of college, that they might as well help us pay for it. Problem is, thousands if not millions of people claimed that tax credit when they weren't enrolled in school, and the IRS just caaaasually decided not to verify enrollment, so they got away with it.
Millions
Not to be outdone by the billions category, the millions are truly outlandish. Let's talk about a $2.6 million weight loss program for truckers. How about a $247 million FEMA system, that nobody at FEMA is using?
A real standout in this category is the $48 million in supplies intended for Yemen, which are still sitting in a warehouse in Virginia.
There's also the Essential Air Service, which was meant to expire in 1988. It's still subsidizing flights to and from rural airports, even though hardly anyone is taking them. It's not an "essential" service at all, but we still paid $263 million this past year to fly mostly empty planes.
Thousands
This is where we get the weird studies conducted by federal agencies - one on dating patterns among the elderly ($374,000), a documentary on a fiddler ($5,000), and a study of the history of cigarette use in Russia ($48,500). The National Science Foundation also spent a cool $50,000 on creating a card game about snails.
Our federal government needs to slim down and shape up. We're already careening towards $19 trillion in debt. Reckless waste makes the problem needlessly worse. It's also an insult to taxpayers that while we have to live on less, the government continually takes more.
Monday, November 30, 2015
Two 2016 Candidates Just Got Shadier
While you were in a turkey coma, shadiness started coming out about Jeb's inner circle - and another strong whiff of corruption wafted off of Hillary.
Let's start with Jeb!: At least two close allies of Jeb Bush are thought to have spread a rumor that Marco Rubio cheated on his wife. They call it a "zipper problem," which sounds like a band name. Buzzfeed's McKay Coppins broke the story, but it's clearly far from over - did Jeb know about this? And now that the story is out in the open, will Jeb fire the two women who started this mess?
A politician having an affair is a terribly believable story. Except for one thing: There is no evidence to suggest that Rubio ever had an affair. And Team Marco has gone looking for it! They (a major PAC) submitted Rubio to a $40,000 PR investigation, which Buzzfeed calls "a political rectal probe." They raided the proverbial closet, and found zero skeletons.
But the rumor was enough to scare off some potential Rubio donors. Not a good look, Jeb, to cook up an unfounded rumor about an opponent - or to associate with people who would do such a thing.
Now, for Hillary: As Secretary of State, she met frequently with Democrat donors, Clinton Foundation benefactors, and campaign staffers. And it looks like she tried to lie about it.
Hillary's emails are trickling out, and the AP submitted a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) to the State Department for her calendars. The emails should - in theory - match the calendars. But they don't. Some of the emails are "mini schedules" - a Clinton campaign spokesman says that she was only sent "mini schedules" on certain days. I don't believe that the Secretary of State was sometimes not informed of her own schedule. That's not true - and if it was - it's a further sign of incompetence.
Anyway, the AP found 12 discrepancies between the "mini schedules" in the emails, and the official calendars. There's only been 155 "mini schedules" in the emails released so far.
Drip, drip, drip...the scandals just keep coming. Eww.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)