Iran is Bigger Threat than ISIS

I think negotiating with the Iranian Mullahs about their nukes is going to be a far bigger disaster than Iraq. Coupled with doing as little as possible in Syria after Assad used poison gas, the policy of nuclear negotiations with Iran is pressuring the Saudis and Qataris to buy some Pakistani nukes. It is also encouraging Israel to nuke Iran. The Chicago Prodigy in Chief has no clue what he's doing. All he can say is Bush did it. Even if it were true, what difference, at this point, does it make? What's our Dear Leader going to do to mitigate the mess? 

High value Iranian nuclear sites are burred very deeply with a lot of concrete hardening. The only effective non-nuclear weapon that can destroy these sites is a 30,000 pound bunker buster. Israel does not have the capability to deliver a 30,000 pound bunker buster bomb against the Iranian air defense system even if the US gave them a few. F-16 airplanes can't destroy hardened targets with conventional weapons. I agree that Israel is closely watching Iran, but the only way Israel can destroy hardened Iranian nuclear sites is to use its nuclear weapons. I don't find the prospect of nuclear war in the Middle East comforting. I also don't believe the Chicago Hack in Chief is ever going to order a US strike on Iran, even if Iran successfully tests their own nuclear bomb.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/iraq-is-broken-we-cant-fix-it-and-theres-no-good-reason-to-try/article/2549910

No Woodward & Bernstein for IRS Scandal

The Pravda Press has taken support for our Dear Leader to new heights.  The article in the link below flunks the Nixon test so badly it hurts. If you change the names from the Chicago Prodigy in Chief and friends to Richard Nixon and his minions, there is no way you can imagine an article making excuses for the current administration.  I work in IT. In order to lose emails under normal conditions, someone has to delete them in multiple places. There is no way that a crash on a single PC wipes out all copies of a year's worth of emails, let alone 2 years. In private business, Sarbanes Oxley records have to be retained for 7 years. What retention of IRS records is required by law? Does IRS truly reuse backup tapes every 6 months? If so, they have moved back to the Nixon era from a technological point of view. So the best interpretation of the known facts is that the government can't run any technological operation. Backing up an email system is not rocket science. So the best interpretation leads to the conclusion that the government should be radically downsized to keep them out of activities they have no ability to perform. If we take off the article's rosy colored glasses, the facts reek of cover-up. The article reeks of a search for any possible scenario for plausible deniability, no matter how unlikely. I had no idea that Bloomberg is a front for the Democrats. I don't see Woodward and Bernstein or a Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism in this article.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-19/an-irs-conspiracy-not-likely-yet

In the private sector, the lack of a legal hold on the emails would be a crime. If there was a legal hold, how did all of the email backup tapes get erased? So obviously there was no legal hold, or at least none that was actually complied with. I think the best possible interpretation of the known facts is that the government is incompetent technologically. If that's the case, then government needs to be radically downsized to remove functions that it is technically incompetent to perform. If instead this is the cover-up that I believe it to be, then people ought to lose their jobs, starting with Koskinen and ending with most of the management of the Information Technology email functions at the IRS. The ranks of the fired should include all IRS civil servants above GS-12 who don't know enough to backup an email system. Since this is unlikely as long as the Chicago Hack in Chief is running things, Congress should reduce all of the civil service managers responsible by 2 pay grades, and cut the IRS budget to match. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-20/camp-calls-for-special-prosecutor-in-missing-irs-e-mails.html

Global Warming Explains Bergdahl Trade

I have finally figured out the real reason for the Bergdahl trade.   I now know that the release of the Taliban 5 is part of our Dear Leader's environmental strategy. The Chicago Machine Prodigy is recycling terrorists! I'm sure Tom Steyer and all the other Mean Greens are thrilled at this new way to preserve the environment. Think of all the carbon dioxide released in the breathing required to produce one terrorist. This policy should be continued until Global Warming is stopped cold, period! (snark)

Liberals Want to Amend Free Speech

Democrats hate the Citizens United case, where the Supreme Court said that restrictions on political spending by incorporated groups were unconstitutional.  Democrats say the decision will allow the Koch Brothers to “Buy Elections.”  The One All Liberals Were Waiting For has said we need a Constitutional Amendment to fix the problems created by the Citizens United decision.  In response, Senator Mark Udall (D, Colorado) has introduced a Constitutional Amendment to change the Bill of Rights so Congress can regulate corporate free speech.  Harry Reid, the Democrats' Leader in the Senate, supports the amendment.  Whatever Democrats say or think, Bush never even considered amending the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It does not say except for any organized groups that incorporate. If pornography has to be allowed in order to preserve free speech, and I think it does, then incorporated organizations of all types have to be allowed to buy political ads. If the New York Times (incorporated) is allowed to publish Liberal trash talk as "news," then Citizens United has to be allowed to make movies that rebut the Pravda Press. Anything less is censorship. Liberals seem to believe in censorship, as long as it's the Tea Party and Republicans being censored. The Koch brothers do not buy elections. If they influence elections it's because their arguments make sense to the majority of voters

Let me explain what "Buying Elections" historically means, at least in Chicago.  It means bribing voters to vote your way using "walking around money." It usually involves "Vote early, vote often" fraud where voters cast ballots for people who have died. In the old days, this was done with chain voting. The paid voter is given a marked ballot before entering the poling place. To get paid, he has to bring out a blank ballot. At the next poling place, the party hack marks the blank ballot, then sends the bribed voter to vote again. He brings out a new blank ballot. This continues until all the ghosts have voted. "Buying Elections" does not mean buying ads on radio and TV to explain your reasons for wanting certain political outcomes. Buying ads is Free Speech.  From the Democrats’ comments, it sounds like Liberals don't really believe in Free Speech. They instead believe that the opposition needs to be silenced. Could this be the result of Liberal arguments for "Hope and Change" are no longer fooling the public? 

http://cnsnews.com/news/articl...