Kid Kills 4 in Drunk Driving/Excessive Speed Rampage;
Sentenced to Only Probation, Because Judge Agrees He's Been So Spoiled By His Parents That He Doesn't Understand the Consequences of His Actions

—Ace

A very alarming story from Purple Avenger on the graveyard shift, also covered at Hot Air.

Even if one accepts that homicide-by-drunk-driving should not be charged like a murder or manslaughter, this particular case -- featuring a kid who stole beer, then got drunk at three times the legal limit, then sped around at 70 mph in a 40mph zone -- is one of what the law would call "willfulness," deliberately taking dangerous actions knowing the possible consequences but not caring. And that's manslaughter.

In some rare cases, a high level of willfulness has been found to be sufficient to charge someone with outright murder (which requires intent) -- the so called "depraved-heart murder" precedents. A rare thing, and I'm not sure I buy it, but such complete disregard for human life has been found to be the legal equivalent of intent to kill before.

Even if you don't think this kid should get life in prison, surely he owes the state a couple of years in prison, doesn't he?

A judge decided no, not at all. Not a year, not six months, not a month, not a week... no jail time at all.

Per CNN:

Simply put, Couch, 16, claims that his condition stemmed from having wealthy, privileged parents who never set limits for him.

But Eric Boyles, who lost his wife and daughter in the crash, said on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," "There are absolutely no consequences for what occurred that day. The primary message has to absolutely be that money and privilege can't buy justice in this country."

Even if the judge bought this nonsense -- then the decision was because this monster had previously faced no consequences for his behavior, he should continue facing no consequences for his behavior?

What? Because the kid think there's no such thing as consequences, he'll be sentenced to no consequences?

All he had do do was move out from his parents' control -- and what spoiled-rotten monster brat wouldn't love his own apartment? Half of them sue to be emancipated. He'll have ten years probation.

People will say this is a liberal judge. Perhaps, perhaps not. I tend to think liberal judges would tend to be outraged by bad behavior by the very rich. Why, they will sometimes treat rich felons the way conservatives say we should treat all felons.

Perhaps it is that.

But I don't know.

I can't help noticing that this sentence looks almost exactly like the sort of sentence the parents, the lawyers, and the brat would have imposed themselves. I can't help thinking that no one except the parents, their lawyers, and this little monster himself would approve of such a sentence.

So that makes me wonder why this judge decided this was a fitting sentence.

I'd like to see this judge investigated. I find this sentence to be impossible to justify, explain, or defend. So I'd like to know exactly what led to it.

I ain't accusin'. But I'm suspicious.

Correction (?) A commenter says the judge wasn't imposing the sentence per se, but was rather imposing an agreed-to sentence worked out as part of a plea deal.

Very well. Then I am suspicious of the prosecutors who gave up a career-making prosecution (it would be politically popular, and all prosecutors are really politicians) in order to let this little monster take a ten year vacation in Rehab Resort.

School Shooting in Colorado Results In Two Injuries, As Well As the Shooter Being Shot

—Ace

I see the word "injuries" in this short dispatch from The Blaze but that could mean anything from a scratch to a mortal would. I wouldn't assume that no one has been killed yet, not until they positively state that.

Pete Williams is reporting that the shooter is wounded and the incident is over:

If the shooter was shot by an armed citizen we'd have a new wrinkle in these eternal debates. I don't know that though -- he could have been shot by a cop, or, as is often the case, himself.

Conservative Online Media Big Salem Communications, Owner of Townhall, Twitchy, and Hot Air, Announces It Will Now Buy Eagle Publishing, Red State, and "Not Ace of Spades"

—Ace

And they couldn't be more proud, especially about that last one.

Eagle Publishing owns RedState, Human Events and Regnery Publishing, a publisher of conservative books. With the acquisition, Salem Communications will operate a block of five major properties in the conservative media landscape.

...

The move marks an accelerating shift in the conservative media world, as a set of boisterous, sharp-elbowed independent digital outlets are brought under the same roof.

I see a lot of potential for cross-platform synergies and lateral integration and other things that don't exist.

But, well, Good, I guess?

Oh, I'll toss this one in: Media Matters now says its "War on FoxNews" is over, because Media Matters already won.

I don't actually understand this move. Nothing is forcing them to stop with their absurd FoxNews microblogging. I can only think that maybe people have grown bored with it.

Of Course: Hollywood Remaking Leslie Nielson Classic "The Naked Gun" with... Ed Helms

—Ace

Or at least they're "eyeing" Ed Helms.

I like Ed Helms, but this is just Healthcare.gov: The Movie.

First of all, this movie is going to be awful. Obviously. I won't elaborate.

Second of all, Leslie Nielson wasn't a comic actor. He was a character actor known for playing straight-faced authority figures in melodramas. They cast Leslie Nielson in Airplane because they wanted him to deliver lines in his usual melodramatic serious way, but saying ridiculous things.

And then the cast cheeseball "dramatic" actors like George Kennedy and Ricardo Montalban around him. Then they cast people who couldn't act, like O.J. Simpson and Priscilla Presley. Because a movie like this, if it were played straight, would have that sort of a cast.

Casting Ed Helms -- a comic actor -- in the role is just wrong. Helms plays comedy like a comedy actor. They should be going for a melodramatic serious actor like Bruce Greenwood, or a comic actor that plays comedy deadpan, like Gary Cole.*

But this is part of the Stupid of Hollywood. People don't know offhand, who those actors are (though they know them and like them). People have heard of Ed Helms, and they remember he was in a big comedy trilogy, The Hangover.

So even though Ed Helms isn't a box office draw, we'll cast him in this movie, because then people will know it's supposed to be funny. If we cast Gary Cole, people won't know it's supposed to be funny.

I like Ed Helms -- but he's not Frank Drebin.

Hey why not just cast Jim Carrey? He's wild and crazy and people know he's supposed to be funny. Oh wait, it's because no one likes Jim Carrey anymore. Forget I mentioned it.

Third of all, this movie is going to be awful, seriously. Obviously. Although The Naked Gun itself was very funny, the sequel was very disappointing, and the third one flat-out stunk.

This Airplane-style humor is hard to do. It does get repetitive. It's hard to sustain for 90 minutes. Even the Airplane guys themselves have struggled to make funny movies using this sort of joke -- for every decent Airplane-style movie they made, they turned out two or three clunkers.

And so now a bunch of people who aren't terribly funny -- like the sort of people who write the Scary Movie movies -- are going to ripoff a lot of old Airplane and Naked Gun jokes and add their own Naked Gun style jokes. And they'll all be awful.**

But they're now determined to remake every single movie that earned at least $50 million in the past 30 years, so of course, they had to dig up the corpse of The Naked Gun and violate it.

* Actually, Ben Affleck would make a much better Frank Drebin than he would a Bruce Wayne.

** Actually, the article names the writers:

The studio has hired the team behind Night At The Museum and Reno 911, Thomas Lennon and R Ben Garant, to pen a screenplay for the new movie.

Yeah okay, they're not bad, but they don't do Airplane jokes.

Meet the New Holiday Hijacking, Same as the Old Holiday Hijacking

—Ace

Oh, dude. People will be talking about health insurance. Trust me on that.

Rich Lowry turns to my favorite topic in Politico Magazine: "The Left's Reality Problem."

The left continues to believe that Magic Words will change solid reality. All you need is to get people to Believe -- remember, the Right sabotaged Obamacare by not Believing hard enough -- and that Wish-Magic will change the world.

The “reality-based community” isn’t what it used to be. Progressives spent much of the George W. Bush years deriding the right for disdaining reality itself and waging an associated “war on science,” such was its purported hostility to evidence....

The left happily adopted the appellation “reality-based community.” (You can still find T-shirts and bumper stickers online.) It congratulated itself on its factual rigor and nominated for president a man whose initial appeal was based, in part, on his exquisite sense of nuance. Message: We’re more empirically grounded and intellectually supple than you.

The erstwhile reality-based community is having a tough time of it lately, though. Most infamously, Obamacare is foundering on the flagrant deceptions used to sell it, exposed every day by the workings of the law in reality.

Many liberals still don’t want to acknowledge the rather straightforward fact that if you mandate more insurance benefits in the so-called Affordable Care Act, insurance will cost more. QED. You might be able to cushion the cost increase for some people with subsidies, but not for everyone, and the underlying insurance is still more—not less—expensive.

...

The deceptions around Obamacare are central—both to the law and to the left’s advocacy generally. So much of liberal policy is based on Affordable Care Act-style thinking, which involves hiding and never acknowledging the costs of a given policy; giving legislation a warm and fuzzy name on the assumption that its results will live up to that appellation; and moralistic attacks on people who resist as fools and ogres.

You don't need a god to be religious hysteric; you only need dogma and a devil. And the left is proving that more and more each day.

thanks to @tmi3rd and @charlescwcooke.

David Brooks Joins Tom Friedman In Calling For Authoritarian Government

—Ace

Tom Friedman has long been an admirer of China's version of democracy, which is to not have a democracy.

Yesterday David Brooks moved outside his comfort zone of evaluating the crispness of trouser creases to opine it's time to Yield more authority to the President.

No link for David Brooks' #SlatePitch Nonsense-trolling, but you can find it at the New York Times if you like.

Strengthen the Presidency

By DAVID BROOKS
December 12, 2013

....

We’re in a period of reform stagnation. It’s possible that years will go by without the passage of a major piece of legislation. Meanwhile, Washington nearly strangles on a gnat, like this week’s teeny budget compromise.

He quotes an article by Francis Fukuyama (the premature The End of History author), apparently upset that there's a lot of history still going on.

Fukuyama ultimately throws up his hands. Things would be better, he observes, if we had a more unified parliamentary system, with more administrative discretion. But we don’t. “So we have a problem.”

But there is a way out: Make the executive branch more powerful.

I can't wait to hear him explain why we should give more power to Obama, who's assuming a lot of legislative power already, and screwing up everything while doing so.

This should be a doozy.

This is a good moment to advocate greater executive branch power because we’ve just seen a monumental example of executive branch incompetence: the botched Obamacare rollout.

Doozy status: High. We must cede more power to the executive precisely because it's so massively incompetent.

But don't worry-- See, Obama has learned how incompetent he is, and therefore he can be trusted not to abuse this new power Brooks would yield to him.

It’s important to advocate greater executive branch power in a chastened mood.

He's so chastened he's assuming more power to rewrite the law as he likes, and to vow to Americans that he intends to rule contrary to their preferences.

He's so chastened he's giving speeches saying "Fuck you America, Obamacare stays."

It’s not that the executive branch is trustworthy; it’s just that we’re better off when the presidency is strong than we are when the rentier groups are strong, or when Congress, which is now completely captured by the rentier groups, is strong.

"Rentier" means those seeking rents or other goods from government. He previously identified lobbyists as being rentiers.

But he doesn't identify Obama as being beholden to rentiers.

Obama himself hasn't been captured by rentiers so much as he is their apotheosis.
He is a walking favor-bank, the spirit redistributive justice made flesh, taking from those outside his political power bloc and delivering it to those within it.

But Brooks doesn't acknowledge this -- the past five years don't exist for David Brooks. For Brooks, Obama remains the same reasonable, idealistic, pragmatic, ethical post-partisan progressive whose pants he was once so smitten with at their first meeting.

Now Brooks will explain why we must make the executive more powerful. You will not be surprised to discover that the first reason is to pass a bill that Brooks favors-- the Comprehensive Immigration bill.

Here are the advantages. First, it is possible to mobilize the executive branch to come to policy conclusion on something like immigration reform. It’s nearly impossible for Congress to lead us to a conclusion about anything.

We must permanently change our system of government in order to achieve a few short-term political wins for David Fucking Brooks.

We don’t need bigger government. We need more unified authority. Take power away from the rentier groups who dominate the process. Allow people in those authorities to exercise discretion.

That is, give the president further power to ignore the law as he pleases.

Incredible.

Update: David Brooks... from June of this year. Like six months ago.

"We should never trust concentrated power."
-- David Brooks

They're all jokes.

Thanks to @DrewMtips.

30 Congressmen Sponsor Resolution Directing Lawsuit Against Obama Alleging Failure to Execute the Law Faithfully

—Ace

Particularly with respect to Obamacare, but it also cites Obama's executive lawmaking in the case of nonenforcement of immigration laws.

"President Obama has adopted a practice of picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce. In most cases, his laws of choice conveniently coincide with his Administration’s political agenda. Our Founding Fathers created the Executive Branch to implement and enforce the laws written by Congress and vested this power in the President. However, President Obama has chosen to ignore some of the laws written by Congress and implemented by preceding Presidents," [South Carolina Congressman Tom] Rice wrote in a letter to fellow House members to ask them to co-sponsor this resolution.

"This resolution allows the House of Representatives to bring legal action against the Executive Branch and challenge recent actions, inactions, and policies."

Given Boehner's moves lately, I have a feeling that the leadership will squelch this much-needed effort. After all, there's an election coming up. We mustn't do anything that any progressive anywhere can criticize.

AoSHQ Podcast: Guest, Laura W.

—Andy

Our behumped coblogger Laura W. joins Ace, Gabe, Drew, John and me to discuss POTUS and FLOTUS' Excellent Adventure to South Africa and the latest on Obamacare.

This week's PodFight segment, which I'll just refer to as Gabe vs. Everyone (final score: Everyone 56, Gabe 2) is unsurprisingly over the budget bill.

We wrap up the episode with quick hits and Q&A from the Moron Mailbag. Speaking of which, I have a new Ask the Blog form running over on the server that hosts the podcast, and you can now use that to send in your questions and comments.

Oh, and be sure to stay through the outtake.

Referenced in this episode:

• Santa Claus Should Not Be a White Man Anymore


• Connecticut Health Exchange Buys Three Murals for $24,980 Each


• National Park Service Stonewalls FOIA Request on Mount Vernon Barricades, Cites Potential ‘Chilling Effect on the Agency’s Deliberative Process’

[MP3 Download] | Subscribe: [RSS] | [iTunes]

Follow on Twitter:
AoSHQ Podcast (@AoSHQPodcast)
Ace (@AceofSpadesHQ)
Drew M. (@DrewMTips)
Gabriel Malor (@GabrielMalor)
John E. (@JohnEkdahl)
Andy (@TheH2 and @AndyM1911)

Open thread in the comments.

GOP To Fiscal Conservatives: Drop Dead

—DrewM.

So yesterday the House GOP overwhelmingly decided to renounce fiscal conservatism.

One excuse given by the party of Not Quite As Big, But Still Pretty Damn Big Government is that they had to bust the sequester or else there would be another disastrous shutdown.

Here’s the problem with that excuse…it’s bull.

The idea is that Obama, Reid and the rest of the Democrats would love another shutdown so that they could get the focus away from ObamaCare and back on the dysfunction of the GOP. This would supposedly be the answer to all their problems.

Now if that’s true, why would the Democrats allow themselves to be bought off for a few billion dollars in spending? Do you really think Obama and Reid are thinking, “We’re facing annihilation in 2014 and the only way we might survive is a shutdown but gosh, we’re getting $30 billion more non-defense spending. I guess we’ll just give up our one chance to hold the Senate because that extra $30 Billion is just too sweet to pass up on!”

In what world does that make any sense?

If the Democrats wanted a shutdown they could have had it in a heartbeat, even with the extra spending the GOP just coughed up.

All they’d have had to do was insist that extending unemployment payments be part of the deal. If the GOP held firm on that, the Democrats, along with their allies in the media, would have said, “These Republicans are at it again. Now they are shutting down the government because they want 1.3 million Americans to lose their unemployment payments. At Christmas time! We didn’t think the GOP could get more extreme or cruel but now they are holding these vulnerable Americans hostage because fringe conservatives like Ted Cruz only care about their extremist donors.”

But no. We’re to believe Obama and Reid passed up on that (they cut the deal without the extension, much to the consternation of their liberal members) even though they really, really want and need a shutdown.

Why don’t Democrats want another shutdown? Likely because they recognize the country is angry with them at the moment and they aren’t sure the blame will be placed on the Republicans this time. Americans now realize that Obama lied to them about ObamaCare and the GOP told the truth. This time around voters might be inclined to think he’s lying to them again when he says, “I’m Mr. Reasonable but those crazy Republicans! You can’t even talk to them.”

So did Democrats simply bluff the GOP into thinking they really wanted a shutdown and at least got something out of it? No.

This is the truly sad part. The GOP didn’t have to be bullied or bluffed into breaking the sequester, they wanted to do it.

Tension In The Greater East Asian Chinese Co-Properity Sphere

—BenK

In case you haven't heard, China recently expanded its air defense zone to include the disputed Senkaku Islands. China senses weakness in the West(rightfully so) and is testing the limits of American power.

Since the announcement the US has flown B-52's through the newly declared Chinese air defense zone, the South Koreans have extended their own air defense zone to include the disputed Islands, and the Japanese instructed their private airlines to continue to fly through the Chinese air defense zone.

This is a recipe for disaster, just last week a Chinese naval vessel tried to force a US warship to stop in international waters.

The guided missile cruiser USS Cowpens, which recently took part in disaster relief operations in the Philippines, was confronted by Chinese warships in the South China Sea near Beijing’s new aircraft carrier Liaoning, according to officials familiar with the incident.

“On December 5th, while lawfully operating in international waters in the South China Sea, USS Cowpens and a PLA Navy vessel had an encounter that required maneuvering to avoid a collision,” a Navy official said.

“This incident underscores the need to ensure the highest standards of professional seamanship, including communications between vessels, to mitigate the risk of an unintended incident or mishap.”

Keep an eye towards Asia in the early 21st century. The current circumstances there resemble that of late 18th and early 19th century Europe. Land and sea grabs, rising and declining great powers, irredentist feelings, historical rivalries, increased military spending, a thirst for power, domestic need for resources, and poor communication.

Top Headline Comments 12-13-13

—Gabriel Malor

Happy Friday.

The Minnesota Obamacare exchange, which is seeing the full gamut of Obamacare website problems, had another little problem last month: its director took a vacation to Costa Rica right in the middle of the failed rollout. I suspect this vacation had been scheduled ("financial commitments were made") in some happier day when the exchange director thought everything was going to be hunky-dory after the October 1 launch. She's basically Sec. Sebelius on a smaller scale.

The White House is signaling its openness to letting Islamist groups join the Syrian rebel coalition. They have to promise to actually want peace, though. Oh, and "the Americans would like the Islamic Front groups to return U.S. vehicles, communications gear and other non-lethal equipment they seized last weekend from warehouses at the Syria-Turkey border." "Seized" is a more politic way of saying "stole," I think.

A UN team has determined that chemical weapons were used at least five times in Syria in attacks against . . . government soldiers and citizens.

Mike Huckabee has quit his radio show and is preparing to run for president again. My take: good. He can't win the primary, but he can suck up a lot of funding and support from fringe types, thus deterring and hamstringing other long-shot politicians considering a run.

Last night the House overwhelmingly voted to approve the Ryan-Murray budget deal, 332-94. The GOP breakdown was 169-62, easily satisfying the Hastert Rule. Speaker Boehner ends the year much stronger than he began it, and he's taken the possibility of shutdown in 2014 and 2015 off the table, assuming the Senate passes it today. We discuss this deal in depth on the podcast, which will be up later.

Here's a cover from a nice Mormon boy and some Canadian dude:

Overnight Open Thread (12-12-2013)

—Maetenloch

Applying Broken Windows Theory to Liberal Intolerance

When forbearance wears thin towards constant liberal hate...

Usually, it's in a situation where the insult is just tossed into the flow of a conversation - almost always in a group setting where the perp feels emboldened - and then the conversation moves in other directions. The rude barb just becomes part of the landscape.

We've gone too long allowing a perjorative landscape.

It's why the most Senior Democrats feel free to call us the worst possible names and taunt us in a demeaning manner. They receive no pushback from our Senior politicians for the venom spewing from their mouths.  We've become The Grand Old Punching Bag Party.

Compare the rude, vicious terms from Obama and his spokespeople, and Senior Democrats such as Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi and others, with the gentlemanly behavior of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.

There is plenty of push back and name-calling on both sides at lower levels and on the blogosphere, but it's qualitatively different when it comes from The White House and the Democratic Party House and Senate leadership.

When the leadership of the Republican Party does not push back against the leadership of the Democratic Party for the name-calling and taunts, it's an invitation to more attacks, and it sets a national tone.

We've become punching bags. At dinner and at the highest political levels.

We need to do what Rudy Giuliani did to graffiti artists and squeegee guys, apply broken windows theory:

Social psychologists and police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken. This is as true in nice neighborhoods as in rundown ones. Window-breaking does not necessarily occur on a large scale because some areas are inhabited by determined window-breakers whereas others are populated by window-lovers; rather, one unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing.

What if you weren't so polite? What if you pushed back against every casual insult and made everyone just as uncomfortable as yourself? What if you refuse to accept even the minor broken windows of intolerance and hate?

Ongoing Secret Probes and Raids on Conservatives Make Wisconsin Ground Zero in First Amendment War

There's a secret war being waged in Wisconsin, and the outcome could have national ramifications on free speech and the rule of law.

As first reported by Wisconsin Reporter in late October, a Democrat-led, secret probe now nearly two years in the making has targeted dozens of conservative organizations on the ground in the Badger State.

The so-called John Doe investigation, which one former Federal Elections Commission member said makes the "Alien and Sedition Act mild by comparison," has raised serious questions of partisanship and prosecutorial abuse.

A Nov. 18 Wall Street Journal opinion piece, headlined "Wisconsin Political Speech Raid," reported at least three homes had been raided, and more than 100 subpoenas had been handed out - including one that demands "all records of income received, including fundraising information and the identity of persons contributing to the corporation."

The number of liberal groups investigated: 0.

There's a word for using the apparatus of the state against your political enemies and it starts with an 'F'.

Transformation Complete: Cahrles Jhonson Denounces Reagan

And blames him for making Mandela turn to communism. Quite a feat given that the ANC was aligned with the Soviet Communist bloc since the 50s and Reagan wasn't elected until 1980 but then he was a great man.

Oh and you're all banned for raising your eyebrow like that.

Racism in the Classroom: When Even Our Names Are Not Our Own

Short version: Matthew Salesses is a sensitive little hothouse flower who had a sad in a class because feelings. But the university and professor didn't rearrange everything to make his sad go bye bye therefore Texas bad. Also you're racist and possibly a rapist.

Don't Fall For the Trojan Cupboard Scam

Coming This Fall - Heller II: The Re-Reckoning

A Real American Hero

You're a 19 year old kid. You're critically wounded, and dying in the jungle in the Ia Drang Valley , 11-14-1965, LZ X-ray, Vietnam. Your infantry unit is outnumbered 8 - 1, and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the MediVac helicopters to stop coming in.

You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns, and you know you're not getting out. Your family is half-way around the world, 12,000 miles away, and you'll never see them again. As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day. Then, over the machine gun noise, you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter, and you look up to see an un-armed Huey, but it doesn't seem real, because no Medi-Vac markings are on it.

Ed Freeman is coming for you. He's not Medi-Vac, so it's not his job, but he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire, after the Medi-Vacs were ordered not to come.

He's coming anyway.

And he drops it in, and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 2 or 3 of you on board.

Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire, to the Doctors and Nurses.

And, he kept coming back.. 13 more times... And took about 30 of you and your buddies out, who would never have gotten out.

But it wasn't until 2001 that Ed Freeman was awarded the Medal of Honor. He may be unique in that he fought in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam and each time in a different capacity (sailor, then infantryman, and finally pilot ).

17 Ancient Abandoned Websites That Still Work

No More US Electricity From Russian Nukes

Because the warhead uranium is all used up.

40 Things Every Self-Respecting Man Over 30 Should Own

Six Amazing Substances

Which reminds me - I need to order some more gallium off Ebay.

62% of 16 To 24-Year-Olds Prefer Printed Books Over eBooks

Involuntary Orgasm Wars: The TV Show

Quick - guess the country.

Yahoo group. That is all.

The group thingy. And the middle class.

And my Twitter spew.

Sign language for the ONT hearing and reading impaired provided by this guy:

 

And tonight's post brought to you by I'm outta here:

Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. Please e-mail overnight open thread tips plus $1 for S&H to maetenloch at gmail. Otherwise send your scraps to BizarroAce. Do not taunt happy-fun ball. Not for internal use. If you believe you may be pregnant, consult a doctor before reading the ONT. No horseplay in the pool area.

Close it up

Smartest. Administration. Ever!

—Andy

The continuing PR push by the Health Insurance Salesman-in-Chief is providing some hilarity today.

First, behold the product of the left's 50-year experiment in improving our public schools:

Obamerica 2013: It's like Idiocracy, but with social media.

So it only made sense for Ted Cruz to come along and tell President Selfie to stop spraying Brawndo on everyone's health insurance.

But it has electrolytes, dammit! ...

Leftwing Hack Site PolitiFact Bends to Reality and Declares "If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your Plan" as the Lie of the Year

—Ace

PolitiFact has flacked for Obamacare for three years. In 2010, I believe, they declared the statement that Obamacare represented a national takeover of health insurance their Lie of the Year.

Lie of the Year, they said. While today we witness, every single day, new edicts issued from the Pontiff of the State about what insurers may not or must do. Not based on law, even. Just based on Obama's political needs in any particular day.

After previously declaring Obama's statement that "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" to be True (they said "half true," but only because the insurance companies were not required to keep the promise that Obama made; Obama's promise was good, they reasoned, but he had no power to compel insurers to abide by it), they finally now reverse themselves.

Sort of.

For four of the past five years, PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year has revolved around the health care law, which has been subject to more erroneous attacks than any other piece of legislation PolitiFact has fact-checked.

Yes, PolitiFact has deemed most criticisms of Obamacare to be lies. Including the criticism that "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" was a dishonest promise. They claimed that you could keep your plan under Obamacare.

And yet here we are, now calling that the Lie of the Year.

Obama’s ideas on health care were first offered as general outlines then grew into specific legislation over the course of his presidency. Yet Obama never adjusted his rhetoric to give people a more accurate sense of the law’s real-world repercussions, even as fact-checkers flagged his statements as exaggerated at best.

Um, no. PolitiFact said Obamacare guaranteed people could keep their policies. The only wiggle room was that insurers did not have to continue offering those policies. But if they were offered, PolitiFact assured us that Obamacare guaranteed people could keep them.

PolitiFact never bothered to check if Obamacare actually permitted them to be continued to be offered. In fact, Obamacare, and especially the regulations promulgated in furtherance of it, made many (most) such policies illegal.

This was the deliberate choice of Obama. He runs the HHS. He is Sebelius' boss. He chose to do this, and PolitiFact is still representing it as "something that just happened, and Obama just didn't adjust his rhetoric to changing events."

Obama, as the Chief Executive, is ultimately the author of HHS regulations. To this very day, he could instruct HHS to write new regulations permitting all the old policies to be be offered.

He won't. Because he always intended to screw current insurance-holders over. That's what you do when you redistribute wealth.

He did build this. He did made that happen.

Now, back to PolitiFact, making excuses for why Obama lied:

Instead, he fought back against inaccurate attacks with his own oversimplifications, which he repeated even as it became clear his promise was too sweeping.

The debate about the health care law rages on, but friends and foes of Obamacare have found one slice of common ground: The president’s "you can keep it" claim has been a real hit to his credibility.

It's also been a real hit to PolitiFact's credibility. What a fucking joke.

Tidbit: When I write posts, I look for something pithy to use as the link-language. Like if I'm writing that Obama's a douche, I'll write:

How big of a douche is Obama?

This big.

So "This big" is the linking language.

Anyway, when I was writing this post, I began writing it, as is my wont, without reading it. I only saw the headline that PolitiFact's Lie of the Year was IYLYPYCKP. (I'm tired of writing out "If you like your plan...").

I need some link language for linking the post. I wrote something like "PolitiFact now declares IYLYPYCKYP Lie of the Year," and needed some link language for the link.

So I wrote "Sort of."

Why? Because I guessed they only sort of admitted this was the lie of the year, based on all their previous shilling for Obamacare, and based upon their claiming IYLYPYCKYP was True, and never retracting that rating.

But I didn't yet know if they had done a "sort of" job. I figured if I was wrong, I'd rewrite it as "Even PolitiFact, which usually shills so hard for Obama...."

Of course I didn't have to. Within one minute of reading their tendentious "analysis" -- analysis that claims that Republicans lodged false attacks on Obamacare, such as you not being able to keep your policy, which forced Obama to guarantee you would keep your policy, even though, actually, you couldn't keep your policy at all so these weren't false attacks -- I saw they had in fact done a "sort of" admission that Obama had lied.

Or at least that his promise was "wrong," as PolitiFact writes.

You know, a "wrong promise." That's completely normal English right there. It's not as if PolitiFact is writing in non-standard English to avoid using the typical words we use to describe a "wrong promise."

Update [JohnE.]:

Flashback, PolitiFact October 7th, 2008 (via @verumserum):

"No. 1, let me just repeat, if you've got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it," Obama said. "All I'm going to do is help you to lower the premiums on it. You'll still have choice of doctor."

...

It remains to be seen whether Obama's plan will actually be able to achieve the cost savings it promises for the health care system. But people who want to keep their current insurance should be able to do that under Obama's plan. His description of his plan is accurate, and we rate his statement True.

And He Spake That They Should Be Deemed To Be Covered, And It Was So. And It Was Good.

—Ace

On the podcast over the past few weeks, we've been talking about what happens on January 1st, when people start showing up in emergency rooms due to car accidents or sudden medical crises, and discover they're not actually covered, either because they couldn't sign up at all, or didn't get the check to the insurer in time, or thought, erroneously, that health care was "free."

@johnekdahl ventured a guess: Maybe Obama would just create New Law once again and demand that insurers deem the uninsured to be insured.

It seemed to only be on the outermost fringes of the possible... and yet, as the Day of Catastrophe and Crisis approaches, the Administration seems to be thinking more and more about the Unthinkable Solution.

During the Obamacare rollout, stories have spread about millions of Americans losing their current health insurance coverage, preferred doctors and hospitals as plans restrict networks to comply with the law, and losing their prescription drug coverage.

On Thursday afternoon, the Department of Health and Human Services said it was “strongly encouraging” insurers to help the department fix a raft of problems created by the rocky rollout of President Obama’s health care law.

Among the guidance the HHS announced:

— It is requiring insurers to accept payments until Dec. 31 for coverage starting on Jan. 1.

That's absurd and illegal. They need time to actually have the check clear the bank to actually be paid. But Obama has spoken, and it shall be so.

It is also “urging” insurers to give individuals more time beyond that to pay for coverage.

If you want insurance to begin January 1st, you can pay, like, whenever.

In other words, if somebody pays for coverage in the middle of January, HHS is asking insurers to retroactively make that person's coverage effective as of Jan. 1. HHS is also asking insurers to cover individuals who offer a "down payment," even if that payment only covers part of the first month's premiums.

They go further-- after having imposed "skinny network" coverage on America, the HHS is now "strongly encouraging" (again) insurers to pay for doctors outside of the network. That is, pay for non-network doctors.

So that people don't realize (at least at first) that they will not be keeping their doctor at all.

On a conference call, an HHS spokeswoman emphasized: “We are just proposing it as an option and we’re encouraging issuers. There is no requirement.”

Translation: HHS has a huge mess on its hands and it hopes that by getting ahead of this news, it can foist the blame for the problems on insurers.

This is all very close to simply ordering insurers to "deem" that everyone is insured, as John speculated. It seems that way to Phillip Klein, anyway:

AllahPundit notes that many insurers are complying with the "strong encouragement" of the government shakedown artists, and are creating a special grace period for payment, until early January. Some states are ordering grace periods until January 7, 8, or even 15.

That’ll avert lapses in coverage for people who see the doctor early next month, not realizing that their first payment was already due by New Year’s Eve. Remember, though, according to one expert who spoke to Charles Ornstein about this, insurers can probably expect only half of their customers to have paid up by the December 31st deadline. Even if another 25 percent manage to make payment during the grace period, you’re still looking at thousands of people whose coverage will lapse in January. That’s a political disaster for HHS in the making. Uncle Sam will have to do something about it. But what?

Deem everyone covered. What else can he do?

Only about half of the people "covered" by Obamacare will have paid by January 1st -- this is largely Obama's fault, of course, because how the hell could they have bought insurance with a non-functioning site?

And there's still more work to be done -- all those fragged 834s will have to be corrected and reconciled by human intervention before tens of thousands of other people are even noted in an insurers' client list.

And Obama won't want to take the political hit for that. So just deem everyone covered.

Just like that. Just make a pronouncement. Just create law by kingly edict.

We are approaching the nation's Monarchical Moment.

Man Who Complained of Cancelled Insurance Policy Was Soon After Audited By the IRS;
Health Care Freedom Activist Helps Him Get His Policy Restored, and Now Finds Himself Being Audited As Well

—Ace

When I first heard the cancer patient who complained of getting his health care policy cancelled was being audited -- for ten year old returns -- I didn't cover it.

It's not because I didn't suspect Obama's minions of harassing their opponents. I did. But I didn't cover it because I figured there was no way to prove it. Audits happen, after all, and I'm sure anyone willing to harass a political opponent is also willing to fake up some paperwork showing the audit was random or based on some acceptable legal reason.

But now I find out that it wasn't just the cancer patient who suddenly had the IRS alert and curious and on the case -- it was also his advocate, an insurance salesman and Obamacare critic who was helping the man get his hold policy back.

This man was also suddenly being asked questions by the IRS -- mostly about his trouble-making client.

It is unavoidable; it is open and shut; it is a serious political scandal. The fact that two men who came forward to criticize Obama are both hit with a snap IRS inspection days after making their complaints public can simply not be attributed to chance.

There is a principle in law: res ipsa loquitor. "The thing speaks for itself." In some cases, you don't have to prove an element of a tort, if it is obvious, based on circumstances, that wrongdoing has in fact occurred.

It is deliberate. It is, in fact, conspiracy.

And it's outrageous.

Read the whole thing. It's shocking. They're not even hiding it any longer: Citizens who dissent from government policy will be subject to harassment by the government's law enforcement and para-law-enforcement shock troops.

I'm going to skip a bit about how, specifically, this man, Stephen C. Tucker helped the cancer survivor, Bill Elliot, get his insurance back. It's worth reading but I can't quote the whole thing.

Let's get to the part where Tucker announces his Intent to Cause Trouble.

My goal is to inform every American who has had their policy canceled about this law and instruct them on how to use it to get their policy restored. Since this story broke I have been in contact with the organization representing Whitney Johnson and I have been in direct contact with Eileen and Steve Benthal. Whitney is a 26 year old single mother who has been featured in the news. Whitney has multiple sclerosis and she had her policy illegally canceled as well.

...

It is immoral, illegal, and unconscionable that Barack Obama's administration would instruct her insurer to cancel her health insurance coverage and force her to accept an Obamacare compliant "Medal" plan which will increase her premium by $1,000 a month and remove Johanna's access to her current hospital and doctor. This, after Barack Obama promised over and over and over again, 'If you like your plan you can keep your plan and no one will take it away from you, period.' Barack Obama is a pathological liar and innocent, sick Americans are now suffering because of his lies.

So there's his crime: Speaking ill of the New Messiah and using legal and proper means to get people's cancellations overturned.

And here's his punishment:

Press No Longer Believing Claims That Obama's Administration is the "Most Transparent In History"

—Ace

Comically Evasive Mouthpiece Jay Carney attempted to claim that it was perfectly normal to claim an event was "private," and thus no press was permitted, and yet also send a White House propaganda photographer there to take pictures to be distributed publicly via social media and OFA emails.

One reporter insists that the Obama Administration is less transparent than the Bush Administration. Her colleagues seem to agree with her claim.

Carney's claim is that the Internet-- the "transformation" of the news by the Internet -- has forced Obama to engage in deception and propaganda.

No, Jay. It's merely allowed him to do so. And this White House has seized that opportunity with relish.

He goes on to claim that Obama only does this in order to provide "free" pictures to the public -- he doesn't want to force people to buy newspapers, you see.

He doesn't explain why both White House and press photographers can be present at "private" events, so that there will be both a free picture and a picture people have to pay for (by buying a newspaper).

There's a logical reason why he doesn't explain this: It's because he's lying.

Check the video at Mediaite. Worth watching.

Thanks to @johnekdahl.

Honey Trap: Dozens of G20 Diplomats Get Hacked After They Click on a Link Promising Naked Pictures of Carla Bruni

—Ace

Smart diplomacy.

This sounds like a funny story. It's not, quite: Hackers successfully breached dozens of computers (and maybe more than dozens).

The level of damage has not been figured out yet -- and this all happened in 2011.

The suspected culprit? China.

These are our "Best and Brightest" -- or at least they always tell us so.

It should be noted that Carla Bruni took her clothes off a lot when she was younger, so Naked Carla Bruni pictures should not be considered some Holy Grail of Nudity. These people could have just Binged for pictures.

But instead they clicked on a sketchy attachment, and got hacked.

Nude pictures of former French first lady Carla Bruni were used to break in to the computer systems of dozens of diplomats, it emerged today.

The shocking security breach was first discovered at the G20 summit in Paris in February 2011 and may be ongoing.

‘To see naked pictures of Carla Bruni click here’ said a message sent to those attending, who included finance ministers and central bank representatives.

...

This prompted many to open an attachment which turned out to be a ‘Trojan Horse’ with an embedded virus, although all recipients could see were the X-rated photographs.

Once accessed, it infected the computers of senior officials as well as forwarding the offensive email on to others.

‘Almost everybody who received the email took the bait,’ said a government source in Paris, saying that this included representatives from the Czech Republic, Portugal, Bulgaria, Hungary and Latvia.

...

The so-called phishing attacks are thought to have originated in China and were aimed at extracting information.

The attacks are still being investigated, and nobody is yet sure what information was extracted.

America is thought to have been the main target of the scam.

The arrogance of our non-elite elites is a serious danger to Western democracy and security.

Draw and Strike considers this danger, suggesting Obamacare is the bonfire of the progressive New Class' vanities.

Not that they've noticed. They still think they're doin' just fine.

HOW OBAMACARE DESTROYS SELF-ANOINTED ELITES ILLUSION OF COMPETENCY

The biggest damage from the developing ObamaCare trainwreck is to the carefully crafted illusion that progressives have worked so hard to create for the past several decades: that Big Government self-anointed elites in Washington DC are competent super-managers of sterling character who can be trusted with an ever-increasing amount of power and control over the lives of citizens.

The Washington Post obtained a memo that detailed the White House in-fighting over how ObamaCare should be implemented. The memo goes over the struggle within the administration between what it dubs 'the economics team', who argued for bringing in private sector specialists with experience at start ups and complex problem solving of the magnitude that the ACA called for, and the 'political team' who wanted fast implementation by it's own in-house political staffers who fully believed they were up to the job.

...

When the political team won the debate, many members of the economics team, such as Larry Summers and Christina Roemer, jumped ship to avoid the looming disaster they saw coming. Recent developments have shown their decision was prescient. The political team that thought itself supremely competent to launch something of the size and scope of the ACA despite having had no such prior experience has now been exposed as totally inadequate.

As the scope of the abject failures involved in ObamaCare's implementation mount, even the die-hard Old media completely in the tank as propaganda arms of the DNC have to shake their head in bewilderment at how they are going to spin a disaster this obvious.

Thanks to Andy, @theh2.

By the way, to spare you the trouble of searching: If you really want to see Carla Bruni naked, click here.

I'm good like that.

The Secret War of Cats on Dogs, Part II: Stealing the Dog-Bed

—Ace

The first post, about cats refusing to let dogs pass on stairs or in hallways, only scratched the surface.

Feline aggression against dogs extends right to the heart of dog existence: To their fluffy dog-beds.

This aggression must not stand.

"You Make a Great Point There:" MSNBC Has Unexpected Take on Coverage of Obama's Funeral Selfie

—Ace

Three guesses.

Did you say "sexist" or "racist"?

Well either way, you're right: It's both.

The first woman to offer this assessment -- that the discussion is "racist" and "sexist" -- is identified by Mediaite as being an MSNBC reporter. Not one of their many, many, many opinion-spewing talking heads, but a reporter.

So at MSNBC, even the "reporters" are quick to report racist attacks on Obama.

They are literally claiming that you cannot criticize Obama or Michele at all, or else you're racist. (If it's Michele, you're racist and sexist too.)

I would like people to start reversing the question on these people. I'd like them to start being asked, "What criticism, if any, of Obama would you consider fair?" Force them to give us a list of criticisms we are allowed to lodge at the SCOAMFOTUS, or else make them confess that they deem all criticism racist and out of bounds.

Make them say it. Make them own their absurdity.

@johnekdahl noted that after Obama yucked it up with the comely Danish PM, and after Michele had seemed to stare daggers at the pair, Michele and Obama changed seats, so that Michelle now sat between the Danish PM and Obama. As if she wanted to separate them.

And for that observation, he was called racist and sexist in the Guardian.

He was also identified as being "the media." But whatever.

It's just too ridiculous. They literally have nothing else to say-- no defense of Obama's myriad failures, no real argument that he's achieved anything at all. From here on out, it's just racism, sexism, and racism forever.

Tangentially Related: Some people made parody "SomeECards" -- "SomeDCards," expressing progressive ideas.

They're pretty funny.

Party and pillage at unoccupied mansion coordinated on social media

—Purp

The latest incident of teens busting in and partying while the owners are out of town

A mounted snow leopard worth more than $250,000, pieces of armor and designer clothes were among the items recovered by sheriff’s detectives investigating a party planned over social media and held, without the owner's knowledge, at a vacant, multimillion-dollar La Habra Heights mansion.

[Updated at 7:21 p.m., Dec. 11: Early Wednesday, 16 people were arrested in connection with the vandalism and robbery that occurred at the home in late November, Lt. Arthur Scott of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said....

About 300 teenagers are realizing they picked the wrong place to throw a wild party after breaking into a former NFL player's second home and causing more than $20,000 in damage.

Brian Holloway, a former offensive tackle for the New England Patriots, was in Tampa, Florida, over Labor Day weekend when his son told him he was receiving tweets about a party at their home in Stephentown, New York, Holloway said...

Thursday Morning News Dump

—BenK

• Man With Critically Ill Son Gives Up On Healthcare.gov After More Than 50 Tries
• Norman Podhoretz: Strike Iran Now To Avert A Disaster Later
• DHS Finally Fires Employee Who Calls For Mass Murder Of Whites
• RNC Plans Changes To Primary Debates
• Hill Staffers Warned Not To Rely On Info From Obamacare Exchange
• Spooks Off The Leash
• George Bush Sent Alabama's Kicker A Handwritten Note
• New Asiana Crash Footage Shows Plane's 360 Degree Spin
• Colleges Can't Ban Guns, Rules Florida Court In Major 2nd Amendment Victory
• Apparently A Hallucinating Schizophrenic Was Allowed To Stand Next To Obama At The Mandela Memorial
• Meet The Littlest Casualty In The War On Men
• Woman Gets Ridiculously Drunk In Freezing Weather With Expected Results
• Dog Helps Save Owner's Life
• Domestic Violence Charges Dropped Against Zimmerman
• How To Beat A Photo Enforced Ticket
• MLB To Ban Home Plate Collisions?
• Celebrity Hypocrites

Follow me on twitter.

Top Headline Comments (12-12-2013)

—Andy

We can haz morning thread?

The sign language interpreter at the Mandela memorial service claims he was having a schizophrenic episode.

Rich Lowry on the left's reality problem.

Paul Ryan on the House GOP leadership's reality problem.

Contra Ryan's claims in the piece linked above, Sean Davis writes at The Federalist: Don’t Be Fooled: The Murray/Ryan Budget Deal Clearly Raises Taxes. Davis has the better argument, and I'm in thorough agreement with his conclusion:

Had top Republicans pitched this deal as the best way to avoid blame for another shutdown (even it the shutdown was solely the fault of Democrats who refused to abide by the sequestration law President Obama signed in 2011), I would have been somewhat sympathetic. I still wouldn’t like the deal, but that rationale would at least have the benefit of being intellectually honest.

But Ryan and his allies in GOP leadership need to stop insulting the intelligence of their voters by expecting them to suddenly forget the meanings of certain words. GOP leaders have a serious and widening credibility gap with their base. Dishonest, Orwellian word games are only going to make matters worse.

[ RSS]

[iTunes]

Two Americas - being wealthy is now a quasi-disability that can get you off the hook for homicide

—Purp

It works like this - you're a wealthy young punk with no restraint or ability to see consequences, but see -- its your parents who did that to you so its not really your fault that 4 people are dead because you stole beer, got drunk and mowed them down, so we're gonna give you probation.

...Couch’s attorneys argued his parents were responsible for the teen’s actions that night because of the way he had been raised. Defense attorneys put a psychologist on the stand who testified Couch was a product of wealth and got whatever he wanted. The psychologist also testified the teen was allowed to drink at a very young age and began driving at 13 years old. Defense attorneys argued Couch needed treatment, not jail and suggested a facility that costs almost half a million dollars a year...

If anyone thinks a poor kid with meth head parents, who provided an equally irresponsible upbringing, who did the same thing would be getting off with probation and a posh $500,000/yr treatment facility, raise your hand. Anyone?

The prosecutors wanted 20 years in prison, but 5 probably would have gotten the point across to this kid, and his parents. Now, both the kid and parents are walking away believing they can literally buy their way out of almost any crime. THAT is a lesson they will probably take to heart.

Overnight Open Thread (12-11-2013)

—Maetenloch

Indistinguishable From Magic

As an adolescent, I loved to read the science fiction magazine Analog. One of my favorite Analog stories was "Hindsight" by Harry Turtledove. (I still have my copy of this "special spoof issue," dated mid-December 1984, in my garage.)

In "Hindsight," a 1950s pulp sci-fi writer is startled to discover that an unknown author has published a story that remarkably resembles one he had in the planning stages. He and his editor investigate, eventually discovering a woman who reveals she's a sci-fi writer from the future who has returned to the 1950s-all the way from 1983!-to try to change the world through science fiction.

...But my favorite thing about the story is a scene in which the writer from the future ushers the two men into her back room, where she keeps her future technology. There's a 1980s-era word processor and a dot-matrix printer, charmingly outmoded from the vantage point of 2013 but stunning to the men in the story. And in the corner, a top-loading VCR attached to a small color TV set. She plays Star Wars for the writer, and he's flabbergasted-not just by the color picture, but by a recognizable-yet-aged Alec Guinness as Obi-Wan Kenobi.

...I can't be the only person who thinks about this stuff. (I mean, Marty McFly's Walkman!) So I mentioned it on Twitter and suddenly found myself in a discussion about what Apple device you'd want to take back in time from today to blow away those sci-fi writers in 1956. (If you're interested, I've saved the whole thing on Storify.)

The iPad is probably the right answer, assuming you had time to prepare. (Be sure to bring a charger!) The tablet would be shockingly small, but it has a nice, big screen-big enough for a bunch of dumbstruck 50s denizens to crowd around. It also has the capacity to hold a staggering amount of content.

One of the mental games I play whenever I'm stuck someplace without anything or anybody to occupy me is to imagine that I was suddenly transported back to say 1959 with only what I'm holding and what's in my pockets. How would I be able to prove that I truly was from the future and how much information could clever investigators glean from the few objects on my person?

Well the dates on any coins or bills would be a big clue - and (assuming they aren't clever Commie fakes) would tell them right off the bat that we were still around 50 years later so probably no nuclear WWIII. The tags on my clothes would also be some evidence although I wonder what they would think of all the 'Made in China' labels - did we defeat and occupy China somewhere along the way?

My Jeep car keys with their radio-based remote control would probably impress them - especially the mysterious ICs used in the circuits. The high tech Swiss Army knife I always carry with a laser, pen, and USB stick would probably both amaze and baffle them. And then you have the unusual alloys in my watch and plastic products in my shoes and clothing. I figure all that plus my dental work would be enough to convince them that whatever my story is I'm definitely 'not from around here'.

And if I happen to have my iPhone with me....well then behold and fear my techo-magic all you puny twentieth century humans!!

Ryan Deal Includes Procedural Gift to Harry Reid, Permitting Him to Raise Taxes on a Simple Majority Vote, Rather than Requiring 60 Votes

—Ace

What the hell, Paul Ryan.

What the hell.

Senate Republicans scrubbing the Ryan-Murray budget deal have come across a little-noticed provision that will limit the GOP’s ability to block tax increases in future years.

The bill includes language from the Senate Democrats’ budget to void a budget “point of order” against replacing the sequester cuts with tax increases.

The process is quite complicated, but in practice it grants Harry Reid the authority to send tax increases to the House with a bare majority, rather than the 60 vote threshold that would be required under the point of order.

The provision has angered key Republican Senators. Reeling from Harry Reid’s unprecedented use of the “nuclear option” to end the filibuster on presidential nominations, they are incredulous that Paul Ryan would have backed another limit to their power.

“This is an appalling power grab that should never have been allowed to be in a final agreement. It’s essentially the ‘nuclear option’ part two, eroding minority rights in the Senate even further. Harry Reid must be very happy,” a Senate GOP aide says.

A House aide defending this piece of shit says, basically, Eh, it's no big deal, because the House can stop tax increases. Probably.

I don't know what to say.

Thanks to @rdbrewer4.

Merry Christmas From President Self-Regard

—Ace

From American Glob (give 'em a click and see what you like)...

The Ryan/Murray Budget Deal Is... Awful

—Ace

But you knew that.

There is one good thing I've heard about it and one neutral thing.

The good thing: The compromise calls for federal workers to pay more for their pensions. That is terrific. Update: Not so terrific. MTF writes:

Small point Ace, but the increased worker contribution to federal pensions applies only to new employees. It's still a revolutionary change, but the budget impact is delayed.

The neutral thing: The additional tax for airline travel that they're calling a "user fee" rather than a tax does seem like it can be fairly characterized as a user fee. Cavuto had a guy on explaining that a fee of $2.50 per ticket per leg was imposed in 2002, to partially defray the costs of the huge new TSA security system.

However, that didn't cover all of TSA's costs, and TSA actually costs more now than it did five years ago. Despite the fact that less people are actually traveling, due to Obama's Endless Recession.

So, calling it a "user's fee" does not seem to abuse the language. It actually does pay for the costs the user is directly incurring.

It might be better to cut back on the TSA -- in fact, I'm pretty sure it would be. But this small item doesn't seem to be a Gigantic Lie, like the ones Obama likes to tell.

The new charge will be a flat $5.60, but that won't (if Cavuto's guy had this right, which I'm not sure he did) be per leg of a trip. So the actual increased cost for a two-way flight might be only $0.60.

Update: The Wall Street Journal has the facts straight:

The feds currently charge $2.50 on nonstop flights, and $5 for flights with a connection, and the deal will establish a simple $5.60 fee for all one-way trips regardless of the number of connections. The fees will be passed along to passengers in higher ticket costs.

So you'll be charged an extra $2.50 per flight on nonstops and an extra $0.60 on flights with a connection.

Now for the bad stuff.

Here's the first and most important gimmick. Paul Ryan is claiming, "Hey man, how can you say I'm abandoning my principles? This compromise actually cuts the deficit by a further $28 billion (over ten years) than the current plan!!! So this actually cuts more spending than the current, sequester-bound spending levels!"

Yeah that approaches Gigantic Lie territory. Here's how they can spend more in the next year and then claim their compromise actually saves more money over ten years:

They spend more in the years they care about, 2014 and 2015. For these years, they increase spending by a total of $63 billion.

But currently, the sequester-capped spending levels would expire in 2021 (it was set to run from 2011 to 2021). So what Ryan says is "Now we'll also impose sequester-caps on the out years of 2022 and 2023, so that's two more years under the sequester, so we actually wind up cutting more spending!"

You can see the problem. They're not willing to abide by the terms of the sequester in 2014 and 2015. They want to spend more. So they undo the sequester caps in 2014 and 2015, and then pretend to extend the sequester from 2021 to 2023.

Instead of abiding by the sequester in the two following years, they'll abandon it in the two years we're actually about to pass into, and promise -- swearsies! -- they'll abide by it later.

This is obviously nonsense. First of all, it establishes the precedent of ducking the sequester forever. Two years from now, they'll vote to spend more money, but say "Over ten years, we're lowering the deficit, by extending the sequester from 2023 to 2025!!!"

No you're not. To spend less money, you have to, at some point, spend less money. If you keep delaying the day you actually start spending less money, you'll never spend less money.

This is like someone putting off going on a diet forever but promising "When I do go on the diet, I'll stay on it for a really really really long time!"

At some point, you have to actually go on the diet if you want to lose weight. Paul Ryan's plan just says, "Eh, we'll get in shape two years from now."

Even worse than all that is this heartbreaking chart from Reason, which shows federal spending unrestrained by the sequester (that is, what the government had planned to spend) versus the lower spending under the sequester.

This is the end of the world scenario we're working so hard to undo, Guys:

You see that teeny, tiny difference in sequester and non-sequester spending? That little difference is what we're now reduced to fighting over. That insignificant bit.

Even that pittance of savings is too much, too controversial, too politically dangerous to touch. So even that ludicrously small amount of savings must be undone by the Republican Party, because we just can't win elections when we're making draconian cuts like that.

But once the GOP is in control of all branches of government, then they'll start getting serious about putting the government on a diet.

Swearsies!

Joe Biden: You Know, I'm Sort of an Illegal Immigrant

—Ace

He announces that his great-grandparents didn't all come into America legally. I guess this is Joe Biden's way of saying "Behold, the wonders of illegal immigration."

I'm not taking it that way.

I'm thinking we should have built a Border Wall in 1875, if that's what it would have taken to keep the embarrassing Biden clan out.

I'm also taking it as Biden's desperate attempt at relevance. He's practically begging us, "Please demand to see my birth certificate!!!"

From Politico:

“My great-great grandparents came escaping the famine and they didn’t all come here legally,” Biden said in response to a questioner who said her family came to the country legally from Ireland in the 1800s. “They didn’t all come legally. And the existence of the system isn’t all truncated like it is now. I’d check your ancestry to make sure that they did come legally if that’s a concern to you.”

Biden, who appeared alongside White House domestic policy chief Cecilia Munoz, several times called on House Speaker John Boehner to allow a vote on the comprehensive immigration reform bill the Senate passed in June.

It was a shift from President Barack Obama, who said last month that he could live with the House passing a series of piecemeal immigration bills.

“Pass the bill, John Boehner, bring the bill up and let us pass it,” Biden said.

The Huffington Post's Political Team Is About As White As You Would Have Guessed

—Ace

The leftist media's perennial attack on conservatives are that they are well-nigh exclusively white and draw their values and political beliefs from a narrow monoculture of shared racial and cultural mores.

Yeah. A lot of that goin' 'round.

Top Ten Things That Are Almost As White As the Huffington Post's Political Team

10. Matchy-matchy group-themed seasonal sweaters

9. A vanilla milkshake infused with white chocolate and cocaine

8. People who are still watching Agents of SHIELD

7. Three quarters of Hall & Oates

6. People who really like Kanye West from that interview they heard on NPR

5. Joan Walsh's entire dating history; also, the periodic bouts of milky smegma occurring over the course Joan Walsh's dating history

4. People who watched that video of the guy faking Sign Language at Nelson Mandela's funeral and became outraged at the racism this man must have faced in Africa to drive him to commit fraud

3. LL Bean's new, ill-advised clothing line, the Kasual Khaki Kollection

2. The victim profile of the many children that Harry Reid has strangled

...and the number one thing almost as white as the HuffPo Politics staff...

1. TIE:

These guys

And Touré

That video thanks to @iowahawkblog.

Close it up

Mary Landrieu Begins Running Anti-Obamacare Ad

—Ace

From @rdbrewer4 in the sidebar.

Now, understand, she's not calling for the repeal of Obamacare, certainly. She's trying to "fix" it.

But her ad begins like an ad you'd expect from a Republican -- alarming news reports of hundreds of thousands of people having their coverage cancelled by Obamacare.

It ends with an admonition to Obama: "You made this promise, you should keep it."

The ad of course is dishonest. It's fakey-fake triangulation, as Landrieu pretends to run against Obamacare. You'd almost think she was the anti-Obamacare Republican candidate in the race.

But it is something to think about: In many states around the country, as we approach 2014, we'll be seeing Republicans running anti-Obamacare ads, and their Democratic opponents running anti-Obamacare ads, too.

And what exactly will that do to public opinion? I don't know of many previous progressive/conservative disputes in which the representatives of both camps condemned a major law. The airwaves will be full of condemnations of Obamacare, and virtually no one speaking up in favor of it.

Funniest Story You'll Read This Week

—Ace

The official sign-language guy at the Nelson Mandela funeral was... a fake.

He just was moving his hands randomly.

Now that I'm informed this was the case, it seems pretty obvious.

The Daily Mail has a funny quote from someone who spotted the guy as a fake: he was merely "flapping his arms about."

He translated Barack Obama's statement that Nelson Mandela was "an unwavering beacon for those seeking the shores of freedom and dignity" by just miming the hand-signals from MC Hammer's 2 Legit 2 Quit.

Okay not really. But he is basically just doing hand-jive dance moves.

I don't care who you are, this is just f***in funny. dan-O says this man is now his hero.

I wonder how long he's been getting away with this?

No One Cares: Time Names Pope Francis At the Top of Its "What's Hot" List

—Ace

I hate that I'm even mentioning this fake story. I'm linking the Telegraph here, not Time.

As I said, Time made this call to push their left-wing political agenda, and also to achieve their secondary goal, which is selling magazines and making money.

Their precis on Pope Francis highlights only his usefulness as a spokesman for social justice and wealth redistribution. They claim that he's not interested in the "doctrinal" matters that his predecessors were.

Time's headline and subhed:

Pope Francis, The People’s Pope

He took the name of a humble saint and then called for a church of healing. The first non-European pope in 1,200 years is poised to transform a place that measures change by the century

Time's interest: One part Power to the People agitation, one part multiculti uplift. Sprinkle liberally with a call for Hope and Change.

"What makes this Pope so important is the speed with which he has captured the imaginations of millions who had given up on hoping for the church at all," Time magazine said in announcing the winner.

", the buck-passing infighting over lines of authority when all the while (to borrow from Milton), “the hungry Sheep look up, and are not fed.”

"In a matter of months, Francis has elevated the healing mission of the church—the church as servant and comforter of hurting people in an often harsh world—above the doctrinal police work so important to his recent predecessors. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were professors of theology. Francis is a former janitor, nightclub bouncer, chemical technician and literature teacher."

One of us.

And as I said: Social Issues You Guys.

He is quoted saying of women who consider abortion because of poverty or rape, “Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?” Of gay people: “If a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge.” To divorced and remarried Catholics who are, by rule, forbidden from taking Communion, he says that this crucial rite “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

I don't quote Time to knock the Pope, or offer any opinions on his leadership of the Church at all.

I only quote Time to mock Time, to note how predictable they are. I predicted this yesterday, including the reasons they'd offer for their choice.

This is not because I am good at prediction; this is because the leftwing media is so very kneejerk and predictable. They claim to be neutral and objective. And yet someone can predict every single one of their news judgements by proceeding from the rule that they will make whichever judgement best serves the Progressive Socialist Transnationalist Cause.

Suppose I'm in a shady casino. I'm playing craps. I'm given a pair of dice by the pit boss, to throw to determine the results of a particularly large bet. I object and say I believe the dice are loaded, and will come up craps. He insists they are fair dice, and could come up with any dice tally.

If my prediction -- that the dice will come up craps on anything important -- is always correct, that casts a great deal of doubt on crooked house's claim that the dice are fair, doesn't it? They claim any score can come up; I claim it will always come up craps when they need it.

If it always comes up craps, then I am right, and they are lying.

If they're not actually in service of the Progressive Socialist Transnationaist cause, why is it that any moderately-informed observer can predict every single one of their judgements by employing this rule?

Thanks to @daveintexas.

Senate Democrats Up For Reelection Say Obama's Phony Phixes to Obamacare Aren't Enough; Plan a "Multifaceted" Reform

—Ace

Or at least a "multifaceted" campaign season PR push.

Senate Democrats facing tough reelections say President Obama has not done enough to fix the botched rollout of his healthcare law and are vowing to repair it themselves.

The Senate Democratic leadership is not on board with lawmaker plans to begin rewriting ObamaCare and have urged for more time to assess the changes made by Obama and his team, lawmakers say.

Landrieu, Shaheen and Udall face reelection next year.

...

Shaheen wants to extend the enrollment period for the ACA; Landrieu wants to mandate that insurance companies continue to offer plans that people like, even if they don’t meet the law’s requirements; and Udall wants to expand the pool of people included in the individual insurance marketplace.

...

The topic [Landrieu's suggestion that people be permitted to re-up on their old policies] came up briefly at a Tuesday lunch meeting, but Reid has urged the group of centrists to be patient and put off action until after Jan. 1.

...

Bennet and other Democrats have expressed concerns about what many expect to be a wave of new ObamaCare regulations.

“I’m concerned about the regulations which have yet to be issued,” said Angus King (Maine), an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

He expressed concern that businesses providing healthcare coverage could be hit by excessive paperwork demands.

“This town seems to like issuing regulations,” he added. “I think the administration should be exceedingly careful about the onerousness of the regulations that are issued.”

Bennet said there should be an easier process to repeal ill-conceived rules related to healthcare and other issues.

Reid is committed to the "Buy Time" plan, just like Obama is. What Magical Rescue do they expect on January 1st?

As Drew writes in the post below, only 5-15% of the tiny number of Obamacare enrollees have actually paid their first month's premium. That means the tiny number of these so-called "enrollees" overstates the number of people who have actually purchased insurance by a factor of around 10.

About 36,500 people, or thereabouts, will actually have insurance on January 1st.

Five million people have lost insurance due to Obamacare.

It is usually the case that putting off the realization of a setback results in the ultimate setback being even worse when it arrives. That seems very likely to be the case here.

In twenty days we're going to start seeing the use of the C-word -- Crisis. And this is a crisis of Obama's making, Obama, Reid, Pelosi. All of them. They took people's insurance away and in return gave them a non-functioning website that cost several billion dollars of taxpayer money.

Almost No One Is Buying Private Insurance Through ObamaCare Exchanges

—DrewM.

That's a slightly different take that the MSM's "OMG, OMG, ObamaCare Enrollments Surging" headlines but mine is more accurate.

Here's the bottom line.

Just about 1.2 million people have gained health coverage through Obamacare, according to new federal data released Wednesday morning. Approximately 365,000 of those people have purchased private insurance and 803,000 have been determined to be eligible for the public Medicaid program. These numbers count data from both October and November, and show an especially quick growth in HealthCare.gov enrollment.

A couple of things to give that some actual context.

1- At least 5 million people have lost coverage due to policies being cancelled thanks to ObamaCare. So that 365,000 number is insignificant compared to that. There will no doubt be more uninsured on January 1 than there were on October 1. Don't let them get away with pretending "1.2 million people who didn't have insurance have it now!".

Liberals will point to the new "enrollments" (and assume they will pay and become actual customers) while ignoring the previously uninsured who won't get coverage in time or be able to afford the new rates and deductibles.

The are simply redistributing health insurance from those who paid for it to those who didn't. This is a victory in their minds.

2. You can talk about all the "quick growth" from October to November all you want but it's still far, far below the original targets.

The 364,000 people who have signed up through the first two months still fall short of the administration's expectations for October alone. Another 3 million people would have to sign up this month alone in order to hit the initial year-end goal.

HHS had expected 3.3 million people to sign up by the end of December and 7 million by March 31, when the enrollment window closes. Although enrollment will surely miss the mark for this year, HHS officials said they remain confident they will reach their ultimate goal.

The administration and dead-enders in the media want to judge the numbers against the pathetic first month, not the original targets (which the actuarial numbers are based on).

There's no reason other than advocacy to grant this dispensation.

3. There's still no word on the demographic makeup of this new cohort. The death spiral is still very much in play.

Bottom line: The flacks and hacks will cheer but the reality of the numbers is disastrous.

Wednesday Morning News Dump

—BenK

• Those Unobtainable Invincibles
• Sebelius Demands Investigation Into Screwed Up Obamacare Website
• Detroit's Bankruptcy Ruling Doesn't Spare The Pensions
• Euphoria Of Obamacare Becomes Nightmare Of Higher Premiums And Deductibles
• Obamacare Hurts Obama In NBC Poll
• Selfie-Gate
• No, Conservatives Aren't Always On The Wrong Side Of History
• Paper Application Missing From Healthcare.gov
• Indian Court Reinstates Law Banning Gay Sex
• Uraguay Legalizes Marijuana
• Will Colorado Have Enough Pot Stores To Meet Demand?
• Don't Take Naked Pictures Of Yourself With Your Cell Phone

Sorry for the meager offerings, I have a lot of work to do this morning.

Tiny Munchkin wearing +10 cloak of invisibility gets locked in parked plane for hours.

—Purp

OK, I may have made up that part about the invisibility cloak, and the dude seems a bit larger than a Munchkin too.

A Louisiana man flying to California woke up on a dark, empty plane parked at Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston after sleeping through the call to exit the aircraft, officials said on Monday...

...Company policy requires the flight crew to do a final sweep of the cabin and the company was investigating how Wagner was left onboard, Harrison said...

Top Headline Comments 12-11-13

—Gabriel Malor

Happy Wednesday.

The Obama Admin used to say 7 million Obamacare sign-ups would mean success. Now they're saying they just made that number up . . . because there's no freakin' way they're getting to 7 million sign-ups.

New poll (PDF): most (54%) say Obamacare is having a negative impact on the country’s health care system.

[ RSS]

[iTunes]

Overnight Open Thread (12-10-2013)

—Maetenloch

So my work computer decided not to boot this morning which pretty much wasted the entire day and ultimately ensuckened the ONT. But hey it's not like you were really going to read it anyway so we'll just call it a push.

Are You Colorblind? 

Well it's time for the annual AoSHQ color blindness test so we can see what you can't see. It's not like we ever use this information for say embedding secret messages for the other morons on the web site. Because that would be um...wrong I guess.

Tell me what you see.

Can't see anything? Well there are some new fangled glasses for you people.

Okay you saw some things - now let's see how good your color acuity really is. Take the color sorting test here.

Time Desperately Tries to Make You Give a Shit About Unaccomplished Copyeditors Picking Their Favorite Person of the Year

—Ace

Embarrassing, as usual. Link to Althouse.

Here are the names picked by a dozen editors you couldn't pick out of a lineup:

Bashar Assad, President of Syria
Jeff Bezos, Amazon Founder
Ted Cruz, Texas Senator
Miley Cyrus, Singer
Pope Francis, Leader of the Catholic Church
Barack Obama, President of the United States
Hassan Rouhani, President of Iran
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services
Edward Snowden, N.S.A. Leaker
Edith Windsor, Gay rights activist

Ted Cruz is obviously there for Time's readers to hate at. Several names, such as Obama and Sebelius, and for that matter Miley Cyrus, I assume are either jokes, or Time's desperate efforts to attract differing cultish demographics -- tweener pop music fans, the declining ranks of the Obamanaut Zealots.

They will pick Pope Francis. This is for several reasons. First, and most importantly, it will sell magazines. The Pope is the head of a large church; I can't think of anyone else on earth who is popular and who heads such a large organization, so intimately important in the everyday lives of people.

Picking Pope Francis also allows Time to claim Serious You Guys We're Not Anti-Religion n Stuff.

Of course the reason they would entertain picking Pope Francis (and not Pope Benedict) is that they are anti-religious. I don't mean Pope Francis isn't religious. I mean Time's interest in Pope Francis is entirely political -- they seem him as an ally in their unending political fight with the Right.

Not saying he is that -- I'm saying how that's how the left perceives him. A Polite Company Pontiff, so to speak.

You want proof of that? Time today had to correct a caption it ran with picture of Pope Francis. The caption specified that he was popular because he rejected the teachings of the Church.

No, seriously. Here was Time's first attempt to summarize the importance of Pope Francis:

First Jesuit Pontiff won hearts and headlines with his common touch and rejection of church dogma and luxury.

Yes, the head of the Catholic Church is known for rejecting the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Serious You Guys, the Pope said we need free birth control n stuff.

The Left is repulsively political. On the podcast, I criticized Frank Rich and Jonathan Chait for praising 12 Years a Slave not primarily on artistic merit, but for what they believed to be the film's true importance, its usefulness in swaying the political debate.

Similarly, Pope Francis is not admired for his efforts to bring the Catholic faith to the world.

Time views him only in terms of his potential impact on American politics -- you know, the "social issues" that bewitch them so, and socialistic wealth redistribution.

So that's why they'll pick Francis.

And I'll be over here, not giving a shit, as I don't give a shit every year a collection of mediocrities buy themselves some brief prominence by filling up some TV time during a slow news month.