Burdensome

Nancy Pelosi defending Ilhan Omar:

“I think she has a different experience in the use of words, and doesn’t understand that some of them are fraught with meaning that [she] didn’t realize, but nonetheless that we had to address,” Pelosi said.

Omar most recently came under fire after she accused Jewish Americans of having “allegiance to a foreign power.”

Pelosi made a similar statement on Thursday, when she told reporters at a press conference that she believes Omar didn’t understand “the full weight” of how other people understood her words.

“When you cross that threshold into Congress, your words weigh much more than when you’re shouting at somebody outside, and I feel confident that her words were not based on any anti-Semitic attitude, but that she didn’t have a full appreciation of how they landed on other people, where these words have a history and cultural impact that may have been unknown to her,” Pelosi said.

Nancy’s excuse for Omar is certainly absurd. It’s also condescending, imperialist, and culturally supremacist. Poor little Muslim girl doesn’t have the background to understand her own words. She’s only been in the United States for 24 years.

I guess that’s the white woman’s burden, Pelosi style. I can’t understand why all the woke Twitter users haven’t declared a fatwa on the Speaker.

Motor City Mother

If House Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) had been speaking:

New Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) on Thursday vowed to take on President Trump hours after she was sworn into office, saying before a crowd of supporters, “We’re going to go in and impeach the mothef—er.”

…about her fellow female Congresscritter, Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and if she’d said brotherf***er, she might have had a better point:

As many candidates do, Omar has made her personal background an integral part of her campaign. But neither the candidate nor the reporters who covered her have shown much interest in exploring one aspect of her personal story that recently came to public attention: the fact that she is not legally married to the man she advertises as the husband and the father of her three children. In fact, she is legally married to another man—who may be her brother.

Illegal immigrants being pwnd, Democrats committing vote fraud, Useful idiots calling for confiscation of all profits, Union bosses lying about their employers, God is dead to Democrats, Women defined as vaginas

Just a day at the Democrat’s convention.

Young face put on illegal immigration at DNC
“I’ve had to live almost my entire life knowing I could be deported just because of the way I came here.” And “how you came here,” that would be… illegally? Same with how you stay here?

Just whose votes does Obama expect to gain by suing Arizona, or issuing that executive “no deportation” order? A possible answer:
State Rep. Hudson Hallum, 3 Others Plead Guilty to Election Fraud

Democrats loudly proclaim there’s no such thing as vote fraud, and call Republicans racists for mentioning it. But, is there any reason to believe arranging for illegal immigrants to vote would have caused Hudson Hallum the slightest pang of conscience? Is there any reason to believe the president’s executive order was not crassly political in its timing? He could have done it over 3 years ago if he thought it about justice or compassion.

DNC delegates: Let’s ban corporate profits!
And these are people supposedly knowledgeable about politics and business? They are selecting THEIR candidate for the most (as yet) important job in the world.

Steelworker Featured at DNC Didn’t Work for Bain
They’ve got commercials where Democrat operatives claim to have converted from the GOP, why not someone who prevaricates about where he worked?

On the removal of “God,” and “Jerusalem” from the platform. First, the floor vote was obviously a fraud. Second, the President either knew about it and agrees, or didn’t know about it and is incompetent. On his record, I lean toward believing the former – his acolytes made it clear they (also) don’t like people “clinging to religion,” or calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel. As if it was their decision rather than Israel’s.

Then, there’s the nearly incoherent speech by Sandra Fluke. Ms Fluke became famous because Rush Limbaugh used the word ‘slut’ to describe her demand that you pay for her birth control pills. Slut is imprecise, because it leaves out the Federal pimp. I’d say ‘cheap whore to big government.’ Cheap, because the contraceptives she wants your Uncle Sam on the hook for cost 4 bucks a month. Whore, because it’s not about wanting to have sex, it’s about making someone else pay for it.

DNC delegates: Let’s ban corporate profits!

And these are people supposedly knowledgable about politics and economics? They want to say Obama’s” “You didn’t build that,” is taken out of context? They ARE the context.

Steelworker Featured at DNC Didn’t Work for Bain

They’ve got commercials where Democrat operatives claim to have converted from the GOP, why not someone who prevaricates about where he worked?

The Democrats think these ideas are good ones for their brand. Consider that while (if) you’re watching the soaring rhetorician accept his annointment tonight.

Cognitive Dissonance

Our Democrat leaders in Washington passed a bill last week that they didn’t much like. The passage of this bill increased government tax receipts by about $30 million a day, and ‘saved or created’ 70,000 construction jobs along with 4,000 federal jobs. Since the Dems claim to be about ‘revenue enhancement’ and government ‘job creation,’ you might wonder why they weren’t patting themselves on the back, rather than complaining that the GOP “put a gun to our heads.”

The bill in question was a temporary extension (the 21st such since 2007) of the Federal Aviation Administration’s operating authority. Since July 23 of this year the lack of this authority had caused the FAA to miss collecting taxes of $28.6 million a day. If the partial suspension of FAA operations continued until September, when all our Congresscritters will have completed reunions with their Pomegranate trees consultations with their constituents, that could have totaled a billion dollars. That’s billion with a “B”.

The partial shutdown was caused by the Democrat’s insistence on preserving $17 million in pork and changing a unionization process rule that has been in place for 75 years. So, for Senate Democrats, pork preservation and enabling public service unions to more easily organize are higher priorities than jobs and tax receipts. These preferences come together under the general heading of ‘bribing the base.’

The Democrats were getting a bit squirmy about it, though. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and the president pleaded with Congress to solve the problem; As if the problem was the whole Congress and not just Democrats in the Senate insisting on pork and a mini-version of card-check:

The GOP-led House passed a long-term FAA funding bill last month that included a controversial labor provision that would overturn a decision by the National Mediation Board allowing airline and railroad employees to form a union by simple-majority vote. Republicans, who have long been concerned about union intimidation in these votes, want to keep the former rule treating a non-vote as a “no” vote.

But once that bill stalled over Democratic objections, lawmakers turned to a short-term extension that has passed 20 times before to keep the FAA operating since 2007.

But that effort stalled, too, when Republicans added a separate provision stripping $16.5 million in subsidies for rural airline services.

The rural airport subsidies come from the well-worn pork barrel Congressman John Murtha made infamous with the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport.

The labor provision may have been ‘controversial,’ but only because the Senate Democrats were insisting on letting a bunch of bureaucrats at the NMB change a rule that’s been in place for over 75 years.

So what did the Senate Democrats do after passing a temporary extension they could have passed 2 weeks earlier? They called a press conference to tell us the delay was all the fault of the Republicans. This charade proved too much even for ABC:

http://abcnews.go.com/assets/player/walt2.6/flash/SFP_Walt_2_69.swf

What is scary is that Senior Democrats were not feigning outrage and shock when there wasn’t universal acceptance of their ludicrous assertions – they truly believe what they said. When leaders’ foundational beliefs and tried and true methods suddenly don’t work – even are mocked – dangerous things can happen.

There is a final twist. The Transportation Secretary announced that he is not bound by the pork elimination provision, in any case. So, the Democrats cost the United States Treasury over $200 million in tax receipts, and then will go ahead and spend another $17 million on several examples of Murtha’s folly in violation of the law they just passed.

Update 2:05PM: Debra J. Saunders reports in the San Francisco Chronicle that Senator Barbara Boxer, blocked a vote on the legislation.

Sen. Barbara Boxer chided Karl for showing “a certain naivete” in not understanding that “this is about government threats.” She also challenged Karl by asking if he had reported on GOP opposition to a vote on a “clean” bill. “Clean” here means no pork cuts.

Boxer seemed to have forgotten that she blocked a vote on the House Bill.

The MIchurian Candidates

Too clever by half?

Michigan’s fake “Tea Party” operation (background here, if you need it) seems to have stumbled in its attempt to deceive voters in November.  

They, where ‘they’ means Democrats to an extent still being determined, can’t run on their own ideas and platforms so they have to be dishonest about who they are.  Fortunately, they appear less than competent at it.

From The Detroit News: GOP lawyers join in as battle of tea parties heats up

[Oakland] County [Democratic] party Chairman Mike McGuinness said operations director Jason Bauer may have crossed the line when he notarized many of the affidavits filed by 23 candidates trying to get on the November ballot as members of the newly formed Tea Party. Some of them filed in what are expected to be close congressional or state legislative races.

“May have” crossed the line?  At best he betrayed the Democrats, at worst he revealed Democrats are connected to the plot.  But it gets worse:  Many of the affidavits appear to have been notarized before the MIchurian candidates were even nominated:  Tea Party Candidate Identity Statements Could Be Invalid

The mysterious Tea Party candidates could face legal challenges because many of the candidates appear to have filled out their affidavits saying they accepted the party nomination before the convention was held, one election expert said.

Of the 20 affidavits reviewed by Michigan Capitol Confidential, all but one was signed before the reported July 24 date of the Tea Party Convention in Saginaw.

The Affidavit of Identity and Receipt of Filing has a section that asks the filer to acknowledge by checking a box that they have “certification of party nomination and certification of acceptance.”

Since candidates are nominated at the party convention, a candidate couldn’t check that box until after nominated.

If, as seems likely, the affidavits notarized by Jason Bauer are some of the same ones signed before the events being affirmed had occurred, what are the consequences for his public notary license?
 

Incompetence Update: 1:45PM
Two Michigan Tea Party Candidates Removed from Ballot Because They are Under Age 21

Partisan deception

Jason Gillman at Michigan Taxes Too Much and also at Right Michigan has almost certainly discovered the identity of one of the dezinformatsiya operatives/candidates of the false flag political cell named Michigan “Tea Party.”  The man, Jason H. Bauer, is an Oakland County Democrat party official.

There is no post on this by Mr. Gillman at either site as I write. I learned about it here. Please visit Mr. Gillman’s sites. It is his story and he deserves the traffic. Both sites linked above are included in TOC’s blogroll.

This new political party, almost certainly set up by Democrats with assistance from a Soros friendly political consulting firm in California, will be an indication on your ballot NOT to vote for the agent whose name appears opposite the false party label.

As mentioned here,  people who support tea party ideas are NOT a political party and do not aspire to be.  The people behind the Michigan Tea Party want to steal the brand while rejecting the ideals.

Despicable.

Update 12:40PM 29-July
Should have read below the fold. See also.

Too smart to say that?

Senator Jon Kyl mentions something President Obama said to him (~3:17) about why Obama won’t support secure borders:

The White House denies this, “Senator Kyl knows the president didn’t say that.” Right. It depends on what the meaning of “the” is.  The White House sub-text is: “Obama’s too smart to say that,”  but he has not justified that assumption.  

Many are buying it, nonetheless.  For example, Charles Krauthammer on Fox News tonight (I paraphrase), “The President is too clever and polished to have said that so bluntly.” A. B. Stoddard echoed the sentiment. “Obama’s too smart for that.”

Really? This is the same guy who told us our electricity rates “would necessarily skyrocket” if he were elected.  He’s the man who accused Pennsylvanians of “clinging to their guns and religion.” He told PBS WBEZ-FM in 2001 that SCOTUS was remiss becuase it never ventured into question of the redistribution of wealth (.43) :
 
He told Joe the Plumber the same thing 7 years later.  

He told us that his grandmother was a “typical white person.”

As President, Barack Obama called Cambridge, Massachusetts police stupid; on national television, from the White House and after admitting he did not have the facts.  President Obama has told us he’s looking for whose “ass to kick.”

I don’t think Obama gets a pass on Senator Kyl’s version of events because “he’s too smart to say that.” He may be smart, but he has proven he isn’t circumspect, and that he is a rabid ideologue. I’m quite sure he said something that any reasonable person would interpret exactly as has Senator Kyl.

The GAAP between Waxman’s ears

Megan McCardle, in a futile effort to explain GAAP to Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak.

…when a company experiences what accountants call “a material adverse impact” on its expected future earnings, and those changes affect an item that is already on the balance sheet, the company is required [by Federal law] to record the negative impact…

…now a bunch of companies with generous retiree drug benefits have announced that they are taking large charges to reflect the cost of the change in the tax law [occasioned by Obamacare].

Henry Waxman thinks that’s mean, and he’s summoning the heads of those companies to Washington to explain themselves. It’s not clear what they’re supposed to explain. What they did is required by GAAP. And I’ve watched congressional hearings. There’s no chance that four CEO’s are going to explain the accounting code to the fine folks in Congress; explaining how to boil water would challenge the format.

It is not the format that’s going to be challenged, it’s the formatees. They know how to turn up the heat, they just don’t comprehend that they are the ones sitting in the soup pot.

I would jump to be the first to say that there should be no subsidies from any government to any corporation; it just encourages the lobbyists, produces graft and corruption, wastes money, stifles innovation and competition, and reduces our freedom. However, when you eliminate a subsidy, you have to expect it will change the financial picture for the corporations that enjoyed the former tax regime. Getting all huffy about that would be beneath most folks. Not necessarily because most folks would be worried about public perception of their honesty, but because they wouldn’t want everyone to know they were morons.

Ask yourself why the Feds felt it incumbent upon them to subsidize benefits for retirees belonging to large unions in the first place. Ask yourself if the corporations would have granted such generous benefits without such federal subsidy. That is, ask yourself if corporations would take advantage of government interference intended to encourage opulent benefit programs at your expense.