As a commenter asked a while back -- second look at the Spoils System? At the very least we need a serious reform of the federal bureaucracy, and by "reform" I mean re-interviewing for jobs already held and mass firings.

The results for the IRS were striking. Of the IRS lawyers who made contributions in the 2012 election, 95% contributed to Obama rather than to Romney. So among IRS lawyers, the ratio of Obama contributors to Romney contributors was not merely 4-to-1 as previously reported, but more like 20-to-1. The ratio of funds to Obama was even more lopsided, with about 32 times as much money going to Obama as to Romney from IRS lawyers.

So has the IRS gone off the rails into hyper-partisanship, leaving behind other more balanced federal agencies? … The data show, however, that the partisanship of the lawyers in the IRS is not unusual or even particularly extreme among federal agencies. In fact, the lawyers in every single federal government agency–from the Department of Education [100%] to the Department of Defense [68%] — contributed overwhelmingly to Obama compared to Romney.

We now know the scheme was overseen by Washington DC-based IRS lawyer Carter Hall, and likely others, though of course confidentially laws preclude us from knowing who violated taxpayer confidentiality laws.

Why did they all reach the same conclusions on whether it was politically, legally, and constitutionally permissible to target political opponents? Because they all began with that conclusion.

Remember the Golden Age of Nepotism in Government, back during the era of Miller's Crossing? You know, whenever that was supposed to be. Well, at the taxpayer-funded Department of Energy, the Golden Age of Nepotism in Government is back. Or did it every really go away?

A report released last week by the Energy Department’s inspector general found that nepotism within the department has become an “open and widely accepted” practice, which has resulted in the relatives of department officials getting their relatives employment at the DOE.

“Despite the Department’s ethics program and information regarding prohibited personnel practices, advocating for the selection of relatives appears to have become an open and widely accepted Departmental practice,” reads the inspector general’s report.

The report found that a senior Energy Department official used his influence to get his three college-aged children internships within the department. All three of his children were employed by the DOE, and two of them ended up working in the same department as their father — the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Wow an IG Report which is just now seeing the light of day.

I have no more Shocked Face left.

Posted by: Ace at 07:45 AM | Comments (274)
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.

When last we saw Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, she was vetoing every piece of legislation the Republican controlled legislature passed until they agreed to her budget which included expanding Medicaid under ObamaCare.

Since that didn't work she's now doing an end run around the GOP majorities in the legislature to pass the state's ObamaCare plan.

Fed up with weeks of debate and delay on her top legislative priority, Gov. Jan Brewer called lawmakers into an unprecedented special session late Tuesday, bypassing the leadership of her own party to push through Medicaid expansion and the 2014 budget.

The governorÂ’s surprise move comes after House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, adjourned until Thursday, stalling efforts by a bipartisan House coalition to pass BrewerÂ’s 2014 budget and Medicaid expansion.

...
State law gives Brewer the authority to call a special session whenever she chooses. The only requirement is that she specify the topics of the session and not deviate from them, said election attorney Tom Ryan.

...

At least eight to 10 House Republicans are expected to join the chamberÂ’s 24 Democrats in support of expansion, a coalition that has been loosely organized for months.

Basically by calling the legislature into special session, Brewer is forcing them to vote on her proposals and enabling a minority of Republicans to join with the Democrats to pass ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion.

What this amounts to is what Boehner was doing for awhile to pass things a majority of his caucus doesn't support...let liberal Republicans and Democrats take charge.

Naturally Republican leaders in the state House and Senate aren't amused by Brewer's tactics.

"This evening, Governor Brewer summoned legislators to convene a special session to address the FY14 budget and Medicaid expansion. The special session was called without any consultation with Senate or House leadership, and was designed to commence at the precise moment it was conveyed. We are disappointed and stunned that the Governor and her staff would resort to such an unnecessary, impulsive and unprecedented tactic."

"Since the beginning of the session, Senate and House leadership have made the budgetary process a top priority. Additionally, the debate regarding the full implementation of Obamacare in Arizona was already fully under way. In fact, these two specific items have not only consistently been a top legislative focus, but the other essential bills of the legislature have also been moving through our respective chambers. Instead of allowing the process to proceed in an orderly manner, the Governor made the impetuous decision to intercede and collude with the democrat minority in order to force an expedited vote on her sole legislative priority of Obamacare."

"We are frustrated and bewildered by her overt hostility and disregard for the budgetary process which was already well under way. The blatant disrespect and reckless practices exhibited by this Executive are less than what was expected of her and more than should be tolerated."

Funny how "conservatives" often move left but liberals never "evolve".

Remember, it's never over until the liberals win.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:40 AM | Comments (136)
Post contains 503 words, total size 4 kb.

Eh, a lot of blather but it is nice to hear Mika and Chris Matthews called out. They're now saying that all these questions about war and security and surveillance and the Constitution are oh-so-complicated; Scarborough wants to know where the complications were during the Bush presidency, when the world was a much, much more black and white sort of place.

I like when he warns them to be careful what they say because he has tape of their previous statements from 2005-2008.

If you want to watch it, you can pick it up from about 4:00 to hear Mika and Matthews get slapped.

Before that, Chris Matthews introduces what sounds to me like a New Racial Slur -- "government." He's got this new jazz that even saying the word "government" is some kind of code-word that Respectable People do not say. At the current moment his theory behind the alleged "government" slur seems half-baked, but I imagine after a few rounds of Inspiration he'll have a whole theory as to how saying the word "government" is an "ethnic attack."

more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:01 AM | Comments (166)
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

The battle over amnesty is fought on a number of grounds that often get intermingled. Very rarely, at least on the Republican side, is the case for amnesty made explicitly on moral grounds. You'll hear someone like Rubio talk about treating illegal aliens humanely (as if we are doing what now? Shooting them down in the streets?) or as part of a call to be charitable but mostly it's couched in terms of security or "getting people out of the shadows".

Rand Paul is giving a speech this morning and according to the previews he's released, he'll be making a fairly explicit appeal to the moral causes for immigration reform, if not specifically for the current Gang of 8 proposal.

Paul’s speech, which was obtained by National Review Online, is part of his push this month to both amend the Gang’s legislation and improve the GOP’s standing with Latinos. That means calling for beefed-up border-security measures, as well as calling out conservatives who use incendiary rhetoric. “We’re not talking about criminals,” he says. “We’re talking about immigrant workers caught up in a failed government-visa program.”

Paul will also voice support for granting work visas to millions of undocumented workers as part of a larger package that includes carefully monitored improvements to border security. “The solution doesn’t have to be amnesty or deportation,” he says. “A middle ground might be called probation, where those who came here illegally become legal through a probationary period.”

...

“Common sense and decency have been neglected for far too long,” Paul says. “Let’s secure our borders, welcome our new neighbors, and practice the values of freedom and family for all to see.”

Sounds pretty much like the current plan on offer in philosophy if not detail. I guess I'll just wait to see how he votes.

I think arguments like this miss the point however. There is nothing moral about amnesty.

First, the people who came here illegally did so knowing they were breaking the law of this country and that they would not be able to do things that citizens or legal immigrants can do.

We as a country didn't perform some bait and switch maneuver where we said, "No, we're just kidding about that pesky legal system we set up. Just hop on over the border however you can and you'll be treated like the suckers who wait at home and play by the rules".

They made their choices and like all choices there are consequences.

My concern and compassion is for the sucker who have and continue to play by the rules we've set up. Does the process we've set up need reform? Desperately. But the fact that we didn't come up with a plan that would enable anyone who wants to come here to just walk on in mean that people are entitled to walk on in.

Currently there's something like 4 million people waiting to come to this country by legal means. No matter what amnesty supporters say about illegals going to "the back of the line", the truth is those who get the provisional legal status BEFORE any border security actually happens will be here and will have the ability to work and travel freely. I'm sure the people on that years long line would love to pay a $1,000 dollars and presto! have legal residency here. But they aren't offered that chance, only those that broke our laws get that easy and instant path. Where's the morality in that?

Amnesty proponents also ignore the inevitable additional wait times legalizing illegals will add for people who are playing by the rules. The current system can't handle the approximately 1 million legal immigrants per year in an efficient manner. In what universe will an influx of 8, 10, 15 who knows how many millions more not have an adverse affect on the current waiting list? Even if you had additional manpower, it will take months, if not years, to get people hired, trained and up to speed and that assumes a level of government competency that exists nowhere else.

So amnesty supporters, don't lecture me on "compassion". You've simply chosen to privilege a group of lawbreakers over people who have shown a respect for the country they wish to be a part of.

Ah yes, about respect for America. Personally, I think being born an American is one of the greatest gifts a person can be given. By almost any measure it sets you ahead of the vast majority of people on this planet when it comes to opportunity and quality of life. It's understandable why so many people want to come here and I think we should welcome many of them. But the first rule of be coming a naturalized American is to respect America.

I see no reason why we should devalue the gift of immigration to America (and that's what it is) by giving legal status to people whose first act in America is to break our laws.

We should place a higher value on legal residency and eventually citizenship than to simply hand it out to people who have shown contempt for our laws.

Under current law people here illegally are subject to removal and are barred from coming back to the US for a number of years depending on factors like how long they were here, etc. Whether you call it amnesty or an earned path to citizenship, what these people are asking for (demanding in many cases) is mercy. America is a merciful country but we should exercise our mercy in ways that shows compassion for those who respect our laws and do so in at a time and in a manner that treats trespassers fairly but does not reward them.

Legalization before reforming our current immigration system and border security is the immoral path.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:17 AM | Comments (277)
Post contains 979 words, total size 6 kb.

• Snowden Leaves Pole Dancing Girlfriend Behind
  
• It's Lonely In There: Ted Cruz Takes Up Residence In Joe Biden's Head
  
• Who's Up For Another State Department Scandal
  
• How To Lose 2016 In One Easy Amnesty Bill
  
• The World Is Swimming In Shale
  
• Nine Companies Tied To PRISM Will Be Smacked With A Class Action Lawsuit
  
• Battle Between Citizens And Government Escalating In Turkey
  
• Using Metadata To Find Paul Revere
  
• Feel Good Self-Defense Story Of The Day
  
• Obama's Options In Syria Are Few
  
• How TSA's Groping Softened Us Up For NSA's Snooping
  
• Gov't That Spies On Everyone Accuses Employers Of Improperly Using Criminal Background Checks
  
• Terrorists May Have Surface To Air Missiles From Our Libyan Adventure
  
• FBI Requests For Records Under The Patriot Act Have Increase 1,000% In Four Years
  
• Zimmerman Jury Selection: Day 2
  
• Last Person Born In The 1800s Died Yesterday
  
• Killing Pollyanna
  
• Bill Clinton To Get A Father Of The Year Award
  
• NSA Surveillance, The US Is Behaving Like China
  
• Scott Pelley Is A Dickbag
  
• Man Sues Surgeon On Account Of An Eight Month Erection
  
• Severe Weather Alert For People Living In The Rust Belt Today, Be Prepared
  

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:20 AM | Comments (221)
Post contains 201 words, total size 4 kb.

Happy Wednesday.

The contours of at least one of the NSA programs has gotten a lot clearer. The cell phone metadata warrants were issued pursuant to USA PATRIOT Act sec. 215, also known as the "business records provision" or, for civil libertarians during Bush 43's years, the "library records provision." The cell metadata program has been confirmed to the public -- that is, we've seen an authentic court order with respect to Verizon and been reliably informed that the other major cell carriers have also been subject to those orders, and for many years.

And though the cell metadata collection goes back to the Bush Administration, the use of section 215 has been greatly expanded by the Obama government.

The ACLU, a Verizon customer, is suing to shut down the cell metadata collection and to force NSA to destroy all records that it has obtained under the cell metadata program. ACLU complains (PDF) that the program violates section 215, as well as the First and Fourth Amendments.

Unlike the cell metadata program, however, the details of PRISM continue to be disputed. Edward Snowden remains the sole source to claim that the program allows NSA to "directly and unilaterally seize" internet communications off the companies' servers and that the program is directed against Americans. Those allegations have been denied by both DNI Clapper and by each of the companies allegedly involved. They've also been denied by undisclosed sources to the papers, although we've gotta weigh the fact that they won't allow their names to be used.

As far as on-the-record deinals go, both Clapper (PDF) and the companies have indicated that PRISM is the way that these companies comply with court orders to provide the content of internet communications in international terrorism cases under FISA sec. 702,

NYTimes reported that one of the ways the companies were approached by NSA to operate PRISM was by means of a digital "lock box" or "clean room" on the companies' servers. The companies, upon receiving a court order, would deposit the requested communications in the secure lock box, which NSA could then access remotely.

Yesterday, Google outright rejected the lock box possibility, at least with respect to itself, and admitted that it complies with 702 orders by means of a simple secure FTP. Google -- later joined by Facebook and Microsoft -- also asked DOJ to give it permission to publicly discuss how it complies with FISA orders, so as to clear its name of the charge that it provided NSA with "unilateral" access to the content on its servers.

In short, we have one confirmed case of NSA indiscriminately targeting Americans over the course of many years -- the cell metadata story. We have another sensational, and unconfirmed (to put it mildly) allegation that NSA is taking data right off the servers of the biggest internet companies. The second story is alarming, but too vague and uncorroborated for me to simply take Ed Snowden's word for it.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:52 AM | Comments (474)
Post contains 502 words, total size 4 kb.

[This is a repeat from a couple of years ago but a moronette reminded me of it last night and I thought it'd be worth revisiting. Sadly enough sewage has gone under the bridge since then to make it less of the parlor game it was.]

The Game: Who Goes Nazi?

The Anchoress had a recent post based on a Harper's piece from August of 1941, written by Dorothy Thompson, "Who Goes Nazi?" It's a parlor game where you look at the people around you and decide who would join the Nazis in a crunch. Of course when Thompson wrote this, it wasn't merely a game - she had seen it played out several times in real life. And in today's version it doesn't have to be actual Nazis - it could be any ideological cause that's willing to use violence to gain power.

It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one's acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times-in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.

And then she begins to go person by person at an imaginary cocktail party and analyze whether they'd go Nazi or not and why:

The gentleman standing beside the fireplace with an almost untouched glass of whiskey beside him on the mantelpiece is Mr. A, a descendant of one of the great American families. There has never been an American Blue Book without several persons of his surname in it. He is poor and earns his living as an editor. He has had a classical education, has a sound and cultivated taste in literature, painting, and music; has not a touch of snobbery in him; is full of humor, courtesy, and wit. He was a lieutenant in the World War, is a Republican in politics, but voted twice for Roosevelt, last time for Willkie. He is modest, not particularly brilliant, a staunch friend, and a man who greatly enjoys the company of pretty and witty women. His wife, whom he adored, is dead, and he will never remarry.

He has never attracted any attention because of outstanding bravery. But I will put my hand in the fire that nothing on earth could ever make him a Nazi. He would greatly dislike fighting them, but they could never convert him.. Why not?

Beside him stands Mr. B, a man of his own class, graduate of the same preparatory school and university, rich, a sportsman, owner of a famous racing stable, vice-president of a bank, married to a well-known society belle. He is a good fellow and extremely popular. But if America were going Nazi he would certainly join up, and early. Why?. Why the one and not the other?

If I were to play the game today, I'd be willing to wager that a good many of the current political class in Washington would go Nazi (some actively and some passively) and sadly that includes some GOP-types. And no doubt Spencer Ackerman and many on Journolist would jump on the bandwagon - although based on some the emails it seems they're not even waiting for actual Nazis to show up before they start bashing in skulls, rhetorically speaking of course.

I would also be willing to bet that anyone with real religious faith would have a much easier time ignoring the siren call of the Nazi cause.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:51 PM | Comments (718)
Post contains 1590 words, total size 15 kb.

I gotta tell you I think maybe we're getting a little snookered on this NSA story but Clapper still gave a false answer to Congress.

And he was given the question in advance, so he can't plead he didn't consider his words. He did. And he was given an opportunity immediately after giving the answer to, erm, bring it into conformance with the truth. And he refused.

He now claims his answer, while untruthful, was the "least untruthful" answer he could have given.

Which I think should be the slogan, going forward, for the entire Obama Chicago Machine.

Ron Wyden issued this statement:

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued the following statement regarding statements made by the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper about collection on Americans. Wyden is a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“One of the most important responsibilities a Senator has is oversight of the intelligence community. This job cannot be done responsibly if Senators aren’t getting straight answers to direct questions. When NSA Director Alexander failed to clarify previous public statements about domestic surveillance, it was necessary to put the question to the Director of National Intelligence. So that he would be prepared to answer, I sent the question to Director Clapper’s office a day in advance. After the hearing was over my staff and I gave his office a chance to amend his answer. Now public hearings are needed to address the recent disclosures and the American people have the right to expect straight answers from the intelligence leadership to the questions asked by their representatives.”

Clapper now claims that his answer is truthful depending on how you define "collecting" emails. If you mean "collecting" as in "collecting," well then he perjured himself in front of Congress. But if you mean "collecting" in some fashion that no one on earth uses, then his answer may be the "least untruthful" way to answer the non-trick question.

“I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying ‘no,’” Clapper told NBC News on Sunday.

...

Last week, Clapper said his “no” meant that NSA analysts don’t read Americans’ emails. Some have noted that could explain his earlier answer because “collect” has a precise meaning in intelligence-gathering circles, and it’s along those lines.

On Sunday, Clapper elaborated: “This has to do with of course somewhat of a semantic, perhaps some would say too cute by half. But it is—there are honest differences on the semantics of what—when someone says ‘collection’ to me, that has a specific meaning, which may have a different meaning to him.”

Here's what Charles Krauthammer has to say about that: "Give me a break."
more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:56 PM | Comments (325)
Post contains 499 words, total size 4 kb.

And that experience is a perfect melange of hyperactive cartoon images and sodden voiceover work about "fate" and "duty" and "big white craggly-looking cartoon orcs."

No seriously he hates The Hobbit about as much as George Lucas came to hate The Force. It's like he was "just trying to keep The Hobbit warm."

Meanwhile, as a complete surprise (to me at least), the people behind the recent smash Batman/Arkham games have announced a sequel, Arkham Origins, set in a non-Arkhamized Gotham City.

I had no idea they were even working on this but they've already set an October 25 release date. What I'd thought was that DC told them not to do a straight Arkham sequel, but to work up a Justice League (Superman, Flash, Batman, etc.) sequel instead, to build interest for the Justice League movie. But I guess maybe that project (which I thought was scheduled for a 2015 rollout) has been put on hold, and is still in the noodling phase.

So, below, the new Batman game.

Interestingly -- movies are trying to be more cartoony and videogames, conversely, are trying to be more realistic.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:30 PM | Comments (130)
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

This is precisely what we want and need: A person at the center of a federal inquiry with possible criminal dimensions f***ing about with the computer system of the agency at which she worked.

The IRS denies the story, but Elena Johnson of the National Review has sources that contradict that denial. According to Ms. Johnson, Lois Lerner still has full access to all the information she once had while an employee in good standing.

It's so obvious that the Obama Administration is very serious about getting to the bottom of this scandal.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:50 PM | Comments (241)
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.