Wow I really put in a solid day's effort here.

I called my shot into the high left field bleachers and I blasted it straight there.

2pm to 7:55pm. What am I, a farmer? I rise with the crow the cock.

Not the bird. I don't want to talk about it actually.

Be that as it may:

RNC pumps out a pro-amensty statement but does not explicitly call for a pathway to citizenship.

The Republican National Committee passed a resolution Friday calling on Congress to pass an immigration reform bill by the end of the year—but it stopped well short of the bipartisan compromise passed by the Senate earlier this year, omitting a “path to citizenship” for any class of illegal immigrant.

I personally have nothing against a guest-worker program. If people migrate here for economic reasons, I don't mind giving them a pass to do so.

But they're not coming here to be citizens and I don't see the need to extend citizenship to them.

I don't think they're bad people to break our immigration laws. But break them they did, and for basic reasons of economic opportunity.

We could be talking about a guest worker program but we never will because the Democrats will call it "racist" and the unions will call it competition. So instead the GOP will buckle under and give the Democrats their new voters/government clients.

Did you hear this story? About the lesbian girl who was having sex with an underage girl? And the question of whether the older lesbian girl should be prosecuted, as the law suggests?

I stayed away because I didn't know a key fact upon which everything hinged.

Here's the problem:

People who reflexively support gays will say "don't prosecute her because you don't prosecute straight kids in that situation and we have to do what we normally do. We can't treat gay people worse."

People who reflexively oppose gay stuff will say "you have to prosecute her because you routinely prosecute straight kids in that situation and we have to do what we normally do. We can't treat gay people better."

Well I agree with both final sentences -- we cannot treat gay people better and we cannot treat gay people worse. Which means the first sentence of each claim is in contest-- do we usually prosecute straight kids in this situation?

If so, we should prosecute her, just like the average kid. If not, we should not prosecute her, just like the average kid. As this all swings on a factual question I have no idea about, I didn't weigh in.

Well, it looks like we have to prosecute her. She has frequently and flagrantly disobeyed a judge's order to stop contacting the underage girl, including sending her graphic sexual photos.

I still don't know the answer to whether we routinely prosecute straight Romeo/Juliette offenders, but I do know we routinely prosecute adults who defy a judge's order to not contact a minor, and do so by sending... explicit material, let us say.

Thomas Sowell says stop letting the barbarians of the left win on campus.

McCain, Rand, and Cruz now all say Obama must call the coup a coup and stop funding the Egyptian military.

And Lindsay Graham agrees with McCain, if you can believe that.

Here's a big story under dispute: Hillary yelled a Congressman for calling Benghazi a terrorist attack. She shrieked that it was a demonstration over a YouTube video.

Now, did she say this after the Administration had abandoned that stupid line?

Oddly, she's the one insisting it did happen later.

Well... she's not saying it didn't happen later. She's saying it didn't happen at all. She's saying the only time it could have happened was later, but it didn't, and this guy Kitzinger is just a big liar.

Which is strange... because he asked her about this to her face in the Benghazi hearings and she didn't dispute it then:

Kinzinger actually addressed this point with Secretary Clinton when she testified about Benghazi before the House, back on January 23:

KINZINGER: When you briefed us, you said unequivocally this was a result of a video. I remember in fact, you got pretty upset when somebody suggested this was a terror attack. This was our briefing that we had. But we find out now it wasnÂ’t a video, it was this terrorist attack.

Now you may be confused by this -- as I am. You may think, "Why doesn't Hillary say 'yes I said that because I did then believe that'"? In other words, why is she forcefully denying something that 1, obviously did happen, and 2, could even be spun to her advantage?

Answer: Because she's Hillary Clinton. And just as the guilty fleeth when no man pursueth, Hillary lieth even when the truth would serve just as well.

And do notice the post I am stomping, by Purple Avenger, on the Caspian Sea Monster, a Soviet-era plane you probably never heard of. (I'm only stomping because I was just about to post and I want to sign off for the night.)

Thus endeth the sermon. Go out and do good this weekend.

Here are some songs with slight political suggestiveness, for no reason:
more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:16 PM | Comments (413)
Post contains 981 words, total size 7 kb.

In keeping with being a smart military blog and all, I present the Soviet Lun ekranoplan. Specs:

• 300mph+


• 380 tons, 148' wingspan


• Skims over water at 20' altitude


• 8 jet engines


• 50% more lift capacity than comparable size cargo planes


• Could launch 6 mach-3 anti-ship missiles

I've always been impressed with some of the weird hardware the Soviets built. Pushing the comfortable boundaries of conventional thinking was something they weren't afraid to dabble in.

Here's a Google Maps overhead sat shot of the thing berthed. It is BIG.

This Wired article is full of interior and exterior shots and more history.

San Francisco to LA in just over an hour. I'm betting a few of these style aircraft plying that route would cost dramatically less $$$ than high speed rail. No right of ways to purchase, no hundreds of miles of rail to lay. What's not to like?

How much would it suck if you were a pirate and one of these appeared on the horizon and got all in your face going all AC-130 on your ass at 300mph...about two minutes after you first noticed it peeking over the horizon. I'm pretty sure the suck factor would be cranked up to 11.

The plane featured in the Wired piece had an even larger predecessor in the 1960's that was over 300' long.

more...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 03:59 PM | Comments (66)
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

Funny:

The other part is ease of access, i.e. how many doctors are needed to, er, “greenlight” a kid’s use. The haggling over whether one, two, or three should have to sign the prescription smells like pure politics: Current law says three, the new bill passed by Democrats says one, so Christie’s settling on two as a compromise so that Rick Santorum can’t call him a hippie or whatever at one of the 2016 debates.

Why the sudden conflagration of this particular marijuana-bundle? Well, it's because one strain of pot -- which, being very low in the psychoactive, intoxicating "fun" part of pot THC and very high in the non-fun non-psychoactive non-intoxicating CBD part, really shouldn't even be a controlled substance in the first place -- actually turns out to more or less cure an absolutely debilitating form of otherwise-uncontrollable childhood epilepsy which can produce up to 300 seizures... per week. Or 45 per day.

So it's about that.

It's also about something Sanjay Gupta mentions in his new pro-pot position. Pot is a psychoactive drug. Generally with psychoactive drugs, we test them on patients with stuff we haven't been able to cure to see if it helps at all. It's all trial and error, of course. Oftentimes no one has any idea a specific drug will work on any particular thing until it's simply tried and reports back a success.

But because pot (and other illicit narcotics) is officially verbotten, such otherwise commonplace "Well let's try this then" experiments don't happen with pot.

But, because pot is a psychoactive drug, we should not be terribly surprised if it turns out to have some useful effect on some brain or nerve related ailments. Actually, we'd be surprised if it turned out it had no such useful effects. Every drug, even hardcore hallucinogens, have some useful effects for some specific ailments.

It turns out that this almost-zero-high pot nearly cures a very terrible affliction which until now had no known cure.

Now, some will object and point out the obvious: The people who just want to smoke pot because they want to smoke pot are using this sort of limited-but-real-medical-usage of pot to advance their agenda, to get their foot in the proverbial door, so they can start getting pot prescriptions for such serious ailments as Stress, Occasional Restlessness, and Lack of the Munchies.

Which is... 100% true, and yet it also doesn't change the underlying facts. The politics of the thing, and the use to which the facts will be employed, doesn't change the facts.

Posted by: Ace at 02:28 PM | Comments (469)
Post contains 473 words, total size 3 kb.

An alleged affair, not an extra-marital one (I don't think that's the allegation, anyway), occurring before his marriage, and happening with an employee nearly two decades his junior.

This would seem to me to fall into the large category of things I call "Not a Scandal," and indeed, not even particularly interesting. I'm not exactly shocked that an unmarried older man and his unmarried younger employee might have found an attraction to each other. It happens.

A lot.

This is why I really need to begin a business and start hiring interns. All my eggs are in this particular basket.

But you didn't come here to hear about my plans and schemes.

I am curious as to what makes this "troubling," exactly.

[Former staffers] described the lengthy relationship between the pair as a badly-kept open secret, with the two openly flirting and behaving unlike any other staffers in the office for a period they say began well before late 2006–when Ms. Azaria left Mr. Weiner’s payroll–and continuing after she returned in mid-2008. (In 2006, Ms. Azaria would have been turning 24 years old, while Mr. Weiner would have been turning 42.) The allegedly unprofessional behavior made some staffers uncomfortable.

“You’d have to be an idiot to not know what was going on,” said one ex-aide, who, like the majority of others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid damaging his relationship with Mr. Weiner and their former colleague. “It was a known secret in the office,” another said.

The close relationship was especially striking, sources said, in contrast to the way Mr. Weiner behaved with others.

“It was pretty clear they had a different relationship than everyone else,” said one source, describing the behavior–openly flirting and largely behaving unlike Mr. Weiner was with any other staffer–as continuing into 2008, when Mr. Weiner began dating his current wife. “If you worked for Weiner, you were lucky if he refused to acknowledge your existence. Those less fortunate got called ‘c**ksucker,’” said another. “So [their] rapport was exceptional.”

Well, that is kind of interesting: If you're not sleeping with Anthony Weiner, for him to not call you a c**ksucker would be an indication of an "exceptional rapport."

While relationships between staffers and their bosses–especially in the incestuous world of politics–are not unheard of, this pairing nonetheless suggests that Mr. Weiner was not completely honest when he insisted his personal proclivities were completely constrained to his private life.

Uh, this stupid.

“I think the notion of a member of Congress having a relationship with his staffer does not fit the bill of somebody making smart decisions about how he’s running an office and how he’s going to carry on in public life,” said one source. “It is a thing when the boss is having a relationship with a staffer and attempting to keep it a secret from anyone. That’s not appropriate and I think not something that represents smart, sound judgement.”

You're dumb. Unmarried people are unmarried people and are not required to submit Certificates of Tapping at the local city hall.

Although, in this case, it seems they pretty much did just that.

The one thing that's troubling to me is the fact that he apparently flaunted this in front of his other staffers, which is not something an adult does. The desire to let the world know far and wide that I'm Tappin' This is a juvenile impulse -- it recalls to mind eighth graders walking around with hands in the other's back pocket -- and suggests that Weiner is a state of arrested sexual development in which sex is largely about personal validation -- "scoring," racking up those ego points, telling Hero Stories -- and has not developed far beyond an eighth grade maturity level.

For example, among the Highly Obvious Actions the pair allegedly took to advertise their affair is this:

A third pointed to the woman using a vacation photo of the pair together as her screensaver.

Joint vacation with the boss? Happens every day!

But we already sort of knew he was pretty sexually immature, didn't we?

Wow. Who knew the Democratic Liberal Progressives were so horribly uptight and sexually retrograde. It's the twenty-tens, baby. Update.

What a bunch of sexually censurious riven-by-hang-ups pearl-clutchers.

#WarOnWomen, too. We must support women's sexual choices. Even when -- especially when -- those choices are like, "Ew. I can't even."

No One Who Has an Affair With a Very Junior Twentysomething Staffer Is Fit for Executive Office: hannoverfist writes--

That's funny considering Shillary's husband had an affair with a staffer.

I honestly didn't even think of that.

Incidentally... It is now reported that this alleged affair was notorious and obvious, but apparently Bob Filner's rampage of molestation was a tightly kept secret that No One Knew About.

Posted by: Ace at 01:12 PM | Comments (353)
Post contains 845 words, total size 6 kb.

Sorry for the zero posts today -- got caught up in commenting in the last post and forgot "Oh yeah, I'm supposed to post things too."

This would be a thing.

I don't know how important the actual physical location of Area 51 is. But here's what I do know: It would be a great thing if they could move the working Area 51 to somewhere else and then open the old Area 51 to the public -- suitably cleansed of still-classified Things.

Would you go to an Area 51 museum? I would. I don't believe in UFOs but I'm so there. Your museum has two parts: What Area 51 really was, which was super-cool, and what it was in the imagination, which is frankly what most people want to see but what the hell, include a mock-up of a "crashed UFO."

For the kids. And also, me.

According to these reports, which include a map of the baseÂ’s location in Nevada, Area 51 was merely a testing site for the governmentÂ’s U-2 and OXCART aerial surveillance programs. The U-2 program conducted surveillance around the world, including over the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Â…

This information will be disappointing to some, who have come to view the area has been a mecca of sorts for alien encounters. Â…

The map and other documents were released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by Jeffrey T. Richelson, a senior fellow at the National Security Archives, in 2005.

Posted by: Ace at 12:15 PM | Comments (416)
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

Obama thinks he can do your jobs better than you can too, Media.

The Washington Post's article detailing the fourth amendment abuses by the NSA got some push back from the administration who attempted to "edit" the article before publication. The internal audit referenced in the article was obtained by the WaPo from Edward Snowden. The details of the audit indicated repeated and growing privacy violations by the NSA, violations which included obtaining thousands of American citizen's communications records and using methods of information collection that were later deemed unconstitutional by a court.

The Post was able to interview John Delong, NSA director of compliance for the article and they were initially informed "DeLong and members of the NSA communications staff said he could be quoted 'by name and title' on some of his answers after an unspecified internal review." However, the WH subsequently changed their minds. The Washington Post included the following statement with their article:

The Obama administration referred all questions for this article to John DeLong, the NSA’s director of compliance, who answered questions freely in a 90-minute interview. DeLong and members of the NSA communications staff said he could be quoted “by name and title” on some of his answers after an unspecified internal review. The Post said it would not permit the editing of quotes. Two days later, White House and NSA spokesmen said that none of DeLong’s comments could be quoted on the record and sent instead a prepared statement in his name. The Post declines to accept the substitute language as quotations from DeLong. The statement is below.

I'll refer you to the link to find the New, False Interview Answers the White House sought to replace with Delong's actual answers. But essentially the White House sought to replace a candid (and damaging) interview with a pre-fabricated press release, but seems to have wished to the Washington Post to falsify the actual contents of the "interview answers."

Question:

What has the media done to indicate to the White House that such a thing is even in the ballpark of things the media would consider doing? Why would the White House have the idea that such an extraordinary thing was even ballpark of the possible?

Posted by: Ace at 10:37 AM | Comments (541)
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.

NBC and CNN can have their Hillary shows or they can have GOP debates.

Top RNC leaders voted unanimously on a resolution stating that the national party will not partner with the networks nor sanction any primary debates they plan to sponsor and broadcast. (Read a full copy of the resolution below.)

Cable and broadcast television networks have sponsored and produced dozens of presidential primary debates during the recent presidential election cycles, often partnering with state parties or other political organizations in order to draw candidates to the televised events. During the 2012 cycle, top networks sponsored at least 20 debates that stretched from May 2011 to February 2012; CNN hosted seven debates, while NBC News, CNBC or MSNBC hosted four.

The networks do not need the permission of the RNC to host such debates, but the resolution approved Friday likely will prompt state party officials and other conservative organizations to not sponsor, sanction or attend any debates hosted by NBC or CNN and thus keep candidates from attending.

The last bit is the rub. The RNC really can't control this unless...they are willing to penalize states/candidates that have unapproved debates. The odds of that actually happening are fairly low.

The big penalty would be delegates. State parties hate that because it's a fun time and important people go to the national convention and state officials want to be important so they won't agree to dock each other's votes. Even if say the SC GOP was to hold a debate on CNN, people in Iowa won't vote to dock their delegates because next time it could be them. No one will want to set the precedent that the national committee can boss around the states that way.

As for candidates, if you're a 3rd tier guy who isn't getting any traction yet, you'll go because you're not worried about losing delegates you can't get unless you make a splash in a debate (think Newt and Santorum last time). You're going to go and dare the RNC to punish you and your theoretical delegates. But first you have to get them and that means air time.

Maybe it'll lead to a compromise on moderators, though I doubt VERY IMPORTANT NEWS ORGANIZATIONS will be willing to let a party (other than the Democrats) be seen as making editorial decisions for them.

One thing I don't like about it is plays into this narrative that Hillary is something to be feared. I bet these shows tank. Republicans are spending far to much time fretting about this woman.

Keep a few things in mind about her...

She was inevitable in 2008. And then she wasn't.

She's a terrible candidate. Other than hardcore liberals and Team Girl Power, a lot of people just don't like her.

The Obama people (staff and hardcore supporters) HATED her. remember she represented the ugly past of compromise and triangulation. They wanted the real deal lefty God. Do you really think she's going to get to bask in the reflective glow of Obama?

Biden's going to run too. He's not going to win and he's not going to be the darling of the Obama left but he and his surrogates will leak plenty of news about how Hillary badly served the One True Democratic God. She's not going to stroll to the nomination as the rightful inheritor of the Obama mantle without getting bloodied in the process.

There are all these stories about how no one will run if Hillary! gets in. Bull. Some obscure lefty with a new and exciting story will jump in and Democrats will fall in love with the shiny new toy. Hillary! may run and she may get the nomination but it won't be by acclimation and she won't be unblemished heading into the general.

It's good to see the GOP call out the media in any way but stop building Hillary! up as if she's Ronald Reagan in 1984. Act like you're happy to have her run, even if you aren't. Don't psych yourself out of the game before it even starts.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:58 AM | Comments (184)
Post contains 694 words, total size 4 kb.

On today's episode, Gabe, Drew, John and Andy are joined by Lee Doren of the How the World Works YouTube channel for a discussion of the recent "Stop & Frisk" ruling in New York (pdf), the "Fire Jen Rubin" letter, Ted Cruz birthers, and whether GOP congressmen should be holding town hall meetings during the August recess.

MP3 Download

Subscribe:

RSS

iTunes

Follow on Twitter:
AoSHQ Podcast (@AoSHQPodcast)
Rick Tempest (@RickTempest)
Drew M. (@DrewMTips)
Gabe (@GabrielMalor)
John E. (@JohnEkdahl)
Andy (@TheH2 and @AndyM1911)

Posted by: andy at 09:15 AM | Comments (133)
Post contains 105 words, total size 2 kb.

I emailed Raffi Williams at the RNC for clarification about the "self-deportation" is "Obviously racist" quote.

He sends this transcript of Priebus' remarks.

RP: I dont know about a mistake, but I would just say some of those issues are very candidate focused. I mean I would say using the word "self deportation" . I mean, that's a horrific comment to make. Its not something that has anything to do with our party. Someone who makes those comments obviously is HURTS us. So I don't think that's a big deal. But obviously building genuine, authentic relationships take time...

Emphasis mine.

That's a hell of a misquote if that's what happened.

I'll check to see if Business Insider has issued a retraction yet but I wanted to get the RNC's statement up as quickly as possible.

Update: Business Insider appends a correction to their story.

=Correction, 12:26 p.m. ET: An original version of this story said that Reince Priebus referred to Mitt Romney's comments as "racist." He said it "hurts us."

That's a hell of misquote. I mean, it's not like "hurts us' sounds like "racist".

I still like to know why "self-deportation" is "horrific" when it's part of the party platform.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:33 AM | Comments (325)
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

Above the post update:
Business Insider which had the original story issued a correction. Priebus never said "racist".

Some of you may have noticed I'm not the biggest fan of Mitt Romney. No, it's true. But even I wouldn't have called him a racist. Then again, I'm not the head of the DNC, er...RNC.

Behold the political stylings of RNC Chairman Reince Preibus.

“Using the word ‘self-deportation’ — it’s a horrific comment to make,” Priebus said, in a forceful rebuke. “I don’t think it has anything to do with our party. When someone makes those comments, obviously, it’s racist.”

Preibus spent much of a mid-afternoon session with reporters defending the partyÂ’s progress with Latino voters and steps on immigration reform, which it made a priority five months ago in its touted Growth and Opportunity Project.

So to recap...the Chairman of the Republican National Committee just endorsed every Democrat who spent the last 2 years calling Romney, and by extension the GOP, a racist.

That's....an interesting position for the Chairman of the GOP to take. Makes you wonder who exactly Preibus is trying to impress.

Question for the Chair...does he think internal enforcement that leads to illegal aliens leaving the country (which is what "self-deportation" meant) is racist or does he just reserve that for the term itself?

Update: Um, Reince? Have you looked at page 26 of the 2012 GOP Platform lately (pdf)?

We will create humane procedures to encourage illegal aliens to return home voluntarily

Below the fold, relive the racism (according to Preibus) of Mitt Romney. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 07:18 AM | Comments (426)
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.