1 - 10 Next
Of course the regime has banned pastors from its illegal-alien camps. The regime would ban them from the entire country if it thought it could. The two things I'm really curious about: (1) How anyone in the executive branch can deny a member of the House Armed Services Committee access to a military base. (2) Why the House hasn't publicly grilled everyone from the gate guard to Chuck Hagel over this incident.
"An NSA fact sheet about Section 702 says, 'any inadvertently acquired communication of or concerning a U.S. person must be promptly destroyed if it is neither relevant to the authorized purpose nor evidence of a crime.'" Then why is NSA building a storage facility in Utah with yottabytes of capacity? One YB is the equivalent of 5–10 1-terabye portable hard drives of information for *every human being who has ever lived* or at least the best scholarly estimates of the total since the time of the Mitochondrial Eve in Africa more than 100,000 years ago. The new data farm will evidently hold many YB to start, and it's probably expandable. Snowden's catch is what one entry-level employee of an outside contractor was able to put on a thumb drive during a few weeks of cursory snooping at a minor installation in Hawaii. It barely suggests the scope of the problem. Don't beat around the bush. NSA has virtually everything—e-mail, phone conversations, ham radio transmissions, blog posts, Facebook pages, credit-card records, loyalty-card records, bank records, scanned snail mail, license-plate snapshots, video from drones and security cameras, police and court records, EZpass records, library records, work history, newspaper clippings, digitized medical information—not on "many people," but on every American citizen and on most others. It wants and actively seeks what little it doesn't already have. It doesn't throw anything away, not even encrypted traffic that it can't pry open. It doesn't give a damn about laws, regulations, or its own published policies. Unless Congress dismantles the agency completely (and as openly as possible), pushes for a special prosecutor to throw the worst actors in prison, replaces NSA with something less likely to trash the Constitution, and begins to excercise real oversight of the most corruptible part of the federal government, our descendants will never draw a free breath. I have little hope that things will improve.
In response to:

Best News Ever: Obama is Worst Ever!

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 07, 2014 7:52 AM
LBJ's prediction was probably correct, but that doesn't mean conservatives should write off the black vote. Winning hearts and minds and saving the country are hard enough without discounting hard-to-reach constituencies.
In response to:

Best News Ever: Obama is Worst Ever!

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 07, 2014 7:47 AM
Yep. Or how his efforts to hide that and other dealings (e.g., locking up decades' worth of coal, oil, gas, and uranium in Utah in exchange for Indonesian contributions) led to firing all 93 U.S. attorneys and Jamie Gorelick's "wall of separation" between intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. The latter prevented the federal government from anticipating 9/11. It also caused Sandy Berger to stuff incriminating documents in his BVDs to keep them away from the 9/11 Commission. He needn't have bothered, though. Jamie Gorelick, who should've been interrogated by that commission, was a MEMBER. And so on ad nauseam.
In response to:

Best News Ever: Obama is Worst Ever!

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 07, 2014 7:24 AM
Yeah, the media really extinguished—uh, distinguished—themselves campaigning for Obama. And like the ambitious young man who married the rich old widow, he has abandoned them. How did Hatteras fare during the recent blow? I gather that Arthur was mostly a non-event elsewhere, but the Banks always gets hammered.
In response to:

Best News Ever: Obama is Worst Ever!

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 07, 2014 7:14 AM
Well, the black electorate isn't colorblind and won't be anytime soon, but it doesn't look only at color. It also looks for a D on the ballot. A majority of black voters would turn out for Obama if he suspended the Constitution, imposed sharia, and ran for a third term. But it would never endorse Ben Carson or Alan West.
In response to:

Best News Ever: Obama is Worst Ever!

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 07, 2014 7:09 AM
We've sent some real gems to Washington just in my lifetime—Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton. . . Obama is the clear leader in the race to the bottom, but we shouldn't underestimate Clinton. What we know about Clinton is disgusting, and government secrecy and the media embargo have kept the worst from us. It may take generations to find out how often and how badly he screwed this country when he wasn't screwing everyone in a skirt. He's already admitted twice that he let Iran shoot down one of our airliners with impunity because a war with the mullahs would've complicated his reelection campaign. He's utterly unable to shut up for five minutes, and he's aging badly. If he runs his detestable yap long enough, he'll probably blurt out revelations of other high crimes.
In response to:

Best News Ever: Obama is Worst Ever!

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 07, 2014 6:41 AM
"Imagine what those numbers would look like if the LMSM hadn't assassinated W's character for 8 years while lying about and burying everything negative about Obama!" Those numbers wouldn't exist, for he wouldn't be president. A pretty good rule of thumb is that favorable press coverage is worth 10 percentage points. The press mobilized for Obama as they hadn't done for anyone since Kennedy. With that advantage plus unprecedented spending, unimaginable amounts of illegal foreign money, tedious RINO opponents, and more than the usual fraud, Obama won by 7.3% in 2008 and 3.6% in 2012. If the media had reported conscientiously on Benghazi, which broke six weeks before the election—or if it had done its job with even one of his other major scandals and fiascos from Fast and Furious to Obamacare—he wouldn't have won reelection. We have the regime that the kingmakers picked for us.
In response to:

Dissenters in a One-Party Statehouse

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 06, 2014 8:34 PM
The last taxpayer to flee that miserable mess of a state will have one hell of a bill.
For decades feminists have drummed into our heads that rape isn't sexual; it's a display of power. It was almost funny how fast they flushed that formula when it fell out that the president of the United States, a former Rhodes Scholar, had been molesting an unsophisticated, unpaid intern. By the way, I believe Chelsea's assertion that she doesn't care about money. Why should she? Her parents were knocking down $500,000 a year or more before they looted the White House on their way out of Washington. They earned almost $109 million through 2007. They have yet to report all their income since, but speaking fees alone totaled around $53 million through 2012, and Hillary got a $14 million campaign contribution. . .um, advance. . .for her latest book. Throw in the undocumented income, the contributions to the slush fund. . .ah, charitable foundation. . .and services in kind, such as the new CBS series Madam Secretary, and the total is probably a good chunk of a billion dollars. Chelsea has never had to worry about money. She's never had to earn it. It's just always been there, like air, deference, fame, and armed protection. As long as the bucks keep rolling in, she has no reason to care where they come from or why.
1 - 10 Next