Democrat playbook of repeated lying starting to wear thin

I’ve said the Democrat Party of Virginia should finally own up to the notion that “DPV” is more accurately rendered as the “Deceiver Party of Virginia.” They’ve been at it for years, deliberately misrepresenting the positions of their Republican opponents, assuring we Virginians that they’ll “never support” legislation that would “take away health care that you’ve got right now,” and just outright lying about some ridiculous effort to ban birth control or some such. When I wrote that article in 2013 they were saying that Delegate Barbara Comstock was trying to ban birth control, for instance, a claim that I showed was patently false. Well, if you’ve been watching any TV for longer than 15 minutes in the northern Virginia 10th Congressional District, then you know they’re making that same ludicrous claim today.

And, apparently, it ain’t just in VA and regarding Barbara Comstock:

UPDATE: And now… the Denver Post endorses Gardner, and is brutal in its assessment of Udall:

“Rather than run on his record, Udall’s campaign has devoted a shocking amount of energy and money trying to convince voters that Gardner seeks to outlaw birth control despite the congressman’s call for over-the-counter sales of contraceptives. Udall is trying to frighten voters rather than inspire them with a hopeful vision. His obnoxious one-issue campaign is an insult to those he seeks to convince.”

Emphasis mine. And just so you know, read up on Comstock’s stance here, from CBS 6 in Richmond:

Comstock, in her third term representing parts of Loudon and Fairfax counties in Virginia’s House of Delegates, takes conservative stands on many issues, from business regulations to gun control. She opposes abortion rights, but advocates making birth-control pills easier to obtain.

She absolutely does not, as the Dem ad claims, wish to outlaw birth control. They know this and still they make the claim to you. There’s a word for that: lie. And if they’re lying to you about something this easy to confirm, what are they lying to you about that they know they can hide from you?

What’s particularly illuminating, here, is that the Dems are trying the same “scare-all-the-ladies” approach right across the board and they are expecting that it will work. I have to say, ladies, I don’t see that the Democrats think very highly of your intelligence and, clearly, they think sex is pretty much all that concerns you.

Barbara Comstock and Ed Gillespie hold you in higher regard. Barbara’s record on pushing for economic development for everyone and on halting human trafficking, which primarily affects women and children, is exemplary. Ed Gillespie thinks you’re concerned with much more than birth control when it comes to health care and you’re also interested in better job opportunities, more affordable energy, and in having representation that puts Virginians’ interests – your interests – ahead of whatever agenda some national party wants to push.

Don’t be fooled. Get the facts. When you do, I’m sure you’ll see the wisdom in voting for Barbara Comstock for Congress and Ed Gillespie for Senate.

CDC Chief says travel bans would only make Ebola outbreak worse.

There are those who are saying that the reaction to the spread of Ebola – the overreaction, actually – is a bunch of fear-mongered hype. To one degree, there’s some truth to that. A pretty wide-spread lack of knowledge about the specifics of the disease has led people to believe that it’s far more contagious than it really is. And, yes, the actual rate of infection is pretty low when you compare it to other diseases. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge something pretty basic that a number of people who are dismissive of the grave concern being shown by the public seem to discount. There’s more to the fear of Ebola than the rate of infection. It’s the consequences that come with infection that raise the level of concern, here. The fact of the matter is that it’s also extremely, extremely rare for a child to be abducted. As the years have passed and our awareness of even small, local events has increased due to the rise of the always-connected society, most of us have become acquainted, through the news, with some family, somewhere, who has suffered this trauma and had it displayed directly before us. We imagine ourselves in that situation and find it to be so terrible that we become determined to take actions to reduce that risk to as close to zero as is humanly possible. It’s not a matter of the statistical risk of having one’s child abducted that drives us. It’s the gravity of the consequences that will accrue should it occur.

So it is with Ebola.

Faced with an outbreak in West Africa that has gone on far longer than most and, then, with a case of a man who got around the measures designed to keep someone from bringing the disease here to the US, the Obama Administration did… nothing at all to bolster any defenses. The concept of quarantine isn’t new. The idea of simply not allowing people from areas where plaque has flared up to travel into areas where it has not is something the Romans did millennia ago. Obama could have availed himself of procedures set forth by his predecessor in office and implemented stronger travel quarantine measures, if he hadn’t quietly revoked them back in 2010. Not that anyone in the current administration would ever admit that. In fact, Obama’s CDC chief, Tom Frieden, says that such measures would make the outbreak worse:

The first case of Ebola diagnosed in the United States has caused some to call on the United States to ban travel for anyone from the countries in West Africa facing the worst of the Ebola epidemic.

That response is understandable. It’s only human to want to protect ourselves and our families. We want to defend ourselves, so isn’t the fastest, easiest solution to put up a wall around the problem?

But, as has been said, for every complex problem, there’s a solution that’s quick, simple, and wrong.

A travel ban is not the right answer.  It’s simply not feasible to build a wall – virtual or real – around a community, city, or country. A travel ban would essentially quarantine the more than 22 million people that make up the combined populations of Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea.

Interesting notion, that it’s not “feasible” to “build a wall” around populations that are showing an outbreak of a disease or that quarantine is, somehow, ineffective. Studies performed by the CDC, thank you, have concluded that this very technique was what made the difference during the Spanish Fly1 Flu Epidemic between a community recovering versus several thousand body bags. The part about CDC Chief Frieden’s opinion piece that leapt off the page to me, however, was this:

When a wildfire breaks out we don’t fence it off. We go in to extinguish it before one of the random sparks sets off another outbreak somewhere else.

Actually, we do both, and the creation of firebreaks is considered key to keeping the wildfire from spreading out of control. In other words, we take measures explicitly to limit the travel of the flames.

Mr. Frieden’s commentary and approach seem, to me, to be more about defending the actions (or, rather, inaction) of the President than about advancing all possible measures to defending this nation’s citizens from the spread of a disease that, while thankfully rare, is devastating to those afflicted and difficult to treat. I appreciate his suggestion that we need to get over there and meet that threat – I wholeheartedly concur – but we don’t need airlines to be carrying ordinary passenger traffic back and forth to get the assets over there that we need.

1 Whoops.

Motives do matter: Obama finally engaged but why, really?

Howard Kurtz writes a piece in which he describes a more serious media covering a war president. He mentions Republican Peter King’s comment basically saying that we should all get together and support Obama. “What’s past is behind us,” he said. While I most certainly approve of taking the needed actions to eliminate a threat to peaceful people, I can’t simply dismiss the actions of the President leading up to this engagement nor ignore the obvious motives.

President Obama simply couldn’t be bothered to take any of this seriously. Until, that is, his polling numbers started falling like a brick knocked off the Washington Monument. Am I to believe that a man who casually dismissed the enemy as the “JV team” barely a month ago suddenly reassessed the threat all on his own? Sorry, don’t think so.

Obama may be doing the right thing, now, and I support the strikes against the Islamic State terrorists wholeheartedly, but he’s only doing it because he and his fellow Demand in office are trying to forestall the impending electoral damage heading their way. And as soon as that’s handled, they’ll go weak-kneed again.

NASA’s Maven to reach Mars tonight

NASA’s Maven spacecraft, a probe set to examine Mars’ upper atmosphere, is set to make its orbital insertion later today.

NASA’s Maven spacecraft is on track to reach the red planet late Sunday night following a journey spanning 10 months and 442 million miles.

If all goes well, the robotic explorer will slip into Martian orbit for a year or more of atmospheric study. It’s designed to circle the planet, not land.

Maven’s mission involves studying the effects of the solar wind on Mars’ atmosphere and to determine the rate at which key elements of the atmosphere effectively “leak out” into space. The idea is to figure out the process by which Mars went from a warmer, wetter planet millennia ago to the cold and dry world it is today. I certainly wish the team at NASA well and I hope this probe continues the stellar performance of NASA’s other Mars missions, particularly Spirit and Opportunity. site still a security nightmare and a hacker’s dream

Almost a year after the disastrous launch of, the Obamacare web site that cost millions to stand up and, yet, was still a staggering failure, the site remains a barely-functional, vulnerability-ridden mess. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is according to the Obama Administration’s own Government Accountability Office (GAO):

Despite efforts to protect patient information on the website, a new government watchdog report scheduled to be released Thursday says security issues are still a concern.

According to the Government Accountability Office report, “weaknesses remained in the security and privacy protections applied to and its supporting systems.”

According to the report, the GAO made 6 specific recommendations to HHS to fix security and privacy vulnerabilities and 22 recommendations to fix technical security weaknesses in those security and privacy controls mechanisms that they did actually deploy. HHS, I would like to note, has agreed to 3 of those specific implementation recommendations and all 22 of the technical fixes on what’s actually there. That means that HHS is fully aware that those weaknesses are present in what they’ve deployed and that 3 of the 6 things the GAO wants implemented are things HHS agrees ought to be there. Speaking as a professional in this field, that ain’t a good position to be sitting in and claiming to be running a good program.

The media has allowed the Obama administration to sweep a lot of the mess under the rug in the last year so let me remind everyone that the critical back-end systems – the specifically mandated-by-law requirements to check immigration status and income records, and to do so before an individual is allowed to apply subsidies to their insurance plan – aren’t finished and functioning even now. Years into this program and several tens of millions of dollars and they still don’t have a web site that does even remotely close to what was promised and what the law requires.

As a result of those deficiencies, the personal information of millions of citizens has been placed at risk and lots of it has already been compromised by hackers. The systems that were supposed to keep people who don’t qualify for subsidies from getting them in the first place aren’t implemented, meaning that people are likely going to have to repay some of the funding they’re already received. That lack of income checking has placed as many as 360,000 people in danger of losing their subsidies, making that “affordable” insurance plan anything but. Obama’s people take turns sounding tough and claiming that they’ll enforce that repayment if those people identified don’t provide income documentation. On the other hand, there’s talk from some in the Obama Administration that they will simply waive the repayment in order to garner votes, thus putting the taxpayers on the hook for even more and making this law – already completely unable to meet the “pays for itself” criteria so touted when it was being rammed through Congress – even more expensive than thought.

There gets to be a point at which serious people who are really interested in addressing the actual issues of the day must, if they wish to be ethically forthright, question whether the entire concept needs to be re-thought and perhaps a new course charted. I’d like to think there are people in the needed positions who will think that way, but with this current Administration, I know better.

Australia foils Islamic State plot to start lopping off heads. But… why there?

First, the good news:

Australian security officials say they stopped a suspected plan by Islamist extremists to capture random citizens and behead them in public and on camera.

More than 800 security personnel raided 25 homes across two cities early yesterday morning in what authorities said was the largest counterterrorism raid ever conducted in Australia.

Authorities said they arrested 15 suspects, one of whom, Omarjan Azari,  22, appeared in a Sydney courtroom later in the day. The raids also resulted in the seizure of computers, documents and a firearm.

To the Australian agents and officers involved: well done. You saved lives because these terrorists would absolutely have done what they were threatening to do.

The report does raise an interesting question, though. You’ll note that they confiscated a firearm. Now, how did that happen? I mean, they’ve banned the private ownership of firearms over there for years. So, there can’t possibly have been a firearm possessed by someone who wasn’t a police officer or some other government agent, right? Or, perhaps, a law that says you can’t own a firearm just wasn’t that compelling to people who have already decided they’re going to pull random Aussies off the street and cut their heads on YouTube. In short – laws don’t stop criminals from acting criminally. It’s the decision to ignore the law that makes them criminals to begin with. The only people these laws keep guns away from are people who abide by the law in the first place.

This incident, frankly, should be making Aussie across their country take a moment to wonder just what they would have done if these people hadn’t been caught. If confronted by a group of men (and women?) armed with swords and, presumably, 1 with a gun who aren’t interested in your valuables or whether or not you even stand against them, politically and religiously, who have decided they’re going to kill you in a very gruesome fashion, what will you do? How will you defend yourself when you’ve legislated away any real means of doing so?

Note that Australia hasn’t been all that active in the Middle East and they aren’t really on the leading edge of actions that these terrorist groups allege to be upset about. So why did these people make the plans to start sawing off heads in Australia? Why not in, say, Dallas? Or, perhaps, Tampa? Parts of Virginia, maybe? Why is it that these people feel like taking to the streets to behead a random person in places like England or, now, Australia? Could it be that they’re choosing those places because they know the citizenry can’t really stop them? Because if they try that in Virginia, they’re seriously taking a risk of discovering that they’ve brought a machete to a gun fight.

These people believe they are at war and they have no issue whatsoever with killing non-combatants. In fact, it’s part of their strategy. I would suggest that unless one wishes to remain at serious risk of being a mourned statistic on some news show somewhere that everyone get a bit more serious about retaining the ability to defend one’s self, family, and community. We are part of the law enforcement in a free nation. I believe we should act like it. And I believe our long-time allies should, too.

The DC teacher assigning homework to compare George Bush and Hitler is a symptom

Last week in Washington, DC, a public school teacher gave her 6th grade class an assignment to “compare and contrast” George W. Bush with Adolph Hitler, a ludicrously slanted question to even ask let along assign to 6th-graders. The Fox News story puts it like this:

A public school teacher in Washington who instructed sixth-graders to compare former President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler has learned her own lesson, according to district officials, but critics wonder why she still has a job.

D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson responded to the controversy late Wednesday on Twitter, saying no curriculum intended to make the comparison “in any way” and that the district and unidentified teacher are “deeply apologetic” about the matter. Henderson said the teacher has been ordered to apologize to the class.

“No DCPS curriculum says 2 make these comparisons in any way,” Henderson wrote. “Teacher used poor judgment & will apologize.”

First up, I have to wonder how “deeply apologetic” this teacher is if they needed to be ordered to apologize. Sounds to me like they are quite clearly not apologetic in any way. The story goes on to describe the assignment as being a basic compare and contrast worksheet centered around a Venn diagram and that it “was left to the students to determine how Bush, the 43rd U.S. president who was elected to two terms, stacked up against Hitler, whose Nazi Germany perpetrated a Holocaust that killed more than 6 million Jews.” But that’s not what the assignment actually said. Let’s have a look, shall we?

Bush Hitler Comparison Assign

The text of the assignment reads, in it’s entirety:

Now that we have read about two men of power who abused their power in various ways, we will compare and contrast them and their actions. Please refer to your texts, “Fighting Hitler – A Holocaust Story” and “Bush: Iraq War Justified Despite No WMD” to compare and contrast former President George W. Bush and Hitler. We will use this in class tomorrow for an activity.

The entire assignment rests completely upon a premise, stated as a graven-in-stone fact, that President Bush “abused [his] power in various ways.” This, ladies and gentlemen, is pure political bias and rhetoric being served up to elementary school students as Authoritatively Confirmed Truth™. It is completely unsupported leftist/Democratic crap and it’s being foisted off on kids by people who allege to be teachers – and to be far better at it than the rest of us, thank you. Where, outside of Bush-bashing propaganda is the proof of President Bush abusing his power. Hitler abused his power, no question, and there’s a national psychological scar and about 6 million graves to prove it.

Typical leftist logic – what they disagree with is “an abuse” and all that required for “proof” is their repeating it over and over like a chant.

Had the teacher really wanted to compare and contrast 2 leaders who have abused their power, they should have substituted President Obama in for President Bush. The Supreme Court is on record more than once during this President’s term in office thus far ruling that the President exceeded his Constitutional limitations and that, folks, is the definition of abuse of power. And we haven’t even gotten to the bottom of matters like Benghazi, Fast & Furious, and the myriad of DoJ investigations that should have been pursued and weren’t. To say nothing of the deliberate decisions, time and again, to simply set aside the enforcement of laws that he doesn’t like or unilaterally rewrite them to his liking. That’s more than enough material to teach a class with.

Of course, this teacher, good little DC leftist that they clearly are, wouldn’t even dream of doing that. What does it say about the overall environment of DC’s schools – and academia in general, I might add – that this teacher felt perfectly comfortable setting this as an assignment and using a text whose title sounds suspiciously like a newspaper article as source material even though it wasn’t on the approved curriculum? It says they felt completely secure doing it. It says they felt like this was completely proper and expected behavior of an elementary school teacher in DC.

It’s a symptom of a greater problem in DC. There’s no way this person should still be teaching kids and the school district doesn’t owe a teacher with this level of poor judgment any protections. They should be named and they should be gone.