Putting post-America in mortal peril in order to seal his legacy as the unicorns-and-rainbows visionary

Next time some Freedom-Hater tries to point to the Iran "agreement" as some kind of major accomplishment for the Most Equal Comrade, point this out:

A new piece in The New York Times Magazine
reveals confirms that the Obama administration knowingly misled the public to pass the Iranian nuclear deal. Our president knew full well that Iranian leadership had not adopted “moderate” policies, but the notion was a politically useful one.

When Hassan Rouhani was selected as the new president of Iran, he was heralded as a more tolerant kind of leader. TIME magazine referred to him as a “moderate politician” when he was voted runner up for 2015’s Person of the Year. (This is why that title deserves to be in quotes.) 

Yet, as the NYT piece notes, the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran began well before President Rouhani and his advisors assumed leadership. 

National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes knew the narrative was more important than the truth. The NYT describes how this “storyteller” flowered the facts to gain public support.

The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making.

The administration’s presentation of the Iran deal, the Timesconcludes, was largely “manufactured” for the purpose of selling the deal . . .  

President Obama and his advisors ignored the warnings of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and foreign policy experts when pushing through his nuclear agreement. Iran has no interest in playing by the rules, they argued. Since the deal has been signed, we've had plenty of proof. In February, Iranians took 10 American sailors hostage and paraded their capture. Then, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini denounced the U.S. for being too hostile and for trying to halt Iran's missile production, which he argued they use for defense purposes. So much for the peaceful relationship Obama promised the deal would produce.

And now our choice for a president to succeed this scumbag is between tow equally heinous scumbags.

Your tax dollars are going for this

It's all here in this one: extra-Constitutional government spending (just as the national debt passes $19 trillion), the collectivist campaign to get everyone on a uniform health-and-fitness program, and, of course, the multi-culti touchy-feely zeal for "outreach" to those in our midst from an utterly foreign culture (that sports elements that pose a great risk to our security):

The National Institutes of Health is spending over $1.6 million on an exercise program for immigrants and refugees, which is sending “community partners” into mosques to talk about physical activity.

“Healthy Immigrant Families: Working Together to Move More and to Eat Well” is an ongoing five year study trying to create a “sustainable, socio-culturally appropriate” physical activity initiative for refugees in Minnesota.

The researchers claim that immigrants and refugees are healthier than Americans when they get to the United States, and are concerned refugees will assimilate and adopt the eating habits of Americans.

“Across many measures, immigrant and refugee populations arrive to the US healthier than the general population, but the longer they reside in the US, the more they approximate the cardiovascular risk profiles of the general population,” the grant states. “These declines are mediated, in part, by less physical activity and lower dietary quality upon immigration among both adults and their children.”

The project is developing a “physical activity and nutrition intervention” for refugees led by trained “Family Health Promoters.”

Per my point about the collectivist campaign to get everyone on a uniform health-and-fitness program, isn't the term "intervention" a nice touch?

You see, the Freedom-Haters have these people right where they want them. The refugees are completely dependent. It's just a concentrated form of what they've done to the native cattle-masses. Corral us into the pen where there's no escape from their agenda.

How much do the Most Equal Comrade and his nomenklatura hate Western civilization?

This much:

A report by a renowned journalist states that Christians are to be excluded from an impending official United States government declaration of ISIS genocide. If true, it would reflect a familiar pattern within the administration of a politically correct bias that views Christians — even non-Western congregations such as those in Iraq and Syria — never as victims but always as Inquisition-style oppressors. (That a State Department genocide designation for ISIS may be imminent was acknowledged last week in congressional testimony, by Ambassador Anne Patterson, the assistant secretary of the State Department’s Near East Bureau.)

Yet Christians, who are also among the most vulnerable religious minority groups that have been deliberately and mercilessly targeted for eradication by ISIS, are not. This is not an academic matter. A genocide designation would have significant policy implications for American efforts to restore property and lands taken from the minority groups and for offers of aid, asylum, and other protections to such victims. Worse, it would mean that, under the Genocide Convention, the United States and other governments would not be bound to act to suppress or even prevent the genocide of these Christians. An unnamed State Department official was quoted by Isikoff as saying that only the attacks on Yazidis have made “the high bar” of the genocide standard and as pointing to the mass killing of 1,000 Yazidi men and the enslavement of thousands of Yazidi women and girls. To propose that Christians have been simply driven off their land but not suffered similar fates is deeply misinformed. In fact, the last Christians to pray in the language spoken by Jesus are also being deliberately targeted for extinction through equally brutal measures.

If there is some answer to the question, "Why the exclusion?" other than hatred for the civilization that spawned these architects of fundamental transformation, let's hear it.

Wednesday roundup

Iran has stopped dismantling centrifuges, which was required by the deal that was the culmination of much patty-cake and post-American humiliation.

Bjorn Lomborg has run the numbers, and they reinforce the pointlessness of acting as if the global climate is in any kind of trouble:

Even if every nation in the world adheres to its climate change commitments by 2030 the only  difference it will make to “global warming” by the end of this century will be to reduce the world’s temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F).

That’s 1/20th of a degree C.

Let’s put this into perspective.

Earlier this year, Climate Change Business Journal calculated that the annual cost of the global warming industry is $1.5 trillion.

If you want to know what that looks like in numerals it is:

$1,500,000,000,000

And if you want a better idea of how it looks conceptually, I highly recommend this infographic visualisation.

To put it another way, even if you’d spent $1 million a day every day since the birth of Jesus, you’d still be less than half the way to reaching $1.5 trillion.

A little bit of North Korea in the Show-Me State. If someone says something that hurts your feelings on the U of M campus, the campus police want you to call 911 and report it. Provide, if possible, a license plate number and photo of the meanie. The police department tweet acknowledges that offending people is not illegal, but they can pass the information along to the Office of Student Conduct, which can pursue "disciplinary action."

Hillionaire's hot water just got a little hotter:

Even as Hillary Clinton tries to put questions about her private email server behind her, the FBI has stepped up inquiries into the security of the former secretary of state's home-made email system and how aides communicated over email, POLITICO has learned.

The FBI’s recent moves suggest that its inquiry could have evolved from the preliminary fact-finding stage that the agency launches when it receives a credible referral, according to former FBI and Justice Department officials interviewed by POLITICO.

Story Continued Below

“This sounds to me like it’s more than a preliminary inquiry; it sounds like a full-blown investigation,” said Tom Fuentes, former assistant director of the FBI. “When you have this amount of resources going into it …. I think it’s at the investigative level.”

And that's how it is this evening in this post-American world.

A supremely important report issued on the same day Mikulski puts the surrender to Iran over the finish line

Wonder if Senator Mikulski - and Senators Corker and McConnell - and Secretary Global-Test, Wendy Sherman, and the Most Equal Comrade will make time for reading this:

A group of former top military officials and intelligence analysts released a new report Wednesday concluding that the nuclear deal with Iran will threaten American interests and increase the probability of military conflict in the Middle East.

In its report, the Iran Strategy Council wrote that the nuclear deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), “will enable Iran to increase support for terrorist and insurgent proxies, aggravate sectarian conflict and trigger both nuclear and conventional proliferation cascades.”

Additionally, the deal will “provide the expansionist regime in Tehran with access to resources, technology and international arms markets required to bolster offensive military capabilities in the vital Persian Gulf region, acquire long-range ballistic missiles and develop other major weapons systems,” the council wrote.

The report was crafted with substantial expertise:

Members of the council include retired Gen. James Conway, former Commandant of the Marine Corps; retired Air Force Gen. Chuck Wald, former Deputy Commander of the United States European Command; retired Adm. Mark Fitzgerald, former Commander of the U.S. Naval Forces in Europe/Africa; and retired Vice Adm. John Bird, former Commander of the U.S. Seventh Fleet.

Still, our utterly mad overlords press on.

 

 

This may be a factor in why we're up to our eyeballs in threats to our security

Ridiculously and pathetically skewed priorities much?

The Central Intelligence Agency is once again mired in crisis. CIA Director John Brennan finds himself “deeply concerned.” The spy agency he runs suffers from an affliction that he says has “persisted despite repeated efforts by Agency leaders to address it.” 

What is ailing this vital guardian of national security? The CIA’s upper echelon, Mr. Brennan said on Tuesday, does “not reflect the diversity of the Agency workforce or of the nation.”

Mr. Brennan was commenting on the “Director’s Diversity in Leadership Study,” an unclassified report released that day. The study comes to the “unequivocal conclusion,” he said in a statement, that there has been a major failure at the agency in the “crucial” area of diversity and inclusiveness.

Yes, indeed, there is no more important qualification for being responsible for being on top of threats to post-America than having a physical handicap or an unconventional sex life:

The report is unsparing. Senior positions at the “highest levels of the CIA” are “consistently occupied by white male career officers.” While minority officers make up 23.9% of the CIA workforce, the higher echelons of the CIA don’t come close to that number. For example, the Senior Intelligence Service, the crème de la crème of the spy agency’s personnel, manages only a 10.8% minority composition. Spies with disabilities and LGBT spies, according to the report, are no better represented in the CIA’s upper leadership, though women are generally faring well.

What accounts for this state of inequity? Pulling no punches, and using words that must sting Mr. Brennan if not also President Obama, the report finds that “the senior leadership of the Agency is not committed to diversity.” The CIA has suffered from a “failure of leadership,” which has led to a “general lack of accountability in promoting diversity” and “the absence of an inclusive culture.”

And the nation's spies will get their minds right immediately:

Changing the CIA’s culture in this way may take some time, perhaps several years. Yet an urgent crisis demands urgent action: “Immediate steps” must therefore be taken to fill senior leadership positions with minority officers, the study says. The steps would include a “series of conspicuous appointments at the highest levels of the CIA.” The goal—both “necessary and achievable”—should be a quota of “at least 30% minority representation at the GS-13 level and above.” Such measures will make it clear that “the Agency has entered a new era and is committed to a leadership structure that truly ‘looks like America.’ ”

At a time when global terrorism is resurgent, when the Middle East is burning, when Russian boots are marching, when China is ramping up its military and Iran is on the verge of going nuclear, is it really a good idea to ask the CIA to concentrate on achieving a 30% minority quota in the agency’s leadership ranks? 

Mr. Brennan evidently thinks so. In his statement accompanying the study’s release, the CIA director said he has ordered that beginning Oct. 1 every member of his senior leadership team will be required “to attend diversity and inclusion training.” 

It is so very late in the day.

Post-America's hatred for the history of the United States of America

He was a self-made man, having made his way through a West Indies childhood as an orphan.

He was chief staff aide to General Washington during the Revolution.

He was one of the authors of The Federalist Papers.

He created the nation's monetary system.

He was the first Secretary of the Treasury.

He asserted that blacks and whites were intellectual equals, and he strove to bring slavery to an end.

And now, Alexander Hamilton's face is going to be replaced on the ten-dollar bill. The Freedom-Hater who currently holds Hamilton's old position, Jack Lew, says that his department's current thinking is to replace him with "a woman who has played a major role in our history who represents the theme of democracy":

Presumably it’ll be Harriet Tubman, the name most often mentioned as a potential replacement for Jackson. Hard to believe the feds, having resolved to remove one of the most influential Founders from the sawbuck in favor of a woman, would double down on an all-white currency by choosing a white woman over a black one. Besides, Tubman is better known to most Americans, I’d bet, than leaders of the suffrage movement like Alice Paul, Susan B. Anthony, or Elizabeth Cady Stanton. One of the arguments made on Twitter last night for why Hamilton ended up being sent into currency retirement is that many of us simply don’t know who he is, his amazing achievements notwithstanding. He’s expendable culturally in a way that American presidents like Washington, Lincoln, and even Jackson aren’t. It would be odd if the woman who replaced him is much more obscure than he is, even granting that women had grossly fewer opportunities than men like Hamilton did to make a major mark on American politics until recently. Tubman made hers despite everything that was stacked against her. Eleanor Roosevelt did too, although it would be beyond strange to find FDR’s First Lady on the currency when FDR himself, arguably the most consequential president of the last hundred years, isn’t.

But I digress. Jack Lew’s rationalizations aside, why’d they bump Hamilton instead of Jackson? One theory being kicked around last night was that a Democratic administration wouldn’t bump a former Democratic president from the currency, but like I said above, that doesn’t wash. There are few modern Dems who view the term “Jacksonian” as a compliment. Another possibility, as noted, is that Hamilton’s less well known to the public than Jackson is, which may be true but isn’t so true that it would explain a strong preference for bumping the former instead of the latter. Washington and Lincoln are untouchable American icons; Jackson once had an iconic status, but time and greater public awareness of his political sins have eroded his cultural currency. His own accomplishments don’t rival Hamilton’s. He should have been the first to go and would have gone with less objection from people who know their history. Maybe Hamilton was picked for retirement precisely because the administration knew that replacing him would be more likely to provoke a public outcry, especially among GOPers who think greater respect for the Founders and their constitutional scheme are key to restoring American greatness. The more Republicans grumble about Hamilton being tossed, the easier it is to frame their complaints as opposition to having a woman on the currency, a fine little flourish for the “war on women” crapola to come this year and next. Exit question: Which GOP candidate will be the first to call for reinstating Hamilton?

Exactly. That the Freedom-Haters will use this to bait Republicans into an identity-politcs tussle is a no-brainer.

Post-America is one grim place.

The Most Equal Comrade hates the nation he presides over - today's edition

I've encountered some foul, scurrilous moral equivalence during my lifetime, which has coincided with the final stages of America's ruin, but this takes it to a whole new level:

At the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama reminded attendees that violence rooted in religion isn’t exclusive to Islam, but has been carried out by Christians as well.

Obama said that even though religion is a source for good around the world, there will always be people willing to “hijack religion for their own murderous ends.”

“Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

The world hears these utterances.  Our enemies, rivals, allies and friends.  They all reach a common conclusion: post-America is ripe for the raping.

Post-America's second most fearsome tool of tyranny (after the IRS) has the Pope's ear

Gina McCarthy in catching a plane for the Mediterranean, to pow-wow with Francis over the "moral" dimension of a fiction concocted for duplicitous reasons:

Radical Pope Francis said he was going to make global warming junk science his pet issuethis year.
Via The National Catholic Reporter:

The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is scheduled to make a brief Vatican visit at the end of the week on the topic of addressing climate change.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will meet there Friday with senior officials, among them Cardinal Peter Turkson, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. She is also slated to meet with Catholic journalists Friday morning and business leaders in Rome that afternoon.

The agency initiated the meeting through U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See Ken Hackett, viewing it as a unique opportunity to directly engage the Vatican.

Speaking to NCR ahead of her trip, McCarthy, an Irish Catholic from Massachusetts, described the Vatican stop as “the most important” on a five-day trip that will also have her visiting Geneva (Thursday), Rome (Friday) and Florence (Monday). She said the meetings will focus on discussing President Barack Obama’s climate action plan and EPA’s role in addressing the effects of climate change both domestically and internationally.

“Clearly, climate change is an issue that is impactful in terms of how we’re not just going to protect the most vulnerable but also take responsibility for protecting God’s natural resources,” McCarthy said.

“I think that the president and myself agree that climate change is indeed a moral issue,” she said. “It is about protecting those most vulnerable, and EPA’s job, as focusing on public health and environmental protection, always tasked ourselves to look at those most vulnerable and to ensure that when we’re taking action we’re addressing their needs most effectively.”

Sure. The EPA is thinking of the “most vulnerable.” That’s why their policies are a “dagger in the heart” of the poor and Middle Class the most.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the truth is still donning its trousers.

The confluence of nanny-state food meddling and climate hustling

Of course, the federal government has no business issuing "dietary guidelines" per se, but they become particularly galling when fortified with green justification:

New dietary guidelines being considered by the Agricultural Department take into consideration “environmental cost.”

The USDA’s recommendations eventually trickle down into school lunches and other federal programs. Every five years the USDA updates their dietary guidelines. Remember when we lost the iconic food pyramid to the “My Plate” thing? That was all the USDA’s doing.

And we all know how well it goes when government restrictions end up on school lunch plates…

According to the AP:

That means that when the latest version of the government’s dietary guidelines comes out, it may push even harder than it has in recent years for people to choose more fruits, vegetables, nuts, whole grains and other plant-based foods — at the expense of meat.

The beef and agriculture industries are crying foul, saying an environmental agenda has no place in what has always been a practical blueprint for a healthy lifestyle.

The advisory panel has been discussing the idea of sustainability in public meetings, indicating that its recommendations, expected early this year, may address the environment. A draft recommendation circulated last month said a sustainable diet helps ensure food access for both the current population and future generations.

A dietary pattern higher in plant-based foods and lower in animal-based foods is “more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact than is the current average U.S. diet,” the draft said.

But what about the beef?

That appears to take at least partial aim at the beef industry. A study by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last year said raising beef for the American dinner table is more harmful to the environment than other meat industries such as pork and chicken.
The study said that compared with other popular animal proteins, beef produces more heat-trapping gases per calorie, puts out more water-polluting nitrogen, takes more water for irrigation and uses more land.
In response, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association sent out a statement by doctor and cattle producer Richard Thorpe calling the committee biased and the meat recommendation absurd. He said lean beef has a role in healthy diets.

Also unimpressed? Congress.

Objections are coming from Congress, too.
A massive year-end spending bill enacted last month noted the advisory committee’s interest in the environment and directed Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack “to only include nutrition and dietary information, not extraneous factors” in final guidelines. Congress often uses such non-binding directions to put a department on notice that lawmakers will push back if the executive branch moves forward.

It's why we call 'em Freedom-Haters here at LITD.

Planned decline is going to get us murdered in our beds

The Most Equal Comrade's post-American State Department is determined to invite the world's bad guys to claw the nation's entrails out:

The State Department's Rose Gottemoeller, under secretary for arms control and international security, spoke at the Brookings Institution Thursday where she reaffirmed the United States' "unassailable" commitment to putting the nuclear weapons genie back in the bottle. Gottemoeller told the attendees at the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative-sponsored event that "the U.S. commitment to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons is unassailable."

She went on to note that the nation's stockpile of active weapons is down 85 percent from maximum cold war levels, falling to 4,804 in 2013 from a high of 31,255. But, she said, "We still have more work to do."

The mullahs in Teheran and the generals in Pyongyang are paying close attention.

A sixth Gruber video

Jake Tapper at CNN has the story.  The last couple have not had the full-on smoking-gun quality of the first couple, but this one sure does.  Freedom-Hater-care was sold to us on the basis of lies.

 In a 2011 conversation about the Affordable Care Act, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of the law more commonly known as Obamacare, talked about how the bill would get rid of all tax credits for employer-based health insurance through "mislabeling" what the tax is and who it would hit.
In recent days, the past comments of Gruber -- who in a 2010 speech noted that he "helped write the federal bill" and "was a paid consultant to the Obama administration to help develop the technical details as well" -- have been given renewed attention.
In previously posted but only recently noticed speeches, Gruber discusses how those pushing the bill took part in an "exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter," taking advantage of voters' "stupidity" to create a law that would ultimately be good for them.

The issue at hand in this sixth video is known as the "Cadillac tax," which was represented as a tax on employers' expensive health insurance plans. While employers do not currently have to pay taxes on health insurance plans they provide employees, starting in 2018, companies that provide health insurance that costs more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family will have to pay a 40 percent tax.
"Economists have called for 40 years to get rid of the regressive, inefficient and expensive tax subsidy provided for employer provider health insurance," Gruber said at the Pioneer Institute for public policy research in Boston. The subsidy is "terrible policy," Gruber said.

"It turns out politically it's really hard to get rid of," Gruber said. "And the only way we could get rid of it was first by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people when we all know it's a tax on people who hold those insurance plans." 

We're ruled over by evil tyrants.

The contempt with which your overlords regard you

Check out this bit of candor from Freedom-Hater-care architect Jonathan Gruber:

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that.  In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass… Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

Purposely written to be as complex as possible to bamboozle the CBO as well as the cattle-masses.  And them rammed through without a single Pub vote.

That's what passes for morality among FHers: Thinking a policy is so good in the collective sense that it's okay to craft it and sell it in a way that keeps actual human beings from seeing what it does.

Is there any doubt that repeal is right and necessary?

Why we call them Freedom-Haters - today's edition

An increasing number of members of the journalistic community is no longer willing to be the compliant propaganda arm for the Most Equal Comrade's regime.

Susan Page let loose Saturday night with this assessment, for instance:

USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page has added a sharper edge to this set of knives. Speaking Saturday at a White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) seminar, Page called the current White House not only “more restrictive” but also “more dangerous” to the press than any other in history, a clear reference to the Obama administration’s leak investigations and its naming of Fox News’s James Rosen as a possible “co-conspirator” in a violation of the Espionage Act.

She's not alone:

. . . former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson, . . . said, “It is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering”; New York Times reporter James Risen, who said, “I think Obama hates the press”; and CBS News’s Bob Schieffer, who said, “This administration exercises more control than George W. Bush’s did, and his before that.” 

But the very biggest story in this regard is Sheryl Attkisson's realization that the regime had hacked her computer and installed malware on it:

In her new memoir, Sharyl Attkisson says a source who arranged to have her laptop checked for spyware in 2013 was “shocked” and “flabbergasted” at what the analysis revealed.

“This is outrageous. Worse than anything Nixon ever did. I wouldn’t have believed something like this could happen in the United States of America,” Attkisson quotes the source saying.

She speculates that the motive was to lay the groundwork for possible charges against her or her sources.

Attkisson says the source, who’s “connected to government three-letter agencies,” told her the computer was hacked into by “a sophisticated entity that used commercial, nonattributable spyware that’s proprietary to a government agency: either the CIA, FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency.”

The breach was accomplished through an “otherwise innocuous e-mail” that Attkisson says she got in February 2012, then twice “redone” and “refreshed” through a satellite hookup and a Wi-Fi connection at a Ritz-Carlton hotel.

The spyware included programs that Attkisson says monitored her every keystroke and gave the snoops access to all her e-mails and the passwords to her financial accounts.

“The intruders discovered my Skype account handle, stole the password, activated the audio, and made heavy use of it, presumably as a listening tool,” she wrote in “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.”

This is Cuba-level stuff.

While it is very late in the day, it is gratifying to see America, particularly the up-until-now-water-carrying media sector, wake up to what it has swallowed and imposed on the nation.

We now see that these goose-stepping jackboots dressed up as wonks and champions of the beleaguered will attempt complete totalitarian rule if we don't stop them cold.

There is still a little time to go about it peacefully and Constitutionally.  Vote a week from today, and vote Republican.  If you don't you're the enemy.

Stomping out the truth everywhere it dares to appear

It is imperative to Freedom-Haters that truth not gain a foothold in post-American society.  The cattle-masses must not be allowed to avail themselves of facts such as NOAA reinstating July 1936 as the hottest month on record, or that Hobby Lobby has been covering sixteen of the twenty contraceptives that HHS bureaucrats deemed on their own, well after Congress rammed through Freedom-Hater-care, to be "preventive health" products  , and, of course, Lois Lerner's communications with the DoJ and various members of Congress.

The FHer regime must keep the truth from you even if it puts your health at risk:

“There were several of us who wanted to talk about the camps, but the agents made it clear we would be arrested,” a psychiatric counselor told me. “We were under orders not to say anything.”

The sources said workers were guarded by a security force from the Baptist Family & Children’s Services, which the Department of Health and Human Services hired to run the Lackland Camp.

The sources say security forces called themselves the “Brown Shirts.”

“It was a very submissive atmosphere,” the counselor said. “Once you stepped onto the grounds, you abided by their laws – the Brown Shirt laws.”

She said the workers were stripped of their cellphones and other communication devices. Anyone caught with a phone was immediately fired.

“Everyone was paranoid,” she said. “The children had more rights than the workers.”

She said children in the camp had measles, scabies, chicken pox and strep throat as well as mental and emotional issues.

“It was not a good atmosphere in terms of health,” she said. “I would be talking to children and lice would just be climbing down their hair.”

A former nurse at the camp told me she was horrified by what she saw.

“We have so many kids coming in that there was no way to control all of the sickness – all this stuff coming into the country,” she said. “We were very concerned at one point about strep going around the base.”

If you think the regime actually cares about these kids, check this out:

Face

Twitterlivefyre 

“I made a recommendation that a child needed to be sent to a psychiatric unit,” the counselor told me. “He was reaching psychosis. He was suicidal. Instead of treating him, they sent him off to a family in the United States.”

She said she filed a Child Protective Services report and quit her job.

“I didn’t want to lose my license if this kid committed suicide,” she told me. “I was done.”

The counselor kept a detailed journal about what happened during her tenure at the facility.

“When people read that journal they are going to be astonished,” she said. ‘I don’t think they will believe what is going on in America.”

So it was not a great surprise, she said, when she received a call from federal agents demanding that she return to the military base and hand over her journal.

She said she declined to do so.

“I didn’t go back to Lackland,” she said.

Both workers told me while they have no regrets, they want to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals.

“They’re going to crush the system,” the nurse told me. “We can’t sustain this. They are overwhelming the system and I think it’s a travesty.”

"Overwhelming the system."  Where have we heard that before?

The fruits of Valerie Jarrett's outlaw antics

The Most Equal Comrade's Rasputin met several times with illegal aliens - "activists"  - during the first term of the regime's rule.

Well, now the floodgates are wide open.  Michelle Malkin tells us a little about how that's working out.

. . . a law enforcement source in Texas tells me this week that countless illegal aliens are being released into the general public despite testing positive for tuberculosis. "The feds are putting them on public transportation to God knows where," he said.

Another source, working in the border patrol in south Texas, tells me: "Our station, along with every other station, is flooded with women and small children. One lady yesterday had a baby as young as 8 months. And they're coming over with pink eye and scabies. So getting them medically cleared becomes a priority. They'll be here for almost a week, so we provide them with formula and diapers. We have a catering service contracted to feed them because it's too many for us to feed on our own. And of course, they end up being released because every family housing facility is full. They're supposed to show up for immigration court at a later date, but they don't."
Same old, same old. I've reported for years on the feds' catch-and-release games and deportation Kabuki. The "notice to appear" letters -- known as "run letters" -- are a notorious joke in open-borders circles.

The latest "crisis" is a wholly manufactured byproduct of White House administrative amnesties, which are supported by a toxic alliance of ethnic-vote-seeking Democrats and cheap-labor-hungry Big Business Republicans. The flood comes just as Obama's DHS announced a two-year extension for beneficiaries of the "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" (DACA) program. A whopping 560,000 illegal aliens have been granted amnesty under DACA and also have received employment authorization. 

I think at least Eric Cantor gets it now.

Well, then, let's hear from someone willing to dispute them

Allahpundit at Hot Air says there have been three phases to the regime's reaction to the charges of desertion by those who served with Bergdahl:  being caught off-guard, desperately trying to find someone with the opposite narrative - which hasn't borne any fruit thus far - and now, accusing his squad of "swift boating."

Start discrediting the soldiers who’ve accused him. It’ll have to be done subtly and tactfully. If they go dumpster-diving on these guys for things like substance-abuse problems or financial trouble, the nastiness of it might backfire on the White House and make their Bergdahl problem even worse. Babbling about “swift-boating” is a good way to get the ball rolling, at least among liberals who are grasping for ways to defend Obama and have come up empty thus far. “Swift-boating” implies that the vets who’ve accused Bergdahl have some political motivation in doing so; it’s of a piece with that BuzzFeed story yesterday hyperventilating about Republican Ric Grenell helping Bergdahl’s comrades get in touch with media outlets. The point is to suggest that this is some sort of dirty trick, maybe even invented whole cloth by nefarious conservatives to wound the president, rather than a bunch of guys who’ve spent five years boiling inside because their friends got killed on patrol searching for Bergdahl finally choosing to come clean. To protect a guy who allegedly served dishonorably, the White House and the left now have no choice but to go after the honorable ones.

Watch for this one to gain traction in the Freedom-Hater world.  Indeed, Van Jones is already saying the deserter charges are a "Republican-orchestrated smear campaign."   Jones does give the obligatory nod to the inescapable fact that there is much still to learn about the details of Bergdahl's service, post-leaving and time in jihadist custody.  Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast makes it the gist of his own attack on "Republicans" (and I put that term in quotes, just like he puts the term "deserter" in quotes, my purpose to be to give the lie to the idea that it's just card-carrying members of one political party so charging), the overall message being, "Let's hold off on drawing conclusions here until official channels have gathered their evidence and weighed in."

We already get a taste of this in this exchange between State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf and a Fox News reporter:

FOX News reporter: Does the State Department consider Sgt. Bergdahl to be a deserter?

State Department spokesperson Marie Harf: No, Lucas, what we said is we are going to learn the facts on what happened here.

FOX News: According to those around him, his platoon-mates his squadron-mates said he walked off…

Harf: Lucas, some of them, there are conflicting reports out there about this.

FOX News: The guys on national television last night, his squad-mates, platoon-mates were not correct?

Harf: I’m saying we do not know the fact pattern yet. We don’t. Nobody knows exactly what happened that night.

FOX News: Well, I think that his squadmates would have the best indication…

Harf: I don’t think that that’s the case.

And of course I see that Harry Reid has now chimed in with a similar line, but, given all the wacky stuff that has been coming out of his mouth lately, I don't know that that qualifies as the height of newsworthiness.

But this is the Freedom Haters' modus operandi.  Take "climate change," for instance.  They continue to cite the "findings" of clearly fraudulent figures such as Michael Mann and go for ad hominem attacks and ostracism when it comes to those who dare to differ, such as Lennart Bengtsson and Judith Curry.  They do it with FHer-care, claiming that "it's working" and utterly ignoring evidence to the contrary.

I think they've bitten off quite a bit more than is chewable in this instance, however.  It's not just those who served alongside Bergdahl.  It's the families of the eight who died looking for his sorry tail end.

I guess you'd call it trying to influence public opinion, although it has the appearance of grasping at straws if that is really the motive.  Maybe it's just sensing the need to have a narrative for the world's consumption to cover their sorry tail ends as they merrily proceed with implementing "fundamental transformation."

This Lois Lerner is a real piece of work

Not only did she direct her IRS unit to target conservative groups for denial of tax-exempt status, she asked the DoJ to help her find grounds on which to prosecute them.

Burwell should be able to readily answer questions about the MEC's keep-your-doctor claims at her upcoming nomination hearing

After all, she's head of the OMB:

The agency Burwell heads, the Office of Management and Budget, is responsible for the president’s budget. But OMB also has another, lesser-known responsibility: fact-checking presidential speeches. Every proposed presidential utterance is scrubbed for accuracy by OMB.

When speechwriters finish a draft presidential address, it is circulated to the White House senior staff and top cabinet officials in what is known as the “staffing process.” As part of that process, nonpartisan career policy experts at OMB review the speech and are responsible for attesting to the factual accuracy of everything the president says.

So thanks to Burwell’s nomination [to succeed Sebelius at HHS], Americans may finally get to the bottom of how the biggest presidential lie in recent memory made it though OMB’s fact-checking process — not once but dozens of times.

Questions about this must be front and center in her hearing.

Precisely why we should never have had a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee in the first place

Because it is bound to lead to mischief like this:

Unfortunately, ideology now trumps practicality; rather than devoting its time to the group’s actual purpose—serving as the cornerstone of Federal nutrition policy and nutrition education activities—the DGAC is focusing on environmental concerns. As Millen stated at the initial meeting, “Overall, we want to be certain to make recommendations for a healthy, ecologically responsible diet.” The Subcommittee on Food Sustainability and Safety made this objective even more explicit in their presentation at the second meeting when they stated: “The goal is to develop dietary guidance that supports human health and the health of the planet over time.” [Emphasis added]

Dr. Miriam Nelson, chair of the subcommittee, did not attempt to hide her desire to manipulate the American diet to promote this agenda. Dr. Nelson was quoted in The Washington Free Beacon as saying that, “Eating fewer animals, but choosing those wisely, and reducing sugar, refined grains, things like that…would actually have a lower footprint than what we are currently doing.”

Right now, the DGAC is still gathering research before they formally issue new recommendations. Nothing concrete has been decided but their public statements have had a significant focus on the environment, including climate change.

It does not matter to “environmentalists” that DGAC’s sole purpose is to consider the health of Americans: For adherents of the environmental extremist movement, human welfare often comes second to that of the environment.

Well, there's also the matter of there being nothing in Mr. Madison's sacred document about government advising us on how to friggin' eat.