Perhaps when Malia, Sasha or Michelle has been sodomized by an illegal alien, something will be done about this unconscionable oversight; but even then, we doubt it. For Progressives, politics trumps even the personal.
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, we really LIKE this lady:
Not at the top of the ticket, but certainly as #2…right behind Scott Walker.
And for those still clinging to the forlorn hope The Donald is any more electable than Archie Bunker, NRO’s Kevin Williamson offers these words of wisdom to The Beguiled:
Yet another reason we’ll never back this narcissistic douche pump!
“…Trump is always going on and on and on about how rich he is, but his largest asset is an asset only from a certain point of view: He values the Trump brand at more than $3 billion, more than any building, resort, golf club, or financial instrument in his possession. There are more than a few financial analysts who scoff at the notion that he could actually sell the brand for anything near that amount of money. Maybe Trump, or at least his people, understands this on some level: A previous valuation had the brand worth more than $4 billion. And it’s not entirely clear who wants the Trump brand on his merchandise just now, other than Trump.
Macy’s dumped Trump — the store had sold a selection of hideously tacky Donald J. Trump–branded shirts and ties, inevitably made in China and Mexico — when the candidate started bellowing that the Mexican government is intentionally flooding the United States with rapists, a proposition for which there is, unsurprisingly, no evidence. Trump is not very much interested in the world outside the narrow confines of his skull. When Macy’s announced that it was severing its relationship with Trump, Trump had a full-on chimp-out, proclaiming that “Macy’s stores suck and they are bad for U.S.A.” and calling for a boycott. The Trumpkins began circulating claims that tens of thousands of people were boycotting Macy’s and cutting up their Macy’s cards, another claim for which there is — unsurprisingly — no evidence. “Now, Macy’s hurts, because the head of Macy’s I thought was a great friend of mine, Terry Lundgren,” Trump said, falling into his familiar, nearly monosyllabic rhythm. “Now this is a man I played golf with. I was with him all the time. He really was, was, was — you understand, because I don’t forget things.” His response to the CEO’s concerns about the fact that Hispanics are not very keen at the moment on buying stuff labeled “Trump”? “Terry, be tough! They’ll be gone one day.”
That’s Trump’s big idea on the immigration problem: They’ll be gone one day…”
Which, when you get down to it, is about as compelling as the reasoning behind the rest of his positions.
Since we’re on the subject of utterly uncompelling arguments, writing at Best of the Web, James Taranto offers two powerful counterpoints which obliterate any argument in support of The Obamao’s complete acceptance of a nuclear Iran:
“…To put this as politely as possible—and believe us, we’re straining to do so—Kerry’s tender concern for the ayatollah’s “dignity” is perverse. It’s true that a degree of mutual trust is necessary for a negotiation to succeed, but Kerry ignores the “mutual” part. His analysis is one-sided, and on the wrong side. The main question for Congress—as it should have been for the administration—is whether America can trust Iran...”
Okay, okay…you’re right; the ears are WAY too small!
“…Most telling is the equivocation “some sort of war.” Does Obama really think that by choosing his form of “diplomacy,” America would prevent war of any sort? No. In fact, he acknowledges it will foment several sorts of war:
Now, this is not to say that sanctions relief will provide no benefit to Iran’s military. Let’s stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to. We have no illusions about the Iranian government, or the significance of the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. Iran supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies—including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq. They try to destabilize our Gulf partners. But Iran has been engaged in these activities for decades. They engaged in them before sanctions and while sanctions were in place. In fact, Iran even engaged in these activities in the middle of the Iran-Iraq War—a war that cost them nearly a million lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
You might say we’ve always been at war with Westasia. Obama has gone full Orwell here. He claims that his “diplomacy” precludes the possibility of any “sort of war” while acknowledging it will feed a war machine.He is quite literally claiming that war is peace…”
As we’ve said for years, and even Thomas Sowell recently noted, an imbecilic, uninformed electorate has twice elected a man whose interests are not aligned with those of America. Hell’s bells, let’s call a spade a spade: he’s antithetically opposed to everything for which the Founding Fathers fought!!!
In a related item, courtesy of Commentary Magazine, Rick Richman details…
On Tuesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard testimony from Amb. Robert G. Joseph, Ph.D, currently Senior Scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy, formerly Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, and the person who in 2003 led the nuclear negotiations with Libya. He testified the Iran deal is a “bad agreement” with “five fatal flaws”: (1) it does not effectively detect cheating unless Iran decides to do it openly, and Iran is more likely to cheat at military bases where it has cheated in the past and has ruled out inspections in the future; (2) it leaves a large‐scale nuclear infrastructure in place that could be used to break out, or more likely “sneak‐out,” and then permits a significantly expanded program with a “virtually zero” breakout time; (3) it has “snap‐back” provisions that are illusory; (4) the purported 12-month breakout time is ineffective, since, unless Iran breaks out openly, we will not even know when the clock begins, and months will go by while the U.S. debates internally what to do; and (5) Iran is permitted to continue work on long-range ballistic missiles that have no use other than eventual deployment of nuclear weapons. His conclusion is stark:
[The deal] assumes that permitting Iran a large‐scale enrichment capability is compatible with the goal of denying Iran the ability to produce weapons‐grade fissile material; it assumes that the twelve month breakout time is meaningful; it assumes that the agreement will be effectively verifiable; and it assumes that the United States and the international community will respond to evidence of cheating before Iran can mate a nuclear weapon to a ballistic missile. None of these assumptions holds up under scrutiny. As a result, the threat to the U.S. homeland and to our NATO allies of an Iran armed with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles will increase not decrease under the anticipated agreement.[Emphasis added].
And that is even before considering the risks of proliferation in the region, the existential threat to Israel, seriously frayed relations with Arab allies, and the vastly increased resources for Iran and its allies to establish a game-changing hegemony in a vital strategic area of the world…”
We’ll add #6 and #7:
The traitorous twits who negotiated this certificate of abject appeasement.
As James Taranto so eloquently…and accurately…observed:
“Still, it’s worth noting the contrast between the way in which Obama administration supporters treat domestic and foreign adversaries. When Tea Party protesters said “Take back our country”—a commonplace political trope—they imagined it had invidious racial implications and argued that it discredited opposition to Obama’s domestic initiatives. “Death to America” is invidious on its face, but the administration and its apologists are anxious to explain it away.“
Which is why we continue to believe only one thing this Marxist-Muslim has ever said:
Moving on, the WSJ’s Bret Stephens recounts why every freedom-loving citizen of Planet Earth ought to…
“…Because Hiroshima and Nagasaki were real events, because they happened, there can be no gainsaying their horror. Operation Downfall did not happen, so there’s a lot of gainsaying. Would the Japanese have been awed into capitulation by an offshore A-bomb test? Did the Soviet Union’s invasion of Manchuria, starting the day of the Nagasaki bombing, have the more decisive effect in pushing Japan to give up? Would casualties from an invasion really have exceeded the overall toll—by some estimates approaching 250,000—of the two bombs?
We’ll never know. We only know that the U.S. lost 14,000 men merely to take Okinawa in 82 days of fighting. We only know that, because Japan surrendered, the order to execute thousands of POWs in the event of an invasion of the home islands was never implemented. We only know that, in the last weeks of a war Japan had supposedly already lost, the Allies were sustaining casualties at a rate of 7,000 a week.
We also know that the Japanese army fought nearly to the last man to defend Okinawa, and hundreds of civilians chose suicide over capture. Do we know for a certainty that the Japanese would have fought less ferociously to defend the main islands? We can never know for a certainty.
“Understanding the past,” Fussell wrote, “requires pretending that you don’t know the present. It requires feeling its own pressure on your pulses without any ex post facto illumination.” Historical judgments must be made in light not only of outcomes but also of options. Would we judge Harry Truman better today if he had eschewed his nuclear option in favor of 7,000 casualties a week; that is, if he had been more considerate of the lives of the enemy than of the lives of his men?…”
Only if you’re an incomparable imbecile…or a Dimocrat. For the rest of us, particularly those whose father and uncle would have been in the first wave to hit the Home Islands, it’s a…
“Baltimore police and civic leaders launched a partnership Monday with five federal agencies that will embed their special agents with city homicide detectives, bidding to quell an upswing in homicides and other violent crime in that city.
…For several years “American cities have not seen an uptick in homicides we’re seeing in 2015,” Davis, the acting police commissioner, said Monday. “Now we’re back at the table, and our cities are looking at Baltimore. They want to know what Baltimore’s going to do about it.”
Davis had said Sunday that more people are arming themselves on the streets, and that the department has seized 20 percent more guns than it had by this time last year. Davis also said the influx of prescription pills — 32 pharmacies were looted during the April 27 riot and nearly 300,000 doses of prescription medication stolen — has contributed to Baltimore’s spiking violence.
…U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings, in his remarks Monday, appealed to those considering committing acts of violence in Baltimore. He pleaded with them to put down their guns and “allow people to live.” “The only people making good now are the morticians,” the Maryland Democrat said. “And I say our city is better than that. It’s not just the murders and the shootings.I’m begging you, put your guns down.”
…that oughta do it; “Dead End” is right: like every other Progressive policy ever promulgated!
Case in point, as Jim Geraghty wonders…
Is It Unfair to Ask Food-Stamp Recipients to Work?
Evidently…, in many cases…NOT!!!
For four years, the number of Americans receiving food stamps has exceeded 45 million. There’s a smidgen of good news; the number dropped from to 47.7 million at the end of 2012 to 45.4 million in May.
A new report from the Foundation for Government Accountability calculates food-stamp spending is growing ten times as fast as federal revenues. They point the finger at governors who keep requesting and granting exemptions from work requirements:
One key cause of this out-of-control spending is the recent explosion of enrollment among able-bodied childless adults.Although federal law requires these adults to work in order to receive food stamps, the Obama administration has awarded an unprecedented number of waivers to states, allowing able-bodied childless adults to receive taxpayer-funded food stamp benefits without working at all.
They calculate about 5 million able-bodied childless adults are collecting food stamps; about 1 million were collecting them in 2008. It will probably not surprise you that people are staying on food stamps a lot longer now than a decade ago:
In the early 2000s, most childless adults receiving food stamps exited the program within a year. Nearly a third of those childless adults exited within the first six months. For comparison, fewer than six percent were enrolled for eight years or more.But able-bodied childless adults are staying on food stamps far longer now that work requirements have been waived in many states. Most childless adults now stay on food stamps for more than two years. Just 14 percent of childless adults receiving food stamps exit within the first six months. Nearly a quarter of able-bodied childless adults receive food stamps for more than eight years. Restoring work requirements would go a long way toward getting able-bodied adults out of government dependency and back to self-sufficiency.
Once again, the wisdom of God as relayed to Man through the Apostle Paul’s 2nd letter to the Thessalonians says it all:
“For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.““
Not widows…not orphans…not the infirm…not those incapable of work; just those unwilling to work…which is the vast majority of the able-bodied on food stamps!
Which brings us to today’s edition of the Environmental Moment, in which Joe Bastardi questions…
“An Arizona man who admitted to decapitating his wife and her two dogs in a bloody incident last month in Phoenix told authorities he was attempting “to get the evil out” of her, according to court documents released on Monday…”
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.