It’s Wednesday, December 2nd, 2015…but before we begin, consider our Quote of the Day above.  This isn’t a spoof; a sitting President of the United States, with his hand on the trigger of America’s nuclear deterrent and some 414 days left in office, actually said it.  Not only is this absolute ass’s assertion demonstrably false, it beggars belief he would utter it.  As a wag once observed, and the following all-too-accurate satire from the great Stilton Jarlsberg reinforces, this is some of that sh*t…

…you just can’t make up!

Now, here’s The Gouge!

First up, since we’re on the subject of Dimocratic derangement, courtesy of NRO‘s Morning Jolt, Jim Geraghty highlights the insipid hypocrisy of Progressives as he details…

Which makes it the perfect catch-all for Progressives preoccupied with prohibiting any form of fact-based debate, a format in which they know they cannot possibly prevail.

In a related item, James Taranto poses…

A Rhetorical Question

Why conciliate Muslims but antagonize pro-lifers?

Well, that was predictable. “Abortion rights advocates say the connection is clear,” reports the Washington Post: (Yeah…and The Obamao says because of anthropogenic global warming, at high tide fish swim down the streets of Miami; doesn’t make it so!)

Over the summer, a little-known antiabortion group called the Center for Medical Progress released a series of covertly filmed videos purporting to show that Planned Parenthood illegally sells fetal tissue, or “baby parts,” as abortion foes refer to it, for research. The century-old nonprofit agency has denied wrongdoing, and state and congressional investigations have so far failed to produce proof supporting the allegations.

Nevertheless, the casual and sometimes graphic conversations about abortion procedures captured on the videos have provided fodder for conservatives on Capitol Hill, in governor’s mansions and on the presidential campaign trail to seek to strip the organization of government funding. The efforts have led to sometimes passionate commentary on the part of conservatives and Republicans against abortion and sharply critical of Planned Parenthood, striking a tone that abortion rights advocates say created an atmosphere that put clinic workers and patients at risk.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: On Friday a man started shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colo. By the time the suspect, Robert Dear, was in custody, he had allegedly killed a policeman and two civilians.

…We’ve heard this before. And at least this time there is evidence, albeit far from conclusive, of a political motive: An anonymous “senior law enforcement official” tells the New York Times “that after Mr. Dear was arrested, he had said ‘no more baby parts’ in a rambling interview with the authorities.” But also: “The official said that Mr. Dear ‘said a lot of things’ during his interview, making it difficult for the authorities to pinpoint a specific motivation.”

National Review’s Jim Geraghty notes that the left is rather selective in blaming political rhetoric for acts of violence—for example, insisting there is no connection between Black Lives Matter protesters’ foul antipolice rhetoric and actual attacks on cops. On the other hand, Colorado Springs isn’t the first time the left has blamed a terroristic act on a video.

But there’s an additional problem with the video-made-him-do-it theory of the case. The CMP videos, at least the parts of them we’ve seen, can’t be called “hate speech” by any stretch. They are not harsh denunciations of Planned Parenthood; they are exposés. The words and actions that horrify abortion foes—as well as decent people with more permissive views on abortion—are uttered and described by current and former Planned Parenthood employees and business associates.

We were struck by the contrast between the left’s responses to the Paris and Colorado Springs attacks. The former brought out a display of empathy toward Muslims; the latter, of antipathy toward pro-life Americans.

Hillary Clinton: “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” It would be at least as true to say that pro-life Americans are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism—but instead Mrs. Clinton responded to Colorado Springs with this false choice: “We should be supporting Planned Parenthood—not attacking it.”

“I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the rhetoric that’s been coming out of here during the course of this debate [over accepting Syrian refugees],” President Obama said Nov. 17. “ISIL seeks to exploit the idea that there is a war between Islam and the West.”

Why wouldn’t a similar logic apply to the demonization of pro-life Americans in the aftermath of Colorado Springs? That’s not a rhetorical question: The logic doesn’t apply because the attacks were very different. The ones in Paris were carried out by an organization that unmistakably has religious motives and political goals. By all accounts the Colorado Springs killer was a lone nut. There is no antiabortion terrorist organization to which to recruit anyone.

Whatever the merits of his refugee policy, the president is right to reject “the idea that there is a war between Islam and the West,” although it would be fatuous to deny that that is how Islamic supremacists see the matter. To judge by the reactions to Colorado Springs, though, many on the left really do regard Americans who oppose abortion—almost all of whom do so peaceably—as their enemy.

Which makes one wonder…seriously wonder…whether the American Left is playing for the home team; a disturbing possibility we’d never have considered seven years ago, but which now seems more certain every day…and which this next item from NRO‘s Fred Fleitz only serves to support: 

The ISIS Threat Represents a Clash of Civilizations, and Hillary Won’t Admit It

“…Clinton’s dismissal that the threat from jihadist groups represents a clash of civilizations is troubling because it indicates that while she says ISIS is motivated by a radical ideology, she does not understand what this ideology is. Its adherents — including many authorities of Islam — believe in sharia, which amounts to a global operating system for jihad, a holy war with infidel societies explicitly seeking to impose, by violent or stealthy means, an Islamic caliphate worldwide.

…President Obama’s approach to the threat posed by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other jihadist groups — including the Muslim Brotherhood — is doomed to fail to protect this country and its interests insofar as it refuses to recognize that they are all based on a global ideology at war with Western civilization. (Insofar as he’s actually interested in protecting this country!)

Clinton’s dismissal of the clash-of-civilizations concept indicates she is also adhering to Obama’s erroneous view and that her reference to an “ideological movement of radical jihadism” is as meaningless as “violent extremism,” the euphemism the president uses to lump together perceived threats from veterans, Constitutionalists, Tea Party members, anti-abortion activists, conservatives, and foreign or domestic Islamist terrorists.

Clinton’s statement, “I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists,” is similar to President Obama’s claims that global jihadist groups and their ideologies have very little support in the Muslim world. Last week, the president said 99.9 percent of Muslims reject terrorism.

Obviously the U.S. is not at war with all Muslims. But by making this false argument, Obama and Clinton are ignoring the reality that the global jihad movement is such a difficult threat to counter because it has the support of more than a small minority of the world’s Muslims.

Josh Gelernter addressed this in an excellent November 21, 2015, National Review article in which he debunked President Obama’s “99.9 percent” claim. Citing Pew Research polling figures, Gelernter wrote:

In surveys of the Muslim populations of nine majority-Muslim countries, plus Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, an average of 57 percent have an unfavorable view of al-Qaeda, not 99.9 percent. Thirteen percent have a favorable view of al-Qaeda, not 0.1 percent…“

To paraphrase the late, great Samuel Clemons, there’s lies, damned lies…and then there’s Liberals and their statistics!

Meanwhile, courtesy of the WSJ, Douglas Feith identifies an obvious answer to a Syrian refugee “crisis” which is now costing some $64,000 per capita relocation…and heaven only knows how large a carbon footprint: 

An Obvious, Unused Home For Refugees

The Arabian Peninsula’s oil-rich nations are oddly absent in talks about where those fleeing Syria can go.

Ten thousand Syrian refugees should be brought to the U.S., President Obama says, because that’s “who we are.” Secretary of State John Kerry and his predecessor, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, have used similar language to explain America’s obligation. More than half of the nation’s state governors have objected. On Nov. 20, a bipartisan majority of the U.S. House of Representatives voted, in effect, to block the administration’s resettlement plan on security grounds.

While the debate rages in the U.S., and as Europe struggles to cope with refugees streaming north, too little attention has been directed to the region where the refugees could best start life anew: the Arabian Peninsula and its Arabic-speaking oil-rich countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Approximately 4.3 million Syrian civil-war refugees are now in Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and Egypt, and registered with the United Nations. Vast camps attest to the refuge these countries have provided even though they struggle without the oil wealth of their neighbors.

The contrast is apparently becoming embarrassing. Saudi Arabia, through its Washington, D.C., embassy website, makes the astonishing claim that it has taken in 2.5 million Syrians since the civil war began in 2011. The U.A.E. ambassador insists that his country has admitted 100,000. Not all Syrian refugees are U.N.-registered, but if those claims were true, U.N. officials would publicly thank Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. for their help in this humanitarian crisis. That hasn’t happened.

“The Arab world’s wealthiest nations are doing next to nothing for Syria’s refugees,” the Washington Post reported in early September. Around that time Michael Ignatieff, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, wrote in the New York Times: “How many Syrian refugees have the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia taken in? Zero. Many of them have been funneling arms into Syria for years, and what have they done to give new homes to the four million people trying to flee? Nothing.”

In the West, some of the opposition to accepting the refugees has been racist. But it isn’t bigoted to question the wisdom of trying to incorporate hundreds of thousands—and perhaps several million—refugees in the West when a more humane alternative exists…”

Not to mention far less expensive…and infinitely more logical!

And in the Environmental Moment, even NBC had to note the overabundance of hot air The Great Divider produced in Paris:

Obama Ignores ‘Wrap-It-Up’ Beeps, Talks and Talks at Climate Summit

“Hey, what’s hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 and millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer dollars between friends I’m unwilling to aid in the fight against non-Islamic global terror?!?”

President Barack Obama was met with what appeared to be the U.N.’s version of the Oscars’ “wrap-it-up” music Monday after he significantly overran his allotted time to speak at a global climate change summit. Obama was one of 147 world leaders given a three-minute slot at the COP21 conference to outline their vision for the future of the planet. The president of the free world, however, had other ideas.

More than eight and a half minutes into Obama’s address — and with no sign he was stopping soon — three beeps sounded across the auditorium, clearly audible to everyone present and watching on TV. Organizers did not respond to NBC News’ requests for comment on the beeps, but the punctuating sounds appeared to be the conference’s not-so-subtle attempt to get Obama to wrap it up.

“I’ve come here personally, as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter, to say that the United States of America not only recognizes our responsibility in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it,” Obama told the summit.

The beeps continued every 30 seconds, but the president plowed on. “One of the enemies that we’ll be fighting at this conference is cynicism, the notion we can’t do anything about climate change,” he continued, seemingly undeterred by the regular interruptions over his speech.

He called for the talks to work toward “a world that is worthy of our children” and also took time to pay tribute to the victims of this month’s Paris attacks. 

After 11 minutes, whoever was manning the “beep” button had clearly given up, and no more prompts were heard until Obama ended his epic discourse just shy of 14 minutes. By the time he was done, he had spoken for nearly the length of time set aside for four world leaders. If all 147 speakers had taken as long as Obama, their combined addresses would have lasted more than 33 hours.

And it was not as if he went off on a tangent in the heat of the moment; his prepared remarks released by the White House ran to more than 1,700 words.

Then there’s this truly must-read missive from Politico‘s European edition.  And remember before you read it, Politico sides decidedly with Progressives!

Why the Paris climate deal is meaningless

The more seriously you take the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the angrier you should be. *

* Which we guess makes us happy as hell!!!

Other than than the imminent period of global cooling?!?

“…But the more seriously you take the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the angrier you should be about the plan for Paris. With so much political capital and so many legacies staked to achieving an “agreement” — any agreement — negotiators have opted to pursue one worth less than…well, certainly less than the cost of a two-week summit in a glamorous European capital.

Climate talks are complex and opaque, operating with their own language and process, so it’s important to cut through the terminology and look at what is actually under discussion. Conventional wisdom holds that negotiators are hashing out a fair allocation of the deep emissions cuts all countries would need to make to limit warming. That image bears little resemblance to reality.

In fact, emissions reductions are barely on the table at all. Instead, the talks are rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The developing world, projected to account for four-fifths of all carbon-dioxide emissions this century, will earn applause for what amounts to a promise to stay on their pre-existing trajectory of emissions-intensive growth.

Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.

Beyond that, it’s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them. Developing countries actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels. Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined “business-as-usual” trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an “improvement” from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India has rejected“any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.” And lest pressure nevertheless build on the intransigent, no developing country except Mexico submitted an INDC by the initial deadline of March 31 — and most either submitted no plan or submitted one only as the final September 30 cut-off approached…”

As the WSJ observes…

“Mr. Obama isn’t negotiating a treaty, because that would require two-thirds Senate ratification that he will never obtain. Thus he can make any “political agreement” finance promise he likes. But no one outside the West Wing believes Congress will earmark a dollar for windmills in Guangzhou and dikes in the Maldives.“

All of which makes any agreement coming out of Paris the Environazi-equivalent of the Iran nuclear sham.  Or, to put it another way, when it comes to anything uttered by The Obamao, it’s safe to assume…

In other words, we wouldn’t go casting fishing lures into the streets of Miami just yet!

Finally, on the Lighter Side…

Magoo