Frankly, we think Pence should decline the dubious distinction of listening to anything Barack Hussein Obama has to offer in honor of this most dishonorable individual.
In any event, we’ll certainly take the time to stop by McCain’s final resting place…to piss on his grave. We’re of the opinion whatever gratitude McCain deserved for his involuntary suffering was dissipated long ago. Still, we don’t wish him ill; rather we hope he’ll go gently…and quietly…into that good night.
And since Obama will apparently be delivering McCain’s eulogy, we’ll let the great Stilton Jarlsberg offer the appropriate benediction:
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, writing at the WSJ, Grove City College political science professor Paul Kengor correctly states Michael Moore, along with every other of…
May 5 marks the bicentennial of Karl Marx, who set the stage with his philosophy for the greatest ideological massacres in history. Or did he?
He did, but deniers still remain. “Only a fool could hold Marx responsible for the Gulag,” writes Francis Wheen in “Karl Marx: A Life” (1999). Stalin, Mao and Kim Il Sung, Mr. Wheen insists, created “bastard creeds,” “wrenched out of context” from Marx’s writings.
Marx has been accused of ambiguity in his writings. That critique is often justified, but not always. In “The Communist Manifesto,” he and Friedrich Engels were quite clear that “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property.”
“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property,” they wrote. “But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population.” And this: “In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property.Precisely so; that isjust what we intend.”
Marx and Engels acknowledged that their views stood undeniably contrary to the “social and political order of things.” Communism seeks to “abolish the present state of things” and represents “the most radical rupture in traditional relations.” (Gee,…where have we heard that…
…before?!?)
Toward that end, the manifesto offers a 10-point program, including “abolition of property in land,” “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax,” “abolition of all right of inheritance,” “centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly,” “centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state” and the “gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.”
In a preface to their 10 points, Marx and Engels acknowledged their coercive nature: “Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads.” In the close of the Manifesto, Marx said, “The Communists…openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”
They were right about that. Human beings would not give up fundamental liberties without resistance. Seizing property would require a terrible fight, including the use of guns and gulags. (Which is why the confiscation of our is such a high-priority with Progressive.)Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and a long line of revolutionaries and dictators candidly admitted that force and violence would be necessary.
We’re told the philosophy was never the problem—that Stalin was an aberration, as were, presumably, Lenin, Trotsky, Ceausescu, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, the Kims and the Castros, not to mention the countless thousands of liquidators in the NKVD, the GRU, the KGB, the Red Guard, the Stasi, the Securitate, the Khmer Rouge, and on and on.
Couldn’t any of them read? Yes, they could read. They read Marx. The rest is history—ugly, deadly history.
Since we’re on the subject of Socialist sympathizers, as the Boston Globe reports, Bibi Netanyahu had more than one reason to expose Iran’s perfidy:
“John Kerry’s bid to save one of his most significant accomplishments as secretary of state took him to New York on a Sunday afternoon two weeks ago, where, more than a year after he left office, he engaged in some unusual shadow diplomacy with a top-ranking Iranian official. (Isn’t this the same activity for which Dimocrats looked to charge Mike Flynn under the Logan Act?!?)
He sat down at the United Nations with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to discuss ways of preserving the pact limiting Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It was the second time in about two months that the two had met to strategize over salvaging a deal they spent years negotiating during the Obama administration, according to a person briefed on the meetings.
…The rare moves by a former secretary of state highlight the stakes for Kerry personally, as well as for other Obama-era diplomats who are dismayed by what they see as Trump’s disruptive approach to diplomacy, and who view the Iran nuclear deal as a factor for stability in the Middle East and for global nuclear nonproliferation.The pact, which came after a marathon negotiating session in Vienna that involved Iran and six world powers, lifted sanctions in return for Iran stopping its pursuit of nuclear weapons.(Which it hasn’t!)
“It is unusual for a former secretary of state to engage in foreign policy like this, as an actual diplomat and quasi-negotiator,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution. “Of course, former secretaries of state often remain quite engaged with foreign leaders, as they should, but it’s rarely so issue-specific, especially when they have just left office.”
Kerry declined to be interviewed for this story. The quiet lobbying campaign — by him and others — is being conducted below the radar because he and his allies believe a high-profile defense of the deal by prominent Democrats would only backfire and provoke Trump, making it more likely the president would pull the United States out of the deal. (Ya THINK?!?)
…Kerry supporters see in this campaign some of his trademark traits, especially his unflagging energy even in the face of potential failure.Critics see something else,a former office holder working with foreign officials to potentially undermine the policy aims of a current administration…
Not to mention the national security of the United States and its staunchest Middle East ally.
But as Tim Meads reminds us at Townhall.com, when it comes to undercutting the country’s foreign policy under Republican Presidents, this is right out of the Progressive playbook; i.e.,…
“…More than a decade ago, then Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi and a gang of other Democratic leaders defied American foreign policy and met with the ruthless and brutal Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Pelosi extended an open-hand to an isolated country that had a penchant for violating the rights of its civilians, sponsoring terrorism, and threatening war with its neighbors. She claimed her ultimate goal was to discuss the status of Syria’s peace talks with Israel. “We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,” Pelosi told reporters after her 2007 rendezvous to Assad’s presidential palace.
It was hard even then to imagine how Syria could serve as a road to anything besides bloodshed. Evidence shows that some of Syria’s actions ended up killing Americans fighting in Iraq. Still, incredulously, these elected officials went to the state sponsor of terrorism despite President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney publicly condemning the meeting as “counterproductive,” according to a Washington Post article from the time.
…Those on the ground in Syria who opposed Assad feared that the meeting would enable the Syrian government to do whatever it wanted.
According to the Observer, “Pelosi’s visit made the regime feel that Americans were divided on how to deal with Syria,” a Damascus-based women’s-rights activist who, like five other activists interviewed for this article, asked that his name be withheld because he feared punishment.“This sends a message to the regime that the pressure is off, that it can do what it likes.”…”
As history records since then, it sure as hell has. At the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
“I am assuming the authenticity of thequestionsthat Special Counsel Robert Mueller reportedly wants to ask President Trump.The questions indicate that, after a year of his own investigation and two years of FBI investigation, the prosecutor lacks evidence of a crime.Yet he seeks to probe the chief executive’s motives and thought processes regarding exercises of presidential power that were lawful, regardless of one’s view of their wisdom.
If Bob Mueller wants that kind of control over the executive branch, he should run for president. Otherwise, he is an inferior executive official who has been given a limited license — ultimately, by the chief executive — to investigate crime.If he doesn’t have an obvious crime, he has no business inventing one, much less probing his superior’s judgment.He should stand down.
The questions, reported by the New York Times, underscore that the special counsel is a pernicious institution. Trump should decline the interview. More to the point, the Justice Department should not permit Mueller to seek to interrogate the president on so paltry and presumptuous a showing…”
Mainly because he’s crooked as Joe Kennedy, Sr.’s hind leg…and as rankly partisan as his fourth son.
Next up, in another breath of fresh air from an Administration not bound by Jimmy Carter’s craven capitulation and inept diplomacy, Reuters is reporting the…
“The White House on Saturday sharply criticized China’s efforts to force foreign airlines to change how they refer to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau, labeling China’s latest effort to police language describing the politically sensitive territories as “Orwellian nonsense.”
Amid an escalating fight over China’s trade surplus with the United States, the White House said China’s Civil Aviation Administration sent a letter to 36 foreign air carriers, including a number of U.S. carriers, demanding changes. The carriers were told to remove references on their websites or in other material that suggests Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau are part of countries independent from China, U.S. and airline officials said.
The White House said in a statement that President Donald Trump “will stand up for Americans resisting efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to impose Chinese political correctness on American companies and citizens.” “This is Orwellian nonsense and part of a growing trend by the Chinese Communist Party to impose its political views on American citizens and private companies…”
Which brings us, appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:
Then there’s this series of satiric memes forwarded from Jeff Foutch…
…along with this helpful map, courtesy of Bill Meisen, which shows how the caravan of “oppressed” Hondurans who didn’t find the sanctuary of Mexico quite satisfactory definitely took the long road…
…to what The Left, including the likes of Lindsay Grahamnesty and John McCain, have made The Land of Illegal Alien Entitlements…while at the same time sticking it to those who took the trouble to come here legally. Those extra1,000 miles or so couldn’t have been been traveled purely for the purpose of providing Progressive propaganda?!?
Finally, we’ll call it a day with another sordid story straight from the pages of The Crime Blotter, as a seemingly unconnected crime in the subcontinent demonstrates the fallacy behind a legislated solution to gun violence:
“Indian police announced Saturday 14 arrests in the horrific murder of a teen girl who was set on fire after her parents complained to village elders that she had been raped—the latest outrage in a string sexual attacks against women in India despite new tougher laws.
The 16-year-old girl from Chatra, a village in eastern Jharkhand state, was attending a wedding ceremony Thursday when she was abducted and then raped, according to reports. She told her parents who complained to village council leaders. They next day they imposed a $750 fine on each of her alleged attackers.The BBC reported that the accused were also ordered to do 100 sit-ups.
The BBC reported that they [the rapists] were so enraged they beat the girl’s parents and then burned her to death.
…India has been shaken by a series of sexual assaults since 2012, when a student was gang-raped and murdered on a moving New Delhi bus. That attack galvanized a country where widespread violence against women had long been quietly accepted. While the government has passed a series of laws increasing punishment for rape of an adult to 20 years in prison, it’s rare for more than a few weeks to pass without another brutal sexual assault being reported.
Responding to widespread outrage over the recent rape and killings of young girls and other attacks on children, India’s government last month approved the death penalty for people convicted of raping children under age 12.“
Think about it: the Indian government didn’t just offer thoughts and prayers; they DID something. They passed additional laws against child rape and levied fines. For Vishnu’s sake, they even subjected the guilty parties to physical abuse.
But Holy Brahma, Batman, it appears all the government’s legislative solution achieved was to turn rapists into murderers.
Expect the same rate of success with gun control, as those whose policies have produced the broken society which births these maniacs now seek to control the symptom rather than the disease.
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.