and software programs it produces. They respect only the firepower of our tanks,
planes and helicopter gunships."
"ALL men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things.
"If you are cheering rather than praying for a man who has mutilated himself due to mental illness, you are part of the problem." - Ben Shapiro
Navy sailor Randall Smith and Marines Carson Holmquist, Thomas Sullivan, David Wyatt and Skip Wells were killed by Islamic terrorist gunman Mohammad Abdulazeez because they were the "satanic" infidel soldiers of the US, enemies of Allah and Islam.
< p style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; text-transform: none; color: #546673; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.55em; font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; margin: 6px 0px 0px; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; background-color: #ffffff;">
Indeed, what Obama doesn’t want you to know is that when he says his agreement with Iran closes down all their pathways to a nuclear bomb he means only their domestic pathways, not the pathways open to them in North Korea. And if anyone doubts that the hard up, cash strapped Norks wouldn’t share their nuclear facilities with Iran (or sell them nukes off the shelf) then they need to be enlightened. They need to know that in 2007 the Norks (and most likely Iran) were hard at work in building a secret, illegal nuclear weapons facility in Syria for mass murdering dictator Bashar al-Assad which (thank God) was destroyed by Israel. Indeed, that very project in Syria, which was making the Norks millions, made them the world’s worst and most dangerous nuclear proliferators.
On June 16th Trump announced his 2016 candidacy for the 45th presidency and made border security and illegal alien criminals the focus of his campaign. 16 days before on June 1st (as if paving the way for Trump) Ann Coulter's brilliant and controversial book (her best) on illegals "Adios, America" was published (see). Then on July 1st, 16 days after Trump's announcement, Francisco Sanchez, a 45 year old multiple deportee felon from Mexico, shot and killed 32* year old beautiful Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier as she was walking with her father and a friend (see). Oddly, Sanchez was 16 days into his 3rd month of his legal but wrongful release from a San Francisco jail because of the city's dangerous sanctuary laws (see). The date of his release April 15th, was the second anniversary of the Boston Marathon Bombing. This is just one of many ominius signs that Moslem terrorists like the bloodthirsty Tsarnaev boys, or ISIS agents, are crossing into our country from Mexico for the purpose of massively killing and wounding innocent Americans (see). The first and most compelling sign of a mass casualty terror attack originating from Mexico was the killing of 9/11 child Christina Taylor Green in the Tucson Massacre which I wrote about here.
Our great, good, post-racial, progressive, egalitarian president who has done so much to boost the economy, improve race relations and lick poverty, and is steadily changing us into the "more perfect [dependency] Union" that he promised seven years ago, wants to continue his good work of social transformation with a new housing diversity program for racist, mostly white suburbia. He wants to move poor, low-income slumdog losers with slumdog habits, values and mentalities (mostly mooching, crude, drug abusing, welfare trash who suffer from internalized poverty ) into high-end middle and upper class ritzy neighborhoods. What's his game? What does he hope to gain? Utopia, of course. He wants to take the slum out of slumdogs; to suburbanize and humanize them; to elevate their humanity and bring out the better angels deep within their nature. What could be wrong with that? You can't take the slum out of slumdogs when they're living in inner city ghetto filth. It's so unfair and counter productive to keep them there. Something must be done to make them better citizens as everything else (including $trillions in handouts) has failed. But our mastermind president has come up with the answer: class warfare by class blending in suburbia.
Bill Clinton tried this and failed. His compassionate Affordable Housing Program which gave millions of poor slumdog families big, unaffordable sub prime loans crashed and burned (nearly collapsing the economy) with most of them defaulting and losing their suburban dream homes (and returning to the slums no better than before). But now our brilliant, world-class, social engineering leader has dreamed up the solution that Clinton should have seen: forcing middle and upper class communities to build low-income (Section 8) housing that would keep the slumdogs permanently there-with generation after generation of welfare dependents benefiting from the finer more socially advanced atmosphere. What's wrong with mixing losers with winners? Raw sewage with wine? In answering this question think of liberal, progressive, Democrat Detroit coming to a community near you.
For those who might construe the above tirade as racist my defense is as follows:
It is inconceivable that any middle class family of any color or ethnicity would welcome Section 8 housing into their neighborhoods. Middle class blacks who have worked their butts off to free themselves from the hell of inner city life (so they can raise their kids in safety, decency and peace) would be just as opposed to Obama's program as any middle class white, Latino or Asian family. No hard working, law abiding family would want inner city slumdog scum moving anywhere near them. Like with Clinton's failed housing program Obama's is doomed to fail. For the poor and disadvantaged there are no shortcuts to the middle class.
FORWARD EMAILS TO< p style="text-align: center;">firstname.lastname@example.org
The only compelling thing that came out of this presser is the reason why Barack Obama nauseates55% of the military and is approved by a pathetic 15%-making him the most loathed and disrespected Commander-in-Chief in US history. The men who shared the stage with him must have felt embarrassed to hell over his remarks about defeating ISIS with ideas.
WHERE DOES CARTER GET THE AUDACITY TO THINK
that he's a first-rate expert on the subject of declining superpowers?/sarc.
If George Soros and the radical progressive left were to follow-up on their on-line campaign to ban the Confederate flag (which collected 500,000 signatures, see) with banning and replacing the American flag-because to them it's a symbol of pure racist evil and white oppression just like the Confederate flag-how might they proceed? And what would they replace the flag with?
Indeed, if socialist billionaire Soros were to devote millions of his capitalist wealth to starting a national anti-flag movement that would have any chance of success with the they couldn't just scream like Black Muslim bigot Louis Farrakhan did last week that "We [black folk] have caught as much hell under that flag as under the Confederate flag... and it must come down!" And they couldn't have flag burning protests like a group of crazy radicals did in Brooklyn this week when they torched the Confederate and American flags because, as one protester said, they wanted to raise public awareness that "American society at the moment is still structurally racist and white supremacist... and that it is an illusion that we live in a post-racial society.”
Indeed, if the anti-American, "compassionate" left which seems incapable of forgiving this country for slavery and Jim Crow (but not communist atrocities throughout history) were to succeed they would need to have at least the veneer of rationality with a coherent and compelling argument first proving that the Stars and Stripes is no better than the Confederate Stars and Bars; and then suggesting a flag to replace it that the American people could accept and live with. But how might that happen?
To begin with the leaders of a national anti-flag movement might say it's not so much the 50 stars representing each of today's 50 states that offend their sensibilities and should concern all Americans of conscience pained by our slave and Jim Crow past. They might say that what makes the flag immoral and offensive like the Confederate flag is its 13 red and white stripes that have been there since the Stars and Stripes was first authorized in 1777 . Why would these stripes be offensive to them? Because they represent the 13 original states 6 of which were slave and stayed that way for nearly 88 years where scores of blacks lived and died in oppression and misery. In other words, for the anti-flagers 6 of the 13 stripes taint and befoul today's American flag with white supremacist southern slavery making it essentially indistinguishable from the damnable racist Confederate flag. And the continued national use of this flag, flying and displaying it everywhere and pledging allegiance to it, is intolerable and must end as it is unworthy of our 21st century country-which despite making much progress in curing itself of anti-black racism still has a long ways to go.
So what solutions could the anti-flagers propose to purge the flag clean of this stain and make it politically correct and wholesome? Simply trashing it and replacing it with something radically different and new would be impractical and meet with stiff public and political resistance; for the flag in its current form is popular with most Americans. So with the popularity of the Stars and Stripes in mind anti-flagers might pursue a more pragmatic course, a middle way of sorts between those Americans who love the flag and will defend it tooth and nail and those who want to trash it altogether because of our racist past and supposed racist present-with the left less racism is as bad as more racism. Indeed, what anti-flaggers might suggest is a compromise which keeps the Stars and Stripes but in such a way that would remove from it the stain and sin of slavery and other past wrongs done to blacks.
Indeed, to seem reasonable what the anti-flaggers could conceivably propose is redesigning the flag by subtracting 6 stripes from the 13 representing the 6 southern slave states and leaving 7 stripes representing the original free northern states. That would certainly stand a better chance of succeeding with the public than some newfangled flag.
However, this solution could pose a problem. For all we know the 18th century flag makers could have assigned certain stripes to certain states. Indeed, as 7 stripes are red and 6 stripes white how could anti-flaggers be sure that the flag makers didn't assign the 7 red stripes to the 7 free northern states, and the remaining 6 white stripes to the 6 southern slaves states? In other words, should a new, pure, pristine non-racist flag only bear the 7 red stripes separated by thin black lines and no white stripes? Or should the area where the stripes are be made solid red with no separate discernible stripes? But this too might be a problem. For if it's done this way how could anti-flagers be sure that none of the red stripes represent southern slave states? For all they know the flag makers could have had the alphabet in mind when arranging the stripes assigning the first stripe to northern free Connecticut and the 13th and last to southern slave Virginia.
As you can see purging the flag of every last trace of slavery and racism by eliminating certain stripes is too problematic. If just one stripe is left representing an original evil racist slave state the new flag like the old one with 13 stripes would be no more son-free than the Confederate flag. What then would the anti-flaggers do? Would they give up in despair in trying to repair the flag and go the difficult if not impossible route of inventing a new flag out of thin air that wouldn't fly with the public ? No. Short of trashing the flag completely there is one last alternative that keeps some of the flag when redesigning it and could satisfy the public: do away with the problematic stripes and keep the unproblematic stars. In other words, an American flag completely purged of the blemishes of slavery and racism would be one large banner of 50 white stars on a blue background with no stripes whatsoever. That is what a politically correct flag redeemed of slavery and racism would most likely look like to George Soros and the flag hating left.
The Japanese Rising Sun flag has remained practically unchanged for 145 years and covers all of Japan's atrocities and war crimes of World War II.
On June 22nd, anticipating Rush Limbaugh by several days, I predicted in a debate with leftists on CNS that the left wouldn't stop with the trashing of the Confederate flag but would come after the American flag next. The debate is as follows.
The Confederate Battle Flag is a "symbol of an attempt to retain the evil institution of slavery."That's what secession was: an attempt to protect slavery. That's the heritage the flag celebrates: the willingness to take up arms against the US to protect the evil institution of slavery.
And seeing that the old slave South no longer exists the Confederate flag can have a contemporary meaning of a nation that went to war with itself over a moral principle where right and justice prevailed; and the South redeeming itself rejoined the Union in freedom. That is what happened and is the Confederate flag's contemporary meaning.
And, in that spirit of freedom, the South passed Jim Crow laws and did all it could to keep the former slaves and their descendants under its boot. Because of freedom.
Indeed, whilst Reagan like Obama inherited from his predecessor a country in economic, military and geostrategic decline unlike Obama Reagan turned us around transforming both the country and world making better what was worse and bringing down the Sovie state after a long and dangerous Cold War. With good reason he's called "RENALDO MAGNUS." But because Obama's been no better than Reagan's shadow in practically everything (the economy, foreign policy and the national spirit which he's depressed) he has transformed America and the world downwardly prolonging the worst recovery since World War II with his high debt, low growth, runaway regulatory policies, while emboldening our enemies who are advancing across the world at our expense.
Indeed, Obama is a worse president and failure than Reagan's predecessor Jimmy Carter who surprisingly agrees with conservative critics that he has damaged America's power, credibility and prestige in the world making it a more dangerous place, and our nation and freedom less secure and safe.
Now as Obama when compared to Reagan is a mental and moral pipsqueak using his presidency as a model to predict that Hillary or some Democrat will follow him (like Bush 41 did Reagan) just doesn't work. A more credible model, in my view, with a better chance at predicting 2016 would be Dwight Eisenhower (another president Obama has falsely been compared to). For like Ike Obama has been a two term president; and like Ike Obama was elected and reelected on a November 4th and November 6th election date; and like Ike Obama's successor will be elected on a November 8th date*. But unlike Ike Obama has been an abysmal failure. And though Ike was a successful two term Republican president he was followed into office by the Democrat John Kennedy who beat his popular VP Richard Nixon in a very close race.
*The 2016 election falls on November 8th.
Now given the disastrous course of Obama's presidency-which can only get worse in the months ahead as he's doubling down on stupid and going further and further to the left-doesn't it make better sense that as in 1960 a candidate for president from the opposite party will win the presidency? In other words, if a Democrat could win election during a successful Republican presidency then how much greater are the odds that a Republican will defeat Hillary (often compared to the mendacious Nixon) during the presidency of a terrible Democrat president? Using the Eisenhower model the odds for a Republican victory in 2016 look very good.
COMPARED TO THE ANCIENTS TODAY'S GAYS ARE HISTORY'S BIGGEST ASS CLOWNS