It’s Friday, May 22nd, 2015…but before we begin, when did the Clintons…
…relocate to Tennessee?!?
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, writing at Commentary Magazine, Peter Wehner offers the uninitiated a glimpse into a dimension which only makes sense to Dimocrats. That’s the sign post up ahead; your next stop…
“…Remember when President Obama pledged to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State? And assured us earlier this year that the Islamic State is “on the defensive and … is going to lose”? Those pledges were bluster, just as was Mr. Obama’s assurance that if Syria’s Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, he would be crossing “a red line for us.” President Assad used chemical weapons — and Mr. Obama did nothing in response.
The world — our adversaries and our allies — got the message. President Obama’s words mean nothing. He’s supine. He’s weak. He’s a laughingstock.
That is bad enough. But for the president and his press secretary to enter an Alice in Wonderland world makes things even worse. There is no known universe in which our current war strategy against the Islamic State can be considered, overall, a “success.” In fact it is, by virtually every objective measure, a failure. And not just any failure. It is the latest link in a chain of catastrophic foreign policy failures by Mr. Obama…”
All of which is in keeping with The Dear Misleader’s latest foray into purposeful prevarication and deliberate deception:
Obama tells Coast Guard grads climate change threatens U.S
We’d give you a link to the article, but frankly, anything this clown says isn’t worth reading, let alone heeding.
But since we’re on the subject of The Great Divider, also writing at Commentary Magazine., Noah Rothman questions…
“Heady optimism, embedded as it is in the American genetic code, was perhaps never more pronounced than in the wake of Barack Obama’s 2008 victory. Even the most cynical among us looked forward to the effect that the election of the first black president would have on lingering racial disparity and antipathy. Six and a half years later, and that sanguinity seems as misplaced as was the belief that the president’s very aura would force the tides to recede. Americans believe that Barack Obama has failed to live up to his promise on the issue of race, and polls suggest racial comity has receded to its lowest point since before Bill Clinton took office. The president and his administration bear much of the blame for this condition, but can Obama repair his legacy on race relations before he leaves office?…”
We’re of the opinion the question isn’t whether he can, but whether hatred and division isn’t precisely the legacy he wishes to leave?!?
How else does one even begin to explain the latest Socialist sentiments expressed by yet another of The Obamao’s Marxist minions, as detailed by J. Christian Adams and PJ Media:
“…If you read the entirety of Gupta’s speech, you’ll get a sense of what is going on in the mind of the anti-police left. Officials in this administration still think it is rational and acceptable to bring up the name Michael Brown in the context of anything other than a likely felon against whom deadly force was justifiably used. Behold Gupta:
Eric Garner. Michael Brown. Tamir Rice. John Crawford. Walter Scott. Freddie Gray.
These names and many others have become familiar to us under tragic circumstances in recent months. Their deaths and those of other unarmed African American men and women in encounters with police officers, have provoked widespread responses across the country and have fueled the Black Lives Matter movement. In communities of color, in particular, the reaction has been stark and sobering.
In the seven months I have been at the Civil Rights Division, I have spent a lot of time with local leaders and community members in cities all across America, including with numerous mothers who have lost their children in officer-involved shootings. The pain, anger, frustration — the lack of trust in the police — is real, and it is profound.
Gupta asks the question that many Americans have already asked and answered:
It’s worth asking, first, how did we get here? And second, what are we going to do about it?
To most law-abiding Americans, the idea of fleeing from the police, or worse, charging at a policeman you have already punched, is simply beyond the realm of possibility.
So how did we get here? Was it a breakdown of values? Perhaps a pervasive tolerance for lawlessness? Of course not. Says Gupta:
Let’s start with the first question and consider the source of the mistrust. Mistrust can’t be explained away as the knee-jerk reaction of the ill-informed or the hyperbolic. It’s in part the product of historical awareness about the role that police have played in enforcing and perpetuating (wait for it! here it comes!) slavery, the Black Codes, lynchings and Jim Crow segregation…”
Soooo…if an inherent distrust of police is a legacy of “slavery, Black Codes, lynchings and Jim Crow segregation”, we’re left wondering why Blacks don’t mistrust Dimocrats, the veritable authors of “slavery, Black Codes, lynchings and Jim Crow segregation”, and embrace Republicans, the party of Lincoln, emancipation and forty acres and a mule?!?
And in all seriousness, is this woman a lawyer or a grief counselor?!?
One thing’s for certain; if there’s ever a remake of The Wizard of Oz, we know who to cast as the Wicked Witch of the West!
Shifting gears, courtesy of Balls Cotton and NRO, Victor Davis Hanson wonders…
“…Politically, it appears to be wiser to damn the decision to invade Iraq and to forget the circumstances that prompted the war — and the later political environment that ended the American presence. Unfortunately, our country seems to be suffering from collective amnesia. We apparently have forgotten a number of crucial points…
…We should expect lots of false information and political reinvention about Iraq during the campaigns this year and next — as candidates readjust their positions to fit public opinion, itself predicated on impressions of present-day Iraq and revisionist analyses of the invasion, surge, and occupation.
There are constants, of course, that don’t change: Removing Saddam was a textbook operation; the effort to quell the ensuing chaos was a textbook case of mismanagement and incompetence. Yet the final assessment on the wisdom of removing Saddam Hussein in large part hinges on whether what followed was a dramatic improvement — in terms both of U.S. strategic interest and of the humanitarian effort to help the Iraqi people — that justified the terrible American investment. That assessment since 2003 has changed frequently, but most recently in a negative direction after the foolhardy complete 2011 pullout and the logical rise of ISIS.“
Thus what inquiring MSM minds (unfortunately, an oxymoron if we’ve ever heard one!) should REALLY be asking isn’t whether, knowing what everyone knows now, going into Iraq was a mistake, but if The Obamao’s precipitous pull-out wasn’t the penultimate cause of the current calamity.
Which provides the perfect preface for the latest from Ann Coulter:
“Was Jeb Bush too busy watching telenovelas during his brother’s presidency to remember the Iraq War? We went to war at such breakneck speed after 9/11, that, before the invasion, I was able to write approximately 30 columns about it, give five dozen speeches on it, discuss it on TV a hundred times and read 1,089 New York Times editorials denouncing the “rush to war.”
So I remember the arguments.
Contrary to the fairy tale the left has told itself since Obama truculently gave away America’s victory in Iraq, our argument wasn’t that we had to invade Iraq because of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. And the left’s argument certainly was not: “He doesn’t have any WMDs!”
Our argument was: There were lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and none to keep him. Indeed, after Bush’s State of the Union address laying out the case for war with Iraq, The New York Times complained that he had given too many reasons…”
Liberals: were they not unfailingly inconsistent, they’d possess no consistency whatsoever.
Moving on, courtesy of Bill Meisen and Politico‘s Nick Gass, here’s a real shocker:
“One of the authors of a recent study that claimed that short conversations with gay people could change minds on same-sex marriage has retracted it.
Columbia University political science professor Donald Green’s retraction this week of a popular article published in the December issue of the academic journal Science follows revelations that his co-author allegedly faked data for the study, “When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support of gay marriage.”…”
Color us utterly unsurprised; after all, every other purported positive point about gay marriage is falsified, so what’s one more phony study? Then again, from gay marriage to anthropogenic global warming, the Great Society to Obamacare, the New Deal to Project Porkulus, every single Liberal initiative ever enacted was sold through lies, and defended by deception.
Case in point: yeah, baby; one out of three ain’t bad…provided you can field and run the bases. Oh,…never mind!
Which brings us to the latest from Mike Adams, and the fact the fabricated fight for gay rights and gay marriage has nothing to do with either:
This is part of a larger trend in our society, which can only be characterized as sexual totalitarianism. It involves three basic steps:
1. Interject homosexuality into every discussion on every conceivable topic.
2. Ban those who refuse to affirm homosexuality from the discussion.
3. In the process, reaffirm your commitment to free speech and the importance of open debate and dialogue.
It’s all about the dissolution of Judeo-Christian values, the destruction of what little’s left of the traditional family and utter and absolute state control over your every thought and belief.
On the Lighter Side…
Finally, the America Barack Hussein Obama remains so committed to changing, courtesy of Michelle Malkin:
“Politicians always talk about supporting American manufacturing. I have done it. Government doesn’t innovate. People like me do. Government doesn’t create jobs. We do.“
And yes; Barack’s so full of bullsh*t his skin is brown.
Magoo
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.