It’s Wednesday, June 17th, 2015…but before we begin, are we the only more than a little concerned with the MSM ignoring the greatest cyber attack on the U.S. to date?!?  As one of Jim Geraghty’s readers recently noted:

And if you think we’ve suffered the last such attack, let alone the most damaging, consider this: this is just one in a series of cyber-assaults the ChiComs have launched against us.  What’s been done about them…other than harsh words, more harsh words and really harsh words?!?

Nada, zip, zero!

More importantly, not only is our national electric grid vulnerable to cyber-terrorism, but our entire country could, along with its power grid, be brought to its knees by a single nuclear device detonated at high altitude over the Heartland; Yes, EMP.

For those unfamiliar with the mechanics and impact of an EMP event, James Woolsey and Peter Pry provided this primer last year in the Journal.

And as The Obamao seems bound and determined to to embolden America’s most implacable foes, not to mention providing every opportunity to produce a functional nuclear weapons capability, obtaining an EMP-capable device grows easier every day he’s in office.

But as the technology to deliver such a weapon can’t be found at your local 홈 디포 or خانه انبار (Home Depot for those not fluent in Korean or Farsi!), the trick is delivering the package at altitude somewhere over the center of the U.S.

Which makes this passage from Jeff Meeks EMP blog all the more alarming:

“…But when a country like Iran or North Korea test-fire a new rocket/missile, and then they blow it up halfway into it’s projected flight… and then the West calls the test a failure… maybe we’re missing the big picture.  Maybe the goal wasn’t to deliver something onto an earthly target – maybe the goal was purely to get some altitude.  Hmm.“

“Hmm” is right.  As always, we suggest a strong investment position, not in gold, but in lead…in a variety of calibers!

Now, here’s The Gouge!

First up, just when you thought the Progressives’ PC scam couldn’t get any weirder, MSLSD‘s Melissa Harris-Perry takes us one step beyond:

So now “Blackness”, whatever THAT might be, is “achievable“?  Like…what; the levels of Scientology or some other cult?!?  And any question whatsoever who’d determine the success or failure of one’s effort?

That’s right: the same more-equal-than-other animals who came up with this claptrap in the first place.

And though even The Left shows occasional glimmers of sanity…

“It’s not about race, it’s about integrity,” [NAACP Spokane member Kitara Johnson] said. “If you’re a leader, you have to have integrity. She clearly lacks integrity. The other piece is credibility.”

…don’t count on similar standards of conduct being applied to candidates for President come November ’16.

Meanwhile, in a truly demented demonstration of the depths to which Liberal hypocrisy has sunk, the woman who still clings to the claim she’s “felt Black” from an early age once sued Howard University, accusing the historically-Black institution of denying her a teaching post and scholarship because she was White!!!

So…

Two LYIN’ Liberal White women…like they come any other way.

Just what America needs: another…

We wrap up our coverage of Skingate with this montage of Dimocratic malapropisms forwarded by Balls Cotton:

Thanks to Progressives, ours truly is a country gone mad!

Next up, as David Goetsch notes at Patriot Update, when it comes to…

“Social justice” Liberals Don’t Want Justice – They want your Money

“…Redistribution of wealth by the government does not change the fact that some people in society will have it better than others. It just changes who those people are. Big government just results in government officials being the ones who enjoy the perquisites rather than the hard working people who generate the wealth that pays for them. The concept is known as socialism and in a socialist society government officials hold the power, enjoy all the benefits, and decide who gets what in a nation of ever diminishing resources.

As to redistribution of wealth in a social-justice society, there is eventually no wealth left to redistribute because it has all been sucked up by a voracious, ever-growing government sector where it is siphoned off to feed fat federal bureaucrats who resemble Jabba the Hut in a suit. America and Americans need to face some hard truths. Several have already been stated earlier in this column (e.g. success is not built on excuses, people deserve only what they earn, and life isn’t fair). Another hard truth is this: The government could take every dime away from the successful entrepreneurs who now enjoy wealth in this country and give it to the poor people who hand-wringing social-justice liberals claim to be concerned about and within five years those who were given wealth will be poor again and those from whom it was taken will be wealthy again…”

Which is precisely what we’ve been saying for decades…though we’d put the time period necessary for the retransfer at just over 12 months.

Turning now to our coverage of Decision ’16, writing at the Washington Examiner, Phil Klein suggests…

This one statement from a Clinton adviser sums up the absurdity of Hillary’s campaign

She’s a fighter for equal pay…except for the women on her own staff, whose salaries she directly controls.

Noticeably absent from Hillary Clinton’s re-announcement speech on Saturday was any articulation of her position on the trade deal working its way through Congress. On ABC’s “This Week” Sunday, host George Stephanopoulos pressed Clinton adviser Joel Benenson to answer a rather simple question — whether his candidate supports giving “Fast Track” authority to the president on trade deals.

Benenson tried to dismiss the debate as insider Washington “political jockeying,” and said she’s waiting to see what the final deal looks like. Then he coughed up this gem: “She wants to see the final deal, she wants to make sure it protects American workers, and that’s what she’s fighting for.”

Hillary Clinton made a big deal on Saturday about being a “fighter” — which, as my colleague Byron York noted, is a rehash of her message from her 2008 campaign. But what does this really mean in practice?

She’s a fighter for average Americans…unless it involves a 3:00 AM phone call too hot to handle!

To recap, right now there’s a major trade fight, pitting unions and progressive activists against President Obama. Most people would see “fighting” in this case as staking out a clear position, and adding her prominent voice to the debate while it’s ongoing, in hopes that the final deal is closer to reflecting what she says she believes about protecting American workers. Instead, she’s “fighting” by sitting at ringside and dispatching surrogates to promise that she’ll take a position after the fight is over.

Is there any more concise encapsulation of the absurdity of Hillary Clinton’s campaign?

Other than claiming to be the champion of the poor…

…while Bill and she pull down $200K/speech, and enjoy a huge net worth they’ve already effectively shielded from the taxes they look to visit upon the rest of us?!?  Uhhh…no!

In a related item courtesy of Commentary Magazine, Jonathan Tobin observes how…

The “New Hillary” Reboot Changes Nothing

By the way, are we the only one who thinks, like everything else she attempts…outside of legalized extortion and bribery…Hillary does a LOUSY Southern drawl?!?

“…Emphasizing the “new Hillary Clinton” who will “fight” for left-wing causes may seem like the smart play to Clinton and her handlers who are now acting as if the Democratic nomination is up for grabs. But while they may think they can reboot again next summer once the general election campaign begins, this strategy not only diminishes her chances of being elected, it is exactly why polls tell us most Americans don’t trust her.

Like past attempts by politicians to re-imagine themselves (“new Nixon”), Hillary’s second start to her campaign was to a large degree a sleight of hand maneuver. Her problems stemmed from blows to her reputation from revelations about her bizarre use of private emails and the ethical questions that arose once the press began scrutinizing the Clinton Family Foundation. Clinton’s inability or unwillingness to candidly address these issues dovetailed with her refusal to speak to the press after she began her campaign to give her the impression of a woman trying to run for president in a bubble.

Clinton is supposed to start giving interviews to local press outlets this week while still shunning more aggressive national reporters. But the problem goes deeper than whether she’s dodging the press altogether as opposed to giving canned and evasive answers to questions. If Clinton’s trust and favorability ratings are under water, it’s not because she hasn’t given interviews. It’s because the public understands that she is a chameleon who will change her positions as often as she changes her accent. Her willingness to adopt a southern drawl in the south and then drop it when north of the Mason-Dixon line is one of the most obvious and shameless bits of pandering by a politician since Thomas Edison first recorded sound. But while that might be forgiven, the country has also noticed that Clinton has made a hard left turn on both foreign and domestic issues that gives the lie to her pose as a “fighter.”…”

And the key word there is “lie”; it’s the only constant to which the Clintons can lay claim. 

Moving on, as John Fund writes at NRO, and with very good reason…

Most Americans Expect a Long, Hot Summer of Racial Unrest. Moynihan Would Not Be Surprised.

“It’s hard to get 96 percent of people to agree on anything, but last month’s Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that 96 percent of those surveyed believe we are in for a summer of racial unrest. In the wake of Ferguson and Baltimore, it’s time for some reflection on how we got here.

This year marks two significant anniversaries. In August 1965, the Watts riots broke out in Los Angeles, leading to 34 deaths and $300 million in property damage. Coming after the passage of well-intentioned Great Society welfare programs, the riots made clear that government spending wasn’t going to solve all the problems of urban America.

Indeed, another 50th anniversary we mark this year is that of a seminal work that helped explain why government would be no panacea: Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s “The Negro Family: A Call for National Action.” Published in 1965 and known as “the Moynihan Report,” it burst many bubbles of liberal thinking.

After analyzing reams of relevant social-science research, Moynihan concluded that the decline of the two-parent family was fueling the growth of poverty and unemployment, and leading to rising crime rates in black neighborhoods and schools without discipline. “At the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro family. It is the fundamental source of the weakness of the Negro community at the present time,” Moynihan argued. Families that consisted solely of single female parents weakened the role of black men as authority figures in the lives of children. Moynihan also warned: “The steady expansion of welfare programs, as of public assistance programs in general, can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States.”

Sadly, as soon as Moynihan’s report was leaked to the media, it came under withering assault from his fellow liberals. Civil-rights leader Floyd McKissick angrily attacked it: “My major criticism of the report is that it assumes that middle-class American values are the correct values for everyone in America. . . . Moynihan thinks that everyone should have a family structure like his own.” Facing such criticism, President Lyndon Johnson, in his famous June 1965 speech on poverty, ignored Moynihan’s call to support policies that promote family stability. What a lost opportunity…”

Yet another example of Liberals purposefully permitting short-term political gain to trump the long-term interests of the country…including those of their constituents!

But lest we be labeled a racist reactionary, it’s worth noting Inner-City Ethnics aren’t the only Americans suffering the inevitable adverse impact of Progressives’ pestilential paternalism, dumbing down of public education and moral relativism, as evidenced by this disturbing video shot in the Beech Grove, IN Walmart:

We don’t know what aspect of this incident disturbs us most, so we’ll leave it to you, our readers; cast your ballot in our poll at the top right of the page.

On the Lighter Side…

Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with Yet Another Sign the Progressive Apocalypse is Upon Us, as the latest overreach by the PC Police has the Washington Examiner‘s Ashe Schow wondering…

Has the federal government ever had sex?

These two formulating sex guidelines would be like Helen Thomas determining feminine beauty standards.

The act of sex is not illegal. But if two members of the American Law Institute have their way, it will be — unless you follow their rules.

Law professors Stephen J. Schulhofer and Erin Murphy are trying to update the criminal code when it comes to sex offenses, believing current definitions of rape and sexual assault are antiquated. The focus of their draft is on what constitutes consent. It adopts the “yes means yes,” or “affirmative consent” model that was passed in California last year.

The California law applies only to college campuses, however. Schulhofer and Murphy aim to take that definition of consent — which says that before every escalation of a sexual encounter, clear and convincing consent must be given — to the state or federal level. No one actually has sex this way, requesting permission and having it granted perhaps a dozen times in a single encounter.

But the theory that millions of Americans are having sex wrongly has gained currency among campus activists. This new attempt to alter the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code, a highly influential document that has been adopted in whole or in part by many states’ legislatures, is part of a push to bring authoritarianism into the bedroom.

Schulhofer and Murphy do not intend to make sexual intercourse impossible to construe as an innocent act. But this would be the consequence of their draft. Any act of sex in which permission is not repeatedly requested and granted would put at least one of the parties, usually men, in legal jeopardy. Absent the repeated “May I…?” and affirmative responses, any woman could later have her partner locked up over unexpressed mental reservations…”

Which brings to mind one question and one observation:

1.  Absent a taped or video recordation, could not one night’s willing participant become on the morrow an involuntary victim.  Where’s then the value of such repeated requests, regardless of having met with affirmative responses?

2.  Regardless of what you’ve been told about the connection between a book and its cover, from the look of these two…

…SERIOUSLY, they know as much about sex as Hillary and Bill understand honesty…or The Obamao comprehends Constitution.

Magoo