It’s Monday, December 14th, 2015…but before we begin, just in time for Christmas, a special gift from Stilton Jarlsberg and Hope n’ Change Cartoons:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/ix217c2oc7miw24/ManholeSteamrisingHnC.zip

Just what the doctor ordered for some light background sounds during the Christmas holiday.

Oh,…and Navy having made it 14 in a row over Army Saturday brings the total CAPT Jon McKee, USAR now owes his old man in our running, double-or-nothing Army-Navy bet to…$81,920!!!

Now, here’s The Gouge!

First up, encouraging news for those like us who view The Donald’s odds of winning the general election as slim as Hillary serving a single solitary second behind bars for her varied and numerous crimes against the country.

As the WSJ notes, when it comes to The Donald’s baggage, America’s truly clueless as to how have many pieces he’s carrying, let alone what’s in them:

Trump and the Goodfellas

The presidential candidate says he didn’t know he was doing business with the mob.

 

“..But if Mr. Trump didn’t know whether his associates had mob ties, why did he warn others not to get involved in casino gambling lest they attract organized crime? Mr. Trump now says he was merely trying to discourage potential competitors from entering the casino business: “I’d say negative about it because I didn’t want to have other jurisdictions do gambling. That’s sort of, like, you know, basic business sense.” So he says he warned about mob influence to deter competitors while claiming lack of knowledge about mob ties to his own projects.

Mr. Trump has never been accused of a crime, and his see-no-evil, he-had-no-choice explanation worked for him as a businessman. The question is whether this is adequate for someone who wants to be President.“

The question is especially apt for GOP primary voters because Democrats would surely raise it in the general election. Mitt Romney lost in 2012 in part because Democrats trashed his stellar business record in private equity. Better to vet Mr. Trump’s business record now than next October.

But as Jonah Goldberg observes, one thing’s for certain:

Trump Doesn’t Represent the Conservative Base

 

“…Until Trump descended his golden escalator, the “conservative base” generally referred to committed pro-lifers and other social conservatives. The term also suggested people who were for very limited government, strict adherence to the Constitution, etc. Most of all, it described people who called themselves “very conservative.”

While it’s absolutely true that Trump draws support from people who fit such descriptions, it’s far from the entirety of Trump’s following. According to polls, Trump draws heavily from more secular Republicans who are more likely to describe themselves as “liberal” or “moderate” than “conservative” or “very conservative.” Ted Cruz draws more exclusively from the traditional base.

And I would argue that his “very conservative” followers aren’t supporting Trump because he’s a conservative but because he’s a walking, talking thumb in the eyes of “elites” in the media and both parties.

The claim that Trump is a committed conservative is not very believable. Until recently, he was for higher taxes on the wealthy, taking in Syrian refugees, and single-payer health care. He almost never talks about the Constitution, faith, or liberty unless forced to. In 2012, Trump condemned Mitt Romney for being too harsh on illegal immigration. In May of this year, he attacked “publicity seekers” who needlessly provoked Muslims.

With the exception of a few single-issue voters on immigration, Trump fans love him for his enemies and for his populist bombast, not for any specific principles. In other words, he divides the GOP more up-down than he does left-right.

Trump defenders can rightly point to the fact that he draws support from a wide swath of voters. Critics can rightly point out that he draws animosity from an even wider swath of voters. But neither should go around talking about how Trump represents the conservative base.“

Neither is Trump in the least bit Conservative himself.  Here’s something else to consider: imminent vacancies on the Supreme Court.  Even Ronaldus Maximus batted only .333 with his SCOTUS appointments, including the unfathomable selection of Anthony Kennedy.  Let’s face it, when it comes to naming dependably-Conservative justices to the highest court in the land, since the Nixon Administration, with friends like Republican Presidents, who needs Dimocrats?!?

So come Friday, January 17, 2017, who would you rather have naming replacements for these…

…six sorry douche pumps:

Meanwhile, no one has the slightest idea what’s underneath The Donald’s indescribably bad hair.

Since we’re on the subject of the indescribably bad, submitted for your perusal, the meaningless meanderings of one Coral Davenport in The New York Times as she damns the global warming agreement with faint praise:

Nations Approve Landmark Climate Accord in Paris

 

“…The new deal will not, on its own, solve global warming. At best, scientists who have analyzed it say, it will cut global greenhouse gas emissions by about half enough as is necessary to stave off an increase in atmospheric temperatures of 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. That is the point at which, scientific studies have concluded, the world will be locked into a future of devastating consequences, including rising sea levels, severe droughts and flooding, widespread food and water shortages and more destructive storms.

…Despite the historic nature (“historic” due its complete and total uselessness!) of the Paris climate accord, its success still depends heavily on two factors outside the parameter of the deal: global peer pressure and the actions of future governments.

The core of the Paris deal is a requirement that every nation take part. Ahead of the Paris talks, governments of 186 nations put forth public plans detailing how they would cut carbon emissions through 2025 or 2030.

Those plans alone, once enacted, will cut emissions by half the levels required to stave off the worst effects of global warming.

The national plans vary vastly in scope and ambition — while every country is required to put forward a plan, there is no legal requirement dictating how, or how much, countries should cut emissions…Thus, the Paris pact has built in a series of legally binding requirements that countries ratchet up the stringency of their climate change policies in the future.

Sooo…there’s no legal requirement “dictating how, or how much, countries should cut emissions“, but there is a “built in series of legally binding requirements that countries ratchet up the stringency of their climate change policies“.  Hey, makes perfect sense…to any Environazi, tree-hugging Liberal wholly devoid of anything resembling common sense!

Then again, as Ms. Davenport goes on to analyze, any inconsistencies in the Paris accords are the responsibility of the anthropogenic-global-warming-denying Republican Party:

That hybrid legal structure was explicitly designed in response to the political reality in the United States. A deal that would have assigned legal requirements for countries to cut emissions at specific levels would need to go before the United States Senate for ratification. That language would have been dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled Senate, where many members question the established science of human-caused climate change, and still more wish to thwart Mr. Obama’s climate change agenda.

So the individual countries’ plans are voluntary, but the legal requirements that they publicly monitor, verify and report what they are doing, as well as publicly put forth updated plans, are designed to create a “name-and-shame” system of global peer pressure, in hopes that countries will not want to be seen as international laggards.

That system depends heavily on the views of the future world leaders who will carry out those policies…”

As the WSJ puts it:

“The grandiose claims of triumph in Paris represent the self-interest of a political elite that wants more control over the private economy in the U.S. and around the world. These are the last people who will save the planet.“

We term it a complete crock of sh*t, not to mention an inestimable waste of time, money and carbon emissions!

But as the AP reports, here’s the best part:

“…In the pact, the countries pledge to limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100.“

Sooo…we have some time!

Speaking of things that don’t quite work as advertised, though the MSM’s headlines have been focused on the Navy’s $4.3B per copy “stealth” destroyer rescuing a fisherman off the coast of Maine, the real story hasn’t received near the publicity:

USS Milwaukee, Navy’s newest ship, towed to base after breaking down at sea

 

“…The USS Milwaukee, a littoral combat ship that was commissioned in November, was towed more than 40 nautical miles to Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek after suffering an engineering casualty on Friday, The Navy Times reported. The ship was on its way from Halifax, Canada to Mayport, Florida, where it was planning to stop before continuing on its trek to its port in San Diego.

The cause of the ship’s failure remains under investigation, but officials say it appears that metal debris collected in the lube oil filer, causing the system to shut down. The problems began soon after the ship left Halifax and officials dropped anchor while engineers worked on the system. A salvage ship eventually met up with the Milwaukee and towed it to the Virginia base…”

Hopefully it’s still under warranty…assuming of course the sorry-ass, politically-correct Navy Mike Mullen bequeathed us got a warranty.

Next up, Michelle Malkin opines on…

Immigration and the Values of Our Founding Fathers

 

“President Obama claims that restricting immigration in order to protect national security is “offensive and contrary to American values.” No-limits liberals have attacked commonsense proposals for heightened visa scrutiny, profiling, or immigration slowdowns as “un-American.”

America’s Founding Fathers, I submit, would vehemently disagree.

Our founders, as I’ve reminded readers repeatedly over the years, asserted their concerns publicly and routinely about the effects of indiscriminate mass immigration. They made it clear that the purpose of allowing foreigners into our fledgling nation was not to recruit millions of new voters or to secure permanent ruling majorities for their political parties. It was to preserve, protect, and enhance the republic they put their lives on the line to establish.

In a 1790 House debate on naturalization, James Madison opined: “It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable?”

No, not because “diversity” is our greatest value. No, not because Big Business needed cheap labor. And no, Madison asserted, “Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.”

Madison argued plainly that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”

George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, similarly emphasized that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that, “by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.”…”

But what are Washington, Madison and the other Founding Fathers compared to…

Including four in Benghazi!

…The One?!?

Since a picture’s worth 1,000 words, here’s 6,000 on the irreconcilable differences between… 

…and those who quite literally risked their lives to found the greatest force for freedom ever to exist on the Earth:

And then there’s the piece de resistance:

Not to mention a complete Communist “f*cking moron!

For those still confused as to the willingness of this most un-American of Administrations to put politics above national security, courtesy of Jeff Foutch, Truth Revolt reports…

Report: Obama Told NSC, FBI to ‘Downplay’ Terrorist Angle of San Bernardino Attack

 

He is always quick to publicly condemn white police officers or so-called NRA-gun enthusiasts when a fatal incident occurs, but when Islamic terrorism strikes, Obama actively works to conceal the religious motivation of the attack.

A new report reveals that the FBI’s reluctance to label the San Bernardino attack as terrorism may have been due to White House pressure. The Daily Caller expands:

A source told Jack Murphy of SOFREP that the FBI instantly believed the shooting, which left 14 dead, to be a clear act of terrorism. The White House, however, didn’t feel the same way and quickly moved in to squash the terror classification.

This source added that as soon as the shooting took place, Obama convened a meeting with the National Security Council and the heads of other federal enforcement agencies to discuss a public relations strategy. Part of the reason for trying to avoid the designation of the shootings as terrorism is because it threatens to upset the Obama administration’s strategy in Syria. A case of Islamic terrorism in the U.S. would put additional pressure on the administration to play a much more active role in the conflict.

According to the report, however, the San Bernardino attack was such a clear-cut case of Islamic terrorism that the FBI ultimately had no choice but to investigate it accordingly. After all, Syed Rizwan Farook had engaged in contact with ISIS and other jihadis.

There is also another motivation at play for the Obama administration in downplaying terror, namely because it undermines his vow that al Qaeda had been defeated and that ISIS is “contained.”

Michael Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said publicly that the Obama administration wants to completely sideline discussion of terrorism, because it contradicts the claim that al-Qaida is dwindling. Obama recently suffered major embarrassment after he claimed that ISIS was contained, only one day before the Paris attacks took place.

In truth, Islamic terrorism has only grown to record-proportions under President Obama and that is a fact he will stop at nothing to conceal.

Can you say “Benghazi”?!?

We KNEW you could!

By the way, though the ultimate result would seem appropriate…

…mere hanging is too quick and painless a death than this Progressive predator deserves.

Turning to today’s Environmental Moment, writing at NRO, Robert Bryce details yet another reason the Paris accords are doomed to failure before the ink is dry: i.e., the very nature of…

The Anti-Science, Anti-Nuclear Left

Atomic energy is indispensable in reducing greenhouse gases, but climate-change activists don’t want to hear it.

 

Among the favorite claims of climate-change activists is that anyone who dares to disagree with their worldview is a “denier,” and that those who reject their orthodoxy about the workings of the Earth’s atmosphere are “anti-science.”

But when it comes to the technologies that can actually reduce the volume of carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere, it’s obvious that the climate-change jihadis are the ones who are anti-science. For proof of that, consider the energy plan put forward on Monday by Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont and presidential candidate, who has claimed that climate change is the greatest national-security threat facing the United States.

Sanders’s energy plan comes straight from the far-left playbook. It claims that the only thing needed to deal with climate change is renewable energy. On Sanders’s website, the plan carries endorsements from Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, who may be America’s most famous climate activist, as well as Annie Leonard, the executive director of Greenpeace USA.

The gist of Sanders’s plan, which is modestly titled “Combating Climate Change to Save the Planet,” is to create a “completely nuclear-free clean energy system for electricity, heating, and transportation.” It also declares that Sanders wants “a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States.”

Ah yes, nuclear-free. How very 1970s. So what does “the science” say about nuclear energy?

In January of this year, the International Energy Agency declared that “nuclear power is a critical element in limiting greenhouse gas emissions.” It went on to say that global nuclear generation capacity must more than double by 2050 (to about 750 gigawatts) if the countries of the world are to have any hope of limiting temperature increases to the 2-degree scenario that is widely agreed upon as the acceptable limit.

…In 2011, in one of the most famous slap-downs of the renewables-only crowd, Hansen wrote that “suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” He went on to say that politicians and environmental groups “pay homage to the Easter Bunny fantasy, because it is the easy thing to do.”

For climate activists, being anti-nuclear is the easy thing to do. That was made clear last month in a startling article written by journalist William Tucker, the author of the 2008 book Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America’s Energy Odyssey.

In the article, “How About Suing Bill McKibben for Racketeering?,” Tucker explains that he briefly interviewed McKibben four years ago in Vermont at Solarfest, an event dedicated to, in Tucker’s words, “the wonders of solar energy.” Tucker estimated that about half of the attendees were there to push for the closing of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. (That plant closed last year.) Tucker wrote:

After McKibben gave his rousing speech to an enthusiastic audience, I was able to grab him for a moment in back of the little makeshift stage. I asked him about nuclear power. He admitted that nuclear was going to be necessary if we were ever to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. “Why don’t you come out favorably in public for nuclear power, then?” I asked . . . “If I came out in favor of nuclear,” he said, “it would split this movement in half.”

So there you have it. McKibben, like many other environmentalists, knows in his heart that there isn’t much chance of reducing carbon output without nuclear. But he does not want to be caught saying so in public.

The punch line here is obvious. Climate-change activists, and politicians like Sanders, prefer the convenient fib about renewables to the hard reality that nuclear energy is essential to limiting greenhouse-gas emissions. Four years ago, McKibben made it clear that he prefers political power over truth. Seems to me that’s the very essence of being anti-science.“

In other words…

On the Lighter Side…

Magoo