It’s Monday, October 24th, 2016…but before we begin, courtesy of Matt Vespa and Townhall.com, a preview of the fruits of Progressive policies coming soon to a country near you:
Venezuela is still paying for its failed experiment with socialism. The country still faces shortages of basic supplies, especially food, and the Chinese have cut off new loans after a decade of economic assistance. The supply shortages are probably the most pressing debacle facing President Nicolas Maduro, the late Hugo Chavez’s successor. Venezuelans have resorted to looting, breaking into zoos and eating animals, and finding sustenance in trashcans.
…To deal with the food crisis, the government established the Local Committees of Supply and Production (CLAP), but has threatened to cut off food aid to anyone who has criticized Maduro’s government, the same government that’s so detached from reality that they’ve banned lines outside of bakeries and grocery stores to avoid showing the world how terrible 21st Century Socialism has become.It’s a total disaster (via PanAm Post):
“Food shortage…WHAT food shortage?!?”
Six months after the creation of the Local Committees of Supply and Production (Clap) that is designed to “distribute food directly to the people,” the government has decided to change its approach by threatening those using the program.The Venezuelan government announced that it will suspend delivery of food packages to those who criticize its policies.The suspension of an unnamed member of the communal council will last for three months, but could extend much longer, officials warned.
In addition, officials threatened to impose penalties against those who make their discontent with the government public by removing their information from the Clap database.
Isn’t socialism great, folks?“
Now, here’s The Gouge!
We lead off the Monday edition with two more sterling examples of Dimocratic hypocrisy at its finest: first…
What Joe and Mika FAIL to mention is not only did Hillary question the legality of the 2000 election, climate-deity Al Gore filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the results. But somehow, neither event deserves noting.
Then there’s this from Donna “I’m A Christian Who Won’t Be Persecuted…Yet I Unreservedly Support The Wholesale Slaughter Of The Unborn” Brazile:
We’ve said it before, we’ll say it again: while we can find no Biblical basis for the existence of levels in Hell, we cannot help but believe backers of unrestricted infanticide will find themselves significantly closer to the fire during their eternity in Perdition.
As 007 would say…
…along with Donna, Hillary, Harry, Nancy, Ally, Barry and…to borrow a line from Animal House…the rest of the Hitler Youth!
Since we’re on the subject of the true heirs of Hitler, writing at NRO, Kevin Williamson accurately identifies the real…
“During the final presidential debate, Hillary Rodham Clinton declared herself a totalitarian. She did not use that word, of course, but that was the substance of her remarks.
She began by arguing that the Supreme Court, and lesser federal courts, should be political partisans who take sides in disputes rather than adjudicate them according to the law. Many politicians — perhaps even most — believe that, or act in a way that suggests they do, but most of them feel at least the need to shamefacedly insist that judges are there to impartially apply the law. Not Mrs. Clinton. The Supreme Court that exists in her mind is the worst version of the highest judicial body, which is to say the American answer to Iran’s Guardian Council. The justices already wander into American-ayatollah territory too often, and it is only shame that constrains them.It is impossible to overstate the damage this is doing to our constitutional order, and to the legitimacy of the federal government itself.
What is worse — if something can in fact be worse — is that Mrs. Clinton seeks to unmoor the Supreme Court from the Constitution in order to pursue her own repressive and self-interested political program, namely the censorship of publications, organizations, and institutions that are critical of her.
Lost in all of the deeply stupid rhetoric (“Money isn’t speech!”) surrounding the Citizens United case is the fundamental issue that was at question, to wit whether the federal government can censor films of which it disapproves.The film in question was called Hillary: The Movie, and it was very critical of Mrs. Clinton while she was seeking the Democratic nomination in 2008. The government attempted to forbid the distribution of the film on the grounds that it was critical of a political figure, which was at the time impermissible, under what is cynically known as “campaign finance” law, unless done in strict compliance with narrow and restrictive federal regulations, and then only at certain times. The Supreme Court rightly threw the law behind that out as rankly unconstitutional censorship of political speech.
What those beef-witted partisans who abuse the word “liberal” fail to appreciate is that the principle behind the so-called campaign-finance laws they support is an open-ended power of federal censorship of all political speech, journalism, literature, films, television, radio, and other communication.Some of the more sinister forces on the left understand that perfectly well, and the glee with which Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders present the proposal of silencing their political critics is both astounding and horrifying…”
Speaking of something both astounding and horrifying…at least for those committed to the Constitution…Townhall.com‘s Guy Benson relates how, via the…
“Why was Hillary Clinton still entertaining a lucrative face-to-face meeting with Morocco’s king on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, even after she’d announced her presidential run last year? Because there was a lot of money at stake, hacked Wikileaks emails reveal. Fox News’ Ed Henry reports:
Just hours after Hillary Clinton dodged a question at the final presidential debate about charges of “pay to play” at the Clinton Foundation, a new batch of WikiLeaks emails surfaced with stunning charges that the candidate herself was at the center of negotiating a $12 million commitment from King Mohammed VI of Morocco. One of the more remarkable parts of the charge is that the allegation came from Clinton’s loyal aide, Huma Abedin, who described the connection in a January 2015 email exchange with two top advisers to the candidate, John Podesta and Robby Mook. Abedin wrote that “this was HRC’s idea” for her to speak at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative in Morocco in May 2015 as an explicit condition for the $12 million commitment from the king. “She created this mess and she knows it,” Abedin wrote to Podesta and Mook. The “mess” refers in part to the fact that the three Clinton advisers were discussing the possibility of the former secretary of state pulling out of speaking at the May 2015 event because it was happening one month after the official launch of her presidential campaign and could raise more questions about her role at the foundation.
In January 2015, Mook indicated Clinton was still considering whether to attend the event, even though her advisers clearly seemed to be concerned about the appearance of such heavy involvement in the foundation amid questions about its fundraising. With the subject line, “FYI CGI Africa,” Mook sent an email to Podesta and Abedin on January 18, 2015. “Came up on our call with HRC,” wrote Mook. “John flagged the same issues we discussed, Huma. HRC said she’s sitll (sic) considering.” Abedin wrote back later that day, and suggested the King would be furious if Clinton pulled out of the event. “Just to give you some context, the condition upon which the Moroccans agreed to host the meeting was her participation,” Abedin wrote. “If hrc was not part if (sic) it, meeting was a non-starter.” Abedin added that CGI had not even come up with the idea to hold the event in Morocco, instead it was generated by Clinton herself. “This was HRC’s idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request,” wrote Abedin. “The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting.”…While Clinton was secretary of state, her department in 2011 charged that the Moroccan government was behind “arbitrary arrests and corruption in all branches of government.”
The King of Morocco set up an elaborate visit for Hillary Clinton, apparently at her suggestion, and agreed to contribute $12 million to the foundation.Given his country’s blemished corruption record — according to Clinton’s State Department — what did the monarch believe he might receive in exchange for his generosity, one wonders?Surely something was worth $12 million to him, and it couldn’t have been her mere presence. (In another questionable episode, the ISIS-funding Qatari regime offered a $1 million “birthday gift” to Bill Clinton, asking for five minutes of face time with the former president to present the check. This extreme generosity cannot realistically be viewed as purely altruistic)…”
As Quora.com observes, “Even for a politician she is amazingly crooked.” And THAT is saying something!
Which brings to mind the punishment prescribed by Elliot Ness in The Untouchables: “In Roman times, when a when a fellow was convicted of trying to bribe a public official, they would cut off his nose, and sew him in a bag with a wild animal, and throw him in a river.” Along with the public official!
And which further begs the question why, as Daniel Payne notes at NRO, when the Dims have of late fielded the six most flawed candidates in history…
“Of all the great American political traditions, there is perhaps none more instructive than the progressive tendency to sentimentalize Republicans from years past. You can effectively set your watch by it: Whatever Republican ran for office four or eight or twelve years ago is bound to be looked upon far more favorably than whatever Republican is currently on the ticket.
At no time is this phenomenon more apparent than during the madhouse 2016 election, which has caused many on the left to take a misty-eyed walk down Republican Memory Lane. At the Washington Post back in March, Dana Milbank admitted, “Donald Trump makes me miss George W. Bush.” Milbank actually said the same thing in 2014 in response to the rise of the Tea Party. Yet at the same time he claimed that, were Bush still in office, “we might be at war with Iran and North Korea by now, and perhaps Portugal.”
Got that? When it’s convenient, a Republican president can be bad enough to lead us into World War III; when stacked up next to contemporary Republicans, however, that same president can evoke warm fuzzies and good feelings. How nice!
The same thing is happening this season with Mitt Romney, who just four short years ago was the Health-Care-Stealing Demon from Hell, a man who — if you believed liberals — may or may not have personally murdered several cancer-stricken Americans, a man who was a raging homophobe and a dog-killer, a guy who was so retrograde that he said things like “binders full of women.”He was the worst.
Well, this year he’s up for sainthood in the Church of Progressivism. One fellow has produced a series of tweets from writer Baratunde Thurston, two of them (from 2012) mocking Mitt’s “binders” comment and one (from this month) fondly reminiscing about it: “I would kill for ‘binders full of women right now’ [sic],” he wrote. “To have a candidate bragging about the search for competent women, not assaulting them.” What a difference four years makes.
Over the summer, prominent Democratic politicians and operatives positively gushed about Romney’s sterling character. “He was in it for the right reasons,” said Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s deputy campaign manager from 2012. Obama’s campaign secretary from the same year, Ben LaBolt, claimed that “I don’t think anybody would have truly expected the country to go to hell in a handbasket” if Romney won the election.
This is, of course, utterly laughable; liberals in 2012 claimed that Romney would be a “disaster” for women, that he and “capitalist extremists” wanted to “destroy America,” that, in the event of a Romney presidency, we’d “be at war and pretty soon there won’t be any more Medicare or Social Security plus the rich will keep getting richer and abortion will be illegal in most of the country.”President Barack Obama accused Romney of wanting to take the United States back to “policies more suited to the 1950s,” a not so subtle suggestion that a Romney presidency would subjugate women to inferior second-class status; the Obama campaign went so far as to imply that Romney’s policies would ruin women’s lives at every step of their lives. Joe Biden implied that Romney would re-enslave black Americans…”
No bias to report here; please move along!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the former leader of The Gang Who May NEVER Shoot Straight tells us all we need to know about the forces which gave rise to The Donald:
“…“I will not be voting for Clinton,” [former RNC Chair Michael] Steele told a dinner in honor of the 40th anniversary of the progressive magazine Mother Jones in San Francisco Friday. “I will not be voting for Trump either.”
Steele, a former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, said that Trump has “captured that racist underbelly, that frustration, that angry underbelly of American life and gave voice to that.” “I was damn near puking during the debates,” Steele said, adding that he believes Trump only represents 30% of the Republican Party…”
With friends like Michael Steele (note the occasion of his comments), who needs B. Hussein Obama, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry or Hillary Clinton?!?
Then there’s this from Keith Koffler, writing at Lifezette:
“President Obama this week waded into the general election with his customary grace, instructing Donald Trump to stop “whining” that the contest might be rigged.
“If you start whining before the game’s even over, if whenever things are going badly for you and you lose — you start blaming somebody else — then you don’t have what it takes to be in this job,” Obama said. “I’d invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.”
Obama asking someone not to whine is a bit like Miley Cyrus telling Katy Perry to put some clothes on.Obama has been whining since the moment he took office. If there’s ever been a whinier commander-in-chief, then he whined privately, because there’s no record of such incessant presidential moaning…”
Talk about the pothead calling the kettle black; for more on the subject, we recommend thisall-encompassing compendium of The Dear Misleader’s incessent carping.
Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with a quick walk on The Lighter Side:
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.