Shall not eight years of the personal pronoun pumping pipsqueak have been enough? The price of Her Majesty’s election, despite being the least suitable person since Barack Obama, may become apparent:
While at a rally in Decorah, Iowa, on Tuesday, a reporter asked Clinton what she thought about nominating President Obama to the highest court.
“Wow, what a great idea, nobody has ever suggested that to me,” Clinton said.
Ho Lee Focaccia with turkey, avocado and mayonnaise, Batman. If the thought of listening to that anti-Constitutional jackwagon on the SCOTUS bench, getting paid to lift his leg against all we hold dear until he decides he’s bored and retires, isn’t enough to galvanize conservatives into action (and I mean more than mere blog posts) then I daresay we deserve the abuse.
It’s clear that our country is mismanaged by a homo bureaucratus infestation, where the motto is “fail upward”, but enough is enough.
If you are a Democrat, the safest place in the world to be is under the authority of other Democrats. Lois Lerner, the criminal who used the Internal Revenue Service as a political weapon on behalf of the Democratic party, was never going to be charged, or even disciplined, by her overseers in the IRS or at the Department of Justice. After pulling one of the worst Gestapo stunts in modern American history, she’s receiving a nice, comfortable pension, and those who enabled her crimes were given fat bonuses. There was no way that Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch was going to charge Lerner — what do you imagine the odds are that they’ll discover their integrity in the matter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee?
The battle for Iowa seems to be coming down to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz vs. Donald Trump. Of course, there are likely to be five candidates still in the race after the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses, but the debate Thursday highlighted the clash between Cruz and Trump:
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz clashed Thursday in their sharpest — and most personal — encounters of the campaign season.
“I guess the bromance is over,” Trump told CNN’s Dana Bash after the debate.
The 2.5-hour event sponsored by Fox Business Network was filled with testy exchanges between the seven candidates on stage. Cruz and Trump are battling for first place in Iowa with less than three weeks until the state’s caucuses, though the businessman has a commanding lead nationally. And with pressure mounting for someone to emerge as an establishment alternative to Trump and Cruz, sparks flew between Marco Rubio and Chris Christie.
The much-anticipated Trump vs. Cruz showdown took a few minutes to materialize — but when it did, it packed a punch.
Cruz forcefully responded to Trump’s accusations that he isn’t eligible to be president because he was born in Canada — a controversy that Trump has only recently embraced.
“Back in September, my friend Donald said he had his lawyers look at this in every which way,” Cruz said. “There was nothing to this birther issue.”
He added: “Since September, the Constitution hasn’t changed. But the poll numbers have.”
Yes, the poll numbers have changed in Iowa, and also nationally. If you look at the Real Clear Politics average, the big story of the 2012 Republican campaign so far has been the collapse of Jeb Bush, who was averaging 17.8% nationally in July, but is now only 4.8%. The Bush campaign has raised more than $24 million, so what happened? To paraphrase the Beatles, money can’t buy Bush love:
Concerns about the impact of money on politics assume that if you buy enough ads you can elect anybody. If that were true, Jeb would be the frontrunner. Instead, he’s running way behind other candidates who, in different ways, have done a better job of addressing voters’ concerns.
It turns out that addressing voters’ concerns is more important than slick TV spots. And that means that the only campaign finance “reform” we need is for candidates (and donors) to quit tossing money at consultants and instead to speak to the American people about what the American people care about.
If nothing else comes from Jeb’s candidacy, that’s a valuable lesson indeed.
(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) Bush is heading toward a humiliating defeat in Iowa — no better than fourth place, and perhaps fifth or sixth — and his highly paid staff should be busy writing an eloquent concession speech: “Spend more time with my family,” blah blah blah. Meanwhile, on the Democrat side, Hillary Clinton may be approaching her own humiliation at the hands of Bernie Sanders:
Hillary Clinton has lost most of her lead over Bernie Sanders in the race to win Iowa’s Democratic presidential caucuses, a new Iowa Poll shows.
Clinton, who has been the favorite all along, now leads Sanders by just 2 percentage points in The Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll. That’s down from 9 percentage points a month ago.
Clinton is now the top choice of 42 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers, compared with Sanders’ 40 percent, the poll finds. The poll’s margin of error is plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.
As recently as early November, Clinton had a 30-point lead over Sanders in the RCP average of Iowa polls, but there has been a sharp shift in the past month. In early December, a Quinnipiac poll of Iowa Democrats showed Hillary leading Bernie by 11 points, but the latest Quinnipiac poll in Iowa has Sanders leading 49-44. News flash: People don’t like Hillary Clinton. Her own husband doesn’t like Hillary Clinton.
Roving packs of men sexually assaulted dozens of women on New Year’s Eve in western Germany’s city of Cologne, officials said, describing the attacks as unprecedented.
The spree suggested a “new dimension of organized criminality,” German justice minister Heiko Maas told a press conference on Tuesday.
Police said the attackers — who struck in pairs and groups of up to 20 men — appeared to be part of a larger, 1,000-strong group that had gathered in one of the city’s main plazas for New Year’s celebrations.
Cologne’s police spokesman Thomas Held told NBC News that authorities had fielded around 90 complaints of pick-pocketing, groping and at least one of rape.
Eye witnesses described getting groped multiple times near the city’s train station and its famed cathedral.
“It was horror. Although we shouted and hit around us, the guys did not stop. I was desperate,” a 28-year-old woman identified as Katja L. told Cologne’s Express newspaper, saying she was groped about 100 times while walking 600 feet.
(It was almost as bad as a University of Virginia frat party.)
Another woman, who did not give her name, told Bild newspaper that several men attacked her and her friend. “They had circled us and started to grope us. They were everywhere with their hands,” she said. . . .
Police on Monday had said the suspects appeared to be of “Arab or North African descent,” sparking fears on social media they were among around 1 million asylum seekers who have flooded Germany this year.
American feminists, who have incited irrational hysteria over a non-existent “rape epidemic” on U.S. college campuses, will ignore this news. American feminists never said a word about the Rotherham Horror, in which English girls as young as 11 were pimped out by Muslim predators. American feminists don’t want to call attention to certain crimes committed by certain criminals, and it is not just Juanita Broaddrick’s rape accusation against Bill Clinton that feminists demand that we ignore. The feminist movement in the United States is controlled by the Democrat Party, and therefore rape is just a talking-point to them, an “issue” that feminists help Democrats exploit for partisan purposes. Because feminists are dishonest partisans, their agenda requires a lot of deliberate falsification — the phony “1-in-5” statistic, the UVA rape hoax, etc. — and it also requires feminists to ignore a lot of actual rapes which do not fit the Democrat Party-approved propaganda narrative.
Feminists have expended enormous effort to create the impression that rape is a crime commonly committed by “privileged” college boys. This falsehood serves the interests of the Democrat Party in several ways, especially because demonizing “privileged” (i.e., white, middle-class, heterosexual) males is part of a message that helps Democrats mobilize female voters, minority voters and gay voters. This is a type of hate propaganda which masquerades as “progressivism.”
By an obverse principle, the Democrat Party propaganda machine (including feminists) ignore any news that would suggest either (a) mass immigration is harmful to American society, or (b) Islam is dangerous. No matter how many violent crimes against women in the U.S. are committed by illegal aliens, no America feminist will ever call attention to such a crime, because all immigrants are presumably part of the Democrat coalition, and it’s bad publicity to mention how much harm their party’s constituents inflict on innocent Americans. (This is why liberals ignore rampant crime in Chicago and other Democrat Party strongholds.) Similarly, because most Republicans believe that radical Islam poses an existential threat to American civilization, Democrats (including feminists) pretend that Muslims are less dangerous than Methodists, Mormons or Mennonites. For more than three decades, feminists have been shrieking about the theocratic menace posed by “the Religious Right” (i.e., any Christian who votes Republican) and yet at the same time, feminists demand that Americans believe Muslims are all harmless misunderstood victims of “Islamophobia.”
American feminists will tell any lie if it helps the Democrat Party, and you will be accused of “hate” if you dare to tell the truth about what unrestricted Muslim immigration will mean:
Just five arrests have been made by German police after central Cologne was transformed into a war-zone on New Year’s Eve, as an estimated 1,000 migrants celebrated by launching fireworks into crowds and sexually assaulting German women caught up in the chaos.
The sordid details of the horrifying sexual assaults and attacks made against ordinary Germans by large gangs of migrants in Cologne in the early hours of Friday morning are just now emerging. . . .
One woman had her tights and underwear torn off by the crowd, and a police source quoted said there had been “rapes” at the station that night.
So far, police have identified 80 victims of the gangs, 35 of which were subjected to sex attacks. Others were assaulted or robbed. Officers suspect there are many more as of yet unreported cases from the night, and are appealing for victims to come forward after their ordeals. . . .
In addition to the sex attacks, there were several brawls between migrant gangs at the railway station, and large numbers of fireworks were fired into the crowds and at the hapless police.
This violent mayhem is coming soon to an American city near you, thanks to the Democrat Party and their feminist propaganda squads.
Delivering on its promise to deliver “common sense” gun control, the Obama administration on Monday finalized a rule that enables health care providers to report the names of mentally ill patients to an FBI firearms background check system.
The action was one of a series of steps that President Barack Obama had called for in January 2013 in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings to curb gun violence, but the rule was not published until today.
While the 1993 Brady law prohibits gun ownership by individuals who have been involuntarily committed, found incompetent to stand trial or otherwise deemed by a court to be a danger to themselves or others, federal health care privacy rules prohibited doctors and other providers from sharing information without the consent of their patients.
Under the rule, which takes effect next month, for the first time health providers can disclose the information to the background check system without legal repercussions.
“The disclosure is restricted to limited demographic and certain other information needed for NICS purposes,” the rule states.
So when you use your ObamaCare insurance to get free mental health treatment, the doctor will report you to the FBI.
This should work out nicely. Thanks, Big Government!
The White House released a fact-sheet Jan. 4 which previews the executive gun control Obama will unveil Tuesday and one aspect of the new controls is the inclusion of “information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm.” . . .
According to the White House executive order preview:
Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.
Now, if only they could ban these kooks from Tumblr . . .
This rule essentially disincentivizes the seeking of mental health treatment. https://t.co/wfFNs8YBs4
One of the things I notice while searching feminist Tumblr accounts is the high level of support for Bernie Sanders. This wouldn’t seem to make sense — shouldn’t feminists support Hillary Clinton? But feminism is a left-wing movement and Sanders is an unapologetic socialist, plus Hillary Clinton has a history of defending “rape culture”:
Hillary Clinton claims to be pro-women, yet has actively worked to ruin lives of so many of them. She’s running on a “feminist platform” — she’s even dared to say that sexual-assault survivors have a “right to be believed” — despite the fact that what she did to the women who accused Bill went far beyond not believing them. She attacked them. When allegations of sexual misconduct emerged during Bill’s 1992 presidential run, she’s reported to have said “Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” Multiple people also report that she called the women “sluts” and “whores” — you know, for daring to be raped. A private investigator named Ivan Duda claims that, after Bill lost his second governor’s race, Hillary told him: “I want you to get rid of all these b****** he’s seeing . . . I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control.”
That’s from Katherine Timpf at National Review, who is definitely not a socialist for Sanders. And I’m neither a socialist nor a feminist, so I certainly can’t advise socialist feminists whom to support. But it is newsworthy, I think, that the Democrats are the party of socialists and feminists. And also, rapists.
Via Instapundit and Don Surber:Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, thinks Her Majesty is hiding a serious health concern, but is setting up Donald Trump.
Let me lay out a few thoughts.
Her Majesty and BHO are bound by Benghazi, though 13 Hours might change that situation.
BHO is concerned about his “legacy” (I’ll wait while you vomit).
Her Majesty only really cares about being sworn in as POTUS. Past the pomp & circumstance, actually carrying out the office could prove a Royal Bore.
She actually has enough health issues to make a full administration problematic.
So:
She ran interference for BHO over Benghazi in 2012, when the truth kryptonite would have wilted Superwimp.
BHO runs legal interference, stifling any proper Benghazi inquiry for her campaing, with the proviso that she permit him to name the VP (Corey Booker? Deval Patrick), who is really going to be the President anyway.
Her majesty enjoys the first 100 days of honeymoon, so that she doesn’t look as bad as William Henry Harrison.
Then she retires for medical reasons, securing the Obama legacy.
Note that this is a Trump-free conspiracy theory. I still maintain that he is a mercenary, building up a large voter base to sell to whoever is writing the fattest check. If Hillary, he goes independent, or takes the GOP nomination and his speeches start giving it the Full Tarantino until the GOP implodes entirely.
If he stays GOP, he can either try to convince enough conservatives that he has a statesman bone somewhere under his ridiculous hairstyle, or just sell his endorsement to another candidate with something like a plausible political style.
The fact is that SJWs are out to disqualify, discredit, and disemploy everyone who does not share their dedication to social justice ideals. . . . Cross them, even inadvertently, and they will attempt to destroy you, your career, and your family.
A Minneapolis City Council member is drawing criticism for what some see as an effort to publicly shame constituents who objected to her involvement in Wednesday’s Black Lives Matter rally at the Mall of America and the airport.
Council Member Alondra Cano, who represents the Ninth Ward, has been accused of “doxing” — posting personal information about people who criticized her for supporting the Black Lives Matter events — on Twitter.
Stephen Dent, who said he had previously contributed to Cano’s campaign, wrote to her and told Cano she was unfit to serve on the council by “closing private property” and “supporting illegal actions.”
Cano then tweeted Dent’s email address and phone number to her roughly 2,000 followers.
“What she did to me and others put a huge chill on our democratic society,” Dent said in a phone interview early Thursday. “It has broken my trust with public officials in the city of Minneapolis.” . . .
Dent said that as a 62 year old gay man he understands discrimination and is sympathetic to the aims of Black Lives Matter but does not believe Cano should have been participating in the protests.
As for posting his cell phone and email address, “I understand the law allows her to do this. But what she did was unethical,” said Dent, who said he is an organizational psychologist and author. He said he has filed an ethics complaint with the city.
