Remember that $11.9 billion that the Obama Administration paid to the Iranian mullahs via that oh-so-spectacular Iranian nuke deal? You remember, the deal that John Kerry and all the other globalist Progressive toadies defended ad nauseum? Do you know what Iran is doing with that money? They are sending it to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas terrorists.
Israeli Defense Forces Military Intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Hertzi Halevi said Wednesday that Iran is funding Hezbollah to the tune of $75 million a year, while paying $50 million towards Hamas’s budget, and approximately $70 million to Islamic Jihad.
At that rate, the Obama Administration - through its payment to the mullahs - will be sustaining these contributions to these terrorist organizations for over fifty years!
These facts, as presented, pose a very serious question. How can anyone from the Obama Administration claim they were engaged in the war against Islamofascist aggression when they have literally funded three of the most potent Islamist terror groups on the planet?
Additionally, why are news organizations -- including FOX News -- employing people from the Obama Administration to provide any kind of argument regarding the issues of the Middle East when everyone signed on to this abhorrent move to fund terrorist organizations? They simply must be seen as plants for the advancement of Islamofascism at this point.
It's time we got away from the constant drone of argumentative journalism anyway. No one learns anything from the fake "debate" set-ups that is currently the formula of every cable news channel. It is time to get back to informative, functionally educational, and investigative journalism that uses established facts as a base.
That said, an expose into the Obama Administration and how their policies benefited the Islamofascist movement would be a grand idea. Don't hold your breath for MSNBC or CNN to move on this idea...
The big wind storm coming from the Progressives and Democrats is that the GOP replacement bill for Obamacare cuts funding for Medicaid. Only in Progressive Washington, DC, can a perpetual increase in taxpayer dollars to an entitlement program be seen a a cut.
The Congressional Budget Office - a suspect group of increasingly inept number crunchers - has determined that Medicaid spending would rise from $393 billion in 2017 to $464 billion in 2026 - that’s a $71 billion, or 18 percent, increase. But it is less than what would be spent on Medicaid under the current Democrat-crafted spendthrift law.
How do these spendthrift reprobates get away with saying we are cutting funding when more of our hard-earned tax dollars are being taken from us to fund these programs? It's because Washington bureaucrats us "baseline budgeting" when figuring the budget.
In a nutshell, "Baseline Budgeting" is an accounting method the United States Federal Government uses to develop a budget for future years. Baseline budgeting uses current spending levels as the 'baseline' for establishing future funding requirements and assumes future budgets will equal the current budget times the inflation rate times the population growth rate."
So, you see, budget increases are already built into the budget. That means that every time these tax-and-spend charlatans say we need tax increases to fund these giveaway programs they are dipping deeper into our pockets.
Why is this necessary? It is necessary because these "do-anything-to-keep-our-jobs" career politicians need to pretend they are doing something to justify their existences and their salaries. So, the have to create laws, and that requires money from us to enact and execute those laws.
Remember Nancy Pelosi's multi-million dollar turtle tunnel project, or the many million dollar studies into subjects so simple Kindergarten students could provide the answer?
If we had to craft budgets from scratch - in a line-item style - in each Congress we would not only have a more efficient expenditure process, we would reduce the tax burden by tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars annually and prevent stupid spending by career politicians trying to justify their existences.
Let's start shedding the light on this scam called "baseline budgeting."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the senior senator from the bankrupt state of Illinois - a state with some of the highest taxes in the United States, took to FOX News Sunday to lecture the nation on why Obamacare and it's tax hikes are better for the nation than new plan for repealing and replacing Obamacare going through the Senate.
We can debate the merits of the newly proposed bill. Personally, I believe it necessary to simply repeal Obamacare in total and then remove all of the industry interference from the Federal government in total, less regulatory authority for safety.
By making health insurance portable over state lines we open up the markets to competition which - by the very nature of Capitalism - forces the lowering of prices across the country.
Further, by eliminating unnecessary Federal bureaucracy in the industry, more revenue is available to the industry for creating non-profit groups (not unlike what Blue Cross and Blue Shield were at their inceptions) that can cater to the pre-existing condition demographic.
But I digress.
As Durbin pontificated about how the new healthcare bill would raise rates, he conveniently dismissed the fact that health insurance premiums under Obamacare have skyrocketed to a significant amount of a household's income, even as access to healthcare has diminished.
This blatant disregard for fiscal truth could only come from someone who helped to destroy Illinois' state economy. With a powerhouse economic engine like Chicago, and a fertile agricultural downstate, Illinois should be thriving. Instead, because of Democrat and Progressive policies of continual tax increases and social spending, the state is literally at the lowest bond rating a state can have, their pensions exist unfunded and the state's economy is dead.
Why, in the name of all that is good in the world, should we even entertain listening the Durbin on anything related to economics? His is the mentality that has led us to a national debt of $19.956 trillion and - more importantly - an unfunded mandate of $106.584 trillion.
I don't care how much you want to do good by others, racking up this kind of debt in the name of a social safety net is insane. It is burning down the house.
The GOP won two special election -- one in Georgia, another in South Carolina -- to hold on to two seats vacated by Executive Branch appointments. Now the elections are over and the Republicans own the Congress and the White House. Now what?
So far we haven't seen the repeal of Obamacare. We haven't seen tax reform. We haven't seen the promised border wall or immigration policy reform. We haven't even seen the launch of a Federal investigation into the DNC or the Clinton Foundation, let alone an investigation into Hillary Clinton's abuse of intelligence clearances. We gave them what Republicans said they needed to effectively govern and so far we haven't seen any governing; no reforms, no getting the country back to good.
Lest I need to remind everyone, soon the political creatures in the Legislative Branch will have to -- once again -- put the job of governing on the back burner to run for re-election again. That means more promises without any action on following through on those promises.
The GOP is in a very ugly situation. They need to make good on each and every promise made during every campaign since the passage of Obamacare and they have scant time to do it.
Perhaps it is time for them to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time. While they navigate the bullsh*t investigations of the Progressive Left -- investigations meant to do exactly what they are doing, run out the clock until the mid-terms, they must start achieving goals and keeping promises...pronto!
If they do not, the GOP will be hobbled, possible beyond repair, and the nation will be doomed to Progressivism. That will deliver to us the demise of the Republic.
Along the Charleston, SC, coast is a beached boat commonly referred to as the Folly Boat. It was beached there during Hurricane Hugo and has become a sort of landmark. Now anti-Confederate Flag activists want it re-branded.
The self-centered mindset of those who take offense to the Virginia battle flag - commonly referred to as the "Confederate Flag" - sees only one aspect of history: slavery. Of course, anyone with even a cursory understanding of history understands that the VBF has so much more to its meaning.
While slavery was injected into the US Civil War, it was not the main reason for the secession of the South. The main reasons were economic-based and had to do with the sovereignty of the individual states, i.e. state's rights.
The VBF also represents the 260,000 lives lost on the Confederate side alone. Many more were wounded, maimed and otherwise scarred by the war. The economy of the South was devastated, but under the idea of "the South will rise again," the South rebuilt and now prospers, some say better than many of the industrial centers in the North.
The point is, that by the activists' actions, they are erasing a critical and legitimate party of American history and facilitating the re-branding of the truth of history with a false-narrative meant to skew the accuracy of history, all for the sake of "feelings."
"Feelings," or the intent not to hurt anyone's feelings, cannot trump the truth of history. And each time an activist erases the VBF; each time they remove a monument to the truth of history or a historical figure, they are doing exactly what the Islamic State does when they destroy ancient artifacts they believe present an affront to their idea of religion.
History must stand, regardless of feelings. It is the only way we can continue to learn from the past.
Even as the embarrassment known as Terry McAuliffe tried to inject "gun control" into the Left's narrative, the shooting at the Republican's practice for a congressional baseball game presented with all the earmarks of a politically motivated event.
FOX News reported that Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), who left just before the shooting, said as he walked to his car, a man asked him if it was Republicans or Democrats practicing. About 3 minutes later the shooting began. If DeSantis identifies the shooter as the man who approached him then this is a politically motivated assassination attempt.
We have come to the point in our political discourse where the Left's speech - their slash and burn, win-at-all-cost, advance the false narrative to motivate anger and hate rhetoric - is moving people to murder. This is the stuff that promotes division to the point of Civil War.
Should the motivation for this event prove to indeed be political in nature - and if it proves out that the shooter intentionally meant to target Republicans for political purposes - then the Left, both Democrats and Progressives, must accept the full burden of responsibility for this man's actions. It has been the constant drip, drip, drip of Alinsky-based slash-and-burn political strategy that has fractured our people to this point.
If, indeed, these were the first shots of the Second US Civil War, it is Democrats and Progressives who have delivered us to this moment.
We like to say that we are in the information age. We point to the Internet and claim that anyone with even cursory technical skills can find anything on the Internet. But when it comes down to critical issues like the attack in Manchester by Islamofascist barbarians this claim doesn't hold water.
Michelle Malkin writes a particularly poignant piece about having a truthful, fact-based video short on her YouTube channel banned by the Progressive moderators at YouTube. She contrasts that with YouTube allowing for grotesque hate being spewed forth by Islamofascists like Ahmad Musa Jibril, "whose bloodthirsty rants." Malkin writes, "against non-Muslims reportedly inspired the London Bridge ringleader."
My original publication, The New Media Journal, suffered a similar fate via a banning from Google News and, eventually, the whole of the Google search platform. Our crime: explaining what "jihad" meant and giving examples. They called it "hate speech."
Yet, ISIS abuses the Internet through both platforms and barbarians like Jibril have a hateful presence on YouTube...countered by banned videos.
The First Amendment was meant to keep the government from infringing on the citizenry's right to free speech; our right to redress government. Since the Framer's days the "free speech" right has expanded. But in recent times, Progressives have concocted "hate speech" and created laws to censor speech.
Behemoths like Google, and through their ownership YouTube, have taken to censoring speech on their platforms based on their political ideology. They get to do this because they are not mandated by the First Amendment to grant the public free speech rights.
Something has to change. The information highway is patrolled by the censorship police. The Nazis were as bad.
Redefining what it is to blame someone else for your arrogant stupidity, Kathy Griffin - lawyer in tow - had the self-centered audacity to say that the President "broke her" because he protested her stunt as "sick."
Truly, there is something sick about mocking someone - president or otherwise - by holding up a replica of his or her severed head. But the larger question here is this. How did Griffin believe that the photo stunt was funny in the first place? What was funny about it?
Griffin hides behind the absurd notion that what she was attempting was comedic, but what is comedic about holding up a replica of a severed head? What was the joke?
This is a question no one who is defending her cares to answer. They may say it was a bad joke, but they defend her by saying she is a comedian who may have gone too far. But again, can anyone - anyone - explain to me how holding a replica of a severed head has a punch line?
No, it wasn't a joke, it was a political statement meant to capture the attention of the hateful Hollywood Left. It was a "look at me! I'm relevant!" moment that Griffin manufactured to help her failing career. It backfired.
Griffin may have been amusing years and years ago, but she has turned into an angry, spent, ideological malcontent who advances hate under the guise of comedy. Bottom line: Trump didn't "break her", she ruined her own career. She ain't funny, she's pathetic.
In one of the most self-centered and bizarre claims made in modern political history, Hillary Clinton says she was a "victim of an assumption" she would win the 2016 General Election.
In pointing the finger of blame for her loss and every person and/or entity that she could think of, Clinton spun the narrative that because everyone thought she was going to win, nothing was as it should have been.
“I was the victim of a very broad assumption that I was going to win,” she said on stage at a recent California tech conference.
One seldom sees such an insane level of arrogance. I thought that the Greek columns at Barack Obama's DNC coronation were ostentatious but Hillary Clinton's insistence that her loss was anyones and anythings fault but her own is beyond the definition.
As the Clinton clan begins to restructure how they want to continue to screw the people, the country and the world for their own personal wealth and aggrandizement (don't look now but Chelsea, the wholly unqualified and inexperienced daughter of the dynamic duo is being prepped in the media for a run at something), the only thing that is certain is that Democrats would be incredibly wise to exorcise these demons from their purview while expunging Progressives of all walks of life from their party.