“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” Confucius
George Rebane
Since Turkey’s Erdogan most recently explained to the world of infidels – “Islam is Islam, there are no modifiers. Democracy is the train we ride to our ultimate objective.” – more and more articles now appear expanding on that truth by quoting leaders from America’s Muslim communities. One by Scott Richert is ‘Islam, Period’.
Pew Research has shown that the maturing seeds of Islamic terror are already among us. This we have reported before; however, the scope of the problem is something that expands as we understand the numbers and suffer the growing intensity of the so-called lone wolf attacks. Pew also reports on the insularity of Muslim communities that makes it difficult/impossible for so-called moderate Muslims to report any insipient radicalization of their members. From attitudinal surveys the population of potentially radicalizeable American Muslims today is about one in five adults. At a population of 2.75-3M, this yields a cohort of potential terrorists among us that numbers in the hundreds of thousands. And from this heating cauldron of hate we have no idea who or where the next Islamist will decide to do Allah’s will.
Social scientists tell us that historically it takes only 5% of true believers in some socio-political cause to destabilize an entire population. Fewer, if they become militants.
Progressive mantra, ‘Will trade liberty for peace.’
Daily terror - the drumbeat of terror is picking up the pace – in the last 24 hours an elderly French priest holding mass was decapitated in front of his congregation by two terrorists. An attending nun is fighting for her life. While in Berlin a physician was killed by a patient whose ethnic identity is still being kept a secret.
Ever wonder how the Democrats can spout the fantastic job that Obama has done with the economy (‘everything is already great’) from one side of their mouths, while from the other side they concurrently appeal for votes so that they can implement their plan to fix the stubbornly poor economy? Answer: such contradictions are invisible to their constituents.
[28jul16 update] The WSJ tells us “The next U.S. president will confront a deeply unsettled world”, and then goes on to compare the candidates’ foreign policy positions without making clear that only one candidate had a direct hand in deeply unsettling the world which, in the interval, she now claims to have learned to resettle. (more here)
[29jul16 update] When they venture into numbers, economists continually demonstrate themselves to be clueless about how economies operate. Even when they stay in the safe arena of rhetoric, they have to cover their butts with their notorious ‘… on the other hand’ pabulum fully adorned with tautological conditionals that a ten-year-old can generate. ‘Unemployment is expected to grow unless, of course, if interest rates go up then we may have a problem.’ Now what in hell are you supposed to do with that kind of horse manure?
But with numbers they really show themselves to be totally naked and unarmed. This January economists predicted annual GDP growth to finally spring back to the 3% level, thereby giving Obama some cover that his administration finally knew what they were doing in managing this recovery. No joy. With 1Q16 growth at 1.6%, and today we hear that 2Q16 came in at 1.2%, then each of the remaining two quarters will have to deliver 4.6% for the predicted annual 3% growth to be realized. Anybody wanna bet even their pocket change that this will happen? And what’s more amazing is that these people get hired by banks, big companies, and government bureaus for good salaries.
I’m not familiar with any other profession that stands still for such poor performance from their professionals. Well, maybe the so-called climate scientists peddling AGW hysteria. Neither group has computer models that are worth a warm bucket of spit.
[3aug16 update] By now everyone has heard of our $400M ransom payment in small bills delivered to Iran in an unmarked brown paper airplane. And the cover story comes from an arcane, dusty, and long-forgotten larder that's just chuck full of many more like it, all ready made to handle future payments. But the most remarkable thing is that they really believe we believe them. More here.
Perhaps "Dozer" can weigh in on the latest USC/LA Times poll results
http://96.127.53.23/election/
Looks like the GOP bounce is continuing.
Posted by: Gregory | 27 July 2016 at 05:39 AM
"Social scientists tell us that historically it takes only 5% of true believers in some socio-political cause to destabilize an entire population. Fewer, if they become militants."
You can get your t-shirts here,
http://www.gadsdenandculpeper.com/three-percenter-tshirts.html
Posted by: BradC | 27 July 2016 at 07:46 AM
I draw your kind attention to the 27jul16 update of 'Convention Capers 2016 - Democrat' here -
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2016/07/convention-capers-2016-democrat.html
Posted by: George Rebane | 27 July 2016 at 10:19 AM
Howdy....long time no snark! Just a quick drive by to leave the recently released list of crooked journalists of the infamous "Journolist"
(Since nobody clicks on links I've included the whole list.....play along and see how many "democrats with bylines" you can identify!)
Didn't see jeffys name....guess nobody needed coffee.
Posted by: fish | 27 July 2016 at 02:49 PM
fish 249pm - Welcome back Mr fish!
Posted by: George Rebane | 27 July 2016 at 03:11 PM
If Hillary is SOOOOoooo great, how come this guy is about to lose his shirt?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/these-vendors-at-the-democratic-convention-dont-see-much-enthusiasm-for-clinton/2016/07/28/feacaa96-54db-11e6-b652-315ae5d4d4dd_video.html
Posted by: Walt | 28 July 2016 at 08:47 PM
Remember this next time jeffy, or JoKey, or Dougie, or Stevie tells you that the democrats only want "common sense" gun regulation.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/07/foghorn/breaking-obama-issues-executive-order-may-drive-gunsmiths-business/
Posted by: fish | 29 July 2016 at 01:15 PM
fish 115pm - Thanks for that pick-up Mr fish. That socialists are natural liars is a truth with a century of evidence in its trail. As we have observed for years on RR, the socialist central planners cannot tolerate populations that cannot be reliably controlled. There is no need to repeal the 2nd Amendment when you can constructively abrogate it by denying law abiding citizens the peripherals - ammunition, weapon capacity, accessories, facile weapon functioning, purchase/exchange restrictions, transport/storage restrictions, places to shoot, ... - which essentially makes the gun owner a criminal when he wishes to reasonably use and dispose of his firearm.
And the liberal liars continue pushing through those stifling restrictions on the pretense of 'gun safety' and preventing 'gun violence', none of which is achieved. And their double dummy constituents will gladly exchange liberty for security whenever such a 'trade' is offered. No terrorist or criminal is inconvenienced by any of it, but only those who love the echoes of what once was a United States now being carefully wiped from our collective memory.
PS. Mr fish, you again forgot to terminate your 'bold' text with the HTML end delimiter. I again fixed it for you, and wish I could send you a bill every time you do it ;-)
Posted by: George Rebane | 29 July 2016 at 01:35 PM
I lied. I am back. Topic is in here somewhere.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pu5_m2PHIZg
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 29 July 2016 at 04:22 PM
Why am I not surprised that a socialist state would reinstitute the corvee'.....
corvée
ˈkôrˌvā,kôrˈvā/
noun: historical
a day's unpaid labor owed by a vassal to his feudal lord.
forced labor exacted in lieu of taxes, in particular that on public roads.
Any of our progressive (read socialist) lurkers want to weigh in on how Venezuela isn't really socialist. That if they only had "true socialists" then everything would be going along swimmingly......Ben....JoKe.....anyone.....hello.....this thing on ?
Posted by: fish | 29 July 2016 at 06:39 PM
PS. Mr fish, you again forgot to terminate your 'bold' text with the HTML end delimiter. I again fixed it for you, and wish I could send you a bill every time you do it ;-)
You could do that George....but much like proper pairing of HTML style commands I'm sure I'd just forget to remit those payments too.
Posted by: fish | 29 July 2016 at 06:41 PM
Back to Turkey. A NATO country as well as the home of the next new caliphate??? Let's see what Nigel was saying before the coup and Briexit.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wbXdDJ3phu0
.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 30 July 2016 at 01:32 AM
.....HILLARY...HILLARY.....HILLARY...HILLARY.....HILLARY...HILLARY.....HILLARY...HILLARY!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/29/1554022/-Election-Justice-USA-Study-Finds-that-Without-Election-Fraud-Sanders-Would-Have-Won-by-Landslide
.....and from an unimpeachable source!
Posted by: fish | 30 July 2016 at 02:01 PM
Well....it doesn't appear as though they "will be leaving as good friends" in Wales!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1528756/hundreds-of-syrians-in-uk-arrested-over-string-of-offences-including-rape-and-child-abuse/
Posted by: fish | 30 July 2016 at 08:15 PM
fish 815pm - I think now would be the appropriate time for our progressive thinkers to explain (politically correctly of course) how we should value all cultures equally. But I think their standard response to reality will again be crickets.
Posted by: George Rebane | 30 July 2016 at 09:37 PM
The Khans are the Khans and Crooked Hillary is the Left.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438536/immigration-religious-test-constitution-does-not-ban-vetting-immigrants-religion
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 01 August 2016 at 06:52 AM
Like Cindy Sheehan, the Khans get a kid gloves treatment by much of the media for political reasons. No, the Constitution does not say what Mr. Khan thinks it does.
I'd have asked Khan... point to the text in the Constitution that he thinks makes his point. Presidents have wide latitude when it comes to vetting potential immigrants, and there's good reason to stem the flow from areas that are hotbeds of radical Islamism, as radical Islamists are enemies of any open society and sharia is incompatible with Western jurisprudence.
Let's also remember neither the Sheehan or the Khan who died for their country are the ones speaking when their parent's lips are moving. Mr.Khan is flinging political mud into the fan and should expect to get dirty.
Posted by: Gregory | 01 August 2016 at 07:22 AM
Once a person takes their personal story into the debate of politics, no matter the reason, then they are a proper target for response and motive. Trump was correct when he said why can't he respond to their attacks? The PC lib press usually tries their best to destroy those they dislike when they respond. So most don't respond which emboldens the press and its adherents. The Kahns lost a son. We all feel terrible about that. However politically Trump opposed the Iraq War. And since the Khans are from Pakistan, I would expect them to ask for the release of the Doctor languishing in a Pakistani jail. The Doctor gave the information that helped find OBL. Obama and Clinton never tried to get the poor bastard out. Another failure for Clinton.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 01 August 2016 at 07:50 AM
Here is a current news story on the Doctor.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/02/doctor-who-helped-cia-track-bin-laden-still-languishes-in-pakist/
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 01 August 2016 at 07:52 AM
"The PC lib press " Wow! you apparently can fool some of the people all of the time. The liberal bias myth has been debunked so many times that only die hard ideologues still believe it to be true. All of the major media outlets (i.e.. the lamestream press) are controlled/owned by politically conservative billionaires. Do you think for one minute they would use such a powerful tool as the media to attack their own self interests and investments? They didn't become billionaires (i.e.. in most cases "not squander their inheritance") by shooting themselves in the head. They will, however, shoot themselves in the foot now and then just to make it look good.
Posted by: Robert Cross | 01 August 2016 at 10:22 AM
Three things, media related.
A) Genghis Khan. The religious test is unconstitutional only if applies to those seeking elected office, like running for POTUS. Constitutional as it applies to immigration and refugee policy. The fact that Khan pulled out the Constitution, waved it in front of a national audience at the Whaternameless Convention, asking Mr. Trump IF he has ever read the Constitution of the United States of America is not the bigger issue. The bigger issue is the MSM did not lift a finger to fact check it. My new theme is that journalist are a product of our liberal run schools, thus they never where taught to question why, they simple do or die.
B). Trump will strike back and defend himself like a street brawler. That was stupid. He just should have ignored what a soldier's dad had to say, albeit it was a very powerful message sent to the deafening applause at the Liberal Marxist Globist Pep Rally. Donald, let it ride. You have no defenders to rush to your side. Well, I suppose I would rather have a Street Fighting Man than a full blown Crook. Trump, stupid move, live and learn.
Pivot, Donald, pivot. Hit policies and principles, not no name personalities like Khan and bad generals. The only personality you have worry about is Hillary Rotten Clinton.
C). It's back to Trump against the world. The media eating out of his hand is over. The primary horse race has been settled and the NYT and all MSM are back to 100% in for Hillary. The RNC does not have your back. The media will find the needle in the haystack of evidence to focus on and ignore the pile of facts, points, and skew the focal point every future statement or speech. It's down to the voters again which is where we want to be.
We have no vocal friends. We are rising out of Tea Party collation, out of disenchanted voters, out of those how cry out for some common sense in government, out of those who say we are tired of having our country hijacked by Globalists and shit for brains in the Ivy Covered Halls of Academia Government. They demonized us before they demonized you. The silent ones got your back. Hope it is enough.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 01 August 2016 at 10:34 AM
RoberC 1022am - Apparently you are unfamiliar with the extensive published data on the mainstream media (aka the lamestream), and that the only ones in firm denial of it are the less-read liberals. A large faction of liberal intellectuals acknowledge and celebrate that bias. As evidence I again submit the historical popularity of the right-leaning Fox News among both the Right and Left. But to really put a dent in your remarkable knowledge base, just google 'liberal media bias'.
With regard to the corporatist media ownership, we hearken back to the words of Vladimir Ilyich - "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."
Posted by: George Rebane | 01 August 2016 at 10:57 AM
Dr. Rebane @ 10:57
Did Valdie plagiarize Marx, or was it the other way around? :)
Karl Marx
“The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/2293-the-last-capitalist-we-hang-shall-be-the-one-who
That quote has been going through my mind for 3 days. Thank you Good Doctor for posting it. Bummer for you, man. Having the same thoughts as Bill Tozer is like living next door to a junk yard dog in a bad neighborhood. :).
The reason that quote has been circling about in my squirrel cage is because that quote is spot on in view of the Obama-Clinton Islamic immigration policy, Turkey wanting to join the EU, and considering Turkey may become the next quasi-Caliphate:
To plaragiarize Marx, "The last infidel we hang shall be the last one who sold us the rope."
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 01 August 2016 at 11:36 AM
Re: Daily Terror?
This article (and other stories about this same exact non-event) has been banned from Facebook over the weekend as being "anti-Islamic". Articles blocked, FB accounts posting it have been suspended.
Trigger warnings galore. Run to your safe places!
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2016/07/24/breaking-more-islamic-horror-in-germany-as-syrian-muslim-refugee-21-hacks-pregnant-woman-to-death-in-the-street-and-injures-two-others/
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 01 August 2016 at 12:26 PM
Repost from Scattershots:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/khan-specializes-in-visa-programs-accused-of-selling-u.s.-citizenship/article/2598279
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 01 August 2016 at 12:56 PM
George 10:57 -- My point is that it is in the best interests of the monied class that owns and supports the lame stream to have people think the media is biased left because doing so moves the range of discussion to the right.
Posted by: Robert Cross | 01 August 2016 at 01:14 PM
BillT 1136am - In modern times the quote has been attributed to Vlad, but that doesn't mean that he didn't reissue it from a more ancient source.
RobertC 114pm - Given the fierce fight for audiences and corresponding ad revenues, this interpretation flies in the face the billionaires shooting themselves in the head. Moreover, I draw your attention to how little patience they have with liberal talk show hosts, all of whom have a record of crashing and burning when their audience numbers come in. Apparently there is no tolerance for allowing them to disseminate unprofitable collectivism.
Posted by: George Rebane | 01 August 2016 at 01:38 PM
Re: Daily Terror.
While you were sleeping last night....
Those eligible for TPS include any Syrian illegal immigrants who have managed to sneak into or remain in the U.S. beyond their visa expirations over the past four years.
TPS is intended to be humanitarian relief for those whose home countries face a massive natural disaster or war that makes returning both dangerous for the individual, and a potential burden for the home country’s government.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/1/dhs-grants-syrians-special-protections-us/
Q: By what authority did Jeh J order this????
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 01 August 2016 at 02:49 PM
"I draw your attention to how little patience they have with liberal talk show hosts, all of whom have a record of crashing and burning when their audience numbers come in. Apparently there is no tolerance for allowing them to disseminate unprofitable collectivism."
Doesn't this lack of tolerance and patience for leftist talk shows then skew the presentation to the right? Talk radio is virtually solid right. How can one claim a liberal bias on talk radio or Fox news? When main stream media is compared to talk radio and Fox it definitely appears to be biased left. However, when one recognizes how far to the right talk radio and Fox are the mainstream, which I consider to be center/right (i.e.. pro multinational corporate), then looks very left. It's like a football field with the 50 yard line moved right to the 30. It appears to be biased left except when one realizes that the middle ground has been moved right.
Posted by: Robert Cross | 02 August 2016 at 09:58 AM
RobertC 958am - And here the rest of us think that the middle ground has been moved left. Oh well.
But as to your point - you seem to confuse talk shows with news broadcasts and group discussion programs shown mostly in the morning. Talk shows are the realm of the singular political pundit who interprets the world's goings on for his audience, and in the process compares/contrasts the workings of ideologically based policies compared to his own ideology and the ideas/positions he derives from it.
It is the exposure of such comparisons that drives away audiences from leftwing talkers because, frankly, when examined in detail, collectivist rationale collapses under its own weight. The cohort of leftwing thinkers who tune in sense they are being intellectually bamboozled. They find no sustenance for their cherished beliefs and they tune out to continue their futile search for some more substantial mooring for their intellect.
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 August 2016 at 10:20 AM
.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/01/msnbc-host-shouts-down-guest-for-saying-that-33000-of-hillarys-e-mails-are-missing/
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 02 August 2016 at 10:25 AM
Cross 9:58
NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSLSD, NY Times, LA Times, Frisco Chronicle, PBS, NPR. I'd argue they are the essential major media in the country and they all have a solid left-liberal Democratic Party bias.
Left leaning talk radio has failed virtually every time it's been tried, but there are essential differences between Radio and TV... station by station, town by town, programs live and die by audience share.
Posted by: Gregory | 02 August 2016 at 10:26 AM
Have you considered that talk radio in general attracts a particular demographic, ie. not everyone listens to talk radio. It could be that liberal thinkers simply do not listen to the radio and thus talk shows directed toward this demographic won't be successfully executed due to lack of audience, not content.
Posted by: Robert Cross | 02 August 2016 at 10:45 AM
Old, white conservatives listen to AM radio--that's why Rush Limbaugh and his ilk thrive in that environment.
As for Republicans staying home for Hillary, the why can be found in today's Trummp editorial in the WSJ and Bret Stephens' column.
Posted by: George Boardman | 02 August 2016 at 10:56 AM
How can you say the middle ground has moved left when the EPA, title IX, and the consumer protection agency, just to name a few, all came from NIXON? These would not be put forth by any Republican today. My hypothesis stands.
Posted by: Robert Cross | 02 August 2016 at 10:57 AM
GeorgeB 1056am - Ah yes, you trundle out the discredited class to bolster your argument. But what has that observation got to do with why liberal talk radio sucks so uniformly, no matter whether it's on AM or FM? No advertisers can be found to sponsor such content.
RobertC 1057am - You traffic in the most curious elements of proof Mr Cross. If those are the best that can support your hypothesis, then we must note them as offered and move on.
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 August 2016 at 12:02 PM
Anyone listening to the lamestream media's interviews this week? If anyone had a doubt of the leftwing bias and anti-Republican makeup of the press, this dust-up about Mr. Khan is it. Hillary Clinton calls Patricia Smith a liar about their meeting over the casket of her son. Clinton lied through her teeth about his death and Smith called her out on it. Juxtapose the press belittling Smith and her loss with the Khan attacks on Trump. One minute of press for Smith and 54 minutes for the Khans. Hmmm. The press can't get enough of Khan and his wife as they fawn over them simply for attacking Trump. The same press argues with Ms. Smith regarding her loss. Pathetic. The press in America is corrupt and people are moving to other forms of information supply. The rise of FOX News, the popularity of Rush Limbaugh and other radio hosts is something the lamestreams don't understand. America is a divided country ideologically. So the lamestream media has made their choice for the half they want. But the people that buy the papers and have the cable TV contracts are on the other side of the political spectrum. These relentless lamestream attacks on Trump can backfire. If one wants to read and listen how the press parses and misinterprets Trump, just listen to his answers to their questions. Then listen to their analysis. The Khan fiasco is the latest. I listened to his words and then watched as the press took them and manipulated them to suit their scenario. Like I was always told. Never believe what you read and only half of what you see. Amazing.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 02 August 2016 at 12:16 PM
Administrivia - re the Khans, I call your attention to the 2aug16 update to Scattershots.
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 August 2016 at 12:21 PM
The Khan story has legs because Trump fired back, and the Smith story died because Hillary kept her mouth shut. Trump STILL wont' back off--the guy is hopeless.
Aside from Khan, Trump has said in recent days the debates are rigged, the election may be rigged, and Hillary is the devil. Then his tossed a woman out of one of his rallies because her baby was crying, and sent a complimentary tweet to Paul Ryan's primary opponent.
We may be witnessing the total meltdown of a candidate.
Posted by: George Boardman | 02 August 2016 at 01:29 PM
GeorgeB 129pm - Hard to disagree with any of that Mr Boardman, save the codicil that the media leans just a wee bit more toward Hillary than The Donald.
Now other than that, please tell us why you will be voting for Mrs Clinton, if you will.
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 August 2016 at 02:25 PM
Posted by: George Boardman | 02 August 2016 at 01:29 PM
We may be witnessing the total meltdown of a candidate.
I would have disagreed with this statement save for a few brief instances earlier but he really needs to learn (I guess at this point it's likely too late) some self control.
To lose an election to Hillary Clinton.....ugh....that's weak!
(Of course another spectacular terrorist incident either here or Europe and Trump will be able to slap the baby, have sex with its mother, and have Paul Ryan killed and still eke out a victory!)
Posted by: fish | 02 August 2016 at 03:07 PM
For me, the election comes down to the lesser of two evils. For all of her faults (and she has plenty), Clinton is not a sociopath, as Bret Stephens pointed out in his WSJ column today.
As much as I disliked the policies of Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan, I never worried that one of them would use the nuclear option in a fit of rage. I don't have the same confidence in Trump--it is too easy to goad him into doing something stupid.
I don't get any joy watching principled conservatives squirm every time Trump shoots himself in the foot. If William F. Buckley, Jr. is watching this from Heaven (and he'd be the most surprised if he isn't there!), he would be at a loss for words for one time in his life.
At this point, it doesn't appear the Democrats can regain either house of Congress. If Hillary is elected, she will have to work with Republicans to get anything done. Maybe she can play Bill and Paul Ryan can play Newt, and they can actually work together to bring about some sensible changes.
Posted by: George Boardman | 02 August 2016 at 03:26 PM
Donald just needs his diapers changed. Screw 'em all. Even if I had five votes, Hillary would still carry Blue California. I'll gladly waste my vote on Johnson, who seems relatively sane compared to the others.
Posted by: rl crabb | 02 August 2016 at 03:37 PM
Hillary Clinton is truly a sociopath. Listen to her interview with Wallace. The woman is a pathological liar and I think she would hit the red button. My goodness, liberals are so partisan and blind it is shocking. Even those "educated" ones. America is screwed if she gets the nod. I'll take a big mouth business guy or gal over a lifetime politician and thief. My goodness, she allowed Russia to gain control of 80% od America's uranium! Old white liberals like Boardman scare the hell out of the young.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 02 August 2016 at 03:40 PM
Posted by: George Boardman | 02 August 2016 at 03:26 PM
Clinton is not a sociopath......
I'm not sure that Mr. Stephens assessment of the democrat nominee is a valid one. If she's not a sociopath than what pray tell is she?
Todd makes reference to the Chris Wallace interview where she clearly bends reality to suit her crass political narrative.....a testament to just what utter dunderheads her supporters are.
Posted by: fish | 02 August 2016 at 04:01 PM
Boardman, I agree with Bret Stephens... Hill isn't a sociopath but she's arguably an intelligent psychopath
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath
The constant lies, the politics of personal destruction (a wonderfully clever application of Machiavelli's The Prince), running interference for Bill's, um, addiction... all fits.
If Trump were somehow given to homicidal rages, I suspect he'd have killed a few people by now, he could well afford it and knows enough Teamsters to get connected with a Wise Guy if he wanted... I'd personally rather have Trump with the button rather than Hillary not that either are my presidential druthers.
Regarding your call for Trump to apologize, the entire Khan debacle is now winding down; Obama has shot his wad asking Republicans to remove him from the ticket and Khan's motivations have become clear: he's a lawyer with a practice that smooths the way for wealthy muslims to immigrate with green cards, just add cash, with the embarrassing website now taken down. In addition, the law firm he previously worked at handles Clinton Foundation taxes. O, what a tangled web we weave!
It's also very clear there is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's call for a temporary moratorium of Muslim immigrants, especially from the countries Khan gets his customers. This was a setup from the beginning.
We do have freedom of speech, and outside of court, Khan probably has as much right to lie about the Constitution as Hillary does, though Hill did flunk the DC Bar Exam, keeping that fact hidden for 30 years so she might not know.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/barexam.asp
Posted by: Gregory | 02 August 2016 at 04:34 PM
Well mr fish if not a sociopath then all that is left is psychopath. The only difference is the sociopath knows they are doing wrong and don't care, the psychopath thinks they are just fine and correct. Is there any difference in outcomes? Not a bit. ;-)
Posted by: Don Bessee | 02 August 2016 at 04:43 PM
Remember the bit in the intro's for Hillary at the convention... she could have gotten a job anywhere but chose to practice in Arkansas? Think maybe she'd have taken a job at a DC 501c3 had she managed to pass the Bar?
Posted by: Gregory | 02 August 2016 at 05:14 PM
I am curious why any one you think we won't take Ryan out and drive a stake through his heart in November. Do you guys know something I don't know? Ryan is on the priority list above Clinton. The forces that joined together to reelect/ win the recall against Scott Walker vs the millions of out of state union and DNC and Soros money are now being redirected to kill Paul Ryan and drag his body down nine miles of bad road. He is the most hated Pubber in America. Public Enemy #1.
What I am alarmed about at this stage is the full attack by the Establishment RINO machine to go after Tea Party types in Congress. A little redder than red farmland district in Kansas with a R congressman who sleeps on a cot in his DC office suddenly is facing a RINO challenge by a multi-millionaire who is self funding with the full backing of the US Chamber of Congress and other huge corporate interests that backed Jeb and Mitt. This is starting to happen all over the place: RINO machine verses incumbent "tea party types" in red districts. They want their Establishment back.
Just saying.....a lot going on in the power struggle besides Globalist Hillary against Put America First Trump. Nobody but nobody will go softly into the still dark night. Hillary won't go quietly....she will be screeching all the way to her Beelzebub lair. Last time the dragged her out of the White House she left claw marks on the drapery and all the way across the hardwood floors to the back door.
It don't come easy and they won't go easy.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 02 August 2016 at 06:02 PM
Ryan:
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/08/02/nehlen-calls-paul-ryan-soulless-globalist/
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 02 August 2016 at 07:19 PM
More Ryan
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/meet-the-republican-trying-to-oust-paul-ryan/
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 02 August 2016 at 07:47 PM
Anybody remember who it was that quoted high corporate earnings as another indicator of this wonderful economy?
Posted by: George Rebane | 02 August 2016 at 09:40 PM
Speaking of manifestly unfit for office, 0 transferred $400,000,000.00 in cash to IRAN!?!?!? Why wouldn't they do a transfer to a bank account? I can only think that it just saves the mullahs from having to money launder it before giving it to nuclear proliferation assistants and terrorists.
Posted by: Don Bessee | 02 August 2016 at 09:51 PM
Were I a Republican using Democratic tactics, I might follow the 9:51PM question with a musing about the Immigration Law offices of Khizr Khan wanting cash.
Too much for a Khan job?
No, I don't think losing a son in national service 12 years earlier gives anyone carte blanche to throw political stink bombs or misrepresent the Constitution, the latter being an affront to Harvard Law, Khan's alma mater. I feel sorry for the memory of Captain Khan, whose memory and heroism has been cashed in for partisan and monetary gain by mom and dad.
In the meantime, crickets from Clinton supporters regarding her dissing the families of the Benghazi dead ... " I don’t hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not fully recall everything that was or wasn’t said." No ill will towards the families of the dead, how special.
Here's some of what Hill and O said over the flag draped coffins
I heard something about a terrible video... do you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSooz2wXpes
Here's a flash from the past... split screen at a Congressional hearing on Benghazi... Trey Gowdy on the left, Sec'y Clinton on the right. Try listening to Gowdy while watching Clinton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxpJvrclIfM
Posted by: Gregory | 03 August 2016 at 08:06 AM