Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Possibly the Only Thing Bill Maher Ever Said That I Agree With

Col. Allen West wrote recently:
The only aspect of Obama’s presidency we can consider “strong” and “effective” is in paving a path for Donald Trump’s meteoric rise.  Trump’s popularity is seen by many as a direct rebuke to the past seven years and a reflection of widespread anger.

One of the few issues Bill Maher has been right on, going against his fellow liberals, is his criticism of radical Islam.  The regressive left refuses to criticize Islam under any circumstances, and that’s why Bill Maher believes Donald Trump is going to take the presidency this November.
Col. West then went on to quote Bill Maher, who said,
Forty countries in the world have some version of Sharia law.  I just don’t understand how liberals who fought the battle for civil rights in the ’60s, fought against apartheid in the ’80s, can then just simply ignore Sharia law in 40 countries.  Apartheid was only in one.  I am not anti-Muslim and never have been: I am anti-bad ideas.  Killing cartoonists and apostates, these are terrible ideas and practices, and it would be lovely to think that they were confined only to terrorists.  They unfortunately are not.

Not to be an “I told ya so,” but when the Syrian refugee crisis happened, I said, “Certainly our hearts go out to these refugees, but the answer can’t be to empty Syria and every other country in the Middle East where people live under repressive conditions and bring them all to Europe.”  Now Sweden is sending 80,000 refugees back and German Chancellor Angela Merkel is saying, “Hey, when we said you could come here, we didn’t mean permanently.”

Rather than letting them settle in Germany, these millions of young Muslim men, how about let’s train them to go back and fight for their own country?  That’s another one of my issues — the soft bigotry of low expectations.  How come Saudi Arabia didn’t take in any Syrian refugees?  I would think they’d fit in there a little more than in Cologne.  Why don’t they fight their own battles?  Why are Muslim armies so useless against ISIS?  ISIS isn’t 10 feet tall.  There are 20,000 or 30,000 of them.  The countries surrounding ISIS have armies totaling 5 million people.  So why do we have to be the ones leading the fight?  Or be in the fight at all?

So no, Donald Trump is not right — but he will win the election if the American people have to choose between his demagoguery and a party that won’t even say the words “Islamic terrorism.”  I think the Democrats could lose on that issue alone, especially if there’s another attack.
Of course, we all hope and pray there is not another terrorist attack.  But Maher is right about the anger of the American people: anger at Democrats who have responded to the threat of terrorism with an astounding inability to speak clearly and frankly about its source.  

But there is a second anger that is propelling Trump's candidacy: anger of the American people at the Republicans who have failed to present an effective challenge in Congress to the Democrats' lemming-like support for Obama's radical agenda.
 

Monday, February 15, 2016

My Dog, the Democrat?

If it weren't so cold outside, my dog would be in the doghouse.  I caught Cricket staring at the television this morning.  It seems she has found a candidate who speaks her language:

video

But who pays for Cricket's "free" food, housing, education, and healthcare?  Take a guess.

Saturday, February 06, 2016

Bernie Sanders: The Bum Who Wants Your Money

Personally, I take a dim view of people who want to redistribute other people's money because, despite a good education, they were never industrious enough to earn any of their own.

From Investors.com
2016: Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders said Monday his parents would never have thought their son would end up in the Senate and running for president. No kidding. He was a ne’er-do-well into his late 30s.

“It’s certainly something that I don’t think they ever believed would’ve happened,” the unabashed socialist remarked during CNN’s Democratic town hall forum, as polls show him taking the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire.

He explained his family couldn’t imagine his “success,” because “my brother and I and Mom and Dad grew up in a three-and-a-half-room rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn, and we never had a whole lot of money.”

It wasn’t as bad as he says. His family managed to send him to the University of Chicago. Despite a prestigious degree, however, Sanders failed to earn a living, even as an adult. It took him 40 years to collect his first steady paycheck — and it was a government check.

“I never had any money my entire life,” Sanders told Vermont public TV in 1985, after settling into his first real job as mayor of Burlington.

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”

One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.
Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”

Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.

The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” In other words, a real winner.

He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife’s. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.

Sure, Sanders may not be a hypocrite, but this is nothing to brag about. His worthless background contrasts sharply with the successful careers of other “outsiders” in the race for the White House, including a billionaire developer, a world-renowned neurosurgeon and a Fortune 500 CEO.

The choice in this election is shaping up to be a very clear one. It will likely boil down to a battle between those who create and produce wealth, and those who take it and redistribute it.