The blood hadn’t even congealed before President Obama was blaming Americans in general and the Second Amendment in particular for the shooting.
Obama even went so far as to make the utterly ABSURD statement that “this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.”
A top-level Democrat campaign consultant told MSNBC, “I cannot imagine the horror that could have occurred if people were sitting around with concealed weapons.”
He wants voters to think “More Guns Means More Killings.” But the reality is that, if someone at that prayer meeting had been armed, the shooter would have been taken out BEFORE he could murder nine people.
IMHO, what that Democrat really meant by “the horror that could have occurred” was that 2d Amendment supporters would have scored a big PR win.
Remember when scores of journalists were sent to Wasilla to dig through the Palin’s trash while totally ignoring a mountain of scandal-worthy trash about Obama?
Well, we’re into a new election cycle and so that paragon of journalistic integrity, The New York Times, is back at it, digging deep to give voters the most relevant information possible about presidential hopefuls.
No, not that silly old “Hillary sold uranium to our enemies” story! This is something IMPORTANT!
June 5, 2015: The New York Times broke the news that, over the past 18 years, Republican Marco Rubio has racked up FOUR traffic tickets!
Thank goodness we have the Fourth Estate! We certainly wouldn’t want to accidentally vote for someone who had so little respect for rules and regulations, right?
Nasty Right-Wingnuts started a vile rumor that The New York Times had not actually researched this scoop for itself, but had just printed a story that was handed to them by a Democrat PAC.
Noooooooooooooooooo wayyyyyyyyyyyyy!Yes, way.
But, but … HILLARY has had ZERO traffic tickets!
Of course, the last time she drove herself anywhere, Marco was six years old, but whatever. Who do you suppose insisted the Scooby Van be parked illegally? And if anyone had had the temerity to ticket it, who do you suppose got stuck with the big honkin’ fine? Just askin’ here. NOT suggesting she’s … you know … an ELITIST or nuthin’.
But never mind HILLARY. Let’s see what’s up next in #RubioCrimeSpree news!
Marco Rubio drinks milk RIGHT FROM THE CARTON.
Marco Rubio removed the tag from his mattresses and then DESTROYED THE EVIDENCE.
Marco Rubio lathers, rinse but does NOT REPEAT.
Marco Rubio clicked “I agree” WITHOUT READING THE FINE PRINT.
Marco Rubio took the trash out but DIDN’T PUT A NEW LINER IN.
Marco Rubio used his outdoor voice INSIDE THE HOUSE.
Marco Rubio once PICKED ALL THE MARSHMALLOWS out of the Lucky Charms box.
Not everyone thought the crime spree hashtag was funny. One libtard opined,
“If there’s one thing to take away from this #RubioCrimeSpree thing it’s that some people think putting others at risk is a joking matter.”
Yeah. Really! Cuz traffic tickets are SERIOUS!
Not at all like REMOVING security from a threatened consulate!
Or so it would seem. In 1971, Bernie Sanders launched his first bid for Senate. In 1972, he published this essay about how, at heart, men and women really hate each other. Read the first few lines.
Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) styles himself a 2016 presidential contender. If a Republican candidate had ever written an essay like the one Sanders wrote, it would be leading every news show, every talk show, and every social media Top Hits. But he’s a Democrat, so the Left is giving him a pass.
In 2008, Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin mentioned that you can see Russia from Alaska (which is true). Palin look-alike Tina Fey of SNL spun it into the comedy gold line, “I can see Russia from my house.” The Left put Fey’s words into Palin’s mouth so often that multitudes of voters thought Palin was a moron.
In 2012, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney talked about how much care he had put into hiring females for his Massachusetts gubernatorial administration. He instructed his staff to headhunt qualified women and was proud of the fact that they had given him multiple binders filled with women’s resumes to consider. The Left turned the phrase “binders full of women” into a symptom of the GOP’s alleged war on women.
It’s a handy shortcut for arguing facts with Leftists who like to give Clinton credit for Republican accomplishments and blame Bush for Democrat atrocities. Laws have to be passed by THREE bodies — the House, the Senate, and the President. Whichever party dominates TWO (or three) of these is responsible for policy and its consequences.
Because Democrats owe the unions whose only income is the dues paid by public school teachers.
Democrats fight home schooling, vouchers and other school choice options. They make a big deal about how everybody should go to a public school, while they send their own kids to private schools. Their solution to bad public schools is always the same … throw more money at them. BUT … more money hasn’t worked.
So why do Democrats keep fighting school choice and demanding we throw more money at public schools?
Because Democrats owe the unions whose only income is the dues paid by public school teachers.
PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS ARTICLE … if your blood pressure can handle it.
Obama’s Continuing War against D.C. Kids By Akash Chougule — May 14, 2015
For the seventh year in a row, President Obama has proposed defunding the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, a school-choice program that allows inner-city students in the nation’s capital to escape failing and often dangerous public schools.
As Stephen Moore detailed recently in the Wall Street Journal, the Opportunity Scholarship Program serves nearly 5,000 students, 95 percent of whom are African-American. It funds private-school tuition for poor families, so that their children can attend schools they would otherwise not be able to afford. It accounts for a minuscule 0.0005 percent of the federal budget.
Nevertheless, the president — who recently stressed “opportunity gaps” in inner cities — has never missed a chance to try to end this program that benefits almost exclusively poor, minority, inner-city children. Of course, there is no speech, photo-op, or press release to go along with this annual tradition of his.
Ending the program would be a devastating blow to the thousands of students whose futures depend on it. Students in the program have a 91 percent high-school graduation rate, compared with 56 percent for D.C. public schools. One parent asked the obvious question: “If you’ve got a program that’s clearly working and helping these kids, why end it?”
Other families who benefit from the Opportunity Scholarship Program describe it as “a godsend for our children,” a “life-saver,” and “our salvation.” One father told Moore, “I truly shudder to think where my son would be today without it.”
Unfortunately, President Obama will never hear this testimony for himself — he refuses even to meet with these families. He is joined in opposition by nearly every Democrat in Congress, including Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents D.C. and the families benefiting from the scholarship program.
Fortunately, the program is kept alive by conservatives in Congress like House Speaker John Boehner, Representative Paul Ryan, Senator Ted Cruz, and others who stand in solidarity with these families — despite the fact that most of them represent populations demographically very different from inner-city Washington.
So why are conservatives standing with poor inner-city families, while President Obama and his liberal allies try to take away their opportunity? Well, it is probably not a coincidence that many liberal campaigns are huge beneficiaries of teachers’-union largesse — and teachers’ unions feel threatened by school-choice programs, which create competition and accountability in education (rather than monopolizing the system and trapping kids in union-controlled schools). Of course, the union leaders don’t say this. When defending their actions, they claim that school choice strips funding from public schools.
But Congress addressed these funding concerns when setting up the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Because the program provided $20 million for choice vouchers, they gave an extra $20 million to the public schools. Moreover, we know from experience that dumping more money into the public-school system does not improve outcomes. The country as a whole has more than doubled education spending over the past 40 years, but achievement has flat-lined — and still the unions oppose school choice. As one parent put it, unions “aren’t afraid that the voucher program won’t work — but that it will.”
There also is a degree of hypocrisy in President Obama’s opposition to the scholarship program. While he sends his own children to the elite, $30,000-per-year Sidwell Friends School, poor students who live just a couple of blocks away from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would have no choice but to attend failing, inner-city schools if the Opportunity Scholarship Program were shut down. Should these kids not have the same educational opportunities as President Obama’s daughters?
One parent half-joked, “He lives in public housing too — why should he get school choice because he’s rich and we’re not? If it’s good for your children, it’s good for our children.”
Education is the first step to a brighter future, and school choice is creating just that for millions of students around the country, and thousands every year here in Washington. President Obama’s desire to defund the Opportunity Scholarship Program is at best ironic, coming from the leader of a movement that lends so much lip service to ending income inequality and uplifting poor communities.
Fortunately, the conservative legislators mentioned above and many others stand up to President Obama and defend the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program year after year. By advocating for this and other school-choice programs, conservatives are the ones actually providing thousands of impoverished students “hope” and “change” they can believe in.
House Democrats voted unanimously in favor of allowing illegals to join our military.
Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) supported the proposal, saying that citizenship shouldn’t matter. “I know that what really matters on the battlefield isn’t whether you have the right papers, it’s whether you have the heart to fight, patriotism for your country, and the right character,” he said.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh … no. If you’re an illegal alien, then it’s not YOUR country, now is it? Our military has ALWAYS allowed LEGAL immigrants to serve. Many, many immigrants have used military service to fast-track their way to naturalization. But ILLEGALS? Unh-unh. Get your green card first. Then, we can talk.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) opposed the proposal, saying it legitimized Obama’s DACA program (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), which has been challenged in court as an unconstitutional overreach.
Fortunately, our Republican majority was able to kill the proposal 221-202.
These are not good times for the Republic (and if you laughed or scratched your head at me calling America a republic, I rest my case).
But they are amusing times, at least for those of us capable of extracting some measure of mirth and schadenfreude from the president’s predicament.
With the sand running out on the Obama presidency, it’s finally dawning on the president’s friends and fans that he can be a real jerk.
Consider the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank. For the last six years, he’s spent much of his time rolling his eyes and sneering at Republicans. His subspecialty is heaping ridicule on conservative complaints about, well, everything and anything. If it bothers conservatives, it must be irrational, partisan, churchy, fake, hypocritical — or all of the above. Meanwhile, poor Barack Obama, while not always without fault in Milbank’s eyes, is the grown-up, the good guy trying to do good things amidst a mob of malcontents and ideologues.
That is, until this month. President Obama wants to get a trade deal passed. He needs Democrats to do it. But, Milbank laments, Obama’s blowing it.
“Let’s suppose you are trying to bring a friend around to your point of view,” Milbank writes. “Would you tell her she’s emotional, illogical, outdated, and not very smart? Would you complain that he’s being dishonest, fabricating falsehoods and denying reality with his knee-jerk response?”
“Such a method of a persuasion is likelier to get you a black eye than a convert,” Milbank notes. “Yet this is how President Obama treats his fellow Democrats on trade . . .”
Yes, well, true enough. But lost on Milbank is the fact that this is precisely how Obama treats everyone who disagrees with him. When Obama — who ran for office touting his ability to work with Republicans and vowing to cure the partisan dysfunction in Washington — treated Republicans in a far ruder and shabbier way, Milbank celebrated.
Of course, he was hardly alone.
Republicans, in Obama’s view, are always dishonest, fabricating falsehoods and denying reality with their knee-jerk responses.
To pick just one of countless examples, there was a White House summit on health care in 2010. The president invited members of Congress to discuss the issue in good faith. He then proceeded to treat every concern, objection, and argument from Republicans as dumb, dishonest, or emotional. They were, according to a column by Milbank, “stepping into Prof. Obama’s classroom.” Milbank marveled at how the “teacher” treated them all “like his undisciplined pupils.” Whenever someone said anything politically inconvenient, the president replied that those were just partisan “talking points.”
When Senator John McCain, his opponent in the previous election, noted that Obama had broken numerous promises and that the 2,400-page bill was a feeding trough for special interests, Obama eye-rolled. “Let me just make this point, John,” Obama said. “We’re not campaigning anymore. The election’s over.”
He responded to Senator Lamar Alexander — he called him “Lamar” — “this is an example of where we’ve got to get our facts straight.” When it was Representative John Boehner’s turn to speak, Obama reprimanded “John” for trotting out “the standard talking points” and, in the words of a palpably impressed Milbank, forced Boehner to “wear the dunce cap.”
Again, this was all quintessential Obama then, and it’s quintessential Obama now. All that has changed is that he’s doing the exact same thing to Democrats, and it’s making them sad. Specifically, he’s accused Senator Elizabeth Warren of not having her facts straight. He says she’s just a politician following her partisan self-interest.
But here’s the hilarious part: Liberals can’t take it. The president of NOW, Terry O’Neill, accused Obama of being sexist. O’Neill sniped that Obama’s “clear subtext is that the little lady just doesn’t know what she’s talking about.” She added, “I think it was disrespectful.” Both O’Neill and Senator Sherrod Brown also sniff sexism in the fact that Obama referred to Warren as “Elizabeth.”
“I think referring to her as first name, when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps?” Brown mused with his typical syntactical ineptness.
Of course, in that White House health-care summit and in nearly every other public meeting with Republican senators and congressmen, he referred to them all by their first names.
The great irony is that when Republicans complain about Obama’s haughtiness and arrogance, liberals accuse them of being racist. I hope I don’t miss that phase of this spat while I’m off making the popcorn.
Senator Barbara Boxer: “Don’t Call Me Ma’am” – General Michael Walsh
polination.blog 