Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Step Right Up to MTV's Incest Plot

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 18, 2014 6:39 PM
. . .dissension bordering on rebellion. . .
In response to:

Step Right Up to MTV's Incest Plot

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 18, 2014 6:38 PM
One sad thing about this development is that "Happyland" is arguably less obscene than most of what MSDNC broadcasts day after day. Meanwhile the "major" networks are preparing to inflict two Hillary-for-president series on the public: "Madam Secretary" (CBS), about a blonde, white woman serving as secretary of state; and "State of Affairs" (NBC), about a blonde, white CIA analyst serving the first female president. In the latter series, the president is black; but if Bill Clinton was the first black president, I suppose Hillary would be the third. The really astonishing fact is that there are only two such atrocities in production. By now all the government networks, including NPR and Nickelodeon, should have one. That they don't suggests dissesion bordering on rebellion—by leftist standards, if I may use an oxymoron. Perhaps Hillary shouldn't book performers for her coronation just yet.
In response to:

Is Obama Waging Jihad?

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 18, 2014 7:19 AM
"We have to take our President at his word." I'll provisionally agree that in this case we should take the word of a man who has lied about everything else, including the weather, in order to ask which word we should take. Obama says that he was born in Hawaii. From 1991 to 2007, however, the capsule biography published by his literary agency said very plainly that he was born in Kenya. The agency didn't alter that description until he started running for president. Obama is self-absorbed and obsessed with micromanaging every aspect of his public image, and in that period he was selling himself as a writer. So he almost certainly wrote or dictated the passage himself. In the extremely unlikely event that he didn't, he must have approved what his paid representatives said about him. It is inconceivable that his agent pulled a birthplace out of the air and broadcast it without his permission or that he took no notice of his own public promotion for 16 years. Obama has been caught lying about his birthplace. Only two questions about his veracity on this point remain: (1) Which of the two statements about his birthplace is a lie? and (2) What are the legal ramifications of his lying? If he was born in Hawaii or anywhere else in the United States (his SSN suggests Connecticut), and he got book deals or speaking fees or college admission or financial aid by presenting himself as a foreigner, he not only is a fraud. He has also committed fraud, a felony. The statute of limitations may spare him prosecution, but it would be useful for everyone to know even now that the country put a felon in the White House. Twice. If he was born in Kenya or anywhere else outside the United States, he was not a natural-born citizen in1961. So he is ineligible for the presidency, the office has been vacant since 21 January 2009, and all his official acts are void. It's unlikely that any court would hear a case concerning his legitimacy. No one, it seems, has "standing" any longer to question a ruler's eligibility. If such a case did get past first base, it's almost certain that the courts would eventually rule him eligible by current standards, which would allow Vladimir Putin to run. But it would be useful to know that the country put a foreigner in the White House. Twice. Felon or foreigner? Take your pick.
In response to:

Chilling

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 17, 2014 9:54 PM
Darby: Excellent point, well stated. Sometimes these trolls are so annoying that I forget they're also ridiculous, so I miss a good laugh at their expense.
In response to:

Chilling

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 17, 2014 8:17 PM
What could be more chilling than the knowledge that NSA, DIA, DEA, FBI, CIA, IRS, and a host of other federal agencies collectively know something, perhaps everything, about every phone call you've ever made; every e-mail and text message you've ever sent; every chat-room and online-forum comment you've ever posted; every letter and package you've ever mailed or received; every credit-card purchase; every parking ticket; most of your movements. . . The government doesn't have to do anything with this exponentially growing mass of information. It doesn't need to BE ABLE to do anything with it. It doesn't have to know what it has or have a reliable means of retrieving it in a timely manner. (The controversial phone-call metadata NSA vacuums up is just a finding aid for audio it already has.) Just knowing that the government has all this is enough to make a lot of people think twice, shut up, and conform.
In response to:

Chilling

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 17, 2014 8:08 PM
Evidently Eric doesn't remember the fellow who was almost Joe McCarthy's brother-in-law, John. F. Kennedy. Kennedy called his fellow anticommunist a "fine fellow" and even stormed out of a meeting of the Harvard alumni society where he was being denounced. Eric probably never heard of the Venona intercepts, either. Indeed, he probably doesn't know much that isn't in the DNC talking points.
The regime is destroying public records and no longer even trying to hide the activity; but e-mail and text messages leave copies and traces in many locations. It would take a massive, coordinated purge involving multiple federal agencies and a number of private companies—a conspiracy that makes Watergate look picayune in comparison—to erase all the incriminating information. It's likely that a lot of damning material is still recoverable, but the government's obvious intent to flout the law and destroy whatever it pleases threatens it. I wonder what it would take for Boehner to get judge to issue a blanket injunction against ANY further destruction of federal records or "recycling" of media until a special prosecutor can get to the bottom of the mess.
Oh, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. When I saw "DWS" in the headline, I thought for a minute that it might've stood for Department of Women's Stuff (surely we have one somewhere) or Dumb Washington Scumbags or. . .
In his second presidential debate with Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford blurted out that there was "no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." Ford acted in the heat of the moment. He he acted alone. Although the blunder didn't do him much damage until the Democrat media had beaten on it for a week or so, he knew as soon as he'd said it that he'd screwed up, and he backpedaled. When Reid, Heinrich, Gutierrez, et al. started blabbering that the border is secure, they did so in a campaign of lying laid out well in advance and carefully coordinated by the White House. Despite withering blowback, they're still saying without shame or qualification that the border is as impenetrable as the Maginot Line. They'll go on saying so until people jeer too loud for them to be heard. Long after they've finally abandoned the secure border for the next lie—perhaps "the most transparent administration in history" or "not a smidgen of corruption"—they'll never ever admit that they lied, that they were wrong, that they were deceived, or even that they committed a public relations faux pas. Being a leftist means never having to account for what you say.
Was Reid ever ON medication? As near as I can tell, he's been babbling his entire public life.
If 10 million people reported a "hard drive crash" and declined to file a return, the IRS would crash. These scumbags have been using the Cloward-Piven strategy against us, most spectacularly on our southern border. It's time to use it against them.
Previous 11 - 20 Next