Previous 31 - 40 Next
Why wouldn't he congratulate the soccer team with a picture of himself? He has observed Passover, the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, his chief of staff's birthday, and about a thousand other events with pictures of himself. He congratulated himself for attending Nelson Mandela's memorial service with pictures of himself. He congratulated the queen of England with recordings of himself. Don't you get it yet? it really IS all about him all the time.
You're laboring under the assumption that workers ought to work. Government gave up on that antiquated requirement years ago for everyone except the military. It has also been trying for years to eradicate the work ethos in the private sector. Consequently, it pays people to live in this country, but it charges them to work. It can't pay everyone, however; so it wants to make private employers agents of the welfare state that pay people not to work.
If the EEOC filed this suit in English, it should be sued.
Interesting, but geopolitically irrelevant. Muslim fanatics and descendants of Arab refugees from the 1948 hostilities don't care where the temple was. They want to destroy Israel and Jewry in general once and for all so they might get back to killing one another.
Here's a question for any legal scholars on this thread: At what point does the transfer of military technology and training from the Defense Department to state and local law-enforcement agencies militarize the latter to the point of violating the Posse Comitatus Act or Insurrection Act? Surely Congress never intended for the executive branch to cirumvent this legislation by creating a paramilitary force. I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea. Thoughts, anyone?
"As Violent Crime Drops, Why Is Law Enforcement More Militarized?" Because the ultimate target of law enforcement, an armed citizenry with an independent streak, is a hell of a lot bigger and more forbidding than the American criminal class. Our espionage network, forged in the World Wars and greatly enlarged during the Cold war, was fundamentally a tool of national defense that unscrupulous people misused far too often for personal or political gain. After the Soviet Empire lapsed into a coma, our espionage network took a much more sinister turn. Now it is a tool of oppression and fear that the masters of the surveillance state use occasionally, often ineptly, for national defense. Our law-enforcement network, built in Colonial days and improved fitfully over the years, was once for enforcing laws. Unscrupulous people misused it far too often for personal or political gain, but it did its core job well enough to keep many of us more or less safe. But it, too, has been perverted. Now it is more often that not a tool of oppression and fear that occasionally, often ineptly, performs basic law enforcement.
"Obama can’t fight wars and then expand welfare; he can’t fight wars and expand social security disability; he can’t fight wars and have Obamacare too." But somehow he's managed to do just that. In the five years since Bush 43 left office, he's increased the number of countries where we have people fighting, training, advising, or serving as human shields from 60 to 75. (I wonder how many TH visitors know that we're fighting the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and South Sudan.) And we still got Obamacare, the czars, cash for clunkers, the war on coal, and the rest of his godawful mess. His foreign policy, if you want to dignify it with that term, is as incoherent as his domestic policy. For example, he sided with (and armed) both Al Qaeda and Iranian operatives in Libya and probably let either or both destroy our Benghazi consulate to cover up the operation. Then he sided with (and armed) Al Qaeda/ISIL in Syria. Then he sided with Iran against AQ/ISIL when it moved into Iraq. If Valerie Jarrett or his Saudi sugar daddies were running things behind the scenes, he might have spells of consistency or predictability; but he bounces all over the map. Manipulation alone can't explain his actions. Neither can personal ideology, incompetence, or uninterest. I was at a loss until I realized that these explanations aren't mutually exclusive. Indeed, they're probably all true. In addition, he's insane.
In response to:

The American Flag: 'A Threat'?

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 01, 2014 1:02 PM
When I pause to reflect on what kind of private citizen or public official would presume to dictate whether another person could display a national symbol, I often think of Dennis Rader. Rader was a nobody with delusions of grandeur, a pervert, a control freak. That is, he was a perfect petty bureaucrat, and he spent years on the public payroll as census taker, dogcatcher, and city "compliance officer." In these capacities he became his neighbors' chronic tormentor, stalking them, seizing or killing their pets, harassing them about hedges and mailboxes and other minute details of their lives. He also turned out to be the BTK serial killer. Whenever anyone conspicuously, forcibly injects himself into the business of someone who isn't bothering him, I can't help thinking that this may be the next BTK.
In response to:

The American Flag: 'A Threat'?

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 01, 2014 7:30 AM
Amen, brother. I too am a 20-year man. I learned about the colors and their meaning as the child of a 40-year man. Everyone is free to dislike what's in my yard, but anyone who tries to remove it will experience sudden-onset health problems.
In response to:

The American Flag: 'A Threat'?

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 01, 2014 6:55 AM
Excellent.
In response to:

It's A Disaster At The Border

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 01, 2014 6:52 AM
The children's crusade against American sovereignty isn't just a disaster. It's a calculated disaster. The president of the United States, exceeding his authority and flouting his duty, publicly invited this invasion. The government of Mexico, which normally guards its own borders jealously, has discreetly let waves of children pass through its territory from the south to serve as shock troops against the pathetic remains of the American border. The Obama regime has purposely trashed American law and made matters worse by dumping hundreds, perhaps thousands of unattended children on street corners and at bus stations to reach relatives on their own, starve, be forced into prostitution, or be killed. (If I did that to even one of my grandchildren, I'd rightly be arrested. Public officials abandoning children on a mass scale should be hanged.) This is not the first example of coordination by Mexico, which is happy to export its surplus people and import their remittances without the bother of formal reconquista, Democrats determined to build a permanent electoral majority, and Republicans seeking a perpetual supply of cheap laborers. But it is the most desperate and most despicable. We can't let these children wander around the country till they find their criminal families or perish; but at this point, we have few other options. We could simply send them back to Mexico under armed escort—that's no more barbaric than cutting them loose in downtown Phoenix with a PBJ sandwich and a hearing date—but Obama's Mexican conspirators would probably let them die in the desert out of spite. We can't keep them in camps indefinitely even if can afford that option. (I do mean indefinitely. What are the chances that many illegal aliens would show up to claim a child, and how could federal officias be sure of their real identities or motives?) If we go to the trouble and public expense of reuniting them with their families, we couldn't let them stay without implicitly inviting more youthful border crashers. The most humane and least ruinous choice is to deport adolescents over 18 and put the rest into foster care till they can be adopted by American citizens. If any grown illegal alien dares to demand custody of an illegal alien child, throw him into prison for reckless endangerment and deport him at the end of his sentence.
Previous 31 - 40 Next