Iran wants to incinerate Israel; Obama wants to facilitate

Shawn Mitchell
|
Posted: Mar 02, 2015 12:01 AM

Obama hates Netanyahu's upcoming address to Congress because, unlike the McConnell Boehner clown car, there will be one strong voice, drawing a national audience, declaring truth and the treachery of what Obama is up to. I wish Netanyahu could address Congress monthly.

This is just upside down insaneville. The House passed a bill to fund Homeland Security, minus Obama's illegal amnesty. The Senate wants to pass the bill, but can't because Democrats are filibustering it. Senate Democrats are declaring loud and clear they'd sooner shut down DHS than keep it open without the amnesty program.

It’s a classic standoff, and the Republicans would appear to have the upper hand, politically and constitutionally. A majority of both chambers wants to send the president a bill, a minority in one chamber is filibustering it--with shut down the necessary result. But the national pressititues are dishonestly calling it a Republican shut down. And McBoehnerConnellweenie just caved. Because no one has the chops to put the liars in their place.

It's a mad world.

Iran wants to incinerate Israel. Obama wants to facilitate. Netanyahu wants to point out the obvious. Obama is outraged.

I don't know if Walker's my guy. But he's the one who has shown the most skill blowing off the assassin media. That ain't nothing. And he's the one who makes them wet their pants the most, starting with the Washington Post that has gone acutely incontinent.

David Axelrod was correct in this respect: Obama "has gone six years without a major scandal" because there is no "major scandal" without a sustained media frenzy. Media frenzy is almost the definition of scandal. Without it, the public doesn't care, the politicians don't feel the heat, and nothing changes. Obama has spent six years without a major frenzy because this leftist media is not going to chase and press him on anything.

How do words develop? Shouldn't procrastinate really be anticrastinate?

Let's see. Since Americans forcefully rejected his agenda in the 2014 midterms, this president has:
A. Announced new rules to shut down the coal power industry;
B. Ordered a change to immigrations laws to grant legality, work, and welfare to millions of illegal immigrants;
C. Locked up millions of frozen acres in Alaska from energy development;
D. Excluded Congress from any role or voice in the agreement he wants with Iran;
E. Announced plans to take control of every aspect of the internet, based on a 1930's telephone law, and kept his 300 pages of regulations secret from Congress.

No one is lifting a finger to stop him, but it sure is firing up internet and social media. What country is this, again?

The most important political divide is between those who are willing to face a fight and those who invariably choose to duck a fight. Change involves criticism.

I'm reluctantly reaching the conclusion McConnell and Boehner are part of the conspiracy to give Obama what Soros wants.

Winter is hot. No, winter is cold. Omg blame capitalism and fossil fuel.

Without an Act of Congress, this president is seizing control of the world wide web of communications. His motives are benign, every good and gentle citizen must presume.

The die is cast. The Constitution be damned. If liberal presidents are going to be lawless state expanders, then conservative presidents must be lawless state minimizers. There is no hope in playing fair with lawless enemies.

The war that Obama has launched is this: When a conservative president comes to power, can supporters really want to constrain him to the Constitution? If a liberal can transform and get away with whatever he wants in changing society, how stupid is it to demand your guy comply with the rules? That is a one-way ratchet. Liberals grow the state. Conservatives must accept and perpetuate it. No. Conservatives have to push back. I want the next conservative president to post a list of the stupid laws, rules, and regulations that he has no intention of enforcing

How can it possibly be legal or even Constitutional for an agency like the FCC to seize control of something as massive as the internet, by voting to adopt 300 pages before releasing them to the public or even Congress? This is insane. There is a gaping whole in the system

The evil of the internet is it can make sitting in your chair all day long feel like you're being part of life in the world.

There has to be a real media, or the president can get away with anything he wants. And he is.

Borrowed from friend Jon Kleve: "Scott Walker is a threat, not just to the Democrats, but to the entire intellectual and academic establishments. If a man without a college degree can become President in 2016, it proves that such degrees are worth less than they've been telling us.

"It stands to destroy their entire world.

"And they can't stand for that. A Presidential candidate who is a viable contender, despite not having a degree, poses an existential threat to academia. A President who's not from the Ivy League, East Coast elite poses an existential threat to the intellectual establishment. Expect the attacks to continue, and get increasingly shrill. Even if it's not putting a dent in the electorate, and even if the consultants and the media try to knock it off and attack him some other way, the academic class won't stop. They can't stop. In fact, if it's not putting a dent in the polls, they'll only get worse, because it suggests America agrees in their relative obsolescence.

"This should be a fun couple years."

Angry. Want an example of nanny government and corporate profit getting in bed to screw consumers? Like several states, Colorado has started failing cars in emissions checks, even if the emissions are clean, just because the check engine light is on.

Why should that be, exactly? Auto emission tests exist to protect the environment. If your car passes emissions standards, then you are not unduly poisoning your neighbors.

So why, pray tell, would auto testing now require us to address the check engine light? Who changed public policy to make auto owners answerable for their insatiable "check auto" light?

One of two possible answers. Either the company with the monopoly contract on auto testing wants more fails, more repeat customers, and more fees, or else auto garages want more "failed: auto owners to have to come in for repairs. Someone saw a profit opportunity and lobbied lawmakers or regulators to change the law to force consumers to give them more business. Do you see how this racket works, people? More government means more forced spending.