Blogs & Discussions


Saturday Morning Edition

Note: In posting of the events in Iraq, be award they are changing raptly.  
The Front Page Cover
"I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened"
Rewriting History
The real dHillarious record on Iran sanctions
Joel Winton
"Rise up together as one voice"
"Be careful where you stand"
 It Aint Over Yet. Don’t Give Up  
A- Bomb!! Finally! This is what I wanted Kentucky to do but we weren't willing. So Virginia stepped up. The defeat of Eric Cantor is beyond a political upset. This is gigantic. Cantor and his buddies in the US Chamber (who want as many third world immigrants and refugees in the country as they can pack in {as long as they don't enter their gated community}) spent 5 million on this race. -Chris Skates
 Down Under Gun Control  
Following the latest high-profile shootings, Barack nObama told America it needs to do some "soul searching" on gun control. We're pretty sure he wasn't directing that message to the bleeding-heart leftists salivating to ban all manner of guns in America. No, nObama thinks Liberty lovers "should be ashamed" for not allowing even the "mildest restrictions." But nObama gave a clue as to what he really wants when he went on to praise the gun control laws Australia passed in 1996. "A couple of decades ago," nObama said, "Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, 'Well, that's it, we're not doing -- we're not seeing that again,' and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven't had a mass shooting since." If you remember, Australia rounded up all the semi-automatic guns in the country, threw them on the scrap heap and destroyed them. If that is nObama's definition of a civilized society, he is wrong. Gun confiscation in America won't work out well for statists. This nation was founded on the idea that a self-governing people have the God-given right to defend themselves -- not only from a low-life criminal but from the whip of tyranny. More...  -The Patriot Post   
 Clinton Restored America's Leadership  
What were dHillarious Clinton's accomplishments as secretary of state? Cleaning up after George W. Bush, of course! "The most important thing I did was to help restore America's leadership in the world," Clinton explained with a straight face. "And I think that was a very important accomplishment. We were flat on our back when I walked in there the first time. We were viewed as being untrustworthy, as violating our moral rules and values, as being economically hobbled. And we had to get out there and once again promote American values and pursue our interests and protect national security. Because of the eight years that preceded us -- it was the economic collapse, it was two wars, it was the War on Terror that led to some very unfortunate, un-American actions being taken. That was my biggest challenge." As a senator, she voted for the war, by the way. But if she thinks the nObama administration has re-established American credibility and leadership with a "reset" button here and a troop withdrawal there, she is sorely mistaken. More... -The Patriot Post   
 Al-Qaeda Overruns Mosul  
"[T]he American combat mission in Iraq has ended," Barack nObama triumphantly proclaimed from the Oval Office in August 2010. "Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country." How's nObama's cut-and-run strategy working out? "Insurgents seized control early Tuesday of most of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, including the provincial government headquarters, offering a powerful demonstration of the mounting threat posed by extremists to Iraq's teetering stability," reports The Washington Post. American-trained Iraqi security forces reportedly dropped the weapons and fled, and al-Qaida now controls virtually the entire northern province of Ninevah. According to Robert Ford, nObama's former ambassador to Syria, the resurgence of al-Qaida in Iraq is fueled by cells out of Syria: "These al-Qaida offshoots ... now pose a potential threat to our security," he said. "These extremists enjoy a sanctuary from which they may mount attacks against Europe or the United States." nObama really has worked to ensure that America's incredible sacrifice in Iraq was for nothing. More...  -The Patriot Post   
 Sensitivity Training for Baker  
In December, Colorado-based bakery owner Jack Phillips was ordered by Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer to provide cakes to homosexual couples for their same-sex ceremonies despite Phillips' Christian convictions. Phillips appealed the ruling to no avail. He will now be forced to attend "sensitivity" training (i.e., re-education camp) and provide "progress" reports, meaning the Colorado Civil Rights Commission will oversee all of Masterpiece Cake Shop's business activities. Alliance Defending Freedom's Nicolle Martin explains, "So if his shop is closed or he's out of flour, he needs to report to the commission." According to ACLU attorney Amanda Goad, "[R]eligious freedom is undoubtedly an important American value ... [but] so is the right to be treated equally under the law free from discrimination." We wonder if Ms. Goad would have the same response if the real victim here -- Jack Phillips -- were Muslim instead. More... -The Patriot Post   
 A Blow to Teachers Unions  
And the California teachers unions bite the dust. The judge for Los Angeles Superior Court, Rolf Treu, found California's laws governing the hiring, firing and awarding tenure to teachers unconstitutional under California's constitution. The ruling may lead to more lawsuits in other states. "The evidence is compelling," Treu wrote. "Indeed, it shocks the conscience." The decision said between 1% and 3%, or 2,750 to 8,250, of California teachers are "grossly ineffective" and the laws keep them in school, affecting their students for a long time. Of course, the leaders of the teachers unions are whining. Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, said the decision will "make it harder to attract and retain quality teachers and ignores all research that shows experience is a key factor in effective teaching." Blah, blah, blah -- respect is earned, not given. A young, hardworking teacher will do more to help his or her students than an old burnout. More… 
-The Patriot Post   
 Congressmen: nObama using ‘Coward-Piven maneuver’ 
Two U.S. congressmen tell WND they believe the flooding of America’s Southwest border with thousands of illegal-alien children seeking government handouts and citizenship is the intended outcome of policies by the nObama administration derived from a strategy by radical sociologists to transform America into a socialist state...In the 1960s, professors Andrew Cloward and Francis Fox Piven of Columbia University, nObama’s alma mater, devised a plan to provoke chaos by deliberately overwhelming governmental systems and the U.S. economy to the point of collapse, paving the way for state intervention that would ultimately replace America’s free-enterprise republic with a collectivist system. “If you don’t see them bring reinforcements down there to seal the border, that means that, yes, it’s a Cloward-Piven maneuver to flood the country until we get to the point where we are an open-borders country that welcomes everybody, legal and illegal.” It now looks like nObama is doing just that, employing this well-known scheme to collapse everything about the U.S. as we knew it.
 The Man Who Makes it Possible 
This morning, I made clear I think Ted Cruz needs to get involved in the Mississippi runoff. The outcome may be set with McDaniels winning, but none of us should underestimate the very powerful signal it would send if Ted Cruz got involved...Rand Paul has said he would sit it out. Cruz going in would be a very bold move. For a number of reasons, I think Cruz, who is active behind the scenes, needs to be a bit more public in the primary season. It has been a demoralizing season for a lot of activists, many of whom look to Cruz. Cruz seemingly has more potential there. Endorsing McDaniel would bolster that and cement Cruz as the conservative leader in Washington. But in all of this and what he should nor should not do, none of us, including the media, should forget that Ted Cruz has made a number of these victories, including David Brat’s victory, possible.
 Americans and their Ruling Class can be measured with amnesty 
Everyone in Punditopia is arguing about exactly how House Majority Leader Eric Cantor managed to lose his primary to an upstart challenger named Dave Brat, despite the powers of incumbency and a campaign war chest that made Brat’s campaign fund look like pocket money...There’s never a single, simple, unified answer to such a question, especially in a House race, where local issues and the candidates’ relationship with their constituents always play a big role. But it’s silly for the Beltway-Media axis to fall all over itself claiming that illegal immigration wasn’t a pivotal issue. Of course it was.
 To nObama: Leave the Death Penalty Alone 
On his way to the presidency, Barack nObama said a lot of things…He told us he was against same-sex marriage. He said he opposed new taxes on middle-class Americans. And he told us he supported the death penalty. But, like a mirage in the hot Arizona desert, many of nObama’s promises have evaporated. Most recently, the Justice Department – with Attorney General Eric Holder leading the charge – has begun investigating states that are still using the death penalty. The inquiry is, ostensibly, the result of April’s execution of convicted killer Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma.
 nObama’s Border Crisis: Facilitating Child Trafficking 
Last week, the lawlessness of nObama’s non-deportation policy came home to roost when Homeland Security (DHS) estimated 60,000 “unaccompanied alien children” were expected to enter the country illegally this year...The figures have since gone up to 90,000, which is more than a ten-fold increase from 2011. Unsurprisingly, according to interviews with those caught, the news waves are directly related to nObama’s rolling orders to DHS to ramp up amnesty efforts wherever possible. Yesterday, Senator Cornyn of Texas called nObama’s continued amnesty push an “extremely dangerous incentive for children” and “a painful example of the law of unintended consequences.” Considering the depth and scale of nObama’s subversion of our immigration laws, the prospect of thousands more children and teens illegally entering the country won’t likely change his approach to border security any time soon. After all, as it was revealed last December, DHS has actually been directly and proactively facilitating human-trafficking for quite some time.
 Prosecute the President 
President Barack nObama believes he is above the law. That’s because he is. This week alone, nObama announced that he would unilaterally change student loan rules, allowing borrowers to avoid paying off more of their debt...he signaled that he would continue his non-enforcement of immigration law, even as thousands of children cross the border; he defended his non-disclosure of a terrorist swap to Congress. And, he said, more such actions were in the offing. “I will keep doing whatever I can without Congress,” nObama explained.
In his latest, hard-hitting FIREWALL, Bill provides a moment-by-moment breakdown of the events leading up to the attack on the Consulate in Benghazi...a detailed analysis of who was doing and saying  what as the attack was underway, and chronicles the following ten days of deceptions and lies on the part of the White House and the State Department, throwing a clear, cold and unflattering light on the competence and character of the President and Secretary of State.
 Charges Filed In ‘One Of The Largest’ Food Stamp Frauds EVER  
Fifty-four people were indicted for their roles in the massive fraud which involved the illegal purchase of WIC and food stamp benefits...The fraud “allegedly involved the purchase of more than $18 million in WIC vouchers and Food Stamp benefits for cash through a number of purported grocery stores set up throughout Georgia.” Another 34 defendants were indicted for selling their benefits. Through the WIC program, participants receive 3-month supplies of vouchers which can be exchanged for food at authorized stores. The Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) provides food stamp benefits to low-income families.,48782
 Top Palestinian negotiator rips into ‘discredited, useless’ Abbas  
A leaked audio recording of chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat harshly criticizing PA President Mahmoud Abbas over his reluctance to pursue the international arena exposed severe fissures within the Palestinian leadership regarding how best to engage Israel following the collapse of US-brokered negotiations in April, and showed profound disdain by Erekat for his president. In the video, Erekat says Abbas has lost his credibility, slams his “useless” approach, and compares him to Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad. The top Palestinian negotiator also says Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal who isn’t “worth the bullet” to shoot him.
 Iraq Civil War Is Exactly What Democrats Wanted 
We are now seeing a partition take place--driven by Al Qaeda, which U.S. forces once routed in the surge, and which nObama, Clinton, and Biden have been telling us for years was "on the run."...The terrorist armies have regrouped, boosted in part by their foothold in Syria, and are taking over large swathes of the country, which has provoked other groups to mobilize their own forces in response as the Iraqi government quickly collapses. This was not inevitable. If the U.S. had kept some forces in Iraq, as our military urged, and as we have done in other post-war nations, the country might have remained intact. Even nObama, trying to appear presidential, promised in 2008 to "keep some troops in Iraq." His campaign said:"if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, nObama will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." Once in power, however, nObama was more interested in winning an argument with history than in securing a victory U.S. troops had won in Iraq over his objections. He let talks with the Iraqi government collapse, adding insult to injury by assigning Biden to the half-hearted diplomatic effort. He failed to stand up to meddling Iran, or to intervene in Syria in a timely fashion. And so Iraq is failing--irreparably, and by the Democrats' design.
Rewriting History
The real dHillarious record on Iran sanctions
Joel Winton
Gary Locke
    dHillarious Clinton will shortly release a memoir, Hard Choices, chronicling her tenure as secretary of state. If what she has to say in its pages resembles what she had to say from the stage at the American Jewish Committee’s (AJC) annual Global Forum on May 14—where she claimed undue credit for implementing sanctions against Iran—it’s worth setting the record straight now.

    In reality, the nObama administration, and Clinton’s State Department in particular, opposed, dragged their feet on, and sought to water down every piece of sanctions legislation introduced by bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate. With that history now being rewritten, let’s review the actual record.

    President nObama took office believing that personal diplomacy without “preconditions” would convince Iran’s leaders to relinquish their nuclear ambitions. As Clinton later explained in an interview with CNN’s Candy Crowley, “We believed that the effort of seeking engagement would actually strengthen our hand.”

    Others were unconvinced. In April 2009 Congress signaled its skepticism of this “carrots and carrots” approach by introducing several sticks in the form of sanctions bills—of which the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009 (IRPSA) was the most notable.

    Sure enough the administration’s “outstretched hand” was met with an Iranian middle finger over the following months: There were repeated Iranian rebuffs of negotiations; a stolen election in June; Tehran’s atavistic repression of the pro-democracy Green Movement which followed that election; Iran’s rejection of a comprehensive fuel-swap deal after commitments were made to the contrary; and, finally, Iran’s disclosure of its secret underground Fordow enrichment complex after that site had been discovered by Western intelligence services.

    Consequently, towards the end of 2009, congressional skepticism about the administration’s quixotic diplomacy morphed into open hostility.

    On November 19, a companion to the House’s IRPSA, the Dodd-Shelby Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA) was introduced in the Senate. It took aim at Iran’s petroleum sector and prohibited financial transactions with U.S. banks on behalf of sanctioned firms.

    With the House’s passage of the IRPSA on December 15, these two initiatives marked a clear repudiation of the nObama administration’s preference for carrots without sticks. They represented a serious attempt to apply pressure on Tehran in the hope of fashioning a diplomatic accord. That Mrs. Clinton now takes credit for them is curious, to say the least.

    Days before the House passed its sanctions bill, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg wrote to Senator Hanoi John Kerry, then chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to express the State Department’s “serious substantive concern” and fear of “unintended foreign policy consequences.” The administration felt the legislation too “inflexible” and feared that it “might weaken rather than strengthen” its diplomatic efforts. Clinton’s message to Congress at the time might be characterized as “back off.”

    The Senate’s dissatisfaction with this message was emphasized in a January 27, 2010, bipartisan letter to President nObama. The senators called for “crippling sanctions” and expressed their hope that the “administration will pursue parallel and complementary measures .  .  . to increase the pressure on the Iranian government.” To buttress that hope the Senate ignored the administration’s concern and passed CISADA by a voice vote on January 28.

    With sanctions legislation passed in both chambers of Congress by January 2010, one might have expected the administration to cut its losses and drop its opposition to pairing diplomacy with leverage in the form of sanctions. It did no such thing. Instead, the administration spent months trying to dilute and delay the legislation.

    A Washington Times headline that April read plainly: “White House seeks to soften Iran sanctions.” And readers were left in no doubt that the impetus for delay came from the top: “One congressional staff member working on the bill told the Washington Times that Mr. nObama personally asked the House leadership this month to put off the sanctions bill until after the current work period.”

    The historical record on CISADA—the first serious piece of sanctions legislation adopted during the nObama years—is unequivocal. CISADA was a bipartisan effort pushed through Congress against direct opposition from President nObama and Secretary of State Clinton. It was significantly watered down by the administration. And after months of delay, during which Iran’s nuclear progress accelerated unchecked, it was reluctantly signed into law on July 1, 2010, by a president whose top brass would later claim credit for the very measures they had staunchly resisted.

    When CISADA proved ineffectual at halting Iran’s nuclear progress, Congress once again seized the initiative in demanding the administration take a tougher line on Iran. In August 2011, 92 senators sent a letter to President nObama demanding his administration “do more to increase the economic pressure” on Tehran. The letter called for “crippling sanctions on Iran’s financial system by cutting off the Central Bank.” The administration responded with lip service, sharpening its rhetoric but maintaining the same failed diplomatic policies. 

    Consequently, in November, Senators Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) decided to force the issue by introducing amendments to the 2012 Defense Authorization. These amendments were responsible for establishing what Mrs. Clinton now describes as “the most stringent, crippling sanctions” to date. They went after the main arteries in Iran’s economy: oil exports and the Central Bank of Iran. That’s probably why Mrs. Clinton is so eager to pat herself on the back: “We went after Iran’s oil industry, banks, and weapons programs, enlisted insurance firms, shipping lines, energy companies, financial institutions, and others to cut Iran off from global commerce,” she told the AJC forum. At the time, however, the administration was decidedly less supportive. It resolutely opposed and actively lobbied against the amendment.

    First, President nObama and Secretary Clinton sought to scupper the amendment privately. On November 29, three senior administration officials—Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, Treasury deputy secretary Neal Wolin, and deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough—called an emergency meeting on Capitol Hill with Senators Kirk, Menendez, and Hanoi Kerry. The administration argued that the amendment would critically hinder their attempts to create a multilateral sanctions infrastructure. The senators refused to withdraw the amendment.

    Next came a letter from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to Senate Armed Services chair Carl Levin stating “the Administration’s strong opposition to this amendment because .  .  . it threatens to undermine the .  .  . approach we have undertaken to build strong international pressure against Iran.” Levin, a Michigan Democrat, was unmoved.

    On December 1, administration officials spent the morning of the vote lobbying against the amendment at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Undersecretary of state for political affairs Wendy Sherman and undersecretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence David Cohen conveyed the administration’s disapproval. Cohen claimed the amendment “risks fracturing the international coalition that has been built up over the last several years to bring pressure to bear on Iran.”

    Appalled by the opposition, Menendez took seven minutes at the hearing to excoriate the administration’s conduct. That these critical words were spoken by a Democrat emphasized how outside the mainstream the administration was on the issue. Menendez thundered:

    At your request we engaged in an effort to come to a bipartisan agreement that I believe is fair and balanced. And now you come here and vitiate that agreement. .  .  . You should have said we want no amendment. .  .  . Everything that you have said in your testimony undermines your opposition to this amendment. The clock is ticking. .  .  . We should not be leading from behind, we should be leading forward.

    That afternoon, the Senate voted unanimously (100-0) in favor of the amendment. According to Suzanne Maloney, an Iran specialist at the Brookings Institution, it marked “one of the most universal votes we’ve seen in a divided Capitol Hill in several years.”

    The critical headlines captured the mood rather well: “Senate votes for new Iran sanctions, defying White House” (Los Angeles Times); “The wrong signals to Iran” (Washington Post); “Gutting Iran Sanctions” (Wall Street Journal); “White House on defensive over Iran sanctions” (Financial Times); “Congress rebuffs administration pleas to ease impact of potential sanctions on Iran” (Associated Press).

    Not that the administration’s jiggery-pokery stopped there. After weeks of further foot-dragging, they succeeded in significantly watering down the legislation. As a report from the Bipartisan Policy Center made clear: “The administration lobbied against the Kirk-Menendez Amendment. .  .  . After it passed the Senate, the State and Treasury departments requested changes before it went to conference. As a result, the final bill for presidential consideration softened penalties for foreign banks, extended the grace period before implementing sanctions from 60-180 days, allowed exceptions for companies reducing but not ending their purchase of Iranian oil and broadened the president’s waiver authorities.”

    Then having secured myriad concessions, when President nObama finally agreed to ink the bill on December 31, 2011, he carved out further scope for noncompliance. In his signing statement the president warned that several provisions, including the sanctions that target Iran’s Central Bank, may “interfere with .  .  . constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations,” and so he would retain the ability to “treat the provisions as non-binding.”

    The administration’s protestations against a serious sanctions regime continued throughout 2012. When Congress introduced legislation in February aimed at forcing SWIFT—the interbank financial messaging system upon which international commerce depends—to sever ties with Iran, the administration’s lobbyists went to work again.

    Prior to consideration of the amendment on SWIFT before the Senate Banking Committee, Treasury Secretary Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke phoned members of the committee and urged them to oppose the measure. “When the Senate Banking Committee began preparing legislation on SWIFT, a Treasury Department official met with aides to

    There are those who might argue that this is all too harsh a rendering. According to Mrs. Clinton, her signature involvement with Iran sanctions was to “revitalize” a divided international community so as to build a consensus for multilateral sanctions. As she told the crowd at the AJC forum, “When President nObama asked me to serve as secretary of state back in late 2008 .  .  . with the international community divided, there was little standing in the way of Iran’s march toward nuclear-weapons capability.” But the idea of a divided international community is a canard. 

    Consider Europe. When President nObama assumed office in 2009 and set about unsuccessfully engaging Tehran in personal diplomacy, sentiments among Europe’s leading powers were clear: “France, UK push for EU sanctions on Iran” (Reuters, January 19, 2009); “EU trio targets tougher Iran sanctions” (Financial Times, February 25, 2009).

    President Nicolas Sarkozy of France was already galvanizing the EU and agitating for sanctions long before the nObama administration was forced to countenance that course of action. What the Europeans wanted was American support and leadership. Which is why, while the nObama administration was busy lobbying against the Kirk-Menendez sanctions in 2011, the French president wrote to Congress expressing France’s desire for “decisive, extraordinary measures” and urging the president to “impose sanctions of unprecedented magnitude.”

    Not content with waiting on an administration that was clearly unwilling to lead on sanctions, Sarkozy took up the mantle of leadership himself in late 2011. As the Los Angeles Times noted, “Top U.S. administration officials .  .  . were strongly resistant when Congress slapped Iran’s Central Bank with harsh sanctions. The European Union then went further, however, imposing an embargo to halt purchases of Iranian oil by European nations over the ensuing five months.” America would eventually follow where France had led.

    Realities at the U.N. were no different from those in Paris. Not that the historical record has stopped Mrs. Clinton from spinning otherwise: “I worked for months to round up the U.N. Security Council votes,” she now says. And “after years of division, the international community came together and sent a very strong, unified message to Iran.”

    For all the rhetoric about America’s “diplomatic isolation” at the U.N. on Iran prior to Secretary Clinton’s efforts, one would do well to remember that the Bush administration was able to achieve that which eluded the n Obama administration: a unanimous (15-0) Security Council vote for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear activities.

    In fact, President Bush got two of them, in December 2006 and March 2007, and then a third near-unanimous resolution in March 2008 (14-0 with Indonesia abstaining), followed by a fourth unanimous resolution in September 2008, reaffirming the previous measures.

    By contrast, during dHillarious Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, the nObama administration achieved just one Security Council resolution on sanctions, in June 2010, and it was unable to get all members onboard. Turkey and Brazil opposed the measure, while Lebanon abstained.

    There are other examples, at home and abroad, that one could invoke to make the same point: If Mrs. Clinton believes sanctions to have been a positive force in attempts to stop Iran’s march toward a nuclear bomb, she is well within her right to trumpet America’s imposition of them as a foreign policy success. She should be candid, though: It was a success in spite of her efforts, not because of them. Instead of taking credit for the work of others, she should explain why her office opposed their endeavors for so long, and with such temerity. That might be history worth listening to.

    Hard Choices—Mrs. Clinton’s soon-to-be released memoir—will no doubt be a bestseller, but in which category? If her speech at the AJC is any indication, one should expect to find it next to James Patterson’s Unlucky 13—on the fiction shelves. She will continue to take credit where she did nothing or oppose to achieve that end..

You need to be a member of Patriot Action Network to add comments!

Today's News

Latest Network Activity

MOTUS posted a discussion
This is getting confusing: was it fake news that caused Hillary to lose, or was it real news dispersed by  Russian hackers? They’re not mutually exclusive of course. The story that Russian hackers tried to help Trump win may itself be fake news - st…
7 hours ago
MOTUS posted a discussion
Here’s a pattern you can expect to see more of in the future:Donald Trump says something.Media/Democrats decry his comment as a) untrue b) indiscreet c) unpresidential d) all of the aboveFacts reveal The Donald is correctCurrent example, this tweet:…
MOTUS posted a discussion
Remember that time Gary Johnson didn’t know what Aleppo was? Turns out he wasn’t alone.At one time Barry didn’t know Aleppo from Alpo either; presumably before they crossed that hard to identify red line:"The ability of ISIL to not just mass inside…
MOTUS posted a discussion
As we are all excruciatingly aware, the Left is always guilty of whatever they accuse others of. Take that War on Women for example: they own it.Check out their reaction to Kellyanne’s tweet from the “Heroes and Villains” costume party where she don…
MOTUS posted a discussion
Of Mice and Men. Whoops, sorry – microaggresion! “Of mice and non-gender specific humanoids.” Today’s post is dedicated to the mice, aka Special Snowflakes.Let’s start with 49ers Quarterback Colin-take-a-knee-for-our-national-anthem-Kaepernick: oddl…
MOTUS posted a discussion
White Privilege From People's CubeIf we didn’t vote for Obama we were racists.Taking Obama’s picture with hot sauce - Microaggresion!If we joined the Tea Party we were racists (and likely to be audited by the IRS).If we supported Herman Caine we wer…
MOTUS posted a discussion
I’ve been collecting these for a week or so, the only connection is they are all generated by various branches of the whacky left.From the Green Belt:1. Green Party switches strategy in Pennsylvania recountHours after a Green Party-backed campaign d…
Dec 4
MOTUS posted a discussion
I hereby bestow my Column of the Week – on second thought make that of the Century – award to Roger L. Simon for this: Panic in Progressive Park: What If He’s Actually Good? And while Roger’s columns are generally award worthy simply because of his…
Dec 3

PAN on Facebook