Weekend Open Thread

So, Obama can’t quite figure out what might have motivated the Dallas shooter. Well, on the plus side, at least he didn’t say the police acted stupidly.

Greens specifically invite Bernie to be their nominee. I’ve actually kind of liked Bernie on the campaign trail. Disagree with everything he says, but at least he’s been honestly saying what he wants for America. But, here’s the kicker – the Democrat party is corrupt to the bone. Oh, sure, they’ll impose the Prog stuff on America, but the bottom line is that they are merely in it for the power and wealth. An honest, dedicated Socialist would have nothing to do with them any longer…if he refuses the Green’s offer, then he’ll show himself a political hack.

Hillary says her record proves she takes national security seriously. If there was one person left in the United States who thought there was an ounce of honor in the Clintons, this should disabuse him of that notion.

Rasmussen shows Trump up 2, Reuters shows Hillary up 11. My view: I don’t think polling is going to work so well in 2016. The electorate is just as much a mess as our two major parties are.

Why, yes, Progressives will take their demands for political orthodoxy to the Church and demand compliance. What made you think otherwise? Oh, all those times they assured us that they didn’t care what we believed, they just didn’t want us to impose our views on society? Yeah – that was a lie.

8 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread

  1. Amazona July 10, 2016 / 10:33 am

    Poor Obama. He seems to be having a bad month. First, two of his favorite agendas—–Islam and homosexuality—collided in a bloody massacre of homosexuals by a Muslim. Even though the killer repeatedly stated his allegiance to ISIS, Obama had to scramble to find some other reason.

    Now he is having a hard time “untangling” the motives of the Dallas sniper who ambushed and killed police officers. Evidently he doesn’t find the statements of the killer to be very compelling. Even knowing that the shooter told police he wanted to kill white people, especially police officers, poor Barry says he finds it “…very hard to untangle the motives of this shooter…”

    “Dallas police said Johnson told them before he was killed that he specifically was targeting white police officers for killing, and he was upset about the Black Lives Matter movement” is evidently translated by the filters in Obama’s mind into merely having a “troubled mind”.

    It might be just a teeny bit awkward knowing that your own Attorney General gave a pass to the New Black Panthers for soliciting the murder of George Zimmerman, offering a reward to the killer, and now having a mass murderer of police officers attending meetings of that group. “On his Facebook page, Johnson posted an image of a fist with the text “Black Power.” He also expressed interest on his Facebook page in the People’s New Black Panther Party, which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as a “virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization.”” Now having a virulently anti-white anti-police anti-American political movement essentially under the protection of the United States government—that is, Black Lives Matter—-also appearing to be part of the motivation of the attacker does mean it is time for a lateral move, an effort at distraction. In this case it is to blame the gun.

    ““If you care about the safety of our police officers, you can’t set aside the gun issue and pretend that’s irrelevant,” Mr. Obama said. “It is a contributing factor, not the sole factor but a contributing factor, to the broader tensions that arise between the police and the communities they serve.” Glaringly absent from this pious mouthing of concern for police officers is the fact that there is a large movement in this country that specifically calls for the murder of police officers. One that happens to be racist in name and character, one that has received tacit approval from the Oval Office in that the law enforcement arm of the Executive Branch has taken no action against it.


  2. Amazona July 10, 2016 / 2:44 pm

    Do you laugh or do you cry? Just when you think it can’t really get much worse….

    Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton said she “loves” the idea of appointing Barack Obama to the Supreme Court if she’s elected president.

    At a campaign event in Iowa Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton told the crowd the next president may have to appoint up to three Supreme Court justices. When one attendee mentioned Mr. Obama as a contender, she seemed excited by the recommendation.

    “Wow, what a great idea. No one has ever suggested that to me, I love that, wow,” Mrs. Clinton said. “He may have a few other things to do, but I tell you, that’s a great idea.

    “I mean, he’s brilliant, he can set forth an argument and he was a law professor,” she added. “So he’s got all the credentials, but we would have to get a Democratic Senate to get him confirmed.”


    OK, so it’s partly a quid pro quo for Obama supporting her and helping provide some distraction from the Comey collapse of morals and judgment, but still….

    Or do you see it as hopeful, as the nation is by and large so fed up with Obama and his blatant race baiting and his love affair with Islam and his support of terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood that people might not be too happy about him just “passing the baton” to Hillary. It was bad enough that there was the threat she would pick up where he will have left off, but to top that with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court?

    Oh, my.

    • M. Noonan July 10, 2016 / 8:45 pm

      It’s a way to try and juice up Obama-bots…I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole thing was planted. But, Obama won’t want the SC – there’s actual work to be done in that job and you don’t get to be on camera much. My bet – he’ll be made boss of the UN…money, power, security guards, camera time and no actual responsibility. Perfect for him.

      • Amazona July 11, 2016 / 12:55 am

        Oh, it is definitely intended to appeal to the Obamabots, and also as a payback to him and his ego for stepping in to keep her from being indicted and to show his support for her.

        Hopefully it will backfire. Very very few actually think Obama has done a good job, and his positions on race and on Muslims make him unpalatable to many even on the Left. I’m not sure it is a good strategy to campaign on the image of picking up the baton and carrying on what he has started. And talking about putting him on the SCOTUS will get anyone who is thinking of sitting out the election rather than voting for Trump giving that idea a second thought.

        You are right, though, about it being a real job, with little camera time. Not really his thing.

    • Retired Spook July 11, 2016 / 11:49 am

      What an interesting article. I’ve never read anything like it.

      • Amazona July 11, 2016 / 7:55 pm

        As one who grew up as a Catholic and aware of the concept of a celibate priesthood—that is, acknowledging sexuality without acting on it in pursuit of a higher goal—this seems to be similar. I had never heard of men feeling same sex attraction while married, without acting on it or allowing it to interfere with the marriage, but when I think of the other sexual temptations men (and women) face, without acting on them, this seems like just another one. I have to wonder how many marriages and families would have remained intact if SSA was accepted and treated as just another temptation.

        In a culture which almost demands that all temptations be indulged, this would be considered a horrible thing to ask of a man. But, as the old English saying goes, “There is naught as queer as folk”—and “queer” has nothing to do with same sex attraction. It merely means there is nothing as odd as people in our infinite variety of tastes, desires and quirks. Making the decision to treat SSA as another of these and not a compulsion to act has made a lot of people very happy, and I would love to see this kind of thing getting more publicity and encouraging others to reconsider the current conventional wisdom that says not acting on an urge is a betrayal of one’s self.

      • M. Noonan July 11, 2016 / 11:43 pm

        I first came across this a few years ago when I read an article about a guy who was gay but happily married. It all comes down to human choice – even if you can find the “gay gene” and demonstrate conclusive that same-sex attraction is built-in, it doesn’t mean one has to do that. What a human being does is always a matter of choice – and the concept that a person can’t be happy and fulfilled unless they have a particular sort of sexual activity is absurd.

Comments are closed.