Dems Want President to ‘Share’ Authority to Launch Nuclear Missiles

Joe Biden: ex-defense secretary's wife says viral photo used 'misleadingly'  | Joe Biden | The Guardian

If you can’t trust this guy with the nuclear missiles… hey, game over.

If Democrats haven’t made you physically ill yet, maybe this’ll do it.

Citing preposterous and totally fictional concerns that President Donald Trump might have gone crazy and started dropping nuclear bombs around the place, 31 Democrat weenies in the House of Representatives have released a letter calling for the president to “share” the authority to launch nuclear missiles (

Squeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a compulsive liar, sez she contacted the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Jan. 6–when there was a very small riot at the Capitol Building–to ask about “preventing an unstable president” from going nuclear. The noozies take it as a given that nobody on the Left had anything whatsoever to do with organizing the riot–we are to take their word for it that the whole thing was 100% Donald Trump’s fault.

When did they outlaw intellectual honesty among “journalists”?

Anyway, according to this letter from the House, unspecified “past presidents” have “exhibited behavior that causes other officials to express concerns about the presidents’ judgment.”

Now, nowhere in the letter do they mention alleged “President Joe Biden,” or his leg hairs, or his deathless quote, “You know… uh, uh… the thing!” So what “presidents” are they “concerned” about? We ain’t got but one–and he’s defective. Everybody knows it.

The president has sole authority to launch nuclear missiles. At the same time, American military officers have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. And a lunatic president can be removed from office, per the 25th Amendment. Were they really, truly afraid Donald Trump was tempted to nuke D.C.? Or were they more worried that Doddering Joe might press the button because he thought he was having a rumble with Corn Pop down by the swimming pool?

Some Dems have suggested that it might be well if the president had to share that authority with, say, the vice president and whatever wad of protoplasm occupies the Speaker’s chair. Yeah, swell idea. Round ’em up and chew the fat for a couple hours while the bad guys are gleefully peppering America with their missiles. And there’s always the possibility that they might not be able to reach an agreement in time to fight the nuclear war at all. So the reason the president has that sole authority is because time is of the essence.

Readers’ Quiz For The Day: Who are more dishonest–Democrats or “journalists”?

Yes, the Supreme Court Does Exceed Its Authority

A reader, Invisible Mikey, has taken me to task for not understanding the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review and for saying that the court, far exceeding its Constitutional authority, makes laws. You can see his full statement as a comment appended to the previous post, “Libs Move to Protect Religious Liberty.”

I have just re-read, twice, Article III of the Constitution, which defines the role of the Supreme Court. There is nothing in there about court decisions becoming “the law of the land” without benefit of legislation.

But we don’t bother with legislation anymore, do we? The court makes a ruling, or the president issues an executive order–“stroke of the pen, law of the land: cool!” And, as if by magic, marriage suddenly becomes the union of two persons of the same sex.

During my lifetime, politicians have used the Supreme Court to do their dirty work for them. Thus school prayer gets abolished, the state religion of the USA becomes secular humanism, abortion becomes “the law of the land” and snuffs out 50 million babies, and now even the most basic institutions of society are not safe from the court’s tampering.

All of these innovations were given to the court to execute because the politics for any one of them just wasn’t right. Introduce a bill in Congress to ban school prayer and see what the voters think of that.

I do not believe the polls that supposedly tell us that the American people are “overwhelmingly in  favor of gay marriage.” If that were so, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for politicians to ride the crest of the wave and redefine marriage using the ordinary legislative process, right under the dome of the capitol building. But again the dirty work was left to the court.

This is not to excuse Congress. Congress makes some truly horrible laws. But the strictly Constitutional remedy, when they do that, is to vote ’em out. Judicial Review was only established years after the ratification of the Constitution–and not by legislation, or amendment, but only by custom and public acceptance of the court’s expansion of its powers. It seemed like a good idea at the time!

I wonder what will be left of the Constitution by this time next year.

How Moral Imbeciles Defend Abortion

Sorry for this horrible image–but if you have a problem with it, then you must be a forced-birth advocate.

The defense of abortion has been getting more and more inane. I won’t say it’s as offensive as abortion itself–you know: killing a baby and selling off the body piece by piece–but it is certainly very offensive.

Even before it came out that Planned Parenthood was selling off chunks of aborted babies, pro-aborts had discovered a devastating new put-down, guaranteed to slay pro-lifers where they stood.

Ready? Here it is: anyone opposed to abortion is to be called a forced birth advocate.

Get it? These wicked evil people are forcing, forcing women to have babies. The way-out-there lefty Daily Kos has a sample rant ( ), in which we get the whole package: forced birth advocates hate women, they think women should be nothing more than “walking incubators,”  they indulge in “fetus worship,” and of course they don’t believe that “women’s lives matter.”

Abortion can also be defended by dreaming up statistically unlikely scenarios ( “What if a woman is raped by someone with AIDS while crossing the Barents Sea in a kayak?”), but it’s really much more fun to call names.

And when all else fails, pro-aborts can call upon their sponsor, Satan–as they did two years ago in this famous pro-abortion rally in Texas ( ).

I think we can be sure that Satan hears them.

‘Climate Change’ Con Artists Caught Again

We told you so.

Once again, a bunch of “climate scientists”–this time from a federal government weather agency, NOAA–has been caught lying and cheating in order to trick the public into believing in Global Warming ( ).

Because if the public believes in Global Warming, they just may allow the government to do anything and everything to Save the Planet. Like, if we don’t give them huge new powers and allow them to tax our pants off, we’re all gonna die, our cities all gonna be underwater, glub-glug-glub…

So NOAA has tried to build up Global Warming by inventing temperature data. You know–just making it up. They’ve also been caught substituting temperature readings from urban areas for non-readings from rural areas. For those who have been to collidge, urban temperatures are higher than rural temperatures–all that paving, for instance. It has been estimated that some 50 percent of the temperature data cited by NOAA is fictitious.

I know there are true believers out there who still gulp it down when liberal politicians and their pet “scientists” insist that we’ve got Global Warming and everybody on the Plaaanet had better obey them, or else. Never mind that all these Global Warming alarmists zoom around in private jets, live in enormous mansions, and leave “carbon footprints” a thousand times bigger than anybody else’s–and that they don’t act like they believe a single word of what they’re selling.

To have that much faith in government, and so little faith in God–

Is that a tragedy or a farce?

‘White Privilege Tax’: Are Liberals Retarded?

So just for a joke, mind you, just kidding, Mike Dice went out to ask people to sign a petition supporting a 1% “white privilege tax” on white people for being white.

Watch how eagerly they sign! True, a very few refused to sign. One thought it was an “awful” idea, the other was sure it was a joke. (Both of those individuals are black, by the way.) But everybody else? Wow! All they had to hear was the usual ca-ca about how the money will be “redistributed” to them, and they were all aboard. Never mind if the persons belonging to assorted Cherished Minorities were standing there in several hundred dollars’ worth of trendy clothes and were only slightly less white than talcum powder. They are “oppressed!” They must be paid!

Of course, as a black man trapped in a white man’s body, I would hope that I would never, never have to pay such a tax, if it ever came to be. I wonder what angle rich liberals would use to get out of paying. But then prominent liberals never pay their taxes anyway.

This time, folks, it was a joke.

Next time, God help us, it might not be.

Check out the video.

Can the President Raise Your Taxes?

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives… (Section 7)

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises… (Section 8)

–Article I of the United States Constitution

When Valerie Jarrett, back in 2008, said Obama was “ready to rule,” no one realized she meant it literally.

Fresh off his stroke-of-the-pen “executive amnesty” for millions of illegal aliens, President *Batteries Not Included now contemplates a “unilateral tax hike” by means of yet another executive order ( ).

The Constitution–laughingly referred to as the supreme law of the land–gives Congress the exclusive power to raise taxes. So what does this president think he is doing?

We can shed some light on this thanks to an exclusive interview with a presidential adviser named Carbuncle, who normally appears to be nothing more than a small growth near the president’s armpit. While the president is asleep, or otherwise insensible, Carbuncle can take the form of a large insect and move about independently.

“He will tell you he only wants to raise a mere $100 billion–chicken-feed!–by closing off tax loopholes and punishing those big corporations that everybody hates,” said Carbuncle. “This is going to happen in all 57 states, and that $100 billion is only the first installment.

“The president is distressed that some vestiges of the Constitution might remain intact after his final year in office. He is also keen to establish many more vacation residences for himself in various countries of the world. That will cost lots of dollars! So far he is looking at places in Costa Rica, Dubai, Switzerland, the Maldives, and some 90 other undisclosed locations.”

How can the former community organizer get away with such blatant violations of the law?

“Easy! Simple!” answered Carbuncle. “He knows no one in America will dare to demand his impeachment, because everyone in America is terrified of being called a racist. They would rather bow down to a tyrant than run the risk of being slammed by the media. So he can do anything he wants.”

Besides which, he whispered, while suggestively waving his antennae, “He has help from a place that many Americans don’t believe in but that all are afraid of.”

Why Executive Amnesty is Morally Wrong

For the time being, a federal judge has put the kibosh on President *Batteries Not Included’s “executive amnesty” for millions of illegal aliens. But of course, once “progressives” have an evil work in hand, they never drop it. And the headlines are full of Republican surrender monkeys who seem to think the last election didn’t count.

Let us disregard, for the sake of argument, the probably irreparable harm that would be done by trying to digest, all at once, millions of unskilled poor people who come here from a foreign country and can’t speak English. Indeed, let’s go farther–even farther than Fat-head Jeb Bush, who thinks erasing our borders will somehow “lift our spirits.” Let’s say this wholesale amnesty will be altogether a blessing: guaranteed to get our economy moving again, re-invigorate a rotting culture, refresh our social institutions, and result in each and every one of us getting a highly-paid no-show job with a big fat pension that kicks in when we turn 35.

Executive amnesty would still be wrong.

Why? Because, as the president himself has remarked many times, during lucid intervals, the Constitution simply doesn’t give a president that kind of power. He cannot exercise such power without way overstepping his bounds. He can’t do it without violating the law and threatening the continued existence of our republican form of government.

Should the chief executive of a modern, civilized country also be its chief law-breaker?

And if Congress is willing to let a president function as a king, at the expense of its own Constitutional prerogatives and sphere of authority–well, then, what does that make them?

At the moment, it seems that all that stands between America and monarchy is a single federal judge.

That, and our prayers.

A Few Simple Truths

There are times when I just feel swamped–so much crazy stuff going on, I can’t decide what to write about. So how about a little selection of simple observations?

Just because everybody says it’s true, doesn’t mean it’s true. The “appeal to consensus” is an invalid argument. But it’s the main support beam for Evolution, Climate Change, what have you.

But of course if the majority opinion is that some liberal scheme is wrong and totally undesirable, consensus then becomes irrelevant.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker doesn’t have a college degree; therefore he isn’t qualified to be president. Maybe he ought to cram for a degree in Women’s Studies. Then he’d be qualified to be president.

Every utopian scheme–are you listening, Humanist Manifesto fans?–is doomed to run aground on the rocks of sheer impossibility. They promise things that no one can give, and eventually succeed only in arousing a revolution of rising expectations. You can’t string people along forever.

If President *Batteries Not Included really loves this country, he has a mighty strange way of showing it.

If our current crop of leaders truly is the best a nation of 300 million can do, God help us.

Proud of Things We Ought to be Ashamed of

The ancient Roman censor, Cato the Elder, was once asked why there was no statue of him in the Forum. He replied that he would rather people asked why there was no statue of Cato than why there was one.

No such modesty from former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, now a revered “educator” and mentor to President *Batteries Not Included.

The Michigan Historical Society has approved the erection of a monument to Ayers and the old communist cabal, Students for a Democratic Society ( ).

Here we are again, taking pride in things we ought to be ashamed of. Maybe Boston could put up a marker, “Here is where the Boston Strangler nailed his first victim.” Or we might have a little gold plate on the floor of the Oval Office, marking the spot where Monica Lewinsky *ahem* Bill Clinton.

I spent a year in Michigan and got to know some of these SDS whiffleballs. Most of them were just middle-class twits playing at being dangerous revolutionaries. But there were a few hard-core Stalinist wannabes who used to get off on dreams of herding their fellow Americans into concentration camps and shooting them. According to the FBI, the celebrated Mr. Ayers was one of the latter.

Does the state of Michigan provide any oversight at all as to how the Historical Commission spends public money?

If there ever was a civilization that tried its damnedest to destroy itself, we’re living in it.

A Few Tricky Questions

Zen Buddhists like to ask themselves tricky questions like, “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” That’s a poser, all right.

As our country stumbles and bumbles its way into a new year, here are a few tricky questions for Americans.

1. If communism is as wonderful as American college professors and media mavens think it is, how come no one is building rafts to go to Cuba?

2. Why do the vast majority of us have to trample on our own beliefs, change our laws and customs, and turn our culture inside-out because atheists and homosexuals say so?

3. Why, in the wake of a historic election in which the American people overwhelmingly rejected Democrats and their insane agenda, do the Republican leaders behave as if their party lost?

4. If “Black lives matter,” as the latest slogan puts it, why don’t people start living as if they mattered? Why all the violence, crime, gangs, and fatherless homes? That’s not how people live if they think their lives matter. But of course the great majority of normal, decent, peaceful people goes unseen and unheard–because the nooze media will have it so: makes for a better “narrative.”

Finally, here’s a rhetorical question that just might make you laugh until you have the hiccups.

5. If God wishes to bless a nation, do you really think He gives it the kind of leaders that we have today? Hick, hick, hick…