* * *
So the current North Korean dictator had people shot, one of them being his ex-girlfriend. It sounds as if his wife found out about his affair, and in order to retain peace in the dicatorial home he ordered his lover and some of her compatriots shot. "Okay? It's so over between us, I had her executed!"
"Some of the musicians were also found to have bibles when they were detained,..." Yep! Communism brooks no other master than the State. If you're religious, you might not be completely loyal to the State; and besides, a religious person might not be afraid of dying, and fear of death is vital to the maintenance of terror, which keeps the proles in line.
* * *
JayG nicely outlines the Obama/Democrat/Media hypocrisy on Syria.
He also points out something: during the runup to war in Iraq, in 2002, there was a brief world-wide shortage of shipping containers. No one knew (or, at least, no one said) where they were all going, but some folks speculated that lots of them were being used by Iraq, to shuffle its WMDs off to other places, because once the US got into Iraq the WMDs that every intelligence agency in the free world said it had were mysteriously absent.
Then it turns out--ten years later--that Syria has lots and lots of nerve gas. Even in 2003-2004-2005 people were suggesting that Saddam Hussein sent his WMDs to Syria, and the world-wide dearth of shipping containers in 2002 would seem to support that theory.
NYT has posted an op-ed written by someone who doesn't actually work for the paper which insists we should attack Syria in spite of the unconstitutional and illegal nature of such an attack:
...[I]t's...pretty extraordinary to see the New York Times' conception of the power granted by the Constitution to the President expand and contract according to the "D" or "R" after his name.Yes, because in 2003 NYT was against President Bush's proposed foray into Iraq even though that had an actual Congressional declaration of war (that our current sitting Secretary of State voted for, before he voted against it) as well as international approval. (Except for France. But France says this one's okay, so we have to do it! Right?)
Regardless of the outcome of our impending adventure in Syria, you will never see leftists marching around chanting, "Obama lied, kids died" because Obama is their boy and it's just fine for a Democrat to do things which--eight years earlier--they screamed bloody murder about very same things being done by a Republican.
Leftism. Because hypocrisy. Or perhaps that should be the other way around?
* * *
EXACTLY AS PREDICTED Obamacare is turning the US into a part-time nation.
Obamacare defines "full time" as 32 hours per week, and any company employing more than 50 people full-time must provide health insurance to its employees. Before the thing was passed, we were warning you people about this provision and what it would mean. The effect following the cause was obvious to anyone who bothered to look at the facts.
But in the liberal world, cause does not follow effect. You can raise taxes without people limiting the associated economic activity (unless it's a tax on ammunition, in which case people stop buying bullets); raising taxes will always lead to increased revenue and there will never be an economic downside to it. You can emplace all sorts of incentives for people to remain on the dole, yet everyone will struggle to get themselves off welfare and into the workforce.
In the liberal world, making guns more illegal will naturally lead to a decrease in gun crimes. Turning food into fuel is a thermodynamic miracle which doesn't consume more energy than it produces, and it has no effect on the price of food.
...I could go on with more risible leftist nonsense, but I think you get the idea: in the real world, cause follows effect, and it is usually not that difficult to predict. This is why so many of us on the right could look at Obamacare's definition of "full time" work as 32 hours and predict that companies would be laying off full-time employees and shifting others to part-time work, less than 30 hours per week, specifically to avoid Obamacare.
* * *
Because he's a Republican, of course. The only sitting black Senator, Tim Scott, was not invited to speak at the Martin Luther King rally in D.C. because he's a Republican.
USA Today columnist DeWayne Wickham said there was no real reason for him to be there in the first place.Oh. So I guess if you're appointed to a position you don't count the same, eh? So Mr. Scott is a second-class senator? Hmm, sounds like racism to me!
“And he should have been invited why?” Wickham asked. “He should have been invited to speak for what reason?”
“He’s one of 50 Senators,” Wickham said. “And he’s appointed not elected.”
The best part? The guy saying this is a columnist for USA Today yet he apparently doesn't know that there are one hundred Senators in the Senate?
* * *
...just checked the weather report again, and the numbers are similar. How'd they know that I wrote them down this time??