The thing is, the Constitution requires that the President present a report to Congress every year. That's all it does. It does not require that he speak to them at all; a written report is sufficient. So President Trump could easily submit that written report, then deliver a speech to the citizens from the Oval Office. Any President could (could have) done that; while it is traditional to address a joint session of Congress, in person, to deliver that report, it is not required.
If I'm President Trump, that's what I do: I give the speech to the people from the comfort and safety of the Oval Office, and then submit a written report shortly thereafter.
My instincts tell me this is going to backfire, and make the Democrats look even more mean-spirited and petty than they already do.
* * *
Because of course Egypt is in Africa and if you're from Africa, you're black!
There has been, over the past couple of decades, a concerted effort by the SJW/NPC crowd to rewrite the history of ancient Egypt so that black people did all that big stuff, like building the pyramids and so forth. That's why they're now up in arms over a white woman being cast to play Cleopatra, who--sorry but it must be said--was not black.
The term used in Cleopatra's time for "black" was "nubian", and in general nubians were not royalty in Egypt, nor even a majority of the population. Cleopatra herself was white; she was of Greek descent, for friggin' my snack.
But of course it's literally ancient history and the left never lets the facts get in the way of their preferred narrative, do they?
* * *
This is typical. There is absolutely nothing in the world that makes me think leftists are mush-headed numbskulls than when they feel sorry for an armed predator.
"Robbery doesn't deserve the death penalty," they say. "He didn't deserve to be killed for it."
Well, then, how about this?
The scumbag in question was a felon. He was illegally carrying a firearm. There is literally no way he could have legally owned, let alone carried, the gun he used in his attempted robbery. His ownership and use of that gun was 100% legal. By the legal standard proposed by that anti-gun-ownership tweet, he was deserving of execution. No?
But of course that's not at all what Mr. "Common Sense Mass Executions" meant. A criminal carrying a gun, that doesn't bother the left at all. A criminal sticking that gun in someone's face, they don't have a problem with that either. But the instant a law-abiding citizen uses a gun to defend herself, that is a travesty of justice which must be prevented!
I notice that what these soft-headed morons focus on is the legal use of a firearm in self-defense, while completely ignoring the fact that the would-be robber was illegally carrying an illegal firearm. In fact, it's just tossed aside: "Of course, I don't think he should have had a gun, either," says the tower of intellect Zack Ford.
She should have "let him rob her." That's a great piece of armchair quarterbacking from a guy who probably hasn't ever had a gun pointed at him. What happens if, having collected her purse, the mugger decides to drag her around the corner and rape her? Should she let that happen too? What if he's high and shoots her for no real reason? The point is, Zack Ford has no idea what would have happened next if the woman hadn't been armed. More importantly, she had no idea either. All she knew in that moment was that a man was pointing a gun at her and making demands.What a tool.
* * *
Oh, and by the way, if you own a gun, you've killed "atleast" one person. The science is settled! Gun owners are awful people, aren't they?
* * *
I am just in awe. Here's what I think it says:
fuck the CPD...and it looks like it was scribbled by a 3-year-old. Holy shit. Even the gang symbols are badly drawn.
watching you and your girl
going ta fuck you guys up
fuck you 2
fucken dick (?)
I mean, let's face it: the likely culprit is in a gang and probably stopped going to school before graduating from primary school. I'd estimate that the last time he paid attention in class was second or maybe third grade, after which--well. No father, uninterested mother, no one helping him or encouraging him to learn anything (because that would be "acting white") and this is the result.
* * *
Meanwhile, the thuggery continues in the political sector too:
"We can take that." "CTU [Chicago Teachers' Union] Vice President Stacy Davis Gates" says, of the new tax revenue she expects Illinois to collect once our new governor's tax scheme is implemented, that the CTU "can take that" and use it for their own nefarious ends. I think Second City Cop says it best:
Notice everything that the teachers union says they can "take." Nothing about reducing costs, making classrooms more efficient, cutting out bloated management, maybe contributing what every other civil servant contributes to the dwindling pension funds. No, just "take, take, take."Because of course it's "fo' the chawwdrin" and you don't want to ruin their educations just so you can keep a little more money in your pocket, you greedy motherfucking racist?
And of course raising taxes is preferable to reducing costs, because these people derive their power from how big their budgets are.
But of course there is a certain limit to how high taxes can go; and as SCC points out, the people these thugs intend to tax the highest are the ones who are most mobile. They can easily afford to pack up and leave, most of them, and take their incomes with them.
The point behind Pritzker's idea to get rid of the eminently fair flat tax and replace it with a so-called "progressive" tax scheme is that it will actually end up soaking the middle class the most. The people who can afford it least will see their income taxes rise by as much as $4,000 per year. And the Chicago Teachers' Union wants it all.
* * *
Well, only 2.5 hours left in my shift. Whee.