Georgia O'Keeffe on Art

Rita Rudner on Castles in the Sky

Why the Red Card on the F.I.F.A. World Cup of Corruption?

In the wake of Attorney General Loretta Lynch pulling out a red card on 14 F.I.F.A officials for an alleged World Cup of Corruption, Russian President Vladimir Putin opined that the Americans were offsides. 

It is bizarre that Putin purports that the United States is culminating a three year investigation in order to interfere with the F.I.F.A. election of Joseph Sepp  Blatter, but that sort of agiprop distracts from the Russians continuing to mass heavy firepower on the Ukrainian border. But then again, Putin's Russia used the Sochi Winter Olympics as cover for initially invading Crimea in 2014.

To answer why the Department of Justice issued a 47 count indictment over F.I.F.A. corruption, it is worth noting that the plots were hatched in the United States and utilized the U.S. banking system.  It is wrong to think that the F.I.F.A. case does not affect American politics either.  The United States missed out on winning the 2018 World Cup to the Russian Federation's Sochi bid and the out of the box award to Qatar in 2022.  The U.S. would be a natural backup in case either the Russian or Qatari bids fall through.

Moreover,  the Clinton Foundation received between  $50,000 and $100,000 and partnered with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association.  President Bill Clinton was said to have been so upset at the US losing the 2022 World Cup bid to Qatar that he smashed a mirror.  But the Qatar 2022 tried to make it up by giving the Clinton Foundation  $250,000 and $500,000 as well as the Qatari government pitching in between $1 million and $5 million.

This may only be the beginning of the F.I.F.A. fallout. Suddenly the business of soccer has become very exiting.  Goooooooooooool!

h/t: Steve Bell

Rand Paul: ISIS Exists Because of GOP (!)(?)

Republican Presidential hopeful Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) appeared on MSNBC to hawk his book "Taking a Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America" (2015) and expand his political base in 2016.   Senator Paul is renowned for his libertarian politics policy but seemed to have mollified his non-interventionist foreign policy tendencies since he announced his candidacy.  Senator Paul appeared to honor his father without embracing the isolationist extremism which characterized the career of his father, former Representative (and quixotic 1988 Libertarian Party and 2012 GOP Presidential candidate)  Ron Paul (R-TX 14th and 22nd).

…

However when Joe Scarborough interviewed Senator Paul on the Morning Joe, Senator Paul posited that the GOP which was the reason that ISIS exists. 

This is a curious conclusion, as the precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan occurred during the six years of the Obama Administration.  This was on top of Mr. Obama's ever fungible red line on Syrian chemical weapons. 

Senator Paul's inflammatory utterance has several unfortunate implications for winning the GOP nomination.  Firstly, it violates Reagan's 11th Commandment not to criticize your own party when campaigning.  Secondly, Senator Paul embraced the isolationist extremism, which puts him at odds with most party loyalists who will be participating in the nomination process. Thirdly, Paul's foreign policy pronouncement echoes his father, which was on the fringe of the Republican party.  Fourth, Paul's extended Morning Joe interview was an exercise to "get" Republican neocon hawks like Senator John McCain (R-AZ) as well as McCain's minion (and quasi GOP Presidential candidate) Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Furthermore, the cantankerous close contributes to the perception that Senator Rand Paul is thin skinned. 

h/t: KAL 

Tony Robbins on Goals

Nathaniel Hawthorne on Character

Bobby Jindal on Political Reeducation

General George S. Patton on Fallen Soldiers

Ben Franklin on Life

Alexander Hamilton on Politics

Martin O'Malley on the Tsarnaev Death Sentence

 

 After the a jury sentenced Dzhohkar Tsarnaev to death for killing three people and maiming 264 exploding two bombs near the finish line of the 2013 Boston Marathon, former Governor Martin O'Malley weighed in.  

While the prospective Democrat Presidential candidate claims to respect the decision of the jury, his rhetoric reverts to a blame America first mode.  

Milton Berle on Opportunity

Joe Biden on Top Cops

Vice President Joe Biden attended the 22nd annual Top Cop awards ceremony in Washington, DC.  Our national treasure was in rare form by giving plaudits to the police while still joshing with them. 

Political junkies wonder if blue collar Democrats will gravitate towards Lunch Bucket Joe should the Vice President decide to try for the Oval Office in 2016.

Kirsten Powers on the Silencing

Jeb Bush on Religious Freedom

Former Florida Governor and inchoate 2016 Republican Presidential candidate Jeb Bush (R-FL) made a staunch defense of Religious Liberty during his commencement address at Liberty University. 

Mark Levin on the Constitution

Greg Gutfeld on Gun Free Zones

Dead Man Walking Nun Gives Explosive Testimony on Boston Bomber's Private Remorse

Before the defense rested its case during the penalty phase of the surviving Boston Bomber's trial,  Attorney Miriam Conrad called to the stand Sister Helen Prejean, C.J.S. to testify about Dzhohkar Tsarnaev's character. The 76 year old nun gained renown for her book Dead Man Walking (1994), that has been made into a movie (1996) an opera (2000) and a play  written by Tim Robbins (2002).  Dead Man Walking chronicles insights of the mindset of convicted murderers drawn from interacting with two prisoners on death row. The experience lead Sister Prejean to become an ardent anti-capital punishment activist.

Sister Prejean met with Tsarnaev five times since early March 2015. Sister Prejean testified that the 21 year old Tsarnaev brother seemed genuinely sorry for his actions. In fact, Prejean quoted the Boston Bomber: "No one deserves to suffer as they did." Prejean purported that Tsarnaev's "face registered" what he was saying as "absolutely sincere".  CNN reporter Deborah Feyerick claimed this was nothing short of explosive testimony.



It's a pity that Dzhohkar Tsarnaev chose not to take the stand during the guilt phase, in which he was convicted on all 30 counts, nor during the penalty phase, so that the people could discern if it was real remorse or crocodile tears delivered through an earnest activist. Boston Bombing victims in the gallery shook their heads during claims that Tsarnaev was remorseful.

One revealing threat of testimony which was quickly quashed was when Sister Prejean started to speak about comparative religions.  Sister Prejean noted that the Catholic Church had become more and more opposed to the death penalty. The prosecution objected on that point (as they had been chary about an anti Capital Punishment advocate testifying in the first place).  Defense Attorney Conrad interjected "Let me stop you right there".

 Was this a quick acquiescence to an inevitable objection or did the Defense not want to be too explicit in revealing their hand to the jury on Prejean's presence? Defense experts note that if one juror objects to the death penalty, then the Defense achieves its objective and Tsarnaev gets a life sentence without parole.  It is thought that someone of Sister Prejean's stature might be able to influence the jury.

Another ancillary aspect of Sister Prejean's testimony was playing to the look of innocence.  Prejean testified that when she first met Tsarnaev: "I walked in the room, I looked at his face and said, 'Oh my God, he's so young!'" .  This played into the defense argument about youthfulness and impressionability.  It echoes the Tiger Beat style cover of Rolling Stone.  This innocent impression lends more sympathy then the fact that Tsarnaev was convicted of mounting a jihad inspired attack to punish American which killed three people and wounded 264 people.

Although it is understandable that an anti-Capital Punishment advocate like the Sister Prejean would want to testify on behalf of the Boston Bomber, it strains credulity that Tsarnaev's defense would rely on hearsay of remorse rather than have the convicted criminal show his true self up on the stand.

After eight days of testimony which called upon 44 witnesses, the defense rested its case after Sister Prejean's testimony.  The twelve jurors will begin deliberations on Wednesday to determine if Tsarnaev would be in line for a lethal injection or serving a life sentence (presumably at Supermax) without possibility of parole.

Properly Prioritizing Homeland Security

Hlilary Clinton: Woman, Myth or Deity?

Aside from making headlines by stopping at Chipotle in the Scooby Mystery Machine en route to structured campaign stops in Iowa, former Secretary of State Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) made headlines with her first campaign speech at the Women of the World Summit in New York.

 A candidate's maiden campaign speech can be fraught with symbolism and meaning.  Mrs. Clinton's address was an homage to feminism.  But what really made an impression is when Hillary suggested that in order to ensure full access to womens' "reproductive health" (read abortion), we could have to change our laws, morals and religious beliefs.

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

 This proposed progressive pogrom did not play well among Pro Lifers here and abroad.  The Bishop of Oyo, Nigeria Emmanuel Badejo analyzed why the Democrat candidate thought she should say such things.  

James Madison on Democracies

Audrey Hepburn on Help

Geraldo Rivera on Free Speech and Showers

Wonder who is really the snake, Free Speech provocateurs, radicalized jihadis or a vain jo-WHORE-nalist?

Countenancing Clinton Charity?

In the wake of the publicity over Peter Schweizer's blockbuster book "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Made Bill and Hillary Rich" (2015), there has been increased scrutiny over Clinton finances.  Instead of just mocking the irony of the Clintons claiming that they were dead broke leaving the White House, yet now are personally worth over $55 million.   However, the Clinton Foundation complicates this calculation.

When Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) became Secretary of State, there was a memorandum of understanding that the Clinton Foundation would not take contributions from foreign governments as it would appear like a conflict of interest with Mrs. Clinton's official responsibilities.  Yet the Clinton Foundation continued to take large contributions from individuals who have close ties with foreign governments.  Shortly thereafter, there seemed to be access or action that seemed favorable to such interests.  This can be characterized as pay for play, although Clinton sources claim that there is not a shred of evidence (sic) to prove those allegations.

Another sticking point about the Clinton Foundation is how the founders of the Clinton Foundation use their charity.  The Clinton Foundation only gives 10% of its take to actual charitable grants.  In fact, according to 2013 tax filings, $8.5 million or 10% of the total went to travel.

To address these issues, former President Bill Clinton granted media access to NBC News while he was traveling in Africa on behalf of the Clinton Foundation.



It is interesting to note that President Clinton believes that it is virtuous to donate to his own charity, which leverages Clinton prominence to effectuate global change through lots of international travel for the principal. How convenient.

Should this be charity that the American polity countenance, particularly considering how Mrs. Clinton aspires to again be in the Oval Office?

Will Rogers on Crime

On First Amendment Prudence?

The "Draw Mohammed" event in Garland, Texas has provoked some mixed reactions in the media. Pamela Geller, the proprietor of Atlas Shrugged and co-founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, believes that speaking out against radical Islam through an event in Garland, Texas is properly exercising her Freedom of Speech.

Greta Van Susteran went "Off the Record" condemned Pamela Geller and the Draw Mohammed event as not being a prudent application of her First Amendment rights.



Some self censorship critics, point to Constitutional limits of Freedom of Speech.  Chris Cuomo got on his high horse regarding hate speech and kept pointing to the 1942 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Supreme Court decision about "fighting words".

But if one relies on the Constitution as being a "living document", one must read further high court cases.  to understand that "fighting words" limitations essentially now must be provocative personal epithets. For CNN commentators preening about their juris doctor degree, check Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971) [the "Fuck the Draft" case] and Snyder v. Philips (2010) 562 USC ___ (2011) [Westboro Baptist Church protesting soldier's funeral],

It is ironic that there are elements in the media, which ought to revel in the First Amendment, that urge those who advocate unpopular opinions to be reticent about expressing their Freedom of Speech.  That's some freedom-- not!

It is ironic that there are elements in the media, which ought to revel in the First Amendment, that urge those who advocate unpopular opinions to be reticent about expressing their Freedom of Speech.  That's some freedom-- not!

Several years ago, after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, there was an effort for encourage civic civility. Alas, that was a progressive ploy to stifle conservative dissent and was not reciprocated by the left.

The admonitions of today to be prudent when exercising free speech seem to show the inroads of cultural jihad.  One can not express Free Speech which a Muslim might find offensive. This can be considered soft tyranny or de facto sharia.  Should we acquiesce to such sensibilities now, consider how imams like Anjem Choudrey would handle such offensive speech. 

customer survey

Pamela Geller on Free Speech

Ray Bradbury on Communication

The Huckster on Running for Higher Office

Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) has distinguished himself as a candidate for the Republican nomination in 2016 by coming out of the gate attacking his fellow Republican opponents.

 Perhaps it was lost for Gov. Huckabee on the mythical "third tablet" of Mount Sinai.

Several of the top tiered GOP presidential candidates, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) are "moonlighting" for the GOP nod as they continue their elected roles in the U.S. Senate.  It should be noted, however, that Senator Rubio has vowed not to seek re-election for the Florida Senate seat as he threw his hat in the ring for President.

Obviously, Governor Huckabee is not observing the Reagan 11th commandment "Thou shall not speak ill of thy fellow Republican".

Be that as it may, we need not judge Gov. Huckabee on words alone, as this is not his first time to the presidential rodeo.  

It is true that Governor Huckabee was not holding office when he ran for President in 2008, as his term in Little Rock expired January 8, 2007.  However, the telling fact is whether "The Huckster" applied the same standard to his 2008 opponents as he did to the current crop of candidates.  

Of Governor Huckabee's many swipes against his opponents in the 2008 cycle, he was remembered for spreading anti-Mormon innuendo against former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) rather than taking pot shots against Senator John McCain (R-AZ) for holding office while running for President.

If Governor Huckabee folksy populist quest for higher office is not successful, there is little chance of going back to his gig at Fox News, after trash talking "the trashy" women on Fox News Channel,

P.J. O'Rourke on Economics

Christopher Hitchens on Islamophobia

Alexis de Tocqueville on Government

Marco Rubio on Statism

Corrie ten Boom on Adversity

Thomas Sowell on the Welfare State

Josef Stalin on America

John F. Kennedy on Communism