Month: August 2019

Gutfeld on Bernie’s comments about China

In an interview with The Hill, Democratic presidential candidate and avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said China had done more to address extreme poverty than any country in history. “What we have to say about China, in fairness to China and its leadership is, if I’m not mistaken, they have made more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization, OK. So they’ve done a lot of things for their people,” Sanders said. He’s right. According to the World Bank, the number of poor in China went from 880 million in 1981, to less than 10 million. But I wonder how they did that? Well, the Chinese “socialists” killed millions of poor people, so there’s that. Dead people aren’t poor. Just dead. They called that the “Great Leap Forward.” After that, they used a tool Bernie despises: capitalism. It was only the Chinese rigorously adopted free-market principles, private ownership and decentralization, that they transformed their economy from a house of horrors to something much more humane. The things that saved a billion lives in China are the things Bernie thinks harmed our country. The lesson is that those who scream about inequality embrace ideas that create more inequality. By replacing equal opportunity with equal outcomes, you end up with two classes: the poor and the powerful. Which happened in China. And it seems to be happening in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Baltimore, too. Of course, China went “whole Communist,” resulting in mass murder, religious persecution, forced abortion and famine. The number of dead in China under Mao has to be counted in the tens of millions. So yeah, praise is in order for China finally coming around to abandoning bad ideas. Maybe Bernie should do the same.

Yeah…  I wouldn’t hold my breath on that, Greg.  As usual, Greg Gutfeld nails it with his pithy wit.  Bernie is an unbelievable hypocrite.  He’s a millionaire with three mansions, who underpays his own staff…and that’s just for starters..  And, this all the while he’s preaching his socialist nonsense; how the rich need to pay their “fair share.”  Hey Bernie!  How about you sell one of your three mansions.  After all, you don’t “need” all three.  And, why don’t you donate the proceeds to the poor.  Lead by example!  Unreal…  And, let’s not forget that Bernie and his then fiancé had their honeymoon in Moscow…back when it was the Soviet Union.  Think about that…especially those of us who remember those days..  An American couple having their honeymoon in the Soviet Union.  Wow..  Bernie is someone who hates America, and how it was founded.   He hates capitalism, and yet has greatly benefited from it with his book deals and so on.  Remember that the next time you see angry, crazy Bernie talking about a “living wage” or some other similar socialist bs.

Singer Eddie Money reveals he has stage 4 esophageal cancer

Singer Eddie Money has revealed he has stage 4 esophageal cancer. The ’70s and ’80s hitmaker, known for tunes such as “Two Tickets to Paradise” and “Take Me Home Tonight,” said his fate is in “God’s hands.” Money made the stunning announcement in a video released Saturday from his AXS TV reality series called “Real Money.” The full episode airs Sept. 12. In the video, Money says he discovered he had cancer after what he thought was a routine checkup. The 70-year-old whose real name is Edward Mahoney learned that the disease had spread to his liver and lymph nodes. Money said it hit him “really, really hard.” He’s had numerous health problems recently including heart valve surgery earlier this year and pneumonia after the procedure, leading to his cancellation of a planned summer tour.

We’re heartbroken to learn of Eddie’s cancer.  I saw him in concert, with his kids as part of his band, just last summer, and he sounded great!  We’re all pullin for ya, Eddie!  Keep the faith!

Opinion: On National Dog Day — Here are 21 things we know are true about dogs

A headline in last week’s Washington Post jumped out at me: “Dogs are Bad for the Planet” screamed the story, accompanied by an image of the snouts of two dogs preparing to chomp down on planet Earth. It turns out the article was about feral dogs in Brazil and how they’re out of control and endangering other creatures in the area by killing off other animals. It may be true that dogs can be destructive, especially untrained ones – but bad for the planet? Hardly. They’ve got it all wrong. Dogs actually make the world a better place! In fact, it’s time to recognize “National Dog Day” – an annual celebration every August 26th designed to encourage canine ownership along with raising awareness of the plight of man’s best friend. With the exception of graduate school and a few years prior to getting married, I’ve been living with a dog almost all of my life. As a little kid, I thought everybody had one. The sounds of our neighborhood included plenty of barking mutts, especially our next-door neighbor’s basset hound, Maggie, whose big ears dragged on the ground. She howled every time she wanted to come inside the house. Like so many other people, our dogs were just part of the everyday rhythm of living. As somebody once appropriately observed, “Dogs aren’t like members of the family. They are members of your family.” My brothers and sister and I will never forget our furry friends, including Snoopy, Daisy and Patriot. Since beginning to raise my own family we’ve enjoyed the companionship of Shep, Macy, Sawyer and now Shadow. I’m no expert on our four-legged buddies, but having owned many, including our current Great Dane, I would suggest that the following things about dogs are true. Click here for more:

Thanks to Paul J. Batura for that heartwarming article.  But, it’s only the beginning.  Click on the text above to read the rest.  Dogs are definitely the best people.  I’m the proud owner of my third basset hound (“George”).  Paul J. Batura is vice president of communications at Focus on the Family and the author of “GOOD DAY! The Paul Harvey Story.” He can be reached on Twitter @PaulBatura or by email at Paul@PaulBatura.com  Happy National Dog Day!!!    🙂

Dianne Feinstein Falsely Claims ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Lowered Crime

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) claims the 1994 “assault weapons” ban lowered crime even though a Department of Justice report shows it had no impact on recorded figures. On August 20, 2019, Feinstein tweeted: “While the federal assault weapons ban was in effect (1994-2004), the number of gun massacres fell by 37% and the number of gun massacre deaths fell by 43% compared to the previous decade. After the ban lapsed, gun massacres rose by 183% and gun massacre deaths by 239%.” She followed that tweet with a second that said, “It’s long past time to reinstate a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines before more lives are lost.” On February 19, 2018, Breitbart News reported the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) report showing the federal “assault weapons” ban could not be credited with any reduction in crime. The NIJ report was authored by University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper. And the Washington Times quoted Koper saying, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Exactly…  Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a former mayor of San Francisco, is infamous for pulling bs stats out of her butt to push her anti-gun narrative.  The actual facts say something completely different.  The ’94 ban, which since has expired, did nothing to reduce gun violence.  It was all political theater and bs.  Thanks to AWR Hawkins for this little piece.     🙂

Gutfeld on tweeting while wasted

A new study by New York University finds that a third of the people who get high post on social media while under the influence. And a large portion said they regretted their intoxicated actions. I like this study because I am this study. Many times I would tweet something rude after that third glass of wine. And the next day, regret the tweet, not the wine. I learned over time that I had to cut back on one or the other. So out went the wine, in came the vodka. But we’re missing the good news. The study isn’t about the destruction caused behind the wheel of a car — it’s now about the embarrassment caused in front of your smartphone screen. Wikipedia told me that between 1991 and 2017, the rate of drunk driving fatalities has decreased 46 percent nationally, and 68 percent among those under age 21. So we find ourselves no longer steering into lamp posts; instead we steer humiliating posts about our stupid thoughts, activities and selves into a ravenous public, who happily seek another opportunity to dance on our shame. Writer P.J. O’Rourke once called booze “liquid idiot,” but our tweets are “digital dumb.” Which is better? Nobody ever drove a tweet into oncoming traffic and wiped out a family of five. So consider it progress that more people are dying from embarrassment than internal injuries. If more high people are wrecking themselves online than on the road, that’s a win for all of us. We should all drink to that. In moderation, of course! And certainly not near Twitter.

Well said, Greg!  That was adapted from Greg Gutfeld’s monologue on “The Five” on Aug. 19, 2019. Greg Gutfeld currently serves as host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Greg Gutfeld Show (Saturdays 10-11PM/ET) and co-host of The Five (weekdays 5-6PM/ET).  Excellent!!    🙂

Opinion/Analysis: There was collusion – but not involving Trump

There really was a collusion plot. It really did target our election system. It absolutely sought to usurp our capacity for self-determination. It was just not the collusion you’ve been told about for nearly three years. It was not “Donald Trump’s collusion with Russia.” Here is the real collusion scheme: In 2016, the incumbent Democratic administration of President Barack Obama put the awesome powers of the United States government’s law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus in the service of the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, the Democratic Party, and the progressive Beltway establishment. This scheme had two parts: Plan A, the objective; and Plan B, a fail-safe strategy in case Plan A imploded — which all the smartest people were supremely confident would never, ever happen … which is why you could bet the ranch that it would. Plan A was to get Clinton elected president of the United States. This required exonerating her, at least ostensibly, from well-founded allegations of her felonious and politically disqualifying actions. Plan B was the insurance policy: an investigation that Donald Trump, in the highly unlikely event he was elected, would be powerless to shut down. An investigation that would simultaneously monitor and taint him. An investigation that internalized Clinton-campaign-generated opposition research, limning Trump and his campaign as complicit in Russian espionage. An investigation that would hunt for a crime under the guise of counterintelligence, build an impeachment case under the guise of hunting for a crime, and seek to make Trump not reelectable under the guise of building an impeachment case. Upon becoming President Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton improperly set up a private, non-secure system for email communications. It featured her own personal server, stored in her home and, later, maintained by a private contractor. Secretary Clinton used this private email system for all of her official State Department communications, notwithstanding that doing so (a) violated government regulations (which, as the department head, she was responsible for enforcing); (b) violated governmental record-keeping and record-production obligations imposed by federal law; and (c) made it inevitable — due to the nature of her responsibilities — that streams of classified information would flow through and be stored in the non-secure system. This lack of security meant that top-secret intelligence — some of it classified at the highest levels, some of it involving Clinton’s communications with the president of the United States and other top national-security officials — became accessible to people who were not cleared to see it. Accessible not just to those lacking security clearance but also to hostile actors, including foreign intelligence services and anti-American hackers. When asked, nearly two years after leaving office, to surrender copies of her emails (by an Obama State Department under pressure from congressional investigators and Freedom of Information Act claimants), Clinton caused tens of thousands of her emails to be destroyed. Not just deleted. Destroyed. As in: purged with a special software program (“BleachBit”) designed to shred electronic documents. The aim was to prevent their being recovered. Ever. By anyone. In all, Clinton undertook to destroy over 30,000 emails, even though some of them had been demanded by congressional subpoena. And this would not be a Clinton story if we failed to note that, in the time-honored family tradition, Hillary lied her head off about the substance of the destroyed emails: We were to believe that, in thousands upon thousands of email exchanges, one of the busiest public officials and most obsessively political creatures on the planet had lolled her days away gabbing about yoga routines, family vacations, and her daughter’s wedding. President Obama took care of undermining any prosecution for her mishandling of classified information. He had a deep interest in doing so: He had knowingly communicated with his secretary of state through the private system, and he had misled the public about it — claiming to have learned about Clinton’s private email practices from news reports, like everyone else. All of that could be neatly buried in two steps. First, invoke executive privilege (without calling it that — too Nixonian) to seal the Obama–Clinton emails from public view. Second, ensure that the Clinton-emails case would never be prosecuted: If Clinton was never accused of criminal conduct, then Obama’s role as a minor participant would not become evidence in a criminal case. In April 2016, on national television, the president made clear that he did not believe an indictment should be filed against former Secretary Clinton, who, by then, was the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee. Obama explained that, in his considered judgment, Clinton meant no harm to national security. Plus, the intelligence involved, though technically categorized as “classified,” was not really, you know, the super-secret stuff — “There’s ‘classified,’” Obama scoffed, “and then there’s classified.” It was a classic Obama straw man. The criminal provisions pertinent to Clinton’s case did not require proof of intent to harm the United States, only that she was trusted with access to intelligence and nevertheless mishandled it, either intentionally or through gross negligence. Moreover, no one was accusing Clinton of trying to damage national security. That is a different, more serious criminal offense that was not on the table. It was as if Obama were claiming that a bank robber was somehow not guilty of the bank robbery because she hadn’t murdered anyone while committing it. There was no way on God’s green earth that the Obama Justice Department was ever going to authorize a prosecution involving conduct that would embarrass the president. Nor was it ever going to indict Obama’s former secretary of state — certainly not after Obama, revered by Democrats and pundits as a first-rate lawyer, had pronounced her not guilty, had provided a legal rationale for exoneration, and had endorsed her as his successor. Wonder of wonders: The “no intent to harm the United States” rationale President Obama had glibly posited in insisting Clinton had done nothing wrong was echoed in the ensuing months by his subordinates. Justice Department officials leaked to their media friends that Clinton was unlikely to be charged because there was scant evidence of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, very shortly after Obama’s public statements about Clinton’s case, FBI director James Comey and his closest advisers began drafting remarks exonerating Mrs. Clinton. Over a dozen critical witnesses, including Clinton herself, had not yet been interviewed. Salient evidence had not yet been examined. No matter. With the end of the story already written, the rest was just details. When Director Comey finally announced that Clinton would not be indicted, his rationalizations were indistinguishable from Obama’s. Thus “exonerated,” the former first lady was on her way to the Oval Office — this time as president. Or so she thought — as did the Obama White House, the Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, the intelligence agencies, every progressive activist from Boston Harbor to Silicon Valley, and every political pundit from the Beltway to the Upper West Side. Alas, there was just one problem — a problem the president and his myrmidons could not fix for Mrs. Clinton. That problem was Mrs. Clinton. As would have been manifest to less politicized eyes, she was an atrocious candidate. Clinton was the same fundamentally flawed, deeply dishonest, broadly unpopular candidate she had been in 2008, when she couldn’t convince Democrats to support her. You may recall this as the reason there was a President Barack Obama in the first place. You say, “Hey, wait a second. Donald Trump was fundamentally flawed, deeply dishonest, and broadly unpopular, too.” Maybe so, but if hammering away at an opponent’s malignance is the path to victory, shouldn’t you perhaps nominate a candidate who doesn’t mirror his defects? The only differences between the “It’s My Turn” Senator Hillary! of 2008 and the “Stronger Together” Secretary Clinton who expected a 2016 coronation was that she now had hanging around her neck the Benghazi debacle, a desultory tenure as secretary of state, a shades-of-2008 inability to convince Democrats that she was the preferable candidate (this time, not in comparison to a charismatic young progressive, but to a 75-year-old self-proclaimed socialist who had joined the Democratic party about five minutes before announcing his presidential aspirations), whispers that her health was deteriorating, and an email scandal that smacked of both national-security recklessness and rules-don’t-apply-to-me arrogance — precisely the kind of controversy that reminded Americans of how exhausting the last scandal-plagued Clinton administration had been. The Obama administration’s exoneration gambit came up snake-eyes because of Clinton herself. Democrats can con themselves (and attempt to con everyone else) into believing that her failure is due to Vladimir Putin’s perfidy or Trump’s demagoguery. In the real world, though, Clinton lost because of her epic shortcomings. That loss made it inevitable that the Obama administration’s exploitation of counterintelligence powers to monitor the opposition party’s presidential campaign would come to light. That made it imperative to promote the notion that there had been a Trump–Russia scheme worth investigating — a dark cloud of suspicion that would straitjacket and shorten the Trump presidency. The collusion narrative.

..which we now know to be a total hoax; a complete fabrication.  Thanks to attorney Andrew C. McCarthy for this outstanding piece.  Its an excerpt from his new book: “Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig and Election and Destroy a Presidency.’  So, you’ll have to pick up a copy to read the rest of this..   Excellent!!!     🙂

Chick-fil-A ranks first in new ‘brand intimacy’ study, knocks Starbucks from top spot

When it comes to fast food, diners are most emotional about Chick-fil-A. That’s the big takeaway from a 2019 Brand Intimacy Study released by marketing agency MBLM, which measured customers’ fondness and emotional bonds toward the fast-food brands they “use and love.” The study results, released Wednesday, indicate that Chick-fil-A has achieved the strongest emotional connection with customers of any of the 15 fast-food brands studied, and has effectively knocked Starbucks out of the top spot, where it sat for the previous two years. “Chick-fil-A has gradually risen to the top of the fast-food industry in our annual study,” said Mario Natarelli, a managing partner with MBLM, in a press release. “The brand is able to connect with a wide range of customers and we expect it to continue to perform well in years to come. Others in the industry can learn from the leader in creating more robust, stronger connections with their patrons.” Other brands customers connected with strongly were Dunkin’ (No. 2) and Starbucks (No. 3). McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Subway, Wendy’s, Burger King, Chipotle and KFC rounded out the top ten. In order to arrive at its results, MBLM polled 6,200 customers in the United States, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates who earn over $35,000 per year and fall between 18 and 64 years of age. The brands also were rated by several different criteria, including how respondents felt about each in terms of indulgence (“centered around moments of pampering and gratification” that can be either occasional or frequent) and nostalgia (“memories of the past and the warm, poignant feelings”) among others. Among the study’s other interesting findings, Chick-fil-A was also found to be the favored choice for both men and women of any age, but was “particularly strong” with women and millennials. McDonald’s, on the other hand, was actually determined to be the preferred brand among those earning over $100,000. The MBLM study is just one of several the agency uses to rank the overall “brand intimacy” from companies in of a number of industries, including media, automotive, technology, travel and more. Currently, of all brands, Disney is ranked the highest. Chick-fil-A is ranked 10th overall.

Congrats to Chick-fi-A!!