How pompous can you get?

Here's a quote we're all familiar with from the great thinker Alexander Fraser Tytler:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

But the American left has gone Tytler one better: Now impoverished people from around the world can come here and vote themselves largess from our treasury. 

I wonder... how will it end?

Expecting that replacing Ahmadinejad with  Rouhani will change Iranian policy is like thinking that replacing the hood ornament on your car will make it go faster.

Does anybody but me see the "Take the Ready for Hillary Pledge" ad on the right side of this article? Nobody but me thinks that's weird? 

That certainly would be a refreshing change, but I'm guessing that Rouhani will turn out to be exactly like Ahmadinejad.

I put the over/under at two weeks. Any takers?

From your mouth to God's ear. And you forget the Trotskyite Dingles and the useless, besotted Sanchez sisters in California.

Nothing screams 'corrupt political system' like the dynastic passing of political offices from one family member to the next. Two members of the same family winning political offices independently - without some sort of nepotistic conniving - is a statistical impossibility.

And have you noticed the Clintons hyping Chelsea lately? Get ready... Chelsea is going to be the latest unqualified lefty to sleaze her way into office. I'd bet on it.

Yow, that's really specific. Not just some weird, crazy premise, but in particular states. This language sure does sound like it was written for some specific 'research' that's already in the can.

I'm guessing that the scholar selected to conduct this vital study may have shared a college dorm room with the bureaucrat in charge of mailing the check.

It's the next big political fight on the right:

The establishment wants the glory of passing new amnesty. The base wants to secure the border and enforce the laws that are already on the books, the laws that were passed by previous generations of glory-seeking politicians but that have never actually been enforced.

The establishment insists that we need the young workers to do the jobs Americans won't do. The base wonders how this can be with record numbers of people collecting food stamps.

The establishment insists that if we get out in front of amnesty, all those new immigrants will vote Republican. The base wonders what the establishment is smoking.

Here's what's really depressing: the Dems see conservatism as a deadly enemy to be defeated. The Republican establishment sees conservatism as a... um, deadly enemy... to be... well, er... defeated.

I wonder if Michelle knows he's smoking again.

You can call me paranoid - and if you don't, I will - but so many scandals in such a short time really is fishy.

We had Benghazi, which was bad. Then IRS. IMO, not as bad, but had longer legs. Clearly the administration was worried about these two.

Out of the blue, we have this blow-up as everybody finds out what the word metadata means, and now some trivial sex thing.  These won't hurt Obama the way IRS will, but it sure is sucking all the oxygen out of the room, isn't it? And have you noticed how many Obama-groupie media figures are really hyping metadata-gate?

Bill Clinton taught us an important lesson. Remember the term 'scandal fatigue'? It got to the point where every time we found out about some lawless or sleazy thing he'd done, his numbers actually went up.

To paraphrase Stalin: One scandal is a problem. A hundred scandals is a statistic.

I was reading a short blurb about Manning the other day, and something occurred to me: I know what his sentence will be. He's going to be incarcerated for 3.5 years, no matter what the judge and jury decide.

Think about it. Every president grants some pardons in the last few hours of his term. Can anyone doubt that Obama will pardon this greasy little loser on his way out the door?

My prediction: January 2017, Manning gets a presidential pardon.  February-April 2017, he lawyers up. Spring - summer 2017, he does the entire lefty media circuit - CNN, MSNBC, NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC, the Daily Show - and is treated like a hero. His multimillion dollar settlement comes in sometime in the  autumn of 2018, and he spends the rest of his life doing the radical left/homosexual victim lecture circuit. Maybe even runs for Al Frankin's senate seat in 2020.

Anyone want to bet me?

Every one of those retarded-looking students could tell you the names of all of the members of at least fifty bands, and what instruments they play.

Name a big movie star, and that chick with the gum can rattle off every m0vie he was ever in and what his character's name was.

That jock kid can tell you how many yards every running back in the NFL has racked up in the last five years, and do it with the confidence of a Jesuit scholar reciting scripture.

These kids aren't stupid - they're just as smart as anyone reading this. Their only problem is that we've given them no reason at all to concentrate on anything important.

6) I don't own a GM product, but my payment to GM is automatically withheld from my paycheck, and there's not a darn thing I can do about it.

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine a Western civilization that's completely eaten away with political correctness, moral relativism,  radical atheism, glorification of reckless and self-destructive hedonism, and an absolute loss of any popular sense of citizenship. What  kinds of things could you expect from a civilization like that?

Here's one: that the political elites, for entirely self-serving purposes, would force a long-established organization devoted to the positive development of adolescent males to explicitly endorse sodomy between men.

The Boy Scouts organization is another canary in our coal mine.

OK, that answers my question about the aiming, but what about the rest?

The only thing I've seen like this that actually makes sense is the 'shake-hands-with-your-killer' kind of deal. But even if this was on the right hand - which it isn't - it's on the back of the hand. You'd just send a low-caliber round along the dorsal side of your victim's forearm, which would hurt like blue blazes and make a great youtube video, but that's about it.

Look, I hate to swim against the tide here, but how's that thing supposed to work?

It's on  the left hand, so 90% of humans couldn't aim it that well.

It would be such a close-contact weapon that you'd be standing right next to your victim when it went bang and everybody looked. "Hey! Look at that man's smoking glove, right next to that dead guy!"

You can see that thing a mile off - it's right out there on the back of the glove. Are you serious that you could get all the way into an embassy without somebody noticing it?

A little pistol would be much more practical because it would be a lot easier to aim, and if you fled, you'd still have ammo to use on your pursuers. Plus, a little pistol would be easier to drop if you needed to.

And any conceivable trigger mechanism for a thing like that  would be just as likely t0 accidentally shoot off the wearer's left great toe.