Drilling

With Arctic Drilling Ban, Obama Continues His Historic Abuse of Power

Obama's latest executive move, banning offshore drilling in large areas of the Atlantic and Arctic waters, folds neatly into six years of executive control.

|

While the left panics over President-elect Donald Trump and the erosion of democratic norms, President Barack Obama went ahead and issued another decree without any regard for the nation's legislative process.

It's nothing new. Obama's latest executive move, banning offshore drilling in large areas of the Atlantic and Arctic waters, folds neatly into six years of executive control. The ban hinges on a provision of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, a law designed to protect marine sanctuaries. "The seldom used measure" explains NBC News, "allows the executive to permanently freeze offshore drilling in specified regions.

And unlike the First, Second, Fifth or Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, which Democrats have treated as mere suggestions over the past eight years, a provision from 1953 is eternal and nonnegotiable according to the administration—like a commandment transmitted from the heavens. Well, that is unless Republicans pass another law or amend the existing one, right?

There's no explicit statement within the act that says protections are permanent anyway. So Republicans would likely be able to overturn this diktat, as they can the rest of Obama's rickety legacy, which is predominately built on circumventing the lawmaking branch of the United States government. The problem is that Trump (and anyone else who comes along) has little reason not to adopt Obama's unprecedented use of the executive power.

No post-World War II president (and maybe no president in our history) justified executive overreach as a function of his office, regularly contending that Congress—which kept adding seats throughout his presidency—had abdicated its responsibility by refusing to go along with his plans. Whether courts found his actions constitutional or not (and quite often they did), it's an argument that stands, at the very least, against the spirit of American governance.

On the bright side, though, now that a progressive president is leaving office, the media will almost certainly frame abuses of power as something out of the ordinary.

Imagine the scene: For the good of the nation and the future of energy independence, a lame-duck President Trump dusts off an obscure law to open Arctic and Atlantic drilling indefinitely. And to further impede the agenda of the incoming government, Trump signs an agreement with Russia—without any debate in the Senate—to ensure it's even more difficult to reverse.

Visualize, if you can, the scandalized media coverage and gale-force indignation from liberals over King Donald's assault on democracy. Imagine the headlines reading "This. Is. Not. Normal!" and the editorials conjuring up scenes of fascist takeovers.

The outgoing president is merely "implementing new environmental protections" that stand "to thwart" Trump's agenda (by which I assume reporters mean the Republican agenda, as in the people who were just elected to run Washington D.C.).

In other words, Obama—who has long supported policies that artificially inflate energy prices—wants to forever deny the nation access to what could be more than 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Now, given the high costs of exploration and the present affordability of oil and gas, most energy companies aren't clamoring to drill in the Arctic anyway. But at some point this becomes a significant economic and moral decision for a nation. It's not a decision that should be adjudicated unilaterally by an executive in the waning days of his rule.

Whether it's worth accessing this energy or not will be a worthwhile debate one day. More broadly, though, Obama's move—and the hypocritical reaction to it—reaffirm that most Democrats aren't concerned about norms or democracy. They're concerned about furthering items on the liberal agenda.

Your moral certitude on environmental issues (or immigration or gun laws) does not excuse abuse any more than Trump's beliefs excuses his attacks on "norms." Everyone has moral certitude about the issues that matter to them. And if the unifying governing principle of an entire party is achieving policy goals, then stop pretending you care about the erosion of democratic norms. To be taken seriously as a defender of constitutional governance, you might have to stand up for the process when it's inconvenient from time to time. That might mean defending the Electoral College or pointing out that legalizing millions of illegal immigrants without Congress is an abuse of power.

Democrats have failed on this front, so their overwrought grievances about Trump's disposition smacks of hypocrisy. In fact, as one disastrous presidency ends, it's more obvious than ever that Trump has every reason to be emboldened by Obama's actions and the rampant partisan hypocrisy that infects America.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Climate Scientist Michael Mann's Defamation Lawsuit Against Critics Can Proceed, Rules Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. With a phone and a pen.

      1. With a tweet.

  1. I will be so happy when Obama is gone. Not because he is unlikeable, but because he has no respect for our nation nor its history.

    1. But also because he is extremely unlikeable.

      He’s only likeable if you agree with his agenda. Otherwise, he’s definitely got a punch face.

      1. I’m not sure that he has a punch face — some folks sure do, even before they open their mouths — but the obvious contempt he has for large parts of America isn’t helping.

      2. Now this thread will be known as Son of Woodchipper. Congratulations. Well played.

      3. Well, I sure hate the lousy faggot cookie.

    2. I will be so happy when Obama is gone. Not because he is unlikeable, but because he has no respect for our nation nor its history.

      Racist

      1. How was this not the first comment in response to the article?

        C’mon HnR, you guys are slipping….

    3. But will the TOP MEN be gone?

      1. The TOP MEN, like scorpions and cockroaches scurrying away from an above ground nuclear test, will always be with us. They are the “original sin” of our modern republic, and they cannot be washed away.

        1. Oh, hell, they predate the modern republic by centuries, if not millennia.

          1. Top Men raised us out of the primordial ooze and gave us meaning with their laws and regulations.

      2. Low men, in yellow coats?

  2. And the irony is that Obama engaged in this exercise of executive overreach a few days after he lectured Donald Trump about the importance of avoiding executive overreach and of working only in accordance with our constitutional system.

    At least one other commentator here has said, when Obama speaks, turn off the volume, ignore his words, and watch while he proceeds to do the exact opposite of what he says.

    Yesterday Obama spoke about the excesses of political correctness. Which undoubtedly means he will take some executive action to raise political correctness to new heights.

    1. If you turn off the volume, how can you tell if he’s doing the opposite of what he said?

      That’s why they kept demoting you in the series, No.2. That’s why you’ll; never break me!

      1. During his second term I have almost completely avoided hearing him speak. Every time he comes on the radio or the tv the channel is turned or the volume turned off. I have of course caught some stay sentences here and there, but have been almost completely successful in my goal of not hearing him.

        1. It’s funny, I hadn’t noticed it but I have been avoiding hearing him speak for years. It is just too frustrating to listen to. The put-on folksy professor act, the inane platitudes, the straw man attacks, the insipid pandering that results in immediate self-contradiction…. it is all just too much.

          1. Yet he is the great orator. I mean…uh..he is…you know…uh, uh, uh…we have this idea of….uh, uh, uh, uh….you know….what great oration, you know, is supposed to….uh…..sound like, and he is………..you know…………good.

            1. If if if if if if if If if if if if if if If if if if if if if If if if if if if if you don’t uhhh, ummm, uhhh, stop that, he’ll, he’ll, he’ll get all wee weed up!

            2. According to Crazy Uncle Joe, he’s clean and articulate. Literally.

              1. Not even a negro accent when he doesn’t want there to be.

            3. https://youtu.be/fmO-ziHU_D8?t=38

              This shit is considered award-worthy today. Compared to that . . .

              1. That is very disturbing. I makes me want to see the teachers and organizers in front of a firing squad.

              2. What the heck? Is the goal to shove out as many words, regardless of their coherency, in as short a timeframe as possible?

                1. That is the current “debate” technique being pushed in “schools” of “higher” “learning” these days. It no longer cares about dismantling your opponent’s arguments, merely drowning them in a river of bullshit until they can no longer maintain a coherent facade, then declare victory.

                  1. “That is the current “debate” technique being pushed in “schools” of “higher” “learning” these days. It no longer cares about dismantling your opponent’s arguments, merely drowning them in a river of bullshit until they can no longer maintain a coherent facade, then declare victory.”

                    This is exactly it. People try to “disqualify” the opposing viewpoint in some way, usually by one of the following:
                    – Imply that the opponent is bigoted or prejudiced in some way and therefore prohibited from having a valid opinion on any matter whatsoever
                    – Accuse the opponent of being motivated by personal gain of some sort (“you’re just a shill for Big Oil!!”)

              3. This shit is considered award-worthy today. Compared to that . . .

                Youtube decided to pile on, and autoplay “One of the best arguments against people who claim Islam as a religion of war.”

                Talk about derp.

            4. And his trousers are smartly creased.

              1. Smartly creased trousers are key to giving others a good leg tingle.

          2. every time I hear him speak without benefit of a Prompter, I go back to Toastmasters and wonder where the bell/whistle/horn is that the person counting ahs/ums and other weasel words uses.

            1. I think they’ve given it up at regular club meetings as too triggering (or insulting). Maybe they still have it for big competitions?

        2. Me as well! I didn’t really notice that I was doing it until around 2014. It was almost like a reflex…an intellectual flinch. My wife asked me why I’d mute the TV when he was talking and all I could come up with was “I don’t really know except that I don’t like to be intellectually insulted.”

      2. I read the teleprompter like Obama does . It’s the true puppet master!

      3. We will break you, Number.6. By hook or by crook, we will.

    2. “And the irony is that Obama engaged in this exercise of executive overreach a few days after he lectured Donald Trump about the importance of avoiding executive overreach and of working only in accordance with our constitutional system.”

      I’m fairly certain he is truly stupid enough to be able to ignore the equivalence.

      1. Stupid, you say? Perish the thought! Why, just look at his college transcripts…

        1. Hold on. Top People have only had 10 years or so to doctor those. They need a bit more time to do a quality job, since MI6 decided not to supply any of their talent.

          1. Quite right. My bad!

            1. I have it on good authority that the BHO regime tried to employ some old Soviet document doctors. Sounded like a good deal since they work for vodka. However, the amount of vodka and the low quality of the work was just too much to deal with.

              1. Russians?

                What a bunch of hacks!

    3. And the irony is that Obama engaged in this exercise of executive overreach a few days after he lectured Donald Trump about the importance of avoiding executive overreach and of working only in accordance with our constitutional system.

      After eight years of this crap, there is no “irony” there; it’s how he works.

    4. You’re right, he did:
      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..da-act-law

    5. “when Obama speaks … watch while he proceeds to do the exact opposite of what he says”

      In the same vein

      Ann Coulter got it right when she said if you want to know what the Democrats are doing, look at what they are accusing the Republicans of doing.

      Which leads to Putin blackmailing Hillary because:
      Hillary accused Trump of being in bed with Putin
      Hillary claimed the Russians hacked the DNC, Podesta and the RNC but only leaked the DNC/Podesta emails
      Hillary claimed Trump had conflicts of interest with Russia

      Plus that Hillary’s email server wasn’t secured, Obama/Hillary did Putin a lot of favors, Putin wasn’t worried about any response in invading Ukraine, she signed off on the sale of 20% of the US’s uranium to Russia, etc. And then there’s all the “fake” news.

      I think we dodged a bullet, in that Hillary was willing to use nuclear weapons to cover it up if she was elected. And really, who’s stupid enough to think if Putin had dirt on Hillary, he’d release it to elect Trump instead of using it to control a puppet Clinton?

  3. Despite a narrative saying the opposite, Obama is not out of the norm of modern presidents’ use of executive actions. He’s issued ~260, W. Bush issued ~290, Clinton ~360, HW Bush 166. Reagan used 381.

    FDR is the real outlier at ~3,500. Yeah, that’s thousands.

    RE: “waning days of his rule”

    Where did this sentiment come from? Senate Republicans used the same nonsense reasoning to refuse Garland. Presidential or other elected offices’ power does not decrease, slowly, towards the end of a term. Whether it’s the first day or the last week, the power of the office remains the same. Saying “the people just elected Trump, who presumably will do the exact opposite on every issue, there for Obama has no right to govern” is the translation of this sentiment. Before people elected Trump, they elected Obama. Ergo, he has all the powers of the president until he officially leaves office.

    1. Quoting numbers is meaningless absent analysis of content.

      1. Are you saying there’s “executive overreach” and “Executive Overreach”?

        Perfectly plausible. I think an objective analysis, order by order, would come out on Obama’s side though. He has done some pretty influential things via executive order, but not out of line with previous presidents.

        This isn’t to say that it’s overall a good thing, of course. It would have been nice to see him follow up on certain things he said on the campaign trail (particularly concerning civil liberties and criminal justice reform). But at the same time, what he’s done far from being outside the bounds of previous presidents. Unfortunate, but predictable.

        1. *What he’s done is far from being outside…etc.

          1. How about those 28 changes to his signature Obamacare law to make it palatable and so that the true damage is done near the end of his term? That’s huge …. or yuuuuuuuge.

        2. not out of line with previous presidents..

          I’m willing to be shown i’m wrong, but i think his action to neuter immigration enforcement by executive order *immediately after his party was slaughtered in congressional elections* was extremely out of line with previous presidents.

          The point was that he chose to entirely bypass the legislature on the hottest issue of the day, one which the voting public had just demonstrated they were diametrically opposed to his action.

          He then had the gall to claim that his being elected president was a more-significant mandate than the more-recent votes in congress., and was proof that he was acting in the people’s interest. I don’t know if that’s also inconsistent with previous presidents, but its pretty fucking ridiculous.

          People have provided examples of how other presidents have modified immigration enforcement via exec order; all target specific groups of emigres or refugees (e.g. “gulf war evacuees”) rather than alter how ICE/INS treats *all* immigrants, and i don’t think any come remotely close to his action, which effectively created new-law, rather than make any temporary exceptions.

        3. Issuing an executive order isn’t ipso facto executive overreach. President’s have issued executive orders that were largely ceremonial, or were administrative in nature, or were relatively uncontroversial orders issued to avoid going through even a rubber-stamp legislative process. The issue with Obama isn’t the number of orders, it’s the purposes. There has been a pattern of his using executive orders to effect policy that wouldn’t pass through normal legislative procedures. By his own admission, he sees executive orders as a way to enact laws that Congress would not pass. That’s the issue.

          1. A fair criticism, to a degree. I just don’t think it’s enough to call him a tyrant, as many of his opponents have done. The amount of power a president should have is an excellent point of debate, but what’s less debatable is that the president has power. Obama has chosen to exercise it. Like I tried to explain above, I see this is a unfortunate but not damning component of his administration.

            1. He’s opened a path to abuses down the road. And when a Republican will act in accordance, they will scream bloody murder for something they initiated. Like the filibuster.

            2. The short-sighted arrogance displayed by both Obama and Harry Reid in establishing precedents dramatically weakening our already beleaguered Constitutional checks and balances will now be exploited with great partisan gusto by Trump and his party. The Dhimmicrats assumed that Hillary would go through the motions and receive her coronation, and that they would have the executive and legislative whip hand forever and ever. Tu quoque-based ethics invariably bites one in the ass. My heart bleeds for you.

              1. I support the change to the filibuster; I think we’re better off if presidential nominees are not open to Senate blockading. There’s a compelling argument to say that Obama missed an opportunity to place new limits on presidential power that would’ve been downright uncanny in light of Trump being elected. However, I don’t think that argument extends to filibustering nominees.

                I think you are far too quick to judge Obama and Reid poorly – at least when it comes to this.

                1. Then you’ll doubt be fine with Trump and McConnell taking advantage of this as well as aggressively implementing creative Senate rules changes of their own, the better to eliminate gridlock and more efficiently enact “The People’s Business.” After all, we are beholden to The President, who upon assuming his exalted position, immediately assumes an outlook of altruism and wisdom unavailable to us lesser mortals, right?

                  And as for your, shall we say, qualified acknowledgement that, “Obama missed an opportunity to place new limits on presidential power,” your weasel wordsmithing is a laughable understatement at best. I complement you on your technique; hell, you’re probably Obama’s speech writer. The kindest thing that could be said of you is that you’re an apologist for the overweening federal nanny state. Get the fuck outta here.

                  1. I’ll skip past the insults and take the compliment – thanks!

                    When the president is of the same party that controls the Senate, Yes, I expect there to be a fair amount of collusion and bills being passed. How is that not “working as intended”? Or is the Senate constitutionally required to oppose the president as much as possible?

                    1. I gave you too much credit. You’re a progressive shill and the worst kind of rationalizer.

                      Fuck off.

            3. He kills US citizens outside of declared war zones.

              How is that not tyrannical?

            4. I just don’t think it’s enough to call him a tyrant

              No, but it is enough to call him a liar and a fraud.

              but what’s less debatable is that the president has power. Obama has chosen to exercise it

              The fact that he had power and that there was nobody to stop him doesn’t mean he exercised that power lawfully or for the benefit of the country.

        4. No, he HAS done horrific tyrannical things, and history WILL show the commie piece of shit is pure evil eventually. Quit apologizing for the marxist moron.

    2. Yet, he won’t reschedule pot. I imagine the rest of the Choom Gang is disappointed.

      1. He wants to, but like everything else he wants to do, that he really doesn’t want to do, Rethuglicans won’t let him. Like they could stop him.

        1. The 2 years the Democrats had from 08-10 where they really could pass legislation without Republican support has become this crazy Schrodinger’s Congress where anything and everything Obama could’ve possibly done should’ve been done, and thus he is blamed when it didn’t happen.

          This is just not reasonable. It was a mere two years to operate, several Democrats would real blue-dogs who didn’t care for a lot of Democratic passion projects, and it also just completely ignores all of the thing they did manage – ACA, stimulus, etc.

          1. This is just not reasonable. It was a mere two years to operate, several Democrats would real blue-dogs who didn’t care for a lot of Democratic passion projects

            That’s the point people are making: it isn’t the Republicans that have been limiting what Obama could do, he couldn’t even get his fellow Democrats to go along with it.

      2. Hey now. His principles still have twenty-eight days left to evolve, dammit.

    3. Legally you are correct but not politically

    4. mortiscrum|12.23.16 @ 9:06AM|#
      “Despite a narrative saying the opposite, Obama is not out of the norm of modern presidents’ use of executive actions. He’s issued ~260, W. Bush issued ~290, Clinton ~360, HW Bush 166. Reagan used 381.”

      You’re a tiresome piece of work, handing out one bit of sophistry after the over in defense of that lying asshole in the WH:

      “That tally is almost entirely irrelevant to this dispute [over executive action] because executive orders are only one way a presidential administration can take action without congressional approval,” he said, noting for instance the use of presidential memoranda. In fact, many of Obama’s most controversial actions on immigration and gun rights also did not involve executive orders.”
      […]
      “I suspect the president (and his staff) are interested in minimizing numbered executive orders simply because they are easily countable,” he said. “Presidents mostly don’t like ‘score-keeping’ especially when it can be used to criticize them. But the other benefits that come with publication are real, so he publishes unnumbered orders often. And selectively emphasizes other executive action.”
      Washington Post: “Claims regarding Obama’s use of executive orders and presidential memoranda”

      1. Interesting. I will read more about this.

        If you read my posts, I think you’ll find that I’m far from making a full-throated defense of Obama. Obama is a mixed bag; I think he did some things well and others not so much. In particular, I find some of the things he neglected to address (or just ignored) particularly disappointing.

        1. Nope. He is unmitigated evil.

        2. mortiscrum|12.23.16 @ 12:46PM|#
          “If you read my posts, I think you’ll find that I’m far from making a full-throated defense of Obama.”

          Is that a way of claiming that defending every one of his illegal acts and slimy (if barely legal) efforts is in some way not defending him? You’ve shown up here every time O-care is cited as the disaster it is and you still find some cherry-picking effort which you claim says it’s just ‘misunderstood’, and just needs a little tweeking.
          You’ve been busted for sophistry entirely too often to slide on the claim that you’re not defending OBo. Are you surprised you’re called on it?
          Hint: Arguing in bad faith is going to get you called EVERY time. Want to be taken seriously? Look over the glib comment you’re making to be sure it isn’t pulled from some lefty ‘talking point’ site; we’ve read and heard of every one.
          We are not dumb here; treat us like the most demanding audience you’ve ever had and if YOU are smart enough, you might do OK.

          1. If I thought you were all dumb, I wouldn’t bother commenting.

            And for yet another time, I assure you these are my true thoughts I’ve put a good deal of effort in to. I’m certainly not trying to troll, or be a contrarian for the sake of it. People can legitimately hold different opinions, yah know?

            As yes, I’m “defending” him to the degree I don’t think he’s the Anti-Christ or whatever apocalyptic figure many commenters say he is. Would you feel better if I also listed my general complaints at the same time as saying a particular judgement is too harsh or unsupported by evidence?

    5. So, all those numbers show is that all presidents suck. We already knew that.

      This doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with mortiscrum’s post, but it is funny how some people think the ultimate way to defend The One is to show that Bush or Reagan or whoever did the same thing. What they fail to think about is, when you’re talking to someone who’s not a shill for either team, such defenses make little difference. “Yeah, and Bush sucked too.” Then their jaws drop.

  4. The problem with unilaterally banning this is that Trump will then say he has the power to unilaterally allow it. I don’t understand how he doesn’t see this, unless he really is taking a scorched Earth approach.

    1. It’s all optics. Trump will do exactly what you imply he’ll do but it’ll get environmental groups stirred up and will look bad to those who see this as an important issue. It’s nothing but a show for future political advantage.

      1. The difference with Trump and greenies not liking it, is that will make him more likely to do it. I think trolling them is his favorite thing to do.

      2. Bingo. This is political and intended to generate the desired outcomes from specific special interests at the voting booth as well as from the media. It has absolutely nothing to do with actual ideology.

    2. Because the media will cover Obama’s ban positively while they will condemn Trump for reversing it, thus giving him bad press. It’s a petty symbolic move to undermine Trump, just like all of the nonsense about Russia “hacking” our election.

      1. ‘bad press’ has not hindered Trump thus far.

        1. No, it has hindered him. Without the full-on MSM assault, Trump would have won the popular vote and even more electoral votes.

          1. Without the full-on MSM assault, Trump would have won the popular vote and even more electoral votes.

            At this point, I’m rather suspicious of anyone that the NYT and the WaPo don’t condemn in the harshest possible terms.

          2. Don;t forget the millions of illegals who voted. Which IS plausible given the 3/4 million or so that were reported by WaPo as being out canvassing for Hildebeast. Not much of a stretch they got them to polling places and got them to each tell three friends, who in turn told three friends, etc..

      2. Not to defend Trump, but the publicity arm of the DNC seems determined to continue being his straight man. Their bleating heart routine is troll fodder for Trump.

    3. Block Insane Yomomma’s entire mission in life is to scorch the earth. Particularly the part of the earth located in the United States. It’s his lifelong dream!

      1. Less than 30 days to go and still going to ride BIY to the end?

        1. He’s still spending every bit of time he has left to try and fuck America over, so I’m going to spend the same time continuing to point out what a lowlife piece of shit he is.

          1. so I’m going to spend the same time continuing to point out what a lowlife piece of shit he is

            By continuing to use awesome nicknames?

            1. It lacks a needed #hashtag to be effective.

              #BIY would produce results.

          2. your points lose credibility when you resort to juvenile plays on words.

            1. You would say that, wouldn’t you, sorebeagle?

              1. Yep, he’s right chapped, isn’t he, Bucolic Enchalado?

                1. Good one, Poopus Laximus

            2. You guys should take this way more Siriusly.

    4. Indeed, so it appears. It has been said (sorry can’t quickly find the citations) that there were no current plans to do any drilling in these locations and that this withdrawal will not affect already granted leases. Looks to me like a classic Obama move: long on symbolism, short on substance.

  5. Obama’s move?and the hypocritical reaction to it?reaffirm that most Democrats aren’t concerned about norms or democracy. They’re concerned about furthering items on the liberal agenda.

    Soon to be written “Trump’s move?and the hypocritical reaction to it?reaffirm that most Republicans aren’t concerned about norms or democracy. They’re concerned about furthering items on the corporatist agenda.” I think it’s cute to pretend that there’s any actual difference between the Teams.

    1. Not cute, quaint.

      1. Point taken.

    2. You’re correct, both parties are corporatist-Obama’s move could be seen as a hat tip to the green energy sector while Trump’s almost certain counter move will favor the oil companies. Both sides just love to pick winners and losers, just different winners and losers.

      1. Actually, no. Obama may think he’s furthering The Jolly Green Giant (Renewable) Hoax, but all he’s really done is clear the way for Russia (Read: Gazprom) to keep snapping up oil claims on the ocean floor up there in the North Pole Arctic. You really think Gazprom cares what Obumbles decrees?

        Helluva winner to pick, no?

        1. Well that and propping up a slew of companies like Tesla and companies that are essentially union adjuncts (hello, GM bailout!). I think the only inadvertent corporate benefits he’s given are to companies like Remington, whose sales soar every time Daddy scolds us about playing with guns.

          1. (hello, GM bailout!)

            I didn’t get shit in *any* bailout, FTR.

        2. I agree. The Arctic is a highly contested area with Canada playing a weird role with little leverage. Canadians believe parts of the Arctic that are contested belong to it. Meanwhile, Russia, Norway, Denmark, China and the USA beg to differ. Which makes me wonder. If Canada sticks to its claims (and it will) and the U.S. were to stick to Obama’s short-sighted unilateral action how will this play out where disputes are concerned? That is, if Canada is not willing to go as far as the USA (Trudeau’s Liberals are capable of a similar ideological stunt but I doubt they’d go there – then again, it’s Zoolander so who knows?) can’t they *ask* the Americans to develop the area in a bi-lateral treaty of some sort? In other words, where Canada lacks capital and the military to exert influence and power, they can ask the USA. That’s why I say Canada has a *weird* role to play in all this.

          1. Sure they can, mon amie Rufus; in fact, this is *precisely* the type of scenario where one would want Rex Tillerson as your SoS, since he has practical and personal business experience and already knows all the players.

            Most likely, everyone here would have to compromise on claims, and Tillerson’s business relationship (yes, I know ROOOSHUNS! SPOOKY!) with Putin/Gazprom would really come in handy to defuse a possible *situation* in The Arctic Circle (which Russian subs could execute with remarkable ease – say what you want about their conventional navy, but their sub fleet is rather formidable).

            Putin would eat Zoolander as a between-meals snack.

            1. I admit if there were a US-Canada-Russia Arctic summit I would find it rather amusing if Trump and Putin sat together and Zoolander had a kiddie table to himself.

              1. Damn, if there’s ever an open mic of Putin and Trump discussing Zoolander…

                Wait, does Putin speak English? Huh, he does, and not badly.

                1. Putin was a Colonel in the KGB during Soviet days.

                  Of course he speaks English.

        3. But that applies to both sides. Trump seems likely to have a tiny edge on Obama when it comes to forseeing the second and third order consequences of his cronyism, since he has played the game for real.

          *shrug*

          Whacha gonna do? We were offered a choice between a candidate who we KNOW will game the system for his cronies or one that was either too venal or too stupid to even TRY to protect classified documents. The latter will doubtless favor the coal, oil, amd gas interests. They, at least, WORK. ‘Renewable energy’ doesn’t, and electric cars are an environmental disaster the size of which we should have driven home to us any day now, as the early ones’s batteries have to be disposed of.

      2. Unlike the government subsidies keeping green energy afloat, i don’t see opening areas for exploration as picking winners and losers.

        1. I’d agree if the US govt didn’t underwrite failed oil exploration attempts to a degree. Energy sources should compete solely on their own merits and costs.

          1. The only “underwriting” I’m aware of is to allow oil companies to write off their expenses, just like every other company in business in the US.

            They’re taxed on their profits, not their gross.

            1. A lie told so often becomes truth, especially one about taxes to those who don’t sign the front of any paychecks.

          2. In addition to its income taxes, US government receives billions of dollars in royalty income from the oil and gas industry: 12.5% royalties on its onshore properties and 18.75% royalties on its offshore leases.

            The subsidy argument is a canard, and it always has been.

      3. Trump’s almost certain counter move will favor the oil companies

        Not to mention energy consumers.

      4. there is a difference between the government giving millions of $ to green corporations and letting oil companies spend their own money to search for oil

    3. Why do conservatives STILL call communists “liberals”? This ain’t 1932, and Hitler has kinda gone out of style everywhere but in the Republican looter press.

  6. It’s a Christmas Miracle! Feminist mother-to-be anguishes over the fact that her new daughter is going to have a penis instead of a vagina but decides to love her just the same as if she weren’t horribly deformed by a chromosomal defect.

    Bonus points for the Sydney Morning Herald acronymizing to “smh”.

    1. As a cisgenderheteromaleeuropeanshitlord and father of sons, I feel sorry for this boy.

      1. My 4 year old boy told me yesterday,
        “Daddy, boys get to go outside and do stuff. Girls have to stay inside and make dinner”

        score +1 for the patriarchy

        1. Boo!
          Men* make much better cooks.

          *Aside from one’s mother.

    2. She’s one of those precious snowflakes that thinks she’s the only woman to have ever had a child.

      She needs to get the fuck over herself.

    3. If your ideology makes you nervous about the gender of your child, you’ve got a fucked up ideology.

      1. If your ideology makes you nervous about the gender of your child, don’t have a child. For its sake if not your own.

        1. Not that she wouldn’t fuck up a daughter just as bad.

        2. Shirley you can’t be serious.

          1. I am ser…hey, wait a minute.

    4. I wish they would change their name to the “Daily Herald”.

        1. Sigh… but it’s not Sydney Morning Daily Herald.

    5. I had never wanted a son. I wanted daughters, probably because I am one of two daughters and six granddaughters, no sons or grandsons. This seemed altogether to fit in with my feminism better.

      If you hate males so much just abort the fucking thing.

      1. It’s much more cathartic to exact vengeance on that which you most hate, according to Sigmund Fraud, and much moreso Karen Horney in this case (her name is pronounced, “Horn – eye,” Crusty).

        1. So… have him, and then torment him for the rest of your life? Sounds like a plan.

          1. People are constantly telling me “boys are easier” to raise (casual and ingrained sexism, anyone?), but I think they are much harder. How do you raise a white, middle-class boy not to think his own experience is the default experience of the world?

            How do you counter a society that makes things easier for him than for others, and make him see it? See how it is for women, for people of colour?

            Uh… yeah. Seems like that is the plan.

            1. No, seriously. It seems like she has exactly that plan.

              I will raise a feminist boy. Just like his father and grandfathers before him, but even better. I will point sexism out to him at every turn, and he will never get away with it without being called out. I will show him that girls are just people like him and that products and art targeted at them are no less valuable or enjoyable. He will be immersed in feminism by a family who models it in their everyday life.

              1. Then she’ll write a piece claiming that the reason for his suicide was because he hates women.

                1. was because he hates a specific woman.

                  1. Bobarian, you’re not using the Feminist lens. Feminism is a collectivist ideology. It is impossible for an evil patriarchical oppressor to hate one individual woman, it must be a symptopm of a hate for all women, and that is what this person will say when she writes cluelessly about the tragic reasons the world needs more feminism.

              2. Misogynist: A man who hates women as much as women hate one another. – Mencken

                Seems like being a mother, pointing to girls doing math and saying, “See girls do math too!” seems like a great way to raise a misogynist. Boy or girl.

            2. Having raised two sons and, in part, two stepdaughters, my anecdotal finding is that boys ARE easier and one of those boys is gay.

              How do you raise a white, middle-class boy not to think his own experience is the default experience of the world?
              You keep your fucking politics out of it and teach them a sense of right and wrong, that life will present challenges they have to face, and that hard work and perseverance conquer most things. My god, I weep for this woman’s boy.

              1. See, that’s just being an intolerant cisshitlord and acquiescing to your white male privilege.

          2. “… but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C.S. Lewis

            The left loves a captive audience. Poor kid.

      2. Oh, once she’s finished with him, it’s a safe bet he’ll self-abort.

        1. Ding! You win a Kewpie Doll!

    6. That kid’s going to find this article one day. That’ll be fun.

    7. It (feminism) is something I’ve never questioned and always felt confident and strident about. Just ask me about it at a dinner party (if you dare…)

      She feels “strident” about her feminism. I don’t think the word means what she thinks. Or maybe it does, which is why she’s such a pleasant person at dinner parties.

      1. I bet she’s a real joy to be around.

      2. no, she does not know what it means. It used to mean (and in sane circles, likely still does) empowerment and the ability to make choices without sex being a crutch or a limitation. It’s what gave rise to innumerable women in the workplace, in politics, in places their mothers and grandmothers rarely populated. Sadly, it has degenerated into a bitch-fest, pun intended, and it’s one more example of the left’s increasing propensity for wallowing in first-world problems.

    8. Sydney Morning Dawn Herald

      1. scrolling back….yeah, “Daily” works better. Failed again.

  7. I’ve argued for years that Obama is merely Bush on steroids and this is another example of Obama’s “performance enhancing” executive orders. Bush unilaterally banned drilling off the coasts of Florida and California to help those states’ governors, JEB and the Terminator.

    Obama is one of the least effective and most power abusing presidents in history. He deserves to be a minor footnote in history, a cautionary tale of the consequences of putting a complete incompetent ideologue in office, but since he’s a black Democrat he will go into the history books as America’s greatest president.

    1. Obama certainly IS America’s greatest black President.

      Also the worst.

      1. Nope, Woodrow Wilson or FDR. Now if we’re talking about incompetence (and you don’t count William Henry Harrison) then maybe.

        1. Woodrow Wilson and FDR were black?

          1. I fail reading comprehension today.

          2. The are in the upcoming Broadway musicals.

      2. I thought that was Bill, America’s true first black president.

        1. His mask slipped must’ve slipped. Lately he seems more and more like an angry white guy.

    2. Is he really America’s first mixed-race president? Weren’t there rumors that one of the 19th century presidents was part American Indian?

    3. a cautionary tale of the consequences of putting a complete incompetent ideologue in office

      Do you really see him as an ideologue? He seems to flap in the progressive breeze like the banner of a parade-jumping drum major. He hasn’t really engaged in any of the issues of the day as much as he’s pandered to interest groups. He let Pelosi have her healthcare reform, he gave the Unions their TARP payoffs, slung around a trillion more in stimulus money…

      But what has he really fought for? He talked a good game about America overstepping her bounds and appologizing to every tin-pot dictator before he took office, but he’s arguably done worse than Bush on the “screwing up countries with use of military power” front.

      No, he seems like he has genuinely progressive values, but he also seems to be 100% about getting to the top of the heap and not so much about leading anything in any particular direction.

      It was the same thing which drove Bill Clinton. In Clinton’s case it turned out to be an asset, as he repeatedly jumped in front of Republican initiatives and took credit for them. For Obama, it just left him rudderless and feckless as he was unable to overcome his partisan instincts.

  8. I HAD A GOOD LINK TODAY.

    *Packs link up, storms out of room*

    1. Was it about umpteen various agencies approving their plan to sell leather infused vodka and then just as the first batch comes out the Minnesoda Agriculture Department bans it?

      The Ag Dept objected because they used “nonfood grade” leather for the infusion.

      “We’ve spent the last eight months going through due diligence, getting approvals at the federal and state level,” Ervin said, including the product’s formula and labeling. “We then took those certifications to the state ? Department of Public Safety’s Alcohol (and Gambling Enforcement) division ? and were given permission to sell it here in Minnesota.”

      I wonder if the hipster who was making this now wonders about the wisdom of having so many agencies to protect us.

      1. Leather infused vodka?

        Iunderstand bacon infusion, bacon is a flavor you want.

        But leather? Is there really enough of a market? (I’m not condoning the government actions, he should be free to either fail or to prove me wrong, but I’m just baffled)

        1. Not that I’m a supporter of Agriculture Departments, I’m not sure leather is going to be awfully good for your health. Tanning leather is a nasty process, involving many chemicals which ain’t exactly good for your health.

          Even if you avoid leather that has been treated with chromium and/or other chemicals used to dye the leather, the process of making even ‘natural’ leather is pretty unnatural.

          1. I’m familiar with the tanning process. Ignoring modern chromium tanning, we have some rather… interesting substances used. Brain tanning is probably the least troublesome assuming you don’t run into prions (which are shockingly stubborn molecules). The one traditional method with a long soak in a vat of warmed-up dog and chicken feces is also sarcastically lovely. Vegetable tanning is merely using plant extracts that are generally not imbibed, but can be found in other alcohol products.

            1. If you are willing to drink vodka how serious are you about your health?
              Now add to that equation the idea that you are drinking vodka with leather floating around in it?

              Again, I don’t think many health nuts were saved by the ban.

              *Real people drink whiskey. Not vodka. That shit is for commies.

              1. Oh, now I see, he’s trying to make a classier version of whiskey by getting the tannins out of something other than wood.

                Thank you, Jimbo.

              2. *Real people drink whiskey. Not vodka. That shit is for commies.

                Dr. ZG just told you to kindly go jump off a cliff (roughly translated, and Bowdlerised), Your Eminence. With the cutest little smile, too, I might add!-D

              3. That shit is for commies.

                No, vodka, like all white liquors are for rich white women on diets.

                1. for rich white women on diets

                  Did you just call my wife fat?

                2. Is there a correlation between commies and rich white women on diets?

            2. prions (which are shockingly stubborn molecules)

              Indeed. NaOH is reliable, and Cidex call effectively disinfect it, but the the protocols for decontamination/sterile processing are very specific.

              More on CJD’s etiology, DX and mortality/morbidity, and D/S techniques.(Trigger Warning: PDF)

          2. the process of making even ‘natural’ leather is pretty unnatural

            I hear the Ancient Egyptians a one Josef Mengele were both pretty adept at it.

            I understand that our own Monte Crusto is lobbying for a patent leather infused vodka. With his luck though, he’ll end up with some cheap pleather knock-off…

            1. With his luck though, he’ll end up with some cheap pleather knock-off…

              Pleather-infused vodka?

              1. What, the naugas have been hunted to extinction?

                1. ^This gal knows what’s what!

                2. What, the naugas have been hunted to extinction?

                  Not in the least – you can still find them here: https://www.naugahyde.com/dolls/

              2. Stolicynauga

            2. +1 Chrysler Cordoba

            3. I’ve heard you can make it in a pantsuit and takes about seven decades.

        2. You’re probably thinking “shoe leather” when they’re going for “rawhide whip”. I’ve heard there are some folks who enjy a little taste o’ the lash. NTTAWWT, de gustibus non est disputahahahAAAHHHH!!!ndum and all that.

        3. Leather infused vodka?

          “Mmmm, tastes like Stetson.”

          1. Better that than “assless chaps”

      2. Is . . . is there any such thing as ‘food grade’ leather at all? I mean, people know how that shit is made, right?

        1. Well, there is well-documented accounts of sailors in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries (and probably earlier) that resorted to boiling and eating the leather riggings off off ships in a desperate attempt to stave off starvation and avoid cannabalism.

          1. My suspicion there would be that the objective was to put something that was somewhat digestible in their stomachs to ease the cramping from starvation, rather than to gain any real nutrition.

            All you’d have is manila hemp, wood, canvas, metal, leather, black powder and each other.

            Leather rope coverings were usually made from the corium of the leather – the thick, coarser lower strata which is pretty much ‘raw’ suede. The idea was to have something that would allow better grip on the cordage, so I’d suspect that if it was processed at all, any treatment will have been washed out by its exposure to the elements. I doubt those starving seamen would have been eating anything that looked like saddle leather.

    2. Or was it a Grade-A meltdown by Minnesoda’s lefty columnist?

      But I didn’t see this coming. I don’t mean that the week before the election I believed the pollsters. I mean that via some uncorrupted core of optimism about my country and my species, I didn’t think that Homo Americanus could overlook this level of lying and shapeshifting self-dealing and lack of feeling for those who struggle in ways that he never had to. The lying was especially hard on me because my lifelong craft is so worshipfully in love with the idea of facts and rational logic, and the idea that they matter. But, apparently, not as much as I thought.

      So, I don’t blame Hillary Clinton, I don’t blame James Comey, I don’t blame Vladimir Putin. I don’t blame Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or those who voted for them. I don’t blame the media, either, except that the new media landscape and norms have made it so easy for so many to imbibe only those facts and falsehoods that suit their hopes and their dreams, their emotions and especially their anger and their grievances.

      1. I hope he feels better. Let it out, buddy.

        1. Send him some leather-infused vodka?

          1. Not if the leather can be used to hang himself. We have already taken away his belt and the laces from his Sorrels.

      2. I didn’t think that Homo Americanus could overlook this level of lying and shapeshifting self-dealing and lack of feeling for those who struggle in ways that (s)he never had to. The lying was especially hard on me because my lifelong craft is so worshipfully in love with the idea of facts and rational logic, and the idea that they matter.

        You should feel great that the Hildog was defeated then.

        1. What’s the over/under on Rs getting to 60 senators in 2018…

          1. I don’t think that is how over under works

            1. I wouldn’t dare speculate. I just read Nate Silver’s site. He’s never wrong about these things.

          2. Extremely possible. IIRC there are 25 D seats up, and only 8 R seats. If Trump has a decent two years and avoids being Next Hitler, Democrats are likely to suffer more losses.

        2. He blames it on teh Homos ?

          Doesn’t that qualify as an ism or other ?

          1. He obviously needs one of those interventions the lefty busybodies are so fond of.

      3. Homo Americanus

        Some say, you can’t have Homo Americanus without first having Homo Erectus.

      4. An excellent idea! Blame the voters!

        That should work.

        😀

    1. Needs to be wearing a leather jacket.

    2. +1 I knew Hitler was a libertarian

    3. Wow. I’ve never seen Nick Gillespie so unhinged.

      1. Fucking…Brilliant.

  9. a provision from 1953 is eternal and nonnegotiable according to the administration

    So Congress can give the office of the president power that then binds future presidents? I’d like to know the Supreme Court’s opinion on that. Seems like an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional power to me.

    1. It’s in the subsection titled No Givesy-Backsies of the FYTW Clause of the Constitution.

    2. Seems pretty thin to me as well.

      1. Bitch about fake news, while blatantly running fake news. This appears to be the new strategy.

    3. It’s nonsense. Trump can undo it, and will. Let the greenies try to fight it out in court.

  10. This will be reversed by the Trumpet.

    In other, and more hilarious news:

    Liberal’s into guns and prepping

    So, let me guess, they’re going to prepare a safe space under their mum’s bed, with coloring books and crayons? We all know they are not going to have any scary guns near them.

    1. Gun makers rejoice at more panic sales!

      1. Dammit! Just when I thought prices might drop

        1. On that topic, I’ve want to get a new pistol. I’ve shot a Browning Hi Power and really liked the profile and feel in my hand. Don’t care for the 1911 (gasp!) – feels too bulky for me. Probably in 9mm but not dedicated to it. Any other suggestions? Wife will complain if it’s really expensive.

          1. Divorce your wife.

            Buy what you want.

            1. Doesn’t work when she walks off with half of everything and alimony.

              1. Just have to lead her a little more.

                1. Oooh. Sorry, Lynch. Bad joke.

                  1. BTW, when my wife complains about something being too expensive, I save up about half of the purchase cost out of my own budget and then talk to her about what I want to buy. Shows her how much I want the thing.

                    1. No, but then I have some money for hookers and blow.

                    2. It took a lot of mansplaining, but after several years I finally got my wife to come around to the idea that each firearm I purchase is a tangible investment. Most guns don’t depreciate if well taken care of. Unlike say, purses and shoes.

                    3. This is true. You can actually make a huge profit if you sell a gun – even a heavily used one – during a panic. After Sandy Hook, MAK-90s were going for $700+… I paid $390 for mine years and years ago.

              2. I would assume he was smart enough have established a prenup. However, if not, depending on the state he lives in, there is still time to write up a postnup.

              3. Perhaps he could fake his own death?

          2. Stoooooopid mammal! If my species ever stopped to consider the weaponry opinions of our females then we would’ve never developed plasma rifles and orbital bombardment cannons!

            With that said, check out the CZ 75. They even make them in stainless, or polymer frame. Or check out the EEA witness/tangfoglio(?) which is a cheaper Italian version.

            1. Was going to chime in with what Mr. Lizard ended up writing, Lynch Pin. CZ makes a variety of them, and if you liked the Hi-Power, you’ll probably like the CZ too. They’re also pretty inexpensive.
              I’ve liked SiG’s 226, 228, and 229, and they are not inexpensive, unfortunately. Though neither is an Elite Witness, FWIW.

              I’ve heard decent things about Lionheart pistols as well. Then there’s the Turkish clones like Canik, Sarsilmaz, etc… Cheap but decent is how I’ve heard them described. Seemed to work well enough on that poor Russian ambassador…

              What’s “really expensive” and what’re you going to use the pistol for? Home defense, carry, range toy? 9mm works just about as well as any other defensive pistol cartridge, assuming proper ammunition like Barnes or 124 or 147 grain Gold Dots, HST, or Ranger-T.

            2. I like the Springfield Mod 2 4″ service model in 9 mm. The shorter standard version is sweet, too, and more easily concealable. They’re at least a hundred bucks cheaper than comparable Glocks, have a much better trigger and ergonomics (my opinion), and have proven to be very reliable.

              1. You get a lot for your money with the Springfield polymer guns, and while the ergonomics aren’t really my cup of tea, they’re certainly worth considering.

                I think they also ship with swappable backstraps in case you need to customize the grip a little.

                If you want a general purpose gun, including something that’s fun at the range, the XD series is gonna be worth your time to look at.

          3. The BHP grip is similar to a number of other guns, but what I suspect works for you is (a) the angle of the grip and (b) the fact that the backstrap is straight.

            With that in mind, there are a few you might want to look at, among them:
            1) CZs – just about any ’75’ model, except that the ones with rubber grips might feel a bit big in your hands. Of course, you can change grips.
            2) CZ ‘P’ series (the polymer ones)
            2) 9 MM 1911’s. Very popular now, and they’re a bit smaller in grip.
            3) If you’re flush with money, the new Beretta 92-A3. The grip is the same as the Beretta 92FS Vertec
            4) H&K – something like the P30. The grips are highly contoured, but you can swap out the backstrap to change the grip size.

            Realistically, it’s probably easier to say what you should save your time by putting near the end of the list. Sounds like you’re better off with smaller grips, so Glocks and the traditional Beretta 92/96 are probably in that category.

            1. i.e. Beretta and glocks are less likely to work for you. You might add Sig Sauer in the list of ‘less likely’ too.

            2. Thanks

              1. Where are you located? Anywhere in the NY area?

          4. You want a 1911 Officer’s Model. Like Trump, I have small hands, but have no problem using the OM. Get a 12 round extension magazine and you’re good to go.

          5. Wife will complain if it’s really expensive

            Buy one for her.

            My suggestion is to walk through gun shows picking up anything that suits your fancy to see how it feels. I am a small person and have a hard time finding something that fits. I liked the Hi Power but settled on a Sig P228. It’s a “semi-compact” but it is comfortable and I can reach all of the controls (slide release, etc).

            … Hobbit

          6. I had a nice well thought out, we’ll written reply all typed up and the goddamned squirrels ate it.

            Consider the Walther PPQ. I own one, great little polymer striker fired pistol. The trigger is one of the best made. The m1 has the trigger guard flipper mag release, m2 has the button. M2 navy has threaded barrel (I own the m1, want an m2 navy to shoot suppressed). Comes in 9mm, 40, and 45 for around 500

          7. Sig Sauer P320. Choose any caliber you like via conversion kits. Same goes for grip sizes.

    2. I don’t believe it. Accepting the realities of the world and being prepared to face them… pretty much the oppositie of what they believe in. If they do that, they won’t be liberals any longer.

      1. They’ll face a moral dilemma and have to convert to libertarian. Then they will hate themselves and have to throw themselves from tall objects to their death. WIN/WIN.

        1. Or, keep their Marxist core and shed the politically correct coating – becoming Bolsheviks or similar such truly dangerous types.

  11. In fact, as one disastrous presidency ends, it’s more obvious than ever that Trump has every reason to be emboldened by Obama’s actions and the rampant partisan hypocrisy that infects America.

    I’m scared you guys.

    1. Try the leather-infused vodka!

  12. “Activist reviewers” troll Ivanka Trump’s products on Amazon

    It is unclear what the progressive game plan is with all this harassment and attacking of Ivanka Trump. What did she do? How do the progressives think it looks to publicly try to bully her?

    1. How do the progressives think it looks to publicly try to bully her?

      I highlighted your error.

      1. Progressives think? Who knew?

        1. They go to their “thotful spot” where they do a thinking pose on a log

      1. A snarky Amazon review as heroism. Perhaps next a snarky hashtag!

    2. Look at it this way. The leftist ideology has failed from day one. The former USSR is gone, China abandoned socialism for capitalism (although they still have the authoritarian government in place), the Latin American socialist movement has fallen apart, the left found out that Denmark and Norway are not socialist countries, and then the Trumpet replaces dear leader here in Murika, the last hope for socialism. All they have left now is trying to troll Ivanka on Amazon. Sad. I almost feel sorry for them. Ok, I don’t even almost feel sorry for them, I really hate them.

      1. At least we have Deblasion gamely carrying the torch for Progressive America and vowing to continue giving away the store to every layabout in sight.

    3. No, no, don’t you see, if they just keep making incredibly petty attacks on the most likable person in Trump’s family all those white trash hicks who voted him in will realize the error of their ways and support the Democrats moving forward.

      It’s genius!

      1. It’s going to work about as well as identity politics. Ok, it’s not going to work that well. They’re exactly like toddlers. When they don’t get their way, the only response they have is whine, cry, and maybe fall on the floor and writhe around some.

    4. What’s funny is that Ivanka seems to be the most progressive person on Trump’s team. She’s the one that will give the progs their universal preschool and increased family leave.

    5. This guy deserves a link because I think he’s spot on.

      Bring it like a patron

  13. There is nothing that can replace oil and gas as they are used today. Transportation ,heating, and chemicals all rely on these two fuels. How would the progs travel the world to fight for mother earth with out jet fuel?

    1. Don’t you see, you have to give up oil and gas so that they can continue to preach its evils as the new priestly class.

  14. Abuse of power? How about the lack of morning links? There’s an abuse. It’s not Christmas or Christmas Eve and I have to work so reason’s punk ass new hires so as hell should be working too.

  15. Any time we get a dishonest Obo-apologist like mortiscrum, this needs to be tossed right back at ’em

    “Claims regarding Obama’s use of executive orders and presidential memoranda”
    […]
    “That tally {executinfe orders} is almost entirely irrelevant to this dispute [over executive action] because executive orders are only one way a presidential administration can take action without congressional approval,” he said, noting for instance the use of presidential memoranda. In fact, many of Obama’s most controversial actions on immigration and gun rights also did not involve executive orders.
    […]
    “I suspect the president (and his staff) are interested in minimizing numbered executive orders simply because they are easily countable,” he said. “Presidents mostly don’t like ‘score-keeping’ especially when it can be used to criticize them. But the other benefits that come with publication are real, so he publishes unnumbered orders often. And selectively emphasizes other executive action.”

    From WaPo, 12/31/14; I’ve forgotten how to do the URL-shrink thing (and don’t care for instructions again)

  16. OT since there is no morning links: Former officer indicted

    So that’s how you indict a cop!

    A former Manchester police officer who most recently served as a school resource officer at Hillside Middle School has been charged with rape and violation of the state wiretap law.

    George Mallios, 46, of Bedford, was indicted by a Hillsborough County grand jury last week, according to court documents released Thursday.

    Manchester Police Chief Nick Willard said Mallios had been an officer for about nine years when police started investigating a complaint against him in March. As the internal investigation proceeded, Willard fired Mallios in June and his department initiated a criminal investigation.

    Mallios is charged with aggravated felonious sexual assault, a Class A felony, and interception and disclosure of oral communications, a Class B felony.

    Mallios had been a police officer in Chicago before joining the Manchester force. Most of the time he worked uniform patrol, though he also served as the school resource officer at Hillside Middle School.

    1. Mallios had been a police officer in Chicago before joining the Manchester force.

      At this point, I’m a little astounded that ‘police officer in Chicago’ isn’t seen as synonymous with ‘agent working for SPECTRE’ or ‘evil henchmen’. I mean it’s almost like a Blue Caliphate or something.

    2. Mallios had been a police officer in Chicago

      Hire that man! What could go wrong?

  17. OT: Ebola eradicating itself automagically (Autoplay!).

    Too bad we can’t inject anything directly into people’s brains to kill the whole ‘Vaccines else catastrophic worldwide pandemic.’ meme… or can we?

    1. Ebola was never a huge threat to the US. We already have Hantavirus in North America. Hantavirus is practically the same thing as Ebola, yet it hasn’t overrun the US. This is for the same reason that cholera and hepatitus A are extremely common in developing nations yet extremely rare in developing ones:

      WATER BORNE VIRUSES DON’T TRANSMIT WELL IN PLACES WITH MODERN SANITATION.

      1. Chlorine for the win!

        1. BUT THERE ARE CHEMICALS IN THE CHLORINE!

      2. “WATER BORNE VIRUSES DON’T TRANSMIT WELL IN PLACES WITH MODERN SANITATION.”

        See?? The wonders of public works spending in action! This is why we need more debt-financed infrastructure spending!

        /Krugman

    1. They’re probably all drunk at the Reason Christmas party, reading our pleas for links and laughing hysterically.

      1. How many days long is the Reason Christmas party?

        1. I thought every day was a party at Reason headquarters.

          1. Agreed. Do they (or we for that matter) really need a reason [drink] to party?

    2. Was that “Settlers”? Did he get pissed off at one too many ‘wood for sheep’ jokes?

      1. Original video (can’t tell if staged)

        1. This must be Triggly Puff’s brother.

        2. Oh, it’s staged. He has other videos.

      2. Our gaming group has a really talented brewer in it…he made a wheat beer….”2 Sheep for 1 Wheat”

      3. I played this game called Agricola with the squeeze and a friend of his a while back. Since I was just learning the game, I made some moves that messed up the friend’s plans. His reaction was not quite like Francis’s, he did turn into a whiny titty baby (much like that woman’s son will turn out to be from that article up there ^^)

        1. Wait… people still play games in which a keyboard and mouse are not used?

          1. Console peasants, and people stuck in the industrial age.

            1. Oh, yes, I forgot about those luddites and peasants.

          2. And they have several conventions a year that 1000s of people attend, apparently.

            1. This is disturbing news.

              1. From Board Game Geeks:

                Based on number of badges printed, minus those not picked up, we estimate somewhere around 2,800 people attended BGG.CON 2015.

                1. Those aren’t geeks. We geeks are proudly armed with keyboard and mouse against the pixel hordes.

                2. I WAS THERE!

                  they could have had more, but the facility was at capacity.

            1. Jeezus, that laugh track is so fucking annoying.

    3. Poor guy. Being good at that stupid card game was probably the only thing he had going for him and then he found out that he wasn’t any good at it after all.

      1. Interesting guy. He says he invented the persona to mock aspy rage-prone D&D nerds (and himself, too) who frequented the comic book shop where he worked.

  18. I feel like I woke up on Christmas day and there’s nothing under the tree!

    This is the worse Reasonmas ever!

    1. You get a lump of coal again.

      1. Sell it to Germany or Japan and make a tidy profit!

  19. Hillary still a walking fashion statement

    But seems she’s went from the Chairman Mao look to … I made a shirt out of great grandma’s living room curtains?

    1. “It is unclear now what Abedin will do, having worked for Clinton ever since she graduated from college.
      ‘[S]he’s someone that will be sought after either personally or through business from many rich, very rich connected people. She’ll do very well for herself,’ said the insider.”

      Tranlated: ‘She’s got a good rolodex.’

      1. At this rate, Dems will have learned nothing and it will be an unprecedented all-female Abedin/Obama 2020 ticket.

        1. It’s how they’ll win back white males.

        2. I think they’ll go a different way:

          Weiner/Holder 2020!

          “People don’t need a hand-out, they need a hand job!

      2. Translated: She’ll do anyone?

        1. Translation: she’s ready to snag a husband richer than Croesus, pick up lots of fashionable “causes” and get her Jackie O on.

      3. She has gone from full time personal assistant and twat licker to simply full time twat licker.

        1. Sought after by whom? She’s a radioactive right now.

          1. You’re talking about the left. Long as you stay true to the cause, someone will hire you if for no reason beyond your connections and insider knowledge.

      4. Perhaps she has a binder

    2. This shows that HRC doesn’t really believe the bullshit narrative about Comey. If you believe the Comey story, then Huma is the obvious scapegoat. But there they are “hanging out” like old times…

      1. No one else will go near her. They say she smells like baked ham and urine.

        1. and talcum powder. Lots of talcum powder.

    3. She really looks tired – and like she cries herself to sleep every night.

      Good riddance. It can’t be said enough, these people exude crookedness and corruption with a twist of self-entitled petulance.

      1. DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD, THE WICKED WITCH IS DEAD!

        Like that?

        1. I’ve been wanting to say that since election night. I feel better!

      2. these people exude crookedness and corruption with a twist of self-entitled petulance

        Thank god Trump will save us from that.

        1. He will exude more of a blowhardness, mixed with ready-fire-aim temperament!

  20. who knew EO’s were permanent and binding on future governments? Trump’s going to have a field day and the progs will have to live with it for eternity.

    eternity.

    1. Trump’s going to have a field day and the progs all of us will have to live with it for eternity.

  21. Irony:

    Fox News, Breitbart Falsely Suggest Jewish Family Is to Blame for Cancellation of Christmas Play

    The Anti-Defamation League has spoken with the parents in question and asserted that the original report in Lancaster Online overstated their fear. The parents told the ADL that they left on vacation and did not “flee.”

    1. Everything related to the War on Christmas is so fucking stupid.

        1. The worst part is that if you go looking for your stolen Jesus, everyone slams the door as soon as you ask them if they found it.

          1. Damn, that was actually pretty funny Stormy.

        2. “believed to be part of a yearly tradition, often carried out by bored teenagers looking for an easy prank.”

          Yep, that’s why I did it as a teenager. Requires very little work and you can get some great freakouts in regards to it.

          1. Requires very little work and you can get some great freakouts in regards to it.

            A prank must be evaluated on its work vs freakout ratio. For instance, a much better freakout could be achieved if the baby bajesus was replaced with a severed goat head, but then the prankster has to steal a goat and murder it, which is way to much work.

        3. “YOU TELL THAT TO ALL THE KIDNAPPED BABY JESUSES JESI”

    2. Slate makes clickbaity inaccurate headline, fool wishing to believe falls for it even when slate’s own article contradicts the headline.

      Also, if you are honest enough to check out the evidence for youself, Here’s the original Breitbart article.

      1. That was the irony. Slate publishing an article complaining about fake news that turned out to be fake news itself.

        1. I don’t know if it’s deliberate on Slate’s part, an accident of their editorial process, or just cluelessness.

          1. 1 and 3 are pretty similar where Slate’s* concerned.

            *Concedes that Slate was once smart enough to let Hitchens write a regular column.

            1. Blind squirrel something, something.

          2. Why give them benefit of the doubt? Put out a clearly false report with over-panicky headline, then correct once the narrative is firmly embedded among the proggie crowd. Seems pretty standard practice these days.
            If the Jesus-Thumping SoCons and their Neo-Nazi Allies had a brain, they’d Gawker the fuck out of online prog media.

            1. Why give them benefit of the doubt?

              There is absolutely no reason for there to be any doubt regarding journalistic integrity. There is none to start with.

              The photo that Slate uses to illustrate the article is of an unrelated anti-Trump protest that prominently features a sign reading “End White Nationalism”. The caption: “A protest against the appointment of Steve Bannon, white nationalist and former Breitbart News head, to be chief strategist of the White House. Donald Trump’s victory spurred a wave of hate crimes and harassment, some of it anti-Semitic.”

              Pure fake news.

          3. Wasn’t it Slate that recently complained about the accuracy of Trump’s bombing in Syria? I’d say “cluelessness.”

      2. Officials at Centerville Elementary School in East Hempfield Township said they canceled the play because it took too much time away from classroom instruction, but many parents believe it was because two parents complained about a line said in the play, Fox News reports.

        The unnamed parents reportedly complained about the line “God bless us, everyone” said by Tiny Tim.

        That’s it? That’s the Great Jew Hunt of 2016?
        God damn, Slate, that’s low even by your standards.

        1. The complaint was against the words ‘every one.’

          The Proposed revision: ‘ God bless us, except you Trumpkins can go to hell.’

    3. “The parents told the ADL that they left on vacation and did not “flee.”

      Vaca in Egypt.

    1. We may never know the real cause of this attack. /media

      1. Where does Australia ship their criminals? New Zealand? Tasmania?

          1. Christmas Island, actually. But only if they broke immigration law.

            1. I thought they were catching a lot of shit for that and are preparing to “take them in” instead.

              1. Nope, the only resettlement to a western country is them getting shipped to the US.

                I blame Obama.

                The only effective method of reducing migration was the one the previous Australian administration – turn them all back, return them to their countries of origin, no exceptions, no pity.

                It worked, attempted crossings and deaths in crossing dropped while that policy was in place. It is really the humane answer.

        1. Historical note: convicts who were considered too unruly for Sydney were shipped to Port Arthur on Van Dieman’s Land (Tasmania).

          1. Australia’s “Florida Men”

        2. Detriot

      2. Do the Aussie FBI equivalent run cells just like ours does?

    2. You joke, but that was the headline at Der Spiegel a few hours after the attack: “Police search for a motive.”

      1. I’m not sure when it became part of the public dialogue about Terror but there’s this absurd pretense that there’s a substantial difference if someone commits mass-killings in the name of ISIS, versus if they’re just some random Islamic goofball who might be mentally ill and just decides that attacking people is the thing to do.

        Meaning, there’s a pretense that the nature of the motive makes some real substantive difference in whether its actually ‘terror’, or just a ‘crime’.

        The unarticulated argument seems to be that “you can’t fight random attacks!” – whereas those that are organized from the outside are a very different type of phenomenon… one which the security establishment wants to downplay.

        The reality is that there is zero difference, and that these individuals committing violent acts are doing so out of exactly the same antipathy towards the West in general, and use the exact same methods to attack the same targets. In most cases its actually some in-between category where (like this guy) they aren’t “directed”, but are “inspired” by ISIS-type actors abroad.

        The media endlessly echoes these contrived narratives around terror, and reduce people’s ability to actually think clearly about the subject.

        I think what would be more significant? Would be if people who supported Islamic-movements actually modified their tactics, and instead of killing people at random, started writing editorials

        1. Don’t forget another muddy-the-waters tactic: calling it “religious extremism.”

          1. The insistence that “Islam” is purely a religion, and not actually a political movement, is one of the blind spots of Western thinking which assumes that they are discrete and exclusive categories.

            1. That is huge issue that will have to be dealt with, sooner or later. I’ve come to believe it’s a huge flaw in Enlightenment thinking to believe that “all religions are equal.”

              1. Other than Voltairasque “all religions are equally stupid, God gives as much fucks about you as you do about a mouse on a grain ship”, was it ever an Enlightenment position? Did anyone in 18th century really give two thoughts to Islam, let alone Hinduism or Amerindian religions (both of which there was contact with)?

                1. To the extent that muslims, hindus and amerinds were occupying some land that Europeans wanted, then yes, lots of people gave plenty of thought to Islam and how to deal with it.

                  We’re all aware now that Islam’s relationship to freedom isn’t so different to Marxism’s relation to freedom. The difference lies in that the popular consensus is that Islam is a religion first, and a political philosophy a distant second, while the consensus is that Marxism is a political philosophy first and a replacement for traditional religions second.

                  The reality is that they both combine political and theological philosophy into profoundly illiberal movements, and are inimicable to individual freedom.

                2. “Did anyone in 18th century really give two thoughts to Islam, let alone Hinduism or Amerindian religions (both of which there was contact with)?”

                  There were some. One of my favourites was explorer Richard Burton, but he was more of a figure from the Victorian era. Islam at the time was more in tune with modern times than Christianity was. Bathing, for example, something we take for granted today, was widely practised in the Middle East before it took on in Europe, thanks in part by institutions in accordance with Islamic custom like the Turkish Bath.

                  There are always going to be curious people going out to explore. Always has been, even in the 18th century.

              2. I’ve come to believe it’s a huge flaw in Enlightenment thinking to believe that “all religions are equal.”

                Freedom of religion != Equality of religions

                That having been said, many people do not seem to appreciate the distinction.

                1. kbolino: Correct. It’s a very rare and politically incorrect distinction to make. It’s bizarre: you have people who are in favor of women’s rights and gay rights, but if you ask them: “Are all religions equally true?” they’ll say: “Yes,” and not notice the huge contradiction regarding Islam.

                  1. I think people have established blind spots. Islam can be “just another religion” subordinate to secular liberalism (classical definitions) but a lot of Muslims don’t see it that way, especially but not exclusively those who haven’t spent significant amounts of time around/assimilated with secular liberal Westerners. That having been said, freedom of religion isn’t really freedom if it only applies to select religions.

                    1. It’s hard for assimilation or secularization to work if your holy book, the perfect and unedited word of God in the language He speaks, orders you not to do those things.

                    2. It’s hard for assimilation or secularization to work if your holy book orders you not to do those things.

                      I think the argument that Islam can’t assimilate because “it says they can’t” in the Koran is weak.

                      The case may be true that muslims are (broadly) less capable of assimilation into the western secular society than members of other religions; obviously some do – but whether they can or can’t i don’t think is a factor of anything to do with the *text* of the religion. Its a bad argument because you can make observations about similar proscriptions in almost all other religions; why are muslims uniquely required to observe every letter of their book, while Christians are free to see the stoning of adulterers as “optional”? etc.

                      I would argue that the reason they don’t assimilate is because they are TOLD they don’t have to.

                      They see the argument of western pluralism as meaning that they don’t have to make any sacrifices to their worldview at all. they think the “Rules” of pluralism mean they can simply ignore the super-structure of liberal democracy, and maintain their own co-existent set of principles. When there is conflict between the 2, they either complain about it and try and bend the rest of society to ‘respect their regressive worldview’…. or they hide it and try and avoid being criticized.

                      I think this sort of conflict is much more apparent in the UK than in the US, where assimilation IS much more common.

                    3. “The case may be true that muslims are (broadly) less capable of assimilation into the western secular society than members of other religions”

                      You are missing the point. Muslims can’t and won’t assimilate. But look on the bright side. Western Secular Society is able and more than willing to assimilate to the ways of Islam. Just look at Obama’s sterling effort to promulgate Sharia law in the USA.

                    4. The Bible: Old vs. New Testament, and written in many languages by different people “inspired” by God: lots of room for interpretation.

                      The Koran is quite different. It’s very explicit about many things: death for apostasy, blasphemy, etc. Non-believers and gays and women are second-class citizens. And that’s evident anywhere Islam rules, or has ever ruled.

                      And, of course, Jesus was a pacifist carpenter, while Muhammad was a caravan robber, warlord, slaver, rapist, and mass murderer. So the religions they founded are quite different.

                    5. Only if that is what you believe and you act on it. To the extent that someone’s definition of Islam includes those things, then I would certainly agree assimilation and secularization is not going to happen.

                    6. Only if that is what you believe and you act on it. To the extent that someone’s definition of Islam includes those things, then I would certainly agree assimilation and secularization is not going to happen.

                      This^ was a response to this:

                      It’s hard for assimilation or secularization to work if your holy book, the perfect and unedited word of God in the language He speaks, orders you not to do those things.

                    7. “It’s hard for assimilation or secularization to work”

                      This may be true, but luckily for Libertarians, it should be of no concern to you. Whether an individual assimilates or not, or the degree to which he follows scripture is no business of the Libertarian. It is a matter of personal choice on the part of the individual, a choice that decent Libertarians everywhere are willing to die in their defence.

                  2. These people have a stupid COEXIST bumper sticker.

              3. I’ve come to believe it’s a huge flaw in Enlightenment thinking to believe that “all religions are equal.”

                I don’t think ‘enlightenment thinking’ says that at all.

                The enlightenment established a rationale for the separation of religion from political arguments – but it didn’t relegate all religions to some ‘equally irrelevant’ category in the process. In fact, i don’t think enlightenment philosophers even bothered consider any other religions other than Christianity – they just assumed it was the only one that mattered.

                The idea that religions are all equally valid (in the politically-invalidated-sphere of religion) is more a modern idea …. based around cultural relativism, and the “End of History” argument – where secular, liberal democracy is the final form of social/political evolution, and all the “religious stuff” that exists on the side is supposed to be kept in neat little equally-respected boxes, and that none of them are ever supposed to confront one another in the real world.

                Basically, it presumes that the “pluralism” that works successfully between post-reformation Christianity – where protestants and catholics no longer kill each other in the streets – is supposed to somehow function equally well (and without any war) between “Every other religion”.

                Its just assumed that all other religions will accept demotion of their faith from political relevance the same way Christians have.

                1. I grant that “Enlightenment thinking” may not be the correct term. I am thinking of the end of the religious wars in Europe, when Catholics and Protestants decided to stop killing each other. I think of that as a milestone for “religious freedom,” but it had nothing to do with Islam.

                  1. I think of that as a milestone for “religious freedom,” but it had nothing to do with Islam.

                    yeah that’s more or less my same point.

                    i think the problem that contemporary people have when talking about “Islam” is that they see it as ‘only/just a religion’…. which is how they see all religions – something people are allowed to ‘believe’, but which isn’t necessarily supposed to interfere in any way liberal secular society operates.

                    People can’t comprehend that billions of people around the world simply don’t have this same point of view regarding the box that “religion” fits in. They don’t see any box at all. They think “religion” is a superstructure under which EVERYTHING submits.

                    One side can’t even conceive of any “war between Secular, Liberal Christendom and Islam” – because they don’t even think there’s anything to be conflicted *about*. All religions are supposed to get along equally (once they’re put in their non-political box)….

                    They don’t realize that Islam has no interest being in a box where the “religion” is allowed to exist, but has zero sway over any socio-political issues.

            2. “and not actually a political movement”

              Movements. A collection of competing political movements. The CIA has known about this for decades now. It’s only a blind spot to the ignorant.

              1. mtrueman: A distinction without much of a difference. There was nothing wrong with talking about 20th century Communism as a movement (singular), even though there was competition between Stalinists, Trotskyites, Maoists, etc.

                1. “There was nothing wrong with talking about 20th century Communism as a movement”

                  Says someone who still hasn’t learned the lesson of the Vietnam war.

                  1. Which is what?

                    1. It was a fight for national liberation. Not communism. Much the same is true for the Taleban who have reason enough to repel the invaders and don’t need the teachings of the Koran.

        2. Douglas Murray of The Spectator had an article that basically said he can at this point just recycle his article from previous time, and the time before that, and the time before… It included this bit

          At the same time the non-violent Islamists who work in European politics and the media will insist that we look at the root causes which make people drive trucks through Christmas markets in Berlin (‘Islamophobia’, Germany’s brutal foreign policy, trucks of certain designs) while non-Muslim commentators who haven’t paid attention over recent decades will insist that we find out ‘what the terrorists want’, with the unmentioned follow-on that once we work this out we can give them some of it.

          Don’t worry, they have the editorial-writing side covered. Usually after some swinery like this, whining about how they are the truly oppressed ones because people might not like swineries like this and they might think or say mean things.

          1. He also prophesied thus

            I hereby predict that by Christmas Day at the latest a group of the world’s most persecuted and peaceful Muslim sect will turn up at Mass somewhere in Germany (as some Ahmadiyya Muslims did after some non-Ahmadiyya Muslims slaughtered a French priest at his altar last summer). The ensuing, very beautiful and moving photos will appear across the world’s press with the attendees described as simply ‘Muslims’. Then we can all forget the dead bodies and focus on the Muslim good news story, taking away the only viable lesson which is: ‘Anyone acting violently in the name of Islam = nothing to do with Islam; small sect behaving nicely in the name of Islam = true Islam, and who are you to say otherwise? Bigot.’

            Took a few hours, otherwise exactly as predicted.

            If links go to a paywall, paste them into Google and asked for “cached” version. Their new “must register to read blog” policy is annoying to the point where I might actually re-subscribe, so I guess it works.

        3. I think the Germans basically bought the idea that the Munich killer was a “lone wolf” Anders Breivik-type, and it allowed them to live in denial a bit longer about what was happening to their country.

          That’s why I think maybe something will be Different This Time. I can see no alternate explanation to hide behind. There is only the obvious explanation which the AfD has been saying all along.

          1. will be Different This Time

            That’s going to take a whole lot of soul-searching – a process that seems not to have gotten off the ground at any point in the last 70 years or so.

  22. This was nothing more than a consolation prize for proggies concerned about the cute polar bears (who would gladly devour them and their children) and whales. If Obama really wanted to make a statement against Big Oil, he would sell off the entire strategic petroleum reserve because we no longer need to hoard oil. He could also get rid of the heating oil reserve that Bill Clinton created to stabilize prices in the northeast and give a favor to Hugo Chavez. Heating oil is very dirty and there’s no need for it anymore with cheap natural gas, so why should it be subsidized?

  23. This is a long fuckin’ thread for a story of this type.

    I blame Fist. He obviously has some sort of control over the links.

    1. You don’t think polar bears are important?

      1. Polar bear, the other white meat. Yummy, yes, important. And these polar bear gloves, the best!

        1. Meat has very high levels of Vitamin A – so you might want to mince it up with venison and beef to make meatloaf, but I wouldn’t want to eat polarbearburger.

          1. Since bears and arctic animals are both fattier than most meats, I’d wager you’d want something leaner that can benefit from that while reducing he Vitamin A overload.

          2. I was once told, polar bear liver is the only meat that will kill you from vitamin A poisoning if you eat it.

            1. *scribbles not to self. Don’t eat liver*

            2. Many polar explorers who wouldn’t listen to the Eskimaux learned that the hard way.

            3. Yes, it’s the liver.

      2. I think Polar Bears are a menace and need to be exterminated.

          1. Produces an insufficient number of bearhide rugs.

  24. The Chron has hired a ‘business’ columnist (Thomas Lee) who thinks it’s rather a shame that businesses focus on profits rather than his causes; his stuff is paywalled and usually too boring to key-stroke.
    But he’s has been having fits ever since the election; the market should never have recovered, according to Krugman. And today he knocks it out of the park.
    Someone from JP Morgan is wasting time explaining to him that the market is likely to continue healthy since Trump is pro-business, but then he reads that Trump wants to ‘expand the US nuke capability’
    He finds this “jarring”: “What good is money if a bomb goes off?”
    Direct quote; no foolin’.

    1. He should just give all of his money away and exile himself on a desert island with no means of communication. What good is writing if a bomb is going to go off?

    1. Rand is a good guy. Hopefully, Trump will work with him on some stuff that libertarians might actually approve of.

      1. The final stake in the heart of libertarianism will be when they find all the dead hobos in Rand’s basement.

        1. Those aren’t hobos. They are Oliver Twist style orphans. Rand keeps his in period dress.

        2. Aqua Buddha accepts hobos as sacrifices? I thought it had standards.

        3. If those dead hobos actually turn out to be dead Syrian Muslim refugees and dead illegal immigrant rapists from Mexico, then Rand might have a chance with the Trumpist vote in 2020!

          1. If Shrill-Bot runs again, most likely so, and hoo boy, will you ever have a devil of a time trying not to vote for The Hilldabeast…

    2. The Department of State, is advertising a $1.25 million grant opportunity to produce a superhero cartoon in Pakistan.

      How long is festivus? I don’t think it lasts long enough to air all the stupid Gov grants out there. But A for effort on Rand’s part.

      1. Question – do you have to be in pakistan, or does it merely have to be set in pakistan?

          1. The show must be engaging for viewers and encourage “counternarcotics, gender equality, the role of police in civil society, a fair criminal justice system, anti-corruption [and] religious tolerance” to be selected

            1. Excuse me, grant people, but if there is a fair criminal justice system, you don’t need most superheroes.

              1. Well, that’s why you need super-villains, so the fair system can’t deal with them.

            2. “counternarcotics, gender equality

              These are things i always think of in tandem.

    3. And this is why Rand Paul is so fucking awesome: “New administration is lookin good. Haven’t seen this many billionaires in 1 place since I staked out Bilderbergs w/ Alex Jones. Good times.”

  25. I guess now we know that God can create a boulder so heavy that he can’t move it

  26. It’s now officially “PM” on the East Coast of Murika. I call time of death on AM links.

  27. Aaaaaannnnd…the skwerlz appear to have awoken.

  28. This is gonna be a looooong 28 days (like the movie) with this President who is not into receding into the sunset it looks like.

    None of this is about America but about his own legacy.

    I wonder what else he has up his progressive sleeve.

    1. it won’t be pot. it won’t be shutting the drone programs down.

  29. Hey, wait… where are the AM Links???

      1. Recursion n. See recursion

          1. You’re 1/2 right.

              1. Is that to throw off Amsoc? I’m sure he’ll be clicking on that for days…and eventually die of thirst. Right??
                What do I win?!!

                1. Amsoc’s Moral Compass?

                  (sounds like an artifact from an FRP)

                  1. A cursed artifact if ever there was one.

    1. Soave got drunk and went on a rampage through streets of DC. Police are following the trail of rainbow-colored horse poop and interviewing shocked survivors of sudden, unwanted shampoo-and-conditioning.

      1. When will our long national nightmare end?

        1. January 19, 2038

          03:14:07 UTC specifically.

          1. specifically

            But not precisely. Clock drift is a bitch, and the systems most at risk of 32-bit time_t overflow are also those least likely to use NTP.

            1. At least someone knew what I was talking about 😀

        2. When ENB coaxes him out with fruit sushi, and The Jacket puts the enchanted tiara back onto his perfect coif.

  30. I lurk here just to read the brilliant commentary in the links twice daily. You people have delivered admirably without them, but DAMMIT WHERE ARE MY LINKS?

    World…going dark…need…brilliance…

    *feeble gasping*

    1. You need Heroic Mulatto for brilliance. All I can offer is Crusader Kings 2* memes.

      *75% off on Steam!

    2. where my work routine gone!!

  31. “Democrats have failed on this front, so their overwrought grievances about Trump’s disposition smacks of hypocrisy”

    Smacks of hypocrisy? You’re kidding right? It is the very epitome of hypocrisy. It is vile, laughable, disgraceful, farcical hypocrisy. It’s giant pile of steaming hypocrisy oozing in DC. FFS, stop shilling for the progs and call it what it is. They are a pathetic joke.

  32. Rufus The Monocled|12.23.16 @ 12:54PM|#
    “This is gonna be a looooong 28 days (like the movie) with this President who is not into receding into the sunset it looks like.”

    If I’m Trump, I’ve got a Secretary of Stuff to be Rescinded who is charged with noting every damn ‘executive action’ taken by that lying POS since the election and it is on a list to be countermanded within hours of taking office.
    Up yours, twit.

    1. Secretary of Stuff to be Rescinded

      This may actually be Carl Icahn’s “official” title.

  33. Looks like we’ll have to keep this thread going until 12/26

  34. “The problem is that Trump (and anyone else who comes along) has little reason not to adopt Obama’s unprecedented use of the executive power.”

    That isn’t a problem for progressives.

    Progressives would rather have an all powerful executive–even if the occasional executive uses that power against them.

    The essence of being progressive is wanting to use the coercive power of government to force people to make sacrifices for the common good. You cannot have progressivism without the coercive power of government. A powerful executive is a precondition for a progressive government, and because of that, they would rather suffer at the hands of a President that despises them than weaken the power of the executive.

    It’s very much like how I stand up for the individual rights of people I despise. I stand up for the free speech rights of fascists, the right of terrorists not to be forced to testify against themselves, the right of arsonists not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, etc. I’m willing to stand up for those rights–regardless of who needs to use them.

    Progressives are, likewise, willing to suffer for an all powerful executive.

    1. The ideal of progressivism is an administrative state comprised of expert bureaucrats who are immune from politics. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a nearly ideal progressive bureaucracy. As conceived, it was unilaterally powerful within its regulatory scope, its director could not be fired by any branch of government for any cause short of criminality, and its budget was immune from the Congress appropriation process.

  35. It is not surprising to them that an executive that despises them will that same power against them, too. Just as libertarianism requires us to accept that nasty people will sometimes abuse the freedoms we cherish to commit crimes, progressives understand that the occasional executive that despises them will use his power to abuse them. But just as respecting other people’s freedoms is a precondition for a libertarian world, you cannot have a progressive world without an all powerful executive–and so they accept that part of it.

    They complain about being abused just like libertarians still complain about crime–but don’t let that fool you into thinking they don’t understand what they’re doing. I don’t believe there’s a direct relationship between the availability of guns and the amount of crime, but even if there were such a relationship, I’d still support the Second Amendment anyway. I am a libertarian–I believe in freedom.

    Progressives are the same way with executive power. They’re progresssives. They support the coercive power of the President.

    1. Just as libertarianism requires us to accept that nasty people will sometimes abuse the freedoms we cherish to commit crimes
      True. Although what possesses “libertarians” to focus on a Democratic president doing what is expressly permitted by law, and ignore far greater excesses (bailouts) also permitted by the same law is puzzling.

      Till you see it: They be Republicans.

  36. “Trump has every reason to be emboldened by Obama’s actions”

    You think the alternative, close cooperation between Trump and Congress, is more desirable?

    1. You think the alternative

      Holy false dilemma fallacy, batman!

      1. “Holy false dilemma fallacy, batman!”

        Come Jan. 20 it won’t be so false. Happy Holidays!

        1. “Happy Holidays!”

          Stuff it up your ass, Mr. passive-aggressive!

          1. Happy holidays to you, too. My most devoted reader.

  37. it’s more obvious than ever that Drumpf has every reason to be emboldened by Obama’s actions and the rampant partisan hypocrisy that infects America.“yeah, you made him do this” is the rallying cry of the normalization. The same way Drumpf supporters had no choice but to vote for Drumpf because unknown people accused of not communicating with the rust belters somehow managed to only convey “you are racists”

    1. Could you at least grow up and refer to him by his actual name?

      1. is that racist? it seems sort of racist.

        1. Sure hope so. It’d be a first.

      2. It is our own Blue Mike. From Block Insane Yomomma to Herr Drumpf

      3. Yea, I always found it kind of odd how people made such a big deal of his family changing their name at some point in the past. What does that have to do with anything? A ton of families changed their names when they came to the US.

      4. Drumpf is as Drumpf does. But I appreciate your selective call to “grow up”

        1. MarconiDarwin|12.23.16 @ 11:54PM|#
          “Drumpf is as Drumpf does. But I appreciate your selective call to “grow up””

          Stupid is as stupid does, and you do that just, well, stupidly.

          1. Nah, you got that covered just as well. Better.

    2. unknown people accused of not communicating with the rust belters

      Actually that person had a name, i think it was “Clinton”

      1. If it did, s/he got that right.

  38. Two Presidents have used Executive Orders to destroy the US economy. Lame duck Herbert Hoover combined federal tax inspections and state-level asset forfeiture to completely shut down the entire US banking system BEFORE FDR used Hoover’s draft Proclamation to make gold a federal felony. George Waffen Bush did essentially the same thing with his Executive order packing the federal bureaucracy with faith-based zealots for coercion and ramping up civil asset forfeiture.

  39. I’m hoping he’ll bulldoze Michelle’s vegetable garden and cover it over in concrete or astroturf. Just to make a point.

    1. That’ll learn ’em. Reagan taught everyone a lesson by removing Carter’s solar panels because they would have saved some energy.

  40. The ban hinges on a provision of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, a law designed to protect marine sanctuaries
    So Republicans would likely be able to overturn this diktat, as they can the rest of Obama’s rickety legacy, which is predominately built on circumventing the lawmaking branch of the United States government.

    Wow! Obama used a provision of an act enacted by the lawmaking branch to issue his diktat. That be some wanton abuse of executive power.

  41. The ban hinges on a provision of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, a law designed to protect marine sanctuaries
    So Republicans would likely be able to overturn this diktat, as they can the rest of Obama’s rickety legacy, which is predominately built on circumventing the lawmaking branch of the United States government.

    Wow! Obama used a provision of an act enacted by the lawmaking branch to issue his diktat. That be some wanton abuse of executive power.

  42. happy christmas

    Peyton . you think Connie `s blog is cool, I just purchased BMW M3 from having made $4287 this-last/5 weeks an would you believe ten-k last month . it’s by-far my favourite-work I’ve ever had . I began this 8-months ago and straight away startad earning more than $72, per-hr . visit the website

    ==============================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  43. my friend’s sister makes $79 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 10 months but last month her payment was $19847 just working on the laptop for a few hours…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  44. The liberals that looked the other way to Obama’s abuse of power and will be screaming when Trump asserts these same powers. (they are already regretting Reid’s change to the filibuster) If we don’t defend our constitution limits to power for one person we defend it for no one. They will only have themselves to blame when Trump tramples the same rules and then entire nation is worse off for their partisan silence.

  45. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  46. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    =====================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  47. HAPPY NEW YEARS

    I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  48. HAPPY NEW YEARS

    upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  49. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  50. I basically profitcloseto $6k-$8k every month doing an online job. For those of you who arepreparedto do easy at home jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earnvaluablepaycheck while doing it…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  51. My best uncal ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    =============== http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.