Progressive Payback: A Window To The Soul-less


It seems too hard to believe that such could happen. But it has, and it demonstrates a valuable lesson. When you cross conservatives, they disagree, but they don’t wish you dead.

Evidently progressives do.

Turn the clock back a bit–last year Chuck Schumer came to the difficult reality that if he backed the President’s Iran deal that he would have major accountability awaiting him from many of his constituents in New York. It just seems somewhat prudent for a Senator that represents New York City not vote in favor of arming Israel’s arch-enemies with nukes that they have already promised to use to help eradicate Israel from the planet.

So when he voted against the deal it appears that was enough of agitation for the White House to now take a pound of flesh from him.

“At some point, Senator Schumer’s credibility in talking about national security issues, particularly when the facts are as they are when it relates to homeland security, have to be affected by the position that he’s taken on other issues,” Mr. Earnest said. “Senator Schumer is somebody that came out and opposed the international agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He was wrong about that position,” Mr. Earnest added, “and when people look at the facts here when it comes to funding for homeland security, they’ll recognize that he’s wrong this time, too.”

There it is, in the New York Times–the progressive’s favorite news outlet–quoting the progressive White House–more or less admitting *payback* for Schumer not voting “properly.”

This White House has a genuine disdain for people that not only believe that real terror can still touch us, but that we actually need to be aware of the circumstances that might create the opportunity.

And robbing New York City of the funds needed to have adequate detection of toxins, chemicals, radiation, and other ingredients in weapons that may some time be used against our city is criminal.

I chatted all about it with lovely ladies of Thursdays for me — Martha MacCallum and Marjorie Clifton:

Obama Payback Against NYC for Iran!Hell hath no fury like a progressive scorned… Even if it kills his own people!

Posted by Kevin McCullough on Thursday, February 18, 2016

Leftist Thinking: Mass Shooting Victims Wouldn’t Want Lawful Guns

The arguments in the on-going debate over guns and having them in the hands of private citizens is easy to win on the merits. What is more difficult is dealing with the tactics of how the discussion is carried out, and what happens when you begin to dismantle the arguments with pure rational thought.

20160115: Guns & 2016

America's Newsroom 20160115: Martha MacCallum, Emily Tisch Sussman, and Kevin McCullough discussing Marco Rubio and Governor Chris Christie on the issue of #Guns in #2016

Posted by Kevin McCullough on Friday, January 15, 2016

In the clip you see Emily Tisch Sussman playing the same cards so many have before her.

The problem is that almost zero of them hold any truth. There aren’t 30,000 gun murders a year, its closer to 11,000 (which in a nation of 370,000,000 people is statistically invisible at .00002%. She effectively moves the goal posts in the conversation so that after each observation she gives is dismantled, there is a different one to focus on.

She claimed that the South Carolina shooting was evidence of the need for more executive action from President Obama–which would be unnecessary completely had only one person in the Bible study been armed.

She claimed that law-abiding gun owners are more likely to have those guns wind up in the hands of people that do bad things with them. Really? With 300,000,000 legally owned fire-arms in the nation, how is there anywhere near that many nefarious acts being carried out?

She claimed that–even when faced with the evidence that the Garland, Tx (Pam Gellar, Draw Mohammed) attempted shooting was thwarted by “good people with guns”–that “good people with guns” is mythical.

She claimed that the Fort Hood shooting demonstrated why “guns didn’t stop” a mass shooting. But she ignored or forgot that Armed Services personnel aren’t allowed to carry their sidearms on Ft. Hood premises.

Lastly and unbelievably she made the argument that the victims of mass shootings themselves would in some way NOT WISH to have someone to be armed and to shoot back in the midst of one of these killing sprees.

Sadly she notes that one victim from the Virginia Tech shooting incident has stated that he would not have had the clarity to know who the shooter was or how to take him down.

My contention is that if we are going to take a survey of the victims of mass shootings and their feelings on private gun ownership–let’s begin with interviewing everyone who has died at the hands of these merciless killers–with no lawful means of defending themselves.

Of all the arguments the left proffers on taking away guns (under the guise of stopping gun violence) there is not a single one of them that has merit.

Which is why we must not let those making the arguments and moving the goalposts get away with such rigorous intellectual dishonesty.

Hillary’s Women’s Issues Fair Game?

Donald Trump’s Instagram video ad kept the issue alive a bit longer. But when Bill and Hillary begin to avoid the questions that press and others begin asking, it’s naturally going to produce MORE interest.

They may not like it, but it’s going to happen.


The question is raised, “Is it fair?”

(FULL DISCLOSURE: I was the male voice in a discussion about the treatment of women, as it relates to a female candidate, booked by a female producer, as it is being hosted by a woman, and whose counter point foil is also a woman. In essence it’s dicey waters to wade in to. Wanting to respond with common sense, sensitivity, but as always TRUTH… So how’d I do?)

#ICYMI: Are Clinton’s issues fair game?

Posted by Kevin McCullough on Saturday, January 9, 2016