Janet Yellen does an 'Obama Deference Bow' to Communist China official

"If you would kindly turn around now, sir, I will be happy to kiss you on the cheeks"

Yet another U.S. government top official has shown China who's boss. Like former President Barack Obama, our U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has bowed down to a foreign adversary official in Beijing.

Yellen bowed multiple times in deference to her Chinese counterpart, Vice Premier He Lifeng while enthusiastically shaking his communist hand.

Fox News reported that Bradley Blakeman, a former G.W. Bush White House staffer, told the New York Post that the gesture was "unseemly."

"Never, ever, ever…an American official does not bow. It looks like she’s been summoned to the principal’s office, and that’s exactly the optics the Chinese love," Blakeman said.

This administration is an embarrassment and the world is either shaking their collective head, or laughing at us, or both.

Twitter users had something to say about the fool's behavior.

"Yellen’s flubs in China are not going to help the US stock market come Monday morning. Come home Janet!" "Taxifornia" author James V. Lacy wrote on Twitter.

During their meeting, He implied that the U.S. was an irrational actor towards China.

"We wish the US side would take a rational and practical attitude, meet with the Chinese side half-way, make joint efforts with China in maintaining the consensus reached between the two state leaders in their meeting in Bali, and put the positive remarks into actions, so as to stabilize and improve the China-US relations," he said.

"She did not realize bowing as an American official was a breach of protocol," author Max Murray wrote on Twitter. "They don’t reciprocate. He even backs away to give her more space to kowtow."

Yellen, in her Walmart greeter voice said: "[T]he United States will take targeted actions to protect our national security. While we may disagree on these actions, we should not allow that disagreement to lead to misunderstandings, particularly those stemming from the lack of communication, which can unnecessarily worsen our bilateral economic and financial relationship."

There is no excuse for bowing to an adversary. None. Her bowing was not a 'targeted action' to protect anything.

Tweet

6 tactics on how to debate a leftist

Arguing with a leftist can feel a lot like arguing with a kitty litter box. Your words reach the box, but they fall on deaf kitty dung.

1. Pulling the race card
A leftist or Democrat will pull the race card because that's all they have in their toolbox. When (not if) they do, never try to defend yourself because it's useless to try. Defending yourself only shows that you feel a sense of guilt over the claim, even though you're not a racist.

You cannot reasonably argue with a leftist when they resort to using the race card. When they, for example say, "You're a racist for wanting Confederate monuments to remain in place," you need to be prepared with an answer.

A weak answer would be something to the effect: "No, I'm not. I have friends of all colors and creeds, and blah, blah, blah."

A strong answer would be: "And based upon what you know about me, calling me a racist just proves that you're an ass rag."

2. Take the first punch
You know the left likes to castigate and insult. You need to be able to take it and jump right into the fray, take the leftist head-on. 

Then verbally get in the first punch and don't hold back. In order to make that punch effective, you need to be prepared. You want to make it a knockout punch and end the discussion as quickly as possible, so know the issues better than your opponent.

When a leftist uses an ad hominem attack on you, understand that you've won the debate. Don't stoop to his/her level--just smile and say something like: "So that's your best argument? You sound pathetic." 

Or say nothing--sometimes silence can be deafening.

3. Frame the leftist
Leftists have only one tool in their toolbox--attacking you personally and depicting you as an evil human being who doesn't care a fig about other people.  You can use that knowledge to your advantage at the get-go.

Simply put, the left's ploy is to characterize you as a bad person, as Ben Shapiro points out in his lovely pdf booklet How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them.  

Shapiro suggests a strategy in which you "make it toxic for your opponent to slur you."

While you can't convince someone that you don't hate him or her, you can convince them that your opponent is a liar and a hater. 

For example, without knowing you and then accusing you of being a racist, you can convince those watching your debate (those are the only folks who matter, not your opponent) that your accuser is the hater, liar and thus a racist him- or herself because they dilute the term 'racist' to mean anyone who disagrees with them.

4. Force the leftist to define terms (aka buzzwords)
Neuter the buzzwords right out of the gate. Don't accept the premises of their arguments, which are supported by buzzwords. You can't argue against nonsense or empty terms.

When you ask a leftist to define what they mean by, say, 'immigration reform' tell them you agree it's needed, but ask them exactly what do they mean by the term.

According to Shapiro, the left's favorite three lines of attack are: (1) you're stupid; (2) you're mean; and (3) you're corrupt. Thus, the left calls Sarah Palin stupid; Mitt Romney mean; and Dick Cheney corrupt. Shapiro says that if you take away these lines of attack, you can see the left's discomfort.

5. Force leftists to answer questions.
They love to ask questions, but hate to answer them. That's because their main mode of debate is to attack and that's done by asking ridiculous questions or more often, by character assassination.

When they argue with you, try to spot their inconsistencies in what they say. Most of the arguments are filled with these inconsistencies because very few leftists will acknowledge their actual agenda, because it's obviously very extreme. 

For example, they will tell you that Robert E. Lee's statue must be removed from public display because of its association with slavery, but they really want all remnants of American history removed for their deeper agenda. Trump was correct in musing that they may eventually call for the removal of Thomas Jefferson's and even George Washington's statues and homesteads because they were slave owners. 

But even that is not the entire story. 

If we give in to the left on these apparently smaller issues, they will eventually go for the  Declaration of Independence will go, and then the U.S. Constitution as these were authored in large part by slave holders.

6. Don't allow them to throw you off your game plan.
Watch how whenever you make a point, the leftist will throw an unrelated point into the discussion. Shapiro calls this "Leftist Tourette's. 

He writes, as an example of this ploy: "Why did Obama blow out the budget?" And the left responds: "BUUUUUUUSHHHH!!!!" Then he warns us not to be fooled into following the "idiotic rabbit down into his Bushy rabbit hole . . ."

You must force the leftist to answer the question. That's what's going to make him uncomfortable and you will be viewed as the winner of the debate by those observing it--not by the leftist who's unable to see his loss.

Finally, don't feel that you need to defend the entire Republican Party or others who are on your side. The debate isn't about that. Also, if you don't know something, don't pretend you do--people will see through you and you will come off like a charlatan and everything you said before that point will be flushed down the drain. 

Remember, whenever you're debating, body language counts, and you want observers to like you.


Tweet

MSNBC analyst compares Trump to 'suicide bomber'

Elise Jordan, an MSNBC political talking head compared President Trump to a "suicide bomber" on Thursday. The name-calling came after he admitted he didn't have any recordings of the conversations he had with former FBI director James Comey.

Jordan is a former Bush White House aide but now works for progressive MSNBC and is a TIME contributor. She appeared on "MSNBC Live with Craig Melvin" on Thursday.

"It is a sad day when you cannot depend on the president's word, and my advice to Republicans who cozy up to him is it's just like hugging a suicide bomber--he blows you up in the process with him," the leftist Jordan said.

"That's a little strong, Elise," Melvin responded.

"If you went out on a limb, if you're a Republican who went on a limb and defended Donald Trump over saying he's got tapes that are gonna back up his point of view, you just got blown up too," she answered inaccurately.

Trump never said he had tapes of the conversations, although he alluded to the possibility. It turned out that Comey, perhaps believing he actually did have tapes, ended up by admitting that he told Trump he wasn't the target of the investigation. No Republican who actually listened to what Trump said feels as if they went out "on a limb" for him.

Evidently, Jordan hears what she wants to hear so she can spin it the way she wants to spin it. This is exactly what Trump talks about when he refers to "fake news," which, by the way, is a term invented by the left.

Her incredibly stupid comments came after the president posted a two-part tweet regarding tapes of conversations he had with Comey, who wrote memos detailing his talks with Trump. He testified that he would be eager to hear those tapes.

"Lordy," Comey began, as he used the Lord's nickname in a blasphemous statement aimed at making him look as if he and the Lord were buddies, "I hope there are tapes."

Trump said of Comey's statement, "With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea whether there are 'tapes' or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings."

Jordan said Trump "wasted the country's collective time" with the speculation over the tapes. That's ridiculous--it served his purpose and possibly got Comey to come clean with the Senate Intelligence Committee.

But the fact that Trump doesn't know if any recordings of him exist should give us all something to worry about. If someone can record the president without his knowledge is beyond scary.


Tweet

POTUS calls for barring immigrants from free money for 5 years

(Photo: AP/Susan Walsh)

President Trump rallied in Iowa yesterday and announced that he will be asking Congress to pass legislation that would ban immigrants from coming to the United States and immediately get taxpayer funded assistance within five years of arrival.

"The time has come for new immigration rules that say . . . those seeking immigration into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years," he told the Grand Rapids crowd.

This might eliminate immigrants who believe they deserve jizya just for coming here and not making trouble.

This proposal is an idea that builds on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1966. This allows federal authorities to deport immigrants who are on the dole within five years of arrival.

Many of the law's provisions were rolled back when G.W. Bush and Barack Obama were in office. But Trump's plan would make more categories of federal benefits off-limits to immigrants, thus ending the draining of a welfare system by these leeches that was intended for Americans. 

Foreigners with non-immigrant visas and those without legal status, are generally prohibited from those benefits altogether.

The plan would also prevent the admission of those who will likely become "public-charges" within five years of their arrival. This isn't a new concept--it has been a part of immigration law for more than a century and allows the government to bar entry to those who are likely to seek public assistance, which would likely be nearly everyone from Syria, Iraq and many parts of Africa. Trump is likely to bolster those rules regarding "public charge" and ensure they're enforced.

The left will like buck the system because they don't like rules except when it's to their benefit, by which I mean that it brings them more votes, thus more power.

The Trump administration circulated a draft executive order to make the proposed changes earlier this year. Apparently Mr. Trump would like Congress to codify his plan into law ASAP.

The White House will probably cite a 2015 report from the Center for Immigration Studies that found 51 percent of immigrant households are on the public dole in some form, compared to 30 percent among non-immigrant families.

Critics of the report say it doesn't take into account the nuances of immigrant families, such as the fact that they believe the assistance is their right and America is the Big Satan, but it's cool to live here.

Tweet

All that money spent and nothing changed

According to a report just released by the Department of Education (DOE), the Obama administration gave over $7 BILLION in an education program first begun by Pres. George W. Bush, and it was found to have made the same difference on student achievement that it would have made if they just handed the Department of Education a bag of chips instead. 

Seven billion is the same as seven thousand million. It would take about 221 years to count that high by ones every second . . . that's a lot of time and a lot of chips. 

The DOE's findings were contained in the "School Improvement Grants: Implementation and Effectiveness" report and may spark the debate over national education policy as the Senate considers Betsy DeVos to head the department. She is an outspoken champion of school choice and had questioned the way federal education dollars are spent, and should be to her advantage in terms of her confirmation.

The School Improvement Grants (SIG) program was introduced under the G.W. Bush administration in 2001. Its purpose was to fund school reforms in the country's lowest-performing schools. Its goal was to improve student achievement in test scores and graduation rates. 

The program threw money at the schools with low academic achievement and graduation rates under 60 percent for high schools. SIG was canceled under recent legislation, but similar funding can still be sought by school districts who believe that if you do the same thing over and over and still get the same results, you just have to keep at it.

SIG was first funded in 2007 and got $616 million under Bush.

In 2009, under Obama, he designated $3.5 BILLION to the program and pumped over $500 million annually for the rest of his time in office trying to turn us into Europe. And the more money pumped in, the more nothing changed.

The DOE report focused on data from about 500 schools in 22 states receiving SIG money and concluded the program had "no significant impact" on reading or math test scores; high school graduation; or college enrollment.

Researchers of the study focused on districts with larger samples of schools, and these schools tended to be more urban and more disadvantaged. They decided to put as much money as possible into the program to make it work, "which led us to this dramatic report: what happened was what has always happened in the past," said then-Secretary Arne Duncan. 

So they knew it was a lost cause and proceeded anyway. 

DeVos believes charter schools need more funding and full autonomy. 

In cities like New York, charter schools do very well because they're not under the union thumb and principals can hire and fire based on ability and performance. Unions tend to protect the weakest link in the proverbial chain and "burnt-out" teachers abound.

But the best solution to the problem of school achievement begins at home: family values would change everything and single-parent families need to become the exception, not the norm.


Tweet

Clairvoyant Senator Pat Leahy

"I knew you'd say that"

He isn't merely a US senator and top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he is also a clairvoyant who speaks to the dead. 

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) told far left wing MSNBC (Morons Spouting Nothing But Communism) that the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia would have wanted his replacement installed on the bench immediately, if not sooner. And although Leahy didn't actually say it, he thinks Scalia would want that replacement to be a die hard liberal who thinks exactly like Leahy.

Many folks don't know this, but before Pat Leahy became a liberal senator, he used to be an Irish gypsy. Traveling from Vermont town to Vermont town in his beer can-shaped wagon, he would read palms, do Tarot card interpretations, and juggle empty bottles of maple syrup.

When he became a senator, he never lost his magic ability to charm folks with his baffling balderdash and quick wit.

Even as Antonin Scalia awaits his interment, Leahy speaks for him.

Had the political shoe been on the other foot, and had it been, say, a far left wing justice who left the Supreme Court empty of his or her presence, I strongly believe Leahy, just like Chuck Schumer, would have implored us to wait for the new president to be in office before nominating a new justice.

After all, Obama has less than a year left of his term, while G.W. Bush had 18 months left, when Schumer said he should wait until the country elects the next president so that the nation's will is honored.

But let us not kid ourselves--there is hypocrisy on both sides.

Perhaps the best solution to having a bias-leaning Supreme Court is term limits. The FBI has a ten year term limit for the Director's position and it seems to be working.

Rest in peace, Justice Scalia. 

Tweet

Suing the Company that Grew the Banana You Slipped On

The Second Amendment is under attack as usual. Nine families of those killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which occurred in Connecticut two years ago, filed a lawsuit Monday against the manufacturer of the AR-15 Bushmaster rifle and Riverview Gun Sales, the shop that sold the weapon used in the shooting by Adam Lanza. In all, 26 people were killed by Lanza, including his mother. It is truly a tragedy.

The claim being made is that the weapon was designed for the military and should not be available to the public because it is unsuited for hunting or home defense. This, of course, makes it the perfect weapon for what the U.S. Constitution meant for citizens regarding the right to bear arms. It has nothing at all to do with hunting and everything to do with the tyranny of a government that wishes to run roughshod over the people.

Hypocrites Call for a Clown's Life Ban--Seriously

Obama Clown 

In the Missouri State Fair, officials banned a rodeo clown from ever clowning around there for life, maybe even longer. The reason for this ban was due to his wearing a Barack Obama mask and saying stupid things to the audience. The Associated Press said, "The rodeo clown won't be allowed to perform or participate at the fair again." Fair officials are reviewing this despicable, racist incident to determine if they should take action against the Missouri Rodeo Cowboy Association, but if they don't, perhaps the IRS or NSA will--as I write this, Verizon is checking into the clown's records for evidence of terrorist ties. Missouri Democrats want to impose a financial penalty on the perpetrators responsible for this horrible event, much like they do on taxpayers.

Look Who's Keeping Them Honest

Bill Maher's Debating Tactics

If you think CNN's Anderson Cooper is "keeping them honest," you might be a liberal. In fact, you might be a delusional liberal. Of all people to ask an opinion on the GOP candidates for the 2012 presidential election, Cooper chose Bill Maher, a hard core liberal whose opinions are so far to the left, he makes Obama look like a moderate. Maher  has appeared as a guest on CNN many times and has even hosted the Larry King Show before it became the Piers Morgan Leftis Insultarama-thon.

In Cooper's interview with Maher, the angry, incredibly unfunny comedian was asked about his take on the candidates and said that if he had to vote for one, he would vote for Ron Paul. It figures.

Cooper then asked about his take on Weinergate and Maher, through the miracle of verbal ju-jitsu, said that Dick Cheney was "more psychotic than Weiner," evidently because Cheney had gone bird hunting, whereas Weiner merely showed his bird to young women on Twitter.  It was a glowing example of liberal morality and social networking for Democratic members of Congress.

To keep things in perspective, realize that Maher holds virtually no conservative values and supports issues such as: legalizing marijuana (you can tell he fires up just before his shows), legalizing prostitution, abortion, euthenasia, gambling, and same-sex marriage.  He supports the Kyoto treaty on global warming and thinks Al Gore is a genius, in spite of the fact that all of his Harvard scores were significantly lower than G.W. Bush's, and Gore had to drop out of Vanderbilt due to poor grades. But Maher cried at "An Inconvenient Truth," and can't wait for the sequel.

Maher was also a board member of PETA and it is likely that he gets along better with livestock than with most humans. In spite of this, many on the far left think he's a genius, like Rachel Maddow (rhymes with "Mad Cow") and Joy Behar, the braintrust of The View. The biggest surprise that Maher revealed is that he actually does believe Weiner should resign, but it's likely he feels this way because it's for the good of the party rather than any moral issues this guy could possibly have, in light of what he supports. (He even supported "Swift Boat Kerry" over Bush, but that's because neither Kerry nor Maher are "swift."

So CNN will continue keeping them honest, just as long as it's not them, nor anyone on the receiving end of Soros money, like, say, the Democratic party. 

Please feel free to comment

Tweet