Friday, September 23, 2016

Liberals driving another city into the ground

Chicago is now the proud owner of a national and international brand: a very dangerous city.  You have a greater chance of getting shot in Chicago than you do in Afghanistan.

How did this happen?  Chicago - home to the mighty Cubs, the mighty Blackhawks, the not so mighty White Sox and the not even close to mighty Bears.  Simple: liberal Democrats have been in charge of the purse strings in Chicago since the days of Al Capone, and even before that.  

Now, however, these liberal Democrats have turned this once proud city into a war zone.  Close to 3,000 people have been shot so far this year, and around 500 of those shot have died.  Murdered.

The word is out that a good place to avoid is Chicago.

Uber liberal Democrat Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel gave a speech yesterday, outlining his plans going forward to fix things: stay the course, and in the short term, hire more cops to control the chaos.  No mention of changing anything that got the city to the state it finds itself now.  

These are the steps that are needed to fix Chicago, and all are related to one thing: prosperity and the steps needed to bring it to a badly deteriorating city:

  • Lower taxes.  Chicago has one of the largest tax burdens of any major city.  Reduce these taxes immediately, and by a lot.  Rahm, a liberal Democrat, doesn't believe that lowering taxes is the way to go, he actually wants to raise them, on a city already staggered under a crushing tax burden.  Businesses want nothing to do with Chicago, no businesses are moving to Chicago, and a butt load of businesses are leaving.  That has to change, and the only way to change that is to change the animosity that Rahm has towards businesses.  And that sadly will not happen.
  • Arm the citizenry.  In the short term, getting rid of the harshest gun laws in the country would go far in reducing violent crime.  An armed society is a polite society. But Rahm will have none of that, he only wants guns in the hands of his guys, and nobody else should have guns.  Other than criminals, of course, they don't listen to Rahm or anybody else for that matter.
  • Reign in runaway public unions, to include police unions, fire fighter unions, teacher unions and public works unions.  They are sucking the very life blood out of Chicago.  But the mother's milk of Rahm's liberal Democrat existence lies with these unions and his support of them, and accordingly, their support of him.  Not a chance he will do anything that these unions don't like.
  • Round up the gangs.  Just get them off the streets.  Every gang member in Chicago is well know to the police and the public.  Just go get them, or as Robocop would say, 'dead or alive, you're coming with me.'  Slap them in jail, or gun them down if they give the police any guff.  Simple, simple, simple.  Just do it.  Declare war on gangs, and go get them.  
Will Rahm Emanuel do any of this?  Anything at all that works?  NO.  Not a chance. He just doesn't have it in him to do what needs to be done, since he is a liberal Democrat to the bone, and everything liberals touch turns to complete feces. He has been the mayor for five long years now, and his liberal Democrat nostrums have driven this once mighty city into the ground.  

Monday, September 12, 2016

Hillary feels 'great!'

I just wonder how she would look when she's not feeling well.

Sunday, September 4, 2016

My, how things change...and then again, how they don't

I drew this political cartoon over 9 years ago, (under my former nom de plume 'Doc S') at the height of the Iraq war 'surge,' which at the time was highly criticized by every sitting Democrat (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama among them).  President George W. Bush sent 20,000 additional U.S. troops to this 'swamp' in 2007 to tamp out hot spots of terrorists, insurgents, Sadaam Hussein's scattered but persistent Baathists, and the upstart of what was later to become known as ISIS, led by at the time a young and charismatic jihadi named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  My take of these efforts at the time as you can see by my drawing above was of the dubious success of continued blood and treasure poured into this swamp, and has later been proven incorrect. Oh well, nobody bats 1.000, not even me.

Virtually everybody in retrospect agrees, to include both Obama and Hillary Clinton, that the surge was a success, and that al-Qaeda and its affiliates had lost virtually all influence in the region.  The U.S. had this war won. This Iraq surge was so successful, that Obama in 2011 declared that the U.S. involvement in Iraq was concluded, they were a stable, sovereign country, and that no U.S. troops....none whatsoever, to the consternation of every military mind at the Pentagon...were needed going forward.

Now, virtually everybody in retrospect agrees, with the exception of Obama and Hillary Clinton, that his pull out was a disaster of epic proportions, created a power vacuum which has been filled by terrorists and general undesirables from Iran, Syria and other rogue nations and has directly led to the establishment of the world-wide scourge of ISIS as is constituted today.

My, how things change over the course of 9 years.  And then again, how little they change.  Iran and Syria (or what's left of Syria) continue to pump poison into Iraq swamp, and now that Dubya has left the building, seemingly nobody is trying to bail out this swamp.

And the swamp has spread from where it was contained within Iraq to Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Turkey, and now many parts of Europe.

And now we want to hand the title of Commander in Chief to one of the main architects of this spreading swamp?

I hope not.