Mean Tweets: Iowa Caucuses Edition

Mean Tweets: Martin O’Malley Edition

Martin O'Malley is a mindless chucklebucket

— GregGutfeld (@greggutfeld) January 18, 2016

Martin Omalley is forced to remind democratic debate moderators that he is present and on stage.

— DPRK News Service (@DPRK_News) January 18, 2016

Martin Omalley reacts with stunned silence as lapdog reporters finally acknowledge his presence.

— DPRK News Service (@DPRK_News) January 18, 2016

Martin Omalley states that he deserves to be placed on a list of social undesirables, loafers, and other criminals.

— DPRK News Service (@DPRK_News) January 18, 2016

Ordinary American peasant Martin Omalley observes penitent silence as he is lectured by his ruling class betters.

— DPRK News Service (@DPRK_News) January 18, 2016

Martin Omalley babbles in remarkably dim and obscure fashion.

— DPRK News Service (@DPRK_News) January 18, 2016

The Slick Game Debbie Wasserman Schultz Is Playing With Your Money

Were it not for the Congressional Budget Office squealing on DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, taxpayers might not have learned about the plan she has to rob the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (financed by check-off on individual income tax reforms) to create what amounts to a slush fund to help pay for the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

The DNC is struggling with its finances.  The latest report shows it had just $4.7 million cash on hand as of Oct. 31.  That’s less than the $6.9 million in debts the committee reported. By contrast the Republican National Committee reported $20.4 million in cash, offset by just $1.9 million in debts.

What Schultz has done is draft a plan to have taxpayers help pay about $20 million to help mount a successful convention an opulent party to crown The Ice Cube In Heels reversing a change approved by Congress just last year.  Lawmakers, in nixing the aforementioned funds, designated the monies to be used to finance research on children’s diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

So the Democrats’ favorite vacuous slogan of “We do it for the children” is blithely swept aside to horde vast piles of money to finance abortions and celebrate their presidential candidates:   a doddering socialist, a failed governor and a grifter granny, but mostly a grifter granny.

Namby Pamby Democratic Presidential Candidates And The ISIS Savages (God Help Us All)

I set my DVR to record the second Democratic Debate moderated by CBS because I wanted to watch the football game between LSU and Arkansas.  During commercial breaks I’d peek in.

I had read earlier in the day that CBS was proposing changing the format of the debate to discuss the attacks in Paris that took place on Friday.  According to CNN’s Carol Costello, a Sanders aide “lost it” during a conference call saying he did not want the focus to be on foreign policy.

Jazz Shaw, who blogs at Hot Air, shared his thoughts on how the candidates might address what to do about ISIS prior to the start of the debate:

“These three Democrats are great at talking about mass shootings and violence so long as the shooters are either American police officers or racist lunatics. They know just how to answer those questions in a way to most strongly impress their base. Go after the cops in the former case or the NRA in the latter. It comes as easy as a fish takes to water. But what will they say when the death and mayhem is being ladled out on a truly massive scale and the perpetrators are the villains of ISIS who Obama has been so completely ineffective in defeating?”

So here’s the part of the transcript that dealt with that subject:

DICKERSON:  All right, thank you, Governor. Thank all of you. 

The terror attacks last night underscore biggest challenge facing the next president of the United States. At a time of crisis, the country and the world look to the president for leadership and for answers. 

So, Secretary Clinton, I'd like to start with you. Hours before the attacks, President Obama said, "I don't think ISIS is gaining strength." Seventy-two percent of Americans think the fight against ISIS is going badly. Won't the legacy of this administration, which is-- which you were a part of, won't that legacy be that it underestimated the threat from ISIS? 

CLINTON:  Well, John, I think that we have to look at ISIS as the leading threat of an international terror network. It cannot be contained, it must be defeated. 

There is no question in my mind that if we summon our resources, both our leadership resources and all of the tools at our disposal, not just military force, which should be used as a last resort, but our diplomacy, our development aid, law enforcement, sharing of intelligence in a much more open and cooperative way—that we can bring people together. 

But it cannot be an American fight. And I think what the president has consistently said—which I agree with—is that we will support those who take the fight to ISIS. That is why we have troops in Iraq that are helping to train and build back up the Iraqi military, why we have special operators in Syria working with the Kurds and Arabs, so that we can be supportive. 

But this cannot be an American fight, although American leadership is essential. 

DICKERSON:  But as—Secretary Clinton, the question was about, was ISIS underestimated? And I'll just add, the president referred to ISIS as the JV, in a speech at the Council of Foreign Relations in June of 2014 said, "I could not have predicted the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq." 

So you've got prescriptions for the future, but how do we even know those prescriptions are any good if you missed it in the past? 

CLINTON: Well, John, look, I think that what happened when we abided by the agreement that George W. Bush made with the Iraqis to leave by 2011, is that an Iraqi army was left that had been trained and that was prepared to defend Iraq. Unfortunately, Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, set about decimating it. And then, with the revolution against Assad—and I did early on say we needed to try to find a way to train and equip moderates very early so that we would have a better idea of how to deal with Assad because I thought there would be extremist groups filling the vacuum. 

So, yes, this has developed. I think that there are many other reasons why it has in addition to what happened in the region, but I don't think that the United States has the bulk of the responsibility. I really put that on Assad and on the Iraqis and on the region itself. 

DICKERSON: Okay, Governor O'Malley, would you critique the administration's response to ISIS. If the United States doesn't lead, who leads? 

O'MALLEY:  John, I would disagree with Secretary Clinton respectfully on this score. 

This actually is America's fight. It cannot solely be America's fight. 

America is best when we work in collaboration with our allies. America is best when we are actually standing up to evil in this world. And ISIS, make no mistake about it, is an evil in this world. 

ISIS has brought down a Russian airliner. ISIS has now attacked a western democracy in—in France. And we do have a role in this. Not solely ours, but we must work collaboratively with other nations. 

The great failing of these last 10 or 15 years, John, has been our failing of human intelligence on the ground. Our role in the world is not to roam the globe looking for new dictators to topple. Our role in the world is to make ourselves a beacon of hope. Make ourselves stronger at home, but also our role in the world, yes, is also to confront evil when it rises. We took out the safe haven in Afghanistan, but now there is, undoubtedly, a larger safe haven and we must rise to this occasion in collaboration and with alliances to confront it, and invest in the future much better human intelligence so we know what the next steps are. 

DICKERSON:  Senator Sanders, you said you want to rid the planet of ISIS. In the previous debate you said the greatest threat to national security was climate change. Do you still believe that? 

I thought you’d rather watch the video than read the transcript, so here’s Bernie’s socialist “hotcoldwetdry” climate change insanity.

Exotic Animals of the 2016 Campaign

The Martin O'Mallard, (Baltimorus Mayortoasticus), is a dabbling duck which, in this case, dabbles in politics. The mallard was one of the many bird species originally described by Carl Linnaeus in his 18th-century work, Systema Naturae, and still bears its original binomial name, not to be confused with metric, which is more characteristic of Lincolnae Democraticus.

The species is generally found west of the Chesapeake Bay area in the foggy swampland between Maryland and Virginia.

Mallards frequently interbreed with their closest relatives in the genus Anas, such as the American black duck, which accounts for a majority of the Baltimorus taxonomy. The rear of the male is black, with the dark tail having white borders. The bill of the male is generally past due.

 A noisy species, the male has a nasal call, not to be confused with a 3AM call.

A generally nondescript waterfowl, the Martin O'Mallard may not be all it's quacked up to be, and may be easily decoyed with promises of cabinet positions.

Exotic Animals: Collect the whole set!

Chris Crizzlie

Joe Bydena

Donald Trumpetfish

Bernie Panders

Hillarymadillo

Mike Huccameleon

Jeb Bushbaby