The migrant (Muslim) exodus of refugees flowing into Europe is 72% adult men.

Only 13% are women, 15% children…you’d think they’d be most vulnerable.

So, either the Muslim population has no use for the ‘women and children first’ moral code in a refugee crisis…or those Muslim men have a different agenda in mind.

The Greeks took Troy with a Trojan Horse strategy. A giant wood ‘gift’ of a sculpted horse held Greek warriors inside, who slaughtered their sleeping enemies.

Is it possible that radical Middle East Islamists are using a ‘Refugee’ Horse?

Stupid is as stupid does…Congress begins debate of a deal without details.

Obama had five days to get all the details to Congress…he refused to do so.

If the Republican-controlled Congress pushes this review absent any of the critical details needed, they will have redefined the term ‘theater of the absurd’.

How can Congress debate a deal when they don’t know what it involves?

As Kevin Williamson points out, unions didn’t introduce weekends off for workers.

Hint to union members…when your leader travels by limo, it’s no longer about you.

Unless, of course, you’re the one in the limo…

Debates are supposed to tell us where a politician stands, what he will do.

Remember Obama promising NOT to enforce immigration law during debates?

…or promising NOT to enforce defense-of-marriage laws?

...or promising NOT to enforce the U.S. Constitution?

…or promising to enable Iran’s nuclear capability?

Neither do we.

Remember how he promised stronger national security? And to protect our military, and our American presence overseas…while forsaking intel-gathering tactics?

We do.

That didn’t work out well for those killed at the Boston marathon, or four Americans abandoned by their commander-in-chief in Benghazi…as he pushes open borders.

Not to mention the open season beheading of Americans by ISIS.

Debates, or on the campaign trail…does anything Democrats say even matter?

So who really cares if it’s one Democrat debate, or a hundred?

Trump may or may not have fumbled questions about terror groups and participants, but that’s not the point…Hewitt was open and honest with his questions.

An ill-prepared candidate can just say ‘regardless of who a terror-player or America-supporter may be today, when I’m president they will be treated accordingly…then’.

And follow up: ‘if Obama had kept his eye on the ball, we wouldn’t be in this mess’.

Then close with ‘…what’s in a name…

…if he’s deserving of a drone strike, do you really care if it’s Abdul or Mohammed?’

Having to resort to calling Hewitt ‘3rd rate’ makes Trump a whiner, …but, worse…

…does he realize what it says about him, if a 3rd-rater makes him look stupid?

Makes you wonder how he became a billionaire in the first place.

Make a big deal about Trump signing the oath, but it’s not legally binding.

Even more important…it doesn’t say he won’t switch sides.

The document promises candidates won’t run as Independents…

…it doesn’t say they won’t switch horses in midstream, and run as a Democrat.

And as for supporting the Republican candidate?

Ever hear of ‘damning with faint praise’? The same holds true for faint support.

Trump is all about wealth and power…both infinitely more secure when protected by the Democrats…and the mainstream media that runs interference for them.

He’s sucking up all the oxygen in the room for a reason…

…and that reason has nothing to do with making the Republican effort stronger.

In our honest opinion.

Speculation continues: were Hillary Clinton’s 30k deleted emails public or private?

But that just obscures the issue. SHE had no say in the matter…they were public until the duly authorized government oversight agent designated them otherwise.

Law dictates a (once) public official cannot conduct self-oversight.

Destroying emails because SHE deemed them private is a smokescreen.

She had no authority…they remained public until LAWFULLY designated ‘private’.

Thus, Hillary Clinton unlawfully destroyed public records.

Does the Hispanic vote matter to Republicans?

Rush Limbaugh makes the argument: Romney would have lost the ’12 election even if he won 70% of the Hispanic vote (something no GOPer has ever done).

He’s made the point before…Romney would have won critical battleground states if 3-4 million registered Republican voters (who stayed home election day) had voted.

While that may be so, who’s to say the stayed-home non-voters weren’t Hispanic?

And if they were white non-Hispanic GOP non-voters, who’s to say how many of them were discouraged by Romney’s message of moderation toward immigration?

A point can be made many could’ve been encouraged by a more inclusive tone.

So, which Republican voters stayed home in 2012? (And, furthermore, could a more inclusive tone have swayed more Independents or Democrats to vote Republican?)

Stating that ‘even a 70% Hispanic vote for Republicans wouldn’t have won Romney the election’ assumes a message swaying that vote fell on deaf ears elsewhere.

Sorry Rush…but you of all people should know these are not zero-sum situations.

Turns out the Corker bill required Obama to provide Iran-deal details in 5 days.

A-L-L the details…including IAEA-Iran side deals.

Because he failed to do so, Congress is not under Corker bill obligations.

(Give Andrew McCarthy’s article a read…it’s lengthy, but well worth the time.)

Though misguided, Republicans gave Obama every opportunity to work with them, and the American people, in judging his Iran nuclear deal on its merits…

…even passing the anti-constitutional Corker bill, which Obama has spurned.

In the process Senate Democrats revealed their true nature, choosing obedience to Party over patriotism to country, by supporting Iran’s drive for nuclear capability.

Congressional Republicans should drive home the point relentlessly that they tried to work with Obama and his cohort, but Democrats turned their backs to that effort.

Declare the Corker bill dead by Obama’s hand, and the hand of Senate Democrats.

Force them to answer EVERY DAY why they refused bi-partisan solutions…

…and, in doing so, why they chose a nuclear-capable Iran…

…over a safe America.

As the controversy swirls over a Kentucky county clerk who refuses to issue same-sex marriage licenses, a judge sends her to jail for refusing to obey a court order.

Since when can a court jail someone who won’t violate their religious beliefs?

Bill of Rights (art. 3) says there’s to be no law prohibiting free exercise of religion.

The court may have the right to order the county clerk removed from office, but in our opinion, it cannot force someone to act against their religious beliefs.

And we don’t exonerate the clerk – when the law changed, she should have stood on principle and resigned from the office, knowing she couldn’t fulfill her duties.

The proper action for that court would have been to remove her from public office.