I said it yesterday: “enough is enough” when it comes to political stunts such as Speaker Pelosi’s withholding of the two Articles of Impeachment (which are themselves a stunt). Democrats needs to get it into their tiny one-track brains that there is too much going on in the world to make everything about “getting Trump.” Sen. Lindsay Graham was out in front on this over the weekend, urging Pelosi to get on with it or else the Senate would approve a rule change that allowed them to go forward without a formal delivery of the Articles. They didn’t need her and refused to be controlled by her.
And now, Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri has introduced a proposal for a 25-day deadline on getting the Articles. That’s 25 days not from the date of the proposal –- Hawley introduced it on Jan. 6 –- but from the Dec. 19 adoption of the Articles, “as recorded in the Journal of the House of Representatives,” which leaves Madam Speaker only until Jan. 13, less than a week from now and counting down.
At this point, that seems like a generous amount of time.
Hawley’s proposal would have to be approved without debate, by recorded vote in the Senate. Then, once the deadline is reached, if Pelosi hasn’t turned over the Articles, they “shall be deemed exhibited before the Senate” anyway and it will be in order for any senator to offer a motion to dismiss the Articles. With prejudice. (That means the Senate can’t submit them later.) As I understand it, the resolution doesn’t require that this happen, just that it will be in order if someone so moves. The Senate will also be able to conduct a trial if that’s what they decide. They can do what they want, Articles or no Articles.
"Speaking truth to power"
By Mike Huckabee
The left love to use the phrase, “Speaking truth to power,” but they don’t like it very much when they’re the power and someone speaks the truth to them. In Ricky Gervais’ monologue at the Golden Globes, he reminded a world that has become far too afraid of what a handful of professionally offended twits on Twitter might say about them of what a great comedian does. In the tradition of the jester daring to mock the king, he told the stark truth in a funny way, right into the faces of the people he was ridiculing for their smug, oblivious hypocrisy.
And boy, did the leftist elites hate hearing it!
The usual liberal protection media outlets (CNN, Washington Post, L.A. Times, USA Today, Slate, the New York Times, etc.) rushed to put out the fire Gervais lit under the pompous and preening Hollywood hypocrites in the same way they did after Dave Chappelle’s recent Netflix special that roasted thin-skinned, politically-correct “cancel culture”: by writing bad reviews and telling their readers their jokes were unfunny and mean, so don't watch these “problematic” and “hateful” performances.
Luckily, the vast majority of Americans (as I wrote in my book, “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy,” those of us who live in that big, empty expanse of flyover real estate between the coasts known as “America”) have long since learned either to ignore them or to take their politically-correct pans as a sure sign of a must-see. Their bad reviews were dwarfed (am I still allowed to use that term?) by an avalanche of comments calling it the greatest awards show monologue in history.
On YouTube, Gervais' biting monologue currently has over 7,750,000 views, with 285,000 thumbs up to just 4,300 thumbs down.
Sounds like a lot more Americans agree with him than liberal Hollywood and its media palace guard want to believe. Americans are watching and rewatching (and laughing, high-fiving and fist-pumping) Gervais’ takedown of the pompous, political and PC celebs while skipping the rest of the show, especially the winners who were unwise enough to ignore his advice and inflict their wokeness on us.
Some commentators have suggested that Chappelle’s and Gervais’ revolt against the Twitter “outrage mobs” may signal a turning point, the first shots in a long-overdue counter-offensive against the perpetually offended. Maybe this decade will become the second Roaring ‘Twenties, when free speech and being unafraid to voice honest opinions and undeniable facts all come roaring back. I certainly hope so. It’s been lonely these past few years, being one of the few people on Twitter who’s consistently tweeted exactly what I think and ignored or laughed at all the people who call me nasty names for it.
I would cite the vicious slapdown from their readers as an example to these media outlets of what “speaking truth to power” really means, but I think it’s really a better example of how they no longer wield any “power” to influence public opinion.
I wanted to make sure you also read these comments:
At this link, Derek Hunter has more to say about the Golden Globes, in his usual brutally hilarious way. He makes the point that the entertainment media are exactly like the liberal political media: their job is not to tell the truth, it’s to insure they keep getting access by acting as PR agents for the people they’re supposed to be reporting on. No wonder they hate Ricky Gervais and Dave Chappelle!
By the way, what CNN thought was praiseworthy about the Golden Globes was celebrities ignoring Gervais’ advice not to use their thank-you speech time to make uninformed political statements, like blaming the Australian wildfires on climate change (so far, 183 people have been arrested for arson for deliberately setting fires.) CNN actually thought the highlight of the show was Michelle Williams’ reprehensible defense of aborting your own child if it advances your career.
At the link below, Joy Pullman has a thought-provoking article about how horrifying it was to see Hollywood elites applaud that chilling sentiment.
She goes beyond Hollywood to discuss the devastating effects on society as a whole of prioritizing career advancement over the sanctity of life. Note one excellent point:
Celebrities always lecture us about thinking of “the children.” But she writes that if a small child were brought out on stage with a gun to its head, and the winner forced to choose between the child’s life or the award, of course they’d choose to let the child live. So why do they applaud the idea that winning a Golden Globe is worth killing your own unborn child, and promote it to other women?
With her typical astuteness, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has put her finger on what’s wrong with the modern Democratic Party: it just has too much diversity of thought. (I’ll pause for a moment while your mind stops reeling.) It seems that Joe Biden (who’s supposed to be the “moderate” in the race, but who has embraced just about every wacko leftist proposal to woo “progressive” primary voters: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/353921) is just too conservative to be in the same party as AOC, who’s endorsed socialist Bernie Sanders. She declared, “In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party.”
I’ll just note that in most countries run by socialists, there are no other parties, because if you dare to start one, they jail or shoot you.
Still, I wish her success in continuing her efforts to drive out all the apostates who don’t embrace the full Venezuela experience. Just keep winnowing out the non-believers until you get the party down to a tiny, Kool Aid-sipping far-left religious cult. All the people who’ve been forced out by the crazies can then become Republicans or start a moderate third party and crush you. Bernie, AOC and their cult of history-resistant true believers can then be what I’ll call the “Spinal Tap Democrats.” They’re not rapidly dwindling in popularity; their appeal is just becoming more selective…
Bible Verse of the Day (KJV)
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
- 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Did you miss reading a newsletter recently? Go to our archive here.