Just as I suspected, while Democrats tell the media that the accusations of unwelcome touching by Joe Biden are the work of “right-wing trolls,” they actually suspect they’re the work of Bernie Sanders’ people. It’s obvious that one of the other, more-leftwing Dem presidential contenders would be a far more likely suspect than any Republican. That contest is shaping up to be a PC version of “Mad Max: Thunderdome.” Why would Republicans want to get involved when all they have to do is lean back with a bag of popcorn and enjoy watching the carnage?
Last May, Hofstra University’s president refused to give in to demands by leftist students to remove a statue of Thomas Jefferson because he was a “slave owner and sexual predator.” But on Friday, they renewed their demand to join the Taliban in tearing down historic icons, with one offering a speech that contained more “like’s” than a Facebook post of a cat playing the piano. You can read about the whole thing here.
One thing that isn’t mentioned is that President Trump warned a long time ago that if we gave in to leftists who wanted to tear down all the Confederate monuments and statues, they would next move on to Jefferson and the other Founders, until they’d torn down all of America’s history that didn’t fit their current rigid PC standards. I believe there are two reasons why the stories about the Jefferson statue usually don’t mention Trump’s warning:
1. The reporters would have to admit that Trump was right.
2. If they printed the original quote from Trump, which was about the controversy in Charlottesville, it would reveal that he was talking about the debate over removing a statue of Robert E. Lee when he said there were “very fine people on both sides,” and not saying there were fine people on the side of the white supremacists who hijacked the event. That scurrilous false accusation has proven very useful for the anti-Trump press.
It goes to show that leftist college students aren’t the only ones who like to rewrite history to make it fit their chosen narrative.
When I disagree with President Trump, I have no qualms saying so, and here’s an example of where I think he’s wrong. He announced yesterday that the Republicans might wait until after the 2020 election to present a health care plan to replace Obamacare.
I think that’s a bad move, particularly given the controversy his Justice Department already stirred by siding with a judge who ruled all of Obamacare unconstitutional. The ruling may be correct legally, but Americans are very concerned about the rising costs of health coverage. Obamacare was certainly not the way to lower costs (it was like trying to put out a grass fire with a bucket of kerosene), but voters don’t want to see one plan scrapped before an alternative is in place. Democrats will try to capitalize on the “Republicans don’t care if you die” narrative, and the GOP needs a better response than “Trust us again.”
The Republicans had two years of control of the House, Senate and White House to repeal and replace Obamacare, which they’d promised to do for years. Yes, I know that no plan would have gotten past the 60-vote margin in the Senate, just as no Republican plan could pass the House now. But that’s no excuse for not at least offering a replacement plan with market-based solutions to deal with rising costs and help for those with preexisting conditions. I sense that voters are out of patience with being told “it’s coming after the next election.” There’s been plenty of time to come up with a plan, and Americans deserve to see it before they vote.
Remember, if it helps, coming up with a plan that’s better than either Obamacare or Medicare-For-All is a pretty low bar.
If you’ve been keeping up over the years with my newsletter, radio and TV shows, podcasts, and website and social media posts, then you might sometimes feel when watching the news that you’re seeing reruns. It’s amazing how many “revelations” are being reported now that I’ve been telling you for years (Trump didn’t collude with Russia, Hillary did; there was a lot of resentment in America against coastal elites and it was going to elect Trump; etc.) Now, today’s news brings us two articles at once that will give my longtime followers a feeling of déjà vu.
First up, there’s the news that Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton has written a letter to the IRS making the case that I’ve made for years that the Southern Poverty Law Center is no longer a legitimate champion of civil rights but has become a corrupt, partisan attack dog that defames traditional Christian and conservative organizations as “hate groups” and is no longer deserving of tax-exempt 501(c)3 non-profit status.
Granted, recent events have finally made the argument crystal clear: the SPLC’s annual report showing a treasury of over half a billion dollars (with about $120 million in “off-shore investments”), the firing of founder Morris Dees over long-suppressed charges of racial discrimination and sexual harassment, and the resignation of president Richard Cohen; and the revelations from former staffers of the SPLC's culture of racism, sexism, elitism, cynicism, hypocrisy, money-grubbing and misleading of donors to maximize income.
Sen. Cotton makes a damning case in his letter to the IRS that the SPLC has become a taxpayer-subsidized “racist and sexist slush fund devoted to defamation” that has earned “a well-deserved “F” rating from Charity Watch” and whose “conduct warrants a serious and thorough investigation.”
And believe it or not, there’s even more to Cotton’s case. As he points out, “Federal law prohibits tax-exempt organizations from inuring to the benefit of any private individual.” Yet in 2017 alone, the SPLC used its $500 million bankroll to pay its disgraced founder Dees more than $400,000, which is “more than nine times the median household income for Montgomery, Alabama, where the SPLC is headquartered.”
Now that the IRS is no longer under the Obama Administration, let’s hope that it does its job and once again enforces tax laws on all groups equally, even those that are liberal icons. If the SPLC loses its 501(c)3 status, remember: you heard it here first. And if they finally start looking into the same issues with Media Matters for America, then you heard that here first, too.
Another piece of news that appeared in The Week yesterday (and in my media outlets multiple times over the years) was this article by Bonnie Kristian entitled “Don’t Idolize Your 2020 Pick (my apologies in advance for the truly disturbing illustration of “Beto” O’Rourke as Jesus.)
Ms Kristian touches on an argument that I’ve been making for years: that the left has become more secular and hostile to religion, but they still feel a need for some force larger than themselves to worship. And so, they fill that hole in their souls by putting a religious-type faith in politicians; investing mystical powers in a series of false idols with feet of clay who will inevitably let them down…until they find the next one to elevate to savior status. She seems to think this is a recent phenomenon, citing Obama (“the Lightbringer” whose mere elevation to office would make the rising oceans start to recede) and “Beto” (cringe alert: there’s a photo of a young supporter in a crowd holding up a sign reading “Beto is our Christ.”)
In actuality, the roots of the deification of Democratic pols go back decades, from the photos of FDR and JFK next to pictures of Jesus and the Pope in supporters’ homes, to the “Kennedy/Camelot” narrative (remember, King Arthur was ordained by God to rule England) to Bill Clinton (a worshipful reporter gushed that “power crackled from his jeans”), and so on up to “Beto” with any number of similar tin gods who didn’t quite make it to the top tier of deities, plus those who popped up in other nations around the world. As I pointed out just recently, it’s no coincidence that Democrats are so awed by people who are “charismatic,” which is actually a religious term.
Ms Kristian is absolutely correct in calling this idolizing of political figures “misguided;” in asserting that too many Americans “substitute state for church, voting for prayer, celebrity endorsers for clergy, and human props for saints as we pick our preferred deity on the ballot;” and in warning, “We place our faith in them at our peril.” But I think she takes a wrong turn in attempting to explain President Trump’s electoral success as an example of Christians who have drifted from churches looking to Trump as a messianic figure. She bases this on a “county-level statistical analysis of 2016 primary results” by a writer at The American Conservative, which despite its name is far from a mainstream conservative publication.
Allow me to explain it based on a personal analysis of traveling with Trump to all those rallies during the 2016 primary season and actually talking to thousands of his supporters, both then and since.
First of all, I doubt anyone at a Trump rally mistakes it for church, or uses it as a replacement for church, the way Obama or “Beto” supporters do. His supporters go to Trump rallies for many reasons, among them: to show his critics in DC that there’s strong support for his policies…to gather with like-minded Americans and show solidarity in the face of the relentless slander they’ve been enduring since 2016…because he’s incredibly entertaining (I think his speeches are much funnier than any of the late night “comedy shows” these days, if you get that he uses exaggeration for comic effect and doesn’t intend every word to be taken 100% literally)…and they know that showing up in massive numbers when the polls keep telling us he’s so unpopular will make the biased liberal media’s talking heads explode. That makes it fun! It’s a great, positive, all-American event, like going to a NASCAR rally, where I assure you, nobody mistakes Joey Logano for Jesus Christ.
And as a Christian supporter of Trump who speaks to hundreds of others every week, I can also assure you that they don’t mistake Trump for Christ, either. Many of us still wince at some of his pugnacious, egocentric or profane tough-guy-from-Queens comments. We know Trump is not our Savior (there is only One of those.)
But there is a religious concept that many feel does fit him: the imperfect vessel through which God works His will. The Bible is filled with such figures; sinners who were redeemed and played very important roles in God’s plan. Christian supporters of Trump are perfectly aware that he is far from perfect (we don’t expect any human to be perfect), but may still feel that he was chosen by God as an instrument to help put the nation back on the right path when it was being led away from its Judeo-Christian foundation and into atheism, Marxism and lack of respect for life.
If Trump is reelected in 2020, it will be because his supporters think he’s done a good job on the economy, he stands up to terrorists and America’s enemies both foreign and domestic, he stands up for the pro-life cause, and he puts America’s interests first. If he hasn’t fulfilled every promise such as the border wall, it wasn’t because of lack of trying. It certainly won’t be for reasons I’ve heard people give for supporting some recent Democrats: that his voice makes a tingle run up their leg or that his “perfectly creased pant” gave them a premonition that he would make “a very good President.”
There’s yet another Democratic Presidential candidate: 88-year-old former Alaska Senator (and reported leftwing 9/11 “truther”) Mike Gravel announced that he is running, but with no intention of winning. He says his only aim is to push the field to the left, then drop out after the debates.
1. He actually thinks the current Democratic Presidential field isn’t far-left enough? If they moved any further to the left, they’d be in Alaska, too.
2. He is the first candidate who intends to drop out after the debates and not win, but he can’t possibly be the only one who expects to do that.
Tuesday, former federal prosecutor Lori Lightfoot was easily elected mayor of Chicago over longtime city council member and county Democratic Party chairwoman, Toni Preckwinkle. A political newcomer, Lightfoot painted her opponent as someone who climbed the ladder of a corrupt political party, and she promised to rid Chicago’s City Hall of corruption (good luck!) and help low-income and working class people who had been ignored by Chicago’s ruling political class.
That all sounds good, and let’s hope she succeeds. But it was still a race between two liberal Democrats, and the media insisted on making it about identity politics by trumpeting that Lightfoot will be Chicago’s first black, female, openly gay Mayor.
Frankly, I don’t care how many identity group boxes a candidate checks off. I’ll believe that Chicago voters are really serious about turning around their city when I read that they’ve just elected their first openly-Republican Mayor since 1931.
Kudos to actor Isiah Washington for having the courage to tell the truth instead of following the liberal script.
It’s no wonder Bernie Sanders loves socialism so much: how else could someone with his limited skills and accomplishments haul down so much money?
We’ve finally found something to make liberal hipsters believe that the situation at the border is a genuine crisis: if Trump makes good on his threat to shut down the border, it will interrupt their supply of avocado toast!
The potential threat to the avocado supply seemed to be all that some media outlets could talk about. You’d think that after ending up with egg on their faces from two years of reporting that Mueller was going to indict Trump “any day now,” they would have learned that “news” refers to things that have actually happened. Things that haven’t happened are not “news,” they’re conjecture. Or in some cases, “fantasies” or “wishful thinking.”
The border might not even be closed, so why panic the public with scary talk about an avocado shortage? And if it does, they’ll just have to tough it out for a while and eat queso. As in “You have a bad queso Trump Derangement syndrome.”
LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!