Univision news anchor Jorge Ramos was detained for several hours in Venezuela after socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro became angered that he showed viewers video of Venezuelans searching for food in the garbage while Maduro was blocking humanitarian aid from entering the country for his starving people. Fortunately, Ramos was eventually released, but he and his crew were scheduled to be deported today.
After his release, the stunned Ramos had this to say: “I never thought they were going to do something stupid like this, I never thought they were going to take the whole interview and rob us…What I told Nicolás Maduro is that millions of Venezuelans and many governments of the world did not consider him a legitimate president but a dictator. That's what I told Nicolás Maduro. He obviously did not like it."
Hold on…So socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro treated the press the way a socialist dictator would..and this came as a shock and a surprise to Univision reporter Jorge Ramos? Seriously? I think this proves he doesn’t belong on Univision.
He belongs on CNN or MSNBC.
Or maybe the Bronx can elect him to Congress.
I don’t want to be one of those conservatives who reacts to every ridiculous thing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says. I just wish she’d help me by not saying so many of them.
So in the name of kindness, in response to her arrogant reply to critics of her ludicrous “Green New Deal” that she’s in Congress so “I’m the boss” and we’re just baying from the cheap seats (fact check: she’s only one of 435 people in the House, which is – brace yourself, AOC – just one-half of one of the three branches of government), I’ll let a 16-year-old who obviously paid more attention in civics class than she did handle the job of telling her who really works for whom.
About three weeks late, some intrepid professional journalists who gave Jussie Smollett a sympathetic and unquestioning platform are finally starting to notice that his claim of being attacked by racist Trump supporters who just happened to be carrying a rope and a bottle of bleach and who actually recognized him from TV while wandering around Chicago at 2 a.m. when it was nearly 20 below zero had some “red flags.” I believe I said last week that it had more red flags than a Chinese military parade. If you’re just now noticing that, you might want to have your optometrist check you for colorblindness. And not the good, racial kind but the literal kind.
President Trump is in Vietnam for more denuclearization talks with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Until more news breaks, here’s a rundown of some key points to look out for:
Note to Chief Justice Roberts: When conservatives complain about liberal activist judges, I believe this is what they mean. The Hill reports that a county superior court judge in North Carolina tossed out a constitutional amendment requiring voter ID – which was approved by an overwhelming majority of the state’s voters – on grounds that the Republican General Assembly is “so gerrymandered that its members do not truly represent the state's residents and thus should never have proposed a voter ID amendment in the first place.” He also struck down an amendment capping the state’s income tax on the same grounds.
Conceivably, this judge must believe he has the power to strike down any and every law passed by the legislature, or any constitutional amendment approved by the voters that was proposed by the legislature, just because he doesn’t approve of the way the districts were drawn from which they were elected.
This goes beyond an “activist judiciary” into the realm of a “Madness of King George" judiciary.
The NAACP celebrated the ruling, calling the voter ID amendment “racist” and an attempt at “unconstitutional overreach." The staggering judicial overreach doesn’t seem to bother them. I already wrote about this, but it bears repeating:
A study of the effects of voter ID laws in ten states published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “strict ID laws have no significant negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any subgroup defined by age, gender, race, or party affiliation”…and they “do not decrease the participation of ethnic minorities relative to whites. The laws’ overall effects remain close to zero and non-significant, whether the election is a midterm or presidential election, and whether the laws are the more restrictive type that stipulate photo IDs.”
However, according to my own unscientific study, the effect of activist judges who overstep their powers and trample on the will of the voters has a major negative effect on both constitutional government and voters’ attitudes toward their government. But I suspect that if it keeps up at this rate, it will eventually have a positive effect on the sale of tar and feathers.
In a “victory” for feminism, a federal judge in Texas sided with a men’s rights group and ruled that it’s unconstitutional gender discrimination for the government to register only men for the military draft. There is no draft at the moment, but if it comes back and women start getting drafted to go to war, they can thank feminists. That is, once they’ve finished thanking feminists for siding with transgender rights groups and putting men into women’s bathrooms and locker rooms and destroying school athletic programs for girls. I don’t think feminists have thought this whole “helping women” idea through very carefully.
Here's an interesting story that supports the claim by some conservatives that mainstream media outlets consider it their job not to tell the whole truth but to run interference for liberal politicians. CNN had no problem with interviewing Daniel Di Martino, a Venezuelan expatriate who is speaking out on how socialism slowly ruined his native country. Socialism sounded good at first, but by the time things started sliding, the people were powerless to stop it.
But when Di Martino then started warning about the dangers of Democrats who want to bring the same disastrous policies here under sanitized euphemisms such as “Democratic” socialism, suddenly, the CNN hosts cut the interview short with a defense of Bernie Sanders and company. They told viewers, “Now, just to be clear, neither AOC nor Bernie Sanders is pushing for a Venezuelan style of socialism. They want the Green New Deal and Medicaid for all, but you’re saying that is perhaps a path down that road.”
(On a side note, I wonder how many CNN anchors ever cut off a guest who was accusing President Trump of hating immigrants and corrected him that Trump just wants to enforce existing immigration laws against illegal entrants?)
I’ve made this point before, but I’ll keep making it every time the other side tries to rewrite history: Nobody ever pushes to institute “Venezuelan style socialism.” Not even the socialist politicians in Venezuela promised what we now know as “Venezuelan style socialism.” It always starts with happy, pie-in-the-sky false promises of unsustainable freebies like “Medicaid for All,” and only then does it devolve into corruption, oppression and starvation.
If you don’t believe me, dig back into the archives and read some of the glowing profiles in the American media of socialist dictator Hugo Chavez for his pursuit of “social justice,” his “populist” policies and his use of Venezuela’s oil to aid the poor. None of the Bernie-friendly US media outlets were warning about “Venezuelan style socialism” then. By the time we started hearing about what was really going on, it was too late: the downward spiral was irreversible.
(Speaking of Bernie, he has no trouble calling President Trump an authoritarian, but he still can’t bring himself to call Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro a “dictator,” even as he’s blocking humanitarian aid from getting to starving people.)
No politician ever says, “Vote for me, and I’ll crash the economy, take away your freedom, censor the media, threaten you with state violence and leave you with no food, medicine or toilet paper!” But if they believe in policies that have resulted in that outcome every time they’ve been tried for over a century, then it’s the duty of the media to inform the public that this particular political product may be hazardous to the nation’s health.
It used to be said that Democrats would go home at reelection time, tell the voters how hard they were working to stop those wasteful rascals in Washington, then go right back to taxing and spending the second they were reelected. For years, their winning formula was based on talking conservative and hiding what they really planned to do from the voters. Open liberals like George McGovern and Walter Mondale got massacred at the polls. But today’s crop of Democrats have dropped the mask. They believe that generations of leftist indoctrination in schools and relentless media assaults on conservatives have bamboozled voters enough that they’ll elect someone who openly espouses ruinous, failed socialist policies that are a surefire recipe for widespread misery.
I certainly hope they’re wrong. But you at least have to give them credit for at last being honest about what they are and what they plan to do. Anyone who votes for them can’t complain 20 years from now that nobody ever warned them America could ever become like Venezuela.
It’s a funny thing: if you listen to leftist politicians, media figures and celebrities, you would think that everyone agrees with their views – well, everyone except a few knuckle-dragging cave people who live between the enlightened coasts. They’ve even managed, through a combination of mainstream media mockery, social media shaming and violent intimidation, to cow many Americans into being too afraid to voice contrary opinions in public.
But when they have a chance to voice those opinions in private, we discover just how out of the mainstream the left really is. I already mentioned the study finding that self-identified liberals now outnumber conservatives in only six states. Now, there’s more evidence that not everyone shares the smug belief that leftists are “on the right side of history.”
For instance, everyone hates Donald Trump, right? You'd sure think so from the Oscar telecast. Then how come, despite an unprecedented onslaught of negative press, his approval rating has been inching upward until Rasmussen now has it at 49%, one point higher than the sainted Barack Obama at this same point in his first term?
But at least we all agree that Trump has made us a laughingstock and a pariah in the eyes of the rest of the world, right? Actually, according to the latest Gallup poll, 58% of Americans believe the US rates “very” or “somewhat” favorably in the eyes of the world, the highest rating they’ve seen since 2003. Democrats are predictably negative about the way the world sees us (they’ve got to stop getting their news from Stephen Colbert), and Republicans are predictably optimistic, but the improvement is due to an 8% leap in Independents thinking that other nations respect America more.
Recently, liberals regained full power in states such as New York and immediately went hog wild with pro-abortion laws, legalizing the killing of babies up to and even after the moment of birth. Result: a new Marist poll found that for the first time since 2009, the percentage of Americans who say they are pro-life or pro-choice is now evenly split at 47-47%. Just one month ago, the pro-life side was at 38% and pro-choice was 55%. The biggest shifts to the pro-life side were among Democrats and young people.
If you wonder exactly what kind of radical abortion stances Democrats are taking that are so repulsing the American people, here’s what they did yesterday that you probably never heard about: all the prominent 2020 Democratic Presidential hopefuls in the Senate joined forces to block a bill to require doctors to provide the same care to a baby born alive during an abortion that they would have to provide to any other human being. In other words, when infanticide came up for a vote, they voted “Yay.” They actually think they will help them get elected President.
Or how about the Democratic Governor of Illinois, who is pushing a pro-abortion bill so radical, it would turn Illinois into the “abortion capital of America.” Is this a signal that he’s planning to run for President, too?
These trends against the leftist orthodoxy are all things you’d never suspect if you listen to the prevailing media narratives. This is why it was wise of old school liberals to keep their real beliefs hidden until after elections and not to flaunt them too much afterward. Liberal policies are like house brand hot dogs: you can’t advertise what’s really in them if you want people to swallow them.
House Democrats are seeking to kill the Second Amendment using one of their favorite weapons: strangulation with red tape. They’re bringing two gun bills up for votes. One is a universal background check bill that would criminalize all private gun sales, such as a gun owner selling a gun to a lifelong friend, without the government’s permission. It’s named in honor of gun victim Rep. Gabby Giffords, and in a long-standing tradition of liberal gun control bills, it would not have prevented the crime it's in response to, since her attacker got his gun after passing a background check.
The other bill would allow the government to block someone from buying a gun by extending the background check period indefinitely through a never-ending bureaucratic timeline loop (see the link for details.)
Neither bill has much chance of making it past the Senate, but you should be informed about them. That way, the next time you hear a liberal call for “common sense gun laws,” you’ll know how they define “common sense.”
After dealing with so many criminal dunderheads like Jussie Smollett, it’s time for a true Huck’s Criminal Mastermind. How about the woman in Craigavon, Northern Ireland, who called the police to complain that she’d been scammed. She said she’d paid over $260 (US) and got brown sugar instead. When the cops asked, “Instead of what?,” she replied, “Cocaine.” When they asked if she’d like to make a detailed fraud complaint, she thought better of it and hung up. Perhaps proving that she really didn't get the drugs she wanted – this time, at least.
LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!