Over the weekend, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez officially endorsed fellow socialist Bernie Sanders for President at a rally in New York.
Much was made of the fact that the rally drew a massive crowd of about 26,000 people. Less was made of the fact that it was held right next to America’s largest public housing complex, so it was ground zero for people who look favorably on government dependency.
There were a lot of words said about the wonders of free government stuff leading to a bright and happy future, all of which should be discounted by anyone with an IQ above room temperature. But the quote from AOC that really struck me was this:
“It wasn’t until I heard of a man by the name of Bernie Sanders that I began to question and assert and recognize my inherent value as a human being that deserves health care, housing, education, and a living wage.”
I could argue with that from a political or economic standpoint, but frankly, I find it profoundly sad on a far deeper level. It’s disturbing to me that this young woman claims she never recognized her “inherent value as a human being” until she heard a socialist politician talking about all the free stuff the government owes her. Your sense of value as a human being should come from knowing that you are a unique creation of a loving God, not from the federal government and a bunch of entitlement programs. Of all the definitions of socialism I’ve ever heard, this may be both the most accurate and the most chilling.
The RNC has created a short video in response to the rise of “Democratic socialism,” in which victims of socialism in other nations sound an alarm bell to Americans about what it really means. We’re repeatedly assured that, oh no, they’re not pushing the poisonous Venezuelan-style socialism that’s destroyed that nation and is killing and oppressing its people. But this clip provides stunning evidence that the sales pitch we’re hearing now is virtually identical to what the Venezuelans got when they were first enticed to, as one put it, give up a little freedom for a little piece of free candy.
To try to leave you in a slightly lighter mood, here’s a satirical story from the conservative humor site, The Babylon Bee, on this same topic – but it’s the type of satire that’s more pointed than funny. The headline is “Politics Now Nation’s Fastest Growing Religion.” The claim that many leftists who’ve banished God and faith from their lives have a hole in their souls and a spiritual hunger that they are trying to fill by worshiping political messiahs and big government is a point that I’ve been making for a number of years now.
Mitt Romney’s secret Twitter account from which he allegedly knocks his critics and others under the fake name “Pierre Delecto” is all over the news, and somehow, my comments about it also made a little news, but in a twisted and misleading form.
I was asked about this topic on “Fox & Friends,” and I said flat-out what I honestly think (Mitt should try that sometime.) I said this:
“He’s got a secret Twitter account. I find this just really stunning. The man is 72 years old. Having fake Twitter accounts on social media, that’s the work of kids, cowards, couch potatoes, and perverts like Carlos Danger…What on Earth does a United States Senator do calling himself ‘Pierre Delecto?’ If he’s got something to say, man up and say it, and let us all realize this guy is not a team player. He is still bitter because Donald Trump got elected and he didn’t. He needs to get over it. He needs to realize that the choice in this country is the choice between socialism and the very capitalism that he so celebrated, and it made him so incredibly uber-wealthy. And he needs to start embracing that’s the binary choice we face in this nation, between Donald Trump and whoever is on that stage for the Democrats.”
Now, out of all that, here’s the headline from Mediaite, with a similar take from other outlets:
“Mike Huckabee Compares Mitt Romney to ‘Perverts Like Carlos Danger’ For Secret Twitter Account”
That makes it sound as if I called Romney a pervert. You’ll note that I did not. I just included another politician with a secret Internet identity (who happened to be a pervert) among several other groups of immature people who don’t have the guts to show their true faces to the world. If they were going to pick one of them that’s closest to my assessment of Romney, “cowards” would probably be the most accurate.
By the way, you’ll note that I said that in public, on a newsletter and website that both bear my full, real name.
One other point worth mentioning: this shoddy incident provides one of the best illustrations I’ve ever seen of the difference between the Washington version of admirable behavior and the definition the rest of us have. I admit, many of President Trump’s indelicate, sometimes profane statements and Tweets make me wince – maybe because I’m a Southern Baptist from Arkansas, not a construction guy from New York. But at least he’s standing up in public, telling you what he really thinks and not hiding behind false names or a phony smile or a double face.
In Washington, that means he’s “not Presidential” and unfit for his job and must be removed.
On the other hand, if you hide your true face…if you stab your own team in the back while posturing as a paragon of moral superiority…if you call someone “my esteemed colleague” while slandering him off the record to the media…if you feign getting the vapors over someone else’s bluntly honest public statements while dispensing your own venom under a fake name on a secret Twitter account…then you are considered a perfect example of the kind of smooth-talking sophisticate who exemplifies the consummate politician.
This is why so many of us occasionally wince at Trump’s impolite and impolitic comments, but when that swamp full of DC snakes claims that he’s not fit for office and needs to go, our gut reaction is, “How about if he stays and all the rest of you go?”
If there’s one thing the media agree on, it’s that President Trump is the biggest liar ever to enter the White House. Why, he lies with every breath. By one account, he’s told over 12,000 lies. And how did he rack up this remarkable tally of lies?
Easy. All you have to do is define all of the following as “lies”:
* Opinions that liberals disagree with.
* Policy changes that don’t match previous policies (because they’re changes).
* Facts and figures that liberals don’t like.
* Humorous exaggerations that liberals don’t get.
* Jokes at liberals’ expense.
Those last two alone probably account for at least 6,000 of Trump’s “lies,” including some really famous ones like “inviting Russia to hack Hillary’s email account (Trump was joking that they should share her deleted emails with the FBI because everyone assumed they'd already stolen them – by that point, Hillary had long since erased and smashed all her devices, so it would’ve been impossible for anyone to “hack” her.)
I lay out all this background just to show the glaring double-standard to which the media hold Democrats and Republicans. Remember when Republicans were criticized for claiming Obama lied about being able to keep your health care plan and your doctor (even Politifact eventually had to admit that was the “Lie of the Year.”) Adam Schiff serves up more lies than McDonald’s does Big Macs (still waiting to see that “proof” of Russian collusion), yet he’s treated as if he’s worthy of anything other than contempt, ridicule and expulsion from Congress (to his credit, the Washington Post’s fact-checker did give Schiff “Four Pinocchios” for one of his whoppers, but then the paper went right back to credulously repeating his impeachment propaganda.)
AOC also gave us a taste of leftist baloney, declaring that, of course, Trump has committed many impeachable offenses. But when pressed for an example, she claimed that there were too many to name just one.
Now, it appears that Sen. Kamala Harris is eager to follow in AOC and Schiff’s footsteps. Harris went before a national TV audience (well, she went on CNN, anyway) and declared that Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, has “clearly broken many laws.” When Anderson Cooper went off-script to ask what laws he broke, this was her reply:
“Well I, I, I don’t know. We’re going to find out.”
Wouldn’t the time to find out whether someone had “clearly broken many laws” be before you accused them of it on national television? To make matters worse, Harris is the former Attorney General of California, so you’d think she’d have a nodding acquaintance with the law – although a close look at her record might disabuse you of that notion.
(She’s also recently been grandstanding about the importance of protecting whistleblowers after having filed multiple felony charges in California against the whistleblowing undercover reporters who exposed Planned Parenthood.)
I eagerly await the “Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire” stories about Kamala Harris that I’m sure the media will be presenting in…3, 2, 1…Hey, where are they?!
Here’s yet more proof that the mindless kowtowing to the radical transgender rights movement will spell the end of women’s sports: the latest winner of a women’s world cycling championship in England is a biological male who identifies as a female. And if you dare suggest that s/he enjoyed any biological strength advantage over the born-female competitors, well, then you’re a bigot. Except, finally, people are beginning to raise their voices in protest of this obvious reality-defying madness.
Here’s a question I’d love to see these advocates of inventing their own reality answer: if a man identifying as a woman makes him a woman with no biological advantage over other female competitors, then why can’t a 280-pound boxer identify as a flyweight and win the world flyweight championship by beating the daylights out of a 110-pound boxer?
In a related story, if you didn’t like the CW Network’s new series “Batwoman” in which the Caped Crusader is reimagined as an out-and-loud lesbian fighting for social justice and which bombed in the ratings, then according to some LGBTQ activists, that, too, means you’re a bigot.
Okay, so the Rotten Tomatoes audience positive rating is a dismal 12%; that can only mean that alt-right male sexist bigots conspired to rig the poll. After all, the critics gave it a 70% positive rating, and that couldn’t possibly be because they’re too scared of being slammed on Twitter to tell you what they really thought.
As for the fact that some of the professional critics who are women admitted that it was “cringe-worthy,” “painful to watch” and “a struggle to get through,” well, the obvious response to that would be...Shut up!!