Wait, I thought that by calling other NATO nations “delinquents” for not paying enough for their own defense and sticking American taxpayers with the tab, President Trump was deliberately eroding one of our most important international institutions, doing the bidding of his puppet master Putin, and providing yet another reason to “Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!”
In case you didn’t hear it over all the hysterical anti-Trump chanting, on Sunday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced that other NATO nations would increase their contributions by $100 billion over the next two years. Stoltenberg explained, “President Trump has been very clear. He is committed to NATO… but at the same time he has clearly stated that NATO allies need to invest more.” And now, they are. Full story and video at the link:
If this comes as a surprise to Trump’s critics in the media, I think it might be because NATO listened to what Trump actually said, and his critics only listen to themselves screaming at each other about what Trump allegedly said.
In a tweet Monday, President Trump once again whacked the beehive of the ever-buzzing left by endorsing a move in several states to teach elective courses on Bible history in public schools. As always, I have to wonder: if they are so certain that the Bible is just a lot of nonsense, why are they so terrified at the idea that young people might actually read it?
I’ve long marveled at the ridiculousness of trying to exclude all references to religion from public schools. Religion is the very basis of civilization, and the history of all humankind is inextricably tied in with it; both the history that is recounted in the Bible itself, and the great leaders and movements of history that were motivated by faith and the Bible. Simply teaching students what’s in the most important book of all time is not the same thing as establishing a government religion.
Trying to teach students about history without mentioning the Bible is like trying to teach shop class without any tools. In fact, a student can’t be truly well-versed in history, civilization, literature, or any number of subjects if there’s a gaping hole in his knowledge where the Bible should be. Imagine trying to teach art history with no religious references: you’d have to jump straight from cave paintings to Van Gogh.
By the way: did I mention that it would be an elective? Any parents who want their kids to be ignorant of the most important and influential book in history and study something they think is more useful can always tell them to go to the gender studies class instead.
Among the many, many free things being promised by Democratic Presidential hopefuls such as Kamala Harris is a lot of free education, from universal kindergarten to free college for all. You’d think that anyone with an education level above kindergarten would know that a government that’s nearly $22 trillion in debt can’t afford to buy every American a burger off the McDonald’s Value Menu, much less pay for everyone’s college tuition.
But put aside that objection for a moment because I’d like to raise a point I haven’t heard anyone else make:
Even if the federal government did have a magic money tree (or more accurately, an orchard of money trees) to pay for “free” college for all (which leftists insist is a basic human right), how would they do that logistically? There are no “federal” universities. Colleges are all either private or state institutions with tuition systems unconnected to Washington.
That means that in order to let everyone attend college on the federal dime, they would have to give each student some sort of voucher for tuition. And I assume the student would be allowed to pick the college of his/her/xir choice at which to redeem it.
So to sum up: modern “progressive” Democrats believe that giving students vouchers to use at schools of their choice is a horrible, awful, evil abomination – up until it’s time to go to college, and then it becomes a basic human right.
This article by Alexandra DeSanctis at National Review is primarily about the stunning betrayal of the Catholic faith and values exhibited by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in pushing for and signing New York’s new abortion law that allows for the slaughter of unborn children right up to the moment of birth (yes, I know about the vague “restrictions” in the law’s language; I also know how meaningless they are.)
You should read the article for that point, but pay particular attention to this section, which makes an observation I’ve yet to see anyone else point out:
“On the evening that he signed the RHA, the governor announced that the spire of Freedom Tower, the building erected in lower Manhattan where the Twin Towers once stood, would be lit up in pink to celebrate the occasion, a jubilee for the unlimited right to choose death for the defenseless. Just beside Freedom Tower, two pools mark the spot of the 9/11 terrorist attack. Around each of them are inscribed the names of every person murdered that day, and beside the names of eleven of those women the carved stone says, ‘and her unborn child.’ Beneath Cuomo’s shrine to abortion on demand, the real story is written: These are human lives.”
Freedom Tower is a monument to the sanctity of human life, and Gov. Cuomo desecrated it by turning it into a monument to his repulsive law allowing the wholesale slaughter of innocent unborn children. He may try to justify it with fatuous, high-flown language about “morality” or “reproductive rights,” but he’s really just building a Tower of Babble. Let’s hope it will be as short-lived as the original Tower of Babel.
A reminder for those who claim President Trump is failing to keep his campaign promises because he hasn’t yet gotten the border wall built: that was just one of many promises, and he’s doing a pretty incredible job of fulfilling the others, considering the unprecedented political opposition and never-ending media assault against him. For instance, this is one of the promises that will reverberate to America’s benefit for decades to come. This is what he’s quietly been doing when he doesn’t need a majority of both Houses of Congress behind him and has no flakes blocking him.
There’s no surer way to make people’s eyes glaze over than to write about tax policy. But this is a provocative article on a longstanding, very “unequal” income tax loophole that Democrats actually hope won’t be mentioned because it benefits high-salaried corporate employees who tend to back Democrats, while encouraging low-wage workers and contractors to need more government aid programs, which also benefits them.
This loophole is that the government doesn’t tax the expensive benefit of employer-paid health insurance as income – but small business employees and independent contractors such as carpenters who don’t get that benefit not only have to buy their own insurance, they have to do it with after-tax dollars from their paychecks. In effect, the value of their insurance is taxed, while that of higher-paid people who get it as a benefit is not taxed. And that doesn’t even go into what Obamacare did to the premiums of insurance for workers who have to buy it themselves without a group rate.
This isn’t the only example of ways in which the tax code penalizes lower-income, independents and blue collar workers while giving a break on the same benefits for higher-paid corporate workers. This could become a major political issue, if only there were some political figure willing to stand up in front of thousands of blue collar workers and tell them in blunt terms how badly the tax code is ripping them off. Gee, I wonder where we could find someone like that?
The clock is ticking on that three-week temporary budget deal to reopen the government. While the media are lauding Speaker Pelosi for her toughness in refusing to negotiate with President Trump on border security and claiming he caved in and gave up, the truth is that we are in a reset period, a mere reshuffling of the deck. But the game isn’t over. Here’s what’s happened already:
Today at 1 p.m., a bipartisan conference committee that includes appropriations committee members from both houses of Congress started working on a budget proposal. Sen. Richard Shelby reminded the media that the Democrats said once the government was reopened, they would negotiate in good faith on “significant investments in border security, including a physical barrier,” so we’ll see if they will really put any money where their mouths were. Fellow Senate Appropriations Committee member Lamar Alexander said this is a needed chance to get the issue away from being a public fight between the Speaker and the President and into the hands of Congress members who’ve known for years that we need comprehensive border security.
It might help motivate the Democrats to know that a recent poll found that in House districts Trump won but Democrats now hold, voters support Trump on strengthening border security.
Also, when the issue gets away from the public spotlight and the overheated partisan rhetoric about walls being “immoral” (what about roofs? Are they immoral, or only a bit naughty?), maybe some realism and intelligence will return. As Alexander noted, the previous four Presidents worked with Congress to build 654 miles of physical barrier along our 2,000-mile southern border. Pelosi voted for that, and one of the most effective walls is in her own state, separating San Diego and Tijuana. Trump is asking for only 234 more miles of what we’ve already being building for 20 years, but because he’s “TRUUUUUMP!!!,” suddenly, that’s racist and immoral.
Alexander is optimistic that behind closed doors, at least, politicians will be able to act like adults. Let’s hope he’s right.
But if not, and they don’t produce a bill that both sides can support, then this can all start again in three weeks. By that time, the rising media hysteria over laid-off government workers will have dissipated. Oh, and there’s this:
The political standoff being on hold, Pelosi ended her attempt to block Trump’s State of the Union Address and sent him his invitation to the House for next Tuesday, February 5th. He responded with surprising grace, saying it was his “great honor” to accept, adding, “We have a great story to tell and yet, great goals to achieve! I look forward to seeing you on the 5th.”
I can’t help thinking that much of that SOTU will focus on the state of our border security, and that he will invite guests whose families have been victims of criminal illegal immigrants. It will be a golden opportunity to make his case directly to the American people and to display to the nation those Congress members who put partisanship ahead of national security.
Trump is signaling that he’s being reasonable and giving the committee members a chance, but he’s not giving up on his demands for border security.
So far, all signs indicate that Trump didn’t gave up the game, as so many gleeful liberals and dejected Republicans assume. I think he just knew when to fold ‘em, and he’s now dealing himself a stronger hand. Stay tuned, and don’t be surprised if some wild cards get played over the next few weeks.
I’m very glad to report that the attorney representing the Covington, Kentucky, Catholic school boys who were widely slandered and threatened last week on social media is kicking butt (figuratively) and taking names (literally.)
The attorney appeared on Fox News and provided a list of some celebrities and media figures who were given 48 hours to retract and apologize for their threats and false allegations. He names those who did, and those who clung to their libelous narratives and may soon be facing some very costly lawsuits.
Incidentally, for those who have an interest in the fine points of the law: he explains why the high bar for winning libel cases (proving malice, etc.) that some of the boys’ attackers might have been counting on for protection is actually much lower for those who slander and threaten a minor, particularly under Kentucky law.
Some very prominent “progressives” who like to shoot off their mouths on social media may have shot themselves in the foot instead with their inability to type five simple words: “I’m sorry, I was wrong.”
One person who really needs to retract his statements on that subject is Bill Maher. I like Bill, I’ve been a guest on his show, I respect his willingness to engage those who disagree with him and refuse to bow to political correctness, and I’ve even defended him on occasion. But this was just a personal attack on a kid after he’d already been shown to be innocent. That’s not defensible.
Besides, of all people, Bill Maher shouldn’t attack someone simply because he has what his critics describe as an annoying “smirk.”