Would anyone really be surprised if the "green" in the "Democratic" Socialists' "Green New Deal" turned out to be a giant bag of weed? It would explain what voters had been smoking when they put these people in office.
A Florida politician looked at all the crazy political news from Virginia grabbing America’s attention and said, “Hold muh beer!”
Respect to her victims, who proved they can take a licking and keep on ticking.
Incidentally, I naturally wondered if this lady is a Democrat or Republican. A lot of people must have, because that was one of the top search options on Google. I haven’t found anything on her party affiliation, so I assume the local commissioners board races are nonpartisan. Just wanted to point that out because usually, when a politician does something awful or weird and the media don’t tell you their party, that means they’re Democrats. Except CNN, which tells you they’re Republicans even if they’re Democrats.
I know that very few Millennials who are besotted with socialism read my newsletter. And on the off chance there are any, I doubt that they would take my advice to read a book by Friedrich Hayek or Dr. Thomas Sowell, or even Dr. Seuss. But maybe they will watch a 3-1/2-minute YouTube video featuring other attractive Millennials desperately trying to warn them not to walk into the socialist booby trap.
These are young Venezuelans who made it to America and attended a protest of Venezuela’s imploding socialist government in Washington. They want to offer their fellow Millennials some truth to cut through the snow job pushers of socialism are giving them. For those who can’t spare even 3-1/2 minutes: they warn that the promises socialists make are lies. Its promoters fall into one of two categories: charlatans and dupes. They thought what happened in places like Cuba couldn’t happen to them because they were a free and prosperous nation that voted for their leaders (it was “democratic socialism!” Sound familiar?). But little-by-little, over time, like a frog boiling in gradually heating water, they lost their freedom and their prosperity until they eventually had no food or medicine or even toilet paper, unless you count their currency.
And just to dispense with the most popular bogus responses right up front: no, “Democratic socialism” is not “completely different,” it’s just the same poison in a sexy new bottle; and these hip young Venezuelans bought it just like many young Americans are. Also, the Scandinavian nations are not examples of “socialism that works.” They’re capitalist nations that thought they were rich enough to afford a lot of expensive government freebies, but even they are scaling those back after seeing the high costs and the erosion they’re taking on the national work ethic.
Must-Read Article of the Day! The rise of “fact-checkers” has done very little to improve the veracity of news coverage, because many of the self-appointed “fact-checkers” are really just partisan hacks, looking for some nitpicky way to dismiss inconvenient truths or to misrepresent personal opinions as lies.
Some of the efforts to discredit plain truths and verified statistics quoted by President Trump in his State of the Union Address have been so laughably biased that they’ve actually discredited the so-called “fact-checkers” instead. The lamest attempt at a “gotcha” had to be Politico’s knock on Trump for saying that one in three migrant women are sexually assaulted on the long journey, when the study he cited said it was only 31 percent.
At the link, David Harsanyi of The Federalist lists and examines the most common tactics used by today’s “fact-checkers” to make their biased opinionating and aspersion-casting sound like dispassionate research (I’ve had to deal with some of these shenanigans myself, over things I wrote that were completely accurate), along with prominent examples ripped from the headlines.
By the way, that’s a figure of speech. They aren’t literally ripped out of newspaper headlines, so please don’t give me four Pinocchios.
If you thought it would take a miracle to get House Speaker Nancy Pelosi into the same room with President Trump again after Tuesday’s State of the Union Address, you’re sort of right: the two were together again Thursday morning, along with other VIPs from both sides of the aisle, at the National Prayer Breakfast. Here are some details on the event and what the speakers talked about:
You might not have heard much about the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for President Trump’s latest nominee to the important DC Court of Appeals, Neomi Rao. That’s understandable, with the State of the Union Address monopolizing the news. And it’s not as high profile as the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation circus. But it is worth your attention, and not just because the Democrats on the Committee are embarrassing themselves by acting like partisan hatchet men.
As this article makes clear, Ms Rao is highly qualified for the job, with a resume that includes a Yale degree, University of Chicago Law School and clerking for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She’s also a woman and would be the first Indian-American judge ever on that court. You’d think that at least would make the Democrats show her some respect, but no such luck. Once again, what should be a proceeding of utmost gravity presided over by mature adults has all the decorum of a Three Stooges pie fight with the Democrats trying to pelt the nominee with banana cream.
At that link is an example of the kind of “When did you stop beating your wife?” questioning that Rao is being forced to endure, and from Sen. Kamala Harris, an alleged champion of women. But the “Stooge Trophy” has to go to Sen. Cory Booker for demanding to know why Rao never hired any LGBTQ law clerks. She replied that she’s never been a judge before, so she’s never hired any law clerks. Booker should change his nickname from “Spartacus” to “Shemp” after that public face-plant.
It’s perfectly fine to question Ms Rao and press her strongly on her answers. But this type of embarrassing partisan spectacle not only insults and demeans the nominees, it erodes the public’s respect for the entire process of vetting judges, and it discourages good people from even wanting to put themselves up for consideration for public service if they know they're going to have their reputations covered in mud.
It’s also not doing the Democrats any favors, either with their public image or their purported philosophical beliefs. Writing in the Washington Post, Megan McArdle argues that with their juvenile tactic of digging up old columns Rao wrote years ago and attacking her for comments that no longer represent her current beliefs, they are signaling to everyone watching that going along with “progressive” change is a dangerous proposition.
McArdle says these Senators are showing that as soon as social changes occur, the people who pushed for them will try to punish anyone who disagreed with them (Don’t believe it? Remember when same-sex marriage proponents argued that it would never affect Christians who opposed it; then the minute the SCOTUS gave them what they wanted, they began trying to prosecute or sue every Christian business owner into bankruptcy for daring to refuse to participate.) This tactic sends a message to the majority to resist all efforts at “progressive” social change, which sets back the liberals’ own causes.
But that type of argument requires some multi-dimensional thought. So much easier to point fingers and call names. There’s more, but since the original article is behind WaPo’s payroll, here’s an excerpt that gives you the gist.
Liberals are attacking CNN for giving an hour of air time to Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, whose potential third party presidential bid they fear will draw votes away from whichever liberal survives their 2020 Hunger Games...sorry, "primaries." I guess they assume that CNN’s job isn’t to inform the public of all aspects of what’s in the news but only to cover things that will help Democrats defeat Trump.
Gee, I wonder where they got that idea!
We all know that Democrats don’t consider the Presidency (the most important and difficult executive job in the world) to require any prior executive experience. Giving a thrilling speech, being in the right identity group, or mouthing the latest “progressive” platitudes is all they believe the job requires, apparently.
But when you are only one of 100 Senators; with no solo government, business or military executive experience; and a new study ranks you as possibly one of the “worst bosses” in the Senate with one of the highest turnover rates of office staffers – then maybe you should consider that the Oval Office is not your obvious next step up on the career ladder.
LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!