Hillary Clinton actually declared on camera for the first time that “I’m not running” for President in 2020. Of course, that will depend on what the meaning of “not” is.
It’s just as well for the Democrats if she isn’t running in 2020, since she obviously hasn’t learned a thing from her loss in 2016. In that interview, she also said this:
"I want to be sure that people understand I'm going to keep speaking out. I'm not going anywhere. What's at stake in our country, the kind of things that are happening right now are deeply troubling to me. And I'm also thinking hard about how do we start talking and listening to each other again? We've just gotten so polarized. We've gotten into really opposing camps unlike anything I've ever seen in my adult life."
Hmmm… Hillary, if you could indulge me, would you please stop and think back to the last campaign? Was there anything you might have said to contribute to this polarized society of “really opposing camps”? Maybe something like, say, that half of Trump’s supporters were a basket of irredeemable racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic deplorables? You know, the kind of dehumanizing language that makes people think it’s okay to physically assault a teenage kid or an 81-year-old man just for wearing a “Make America Great Again” cap?
If you want to be a force for moral good, start with repentance. Instead of just lecturing other people about their failings, acknowledge the role you played in creating this viciously partisan divide and do something to heal it. Try taking a deplorable to lunch. And if the liberal restaurant owners refuse service because they disagree with you tablemate’s viewpoint, lecture them. When we see that, we’ll know you’re serious.
It looks as if the GOP Senate will vote for a Democratic House bill to block President Trump’s use of an emergency declaration to shift funds around and build a border wall (all it takes is a simple majority of over 50.) This is purely an academic stand since Trump will issue his first-ever veto to kill the bill, and there aren’t enough votes to override him.
The reason some Republicans are giving for opposing Trump is that they think it’s unconstitutional for a President to change how money allocated by Congress is spent (although Presidents have wide discretion on how some funds are spent.) Sen. Rand Paul, for instance, backs border security but voted against Trump, tweeting that every Republican he knows opposed Obama’s attempts to legislate through executive order, so he has to be consistent.
But mostly, the argument is that if Republicans allow Trump to do this, it will establish a precedent that a future Democratic President will exploit to declare his or her pet issue (health care, climate change, etc.) as a national emergency and move funds from other areas to pay for it, which would amount to Congress relinquishing its budget powers to the President.
That would be a convincing argument if we hadn’t just lived through eight years of Obama using executive orders to do end runs around Congress, and Congress not saying “boo” about it. Besides, does anyone seriously believe that if any of the current Democratic presidential hopefuls came to power, that they would require a precedent before doing whatever they jolly well wanted to “transform” America without the slightest regard for what Congress had to say about it? If so, then they haven’t been paying very close attention.
I’ve warned repeatedly not to take polls too seriously, particularly polls taken two years before an election when you don’t even know who the candidates will be (there’s never been a “generic” candidate; once a human being is picked, all bets are off.) So you can safely ignore the main thrust of this article about how President Trump is a 10-point underdog against a generic Democrat at this point (remember, the polls had him as an 11-point underdog last time, when we knew who the Democrat would be. How did that work out for the pollsters, or the Democrat?)
No, what is most interesting about this poll is toward the end, where they list the most and least popular characteristics for a Presidential candidate. Large majorities of Americans would be fine with voting for an African-American, a white male, a woman or even a gay or lesbian candidate (wow, what a racist, sexist, homophobic country we are!) Solid majorities would vote for an Independent, a business executive, an Evangelical or someone under 40. Forty-nine percent would vote for a Muslim.
But notice the least appealing candidate traits of all: Only 37% would vote for someone over 75, and only 25% are deluded enough to vote for a socialist. That news has Republicans really hoping the Democrats will nominate Bernie Sanders, a septuagenarian socialist who honeymooned in the USSR, was never successful at anything until he got into politics and became a millionaire, and who kicked off his latest campaign by promising to finish the job of “transforming America.” Don’t ask me why someone would want to be the leader of a country he apparently doesn’t even like. Or what he wants to transform America into, although the smart money would be on “Venezuela,” whether that’s the intention or not.
The good news for Bernie is that using socialist math, if you add the 37% who would vote for someone his age to the 25% who would vote for a socialist, that’s a 62% landslide.
(From “Huckabee’s” resident showbiz historian, Pat Reeder: http://www.facebook.com/hollywoodhifibook )
We’re sad to report that actor Luke Perry has died at 52 following a massive stroke. Perry became a teen idol in “Beverly Hills 90210,” and with his movie star looks and charisma, he could have pursued massive Hollywood fame, as many actors would have in his position. But after working a lot in his youth, he said his priorities shifted to his family and other interests, such as studying history. He continued to take acting roles that challenged him, from movies to stage musicals. And from all accounts, he was a remarkably nice and grounded person.
Expressions of grief are pouring out from virtually everyone who ever worked with Perry, from his “90210” castmates up to the producers of his current series “Riverdale,” who shut down production for the day and released this statement:
"Luke was everything you would hope he would be: an incredibly caring, consummate professional with a giant heart, and a true friend to all…A father figure and mentor to the show's young cast, Luke was incredibly generous, and he infused the set with love and kindness. Our thoughts are with Luke's family during this most difficult time."
He sounds like the kind of person Hollywood could use a lot more of. We add our prayers and sympathies for his family as well.
If the relentless political sniping in the news is getting you down, this should restore your faith: A Huck’s Hero salute to the five high school senior boys from Parsippany, New Jersey, who got up at 4 a.m. and went out into the cold to shovel away a thick snowfall so that an ambulance could get through at 6 a.m. to provide a neighbor with her dialysis treatment.
By the way, the boy who organized it is the son of a hockey coach/PTA president/deacon in the Presbyterian Church. So how about a special “Huck’s Hero” good parenting salute for him, too?
In case you don’t follow my Twitter account – and why aren’t you? – here’s something I tweeted that no doubt made some people’s heads explode with rage. Good.
The media’s attempts to defend and protect liberal politicians at all costs has led once-respected news outlets to try to whitewash Rep. Ilham Omar’s disgusting anti-Semitic comments by parroting her feeble excuse that she was merely criticizing political donations from a particular pro-Israel lobby – one that, incidentally, does not give direct donations to candidates.
If you want to see how far these liberal media outlets have lowered themselves, check this out and see if you can tell which one comes from KKK grand wizard David Duke and which one comes from the New York Times.
Colorado’s Governor says he’ll sign a bill to join New York, Illinois and all the New England states except New Hampshire in an attempt to circumvent the Electoral College by insuring that the state’s electors vote for the winner of the national popular vote, no matter which candidate wins Colorado. This is touted as a victory for democracy, but it’s actually an attempt to undermine the Constitution, destroy our republican form of government and allow a handful of densely-populated blue states to choose all future Presidents.
Like suicide, this is a permanent solution to a temporary problem: whenever Democrats lose, they think the election must have been rigged. They blame Trump’s victory on the Electoral College, so it must go. Of course, if a Democrat had lost the popular vote and won the Electoral College, they’d be telling us how important the EC is to assuring all states have a voice in choosing our leaders. I wonder how they’ll feel if a Democrat wins those blue states with big electoral vote totals, but the Republican wins the popular majority? Then they’ll be telling us how outrageously unfair their own reform is.
The fact is, the Electoral College didn’t thwart democracy in the last election. It was designed to insure that people in every state felt they were being represented. Hillary Clinton had such open disdain for blue collar workers that she wouldn’t even campaign in rust belt states where they were hurting. They didn’t feel she would represent them, so they voted for Trump instead. In short, the Electoral College worked precisely the way it is supposed to.
I try not to fall for the trap of commenting on every jaw-dropping statement by “Democratic” socialist media darling Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez because there are other stories to cover and, frankly, I’d just be doing that all day. But there are two AOC-related stories today that cry out for public exposure. One is funny but revealing. The other, potentially monumental.
Funny one first: Everything AOC knows about economics she must’ve learned from Boston University professors, because her mom obviously knows a lot more about the real world than she does. In an interview with the Daily Mail, her mother, who likes to be known as “BOC” (for Blanca Ocasio-Cortez, not Blue Oyster Cult) freely admitted that she fled New York for Florida to escape the high taxes in the deep blue state.
While her daughter thinks taxes should be even higher, her mom said, “I was paying $10,000 a year in real estate taxes up north. I’m paying $600 a year in Florida. It’s stress-free down here.”
Notice how she not only fled New York like many others to escape high taxes, but she associates those taxes with “stress” – stress put on her by liberal policies, even though she’s hardly a “billionaire.”
Before AOC starts saying, “Moooom! You’re embarrassing me!” it should be noted that BOC also defended her daughter by saying, “She wasn’t raised to be a socialist. That’s not how Puerto Ricans are. She’s a Democratic socialist, and it’s very different.” Congratulations to AOC for managing to pull the wool over her mom’s eyes about “Democratic” socialism, the same way some daughters convince their moms that their boyfriend isn’t a “hood,” he’s a good Christian boy who just happens to like leather and motorcycles.
But now, we turn to the potentially major serious news. I halfway defended AOC recently when she came under fire for possible campaign finance violations, because I had a futile hope that maybe it would make her see how easy it is to weaponize confusing federal laws and regulations. We say we want people who are political outsiders to go to Washington, but when one actually breaks through like Trump, his opponents immediately start combing through everything he ever did, trying to find some obscure federal rule he broke when he never even imagined he’d ever enter politics. I’d hoped that getting that kind of scrutiny might make AOC more sympathetic to the argument that we have too many regulations. Apparently, it hasn’t.
But now, it seems as if the complaints of campaign finance irregularities against her might be far more serious than they first appeared. She might have been able to deflect the questions about her staff salaries, her living arrangements and her boyfriend’s paycheck by claiming she was being unfairly harassed. But this story about her top aide allegedly funneling over $1 million in donations to his private company is the kind of thing that makes the feds really take notice.
Still, that was just about her staffer. This latest investigation by the Daily Caller reports that AOC herself and that same staffer controlled a PAC that raised $1.8 million to fund leftist candidates in 2018 and was the driving force behind her primary victory, and their control of it was never disclosed to the FEC. Having a campaign and a PAC under common control with the PAC funding the campaign, while also accepting donations in excess of what’s allowed to candidates, could potentially mean multiple violations of federal campaign finance law punishable by stiff fines and up to five years in prison.
There are more details at this link:
It’s also going to be hard to dispute, when the DC has a screen grab of the PAC’s website listing AOC and her aide as being the two board members with legal control of the entity, which is surely the dumbest move since Jussie Smollett allegedly paid for a fake hate crime with a personal check.
AOC had best hope that her leftist media adulation is at least as great as Hillary Clinton’s because that’s apparently what it takes to flout federal law that badly and walk away scot-free.
LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!