I appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show last night with radio host Larry Elder (you can see it here if you missed it):
At the link is a typically excellent column by Larry, which contains some news from last year you might not have heard. It’s bad for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but even worse for America: AOC can’t go back to her old job because the popular New York City spot where she used to tend bar went out of business due to the new $15 minimum wage law she supports.
From the “One Finger Pointing at Others, Three Back at You” Desk: California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell retweeted a CNN story about Vladimir Putin cracking down on journalists who spread “fake news” or show disrespect for officials. Naturally, he declared that he would do everything possible to stop that from happening here, “but you better believe (President Trump) will try. Not on our watch!”
That prompted many Republicans’ new favorite Congress member, Dan Crenshaw, to tweet his agreement with defending the First Amendment, but with this reminder:
“Truth is, we’ve been worried ever since: 1. Obama ACTUALLY put journalists under investigation (Not threatened on Twitter. Actually did it.) 2. Dems have been urging limits to speech on social media platforms. That said, I’d march with ya.”
Aside from the much-needed reminder of how Obama really did spy on reporters (and refused to answer questions from Fox News reporters; remember that tactic for which the media cheered Obama’s moxie, but lambasted Trump when he banned a CNN reporter for acting like a total jerk?), this also raises another interesting point:
We’ve been hearing for over two years now how Trump was going to institute fascist controls on the media. He would be Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Kim Jong-Un all rolled into one, imposing censorship and putting hostile reporters into concentration camps. Yet so far, the extent of his retribution against reporters has been to complain about them on Twitter (whose founder has actually discussed censoring Trump.)
From the 93% negative news coverage to the nightly assaults on him and his family on the late night former “comedy” shows, it’s obvious that these media figures feel no trepidation whatsoever in saying anything they want about Trump, no matter how nasty. I’m starting to suspect that their dire warnings about what a threat Trump is to their free speech might be the biggest “fake news” story of them all.
While Democrats claim to be ready to man the barricades against Trump’s nonexistent assault on the First Amendment (I wish they were half as fired up about protecting our actual borders), at least one of their Presidential candidates is calling for an official government press monitoring office, and some people think it’s a swell idea. Here’s Matthew Walther, writing in The Week about Andrew Yang and his wonderfully detailed policy positions on virtually every subject under the sun:
“There is more decency and common sense in some of Yang's paragraphs than I have come across in years of listening to politicians of either party. Hate fake news? Yang has proposed the creation of a ‘news and information ombudsman,’ a kind of imperial fact-checker who would award media liars heavy fines instead of Pinocchios.”
If that doesn't send a chill up your spine, check your pulse to see if you're still alive. He wants to appoint government bureaucrats to monitor the media and heavily fine reporters they decide are “liars” (in liberal parlance, the term “liar” means “anyone who expresses an opinion or fact I don’t like hearing.”)
But that’s not all: Walther also likes Yang’s idea of public funding for local newspapers. I hate to see independent local newspapers disappearing, too, but if a paper depends on federal money for its existence, how long do you think it will remain an independent local newspaper?
All you have to do with this (as with so many other outrageous, unconstitutional power grabs proposed by the Democrats) is to imagine what the Democrats would say if Trump proposed it. If Trump ever actually suggested creating a government body that would fine media outlets for running “fake news,” they’d be screaming “Impeachment!” before he could finish the sentence.
Even though it would be a great way to pay off the national debt.
The go-to excuse of the left for wanting to destroy or change every American institution that might keep them from winning an election and ruling without challenge is that these institutions are “racist” and the Founders who created them were racist. The latest is the claim that the Electoral College was created to protect slavery and slave states.
At the link, something you won’t find in the Democratic Presidential field – an expert on American history – explains that “nothing could be further from the truth.” The real reason -- to protect smaller states from the tyranny of larger states -- is just as valid today as it was then, maybe even more so with so many states moving to give away their Electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote, even if that candidate isn’t on their state’s ballot.
By the way, there are now 12 states representing 181 electors that have signed onto that deal. Before it actually has an effect on the 2020 election and sparks a Constitutional crisis, some conservative organization needs to file a legal challenge. It’s not only an obvious attempt to get around the Constitutional requirements for federal elections, it’s also a violation of equal protection for state legislators to give away their constituents’ right to have a say in the Presidential election to voters in other states.
I thought liberals were the ones who were so worked up about everyone being able to vote and have a say in elections. Unless you vote the “wrong way,” and then they’ll give your Electoral votes away to New York and California.
Question for all the atheists online who like to think they’re smarter than people of faith because they don’t believe in some “flying spaghetti monster in the sky” (like “Faux News,” a worn-out web cliché that some people think makes them sound witty when they repeat it for the 20 trillionth time):
Do you think you’re smarter than award-winning Brazilian theoretical physicist Marcelo Gleiser, author of five books and hundreds of articles on everything from climate change to black holes to the human conscience? Because this is what he has to say about atheism:
"Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against. I'll keep an open mind because I understand that human knowledge is limited."
Gleiser also had some words for "extremely arrogant" scientists who claim they’ve explained the universe and debunked religion: “When you hear very famous scientists making pronouncements like…cosmology has explained the origin of the universe and the whole, and we don't need God anymore. That's complete nonsense. Because we have not explained the origin of the universe at all."
There’s more at the link. People who appreciate challenging ideas and viewpoints should definitely read it. Why do I suspect that that will include far more people of faith than it does atheists?
Kudos to Sen. Marco Rubio for doing for the Democrats' Supreme Court-stacking scheme what Mitch McConnell did for the Green New Deal: infuriate its supporters by forcing them to go on record as supporting it.
A number of Democrats, including Presidential hopefuls Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and “Beto” O’Rourke, have voiced support for expanding the SCOTUS from nine to 11 Justices if they regain power, so they can appoint more liberal activists and negate the current conservative tilt. As with their assaults on the Electoral College, Democrats want to alter or dismantle any institution that might stand in the way of them getting what they want.
Rubio says that to counter this dangerous assault on our fundamental institutions of government, he will introduce a Constitutional Amendment to fix the number of SCOTUS Justices at nine. The Constitution allows Congress to set the number of Justices, but it’s been nine for 150 years.
As noted in the linked article, President Franklin Roosevelt tried this same scam back in 1937 to try to get his "New Deal" programs past the SCOTUS, but the public strongly opposed it and even a Democratic Congress refused to pass it (some Democrats back then still had respect for American institutions.) Any Democrats who want to side with FDR today can go on record by opposing Rubio’s amendment.
President Trump says he will never allow this as long as he’s President, but of course, Democrats hope to do it after he leaves. Several Republicans have half-jokingly suggested that Trump propose expanding the Supreme Court himself. Imagine the fiery speeches against it that Democrats would make if Trump tried to do it, and the heartburn they would suffer from eating their words if they then try to do it themselves after he’s gone.
New Jersey residents, already laboring under one of the heaviest tax burdens in America, now have a new problem to worry about: Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy just signed the so-called “rain tax” into law. Supporters say it’s really a rain run-off tax, because taxing rain as it rolls off your driveway sounds so much more reasonable than taxing rain as it falls out of the sky
Of course, California can’t let this challenge to its status as America’s pioneer of finding new things to tax go unanswered. So California Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing a statewide tax on drinking water.
I’ll let you write your own jokes about how California taxpayers have already been “wrung dry.”
This all puts me in mind of the Beatles song, “Taxman,” by George Harrison, inspired by the confiscatory British tax rates that forced everyone who was successful to flee the UK the way they’re now fleeing blue states like California and New Jersey:
“If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet...”
For most of us, that’s a classic rock song. For leaders of blue states, it’s a public policy blueprint.
“Beto” O’Rourke is already getting famous for waving his arms around like…well, like this (and no, this is not his first TV campaign ad, although it looks like it):
One would think that being 6’4” and waving your arms around like pinwheels would be enough to get people’s attention, but he also has an unhygienic habit of jumping up on restaurant tables and bars with his dirty shoes. That’s really starting to gross out food service workers.
Then again, if you care about hygienic food, you probably shouldn’t come within 20 feet of “Beto.” (Warning: this next story may put you off of guacamole permanently.)
Maybe all this studied weirdness is deliberate, to deflect from the growing impression that “Beto” is an empty denim shirt. He’s so bereft of principles and unwilling to take a stand that he won't even commit to whether he wants soy cheese on his veggie burger. He defers to others on everything, even refusing to say whether he thinks aborting a third trimester baby is wrong and leaving that up to the mother to choose.
He almost seems proud of having no concrete principles, and actually said that he will listen to the American people and let them “mold” him. Wow, there’s the guy who want to send into hard-nosed negotiations with Russia or China! And you thought Obama’s “leading from behind” philosophy was spineless. Compared to "Gumby” O'Rourke, Obama was Gen. George S. Patton.
A frustrated Penn State University student pressed O’Rourke to name “an actual policy” he supports, anything other than just “platitudes and stories.” In response, he mentioned “Medicare for America,” an idea proposed by some female House colleagues, explaining that if you have employer-based insurance you like, you can keep it, but if not, you can sign up for Medicare.
So please note that when asked to name one policy of his, he offered someone else’s idea and promised that if you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan. I know Millennials have short attention spans, but are they really so short that doesn’t sound at all familiar?
“Border Emergency? What Border Emergency?” Homeland Security reports that the number of people attempting to illegally cross the Mexican border into the US is on track to top 100,000 in March.
And just to make it clear that having an open border with Mexico is as smart as leaving your front door open in Chicago, a new report that examined cities by the number of homicides per 100,000 residents ranks Tijuana as the world’s most violent city. That’s largely because of the drug gangs that are, of course, trying to bring their drugs across the border. In fact, four Mexican cities are in the top five most violent, with 15 in the top 50, more than any other nation on Earth.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering, the sole non-Mexican city in the top five most violent is #3: Caracas, Venezuela. Debate among yourselves as to which is the worst liberal idea: open borders or socialism?
LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!