Advertisement

Bernie's new rights

February 26, 2020

With a few rare and now-gone voices of sanity, such as John Delaney, the Democratic Primary has largely resembled a Bizarro World auction where the participants bid against one another to see who can give away the most stuff for “free.”

“Free” is in quotes because, as every child should be taught and obviously, far too few are these days, there is no such thing as a “free lunch.” That’s been true since the dawn of time, and putting the word “Democratic” in front of “socialism” won’t change it, any more than calling useless and counter-productive gun laws "common sense" will make them common sense. Not even the schools’ “free lunch” program is free: taxpayers pay a lot for it, and the money often comes with government strings attached. Or a “quid pro quo,” to coin a phrase.

Just last night, Tom Steyer added paying reparations for slavery to the list, and earlier, Bernie Sanders tossed another new expensive “human right” on the pile: a $1.2 trillion plan called “Free Child Care and Pre-K for All.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/bernie-sanders-unveils-free-childcare-plan-eye-popping-price-tag-1-5-trillion/

Personally, I can think of few ideas more chilling than every child from the age of three being put into an “education program” designed by Bernie Sanders. But I suppose we should be thankful that the cost of this one is “only” $1.2 trillion, or a little less than 1/4th of the entire current federal budget, rather than his typical plan that costs the entire US GDP.

I know that child care is very important. It’s a real problem for many low-income working people, and the government might have a role to play, although it should be on the state or local level, or better yet, handled by community organizations and churches. But spending nearly a quarter of the entire federal budget to create a new “human right” to free daycare is what passes in Bernie’s mind for “common sense” government action that isn’t “radical” at all.

I know that Bernie knows the word “privilege” because when he recently declared health care to be a “human right,” he added, “It is not a privilege!” I’ve written before about how “progressives” can’t win arguments on facts or experience, so they win by rewriting the language (for instance, liberals, leftists, socialists and communists became too infamous as purveyors of tragically failed policies, so they magically became “progressives.”)

But some of us still care about the English language, and how words actually mean things. As children used to be taught, a “right” is something you are endowed with by God, such as the right to free speech. It doesn’t require anyone else giving up their rights to provide it to you. Making a speech in a public park is a “right.” Demanding that the government provide you with a free P.A. system is a “privilege.” Just as demanding that other people attend medical school or deal with government paperwork to spend their time caring for you while others pay higher taxes to cover the cost makes that a “privilege.” You may say that you think health care should be a privilege of citizenship, but by definition, it can never be a “right.” Bernie goes around finding new “rights” the way my grandkids find Easter eggs, but they don’t have a "right" to chocolate eggs: that’s a privilege of me being their grandpa.

And as long as I’m offering a remedial primer on rights, I’d also like to point out that the Bill of Rights doesn’t list rights the government gives to you. It lists rights with which God endows you and that the government has no right to take away from you.

With a few rare and now-gone voices of sanity, such as John Delaney, the Democratic Primary has largely resembled a Bizarro World auction where the participants bid against one another to see who can give away the most stuff for “free.”

“Free” is in quotes because, as every child should be taught and obviously, far too few are these days, there is no such thing as a “free lunch.” That’s been true since the dawn of time, and putting the word “Democratic” in front of “socialism” won’t change it, any more than calling useless and counter-productive gun laws "common sense" will make them common sense. Not even the schools’ “free lunch” program is free: taxpayers pay a lot for it, and the money often comes with government strings attached. Or a “quid pro quo,” to coin a phrase.

Just last night, Tom Steyer added paying reparations for slavery to the list, and earlier, Bernie Sanders tossed another new expensive “human right” on the pile: a $1.2 trillion plan called “Free Child Care and Pre-K for All.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/bernie-sanders-unveils-free-childcare-plan-eye-popping-price-tag-1-5-trillion/

Personally, I can think of few ideas more chilling than every child from the age of three being put into an “education program” designed by Bernie Sanders. But I suppose we should be thankful that the cost of this one is “only” $1.2 trillion, or a little less than 1/4th of the entire current federal budget, rather than his typical plan that costs the entire US GDP.

I know that child care is very important. It’s a real problem for many low-income working people, and the government might have a role to play, although it should be on the state or local level, or better yet, handled by community organizations and churches. But spending nearly a quarter of the entire federal budget to create a new “human right” to free day care is what passes in Bernie’s mind for “common sense” government action that isn’t “radical” at all.

I know that Bernie knows the word “privilege” because when he recently declared health care to be a “human right,” he added, “It is not a privilege!” I’ve written before about how “progressives” can’t win arguments on facts or experience, so they win by rewriting the language (for instance, liberals, leftists, socialists and communists became too infamous as purveyors of tragically failed policies, so they magically became “progressives.”)

But some of us still care about the English language, and how words actually mean things. As children used to be taught, a “right” is something you are endowed with by God, such as the right to free speech. It doesn’t require anyone else giving up their rights to provide it to you. Making a speech in a public park is a “right.” Demanding that the government provide you with a free P.A. system is a “privilege.” Just as demanding that other people attend medical school or deal with government paperwork to spend their time caring for you while others pay higher taxes to cover the cost makes that a “privilege.” You may say that you think health care should be a privilege of citizenship, but by definition, it can never be a “right.” Bernie goes around finding new “rights” the way my grandkids find Easter eggs, but they don’t have a "right" to chocolate eggs: that’s a privilege of me being their grandpa.

And as long as I’m offering a remedial primer on rights, I’d also like to point out that the Bill of Rights doesn’t list rights the government gives to you. It lists rights with which God endows you and that the government has no right to take away from you.

---------------------------------

As liberal media people start to panic at the idea of Bernie Sanders being the nominee, they’re finally starting to do some background research into his previous kooky statements (both the ones we’re all known about for years, and some that are more…exotic.) As they put it at the Instapundit blog, Bernie keeps telling you what he is; you should believe him. Mike Bloomberg reportedly plans to spend some of his riches on blasting this oppo research far and wide, like Bernie’s ideas on child care that should make anyone recoil at the idea of a government day care program created by him.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/bloomberg-spox-rips-bernies-loopy-comments-said-toddlers-should-run-around-naked-and-touch-each-others-genitals/

Even more concerning is Bernie’s admiration for communist dictatorships like Cuba, Nicaragua and the USSR. He claims he doesn’t admire “authoritarianism,” but socialism without authoritarianism would be like trying to make coffee without coffee beans. If the government controls production and decides what choices you get to make (and Bernie is on record as thinking capitalism gives you too many choices of deodorants), then if someone disagrees and wants to make a different choice than what the government approves, somebody has to stop them to protect the “system.” Enter the government guns and gulags.

But Bernie is the eternal optimist, always able to see the daisy growing out of the pile of bull manure. First it was Castro’s “literacy program” (which forced people to read communist propaganda), and now he’s praising communist China for lifting more people out of extreme poverty than any other nation on Earth (too bad about all the genocides, forced sterilizations and destroying of churches.)

https://www.westernjournal.com/sanders-doubles-communist-regime-praise-gives-credit-china-fighting-extreme-poverty/

Actually, it’s socialism and communism that put people into extreme poverty, and capitalism that’s lifted more of them out of it than at any time in history. Even China made the advances they did by allowing limited amounts of capitalist free enterprise (but not too much freedom: see “Hong Kong.”)

Bernie’s go-to model for the US is Denmark, and other “Democratic socialist” Scandinavian nations. But there are things rotten in Denmark, and Bernie just can’t smell them. The problems with his argument include…

(A.) The Nordic nations are not socialist, as their leaders adamantly insist; by some metrics, Denmark has more economic freedom than the US. Norway’s prosperity is largely thanks to off-shore oil wells, which Bernie would surely ban…

(B.) These nations are actually rolling back some of the socialist-lite programs they instituted after realizing they were unaffordable and were eroding their people’s traditional work ethic (if you’ve ever heard the stories about “Norwegian bachelor farmers” and Lutherans on “Prairie Home Companion,” you know that if socialism won’t work on Scandinavians, who are raised to work hard and expect little in return, then it won’t work anywhere.)

(C.) The image of all those Danes who are happy as larks to pay exorbitant taxes in return for those amazing government services is a delusional fiction. Read this commentary from the Bookworm Room blog, on a book written by someone who’s lived there. Example: under that fantastic Danish government health care, the author visited an emergency care center and was told he’d have to make an appointment.

https://www.bookwormroom.com/2020/02/23/the-truth-behind-bernies-shtick-that-he-just-wants-to-make-america-like-denmark/

One of the comments on this story includes a great quote. The writer says that when the media were touting Denmark as the “happiest place on Earth” (they’re actually #2 in Europe behind Iceland in anti-depressant consumption), he met a Danish couple applying for US citizenship. When he asked why the Danes they were leaving behind were were so happy, she replied, “Because their expectations are so low.”

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to replace “Keep America Great” with “Lower Your Expectations.”

-----------------------------------

The stock market is taking a dive this week amid fears of the coronavirus spreading (or as President Trump called it, “a buying opportunity.”) It’s too early to know just how bad this could become, but it’s also too early to be launching panics over it. Here’s a little information that might help put things in perspective.

https://www.westernjournal.com/numbers-show-coronavirus-appears-far-less-deadly-flu-govt-media-keep-promoting-panic/

A reader comment on my report of the violent death of Philip Haney listed numerous eyebrow-raising connections among Clinton/Obama cronies, media people, and powerful leftists. Many of these are known and have been documented, but there were a few curious ones we’d never heard before and decided to check out. Case in point: the one at the top of the list, a claim that Adam Schiff’s sister had married George Soros.

Actually, since George Soros is extremely old –- you’d have to saw him in half and count the rings to know for sure just how ancient –- the more plausible version of this claim is that Adam Schiff’s sister had married Soros’ SON. And, as it turns out, this version has made the rounds online as well. Is either of these stories true?

It’s tempting to believe this, because if Schiff had a Soros connection, it would explain a lot. While looking to see what might have been written about it, we encountered the question on a website called TruthOrFiction.com, which describes itself as “a non-partisan website where Internet users can quickly and easily get information about eRumors, fake news, disinformation, warnings, offers, requests for help, myths, hoaxes, virus warnings, and humorous or inspirational stories that are circulated by email.” Its mission is “to debunk propaganda, disinformation and misinformation, offer context and nuance to help you better understand where to look next, and trace the effects of so-called ‘fake news’ around the world so you can better understand how to tell the real from the false.”

https://www.truthorfiction.com/about/

A worthy goal, wouldn’t you say? As for the Schiff story, they note that George Soros’ son is indeed married to someone whose maiden name is Schiff, but, based on the 1992 wedding announcement, her parents have different given names from Adam Schiff’s parents. (Hard to imagine Adam Schiff having parents, isn't it?) Conclusion: different Schiff. It did occur to me that they don’t address the possibility that there is some more distant familial connection, such as a cousin. It would have been interesting to find that out, but since it wasn’t the exact rumor being addressed and would surely require a LOT of research that we honestly don’t have time for, we left it at that.

As you know, I’m all for sorting out and exposing fake news. But in its effort to do so, at least in this case, the self-described “non-partisan” Truth Or Fiction has actually helped perpetuate it. First, they offered their explanation as to why the false rumors about Schiff had started circulating: it was to discredit him “as congressional investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians heated up in February 2018.” Schiff, they said, had “authored a ‘rebuttal’ to a memo authored by U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, a California Republican and chairman of the committee...Schiff’s oppositional role made him a natural target for conspiracy theories and fake news designed by some to erode his credibility.”

But what this “fact-checking” organization fails to mention is that Schiff’s “rebuttal,” not Nunes’ memo, is the one that has been debunked, as Schiff eroded his own credibility with his outrageous lying. In his memo, Schiff himself was offering conspiracy theories and fake news, and Truth Or Fiction, if their mission truly is debunking fake news, has missed a great opportunity to point that out. It’s Nunes’ memo that is correct. If Truth Or Fiction is there to provide “context and nuance,” they could have done that here.

They mentioned that Trump tweeted about the Nunes memo at the time that it “totally vindicates” him in the Russia investigation. What they didn’t say is that Trump was right about that.

To be scrupulously fair, we might give them a small benefit of the doubt, as follows: Since the date on this Q&A is February 6, 2018, it’s likely they misread what was going on in the Trump/Russia investigation at the time (perhaps because of...partisanship?) and didn’t realize SCHIFF was lying out the rear end to create fake news and that Nunes and Trump were presenting real news. Now that we know Schiff lied, and since the internet is forever, it would be nice to see Truth Or Fiction go back to this page and provide an update on their answer, rather than perpetuate the implication that Republicans needed to make up false rumors to discredit him. Just a footnote, perhaps, to provide “nuance.” Something. In the interest of real news, of course.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/rep-adam-schiffs-sister-married-george-soros-son-fiction/

The South Carolina Debate

February 26, 2020

Today is Ash Wednesday, and yesterday was Fat Tuesday. But in honor of the Democratic debate, it was renamed “Body Positivity Tuesday.”

If you had last night’s Democratic debate on in the background, between all the yelling, talking over each other, badmouthing Trump and audience applause for crazy socialist ideas, you might have mistaken it for a prime time episode of “The View.”

I could link to a video of the entire debate for you to watch, but I have a reputation as a nice guy, and that would blow it. So here’s a Washington Post recap that offers the “highlights” (all three-and-a-half minutes of them, which is pretty generous):

https://youtu.be/89dstGVVU10

Here’s a fairly dispassionate recap by the Daily Caller:

https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/25/dem-debate-biden-south-carolina/

And here’s PJ Media’s reliably sharp and brutally funny live blog:

https://pjmedia.com/blog/liveblogevent/liveblogging-the-south-carolina-democratic-debate/

With most of the candidates yelling at each other, talking over one another and completely ignoring the time limits (the moderators were about as effective as substitute teachers at Rock ‘n’ Roll High School), precious few moments of substance made it past the din. In short, they’re going to make the economy a whole lot better than it is now (with record low unemployment and 90% of Americans happy with their lives) but they’re not specific on how…They’re going to provide us with everything free and it will pay for itself…And Trump is very bad; very, very bad indeed, and they’re going to be a lot better than him.

The closest they came to discussing a real issue came after they’d all attacked Trump for allegedly failing to stop the spread of the coronavirus, and Amy Klobuchar was asked if she would block people with the disease from the entering the US. She dodged the question, presumably because it would have forced her to side with Trump and suggest that not everyone in the world has a right to waltz across our borders. Then she might have had to concede Trump is right that we shouldn’t let people with exotic Central American diseases bring them here, either. By dodging the question, she signaled that Democrats, for all their bluster about Trump’s handling of the coronavirus, would rather let it become a pandemic in the US that secure our borders against anyone.

A few other “highlights” included Bernie Sanders claiming his massive, budget-busting socialist ideas aren't "radical" at all, and Mike Bloomberg committing a “faux pas,” which I’ve defined before as a politician accidentally telling the truth. He was bragging about how he’d given $100 million to help elect the new House Democrats who voted to impeach Trump, and added, “I bought--- I got them.” No wonder he thinks he can buy this election; he figures he already bought quite a few, so what’s one more?

https://pjmedia.com/election/watch-mike-bloombergs-freudian-slip-i-bought-i-got-them-elected/

Elizabeth Warren went after Bloomberg over a claim that he once told a pregnant employee to “kill it.” She also reminded us that she lost a teaching job for being pregnant (the records show she was offered a new contract, but turned it down, but who are you gonna believe, her or some old employee records?) This was stunning, considering she and everyone else on that stage is a staunch promoter of abortion right up to, and in some cases beyond, the moment of birth. And incidentally, a baby isn’t an “it,” it is a “he” or a “she.” Sorry, but that’s binary.

(On that subject, CNN seems to believe there’s a yuuuuuge difference between a baby and a “fetus that was born during an abortion.” If the “fetus” survives, how long will they call it a “fetus”? Will “it” still be a fetus when it graduates college?)

https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/25/cnn-baby-abortion-fetus-that-was-born/

Joe Biden actually had a pretty good night, by his standards. Supporters were concerned because he often goes off talking gibberish, and on the eve of the debate, he told voters he was running for the United States Senate, and if you don’t like him, “vote for the other Biden.” No, really…

https://www.westernjournal.com/biden-announces-running-senate-south-carolina-leaves-voters-worried/

But be fair: is that any worse than the stuff said by all the others on stage last night? That was a lot of gibberish, too; it was just glib gibberish. It was glibberish.

Joe didn’t get many words in, but at least he appeared more adult than the others by actually observing the time limits. He even had the best moment of the entire debate when he stopped in mid-rant when his time ran out, then asked, “Why am I stopping? No one else stops. It’s my Catholic school training.”

Unfortunately, he undid a lot of that good will with an epic Bidenism, by claiming that since 2007, 150 million people have been killed by guns. I have a feeling we would have noticed that, since it’s about 40% of the entire US population. That’s almost as many people as Thanos wiped out in “Avengers: End Game.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/according-biden-guns-killed-people-since-2007-communism-killed-20th-century/

In fact, there are about 30,000 gun-related deaths in the US per year. Of course, that’s 30,000 too many. But about two-thirds are suicides, and removing guns likely wouldn’t prevent them. Many of the rest are gang-related shootings in deep blue cities with strict gun control laws.

This debate is being called the last primary debate that will matter, since the rest fall after Super Tuesday on March 3rd, and the frontrunner will likely be set. Ordinarily, that might be true, but with the field so fractured, candidates hanging on even after the media declare them dead, and voters seemingly looking for “None of the Above” (Bloomberg obviously hopes to fill that slot, although Hillary might be dreaming of swooping in to take it herself), this could stay up in the air all the way to a brokered convention. Which, sadly, means my staff and I will probably have to watch the final debate on March 15th.

Although scheduling it on the Ides of March, the day when Julius Caesar was knifed in the back by a bunch of politicians, could be an omen of what might happen to whoever the frontrunner is at that point.

A P.S. on Tuesday’s Democratic debate: having just spent the past week in Israel, allow me to say the following on that subject…

1. No, Prime Minister Netanyahu is not a “reactionary racist,” and anyone who says that is demonstrating either vicious slander or gross ignorance. Looking at you, Bernie.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-s-top-diplomat-slams-horrifying-sanders-comment-calling-netanyahu-racist-1.8590906

2. Yes, it IS up to us to decide where our Embassy in Israel will be located. President Trump had the courage to finally put it in the correct place, after other Presidents had long promised to and failed to act. Elizabeth Warren obviously disapproves, but doesn’t even have the courage to say so. Which one sounds more “presidential” to you?

AOC's double standard

February 25, 2020

“If It Weren’t For Double Standards…” Dept: A few years ago, before entering politics, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez bragged on social media about somehow being able to get her goddaughter into a good charter school, something that liberals like her want to abolish because they think private education alternatives to public schools undermine the power of teachers’ unions. Needless to say, they also undermine the school’s ability to indoctrinate students with leftist curricula because they empower parents.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/the-aoc-tapes-rep-says-she-got-goddaughter-into-bronx-charter-school

I have never understood why anyone would think that the public school system should prioritize protecting teachers’ unions over the good of the students (but then, I don’t belong to a political party that’s heavily dependent on money and campaign volunteers from teachers’ unions.) The only purpose of a school should be to give the students the best education possible, and if it’s failing to do that, then something needs to change.

As hypocritical as this story makes AOC sound, though, I have to cut her some slack. I don’t blame her for wanting her goddaughter to have the best education possible. In fact, I want that child to go to a good charter school with a real economics class that won’t teach her to be a socialist. And AOC is hardly the only liberal politician to preach public schools for everyone else while sending their own family to expensive private schools. Frankly, I can’t think offhand of any liberal politicians who did send their kids to public school (you’re welcome to list them in the comments section if you know of any. And Elizabeth Warren’s denials don’t count.)

It’s only natural to want the best education possible for your own family. I just wish they'd quit fighting so hard to deny that right to other people's children.

I have been working from Israel this week, where I gave a speech on Monday promoting the reelection of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I described him, I think quite accurately, as not just a leader of Israel but a leader of the world, a Churchill in a world filled with Chamberlains.

Video of that speech has now been posted on Facebook, and I hope you’ll give it a look. Outside of our own elections, this is one of the most important elections to the US, since it will determine the future of our greatest ally in an area of the world where we need a strong ally like Israel to keep the peace. Netanyahu will insure that Israel remains strong.

https://www.facebook.com/LikudAnglos/videos/vb.157560110960960/246748056324121/?type=2&thea

And as a timely reminder to American voters, one of the Democrats’ leading Presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish himself, refused to attend next week’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) conference. He accused Israel of “bigotry” against the Palestinians for acts that amount to nothing more than basic self-defense.

Just hours after Sanders made those comments, Palestinian terrorists launched a rocket attack in the Israeli city of Sderot near the Gaza Strip. The rockets narrowly missed a Jewish school and damaged a playground just a few yards from the classrooms. Several people were treated for shock, but miraculously, no one was injured as there were no children on the playground. Not that the people who fired those rockets cared, since they would have celebrated any injuries to or deaths of innocent Jewish children.

https://www.westernjournal.com/hours-bernie-defends-palestinians-palestinians-shoot-rocket-israeli-playground/

I think Bernie Sanders and I have a very different definition of “bigotry.”

--------------------

Many stunning photos have appeared from the President and First Lady’s tour of India, and as usual, there have been comments about Melania Trump’s fashions. She’s a former model and incredibly stylish, so I think she always looks fantastic, but there are also the usual catty, snotty remarks from liberals.

Some people complain that there’s too much coverage of how Mrs. Trump dresses, that it’s either too laudatory or demeaning and sexist. So Fox News did a poll. They found that the public is split, with 37% saying media coverage of her looks and styles has been fair, 35% saying it’s been too negative and 9% saying coverage of her fashions has been “too positive.”

Here’s my question: who are the 9% who think that coverage of Melania Trump by the fashion media is “too positive”? Fashion magazines are so lockstep leftist that three long years into her tenure as one of the most beautiful and fashionable First Ladies in history, I can’t think of a single major women's or fashion magazine that’s put her on its cover even once. It’s absolutely shameful, and a perfect example of how the editors of these magazines prioritize leftist politics over fashion or fairness to the point of acting like a gaggle of high school mean girls with big expense accounts. They’d rather put Lena Dunham on a fashion magazine cover than Melania Trump. And that’s “too positive” for some people?

I just want them to know that we all know that has nothing to do with fashion. We are well aware that if Melania were married to a liberal Democrat President, they’d be worshiping her like she was the second coming of Princess Diana. When they attack her fashion choices or act as if she doesn't exist, they aren't fooling anyone other than themselves.

---------------------------------

There are two prominent names in this morning’s obituaries. Hosni Mubarak, the former strongman leader of Egypt who rule for 30 years before being deposed in 2011, has died in a Cairo hospital at 91 after undisclosed surgery.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/hosni-mubarak-egypts-former-autocratic-president-dead-at-91-report

And former NASA mathematician Katherine Johnson has died at 101. She was one of a group of African-American women whose genius at math helped build the US space program. Their contributions went unrecognized for many years until their story was finally told in the book and 2016 movie, “Hidden Figures.” A big Huck’s Hero salute and the gratitude of all Americans to Katherine Johnson, and our prayers and condolences to her family.

https://www.westernjournal.com/nasa-mathematician-depicted-hidden-figures-katherine-johnson-passed-away-age-101/

-----------------------------

Pot, Meet Kettle: While Elizabeth Warren was blasting Mike Bloomberg for having female employees sign non-disclosure agreements, the Democratic Party was trying to keep the media from learning about any potential disasters in the Nevada Caucuses by requiring volunteers to sign…non-disclosure agreements!

https://www.westernjournal.com/bernies-win-nevada-caucuses-rocky-start-democrats-telling-volunteers-not-talk-media/

---------------------------

Okay, I said I wasn’t going to run all of these “foaming-at-the-mouth leftists attack innocent Trump supporters” stories every day because there are so many of them, it would be all we ever got done. But to that anonymous Internet commenter who started this by claiming that most politically-motivated violence was perpetrated by people on the right, I can’t help adding this one.

https://www.westernjournal.com/couple-charged-felony-allegedly-running-boys-bikes-trump-flags-off-road/

Two details worth highlighting: there have been about 400 politically-motivated violent incidents against Trump supporters since September 2015 (those are just the ones that were reported; and it doesn’t take into account how many people have felt too threatened even to wear a MAGA cap or put a Trump sticker on their car or a sign in their yard, which is a blatant violation of their right to free speech.)

Also, note that this cowardly assault took place back in July but is only now coming to light because it took three months for Snapchat to turn the video over to police in response to a search warrant. Funny how when a Trump supporter posts a joke or meme that a leftist doesn’t like and they claim to feel “threatened” by it, social media sites somehow manage to take action overnight.

Sotomayor dissents

February 25, 2020

I told you yesterday about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing a much-ballyhooed dissent in the “public charge” immigration ban case. Her major gripe was that the Trump Administration calls on the SCOTUS too often to make emergency rulings rather than let challenges to its policies work their way through the courts. Trump defenders (myself included) pointed out that this is because so many liberal activist judges keep imposing unconstitutional nationwide stays that are beyond their jurisdictions, in a politicized attempt to thwart policies that the President has the Constitutional power to impose and hog-tie his Administration. The problem here is not an out-of-control White House, but an out-of-control judiciary.

Now, as you knew he would, Trump himself has weighed in on Twitter. He said Sotomayor was accusing some of her fellow Justices of being biased in favor of him and trying to “shame” them into voting her way, but she never criticized Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg when she publicly made anti-Trump comments during the campaign. Trump said both Sotomayor and Ginsberg should recuse themselves from cases involving him, since they’ve both publicly expressed bias against him.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-sotomayor-ginsburg-should-recuse-themselves-from-cases-dealing-with-his-administration

I’m sure this will spark the by-now ritualistic cries of “outrage” from Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself.) That would carry a lot more weight if we didn’t just go through an impeachment process where the same people were demanding that Mitch McConnell recuse himself from voting because he’d publicly supported Trump. Frankly, I assume that in today’s hyper-partisan atmosphere, nobody who isn’t forced by law to recuse him- or herself is ever going to do it.

Hey, speaking of that, Roger Stone’s Obama-appointed judge who praised an outrageously biased juror and accused Stone of things he wasn’t even charged with while sentencing him, just refused to recuse herself and let him have a new judge. Quote:

"If parties could move to disqualify every judge who furrows his brow at one side or the other before ruling, the entire court system would come to a standstill."

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/23/roger-stone-judge-berman-jackson-117066

I don’t think there’s enough Botox in the world to hide a brow that furrowed.

Bernie's dangerous ideas

February 25, 2020

It’s easy to dismiss Bernie Sanders’ grandiose pie-in-the-sky socialist ideas, but now that too many people are actually voting for him, let’s take a look at just how high in the sky his pie is flying (take that, Cole Porter!)

Bernie has been notably vague about how much his socialist transformation of America would cost or how it would be paid for, but like all purveyors of questionable, overpriced goods, he assures the suckers that they will pay for themselves in the long run. Greg Re at Fox News reports that Sanders released a “fact sheet” (quotation marks intentional) Monday night on the financials, and both the costs and his plans for paying them make the mind reel. It’s a ruinous cocktail of massive spending and government expansion into every corner of your life, paid for by a mountain of new taxes, mandates, lawsuits, deep cuts in defense, and wishful thinking.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-payments-green-new-deal-medicare-for-all-explanation

For instance, he claims that the “Green New Deal,” which has been estimated to cost more than $90 trillion over ten years, would actually save $70.4 trillion over 80 years by averting climate catastrophe. No figures are given to back that up, but as Re notes, “the Trump administration's National Climate Assessment found that it was possible climate change could reduce the size of the U.S. economy by 10 percent by the end of the century, assuming no substantial changes in technology (including carbon-reducing innovations) or policy occur in the meantime.”

Aside from stressing the word “possible,” I’ll note that the end of the century is 80 years from now. Do you think there will be no policy changes or substantial changes in technology by then without massive government intervention (incidentally, in socialist nations, that always stymies technological advancement.) Think back to 80 years ago. How many changes in technology have there been since 1940? Today's young people laugh at the technology they see in reruns of "Friends"! And how many of the tech advances since 1940 have been led by the government? Sure, we learned a lot from the space program, but it was the private sector using that data that gave us home computers, smart phones, etc. It was only five months ago that the government finally updated the computers controlling our nuclear weapons systems so they no longer use floppy discs.

https://www.businessinsider.com/military-replaces-floppy-disks-used-to-control-nuclear-weapons-2019-10

Elsewhere, Bernie seems to think there’s an endless supply of super-rich people just waiting around like cows to be milked by the government. Like a communist Old McDonald, he plans to have a wealth tax here and a wealth tax there, oblivious to the fact that people don’t get rich by letting the government take all their money. They will simply shelter it or send it overseas, which will pull it out of productive investments and kill US job creation, reducing federal revenue. But never fear: he’ll stop people from doing what they want with their own money by expanding and empowering the IRS and having a lot more audits (does that make you feel more secure?)

Some other “revenue enhancements” include suing and taxing the daylights out of oil companies (goodbye, affordable gasoline!)…a range of taxes on everybody to pay for “Medicare For All” (but don’t worry, he says this will replace what you currently pay for insurance – but it will also replace the choices you currently have with a one-size-fits-all government health care program)…and a “modest” tax on Wall Street stock and bond transactions that would not only hit everyone with retirement accounts, it also adds up to five times the average online brokerage fee. Ironically, the federal government won’t let brokers charge that much because they’d consider it to be ripping off consumers. But socialists always believe that when the government rips you off, it’s for your own good.

PS – This article also mentions some more blowback on Bernie’s praising of Fidel Castro for implementing a literacy program. Critics say that literacy was already rising in Cuba before Castro’s revolution, and the program he instituted was largely to indoctrinate Cubans by making them read communist propaganda. I wonder if Bernie’s response to that will be “So what’s wrong with reading nothing but communist propaganda?!”

And here’s a little more about what really happened to education in Cuba under the benevolent Castro regime…

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/fabiola-santiago/article240425431.html

 

On the very day Harvey Weinstein, Honorary Lifetime Member of the Casting Couch Hall of Shame, was finally convicted of rape, I have to admit I have incredibly mixed feelings about the #MeToo Movement.

Harvey Weinstein is a sexual thug who as a matter of course coldly abused women just starting out in their chosen profession. Throw the book at him. I wish the same book could be thrown smack in the faces of those who covered for him, as well as the low-lifes who did the same things he did and those who covered up for THEM. This sort of thing is as ubiquitous as plastic surgery in the entertainment business, Weinstein being just a particularly heinous example. Predation happens to both men and women in the acting field, though I’d guess more often to women, who are lucky if they escape the producer in the bathrobe. I’d love for the stereotype of the Hollywood mogul preying on aspiring movie stars to become a relic of a bygone era, like smoking sections in movie theaters.

On the other hand, I heard today that my best-male-friend-other-than-my-spouse has just been tossed out of a local business/community organization because of complaints from women about his behavior. There was no warning, no discussion, just...goodbye. His understanding is that certain women had complained to the leadership that something about his behavior made them uncomfortable.

This man is just about the last person anyone would expect to face an accusation like this. He is deeply religious, has four young-adult daughters he would protect with his life, and respects women so much he won’t even let his language go beyond PG-13 around them.

To show how bewildering it must be to be on the receiving end of such a complaint when one has not knowingly done anything wrong, I’m reprinting, with permission, an excerpt from the letter my friend sent to the group whose leadership has ousted him. I’ve edited out anything that could reveal identities, as that is not the point. This letter illustrates how someone feels who has been wrongly accused. My friend was first notified of his ouster last week, and he responded assuming it was some kind of mistake. Today he officially learned it wasn’t, and he sent the following reply...

Greetings Loved Ones,

This email is a follow-up message to one that I sent last week regarding leaving the Thursday morning group. The reason I sent that message was out of ignorance. I thought it was a mistake. Now I know better.

Today is my birthday. Also today, Harvey Weinstein was convicted of very bad behavior. Additionally, I spoke with *******, who explained to me that I’m being terminated from membership in the ******* because it is alleged that I have had inappropriate behavior and touching with several ladies in the group. Since the only thing I do with ******* is Thursday group, I have to assume that the ladies who’ve accused me are reading this letter. I categorically deny the behavior which I myself abhor. I’ve raised four daughters to adulthood, am a 20 year charter member of *******, have been working with ******* for forty years and been associated with the ******* for four years. Whatever you perceived that I did, it would have been so much better if you’d have just talked to me and given me an opportunity to fix whatever the problem was. I’m sorry if I hurt you in some way. Certainly, it was never my intention.

This kind of problem has the effect of seriously damaging an otherwise good reputation...Since I don’t know who my accusers are, I will never know who will speak badly of me whenever I go anywhere or do anything.

I don’t live or die by the Thursday morning group, and I’ve made some very good friends there, with whom I’ll continue to do business and referrals. As I leave, please don’t turn your back on [the children helped by a charitable organization they support]. They depend on you to be able to live. It’s amazed me that I’ve not had more sponsors come out of the group over the many years I’ve been a member...

God speed to all of you, may your businesses prosper, and may you always remember to love.

Sincerely,

*******

As you can see, the irony of having this happen to him the very day Harvey Weinstein was convicted is not lost on him. (It was also, sadly, my friend’s birthday.) Now, you don’t know this person and can only take my word, but believe me, he would never intentionally make a female colleague uncomfortable. I’ve seen him in social situations many times; he’s naturally friendly and outgoing and might offer a casual hug (with others around) or compliment someone (man or woman) for a stylish dress or cool tie. But this wasn’t a workplace situation; there’s no HR, no posted behavior code for employees. Within hours of sending this letter, he’d already received numerous letters of support from both men and women in the group.

I spoke with him at length about this today, and he understands that perhaps because of past experiences, a woman might be easily made uncomfortable, but he just wishes he could have been made aware, either by the woman herself (“Eh, I’m not really a ‘hug’ person”) or by leadership (“I thought I’d better tell you, there’s been a complaint about you being too outwardly friendly”). He would have respected that and behaved accordingly.

The way this was handled is just wrong, and, as a woman, I’m flat-out embarrassed by it. In the post-feminist age, are we capable of navigating interpersonal situations (at least in cases not involving a job or other power play) or are women fragile little flowers? I can see not wanting to confront one’s boss or attacker, but this innocent, friendly care-bear? Get real. And if the woman is, for whatever reason, too uncomfortable to talk to the person directly, can’t the leadership of this relatively small, local group bring members together to resolve such issues? As disappointed as I am by the women in this situation, that’s nothing compared to the way I feel about how the organization handled it.

So, where does my friend go to get his reputation back? He has no idea who accused him and has no recourse. He’s well aware of how word gets around, and since he’s a member of other, similar groups in the area, he wonders if he’ll be dropped from them, too. Will he be known as “the guy who got kicked out of *****”? Will false rumors spread that he groped women or propositioned them? Will it hurt the very worthwhile charity he supports? Honestly, the longer I go on about this, the madder I get --- probably much madder than the man this happened to, as he’s more forgiving than I am.

Harvey Weinstein is finally going to prison, and that’s a great consequence of the #MeToo movement. But my innocent friend deserved, at most, a heads-up to just be a little more reserved. He did not deserve what happened to him. And that’s a terrible consequence of the #MeToo Movement.