…never happened. Or, as Kentucky Congressman Tom Massie opines…
The absolute knots you must tie yourself into to maintain the formerly approved opinions on Covid origins and mask mandate efficacy and school closures. https://t.co/XAkP1VlFN8
“…The fact is, no one can quite agree on what Ron DeSantis following Donald Trump means. Some who loved Trump’s iconoclastic campaign for president are even more enthusiastic about DeSantis in 2024. They see him as an extension of Trump — more energetic, more competent, and more electable. In some cases, they see him as more populist — on Covid restrictions and vaccines. Other Republicans are going to support DeSantis enthusiastically because for them, DeSantis represents a bridge away from Trump and Trumpism. In their mind he’s a figure who can unite the party. He excites some populist and nationalist Republicans while simultaneously reopening the future leadership of the party to non-populist, non-nationalist factions. At the same time, there are Republicans who still find DeSantis too Trumpy to tolerate. Or not Trumpy enough.
But what if it’s just simpler than all this? I know it’s nuts to posit this, but what if Trump’s “craziness” was an electoral drag? What if that’s what drove people to embrace Ted Cruz as a potential alternative? What if it’s what drove suburban women away from the GOP, since Trump seemed both crude and unstable? What if that explains why Trump did worse among white men in 2020?
What if voters want competence in the execution of policy and administration, and they want someone who demonstrates self-possession?
If all that were true, and we turned our eyes to Ron DeSantis, what would we expect to see?
Well, it might look like Ron DeSantis in 2022 and 2023 — uniting his entire party, holding the affluent suburbs, and even making inroads in the cities while cruising to reelection in a year when other Republicans struggled. It would mean absolutelyeye-popping fundraising numbers. It might mean that the Republican Party can benefit from political realignment on one side of the political spectrum — gaining a larger share of working-class voters of all races, while holding a reunion party on the other side, reaching back into the country clubs, and winning more of the white voters it shed in 2020.
Crazy as it sounds.“
In a related item, the Journal‘s Dan Henninger explores the possibility of…
If Donald Trump and Joe Biden are the 2024 presidential nominees, the West Virginia senator—or someone—will get into the race.
“If Joe Biden and Donald Trump weren’t running, the race to the 2024 presidential election would be the wide-open, competitive contest many Americans say they want and, on the available evidence, aren’t going to get.
Joe Biden looks to have decided he didn’t spend a half century trenching through politics to become a lame duck two years after replacing his I-get-around Corvette with Air Force One. Even most Democrats don’t want him to run, but Mr. Biden has frozen his party’s field—for now.
Mr. Trump as a former president is merely shrinking the GOP field, with former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan saying Sunday he’ll stay out rather than contribute to a Republican “multicar pileup.”
New Hampshire’s high-energy Republican Gov. Chris Sununu said over the weekend he might run, but would get out fast if it was clear in the early primaries he had no chance, rather than let Mr. Trump win as in 2016 against a large, divided field.
What’s halfway between a frozen and fluid field?Slush. Which brings us to Sen. Joe Manchin, politics’ man of mystery...”
Sorry, but we wouldn’t vote Joe Manchin in as West Virginia Pit Bull catcher, let alone President.
Next, also courtesy of the WSJ, Aharon Friedman details why…
The proposed world-wide levy would exempt state-owned entities at the expense of capitalist competitors.
“The U.S. Constitution specifies that Congress, not unelected bureaucrats or foreign adversaries, is in charge of crafting our nation’s tax laws. As the American people awaken to the geopolitical and economic threats posed by the Chinese Communist Party, that protection makes more strategic sense than ever. Yet Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is turning this bedrock principle on its head by writing a global tax code with the help of European bureaucrats that would redound to the benefit of Beijing. If enacted, the new rules would violate international law and harm U.S. security.
So far 142 countries have orally agreed to a global tax code known as Pillar Two. Under the framework developed by the Organization for Economic Coordination and Development, the new code would impose a 15% minimum book tax on large multinational companies. Although Congress has thus far resisted Ms. Yellen’s request to enact Pillar Two, the Treasury secretary is now presenting an ultimatum: Impose the tax increases, or watch foreign countries seize American revenue.
This is because of a central feature of Pillar Two that punishes low-tax nations that don’t comply with its rules. The global tax code does so through its “undertaxed profits rule,” which purports to allow countries to “tax”—that is, to confiscate the assets of—a covered company on the grounds that an affiliate’s taxes are too low in any other country. The global tax code thus eliminates each country’s authority to make its own tax law and prioritizes increased corporate taxation over economic growth. Never mind that such provisions violate international law and existing treaties—including with the U.S.—that prevent countries from taxing activities to which they have no connection. Yet rather than threaten to impose countermeasures on countries that attempt to tax American affiliates, Ms. Yellen is encouraging such taxation as a way to coerce Congress into accepting Pillar Two.
The complex rules benefit low-margin companies and exempt governmental entities carrying out so-called governmental functions. According to the OECD, that’s supposed to be a “broad term,” including public infrastructure and defense. The practical effect of these exemptions is to favor companies that emphasize social activism over profits, as well as state-owned enterprises, at the expense of capitalist competitors. This will benefit countries that take a broad view of government power, especially China, where President Xi Jinping is expanding state-owned enterprises under a plan known as “the state advances, the private sector retreats.”
These rules especially harm American security. In the U.S., for example, defense contractors are private-sector companies and would thus be subject to the global tax code. If their tax rates dropped below the OECD minimum—say, because of research tax credits—other countries, including China, would tax them on American operations. Defense contractors in China and in some European countries, on the other hand, are owned by their governments and would be exempt and strategically advantaged.
Pillar Two’s framework undermines U.S. security with two additional provisions. First, it establishes a special exemption for companies operating in fewer than seven countries. Beijing especially lobbied for this condition, which it will doubtless exploit given the opaqueness of the relationships between companies close to the Communist Party. Second, the framework mandates an expansive information-sharing regime among countries that have adopted the global tax code. Providing such detailed information on American defense and tech companies to the likes of China would deliver sensitive proprietary information directly into the hands of our enemies.
Another fundamental flaw is trusting China to abide by the rules. The West has little reason to take China’s word that it will do so, or to trust the books of Chinese companies operating under Beijing’s thumb. Does anyone think Mr. Xi and his affiliates will share sensitive information on Chinese companies, especially those in defense and tech, or allow other countries to tax their Chinese operations?
The global tax code is also likely to push low-income countries toward state-owned foreign investment—such as China’s Belt and Road initiative, which itself encroaches on nations’ sovereignty while sapping their natural resources. The framework targets low-income countries that offer favorable tax treatment to attract foreign money. American companies and other private firms seeking to build infrastructure in such countries will doubtless reconsider, as the OECD encourages other governments to tax these companies’ affiliates—via the undertaxed profits rule—to counter their favorable treatment.
Upholding international law that respects each country’s right to make its own domestic policy is crucial given Beijing’s threats to other nations’ sovereignty. It’s also imperative that our policy makers respect Congress’s sole authority over our tax law. The global tax code clearly violates these principles. As Ms. Yellen testifies before the House Ways and Means Committee Friday, lawmakers would do well to ask whether she will defend U.S. sovereignty by threatening to impose countermeasures on undertaxed-profits-rule action or continue to flout the Constitution.
Janet Yellen is the poster child who exemplifies the decidedly UN-American nature of the Obama’s third Administration.
Moving on, here’s another septet of special selections certain to pique the interest of inquiring Conservative minds:
“20-year-old Savanna Grace Mitchell—a five-foot, three-inch biological female identifying as a transgender man—and 21-year-old Austin Allen Ross—a six-foot, one-inch biological male identifying as a transgender woman…
…are lovers and apparent partners in crime.”
Some may not be able to tell a book by its cover, but to us, and likely you, these two literally scream psychosis!
Which brings us to a point we discussed this morning with TLJ: Never in our 67+ years can we remember such perversion taking hold on so many so quickly.
We’re neither a psychologist nor did we stay in a Holiday Inn Select last night, but here’s our…
“Law schools are supposed to teach critical thinking. Lawyers must represent their clients and sometime takes points of view that may not be consistent with their own world view. I am absolutely shocked and amazed this type of snowflake conduct is allowed and sanctioned at Stanford. Forty years ago this would have been a hilarious Saturday Night Live skit.“
We’d respectfully suggest it would have been a source of humor a mere ten years ago.
But we digress. Simply put, the miseducated cannot know what they were never taught. Our point is, a significant portion of the Progressive population is completely ignorant, and under the influence of conditioning, a form of mass hysteria, which manifests itself any and every time the latest Liberal cause du jour rears its ugly head.
From the junk science of anthropogenic global warming to defunding the police, CRT and DEI to the “right” of biologic males to compete in women’s sports, the unrestricted slaughter of the unborn to Black Lies Matter, regardless of the issue, their reaction is immediate, violent and utterly intolerant of dissent.
…”Emptier words have never been spoken by anybody not named Kamala Harris.”
Which brings us, appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:
Then there’s these little bon mots from Balls…
…the lovely Shannon…
…Mark Foster…
…and Wink Martindale…
…along with these from The Patriot Post via Ed Hickey:
Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with one more titillating tale torn from the pages of The Crime Blotter, courtesy today of another misleading headline from FOX, which misinforms us…
“…“Female students complained to me that they were concerned because males were using their washrooms. This turned into a debate at the school. I stated my opinion on it, and I used Scripture to back it up,” Alexander said. “They removed me from the building for the remainder of the year and, when I attempted to attend class, I was arrested and charged,” he continued.
Alexander said he pointed out the school’s Christian identity, claiming that he took a related discussion to school administrators who refused to hear him out. Attorney James Kitchen joined the conversation Friday, discussing with Fox News the “limited” legal recourse available for representing Alexander’s free speech rights, saying Canada’s “much weaker” constitution is a hurdle to overcome.“There seems to be, culturally and legally, much less respect for individual rights and freedoms and much more interest in government having the power to do what it wants,” he said…”
“Seems to be”?!? How about no doubt whatsoever!!! Then again, that’s Canada, though without question Progressives yearn to see similar First Amendment restrictions put in place here.
But here’s the juice: Young Master Alexander wasn’t arrested for correctly claiming men and women are biologically dissimilar; That’s why he was kicked out of school. He was arrested when he trespassed while attempting to return. So why the misleading headline? Isn’t being expelled from school for stating irrefutable scientific truths bad enough without adding inaccurate and unnecessary embellishments?!?
We report, you decide.
Magoo
Video of the Day
Though he’s been known to stretch the truth a bit, when Tucker’s right, he’s right.
Tales of The Darkside
Progressives: They lie but once, and that continually.
On the Lighter Side
Meet our favorite police officer, excepting of course, Officer Mike.
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.