As someone so accurately observed, only in the present era of Fake News could 95% of Republicans have voted to keep the government running while 95% of Dimocrats opted to shut it down and the MSM, with a totally straight face…
…blame the stalemate on the GOP. Let alone suggest, however remotely, it would or could result in an Extinction Level Event. We’re with Granny Hawkins on this one:
Which is why, when it comes to the government shutdown, we’re with the editors at NRO:
“…The Democrats are trying to spin the media and the public into thinking that the shutdown is the Republicans’ responsibility, pointing out that Republicans “control” both chambers of Congress and the White House and that several Senate Republicans voted against the bill too. It remains the case that the government would be fully open for business if Democrats had not voted against a bill — a bill, again, which has nothing of substance they oppose — to get leverage for the policy they favor. The Democrats’ negotiating stance is: Give us this amnesty, or we’ll make the government shut down and blame you Republicans for it. It is the exact tactic they decried in 2013, when Republicans refused to pass legislation to keep the government funded unless Democrats agreed to a partial repeal of Obamacare.
…The Democratic demands both are unreasonable in themselves and set a bad precedent.
The end of the amnesty for illegal immigrants who came here as minors — President Obama implemented it without legislative authorization, and President Trump said he would cancel it unless authorized — will not mean a mass deportation of this population. Republicans should agree to a limited amnesty only if it comes with real enforcement measures, such as mandatory E-Verify for new hires, and limits on the ability of the amnestied population to sponsor further immigrants. Only such a deal should be acceptable to Republicans, whether it happens in the context of a bill to keep the government funded or separate legislation.Hang tough, Republicans.“
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, here’s a few headlines which indicate there may be big trouble brewing in three separate bastions of Socialism:
We can only hope…and pray! Revenge may be a dish best served cold, but this isn’t revenge, it’s simple JUSTICE…and confirmation no one is above the law.
Next up, just to show how one has to question ANY source of news, consider this article from FOX, purportedly representing Progressives desperately clinging to their increasingly indistinct claims of collusion and impossible impeachment scenarios:
“…Lawrence Lessig, the Roy L. Furman professor of law and leadership at Harvard Law School, outlined a scenario in which the former senator could take the reins of power in the event of a series of impeachments of the Trump administration.
If President Trump resigns or gets impeached, Vice President Mike Pence resigns or is impeached and House Speaker Paul Ryan – who would legally become the heir to the top job – appoints Clinton as his deputy and then resigns, Clinton would become the president, the professor said. “This is one way that it could happen,” Lessig told Newsweek magazine on Wednesday.
Lessig first envisioned this scenario in a blog post back in October. “If Ryan became President because the Trump/Pence campaign committed treason, who should he nominate as his Vice President?” he wrote. “The answer seems unavoidable: He should nominate the person defeated by the treason of his own party, and then step aside, and let her become the President.”
The hypothetical scenario was mocked on social media, with some pointing out that the U.S. Constitution and the existing laws clearly define the line of succession – leaving no actual legal avenue for Clinton to take office, contrary to the professor’s claims.
Others have taken an issue with the magazine for pushing the theory without scrutiny. “What’s left of Newsweek is actively making people dumber and less informed and honestly should be unfollowed and shunned for this kind of behavior,” wrote Wall Street Journal journalist Byron Tau…”
Except, as this interview with Tucker Carlson confirms…
…, the professor wasn’t out to lunch…only Newsweek. Which should come as no surprise to anyone who’s followed this once-great magazines fall from unbiased journalistic grace.
“A year into the Trump presidency, one thing is predictable. The nation will daily be treated to an explosion of controversy over headlines that are as overwrought as they are fleeting. Say, the Great Trump Cholesterol Debate.
Meanwhile, the administration has spent the year engaging in the most systematic overhaul of government since Reagan, with consequences that could reverberate for a generation. Nowhere is the disconnect between short-term flimflam and long-term change more evident than in Mick Mulvaney’s refurbishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The overhaul is poignant because it strikes at the center of the Obama regulatory machine.Congress created the CFPB in 2010 as part of the Dodd-Frank law and envisioned it as a superregulator. Its director is imbued with unparalleled power to harass, fine and regulate financial-service companies. Congress can’t tell it no, because its funding doesn’t come from congressional appropriations. And under the statute, the director can’t be fired save for gross mismanagement, making it free of executive control. Government power, absolute, unchecked, and punitive—the stuff of Elizabeth Warren’s dreams.
…This week finally offered a view of the Mulvaney renovation.
…Americans have lost faith in government and regulation not because all government and regulation is bad, but because government is inept and abuses its powers. If the Trump cabinet has made a dent in that problem, it has been a year well spent.“
We’ll take Trump’s tweets…along with his transformative policies…over Hillary in the White House any day of the week; Bill Kristol’s protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
And in a follow-up to an earlier item detailing how California leads the country in poverty, courtesy of Townhall.com, Jonah Goldberg answers the question…
“The alleged success of the California model is one of the more intense controversies in the nerdier corners of public policy debate.
For many progressives, California’s metastasizing liberalism proves you can have Scandinavian-style social policies and tax rates and still have robust economic growth. For conservatives, California is like a bumblebee. On paper, the damn thing shouldn’t be able to fly — and yet it does. Thus the cottage industry on the right of prophesizing California’s inevitable demise.
What’s always bothered me about the whole argument is how it leaves out important factors. For me, the biggest one was always geography and the climate that comes with it. I live in Washington, D.C., where the winters are cold and wet. We get more freezing rain than snow. The summers are equatorial. August is like one extended scene from “Barton Fink,” with everyone pretending not to be drenched in sweat.
The once-Golden State dichotomy: Ferraris and once-fertile fields.
…The point is that California attracts an enormous number of rich people who think it’s worth the high taxes, awful traffic and even the threat of tectonic annihilation to live there — for reasons that literally have nothing to do with the state’s liberal policies. Indeed, most of the Californians I know live there despite those policies, not because of them.
No offense to South Dakota, but if it adopted the California model of heavy regulation, high taxes and politically correct social engineering, there’d be a caravan of refugees heading to states such as Wyoming and Minnesota. (I suspect South Dakotan pride would keep them from heading to North Dakota.)
Anyway, there’s a new data point to inform the debate that hopefully will be more difficult to ignore: California is the poverty capital of America.
The Census Bureau has come up with a new and better way to measure poverty.The standard model doesn’t take into account all sorts of factors that matter in the real world — the overall cost of living, including food, housing prices, utilities, medical care and taxes. This is just common sense. The median household income in Mississippi is about $41,000 per year. In California it’s about $65,000. Does anyone doubt that $41,000 goes a lot further in Biloxi than in Los Angeles?
According to the standard poverty measure, Mississippi ranks first in the nation with a rate of 20.8 percent. California ranks 16th. The Census Bureau’s “Supplemental Poverty Measure” places California first in the nation with a poverty rate of 20.4, and Mississippi falls to fifth.
Wealthy liberal Californians can be quite smug about how they can afford their strict land-use policies, draconian environmental regulations and high taxes. And wealthy Californians can afford them — but poor Californians are paying the price…”
Meanwhile, as related by these forwards from Jeff Foutch and The Boss respectively, the hits just keep on coming:
Reports the once-prestigious institution of higher learning has contracted with Harvey Weinstein to lecture on sexual harassment prevention, Bernie Madoff to recommend wise investment strategies and Matt Lauer to suggest secrets to a successful marriage remain unconfirmed.
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.