It’s Wednesday, March 13th, 2019…but before we begin, writing at Townhall.com, Beth Baumann termed this quote from AOC “delusional”:

“We should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work,” she said, The Verge reported. “We should be excited by that. But the reason we’re not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don’t have a job, you are left to die. And that is, at its core, our problem.”

Beth called attention to AOC’s oft-stated belief people shouldn’t have to work.  We find it more incredible she’d suggest, let alone seriously believe, ANYONE is America is “left to die“.

We’d challenge her to name one, just one…outside of those being mistreated at the only single-payer healthcare system…

…currently operating in the country!

In a related example of blissful ignorance, a number of readers forwarded this poll showing a majority of Millennials supporting Socialism.  This is, to some extent, old news, as similar polling results were reported on a number of occasions at least as far back as November 2017.  But such misguided, misinformed feelings do reflect the impact of Progressives’ deliberate dumbing down of America’s education system.

For those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it…along with them that never learned about it in the first place.

After all, if these ignorant innocents were never taught about the hundred-odd million people sacrificed to Socialism, how could they understand the evils inherent in the system?

Absent actually learning people literally died to GET OUT of the Soviet Union, East Germany, Nazi Germany (yes, another Socialist workers’ paradise!), North Korea, Albania, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, China, Venezuela and anywhere else Socialism’s held sway, how can they be expected to understand why they’re dying to get INTO the United States?!?

All of which leads us to conclude Hermes must be the god of Progressives.  For not only was he in myth the messenger of Olympus, he was also the god of liars and thieves.  And he believed what matters is not so much telling the truth as saying something pleasing.

It’s the Progressive profession of faith: feelings triumph over facts!

Here’s the juice, courtesy of our comely niece Katie via our sister-in-law Jackie:

Now, here’s The Gouge!

First up, NRO‘s Jack Crowe reports…

Pelosi Comes Out against Impeachment: ‘He’s Just Not Worth It’

As Speed Mach suggested, this surely means Pelosi and Adam Schiff know there’s nothing earth-shattering in Mueller’s report; an astute observation with which NRO’s Charlie Cooke agrees.

So for now, as Jim Geraghty opines, impeaching The Donald remains…

…a painful Progressive pipe dream.

Which brings to mind a question:

Next, the Editors at NRO record…

The Democrats’ Election-Reform Bill Is an Unconstitutional, Authoritarian Power Grab

“At some level, you have to give House Democrats some credit for ambition. They may have just sent to the Senate the most comprehensively unconstitutional bill in modern American history. It’s called the “For the People Act,” and it’s a legislative buffet of bad ideas.

The alleged purpose of the bill, H.R. 1, is to “expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants.” In reality, the bill represents an extraordinary federal power grab. At every turn, it grants federal regulators more power. Time and again, it renders federal election law more complex — creating a chilling effect on political communication through sheer uncertainty and confusion.

The free-speech problems are so obvious that free-speech organizations on the left and right are united in opposition. Comprehensive analyses from the Institute for Free Speech and the American Civil Liberties Union are worth reading in their entirety and raise remarkably similar concerns.

…Compounding the problems, the bill revamps the Federal Election Commission, making practical partisan control a near-certainty. While no more than two members of one party could be appointed to the new, five-person commission, it would be easy to achieve ideological control by appointing a like-minded “independent” to break the logjam. As a result, two Democrats and an independent socialist could control the interpretation and enforcement of H.R. 1’s extraordinarily broad and vague provisions. Under current law, the FEC is supposed to have six commissioners, with no more than three of the same party. It takes a vote of four for the commission to act, so the commission can’t act without at least some degree of bipartisan consensus.

In addition to controlling political speech, the bill would transform the federal government into the sugar daddy of American politics by dramatically increasing federal funding of campaigns. Are Democrats truly worried about the influence of “big money” over politicians, or do they simply want to ensure that the government is the donor?

…Throughout the Trump years, Democrats have raised multiple alarms over the alleged authoritarianism of the Trump administration, and while we have not agreed with the propriety of all the administration’s actions, nothing it has proposed or enacted is as alarming as H.R. 1. This bill is a frontal assault on the Constitution, and the nation should be grateful that the Republican-controlled Senate will almost certainly block it from becoming law.“

And as Kevin McCullough notes at Townhall.com in a forward from Jeff Foutch, the letter of this law is only part of their pernicious plan:

“…Let’s be very clear: Democrats don’t want fair elections. They want cover to cheat. They want cover to steal.

Before the vote for final passage however, Republicans used a little tool to give themselves an opportunity to impact the legislation—a motion to recommit. In doing so the GOP sought to add an amendment banning the opportunity for illegal aliens to vote in American elections.

It should have been an easy vote. After all what should Democrats, Republicans, and even the Democratic Socialists in Congress have to lose by insuring that American elections be decided by only—Americans? Yet the Democrats defeated the measure.

So for the first time, a majority vote was cast, by the majority party in the House of Representatives, to give the power of electoral outcomes into the hands of those who are not citizens. As reported by the Washington Times the vote was 228-197…”

The Dims are essentially attempting to rewrite the Constitution without the input of The People.  And by The People we mean, AOC’s misinformed opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, those who exist outside the confines of America’s Progressive coastal enclaves, i.e., The Heartland; aka those who’ve never cast a ballot for AOC or any of her ilk…and never will!

Speaking of Progressive power grabs, the Editors at the WSJ detail…

The Black Robe New Deal

Democrats float packing the Supreme Court if they win in 2020.

“Another idea from the Resistance left is fast going mainstream in the Democratic Party: packing the Supreme Court. Last week at Yale Law School and Columbia University, no less a progressive potentate than former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder suggested that the next Democratic President should consider adding to the High Court’s nine Justices.

…Having dominated courts for decades, progressives can’t abide that the highest Court might no longer be an engine of progressive policy. Donald Trump’s determination to nominate highly qualified and principled judicial conservatives has heightened their panic.

We’ve tried to explain that conservatives generally don’t view the judiciary as an ideological weapon in the way progressives do, and that conservative judges aren’t inclined to legislate from the bench. But Democrats are in no mood to listen as they advertise their plans to violate democratic and judicial norms once they regain power.“

And in the Talk About Beating a Dead Horse segment, writing at his Morning Jolt, Jim Geraghty informs us…

Kamala Harris Says America Hasn’t Yet Had an Honest Conversation about Race

“Over at that magazine of cowards that is too intimidated by the woke crowd to publish Kevin Williamson, former congressman, White House chief of staff, and Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel urges Democrats to banish the word deplorable from the 2020 campaign. When Rahm Emanuel — infamous table-stabber and dead-fish mailer — worries that your campaign themes could get too negative, it’s time to sit up and take notice.

Emanuel worries that his party may be embracing policies and a worldview that’s too radial to beat Trump:

Earth to Democrats: Republicans are telling you something when they gleefully schedule votes on proposals like the Green New Deal, Medicare for all, and a 70 percent marginal tax rate…After the past two years, the country now yearns for a return to normalcy—meaning that voters will likely want their next president to fit the part more credibly.

Does the 2020 Democratic crew sound like a return to normalcy? Last week, Kamala Harris declared, “For too long, frankly in our country, for too long we have not had these honest discussions about race. We’ve just not.”

Really?

…We’re not talking honestly about race and hatred recently? Didn’t we just spend the last few months debating Ilhan Omar and Steve King, with partisan shills insisting that offensive comments are less bad when someone on their preferred side makes them? Haven’t we spent years arguing whether Elizabeth Warren can legitimately claim to be Native American? Isn’t Julian Castro touting himself as an example of the benefits of affirmative action?

This country has had honest discussions about race — some (like US!) would say perpetual and ubiquitous. Kamala Harris just doesn’t like the discussions that have occurred. We hear similar calls for “an honest national conversation about guns,” but this country debates gun-control proposals regularly — and for the most part, the country rejects them. The problem to progressives is not the lack of an honest conversation; the problem is that the honest conversation doesn’t end with the result they want. When a politician calls for “an honest conversation about guns,” a lot of people hear, “it’s time for a conversation where I call you a dangerous menace and you accept it, and then give up your Second Amendment rights out of guilt.”

When a politician calls for “an honest conversation about race,” a lot of people hear, “It’s time for a conversation where I call you a racist and you accept it, and then make concessions to me out of guilt.”“

With all due respect (which is none whatsoever) to Willy Brown’s former sex toy, neither we nor any of our ancestors ever owned a slave; in fact, the males of our family in the period fought to free them.  So please, save your “conversation” for someone as committed as you…

…to perpetuating the myth of endemic racism in America. 

Since we’re on the subject of insincere indignation, also writing at NRO, David French addresses…

“Media Matters is at it again. Its diligent efforts to find bad things said by conservatives has paid off. It found years-old recordings of Tucker Carlson saying terrible things to radio shock-jock Bubba the Love Sponge. Twitter, of course, lit up. And yes, the hashtags #BoycottTuckerCarlson and #FireTuckerCarlson are — at the moment I write this piece — trending items one and two on my Twitter feed.

I don’t like what Tucker said, but here’s what is far, far worse for our nation and our culture than a pundit saying shocking things to a shock jock: the creation and sustainment of an outrage industry that spends millions of dollars (and countless man-hours) in the quest to destroy the lives and careers of the people it dislikes.

…And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them. And no one is really hurt today either. Instead, the atmosphere is one of vengeful glee. We got him now.

But note very carefully the process here. The person is truly rendered “bad” by his or her ideology. Pro-life? Republican? Conservative? Populist? Trumpist? Once you pass the ideological threshold that renders you an enemy, you’re fair game. The true intent is not to cleanse the public square of bad people. Otherwise, the search would be bipartisan, applying the same rules to both sides. The intent is to clear the public square of bad ideas, and if they have to destroy careers and reputations to do so, well then, that’s all the more fun.

So the dreary cycle repeats itself time and again. Kevin Williamson has the opportunity to speak to a different audience in The Atlantic? Well, let’s go to the podcast archives. Bari Weiss is making an impact at the New York Times? Let’s reexamine (and mislead people about) her college activism. Ben Shapiro is drawing crowds? Let’s make him answer (again) for years-old tweets. Sometimes the Twitter outrage claims a scalp. Sometimes it doesn’t. But always it deepens our public divide. Always it leads some people to dismiss other ideas and other people on the basis of partial information, deliberate distortions, and sheer partisan animus.

If we doubt the bad faith of the process, consider the glaring double standards. If you’re a progressive — if your ideas are deemed good — then media grace abounds. Colin Kaepernick can dehumanize cops as pigs, and we should just move on. That doesn’t define his message. Instead, he signs a lucrative contract with Nike. Ta-Nehisi Coates can say awful things about the heroic cops and firefighters who made their doomed climb up the stairs of the Twin Towers on 9/11, and that’s but a trifle — not even worth considering compared with his “essential” body of work. He gets a genius grant. Joy Reid can say bad things and then spin out the wildest, strangest tale about “hacking,” and it’s all just fine. Her MSNBC time slot is secure.

And let’s not even get started about the many bad tweets of the New York Times’s Sarah Jeong. “Good” people make mistakes, right? Or maybe — according to progressive think pieces — they’re not even mistakes but rather expressions of understandable outrage in the face of an oppressive culture.

…Our nation cannot maintain its culture of free speech if we continue to reward those who seek to destroy careers rather than rebut ideas. And when you reward a Media Matters search-and-destroy fishing expedition with calls for boycotts or reprisals, then you are doing your part to destroy debate. It’s vengeful. It’s cowardly. And it’s exactly the online world that spiteful partisans want to build.“

Freedom of speech and thought for we…

…not for thee:

Which brings us to The Lighter Side:

Finally, does this video remind anyone else…

…of the birthday scene from Office Space?

And while we must ad-Mitt Romney’s manner of blowing out candles is likely more hygienic than the usual method, we nonetheless wonder why on earth he felt compelled to share such a scene on social media.

Magoo