The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

The Squad

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've now heard media accounts that tell us, for the 10 millionth time, that Donald Trump is a white supremacist and racist who this past weekend demanded that four first-term congresswomen, known collectively as "The Squad," "go back where they came from." Of course, Trump didn't really use those words, but in his ham-handed and in this case toxic manner, he stated that members of the Squad should travel back to their countries of origin or affinity and fix the myriad problems in those countries, thereby demonstrating that their hard left, socialist agenda would actually work in the real world. Upon their success in those countries, he then invited them to return so they could teach us all how to fix the human rights abuses, the racism, misogyny, bigotry, classism, unfair labor practices, immigrant abuse ... blah, blah, blah with which they characterize the United States on a daily (sometimes hourly) basis.

The Squad held a press conference in which they tried to look like reasonable, sage members of Congress. They suggested that they themselves and the Democrats shouldn't take the bait and instead continue to work on creating the socialist utopia they all envision. They then proceeded to take the bait, suggesting that Trump is a criminal and should be impeached.

Members of The Squad include: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has claimed that the United States has set up "concentration camps" on our southern border; Ilhan Omar whose anti-Semitic, anti-Israel vitriol continually crosses into the realm of Jew-hatred; Rashida Talib, a closet Islamist and pro-Hamas sympathizer, and Ayanna Pressley, a hard-Left advocate who looks at everything through a racial lens. The Squad refers to its members as "women of color," thereby creating a figurative force field that they believe will negate any legitimate criticism or argument with their extremist positions. The Democrats trained hamsters in the media swoon over the Squad, never questioning their outright lies, their hyperbolic claims, or their hard-Left ideology. Maybe they do have a force field after all.

The Squad's many admirers and defenders in the media keep emphasizing that all four congresswomen are citizens, elected officials, and 3 of the 4 were born in the USA. For once, the trained hamsters tell the truth. But using their citizenship as a defense to blunt their months and months of noxious statements about their country just doesn't work. Rich Lowry comments:
America has two assimilation problems. One is immigrants feeling only a tenuous connection to America and getting isolated in ethnic enclaves. The other is immigrants like [Ilhan] Omar [a member of The Squad] — and some of her second-generation colleagues — assimilating into the America of identity politics and grievance.

They have learned to speak not just English but the language of oppression. They understand our system — at least no less than the average officeholder — but hold it in low regard. They know our history, as taught by an instructor cribbing from Howard Zinn.

They may be citizens, but they are certainly outraged victims.
On a purely political level, Trump made a stupid and ill-timed political mistake by engaging The Squad. After all, members of the Squad had begun to criticize other democrats, going after House leadership, calling members of the Congressional Black Caucus insufficiently left wing and implying that they were Uncle Toms. The Squad thoroughly pissed off a large number of their colleagues.

Then again, Trump may not be as stupid as he sometimes seems. He has forced all three of the Democratic groups that dislike The Squad to defend them, and in so doing, he ties the Dems to the Squad's outrageous and dishonest criticism of their own country and its allies.

During their strident press conference, members of the The Squad told us many, many times that because they were "duly-elected" they therefore had every right to trash their country and its policies. That's one of the few things they got right. But at the same time, they outright refuse to accept the legitimacy of another duly-elected member of government, somehow suggesting that he has no right to criticize their actions or to suggest that if they don't like it here, they can leave. Despite the prevailing narrative, this had little if anything to do with race or religion and everything to do with a group of duly elected representatives who in words and deeds, don't seem to like their country very much. They were called on that, and the Left really, really doesn't like push-back when it gets too close to home.

UPDATE:
-----------------

Bobby Jindall comments on the increasing craziness and viciousness that has become the hallmark on American politics:
Politics seem more chaotic, polarized and extreme than ever ...

Liberals, including the mainstream media, still can’t believe that Donald Trump emerged victorious from a crowded Republican primary, much less beat Hillary Clinton, who personified the political establishment. Hers was the perfect résumé: Ivy League-educated attorney, first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state. She was safe and predictable; boringness was a virtue in contrast with the bombastic New York developer who had never before mounted a serious run for office. She was a Democrat comfortable speaking to and being paid by Goldman Sachs and other big corporations. She offered to shatter the glass ceiling without threatening the profitable status quo of media, business and government elites.

Mr. Trump’s penchant for personal attacks and undisciplined tweets drives even some of his supporters crazy. They wonder if he is his own worst enemy and hope he doesn’t sabotage his success. Yet many more supporters wanted a disruptive force and view his unorthodox behavior as a positive feature rather than an unfortunate price to pay for conservative judges and lower taxes. Both groups agree the craziness on the Republican side lies in the president’s personality and ego and not in his policies, which are working well in many cases ...

The craziness on the Democratic side lies in its leaders’ policies and the plan they want to impose on America. The party’s inability to condemn anti-Semitism with a unified voice and the current debate on whether America owes reparations to African-Americans and Native Americans are the tip of the iceberg. Democrats like Elizabeth Warren favor a steep wealth tax, even as Europe is largely abandoning such schemes. Others want to abolish the Electoral College and pack the Supreme Court.

Whereas President Obama realized fully government-run health-care was too radical for the American people, many in his party now believe the problem with ObamaCare was that it forced too few people off plans they liked ...

The Green New Deal dwarfs Medicare for All in potential cost and damage to the economy. Its supporters aim to do more than merely eliminate the use of oil, gas, coal and nuclear power—they aspire to rid the country of commercial airline travel and flatulent cows, retrofit every building, and provide a universal federal guarantee of economic security even to those “unwilling to work.” “Socialism” has gone from an epithet used by Republicans to discredit Democrats to a title some of them wear proudly.
But to members of The Squad, all of these proposals and much more are a road map to a socialist utopia that they envision. And when they are criticized, rather than defend these proposals with anything other than vapid abstractions, they regularly accuse their opponents of racism or misogyny. Maybe that why they are widely recognized by all Democrats, but also widely disliked by Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.

Sunday, July 14, 2019

Alva

A female reporter tried to get a one-on-one interview with a Mississippi politician and the man demured. He told her that he'd meet with her only if another person was in the room. The reporter took the feminist line and was "outraged," suggesting that he made her feel like a "sexual object." Others believe the politician took a sensible, if a bit extreme, precaution in the era of #MeToo.

The politician took his position because of people like Alva Johnson. Who's she? Matt Walsh explains:
A former staffer for the Trump campaign, Alva Johnson, filed a lawsuit a few months ago alleging that she was the victim of "battery" when Trump "forcibly kissed" her without consent. In a teary-eyed interview with MSNBC in February, Johnson recounted being grabbed by the hands and kissed on the corner of the mouth. She says she turned away desperately, which is the only thing that saved her from a full mouth-to-mouth kiss. Using words like "terrified," "scared," and "distraught," she claimed that even months after the alleged assault, she was still "crying her eyes out" and traumatized from the experience. If this kiss had taken place privately, all we'd have is her word on the subject — a word that, we are told, must be automatically believed. Fortunately, though, it was not private.

This week, Trump's lawyers released footage of what Johnson describes as "battery." It does not show anything like the dramatic scene that she recounted. Instead, we see Trump lean in to give Johnson a brief peck on the cheek. His lips do not make contact with her mouth — nor does she lean away or in any way express any discomfort with the interaction at all. She smiles and appears to give him an air kiss on the side of the face, in return. It is just a very normal and friendly greeting between two people. No reasonable human being could possibly watch the video and describe what he sees as assault. If it is assault, then we have all been assaulted hundreds of times in our lives. A mother who gives her young son a goodnight kiss on the cheek is a child sex abuser. Late-night talk show hosts who kiss their female guests on the cheek are committing sexual assault in front of a live audience every night. Europeans who kiss everyone on the cheek are all a bunch of sex criminals. If Alva Johnson was sexually assaulted, then sexual assault is about as common and casual as a handshake.

Johnson says she called her parents immediately after the innocuous cheek kiss and had to pull over to the side of the road due to emotional distress. Is it plausible that she really reacted that way to something so utterly harmless and ordinary? Is it plausible that she was in her house "crying her eyes out" months after the fact? It's possible, I suppose. Maybe she is one of the most fragile people ever to walk the Earth. Or maybe she's lying. Maybe a combination of the two. Whatever the case, she took an innocent greeting and tried to use it to destroy Trump's political career. Trump survived because there's video, and because he's Trump. Those of us who lack both advantages may not have been so lucky.
There is a third possibility that describes Johnson and others like the infamous Christine Blasey-Ford, who without a shred of actual evidence but under the urging of Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, accused now SCOTUS justice, Brett Kavenaugh, of "rape" 35-years after the alleged "assault" occurred. Both woman may have serious mental problems driven by hatred of their target. This may be manifested by delusional thinking that turns an innocuous encounter (or no encounter at all) into sexual assault. Woman (or men) in this category honestly believe they were assaulted, but belief is not evidence nor is it reality. For example, people honestly believe they have been abducted by aliens, but that doesn't make their stories true.

When SJWs insist that we MUST believe the woman, there will be unintended consequences. Men (or woman) who believe they may be the target of a politically motivated accusation of sexual assault have every right to demand that any meeting with the opposite sex be attended by others who can serve as witnesses. It does seem a bit extreme, but not nearly as extreme as unsubstantiated claims of sexual assault like those levied by Alva Johnson or Christine Blasey-Ford. BTW, every evidence-free claim of sexual assault has the potential to ruin the life of an innocent person and at the same time, such claims devalue the legitimate claims of those who have actually suffered from a real sexual assault.

Saturday, July 13, 2019

The Deficit

Throughout the Obama years, I roundly criticized Barack Obama and the Democrats for their profligate spending. Whenever any attempt was made to rein in the budget or cut programs, you'd think that the world was coming to an end. Children would be starved and grandmas would be thrown out of their wheelchairs and onto the curb. Even tiny cuts (e.g., the sequester) were deemed "catastrophic." A small cut in military budgets would "put our nation at risk." Cuts in social programs would "endanger the most vulnerable." It's all B.S., but that's what the denizens of the swamp (both Dem and GOP) do when spending is threatened. Spending consolidates their power and influence, so spend they must.

Today it was announced that federal spending has set a new record, along with the deficit. It looks like Donald Trump is no different than the administrations that preceded him where spending and deficits are concerned. He deserves to be roundly criticized for it.

Terrence Jeffrey reports:
The federal government spent a record $3,355,970,000,000 (for the numerically imparied—that's 3.35 trillion dollars or 3,350 billion dollars) in the first nine months of fiscal 2019 (October through June), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.

Prior to this fiscal year, the most the federal government had ever spent in the October-through-June period was in fiscal 2018, when the Treasury doled out $3,199,795,700,000 in constant June 2019 dollars. Before last year, the most the federal government had ever spent in the first nine months of the fiscal year was in fiscal 2009, when it spent $3,176,577,910,000.

Fiscal 2009 was the year that President George W. Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program legislation to bailout failing banks and President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, his economic stimulus plan.

Total federal tax revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2019 hit $2,608,855,000,000. That was more than the $2,582,688,760,000 in total tax revenue (in constant June 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in the first nine months of fiscal 2018, but less than the record $2,626,410,840,000 (in constant June 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in total tax revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2015.

The difference between the $2,608,855,000,000 in total taxes collected in the first nine months of this fiscal year and the record spending of $3,355,970,000,000 left the government with a deficit of $747,115,000,000.
Trump, like his predecessor, Obama, deserves nothing but criticism for uncontrolled and irresponsible spending across the federal budget. Even if waste and abuse accounts for only 10 percent of spending (and that's a VERY conservative estimate), Trump, along with the entire Congress has thrown away $355 billion dollars over the past nine months. That's $355 billion dollars of taxpayer money.

Even more depressing, there is no way to eliminate waste and abuse. The only viable approach is to spend less, resulting in proportionally less waste and abuse. Of course, that won't happen, until we run out of other people's money.

Friday, July 12, 2019

Occupation

Among the current front runners for the Democratic candidate for President is Liz Warren. Liz tells us she's a hardcore "capitalist" who simply wants big intrusive government solutions to everything from healthcare to college debt to stringent controls on "big" corporations to income inequality. But all of those things are a topic for another day. Liz was (note the past tense) a staunch supporter of our only true Middle East ally and the only true democracy in the Middle East, Israel, until she noticed the Democrats' hard-left lurch and the corresponding anti-Israel sentiment across the hard-left base of the party. So now, Liz is ... well, let's just say her attitude about Israel has changed.

Kim Hirsch reports:
Liz Warren has an Israel policy which has been “evolving” over the years, as liberals like to say. First, in 2012 she said she would work as a senator to “ensure Israel’s safety and success.” Then, in 2014, she voted to increase aid to Israel during the war on Gaza.

But that was then. Now she wants to be President.


Last year she called on Israel to use restraint against Palestinian protestors. Furthermore, a few months ago she opposed a bill which would fine businesses that participate in boycotting Israel.

Apparently Liz Warren could see the anti-Israel writing on that Democrat party wall, so she flipped to the Israel Bad playbook.

On Tuesday, she told a group she would make Israel end its occupation of the Gaza Strip. She also beamed when young Jewish millennials told her they were thrilled with her promise.
Sometimes, the breathtaking ignorance of some of the Dems' thought leaders is astonishing. Again from Hirsch:
... there’s one teensy little problem with that information [Israel's "occupation"]: Hamas took over control of Gaza in 2007. Israel no longer officially occupies the Gaza Strip. However, Palestinian apologists maintain that because Israel still controls borders, airspace, and territorial waters, Gaza is still “occupied,” according to their pretzel logic.

Now why would Israel be so downright mean to their neighbors?

Maybe it’s because the terrorist Hamas government is running a Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. And because the Palestinians in Gaza continue to lob rockets into Israel. — most recently at the rate of 700 within a 48-hour period.

What’s more, despite both Israel and Egypt blockading Gaza, terrorists have been increasing their rocket arsenal.

But, since the Democratic party continues its leftward lurch, led by radicals, Liz Warren is following along like a puppy dog.
None of this is the least bit surprising, nor is the continuing and often overwhelming support that Liz and other Dem candidates get from America's Jewish community. Think of the positions of Liz or Bernie ... well just about any of the Dem candidates and then ... #Walkaway.

Thursday, July 11, 2019

Pusillanimity

Pusillanimity is one of those 10 dollar words that implies timidity—a distinct and noticeable lack of courage, determination, and grit. Over the past few years, a majority of corporate leaders have exhibited pusillanimity when confronted by patently ridiculous demands presented to them by social justice warriors who have become members of the Outrage Brigades. Daniel Henninger comments on the recent dust-up over Nike sneakers:
The remarkable thing about Colin Kaepernick’s banning of Nike ’s Betsy Ross flag sneaker to commemorate the Fourth of July isn’t that it happened, but how easily it happened. Nike’s management simply folded over “concerns that it could unintentionally offend.”

Translating this waffly phrase into odds, I’d put “concerns that it could” at about a million to one. But because the thought found its way into Mr. Kaepernick’s head that the shoe was about slavery, Nike’s senior decision-makers nodded without dissent: We’ve gotta pull it.

No one has ever thought to go looking inside corporate headquarters for profiles in courage, but the lurch toward timidity in our time by individuals at the top of America’s private and public institutions is something to behold. Pusillanimity has become a plague.
Henninger goes on to discuss baseball's Cleveland Indians ban on their Chief Waahoo mascot, and the Philadephia Flyer's banning of 1930s era singer, Kate Smith's redition of God Bless America because Smith recorded a racially insensitive song almost than 90 years ago. In some cases, there was mild pushback by the corporate chieftains (oops, is that a "cultural appropriation?") but in the main, they all folded like cheap suits.

Over the past few decades, faux-outrage has been a dominant strategy on the Left. The reason is simple—it works. It's all part of a broader strategy to delegitimize the country, to suggest that we as a nation are [fill in the list of pejorative adjectives], to convince people that what we have is soooo bad that it MUST be replaced by a socialist system in which government controls all aspects of our lives and where dissent is not only inappropriate, it is forbidden. If history serves, a proposed system like that would quickly devolve into an authoritarian dictatorship where the same social justice warriors that are now outraged by sneakers would become power brokers and the thought-leaders.

Henninger continues:
The rest of the time when a Chief Wahoo or Kate Smith happens, most people find space inside themselves to absorb it. But for the increasingly Mao-like American left, even this choked-down acceptance of their political assaults isn’t enough. They no longer seem content with winning. The left today has a compulsion to force obedience again and again. Thus, You didn’t like Wahoo and Kate Smith? Try this: We’re getting rid of your racist Betsy Ross flag, and you’ll shut your face and take it.

What they want from their opposition isn’t agreement with their ideas but submission—a kind of political lobotomization. And disturbingly, a lot of contemporary leaders—at Nike, the Yankees, the Flyers, almost any university—are volunteering to assist in the procedure.

Anytime thought suppression goes too far, people look for ways to resist. One thinks of the determined objectors in Ray Bradbury’s now barely fictional novel, “Fahrenheit 451,” evading the firemen who exterminate the possessions of people who read books. Today, the firemen are burning any symbol of American life they say has become unacceptable—to them.
Henninger suggests a "Mao-Like" stance among the SJWs. I have suggested that there are echos of the Khmer Rouge in their words and actions, albeit, faint at the moment.

When confronted with the idiocy that is now an everyday occurrence among the outrage brigades, the only acceptable response is push back—hard, directly, and vigorously. The best response is to flip the SJW accusations, using their language and memes to suggest that the SJW demands are themselves "offensive and outrageous." That they make the listener feel "unsafe." That those who don't agree with the SJWs are "hurt" by the SJW language, tone, and accusations. But that takes courage, not pusillanimity.

Tuesday, July 09, 2019

Orgy Island

It's pretty obvious that Jeffrey Epstein is a scumbag, who has been known to local authorities in South Florida and New York for more than two decades and who, until the most recent federal indictments in the Southern District of NY, has skated past serious sexually-oriented criminal charges involving underage girls. Epstein, a billionaire, had juice, connections within the establishment, that allowed him to continue his predatory behavior for years. Like Harvey Weinstein, he had rich and powerful friends who looked the other way. In fact, it appears that at least a few of Epstein's rich and powerful friends participated in his activities—and that gave him additional protection.

Until ex-President Bill Clinton became persona non gratia among the woke elements of the Democratic party, the media soft-pedaled Epstein's crimes, at least to the extent that they refused to dig too deeply into his association with other rich and powerful people (including Bill Clinton). Now, the media's interest in Epstein has changed. The reason—the trained hamsters think there is a way to connect members of the Trump administration, specifically Labor Secretary Andrew Acosta and even Donald Trump himself, to Epstein. Acosta was U.S. attorney in South Florida when Epstein faced a 53-page sex-trafficking FBI indictment. According to Frank Cerabino of The Palm Beach Post, Acosta "worked with Epstein’s lawyers to create a “non-prosecution agreement” that guaranteed immunity to any men who participated in Epstein’s underage sex parties, while also gifting Epstein with a shockingly lenient resolution to his crimes."

Cerabino continues:
What Acosta did was inexcusable, and the fact that he now runs a federal agency charged with exposing human trafficking, and was recently hailed as a possible nominee to fill the vacancy of U.S. Attorney General, makes things even worse.

But the original villain in this story is former Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer.

Acosta shouldn’t have been in the position to consider the Epstein case. Krischer got it first, and it was handed to the Palm Beach County prosecutor on a platter by the Town of Palm Beach Police.
The Palm Beach Police had conducted an in-depth investigation of Epstein and concluded that he was praying on underage girls. Krischer essentially looked away. Again from The Palm Beach Post:
Then-Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter was so outraged by the state attorney’s actions that he wrote a letter to Krischer asking him to disqualify himself from the Epstein prosecution.

“I continue to find your office’s treatment of these cases highly unusual,” Reiter wrote.

Reiter also complained to the FBI, asking the feds to take over the investigation. And the bureau did, calling the Epstein’s case “Operation Leap Year.”
That's where Acosta got involved. Interestingly, the Palm Beach County Epstein backstory involving Krischer, a Democrat, isn't getting much coverage. The equally egregious treatment of Epstein by Acosta, a Republican, is. No surprise there.
As this salacious case moves forward, it will be interesting to see how the media covers it. Will both Dem and GOP members of the establishment who are involved in this mess be exposed equally, or will the emphasis be on players in the current administration?

If past history serves, I suspect the the Epstein case will be used to create another faux-scandal (think: Russian collusion) that attempts to connect Donald Trump to Epstein in the public consciousness. There's little question that Trump knew Epstein and was in his presence multiple times. But unlike Bill Clinton,* there is no evidence that he participated in Epstein's predations or took multiple trips on Epstein's jet to visit "Orgy Island," Epstein's private retreat in the Bahamas. I have to wonder which set of facts gets more media coverage.

UPDATE:
----------------
This take on the Epstein saga by Thomas Lifson is worth considering:
It strikes me as quite unlikely that Jeffrey Epstein's motive for allegedly inviting powerful figures from the U.S. and Europe aboard the Lolita Express on a trip to Orgy Island was mere fellowship — as if they were playing a round of golf together. My dominant hypothesis is that he was video-recording highly illegal and morally reprehensible rapes for use as blackmail material. It might have been insurance against serious prosecution for his indulging in his own perversion, which would explain why his punishment the first time he was prosecuted was laughably light.
It will be interesting to see whether the same thing happens again. The Clintons have lost almost all of their political power and it appears that Bill is the most vulnerable Epstein connection here. But Bill and Hillary may have incriminating information about others that could still have powerful sway. We'll see what happens.

FOOTNOTE:
---------------------

* Steven Green notes that Fox News reported back in 2016 that Clinton ‘was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the ‘Lolita Express’ — even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.’ Oh wow. That sounds bad. Was he doing something unsavory?”

I have to wonder whether the trained hamsters will be as enthusiastic in following that story as they are in trying desparately to connect Trump to Epstein.

Saturday, July 06, 2019

Too Hard

Some regular readers of this blog have suggested that I'm being too hard on the Left, that although there are extremist elements among them, the average progressive or Democrat is NOT a creature of the Left, and it's unfair to lump them all together. There's some truth to that.

For example, there are many (well, maybe at least a significant minority of) Democrats who think that it was a bad idea for Nike to pull their "Betsy Ross" shoe after historically illiterate complaints by left-wing activist Colin Kaepernick. And sure, there are some progressives who might question the Charlottesville, VA city council's decision to remove Thomas Jefferson's birthday from the city calendar (after all, 250 years ago, he was a slave owner) or the San Francisco's city council's decision to paint over a mural of George Washington because it made a small number of leftists feel "unsafe." And yes, at least a few old-school liberals are troubled by the hundreds of cases at American Universities in which conservative speakers were either disinvited or shouted down when they were asked to speak. Undoubtedly, at least a few Democrats are troubled by the obvious attempt by social media giants to shadow ban conservative voices, or Hollywood's concerted effort to avoid any story that might present a balanced political viewpoint. And quietly, more than a few Democrats express concern over the borderline crazy comments that often emanate from the cadre of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders. Yeah ... I get all that.

But something is going on here, and I think Rod Dreher might have identified what it is:
I can hear the squawking from liberals now: How can you blame the entire Left for this? How can you actually believe that a corporation’s decision about a shoe, and a city council’s decision about a local holiday, matters? Nike has a right to do what it did, and so does the Charlottesville city council! Anyway, what about this terrible thing Trump did, and this one, and the other one? Et cetera.

I have to chuckle. This is profoundly ignorant of how ordinary people think. Don’t you people get it? Little things like this are part of a developing narrative, one that emerges from the actions of people like campus activists, media and academic figures, city councils, and Woke Capitalists in corporate boardrooms. The narrative is this: the American nation is illegitimate, the American nation is wicked at its roots, America is loathsome. If we are going to dissolve this old, bad America, and replace it with something better, then we are going to need to start by teaching her people to hate her through and through. Meanwhile, let’s open the borders to let in a better class of future American.

Attacking figures like Jefferson, and symbols like the Colonial-era flag — again, not the Confederate flag, but a Colonial-era flag — make it clear that what’s under assault now by the Social Justice Warriors — not fringe campus hotheads, but institutionalists like senior corporate executives and city council members — is the symbolic core of America herself.
Maybe that's why socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gets so much positive media coverage when they claim that the United States of America is running "concentration camps" on our southern border. What an odious and dishonest assertion, yet it's celebrated by far too many Democrats and progressives who might otherwise suggest they aren't left-wing. Or maybe that's why elected leftists like Ilhan Omar or Keith Ellison get away with blatantly anti-Semitic tropes, or why they and others are never called to task for suggesting that Nicholas Maduro is a victim of American oppression in Venezuela, a nation leftists virtually destroyed.

Maybe that's why I'm hard on the left. They romanticize "revolution" (you know, Che tee shirts and Bernie Sanders' speeches) but what they really want is power and control. They had it just beyond their grasp when Barack Obama was elected president and then lost it completely when Hillary was defeated. They've become vicious—no lie too extreme, no action too offensive. They need to be called out. If that's being too hard on them, so be it.