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

Thursday, February 28, 2019


There is something comically ironic about the Dems, now in power in the House, inviting as their star witness a man who has been convicted of lying in testimony already given before congress. And then treating that man's new testimony as wholly credible.

It's also comical to listen to the man's testimony, trashing an elected president of the United States, telling us that the president is a racist, a con-man, the worst of the worst, but at the same time admitting that he worked for this evil-doer for more than a decade and only recently has found his moral compass. Gosh, what does that same about the witness? Oh yeah, the Dems would have us believe that the witness has finally achieved a higher mortal plain because he's now working with the likes of Chuck Schumer, Elijah Cummings, and Adam Schiff—puleeze!

The entire Democrat-controlled circus has the feeling of the Kavanaugh hearings, brutal and vicious, but at the same time smacking of pre-judgement and sanctimonious hypocrisy. The only difference is that the Dems took the position that this time, at least, we had to believe the man—even though the man is a convicted liar. Little if any new information was introduced—the intent was to smear Trump and then smear again.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal summarize accurately when they write:
The day was above all a reminder that Americans elected a President in 2016 who had spent decades in the sleazier corners of New York business and tabloid life. He surrounded himself with political rogues like Mr. Stone, legal hustlers like Mr. Cohen, and even brought in a Beltway bandit from central casting, Paul Manafort, as his campaign chairman for a time.

Republicans knew all this when they nominated Mr. Trump, and now he and the GOP will pay a political price as Democrats marinate in that blue past in hearing after hearing. Character does matter, especially in Presidents.
The Journal's editors are correct, character does matter, but so do results. Despite his lack of character and his poor choices of associates, Trump gets stuff done, and that "stuff" has benefited the American people in ways that the Dems understand privately, but do not admit publicly. That's why they must opt for character assassination and smears, helped along by Trump's own personal failings.

There's one more point that should made. Character does matter—on BOTH sides of the aisle. Donald Trump has character problems, but so does the leadership of the Democratic party. In the House, in the Senate, and certainly throughout the media (who are, to put it bluntly, Democratic operatives with bylines), we have seen a lost election morph into a orgy of hatred, so intense, so vicious, and so interminable, that any sense of decency or proportionality has been jettisoned.

We saw it during the Kavanaugh hearings where an accomplished and decent man was vilified in a way that would have made Joe McCarthy uneasy, and we're seeing it again now. The Dems for their part think they're on a righteous path, that using a proven liar to take down a political opponent is somehow justified. But here's their problem. The American people watched Kavanagh and were repelled by the behavior of the Dems. They're now watching the Cohen circus and have already decided that it's more of the same.


Jim Daws provides further commentary:
The defining characteristic of today’s Democrats is that most unattractive of human failings, hypocrisy. Since Donald Trump’s improbable election, Dems and their media mouthpieces have been demanding that the rest of us recognize the existential threat he poses to the nation. Their demands are based on a litany of accused authoritarian character traits and fascistic conduct that Trump obviously doesn’t hold and in fact never committed. The reality is the Democrats are projecting -- accusing Trump of the very outrages that they themselves practiced in their obsession to prevent and then overturn his election.
Think about it for just a second.

The only proven "Russian collusion" (however indirect) was between the Hillary Clinton campaign and a foreign operator who had the Russians concoct a provably phony dossier designed to sink Trump.

The only "obstruction of justice" occurred when Hillary Clinton destroyed 30,000 emails (think: BleachBit) after an investigation into her private server began.

The only true "threat to democracy" occurred when major operators in the FBI and intelligence services, all sympathetic to Democrats or staunch #NeverTrumpers, decided to plan a soft coup to unseat a duly elected president.

Psychological projection, anyone?


And this assessment from Roger Simon:
The day the Democrats decided to schedule the House Oversight Committee hearing with Michael Cohen to coincide with Trump's negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Hanoi is the day the Democrats ensured the president's reelection. It was one of those rare moments of clarity you can imagine in the history books.

The Democrats revealed themselves as partisan hacks while the president was halfway around the world trying to save the lives of millions. That's not just bad timing, it's atrocious. And it has little to do with the success or failure of the talks with Kim. No one knows how that will turn out, probably not even the principals themselves. It has do with the priorities of the human race like global survival -- what a normal person should care about.

At first the consensus (at least among the talking heads) was that the hearing would outshine whatever was happening in Hanoi, but as the day wore on with no revelations that were even slightly new (Trump paid Stormy -- je suis shockay), no evidence of conspiracy with the Russians whatsoever, just tons of speculation and innuendo we have been hearing since the day Trump came down the escalator, and ended with Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) in some racist rant at Rep. Mark Meadows (we already knew she was an anti-Semite), we realized we were witnessing a bizarre clown show that only a CNN commentator could like.
Do the Dems honestly believe that no one would notice that their scheduling of the Cohen circus was blatantly political? Did they think that no one remembers the adage the American politics ends at our borders? Do they actually believe that their barely contained glee when Trump failed to deliver NoKo de-nuclearization, wouldn't offend many citizens?

And finally, do they think that well-informed citizens don't see the strength projected by Trump when he walked away from the negotiating table when a bad guy demanded more than Trump was willing to give ... and then compared that to Democratic President Barack Obama who delivered pallets of cash to equally bad guys (the mad mullahs) on a different continent just to make a very, very bad deal with the world's largest sponsor of Islamic terror—Iran?

Nah, TDS has blinded the Dems to reality, and now they live in a fantasy world of their own making.

Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Softening Socialism

The "Democratic Socialist" wing of the Democratic Party along with thousands of their trained hamsters in the media, and millions of their followers are trying mightily to soften "socialism"—to make it a kinder, gentler version of an ideology that has oppressed hundreds of millions, caused the ruin of countless countries, and led to totalitarian government control that reduces or eliminates a wide range of personal freedoms. They just might succeed by using a combination of class warfare (envy is, of course, one of the seven deadly sins), identity politics (specious claims of "white privilege" invalidate any criticism of their policies by people like me), and offers of "free" stuff (e.g., medical care, free college, or guaranteed income). Voters who are historically illiterate often jump at the chance to vote them in. But something interesting happens as a consequence.

When the socialists' utopian vision falls apart; when authoritarian government invariably takes over; when businesses fail, jobs disappear, the economy tanks; when taxes alone can't meet the burden (the socialists run out of other people's money), and when shortages of everything from food to diapers to medicine become commonplace, the same voters who jumped at free stuff want out. But by then, the socialists' sweet talk becomes totalitarian, and elections are either rigged or forgotten.

So, the same people who voted in socialism with a smile then have to fight their way out of it, often shedding blood in the process. That's what's happening right now in Venezuela, and it's an object lesson for the doe-eyed followers of Bernie or AOC or the coterie of "democratic socialists" who tell us utopia is just around the corner if we only follow their "new green deal." When the craziness and cost of their ideas is pointed out, they use words like "aspirational" or idiotic metaphors that argue that no one worried about cost when fighting WWII.

Conservative writer and lightning-rod, Ben Shapiro, notes that democratic socialists tip-toe around Venezuela, refusing the condemn the dictatorial regime of Nicholas Maduro and never, ever supporting Donald Trump's position on the country. He writes:
Why the shocking unwillingness by the socialist hard-liners in the Democratic Party to condemn Maduro and join the rest of the world in calling for his ouster? After all, we've been assured by Sanders, AOC, Omar and others that true socialism isn't at stake in Venezuela -- true socialism can be found in nations like Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Yet even so, these socialist Democrats can't find it in their hearts to cut ties with Venezuela.

How strange.

Perhaps it's because Sanders and his crowd understand full well that Venezuela is an excellent case study in socialism -- nationalization of major industries by a centralized government, abolition of the profit motive and redistribution of resources via tyranny. After all, it wasn't that long ago that Sanders was praising the Soviet Union (he said it had "a whole variety of programs for young people and cultural programs which go far beyond what we do in this country"), Nicaraguan Sandanista Daniel Ortega and Cuba's Fidel Castro ("... he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed the society.").

And then there's the inconvenient fact that the countries that Sanders himself calls socialist totally reject the label. Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt launched into Sanders this week, stating, "Bernie Sanders was lucky to be able to get to the Soviet Union in 1988 and praise all its stunning socialist achievements before the entire system and empire collapsed under the weight of its own spectacular failures." In 2015, Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen scoffed at Sanders' dreams of a socialist utopia, noting, "The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and life your life as you wish."

Here is the sad truth about socialism: Socialism drives economies into the ground in exact proportion to its prominence in the economy. Capitalism creates prosperity. It's convenient for Sanders and company to point to the Nordic countries as models of socialism when they are obviously founded on free markets, with socialistic redistribution schemes stacked atop that free market foundation. But deep down, Sanders knows that the truer reflection of socialism lies in Venezuela, Cuba and the Soviet Union. And that's why Sanders simply can't bring himself to disown Venezuelan socialism, even to prop up the lie that socialism wasn't truly tried in Venezuela.
But the trained hamsters protect democratic socialists by never asking hard questions, never pointing out misleading positions and characterizations, and never, ever suggesting that Venezuela is a prima facie example of failed socialism in the 21st century.

Monday, February 25, 2019

Hate Crimes

The Jussie Smollett debacle is being used to emphasize a conversation about an "increase in hate crimes across the United States." If you were to believe Democratic talking points, you'd think that people were being accosted based on their religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity every minute of every day and that we were in a crisis of hate. The fact that the meme beautifully coincides with the prevailing progressive narrative that Donald Trump and his minions are bigots is simply a coincidence, right?

The Washington Post reports:
Reported hate crimes in America rose 17 percent last year, the third consecutive year that such crimes increased, according to newly released FBI data that showed an even larger increase in anti-Semitic attacks.

Law enforcement agencies reported that 7,175 hate crimes occurred in 2017, up from 6,121 in 2016. That increase was fueled in part by more police departments reporting hate crime data to the FBI, but overall there is still a large number of departments that report no hate crimes to the federal database.

The sharp increase in hate crimes in 2017 came even as overall violent crime in America fell slightly, by 0.2 percent, after increases in 2015 and 2016.

More than half of hate crimes, about 3 out of every 5, targeted a person’s race or ethnicity, while about 1 out of 5 targeted their religion. Of the more than 7,000 incidents reported last year, 2,013 targeted black Americans, while 938 targeted Jewish Americans. Incidents targeting people for their sexual orientation accounted for 1,130 hate crimes, according to the FBI.
The increase is notable and troubling, but context is important. As WaPo itself admits, much of the increase is due to increased reporting, not an increase in the incidence of the crimes themselves. I also suspect that the definition of "hate crimes" has been changed, allowing more criminal activity on the margins to be reported as a hate crime.

Be that as it may, let's take a look at the numbers by considering hate crimes against African Americans. There are approximately 37 million African Americans in the United States. According to WaPo:
Of the more than 7,000 hate crime incidents in 2017, more than 4,000 were crimes against people, ranging from threats and intimidation to assault, to murder. More than 3,000 were crimes against property, ranging from vandalism to robbery to arson.
That means that about 4 in 7 (57 percent) are crimes against people, the remainder are against property (e.g., a Swaztika painted on a gravestone or arson at a church). Using these percentages, there were about 1,150 hate crimes reported against African American persons last year. That works out to 1 hate incident for every 32,000 black citizens. That is unacceptable, and we all should work eliminate all hate crimes, but it's fair to note that an incidence of 0.00031 percent does not indicate a severe crisis of hate. Nor does it indicate that half of the country is bigoted, racist, anti-gay, or anti-Semitic.

Similar calculations can be made for other reports of hate crimes. As an aside, for all the protestation by groups like CAIR that Islamophobic hate crimes are on the rise, WaPo indicates that they've actually decreased in the past year.

Again, even one hate crime is one too many. But we live in the real word, not in some magical world devoid of haters, sociopaths, and others who perpetrate such despicable acts. We also live in a world where hate crime hoaxes are all too common.

Hate crimes and the people who perpetrate them should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And so should people who create fake hate crimes to promote a specific political or social agenda.

Sunday, February 24, 2019

And the Winner Is ...

Great movies are a wonderful art form. If they include an imaginative plot arc and characters, excellent writing, and outstanding acting, such movies deserve to be recognized. As important, all of the people who sit behind the camera—cinematographers, costume designers, directors, to name only a few, deserve recognition for a job well done. You'd think that tonight's academic awards would be all about that, but it really isn't.

Sure, good (and often, not so good) movies are recognized and excellent writing, acting, and directing are lauded. But the academy awards have devolved into part fashion show, part virtue signaling, and part self-congratulatory rhetoric in which the entertainment industry tells the rest of us how important it really is.

I suspect that the fashion show is as important as the actual awards. It's harmless, of course, but it is amusing that so many actresses who keep telling us that they don't want to be sexualized wear fashion that does nothing if not sexualize the wearer. That's perfectly okay, but it does seem just a wee bit hypocritical.

The ubiquitous political speeches are as predictable as they are tiresome. Yeah, we know, the Hollywood community HATES Donald Trump, but the majority of the "stars" who tell us how bad Trump is are sometimes dumb as rocks, knowing nothing about policy. But because they can act well and have the unique ability to memorize a script, their phony fervor is somehow compelling to a small segment of the Oscar's shrinking audience (viewership was down 19 percent from 2017 to 2018). It's also worth noting that the majority of Hollywood A-listers are hardly moral paragons. It's just a little galling to have a moral low-life try to tell the rest of us that our moral compass should be pointing in tinseltown's direction.

Finally, there's something mildly irritating about the 3 hour long (the show was shortened this year) love fest in which Hollywood types tell other Hollywood types how great they are. Awards are fine, but perspective would be nice. Hollywood didn't find a cure for AIDS, create a technology that saves lives or make major inroads into income inequality (the salary of an A-list star—$20 million, while the salary of a lowly key grip—under $40,000). Yet, at least some of the A-listers shill for Democrats who argue that top corporate salaries should be no more than 15 times the salary of the lowest wage earner. In Hollywood, top salaries are 500 times the average lowest annual salary. Maybe we can get Hollywood's favorite democratic socialist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, on the case.

So tonight, I'll do a little work, read, or maybe watch something on Netflix or HBO, but the Oscars? Not a chance.

Saturday, February 23, 2019

Eat the Rich

Ebola is one of the most frightening viruses that afflict humans. It sometimes hides for years, undetected and silent. But ultimately, it reappears, first quietly, and then with a vengeance. It attacks by finding a host—a human being. It infects the host, feeds off the host, and then, using the despair and chaos that inevitably result as the host begins to die, it spreads to other hosts. The vicious cycle repeats, but not forever. The only thing that stops Ebola is its own vicious efficiency. It destroys so quickly that its spread is limited. It can't move from host to host without eradicating inself—temporarily.

In an odd way, the new clarion call for socialism in the United States has some things in common with the Ebola virus. Like Ebola, socialism needs a host so that it can feed and spread. That host is capitalism, and especially, those who have succeeded in the capitalist system and amassed a body (no pun intended) of wealth that can feed socialist demands. When socialism feeds, it extracts wealth (in the form of taxation or other government mandates) weakening the host (i.e., the economic system that created the wealth) and making it more susceptible to further infection. As the host (i.e., a market economy) begins to die, people suffer and demand even more help from the carrier of the virus (i.e., "big government must help us!"), making it insidious as it infects others. Once the infection has begun, the only thing that stops socialism is its own vicious efficiency. It destroys its host so quickly, that it can no longer feed (i.e., it runs out of other people's money). Venezuela is a recent, tragic example of this phenomenon.

Thankfully, there are no proponents for Ebola, no one to sing its praises. That's not true of the socialist "virus". Hidden just below the surface of public discourse for years, it pops up now and then. Now is one of those times. An array of prominent Democrats and their media allies tell us that socialism is a good thing—not a "virus" at all.

Conservative strategist Karl Rove comments:
It’s not your parents’ Democratic Party anymore.

Once upon a time, Democrats worked to reduce income inequality by raising up those on the bottom of the economic ladder with the government’s help. Even efforts to tax the rich at higher rates to fund these programs were tempered by a desire not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

That view has been replaced by a deep hostility to wealth. The new outlook is best captured in the Twitter handle of one of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s top aides: “Every billionaire is a policy mistake.”

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez condemns “a system that allows billionaires to exist” while people in Alabama “are still getting ringworm.” Democrats running for president echo her theme. “I want these billionaires to stop being freeloaders,” thunders Sen. Elizabeth Warren.Sen. Bernie Sanders alleges America is “owned and controlled by a small number of multibillionaires whose . . . insatiable greed is having an unbelievable negative impact on the fabric of our country.”

For Democrats like these, rich people’s success makes them morally suspect. They are by definition evil, venal and contemptible.
Rove recounts the many, many billionaires who have created millions of good jobs and donated additional billions to worthy causes, along with the Left's utter hypocrisy of vilifying right-leaning billionaires who support conservative politics while remaining silent or lauding left-leaning billionaires who do the same thing, Then he writes:
Some of us hold a different view about the wealthy. While we don’t believe the rich are due special deference, we also don’t scorn them simply because they have money. We are grateful and not resentful toward those who play by the rules and in the process become financially successful. We appreciate many of the products and jobs they’ve created, the wealth they’ve generated, the charitable causes they fund.

At the end of the 19th century, a young William Allen White—a critic of William Jennings Bryan’s populist Democrats—wrote a column titled “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” There he mocked the wealth-haters, saying the populist felt that “what we need is not more money, but less capital, fewer white shirts and brains. . . . We need several thousand gibbering idiots to scream about” the power of financial titans, because “we don’t care to build up, we wish to tear down.”

Those views led Democrats to four straight presidential defeats, ending only in 1912, when Republicans were split and Democrats tempered their attacks on wealth. They had realized that Americans don’t resent success. Maybe it will take a similar string of electoral losses to restore sanity to today’s wealth-hating Democrats.
One can only hope, because if we look at the long span of recent history, socialism (and its big brother, communism) has caused more death and more human suffering than ebola ever did.

Friday, February 22, 2019

Net Neutrality—Revisited

Obama-era advocates of government controlled internet access (a.k.a. "Net Neutrality") suggested that the Trump rollback of Obama's plans to control the internet and access to it amounted to a "most brutal blow to democracy" and the "destruction of the internet as we know it." What abject nonsense!

Like most things that come out of the Left, this was, shall we say, a gross exaggeration. Nick Gillespie reports:
For all the drama over the repeal of Net Neutrality and continuing fears about a "digital divide" between online haves and have-nots, the number of Americans with high-speed access to the Internet continues to grow, says a preliminary report from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The report covers development in 2017, the latest year for which data are available. From an FCC press release:

The number of Americans lacking access to a fixed broadband connection meeting the FCC's benchmark speed of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps has dropped by over 25%, from 26.1 million Americans at the end of 2016 to 19.4 million at the end of 2017. Moreover, the majority of those gaining access to such high-speed connections, approximately 5.6 million, live in rural America, where broadband deployment has traditionally lagged.

The private sector has responded to FCC reforms by deploying fiber to 5.9 million new homes in 2018, the largest number ever recorded. And overall, capital expenditures by broadband providers increased in 2017, reversing declines that occurred in both 2015 and 2016.
Other key findings of the report include the following, based on data through the end of 2017:
The number of Americans with access to 100 Mbps/10Mpbs fixed broadband increased by nearly 20%, from 244.3 million to 290.9 million. The number of Americans with access to 250 Mbps/50 Mbps fixed broadband grew by over 45%, to 205.2 million, and the number of rural Americans with access to such service more than doubled.
So despite all the hand-wringing, the claims that the have-nots would be shut out from the web along with all the claims that education, medicine, commerce, blah, blah, blah would be irreparably harmed were wrong. None of it happened. In fact more people have higher speed access that ever before—AFTER the plan to control the nets was jettisoned by the evil Donald Trump.

Looks like getting the government to stay on the sidelines, establishing broad goals but allowing the private sector to develop the tactics for achieving them, yields very positive results.

Thursday, February 21, 2019

A Russian Asset

In the fever swamp that is Trump Derangement Syndrome, there are people who honestly believe that a sitting president of the United States is a Russian asset, doing the bidding of Vladimir Putin. They justify this dark fantasy by pointing to the allegations leveled against Trump by three proven liars:
  • Former FBI Assistant Director, Andrew McCabe, who was fired—not be Trump—but by his own agency because he ... wait for it ... lied repeatedly when questioned about whether he leaked material and otherwise acted unethically. That's not my opinion. It's stated clearly in a report written by the Inspector General of the FBI. Do the trained hamsters in the media press him on this? Not a chance. They'd rather let him spin his fantasy allegations. After all, it supports the manic anxieties of the TDS crowd.
  • Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who agrees with McCabe and is also a proven liar. Clapper lied repeatedly to congressional committees and has become a partisan anti-Trumper. He's a sleaze who is careful to qualify his ridiculous allegations with double talk so that he has an escape hatch when they are continually proven untrue.
  • Rep. Adam Schiff, a TDSer I discussed in my last post.
Let's for just a moment adopt the delusional position of McCabe, Clapper, Schiff, and other TDSers, and accept at face value that Donald Trump is a Russian asset. You'd think that his handler, Vlad Putin, would tell Trump to: (1) run the U.S economy into the ground, (2) be sure unemployment was at record high levels so that dissatisfaction among the people was maximized, (3) screw over people of color by keeping them economically disadvantaged, (4) cut military funding to keep the country weak, (5) allow open borders to stress our social services and legal system, (6) back off the NoKos, (7) make nice with the mad-mullahs in Iran, and (8) isolate our only true middle eastern ally, Israel. Those things would benefit the Russkies, and that's what Trump wants to do, right?

Interestingly, just about all of that occurred under the previous administration, but neither McCabe, nor Clapper, nor Schiff, nor other TDSers suggested that Barack Obama was a Russian agent.

And under Trump ... NONE of it happened: (1) the economy is spectacularly strong; (2) unemployment is historically low; (3) people of color have record high job prospects; (4) military funding has increased; (5) border security is a goal (resisted mightily by the Dems—are they Russian agents???); (6) the Nokos have been pressured into talks; (7) Iran is under severe economic pressure and sanctions, and (8) relations with Israel are very strong. How does any of that benefit the Russians? I wonder how McCabe, Clapper, Schiff, and other TDSers would answer that question. But when you're a TDSer, facts don't matter, common sense is jettisoned, logic doesn't exist, and hatred rules the day. Lies and distortion are your common currency.

McCabe et al are cynical liars who play to the TDS crowd. We expect people in their position to serve their country well. Instead they have done more to damage it than Donald Trump could ever do.

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Taking a Piece of Schiff

I have voiced my opinion of Congressman Adam Schiff on numerous occasions (e.g., here and here), but I've never been able to do it with the skill of Julie Kelly:
He helped conceive a hoax so outlandish that only the most gullible, craven, or witless person could believe it.

The attack, as he called it, allegedly was executed by mysterious and politically motivated thugs with the intent to inflict harm. It exploited the political climate of the moment given that the chief goal of the ruse—and of the perpetrator himself—was to sow division in an already-fractured American populace for his own gratification. Nonstop news coverage and social media chatter ensued. The heretofore obscure perpetrator gained instant fame.

Lawmakers, journalists, and celebrities acted as accomplices, allowing themselves to be duped and conferring immediate legitimacy to the event. Public resources were diverted away from more serious matters. Whenever fair-minded observers voiced skepticism about the questionable nature of the circumstances and evidence at hand, they were riddled with insults.

As authorities began to expose the hoax, the mastermind lashed out, blasting his detractors and making incendiary accusations.

The public mostly went along with it because it sounded right or, at least, familiar like the narrative that Donald Trump and his people ultimately are at the center of everything wrong with our country today. And astoundingly, even as his story fell apart and his early supporters tried to distance themselves from the ruse, the hoaxster remained entrenched, beclowning himself and those who aided the scam.

No, I am not talking here about Jussie Smollett, the “Empire” actor who concocted an elaborate story about how MAGA-hat wearing hoodlums attacked him in the middle of a frigid night on an underground street in downtown Chicago.

I am talking about Representative Adam Schiff, the California congressman who helped make up a story about how Donald Trump and his campaign associates conspired with the Kremlin to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

Adam Schiff was Jussie Smollett before Jussie Smollett arrived on the scene.
The only way people like Schiff get away with their blatant dishonesty is because the trained hamsters in the mainstream media give him a platform that allows him to make statements that are blatantly false, predictions that never come true, and allegations that would make Joseph McCarthy blush. Schiff is a hyperpartisan liar—plain and simple.

UPDATE (2/22/2019):

Kim Strassel discusses the "new phase" of the trump witch hunt:
There’s been no more reliable regurgitator of fantastical Trump-Russia collusion theories than Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff. So when the House Intelligence Committee chairman sits down to describe a “new phase” of the Trump investigation, pay attention. These are the fever swamps into which we will descend after Robert Mueller’s probe.

The collusionists need a “new phase” as signs grow that the special counsel won’t help realize their reveries of a Donald Trump takedown. They had said Mr. Mueller would provide all the answers. Now that it seems they won’t like his answers, Democrats and media insist that any report will likely prove “anticlimactic” and “inconclusive.” “This is merely the end of Chapter 1,” said Renato Mariotti, a CNN legal “analyst.”

Mr. Schiff turned this week to a dependable scribe—the Washington Post’s David Ignatius—to lay out the next chapter of the penny dreadful. Mr. Ignatius was the original conduit for the leak about former national security adviser Mike Flynn’s conversations with a Russian ambassador, and the far-fetched claims that Mr. Flynn had violated the Logan Act of 1799. Mr. Schiff has now dictated to Mr. Ignatius a whole new collusion theory. Forget Carter Page, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos—whoever. The real Trump-Russia canoodling rests in “Trump’s finances.” The future president was “doing business with Russia” and “seeking Kremlin help.”

So, no apologies. No acknowledgment that Mr. Schiff & Co. for years have pushed fake stories that accused innocent men and women of being Russian agents. No relieved hope that the country might finally put this behind us. Just a smooth transition—using Russia as a hook—into Mr. Trump’s finances. Mueller who?
I can only hope that the general public sees through this despicable display of hyper-partisan politics and makes the Democrats pay in the only way they care about: by keeping them as far as possible from the levers that control power.

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Stick to the Knitting

I ran across a small but telling piece that provides a typical example of the social justice outrage brigades in attack mode. Before you go further, read the entire piece:

"A Witch-Hunt on Instagram" written by Kathrine Jebsen Moore

Here's the response that the victim of the attacks, Karen Templer, should have written:

Thank you all for you comments and criticism. I’m sorry that my words have offended you. Yours have offended me.

Those of you who have appointed yourselves the arbiters of morality seem to forget that not everyone agrees with your jargon, your intentional bullying, your worldview, your one-way "conversations," or the not-so-subtle implication that everyone (other that the virtue signaling hypocrites who populate the “woke" community) is racist or bigoted or suffers from some vague “white privilege."

The simple implication that modern day India—a vibrant and exciting country—is in need of your sanctimonious and condescending defense indicates that you are either ignorant of the reality of other peoples or are yourself soft racists who look at anyone who is non-white and think that they are in need your help. They are not weak and do not need you to defend them, and I suspect that they would be offended by your suggestion that they are weak and powerless.

Again, let me restate. I. Am. Offended. By your comments, by the subtle implication that I must prostrate myself before you, and by your moral preening. You are not the center of the moral universe—not even close. To suggest that I must bow to your warped interpretation of what is moral and just and right is as obnoxious as it is concerning.

There are millions more like me, and we will push back.


Kevin Williamson discusses a closely related subject—the use of merciless sympathy by the social justice outrage brigades when anyone questions their support for some person that they believe has been wronged (say, Jessie Smollett) or is a victim of some thought crime:
Merciless sympathy is the stratagem by which our natural solicitous feeling toward those who have suffered some wrong or some injury is forcibly reconstituted into support for a particular political agenda grafted onto the unhappy episode. Those who don’t support the politics are treated as though they were victimizing the victim (genuine or hoax) rather than disagreeing about a policy question.

Merciless sympathy is how declining to oppose Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court is transmuted into callousness toward rape victims, how support for the Second Amendment is recast as contempt for the children killed in Parkland, how doubting the breathless accounts of the Covington Catholic matter becomes racist hostility to an elderly Native American veteran. As rhetorical stratagems go, it is obvious, shallow, and stupid — and therefore effective in the era of Twitter-dominated discourse, in which shallowness and stupidity are weaponized.

And so the police, journalists, and other professional askers of questions grow remarkably circumspect — some of the time. Compare the credulousness that greeted Smollett’s story to, e.g., Andrew Sullivan’s obsessive conspiracy-mongering about Sarah Palin’s son (remember the “Trig Truthers”) or the fact that Louise Mensch (of “marshal of the Supreme Court” infamy) was still welcome in the pages of the New York Times as late as March 2017. Smollett’s unverified and murky account was good enough for progressive journalists, but nothing Sarah Palin could say or do would satisfy their gimlet-eyed skepticism.

One might be forgiven for suspecting that there is an unspoken agenda at work in that double standard.

Merciless sympathy is simply one more weapon in the arsenal of contemporary mob politics. Brett Kavanaugh is an excellent jurist whose most controversial legal opinion is that the Constitution says what it says, which made opposing his confirmation difficult. So accuse him of being a serial rapist — and then accuse anybody who doubts your story of being in league with serial rapists at the expense of their victims.

We have seen this often enough.
"Mob politics" is the thing that the social justice outrage brigades do well. They'll hone their skills as each of the democratic socialist candidates for president suggest extreme policies designed to provide "free" stuff for voters (Bernie Sanders comes to mind). Anyone who questions or opposes any one or more of those policies will be the target of "merciless sympathy."

Monday, February 18, 2019

Soft Coup

The narrative rules all. No matter that it is wholly inaccurate, blatantly biased, and obviously dishonest. The media will run with it and never correct it. Hence, we see disgraced FBI Assistant Director, Andrew McCabe, bouncing from media source to media source, lying about the reasons for a soft coup that he and others planned in the immediate aftermath of the presidential election. It's worth noting that McCabe was fired after an internal FBI investigation found he lied repeatedly about his actions. He should be indicted, not lionized by the likes of 60 Minutes. But 60 Minutes, like the rest of the trained hamsters in the media, have a narrative to promote.

The narrative tells us that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians, and that is the only reason he beat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. As backup, the narrative tells us that when he was elected president, Trump obstructed justice by firing a duplicitous FBI director, James Comey, who admitted to taking notes on his interactions with the president surreptitiously and then leaking dishonest and damaging information to media unfriendly to the president.

Victor Davis Hansen comments:
The deep state is by nature cowardly. It does not move unless it feels it can disguise its subterranean efforts or that, if revealed, those efforts will be seen as popular and necessary—as expressed in tell-all book titles such as fired FBI Directors James Comey’s Higher Loyalty or in disgraced Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s psychodramatic The Threat.

In candidate and President Trump’s case that prepping of the battlefield translated into a coordinated effort among the media, political progressives and celebrities to so demonize Trump that his imminent removal likely would appear a relief to the people. Anything was justified that led to that end.

All through the 2016 campaign and during the first two years of the Trump presidency the media’s treatment, according to liberal adjudicators of press coverage, ran about 90 percent negative toward Trump—a landmark bias that continues today.

Journalists themselves consulted with the Clinton campaign to coordinate attacks. From the Wikileaks trove, journalistic grandees such as John Harwood, Mark Leibovich, Dana Milbank, and Glenn Thrush often communicated (and even post factum were unapologetic about doing so) with John Podesta’s staff to construct various anti-Trump themes and have the Clinton campaign review or even audit them in advance.
As I have noted in a number of posts over the past two years, what McCabe and his accomplices planned was a soft coup. It had nothing to do with Russian "collusion" which was and is a fabrication meant to destabilize the administration of a duly-elected president. It had nothing to do with "obstruction of justice" which was a backup excuse with no legal or factual basis. It had everything to do with overturning the results of a democratic election.

The untold story is the amazing resilience of Trump and his administration. Never in American history has an administration been subjected to a coordinated onslaught of negative press, exacerbated by the widespread use of social media and the blatantly dishonest reporting of a biased mainstream media. Again, Hansen comments:
So-called “bombshell,” “watershed,” “turning-point,” and “walls closing in” fake news aired in 24-hour news bulletin cycles. The media went from fabrications about Trump’s supposed removal of the bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office, to the mythologies in the Steele dossier, to lies about the Trump Tower meeting, to assurances that Michael Cohen would testify to Trump’s suborning perjury, and on and on.

CNN soon proved that it is no longer a news organization at all—as reporters like Gloria Borger, Chris Cuomo, Eric Lichtblau, Manu Raju, Brian Rokus, Jake Tapper, Jeff Zeleny, and teams such as Jim Sciutto, Carl Bernstein, and Marshall Cohen as well as Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Harris all trafficked in false rumors and unproven gossip detrimental to Trump, while hosts and guest hosts such as Reza Aslan, the late Anthony Bourdain, and Anderson Cooper stooped to obscenity and grossness to attack Trump.

Both politicos and celebrities tried to drive Trump’s numbers down to facilitate some sort of popular ratification for his removal. Hollywood and the coastal corridor punditry exhausted public expressions of assassinating or injuring the president, as the likes of Jim Carrey, Johnny Depp, Robert de Niro, Peter Fonda, Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Snoop Dogg, and a host of others vied rhetorically to slice apart, shoot, beat up, cage, behead, and blow up the president.

Left wing social media and mainstream journalism spread sensational lies about supposed maniacal Trump supporters in MAGA hats. They constructed fantasies that veritable white racists were now liberated to run amuck insulting and beating up people of color as they taunted the poor and victimized minorities with vicious Trump sloganeering—even as the Covington farce and now the even more embarrassing Jussie Smollett charade evaporated without apologies from the media and progressive merchants of such hate.

At the same time, liberal attorneys, foundations, Democratic politicians, and progressive activists variously sued to overturn the election on false charges of rigged voting machines. They sought to subvert the Electoral College. They introduced articles of impeachment. They sued to remove Trump under the Emoluments Clause. They attempted to invoke the 25th Amendment. And they even resurrected the ossified Logan Act—before focusing on the appointment of a special counsel to discredit the Trump presidency. Waiting for the 2020 election was seen as too quaint.
And despite all of this Trump derangement, the Trump administration has accomplished much for the American people, including a vibrant economy that has provided historic benefits for people of color and the middle class.

Victor Davis Hansen is a historian, so he looks at things as a historian would. He writes:
There are many elements [of the soft coup] to what in time likely will become recognized as the greatest scandal in American political history, marking the first occasion in which U.S. government bureaucrats sought to overturn an election and to remove a sitting U.S. president.
I'm not sure he's correct. The media, the deep state, and the Democrats are working feverishly to be sure that the truth never surfaces. After all, it would destroy their narrative and in the process, destroy their credibility for all time.


For those moderate Democrats and progressives who use magical thinking to somehow justify what McCabe and his FBI cabal now admit they did, consider this comment by Mark Penn:
The most egregious anti-democratic actions ever taken by the what can now fairly be called the Deep State are confirmed with the publication of fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s new book detailing how the FBI and Justice Department plotted to remove President Trump from office for firing FBI Director James Comey.

Justice Department and FBI officials spied on U.S. citizens with false warrants, gave a pass to one presidential campaign with a predetermined investigation, investigated another political campaign on the basis of no verified evidence, and illegally leaked information on investigations. They discussed wiretapping and using the 25th Amendment to the Constitution to remove President Trump, and appointed a special counsel as a retaliatory move for Comey’s firing.

It is now crystal clear that the highest echelons of the Justice Department and FBI had morphed from the world’s most professional law enforcement organization into a Third World rump group. They had the hubris to believe that they – not the American people or their duly elected representatives – should decide who governs and how.
The next time you read the Washington Post's tendentious slogan, "Democracy dies in darkness," note that the WaPo, the NYT, the LA Times, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and many, many other supposed "protectors of the truth" and "watchdogs over government" have studiously ignored this major scandal.

Renegade elements of the FBI tried to depose an elected president, and because the media really, really didn't like that president, they decided the FBI actions were okay and that they would help promote the books the perpetrators wrote to help justify their near-criminal actions. What a disgrace!

Sunday, February 17, 2019


In the age of perpetual outrage, Social Justice Warriors hold sway. Among their many weapons is an often-unsubstantiated accusation of a "hate crime"—that some right-wing person or entity did something racist or Islamophobic or anti-gay (anti-Semitism only matters if it occurs on the Right—the Left, as exemplified by Rep. Ilhan Omar, gets a pass).

It's therefore unsurprising that SJWs embraced the notion that a hate crime was perpetrated against the actor, Jussie Smollett. After all, Smollett reported that he was victimized by Trump supporters at 2am on a Chicago Street. Despite the few who asked whether there might be something not-quite-right about Smollett's report of a crime, there was near universal condemnation of Trump's America—a place, SJWs argued, where a gay, black man cannot walk down the street without being threatened and having a noose tied around his neck.

And then ...

The editor's of the NY Post comment:
Police sources believe that, as many had suspected, “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett perpetrated an enormous hoax on the American public by staging a phony hate crime.

Now we’re waiting for apologies from the celebrities and top Democrats who not only expressed sympathy for the supposed victim of violent hate, but turned around and cited President Trump and his supporters as having somehow inspired the attack.

Which was itself pretty foolish, since much of his story seemed implausible from the start. For one thing, Smollett’s account of what took place in the frigid early-morning hours of Jan. 29 kept changing.

Smollett claimed he was set upon at approximately 2 a.m. on a freezing night by two white men who recognized him and began beating him while uttering anti-black and anti-gay slurs, as well as “this is MAGA country” — and also draped a rope around his neck.

Yet surveillance cameras showed there was at most a 60-second window for the attack, which is highly unlikely. He also waited 40 minutes before calling police, later claiming he didn’t want to further the stereotype of gay people being “weak.”

Moreover, he refused to hand over his cellphone (he said he’d been talking to his manager when the attack occurred), eventually turning over only “heavily redacted” phone records.

That’s a whole lot of red flags — especially considering the not-inconsiderable number of similar hoaxes, also widely publicized, perpetrated in recent years.

Yet Democratic presidential hopefuls jumped on the hysteria train.

As National Review’s Jim Geraghty notes, it’s one thing to be sympathetic to an apparent victim — and quite another to hold a large group of people, including the president of the United States, responsible without any factual basis.
Those of us who wondered about the veracity of Smollett's original report, now shown to be a hoax, are waiting for progressive politicians, celebrities, and commentators to offer an apology to "Trump's America." It's bad enough to extrapolate a single instance of hatred into a broad condemnation of an entire segment of the population. It's even worse to do this when the instance of hatred never happened in the first place.

Saturday, February 16, 2019


Among the many, many problems with socialist ideology is that is it anti-capitalist and as a consequence, overtly anti-business. Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders or his protégé, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, use terms like "greedy corporations" and "corporate welfare" (apparently the only kind of welfare that socialists don't like) in every other sentence and don't even bother to hide their antipathy to business people and the private sector in general. If you listen carefully to their words and examine their proposals, you'd almost think they want to wreck the economy so that even greater numbers of citizens would become dependent on big intrusive government for their livelihood and survival. That would do much to centralize the socialists' power, and that is what they're really trying to do.

A recent example of this played out in deep blue New York City. The editors of The Wall Street Journal comment:
After getting mauled by a mob of unions and politicians, Amazon on Thursday cancelled plans to build a second headquarters in New York City. It’s a testament to New York’s toxic business environment that even $3 billion in subsidies wasn’t enough to keep the company in town.

“A number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project we and many others envisioned in Long Island City,” Amazon said in calling off the three-month engagement.

The Seattle-based retailer had only kind words for Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio, who wooed it like contestants on “The Bachelor.” In return for the promise of 25,000 jobs, the state and city in November offered up to $3 billion in subsidies as well as a helipad for CEO Jeff Bezos and other executives to fly over congested city streets.

But the ensuing gang-beating offered a portent of what Amazon was walking into. An Amazon executive was asked at a City Council meeting last month whether the company would agree to unionization. “We have great-paying jobs and we respect an employee’s right to choose or not to join a union,” the executive explained. “The goal that you are trying to achieve is good jobs, not low-paying jobs.”

[Democratic Mayor] Mr. de Blasio’s response? “We’re a union town.” He added: “There is going to be tremendous pressure on Amazon to allow unionization and I will be one of the people bringing that pressure. I believe that ultimately that pressure will win the day.” This followed Mr. de Blasio’s recent declaration that there’s too much money in the city in the “wrong hands.”

Mr. Cuomo blamed hostile state Senate Democrats for driving off Amazon and insisted the state’s “fundamentals” will “continue to attract world class business.” If that’s so, why did New York politicians spend $10 billion last year—more than any other state—on business incentives? Republican states also compete with subsidies, but progressives have to offer more to compensate for their oppressive business climates.

The city has the country’s second-highest income tax, and Mr. de Blasio last month proposed that all private employers be required to provide workers two weeks of paid vacation each year. That’s on top of paid family leave. Animus toward business represses the organic investment and job growth that make a dynamic economy.
Regardless of your attitude about Amazon (it is an 800 lb. guerrilla), most outside observers agree that the company would bring 25,000 jobs to NYC. Every one of the people in those jobs would pay local and state taxes, would spend inside the NYC economy and help other small businesses in the region.

In what has to be one of the most economically ignorant statements on Amazon's withdrawal, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)* praised it as a "victory" and suggested that the $3 billion in subsidies for Amazon be redirected to schools and other progressive social programs. There's only one problem. The $3 billion was in tax relief. It was not actual money sitting in a bank in NYC. It cannot be "spent" on anything because it doesn't exist. Scary stupid. But even more stupid was encouraging an atmosphere that forced NYEXIT—Amazon's exit from NY City.

But then again. The hard left's antipathy to the private sector, along with the vast majority of its world view, is also scary stupid.


* Amazon is hardly a bastion of right-wing corporatist culture, yet its spokesperson put the blame for its NYEXIT squarely on the shoulders of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She must be so proud. After all, what's 25,000 jobs when compared to the moral preening potential of her socialist battle again "corporate greed." Pathetic and scary stupid.

Friday, February 15, 2019

Green Nuclear Deal

Among some of the worthwhile core tenets of the Green New Deal proposal, supported by a large number of progressives, are the following: (1) reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere dramatically; (2) use alternative energy sources to replace fossil fuel energy generation; (3) work to make all physical structures in the United States energy efficient; (4) eliminate the use of fossil fuels for transportation with specific emphasis on automotive and air transport. The problem with this is that these goals are to be achieved under a time frame that is unrealistic, costs associated with these goals are astronomical, and the center of innovation and control is the federal government. All of that is deeply problematic. In addition, there are other aspects of the proposal that have absolutely nothing to do with a greener environment or with anthropogenic climate change, but are political in nature, encompassing medical care, guaranteed levels of income, social programs, and a variety of other unrelated goals.

For the moment, let’s concentrate only on the energy-related portions of the Green New Deal. By virtually any measure and by the admission of leading Democrats, the Green New Deal is “aspirational.” There is almost no detail, no discussion of actual costs, little mention of technologies that might make goals happen, and no implementation plan beyond the goals described.

Reading my Twitter feed yersterday, I ran across a proposal by Mark Schneider (@subschneider). Schneider is a private citizen who tells us that he spent 20 years operating nuclear power plants for the U.S. Navy. After his retirement from the Navy, he spent years working in the commercial sector of the nuclear industry as an operator of a “3-loop Westinghouse nuclear plant.”

Schneider decided to propose an alternative to the Green New Deal which he refers to as the Green Nuclear Deal. His plan would result in zero emission power generation and could actually be achieved within a decade or two. It would be expensive, but a combination of government and private sector expenditures could achieve it.

Here is what Schneider proposed (edited for clarity and continuity):
Phase 1: Deregulate a lot of the nuclear industry. [Schneider goes on the discuss unnecessary and costly regulations and why they are a roadblock to progress.] With regulations removed the next part of phase 1 would be for the government to intervene and fund recommended construction on VC Summer Units 2 and 3 [nuclear plants in Jenkinsville, SC that would serve a significant sector of the Southeast]. And then to push for companies with existing licenses to build other New Generation 3 PWRs [pressurized water reactors] and BWRs [boiling water reactors].

Phase 1 is really about replacing the aging commercial nuclear fleet to support the base load energy source. California spent $100 billion dollars on green energy that can sustain whopping 23 minutes of power needs. For the same price they could have built 6 to 10 new nuclear plants.

Phase 2: Have a national laboratories that design of the Navy’s nuclear power plants create a smaller commercial variable power plant design to use during peak demand hours. Large-scale nuclear plants don’t function well at varying power levels. The Navy’s nuclear power plants are designed to vary power levels because ships do not operate at top speed all the time and must fluctuate between low and high power constantly based on the mission. Smaller scale (1000 MW or less) nuclear plants could be used to supplement larger plants during peak periods.

Phase 3: Place focus on developing a new generation for fusion power plants. These new designs have unlimited passive safety systems. Meaning that if an incident occurred and all operators suddenly die, the plant would go to safe idle or shutdown mode indefinitely. This is obviously preferred to the current generation 2 and 3 reactors in service that require specific operator action. Even the new generation 3+ HP 1000 plants require operator action after 72 hours. After Fukushima, a program called BDB flex was implemented. It requires diesel driven equipment on site in harden facilities to combat ‘beyond design basis’ incidents (e.g., a tsunami or hurricane). Overall the safety of currently operating plants is enhanced because of the procedure, but the NewGen for designs would eliminate this.

Phase 4. Fusion power plants. To get this technology will require competitive efforts similar to the Manhattan Project in 1940s. To ensure public safety we would need to construct a large-scale test plants in the middle of nowhere. This has been done in the past during the 50s and 60s when fission was being developed on a large-scale. I n fact the only nuclear accident in US history that involved a fatality occurred in the middle of nowhere in Idaho SL-1 . After the accident, design requirements were built into new plant design to preclude rod injection. I would hope any fusion designs would not have any major accidents but we would need to put them in the middle of nowhere. Fortunately, we have three major new national nuclear sites in the middle of nowhere.

We could pick three types of fusion core designs and give sites $1 billion each to start design and construction. The two labs to get their project furthest along in the five-year time would be awarded an additional $1 billion for further development. As project progresses we can continue to fund them until they produce 2 different very viable large-scale fusion plants.
A quick read of Schneider’s plan indicates it is also ”aspirational,” but this private individual has provided more detail and a more realistic approach than anything proposed in the Green New Deal. It would be guaranteed to result in zero omission power generation. If completed, it would eliminate the need for fossil fuels in power generation by mid-century. It would be expensive but manageably so, and it is something that would rely predominately on private sector development, if the government simply got out of the way.

The proponents of the Green New Deal tell us that we are headed for a climate crisis that is existential in nature. Other proponents tell us that our response should be analogous to World War II. If this really is an existential crisis and if the planet hangs in the balance, any plan that is proposed should NOT be the product on uninformed, tendentious ideologues who never managed anything bigger than their political campaigns (and probably didn't even do that). It should use all available technologies– particularly those technologies that have been proven to work and could provide a zero-emission source that would yield half of the nation's energy needs within 10 years. It might be worth asking the primary congressional authors of the Green New Deal why nuclear power gets no mention in their “aspirational” plan.

Thursday, February 14, 2019

Force Field

The "force field" is a staple of science fiction. By placing a magical force field around a person or an entity, any attack in ineffectual. Weapons bounce off and the person or entity is unharmed. This allows the protected person or entity, whether a villain or a hero, to attack the enemy unharmed.

As the Democrats move to diversify their presidential candidates, they and their trained hamsters in the media are working to create a force field around them. The force field is designed to deflect any criticism, any commentary, or any ridicule, regardless of whether it is justified or not. If the target a woman, any criticism, commentary, or ridicule will be characterized as "misogynistic" or "sexist." If it's a person of color, any attack, no matter how justified, will be characterized as "racism" and the attacker will be accused of "white privilege." If it's a Latino—"anti-immigrant." And if it's a Muslim—"Islamophobia." If it's a combination (intersectional) of these characteristics, the force field is magnified in strength.

Of course the force field only works for Democrats. Republican woman, people of color, Latinos, and Muslims cannot avail themselves of the same force field—it just doesn't work for them.

Even the New York Times, not a publication known for its even-handedness in such matters, has noticed:
On Saturday, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand made a campaign stop at Kiki’s Chicken and Waffles in Columbia, S.C., and asked whether to use “fingers or forks” to eat the fried chicken. The mockery that followed online? Sexism, cried social media!

The next day, Senator Amy Klobuchar announced her presidential bid in the midst of a Minnesota snow shower — and a blizzard of stories describing her demanding behavior as a boss. Asha Harris, a voter at the rally, told a Times reporter that the critique was “plainly sexist.”

The historic number of women running for president was bound to change the dynamics of the contest. And now, just a couple months in, we’re seeing one way that could take shape: sexism as a shield, fending off criticism that, on its surface, would seem nongendered.
There's only one problem. The Dems have used accusations of sexism and racism so frequently and so hypocritically, they've weakened the strength of the force field. When everyone is a racist or a sexist, then no one is a racist or a sexist.

It's a guarantee that the Dems will deploy their force field at every opportunity, but I suspect it won't have the protective power that it once did.

Wednesday, February 13, 2019


In a number of recent posts, I've commented on the growing anti-Semitism among the hard left wing of the Democratic party. The most recent example—the odious comments of yet another media darling—Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. Sure, Omar is the epitome of a "diversity" politician—a woman, a person of color, young, a victim of oppression in her native land, and a Muslim—what could be more politically correct? Only one thing—she's also an anti-Semite, rabidly anti-Israel, and a hard-left ideologue.

If this was only about Omar, there wouldn't be much of a problem. There will always be anti-Semites, and taken individually, they are despicable, but not particularly dangerous. It's when their hatred of Jews is absorbed by a large political movement that they become dangerous. That's what's happening in the Democratic party. Sure, it's still very early, and yes, the leadership of the Dems is waving its arms and condemning the anti-Semitism in its midst, but it seems to me it's doing political calculus—keeping its large and enthusiastic Jewish constituency mollified—rather than aggressively rooting out and banishing the leftists who espouse these bigoted positions.

Of course, the hard left tells us that they're not anti-Semites, just "anti-Zionists." And that's because they claim Israel "oppresses" the palestinians and "occupies" palestinian land. Like most positions taken by the Left, this one exhibits profound historical ignorance, hypocritical illogic, striking double standards, and convenient cover for the bigotry that sits behind it. It's telling that of all the countries in the Middle East, the Left chooses to single out the only liberal democracy, the only country that is not homophobic, the only country that is not misogynistic, the only country that encourages freedom of religion and freedom of the press, the only vital economy, and yes, the only country that is not predominantly Muslim.

David Harsanyi comments:
The problem is that “anti-Zionism,” the predominant justification for violence, murder, and hatred against Jews in Europe and the Middle East, is a growing position on the American Left. While Omar embraces the worst caricatures of this ideology, it’s her core contention regarding the Jewish state–not her clumsy “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”-style insults, which are just a manifestation of her underlying position—which are most consequential.

One of the dishonest argument I often see is that Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who we recently found out wrote a piece for a publication of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, are merely being “critical of Israel.” Yet, no serious person has ever made the claim that being critical of Israel’s policies is anti-Semitic. Israel has had both left-wing and right-wing governments over the years. And like governments in any liberal democracy, they can be corrupt, misguided, or incompetent. Millions of Israelis are critical of their own nation’s policies every year without any fear of repercussions. Israel isn’t Iran or Turkey, countries that most of Israel’s critics never disparage.

But the best way to gauge if a person is merely being “critical” of Israel’s policies or critical of the existence of the Jewish state is to use Natan Sharansky’s 3-d test: 1) Do they engage in “delegitimization” of the nation’s existence as every supporter of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) does? 2) Do they engage in “demonization” of that country, as people who claim Israelis hypnotize the world for evil or go around murdering children for kicks do? 3) Do they engage in “double standards,” like having an obsession with Israel and AIPAC, while ignoring illiberalism found throughout the Islamic world or things like Muslim concentration camps found in China?

... Though it might be tough for progressives to understand, many Americans still prefer Israel over Hamas, the PLO, and Iran for reasons other than money. For example, a shared understanding of liberalism, theological reasons, historic ties, political realities, and practical geopolitical reasons. Though I concede that contemporary progressives might not embrace these values anymore.
Indeed, the reason that far too many on the hard Left find common ground with anti-Israel haters is that they despise any vibrant democracy (Israel is a vibrant democracy) in which many different points of view are alive and well. The hard left wants authoritarian control in which their world-view and only their world view is dominant.

Based on recent history, anti-Semitism among those on the left will get worse, not better. And because the Democrats are lurching left, it will infect their party and their platform. The elders of the party may offer weak protests and occasionally "condemn" the comments of someone like Omar, but I doubt any senior Democrat is brave enough to call out the bigotry and regularly condemn the leftists who espouse it. My continuing advice to Jews who are staunch Democrats—the party is no longer your friend—#walkaway.


After summarizing the comments of those Democrats who have chastized Omar, characterizing her comments as "hurtful," Abigail Shrier writes:
That Ms. Omar would slander Israel is disturbing not because of the feelings it tramples. Since her appointment to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, her statement raises alarm about how her enmity for the world’s only Jewish country—and the world’s largest Jewish population—might translate into policy aims. The issues for Israel’s supporters are security and survival, not hurt feelings, which are trivial in comparison. Assuming that all Jews love gefilte fish, play klezmer music, and suffer overbearing mothers? Those are stereotypes. Actively working to isolate Israel and accusing pro-Israel Jews of bribing Congress isn’t “insensitive.” It’s something far darker and more malevolent.
Indeed it is. Omar is simply one of thousands (tens or hundreds of thousands? millions?) of leftists who want the BDS Movement to succeed. That is, they want to destroy a tiny democracy of 8.8 million people is a sea of nearly 250 million Muslims. The Leftist intent isn't moral, it isn't principled, and it certainly isn't just. It is malevolent.

UPDATE (2/14/2019):

As if to put an explanation point on her "apology" for her rabid anti-Semitism, Ilhan Omar decided to give a speech. Stephen Maturen reports:
Newly elected Rep. Ilhan Omar will jet off to Los Angeles next month to keynote a fundraiser for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a terror-tied organization that was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history.

On March 23, Omar will speak at CAIR-Los Angeles’ 4th Annual Valley Banquet, where tables will cost $500.

“CAIR-LA is honored to have Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as the featured speaker for the 4th Annual Valley Banquet,” reads a press release from the Los Angeles chapter of the group that was formed as a Hamas support network in the United States.

She will deliver her address alongside CAIR-Florida director Hassan Shibly, according to a CAIR flier promoting the event. Shibly is a dedicated Islamist and bigoted gay basher. A fan of radical clerics, he has routinely refused to categorize U.S.-designated terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, according to the Clarion Project. Moreover, Shibly regularly takes to social media to demonize the U.S. military as equivalent to the jihadi terrorists that they are fighting.
I have written about CAIR here, here, and here. It's not the least bit surprising that Omar finds common cause with those who fund Islamic terror organizations. What is surprising is that her Democrat colleagues in the House and the Senate don't condemn her ties to the organization. Might be worth asking her comrade in arms, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez her position on all of this.

Tuesday, February 12, 2019

Beat the Press

The late NBC journalist and well-respected host of Meet the Press, Tim Russert, must be rolling over in his grave after watching (I'm assuming he checks into the show now and then) the current host and true trained hamster, Chuck Todd, interview one of the most partisan and dishonest politicians inside the beltway, Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff. James Freeman comments:
NBC News proudly notes that “Meet the Press” is the longest-running program on network television. But it’s unlikely anyone at the network will be looking back with pride on this week’s show. Almost two full years after Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) told NBC he had seen “more than circumstantial evidence” that associates of Donald Trump had colluded with Russia to rig the 2016 election, the network not only welcomed him back without demanding that he finally produce the evidence to support his claim. NBC gave him a platform to make new allegations.

Those outside the world of Washington media might be less than hospitable to an acquaintance who had claimed to have evidence of a neighbor’s treason but still hadn’t produced it after 23 months. On Sunday, NBC’s Chuck Todd began by quoting some of the President’s recent comments on social media. “So now Congressman Adam Schiff announces, after having found zero Russian Collusion, that he is going to be looking at every aspect of my life, both financial and personal,” said Mr. Trump via Twitter.

This seemed to be the moment for Mr. Todd to demand that Mr. Schiff, who is now chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, finally produce the evidence he has long claimed to have seen. But instead Mr. Todd simply asked Mr. Schiff to “explain the parameters of your investigation, where you’ve expanded. How far back into his finances do you plan to look?”

Without defending his earlier claim, Mr. Schiff proceeded to explain how he was now setting off in search of evidence of “a different form of collusion,” perhaps involving the President’s finances. The theory seems to be that Mr. Trump was focused on closing a sweet deal to develop a Moscow hotel. Your humble correspondent is not the first to note that there are probably easier and cheaper ways to secure corrupt real estate deals than to get elected President of the United States.
A "different form of collusion," huh? Seems like the Dems have failed in their deranged, evidence-free fantasy to impeach Trump for being a Russian puppet, so now they have to find "a different form of collusion."

In a way, it's kind of pathetic. The Dems can't seem to get past this. They can't seem to accept that they lost an election, that their candidate was less than ideal, that the American people rejected their message of more Obama-like years. So enter a clown car of Dem politicians who keep telling the faithful that the evidence is out there and that impeachment is just around the corner. The only problem is that there is no evidence. So the faithful fly into a rage and the cycle repeats. Schiff sits at the front of the clown car—lying because the media won't call him on it. In essence, with the help of Todd and every other trained hamster, he beat the press.

In thinking about it, it's not a surprise that Todd and Schiff got on so well—a political hack and a media hack both with the same hyper-partisan worldview.

Monday, February 11, 2019

Chaos in VA

The outrage brigades have turned on their own in VA, and the result is political chaos. The Democrat Governor did a truly stupid/racist thing when he was photographed [he denies this] in black face with another person dressed in a KKK costume. It was 30 years ago when he was in school. The Assistant Governor is being accused by two women of sexual abuse [he denies this] in the early part of the 2000s. The third in line of succession is the Democrat AG of VA who has also admitted to a black face incident in his youth. OMG!

The Dems are in a quandary. Their perpetual allegations of "racism" against those who oppose progressive policies have come full circle and are now used against their own. The irony is that the same Dem governor who is now accused of racism used those same accusations again his opponent (who is NOT a racist) during his last election. The Dem Lt. Gov may or may not be guilty of the sexual abuse allegations, but according the the SJWs of the left, we MUST believe the women, so ... The only problem is that the Lt. Gov is an African American and removing him from office might smack of racism (as you can see, this stuff gets complicated). And the AG, should he be forced out, would open the door to the next in line for succession—a (gasp!!) Republican. Wow. Just wow.

Conservative firebrand Kurt Schlichter comments:
... how about telling the SJWs to pound sand and leave the decision about evaluating a politician’s past where it belongs – in the hands of the voters? If you want to vote against a politician in the next election because he was either channeling Al Jolson or Robert Byrd back in 1984, that’s your right. But undoing an election, demanding a resignation, is a big deal. It deprives the voters of their choice. This should be the response we give when some Republican’s crime-free knucklehead antics from long ago get revealed:

“No. The voters of ______________ will decide.”


Now yes, I am advocating two different sets of standards, one for Democrats and one for the GOP. That dual-track rule thing is itself a New Rule imposed by the left, and when you see Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit in an orange jumper doing the pokey time we would all do for classified stuff shenanigans [or destruction of evidence during an on-going D0J investigation or alleged pay-for-play "donations" or spousal speaking fees while Secretary of State] we can talk about having one set of rules again. The fact is that the Democrats have embraced the SJWs, and they should get the full brunt of their fussy outrage good n’ hard. Let them take these wailing nuts and their phony hysterics seriously. We Republicans are supposed to reject their overwrought nonsense, hence the pounding of sand suggestion.

Just say “No.”

Now, there are times when we should cast off one of our nominal own. Corruption. Real misbehavior. Present day character issues that are so intolerable they can’t wait for the next election. Those happen, and we must police our own, but these are relatively rare situations.
In fact the only legitimate defense against these types of allegations out of the distant past is to tell the SJWs to "pound sand." Otherwise, every stupid teenage action (whether true or alleged) by any public figure will be used as a weapon. This will not stop, and now the Dems are experiencing it, full bore.

It's time for someone in the Democratic party to stand up and have a Joseph Welch moment. That someone should ask the SJWs whether they have the decency to forgive 30 year old allegations or actions. Sadly, the answer is that they do not, unless their allies or power are threatened. Hypocrites!


The Dems have had significant success painting their opposition as [fill in the epithet], But now in VA and elsewhere it appears that the Dems themselves have their share of [fill in the epithet]. Consider newly elected Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) whose tweets are becoming so rabidly anti-Semitic that even Chelsea Clinton has taken note. Where is the Dem leadership in all of this? Why hasn't Omar been stripped of her committee assignments or asked to resign? After all, the Dems demanded the same treatment when Rep. Steven King (R-Iowa) made racist remarks. And more importantly, the GOP leadership responded appropriately. What's the difference? Why the double standard? We all know the answer to those questions. Different rules apply.

Oh, BTW, where's media darling, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, on all of this. According to her legions of fawning Twitter followers, she's the new conscience of the Democratic party. AOC is oh-so concerned about racism and bigotry, I'm surprised she's not in the forefront of concern about Omar's comments. Heh.


Liz Shield puts a hard edge on her commentary about growing anti-Semitism among some national Democratic figures (not to mention far too many of its leftist base) when she writes:
There is some serious rich, liberal Jewish coin funding the left and there is a fine line the anti-Semites in the Democrat Party have to walk. They need to signal just enough Jew-hating to keep their Jew-hating base/membership happy, but not too much where it frightens Jewish checkbooks to thinking that we Jews (yes, I am Jewish) are headed for the ovens again. Use your indoor voice for your anti-Semitism, not your outdoor voice. Rep. Omar is the Democrats' outdoor voice.
Freshman Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar ignited a new controversy on Sunday night when she suggested GOP support for Israel is driven by campaign donations from a prominent pro-Israel group.
Omar singled out AIPAC, one of the most influential lobbying groups in Washington, as the source of those donations.

Omar's comments touched upon a long-running, and particularly ugly, thread of the anti-Semitic movement — that Jewish money fuels backing for Israel in the United States and elsewhere. A freshman Democrat, Max Rose of New York, said, "Congresswoman Omar's statements are deeply hurtful to Jews, including myself."
AIPAC is hardly a lightening rod in the universe of pro-Israel groups (seriously, you guys), but if you are a legit Jew hater, the group would get your anti-Semitic panties in a bunch.
It long past time for Jews to #Walkaway.


Ahhhh. It appears that Ilhan Omar's overt anti-Semitism is too much, even for the leadership of the Democratic party. It looks like a statement co-signed by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC), Assistant Speaker Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Caucus Vice Chair Katherine Clark (D-MA) all condemn Omar's "hurtful" comments. Goah, I don'ty see Nancy Pelosi's name on that list, or members of the Congressional Black Caucus condemning the rabid anti-Semitism of Louis Farrakkan, but whatever ...

And screw "Hurtful." Her comments don't hurt my feeling, they piss me off. Not because Omar or Tlaib or past DNC vice-chair Keith Ellison or dozens of other left-wing "activists" are anti-Semites and anti-Israel but because it's taken the Dems months and months to decide that it's bad politics. Yeah ... it is, but worse, it demonstrates that a significant percentage of Jews continue to support a party that at least in part hates their guts but is perfectly willing to use them. What fools! #Walkaway.

Friday, February 08, 2019

The New Green Deal

Because I run 40 percent of my home using solar power and own two zero-emission electric vehicles, I suspect that I have done more to fight air pollution and conserve energy than 95 percent of all Americans, including climate "activists" and those politicians who continually tell us there's a climate crisis but don't act like it (think: using private jets to travel or living in 10,000 square foot homes). Having said this, I can't help but comment on the latest idea to come out of the Democratic socialist wing of the Washington elite—the so-called "New Green Deal."

Kim Strassel skewers the Deal when she writes:
It is for starters, a massive plan for the government to take over and micromanage much the economy. Take the central plank, its diktat of producing 100% of U.S. electricity “through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” by 2030. As Ron Bailey at Reason has noted, a 2015 plan from Stanford envisioning the goal called for the installation of 154,000 offshore wind turbines, 335,000 onshore wind turbines, 75 million residential photovoltaic (solar) systems, 2.75 million commercial solar systems, and 46,000 utility-scale solar facilities. AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] has been clear it will be government building all this, not the private sector.

And that might be the easy part. According to an accompanying fact sheet, the Green New Deal would also get rid of combustion engines, “build charging stations everywhere,” “upgrade or replace every building in U.S.,” do the same with all “infrastructure,” and crisscross the nation with “high-speed rail.”

Buried in the details, the Green New Deal also promises government control of the most fundamental aspects of private life. The fact sheet explains why the resolution doesn’t call for “banning fossil fuels” or for “zero” emissions across the entire economy—at least at first. It’s because “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast” (emphasis mine).

This is an acknowledgment that planes don’t run on anything but fossil fuel. No jet fuel, no trips to see granny. It’s also an acknowledgment that livestock produce methane, which has led climate alarmists to engage in “meatless Mondays.” AOC may not prove able to eradicate “fully” every family Christmas or strip of bacon in a decade, but that’s the goal.

Finally, the resolution is Democratic math at its best. It leaves out a price tag, and is equally vague on what kind of taxes would be needed to cover the cost. But it would run to tens of trillions of dollars. The fact sheet asserts the cost shouldn’t worry anyone, since the Federal Reserve can just “extend credit” to these projects! And “new public banks can be created to extend credit,” too! And Americans will get lots of “shared prosperity” from their “investments.” À la Solyndra.
This plan reads like it was written by a 10th grade science class. It exhibits the bright-eyed enthusiasm of children, but lacks clear-eyed adult understanding of the economy, of the underlying science, of real-world politics, of the profound influence of special interests, or just about everything else that would lead to a successful outcome. It might have good intentions, but it is laughably naive, ridiculously disingenuous, and irresponsibly dictatorial.

The Deal wouldn't be as loopy as it is if it defined a 50-year timeline in which innovation by the private sector driven by market forces and (gasp!) profit led to a cleaner and more livable planet. The Deal doesn't do that. It wouldn't be as irresponsible as it is if it laid out a plan for making an economically sustainable transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy and recognized that some fossil fuel usage would remain well into the 21st century (think: air travel). The Deal doesn't do that. It wouldn't be coercive as it is if it recognized that careful analysis of existing scientific data, divorced from political influence, is required before massive decisions about restructuring the economy are made. The Deal doesn't do that. And finally, it wouldn't be naive/insane (choose your term) as it is if it admitted that history indicates that the federal government has not been particularly effective at instituting major programs and doing so without waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption. The Deal doesn't do that.

But the Deal does exemplify the core tenets of the philosophy of the Democratic Socialists—coercion, domination, and control. But that was the topic of my last post.


As more and more people delve into the actual text of the proposed Green New Deal, the reaction has been ridicule mixed with withering criticism. The hard left and members of the democratic socialists love every word, every comma and every concept, but for the rest of us ... not so much.

Much of the original text of the Deal has been deleted from AOC's web site. She claims that a draft was inadvertently posted and that the final version does not reflect the idiocy noted in the draft. Maybe. But the simple fact that a draft suggested centralized control of the economy, a massive revamp of the energy sector that would quadruple electricity rates for average Americans, and a crazy short/unreralistic timeline. All of that along with stuff that has NOTHING to do with climate change, e.g., guaranteed jobs for everyone and for those who choose not to work, guaranteed income, and free medical care indicates that the Deal is more than 'green." It's a roadmap for a socialist government in which coercion, domination, and control are the central tenets. Not surprising, but fundamentally dishonest to wrap this stuff in an environmental blanket. Then again, dishonesty is yet another central tenet of socialism.

Thursday, February 07, 2019

"Coercion, Domination, and Control"

There's a recurrent sound bite that we hear from left-wing Democrats who want to sound like they have gravitas, "It's important that we have a national 'conversation' on ... [you fill in the subject]."

Of course, the last thing they want is a robust debate because the minute opposing views are voiced the Dems and their trained hamsters in the media begin to attack, accusing the opposing voices in the "conversation" of "racism," or of being "anti-immigrant," or of being "misogynists" or any of a laundry list of ad hominem epithets. The reason is that the left has trouble with details*, with explaining how massive government programs, uncontrolled spending, and poorly-constructed policies will work in the real world.

At Tuesday night's SOTU, Donald Trump started a "conversation" when he said:
We stand with the Venezuelan people in their noble quest for freedom — and we condemn the brutality of the Maduro regime, whose socialist policies have turned that nation from being the wealthiest in South America into a state of abject poverty and despair. Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country,. America was founded on liberty and independence - not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.
Watching the Democrat side of the audience, you would have thought Trump suggested that everyone run out and kill puppies. Dour looks, grimaces, and silence. After all, the Dems are rapidly adopting socialism as their guiding philosophy and they're not happy when someone questions or challenges their direction.

The programs being proposed by supposedly mainstream Democrats—a full government takeover of healthcare, a "new green deal" that would transform 90 percent of the energy sector, guaranteed income and/or jobs for everyone, eliminating the autonomy of private sector corporations, stratospheric tax rates—are making the big intrusive government that we already have seem small by comparison. The editors of the Wall Street Journal comment:
Some readers might think this is all so extreme it could never happen. But presidential candidates don’t propose ideas they think will hurt them politically. The leftward lurch of Democratic voters, especially the young, means the party could nominate the most left-wing presidential candidate in U.S. history. If other Democratic candidates oppose any or all of this, we’d like to hear them.

The American public deserves to have a debate about all this, lest it sleepwalk into a socialist future it doesn’t want. Credit to Mr. Trump for teeing it up.
The Democratic left will defend its position with emotion but leave the details for later. It's critical that the voting public demand the details now. It's also critical that the recent history of socialism (and its myriad failures) and it's kissing cousin, communism, be fully explored. Venezuela is not a bad place to start.


In an effort to defend the socialist paradigm that was attacked by Donald Trump, the Democrats are trying to go on the offensive. A key democratic proponent of socialism was interviewed by NPR. Tom Elliott reports:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said she has no qualms about acknowledging a so-called “Green New Deal” will mean unprecedented governmental intrusion into the private sector. Appearing on NPR, she was asked if she’s prepared to tell Americans outright that her plans involve “massive government intervention.”

“As you know, congresswoman, one reason that people are politically conservative are skeptical of efforts to combat climate change is that it sounds to them like it requires massive government intervention, which they just don’t like,” Steve Inskeep asked. “Are you prepared to put on that table that, ‘Yes actually they’re right, what this requires is massive government intervention’?”

“It does, it does, yeah, I have no problem saying that,” Ocasio-Cortez quickly replied. “Why? Because we have tried their approach for 40 years. For 40 years we have tried to let the private sector take care of this. They said, ‘We got this, we can do this, the forces of the market are going to force us to innovate.’”
Hmmm. No innovation huh? No improvements, right? Unfortunately, AOC's media charisma can't hide her ignorance of facts and history, nor can it hide the rabid ideological zeal that warps her thinking and makes her look like the empty suit she is.

Over the past 40 years there have been dramatic reductions in air and water pollution, the fuel economy of gasoline vehicles, the efficiency of electric appliances, lighting systems, and alternative energy generation. There has been the dramatic growth in zero emission electric vehicles that will become as much as 30 percent of the new car market by 2030. All of this is due to private sector innovation, not big government takeovers.

Apparently Ocasio-Cortez is too lazy or too stupid to do the basic research to note these simple facts. (The search took me about 10 minutes) She isn't the type of person to worry about details or reality or numbers. She's too caught up in an authoritarian takeover—as long as she and her fellow travelers in the Democratic party are in authority to coerce, dominate and control the rest of us.