The Wall Street Journal recently published an opinion piece by Galen Institute president Grace-Marie Turner that credits AOC with what she’s good at: She’s good at getting people to follow and believe in her.
And calls out what she’s BAD at: basically everything else relating to American politics.
It’s preeeetty SCATHING:
The tragedy is that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has little regard for the system that made it possible for her to be elected to Congress, gain extraordinary influence, have access to millions of dollars to pay staff (at a “living wage” of at least $52,000 a year, so generous is she with taxpayer money), and now with a standard of living far above what her old job could have provided. She leads a generation of young people to take pride in their ignorance—of the laws of nature, of history, of the Constitution, of the eternal battle for freedom—and still succeed.
Perhaps her role in killing 25,000 Amazon jobs in New York will wake people up, or maybe it’ll be the hubris of her recent tweet: “If you don’t like the #GreenNewDeal, then come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis. Until then, we’re in charge—and you’re just shouting from the cheap seats.”
Ah, democracy! Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has soared because of the freedom and prosperity her policies would destroy. Our attention to her fuels her celebrity and therefore her ideas. Time to get over our fascination and move on.
I mean… it’s harsh. And she’s ENTIRELY right.
And because you literally can’t say AOC’s name without immediately triggering a response (this chick very clearly Googles herself every morning) she’s already AAAAANGRY.
And this is relevant, HOW?
Well, uh, she can’t actually READ so she GAVE IT HER BEST, OK?!
WAY TO PROVE HER RIGHT, AOC.
When President Donald Trump first entered the Oval Office two years ago, Sen. Lindsey Graham was a little reticent to give him his phone number.
“President Trump and I did not start well,” the South Carolina Republican said in remarks Thursday to hundreds of conservative activists. “But now I’ve given him my phone number.”
Trump famously gave out Graham’s old cellphone number to the world when both men were seeking the Republican nomination for president.
“We’ve got a lot in common. I like him, and he likes him,” Graham quipped, provoking laughter.
Graham, now chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told his audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference that he was “never more proud of Trump” than during the ultimately successful effort to win Senate confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
Graham attracted the admiration of skeptical conservatives in September, when he made an impassioned defense of Kavanaugh as fellow Judiciary Committee members weighed a newly surfaced accusation that the nominee sexually assaulted a teenage girl when they were in high school.
“I want to thank the president for nominating Brett,” Graham said at CPAC. “He did something not everyone does. He had somebody’s back when it really mattered. There were a bunch of people saying we need to move on, and the president said, ‘No, thank you.’ That’s truly called draining the swamp.”
Graham asked the CPAC audience to imagine what would have happened if Democrats had been able to block Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
Qualified prospective nominees would be reluctant to step forward if the tactics employed against Kavanaugh had prevailed, he said.
Graham also made it clear that he would work with Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to confirm more conservative judges.
Throughout his talk, Graham also credited Trump on a range of topics:
“Why is Rocket Man talking to Trump? Because he knows he means business.”
“Why is the Taliban at the peace table? Because we are kicking their a–.”
“Why is the caliphate destroyed? Because Trump is letting the military do its job.”
“Why is Iran on the run? Because Trump recognizes a bad deal.”
“Why is Kavanaugh on the court? Because Trump is tough.”
CPAC, the largest annual national gathering of conservative activists, runs through Saturday at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington.
AP Photo/Julie Jacobson
It’s not just the U.S. House of Representatives and New Mexico that are embracing universal background checks this week. Not by a long shot.
It seems that despite arguments against them throughout the nation, including a Department of Justice study that showed most criminals get their guns illegally in the first place, some states are going to push for universal background checks regardless.
Among them is Minnesota, where a panel just advanced universal background checks.
A Minnesota panel on Wednesday, Feb. 27, advanced a bill that would require universal background checks for firearm purchases and transfers.
The House Public Safety and Criminal Justice Reform Finance and Policy Division on a 9-7 vote approved the bill and sent it to the House Ways and Means Committee. The decision came around 10 p.m. after hours of emotional testimony from supporters and opponents who flocked to the Capitol to advocate for their positions.
Just after 10 p.m., lawmakers launched into testimony on another bill that would let law enforcement remove a person’s guns if they posed a danger to themselves or others. They ended their meeting around Midnight prior to taking action on the bill.
Supporters of the background check bill said the checks were needed to curb gun violence in the state and keep guns out of the hands of those who aren’t legally allowed to have them. Opponents, meanwhile, said the bill wouldn’t have the desired effect and instead would penalize lawful gun owners.
“This is about human lives,” Burnsville resident Bob Mokos told the committee. Mokos, a gun control advocate, said he was a gun owner and his sister was fatally shot decades ago. “I, for one, am weary about the children in this country being the price we pay for the Second Amendment.”
Opponents, including gun owners and gun rights advocates, said the bill could penalize those gun owners who aim to obey the law.
“This law will harass law-abiding gun owners,” said Joe Olson, a law professor at Mitchell Hamline and a gun rights advocate. “It will produce no net change in reducing any kind of crime or suicide.”
No, it won’t.
But, more and more, I’m inclined to think that reducing crime isn’t the goal.
We all know the thing about boiling a frog. If you drop him in hot water, he hops out, so you have to turn the water up slowly. Universal background checks are just that, a single notch hotter setting on the stove.
Not to get all tin-foil hat here, but there are plenty of states with universal background checks and a surplus of armed criminals who haven’t been deterred in the least. There’s ample evidence that such laws don’t work, yet they’re still pushed for regardless. There has to be a reason. Either gun control advocates are insane–after all, isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result?–or they know it won’t work and don’t care.
Failure of a gun control law is rarely ever used to justify repealing it. Instead, it’s used to justify even more expansion to gun control regulations. It’s hard not to wonder if this push has more to do with what anti-gunners want next.
After all, California has the toughest gun control laws in the nation, yet how’s its crime rate doing? What about Chicago?
Gun control doesn’t work, but they keep pushing it nonetheless. It’s hard not to get a little paranoid, you know?
I hope that cooler heads prevail in Minnesota and recognize this scheme as a complete and total failure.
Sorry to Bother You caused quite a stir last summer.
Not only did Boots Riley’s film overperform at the box office, it earned raves from film critics nationwide. The movie just snared a Best First Feature award from the Independent Spirit Awards.
Could the film’s strong anti-capitalist bent have anything to do with it? The Guardian asked, “Sorry to Bother You: is this the most shocking anti-capitalist film ever?”
Now, Riley is waging a one-man war on behalf of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro. Don’t believe the stories of Venezuelans starving, he says via Twitter. It’s much worse in Oakland, Calif.
It appears Riley supports the socialist government which reduced the nation to its current state. Here’s how one Venezuelan, who just escaped, described the nation’s current status.
“There are no words. No way to describe a person who make so many mistakes,” one man said of Maduro, “I can’t express how much of a dictator he is – so cynical, so sadistic and not only him, but all his companions.”
An ABC News report says, “Venezuela’s economy has halved in size over the last five years.”
Venezuelans’ diets have become ever more deficient in vitamins and protein, as currency controls restrict food imports and salaries fail to keep pace with inflation, which is now above 2 million percent annually.
Forces loyal to Maduro are blocking desperately needed aid, sometimes by force, to the impoverished country. Nonsense, says Riley. He pins the blame on phony media reports and an alleged U.S. coup to seize the country’s oil resources.
He also downplayed members of the press being detained by the country’s police. That, despite this report describing the incident.
“Very shortly into the interview, Maduro didn’t like the line of questioning, and they stopped the interview,” Univision spokesman Jose Zamora said.
He said government aides confiscated the network’s equipment.
… as well as footage a Univision journalist capturead and shared online.
This shouldn’t be surprising for anyone who heard Riley’s acceptance speech at the Independent Spirit Awards Saturday.
Riley then switched things up to call out the United States and the CIA, who he theorized is organizing a coup in Venezuela right now. “I also want to say that the CIA is trying to have a coup in Venezuela. We should all be putting our voices out to stop the U.S. from having regime change for oil in Venezuela.”
Did Riley offer any proof to back up his claims? Of course not. Have any journalists followed up with said claims? Highly unlikely.
Riley did, however, feel guilty for not thanking the people who helped him craft Sorry to Bother You. So, instead of spreading the love at the awards gala he boiled it down to a Tweet.
[Cross-posted from Hollywood in Toto.]
Watch: Democrats Are Not Happy About What Van Jones Told CPAC, But He’s Right
It’s that time of year again, folks!
Unfortunately, Han and I just couldn’t make it this year, because we’re not made of money and have a bunch of other things going on, BUT WE’LL BE BACK. We wouldn’t miss 2020.
ANYWAY – Van Jones was there… and he had something rather surprising to say:
Good for him for not falling into the “I’m a liberal so CONSERVATIVES DO EVERYTHING WRONG” trap.
It’s not always that black and white.
But GUESS WHAT. The libs are very, VERY displeased at him.
“From woke to nope.”