Biden FINALLY To Address Congress

It’s not really called a State of the Union speech. That will come next year. But traditionally, newly elected presidents address Congress during their first year in office, usually sooner rather than later. They basically don’t give the “state of the union” since they just got the job, but they lay out their vision for what they hope to accomplish. It’s actually about the same as a SOTU, just not called that.

Bobo Obama gave his address to Congress on February 24, 2009, some 35 days after being sworn in. Donald Trump gave his inaugural address to Congress on February 28, 2017, some 39 days after being sworn in. In fact, going back some 40 years to the inaugural address of Ronald Reagan, every single president has addressed Congress in their first 40 days in office.

Except one.

Joe Biden will finally make the plunge, if he accepts Nancy Pelosi’s invitation, on April 28th. That’s 98 days since his swearing in. Most presidents average about an hour long speech. The longest was Bill Clinton who went 65 minutes. George H.W. Bush was the shortest at 48 minutes.

Biden hasn’t done much of anything in the way of public appearances since taking office. His first press conference came almost two months after he was sworn in, and only lasted about 20 questions from 10 hand-selected, friendly reporters. The questions, it’s been said, were given to Biden in advance, and his responses were in the teleprompter.

Whether Joe Biden can speak for an hour or not is unclear. He’s had major problems with speaking, even with a teleprompter, throughout the campaign, and while in office. In fact, his campaign stops were the shortest in history, averaging about 12 minutes in length.

One of the things that Biden will hope to do is strengthen his push for his $2.2 trillion infrastructure bill that he’s hoping to use to bolster his union friends who took it on the chin losing jobs with Keystone XL pipeline, and the coal industry, as well as continuing his bailout of education unions and other things he is defining as “infrastructure”, even though most economists shake their heads when they hear about it.

Whether or not Biden is up to the task and gets the “high praise” he received from his much rehearsed and much ballyhooed presser back in March depends on whether he can actually read for an hour straight. The jury is still out on that one!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Boehner’s Post-Retirement Rant

So, what’s up with John Boehner? The former Speaker of the House from Ohio has been relatively quiet for years. Oh, he was never a fan of Donald Trump and wasn’t shy about telling the world about it. But there were lots of Republicans that were Never Trumpers. Typically, they were the “old-time” politicians that had spent their entire careers either in the House or the Senate, or running failed candidacies for the White House. So, you can understand why all of a sudden a political neophyte like Trump would get under their skin if he came into their “club” and did what none of them could ever do. I get that.

But Boehner has now unleashed this steady stream of vitriol on current Senate Republican and presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz.

Being fair to both sides, Cruz is a rock-ribbed conservative. Boehner was a RINO by any definition. They came from two entirely different generations. Cruz is of the newer generation of Republicans, much more conservative, and able to stir up others’ emotions. Boehner came from the old school, where deals were made after the second bottle of expensive Johnny Walker Blue, and a lot of back slapping with the folks on the other side of the aisle. Yes, you can see where the divergence came in.

But Cruz and Boehner have been at each others’ throats since back in February. Back then, Cruz referred to Boehner’s well know love for the glass of expensive alcohol. But he got Boehner’s goat when he took the former Speaker’s book, “On The House: A Washington Memoir”, and burned it in his office fireplace, then took a picture of it and posted it online. Yeah…that may have gone a little far.

Boehner criticized Cruz as being the guy that was “always stirring up trouble with some of the knuckleheads in my caucus.” So…that’s the reason for the acid tongued speech?

Look, I get it these two never were best buddies. But here’s the deal. Former Speakers of the House are usually forgotten about 10 seconds after they leave office. The reason is simple. They don’t matter anymore. I mean, how many former speakers can you actually name? If you get more than three, you’re doing well, and no fair naming Tip O’Neill! There’s a bonus point if you can name how many of them are in jail right now as well.

Boehner’s time in the spotlight came and went. He’s history. He had the chance to make whatever mark he was going to make in DC, and he left and went back to rural West Chester Township, Ohio. It’s time for him to follow in the footsteps of the other Speaker’s and let the current crop of politicians do their best at running the country. There is nothing so sad as watching an old, washed up politician try to be relevant. That’s because no matter how hard they try, they aren’t.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

So…Who’s Running?

Of course I’m referring to the 2024 election for President of the United States. We can almost be sure that if Joe Biden is about to still read a teleprompter with today’s acumen, he will probably still be on the ticket. If not, look for Kamala Harris to step up and try to get the nomination. Maybe this time she can actually make it to the election year before she steps down and calls it quits. No…I’m referring to the Republican side of things. There are some interesting rumblings going on that may require a look at who’s going to run.

Of course, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is Donald Trump. If Trump decides to run again, he’s going to be the front-runner. But as we all have learned in the past, the front-runner doesn’t always get the cheese. It’s a marathon, and a lot of stuff can happen between the time you announce and the convention. But for the moment, if Trump were to decide to run, he’d probably still be in the first chair.

Besides Trump, there are some interesting choices though. Former Vice President, Mike Pence would be a good second choice. Or even a good first choice. He’s conservative, has experience both as an executive leader (Governor of Indiana), and Vice President, and knows the DC political game pretty much as well as anyone.

Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina Governor, and most recently the UN Ambassador under Donald Trump is a name that’s being bandied about quit a bit. Haley certainly has the experience. She’s young and energetic. She’s smart and conservative. Those are redeeming qualities. And being a woman, it would give the Republicans the chance to take another poke at women’s libbers the world over by electing a conservative as the first woman president (assuming Harris doesn’t take over for Biden). Don’t forget, the GOP did it with the first Supreme Court Justice in Sandra Day O’Connor. Democrats don’t have a stranglehold on putting women first!

Others in the running? I’ve heard Tucker Carlson, the Fox News host talked about quite a bit. To be honest, it’s a longshot because Fox News anchors and hosts typically don’t do well in the political game. Just look at Mike Huckabee as an example. Usually Fox News is where these guys go when their political career is over… like Jason Chavitz, or even Harold Ford Jr.

Ivanka Trump has been talked about. She doesn’t have the experience, and there are a lot better candidates out there that do have experience. I think she sits on the sidelines, especially if dad decides to run again.

Marco Rubio ran the last two presidential elections, but didn’t do well. In fact, traditionally, those that run over and over again don’t get the nomination. I don’t expect him to do well in this election either.

Condoleezza Rice, the former Secretary of State under George W. Bush is smart enough. But she’s not mentioned that she’d want the job. Maybe she’d make a good VP, but I don’t see her running for President.

Mike Pompeo, the recent Secretary of State has already been visiting Iowa, but was basically campaigning for Trump. I think Pompeo is smart enough, has great experience, but as we’ve seen in the past, Secretary’s of State typically don’t do well in presidential elections (look at Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Robert Kennedy!)

Ted Cruz is certainly one with experience. He doesn’t have executive leadership abilities but he is the one that was the last man out in 2016 when Trump ran against Hillary. He is a rock-ribbed conservative, so I could see that as a plus for the Texan, but he also had some problems getting re-elected against who I consider a political lightweight in Beto O’Rourke. I don’t think he’s got the camera presence to make a lasting showing.

My final pick this time around is Tim Scott, the Senator from South Carolina. Scott is experienced, and likeable. He’s conservative, and being black, he erases any Democrat notions to use the race card during the race.

There you have it. Plenty of others could chime in between now and 2023, but that’s the latest from here. Walter…back to you!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Supreme Court Backs Religion In Tandon v. Newsom Decision

The Supreme Court came out this past Friday with what really should be considered a landmark case. The case was Tandon v. Newsom. At the heart of the matter was whether or not the State of California could deny religious institutions indoor events, such as Bible Study, and worship service if there were other indoor events that were permitted.

In the past the high court has basically said that religious activities were viewed differently from other “indoor activities”, even though religion is protected under the First Amendment, actions and events that are religious were deemed to be different than actual “religion”. In Tandon v. Newsom, the State was slapped down because religious activities and religion are viewed as one.

Basically, there were four points why Gavin Newsom’s law was deemed unconstitutional and why the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong. The first was the “comparator” of religious activities and religion, as outlined above. The second was that the Supreme Court said the reason people gather inside is irrelevant. People gathering inside, whether there for a dinner, or Bible Study, are still inside. The reason doesn’t matter, even though the 9th Circuit said it did. The third reason was that the State of California and not the church bears the burden of proof in this case. Usually it’s the plaintiff that has to prove the charges. In Tandon v. Newsom, the state was trying to make the church prove that having indoor religious meetings and events wasn’t a public health risk. They basically shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. That’s not right. And fourthly, parties are entitled to relief as long as the case isn’t moot. This refers to the ever-changing rules regarding COVID, and the fact that Cali was opening bars and restaurants, and not churches, then closing bars and restaurants and re-writing the criteria for events and activities being opened. So the case wasn’t moot.

What’s nice to see here is that we finally have a Supreme Court that is willing to accept that “Freedom OF religion” doesn’t mean “Freedom FROM religion”. And we can thank the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the bench for that. A year ago, this would have been a 5-4 decision going the other way. But with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, and Coney Barrett’s replacing her, this has been a 5-4 decision based on what the Founding Fathers would have said. Joining the decent was Steven Breyer, Elena Kagan, Sonya Sotomayor, and the court’s newest liberal, Chief Justice, John Roberts. What is interesting is Roberts’ loss of power as the Chief Justice ever since Coney Barrett joined the Court. I’m going to go out on a limb here. My thinking is that John Roberts may be the next Justice to retire from the high court…not Steven Breyer as all Democrats want (to keep the seat liberal).

It’s interesting to see that in this screwed up time when Democrats are afraid of losing power in Congress and are clawing and scratching to do anything to keep that power, up to and including packing the court, and changing all sorts of rules just because they want to hold on to their power, it’s refreshing to see the high court turn their nose at liberalism in all it’s forms. The snowflake liberals of America can’t run roughshod over a group that has the final say in the Constitutionality of laws in our country. And it’s about time!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Biden’s Infrastructure Boondoggle

Joe Biden has made no bones about his desire to fundamentally improve the infrastructure in this country. And I think that if you asked most people in Congress, they’d probably agree that the infrastructure in the country needs to be severely upgraded. That’s not the bone of contention. There is one however.

It’s in the definition of “Infrastructure”.

If you were to look in the dictionary for a definition, this is what you’d find: 1 : the system of public works of a country, state, or region also : the resources (such as personnel, buildings, or equipment) required for an activity. 2 : the underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization).

If you were to ask Republicans what “Infrastructure” was, they’d probably say something closer to the first example. Democrats would expand that greatly.

In fact, Democrats would probably say that infrastructure includes anything in cities and states. It’s not only roads, and bridges, airports and train tracks…what most people would certainly consider infrastructure. It’s also things like internet access, study climate change, expand homebased care for the elderly, get ready for the “next” pandemic, and to expand “housing stock”. Of course in that is a lot of stuff from the Green New Deal.

There are basically two problems with this. The first is 90% of economists out there are cringing at the Democrats’ definition. They say it “does a bit of violence to the English language.” So, basically anything on the Democrats’ wish list is fair game to be called “infrastructure”. The second problem with this are the endless parade of lies that are being told about it.

You have to realize that most states Departments of Transportation fix the roads in their states. They maintain the bridges, and the airports. All of the “traditional” stuff that you could consider infrastructure. When you get right down to it, about 5% of this infrastructure bill actually goes to fix roads and bridges, airports, bus terminals, train depots and tracks, and on and on. That’s because the federal government doesn’t traditionally dabble in this. In fact, the last time the feds decided to do something like this involving infrastructure, it was back in 1956 when Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the bill that gave us the Interstate Highway system we currently use. Most of the time, the feds kick in about $100 billion a year toward infrastructure. States will pay about four times that much overall.

So, it’s basically a states issue, not a federal government issue. Second, and equally important is the lie that Pete Buttigieg, the current Transportation Secretary, told when he went on the various Sunday talking head shows and said that National Economic Council Director, Brian Deese had come out with the number of 19 million new jobs created over the next ten years. And Buttigieg dutifully reported that number. The problem was, that number is a lie. There are going to be 16 million new jobs created over the next ten years regardless if the infrastructure bill gets passed or not. The bill only adds about 2.7 million new jobs over ten years. That’s less jobs per year than Walmart added to their stores in 2020! And the cost per job created? About $830,000. I doubt any of those jobs will pay that.

Democrats need to stop lying about things like this. They need to realize that the truth always comes out, and when the American people (who are not as smart as you and I) realize that they’ve been lied to, there is going to be a massive revolt against them. But then again, you can’t fix stupid!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Biden Wants To Pack The Court. Court Doesn’t Agree

Joe Biden this past week signed yet another Executive Order that establishes a commission to look into whether or not the Congress should put together approval to add justices to the United States Supreme Court. The commission has to study the issue and report back to Biden in 180 days (6 months). Known as “court packing”, it hasn’t been attempted for the last 84 years. The last time it was attempted was also when a Democrat was in charge, FDR, and did so for pretty much the same reason. Back then, FDR was moving the country far to the left with socialist ideas and programs and the high court was knocking down a lot of what he wanted to do as unconstitutional. So, he tried to pack the court by adding liberal justices, thereby assuring that his ideas would get through.

It hasn’t been attempted since 1937.

Why is it being done today? Simple. Democrats are in this hail Mary, squash the right mentality. They know that they own the Congress, and the White House, and if they change enough laws, and get the Supreme Court up to say, 15 jurists, they’ll have a majority in all three branches of government. Then they can do away with the filibuster, make Washington DC, and Puerto Rico a state to get more liberal Senators (they already have a vote scheduled for this coming week on DC statehood), and pass HR-1 which would basically give them free reign to own the voting system in every state by nationalizing the voting laws, and making mail-in ballots at least easy, if not mandatory. It would make their attempts to defraud elections so much easier.

Well, what does the Supreme Court thing about all of this?

I’m not sure what most of the nine jurists on the high court think. I can tell you what one thinks. He thinks it stinks. And he’s not some super-conservative Brett Kavanaugh type of justice either. It’s liberal Stephen Breyer!

Breyer was giving a speech at Harvard Law this past week and said that he felt packing the court would do irreparable harm to the government. He stated that the court’s authority depends on  “a trust that the court is guided by legal principle, not politics. Structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that latter perception, further eroding that trust.”

But wait…there’s more.

The late (some say great), Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was about as socialist and liberal as one could get didn’t like the idea either. She said it “would make the court appear partisan” and destroy the public’s confidence in the court’s credibility, and therefore the court itself. It would be one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges so we’ll have more people who will vote the way we want them to.'” Interesting that two of the most liberal justices in the history of the Supreme Court agree that what Biden is doing is out of bounds and bad for America!

Now, if Clarence Thomas, or Neal Gorsuch, or Kavanaugh had said that, I’d probably say it was a difference in political ideas. But Breyer is a liberal through and through. He’s probably next to Elena Kagan, the most liberal justice on the high court. And he’s totally against expanding the court just to get a political advantage.

So it becomes clear what the Dems are doing. Take over all three branches of government in a bloodless-coup and rule forever to make America a socialist dynasty. There is one problem with that. America does not want to become a socialist country. Most Americans (73%) say they don’t want to be socialist. And of the 27% that are either undecided or in favor of it, if they actually lived under such a regime, I doubt they’d be a fan of it for long.

Socialism doesn’t work. Democrats aren’t that smart to understand that. It has never been successful at improving the lives of people anywhere in the world it’s ever been tried. Oh, some countries may have socialized programs here or there, but that’s a far cry from pure socialism. It doesn’t work, and it’s the one thing that is going to lead to the United States being sent down the tubes as a country.

Remember how great and powerful countries like Spain, England, Portugal, France, and Germany were? Remember how at times they ruled many different countries all over the world? What do they have today? They are feckless and weak. They have to come together as the European Union just to get recognized. Because individually, they don’t amount to squat, and that’s exactly what’s going to happen to the United States of America if Democrats succeed. They will be the cause of the downfall of our nation. And we have to stop it. The sooner, the better. It begins by taking away their power in Congress in 2022, and the White House in 2024. I’m sure they’ll get both back at some point in the future, but we can’t allow them to ever do what they are talking about doing now.

And Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden/Kamala Harris are nothing more than enemies of the people.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Biden’s Assault Rifle

Make no mistake about it. Joe Biden is trying to cram four years of a presidency into the first 150 days. That’s because he’s been around long enough to know that a) next year nothing of any substance is going to get done because of the midterm elections and b) he is well aware that he’s going to lose the Senate (where it’s currently tied) and the House (where the current margin is only three votes). The latest assault is your guns.

Now, realize that Biden is starting with things that most people would say, “Yeah…I can live with that”. He’s going after “ghost guns”. Those are guns that are basically kits that people can buy, take home, and assemble. They typically don’t have registration numbers, so they are untraceable. He’s also pushing for more “Red Flag Laws” whereby states and municipalities are able to identify folks that probably aren’t sane enough to be carrying a deadly weapon around.

While most people would think these two Executive Orders are “reasonable”, they are missing what Biden said that I think is very very scary. He made the comment that “No amendment (Constitutional Amendment) is absolute.” And that is where he is dead wrong.

Are you telling me that you don’t have the right to a trial by jury of your peers? Are you saying you don’t have the right to worship as you please? Are you saying that you’re open to search and seizure any time the government wants to come in and grab anything, for any reason? These are all issues where Biden is wrong. And the Supreme Court is also backing the Second Amendment. You have the right to bear arms. Period. There’s nothing ambiguous or unclear about that sentence. And when Biden has the audacity to say that no amendment is absolute, he’s wrong.

If you think back to the Founding Fathers, they believed something entirely different from what today’s Democrats believe. They believed that your rights were unalienable. They were given to you, not by man, but by God. That meant that since only God can give you those rights, only God can take those rights away. Today’s Democrats think much differently. They believe that man dishes out rights like a cafeteria lady at lunch time dishes out jello. They believe that if they just scream loud enough, you can get more rights. Rights like healthcare, or housing, or universal income, or open borders, or the right for anyone and everyone to vote regardless if they are a citizen. That flies in the face of the Constitution and is wrong.

And Biden is wrong.

What Biden needs to understand is that mental health is the issue here. It’s not guns. Car accidents kill more people every year in this country than gun deaths. But do you see anyone (yet) wanting to take your car away? Alcohol kills more people than guns. Are they trying to shut down the distilleries and breweries? Yeah, I know…they tired that. It didn’t work out too well, did it?

Democrats love to do things incrementally. Look at the seat belt laws. They started back in the early 1960’s by introducing seat belts as a safety device in cars. No one wore them because they were confining. So, they said, OK…you need to have kids wear them. No one bitched about that because we all want kids to be safe. Then it was everyone wears them, but we won’t ticket you just for not wearing a seat belt. And now? Now they can stop you and ticket you for just that very infraction.

If Democrats want the solution to guns, I have it for them. Here’s the deal. You want to take our guns, take our guns with one caveat. If there is ONE mass shooting or drive by shooting after you do, anywhere in the country, you will NEVER attempt to take our guns from us again, and you must return all of the guns to their rightful owners. See, criminals don’t follow laws. It’s kinda the whole reason they’re criminals. And if you pass a law saying it’s illegal to own a gun, then criminals are going to break that law. It’s currently illegal to shoot someone…in most cases. But does that stop anyone from killing people? Just this week we had two mass shootings in one day, one involving a former NFL player who killed himself and the other a worker who shot up his former place of employment. Did they break any laws? What makes Democrats feel that if they take away your guns, that all of the gun violence is going to stop? It’s not.

Pure and simple. Joe Biden is a bumbling idiot that is trying to pull the country as far to the left as he can as quickly as he can. He knows the clock is ticking. If he doesn’t get it done by November of this year, he won’t get it done at all. It’s just that simple.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

20 Questions

Let’s play a little game. Let’s say you were in the White House Press Briefing Room. Joe Biden walked in. You were the only person other than him in the room, and you could ask him 20 questions. ANY 20 questions. What would you ask? Here are mine:

1. You came out in favor of Major League Baseball boycotting Georgia because of what you call a “Jim Crow Law” with their new voting bill, but you haven’t come out against China or supported a boycott of the 2022 Olympic games held there even though they are murdering Uighurs and raping the women, and forcing them to have abortions. Why the disparity?
2. During the Senate campaign in Georgia, you promised at several campaign stops to “get those $2,000 checks out the door immediately” if Ossoff and Warnock were elected. They were. Yet you backtracked and only sent out $1,400 checks some two months later. How do you make this right with the American people?
3. You said you were going to have the most transparent White House in history, and nobody was to treat anybody with disrespect. Yet when White House aide TJ Ducklo threatened a White House reporter from Axios who asked about a relationship he was having with another reporter, the White House was mum for two months. Is this what you mean by being transparent?
4. You promised during the campaign that you would raise taxes only on people making $400,000 a year or more. Yet, the latest proposal calls on raising taxes on “household incomes” of $400,000 a year or more. That means two people making only $200,000 a year could see a tax increase. Shouldn’t you revise your tax policy to fit your campaign promise?
5. You have called Andrew Cuomo “The Gold Standard” when it comes to COVID relief. Now he’s under investigation for his decision to make nursing homes in New York take COVID patients, even though that would expose other nursing home patients to the disease, and he had his staff falsify nursing home deaths to make it look like the decision wasn’t as bad as it was. What do you say now about Andrew Cuomo. Is he still the “gold standard”?
6. How would you assess your Vice President’s performance on the southern border crisis after you named her the point person? And do you think she should be making a trip to the border as Governors in Texas and Arizona have requested? Also…why hasn’t she given a press conference up date in over two weeks?
7. What do you say to women athletes everywhere after you issued an Executive Order that allows transgenders to participate in all sports, forcing women to compete with men?
8. If Hunter Biden is found to have made money from Ukraine and China as has been alleged, while you were Vice President, and as his laptop shows, you were to get a cut of the money, are you willing to turn over the millions of dollars you were paid for making introductions to foreign leaders while serving as VP?
9. You and your administration have chastised Donald Trump for “putting kids in cages”. But it seems all you did was replace a chain link fence with a plexiglass barrier. There are still kids in cages. Were you wrong in chastising Trump?
10. You have called the Georgia Voting Law a throwback to “Jim Crow laws” in the south, and that they are racist because they force blacks to show ID. Is the White House and Congress planning on lifting the requirement that people touring your facilities show an ID before getting admission?
11. You mentioned while campaigning in Pennsylvania that you were against banning fracking. Yet you went ahead and issued an Executive Order banning fracking on all federal lands. How do you reconcile the differences?
12. As a US Senator, you, as your former boss, Bobo Obama, came out in favor of keeping the filibuster exactly as it is. That wasn’t that long ago. Now you are all in favor of the Democrats getting rid of it, or weakening it so that you can pass your agenda that you otherwise wouldn’t be able to do not having 60 votes. What has changed from your floor speech on the Senate to today?
13. You promised that you had a plan to end the pandemic in America. It was supposedly 200 pages long, though no one outside of your inner circle ever saw it, and what they did see reminded them suspiciously of Donald Trump’s plan. Since then, you’ve abandoned that plan entirely. Why?
14. Speaking of the pandemic, you campaigned on getting schools re-opened. You wanted to have schools opened in the first 100 days. Then the teachers unions got all up in arms and you caved. You changed the promise to “50% plus one of the nations schools open for in-classroom learning at least one day a week.” That’s a pretty weak promise isn’t it?
15. You have said that under Donald Trump, America was being ridiculed and mocked by other countries. Yet China has openly mocked you; Vladimir Putin has challenged you to a televised debate shown worldwide; North Korea has resumed launching missiles…something they had stopped under Trump. And Iran has chastised you for trying to get back into the JCPOA. How do you believe we’ve gained any respect from countries because of these countries actions toward you and your administration.
16. Going back to the southern border crisis, you have blamed the surge on Donald Trump, but his numbers were down substantially from what you are seeing this spring. The President of Mexico has said that things were much better under Donald Trump, and only 27% of Americans approve of the job you’re doing at the southern border. Are you ready to walk back that claim that the border is Trump’s fault and accept the responsibility for what’s happening there?
17. While we are on the subject of illegal immigration, Border Patrol has caught at least two people that were on the Homeland Security Watchlist as being terrorists, trying to sneak into the country. They have also arrested a member of the MS-13 gang. Do you feel you are doing a good job keeping the border states safe from terrorists?
18. Again, staying at the southern border, back in September of last year, you said that you would not deport any illegal alien during the first 100 days of your presidency unless they committed a felony against an American citizen. Two weeks into your term, an illegal killed a woman while drunk driving. They weren’t deported. Though, in your first 100 days, over 28,000 people have been deported. How can we believe anything you have to say about the border?
19. You want to spend $2.2 trillion on what you call “infrastructure”, yet only 5% of the bill calls for the money to go to actual infrastructure. The rest goes to climate change items, liberal wish lists, and bailing out more cities and unions. How much do you really need to increase the number of infrastructure jobs that are already on the books? And how many additional jobs would that be?
20. You have mentioned that the infrastructure job that you’re spending over $2.2 trillion on would create 19 million jobs in the next ten years. Yet, the CBO has said even if nothing was passed with this bill, we would create 16 million jobs and that your bill would only create 2.7 million jobs over 10 years. This means that each job would cost roughly $830,000. Don’t you find that a little inefficient?

There you have it. Joe…I’m ready for you!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

The Face of Ineffeciancy

When you think about it, there are actually a million different ways to rate lawmakers. There’s popularity of course, there’s name recognition (much different from popularity), there’s the myriad of PAC’s who rate lawmakers as to how they vote on that particular PAC’s issues, and then there’s probably the most important, but least heard from.

That would be Efficiency.

There are 240 Democrat Congressmen and women in the halls of Congress right now. And the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University wanted to see who it was that was the most and the least efficient when it comes to actually doing their job; i.e. passing bills.

The most efficient Democrat from last year isn’t even in Washington, DC any longer. That would be New York Representative Nita Lowey from Westchester, who retired at the end of the term. During her tenure in Congress, Lowey offered up 29 major bills (not naming buildings or railroads after people), and had seven of them passed. John Katko, a Republican from Syracuse, New York was second. He had six of his bills signed into law.

And one of the least efficient, ranking 230 out of the 240 Democrats ranked? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. AOC introduced 21 bills during her first term in office. None of them received backing from a number of her colleagues and the bills went nowhere. Thus, while probably one of the best known as far as name recognition or followers on TikTok, AOC trails the field when it comes to actually being able to do her job.

And her buds in the Wacko Five are actually faring better than she is.

Ilhan Omar introduced 33 bills. But none of them reached the Committee level or made it to the House floor either. She ranked just ahead of AOC because she tried more times. And Rashida Tlaib actually scored in the top half of Democrats at #92 with some bills making it to committee, and one actually becoming law.

And what does all of this tell us?

It tells us that the people that we hear from a lot in Washington, DC are not the people that are actually getting the job done. I mean, how many of you had ever heard of Nita Lowey, unless you’re from the New York City area? And how many of you have actually heard of John Katko unless you live in Syracuse? Probably none. You never see them on Fox News or CNN. There’s probably a very good reason for that. They are too busy working “for the people”.

What this list should tell us is that the people that are always looking for the cameras to espouse their views, people like Adam Schiff or Jerry Nadler, or Nancy Pelosi, aren’t the ones that actually do anything in Congress. Oh, they may be viewed as the “leaders”, but are they really leading if they aren’t actually writing bills? Isn’t that after all, why we put them there in the first place?

The federal government is filled with egomaniacs from both parties who’s only job is to get in front of as many TV cameras as they can find and become better known. After all, winning the “name game” is one way to advance your career. Such a sad way!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Lesley Stahl…NOT Ready For Prime Time

60 Minutes attempted to do a hit piece on Florida Governor, Ron DeSantis this past weekend. And while they did achieve the point of twisting the Republican Governor’s words and actions regarding a donation to his PAC from the Publix grocery store chain, tying it (unsuccessfully) to the pandemic and the fact that Publix is one of the pharmacies that is giving the COVID shots.

Stahl’s attempt to play Mike Wallace showed just how amateurish 60 Minutes has become. When Wallace went after someone, the case was so well buttoned up, and the perpetrator was so well exposed, they would run and hide if they saw Wallace coming. Stahl could hold a candle to his style. Instead, she stammers through a wildly inept piece. And when DeSantis was asked at a press conference about the accusations that Stahl was making (for the piece), the numbnuts at 60 Minutes took at two minute complete explanation of what happened down to a few seconds. When called on it, their response was,  “For over 50 years, the facts reported by 60 MINUTES have often stirred debate and prompted strong reactions. Our story Sunday night speaks for itself.” Yawn!

First of all, let’s look at something Stahl and her team failed to look at…the facts.

Publix is the largest grocery store chain in Florida. Their pharmacies are used by millions of Floridians. They have 800 or so stores in the state. If Ron DeSantis’ people wouldn’t have used Publix, I would have wondered what in hell was wrong with them. Instead, they chose to use one of the most available chains in the state. And Publix wasn’t the only large-chain store in the state to administer the vaccine. CVS Pharmacy also was tabbed to do so, yet there wasn’t any mention of that because they apparently didn’t contribute to DeSantis’ PAC. Vaccines are also available at every single County Health Department, every single Hospital, and well over 4,000 other locations in the state.

So, let’s ask ourselves the obvious question. Why the hit piece in the first place?

Florida has been one of the shining beacons of handling COVID. They have had fewer deaths, fewer cases, and better results overall than say, California, who has locked their citizens down. Meanwhile, for the most part (spring break not withstanding), Floridians have been free to do what they want for the last few months. And they have done so without a huge spike in cases or deaths. Florida is one of the big reasons that states like Mississippi and Texas decided to loosen up their grip. Here in the desert, our Governor basically has done the same thing in the last 10 days or so.

That success has catapulted DeSantis into the forefront of the 2024 Presidential Nomination race on the Republican side, and Democrats are extremely worried that if he gets the nomination, he’ll make mincemeat of the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. DiSantis, according to the latest polls has joined former Vice President, Mike Pence, and former UN Ambassador and South Carolina Governor, Nikki Haley as the top three contenders for the nomination (other than Trump of course).

60 Minutes USED to be a reliable, credible news outlet that exposed corruption and wrong-doing to an eager public. Unfortunately, they have fallen into the CBS trap of trying to spin everything news against anything conservative. Back in the day, they were routinely the number one or two show in television, and always won their timeslot. Sunday? They were beaten in all demographics by America’s Funniest Videos. And not just by a little. That little nugget has Mike Wallace’s frozen head exploding!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!