Not Everyone Happy With Dems on Stimulus Check 3.0

I can really understand why. I’ve written about this before, but apparently, the Democrat National Committee, on their official Twitter site, posted the following:

That has a lot of Democrats upset because as Joe Biden pointed out, he was going to send $2,000 checks “immediately” once Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff got elected to the US Senate from Georgia. In fact, this was one of their online ads:

As you can plainly see, there is no mention of this being a $1,400 check! I am seeing $2,000, how about you?

Well, as you can imagine, it’s drawn a lot of ire from the Democrat voters. Here is a smattering of what they had to say:

Gaslighting the very people who trusted & voted for you.

Amazing that your side easily sails under this extremely low bar every time.

$600 “down payment” huh? weird that no one called it that – especially as you had senatorial candidates running on $2000 checks – ever until now.

Thank you for lying to everyone for the whole senate election cycle!

Good luck in the midterms with this incredible strategy

If you didn’t actually know this was an underhanded bait and switch you wouldn’t feel the need to keep phrasing it like this.

I’m so full of fury and disbelief that people could actually defend walking back A CAMPAIGN PROMISE MADE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC to give people $2K checks to help them get by.

Thank you to everyone who is calling out @JoeBiden and @TheDemocrats for blatantly lying about $2000 checks. They control the entire government and they need to be held accountable. #BidenLied

And it goes on and on. You can go to Twitter and insert the hashtag #BidenLied to see a lot more. Suffice it to say, for whatever reason, Joe Biden, who initially DID say he was going to send out $2,000 checks for Stimulus 3.0, has decided that’s too much money. It’s probably because he realized it would push the overall cost of the bill to well over $2 Trillion, and he didn’t want to take anything away from his liberal city and state bailout (as California and New York say, “Thank you!”).

Look, I’ve said a million times that I don’t need a check of any size from the federal government. Give me what you owe me (which is basically Medicare and Social Security) because I’ve paid for those things…and they are NOT entitlements. Other than that, keep my taxes as low as possible and don’t waste money on stupid programs that don’t work. And this frankly is one of them. There ARE people in need out there. They SHOULD be helped. I’m not one of them. In fact, most people I know that are getting these checks don’t need it. They are either well off enough, or on Social Security and their pension/IRA/KEOUGH, and don’t need more.

These folks though are right on one account. If you are going to promise something in a campaign, don’t think We The People are so stupid that we don’t know the difference between $2,000 and $1,400. Yes, the National Education Association has dumbed down America. Thank God, not all of us have been dumbed down. Some of us still have a brain that works.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

NYT Gets Into The Comedy Business

The Grand Old Lady of journalism hit a new low over the weekend. The New York Times, whose motto has always been “all the news that’s fit to print” ran an editorial that bordered on something you’d find in The Onion.

They called for the Democrat National Committee to put together an “unbiased, apolitical panel” to investigate the sexual shenanigans of one Joe Biden. So, you have to wonder if the Times editorial board has decided to take the show on the road…you know…maybe show up at one of the many comedy clubs in the greater New York City area (once they open up again), and start polishing an act.

All sorts of journalists, and we’re not talking about the “fake news” specialists here, but REAL journalists, mocked the Times for making such a ludicrous statement. I don’t think anybody with half a brain would have taken such a comment as serious. Certainly the DNC didn’t. Here’s what the DNC’s response was:

“This is an absurd suggestion on the face. Regardless of whether it’s the job of the DNC to do this kind of thing, it’s already been done. Joe Biden has been clear in responding to this allegation, he went through a thorough vetting process to be Obama’s Vice President in 2008 (which is a vetting process like no other)and lawyers and the press found nothing, and he has asked for transparency by requesting that all relevant documents be released if they exist.”

Now, that statement says volumes about this whole process. Would anyone with half a brain have expected Joe Biden to come clean and say that yes…he raped this woman in the basement of the United States Capitol and that he had an on-going sexual abuse problem? Would anyone disagree that the press and “lawyers” vetting Biden back in 2008 missed something if this certainly did exist? And by the way…just how good is the DNC at “vetting” Vice Presidents? Does anyone remember the name of Thomas Eagleton? How much vetting was done on that one?

I think the most interesting statement comes at the end where the DNC says that Biden has asked for “transparency by requesting that all relevant documents be released if they exist. That tells me that yes, Biden’s staff has been to the University of Delaware and has scrubbed any offending documentation. I mean, would a presidential candidate say something like that if there was the slightest chance such a document would indeed exist?

For the New York Times to come out and even suggest that a political party, I don’t care which political party you choose, could, at this late date, put together an unbiased and apolitical group to vet their presumptive nominee, since he’s the only one left running, is ridiculous. I don’t know what kind of drugs they are taking at the editorial board meetings of the New York Times, but they must have a great pipeline into South America!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Dem Campaigns Cry Over Debate Rules

You should know by now that one thing Democrats are the absolute best at is being a victim. They cry foul, scream, and kick like a two year old better than any other political party on the face of the earth. When something doesn’t fit their interpretation of the way things should be, they react. They’re visceral in their denouncements. They are relentless in their rhetoric. And they won’t stop until they get what they want.

So, it’s going to be an interesting scenario moving forward as the various Democrat campaigns for president are banding together to take on the Democrat National Committee in their attempt to make their party “more diverse”. What do I mean by that?

When Kamala Harris dropped out of the presidential race it meant that the only candidates that had qualified (at that point) for the December debate were white. Cory Booker was screaming foul. So was Julian Castro. And one by one, all of the top seven candidates thought it was inconceivable that the party that had such a “big tent” wouldn’t include one person of color in their debates. Then something amazing happened. Castro, an Hispanic, qualified and it shut down the crying for a little bit.

But now it appears that Castro, Booker, and anybody else of color that’s left is on the outs for January and February’s debates. And the DNC isn’t about to change their rules on that count. As it turns out, a letter was sent by all seven of the top candidates, along with Booker and Castro, asking the DNC to change it’s rules. At the heart of the matter is the rule that you must have a certain number of donors, and must be at a certain percentage in the polls they recognize in order to qualify for the debate. Currently, neither Booker or Castro qualifies for that, though both have reached the donor threshold, they’re short on support.

Now, I have to ask why it is that all of a sudden, it’s a big deal to have someone of color on the debate stage every month. Where was Cory Booker in 2016 when you had Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Marty O’Malley up there? Aren’t all of them white? Why wasn’t it such a big deal then? OH! Wait a minute! It’s because Cory Booker WASN’T running! It only matters when it effects his now, long-shot candidacy!

It’s one of the things that drives consistency guys like me mad. If you don’t like the way the rules are written because you are getting screwed, forget the rules. Just re-write them so they fit the narrative. It’s the same way with laws, or the Constitution. If there’s something in the Constitution that you don’t like (like the Second Amendment), just dump it! It is, after all, a “living, breathing document”, which is to say, we can change it whenever we find something we don’t like in it.

And it’s all hogwash. That’s really where you get the incrementalism from. It’s the step by step move toward a more socialistic country that Democrats know you won’t vote for if you knew that’s where they were going in the first place. And this time, it’s biting their candidates in the ass. And why do the leading candidates jump on board the bandwagon? Because they’re smart enough to realize that it’s all about the votes up the road, and they’re all going to need persons of color jumping on THEIR bandwagon. If they say how unfair it is that Booker and Castro are excluded, they may just be able to point to that to demonstrate how much they care for blacks or Hispanics!

And it’s all hogwash. In the 60 years or so since Lyndon Johnson came out with civil rights (after southern Democrats hated the bill!), has the Democrat party improved the lives of black voters much if at all? Donald Trump has increased their wages, lowered their unemployment, and done for the standard of living for black Americans more in three years than Democrats have done in 60! So, when it comes to cry baby tactics, do what the good parents do…let them cry themselves to sleep!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!