|ITEM #1: Are Democrats serious about effectively combating the coronavirus threat?|
It appears not.
National Democrats stalled an economic rescue package in the U.S. Senate by insisting on a wish list of left-wing policy proposals that have failed to gain support on their own — and that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with tackling the virus situation.
Marc Lotter, Director of Strategic Communications for the Trump 2020 campaign, provides a partial list of the Democrats’ outrageous political demands:solar/wind tax creditspostal service debtelection law changescarbon emission limits$35M for Kennedy Centerimmigration expansionreturn of Obamaphonescommunity newspaper retirement plans$15 minimum wage
As James S. Robbins put it in a column for USA Today, “The 1119-page bill is Christmas in March for liberal special interests.”
Now, if you’re a sane person, you might be wondering how taking steps like imposing further limits on carbon emissions, or offering tax credits for solar and wind power, or expanding immigration would possibly have any effect in combatting a threat to public health.
The answer, of course, is: It wouldn’t.
But no matter. Democrats sense an opportunity to exploit the current public panic in order to force their long-standing wish list of progressive policies on society, and so that’s what they’re going to try to do.
Actually addressing the crisis? Apparently that’s for others to worry about.
As Obama’s former chief-of-staff, Rahm Emanuel, once said: Never let a crisis go to waste.
Fortunately, on Tuesday, President Trump declared in a tweet: “This will never be approved by me, or any other Republican!”
ITEM #2: After President Trump noted that the anti-malaria drug chloroquine *might* help battle coronavirus, the media rushed to blame the president for the death of an Arizona man who reportedly tried it without a doctor’s prescription.
“We saw Trump on TV — every channel — & all of his buddies and that this was safe,” the man’s wife said in a media interview. “Trump kept saying it was basically pretty much a cure.”
Alas, it turned out, the man had taken “a fish tank cleaner.” And as Chuck Woolery noted:
“Chloroquine phosphate is not a med. It’s fish tank cleaner. No one, including President Trump, has ever suggested you take this for the virus. The media knows this. You can’t fix stupid. Why we despise the Press.”
Added Jessica Fletcher of RealDailyWire:
“I really didn’t expect tonight to devolve into defending the President from being blamed for people drinking fish tank cleaning chemicals, but 2020 is a special kind of stupid.”
ITEM #3: Back in January, Joe Biden, now the Democrats’ frontrunner for President, wrote an editorial that was published by USA Today, in which he referred to President Trump’s travel bans to combat the spread of coronavirus as “reactionary” and claimed they would only make things worse.
In a separate interview on Tuesday, Biden said from his bunker in Wilmington, Delaware (and we dare you to make any sense of this):
“We have to take care of the cure. That will make the problem worse no matter what.”
Imagine where we’d be today if Biden had been President back in January.
ITEM #4: On Monday, Joe Biden did a live streaming video in which he said: “Trump keeps saying he’s a wartime president. Well, start acting like one.”
Hmm. Let’s compare and contrast …
During his online video conference, Biden’s teleprompter apparently stopped working, and he got confused and stumbled around in his remarks. Meanwhile, President Trump was conducting a live, two-hour press conference, taking and answering all questions.
We think the country can see who’s a wartime president and who wouldn’t be.
And by the way, Americans seem to be quite satisfied with the President’s leadership on this issue. As reported by The Hill:
“A majority of American voters say they believe the Trump administration is taking strong enough measures to combat the coronavirus pandemic, according to a new survey.
“Sixty-one percent of registered voters said they strongly or somewhat agree that the Trump administration is taking strong enough measures to slow or stop the spread of COVID-19, while 39 percent said they strongly or somewhat disagree.”
ITEM #5: We’re not done with Joe Biden just yet.
In his attempt to pander to the increasingly large faction of the Democrat Party that’s obsessed with identity politics, Biden has blatantly promised to engage in racial and gender discrimination.
From The Hill:
“In his debate with Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden made two pledges to voters and asked his opponent to do the same to nominate only a black woman for the next open Supreme Court seat and to choose a woman as his vice president. Even with identity politics, the pledge to impose a gender and race requirement for the next Supreme Court nominee is as ironic as it is troubling. What Biden was declaring, and what Sanders wisely avoided, would effectively constitute discrimination in admission to the Supreme Court. Indeed, the Supreme Court has declared that such race or gender conditions are strictly unconstitutional for admission to public colleges.”
The story’s author, Jonathan Turley, points out that under Biden’s standards, lots of current and past Supreme Court justices would be disqualified from consideration — including many favorites of the left:
“He would not consider a nominee like Ruth Bader Ginsburg because of the color of her skin. He would not consider Thurgood Marshall because of his gender. Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes would be losers under this policy. Indeed, this is just ironic for those four members of the Supreme Court who have voted consistently to uphold admissions policies based on race.”
And Turley adds that, “Imposing an absolute requirement that a nominee be a particular gender and race is effectively an affirmative action pledge. It is precisely what the Supreme Court already declared to be unconstitutional discrimination.”
In other words, Biden’s approach to choosing a nominee for the entity responsible for interpreting the constitution … would itself be unconstitutional.
ITEM #6: Among the left’s most ridiculously misguided ideas in recent years has been the movement to ban plastic bags.
It’s a stupid idea under any circumstances, but has been exposed as especially absurd — and dangerous — in the midst of the coronavirus threat.
Eight states have imposed plastic-bag bans (fortunately, Nevada is not among them … yet). The problem, as Patrick Gleason of Americans for Tax Reform points out, is that, “All of these laws seek to force or encourage the use of reusable shopping bags, which pose a public health risk at any time and especially during the current pandemic.”
He explains further:
“A 2011 study published by researchers at the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University found that reusable shopping bags are often used for multiple purposes, transported and set down in many difference places, and ‘seldom if ever washed.’ Researchers discovered ‘large numbers of bacteria were found in almost all bags and coliform bacteria in half,’ along with a ‘wide range of enteric bacteria, including several opportunistic pathogens.’ A number of additional studies have found reusable bags can serve as carriers of bacteria that cause food-borne illness.”
Naturally, the danger is only heightened with this new virus on the loose.
And what are we all getting in exchange for increasing these risks to public health? Apparently nothing. As Gleason notes, “[T]here is also proof that reusable shopping bags are ineffective when it comes to reducing litter and benefiting the environment.”
Nice going, guys.
Thankfully, common sense has prevailed in a couple of states that have banned plastic bags, with Maine and New York announcing they’ve suspended their bans.
Stopping these plastic-bag bans in the midst of our current public health challenges should be a no-brainer for the states with such laws on the books. But they’d be wise to do away with them for good, even after the crisis has passed. And states without such laws, like Nevada, should steer clear.
ITEM #7: The Mueller probe sure seems like ancient history at this point, but there was actually some important news about it this past week. In a nutshell: We just got what has to be the strongest evidence yet that this was nothing but a political gambit from the get-go.
Writing for National Review, Andrew McCarthy has a piece that outlines the recent developments and what they demonstrate. He writes:
“More than an investigation, the Mueller probe was the wellspring of a political narrative. That becomes clearer as time goes by and more information ekes out … such as new confirmation that, months before Mueller was appointed in May 2017, it was already well understood in Justice Department circles that there was no case of criminal ‘collusion’ between the Trump campaign and Russia.
“Never was that made more obvious than by the Justice Department’s quiet announcement late Monday, under the five-alarm noise of the coronavirus scare, that it has dropped the special counsel’s indictment of Russian companies …”
This might seem puzzling at first glance. But it actually makes perfect sense once you understand the motivation behind the probe. McCarthy explains:
“[Prosecutors] were not going to charge any crime that called for proving Russia’s culpability in court. Their evidence is shaky and, if there were ever an acquittal, the Trump-Russia political narrative would be kaput, while the Putin regime celebrated a huge propaganda coup.
“So why did Team Mueller publicly file an indictment against Russians?
“Because they figured it was a freebie. The prosecutors assumed that they would never have to … you know … prove the case. The Russian defendants were in Russia. There was no way Putin would ever extradite them for an American criminal trial. The prosecutors knew that. What they wrote was not meant to be a real indictment. It was meant to be a press release. It was meant to be what Team Mueller was best at: the spinning of a narrative.”
The piece is truly excellent, and well worth reading in full, which you can do here.
NOTABLE QUOTES“Every person lecturing you that economic suicide is necessary is still employed and collecting a paycheck.” – Sean Davis
“Our people want to return to work. They will practice Social Distancing and all else, and Seniors will be watched over protectively & lovingly. We can do two things together. THE CURE CANNOT BE WORSE (by far) THAN THE PROBLEM!” – President Donald Trump
“POTUS never said turn the economy back on and ignore the health crisis. He said we need to deal with both crises, draw the right balance, and make sure the cure is not worse than the disease. That’s common sense.” – Andy McCarthy
“Many media fear mongers are in panic right now that the United States might actually go back to work sooner rather than later. They’re trying to say they are worried about the health of Americans but the fact is too many of them are afraid the economy is going to snap back quickly.” – Charles Payne
“Poll: 61 percent of voters say Trump is taking strong enough measures to slow or stop coronavirus spread. Imagine his numbers if the mainscream media didn’t hate his guts!” – Larry ElderForward to a Friend!
|Questions? Email firstname.lastname@example.orgCopyright © 2020 Morning in Nevada PAC, All rights reserved.|
You are receiving this email because you opted in
Our mailing address is:
Morning in Nevada PACPO Box 97212Las Vegas, NV 89193-7212
Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
Categories: Publisher's Pages