Now that the President has bent the knee to King Corn yet again, allowing year-round sales of E-15 blended gasoline, it’s probably worth our time to take a moment and figure out what all of this ethanol blending is really doing for us. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was pushed through under the Bush 43 administration at a time when rising gas prices and global warming were both weighing heavily on the minds of the public. Ethanol blending was touted as a way to fight both of those concerns.
So how has it worked out? According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) it hasn’t done much on either score. The net effect on gas prices has been basically a wash and the changes have had only a negligible effect on emissions. (Bloomberg)
A federal program requiring the use of corn-based ethanol and biodiesel in gasoline supplies hasn’t lowered pump prices or significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Gasoline prices outside of the corn-rich Midwest likely rose by a few pennies a gallon at the pump because of the Renewable Fuel Standard, while falling slightly in areas with ethanol plants, the GAO said in a report posted online Monday. The pump price effects likely diminished over time. Refiners benefited from installing equipment for the fuel-blending requirement “that, over time, reduced refining costs for gasoline,” according to the report.
In addition, the GAO found that “most of the experts we interviewed generally agreed that to date the RFS has likely had a limited effect, if any, on greenhouse gas emissions.” That’s due to the continued reliance on corn-based ethanol, instead of more advanced cellulosic biofuels that use agricultural waste but haven’t shown a great deal of commercial viability.
None of this should come as much of a surprise to anyone who’s been following the story of the RFS from the beginning. Ethanol should be slightly cheaper to produce than gasoline (at least in theory), so replacing a percentage of real gasoline with the biofuel might have cut costs. But given the hamhanded way the program was implemented, the blending process drove up costs at the refinery and those increases were passed on to the consumer.
As far as emissions go, that too might have been an area where benefits were realized if we’d focused on the use of agricultural waste products in cellulosic biofuels, but we didn’t. We’re still using almost entirely corn and soybeans. We’re burning our food for fuel and the increased agricultural activity has come at a cost in terms of environmental impact.
In the end, the only people benefitting from the RFS are the ethanol industry and some farmers in the midwest, particularly in Iowa and Illinois. Unfortunately, they punch far above their weight class politically, so we’re stuck with this albatross around our necks until we manage to elect some leaders who aren’t basically prostituting themselves to Iowa politicians. And as for the results? It doesn’t matter if the RFS is actually doing anything productive as long as it’s a political winner.
It’s enough to have your opinions shouted down when you’re an adult. When you’re shouting down a 13-year-old at a town meeting because you find his or her defense of unborn babies triggering, that’s something entirely different. And that ugly spectacle, unfortunately, is what played out at a city council meeting Tuesday, June 4, in…
It’s bad enough when it happens once, but when yet another elementary school teacher takes it upon himself to manipulate, intimidate, and confuse children as young as five, it’s time for school board members, principals, teachers, and their union representatives, as well as parents, to sit down and agree upon what exactly is age-appropriate material for discussion in the classroom and what is not.
Mark Vince Busenbark is employed in the Madison, Wis. school district as a K–5 science teacher. Without the consent, knowledge, or permission of parents, he not only claimed he’s female, but presented a video and read a book about transgenderism in his “science” classes. Understandably, there are frightened and confused children at Frank Allis Elementary school in Madison, there are also outraged parents, and district administrators are unwilling to answer for the unwarranted actions of a school district employee.
Almost three weeks ago, on May 16, Mr. Busenbark began the classroom instruction for the day, re-introducing himself to his students by his new name, “Vica Steel.” He then told his students he’s in the process of changing into a female. He defended the decision to discuss his transition by stating that the purpose of the video was to educate his students about what he is becoming — obviously ignoring the fact that children, some as young as five, are cognitively unable to process “changing” one’s sex. As in a similar case in California, Mr. Busenbark veered far from the approved classroom curriculum and, in fact, frightened some of his students, most of whom aren’t mature or wise enough to fully understand transgenderism or the ramifications. And if his students weren’t confused enough by the end of class, he then asked to be called “Mx” Steel instead of Mr. Busenbark.
Not only are there angry parents, but Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, stated, “It is outrageous that school administrators would allow a male science teacher to expose children to propaganda that promotes confusion about basic biology, and to instruct students to address him by a false name, title and pronouns.” Mr. Staver added, “These impressionable students do not exist to validate Busenbark’s sexual identity. Parents send their children to school trusting that they will be taught academic curriculum, not become participants in a teacher’s play acting.” The general consensus among angry parents is the fact the school failed to notify them in advance and didn’t seek permission, allowing their kids to remain in the class for the teacher’s reveal. Several parents posted their anger on Facebook, one parent of a first-grader writing they are “pissed off, because there was no warning or head’s up given beforehand.” Another parent wrote, “I’ve had to sit down with my kids and explain that what they heard is flat-out wrong and incorrect. We will be kind to others, but we WILL NOT be involved in games of make-believe. Shame on those that support this!” Their anger is entirely justified, and the school district officials apparently don’t want to discuss it.
Parents have reported that Madison School District administrators brushed them off, refusing to meet with them or even discuss the situation. Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel also alleges that the video presented by the science teacher violates the school district’s policy on wellness, adding, “All instruction should be age-appropriate, medically accurate, non-stigmatizing, and inclusive for all students.”
Just as parents have the ability to opt their children out of classroom instruction in school districts where sex education is part of the approved curriculum, parents should have input as to what is age-appropriate subject matter.
Clearly, the time has come for meaningful discussion about transgenderism in the public school classroom. Guidelines for discussion or instruction must be published, followed, and strictly enforced. Parents must be asked for permission to allow their children to receive such information. Teachers who violate established policy should be disciplined or terminated immediately.
As Mat Staver eloquently noted, parents place their trust in the classroom teacher to present approved school curriculum — not indulge in sexual fantasies. The frequency with which teachers are freely presenting and discussing controversial subject matter is alarming, especially without first seeking the permission of parents. Exploiting schoolchildren to validate one’s own make-believe sexual identity can no longer be ignored or tolerated.
It’s bad enough when it happens once, but when yet another elementary school teacher takes it upon himself to manipulate, intimidate, and confuse children as young as five, it’s time for school board members, principals, teachers, and their union representatives, as well as parents, to sit down and agree upon what exactly is age-appropriate material for discussion in the classroom and what is not.
Mark Vince Busenbark is employed in the Madison, Wis. school district as a K–5 science teacher. Without the consent, knowledge, or permission of parents, he not only claimed he’s female, but presented a video and read a book about transgenderism in his “science” classes. Understandably, there are frightened and confused children at Frank Allis Elementary school in Madison, there are also outraged parents, and district administrators are unwilling to answer for the unwarranted actions of a school district employee.
Almost three weeks ago, on May 16, Mr. Busenbark began the classroom instruction for the day, re-introducing himself to his students by his new name, “Vica Steel.” He then told his students he’s in the process of changing into a female. He defended the decision to discuss his transition by stating that the purpose of the video was to educate his students about what he is becoming — obviously ignoring the fact that children, some as young as five, are cognitively unable to process “changing” one’s sex. As in a similar case in California, Mr. Busenbark veered far from the approved classroom curriculum and, in fact, frightened some of his students, most of whom aren’t mature or wise enough to fully understand transgenderism or the ramifications. And if his students weren’t confused enough by the end of class, he then asked to be called “Mx” Steel instead of Mr. Busenbark.
Not only are there angry parents, but Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, stated, “It is outrageous that school administrators would allow a male science teacher to expose children to propaganda that promotes confusion about basic biology, and to instruct students to address him by a false name, title and pronouns.” Mr. Staver added, “These impressionable students do not exist to validate Busenbark’s sexual identity. Parents send their children to school trusting that they will be taught academic curriculum, not become participants in a teacher’s play acting.” The general consensus among angry parents is the fact the school failed to notify them in advance and didn’t seek permission, allowing their kids to remain in the class for the teacher’s reveal. Several parents posted their anger on Facebook, one parent of a first-grader writing they are “pissed off, because there was no warning or head’s up given beforehand.” Another parent wrote, “I’ve had to sit down with my kids and explain that what they heard is flat-out wrong and incorrect. We will be kind to others, but we WILL NOT be involved in games of make-believe. Shame on those that support this!” Their anger is entirely justified, and the school district officials apparently don’t want to discuss it.
Parents have reported that Madison School District administrators brushed them off, refusing to meet with them or even discuss the situation. Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel also alleges that the video presented by the science teacher violates the school district’s policy on wellness, adding, “All instruction should be age-appropriate, medically accurate, non-stigmatizing, and inclusive for all students.”
Just as parents have the ability to opt their children out of classroom instruction in school districts where sex education is part of the approved curriculum, parents should have input as to what is age-appropriate subject matter.
Clearly, the time has come for meaningful discussion about transgenderism in the public school classroom. Guidelines for discussion or instruction must be published, followed, and strictly enforced. Parents must be asked for permission to allow their children to receive such information. Teachers who violate established policy should be disciplined or terminated immediately.
As Mat Staver eloquently noted, parents place their trust in the classroom teacher to present approved school curriculum — not indulge in sexual fantasies. The frequency with which teachers are freely presenting and discussing controversial subject matter is alarming, especially without first seeking the permission of parents. Exploiting schoolchildren to validate one’s own make-believe sexual identity can no longer be ignored or tolerated.
Conditioned responses are funny things. One of them, the statement that they’re “probably all nice people” — oft used when discussing illegal migrants — is also a dangerous thing.
That very line was uttered, reflexively, by Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson Monday night while discussing how one percent of Guatemalans have left for our country in just the last year. It’s a qualifier reflecting that one has been put on the defensive — in a losing position.
No, this isn’t an attack on Carlson, who’s the best mainstream cable news and commentary host in the business. Rather, it’s a cautionary tale: that an intrepid culture warrior such as Carlson can be conditioned to behave defensively — when he should be unabashedly taking the offense (the best defense) — speaks volumes about the effectiveness of leftist conditioning.
The quoted statement is illogical. No large group contains member who are “all” nice people. Moreover, as Carlson himself pointed out last year, citing data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (video below), illegals do, unsurprisingly, commit an inordinate amount of crime. Nice people?
It follows that those migrating illegally — making a conscious decision to violate another nation’s sovereignty and laws — would include an inordinate number of not so nice people.
That said, let me be clear: I couldn’t care less, and it’s wholly irrelevant, whether those invading our country are or aren’t Nice People™. I’m not God; my job isn’t to judge their souls. (Interestingly, many who’ll scold, “Do not judge lest you be judged” when hearing others judge people as bad will themselves judge the same people as good. But if one can’t judge hearts, that would include positive judgments.) I simply want them to stay the heck out of my country — and be expelled if they’ve already invaded.
If you can’t say this, unabashedly, you’ve already lost the migration debate. Realize that the Left, some in whose vanguard are master manipulators, has conned us into apologizing for doing what’s right, for enforcing just laws. But what other crime do we address so sheepishly, qualifying our opposition to it with notions that the perps are “just seeking a better life” and may be “nice people”? Why, I met counterfeiters who were nice people. What’s niceness got to do with it?
This is no small point. It’s safe to say most of the German soldiers — being average young men conscripted into service — invading Poland in 1939 and the USSR in ’41 were “nice people.” Should they have been given blankets; lawyers; court dates; handouts; and, ultimately, invitations to stay?
Then, a family hosting me in France years ago one day brought me to the home of a friend who was a communist — but a nice person. (He really was. He had an easy smile, and said he realized that the ideology doesn’t work, so perhaps he was a sort of theoretical communist.) I liked him, and I do to this day, but I still wouldn’t want a few million like him in my country.
“Nice” is irrelevant. Nice doesn’t save civilization. Nice never won a war, hot or cold, actual or cultural. Theological correctness informs that man is good by nature — though that nature is fallen — because he was made by God and for God. Reflecting this, most people want to do good, though often don’t know what good is. ”Nice” is not unique.
And it’s neither good nor nice to invite into our midst people who, well intentioned or not, will irrevocably alter our culture for the worse, transforming our land into something more closely resembling what they left. Relevant here is that 70 to 90-plus percent of these illegals, not to mention the same percentage of (legal) immigrants, vote for leftists upon being naturalized (and sometimes before). Why do you think the Democrats want them here? Because they’re “nice”?
So let’s stop with the nice-illegals qualifier. It doesn’t matter if they’re nice — only that they’re here and not where they’re supposed to be: at home, building up their own darn countries.
After all, if they can’t make their own lands better, why should we think they wouldn’t make ours worse?
Conditioned responses are funny things. One of them, the statement that they’re “probably all nice people” — oft used when discussing illegal migrants — is also a dangerous thing.
That very line was uttered, reflexively, by Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson Monday night while discussing how one percent of Guatemalans have left for our country in just the last year. It’s a qualifier reflecting that one has been put on the defensive — in a losing position.
No, this isn’t an attack on Carlson, who’s the best mainstream cable news and commentary host in the business. Rather, it’s a cautionary tale: that an intrepid culture warrior such as Carlson can be conditioned to behave defensively — when he should be unabashedly taking the offense (the best defense) — speaks volumes about the effectiveness of leftist conditioning.
The quoted statement is illogical. No large group contains member who are “all” nice people. Moreover, as Carlson himself pointed out last year, citing data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (video below), illegals do, unsurprisingly, commit an inordinate amount of crime. Nice people?
It follows that those migrating illegally — making a conscious decision to violate another nation’s sovereignty and laws — would include an inordinate number of not so nice people.
That said, let me be clear: I couldn’t care less, and it’s wholly irrelevant, whether those invading our country are or aren’t Nice People™. I’m not God; my job isn’t to judge their souls. (Interestingly, many who’ll scold, “Do not judge lest you be judged” when hearing others judge people as bad will themselves judge the same people as good. But if one can’t judge hearts, that would include positive judgments.) I simply want them to stay the heck out of my country — and be expelled if they’ve already invaded.
If you can’t say this, unabashedly, you’ve already lost the migration debate. Realize that the Left, some in whose vanguard are master manipulators, has conned us into apologizing for doing what’s right, for enforcing just laws. But what other crime do we address so sheepishly, qualifying our opposition to it with notions that the perps are “just seeking a better life” and may be “nice people”? Why, I met counterfeiters who were nice people. What’s niceness got to do with it?
This is no small point. It’s safe to say most of the German soldiers — being average young men conscripted into service — invading Poland in 1939 and the USSR in ’41 were “nice people.” Should they have been given blankets; lawyers; court dates; handouts; and, ultimately, invitations to stay?
Then, a family hosting me in France years ago one day brought me to the home of a friend who was a communist — but a nice person. (He really was. He had an easy smile, and said he realized that the ideology doesn’t work, so perhaps he was a sort of theoretical communist.) I liked him, and I do to this day, but I still wouldn’t want a few million like him in my country.
“Nice” is irrelevant. Nice doesn’t save civilization. Nice never won a war, hot or cold, actual or cultural. Theological correctness informs that man is good by nature — though that nature is fallen — because he was made by God and for God. Reflecting this, most people want to do good, though often don’t know what good is. ”Nice” is not unique.
And it’s neither good nor nice to invite into our midst people who, well intentioned or not, will irrevocably alter our culture for the worse, transforming our land into something more closely resembling what they left. Relevant here is that 70 to 90-plus percent of these illegals, not to mention the same percentage of (legal) immigrants, vote for leftists upon being naturalized (and sometimes before). Why do you think the Democrats want them here? Because they’re “nice”?
So let’s stop with the nice-illegals qualifier. It doesn’t matter if they’re nice — only that they’re here and not where they’re supposed to be: at home, building up their own darn countries.
After all, if they can’t make their own lands better, why should we think they wouldn’t make ours worse?
At last, the exploitation of the proletariat will come to an end at the Elizabeth Warren presidential campaign. CNBC reports:
A majority of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s 2020 campaign staff has said it wants union representation.
Nonmanagement campaign employees authorized the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2320 to represent them in negotiations with campaign leadership, according to Steven Soule, the local’s business manager.
“We look to move to the table to come to a bargaining agreement that provides pay and benefits and working conditions that are the best in the nation,” Soule said.
“Best in the nation” translates into “most expensive in the nation.” It must also mean time-and-half pay kicking in after working 40 hours in a week and maybe even the right to decline overtime. Just what a presidential campaign needs. Especially when the candidate is not a stellar fundraiser. William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection notes:
As of last quarter, she was burning through all the cash she could raise, and had to fall back on a $10 million transfer from her Senate campaign account to create a reserve for the primaries.
Warren’s campaign strategy was to hire aggressively and build a large campaign staff earlier than anyone else. It’s paying off in terms of her ability to generate publicity, but if she can’t ramp up fundraising and she has to pay union wages to staff, Warren may be caught in a cash squeeze.
That $10 million Senate account infusion could dissipate pretty quickly just as the primaries and caucuses approach early next year.
Campaigns, of necessity, are the opposite of factory routine, where shifts are predictable and tasks generally unchanging. “Organized chaos” is about the best one can hope for. Traditionally, campaign workers throw themselves into their tasks, dedication to the cause, or hopes for future patronage and influence, motivate them far more than the paycheck.
But this election cycle, Democrats know they have to win back blue collar union workers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan in order to win the presidency, so they have to pander to the unions. Even if it means the money running out and the staff behaving like employees of a factory when it comes to performing unanticipated tasks.
At last, the exploitation of the proletariat will come to an end at the Elizabeth Warren presidential campaign. CNBC reports:
A majority of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s 2020 campaign staff has said it wants union representation.
Nonmanagement campaign employees authorized the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2320 to represent them in negotiations with campaign leadership, according to Steven Soule, the local’s business manager.
“We look to move to the table to come to a bargaining agreement that provides pay and benefits and working conditions that are the best in the nation,” Soule said.
“Best in the nation” translates into “most expensive in the nation.” It must also mean time-and-half pay kicking in after working 40 hours in a week and maybe even the right to decline overtime. Just what a presidential campaign needs. Especially when the candidate is not a stellar fundraiser. William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection notes:
As of last quarter, she was burning through all the cash she could raise, and had to fall back on a $10 million transfer from her Senate campaign account to create a reserve for the primaries.
Warren’s campaign strategy was to hire aggressively and build a large campaign staff earlier than anyone else. It’s paying off in terms of her ability to generate publicity, but if she can’t ramp up fundraising and she has to pay union wages to staff, Warren may be caught in a cash squeeze.
That $10 million Senate account infusion could dissipate pretty quickly just as the primaries and caucuses approach early next year.
Campaigns, of necessity, are the opposite of factory routine, where shifts are predictable and tasks generally unchanging. “Organized chaos” is about the best one can hope for. Traditionally, campaign workers throw themselves into their tasks, dedication to the cause, or hopes for future patronage and influence, motivate them far more than the paycheck.
But this election cycle, Democrats know they have to win back blue collar union workers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan in order to win the presidency, so they have to pander to the unions. Even if it means the money running out and the staff behaving like employees of a factory when it comes to performing unanticipated tasks.
Nearly 150 years after electricity came to South Africa, the country is in the dark. The blackouts can strike at any time and then lights, hot water and even major industries vanish into the darkness.
Storing perishable food in the fridge has become a gamble. The meat you buy today may be inedible tomorrow if the rolling blackout arrives and lasts long enough to destroy all the food you cooked.
Since plagiarism killed an earlier Biden run at the presidency and dogged him in law school, the first rule of a rational Biden campaign this time would be: nothing that even vaguely looks like plagiarism. But evidently, the subject never came up when Joe Biden assembled his presidential campaign staff. But it looks as though the Biden campaign panicked when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that his lack of a radical plan to restructure our thriving economy so as to emit less CO2 was a “dealbreaker.”
This is a dealbreaker.
There is no “middle ground” w/ climate denial & delay.
Blaming “blue collar” Americans as the main opponents to bold climate policy is gas lobbyist 101.
We’re not going to solve the climate crisis w/ this lack of leadership. Our kids’ lives are at stake. https://t.co/KvrBmaJd75
But with almost 4 weeks to work on something, the best the campaign could come up with was copying and pasting, and in some cases re-wording the work of others on similar “Green New Deal” proposals, to produce the “Biden Plan.”
Of course, as anyone with a triple digit IQ could predict, people noticed right away. The Washington Post:
Joe Biden’s presidential campaign lifted language without credit, at times word for word, when crafting its education and climate plans, incidents the campaign acknowledged and said were inadvertent.
The incidents appeared to be staff errors when detailing Biden’s policies, and they underscored how hastily his campaign was attempting to put out specific proposals. But the issue was a particularly sensitive one for Biden, whose 1988 campaign was derailed after he plagiarized, in speeches, rhetoric used by British politician Neil Kinnock.
Reports also emerged that he used lines from two Democrats, Robert F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey, without attribution. Biden had also been cited for plagiarism in a paper during law school, an error he blamed on not knowing how to properly cite sources.
He quit the campaign shortly after the flurry of uses were reported.
Biden’s campaign said Tuesday that it would update his policy plans online to properly attribute the sources of information, which in the case of his environmental plan included a coal industry entity. But the controversy nonetheless threatened to overshadow the policies themselves — and, for some liberal advocates, it was a sign that the policies were not taken seriously by the campaign or the candidate.
What kind of presidency would Biden conduct? One with key staff too stupid to avoid obvious issues – the kind that have come up again and again. The criticisms of President Trump as impulsive and undisciplined pale in comparison to Biden’s recklessness and lack of prudence. Ultimately, Biden’s pander failed to persuade Ocasio-Cortez:
Ocasio-Cortez told The Hill that she prefers Inslee’s plan our of all this that have been introduced thus far: “I do think that Jay Inslee’s plan is a phenomenal blueprint and example of where we need to go. It’s got the scale, the jobs and justice,” she said.
An utter and complete failure. Imagine this clown as president.
Biden tries to look thoughtful at the LBJ Library in 2017
Since plagiarism killed an earlier Biden run at the presidency and dogged him in law school, the first rule of a rational Biden campaign this time would be: nothing that even vaguely looks like plagiarism. But evidently, the subject never came up when Joe Biden assembled his presidential campaign staff. But it looks as though the Biden campaign panicked when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that his lack of a radical plan to restructure our thriving economy so as to emit less CO2 was a “dealbreaker.”
This is a dealbreaker.
There is no “middle ground” w/ climate denial & delay.
Blaming “blue collar” Americans as the main opponents to bold climate policy is gas lobbyist 101.
We’re not going to solve the climate crisis w/ this lack of leadership. Our kids’ lives are at stake. https://t.co/KvrBmaJd75
But with almost 4 weeks to work on something, the best the campaign could come up with was copying and pasting, and in some cases re-wording the work of others on similar “Green New Deal” proposals, to produce the “Biden Plan.”
Of course, as anyone with a triple digit IQ could predict, people noticed right away. The Washington Post:
Joe Biden’s presidential campaign lifted language without credit, at times word for word, when crafting its education and climate plans, incidents the campaign acknowledged and said were inadvertent.
The incidents appeared to be staff errors when detailing Biden’s policies, and they underscored how hastily his campaign was attempting to put out specific proposals. But the issue was a particularly sensitive one for Biden, whose 1988 campaign was derailed after he plagiarized, in speeches, rhetoric used by British politician Neil Kinnock.
Reports also emerged that he used lines from two Democrats, Robert F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey, without attribution. Biden had also been cited for plagiarism in a paper during law school, an error he blamed on not knowing how to properly cite sources.
He quit the campaign shortly after the flurry of uses were reported.
Biden’s campaign said Tuesday that it would update his policy plans online to properly attribute the sources of information, which in the case of his environmental plan included a coal industry entity. But the controversy nonetheless threatened to overshadow the policies themselves — and, for some liberal advocates, it was a sign that the policies were not taken seriously by the campaign or the candidate.
What kind of presidency would Biden conduct? One with key staff too stupid to avoid obvious issues – the kind that have come up again and again. The criticisms of President Trump as impulsive and undisciplined pale in comparison to Biden’s recklessness and lack of prudence. Ultimately, Biden’s pander failed to persuade Ocasio-Cortez:
Ocasio-Cortez told The Hill that she prefers Inslee’s plan our of all this that have been introduced thus far: “I do think that Jay Inslee’s plan is a phenomenal blueprint and example of where we need to go. It’s got the scale, the jobs and justice,” she said.
An utter and complete failure. Imagine this clown as president.
Biden tries to look thoughtful at the LBJ Library in 2017
The purported front-runner of the Democrats’ presidential field is certain to self-destruct before the Democratic National Convention votes on a nominee more than a year from now. because he loves to talk and is too stupid to avoid making fatal mistakes. Exactly a month ago, I predicted he would not get the party’s nod and I stand by that. But secretly, I hope that I am wrong because he would fall apart when faced with Donald Trump.
The latest example of Biden’s stupidity: downplaying China’s threat to us on the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre. No, I am not kidding! Only 30 seconds of your life are required to savor the stupidity. Biden ends with “What are we worried about?” That’s uncomfortably close to “What, me worry?”
This statement is all the worse given his son Hunter’s financial involvement with China, a can of worms that Biden would be well-advised to leave unopened. But the problem is that he has a microphone in his hand and an inability to filter what comes out of his mouth with anything approaching good judgment.
The purported front-runner of the Democrats’ presidential field is certain to self-destruct before the Democratic National Convention votes on a nominee more than a year from now. because he loves to talk and is too stupid to avoid making fatal mistakes. Exactly a month ago, I predicted he would not get the party’s nod and I stand by that. But secretly, I hope that I am wrong because he would fall apart when faced with Donald Trump.
The latest example of Biden’s stupidity: downplaying China’s threat to us on the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre. No, I am not kidding! Only 30 seconds of your life are required to savor the stupidity. Biden ends with “What are we worried about?” That’s uncomfortably close to “What, me worry?”
This statement is all the worse given his son Hunter’s financial involvement with China, a can of worms that Biden would be well-advised to leave unopened. But the problem is that he has a microphone in his hand and an inability to filter what comes out of his mouth with anything approaching good judgment.
Wikipedia is already banned in China. So why is the site kowtowing to Chinese propaganda on an entry? The crowdsourced platform locked the post for the Chinese Tiananmen Square Massacre, after changing the title to the milder Tiananmen Square “Protests.”
What anti-American zealots in government and media are doing to president Trump is unprecedented and should scare the heck out of every American. They have created a parallel universe void of truth and reality. In the midst of Trump actually making America great again, millions of Americans believe Trump is a Russian agent, mentally ill and leading America to destruction.
Trump brought back jobs that Obama decreed were gone forever. Black, Hispanic and female unemployment are at historic lows. Trump pulled us out of bad deals with foreign governments. Thanks to Trump eliminating absurd regulations and oppressive taxes, businesses are coming home to America building factories. The average American wage is $27 per hour. Americans are enjoying an economic boom. All this incredible good news is for the most part being hidden from Americans.
“Best in the nation” translates into “most expensive in the nation.” It must also mean time-and-half pay kicking in after working 40 hours in a week and maybe even the right to decline overtime. Just what a presidential campaign needs. Especially when the candidate is not a stellar fundraiser. William Jacobson at 
Nearly 150 years after electricity came to South Africa, the country is in the dark. The blackouts can strike at any time and then lights, hot water and even major industries vanish into the darkness. 
What anti-American zealots in government and media are doing to president Trump is unprecedented and should scare the heck out of every American. They have created a parallel universe void of truth and reality. In the midst of Trump actually making America great again, millions of Americans believe Trump is a Russian agent, mentally ill and leading America to destruction.