Hypocrisy Abounds

The height of hypocrisy when Bill Clinton, looking a bit the worse for wear incidentally, harangued us with a lesson in economics, stating that our birth rate in this country is the lowest it’s been in 100 years, making immigrants necessary to grow the economy. This coming from the party that supports abortion on demand, with conservative estimates at just over one million performed in 2023. And that number is rising even in the post-Roe era. It seems if it wasn’t for that policy, we could be working on replenishing our own population without resorting to importing low-skill, predominantly male laborers from the third world. That’s if they choose to labor at all. And it’s important to note that we are getting no help from the one-child Clinton family, and we have precisely zero children from Kamala. Husband Dougie would be credited with at least one child but is a net zero after aborting the nanny’s offspring. Of course, this vectors into the whole man-made climate change debate where the left hypocritically complains about increasing population but then favors importing more humans that will presumably increase our carbon footprint. And how about that housing issue?  More building, more destruction of natural habitat, more heating and air-conditioning to house our growing immigrant population is hardly a carbon neutral endeavor. But energy derived from windmills and solar panels will surely offset the consumption of population growth. Sure it will. Keep telling yourself that, or better yet, ask Kamala to explain it to you.

Only A Few And Fractional.…

These Lefties are really something in trying to play gotcha with JD Vance when they and the progressive Mainstream were forced to admit that Venezuelan gangs are indeed taking over apartment complexes in Aurora, CO, but said, “It’s only a few.”  To which JD responded, “Are you hearing yourself?”  Only a few are few too many. Again, this confirms that the left is mathematically impaired. As they also advised, late-term abortions are exceedingly rare, only hundredths of a percent. Do the math, you spinners. That amounts to some 9000 late-term abortions a year, but that doesn’t raise an eyebrow? Come on, get real; it is what it is!

Is There Anything Beyond These People

Trump derangement syndrome beyond the pale! The Democrats and their media minions have proceeded to portray  “The Donald,” the biggest baddest bogeyman of all times, representative of all things they purportedly despise: he’s a racist, he’s a misogynist, he’s a homophobe, he’s going to take away your healthcare, he’s going to separate immigrant children from their families, he’s going to give tax breaks to the rich, he’s a friend to dictators, and he is to be a dictator on day one of his presidency. And, of course, on cue, they are rolling out the old abortion playbook.  Accusing all the republican candidates of seeking a national abortion ban and even proposing a pregnancy registry to track them when, in fact, abortion rights groups are doing that now. This is nothing more than the throws of desperation from the Democrat Pols and their entrenched dark side D.C bureaucracy jobs being threatened.

The Great Kamala Cover-Up

After watching Harris word-salad her way through the 60 Minutes interview, this morning’s Washington Post assembled an article that bashed Trump for ducking the “traditional” appearance on the show and edited her responses to make her sound glib and articulate when, in fact, she is none of the above. Her off-teleprompter brain freeze this week brings a glaring example. Ironically, Harris continues to limit her exposure to friendly venues where she knows she will be lobbed softball questions, while in comparison, Trump and Vance are everywhere, especially Vance, who has endured some scathing encounters with the leftist media. Witness today’s scheduled appearances by Harris on The View, Colbert, and Howard Stern. Lovefests all. So explain to me why Trump would bother subjecting himself to a left-wing media lynching when Harris has limited her exposure and still is woefully short of supplying any detail to her grandiose plans for an opportunity economy. Whatever that means. And please, in the name of all things holy, tell me exactly how much a “fair share” is.

Is The Tide Turning

Interesting that the Wall Street Journal ran an article outlining network plans to reduce the salaries of headlining stars to their news programs and talk shows in a cost-cutting measure. Such prominent faces as George Stephanopoulos, Robin Roberts, and Michael Strahan are currently receiving astronomical salary packages in the range of $25 million annually for their appearances on Good Morning America. MSNBC pays Rachel Maddow $30 million for her embarrassingly partisan rants on a program that airs only once a week. Today, show anchor Hoda Kotb announced her retirement but was said to have been facing a significant cut in her $20 million salary, a reduction that her co-host Savannah Guthrie may also be facing. Late-night stalwarts Fallon, Kimmel, and leftist darling Colbert have all had their appearances reduced by eliminating Friday night programming in a cost-cutting measure. Seth Meyers was also on the chopping block, reports the Journal, but the network elected to trim costs by firing his band instead. Even Norah O’Donnell, fresh off her partisan Vice Presidential Debate performance, is being removed as anchor for the CBS Evening News. Why the cost-cutting measures?  The Journal quotes former TV executive Joe Peyronnin, who now teaches journalism at NYU, as saying television is undergoing a shakeup in how it is “delivered and received” and that “the business is going through a major struggle to grow and retain revenue.” They conclude that “legacy cable and broadcast TV” are facing diminishing returns and “streaming services aren’t generating the revenue to make up for the shortfall.”  However, to blame more viewing options, competition, and streaming services alone does not in itself explain why the popularity of programs anchored by these exorbitantly overpaid talking heads has tanked. The most obvious answer is to analyze what these elite media superstars have in common besides their preposterous inflated salaries. They are all liberals, and in the case of Stephanopolous, Maddow, and Colbert, they are radically partisan mouthpieces for the left. Could it be that in a politically divided America, one that polls almost equally divided between conservative and liberal, that half of the country has effectively boycotted the liberal programming anchored by this cadre of left-wing radicals?  How else can you explain the late-night rating success of the abrasive and only modestly talented but conservative Gutfeld over the big-name but thoroughly progressive programming offered by Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, and Meyers, especially given their stream of high-profile Hollywood guests? If you choose to alienate half of your viewership with your less-than-inclusive reporting and entertainment offerings then your ratings are going to suffer.  Surprise. The left likes to call that a boycott when they do it. It's nice to see them get a taste of their own medicine finally. It’s about time. And it couldn’t happen to a more reprehensible, condescending bunch of elitists who are finally getting hit in the pocketbook for their partisan disservice to the viewing public.

UAW/ILA Indiscretion

Wow. The UAW set the standard for less work and more pay, but now the ILA, representing Longshoremen, is demanding a 77% increase in pay over six years with a ban on automation, technology that makes the world's ports vastly more efficient than ours. Piling on are the Boeing machinists, demanding a 40% pay increase and generous pension plan contributions from a company that has lost $25 over the last six years, according to the WSJ. I’m sure Airbus is most appreciative of their union’s efforts. Following their lead, 5000 machinists at Textron, who make Cessna and Beechcraft airplanes, have walked off the job after rejecting the employers offer of a paltry 26% pay increase, a $1500 annual COL increase, a lump sum payment of 3 grand and an extremely generous 9% 401K match. Who in the private sector wouldn’t jump at a 26% pay increase, let alone have the intestinal fortitude to ask the boss for a 77% raise? We need to keep manufacturing in America, but at what cost?  If a business cannot remain profitable, and in the face of exorbitant wage increases, inflation, and a Harris Administration threat to increase corporate taxes, American manufacturing will indeed flee to business-friendly shores abroad where wages are lower, and government overreach is held in check.

Debate Fact And Fiction

Once again, the moderators followed David Muir’s precedent by attempting to slip in a “final word” before moving on to the next question. This appears to be a popular modus operandi within the liberal media where a question is couched in a progressive slant; the candidate is allowed to respond, only to have the interviewer either paraphrase or outright choose to issue a so-called fact check. NPR has it down to a fine art. And as we’ve come to find out, courtesy of such deep state drones such as Dr. Fauci, facts are manipulated and spun to their convenience. Bravo to Vance for not letting Margaret Brennan, all primped and posturing for her 15 minutes of fame, to insert a “legal Haitian immigrant” comment at the end of Vance’s well-constructed answer to a question on immigration. That opened the door for Vance, who pointed out that the CBS rules of engagement called for no such fact-checking, then he proceeded to school her on the concept of legality for this particular issue. That is, until they muted the mics. Real mature journalism. It may be technically legal, but the fact is that these immigrants did not achieve their status through traditional pathways; they were provided a special pathway and bestowed legal status courtesy of the Harris-Biden administration. It's not the same thing Maggie. Stay in your lane.

A BA from UVA should not be engaging in a legal discussion with a Yale-educated attorney. And speaking of education, how does your alma mater, the Convent of the Sacred Heart in Greenwich, Connecticut, the poster child for privilege, feel about your position on abortion? Another hypocritical Irish Catholic we don’t need. And her partner in crime, Norah O’Donnell, was no better inserting a “scientists agree that the global temperature is rising” after an exchange on climate change. Really, Norah?  How can you just hang a statement out there without allowing a rebuttal for context?  Is that journalism?  What scientists?  How was the temperature measured, and how much increase are we talking? Even our USDA reported that global annual air surface temperature has increased only 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 115 years. Considering that we have only been recording global temperatures since the 1880s on a planet that has existed for 4.5 billion years, we hardly have a representative sample to conclude that man is responsible for weather patterns. Explain the ice age and then the subsequent warming trend. Explain the Dust Bowl in 1930-1936 when the population of the US was 123 million, nearly a third of what it is today.  Explain why, with sea levels rising, Obama purchased a 14.5 million dollar oceanfront estate on an island. What about Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and John Kerry, who all own beachfront properties? Are they not concerned about the existential climate crisis they’ve been haranguing us about? Apparently, it’s just not that existential. But I digress. Enough of these over-coiffed, spray-painted talking heads who somehow suspect that they are the most intelligent people in the room, subjecting us to their peculiar form of biased journalism. You’re the moderator, not the appointed occupier of the bully pulpit. We tuned in to hear the candidates speak, not you. You are to referee, not to bend the rules to your bias, not to assist the candidate of your choosing, and certainly not to offer your opinion, whether you disguise it as fact-check or not. And enough of these liberal networks installing their obviously partisan talking heads as moderators. They have track records and it’s all available on video, their bias laid bare for all to see. Journalism is no longer objective; it’s playing to your audience in the name of ratings, giving them what they need to return for more. It has become editorializing. More ratings mean more advertising revenue, after all. If we were interested in facts, the debates would be held at a neutral venue, with moderators with no political bent.  Of course, that would be virtually impossible, so appointing a moderator from each side would be the next best solution. Perhaps professionalism would prevail, and they would keep each other in check. Or perhaps it would degenerate into a partisan brawl. Either way, at least there would be some semblance of fairness, something we have yet to see in this election cycle.