I Really Don’t Understand This

On Friday, The Daily Caller reported that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Vivek Ramaswamy will speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this year.

The article quotes Matt Schlapp in explaining the reasons behind the decision:

“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has a unique voice in advocating for the defunding of the weaponized bureaucracy and ensuring the constitutional right of medical freedom,” Matt Schlapp, CPAC Chairman, said in a statement to the Daily Caller. “Kennedy joining such an important event is a reflection of the splintering of the left-wing coalition that has gone full woke Marxist to the point that traditional liberals don’t feel welcome anymore.”

In the past, Matt Schlapp has been a supporter of President Trump, so I wonder why he is giving these two people a platform. There are major problems with both of them as presidential candidates. I am not sure if Vivek Ramaswamy has a chance at the Republican nomination, nor would I be comfortable with him as a candidate. There are some serious questions as to some of his past associations. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., certainly does not represent the conservative movement. He is anti-vaccine, but in his case he is not only against the covid vaccine, he also opposes many of the childhood vaccines. It would be a stretch even to call him a moderate based on his views on the Second Amendment and on abortion.

The article concludes:

“We are also honored to have Vivek Ramaswamy – a true patriot and rising star fighting for the values of life and liberty for every American,” Schlapp said in a statement to the Daily Caller. “Ramaswamy has made a massive impact on the political scene in a short amount of time. He comes from the world of business and is willing to courageously fight the woke agenda of corporate America.”

The October CPAC event is an investors summit and will not be open to the media.

Interesting.

There Really Are Not Two Parties In Washington

The Conservative Treehouse posted an article today that erases any illusion anyone might have had that there are two political parties in Congress. There are two political parties in Washington–the anti-Trump agenda party and the pro-Trump agenda party, but the Republican and Democratic parties in Congress are generally one and the same despite the show they put on that they are different.

The article reports:

Now, a stunning discovery surfaces of Paul Ryan’s Congressional Leadership SuperPAC, congressionalleadershipfund.org, actually campaigning for the Democrat, Conor Lamb, in the recent PA18 congressional race.

As evidenced by Big League Politics the Paul Ryan SuperPAC sent a mailer to Pennsylvania CD-18 voters touting Lamb’s favorable position on gun ownership rights:

This is the mailer:

The article explains:

The real motive, based on an honest review of history, is the professional UniParty apparatus knew that Democrat Conor Lamb needed a lift to offset the cross party voting that was reflected in the district voting (by over 20 points) for Donald Trump in 2016.

The DC Republican apparatus is quite comfortable losing their majority position so long as they are not forced to support Trump policies which are entirely against their financial interests.  [How Mitch McConnell Crushed The Tea-Party]

It really is about money–in Washington power is measured by how much money you control. The more of taxpayers’ money Washington can seize and control, the more power they have. That’s why the establishment opposes the tea party movement and that is why the establishment opposes President Trump.

The article concludes:

The only threat to the financial interests of the GOP is President Donald Trump remaining in office and having to actually face carrying out a conservative Trump agenda in 2019 and 2020.  That Trump agenda is entirely against their “establishment republican” interests.

The Paul Ryan mailer to elect a Democrat is just another example of how corrupt the entire UniParty political apparatus is within Washington DC.

Another illustration of the opposition to President Trump is seen in the number of Libertarian and new Republican primary candidates in the current primary season. Many of these candidates are funded by the Republican establishment and are there to replace conservative Republicans who support President Trump with candidates the Republican establishment can control. President Trump is not the perfect President, but he is not part of the Washington establishment and is not controlled by it. If you want to see things change in Washington, you need to support the people who will support the President’s policies. Otherwise, we will have more of special interest fleecing the American taxpayer.

This Is True–I’m Just Amazed Someone Said It

The Daily Caller is reporting an amazing (but totally obvious) quote from Ben Carson today.

The article reports:

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson used a Sunday campaign stop in Georgia to accuse politicians of using poverty to bolster their voting constituencies. In his eyes, open-ended welfare has not only perpetuated poverty, its sustained a loyal voting bloc for certain politicians.

“False compassion is patting them on the head and saying, ‘You can’t take care of yourself and I’m going to give you food stamps, a housing subsidy and free health care,’” Carson said according to the Gainesville Times. “And all the things you need so you can stay dependent and vote for me.’”

His criticism of welfare is not new. During the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in February, Carson also said welfare makes people dependent on government. At the time he blamed Democrats for being the ones who use welfare to buy votes. He has said a better approach would be a system that provides people with the tools to get themselves out of poverty.

Remember, the U. S. Parks Department puts out the following signs to discourage people from feeding animals in our parks.

<b>Dont</b>-<b>feed-the-animals</b>.jpg

It is unfortunate that dependence on welfare robs people of their initiative, but it also has some other, more negative effects. A child will never learn that he is expected to get up and go to work in the morning if he never sees a mother or father model that behavior. A child growing up in a home dependent on government handouts will never understand the feeling of accomplishment that comes with earning something. A family on welfare will always be economically limited by the amount of money or benefits the government is willing to give them. They will never have the satisfaction of setting an economic goal and achieving it. We are not doing anyone any favors by giving them money from the government–we are depriving them and our society of the talents and contributions they could make to our society.

The Text Of The Letter

On Monday, The Wall Street Journal posted the text of the open letter that 47 Senators signed about negotiations with Iran.

This is the text:

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system.  Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote.  A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate).  Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.

For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms.  As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.  The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

Sincerely,

Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR
Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT
Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY
Senator Richard Shelby, R-AL
Senator John McCain, R-AZ
Senator James Inhofe, R-OK
Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS
Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL
Senator Michael Enzi, R-WY
Senator Michael Crapo, R-ID
Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC
Senator John Cornyn, R-TX
Senator Richard Burr, R-NC
Senator John Thune, R-SD
Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA
Senator David Vitter, R-LA
Senator John A. Barrasso, R-WY
Senator Roger Wicker, R-MS
Senator Jim Risch, R-ID
Senator Mark Kirk, R-IL
Senator Roy Blunt, R-MO
Senator Jerry Moran, R-KS
Senator Rob Portman, R-OH
Senator John Boozman, R-AR
Senator Pat Toomey, R-PA
Senator John Hoeven, R-ND
Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL
Senator Ron Johnson, R-WI
Senator Rand Paul, R-KY
Senator Mike Lee, R-UT
Senator Kelly Ayotte, R-NH
Senator Dean Heller, R-NV
Senator Tim Scott, R-SC
Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX
Senator Deb Fischer, R-NE
Senator Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV
Senator Bill Cassidy, R-LA
Senator Cory Gardner, R-CO
Senator James Lankford, R-OK
Senator Steve Daines, R-MT
Senator Mike Rounds, R-SD
Senator David Perdue, R-GA
Senator Thom Tillis, R-NC
Senator Joni Ernst, R-IA
Senator Ben Sasse, R-NE
Senator Dan Sullivan, R-AK

Please read the letter carefully, and then draw your own conclusions as to whether the Senators were justified in sending it.

I Am Glad That The Unions Are Helping People Find Work

Yesterday’s Daily Caller posted an article and a video about the Occupy Protesters at the Conservative Political Action Convention (CPAC). Occupy Wall Street had said last week that they would be protesting CPAC, so the protesters were not unexpected.

However, the video is a bit of a surprise. One protester is asked whet he is protesting–he has no idea. Another protester explains that the local union offered him $60 to protest and since he has been out of work for a long time, he accepted the offer. He also has no idea what he is protesting–he simply needs the work!

There is nothing illegal about what the union is doing–protesters can be paid or unpaid. However, I have been to a few tax day protests by the Tea Party, and I can assure you that no one there was getting paid. I think it says something that the left has to pay its protesters (and that they have no idea what they are protesting) and the right protests for free and can articulate their cause (less government, lower taxes, and a return to the U.S. Constitution).

Enhanced by Zemanta