It’s amazing how quickly things are moving. Watching the news media conspire with the Democrat Party literally to deny facts about Kamala Harris and disappear them from the Internet makes Martin Gurri’s two-week-old musings on the Joe Biden coverup look tame:
With Biden, the establishment was presented with a difficult challenge: It was reality itself that needed fixing. The president, we have seen, is an inarticulate speaker, has a bizarre personality, is notoriously thin-skinned and lacks humor and charm as a public person. Furthermore, his administration has been responsible for one disaster after another, at home and abroad. All that had to be fixed. The fictional replica of Biden required an equally fictional—and magnificent—record of achievement.
In an effort that has to be unparalleled in our history, every American institution, from the prestige press to the digital platforms, from academia to the entertainment world and very much including the federal bureaucracy, was recruited to portray President Biden as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. He was said to be caring, empathetic, a totally normal Everyday Joe who bonded easily with racial minorities—but also serious about his duties, the dignified adult in the room, a reliable ally who would never be manipulated by Vladimir Putin. His administration had defeated the pandemic, saved the economy, embraced migrants of all races, ended a forever war in Afghanistan and somehow protected Ukraine, Israel and Hamas simultaneously. As for the president’s age, he was old but wise, sharp in private though a stutterer in public and surrounded by the best and brightest in any case.
After Biden’s disastrous debate performance, I suggested on social media that the Democrat powerbrokers were evaluating just how far they were willing to go, and they subsequently decided. They’ll go all the way. They’ll destroy everything to remain in power. They can’t go back.
[Open full post]
Hard to believe it was 16 years ago America elected Barack Obama to the presidency. In office, he did, indeed, usher in a revolution in American politics and society, and 16 years is many years of people coming of age without really knowing what things were like before the event. Cynical Publius tells the truth:
In 2008 America was as close as it would ever be to stamping out its original sin of racism. American brotherhood and sisterhood without regard for race was in sight. It had been a long, hard slog, but we could see the finish line.
Then Barack Obama got elected and he set out, quite deliberately and with malice aforethought, to drive racial wedges in our society at every turn. Why? Because Democrats gain and maintain power by pitting identity groups against each other. Obama knew this and he set back race relations to the 1970s. It was a crime–maybe not a legal crime, but surely a moral crime.
American has not yet recovered, in large part because Obama’s Fascist Democrat devotees truly learned the power of divisiveness.
Divisive, racialist ideas had been cultivated on American campuses, and the Obama years set the virus loose, setting race relations back decades for electoral gain. Such a shameful organization is the Democrat Party. One can only hope history will be wise enough to look back unkindly on its followers.
[Open full post]
Several examples from the history of the last century — with particular clarity in the Spanish Revolution and the rise of Nationalist Francisco Franco — follow a pattern. Communists made inroads and proved themselves to be such immoral, disruptive radicals that even fascists seemed preferable to ordinary people.
Modern Democrats in the United States know themselves to be engaged in a Communist revolution. They know themselves to be imposing radical change by any means necessary, regardless of the preferences of the electorate. And so they expect a populist fascist to be the result.
But the Trump Era differs in two important ways. First, as in so much else, America is exceptional, in the strict sense that it is an exception to historical rules. Just as our “conservatives” want to conserve classic liberalism, our populists want to return to representative democracy and individual freedom.
Second, Communism has metastasized, merging socialism and fascism to run the table for totalitarianism. The radicals absorbed the fascists, and there is no opposing totalitarianism. All that remains is the victory of either Democrat totalitarians or the ippsupporters of freedom.
[Open full post]
When Elorza was mayor, it seemed embarrassing for him to take a public event as an opportunity to confront McKee, but his recent comments about public education in Providence, which formed the basis for the confrontation, suggest his emotions were well placed and genuine:
“What we have now is a system that locks in place the status quo, and with [educational] performance being so bad, the status quo is just indefensible,” he says. “There are frankly very few reforms in education that have provided game-changing results, and charter schools have done that in some places.”
Elorza is not to blame for the failure of the state to turn the schools around after a shocking Johns Hopkins report led to the state take-over. Failure was predictable the moment Education Commissioner Angelica Infante-Green arrived with the attitude of working with the teachers union. She should have begun building bonds with parents and the community as a counterweight to the paid activists. She didn’t, and the rest is history.
[Open full post]
While the news cycle has definitely moved on from Michaels’s explanation of how crazy California has become, it’s worth pausing for an observation. By her own admission, she is and remains progressive. She’ll play along with a child’s gender dysphoria, for example, even if she thinks puberty blockers and schools’ lying to parents is beyond what should be acceptable.
The problem is her progressivism — progressivism generally — has no inherent stopping point. Michaels’s lingering common sense from a more-sane era is nice, but it’s quickly fading. So, progressives like her may move somewhere else and only vote for the level of radicalism they like, but that will bring the radicalism to which they object.
On WNRI 1380 AM/95.1 FM, John DePetro and Justin Katz discuss:
- Rhode Island and national Democrats coordinate their way through the Biden defenestration
- Survey says: Rhode Islanders have a low opinion of our direction and our governor
- Financial misadventures in the state housing office
Featured image by Justin Katz using Dall-E 40 and Photoshop AI.
[Open full post]
A few weeks ago, Republican state representative and candidate for U.S. Senate, Patricia Morgan, came under the local media searchlight for some errors in campaign finance.
I don’t see anything particularly suspicious in the findings, but the story does give me an opportunity to restate my thoughts on campaign finance law. It’s just a way to trip up outsiders. We’re to the point that running for office nearly requires finding an outside accountant. A candidate running for multiple offices can’t mix the funds or use them to offset the personal burden of running for office.
Most telling, in this case, is that two people exceeded the maximum donation to Morgan, but the real problem is that her campaign didn’t attribute the donations to the donors and their spouses, which would have been just fine. Consider this error in contrast with the supposedly non-political money that Democrat Senator Lou DiPalma has been getting from a wealthy Newport developer.
Special interests can give politician high-paying jobs, even setting them up for life with income and perks that won’t all have to be made public, but a motivated citizen can’t just give a candidate $6,000 to help her or him run for office, even if it’s reported. This is a system designed to help the corrupt, not to increase transparency.
[Open full post]
I’ll start with two arising from Ian Donnis’s recent article about the state’s approval of the sale of two hospitals “to an Atlanta-based nonprofit with no experience in managing hospitals.”
The first question arises from the description of the institutions as “cash-strapped safety-net hospitals.” Rhode Island, among all states, dove right into the centralizing forces of Obamacare and spent hundreds of millions on the Unified Health Infrastructure Project (UHIP). Why are we still having problems with our hospital system? Perhaps the government interventions failed so badly they made things worse? Worth looking into.
The second question is more about political assumptions. Consider this from the agreement:
“To mitigate poor management practices in the past by distant and self-interested owners, the board of the New CharterCARE System must adopt specific best governance practices, include local and community input, and may not alienate, encumber, or pledge New CharterCARE System’s assets without notice to and approval by the Attorney General.”
Why does the State of Rhode Island assume the attorney general is an expert on “best governance practices” in the healthcare industry? I could see his office reviewing for conformity with the law, but business and health decisions? Are we supposed to simply accept that lawyers are really smart people with the highest integrity, and therefore Neronha should be a key decision-maker?
I wonder if this mentality is another indication that our massive tangle of laws is changing how we think. Too many of our business, finance, and personal decisions hinge on what the law permits and requires, so we’ve reached the point that we think lawyers must know what we should do, not just our actions’ relation to law.
[Open full post]
Which is: Why is our system not producing the type of leaders we need?
With Governor Daniel McKee, Rhode Island is getting a distilled lesson in our nation’s problem in D.C. At the same time his administration is signing a contract to pay a premium to dismantle the Washington Bridge quickly, he can’t find a company to rebuild it and admits to having no idea of the timeline or the cost. He’s not up to the job of governor.
In fairness to Rhode Islanders for making him their governor, we seem to have slender choices for all statewide and national elective offices. Turning nationally, the occupant of the White House is plainly and obviously not up for the job. I’d opine that Biden’s level of intelligence and integrity has never in his life qualified him to be President, but at this point, there is no question, and there was none in 2020.
On the other side of the aisle, while Donald Trump’s long business career certainly gives him the necessary managerial experience, his behavior is inarguably not what we should want in our national leader. Here, in fairness to Americans for electing him (hopefully twice), the political establishment had become so irresponsive (indeed, hostile) to the electorate and those who would represent them that it required a cartoonish personality to take the job.
So, back to the fundamental question: Why is our system not producing the type of leaders we need? I’d suggest that we’re trying to process too many social decisions through government, which pushes tremendous power and wealth through a tiny orifice. A system of grift has developed such that industries’ worth of special interests see elections as a fight for survival and respond like parasites to corrective treatments.
But we shouldn’t start with my conclusion. At the moment, it would be enough for Rhode Islanders and, more broadly, Americans to start discussing the question. I may be wrong, and shifting the debate from partisan snipes to structural debate would be a step toward healing.
[Open full post]
On WNRI 1380 AM/95.1 FM, John DePetro and Justin Katz discuss:
- Democrats scramble for Biden-related messaging
- Whitehouse runs at the mouth
- The media caves
- Rhode Island and McKee beholden
- No bids for the Washington Bridge
Featured image by Justin Katz using Dall-E 40.
[Open full post]