Tea Party Patriots Ordinary citizens reclaiming America's founding principles.

Friday, August 2, 2019

Intergenerational welfare


image credit: buildabear.com

Several years ago, I read Diana West’s The Death of the Grown-up – a sober and somewhat frightening exploration into why America is full of adults who do not grow out of adolescence. The other day, I came across Mark Steyn’s words on the subject:

Almost every structural defect of western societies arises from the contemporary phenomenon of prolonged childhood - later family formation, leading to collapsed birth rates, providing an "urgent need" for remorseless, mass unskilled immigration, setting in motion profound, destabilizing cultural transformation. Indeed, one reason why the existential threat of that transformation is so hard to recognize is because, among its other effects, protracted adolescence so infantilizes the populace (as Wells saw in The Time Machine) that it utterly enervates even a basic survival instinct.

Why be surprised by that? A society in which it becomes the norm for 40-year-olds to climb the stairs every night to their childhood bedroom, the same one that once had the teddy-bear wallpaper and the Thomas the Tank Engine coverlet, will not be a world that makes men, or women, in any meaningful sense of those terms.

The rest of Mr. Steyn's blog post is here. This may not be, technically speaking, a Tea Party subject, but since perpetual adolescence carries its own micro- version of “fiscal responsibility" – or should I say “fiscal irresponsibility” - I thought it worth posting.
# # #

Thursday, August 1, 2019

Wrap-up: Democrat Panderfest debate (2)

image credit: CNN via Treehouse


Mark Penn called it a "Panderfest." There are dozens of takes online on last night’s unwatchable Democrat debate, and here are two extracts that are short and snappy. First, Mr. Vodkapundit, closing his drunkblogging report:
It was a big dud tonight.

Not that there weren't any fireworks, because there were a few. Not because it was tedious, which might just be my partisan bias. And not just because the field of ten had maybe three actual contenders.

It was a big dud because -- and correct me if I'm wrong here -- nobody did anything to move the needle.

Biden recovered from his last outing, but didn't show us anything new. Harris failed completely to capitalize on her earlier gains, and if I found out she really was on some kind of cold medicine, I wouldn't be in the least surprised. Booker promised to take on Biden, but demurred. Gabbard is *this* close to being a real contender, but isn't quite campaigning at that level. Castro is better than expected, but not that much better. And the rest were all just kind of there.
. . .

And here's some of Liz Sheld’s Morning Brief at PJ Media:

. . . there is really no difference between the candidates. The most important thing to these jokers is getting rid of Trump and they are counting on people who hate Trump to vote for them no matter what lunatic policies they are pushing. If you think about it, it's a smart strategy: desperate people make rash decisions and the deranged anti-Trump folks are desperate to get rid of Trump. If the cost is open borders, health care for illegal immigrants, an alarmist "climate change" policy that will wipe out loads of American jobs, forcing people out of their preferred healthcare plans in favor of one administered by postal workers, raising taxes, taxpayer-subsidized abortion, post-birth abortion and getting back in bed with Iran, so be it. As I wrote yesterday, the only question that matters in this election is whether people hate Trump more than than they hate these whacked-off policies. If it weren't for this media-Democrat manufactured Orange Man Bad crisis, people wouldn't swallow the radical, left-wing policy crap so easily. G-d help us.

But maybe cartoonist Henry Payne said it best:


# # #


Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Unwatchable primary debates and Free Stuff


image credit: dreamstime.com

Libertarian John Stossel tallied up the Democrat candidates’ promises and plans for giving away Free Stuff. No matter which candidate is making promises,
We can't afford it! The federal government is already $22 trillion in debt -- $150,000 per taxpayer.

While Trump's $267 billion is bad, the Democrats' plans are worse. We counted $297 billion proposed by Biden, $690 billion from Buttigieg, $3.8 trillion from Warren, $4 trillion from Sanders and $4.3 trillion from Harris. That would double what the entire federal government spends now.

Senator Harris "wins" the free stuff contest.

Taxpayers lose.

The second unwatchable debate is this evening at 8pm – 11pm. The line-up:

Former Vice President Joe Biden; California Sen. Kamala Harris; New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio; Washington Gov. Jay Inslee; New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand;  Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard; Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet; New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker; entrepreneur Andrew Yang; and Julián Castro, former housing secretary in the Obama administration.

Remember, Stephen Green, a/k/a Mr. Vodkapundit, will be live drunkblogging again this evening (Wednesday). He watches so you don’t have to. Here’s the link –click to his website; his drunkblog link will be on the right-hand sidebar.

UPDATE 7:50pm: Here's the live link to Vodkapundit's Drunkblog. Click here.
###

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Round 2 of Unwatchable Debates





Stone-cold sober Stephen Green, a/k/a Mr. Vodkapundit, will be live drunkblogging both the Tuesday (tonight) and Wednesday Democrat debates this week. He watches so that you don’t have to. Here’s the link to his website; look for drunkblog link on the sidebar. Debate starts at 8pm. Runs for 3 hours!

Please note: Vodkapundit's drunkblog automatically refreshes, so stay at the top of the blog. You can check in from time to time, or scan through it in one hit after the debate is over.

UPDATE 5pm: Here's the page link, and here are opening thoughts from Mr. Vodkapundit himself:


I mean, have you seen these people, the folks who run for office? If you can't have fun at their expense, then you're taking them entirely too seriously. That probably goes double for a race where Slow Joe Biden is the frontrunner in a crowded field of more than 20 candidates. Speaking of doubles, we have another double Democratic debate this week, and I'll be here -- carbo-loaded, glasses-wearing, beverage cart next to my desk -- to have far too much fun with all the action. Click in right here at around 7:45 Eastern on Tuesday and Wednesday nights for all the action.
# # #

Preparing for the Democrat debates this week


It'll take less than 5 seconds:


Cartoon by Steve Breen via Townhall

[Note; check back here after 6pm for Liveblog link]
# # #

Monday, July 29, 2019

Cleveland makes the list



image credit: imgbin.com


Issues and Insights is the editorial blog for Investor’s Business Daily. Here’s part of John Merline’s column (h/t Instapundit):

On Friday, Trump attacked Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, who had been complaining about conditions at the border, by saying “his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous.” Trump called it “a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess.”

He’s right about the rats. Last year, the pest-control service Orkin rated Baltimore as one of the “rattiest cities,“ behind Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Cleveland.
. . .

Indeed, if you want to see what liberal Democratic policies tend to produce, go to any one of those cities, or other Democratic strongholds. Democrats promise to help the poor and downtrodden, grow the middle class, make life more fair. But their policies consistently produce the opposite.
. . .

Washington, San Francisco, New York, Detroit, and Cleveland are also among the 10 worst-run cities, according to WalletHub. Three other Democratic strongholds — Oakland, Flint, Hartford — make WalletHub’s worst-run list. 

Yet, whenever the desperate conditions of these cities get discussed, they’re treated either as if these problems simply fell out of the sky, that somehow Republicans are to blame, or that more taxpayer money will solve everything. The connection to liberal policies never gets made.
. . .

Read the rest here.
# # #

Sunday, July 28, 2019

Dr. Robert Epstein’s testimony re Google




Earlier this month this blog reported on Dr. Robert Epstein's testimony concerning Google's invisible influence on election results.  Ned Ryun at American Greatness has an update:

Google’s Algorithms Threaten Free and Fair Elections

. . . the power of the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) generated by Google’s search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton in 2016. Epstein explained:

SEME is one of the most powerful forms of influence ever discovered in the behavioral sciences, and it is especially dangerous because it is invisible to people—“subliminal,” in effect. It leaves people thinking they have made up their own minds, which is very much an illusion. It also leaves no paper trail for authorities to trace. 
. . .

Epstein discussed the potential impact that Google, combined with Facebook and Twitter, could have on the election outcomes in 2020. “Big Tech in 2020, because if these companies all support the same candidate—and that’s likely, needless to say—they will be able to shift upwards of 15 million votes to that candidate with no one knowing and without leaving a paper trail,” Epstein said.

After six years of studying Google, Epstein’s solution for breaking up Google’s SEME is to make its index public, to make it into a sort of public commons to engender greater competition. I have argued that these tech companies must have their Section 230 exemptions removed and be redefined as publishers and telecommunications companies. And we have antitrust laws for a reason. The federal government has a role in breaking up what are, in fact, monopolies.

Whatever the solution may be—and I suspect it is a combination of all of the above—it’s time to get aggressive. . . .

Read the rest of Mr. Ryun’s report here.
# # #