Coming from someone named “Reich”…

… (as in the Third Reich) this seems a bit strange:

Former Labor Sec. Robert Reich asks if Gov. DeSantis’ last name is ‘officially a synonym for fascist’

The comment is in character, anyway – Reich is a liberal tool. He thinks that anyone to the right of AOC is a fascist (as if AOC isn’t a fascist!). It’s typical for liberal far-left pundits: Label someone a fascist and hope enough people repeat it to make it (effectively) true. The truth be damned, don’t you know…

Here’s what Merriam Webster says about fascism:
A political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. (emphasis mine).

Now, who does that last part remind you of more: AOC-style liberals fighting for the government to control everything while suppressing opposition speech (for instance, via cancel-culture based protests and social media censorship), or Ron DeSantis fighting for free speech and the rights of individuals to be free of undue government influence?

Yeah; me, too.

Scamming the system…

… al la AOC, but better.

AOC figured out that the magic formula to twisting America left was winning Democrat primaries in Democrat-only districts. But now they’re using a similar technique to push the right  left, too.

NEW POLL: Liz Cheney trailing Trump-backed primary challenger by more than 20 points

What’s interesting in this story is that Cheney is trying to hold onto her seat by having Democrats vote in the Republican primary. In states where this is permitted (cross-party primary voting) it allows the democrats to swing the primary such that the least-offensive Republican (RINO?) wins. Similar to AOC’s case, since these are Republican-only seats, whoever wins the Republican primary will win the election. Unfortunately, the Right has no defense. Even if they chose to do the same to the Democrats, it wouldn’t matter – Democrats can’t win, anyway (Republican-only district; remember?).

It’s not illegal, but still feels a bit underhanded – and yet seems so democratic at the same time…?

A Biden union bailout?

The unions have failed to manage their member’s funds responsibly, so we’re going to bail them out? Why should Joe Taxpayer be on the hook for the union’s failure to invest member’s retirement funds responsibly?

Biden’s union pension bailout: What it means, and will it work?

Who’s going to bail out my pension fund when I mismanage it? And what incentive is there for a union to manage their retirement funds responsibly (or for union members to demand responsible management) when there are no penalties for failure?

Talk about buying votes with taxpayer funds… but what did we really expect from someone who promised people $2000 checks for voting Blue?

Disappointed

Although I’m quickly becoming a fan of Elon Musk for his free speech views, I’m disappointed with him on this one. I personally don’t vote for a “party” (and neither should you); instead I vote for a candidate. It’s also dangerous to vote for a candidate/party not because you like them, but instead because you don’t like the alternative. Isn’t that how we got both Trump and Biden??

Elon Musk lights up Twitter after declaring he’ll vote GOP next election: ‘The left should reflect on why’

Frankly, I’m still upset that many ballots have an option to vote for all candidates of a specific part. It’s lazy voting (and dangerous) to vote for a party instead of the candidates. However, this might be an opportunity for learning a valuable lesson: don’t cast your vote until you know for whom you are voting.

Maybe we should just start forcing the political parties to actually give us viable alternatives from which to choose. Yeah, good luck with that…

It’s the Supreme Court’s fault!

No, it’s not. It’s the fault of Congress alone; they have failed to act for almost 50 years, even though many (including the left’s favorite justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg) have noted that Roe v Wade was vulnerable due to its poor foundation.

And yet Congress still can’t get their act together to protect a woman’s reasonable right to choose, although now I think it’s intentional. The Democrats in Congress need to stretch this crisis until the mid-terms in hopes of salvaging the votes that they have lost by their failures (Afghanistan, the economy, inflation, free speech, COVID, etc.).

So how can they do that? By putting forth an abortion bill that will garner no Republican votes (and lose some Democrats as well). If they can’t pass an abortion bill before the election, the Democrats will continue to blame falling access to abortion services on the Supreme Court and their overturning of Roe v. Wade – and by association, on conservatives/Republicans. But in the end they will only be hurting women in the name of politics and power.

The “Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022” (why it’s not called the politically-correct “Birther’s Health Protection Act of 2022” is beyond me) does this by failing to limit the time frame in which an abortion can be obtained, instead applying a subjective viability standard determined solely by the physician. From the bill:

VIABILITY.—The term “viability” means the point in a pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, based on the particular facts of the case before the health care provider, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the uterus with or without artificial support.

This viability standard is ripe for abuse. What’s to stop an unscrupulous doctor from determining – for a fee – that your third trimester fetus is not viable, thus allowing it to be aborted? If the bill had proposed at least some reasonable viability term – even the 24 week standard in effect under Roe and Casey – it would at least have had a chance. But an undefined standard that effectively allows abortion right up to birth? I don’t think that’s going to garner any Republican (or conservative Democrat) votes.

But of course, it’s not meant to…

Hypocrite!

It was the job of Congress to pass abortion legislation way back in 1973. Instead, they forced the Supreme Court to wander into clearly political territory with Roe v. Wade to save members of Congress from having to take a tough political stance.

Furious Elizabeth Warren rallies protesters outside Supreme Court: ‘We are not going back!’

Ms. Warren: Please get your ignorant, misinformation-peddling ass back to the Senate and pass an abortion rights bill – just like your brethren should have done in 1973. Work out a compromise that attracts enough votes to overcome the filibuster hurdle. And don’t even think about eliminating the filibuster – have you forgotten already how badly that has worked out for you and your friends so far? Are you so daft as to not see the impact of the escalation that arose out of Harry Reid’s “nuclear option”?

And stop claiming that the Supreme Court has acted in a political manner with respect to this case. The true “political act” was the original Roe v. Wade decision forced upon the court by Congress’s lack of action. Your criticizing the Supreme Court for finally correcting a bad decision made necessary by a failure of Congress is … well … hypocritical.