Ocasio-Cortez, the Socialist Sock Puppet

I’m not too proud to admit that a small part of me was excited by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s primary victory, this past month. As a millennial woman with libertarian leanings, I counted her win a small victory. Who doesn’t like a good punch delivered to Washington's bureaucracy, now and again? #termlimits

The initial humility following her victory proved temporary, as her haughtiness—in interviews, in social media, and in speeches— grows at an alarming rate. She targeted minorities and millennials throughout her campaign and, frankly, they deserve a refund. Ocasio-Cortez reverberates the same falsified rhetoric of socialism all while flaunting her BU degree in economics; when asked to explain some of the key tenets of her outlandish platform, though, she consistently fails to offer a coherent explanation of her ideals. It’s almost as if her socialist policies have no economic basis…

After perusing some of Ocasio-Cortez’s more cringe-worthy interviews (and trust me, there are plenty), I can safely conclude that she is not the representative young women need. 

National Review appears the sole major news outlet recognizing Ocasio-Cortez’s incompetence. A recent interview with Trevor Noah, notably, exposes how unqualified she is to be running for office. In this interview, alone, she confused the recent increase in defense spending with the entire annual cost of the military and implied that the population of the United States was around 800 million. She blundered in another interview as she claimed that unemployment rates have depleted “because everyone has two jobs” and because employees are simply working more hours. She denounced Israel as invaders of Palestine and, recognizing her blunder on national television, quickly backtracked and claimed that she is ill-informed on the subject. You don’t say.

If these errors in speech aren't compelling enough, today she rallied her followers in Deerborn, Michigan to join her in "throw[ing] down" with Congress on Sunday: “I need you to send them with me because when we roll through as a posse, we can throw down. We can get it done. That’s how we do it in the Bronx. ‘Roll deep,’ as they say.” 

Whether she’s fear-mongering her brigade of Bernie supporters or just spewing the socialist junk she gathered from her pseudo-Economics degree, Ocasio-Cortez has proven a major disappointment to hopeful millennials, regardless. Her innumerable blunders upon her election show that she's not the free thinking visionary she claims to be but, rather, is a mere sock puppet regurgitating Bernie's failed platform. 

Candidate Targets Melania

Mark Roberts, Congressional candidate in Oregon running as an Independent, has essentially called First Lady Melania Trump a prostitute.

In response to a Daily Caller report that Melania's staff (five) is much smaller than that of former First Lady Michelle Obama (44), Roberts tweeted:

"Did you know the First Lady works by the hour?  #thinkdirty #hoebag".

Stay classy, Roberts.

Rand Paul to Support Kavanaugh

Sen. Rand Paul has announced that he will vote to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. I had hoped and expected that Rand would eventually get there, and I'm glad that he has.

Rand has expressed important concerns about the dangers that technology poses to our fourth amendment rights. However, it would be as improper to impose a litmus test based on the fourth amendment as it would be to impose a litmus test based on Roe.

Further, some of Rand's concerns may be addressed legislatively.

At the end of the day, as Rand pointed out, one will never agree one hundred percent with any nominee -- unless one is the nominee.

Dennis Prager: Debunking Post Trump Hysteria

In this article, Dennis Prager aptly covers my latest thoughts regarding the hysteria surrounding U.S. relations with Russia. He makes a particularly poignant statement: "Today, the mainstream media are not the voices of caution. They are the creators of the hysteria." This begs the question: if MSNBC and CNN each covered the facts of the Helsinki conference, void of commentary, would the conference have generated such public duress?

I agree with Prager that twenty-first century "news" now has a new connotation. Rather than objectively detailing events, each major modern news outlet now uses its platform for commentary. The result, as Prager points out, is that mainstream media now has unbridled influence over public opinion.

I theorize that, at least among my demographic of millennials, many of us know the dishonesty of mainstream media and yet willfully ignore it. We continue to watch outlets like CNN daily without fact-checking its claims due to sheer laziness. Scrolling through twitter or watching biased recap of the news on TV instills in viewers a false sense of due diligence with little use of critical thought.

Consumers make a choice, daily, between the convenience of mainstream news outlets versus the work (and reward) of gaining a comprehensive understanding of governmental affairs. The hysteria generated from Helsinki truly reveals the laziness of modern citizens who would rather be spoon-fed their "news," daily. As Prager suggests, people no longer watch the news for information; rather, they watch to be told their opinions. 

Justice Kennedy: The Gift of Goodbye

Supreme Justice Kennedy’s looming retirement sends conservatives and liberals, alike, in a frenzy. The Left’s collective lamentation regarding their now-threatened “civil rights” looms amid mainstream media. What the left laments as an oppressive loss of “civil rights,” the right celebrate a long-overdue return to Constitutional sovereignty. Indeed, the past eight years have been a devastating blow to the Constitution as the U.S. has witnessed, firsthand, the debilitating effects of liberalism in the SCOTUS. We’ve watched helplessly as the central government literally dictated matters of life and death in our country with utter disdain for the 10th Amendment . We have watched the central government distort the principles instilled in our Constitution and the majority, rightly, is beside itself with indignation. 

The laments in mainstream media about Kennedy’s retirement almost distract from what a major victory this is for our country if President Trump nominates a constitutional originalist. 

Of these outcries, notably the “right” to abortion guaranteed by Roe v. Wade appears the loudest. The similar fear-mongering tactics appear, yet again, plastered among headlines of news outlets. The same tired clichés live on: White Republican men decide reproductive rights for all women in the U.S., all abortions will soon be criminalized, Trump seeks to punish women, and “back alley” abortions will return.

The Left seems to play upon the ambiguity and misinformation surrounding  Roe v. Wade. It's true: the more ignorant citizens remain regarding the issue, they more easily they will feed into the collective outrage regarding Trump’s next SCOTUS member. The greatest misconception hovering amid the issue is that the Supreme Court will enact a wide-sweeping ban of abortion, nationwide. This couldn’t be further from the truth. 

Its content aside, I deem the chief injustice behind Roe v. Wade (and Obergefell v. Hodges, for that matter) its gross negligence of state jurisdiction. Upending Roe will likely transfer that power back to its rightful location, in state courts. This prospect should be thrilling, not infuriating! SCOTUS might also ban abortion in certain states without overturning Roe; this is another viable possibility. These bans and restrictions, nonetheless, will hinge on state legislation. 

So, fear not, Leftists: the effects of Roe v. Wade will not be entirely demolished (for better or worse). Rather, abortion may be reinstated where it should have remained, with the states. The past two years of Supreme Court rulings elicit a similar reaction to that of old yearbook photos in their cringe-worthiness. Roe is, without a doubt, the most glaring example. With Kennedy's retirement, this nation will soon beckon in a new era, hopefully one in which Constitutional reverence prevails. I, for one, am ecstatic to put SCOTUS’s centrist rulings in the past— preferably somewhere far, far away, only to be accessed for teaching purposes. 

Liberals, why the sudden change of narrative? A Reflection on Immigration Upheaval

Amid the partisanship of immigration reform, it’s easy to forget that people of both parties agree on the protection of American youth. No one wants to see children undergo trauma and adversity, and most everyone agrees that , parents’ actions aside, children are entitled to humane treatment.

Much of the upheaval resulting from Trump’s recent “zero tolerance” immigration policy appeared to spur from a recognized importance of the family unit. Critics of Trump argued that no political maneuver justified the separation of parents from their children.  Some vocal religious right figures condemned the policy due to its deprioritizing the family structure and, liberals thoroughly basked in these statements, using them as a means to bolster their stance. 

Regardless of one’s stance on Trump’s immigration reform, beneath the politics of border security lies a subtle issue plaguing America. By appealing to the sanctity of family in attempt to bolster their stance, the Left showed their willingness to claim moral high ground, so long as it fits into their narrative. 

Question: When has the Left stood for the elevation of the family unit in the past? Historically, liberals have abhorred the nuclear family. The tradition of family remains inextricably linked with religion, domestic gender-roles, and monogamy, values antagonistic to modern liberal ideology. The irony behind the progressives’ sudden moral appeals is daunting; the same party that has repeatedly justified eugenics and late-term abortion suddenly uplifts family unity as a universal right. My Leftist peers who regularly mock religion and marriage now quote the Southern Baptist conventionin their public statement that the family unit is foundational to the U.S. The Left’s sudden appeal to traditional values begs the question: Liberals, why the sudden change of narrative? Moreover, why are the American people falling for it? 

The Left have revealed their inclination to correct problems abroad while turning a blind eye to their domestic counterparts. We live in a society that deprioritizes viable alternatives to abortion, most specifically, adoption. Our foster care system remains broken and underfunded. If the upheaval resulting from the heroin epidemic slightly resembled that of the immigration crisis, perhaps the number of displaced children would cease its rapid incline. Perhaps, if liberals viewed the value of a fetus as equal to the value of a newborn child, our country wouldn’t account for a million abortions, annually.

Regardless of one’s stance on immigration policy, the public’s reaction to Trump’s reform attempt speaks volumes of the dismal state of our country. We voted for a man who puts America first. It was easy to vote for him in the dark, in the comfort of our anonymous voting booths; what comes after, not so easy. In theory, we like the idea of tackling the issues lingering amid the U.S. In practice, we’d rather throw money at issues and offer temporary solutions. To remain loyal to our conservative ideals and, on a larger scale, to preserve the traditions and sanctity of our country, the Right must discern the innumerable moral attacks casted upon us in the name of “progressivism.”

NRCC Puts Vicki Glisson on "Young Guns" List

I cannot believe that this got no coverage locally. The National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee has added Vicki Glisson, candidate for Congress in KY-3, to its "Young Guns" list.

That's a big deal. In a cycle where Republicans are losing many incumbents due to retirement, Vicki actually presents an opportunity for a pick-up.

Granted, local media almost uniformly view themselves as progressives and therefore don't want Vicki to win. Still, this recognition by the NRCC is, how to put it, newsworthy. 

To make the list, Vicki had to meet certain benchmarks set by the NRCC. She not only met the benchmarks, but in each instance exceeded them.  For example, she has out-raised John Yarmuth for the last two reporting periods -- something else you don't see covered in mainstream media.

The Ghost of the FBI Past --

University of Louisville Law Professor Justin Walker has an important op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal.  He reminds us of the consequences of an "independent" FBI. Independence became lack of accountability to democratically elected presidents.

I am generally aware of the misdeeds of the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. The recent movie, Mark Felt: The Man Who Brought Down the White House does a good job of illustrating that in the aftermath of Hoover's death, during Watergate.

What Walker's piece reveals, however, is that Hoover's abuse of civil rights extends to thousands more ordinary Americans than I had previously thought; this was not a problem limited to Hollywood stars and prominent politicians.

Walker's op-ed is a condensed version of a piece that will be published later this year in the George Washington Law Review, which I look forward to reading. 

More Crony Capitalism from GOP in Frankfort

Senate Bill 5 should be filed under "what were they thinking" or "why bother winning elections if you're going to govern like Democrats." Sen. Max Wise (R-16) is the sponsor.

Wise's bill basically reverses a successful practice of the private companies overseeing pharmacies dispensing drugs and brings it back into state government. That's right, it grows state government -- at a time when programs like education are being slashed due to Kentucky's desperate financial shortfall and the pension mess.

Not surprising, it's expensive (and inefficient) to grow government.  The price tag for Senate Bill 5:  $36 million a year.

Where on earth will the state get $36 million?  This is lunacy.

The only people to benefit from this bill are small town pharmacists. That is, it's crony capitalism -- Frankfort pols picking winners and losers.  In this case, the small town pharmacists win, and tax payers lose. If enacted, the pharmacies will get the Obamacare payment of $10.64 per each drug dispensed -- compared to under a dollar they now get. That's quite a raise. 

Nothing against small town pharmacists. But why should they get preferential treatment over other businesses and industries?  I bet some now defunct independent booksellers are wondering where their handout was.