Vegan Runner Asks Those Cooking Meat To Close Their Windows

                A local Berkeley, California, neighborhood informational website, @BestNextDoor, recently received a request from a self-titled “vegan runner.” The post, basically a rant from the meat-phobic runner, read: "Several nights a week I'm out running around dinnertime and when people have their windows open I can smell what they are cooking. I've noticed a sharp uptick recently in smells of folks cooking meat and it can be quite overpowering. Quite honestly the odor is offensive and I'm hoping our community can have some empathy for its #plantbased neighbors by closing their windows if they are cooking meat and only putting vegetables on their bbq.” The runner, whose gender isn’t known but probably fluctuates on a daily or hourly basis, also noted that it’s “always hard for me this time of year when the weather starts warming up and folks start opening their windows.” He/she/they/it added: “I don’t want to be a stereotype so I won’t go into detail about why the odor of cooking animals is offensive but I encourage you to do your research and join the movement.”  

                You just know the “vegan runner” is full of tolerance for abortion, illegal aliens, hookers, and recreational drug use. But people frying bacon in their own homes is clearly beyond the pale, at least if the heinous act is committed on a beautiful day with their windows cracked. And let’s not even consider the act of outdoor grilling. I bet, if a poll were taken, many more people would find the smell of cooking brussels sprouts, for example, less pleasant than frying bacon or grilled tenderloins.

                Fascist vegan runner, do you know what really smells bad, what odors are truly offensive to many? Human excrement on the streets and sidewalks, homeless camps, and marijuana smoke, all brought about by “progressive” policies.

 There might even be something that smells worse than that: #sweatyveganrunners. So, please, do us all a favor and exercise indoors. With your windows closed.  

Education Spending Up, SAT Scores Down

                They say a fool and his money are soon parted. It now appears that money is creating more fools.

                Federal funding for education has risen dramatically in recent years, yet it is obvious students aren’t any the brighter for it. Spending on Pell Grants, tuition assistance for low-income students, more than doubled from 2002 to 2016 and reached nearly $30 billion in 2019 alone. There is talk of doubling even that prodigious figure. Moreover, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has a plan to allow students to use their Pell Grants for non-tuition expenses such as groceries, clothing, travel, video games and, almost certainly, bongs and strip-club outings. The amount of cash lavished on Title I Grants, given to school districts with large numbers of low-income students, has skyrocketed as well, approaching $16 billion in 2019. Federal funding for special education has grown by 60% since 2002 and is now over $12 billion annually. Additionally, Head Start programs provide pre-school and family services funding to, you guessed it, low-income families…to the tune of about $10 billion a year.

                Considering the staggering prices most colleges charge for tuition these days, it would appear the only way to afford to send your kids to them is to be poor!

                It wasn’t until 1965 that the federal government started bankrolling local public schools across America, via the “Elementary and Secondary Education Act,” part of LBJ’s War on Poverty. But neither the ESEA nor the ever-expanding college grants have made the young scholars any smarter. Quite the opposite, in fact. What do we have to show for the trillions of taxpayers’ dollars we have spent on education? Here are the College Board’s own SAT test results:

                Average SAT scores, 1967:

                Reading/Verbal: 543

                Math: 516

    Average SAT scores, 2016:

                Reading/verbal: 494

                Math: 508

                A precipitous 49-point drop in language scores and a relatively slight drop in math scores? We would have been better off if the feds had robbed us of all that money and bought a few trillion lottery pull-tabs to distribute in schools. Even though the feds get the money for lottery pull tab payouts from us as well, and pocket a cool 30% or more, at least we’d see some of the money coming back to some of us…and wouldn’t be dumber for the experience.

                As it stands now, most of the money the government takes in from sales of lottery tickets goes to education, too, though many millions of dollars go towards state programs for those with gambling addictions. This makes perfect nonsense. Yet more money for education. And we can see how well this half-century-long spending spree has worked by the falling SAT scores… and the ever-increasing numbers of folks who spend a significant amount of their money and time buying government lottery pull tab tickets and hoping for the best. But we can take solace in the knowledge that some of the money governments spend on promoting and providing gambling opportunities is eventually going into programs to help people kick their gambling habits. This is quintessential government “logic.”

                Taxes, education spending, gambling? Someone else once said, “You pays your money and you takes your chances.”

                Must’ve been a college graduate.

Bloomberg Says He Would've Beaten Trump

                Failed Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg threw in the towel recently and quit the race, after being thoroughly embarrassed on Super Tuesday. However, this did not keep the diminutive billionaire from boldly claiming to supporters in his farewell speech, “This really is the best, most creative, most hardworking campaign team ever assembled. And I have to say, there is no doubt in my mind we would’ve beaten Donald Trump in November.” For good measure Bloomberg added, “And you know who else knows that? Donald Trump. He’s been scared stiff of us and for good reason.” Yes, it stands to reason that the candidate that got whupped by Pocahontas, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, an aging Communist-- and a serial groper that often does not know what state he is in—would have no trouble defeating the incumbent President of the United States during an economic boom. I mean, the man spent over $500 million on his campaign, only to win one primary or caucus, American Samoa’s. Given that there were only 200,110 citizens residing in that territory at the latest official count, Mini-Mike spent $2,498.63 per man, woman and child to take that electoral prize. Probably closer to $10,000 per vote.

                Oddly enough, the serial groper that often does not know what state he is in, Joe Biden, also believes Trump is terrified of him. In a recent interview, Quid Pro Joe told NBC: “I think the one thing the president doesn’t want to do from the very beginning is face me, because I will beat him. Period. Period. He has done everything in his power—he’s even risked his presidency because he doesn’t want to face me.” He then posed what he termed a rhetorical question: “Have you ever ever seen a sitting president get so involved in a Democratic primary and focus so much attention on not wanting a single person, me, to be the nominee?" Someone’s a little full of himself, despite the fact that a week ago many thought he was dead in the water, a victim of his own prodigious gaffes. I highly doubt Trump is shaking in his boots—or whatever footwear happens to be adorning his feet at the moment—at the thought of debating Uncle Joe.

                We already knew that Democrats live in a fantasy world. Apparently, they have delusions of adequacy, too.

MSNBC's Brian Williams A Victim Of Numbers

                 Brian Williams is the gift that keeps on giving. He is to inadvertent humor as turkey is to Thanksgiving dinner. The host of MSNBC’s “The 11^th Hour with Brian Williams” recently quoted a tweet claiming that former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg “could have given each American $1 million and still have money left over” during an interview with New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay. Gay referenced the tweet and Williams quickly said, “I’ve got it, let’s put it up on the screen” as a smirking Gay looked on with anticipation. He added, “When I read it, ahhh, tonight on social media, it kind of all became clear.” Apparently, that was not the case. The tweet, from journalist Mekita Rivas, reads, “Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads. The U.S. population is 327 million. He could have given each American $1 million and still have money left over, I feel like a $1 million check would be life-changing for people. Yet he wasted it all on ads and STILL LOST.” Williams then opined, “It’s an incredible way of putting it,” to which Gay replied, “It’s an incredible way of putting it. It’s true. It’s disturbing. It does…it does suggest-- you know-- what we’re talking about here, which is, there’s, there’s too much money in politics.” That’s as may be, but it certainly suggests that most journalists are morons. Bloomberg could have given everyone in America a million dollars if there were 327 people in the country, not 327 million. In reality, he could have given every American about $1.53, which is significantly less than $1 million, and probably not “life-changing” for anyone.

                Bloomberg did spend over $500 million to capture a victory in…American Samoa…before dropping out of the race. There were 200,110 souls in American Samoa at last (official) count, so Bloomberg could have given each one of them $2,498.63, which is still a long way from $1 million.

                Williams later apologized, citing his lack of math competency and saying: “Turns out Mara and I got the same grades at math. I'm speaking of the tweet we both misinterpreted. He could give each American $1. Again, I didn't have it in high school. I don't have it tonight. I stand corrected. Sorry about that. The tweet is wrong." How is it possible that a “journalist” posted a tweet like that, and that a mainstream media news anchor and New York Times editorial board member could not see the obvious? 500 divided by 327 and 500 million divided by 327 million are essentially the same basic equation. Anyone should, at a glance, at least know that the answer will be one point something. Not a million. And the media constantly complain about being labeled “fake news.”

                Perhaps Williams was responsible for coming up with the figure Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden recently used to decry gun deaths in the country. While campaigning in South Carolina, Biden said that “150 million” Americans had been killed by guns just since 2007. That’s nearly half of the population gunned down in the past 13 years alone. One would think that the fact nearly every other person in the nation was gone should have been quite noticeable to all of us, even before Biden pointed this out. But even Creepy Joe was only off by a factor of 1,000, not 1,000,000, as were Rivas, Gay and Williams.

                Williams has previously prevaricated on a number of occasions…and been caught doing so more than once. In 2013 he told David Letterman how he was on a helicopter that was shot down over Iraq. The only problem with that story is it wasn’t true.
                Williams has no business being a news anchor. On the other hand, what else could he do? Math teacher is obviously out. CPA? Would you let him prepare your tax return? I don't think he could get a job at Wal-Mart. Would you let him count back your change? 

               

Schumer Threatens Supreme Court Justices

                Democrats recently held a pro-abortion rally* in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. Fittingly, it was by turns hostile and bizarre. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) threatened not one but two Supreme Court Justices saying, “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful actions.” Schumer, sounding more like a mafia don than a member of Congress, failed to realize that aborted babies also “pay the price” and don’t know what hits them, for no other reason than that they inconvenience one or both of their parents.

                Remarkably, at this same rally, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich) explained to her fellow demonstrators, “This past year, I realized, my, my, my are they obsessed with our bodies, how we talk, how we look, what we stand for. I mean, this type of policing of our bodies is so interconnected to all the social justice movements all around the country.” Tlaib then bleated: “This obsession with our bodies. You know, I, in the Michigan legislature for six years, used to say to people, ‘yo, yo, you know what, you’re so freakin’ obsessed with what I decide to do with my body, maybe you shouldn’t even want to have sex with me!’” Say what??!! This can’t possibly be a big problem for her. I, for one, would rather attempt to give an unanesthetized lynx a colorectal exam while chewing on a large wad of tinfoil. Tlaib is a deluded, bitter, vile, radical feminist who fervently wishes that men were lusting after her, so she could reject them and feel better about herself.

                Grabien Media’s Tom Elliot reported that Tlaib then proceeded to accuse pro-life politicians of “commercializing” women’s bodies. This is, like virtually all leftist assertions, exactly backward. It is pro-abortion entities such as Planned Parenthood, which sets abortion goals and quotas, charges for the abortions, and then sells the resulting fetus parts for medical research, that “commercialize” women’s—and babies’-- bodies.

                       ****************************************************************

                *(The rally/protest was held in regards to the June Medical Services v. Russo abortion case that the Supreme Court heard that day. The SCOTUS was to decide whether the state of Louisiana can enforce a law that abortion proponents fear could be used to enhance the ability of states to restrict access to abortion.)                      

Sen. Gillibrand, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Conflate Abortion With Religious Freedom

The skyline of Manhattan wasn’t lit up in pink (as far as I know), but Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) celebrated the Senate’s failure to pass two pro-life bills this week. Neither the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act nor the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act received the 60 votes necessary to be advanced. The former would have mandated that babies surviving failed abortion attempts receive the “same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn,” while the latter would have banned most abortions after 20 weeks, as that is the age at which most specialists believe the unborn child can feel pain. The bill contained exceptions for rape, incest and protecting the life of the mother.

Gillibrand, speaking of the bills, told MSNBC: “This is part of President Trump and Mitch McConnell’s all-out assault on women. They’re trying to harm women. They’re trying to take away their civil rights, their human rights, their ability to make the most important, intimate decisions of their lives. They’re taking away their religious freedom. They’re taking away their moral freedom.” No, Sen. Gillibrand, they are not aborting women, nor harming them in any way. They are trying to stem your party’s all-out assault on babies. I think deep down you know this, and that’s why you try so hard—if pathetically-- to refute it. They are not taking away women’s civil rights. You are not being enslaved or segregated. That is an insult to those that were. They are protecting the human rights of as yet unborn children. Many crimes are “intimate.” Is the fact that rape isn’t legal taking away men’s ability to make the “most important, intimate decisions of their lives?” Is it taking away their “moral freedom?” You literally can’t be any more wrong, misguided, and hypocritical than this. Sen. Gillibrand, words are like genders, try as you might, you can’t simply make them mean whatever you want them to.

Sadly, Gillibrand wasn’t done. She added, “These two measures that we’re voting on literally change the landscape of how we treat a baby who was born...” Yes, by allowing them to live. She noted that “parents want to be able to have those final moments with their child.” Indeed. Instead of seeing them grow up. She finished by stating, “It is a horrible, horrible choice by Mitch McConnell to force these votes and we’ve voted on these measures before and they’ve lost. I think this is just a political ploy to satisfy those who are attending the CPAC conference.” No, Sen. Gillibrand, the “horrible, horrible” choices were made by the parents, and your support for abortion is, in part, a political ploy to satisfy those women who don’t wish to be burdened by the consequences of their decision to be “intimate.”

Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) recently berated her fellow Congresspersons during a House Oversight Hearing on religious freedom. Upset that those less “woke” than herself don’t sufficiently share her radically “progressive” beliefs about medical care, abortion, LGBTQ issues, and, well, pretty much everything else, the well-known Biblical scholar lashed out. She said, “Sometimes, especially this body, I feel as though if Christ himself walked through these doors and said what he said thousands of years ago, that we should love our neighbor and our enemy, that we should welcome the stranger, fight for the least of us…he would be maligned as a radical and rejected from these doors.” In high dudgeon now, she added that she was “tired of communities of faith being weaponized and being mischaracterized because the only time religious freedom is invoked is in the name of bigotry and discrimination. I’m tired of it.”

Yes, Sen. Gillibrand and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, I’m sure if Jesus was among us today He would be performing abortions Himself. I mean, who could be more pro-abortion than the Son of God, right? What was that about “fighting for the least of us?”

Incredible. If we don’t wake up soon, it will be too late. It is not “climate change” we have to worry about (the dumbest phrase in recorded history), but our diminishing ability to separate good from evil, effective policies from disastrous ones, and truth from bulls**t. Neither tolerance nor intolerance is a virtue. Neither is always good or always bad. We have become preposterously tolerant of everything from inanity to evil, and increasingly intolerant of standards, decency and traditional morality.

Michael Moore Says South Carolina Not Representative Of The United States

                Following former Vice President Joe Biden’s first-ever primary (or caucus) victory in South Carolina, filmmaker and imbecile-extraordinaire Michael Moore called in to MSNBC to downplay creepy Uncle Joe’s decisive win. Moore, a zealous supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders, a.k.a. “Comrade Commie,” insisted Crazy Bernie is still the front-runner. (A claim that will be much harder to substantiate after ‘Super-Tuesday’ results are finalized.) None-the-less, he whined, "It's so sad that Mayor Pete [Buttigieg] and Amy [Klobuchar] couldn't- they somehow couldn't even go 24 more hours. It wasn't going to cost them any more money, wasn't going to cost them any more work.” He accused the Dem duo of “falling in line” rather than being legitimately motivated to endorse or aid Biden.

                The Corpulent One was subsequently asked by MSNBC anchor Ari Melber about his claim that Biden wouldn’t “excite the base” following the South Carolina primary. Moore replied, "South Carolina is not representative of the United States. I mean, that's just the facts... absolutely no impact on the November 3rd election."

                South Carolina is not representative of the of the United States? This is a surpassingly idiotic statement, even for Moore. He obviously has no concept of states or federalism. South Carolina was one of the original 13 colonies. It was here at the founding. Moore doesn’t like it because it is more conservative than most other states. He would tell you that “Wyoming isn’t representative of the United States,” that “Oklahoma isn’t representative of the U.S.,” that “Texas isn’t representative of the U.S.,” and “neither are Georgia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, or North and South Dakota.” I’m sure after Trump won in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio in 2016, he didn’t think they were representative of America, either.

                The truth is, Moore isn’t representative of the United States. Trump won the 2016 popular vote in an incredible 2,626 counties to Clinton’s 487. As Moore himself would say, “that’s just the facts.”

Democrats For Voter Replacement

In the insurance industry, when a customer trades in one car for another, a vehicle replacement is performed. The old vehicle is removed and the new one is added to the client’s policy. Everything else stays the same. No fuss, no muss…and there’s no trace of the previous vehicle after the switch has been made.

This is precisely what the Democrats dream of doing with white, male, Christian American citizens in fly-over country.  If they could simply replace the recalcitrant rubes and rednecks with illegal immigrants in one fell swoop they would. Instead, they have to fight against a wall going up and try to defund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security to import the voters they’ll need in the future. Voters that “owe” them big-time. Progressive Democrats are pro-crime, and, in any case, if Republicans are against letting illegal aliens into the country and Democrats are for it……if you are an illegal alien, for whom are you going to vote?  

America was founded by replacing, via armed conflict, the unrepresentative English government with one of, by and for…the people. Today’s radical Democrats are looking to Bertolt Brecht’s poem, “The Solution,” for the extension of their power. One can almost hear them thinking, “Would it not be easier for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?”

Mayor Buttigieg And Sen. Klobuchar Quit Presidential Race

Early Sunday morning, March 1, 2020 (Mayor Pete Buttigieg answers his cell phone)— “Hello, Mayor Pete here.”

“Hello, Mayor Pete, how are you doing today…after your embarrassing showing of yesterday, I mean? Quite a beatdown, eh?”

“Who is this?”

“I’m sorry. It’s Tom…Tom Perez, head of the DNC.”

“Oh. Well I’ve been better, but my campaign people and I are looking forward to Super Tuesday. We are optimistic that—”

“Cut the crap, Pete. It’s over. I know it. You know it. The American people know it.”

“Well, I think that’s a bit harsh, Tom, I—”

“You’re done!”

“Excuse me?”

“You heard me.”

“We are not done, we are—”

“You know, you’ve got a real nice husband there, Petey. Be a shame if somethin’ happened to him.”

“What?! Are you…is that a threat?”

“I’m not sayin. I’m just sayin. And I’ve got the Clintons here backing me on this. Both of them. Follow me?”

“I, uh, guess so.”

“You will announce that you are quitting the race by the end of the day. Is that clear?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Good boy. Now run along. Say ‘hi’ to Chasten.”

Early Monday morning, March 2, 2020 (Sen. Amy Klobuchar answers her cell phone)—

“Hello, this is Senator Klobuchar.”

“Amy, how are you this morning?”

“Um, who is this?”

“Tom. Tom Perez, DNC Chair.”

“Mr. Perez, to what do I owe the honor?”

“Well, we’d like you to drop out of the race. Now.”

“What?! We? Who’s we?”

“Me. And some other DNC bigwigs. And the Clintons.”

“The Clintons?”

“Yes.”

“But, the Primary in my home state of Minnesota is tomorrow. I think I will win and—”

“Make the announcement today, Amy.”

“I, um…okay.”

The End

Scotland To Provide Free Feminine Hygiene Products

                The “Period Products Scotland Bill” was recently passed by the Scottish Parliament by a vote of 112 for and none against, with one abstention, Reuters reported. The bill provides “free” feminine hygiene products such as pads and tampons to “anyone who needs them.” The items, which will be available in various public spaces, are expected to cost the government—meaning taxpayers—around $31 million annually. The measure makes Scotland the only country on Earth to provide free sanitary products to all women, though some say the U.S. could soon follow suit.

                Monica Lennon, the sponsor of the bill, touted the action as a “milestone moment for normalizing menstruation in Scotland and sending out that real signal to people in this country about how seriously parliament takes gender equality.” (I’m surprised progressives haven’t taken the “men” out of “menstruation” by now.) Lennon proposed the bill in response to a growing activist movement for gender-equality and against “period poverty,” the notion that not all women and girls can afford the products. The activists argued that it is the government’s responsibility to provide feminine hygiene products to the public. The Reuters report cited a pre-vote rally outside Scottish Parliament at which an attendee held up a sign reading, “Access to menstrual products is a right. Period.”

                No, it’s not. Exclamation point!

                Jefferson did not write of the right to “life, liberty, and free feminine hygiene products.” No doubt leftists will say this is merely proof of a callous, white male patriarchy. But passage of this bill is proof of the remarkable ease of life in the West, and an utter lack of existential crises. And the almost maniacal desire to be “woker than thou.” Perhaps virtue-signaling will soon be added to the list of Olympic sports.

                In reality, this is just another wealth transfer, in this case from men to women—and “trans men.” And a further transfer of power and responsibility from citizens to the nanny state.

                If equality was really the goal of progressives, they’d be fine with, say, Lindsey Graham introducing a bill to provide men with free “masculine hygiene” products. Why should males be burdened with “pate pauperism” or “package poverty?” Why shouldn’t the government pay for our shaving cream, razors and hair implant procedures? It certainly should foot the bill for men’s jock straps, nut cups, and Gold Bond powder, no? 

                What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Right?