Vanity Fair thinks Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Senator from Texas is Kennedyesque.
Really? Does Vanity Fair really think O’Rourke abandoned a young woman, trapped in his car, to drown in a Texas creek? Does the magazine really think O’Rourke nakedly lied about a Supreme Court Justice nominee to smear him during a confirmation hearing?
That’s an interesting connection for the magazine to draw.
The Saturday Wall Street Journal had a piece that worried about President Donald Trump’s decision to add more tariffs to People’s Republic of China’s goods just prior to another round of trade talks with the PRC.
[T]he decision’s timing risks deepening the already bitter trade fight by starting another tit-for-tat round of tariffs.
The tariffs are bound to complicate—if not derail—talks with top Chinese officials, which are currently scheduled in Washington for Sept 27 and Sept 28, say people familiar with the plans.
On whose side is the current Pope? What is his purpose, his goal?
First, the Pope condones covering up—even delaying a “conference” for chit-chat about the abuse for as long as possible—massive child abuse by Catholicism’s priests and bishops.
Now we have the Pope saying the Catholic Church—the Vatican—doesn’t even need to be the authority that selects the Church’s bishops.
…Catholic concession in a far-reaching deal between Rome and the Vatican announced Friday. The Vatican has agreed to recognize as legitimate seven Chinese priests who had been excommunicated by Rome for accepting their bishop hats without Vatican approval. Two bishops who had remained faithful to Rome will retire to make room for bishops more to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s liking.
Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Texas Senator Beto O’Rourke wants a cop fired. At a rally last Friday, O’Rourke was asked whether Officer Amber Guyger should be fired. You remember the case: the officer seems to have entered the wrong apartment, mistaking if for her own, saw a man in the still darkened apartment, the man did not respond to Guyger’s commands, and she wound up shooting him. O’Rourke’s response to the rally-goer’s question:
I don’t understand given the actions how anyone can come to any other conclusion.
Deutsche Welle reported on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s visit last Friday with People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang in the PRC. A couple of things jumped out at me that are separate from the emphasis the article put on the visit and the aid the PRC has promised Maduro. Maduro tweeted
We began our state visit to the People’s Republic of China, paying tribute to its founder, the Great Helmsman, Mao Tse Tung. His example and revolutionary struggle marked the twentieth century.
That was in connection with this:
That’s the title of Friday’s Wall Street Journal Letters column. One letter argues that point in particular. The letter writer is mostly wrong, but his is right on one matter.
Who does he think will fill in behind us if we retreat? It won’t be our friends; that should be clear.
On the other hand, he argued
The USSR no longer exists and China has emerged as our chief rival. The only thing that has remained constant is America’s footing the greater part of the bill for military defense, while nations we protect continue to grow rich at our expense.
The nations of the world that we are supposed to protect are going their own way, while we continue to spend and spend in the name of preserving an alliance that is no longer even necessary.
This is a preview of
“Some Feel It’s About Time for a US Retreat”
. Read the full post (341 words, estimated 1:22 mins reading time)
US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has new ambassadorial digs, and those digs have new curtains. The rent for the digs is 58 large each month, and the curtains were almost $53k. If you think those numbers are outlandish for some office space and window coverings, you’re right.
Then we get The New York Times castigating her for spending that kind of taxpayer money. Never mind that the NYT carefully buried some key facts regarding these expenses. Facts like it being the Obama administration that committed to the rent and that bought the curtains; Haley had no say in the matter. Facts like the rent in particular, to Obama’s credit, being much lower than other administrations have spent on their UN ambassador’s digs.
The Progressive-Democratic Senator from San Francisco, Dianne Feinstein, has done it. The Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has “released a memo” purported to cast doubt on Judge and Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s character.
This is a memo, too, that she’s been sitting on for the last couple of months, waiting for just the right time to “release” it. Its source is secret, though, and its contents are not to be revealed to the public. Her cronies at The New York Times, never fear, claim to have the…skinny…on the content: in a textbook example of projection, that outlet hints that the “memo” is all about sexual misbehavior.
Our economy had the awe-uninspiring growth rate of 2% per year during ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) time in office. Now, the Census Bureau has reported that
- [r]eal median household incomes rose 1.8% to $61,372 between 2016 and 2017
- the overall poverty rate dropped 0.4 per centage points to 12.3%
- poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics fell to 21.2% and 18.3%, respectively, the lowest in more than 45 years
- the share of people earning less than $15,000 declining 0.3 per centage points
Obama didn’t build that. Those folks also think they’ve reached the point where they’ve made enough money.
Bob Woodward wrote a book about President Donald Trump, and his “on-the-record” sources are coming out of the…woodwork…to deny they said the things Woodward claims they said or that they were misrepresented in misleading ways (redundancy deliberate).
I have to ask: does Woodward have any “on the record” sources about whom he hasn’t seemed to have lied? He claims to have tapes and transcripts of those conversations and of his claimed conversations with anonymous “sources.”
Regarding the latter, he should explain why we should believe anonymous sources who’ve demonstrated their dishonesty by speaking against their terms of employment if not their oaths of office.