Category Archives: Politics

Animal’s Daily Taxation is Theft News

Make sure to check out the final installment of my History of Lever Guns series over at Glibertarians!

Meanwhile:  Sacramento just never runs out of stuff to tax.  Excerpt:

But in California under Democrats, it’s tax, tax, tax — a drip and a drop, nickel and a dime — all the time. That’s not a political statement. It’s a fact.

Not all taxes are evil. Some are justified. But many are unwarranted. And others are eye-rollers.

One of the more controversial and annoying taxes currently being proposed is a state levy on sugary soft drinks. More on that later.

Here’s an eye-roller: A bill that would authorize San Francisco to turn its crooked Lombard Street — a tourist attraction after so many movie appearances — into a toll road, maybe even requiring reservations. Think they have a traffic jam now on weekends? Wait until cars are lined up behind a tollgate.

There are a whole bunch of taxing ideas in the Capitol: on new tires, firearms, water, prescription painkillers, lawyers, car batteries, corporations based on their CEO pay, estates worth more than $3.5 million, oil and gas extraction. The list goes on.

The oil and gas extraction tax is long overdue. We’re the only major oil-producing state without one. It would raise an estimated $1.5 billion a year.

The California Tax Foundation has counted more than $6.2 billion worth of tax increase proposals pending in the Legislature. It expects the figure to grow substantially as bills are amended with details.

Now I have serious issues with taxation in principle.  To my thinking, it’s theft.  “But Animal,” some folks have argued with me, “taxation is part of the social contract we all live under.  It’s part of being a member of a society.”

To which my reply is:  “Bullshit.  A contract is a binding agreement, codified in writing, into which all parties enter voluntarily.  I have not entered into this ‘social contract’ voluntarily.  I was dragooned into it by force, and if you doubt that, bear in mind that if I attempt to renege on what government claims is my part of the ‘contract,’ they will send men with guns out to compel my obedience.”

That’s not a contract.  That’s robbery.

And in California, you’re seeing exactly where a system that allows that sort of robbery will inevitably end up.

Goodbye, Blue Monday

Goodbye, Blue Monday!

Thanks as always to Pirate’s Cove and The Other McCain for the Rule Five links!

The lunacy in the Imperial City continues; now House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) is demanding that a Fox news reporter reveal why a certain story involving the President and a porn star wasn’t run in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election.  It should be noted that the proper response to this demand need be nothing more than “go fuck yourself” but Fox is going to (sadly) show a little more professionalism than that.  Excerpt:

While Democrats are quick to say that Fox News was trying to “burry the story” to protect President Trump, former Fox News executive Ken LaCorte said the story lacked any credible evidence. LaCorte wrote a piece in Mediaite, explaining his decision to put a lid on the story (emphasis mine):

Two weeks before the 2016 presidential election, as the editorial head of Fox News online, I reviewed a draft news story that said porn actress Stormy Daniels had confirmed having an affair with Donald Trump a decade earlier. The only problem was … Stormy hadn’t said that.

Daniels and her associates were playing a bizarre cat-and-mouse game with Fox News and other outlets, trying to get their story out without fingerprints and, ultimately, without enough proof to publish.

We and others practiced solid journalism. Now, that’s being spun in an effort to prove the opposite.

On October 18, I got my first look at the Stormy Daniels story written by Fox reporter Diana Falzone, who primarily covered celebrity news for print and video. It wasn’t a detailed investigative piece as the media has portrayed this week, but a 9-paragraph story that sorely needed backup.

It included: a two-word confirmation – “it’s true” – from an unnamed Daniels “spokesperson,” an anonymous quote from a friend who said she’d dropped off Daniels to meet Trump at a hotel, and quotes from The Dirty owner, who said that he had spoken to Daniels in 2011 and she had confirmed the affair.

It lacked: any mention of payments, a hush money contract or any corroborating evidence beyond the two secondhand accounts.

Now, while LaCorte’s reply is interesting and certainly lays out plainly why he didn’t think the story was worth running, all of that explanation is irrelevant.

The fact is, the very idea of an Imperial apparatchik demanding an explanation from a privately owned news network why they did or didn’t run a particular story, or why they made any particular statement about another political figure, is absolutely chilling.  It reveals a very troubling attitude by that hack Cummings, that he thinks he can just demand such answers from the media, and it’s important to note that he made this demand of a network that is one of the few to not be generally seen as an arm of the Democratic Party.

I’d purely love to see LaCorte give Rep. Cummings (Horse’s Ass, MD) the reply he richly deserves.  But I suppose he sees it as better for his network and his career to maintain more composure than that.

Too bad.

Rule Five Seattle’s Downhill Slide Friday

The city of Seattle has been a friendly place for the homeless for quite a while now, thanks to its compassionate, enabling city government.  That policy has yielded predictable results, and many city residents have damn well had enough.  Excerpt:

For the past five years, like many of its West Coast counterparts, Seattle has endured a steady expansion of homelessness, addiction, mental illness, crime, and street disorder. But the activist class—a political and cultural elite comprising leaders in government, nonprofits, philanthropy, and media—has enforced a strict taboo on declaring the obvious: something is terribly wrong in the Emerald City.

Last month, veteran Seattle reporter Eric Johnson of KOMO violated that taboo with a shocking, hour-long documentary called Seattle is Dying, which revealed how the city has allowed a small subset of the homeless population—drug-addicted and mentally-ill criminals—to wreak havoc. Johnson’s portrait is backed up by evidence from King County homelessness data, by city attorney candidate Scott Lindsay’s “prolific offender” report on 100 homeless individuals responsible for more than 3,500 criminal cases, and by my own reporting on the homelessness crisis.

In the past two weeks, Seattle Is Dying has garnered 38,000 shares on Facebook and nearly 2 million views on YouTube. The report has clearly resonated with anxious, fearful, and increasingly angry Seattle residents. Exhausted by a decade of rising disorder and property crime—now two-and-a-half times higher than Los Angeles’s and four times higher than New York City’s—Seattle voters may have reached the point of “compassion fatigue.” According to the Seattle Times, 53 percent of Seattle voters now support a “zero-tolerance policy” on homeless encampments; 62 percent believe that the problem is getting worse because the city “wastes money by being inefficient” and “is not accountable for how the money is spent,” and that “too many resources are spent on the wrong approaches to the problem.” The city council insists that new tax revenues are necessary, including a head tax on large employers, but only 7 percent of Seattle voters think that the city is “not spending enough to really solve the problem.” For a famously progressive city, this is a remarkable shift in public opinion.

Seattle isn’t the only Left Coast city headed down this dark path; as I’ve stated previously in these virtual pages, I can tell you from firsthand experience that the formerly great city of San Francisco is suffering from a similar fate, due to similar causes.

I have some fond memories of Seattle.  I spent a few weekends up there in the mid-Eighties, during a brief stint for training at Ft. Lewis, WA, down Tacoma way.  I remember it then as a clean city, an interesting city, with enough night life to keep a young man interested and enough scenery and culture to keep the daytimes interesting as well.  It’s a shame to see that city fall into this kind of disarray.

But it’s a hard fact of economics that what you subsidize you get more of, and Seattle and Frisco have been directly and indirectly subsidizing their indigent populations for a long time now.  This combination of acceptance of bums at the expense of the productive, combined with a salubrious climate, has made these Left Coast cities a magnet.

But as this article notes:  After dictating homelessness policy for a generation, the activist class is losing the narrative—and this accounts for its increasingly desperate counterattacks. As their support among voters erodes and principled journalists like Johnson break the silence about homelessness, they fall back on branding their concerned neighbors “bigots,” “fascists,” and “white supremacists.” It’s not working the way it used to. In Seattle, a reckoning on homelessness may not be far off.

Is it too late for Seattle to turn this around?  They’ll have to change they way they vote, first.  For the root cause of this problem, Seattleites must look to their city council – and their state legislature.

Goodbye, Blue Monday

Goodbye, Blue Monday!

Thanks as always to Pirate’s Cove for the Rule Five links!

As the 2020 Presidential primary season heats up, it looks like Groper Joe Biden’s handsy past is catching up with him.  Excerpt:

At this point, Biden is at the top of his game, and despite polls showing him a formidable contender for the Democratic nomination, and potentially for president in the general election, Hillary was seen as a shoo-in for her party’s nomination in 2008, and as a shoo-in for president in 2016. Biden may be more likable than Hillary, but polls this far out won’t reflect the realities of the political landscape a year from now. I’ve long suspected that Biden could be hesitating to officially jump in because of his touchy-feely reputation.

Yesterday, my theory felt a lot closer to the truth when Lucy Flores, the 2014 Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor of Nevada, came forward with her story of Biden acting inappropriately with her before a campaign rally.

Just before the speeches, we were ushered to the side of the stage where we were lined up by order of introduction. As I was taking deep breaths and preparing myself to make my case to the crowd, I felt two hands on my shoulders. I froze. “Why is the vice-president of the United States touching me?”

I felt him get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified. I thought to myself, “I didn’t wash my hair today and the vice-president of the United States is smelling it. And also, what in the actual fuck? Why is the vice-president of the United States smelling my hair?” He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head. My brain couldn’t process what was happening. I was embarrassed. I was shocked. I was confused. There is a Spanish saying, “tragame tierra,” it means, “earth, swallow me whole.” I couldn’t move and I couldn’t say anything. I wanted nothing more than to get Biden away from me. My name was called and I was never happier to get on stage in front of an audience.

This isn’t anything new; goofy old Uncle Joe has had this reputation for a long time.  To be honest, based on photos and videos I’ve looked at, I don’t know if it’s a sexual behavior or just the general creepiness of an old goof who doesn’t understand or care much about the concept of personal space.  Everyone has experienced this at one point or another; I’m reminded of one asshole who stood so close behind me in a grocery story checkout line that I could hear him breathing, at least until I turned and ordered him (yes, that’s exactly what I did; my 12 years in Uncle Sam’s green taught me how to to issue verbal orders in a no-shit tone) to take a step back.

Joe Biden’s Greatest Hits.

Now old Groper Joe seems to take this creepiness to the next level.  There are plenty of images around of him laying hands on people, especially women and even girls.  It’s weird, creepy and inappropriate, and in this era of #metoo will almost certainly sink him as a Presidential candidate.

Not that this will make the Democrat’s 2020 field any less a clown car.

Rule Five Schadenfreudalicious Friday

It was with some slight regret that Mrs. Animal and I have returned from Japan, especially since we return not to our own increasingly-loony but still beloved Colorado but instead to my temporary work site of (ugh) New Jersey.

That slight sadness is, of course, attenuated by last week’s long-awaited release of the Mueller report and the accompanying meltdown by the political Left and their accomplices in the legacy media.  Some samples follow:

No collusion; no surprise.

Flashback:  Media predicts indictments, prison times, treason charges, RHEEEEEE!

Apologies to President Trump? From The Hill?  This one deserves an excerpt:

We in the media allowed unproven charges and false accusations to dominate the news landscape for more than two years, in a way that was wildly unbalanced and disproportionate to the evidence.

We did a poor job of tracking down leaks of false information. We failed to reasonably weigh the motives of anonymous sources and those claiming to have secret, special evidence of Trump’s “treason.”

As such, we reported a tremendous amount of false information, always to Trump’s detriment.

And when we corrected our mistakes, we often doubled down more than we apologized. We may have been technically wrong on that tiny point, we would acknowledge. But, in the same breath, we would insist that Trump was so obviously guilty of being Russian President Vladimir Putin’s puppet that the technical details hardly mattered.

So, a round of apologies seem in order.

Wow.  A moment of clarity.  Didn’t see that coming.

The collapse of Hillary’s Big Lie.  Well, one of them, anyway.

Trump:  Told you so.

Now, there’s going to be a lot of backbiting, and a lot of whining, and a lot of RRHEEEEE about further investigations which will almost certainly also come to naught.  Someone might advise the Democrats “do you want more Trump?  Because this is how you get more Trump.”  You’d think they would learn from the Bill Clinton impeachment episode in the 1990s, when what was widely viewed as an unfair persecution of a sitting President actually helped him win re-election (aided, of course, by the GOP’s unerring selection of the worst candidate in the 1996 field.)

And, of course, Lindsey Graham 2.0, who I have to admit I really like, is calling for the shoe to be placed on the other foot.  Excerpt:

Now that Robert Mueller’s investigation is over, Graham said he plans to “get answers” about how the Russia probe was started and whether it was used as an excuse to spy on Trump’s presidential campaign. He urged Attorney General William Barr to appoint a new special counsel to examine the issue.

“Was it a ruse to get into the Trump campaign?” Graham, a Trump ally, said at a news conference Monday morning. “I don’t know but I’m going to try to find out.”

Good luck to him.  One thing, at least; the ultimate target (let’s say it softly) of this probe, Her Imperial Majesty Hillary I, Dowager Empress of Chappaqua, is no longer the primary leader and rallying point of the Democratic Party.  That role seems to have been taken by the young nutbar Left like Alexandria Occasional Cortex, and while they are succeeding in dragging the Overton Window a little to the left, they aren’t going to win national elections with a platform that includes universal income for people unwilling to work, abolishing air travel, and doing away with cattle.  Hillary in the crosshairs wouldn’t bother them much; most of them are already wishing that Her Imperial Majesty would shut up and go away.

It’s still a long time until November 2020.  But things sure look like they’re breaking Trump’s way right now.

Animal’s Daily Policy Stunt News

Forewarned is forearmed.

Be sure to check out the latest in my History of Lever Guns series over at Glibertarians!

Speaking of guns:  In Missouri, a state lawmaker wants to mandate that able-bodied residents all own an AR-15.  Yes, really.  Excerpt:

A Missouri State lawmaker has introduced a bill that is sure to upset anti-gunners. Rep. Andrew McDaniel (R-Deering) introduced House Bill 1108, which would establish the “McDaniel Militia Act.” If passed, everyone between the ages of 18 and 35 would be required to own an AR-15.

“Any person who qualifies as a resident on August 28, 2019, and who does not own an AR-15 shall have one year to purchase an AR-15,” the bill reads. “Any resident qualifies as a resident after August 28, 2019, and does not own an AR-15 shall purchase an AR-15 no later than one year after qualifying as a resident.”

A section of the bill would establish tax credits for those who didn’t own an AR-15 before the law went into effect. They would be given a tax credit of 75 percent of AR-15’s purchase price. 

Citizens would be allowed to sell their AR-15s as long as they still had at least one in their possession.

McDaniel told WDAF-TV he knew the bill wouldn’t pass but he introduced it to “make a point on mandates in general.”

The former deputy sheriff said the bill “points out the absurdity of the opposite side,” and anti-gun proposals to “add more requirements and barriers for law-abiding citizens.”

Fortunately McDaniel obviously understands that his bill is a stunt, intended to illustrate absurdity by being absurd.  But let’s assume for a moment that he’s serious about this bill, because let’s be honest, odder things have been proposed in the various state legislatures, not to mention the Imperial Congress.  If this was a serious proposal, it would be a really bad idea for a few reasons.

  1. Mandating folks to own something – a weapon, a watch, a health insurance policy, anything – is as antithetical to liberty as forbidding them from owning that same thing.  What is not banned is not mandatory.  What is not mandatory is not banned.  That’s not how a free society works.
  2. You don’t have to be Milton Friedman to figure out what a subsidy of 75% of the rifle’s price would do.  Prices of AR-15s would skyrocket, fast.
  3. Why only an AR-15?  What if I wanted to defend home and hearth with a Winchester 94 in .30-30, one that I’ve owned for decades and with which I am an absolutely deadly shot?

But, of course, this is a stunt, and a not particularly creative one.  While I’m sure McDaniel is trying to make a point, and in truth I appreciate the point he’s trying to make, I just don’t see how this sort of thing moves the ball forward.


Goodbye, Blue Monday

Goodbye, Blue Monday!

Thanks as always to Pirate’s Cove and The Other McCain for the Rule Five links!

File this one under “Well, duh”:  Americans are mostly economic illiterates.  Excerpt:

Economic literacy has been in the news a lot lately, with some high-profile politicians demonstrating the need for some basic financial understanding. However, recent Job Creators Network/ polling shows that the general public has a poor understanding of economic and personal finance topics as well, with a majority of Americans flunking five out of ten basic questions.

Questions revealed:

  • 75 percent of people underestimated how long it would take to pay off $5,000 in credit card debt if you only paid the minimum.
  • Only 27 percent of people knew how large the federal debt is expected to be in 2019.
  • 60 percent of people didn’t know that a rise in the minimum wage would reduce the number of minimum wage jobs.
  • Only 22 percent of people knew that the unemployment rate for Hispanic Americans was at an all-time low.

On the bright side, a majority of Americans understood the basics of supply and demand, tax deductions, credit scores, and fixed mortgage rates.

The public can take the quiz online at our website, here.

It’s not just that Americans in general don’t understand these things; it’s that the generally lackwitted people who manage to get themselves elected to Congress don’t understand these things.

What’s interesting, though, is the polling results a little further down the page, which include these items (color highlighting added):

How would you rate the US economy today? Excellent (12%), Good (39%), Fair (32%), Poor (13%), Not sure (4%).

Is the economy getting better or worse? Better (36%), Worse (26%), About the same (33%), Not sure (5%).

Okay, how would you rate your own personal finances these days? Excellent (12%), Good (39%), Fair (31%), Poor (17%), Not sure (2%).

Are your personal finances getting better or worse? Better (33%), Worse (17%), About the same (48%), Not sure (3%).

Are companies in your area more likely to be hiring new workers or laying off existing workers? Hiring new workers (43%), Laying off existing workers (22%), Not sure (30%).

Add all of that up, and according to (at least) this survey, a plurality of Americans are pretty happy with the way the economy is going.  That’s certainly good news for President Trump, as the historic key metrics for a Presidential election are 1) incumbency and 2) economy.  Trump holds the high ground on both of those – oh, and it doesn’t hurt that the Democrat field is shaping up to be a race to the left, and a race of nitwits at that.

Still – November 2020 is a long damn ways away yet.

Rule Five Blind Hogs And Acorns Friday

Remember that old saw about blind hogs and acorns?  It seems that Nancy Pelosi has found a couple.  Remarkable! Excerpt:

First, she douses progressives’ impeachment dreams in cold water, telling the Washington Post that such a divisive and drastic political step should only be taken over egregious criminality that’s “compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan.”  She cagily adds, “he’s just not worth it,” a personal swipe at the president, likely deployed to placate Trump haters who will bristle at her stance.  Insulting him is a little wink that she’s still ‘on the team.’  But even if the hard-Left wing of the party is willing to forgive Pelosi’s hesitant posture on impeachment, how might they react to her intense fiscal skepticism on ‘Medicare for All’ — the holy grail of the statist agenda?  Via Rolling Stone:

When they say Medicare for All, people have to understand this: Medicare for All is not as good a benefit as the Affordable Care Act. It doesn’t have catastrophic [coverage] — you have to go buy it. It doesn’t have dental. It’s not as good as the plans that you can buy under the Affordable Care Act. So I say to them, come in with your ideas, but understand that we’re either gonna have to improve Medicare — for all, including seniors — or else people are not gonna get what they think they’re gonna get. And by the way, how’s it gonna be paid for?  Now, single-payer is a different thing. People use the terms interchangeably. Sometimes it could be the same thing, but it’s not always. Single-payer is just about who pays. It’s not about what the benefits are. That is, administratively, the simplest thing to do, but to convert to it? Thirty trillion dollars. Now, how do you pay for that? So I said, “Look, just put them all on the table, and let’s have the discussion, and let people see what it is. But know what it is that you’re talking about.” All I want is the goal of every American having access to health care. You don’t get there by dismantling the Affordable Care Act.

It’s nice to see a dose of reality sink in to that old San Francisco liberal.

Now, she’s not exactly switching to being a flaming supply-sider, at least not yet (and, candidly, not ever.)  But it’s just too much fun to see old Mrs. “We Have To Pass It To Find Out What’s In It” counseling caution now; urging members of her own caucus to “come in with ideas” but stating that they’ll have to decide how they’re going to pay for them.

Yes, you read that right.  She’s worrying about how to pay for things like Medicare for All.  What a novel concept.

Of course this caution may well evaporate the next time a Democrat ensconces him/herself behind the Resolute Desk.

Still; it turns out old Nancy isn’t the only blind donkey stumbling across those fruits of the oak tree.  New York Governor Cuomo has chimed in on the same theme:

“Single payer. Okay. Pass it. I’ll sign it. You pass it, I’ll sign it,” Cuomo says. But … would he want to sign it? “No, but no sane person will pass it,” he says. So he’s daring the legislature to pass it? “Oh no. If they pass it, I’ll sign it,” he says. Even though he thinks it’ll blow up the state budget? “Yeah, well, you’d double everybody’s taxes. You want to do that? Let’s go,” he says. “They can never pass it. But I have no problem with the dare. Every union is against it. The hospitals are against it. The Civil Service Employees Association is against it. The 1199 health-care union is against it.

Dare we hope that some semblance of fiscal sanity is sinking in to at least a few people on the political Left?

Nah.  Probably not.

Animal’s Hump Day News

Happy Hump Day!

Oh, the horror!  The Imperial Department of Education faces a 10% funding cut in President Trump’s proposed 2020 budget!  Excerpt:

The plan, titled “A Budget for a Better America, ” requests $62 billion for the Department of Education, or $7.1 billion less than the agency’s allowance in 2019.

The budget eliminates subsidized student debt, in which interest doesn’t accrue on the loans while borrowers are in school or in economic hardship. It also reduces the number of repayment plans for borrowers and scratches the popular, if challenged, public service loan forgiveness program.

“We have also reaffirmed our commitment to spending taxpayer dollars wisely and efficiently by consolidating or eliminating duplicative and ineffective federal programs,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

The plan would narrow the numerous income-driven repayment plans, which caps people’s bills at a percentage of their income, to just one. Under that option, students’ monthly payments would be limited to 12.5 percent of their discretionary income, compared with 10 percent now.

Any remaining debt would be cancelled after 15 years for undergraduate students, and 30 years for graduate students.

I’ve got a better idea:  Reduce their budget to zero.

Here is the Constitution of the United States; you know, the highest law in the land?  That Constitution?  Well, have a read through that, and tell me where it says that the Imperial government is allowed to meddle in education at any level.

Now, here is the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, if the Constitution doesn’t specifically allow the Imperial government to do a thing, then they are actually prohibited from doing that thing.  Not that that hasn’t stopped the Imperial Congress from wiping their asses with the Constitution since about 1860.

To President Trump, were he to listen to me, I would have the following advice:  Grow a pair, Mr. President!  Defund the lot, and a bunch more extra-Constitutional agencies into the bargain.  Swing that axe!  You’ve talked a lot about Imperial debt; do something about it it!  Cut spending!

Animal’s Daily Nutcase News

Thanks as always to The Other McCain for the Rule Five links – and check out Part 2 of my History of Lever Guns series over at Glibertarians!

Moving along:  Our favorite pinkie Congresscritter Alexandria Occasional Cortex strikes again.  Excerpt:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) made an appearance at SWSX. During a talk at the conference, the Congresswoman was asked about the threat of automation and technology eliminating jobs. Her response was strange and not very well thought out.

“We should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work,” she said, The Verge reported. “We should be excited by that. But the reason we’re not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don’t have a job, you are left to die. And that is, at its core, our problem.”


People work to pay bills, to put a roof over their head, food on their table and heat their homes and they should be excited to be put out of a job? 

AOC is clearly delusional. 

Now, hang on just one damn minute.  Townhall author Beth Baumann is correct to note that “People work to pay bills, to put a roof over their head, food on their table and heat their homes and they should be excited to be put out of a job? ”  Yes, that’s true, and it’s something Occasional Cortex seems to have trouble with.  But here’s the quote from the ex-bartender that is the real jaw-dropper:

But the reason we’re not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don’t have a job, you are left to die. And that is, at its core, our problem.”




Left to die?  Seriously?  This stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid girl really believes this?

Honestly, Occasional Cortex is the best argument I can think of for requiring an intelligence test before being sworn in as a Congressman – fail to pass, your election is voided – and frankly, it probably wouldn’t be the worst idea to have a head-candler check out the folks that voted for this nitwit.  Bear in mind she’s up against some pretty stiff competition for the Stupidest Person in Congress; there’s just an embarrassment of riches in Washington if it’s dimwits you’re seeking.

What’s amazing is this:  During the interview excerpted above, there is not an iota of evidence that anyone asked her “wait, wait – can you name one, even one, person in the United States in, oh, the last century, who was ‘left to die’ because they didn’t have a job?  Even one?  Since the First World War?”

Because, of course, she couldn’t.  That’s what makes this statement so staggeringly stupid.

If her fellow Congressional Democrats aren’t wearing a lot of red faces every time Occasional Cortex opens her yap, I’d be damned surprised.