This was too good not to share. Read the op-ed.
Of course we all know that Senator Patty Murray is a shameless partisan hack, so it’s no surprise when she confirms it as she did today on Twitter.
In case you’re wondering why this is such a first-rate example of her ideology of party over country, consider the fact that when George W. Bush nominated Gorsuch to the federal bench in 2006, he was considered so non-controversial that he was confirmed by a unanimous voice vote of those present, including Patty Murray.
So much for playing politics instead of considering the good of the country.
The headline says it all, really.
One can never hope to understand exactly why the Washington Post chose to run a Susan Rice op-ed about the national security consequences of presidential deceit. It’s not that I disagree with the points she makes; it’s the hypocrisy, the utter lack of self-awareness, the unmitigated mendacity of a brazen liar presuming to tell the rest of us that, yes, on second thought, lying is bad after all.
It’s the casual assumption of the Left that the public is too stupid to remember that Rice lied on command for Barack Obama or to even know who she is. It’s the tacit admission that they don’t care if people do remember the way she lied multiple times to our faces about the Benghazi attacks.
What further sign to we need that the Democrat party is in complete disarray than that they have to trot out Susan Rice to speak to integrity issues. Sad.
(BTW, with all due respect to the British, whom I love like brothers and sisters, I’m not willing to take at face value, as Rice apparently does – or pretends to do; it’s hard to know for sure because she’s a liar, the statement from their intelligence agency, GCHQ, that they did not surveil Candidate Trump at the behest of the former president.)
Because it kinda-sorta sounds like a threat to me.
I don’t hold 24-year-olds’ youth against them, but at the same time, I’m not surprised when they say something that sounds, well, immature and uninformed. This is the reason that it’s often disappointing when a young person is put in a position to represent or speak for others. Tomi Lahren makes a good case against pushing them into the conservative limelight.
Here’s what she said:
I’m pro choice, and here’s why. I am a constitutional, y’know, someone that loves the Constitution. I’m someone that’s for limited government. So I can’t sit here and be a hypocrite and say I’m for limited government but I think the government should decide what women do with their bodies. I can sit here and say that, as a Republican and I can say, you know what, I’m for limited government, so stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well…
Let me just start by saying, a “constitutional?” Really? In my English language, “constitutional” is an adjective, unless one is referring to a walk taken to improve one’s health.
Putting that aside, Lahren has, in the past, posted tweets that would lead one to believe she considers an unborn baby to have human rights.
Ms. Lahren has fallen into the indefensible trap of saying, “I think a fetus is a human being, but who am I to say that other women can’t kill their own babies?” Then she inexplicably ties her reasoning to federalism. Not content to stop there, she notes that anyone who doesn’t ascribe to her imbecilic line of thought is hypocritical. She may be surprised to know that millions of people nationwide have managed to find a way to be both pro-life and pro-federalism.
Quick! What’s the first thing you think of when someone mentions Washington State?
Did you answer rain? Of course you did. You’ve all read Twilight, right? I mean, seriously, ferns grow on trees here. And you’d better pray that you don’t get lost in the woods, because the moss grows on all sides of the tree trunks.
Even in the arid part of the state east of the Cascade Range, you don’t have to go far to find water. The Columbia River not only provides clean hydro power, it’s also the backbone of the Columbia Basin Project, capable of irrigating over a million acres of otherwise useless land.
Because Washington has been so abundantly blessed with water, it makes an October ruling by the State Supreme Court even more baffling than it might otherwise be. The Hirst ruling deprives rural property owners of the rightful use of their land by restricting their ability to drill water wells.
Here’s an overview of the Hirst ruling.
The Washington State Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 6, 2016 that counties planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) must make their own determination of available water before issuing a building permit.
The case, Whatcom County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (also known as Hirst), overturns a 2015 Court of Appeals decision that held that Whatcom County could rely on the Department of Ecology’s determinations of available water to allow the use of wells (considered permit-exempt under the law) in basins not closed by Ecology.
Essentially, a county planning under GMA cannot issue a building permit that would depend on an exempt well—even if Ecology’s rule allows exempt wells—without showing that the well will not impair certain rivers and streams or a senior water right.
Not unsurprisingly, the Hirst ruling has virtually halted building in rural areas dependent for water on drilled wells.
Yesterday I asked you to consider whether the government could tax people out of homes outside the reach of economically feasible public transportation as a means to achieve the stated goal of having the majority of people in the state living and working in “places that both support bicycling and walking for shorter trips and provide reliable and convenient public transportation that meets mobility needs for longer trips.”
Now I ask you to consider the Hirst ruling in that light. Property without access to water is unfit for human habitation.
I’ve said for many years that real property owners are only renting from the government. If you don’t believe that’s true, try not paying your property taxes for a couple of years. Now that they’ve made themselves the de facto owners of your property, they’re telling you exactly how you can use it. That’s their right as your landlord, isn’t it?
But beyond that, they’re asserting their right to control your access to a basic necessity of life – water. That scares me!
No one should be able to do that and I’m therefore very grateful that there are legislators in Olympia who agree and sponsored SB 5239. The bill has passed the State Senate and passage is now in the hands of the Democrat controlled House. If you don’t think the government should be able to withhold water from property owners, it can’t hurt to contact your State Representative and let them know.
Paul – can I call you Paul? – it’s a good thing you’re such a likeable guy; otherwise, I could really get to loathe you. For the past several years, you’ve been talking about repealing the Affordable Care Act. Silly me, I thought you had a plan. Instead, you introduced ACA-Lite and what a disappointment that turned out to be.
I feel like you were just stringing me along and then jilted me at the altar.
Being in denial, and what jilted bride isn’t, I watched your infomercial. You know, the one with the whiteboard? I like the way you rolled up your sleeves, to show how you were really getting down to work.
Let’s just say I remain unconvinced. Maybe the Continuous Health Insurance Coverage Incentive sounds good to you, but it sure sounds an awful lot like the Individual Shared Responsibility Payment. Maybe tax credits really are better than subsidized premiums, but not being all policy-wonkish, I’m not seeing it. It all sounds like spreading the wealth around to me.
And what was that all about when you said, “This is the closest we will ever get to repealing and replacing Obamacare?” I’ve heard something like that before…let me think…Right, I’ve got it. It was at the used car dealership, when the smarmy sales guy told me that if I went to pee, the deal was off the table.
Here’s the thing, Paul. I want to believe that AHCA is an improvement over ACA, but I haven’t found anyone yet who can explain to me why it’s better. And, let me tell you, the CBO report didn’t help you out any, despite their dubious credibility.
Your “Three Phase Plan” isn’t fooling anyone, either. “We have to pass the plan in order to find out…” Oh, wait. That was a different plan. It kind of has the same feel, though. “We have to pass this steaming pile of crap in order to get to the good stuff.” Okay, sure. I suppose Tom Price can be trusted to hold up his end of the deal, but tell me this: If you have to pass Phase 1 through reconciliation because you don’t have the votes, how do you propose to pass the legislation of Phase 3? I don’t see how that works.
So, Paul, to sell me – and probably millions of other conservatives like me – you either need to be able to explain the “benefits” of your plan in language that I can understand or you need to toss the whole thing in the trash and start over. At this point, I prefer the latter.