Patriotic Prints logo

Patriotic Prints

And More.....


Grilled Steaks and Democrat Hypocrisy They’re Both Thick At The Iowa State Fair

In all the recent debates, the leading (and most of the following) Democratic Socialist candidates for the nomination have been fighting with one another to stake out the most radical positions on climate change, global warming, and the environment. Starting with Castro and Yang, but spreading like ripples in a millpond, other candidates have lunged to the left, eager to embrace the most bizarre climate solutions. One of those, first espoused by Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) and former Obama Cabinet Secretary Andrew Yang, include such drastic measures as the banning of cheeseburgers. These win-at-any-promise Democrats are doing this to each other – fighting to get on the next woke bandwagon before it leaves the station – but they’re not alone. They’ve got help – from the media, and from the Squad.

Though she’s still too young to run for President, “Squad” leader and Green New Deal champion Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who calls herself a Democratic Socialist – finally, truth in political advertising – calls cattle flatulence the leading cause of global warming, and demands that the rest of us give up meat. The Socialist-Democrat echo chamber took no time at all to embrace her latest far, far, far-left meme.

Even those among the running class who haven’t directly condemned bovine digestive distress have rushed headlong to embrace AOC’s Green New Deal. That 93 trillion dollar boondoggle goes after beef chapter-and-verse. So, one way or the other, all the Democrats on the campaign trail here have sworn a blood oath against the evils of beef.

Until this weekend.

Naturally, Biden and Bernie and Sanders and Kamala and the rest of the seven (teen) dwarves all fell in line … that is, until they came to Iowa, the first-in-the-nation state to pick a Presidential candidate. This weekend’s Iowa State Fair once again proved to be a magnet, drawing 17 more-or-less 2020 presidential candidates, including all of them who had so recently spoke out against meat as an agent of death – not death for our hearts, but death for our environment. Each of these stalwarts of liberal rectitude were there to proclaim their commitment to fight against guns and global warming, for healthcare for all, and for a ban on assault weapons, and private insurance, and beef …

… Oops. Not beef. Not in Iowa. Not at the State Fair. Not today.

Instead of remaining loyal to their newly-embraced “core beliefs” about beef and the environment, candidates large and small lined up to not only eat good red Iowa meat, but to actually prove their presidential ability by flipping a few steaks and burgers – for the cameras, of course. As a measure of its impact – and the power of “beef” in Iowa – this annual event included the roasting of more than 10,500 steaks (plus a sorry, forlorn lot of 1,000 overcooked 1, vegan burgers). Not, of course, that there’s much demand for veggie burgers at an event where selecting blue-ribbon cattle is considered entertainment. Cory Booker, the only vegetarian candidate, is facing a potentially terminal fund-raising disaster that – had it come just ten days sooner – would have at least spared him from making nice over beef.

But nothing would do but the candidates had to grab pictures of themselves flipping steaks and looking like they enjoyed the heat, the grease, the smoke and the crowds,

Editorial credit: Twitter / @JoeBiden

Joe Biden looked typically goofy as he watched a steaks grilling – almost as if he’d never seen a steak actually being cooked – all the while trying to act like a competent fry cook without, and to do so without burning himself.

Editorial credit: Twitter / @Zach_Graumann

Milquetoast candidate Andy Yang, who usually tries to strike a much more moderate and reasoned pose, looked like he was channeling Jackie Chan as he wielded cooking implements like Samurai Swords.

Editorial credit: Twitter / @KevinLiao_

But poor Liz Warren, she just looked out of place in front of a range with a spatula in her hand. “What’s this?” she seems to be wondering. A fry cook she’s not, that’s for sure.

Will the media pick up on the hypocrisy of it all? Probably not. CBS and PBS both covered the event without a hint of irony, apparently forgetting – just for today – that the bozos flipping burgers over charcoal fires (with their horrific carbon footprints!) had been condemning beef as an environmental disaster at the last debate, just the other day.

More Melting Snowflakes – Now Red Hats Must Be Banned

Snowflakes are in ascendance in the political campaign and across America. As with so many things, this started on college campuses, where – because of the fear of “trigger words” – microscopic “free speech zones” are set up for those who dissent from received orthodoxy, which makes most of campus areas “safe speech zones.” Snowflakes around the world were thrilled, and motivated. So now the forced shut-down of Constitutional rights in the name of “not offending anyone” is in high gear. And the Democrat 2020 Presidential candidates are leaping onto the “you better not” bandwagon.

Last week, snowflakes on the Left demanded that America ban Christians who pray for victims of natural disaster, because their prayers might be offensive to atheists and agnostics.

Last month – and repeatedly since then – more than half the Democrat candidates for President in 2020 want to confiscate your guns if they “look” like they’re military in origin – though they aren’t. Most also want to confiscate magazines, and some – like Beto, who’s been leading the charge – want to ban semi-automatic pistols as well. After all, some snowflake might see a semi-auto pistol or rifle and just melt. 
 Those Democrat candidates supporting the Green New Deal (which is most of them) – and, as always, assuming they’ve read the fine print – are now also advocating the complete ban of personal automobiles within a decade, forcing America to fall back on public transit. They call this the elimination of “non-essential individual means of transport,” but in plain language it calls for car confiscation.

As healthcare becomes a campaign issue, leading Democrat candidates want to rob more than 160 million Americans of their private health insurance in favor of a least-common-denominator “Medicare for All” plan – stripping unions of hard-fought “Cadillac plans.” They totally ignore the fact that shutting down private health insurance will force literally millions of gainfully-employed Americans onto the unemployment lines.

We could go on, but you see the point. Anything the far Left doesn’t like must be banned, made illegal, and prohibited to the average American. And you might have thought they’d gone as far as they could go. However, this week, the snowflakes have taken it a giant step further, at least according to Rasmussen Reports, a credible market research firm. They report: “Because pro-Trump Make America Great (MAGA) hats are red,” Rasmussen reported, as many as 14 percent of voters believe that “Americans should stop wearing red hats in general because they cause anxiety among anti-Trump Americans.” This minority – but one with a loud voice and an eager media to lend them a megaphone – wants to ban all red hats, just in case it might evoke anxiety in some insecure Trump-hater.

That’s right. The First Amendment rights of all 329 million people living in American should – according to these far-Left snowflakes – be abrogated by force of law, just to prevent “anxiety” among those who oppose Trump.

What next? Should we forcibly ban red ties? Red hair? People older than 70? Where will it end?

Photo: R. Nial Bradshaw / Flickr

Six Major Democrat Presidential Candidates STILL Want to Impeach Justice Kavanaugh, Even After NY Times Story Collapses Great News for Conservatives

Despite the New York Times’ painful retraction – their story alleging sexual impropriety of then-college student Brett Kavanaugh left out a key exonerating fact – six active Democrat Presidential Candidates STILL want to impeach the Supreme Court Justice. They want to move forward with impeachment, even though those latest, totally unsupported charges made against him have proved false. They were levied by “unnamed sources” who even the New York Times now admits either didn’t witness the alleged “incident,” or, in the case of the supposed victim herself, doesn’t even remember any such incident at all. No victim, no crime.

But apparently, that’s not good enough for Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), avowed Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (S-VT), former Representative Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), former Obama Cabinet Secretary Julian Castro, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-IN) or Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), a former State Attorney General, who really should know the Constitution better. While House and Senate Democrat Party leaders – including Senate Minority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) try to wave off any attempt at yet another unlikely impeachment, radicals in the House, led by “The Squad,” are pushing ahead with attempts at a Kavanaugh impeachment.

While embarrassing to Justice Kavanaugh, this effort is the latest disastrously out-of-step move the Democrat Presidential Candidates are taking to further alienate them – and their supporters – from the majority of Americans. It also lacks any constitutional authority.

Impeachment is intended as a way of removing from office a President, Vice President, confirmed Cabinet official or Federal judge for “ Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors (US Constitution, Article II, Section 4),” committed while in office. The reference to “high crimes” refers not to the seriousness of the crime, but only to “high persons” – i.e., to public officials. Specifically, “high crimes” are limited to those who, because of their official status, are able to commit crimes not possible to ordinary persons (from definition found on Constitution.Org).

This archaic English Common Law wording covers allegations of official misconduct, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, intimidation or the misuse of assets. Impeachment also covers dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication or tax evasion. In no way does impeachment relate to an action that may or may not have taken place forty years or more before the official in question became a Federal official. It was never intended as a remedy for actions taken by college students – or actions taken by anyone before they became Federal officials subject to this constitutional provision.

So even if college student Brett Kavanaugh did something untoward, something now defined as sexual harassment – and there is no evidence of this, as the New York Times acknowledged in withdrawing its allegations – it would not be subject to impeachment as a remedy. In short, no man or woman can be impeached and removed from office for actions taken before he or she entered government service.

However, something as clear as constitutional law has little meaning for the venal candidates eager to do anything to take down President Trump and his millions of supporters, truth be damned.

This, like every other drunken lurch to the extreme Left, along with every public embrace of blatant Socialism, and every boneheaded, politically-motivated decision Democrat Candidates for the 2020 Presidential nomination make, the better it will be for conservative Congressional candidates in 2020. This is particularly important because the most extreme of the Democrat candidates, instead of being marginalized, are forcing the more mainstream Socialist Democrat candidates – like Biden and Warren and Bernie Sanders (and yes, compared to the truly far-Left second-tier candidates, even Bernie appears to be a bit more moderate) – are instead pulling those “relative” centrists farther and farther to the extreme left, farther and farther away from the mainstream of American political thought.


Beto O’Rourke, whose campaign has devolved into a one-topic push to confiscate law-abiding Americans’ guns – and not just so-called “assault weapons” – is forcing the entire Democrat field to tilt dangerously toward the howling Left, which wants to brand the NRA as a terrorist organization and all American gun-owners as criminals. Supported by the Liberal elite who will – like former Mayor Bloomberg – continue to have personal armed security guards even as Americans are disarmed, this tendency will directly strike at more than 40 percent of all American voters.

All candidates supporting the Green New Deal want to ban “unnecessary” private automobiles, forcing Americans to use public transit, and they want to do this within a decade. Though not widely discussed – for obvious reasons – this is a core element of the Green New Deal, one that, if it became widely known, would impact every car-owning American.

All candidates supporting universal Medicare for all want to force 160 million Americans to abandon their healthcare plans, including members of America’s most powerful unions, who’ve fought hard for superior benefits plans. They’re also advocating the elimination of several million jobs in or related to health insurance.

The list goes on. The twenty-some Democrat candidates seem to agree on few things … except that Americans should be denied things they now welcome and take for granted. Democrats in contested Congressional or Senatorial districts who are up for election in 2020 are increasingly concerned about this far-Left stumble by their party. They’re certain that their conservative 2020 opponents will campaign around linking them to the increasingly radical, socialistic and – as in the case of Kavanaugh – bizarre positions that are likely to be anathema to 2020 voters.

When this leftward lunge from rationality becomes crystal clear to the American electorate, watch for a polling and likely voters shift away from the radical party and more toward candidates who actually support the Constitution.

Photo: Pref News / Flickr

Beto Leads The Pack in Demanding Gun Confiscation Like the Pied Piper, He’s Leading the Children to Their Doom

Beto O’Rourke has narrowed his campaign down to a single issue – confiscatory gun control. Certainly, after the El Paso mass shooting, the issue has to be on his mind. But set aside an understandable emotional reaction, Beto is – at his core – a coldly-calculating political machine. He knows he has to break out on one all-encompassing universal topic if he hopes to rise from two percent in the polls. If he wants to prove he’s someone who can out-perform no-longer-so-moderate Joe Biden, extreme-on-all-positions Elizabeth Warren and avowed Socialist Bernie Sanders, he has to have an issue that will galvanize the far left, one that isn’t already staked out by the front-runners.

So “Our Beto” chose mandatory national gun control. But not just any kind of gun control. Former Congressman O’Rourke strongly advocates for forced, mandatory gun confiscation. With each passing day, as other Democrat candidates join him in this position, Beto’s gun-grabbing demands grow ever more strident. They have to if this is to remain Beto O’Rourke’s signature issue, the one that will catapult him into the position of the Democrat nominee for 2020. So he’s pushing for: more guns to be confiscated – fewer mentions of buybacks – more exclusions based on magazines and ammo – and an unending demonization by appearances of both the guns and their owners. His “logic:” if it looks “tactical,” it must be evil.

At the third Democrat debate, back on September 12th, Beto roared out a challenge to his opponents on stage, and to the American audience as well. For him – as well as for “his” America – it is time to fish or cut bait. He bellowed with all the faux emotion he could muster that “we” are going to confiscate American’s semi-automatic rifles … but he’ll do that only as the first step – once the assault weapons are gone, he’ll come after all semi-auto rifles and shotguns, then against high-capacity semi-auto pistols, and finally, against all semi-auto pistols. It’s a slippery slope, a steep one, and he’s eager to go snow-boarding on the rights of free Americans.

In this, he’s not alone. Four other Democrats on stage with him at the debate now support confiscatory gun control, even as Socialist San Francisco is declaring The National Rifle Association as a domestic terrorist organization, even though 34 percent of its members are registered Democrats. The other five candidates, not quite so rabid as Beto O’Rourke, still support draconian gun control laws. However, unlike Beto, they support a gradual approach – such as eliminating all offending firearms (as happened in Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain) – in a decade or so. It’s worth noting here that in preparation for the last Summer Olympics games, the British rifle and pistol teams had to leave the country to practice for their run to the Gold. That’s how draconian Beto’s model for America really is.

Go figure.

A quick note: the “assault weapon” which is always the first firearm to be targeted by Democrat gun-grabbers, the one targeted for confiscation (with or without a buyback provision) is nothing more than a short-barreled semi-automatic rifle shooting an intermediate-sized bullet. In other words, it’s a long gun (not a pistol) not materially different in caliber, ammo selection or size from a traditional American “range rifle.” This is the kind of saddle rifle that American cattle ranchers keep handy to shoot pesky varmints, such as prairie dogs, whose burrows can break a cow’s leg. This range rifle, and its first cousin, the “assault weapon,” (a range rifle with a military-looking stock) is not, and never has been, a combat rifle. No national military force has ever used an “assault weapon” (as defined by the Democrats) in combat.

However, what makes the assault weapon so clearly evil is that it cosmetically “looks like” a military-grade weapon. It doesn’t work like a military-grade weapon, but it looks the part. However, so do many air rifles and even high-end squirt guns. Such is the Democrats’ commitment to honesty and practicality that they’re busy demonizing a gun designed primarily for plinking, just because it looks like a rifle the military might use (but doesn’t).

Again, go figure.
Back to Snow-Job Beto and the Seventeen Dwarves. As the Federalist noted recently, “All 10 Democrats who participated in their party’s third presidential debate advocate an end state in which everyone will be banned from possessing what are currently the most popular rifles, rifle magazines and handgun magazines in America.”

Five of those 10 candidates for the Presidency – Beto, of course, plus Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker – want to confiscate your guns, now! Functionality be damned – they want to grab all of your guns and magazines that offend their delicate sensibilities. Of course, these exalted men and women all have heavily-armed bodyguards and security forces who carry the same weapons that would be prohibited to the rest of us. They do this because – and they’d admit if they were honest – their lives matter more than do the rest of ours.

Paving the way for their ultimate (or immediate) universal gun confiscation plan are bills now being written or debated that are intended to impose universal gun registry on all Americans, complete with Federally-issued licenses to own firearms. This is exactly the same path that Nazi Fuhrer Adolph Hitler took when he seized power in 1930s Germany. First, he had the Gestapo register all the guns and identify all the gun owners – then it was an easy matter to confiscate them. We are not suggesting that these Democrat candidates for President are Hitler – they’re not. However, as noted in the new book, Gun Control in the Third Reich, by Independent Institute’s – a think tank – Senior Research Fellow Stephen P. Holbrook – who has written eight previous books about constitutional gun rights in America – when it comes to the realm of gun confiscation, Beto and his pack of gun grabbers are clearly following der Fuhrer’s playbook.

Image by:Gage Skidmore / Flickr

Bernie Wants to Tax Cheeseburgers Out of Existence … Milk, Too

When self-styled entrepreneur Andrew Yang, along with foul-mouthed former Congressman Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), self-professed Vegan Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) and freshman “I don’t like this so let’s make it illegal” Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) – a gaggle of single-digit candidates vying for the Democrat nomination in 2020 – came out against cheeseburgers, most of us just laughed. However, to them, this is serious business. More important – unless you really love cheeseburgers, in which case this could be a catastrophe to rival “New Coke” – these four came out in favor of government intervention in what we eat, what we drink, what we wear … well, you get the picture.
Given their druthers, they’d force a radical and unhealthy lifestyle change on all Americans, doing it in the sanctified name of stopping global air pollution. As noted, this was good for a few laughs, but nothing more. Unlike “taxing the rich,” the idea of taxing cheeseburgers, steaks, bacon, barbecue or hotdogs, ice cream, yogurt and baby’s milk manages to impact all of us, but few of us could take it seriously.

So, are these candidate actually serious about taxing meat? Really? Is there anything more un-American than that? They might as well tax mom, apple pie and the flag. Apparently they are serious, and the rest of us can be thankful that they’re all mired in single-digits in all the polls, unlikely to be able to force vegetarianism on the rest of us.

However, when emerging front-runner – he’s now leading Biden in New Hampshire, according to polls out earlier this week – and proudly Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (S-VT) came out publicly for a meat tax – one large enough to deter meat-eating by Americans, the game changed. Unlike those other candidates, Sanders is a player – one of the three front-rank candidates who might actually wind up with the nomination. He claims that taxing-to-death meat, dairy and all animal products would reduce global warming by limiting naturally-occurring methane emissions by some microscopic fraction. So we’re no longer laughing. These Democrat nannies appear to be serious about the fearsome threat of animal flatulence, and apparently they think we should be, too.

“If you believe, as I do,” the multi-millionaire socialist said, making it clear that this is a belief, not a scientific fact, “that climate change is real, then we are going to tackle it in every single area, including agriculture.

Actually, Bernie never said “cheeseburgers” – but he did agree that “meat and dairy” should be taxed. So, with Bernie as President, we’ll have no cheeseburgers. No milk on your cereal, either – in fact, no affordable milk for young mothers with a few kids to take care of. No yogurt or ice cream, either. That’s no fun. And although Bernie didn’t mention it, this would also mean no leather or even wool. It’s the animals that cause the alleged air pollution, not their end-products. Of course, synthetic fabrics are made from petroleum, so maybe we’ll all be starving naked Vegans under Bernie’s latest nanny-state effort to control every aspect of our lives. With Bernie, it’s hard to tell.

Is there a real problem? And if so, would Americans eliminating their meat intake really make a difference? Yes and no. Yes, farm animals do produce methane, a greenhouse gas. No, Americans giving up meat wouldn’t make enough difference to count, certainly not on a global scale. Why? Because the whole planet eats meat – men and women are omnivores, and meat (and dairy, and cheese) protein is a significant portion of their healthy diets. We Americans are fewer than 330 million souls living on a planet of 7.7 billion people. To make a difference, we’d have to persuade all of the other 7.3 billion people to forego meat, dairy and all other animal products as well. Good luck with that.

Is living a healthy meat- and dairy-free life even possible? Sure, with the right supplements, some people can “make it” as Vegans. According to a Gallup poll, only five percent of Americans are vegetarians, and just three percent claim to be Vegans. Most of the meat deniers Gallup polled earn significantly less than $30,000 a year. They may not be vegans for their health, but only because they can’t afford meat.

It appears that these people are trying to make a virtue of necessity, and Bernie’s bought into their vision of a meat-free earth.
However, despite the fact that some Americans seem to survive on this protein-starved diet, is it really worth it for the rest of us to give up our cheeseburgers to satisfy the self-justification of this self-centered minority? Especially knowing that it will only microscopically help to control global climate change? Despite the scare statistics scattered around by the global warming alarmists – people who decry our addiction to meat and dairy protein, and who seem tp be made up of people who’ve already chosen that meat-free lifestyle – no.
What are the underlying facts? A United Nations commission claims that agriculture is responsible for 18% of total greenhouse gases worldwide. What percentage of that total is cow flatulence was left unreported, though these “experts” claim that the average cow emits somewhere between 150 and 265 pounds of methane – a greenhouse gas – per year. They think. But with a range that broad, it’s apparent that even the UN’s leading flatulence scientists don’t have any real clue how much pollution cows produce. However, enterprising British scientists now claim to have determined the amount of CO2 equivalents (whatever that means) is produced per pound of meat:

One pound of beef; 34.6 pounds of CO2
One pound of lamb; 17.4 pounds of CO2
One pound of pork; 6.4 pounds of CO2
One pound of chicken; 4.57 pounds of CO2

What they carefully don’t say is what effect this relatively few pounds of CO2 causes in our global atmosphere. After all, our planet contains literally trillions of tons of CO2, according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Against that huge number, all the cattle on earth aren’t raising the temperature of our planet enough to even measure, let alone matter.
Against this tiny change, these radicals would – in addition to taxing meat out of our diets – do the same to milk, and dairy products, and anything else tied to animals. The impact of the “unintended consequences” would include:

• No more fast food restaurants – kiss McDonalds goodbye
• No more pizza – without cheese or pepperoni, hey, it’s just bread dough
• No more baby’s milk – so, should we let ‘em eat cake?
• No more ice cream, milk shakes or yogurt – God’s own cure for depression
• No more ranches – and no more rodeos
• No more cowboy boots, Bass Wejuns or hand-tooled leather belts
Hey, would life even be worth living?

Not mentioned in these radical Democrats’ diatribes against meat, dairy and animal products are house pets. By the same logic that would cause them to tax meat out of existence, they would advocate that Rover or Miss Kitty should be taxed, too. And perhaps they should. Anyone who’s ever been around a dyspeptic beagle knows that this is no laughing matter. Neither, unfortunately, are these Democrat extremists, men and women who want to ban meat and milk and all the rest.

Extreme Leftist Energy Positions Drive Moderates to The Right

The most radical of the Democrat Presidential candidates are driving their more moderate fellow candidates to the farthest extremes of the Left. More important for conservative candidates who’ll be running for the House, in the 2020 general election, those radicalized candidates – if one of them doesn’t secure the Democrat nomination – will nonetheless influence the ultimate Democrat nominee. Those extreme Socialists will do this regardless of who the Democrat candidate will ultimately be. Worse for them – but better for the country – those same radicals will use their influence to create the Democrat platform for 2020. Their stance on issues ranging from banning all air travel to forcing America to go vegan – all to be done in the name of climate change – are sure drive more moderate and centrist voters into the waiting, welcoming arms of the Right.

Examples of these Socialist-Democrat extremist candidates abound, but few of them are more consistently, radically socialist than Andrew Yang. At the recent CNN climate change “town hall,” Yang said “I propose a Constitutional amendment that makes it a responsibility of the United States government to safeguard and protect our environment for future generations.” All that can be said about this is that – unlike his fellow radical candidates – he isn’t ignoring the Constitution. At least, that’s what he claims.

However, Yang – like most Democrat Presidential candidates – endorsed Socialist Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (AOC’s) budget-destroying $93 trillion dollar Green New Deal. That bill, if enacted, would shred the Constitution by usurping to the Federal government powers never dreamed of by the Founders, starting with the nationalizing of all electric energy production.

For instance, former “moderate” or “centrist” Presidential candidate Joe Biden told CNN that AOC’s $93 trillion dollar Green New Deal doesn’t go too far. In articulating his support for the Green New Deal, Biden said he would shut-down every coal-fired electrical generating plant in America. “No one is going to build another coal burning plant. We’ve got to shut the ones down we have,” Biden told Anderson Cooper.
Then embracing those who call for the elimination of internal combustion engines in cars, Biden said, “We’d like to reach the point where everyone drives electric cars. That’s my plan. Electric cars, electric cars … We have to take combustion engine vehicles off the road.” That’s a idea that no less than the National Geographic said, back in 2014, “it’s unworkable.”

“Electric cars can help limit reliance on imported oil and take a bite out of air pollution from urban traffic jams,” the Nat-Geo’s study found. “But as sure-fire ammunition against climate change, they come up short… The (Nat-Geo) team modeled 108 scenarios… The team reported that even in scenarios that yield the highest levels of EV deployment (high oil prices, low battery costs), plug-ins and hybrids would make up no more than 42 percent of all U.S. passenger vehicles in 2050 and would reduce overall emissions by a slim margin.”

Biden’s radical embrace of technology was marred at the CNN town hall event when he was forced to admit that he’d committed to attending a fund-raiser hosted by Andrew Goldman, a co-founder of Western LNG– a liquefied natural gas production company – claiming “he’s not a fossil fuel executive.” When that became untenable, Biden then claimed that he didn’t realize that this fat-cat supporter, who’d made his mega-millions in the petroleum industry, was in fact just the kind of person he’d pledged to not accept money from. Oops.

However, Joe Biden’s born-again radical energy policy – one that hasn’t caught up with his fund-raising campaign staff – a policy based on “green” energy production technology that doesn’t even exist, represents a swift change from one-time moderate Joe Biden. This is especially obvious looking at Biden’s view on the steps needed to address man-caused climate change. To help the millions of Americans who’d be caught out working for industries Biden has pledged to make disappear to ease through this radical change, the former Vice President said – without a lick of proof – that “We could create a significant number of jobs and opportunities for people.”
How, or even why his draconian energy policy would actually create jobs remains unstated and unproven. Biden routinely ignores the dramatic job losses tied to the elimination of carbon-based fuels and the industries that produce or depend upon them. Imagine:
No more diesel trucks or diesel railroad locomotives.

No massive cargo ships connecting our globe into a single universal market.
No air travel.
No cheeseburgers.
And, if you think about it, no military.

Except for a relatively few nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers, all U.S. military aircraft and combat ships, as well as all main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, run on petroleum fuels. There is no way that these vital combat vehicles – essential to our national defense – can run on wind or solar power, or on hydroelectric or geothermal energy.

Taking even that radical proposal a step further, Yang also called – as part of the broader Green New Deal – the banning of commercial air travel. “I would do away with commercial air travel and a lot of other things,” he told CNN’s audience. As noted in one of our previous blogs on energy topics and the Far Left, Americans will take nearly a billion flights in 2019. Just imagine the impact of that ban the economy. America is a vast country. It is only affordable air travel that keeps us bound together. Without air travel, without diesel-powered trains or over-the-road semi-trailer trucks, our economy will crash, and not rise again.

Later in his softball “town hall” interview with Wolf Blitzer, Yang said he wants the government to discourage people from eating meat. “The U.N. just released a study that said we’re going to be OK if the vast majority of the world goes vegetarian immediately,” he said, without explaining how or why vegetarianism would prevent global warming.

If you didn’t like Michelle Obama’s “woke” school lunch program meals, you’ll hate Yang’s main course for all of us.

Compared to AOC’s Green New Deal plan – which every one of the Democrat candidates endorsed – Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) proved to be a bargain-basement Green New Dealer. While saying that he strongly advocates AOC’s plan, his own version of a Green New Deal would cost the U.S. only $16 trillion dollars to implement. What a relief!

However, Sanders also wants to export his plan across the globe, saying “we have no choice but to do everything we can, with countries all over the world, to save this planet for our children and future generations.” Assuming that he wants to achieve the same zero level of carbon emissions all over the planet, and taking into account that America only produces 15% of the earth’s greenhouse gases, this could mean the real cost of his plan will come to roughly $1 trillion dollars for every one percent of greenhouse gases we eliminate.
While others offer radical, unrealistic policy prescriptions, Senator Corey Booker (D-NJ) sees climate change as far more than merely an item on his list of policies and initiatives. To Climate change “is the lens through which we must do everything,” he told CNN.
So …
Cancel NASA.
Eliminate the Department of Defense.
Get rid of Medicare.
Abandon national parks and museums.
Everything that doesn’t combat climate change, Senator Booker seems to be saying, is no business of the Federal government. Only climate change counts. After all, it’s “the lens through which we must do everything.”

Fading media darling Beto O’Rourke plans to punitively tax all Americans into compliance and a zero-emission status by the year 2050. Oddly, for a program that levies brutal taxes on every-day Americans, the program will still cost $5 trillion dollars.Where else but Washington can you propose a massive taxing bill that actually costs money, instead of raising money. New math indeed!

Senator Elizabeth Warren wants to blame it all on the building industry, the electrical power industry and the oil industry. She suggested to CNN and America that the Federal government should seize all electrical power generation plants, nationwide. Just imagine what would happen to our country if we shut down the building industry and turned all of our electrical generation over to the people who gave us Obamacare.

I can hear the promise now: “If you like your electricity, you can keep your electricity.”
Bottom line: The top ten Democrat Presidential candidates are all onboard one version or another of AOC’s Green New Deal, a policy even her own Chief of Staff explained is nothing more than an economic power grab intent on socializing America. This radical extremism, if explained carefully and objectively, is sure to frighten middle Americans. Shutting down the building trades, nationalizing all electricity production, eliminating internal combustion engines – or, in a worst-case scenario, even eliminating all air travel and cheeseburgers– would vastly damage our country in ways that Americans will find are hard to imagine. What’s not hard to imagine, though, is the economic devastation a $93 trillion dollar plan – or even Sanders’ stripped-down $16 trillion dollar plan – will cause. Such a heavy tax-and-debt burden will drive America forever out of competition with the rest of the industrialized world.

Should AOC’s dream actually be embraced to the point of implementation, countries with too much sense to adopt these policies – China and India, South Asia and even many emerging African countries – will begin to replace America as the 21st Century’s dominant economic superpowers.

Making this clear to Americans will prove to be a winning strategy in November, 2020.

Open Borders, Closed Shelters, Conservative Reaction

Immigration is set to be a major battle in the upcoming 2020 election, and savvy conservatives can use this – along with the Democrats’ extreme open border policies – to help win Congressional elections in swing districts.

A Pew Research Center poll of likely Republican voters found that 65 percent of them call on their party to prioritize the ending of illegal immigration, coupled with efforts to reduce the population of illegal immigrants living in the United States. The reasons for this are varied, but compelling.

Some Americans see mass migration causing an erosion of social cohesion in America, which is inevitable when too many immigrants come here not to assimilate and become part of the American dream, but merely to earn a living, with their wages sent back home to Mexico, or to Central America, instead of being reinvested in local American communities. When you have large unassimilated populations within the country, social cohesion can’t help but erode.

Other Americans look to the current migrant melt-down in Europe, where long-established cultures are being forcibly changed – and not for the better. They see this as something profoundly to be avoided, and they are right.
Some Americans cite the fact that a glut of foreign workers willing to work for minimum wage is stagnating – or even driving down – wages for hard-working Americans. While low wages are great for those looking for low-cost housekeepers or landscapers, this is not good for Americans working for an hourly wage while struggling to raise a family. The law of supply and demand ensures that, when labor is a glut on the market, wages for all hourly workers remain low.

Finally, some Americans are concerned over the cost of providing basic social services to illegal immigrants and their families. Billions of dollars are spent providing people – including people who have no legal right to even be here – with welfare benefits, healthcare benefits (often clogging emergency rooms in hospitals in or near heavily illegal immigrant-populated communities), education for their children and other expensive social services. America’s humanitarian nature means that we will provide services to those in this country – especially to women and children – who desperately need them. The only way to limit the unchecked growth of these expensive services is to limit the population needing them to American citizens and legal residents. Foreigners with no legal right to be here, have no inherent right to demand services from American taxpayers – and if they are not in the US, they have no claim at all.

Whatever their reasons, millions of Americans are concerned about the ongoing implications of open borders and the seemingly-unending tidal wave of illegal immigrants that is flooding our nation. One reason for that failure to close the border – egged on by the mainstream media – is the Democrats’ blatant call of “y’all come” to illegal immigrants.

Democrat strategists know that congressional districts with heavy illegal immigrant populations tend to vote for Dems, which they see as an electoral plus. In addition, looking to a future where either all the illegals will be made citizens – or, where illegals are allowed to vote regardless of citizenship status – those same strategist believe that the vast majority of those illegals would vote unilaterally for the Democrats. They are also pushing for illegals to be counted in the US Census, a tool used to determine the size of Congressional districts. If illegal immigrants are counted, more born-to-vote-Democrat Congressional districts will be created in high-density immigrant communities. This is a subtle, effective way of shifting political power away from American citizens and toward the illegals, even if they can’t actually vote – at least not legally.

As the 2020 campaign moves forward, the leading Democrat Presidential candidates are edging ever further toward the Left, embracing new strategies to normalize current and future illegal alien immigrants. The latest of these unprincipled candidates is Joe Biden, who once again is great at telling a story – but one that isn’t based on reality. Recently, for example, Biden told a town hall in rural South Carolina that he would shut down illegal immigrant shelters and detention facilities at the border.

“Close them down!” he shouted. “We don’t need them. President Obama and I found that, when we were in office, in fact …when we finally got things under control, you have to report back for a hearing on such-and-such a date, people show up!”

In making this preposterous claim, Biden ignored one important fact, and flat-out lied about another. First, Biden ignored the fact that many of the detention facilities and shelters in use today were opened during the Obama administration, created in response to that massive wave of unaccompanied minors that inundated our border during Obama’s term in office. Biden being Biden, he also blatantly lied about illegals showing up for hearings. The Department of Homeland Security’s acting Secretary, Kevin McAleenan recently testified before a Senate oversight committee that, of 7,000 cases of asylum seekers earlier in 2019, “ninety percent did not bother to show up for their court hearings.” Those 90 percent of no-showers instead received final orders of removal in absentia, meaning that because they were no-shows at their hearings, their presumably bogus appeals for asylum were denied.

Instead of pursuing asylum, once they were free inside America, these scofflaws swiftly migrated to heavily illegal immigrant-population communities – usually within sanctuary cities – and disappeared from public view. McAleenan told this Senate hearing that this overwhelming flood-tide of asylum seekers had become a “full-blown emergency,” one the Democrats – and not just Joe Biden – seem eager to exploit.

Both Senators Bernie Sanders (S-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have climbed onto the “shut down those detention centers” bandwagon, essentially advocating for open borders by stripping America of the ability to detain illegals until their status can be adjudicated. This blatant open border position is increasingly being adopted by other Democrat candidates.

This is, perhaps, the ultimate reason why this potentially divisive issue can be made to work for Conservative Congressional candidates in 2020. Just as an enraged and motivated Conservative majority forced Bush 43 to shy away from his path-to-citizenship “comprehensive immigration reform” initiative in 2007, successful Congressional candidates can and should use the extreme open border position being espoused at the Presidential level as an effective wedge issue to splinter the knee-jerk Democrat coalition, just as President Trump did in Wisconsin and Michigan in 2016.

Our Cold Dead Hands …

If you’re a freedom-loving American with a deep reverence for the Constitution, it doesn’t really matter if you’re a gun owner or not. You already know that the Founders inserted the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights to ensure that, for all time, Americans would have the right to keep and bear arms. Whether they exercised that right – or not – was up to each American, but the Constitution guarantees that this bastion of liberty remained in force.

However, it seems that the Democrat candidates for President see things somewhat differently. Which – following the immutable Law of Unintended Consequences – could actually help Constitutional Conservative candidates for Congress in 2020.

Right up front, all the candidates support a wide variety of draconian gun control measures, including universal background checks, “assault weapon” bans and limitations on “high-capacity” magazines, along with denying the right to keep and bear arms – without due process – to people who they deem to have relatively few advocates in our society. Bans on “assault weapons” ranks high on some candidates’ platform – in the case of Senator Bernie Sanders (S-VT), he’s built his entire stance around his many votes to ban these rifles – which “look” military but are operationally no more intimidating or deadly than the semi-automatic deer rifles used by millions of hunters.

These knee-jerk “gun control” advocates overlook the fact that the most heinous mass murderers – such as the maniac who decimated an outdoor country music concert in Las Vegas two years ago – had already violated numerous existing gun control laws before pulling the trigger. Ignored by its advocates as an “inconvenient truth,” a significant majority of mass-shooting murderers – including the shooter in Vegas – did pass their background checks. The problem isn’t that we don’t have enough gun laws on the books. The problem is the spotty enforcement of the reasonable laws we do have.

However, beyond this near-universal anti-gun stand, many of the candidates have signed on to other gun confiscation – or steps leading to gun confiscation – actions. Let’s take a look at how these Democrat candidates stack up.

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) wants to require that all gun owners acquire a Federally-issued license before they could own a gun, let alone keep and bear it. While at the time he announced this position back in May, he stood alone among the Progressive, far-Left candidates. However, his action forced others to take a stand, and so far, these other candidates have jumped on Booker’s bandwagon:

• Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who never met a Federal regulation she didn’t like
• Former Obama Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Julian Castro
• South Bend Mayor and committed vegetarian Pete Buttigieg
• Former Congressman Beto O’Rourke of El Paso

But that is not the only plan afoot to drastically weaken the Second Amendment. In fact, the popular (among Democrat candidates) mandatory gun buy-back program is supported by a host of candidates. In this plan – which is proudly modeled on the confiscatory gun bans enacted in New Zealand and Australia – the Federal government would force gun owners to surrender their firearms. However, as a fig leaf to the idea that this is in fact confiscation, the government would “buy back” those guns from legal gun owners.

Of course, the government would set the buy-back price, and private citizens would have no hope of negotiating for a fair price. The plans start with the dreaded “assault weapons,” which are mechanically no different than a semi-automatic deer rifle or target rifle – but because they look “tactical,” they must be evil, worthy of being banned. Right? Apparently virtually all Democrat Presidential candidates agree that “assault weapons,” which are just deer rifles with military-looking cosmetics, must be banned. And that’s just the first step. If such a ban survives review by the Judiciary, we can expect the law to morph into a more exact replica of the universal gun-ban/gun-confiscation laws passed in Australia and New Zealand.

So who supports a mandatory buy-back gun confiscation law?

• Former Vice President Joe Biden, who has been all over the board on gun policy, edging swiftly to the left with each change in position or legislative plan
• Senator Bernie Sanders (S-VT), the admitted Socialist, who wants to follow in the path of all previous socialist states, to confiscate citizens’ guns
• Former HUD Secretary Julian Castro, who calls gun buy-backs “good policy”
• Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), who has made gun control one of her highest priorities
• Texas’s Beto O’Rourke, who’s changed his gun stance several times during the campaign, always adopting more stringent violations of Americans right to keep and bear arms

A pattern has emerged among the twenty-some candidates for the Democrat nomination – it impacts gun control laws, but is also found surrounding other issues. First, one candidate will take a radical leftist or Socialist position, one that stretches the grounds of credulity. Then, ANTIFA and other extremist groups start pressuring the other candidates to “take a walk on the wild side,” and like good little soldiers, the Democrat candidates all fall into lock-step with the radicals. This can be seen in many issues, but nowhere more-so than in the evolving gun control positions of the various candidates.

This suggests that we have yet to see the most radical anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment positions – those have yet to emerge, but as the race heats up, and as far-left special interests and their fellow travelers, the pressure will increase on whomever becomes the Democrat nominee to adopt the most extreme positions possible.

How does this leftward lurch toward confiscatory gun control stack up as an electoral issue? Because it is certain to become a major debating point at the Presidential level, the gun grabbing issue will be seen as national, and therefore a reasonable issue, one open for debate, in each of the 435 Congressional campaigns in 2020.

Conservative candidates, especially those who openly support our Constitutional guarantees – including those enshrined in the Second Amendment – will be able to legitimately paint their opponents with the radically-extreme anti-gun positions adopted by the Democrat Party Platform, and the Democrat Candidate for President. In “fly-over” country, in districts where the Constitution is still respected, this could be a winning issue.

Democrat Climate Extremism A Boon to Conservatives

The Democrats believe that climate change can be an election-winning strategy, but the numbers don’t lie. At a price tag of more than $93 trillion dollars, the much-lauded Green New Deal is a phenomenal budget buster. Once voters realize that this legislation is all about the socializing of America – not really climate change at all – this could become a winning issue for savvy conservatives in the 2020 election.

The National Review recently reported that the Green New Deal, which was proposed earlier this year by media darling known as AOC – Representative Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) – is now embraced by all front-running Democrat Presidential hopefuls. This pie-in-the-sky legislation would purportedly transition the U.S. economy completely away from fossil fuels within ten years. How this would happen isn’t stated, because its advocates don’t know. What they do know, but won’t admit, is that the Green New Deal would require technology that doesn’t now exist, and may never exist. However, while this plan would allegedly eliminate airborne carbon, what it would really do is provide federal jobs for everyone who wants one. It would also eliminate ICE and border security, implement a universal healthcare guarantee for everyone, including illegal aliens. It is these other provisions – having nothing to do with global warming – that are the reason behind the Green New Deal’s astronomical cost.

This “climate change” legislation would, according to AOC, also advance “social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative and public ownership.”

Presented as a plan to eliminate carbon pollution in America, AOC’s her chief of staff recently admitted about the Green New Deal to a Washington Post reporter that “the true motivation behind introducing the Green New Deal is to overhaul the entire economy.” He went on to say, “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
While it isn’t unusual for politicians to use an issue to advance a totally different cause – what isn’t common is for them to admit it, on the record. All told, the Green New Deal proposal will cost America an estimated $93 trillion in new government spending over ten years, according to a recent report by the conservative American Action Forum.

Putting this in perspective, President Obama increased the national debt more than all previous presidents combined, but still, our entire national debt is “only” $21.97 trillion dollars. This Green New Deal would raise the national debt by a whopping – and unsustainable – 423 percent, pushing it to somewhere north of $115 trillion dollars.

And although AOC is, at 29, too young to serve as President until at least the 2024 election, she is nonetheless driving the entire group of more than 20 Democrat Presidential hopefuls to embrace her Green New Deal, or something that’s virtually identical to it. That’s a lot of power for a political novice, but it’s also a great example of the power of the fan-boy liberal news media.
So why is the climate a political hot-button issue?

Many Americans – especially younger Americans who grew up submerged by the horrific message that life as we know it will be over Unless We Do Something Right Now – have been taken in by the unrelenting drumbeat of climate-change horror stories, Apparently, these misinformed Americans do not realize that the shift from “global warming” to “global climate change” during the last decade was nothing more than a tacit recognition that fears over global warming were unsustainable.

Fortunately for conservatives, who weigh the benefits of perhaps reducing the globe’s temperature by a degree or two against the astronomical cost of moving away from a carbon- and petroleum-based fossil fueled economy, the Democrat Party’s candidates seem committed to the most extreme climate-change positions. These radical positions are so far from the mainstream that they are sure to cost them votes, if only conservatives choose to make this a “line in the sand” issue.

After a quarter-century of global warming propaganda, many moderates have come to believe that man-caused climate change is both real, and dangerous. However, while concerned, pollsters point out that they have yet to come to grips with the price tag they would have to pay if the Green New Deal – or one of the other extreme Democrat climate positions – was actually adopted. For example, politically moderate New Englanders may provide knee-jerk support for climate-altering demands, but they have yet to realize that such actions would deprive them of fuel oil to heat their homes in the winter. What applies to New Englanders applies to the desert Southwest in the hot, dry summer. We depend on fossil fuel-created energy to heat and cool our homes and workplaces – as well as to get to and from work.
The law of unintended consequences has not been repealed.

What are these extreme positions that leading Democrat Presidential candidates have embraced – or been forced to embrace in the face of harsh criticism from far-left activists? Let’s take a look.

As his poll numbers continue to slip, one-time media-anointed front-runner Beto O’Rourke keeps coming out with ever more radical positions on the climate, gun control/gun confiscation, and while this isn’t helping him in the polls, his continuing media cache gives him the power to drive his fellow candidates to the far left, if only in self defense. On climate change, he said, “Literally. Not to be melodramatic, but literally, the future of the world depends on us right now, here, where we are. Let’s find a way to do this.” At the recent climate televised “Town Hall,” O’Rourke doubled down on his position, said, “Climate change is the greatest threat we face – and we have one last chance to meet this moment before it’s too late.” Typically for O’Rourke, he’s long on rhetoric, but short on answers.

Joe Biden, long thought to be a moderate on climate change, has recently embraced a 22-page plan that would eliminate carbon pollution within thirty years, even though no practical alternative for petroleum fuel and coal power has been offered to replace them. Even at that, he’s being criticized by advocates of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Green New Deal. They charge Biden with “moderation,” saying 30 years is too long to wait for zero carbon emissions. They want to eliminate carbon fuels within ten years, and do so without offering any viable replacement technology to power our country and our lives.

The other two front-runners in the Democrat Presidential sweepstakes – Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – say “all the right things” about climate change, but they – like AOC – seem more focused on implementing socialist policy changes in areas of healthcare, student debt and “economic justice.” However, whenever they do talk about climate change, they talk about government “solutions” that would help to nationalize the largest industries in the country. Almost as an afterthought, Senator Sanders recently introduced ambitious climate change legislation, which predictably went nowhere. He was grandstanding, not legislating, playing for the cameras.

Warren has taken another approach – instead of offering one plan, she’s stacked the deck with three new ways the government can intrude on the private sector. These include her “Green Apollo Plan” to create a National Institute of Clean Energy, a “Green Industrial Mobilization” plan to support green technologies, but which would also give the government control of major industries, all in the name of climate change. Finally, she advocated a “Green Marshall Plan,” which would promote industrial solutions overseas. Like Sanders, Warren introduced extreme climate legislation that went exactly nowhere.

One candidate, former Obama Administration HUD Secretary Julian Castro, has a track record in trying to impose green energy standards in the inner city. In announcing his candidacy, he called climate change “the biggest threat to our prosperity in the 21st Century.” However, his own plan proposals seem like a much bigger economic threat to America. Castro even went public this past week with a demand that we should abandon air travel. How, as President, he’d be able to visit the 50 states after putting Air Force One up on blocks is unclear.

Even worse, what that would do to the American – and world – economies, he doesn’t say. However, the impact would be profound – the Federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics noted that 77.4 million passengers flew on U.S. airliners in May of this year. Annualized, that means that our 325 million Americans will fly the equivalent of 928.8 million times in 2019. Shutting air travel down would be economically and socially crippling, especially since the alternatives – railroad and highway transportation – also use huge amounts of fossil fuel. There are no apparent alternatives in the pipeline for solar-powered railroad locomotives or wind-powered semi-trailer trucks or over-the-road buses.

Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) is one of the climate extremists who seem to be driving all Democrat candidates to the left on this issue. “I don’t even call it climate change,” she says in her stump speech. “It’s a climate crisis.” She also referred to climate change as “an existential threat to us, and confronting it requires bold action.” She makes a point of embracing the Green New Deal in all debates, and in all of her rallies.

So, with this overwhelming Democrat demand for the elimination of greenhouse gas-producing technology within ten, fifteen or thirty years, where does this leave conservatives.

First, they need to emphasize the cost. Do the math. Even at the low end of the scale, this cost is astronomical. Next, they need to debunk the flawed notion that the Green New Deal would create millions of new “green” jobs, when common sense and a number of recent think-tank studies show that it would eliminate tens of millions of other jobs. Finally, they should expose the Green New Deal for what it is: a bait-and-switch Ponzi Scheme, something the plan’s founder’s chief of staff admitted to the Washington Post recently. Instead, it’s a thinly disguised attempt to use a trumped-up “crisis” to nationalize industries in America, moving us one giant step closer to the Sanders/Warren dream of a Socialist America.

Run on the truth about global warming and the Green New Deal – it should be a winner.

“Biden for President” – an Unmixed Blessing for Conservatives?

According to the Rasmussen Report, Joe Biden holds a dramatic lead (33% of Likely Democrat Voters) over rivals Elizabeth Warren (19% of LDV) and Bernie Sanders (16% of LDV) in the mad dash to the Democrat nomination. This convention will gavel itself into existence on July 13th, about ten months from now.

Biden as the Democrat presidential standard-bearer could be very good news for conservative House candidates, if only because Biden – long thought to be a “moderate” Democrat – is now espousing some remarkably far-left positions. By allowing himself to be led by the nose by fringe candidates on the Socialist/Progressive extreme left wing of his party, Biden is contributing to the polarizing of the 2020 electorate. Doing so, Biden could find himself pushing moderate democrats and independents in the direction of conservatives.
Here are a few examples.

First and foremost, Joe Biden has a real problem saying things in public that he either made up or never meant to say where voters could hear him. Nothing new here – former Vice President Biden has always seemed to lack a “governor” between his brain and his mouth. That means Joe Biden exhibits all the flaws the liberals keep trying to pin on President Trump, who admittedly has a quick trigger finger when it comes to posting snappy Tweets. In the 2020 election, this could mean that Biden’s frequent “gaffes” (as the media likes to call them – when it’s Trump, they call them “lies”) – will tend to neutralize what may be Trump’s most significant potential election problem.

If both men are quick to speak without thinking things through clearly, if both men tend to exaggerate for effect, and if both men seem to make things up, as they occasionally do, then Biden’s gaffes will balance out charges against Trump. This will make it hard, even for the left-leaning mainstream media, to blame one while giving the other a free pass.

However, Joe Biden brings other baggage to the election – baggage that will slow down any campaign he dreams of running.
For instance, just last week, Joe Biden called for a mandatory gun buyback program, modeled on the one enacted by New Zealand and Australia. He claims this isn’t actually gun confiscation. However, this is only even remotely accurate because, under his plan, the government – which will force gun owners to surrender their firearms, under penalty of law – will then compensate the owners, whether those owners want to sell their guns or not. Of course, the government would also set the buyback price, leaving freedom-loving Americans with no choice but to surrender their firearms, regardless of what they get back in return.

When he’s a bit more in control of his runaway mouth, Biden claims to only want to ban “assault weapons.” However, what he intends – and has admitted – is a ban on all semi-automatic firearms, as well as all “magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them,” according to the Washington Post. This bold, misguided stance against the right of self-defense as enshrined in the Second Amendment will tend to bring otherwise apathetic voters to the polls in record numbers – not to support gun confiscation, but to support our right to keep and bear arms. That’s got to be a plus for any conservative running for a hotly-contested House seat.

Beyond his blatantly unconstitutional plan to confiscate guns – though he insists on calling it something else – Joe Biden has also come out in favor of the Green New Deal. This is another unconstitutional plan, originally put forth by Democrat Socialist Congressional Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), one that would, AOC and her fellow advocates proclaim, “eliminate fossil fuels within ten years.” Boldly asserting, without a shred of evidence, that this move would be a net gain for America, AOC’s plan to ban the sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, fuel oil and even plastics – which are largely petroleum-based – will, Biden confidently asserts, create millions of new jobs. How that would happen isn’t clear. If Joe Biden has figured that out, he’s not telling anyone. However, this existential threat to tens of millions of current, frequently high-paying jobs is crystal clear.
Also not addressed in his Green New Deal plan is how the Army would operate its main battle tanks using wind power – or how the Air Force would fly its combat-capable aircraft, powered by solar power … especially at night.

In taking up this socialistic plan to nationalize the entire US economy while gutting our military – which will be the ultimate result of Biden’s Green New Deal concept – Biden finds himself advocating a policy that will cost America tens of trillions of dollars that, as a country, we just don’t have. Beyond that, tens of thousands of major employers would be forced under the Green New Deal to shut down, either because they couldn’t obtain the energy needed to run their businesses, or because their currently-legal products would become banned by government fiat.

As the Washington Post reported, “to that end, Biden’s climate plan adopts the rhetoric – and at times, many of the actual policy proposals – of the Green New Deal,” an unworkable plan advocated by the fringe candidate known to her fans and detractors as AOC. Her plan calls for the total elimination of the nation’s “carbon footprint” by 2030, a move that rightly frightens moderate conservative mainstream voters. These are men and women – the bedrock of America – who are now being forced to wonder how they’ll survive in a country saddled by tens of trillions of dollars in new debt while discovering that there’s no gas at the pump, no fuel oil for their home’s furnace and no electricity at all. Let alone no national defense.

Biden’s two new policies – gun confiscation and the Green New Deal – are lightning rods for the extreme far Left, as well as for those conservatives who will oppose the fever dreams of irresponsible socialists who now drive the Democrat Party. However, there’s another way that Joe Biden could inadvertently help America continue a movement toward more conservative values – including electing more conservative members of Congress.

Specifically, Joe Biden is well-known for “shooting from the lip,” coming up with bizarre tales such as last week’s claim that he tried to pin a medal on a Navy Captain’s chest after that man had entered a ravine under hostile fire, attempting to save a fellow soldier, though the man he came to save had died. Then, when offered the medal, Biden claimed this Navy Captain refused the medal. “Do not pin it on me, Sir! Do not do that! He died. He died!”

Then Joe sealed the deal by saying, “This is the God’s honest truth. My word as a Biden.”
Well, what’s that Biden word actually worth? Not much, apparently.

The actual incident which triggered this particular fantasy happened when Biden was a Senator, not the Vice President. The man to be honored was an Army enlisted man, not a Navy Captain. The man did not turn down his medal, and was later awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor by President Obama, which that soldier did not refuse. Except for the location, the date and the people involved, the medal involved and the rejection of the medal (all of these claims made up), Biden’s “This is the God’s Truth. My word as a Biden” is nothing but yet one more of Joe Biden’s fabrications. The media largely chooses to ignore these, with a “that’s just Joe” or “he captured the spirit of the event, if not the actual facts.”

Joe may not know what’s happening around him, but if he’s nominated, that very lack of a tight grip on sanity could work in 2020 in favor of conservative candidates for the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.