If You Read Nothing Else Today ...

Read Thomas Lifson at AmThinker--Alinsky’s revenge haunts the Democrats as they turn to billionaire Bloomberg. It's all good, but here's a sample from the big four paragraph finale:

The Democrats build their political energy on top of reservoirs of hatred.  “Identity politics” is a polite way of describing the politics of hatred based on characteristics that formerly were regarded as immutable: race and sex. ....   

Moore greatly understates the wealth of Michael Bloomberg. He’s got about fifty times more than “a billion f---ing dollars” and an ego that’s even bigger. Exactly the kind of figure the Dems love to excoriate.  Even worse, he made his money serving the information needs of Wall Street, enabling Big Money traders with his very expensive Bloomberg Terminals to win out over average investors. 

Just the kind of guy to force down the throats of their base, whom they seem to think of as “credulous rubes.”  The dirty reality is that the Democrats are the party of the plutocracy and the Deep State that merely pretends to operate in the interests of the less fortunate. ... 

Our Marxist foes like to speak of “internal contradictions.” But that’s all the Democrats have going for themselves, trying to grab power in the name of the powerless while dependent on the financial support of the richest of the rich.

Then if you have time, check this out. I have no idea who Roscoe B. Davis is and doubt that I'd agree with a lot of what he says, but there's some thought provoking stuff in the linked thread.

Davis doesn't say this exactly, but I do wonder whether Trump made some of his most disastrous appointments in a futile attempt to appease some of the Never Trumps. The failure to take control of the NSC has been crucial to so many of the problems that have slowed him down.

Most have already read this: Paul Sperry's Notebook: 'Whistleblower' Censorship Hits Facebook and Senate. It's good coverage of how the Deep State and the Major Media Complex has shut down public debate on the must fundamental issues of our civic life--including in the US Senate and the Supreme Court.

I did like this line very much:

It remains unclear how Roberts knew Eric Ciaramella was the whistleblower when Paul did not outright say he was the whistleblower in the question card that was handed Roberts to read. "My question made no reference to any whistleblower,” Paul affirmed. Did the presiding justice consult with Schiff or other House managers prior to the 16-hour question period? If so, did Roberts violate his own impartiality oath?