Connect with us

Politics

What Happened When I Showed Up To Davos Uninvited

Published

on

“Sir, I don’t have you on my list,” said the young woman surveying a clipboard while simultaneously blocking my entrance into one of the World Economic Forum’s many titillating lectures.

“Ah, well, look again. I am sure there has been some mistake,” I declared with the absolute assurance of a man who knows he isn’t on the list but who is nonetheless certain he will get in anyway.

Behind me in a rapidly forming queue stood actual members of the World Economic Forum, known affectionately to insiders by the diminutive “Wef,” waiting for her to check their names against the same list before granting them entry.

Honestly, for a group that, apart from global tyranny, gets excited about nothing so much as mass surveillance and brain chips, I found myself continually amazed that they used a process so antiquated that every teacher from Aristotle to Ben Stein has used it for roll call: Bueller? Bueller?”

But it was much to my advantage.

Spying on the Crackpots Running WEF

You see, WEF attendance is expensive. While the exact cost is murky, WEF membership, which can run into tens of thousands of dollars, is required before one can buy a pass for their annual meeting at Davos, which is tens of thousands of dollars more.

Not a chance I was paying those fees. For the second year in a row, I adopted a much less expensive approach: I just walked into every building like I owned the place. And, with so many

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Politics

A New York Times Staffer Stumbles On The Truth About The Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling

Published

on

Credit to Michael Barbaro of The New York Times for ever so gingerly happening upon the lesson Democrats should have taken from the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, but didn’t. Or more likely, refuse to.

On Tuesday’s edition of the Times’ “Daily” podcast, Barbaro and Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak mulled over the ruling, and at the very end of the episode, Barbaro had his epiphany. “Another way to think about this ruling if you step way back,” he said, “is that it’s kind of the Supreme Court saying that when you elect a president, you have to accept, dear American people, that the Constitution gives them a tremendous amount of power and legal latitude to kind of do what they want …”

Barbaro was cooking. You could feel it.

He continued his revelation. “And we, the Supreme Court, are going to make it pretty hard to hold that president criminally responsible for their actions,” he said, “so, voters need to think really carefully about who they want to possess this level of immunity.”

I imagine Barbaro swelled with pride at having successfully followed that pure and true train of thought to its logical end. He did it! He really did it!

I just wish the rest of his peers in the media and the Democrat Party would do the same.

Immediately after the ruling, holding that a president carrying out his constitutional responsibilities can’t be held criminally liable for it once out of office (duh), Democrats and leftist triflers

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Michigan Lawmakers Ask Appeals Court To Find Democrats’ Election Amendments Unconstitutional

Published

on

Michigan lawmakers filed a legal brief on Monday requesting a federal appeals court consider their lawsuit against two Democrat-backed constitutional amendments they claim violate the Michigan and U.S. Constitutions.

“It is extremely important to have these constitutional questions adjudicated as rapidly as possible,” plaintiff and Republican Sen. Jim Runestad said in a Tuesday release from Michigan Fair Elections. “I am a firm believer in the Constitution. The people have a right to have this issue decided in a court of law, so everyone can have confidence that we are preserving civil rights and obeying the Constitution.”

Filed in September by 11 state GOP legislators against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, and the director of Michigan’s Bureau of Elections, the lawsuit in question contended that two, constitutional ballot amendments — one approved by voters in 2018 and the other in 2022 — violate the elections clause of the U.S. Constitution, which stipulates that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

In their original lawsuit, plaintiffs argued that the amendments to the Michigan electoral system are invalid because the U.S. Constitution says the power to implement such changes to state election laws lies with the state legislature. The legislators further claimed the Michigan Constitution provides state legislators similar powers.

Among the leftist-backed election practices added to the Michigan Constitution under the 2018 and 2022 initiatives are automatic and same-day voter registration, no-excuse absentee voting “during

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Politico Reporter Disguises PR For Left-Wing Political Group As Journalism

Published

on

Does political writer Heidi Przybyla work for Politico or a left-wing group funded by Arabella Advisors? Her recent stories make it hard to tell.

On Tuesday, Przybyla published what conservative radio host Erick Erickson characterized as a “press release” for a group called “Demand Justice.” The story, headlined, “Progressive advocacy group plans $10M offensive targeting Supreme Court,” chronicles the far-left operation’s multi-million-dollar campaign to undermine the last functional institution of the federal government.

“According to plans first shared with POLITICO, the group intends to spend $10 million by the end of this year on a range of activities, from conducting opposition research on potential Supreme Court picks to advocating for ethics reforms for the high court,” Przybyla reported. “It will also work to mobilize key constituencies affected by the court’s decisions, including women and young people, and to call out a network of far-right judicial activists that laid the groundwork for the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court.”

Left out of Przybyla’s reporting, however, as Erickson noted, “Demand Justice is a part of a multi-billion dollar dark money enterprise of the left called Arabella.”

Arabella is a colossal dark money group funneling anonymous donations to left-wing causes such as efforts to “defund police” and antisemitic protests. Last month, CBS called the group a “dark money juggernaut” with entities promoting “progressive causes, like climate change and marijuana legalization.”

“Lately, they have poured money into state ballot initiatives, particularly where there are competitive Senate or House seats, possibly as a way

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Trending