What could possibly go wrong? Elizabeth Warren wants the federal gov’t to start manufacturing ‘affordable’ prescription drugs

The incompetent elephant(s) in the room

This is unintentionally funny on a whole lot of levels:

Are they going to make drugs as “affordable” as the “Affordable” Care Act made health insurance? The only people who will believe the federal government will make anything affordable are the ones who don’t care to notice that they (meaning “we”) over $20 trillion in debt.

Also, the federal government couldn’t make a f***ing health insurance website that worked properly but sure, who would have any doubt about taking their heart pills and blood pressure meds?

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) would like the federal government to start manufacturing prescription drugs when the market fails and prices for certain medications become unaffordable.

It’s an interesting idea, experts who lean right and left agree. But more than that, it is a reminder that there are all kinds of creative ways we might go about bringing down drug prices. We know Americans are really worried about drug costs — six in 10 people take a prescription and 80 percent say the cost of drugs is unreasonable — and they really want Washington to do something about it. The issue always ranks as one of the public’s top health priorities for Congress.

Vox at least does acknowledge the incompetent elephant in the room:

There are some questions, of course, starting first and foremost with how well equipped the government is to make medications. The Food and Drug Administration previously forced the National Institutes of Health to shut down its drug manufacturing facilities over quality concerns — though this legislation notably allows the federal government to contract with private companies to do the actual drug producing.

So if the government would contract out the manufacturing, that means they’d be serving as an extra “middle man,” which pretty much defeats the stated intent of making the whole process cheaper. But at least now Warren has something to talk about on the 2020 campaign trail besides her backfired DNA test.

Hillary Clinton sends letter to 8-year-old girl who lost class election to boy, America now waits for kid to blame Russia & sexism for loss

Also, disenfranchisement!

Hillary Clinton just can’t help but turn everything into an identity politics controversy. Not even a third-grade class election is off limits, as evidenced by a letter the two-time presidential loser sent to a little girl in Maryland:

Hillary Clinton this month told a third-grade girl who lost her bid to become class president that it’s not easy to run for an office that’s “only been sought by boys.”

“While I know you may have been disappointed that you did not win President, I am so proud of you for deciding to run in the first place,” Clinton wrote in a letter to a third grade girl at a Maryland private school. “As I know too well, it’s not easy when you stand up and put yourself in contention for a role that’s only been sought by boys.”

Clinton’s spokesman Nick Merrill, confirmed to the Washington Post that the letter is authentic.
Morales lost by one vote to a boy. As runner-up, she will serve as vice president of the class, a position she said she is happy to have.

How does Hillary know it’s “a role that’s only been sought by boys” in that school? Media reports I’ve seen don’t seem remotely curious about that claim, perhaps because the answer would rip a cute little narrative to shreds.

I’ll admit to being a little surprised that Hillary didn’t tell the girl to protest the election due to disenfranchisement:

The election was a tight race and Martha ran against a popular classmate. In the first vote, several ballots were declared invalid since they had not been filled out correctly, reported the Washington Post. When a second vote was held, Martha eventually lost.

Paging Eric Holder!

But on the plus side, Clinton’s got a lot of free time to comb over the elementary school class election news and send letters to girls who lost to boys, because she’s NOT president. Hey, whatever she finds therapeutic.

Abortion cheerleader Nancy Pelosi rejects Trump’s wall proposal on purely moral grounds

Twisted “priorities,” Pelosi-style

Nancy Pelosi has no problems with abortion on demand or accepting an award in the name of Planned Parenthood’s founding eugenicist:

But what IS an insult to Pelosi’s delicate moral sensibilities? The suggestion of a wall at the border:

I was going to suggest Trump promise that at least one door through the wall will lead directly to an abortion clinic to entice Pelosi into agreeing to back the idea, but she’d probably oppose it even more after figuring it’d be eliminating future Democrat voters.

James Comey vs. James Comey on need for ‘transparency’ about what happened in 2016

TOTAL BS alert!

When House Republicans wanted to question former FBI Director James Comey about everything that happened surrounding the 2016 election, he was disappointed that a “behind-closed-doors” session was sought, because he wanted all the cards to be put on the table for all of America to see:

Fast forward the tape to Monday afternoon. After his second private questioning, Comey talked to reporters. Fox News’ Catherine Herridge asked Deep State Jimbo about leaking classified information, and suddenly his “full transparency” desires went right out the window:

SO MUCH transparency!

Thud: Here’s how the Dems’ dire warnings about net neutrality repeal have held up after a year

Another liberal BS fail

In 2017, one of the issues that Democrats said was going to kill off anybody who was lucky enough to survive tax cuts or Trump-nominated judges was the repeal of Obama-era net neutrality regulations. Well, if not kill everybody off, it was at least supposed to make us have crappier and more expensive internet connections while we awaited Judgment Day from that other stuff. Here’s a sample of the Dems and their supporters:

However, one year after the Obama-era regs were repealed, the Dems and their allies have been proven, not surprisingly, wrong again. Fast-forward one year after the above warnings:

At what point does the vast majority of Americans stop taking the Dems’ across-the-board alarmist crap serious? From climate change to Judge Kavanaugh to net neutrality repeal — they’re wrong constantly. But being a congressional Democrat isn’t about being correct, it’s about convincing as many people as possible to buy your BS, and too many do.

Trump gave Pelosi, Schumer and their past ‘transparency’ preaching a big ol’ hypocrisy wedgie during Tuesday’s WH meeting

It’s about time

It’s been barely over a months since the soon-to-be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi reiterated her commitment to an open and transparent government:

Chuck Schumer has also taken Trump to task by claiming the president doesn’t truly care about transparency:

But on Tuesday at the White House, Pelosi, along with Senate Minority Leader and super-weasel Chuck Schumer, weren’t happy that Trump let the whole meeting about debate over a funding bill play out for the whole world to see:

President Trump and congressional Democratic leaders ripped off the bandage over their raw, partisan disagreements Tuesday in open bickering that offered a glimpse of the divided government to come in the next two years.

During a White House meeting intended to seek common ground to avoid a partial government shutdown next week, the president and incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Charles Schumer instead squabbled over funding for the border wall, traded blame for the last shutdown and jousted over which party commands the stronger political hand since the mid-term elections.

“Unfortunately, this has spiraled downward,” Mrs. Pelosi told the president as their quarreling grew more intense in the Oval Office, which was adorned incongruously with festive holiday decorations.

Most of the feuding played out on camera in front of reporters who were invited by the president to cover the meeting. The Democrats pleaded with Mr. Trump several times to kick out the press.

“Let’s debate in private,” Mr. Schumer urged as cameras continued to roll.
Mrs. Pelosi complained, “This is the most unfortunate thing. We came in here in good faith, and we are entering into this kind of a discussion in the public view.”

“But it’s not bad, Nancy,” Mr. Trump said. “It’s called transparency.”

Hahaha! Watching Pelosi (of “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it” notoriety) have her BS about wanting transparency shoved back in her face is a real thing of beauty. Ditto for Chuck.

Here are some of the other highlights from the Trump/Schumer/Pelosi meeting. No wonder the Dems don’t want cameras rolling when their faux caring about border security is getting called out:

CNN then: Caravan just a Trump political stunt — CNN now: Caravan a symptom of climate change!

The fakest of ‘fake news’

Remember after President Trump issued warnings about (and to) the so-called “migrant caravan” heading north through Mexico and CNN blew it all off as Trump just playing politics?

And once people who mixed in with the caravan started trying to force their way into the U.S. and Trump was proven right, CNN quickly swapped out the narrative. Guess who’s “playing politics” with it now:

As predictable as the sun rising in the east.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that “climate change” was invented to give liberals an escape hatch for when they get trapped in an argument that isn’t going their way.

James Comey said Republicans ‘came up empty’ after questioning him again, and now we know why

Run-out-the-clock time!

Former FBI Director James Comey challenged House Republicans to question him again either in public or private. In the end, Comey ended up testifying before two different House committees simultaneously in a behind-closed-doors session, but he said investigators got nothing new:

And do you know why nothing new was learned? Because Comey took a pass on a whole lot of questions:

Comey knows it’s “run out the clock” time because the Democrats will soon be in control of the House and have pretty much let him know that the investigations (of Comey) will end while the search for anything that confirms the libs’ 2016 narrative will ramp up.

If you’re so inclined, a transcript of Comey’s behind-closed-door responses (or lack thereof) is here.

Et tu, lib media? Boston Globe endorses Elizabeth Warren to stay a senator and NOT run for president

A presidential trial balloon has been popped

Anybody who lives outside the dark blue-state liberal bubble knows that Elizabeth Warren would have a Custer’s chance at Little Bighorn of appealing to voters in flyover country when it comes to winning a national presidential contest. The Boston Globe has also come to that conclusion:

Et tu, liberal media?

Presidential runs seem to be in the state’s political DNA, in part because of the proximity of New Hampshire and its first-in-the-nation primary. And it’s often the right move: In 2015, this editorial page urged Warren to run, in part because of the lack of serious competition against Hillary Clinton. (Clearing the decks for Clinton didn’t exactly end well for Democrats, did it?)…

Warren missed her moment in 2016, and there’s reason to be skeptical of her prospective candidacy in 2020. While Warren won reelection, her margin of victory in November suggests there’s a ceiling on her popularity; Governor Baker garnered more votes than her in a state that is supposed to be a Democratic haven. Meanwhile, a September poll indicated that Massachusetts voters were more enthusiastic about Patrick making a White House bid than Warren.

Those are warning signs from the voters who know her best. While Warren is an effective and impactful senator with an important voice nationally, she has become a divisive figure. A unifying voice is what the country needs now after the polarizing politics of Donald Trump.

Hmm, it sounds like they’re only giving Warren about a 1/1,024th chance of winning the Dem nomination if she does run, and the campaign would backfire harder than her DNA test results. I for one hope Warren still runs because it’s going to be a three-ring circus and the more clowns the merrier.

(h/t Hot Air)

Bernie Sanders sounds alarm about threat posed by fossil fuels (and is doing his best to burn away as much of it as possible)

Hypocrisy, socialist-style!

Shot & chaser time!

Actually there are three shots here from Bernie Sanders just to get everybody to understand what a dire crisis the burning of fossil fuels has apparently brought about:

And the chaser is frankly not that surprising because most of these climate change uber-alarmists are hypocrites of the highest socialist order:

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s re-election campaign spent just under $300,000 on private jet use in October, Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show.

The Sanders campaign, which is funded primarily by small-dollar donors, paid Apollo Jets $297,685.50 on Oct. 10, FEC records reveal. The payment was marked for “transportation.”

“This expense was for transportation for the senator’s 9-day, 9-state tour to support Democratic candidates up and down the ballot ahead of Election Day,” campaign spokeswoman Arianna Jones told local website VtDigger.com, which first reported on the jet expenses.

“This cost covered the entirety of the tour from Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, South Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, California, and back to Vermont,” Jones said.

Got that? A senator from Vermont who says burning fossil fuels is going to be the death of us all torched a s**tload of gas flying private around the country to campaign for other people.