Question: What sustains a rather substantially whacked-out segment of the Democrat Party? Answer: Marvels such as Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson, a Trump-hating, race-baiting activist who experienced a brilliant flash of glee while she described herself as a "rock star." Democrats routinely offer nothing of non-socialist substance, but they sure gather like moths at the flame when the publicity wagon comes to town. We hoped it wouldn't get any worse once Obama resurfaced before the TV cameras recently, but Ms. Wilson's fashion sense and trashy sorta-cowgirl head wear that neither mad hatters nor Roy Rogers' horse "Trigger" would have awarded a second glance takes the cake. It took General Kelly's heartfelt comments to remind us that all of this was really about dead military heroes, not about an arrogant, cartoon-ish congressional representative who apparently cares more about getting a hat centered on her head as she scolds Trump and plays the race game than about tragedies of national security. And no, we don't yet know what's up with our mission in Niger -- which seems to have begun under Obama's watch, it is alleged. She wants --wha...? -- an apology from General Kelly? He may have innocently misspoken about her role in a speech, but a pathetic, publicity seeking creature of her ilk isn't fit to lick one of the general's medals.
Dog gone, doggone it: According to CBS, a 15-year-old miniature pinscher brought to a veterinarian to be euthanized was discovered to be alive five months later. What happened is, a veterinarian had allowed an employee to take the dog home to see about improving its health status. What outrages me, if true, is that the dog's original owner discovered the dog still lived and breathed, but nevertheless had police retrieve the dog, which "seemed to be in good spirits when it was brought back in and there were no signs of neglect." Say what? So the owner was totally urinated off because her canine friend had another chance at life, and insisted that said euthanasia be carried out almost a half year later, even though "Caesar" was apparently comfy and thriving to some extent? Something is very, very wrong here.
Speaking of just plain wrong, beware of former Federal Elections Commission chair Ann Ravel and a sympathetic, never-ending merry band of Democrat troublemakers who, like snakes which refuse to release their prey, are all on board with punishing online political content -- paid or unpaid -- considered "fake news." The Washington Examiner of October 18 nicely lays out the threat posed by Ms. Ravel and her cohorts, all Democrats and all apparently wiling to go to any lengths to tackle, particularly, subjects involving the political right. OF COURSE, the current springboard for essentially censoring Internet content revolves around the increasingly tiresome topic of Russian influence in the elections -- yet, from acorns mighty leftist oak trees grow, so one really needs to be aware and incensed about Ms. Ravel and her willing leftist accomplices in this matter. Wow, it's amazing how certain folk consistently refuse to embrace the First Amendment and insist upon "improving" it in strange, self-serving ways.
George W. Bush attacks: Oh good grief, is this the same former President who let Obama skate by for eight years without saying a blessed thing about that two-term evil? Now he speaks out about Trump -- without actually naming him -- with no holds barred. How courageous! How news-making! How. . .irrelevant?
The REAL hard Russian influence: The icing on the cake of horror this month comes via October 17's New York Post article, a wrenching piece demonstrating how the Obama bunch knew very well that the Russians employed bribes, kickbacks and blatant extortion in a profoundly successful effort to gain access to U.S. atomic resources. Despite the facts on its doorstep, the Obama administration approved a 2010 agreement that gave Moscow an astounding 20 percent of U.S. uranium. The Clintons also profited from this deal, an aspect covered previously by author Peter Schweitzer and others.
Feudin' over gluten: Everywhere one looks in grocery stores, the demon is gluten. A small but significant percentage of Americans share celiac disease, prohibiting them from consuming gluten in any form. The usual "if we can save just one" phenomenon took over long ago in a society which loves to panic, and far more foods than ever anticipated became "gluten-free," the pronouncement printed on multiple food products as if promising safety from a mad dog. Even people who could not care less about and were unaffected by gluten sometimes found it difficult to locate customary food sources. But. . .
Oopsie. Now we learn that a scientist who provided the primary evidence of non-celiac gluten sensitivity has published a paper renouncing his own findings. If you feel hammered by ad agencies' depictions of gluten as a demon from hell, you might want to check out the story of researcher Peter Gibson of Monash University in Australia, who reversed his position on a crucial segment of the gluten controversy. Does this mean that some of us who cowered under the dining room table can exit and feel guilt-free about eating spaghetti again?
