Now I’m afraid that too many Reps will be “getting cocky” and not do enough to stop the socialist cancer that is growing.

The biggest cause of growth of socialism is the colleges all discriminating against hiring Rep professors.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/progressivisms_human_dog_parks.html

…
For some reason, I thought of the concept of dog parks combined with something I recently read about “free speech zones” at colleges. These two things caused me to consider the state of our Constitution and the increasingly brazen attacks on it.
…
If you look at those three situations and analogize them to human existence, there are strong parallels to the initial, raw state of our constitutional republic (our dogs running free) and the statist approach that has evolved since the late 1800s (city living and the restrictions on the dogs). The third aspect is a compromise between the two.

But it really isn’t a compromise, is it? It’s not true freedom. Dogs are free to run inside a defined space but also must behave in a manner expected by those who control the space — and we think it is great because it is such an improvement over being shut up in the house all day or having to be controlled at the end of a tether.

But that is dangerous relativism.

It’s not what America is meant to be. We’re not a nation of human dog parks constructed by government. Yet that is what people are buying when they buy into progressivism.

Progressives tell America, “Just let us control you and lock you in a confined space — but we will build you some very nice parks where you can run off your leash! Just remember, you must behave the way we want you to behave, and you must stay inside the fences or be wearing your shock collars. Those are the rules.”

Such is the vision of the modern Democratic Party. They think America is ready to trade its freedom and liberties for some really, really nice human dog parks.

I pray they are wrong.

parker: Why be ignorant of the left’s Gollum-like pursuit of the Precious? That is to say, political power.

Do you not understand how powerful being President is? Do you not get the difference between having a nice house on Cape Cod and living in the White House with all the power that goes with it?

Maybe Michelle lacks the grit of leftists like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn or even her husband, to sacrifice four years of her life in opulent splendor and power to roll back Trump’s outrages that have put a serious crimp in the left’s grand march towards utopia.

But I sure wouldn’t assume it.

She can “lord it over the world” from the comfort of her Cape Cod mansion or her Hawaii mansion or her DC mansion and still make millions. Why not be lazy?

Art Deco: Considering how often you respond to my comments without crediting me, it’s clear I have rent-free space in your head.

It’s OK. I don’t judge you for it.

parker: Hardly. I doubt she wants the job either. Then again, I doubt most of the boys who died at Normandy wanted to go either, but it was a matter of duty over a comfortable life.

So it depends how MO sees her commitment to the left and Obama’s legacy and how much of a difference she thinks she could make.

Do you guys not yet get how committed leftists are, how much they will give up to further the cause?

Pat Buchanan, having had some contact with Pat Nixon and Nancy Reagan, took a look at Mooch in the distance and said, ‘not a happy camper’. Buchanan offered in 2010 that BO might refrain from running for re-election because his wife wanted out of Dodge.

One of the oddities of Michelle Obama’s life from 1991 to 2008 was the willingness of institutions to pay her handsome salaries for no one knows quite what. (Her license to practice law lapsed in 1993 and she had no training in business or public administration). OTOH, she once said the great thing about fundraisers held in people’s homes is that she got a lot of great decorating ideas. Now, why would Obama expose himself to Tony Rezko except, perhaps, that Michelle wanted a grand home, because decorative arts are what interests her?