RSS

Category Archives: Stupid Democrat Tricks

Who’s Afraid of Democracy Spring?

For the past week a group of demonstrators called Democracy Spring have been protesting at the Capital. So far, over 1200 of them have been arrested, including a number of famous names…

Yet – you wouldn’t know this massive demonstration is going on watching he MSM.

The paymasters of the MSM don’t want you to know that thousands are showing up to protest bought out politicians, bought out elections, and a bought out Press.

 

1,240 arrested in past week as “Democracy Spring” movement against money in politics spreads throughout U.S.

Activists carried out one of the biggest acts of civil disobedience in recent history—yet got little media coverage

It was one of the most massive acts of civil disobedience in recent U.S. history. Over the past week, well over 1,000 people were arrested in an enormous sit-in protest at the U.S. Capitol.

The demonstration is part of a new movement that calls itself “Democracy Spring.” Activists are calling for ending the chokehold money has on U.S. politics, overturning Citizens United and restoring voting rights.

On April 2, activists launched a colossal 10-day, 140-mile march from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. This was the preface to the mass arrests.

At least 1,240 protesters were arrested in the week from Monday, April 11 to Monday, April 18, according to police, on charges of crowding, obstructing or incommoding. Some activists even tied themselves to scaffolding in the Capitol rotunda.

Activists say even more people were arrested. The Nation put the figure at 1,400. The left-wing magazine refers to Democracy Spring and the allied Democracy Awakening protests from April 16 to 18 as “the most important protest of the 2016 election.”

A host of celebrities and prominent figures joined the protesters. Actress Rosario Dawson — who has become an outspoken Bernie Sanders supporter — was arrested, as was Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, along with leaders from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the AFL-CIO and the NAACP.

And although the Washington, D.C. demonstration officially ended Monday, Democracy Spring is only just beginning.

Leaders in the movement say they plan on expanding it throughout the country.

“Despite this unprecedented call to action, the congressional leadership did nothing,” Kai Newkirk, the campaign director of Democracy Spring, explained.

“Now we will take the battle into their offices in D.C., their home districts and to their fundraisers, to the party conventions and beyond.”

 Democracy Spring activists are asking that all U.S. political candidates sign the Equal Voice for All Declaration, which maintains that the “government should be free from the corrupting influence of big money in politics and solely dependent upon the People” and calls “for pro-democracy, anti-corruption reforms, including voting rights protections, citizen-funded elections, and a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United.”

The movement is non-partisan and is not affiliated with any political candidates or parties. It has been organized by a coalition of more than 120 organizations, activist groups and unions, which share principles of unity.

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has expressed support for the new movement.

“We must overturn Citizens United if we are serious about maintaining the foundations of American democracy,” his campaign tweeted.

“Americans understand that our gov’t is dominated by big money. Glad to see people taking action to restore democracy.”

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Racial Politics in Va Hollen v Edwards Primary Senate Race in Maryland?

This one is looking at the wrong issue.

Racial politics upend Democratic Senate primary in Maryland

The race was Chris Van Hollen’s to lose, but Donna Edwards has turned it into a nail-biter.

160404_chris_van_hollen_donna_edwards_gty_1160.jpg

Donna Edwards bounded up the walkways of more than a dozen modest homes in a largely African-American neighborhood here on a recent Saturday afternoon, posing for photos and sharing a simple message: I’m just like you.

The Democratic congresswoman running for Senate reminded one family that she, too, is a single mom. She talked about working minimum wage jobs earlier in her life, and lacking health insurance.

Six months ago, Edwards was an afterthought in the Democratic primary to succeed retiring Sen. Barbara Mikulski. The race was Rep. Chris Van Hollen’s to lose — a star in House Democratic leadership, he would swamp the field with his fundraising and big-name endorsements, the thinking went.

But as the April 26 primary approaches, Edwards has pulled even or possibly slightly ahead of Van Hollen in one of the most hotly contested Democratic primaries of 2016. She has moved the needle with an explicit appeal to African-American voters, who typically make up about two-fifths of the electorate in Maryland Democratic primaries.

A Washington Post-University of Maryland poll released Tuesday showed a neck-and-neck race, 44 percent for Edwards to 40 percent for Van Hollen. Edwards led by 10 points in a Baltimore Sun/University of Baltimore poll last month.

Edwards is trumpeting the historic nature of her candidacy — she would be the first African-American woman in the Senate since the 1990s — and outside groups are playing up her personal background in ads in the pivotal D.C. media market.

“It is the rationale for my running for the Senate seat … It’s about the perspective, the unique perspective that I would bring to the Senate,” Edwards said in an interview. “What people are saying is that I walked in their shoes. I walked in their shoes as a working person … as an African-American woman … as a mom.”…

Van Hollen criticizes what he calls Edwards’ thin résumé on Capitol Hill, painting her as a partisan bomb-thrower who has shown little ability or interest in working across the aisle to get something done.

Edwards, in turn, casts Van Hollen as an accommodating moderate. She says he was willing to cut entitlement programs to clinch a budget deal with Republicans. And she’s slamming him for supporting past trade deals, a potent line of attack among liberals as Congress prepares to take up a massive trade deal next year.

“There are differences when it comes to things like Social Security. Mr. Van Hollen has demonstrated that when push comes to shove that he’s willing to compromise on cuts to Social Security and Medicare,” Edwards said. “I think those are nonstarters.”

That one line I highlighted is why Van Hollen should lose this race, and the reason voters are abandoning him. Democrats have been in accommodationalist politics since Bill Clinton. And what it has got the country is a destroyed middle class, a economy in the dogpile, a housing meltdown, an illegal war, and the largest depression since the Great Depression. Ergo- the middle-class, the poor, and Progressives have been getting screwed by chickenshit Democrats reaching out their hands to Republican Rattlesnakes. If the entire Black Caucus bus ran off a 10,000 ft cliff tomorrow…Not a damn thing would change. President Obama has been a successful President…In spite of conservative racism based obstructionalism. I wonder how much better he could have been if his early advisers hadn’t counseled him to sell the country down the river for some fake bipartisanship. It has little or nothing to do with race.

I would like to see some people elected who understand clearly we are in a war with the American ISIS.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on April 5, 2016 in Stupid Democrat Tricks

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Obama Punts Again With SCOTUS Pick

Here we go again with the classic Obama fold…Yet another utter and complete failure kowtowing to the Reprobates.

President Obama To Announce Merrick Garland As Supreme Court Nominee

Federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland is President Obama’s pick to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, NPR has learned.

Citing a source close to the process, NPR’s Nina Totenberg says Obama chose Garland, 63, over two other federal judges who were also seen as contenders for Scalia’s seat.

Obama is slated to make the announcement official at 11 a.m. ET, speaking from the Rose Garden at the White House.

“I’ve made my decision: Today, I will announce the person I believe is eminently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court,” Obama said in an email Wednesday morning.

Garland, who is currently the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, is a former prosecutor who’s viewed as a moderate. He has also cultivated a reputation for openness and collegiality at the D.C. Circuit, a bench that’s sometimes called the second most important in the land.

Before becoming a judge, Garland occupied top posts in the Justice Department, where he oversaw some of the biggest investigations of the Clinton era, including the Oklahoma City bombing, the Unabomber case, and the Atlanta Olympics bombing.

Garland has been a finalist for two other Supreme Court openings during Obama’s presidency; he joined the appeals court in 1995, after a long Senate delay and a 76-23 vote.

Garland has won praise from senior Republican figures, including Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch and Chief Justice John Roberts.

The former prosecutor also has a relatively conservative record on criminal justice. A 2010 examination of his decisions by SCOTUSBlog’s Tom Goldstein determined that “Judge Garland rarely votes in favor of criminal defendants’ appeals of their convictions.” Goldstein “identified only eight such published rulings,” in addition to seven where “he voted to reverse the defendant’s sentence in whole or in part, or to permit the defendant to raise a argument relating to sentencing on remand,” during the 13 years Garland had then spent on the DC Circuit.

To be clear, Garland’s record does not suggest that he would join the Court’s right flank if confirmed to the Supreme Court. He would likely vote much more often than not with the Supreme Court’s liberals, while occasionally casting a heterodox vote. Nevertheless, as Goldstein wrote in 2010 when Garland was under consideration to replace the retiring liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, “to the extent that the President’s goal is to select a nominee who will articulate a broad progressive vision for the law, Judge Garland would be a very unlikely candidate to take up that role.”

 
 

Tags: , , , , , ,

How Obama’s Supreme Court Pick May Turn the Election

One of the most frustrating things about the Obama Presidency is the unwillingness or inability to deal from a position of strength against the far right. Issue comes up…Obama caves. Issue comes up…Obama caves.Issue comes up…Obama caves. Often before the issue is even joined in any substantive debate.

As such I view with great trepidation the potential selection of Nevada Republican Governor Brian Sandoval. I would find it very hard to vote for someone who put yet another Republican on the Court to potentially re-establish the 5-4 majority.Further, any decision to do so impacts the candidacy of Hillary Clinton more than Bernie Sanders worse than that of Bernie Sanders in that she has tied her campaign in close alignment with Obama’s Administration. Another Republican on the court means the support and continuation of the mass incarceration policies set forth by Bill Clinton which have devastated black low income neighborhoods, and no structural realignment of the court in any significant issue relative to the well being of Minority citizens.

I’m sorry, but I can’t see any possibility in voting for – and I’ll appropriate a Republican term here…A DINO.

Obama weighs Republican for Supreme Court

President Barack Obama is considering appointing a moderate Republican to the Supreme Court, a source close to the process said on Wednesday, but leaders in the Republican-led Senate held firm to their threat to block anyone he nominates.

The source said Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, a Republican and former federal judge, was among the possible candidates.

As governor, Sandoval has taken a traditional Republican stance in support of gun rights, but his more moderate views on social issues, such as abortion rights, could make him an attractive choice for the Democratic president.

A 52-year-old Mexican-American, Sandoval was appointed a judge by Republican George W. Bush, Obama’s predecessor, before being elected governor in 2010. He abandoned his state’s legal defense of a same-sex marriage ban before the Supreme Court declared such bans unconstitutional last year.

The Feb. 13 death of long-serving conservative Justice Antonin Scalia created a vacancy on the nine-seat court and ignited a political fight. Republicans are maneuvering to foil Obama’s ability to choose a replacement who could tilt the court to the left for the first time in decades. Scalia’s death left the court with four liberals and four conservatives.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on Tuesday the Senate will not hold hearings or vote on any Supreme Court nominee until the next president takes office in January 2017, following the Nov. 8 presidential election. Republicans hope to win back the White House then.

The Senate must confirm any high court nominee, but McConnell remained unswayed even with word that Obama was considering the Republican Sandoval for the job.

“This nomination will be determined by whoever wins the presidency in the fall,” McConnell said.

Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee that would hold any confirmation hearings, concurred, saying, “It’s the principle, not the person.”

The White House said it was hoping for a meeting with Grassley and his committee’s top Democrat, Patrick Leahy. A McConnell aide said McConnell was trying to schedule a meeting with Obama to reiterate his opposition to any nominee…

Some liberal groups expressed alarm that Sandoval would be considered. Charles Chamberlain of the group Democracy for America called it “downright absurd” that Obama would risk his legacy by appointing “another anti-labor Republican” to an already pro-big business Supreme Court.

Sandoval opposed Obama’s healthcare law, but opted to expand his state’s Medicaid health insurance program for the poor under the measure, breaking from a number of Republican governors who refused to do so.

He expressed support for bipartisan immigration legislation that passed the Senate in 2013 before dying in the House of Representatives amid Republican opposition.

In 2013, Sandoval vetoed legislation to require background checks on all Nevada gun sales. Last year, he signed a law backed by the National Rifle Association that expanded the defenses for justifiable homicide and repealed a local ordinance that required handgun registration…Read The Rest Here

Demo Yellow Donkey

Yellow back Donkey Award!

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Calling Bulls**t on the Congressional Black Caucus

The battle over the replacement for deceased SC Justice Scalia has nothing to do with race…

And a hell of a lot to do with the politics of which side of the political spectrum controls the Supreme Court, and get away with (or stop) criminal actions like Bush v Gore and Citizen’s United.

So while more than few of the Republican conservatives who are fighting against Obama replacing Scalia may indeed be racists – that is not the driving reason for the fight.

Rep. G.K. Butterfield, (D-N.C.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus

Black Lawmakers Say GOP Supreme Court Obstruction Is Racist

“It’s more than a political motive — it has a smell of racism.”

Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said that the backlash President Barack Obama currently faces around naming a Supreme Court nominee would never happen to a white president.

Speaking to The New York Times, Butterfield took issue with conservative comments in the wake of the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Several GOP politicians have said the vacancy shouldn’t be filled until a new president is in the White House.

“It’’s more than a political motive — it has a smell of racism,” Butterfield said.

“I can tick instance after instance over the last seven years where Republicans have purposely tried to diminish the president’s authority,” Butterfield continued. “This is just really extreme, and leads me to the conclusion that if this was any other president who was not African-American, it would not have been handled this way.”

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said he agreed with the chairman’s comments.

“It is extremely alarming, and most African-Americans — and many others — believe that there is race involved in these pronouncements by the Republicans,” he said Thursday morning.

“The GOP has consistently tried to demean this president,” he added. “They have attacked him for everything from the color of suit he wears, to the Affordable Care Act — which they were for at one time.”

GOP senators, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have said they won’t even consider any nominee put forward by Obama because they want to let the next White House occupant choose — hoping, of course, that a Republican wins the presidential election.

Democrats, however, have hit back hard, publicly shaming Republicans for declaring their intent to obstruct in advance. And a few Republicans have started to break from the party line and say they’d be willing to vote on a nominee.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also implied that racism was in play this week, saying that Republicans are making statements about Obama as if “he wasn’t a real president.”

“Many Republicans talk in coded racial language about takers and losers. They demonize President Obama and encourage the ugliest impulses of the paranoid fringe,” Clinton said at the Schomberg Center for Research in Black Culture earlier this week in Harlem. “This kind of hatred and bigotry has no place in our politics or our country.”

 
 

Tags: , , , , , ,

The CBC…Again

Donna Edwards is a pretty decent politician, and unlike some folks in the House and Senate has a pretty clean reputation…I would have to believe she would have a pretty good shot at winning a Senate Seat in Maryland.Looks to me like some “small wiener” politics on the part of a certain Caucus member.

Congressional Black Caucus PAC passes on Edwards nod

The political arm of the Congressional Black Caucus has decided not to endorse Rep.Donna Edwards for Senate — despite the fact that the Prince George’s County Democrat would be the first African-American elected to the chamber from Maryland.

The CBC’s political action committee decided to table Edwards’ endorsement during a meeting late Thursday night, multiple sources with knowledge of the decision told The Baltimore Sun. It is not clear whether the board will take up the matter again.

The decision, first reported by Politico, is a blow to Edwards, who has made the historic nature of her potential election a central component of her message, and who is hoping to turn out a high share of black voters in her campaign to succeed retiring Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski.

But that effort has been undercut by her opponent in the race, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Montgomery County, who has secured endorsements from some of the state’s best known African American leaders, including Prince George’s County Executive Rushern Baker.

An Edwards campaign spokesman dismissed the decision, noting that former Rep. Al Wynn is a board member of the CBC’s political action committee. Edwards defeated Wynn in a 2008 primary  that was among the most closely watched House races in the nation at the time.

“This result does not come as a surprise given that former congressman turned lobbyist Al Wynn, whom Donna defeated in a Democratic primary in 2008, is an active member of the PAC board,” Edwards spokesman Ben Gerdes said in a statement.

Wynn, who represented Maryland’s 4th Congressional District from 1993 to 2008, declined to comment.

Several members of the Congressional Black Caucus have endorsed Edwards, including Democratic Reps. Lacy Clay of Missouri, Robin Kelly of Illinois, Hank Johnson of Georgia and Gwen Moore of Wisconsin. The caucus itself does not endorse candidates and the PAC’s board is made up of only a small number of CBC members.

Still, Edwards has received the support of only a fraction of the CBC’s 46 members.

There was initially a sense that some members were waiting out of respect for Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, a Baltimore Democrat and former CBC chairman who had considered a run for Senate himself. But when Cummings announced this month he would not seek the seat, there was no groundswell of CBC support directed toward Edwards.

A poll released in January by Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies found a close race, with Van Hollen ahead only slightly and within the survey’s margin of error. Among black voters, however, Edwards led 65 percent to Van Hollen’s 15 percent.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 13, 2016 in Democrat Primary, Stupid Democrat Tricks

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Poor in America Worse Off Than Some Poor in 3rd World Nations

Yeah…That is a shocking assertion. Unfortunately it is true. And while Donald Trump and the rest of the right jump around like syncopated baboons, the truth of the matter is that America’s decline started just about the moment Raygun took office, and modern conservatism gained political majority in the state and federal legislatures.

And unless there are some very fundamental changes in the sort of people who get elected in this country it is just going to get worse. And that needs to be a bipartisan change.

I mean as a recent example of the failure of conservatism, HTF do we get lead contaminated water killing and maiming the children of Flint, Michigan? I mean access to clean water is one of the measurements we use to gauge the progress of Third World countries. And we let a morally bankrupt political system based on the blathering of a neo-nazi sympathizer drive our state governments? Atlas “Shrugged” right after he took a shit all over you.

 

We’re No. 16! Why Donald Trump’s boorish American exceptionalism is so wrong

Here’s how we need to make America great again. In most every metric that counts, we are slipping against the world

As a resident of white suburban America, I grew up believing that, as Fox News host Sean Hannity once so eloquently put it, “The U.S. is the greatest, best country God has ever given man on the face of the earth.” This article of faith in the superiority of the U.S. was instilled deep within my brain as a child, right next to the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin and then visited by three Wise Men. But as I began to travel the world a few years ago — a globetrotting adventure that took me through Europe and Canada and inspired me to start a journal of international rankings of countries according to various metrics — it became increasingly clear that American exceptionalism is a baseless mythology of tribalistic self-aggrandizement perpetuated by people who (if I may generalize a bit) can’t locate Denmark on a map.

As it happens, the champions of this unique brand of nationalism are largely concentrated on the political right, where one also finds the attitude of anti-intellectualism in toxic doses. I don’t think this is a coincidence. The fact is that when one looks at infrastructure, life expectancy, family paid leave, health care, social mobility, income inequality, political corruption, government efficiency, economic stability, childhood poverty, student debt, water quality, education, prosperity, happiness and even Internet speed, one finds the U.S. absent from the top 10 “best countries” in every single instance. While the U.S. continues to have the largest economy in the world and by far the biggest military budget, in most categories relating to prosperity, security, happiness and well-being, the great American empire falls somewhere between the developed and the developing world.

But don’t take my word for it. As the ancient philosopher Plato once observed, beliefs without justification aren’t knowledge, and justification requires evidence. So, let’s take a gander at some statistics from various sources, beginning with the World Economic Forum (WEF), a Swiss not-for-profit foundation that’s “independent, impartial and not tied to any special interests.” According to the WEF, the U.S. fares as follows relative to the rest of the world: 16th in quality of overall infrastructure, 22nd with respect to competition, 33rd in terms of public institutions, 34th in terms of ethics and corruption, 35th in terms of health, 58th in terms of primary education, 67th in terms of security and 73rd in terms of wasteful government spending.

In terms of the WEF’s overall “global competitiveness index,” Switzerland comes in first with a value of 5.7 (out of 7), followed by Singapore with 5.6, and then the U.S., Finland, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong, and the Netherlands all tied with 5.5. So, not terrible overall — yet conservatives would cringe at the thought that we’re tied with multiple “socialist” countries for third place. As it happens, though, the U.S. is far behind such countries according to other international rankings. Forbes, for example, ranks the U.S. as the 22nd best place for business in the world, with countries like Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Finland above us. Eventhe Heritage Foundation’s 2015 Index of Economic Freedom leaves the U.S. out of the top 10, placing Hong Kong, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland and Denmark at the top.

In terms of “prosperity,” a concept that includes factors like governance, education, health, personal freedom and the economy, the London-based Legatum Instituteranks the U.S. 11th, with Norway, Switzerland, Canada and Sweden being the most prosperous. We’re also ranked 13th in the world with respect to social mobility, or the freedom for underprivileged individuals to climb the social ladder and become successful. The result is that, as Politifact confirmed in a “Mostly True” rating from 2013, it’s actually “easier to obtain the American dream in Europe” than it is in the U.S. Take a moment to let that sink in. According to the research that Politifact cites, “Of the 10 countries studied, the United States had the strongest link between parents’ education and a child’s economic, educational and socio-emotional outcomes … more pronounced than in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Nordic countries, as well as Canada and Australia.”

Social mobility is important in part because studies show that “a lack of wealth does make poor people sadder,” and social immobility prevents those without wealth from acquiring it. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the U.S. isn’t among the top 10 happiest countries. According to the most recent data, we’re the 15th happiest country in the world, behind Switzerland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway and our gentle neighbor to the north, Canada. Another factor relevant to happiness concerns the overall empowerment of women, who constitute 50.8 percent of the U.S. population. As the Global Gender Gap Index reports, countries like Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark score the best, while the U.S. ranks a shameful 20th. Yet another happiness factor relates to the prevalence of childhood poverty. Here the U.S. ranks 34th out of 35 countries considered by a recent study. Sadly, this is consistent with a 2014 report from Johns Hopkins that found that “teenagers in Baltimore face poorer health and more negative outlooks than those in urban centers of Nigeria, India and China.” Other studies have revealed that rates of PTSD among inner-city residents in America are “as high or higher than [rates among] Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam veterans.”

There’s also evidence to suggest that people “are happier in times when the gap between rich and poor is smaller.” In other words, if a country is rich but all its wealth is concentrated among a small class of elite billionaires, society as a whole might be miserable. So, how does the U.S. fare in this respect? To quote a Pew Research Center article on the issue, “the U.S. has one of the most unequal income distributions in the developed world … even after taxes and social-welfare policies are taken into account.” In fact, of the 10 richest people in the world, eight are American. And the situation of inequality is only getter worse globally: just six years ago, the 388 most affluent people owned the same wealth as the poorest 50 percent. Today, Oxfam reports that “The world’s 62 richest billionaires have as much wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population.” Yes, you read that correctly: 62.

The U.S. also ranks 43rd in the world for life expectancy, 37th with respect to health care, 20th in terms of political stability and 26th with respect to cleanliness, according to the Environmental Performance Index, maintained by researchers at Yale and Columbia University. And while we’re often an early adopter of new technology, we rank 22nd with respect to our Internet speed. Regarding our moral behavior in the world, the Global Peace Index, which ranks 162 counties according to their “national peacefulness,” places the U.S. in 94th place — closer to the bottom of the list than the top. (In fact, a 2014 global survey found that the world as a whole sees the U.S. asthe number one threat to world peace.) Furthermore, unlike many other countries in the developed (and developing) world, college education isn’t free for Americans, we don’t have a universal health care system, and we’re the only “major country” in the world that fails to provide family paid leave, as Bernie Sanders is fond of pointing out. Even our tap water isn’t among the safest in the developed world, nor do we have any of the best airports.

The point is that, as should be clear by now, there’s an unequivocal pattern of American inferiority when our country’s performance is juxtaposed with the rest of the developed world’s. Indeed, in many categories — such as childhood poverty, income inequality and family paid leave — we’re just barely a developed country, if even that. The result of these failures is that our collective quality of life is not nearly as high as it ought to be. Here it’s worth turning to the Mercer Quality of Life Survey, since it attempts to quantify the livability of some 221 cities around the world. And guess what it finds? The U.S. has only a single city in the top 30 — and it happens to be the ultra-progressive den of liberal debauchery called San Francisco. At the pinnacle of Mercer’s list are cities like Vienna, Zurich, Auckland, Munich and Vancouver. In fact, of all the cities in the North American continent, the top four are all in Canada. Now that’s just embarrassing, eh?…Read The Rest Here

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 227 other followers

%d bloggers like this: