Displaying posts published in

February 2018

Pelosi celebrates her grandson’s racial self-hatred in marathon House speech By Thomas Lifson

It was inevitable that when speaking for 8 straight hours on the House floor, Nancy Pelosi would spout some crazy nonsense. But I was not prepared for what only can be called a depraved celebration of racial self-hatred. The muddled state of her thinking was on display when she spoke praise of her grandson wishing he were not white. Tucker Carlson (video below) captured the pathetic nature of her celebration of racial self-hatred when she said:

I’m reminded of my own grandson. He had a very close friend whose name is Antonio, is he from Guatemala. And he has beautiful, tan skin, beautiful brown eyes. And the rest. And this was such a proud day for me because when my grandson blew out the candles on his cake, they said did you make a wish? And he said yes, I made a wish.

I said what is your wish? He said I wish I had brown skin and brown eyes like Antonio. So beautiful. So beautiful. The beauty is in the mix.

Carlson’s response was appropriate, but I have some further thoughts below his.

Text via Grabien:

Was it healthy to hate yourself for the way that God made you? Nancy Pelosi thinks it is. Their delight says everything about the modern Democratic Party. Certain races are good. Others are bad. So bad that it’s considered beautiful to hate your own innate appearance and want it changed. And that Pelosi is saying one of the main reasons she supports mass immigration so America will look different and in her view better than it does now.

Now, whatever you think of that idea, it is a genuinely radical sentiment. Nobody has said anything like that on the House floor for a long time. They used to. But they don’t anymore. And for good reason. Elevating one race over another is the definition of bigotry.

Poor Dubya, out on the big-dollar lecture circuit, and absolutely nothing to say By Monica Showalter

The Associated Press is trying to make hay out of a non-issue, highlighting that former President George W. Bush is somehow at odds with the Trump administration over the issue of Russian election meddling.

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Former President George W. Bush said on Thursday that “there’s pretty clear evidence that the Russians meddled” in the 2016 American presidential election, forcefully rebutting fellow Republican Donald Trump’s denials of Moscow trying to affect the vote.

While never mentioning President Trump by name, Bush appeared to be pushing back on Trump’s attempts to have warmer relations with Russia, as well as his comments on immigration.

Actually, none of this describes reality. Did he really forcefully push? AP gave no evidence of that in its story. Meanwhile, Trump, via his United Nations ambassador, Nikki Haley, and others, has condemned in downright overharsh terms the Russian electoral meddling problem. What’s more, relations with Russia are the frostiest they’ve ever been, as the full shutdown of the Russian consulates in San Francisco and elsewhere – as well as the word of my own Russian sources – would suggest. There’s no daylight on the issue, so score nothing on the ignorant and ideologically motivated Associated Press piece.

Actually, it sounds like the AP was trying to make news out of a lot of non-news. The subject at hand was George W. Bush’s speaking engagement in Abu Dhabi, which was put on by the Milken Institute. Though I suspect he was paid well to attend this event, which was dubbed ‘A Conversation with George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States.’ I couldn’t find any evidence of quid pro quo, the delayed bribery of high-paid speeches that made his father as well as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama so famous in their post-presidencies. The Milken Institute is reputable and so far as I can tell, there wasn’t any. The AP didn’t have any news there.

Obama Knew The then-president wanted “to know everything” the FBI was doing in the Russia probe. Matthew Vadum

Former President Obama wanted “to know everything” the FBI was doing in its investigation into claims that Russia was interfering in the 2016 election, a new report suggests, raising the specter of a sitting president becoming involved in a plot to rig the 2016 election.

It was a year ago the outlines of a Watergate-like conspiracy emerged in which a term-limited Democrat president used the privacy-invading apparatus of the state to spy on a Republican presidential candidate. Watergate differed in that President Nixon didn’t get involved in the plot against the Democratic National Committee until later as an accomplice after the fact.

But this new evidence suggests Obama may have been part of a sinister anti-democratic cabal from the beginning.

The assertion that Obama wanted “to know everything we’re doing” came in a private Sept. 2, 2016, text message from FBI lawyer Lisa Page to FBI agent Peter Strzok, with whom she was having an extramarital affair at the time. (The exact message, time-stamped 1:50 p.m., reads “Yes, bc potus wants to know everything we are doing.”) In a separate, previously revealed text message to Page, Strzok wrote something cryptic about an “insurance policy” in case Donald Trump got elected. Some have speculated he was referring to the salacious, unverified dossier the DNC paid rent-a-spy Christopher Steele to compile that purports to show Trump’s nefarious links to Russia.

At one point, the foul-mouthed Trump-hating duo whose text messages show a visceral contempt for Republican voters, both worked for Special Counsel Robert Mueller who has been investigating the still-unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that then-candidate Donald Trump somehow colluded with Russia to throw the presidential contest his way.

An Absence of Mind in the Hindu Kush by Mark Steyn

~I commented recently on Tucker that I preferred the Internet of a decade ago to the increasingly totalitarian social-media cartel of today: Facebook, YouTube, Twitter. Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, feels the same way:

I think that the old blogosphere was superior to “social media” like Twitter and Facebook for a number of reasons. First, as a loosely-coupled system, instead of the tightly-coupled systems built by retweets and shares, it was less prone to cascading failure in the form of waves of hysteria. Second, because there was no central point of control, there was no way to ban people. And you didn’t need one, since bloggers had only the audience that deliberately chose to visit their blogs.

The Internet of the post-9/11 years already seems like a lost Golden Age. Twitter in particular seems to have no purpose other than cascading “waves of hysteria”. I mentioned on air both Facebook’s viral snuff videos, and the suicide of a Canadian porn actress after a Tweetstorm of homophobia accusations from LGBTQWERTY types who subsequently gloated over her passing. “Social media” plays a role in more deaths than, say, America’s supposedly all-powerful “white supremacist” movement. But, unlike the latter, nobody seems bothered about the former.

~This week’s Spectator contains a piece with the following headline:

Do the Americans know who they’re fighting in Afghanistan — or why?

What follows doesn’t really ask that question – in part because we all know what the answer is. One of President Trump’s great contributions to the public discourse is that he sees people as winners (him) or losers (Crooked Hillary. Sad!), and that he would prefer America to be in the former category. That’s why his decision to string along with existing Afghan policy is so unTrumpian: If there is any US strategy left in the Hindu Kush, it’s to lose so slowly no one back home notices.

Jason Burke’s Speccie piece is a review of a new book by Steve Coll called Directorate S: The CIA and America’s Secret War in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 2001-2016. As old Islamabad hands will know, “Directorate S” is the secret unit dealing with Afghan affairs in Pakistan’s ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), which itself celebrates its seventieth birthday this year. The ISI was set up by Sir Robert Cawthorne, then Deputy Chief of Staff of the fledgling Pakistani Army, and like so many bright ideas of well-intentioned men in that part of the world it jumped the tracks fairly spectacularly. But the very fact that a book about “America’s longest war” is named after a malign Pakistani black-ops racket tells you something about the tenuous grasp Washington has of the situation. In his review, Mr Burke writes of Afghanistan before the US intervention:

Bagram had been captured by the Taliban, who then exercised nominal control over 80 per cent of Afghanistan.

Human Rights NGOs–The World’s Most Lethal Evil-Doers by Rael Jean Isaac

The world’s most lethal evil-doers are the NGOs that fly under a false flag, claiming to be champions of human rights. Their potency comes from the fact that unlike other of the world’s worst actors—think Kim Jung Un—they are not feared and despised but admired and treated as moral arbiters. A billion dollar a year industry, these NGOs reinforce their moral with financial muscle. Gerald Steinberg, founder and director of NGO Monitor, has been alone in following these outfits for the last fifteen years. He observes that human rights NGOs show “that soft power can sometimes be more dangerous than hard power.”

And while Israel is their most obvious target, they have bigger game in their sights—the transformation of Western societies and culture through mass immigration.

Human rights NGOs bear a major responsibility for the demonizing of Israel in the West. In Catch the Jew Tuvia Tenenbom, masquerading as Tobi the German, focuses on the hundreds of so-called human rights NGOs that infest Israel and the Palestinian-controlled territories in search of Israeli misdeeds—and fabricate them (sometimes stage them) as they come up short. Many of these NGOs are basically front groups for terrorists and assorted destroy-Israel groups. In 1917 Steinberg finally was able to persuade the Danish government to stop funding the Human Rights International Humanitarian Law Secretariat, an NGO framework established in 2013 at Bir Zeit University in Ramallah with an annual budget of millions of euros paid for by the governments of Sweden, Holland, Denmark and Switzerland. In an interview with journalist Ruthie Blum, Steinberg says that his research has shown that of the 24 core NGOs funded by the Secretariat, six had ties to the Marxist-Leninist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (on the EU’s official list of terrorist organizations) and 15 were involved in world-wide campaigns to destroy Israel by economic means.

John de Meyrick Making Laws Against Hurt Feelings

We live in an age of ideological self-awareness, a world of identity politics and human rights activism, where those among us with any common characteristic or condition, or particular cause or opinion, can coalesce into active pressure groups each demanding recognition of its perceived “cotton wool” rights.

It is often claimed that the law is now soft on crime and weak on social and civil wrongdoing. By comparison with what it was like during the life and times of nineteenth-century Australia, our present-day laws are indeed very soft.

Stealing a sheep in the 1820s invited the death penalty.[1] Convicts were flogged for being rude to an official;[2] and when George Howe was given permission to publish Australia’s first newspaper, the Sydney Gazette in 1803, the country was not ready for a free press—it had to be “passed by the governor’s inspector”.[3]

All of that changed with the moving times and the development of an enlightened democratic system of government. Steal sheep now and you might get away with a community service order;[4] be rude to whoever you like and so what; while the media can report and criticise anyone or anything it believes to be deserving of it.[5]

Well, that is unless you offend, insult or humiliate someone who claims their sensibilities and feelings have been hurt. I’m referring, of course, to the long-running debate over section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975[6] in respect of which several trivial complaints with a racial connotation, as dealt with by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), have given rise to public controversy and concern.

Bill Martin: Blind Eyes and the Russiagate ‘Scandal’

Australian reporters assigned to cover the United States pack their leanings — Left ones, of course — with their socks when they jet off to relay the action in Washington. Either that or they are bone lazy. There is a ripper scandal unfolding on Capitol Hill but explaining it in full has been too much trouble

Any investment of faith in the Australian media’s reporting of events in Washington will not produce a dividend, as must be obvious after more than 12 months of monkey-see/monkey-cut-and-paste dispatches from our less-than-intrepid foreign correspondents. This is perhaps understandable, given the prevailing Left slant of all local newsrooms, especially the ABC and Fairfax. When their journalists leave for stints Stateside they pack their prejudices along with their socks. Having departed Australia imbued with their media colleagues’ prevailing view that Donald Trump is a scoundrel who must surely be impeached, they naturally turn for story ideas, if not enlightenment, to like-minded American outlets. Hence are Australians served served endless “scoops”about Russian chicanery, the First Lady’s alleged emotional estrangement from her husband and what are purported to be his white-supremacist sympathies.

How derelict is the Australian media in covering the US? Just ask yourself how much you have heard or read about, to name but two scandals, the Obama administration’s bugging of troublesome reporters and its weaponisation of the Internal Revenue Service against political opponents. More recently the coverage of Hillary Clinton’s hacked campaign emails always seem to mention the theft without detailing what was stolen. References to “spirit cooking” and the rigging of the primaries against Bernie Sanders don’t fit the narrative of the world’s smartest, most decent, honest and upright woman having been foiled in her ambitions by Russian perfidy don’t fit the narrative, so they get scant attention, if any attention at all.

Fortunately, unlike the bad old days, the internet makes it possible to keep tabs on developments from a distance and circumvent the media’s gatekeepers. Thus, when fallen-silent Fairfax Media correspondent Paul McGeough reports that Trump’s election unleashed a wave of horrific hate crimes, you can use Google to check the veracity of his story’s headline, “Make America hate again: how Donald Trump’s victory has emboldened bigotry “. Were you to cross-reference the litany of alleged assaults against this site, which tracks bogus “hate crimes”, you’ll find all but one or two incidents have been refuted by police. What you won’t find on the web or anywhere else is an Age, SMH or Canberra Times renunciation of the original reporting — an omission that brings me to the point I’d like to make about the current situation in the US, as understood by an interested layman.

Tony Thomas Strength for the Fight Against PC

There was defiance aplenty at the launch of Rowan Dean’s new book, and a measure of hope as well — hope that the politically correct tyranny of the self-anointed (and all too often taxpayer-funded) will soon be eclipsed. But only if those who recognise knaves and fools when they hear them dare to speak up.

Australian university students are starting to rise up against Left brainwashing and political correctness. But such rebels must be prepared to pay a high price for openly challenging the zeitgeist on campus.

Case in point: a young woman studying and working at Melbourne University, who spoke up at an Institute of Public Affairs function in Melbourne last night (Wed). She asked Spectator editor Rowan Dean, who was there for the launch of his novel Corkscrewed, how she could openly express her politically incorrect views at the university and still hold on to her job.

Dean said she would suffer for speaking out but ultimately would be respected. Many others were in similar situations. “You have to be true to what you believe in. Put up with the ratbags. It’s sticks-and-stones stuff. But, yes, you can lose your job unfortunately. That is Australia today. It is terrifying, but do you want to work in a place where you are forever watching what you say? If they do you wrong, go to Andrew Bolt and spread it on national TV.”

IPA policy director Simon Breheny said young people are now recognizing that Western ideology is best and also under attack. He told the student, “You will lose friends but gain others. People must know what is happening. So many people are making the same calculations as you. If they all keep quiet to keep their job, no-one will know this is happening. You’re not alone at all. Our IPA campus coordinators say a thousand kids have joined our program in the past 18 months.

$20 Billion Hidden in the Swamp: Feds Redact 255,000 Salaries By Adam Andrzejewski

The only thing the bureaucratic resistance hates more than President Trump is the disclosure of their own salaries. It’s a classic case of the bureaucracy protecting the bureaucracy, underscoring the resistance faced by the new administration.

Recently, Open the Books filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (pictured) for all federal employee names, titles, agencies, salaries, and bonus information. We’ve captured and posted online this data for the past 11 years. For the first time, we found missing information throughout the federal payroll disclosures. Here’s a sample of what we discovered from the FY2017 records:

254,839 federal salaries were redacted in the federal civil service payroll (just 3,416 salaries were redacted in FY2016).
68 federal departments redacted salaries. Even small agencies like the National Transportation Services Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation redacted millions of dollars in salaries.
$20 billion in estimated payroll now lacks transparency.
A 7,360 percent increase in opacity hides one out of every five federal salaries.

Who’s the bureaucrat in charge? Not a Trump appointee – the president doesn’t even have a current nominee at OPM. So, the buck stops with new acting Director Kathleen McGettigan, a 25-year staffer who assumed the position because she was the next in line, not because the White House appointed her.


I get tons of emails from Trump-friendly sites every day, and am overwhelmed by the voluntary and necessary task of reading the news, until I nod off in exhaustion. I thought the deluge had peaked during the 2016 presidential campaign, but the Niagara Falls of information keeps coming, creating clouds of fake news vapors. Now it’s not whether or not Trump wipes the floor with Hillary, but it’s the latest MSM conniption fit with hair being torn out in angry exasperation and furious foot-stamping, and over Trump’s hair. If it isn’t about whether or not the FISA memo ought to be released, to the style of Trump’s socks, then it’s about what he keeps on his “racist” Oval Office desk.

One thing that worries me about the FBI/State Department/NSA scandal is that one or all of the culprits named in the release of the FISA memo will not be punished; that is arrested, cuffed, charged, and hauled off to detention or put under house arrest with ankle bracelets before being tried for treason, plotting to overthrow a properly elected President, suborning Congress, and a baker’s dozen of other serious crimes.

None of these people should be allowed to live easily and go golfing after being outed as obsessed criminals: James Comey, Robert Mueller, Hillary Clinton, Andrew McCabe, John Podesta, Rod Rosenstein, Sally Yates, FBI agents Peter Strzok and his mistress, Lisa Page, and a dozen or more others afflicted with Never-Trump brain seizures, including Barack Obama, who, as then President, okayed the wire-tapping of Trump Tower in New York City. This operation was directed against President Trump, who should take it personally, if nothing else, and call for their arrests, but hasn’t (yet). Americans have not seen any indication that he will slap the guilty with iron gloves.

Christopher Steele, the one-time British spy and Trump dossier fabricator, ought to be extradited to the U.S. and made to answer for his contribution to a fraud.

On both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, former British MI-6 Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele is going to extremes to avoiding answering questions from the United States Congress, while at the same time avoiding being videotaped and deposed in a multi-million dollar libel case brought against Buzzfeed.

At the very least, the culprits should be sentenced to the mandatory testing of consuming converted human waste as astronaut food, to see if it’s acceptable NASA fare to anyone in the astronaut corps.