Displaying posts published in

December 2018

Beto Is a Hit and (Chances Are He’ll) Run By Jim Treacher

https://pjmedia.com/trending/beto-is-a-hit-and-chances-are-hell-run/
“But Dems love a Kennedy. Beto might not have the pedigree, but he has the requisite driving skills. And he doesn’t look like a drooling Conan O’Brien.”
Election 2020 is uncharted territory. Nobody in politics has ever known anything, but after 2016, we all know they don’t know anything. We all know there are no rules. These clowns are just making it up as they go along, hoping that enough people will believe their lies over the other tribe’s party’s lies. That’s always been the case, but never before have so many people been so wrong about what Americans want. In 2016 they tried to sell New Coke all over again, and two years later they’re still confused and angry that America didn’t just shut up and choke it down.*

So if the Democrats decide to nominate a guy who has only two notable accomplishments under his belt — getting away with fleeing the scene of a drunk-driving accident, and getting away with transforming himself from a white dude into a Latino — it wouldn’t surprise me. I’m not sure anything can surprise me anymore.**

That seems to be how the Dems are leaning. Alex Seitz-Wald, NBC News:

An early straw poll of members of the progressive group MoveOn.org shows a wide-open competition for liberal voters in the 2020 Democratic presidential contest, with Rep. Beto O’Rourke narrowly beating out former Vice President Joe Biden…

The most popular potential candidate was O’Rourke, D-Texas, who was selected by 15.6 percent of respondents, followed by Biden at 14.9 percent, and then Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with 13.1 percent.

An elderly plagiarist and an elderly communist, narrowly beaten out by a relatively youthful blank slate upon which libs can project all their hopes and dreams. That might be why some have described Beto as “the white Obama.” Which is an insult. To Obama.

Kamala Harris only got 10 percent, by the way. Which just goes to show that Democrats are both sexist and racist. I will continue to root for her, though. It would be amazing to watch her become the first black woman to be rejected as president of the United States. And Elizabeth Warren only got 6.4 percent, which is just more evidence of the Dems’ prejudice against Native Americans.

But can Kamala or Fauxcahontas do this?

By the way, O’Rourke says he didn’t flee the scene of that 1998 drunk-driving accident, a claim that PolitiFact rated “Mostly False.” That’s a devastating ruling, considering it’s PolitiFact and he’s a Democrat. Their whole job is to twist the truth to benefit his political party, and that’s the best they could do.

. CONTINUE AT SITE

Trump sprang three traps on Pelosi and Schumer yesterday By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/trump_sprang_three_traps_on_pelosi_and_schumer_yesterday_.html

President Trump clearly shocked House speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer yesterday with his televising of the Oval Office sit-down over his demand for $5 billion in funding for border security, including funding of critical mileage for his border wall. Knowing well that Pelosi had already vowed publicly that “transparency and openness” would characterize the Democrat-run House starting next month, her plaintive request to speak in private scored points for Trump and revealed her hypocrisy before any substance at all was considered.

The remarkable body language during the meeting tells the story of Trump’s dominance. Here is the full video of the press gaggle, via Grabien:

That was merely the first of three traps Trump had prepared for the Democrats’ congressional leadership.

Trump’s second trap is his bold declaration of ownership of any “government shutdown.” Democrats have convinced themselves that what is called a “shutdown,” but really means furloughing non-essential federal workers, is a tragedy, a scar on the nation’s psyche. The fact that federal workers are now a major and solid constituency for Democrats skews their perception of the public’s concern. Aside from canceling sleigh rides in national parks and other such photo drama, the fact is that life goes on well for nearly all Americans during the furlough. They learn that there are a lot of non-essential government workers.

After multiple shutdowns, including the last one that bore the label “Schumer Shutdown” and was quickly conceded by the Democrats, the public is no longer afraid of non-essential services (roughly 25% of the government) being temporarily suspended.

Gen. Flynn was set up by FBI, told no lawyer needed when FBI sprang its perjury trap By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/gen_flynn_was_setup_by_fbi_told_no_lawyer_needed_when_they_sprang_their_perjury_trap.html

The sentencing memo submitted by lawyers for General Michael Flynn contains details that ought to outrage anyone not consumed with hatred and desire for vengeance against anyone who worked for President Trump, however briefly. Simply put, he was misled and bamboozled into a trap, based on the FBI’s own documents.

Byron York presents a superb account of the disgraceful entrapment of a distinguished general, which I urge you to read in its entirety.

He begins with a general summary:

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who arranged the bureau’s interview with then-national security adviser Michael Flynn at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 – the interview that ultimately led to Flynn’s guilty plea on one count of making false statements – suggested Flynn not have a lawyer present at the session, according to newly-filed court documents. In addition, FBI officials, along with the two agents who interviewed Flynn, decided specifically not to warn him that there would be penalties for making false statements because the agents wanted to ensure that Flynn was “relaxed” during the session.

The new information, drawn from McCabe’s account of events plus the FBI agents’ writeup of the interview – the so-called 302 report – is contained in a sentencing memo filed Tuesday by Flynn’s defense team.

The practice of the FBI not recording interviews but rather relying on agents’ notes ought to have ended a generation or more ago. The potential for abuse is obvious. At the end of the article, York notes:

In one striking detail, footnotes in the Flynn memo say the 302 report cited was dated Aug. 22, 2017 – nearly seven months after the Flynn interview. It is not clear why the report would be written so long after the interview itself.

I suspect the requirement of Miranda notifications of right to counsel probably does not apply here, as Flynn was not under arrest. But with most television viewers able to recite from memory the mandatory Miranda notice that begins, “You have the right to remain silent…,”the widespread impression that Flynn was treated unfairly is inevitable, at least if this gets any coverage in media they read. I know, it’s a slim hope…

Theresa May survives confidence vote

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46547246

Prime Minister Theresa May has won a vote of confidence in her leadership of the Conservative Party by 200 to 117.

Mrs May is now immune from a leadership challenge for a year.

But the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg said the result was “not at all comfortable” for the prime minister and a “real blow” to her authority.

Mrs May won the confidence vote with a majority of 83, with 63% of Conservative MPs backing her and 37% voting against her.

The confidence vote was triggered by 48 of her MPs angry at her Brexit policy, which they say betrays the 2016 referendum result.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, who led calls for the confidence vote, said it was a “terrible result for the prime minister” and called on her to resign.

The result was greeted by cheers and applause from Tory MPs as it was announced by backbench Tory chairman Sir Graham Brady.

The prime minister still faces a battle to get the Brexit deal she agreed with the EU through the UK Parliament, with all opposition parties and dozens of her own MPs against it.

Mrs May earlier vowed to fight on to deliver her Brexit deal, which she argues is the only option for leaving the EU in an orderly way on 29 March.

But in a last-minute pitch to her MPs before the vote she promised to stand down as leader before the next scheduled election in 2022.

Cohen’s ‘Appointment in Prague’ Was Dossier Bunk, Mueller Files Indicate by Paul Sperry

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/12/11/mueller_files_undercut_cohens_infamous_appointment_in_prague.html

It was one of the most incendiary allegations included in the Clinton-financed opposition research known as the Steele dossier – that Donald Trump’s fixer Michael Cohen met with “Kremlin officials” in Prague in 2016 to arrange payments to operatives hacking Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Despite strong denials from Cohen, the claim has shadowed the president, inspiring and coloring the Russia investigation ever since. McClatchy reported in April that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had obtained evidence of the Prague trip and likely confirmed the secret meeting.

But a flurry of court filings by Mueller last week suggests that this story is false, a damaging piece of disinformation that has roiled the nation for two years.

Officials familiar with the case said the proof is in the lack of evidence in the 25 pages of court papers Mueller has filed on Cohen over the past two weeks. The alleged Prague visit is not evident in the plea agreement, the criminal information statement or the sentencing memorandum, none of which contain redactions.

In fact, language in the filings strongly indicates prosecutors have not found evidence to authenticate the Prague rumor, according to people familiar with the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

They point to the sentencing memo filed Friday, for starters. On page 5, Mueller stated that Cohen “has provided relevant and truthful information” about “his own contacts with Russian interests during the campaign” to prosecutors in their investigation of Russian election interference. Though Mueller details contacts Cohen made with various Russians, he offers no evidence he contacted Kremlin officials in Prague, as described in the dossier. The Czech city, in fact, is not cited in any of his filings, though Moscow, St. Petersburg, Davos and other cities are.

MY SAY: CONTEMPORARY QUESTIONS ASKED IN 1855

https://readgreatliterature.com/trollopes-the-warden-empathy-v-the-media

What famous novelist attacked false news and the unbalanced power of a money-driven mainstream media, and in what novel?
What famous novelist, in this same novel, faulted popular storytellers for creating blind emotion and simplistic portrayals of “good” or “bad” people?
What famous novelist attacked a famous public intellectual for his bombastic cynicism about everything in the modern world?
What novelist thought the central character of a work should be neither a faultless victim nor a morally pristine super-person, but rather an ordinary man, weak but well-meaning, a “mixed” character with good and bad, noble and foolish characteristics all mixed together?

Answer: My favorite novelist Anthony Trollope, in the first of the Barchester Chronicles “The Warden” in 1855. rsk

Trump-Haters Smell Blood Over Cohen’s Charges But where is a true smoking gun, exactly? Joseph Klein

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272204/trump-haters-smell-blood-over-cohens-charges-joseph-klein

The chorus of Trump-haters rushing to brand President Trump a criminal has gotten considerably louder since last Friday. That was the day prosecutors in the Southern District of New York and from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office separately filed their sentencing recommendations against ex-Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen. Cohen had pleaded guilty to a variety of charges, including of lying to Congress. The Mueller sentencing memo contained some teasers on the Russian collusion investigation. However, the teasers seem to have fallen flat, including the Moscow tower project promoted by Cohen, which never got off the ground, and a cryptic reference to “political synergy” offered by a Russian official as early as 2015 that Cohen apparently did not pursue. Instead, the Trump-haters have turned their attention to the portion of the New York prosecutors’ sentencing memorandum regarding Cohen’s admitted federal election campaign finance law violations, which the Trump-haters are counting on to spell trouble for the president.

The prosecutors in New York accepted as true in their sentencing memorandum Cohen’s claim that he had arranged for the payment of hush money to two past alleged Trump paramours in violation of federal election campaign finance laws, doing so “in coordination with and at the direction of” President Trump (referred to as “Individual #1” in their sentencing memo). That is all the Trump-haters had to hear before declaring that it was curtains for the president. Smelling blood in the water, they are looking beyond impeachment to possible jail time once the president leaves office.

On Sunday morning’s edition of CNN’s Reliable Sources, for example, Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein, still living on his reputation from that decades-old scandal, said, “There’s something much more important than just impeachment going on, and that is the fact that Donald Trump for the first time in his life is cornered.”

The Obama administration’s former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal said on CNN: “Even if a sitting president can’t be indicted, he’s got to know his future looks like it’s behind bars unless he cuts some sort of deal with the prosecutors.”

Kevin Hart and the Politics of Comedy What we are really talking about is tyranny. Bruce Thornton

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272193/kevin-hart-and-politics-comedy-bruce-thornton

For a few days last week it seemed we might witness a rare example of integrity, independence, and courage in Hollywood, that herd of independent minds. Comedian Kevin Hart was slated to host the Oscars, but some tweets insulting to gays from several years ago surfaced, and the Salemite usual suspects began clamoring for the stake.

At first Hart refused to go through the social-media show-trial of groveling apologies. He gave common-sense response that even The New York Times accepted: “Guys, I’m almost 40,” he said. “If you don’t believe that people change, grow, evolve as they get older, I don’t know what to tell you.” Faced with an ultimatum from the Academy to apologize, Hart “passed” on the Academy’s demand.

For a brief moment, champions of free speech and moral courage were heartened. In an industry famous for cutthroat careerism and ruthless ambition checked only by orthodoxy and conformity, for Hart to give up a gig as prestigious and lucrative as hosting the Oscars is unheard of.

But soon it was business as usual. Hart caved, and announced, “I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community for my insensitive words from my past . . . I’m sorry that I hurt people. I am evolving and want to continue to do so.” The wolves, however, weren’t satisfied. Hart is now being attacked because his apology was “botched” and “insincere.” He needed to grovel more and show true contrition and evidence he’s “changed.” The p.c. police weren’t done yet with making an example of him to warn any other celebrity who dares stray from the identity-politics plantation.

The censorship of comedians for their content, however, has implications far beyond one comedian or form of entertainment. Controlling criticism of any group because something is deemed offensive or inappropriate ultimately privileges one point of view over another, and weakens everybody’s free-speech rights.

Comedy especially is linked to free speech. Formal comedy arose 2500 years ago at the same time as political free speech, democratic freedom, and equality, and has always had a political purpose––affirming our political equality by satirizing and mocking any group or faction that claims at the expense of other groups a right to more power than it deserves.

Transgender Men Announce They’re Raising a Gender-Neutral Child By Faith Moore

https://pjmedia.com/trending/transgender-men-announce-theyre-raising-a-gender-neutral-child/

“When asked if Zo is a boy or a girl, Zo’s parents reply, “We don’t know yet. We’re waiting for Zo to tell us.”

Zo is an adorable 22-month-old baby whose gender is a mystery. Well, not a mystery exactly. Zo’s parents know what sex Zo is (meaning, what genitalia he/she has) but they refuse to reveal it. This is because they have chosen to raise Zo “gender neutral.” Zo is referred to as “they” and, when asked if Zo is a boy or a girl, Zo’s parents reply, “We don’t know yet. We’re waiting for Zo to tell us.”

Zo’s parents are both transgender men, meaning they were born women but identify as men. So it seems fairly clear (to me at least) that their decision stems from their own feelings of being “assigned” the wrong gender. But with fewer than one percent of the American population identifying as transgender, the likelihood that Zo will face the same issues his/her parents did is highly unlikely. Assuming that Zo will grow up to identify with the gender that matches his/her genitalia, surely raising her “gender-neutral” is just as damaging or confusing for Zo as being raised as the “wrong” gender was for his/her parents.

In a video for TicToc by Bloomberg, Nathan Levitt, one of Zo’s parents, explains his decision to raise Zo “gender-neutral” by saying, “We felt like there are so many gender stereotypes that get put on kids… and then so many decisions are made from that.” Levitt and his husband are waiting for Zo “to identify as whatever gender they want to whenever they feel that’s right for them” and they are open to the idea that “that might change at some point.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Mueller’s Collusion Hoax Collapses By Conrad Black

https://amgreatness.com/2018/12/11/muellers-co

The sudden death of the unutterable nonsense of collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and the Russian government, announced as it was in the hand-off to the Southern New York U.S. Attorney of the shabby fruit of Michael Cohen’s plea bargaining, has divided onlookers into three communities of opinion.

The true believers in the collusion canard are left slack-jawed, like the international Left after the announcement of the Nazi-Soviet Pact: an immense fervor of faith is instantly destroyed; it is the stillness of a sudden and immense evaporation.

The professional Trump-haters, the Democratic Party assassination squads in the Congress and media, like disciplined soldiers, have swiveled with parade ground precision and resumed firing after a mere second to reload, at the equally fatuous nonsense about illegal campaign contributions. Disreputable, contemptible myth-makers and smear-jobbers though they are, they deserve credit for fanaticism, improvisation, and managing in unison to sound half plausible in the face of the crushing defeat they have suffered and the piffle and pottage they are left to moralize about.

Third, and slowest to respond, so sudden has been the change of the whole Trump-hate narrative, are those who never wavered from the requirement of real evidence of something before they would endorse the drastic act of impeaching and removing the nation’s leader. Some feel betrayed and some vindicated, but sensing no need for instant response, unlike the Trump-haters who are scrambling to try to cooper up some credibility for continuing their assault on the president, the third group is preparing with only deliberate speed to counter-attack the assassins-by-impeachment with their full and now overpowering armament of facts and law.

The Trump-haters can make a strong case that the president is an obnoxious public personality—that he is boastful, exaggerates constantly, sends out silly tweets with grade two typographical errors in them and gets into ill-tempered slanging matches with half the people with whom he comes into contact. To a great many, he is just refreshingly puncturing official self-importance.

But whatever anyone thinks of Trump, there are two points his enemies will have to face: he won the 2016 election and that can only be undone by the 2020 election, and high office-holders can only be impeached and removed from office by high crimes and misdemeanors as prescribed by the Constitution.