Month: November 2017

The Perfumed Princes of the Pentagon


If you’re not familiar with the term “Perfumed Prince,” take a look at Air Force LTG Jay Silveria, Commander of the Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs.

Silveria achieved the national spotlight by chewing out the entire class over racial slurs posted on five cadets’ quarters.  Months later, it turned out that one of the targets was actually the perpetrator.

Here are some bullet points from a field manual.

Get the facts, before you act.

Solve problems at the lowest level.

Concede a mistake.

Praise in public, reprimand in private.

General “Knee-Jerk” violated all of them.  When confronted with his error, he replied that this had to be said anyway.  Apparently, he was conflating the Charlottesville protests with his own command, not to mention a likely disdain for his commander in chief.

But here we have an intelligence failure.  Charlottesville may well have been a false flag operation.  So was the “hoax” at Silveria’s academy.  Intelligence must be timely and adequate.  Silveria was spot-on with time but dismally inadequate despite plenty of open source information, aka “news”.

The general ranted himself into an ambush.

Wonder why we don’t win wars?

Colonel David Hackworth coined the term “Perfumed Princes”  to describe the leaders who sidestepped the Vietnam disaster and infested the senior ranks, playing the academic or business manager while they squeezed out soldiers on the soggy end.

But Silveria’s rant went beyond careerism.  Silveria ordered everyone to video his rant on their cell phones to make sure his spiel went prime-time.  Everyone from Senator McCain to Joe Biden heaped the praise.  The Washington Post opined, “Too bad Trump can’t emulate the military when it comes to matters of race.”

“Eau de Diversity” is the fab fragrance of the Perfumed Princes as required by the political elite.

Martin Dempsey, 18th chairman of the Army chief of staff, 2011-2015, persisted with the hyphenated American being our strength to the end of his career.  Never mind that the attack at Fort Hood in 2009 was perpetrated by a Muslim-American Army psychiatrist-major.  Of this, Gen. George W. Casey, Jr. chimed in at the time, “as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

The tragedy was that Hasan’s behavior had been scaring the pants off his colleagues in Army mental health, of all places, for years.  But they understand.  Diversity comes first.

The tragedy was that the Army maintained that firing some 140 rounds in a medical processing center while yelling “Allahu akbar” was “workplace violence” until 2015, when a funding bill forced the Perfumed Princes to reclassify the incident as “combat-related.”  Until then, all the dozens of victims had been denied appropriate benefits and the Purple Heart, thirteen awarded posthumously.

Marine staff sergeant Joseph Chamblin was punished for having urinated on a Taliban corpse five years ago.  The conviction was overturned this November, after discovering that then-general Amos had interfered in the judicial proceeding.  Amos wanted this sort of thing “crushed.” 

Chamblin maintains that he made the incriminating video as a propaganda ploy, “because if an infidel touches the body, they’re not going to Mecca or paradise.”  This is right out of Brigadier General John Pershing’s successful tactics in the Philippines, 1909-1913, not to mention Clausewitz’s concept of “the will” and of knowing one’s enemy.  Of course, the opponents are “diverse,” or they wouldn’t be at war to begin with.

Chamblin is luckier than Lt. Clint Lorance, who is serving a twenty-year sentence for opening fire on suspected Taliban scouts when they ran his check point.  Lorance is one of the Leavenworth 10, referring to a fluctuating number of U.S. servicemen serving time while known terrorists are released from GITMO.

This isn’t a matter of holding ourselves to higher standards.  It’s a matter of having no standards at all.  Despite having made “war on terrorism” for sixteen years, the Perfumed Princes have yet to provide guidance – neither on trying terrorists nor on how novel rules of engagement translate into traditional military jurisprudence.  It’s all just fine, just the way it is, whatever it is, even with terms more generous to the enemy than to our own troops, who are just canonical cannon fodder.

Two Navy SEALs are presently under investigation for the death of Green Beret Logan Melgar in Niger.  (Where is Niger, anyway? ) Pilfering money from a fund intended to pay informants may be involved.  Funds like this are tempting.  That is their military purpose.  Proper administration requires multiple levels of oversight so that everyone up the chain has to be complicit if anyone pilfers.  External audits look for money spent with no results.

But the Perfumed Princes don’t really care about money.  They don’t care about results, either.  Congress appropriates money it borrows from a printing press and dumps it into an Authorization for the Use of Military Force that doesn’t have any milestones.  How can anyone audit that?

A rule of thumb is that if pacification hasn’t succeeded in seven years, then the insurgency has won, or another insurgency has taken its place.  Parallel wars can spin off as long as someone’s around with a gripe and guns.  Our “war on terror” has become another “war on poverty” or “war on crime.”  But that’s fine just the way it is with the Perfumed Princes.  Funding, anyone?

The latest snafu is a recruit shortage.  No kidding!  Word gets around.  Bradley Manning gets a pardon.  Bowe Bergdahl walks on a dishonorable discharge.  Clint Lorence remains in jail.  Got it!  Corrective action is to waive mental disorders, a novel solution even for an army as committed to diversity as ours.

Understand: the Perfumed Princes are not lowering the standards.  The perfumed policy is to forward waivers for evaluation in the light of “new knowledge” about mental disorders.  The mental health evaluators are Nidal Hasan’s colleagues.  They understand.  Numbers count.

There also remains a large body of “old knowledge” in which homosexual behavior indicates mental disorders.

Bradley Manning received counseling regarding his sexual problems as required by regulation and cognizant authority.  The problem here is that cognizant authority is a Perfumed Prince.  It took a full-blown act of treason and espionage to reach the proper diagnosis.

American elites are killing America.  But when our most focused, disciplined, and universal institution withers, it’s time to stop, smell the roses, and pin the carnations.  Perfumed Princes are not going to fall on their own swords.

Bowe Bergdahl and Bradley Manning are of grotesquely inadequate characters, but it’s not to avoid jail that they enlisted.   ‘Twas a time when a judge could offer enlistment, in certain cases, in lieu of jail.  It put a burden upon the military, but not an unusual one.  Numbers count.  Some didn’t make it, although many did, under military leaders.  But that’s not what LTG Silveria is training up.  God knows this generation is hurting for leaders like what no generation America has ever bred.

If you’re not familiar with the term “Perfumed Prince,” take a look at Air Force LTG Jay Silveria, Commander of the Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs.

Silveria achieved the national spotlight by chewing out the entire class over racial slurs posted on five cadets’ quarters.  Months later, it turned out that one of the targets was actually the perpetrator.

Here are some bullet points from a field manual.

Get the facts, before you act.

Solve problems at the lowest level.

Concede a mistake.

Praise in public, reprimand in private.

General “Knee-Jerk” violated all of them.  When confronted with his error, he replied that this had to be said anyway.  Apparently, he was conflating the Charlottesville protests with his own command, not to mention a likely disdain for his commander in chief.

But here we have an intelligence failure.  Charlottesville may well have been a false flag operation.  So was the “hoax” at Silveria’s academy.  Intelligence must be timely and adequate.  Silveria was spot-on with time but dismally inadequate despite plenty of open source information, aka “news”.

The general ranted himself into an ambush.

Wonder why we don’t win wars?

Colonel David Hackworth coined the term “Perfumed Princes”  to describe the leaders who sidestepped the Vietnam disaster and infested the senior ranks, playing the academic or business manager while they squeezed out soldiers on the soggy end.

But Silveria’s rant went beyond careerism.  Silveria ordered everyone to video his rant on their cell phones to make sure his spiel went prime-time.  Everyone from Senator McCain to Joe Biden heaped the praise.  The Washington Post opined, “Too bad Trump can’t emulate the military when it comes to matters of race.”

“Eau de Diversity” is the fab fragrance of the Perfumed Princes as required by the political elite.

Martin Dempsey, 18th chairman of the Army chief of staff, 2011-2015, persisted with the hyphenated American being our strength to the end of his career.  Never mind that the attack at Fort Hood in 2009 was perpetrated by a Muslim-American Army psychiatrist-major.  Of this, Gen. George W. Casey, Jr. chimed in at the time, “as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

The tragedy was that Hasan’s behavior had been scaring the pants off his colleagues in Army mental health, of all places, for years.  But they understand.  Diversity comes first.

The tragedy was that the Army maintained that firing some 140 rounds in a medical processing center while yelling “Allahu akbar” was “workplace violence” until 2015, when a funding bill forced the Perfumed Princes to reclassify the incident as “combat-related.”  Until then, all the dozens of victims had been denied appropriate benefits and the Purple Heart, thirteen awarded posthumously.

Marine staff sergeant Joseph Chamblin was punished for having urinated on a Taliban corpse five years ago.  The conviction was overturned this November, after discovering that then-general Amos had interfered in the judicial proceeding.  Amos wanted this sort of thing “crushed.” 

Chamblin maintains that he made the incriminating video as a propaganda ploy, “because if an infidel touches the body, they’re not going to Mecca or paradise.”  This is right out of Brigadier General John Pershing’s successful tactics in the Philippines, 1909-1913, not to mention Clausewitz’s concept of “the will” and of knowing one’s enemy.  Of course, the opponents are “diverse,” or they wouldn’t be at war to begin with.

Chamblin is luckier than Lt. Clint Lorance, who is serving a twenty-year sentence for opening fire on suspected Taliban scouts when they ran his check point.  Lorance is one of the Leavenworth 10, referring to a fluctuating number of U.S. servicemen serving time while known terrorists are released from GITMO.

This isn’t a matter of holding ourselves to higher standards.  It’s a matter of having no standards at all.  Despite having made “war on terrorism” for sixteen years, the Perfumed Princes have yet to provide guidance – neither on trying terrorists nor on how novel rules of engagement translate into traditional military jurisprudence.  It’s all just fine, just the way it is, whatever it is, even with terms more generous to the enemy than to our own troops, who are just canonical cannon fodder.

Two Navy SEALs are presently under investigation for the death of Green Beret Logan Melgar in Niger.  (Where is Niger, anyway? ) Pilfering money from a fund intended to pay informants may be involved.  Funds like this are tempting.  That is their military purpose.  Proper administration requires multiple levels of oversight so that everyone up the chain has to be complicit if anyone pilfers.  External audits look for money spent with no results.

But the Perfumed Princes don’t really care about money.  They don’t care about results, either.  Congress appropriates money it borrows from a printing press and dumps it into an Authorization for the Use of Military Force that doesn’t have any milestones.  How can anyone audit that?

A rule of thumb is that if pacification hasn’t succeeded in seven years, then the insurgency has won, or another insurgency has taken its place.  Parallel wars can spin off as long as someone’s around with a gripe and guns.  Our “war on terror” has become another “war on poverty” or “war on crime.”  But that’s fine just the way it is with the Perfumed Princes.  Funding, anyone?

The latest snafu is a recruit shortage.  No kidding!  Word gets around.  Bradley Manning gets a pardon.  Bowe Bergdahl walks on a dishonorable discharge.  Clint Lorence remains in jail.  Got it!  Corrective action is to waive mental disorders, a novel solution even for an army as committed to diversity as ours.

Understand: the Perfumed Princes are not lowering the standards.  The perfumed policy is to forward waivers for evaluation in the light of “new knowledge” about mental disorders.  The mental health evaluators are Nidal Hasan’s colleagues.  They understand.  Numbers count.

There also remains a large body of “old knowledge” in which homosexual behavior indicates mental disorders.

Bradley Manning received counseling regarding his sexual problems as required by regulation and cognizant authority.  The problem here is that cognizant authority is a Perfumed Prince.  It took a full-blown act of treason and espionage to reach the proper diagnosis.

American elites are killing America.  But when our most focused, disciplined, and universal institution withers, it’s time to stop, smell the roses, and pin the carnations.  Perfumed Princes are not going to fall on their own swords.

Bowe Bergdahl and Bradley Manning are of grotesquely inadequate characters, but it’s not to avoid jail that they enlisted.   ‘Twas a time when a judge could offer enlistment, in certain cases, in lieu of jail.  It put a burden upon the military, but not an unusual one.  Numbers count.  Some didn’t make it, although many did, under military leaders.  But that’s not what LTG Silveria is training up.  God knows this generation is hurting for leaders like what no generation America has ever bred.



Source link

Two kinds of truth: actual and political


“…there are two kinds of truth in this world.  The truth that is the unalterable bedrock of one’s life and mission.  And the other, malleable truth of politicians, charlatans, corrupt lawyers, and their clients, bent and molded to serve whatever purpose was at hand.”  Michael Connelly, Two Kinds of Truth 

There is a mass hysteria gripping the country at the moment. Some if it is probably part of a misguided plan to unseat Trump. The truly evil deeds of some are being conflated with far lesser crimes; but all forms of sexual predation are illicit and destructive. It was the New York Times’s journalistic equivalent of a nuclear bomb that revealed what thousands of people had known for three decades: that Harvey Weinstein has been a sexually abusive monster.  Everyone in the “business” knew it but kept quiet.  His politics were “correct,” so no one reported his many crimes against women.  He was a huge donor to Democrats, especially to the Clintons. To be in bed with the Clintons is to be above the law and corrupt to the core.  All of which means that, as night follows day, the Hollywood/Weinstein level of predation is probably rampant in Congress as well.  

Some of the journalists who viciously demeaned Bill Clinton’s victims in the 1990s are crawling all over themselves now, to say that they were wrong to defend him.  They were young! They did not know any better.”  Or, as Kirsten Gillibrand commented, “Times have changed.”  

No, Senator, rape and any kind of sexual abuse was very wrong then and is still very wrong today.  But those Clinton defenders never gave a thought to right and wrong.  Just as university students today are taught that one must be a leftist or suffer well-deserved consequences, those “young” journalists never gave a thought to Bill Clinton’s victims or what they may have suffered.  Oh, no! They had to be destroyed.  

Just as the leftists of Congress and the media who protected and continued to revere Ted Kennedy after he was wholly responsible for the death of a young woman in 1969, Mary Jo Kopechne, the left of the Clinton era never thought twice about maligning Bill’s victims to protect him.  It had to be done.  Ted Kennedy should have gone to prison, but he remained in the Senate despite his reputation as the Harvey Weinstein of Congress. Bill Clinton remained in the Oval Office despite his having defiled it.   The effusive glory that poured out of the mouths of every person who spoke at Ted’s funeral, including the now traitorous Mitch McConnell, was enough to make one gag. The “lion of the Senate” was the scourge of the Senate.

Just as everyone in Hollywood knew Weinstein was a barbarous abuser of women, every member of Congress knew the same about Ted Kennedy.  Bottom line?  The denizens of DC are as morally bankrupt as the swamp dwellers of the film and television industry.  Too many of them, not all of them of course, have lost all sense of right and wrong.  They defend creeps like Al Franken for the same reason Nina Burleigh offered her special services to Bill Clinton; their politics are “correct.” They leap at the chance to destroy a man like Roy Moore because his politics are wrong.  Right and wrong? Good vs. evil? Morality vs. immorality?  Not relevant.  They have sold their souls for power.  

Alexander Hamilton wrote that “Ambition without principle never was long under the guidance of good sense.” IndeedThe Kennedys, the Clintons and their defenders in the government and media are the personification of ambition without principle. They have done the nation great and lasting harm.  They see, they know, they defend, and keep silent about criminal scoundrels in their midst, victims be damned.  Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are as guilty as Kennedy and the Clintons.  They are harboring nameless sex offenders as we speak.  Their greater good is themselves, not the country.

The Clinton administration was corrupt, but the Obama administration took its cue from them and built upon it to become the most corrupt administration in modern history.  The combined list of crimes committed by the two presidencies of Clinton and Obama is too long to list here. Both administrations were chock full of criminals and we are living with the consequences of their misdeeds today.  The Clintons learned their tricks of the trade from the Kennedys.  Obama learned his from the Clintons.  Hillary got fabulously rich while Obama looked the other way, national security be damned.   By now, all Americans should know that there are two kinds of truth.  The actual truth and the always malleable truth fed to us by our media, our politicians and our celebrities who fancy themselves as arbiters of our culture. They lie for their living and deny the truth of the depravities that thrive in their midst.

The Clintons and the Obama administration did terrible and increasingly dangerous damage to America.  Trump was elected to reverse course but the forces of the left and the entrenched Republicans are all aligned to sabotage him and the agenda he was elected to implement.  They cannot abide an outsider in their club.  He does not operate like them, speak like them or think like them;  all to the good for his supporters.  These people, the DC establishment,  have no reverence for actual truth. They believe in their divine right to dictate their “truth” to the rest of us. The Democrats and establishment Republicans mean to submarine tax reform and likely will, just as they did with Obamacare repeal.  Is there anything more disingenuous than campaigning on repeal for seven years and then not doing it?  It is a conspiracy of the establishment to subvert Trump and thumb their noses to those who voted for him.  

The sexual and/or power predators of the Hollywood left and in Congress are all of a piece, a nasty piece of collective work.  The good guys among them are too few to bring about a change in how the country is governed.  We are at the mercy of a corrupt ruling class unless we fight back very hard.  The old guard needs to be gone; Schumer, Pelosi, McConnell, Durbin, McCain, Corker, Leahy, etc.  They are a scourge upon us.  They adhere to the morality-free fake truth of politicians.  They eschew the real truth.  It doesn’t matter to them.   They bend and mold their malleable truth, the truth of politicians, charlatans, corrupt lawyers [think Mueller] and their clients to serve whatever purpose is at hand.

“…there are two kinds of truth in this world.  The truth that is the unalterable bedrock of one’s life and mission.  And the other, malleable truth of politicians, charlatans, corrupt lawyers, and their clients, bent and molded to serve whatever purpose was at hand.”  Michael Connelly, Two Kinds of Truth 

There is a mass hysteria gripping the country at the moment. Some if it is probably part of a misguided plan to unseat Trump. The truly evil deeds of some are being conflated with far lesser crimes; but all forms of sexual predation are illicit and destructive. It was the New York Times’s journalistic equivalent of a nuclear bomb that revealed what thousands of people had known for three decades: that Harvey Weinstein has been a sexually abusive monster.  Everyone in the “business” knew it but kept quiet.  His politics were “correct,” so no one reported his many crimes against women.  He was a huge donor to Democrats, especially to the Clintons. To be in bed with the Clintons is to be above the law and corrupt to the core.  All of which means that, as night follows day, the Hollywood/Weinstein level of predation is probably rampant in Congress as well.  

Some of the journalists who viciously demeaned Bill Clinton’s victims in the 1990s are crawling all over themselves now, to say that they were wrong to defend him.  They were young! They did not know any better.”  Or, as Kirsten Gillibrand commented, “Times have changed.”  

No, Senator, rape and any kind of sexual abuse was very wrong then and is still very wrong today.  But those Clinton defenders never gave a thought to right and wrong.  Just as university students today are taught that one must be a leftist or suffer well-deserved consequences, those “young” journalists never gave a thought to Bill Clinton’s victims or what they may have suffered.  Oh, no! They had to be destroyed.  

Just as the leftists of Congress and the media who protected and continued to revere Ted Kennedy after he was wholly responsible for the death of a young woman in 1969, Mary Jo Kopechne, the left of the Clinton era never thought twice about maligning Bill’s victims to protect him.  It had to be done.  Ted Kennedy should have gone to prison, but he remained in the Senate despite his reputation as the Harvey Weinstein of Congress. Bill Clinton remained in the Oval Office despite his having defiled it.   The effusive glory that poured out of the mouths of every person who spoke at Ted’s funeral, including the now traitorous Mitch McConnell, was enough to make one gag. The “lion of the Senate” was the scourge of the Senate.

Just as everyone in Hollywood knew Weinstein was a barbarous abuser of women, every member of Congress knew the same about Ted Kennedy.  Bottom line?  The denizens of DC are as morally bankrupt as the swamp dwellers of the film and television industry.  Too many of them, not all of them of course, have lost all sense of right and wrong.  They defend creeps like Al Franken for the same reason Nina Burleigh offered her special services to Bill Clinton; their politics are “correct.” They leap at the chance to destroy a man like Roy Moore because his politics are wrong.  Right and wrong? Good vs. evil? Morality vs. immorality?  Not relevant.  They have sold their souls for power.  

Alexander Hamilton wrote that “Ambition without principle never was long under the guidance of good sense.” IndeedThe Kennedys, the Clintons and their defenders in the government and media are the personification of ambition without principle. They have done the nation great and lasting harm.  They see, they know, they defend, and keep silent about criminal scoundrels in their midst, victims be damned.  Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are as guilty as Kennedy and the Clintons.  They are harboring nameless sex offenders as we speak.  Their greater good is themselves, not the country.

The Clinton administration was corrupt, but the Obama administration took its cue from them and built upon it to become the most corrupt administration in modern history.  The combined list of crimes committed by the two presidencies of Clinton and Obama is too long to list here. Both administrations were chock full of criminals and we are living with the consequences of their misdeeds today.  The Clintons learned their tricks of the trade from the Kennedys.  Obama learned his from the Clintons.  Hillary got fabulously rich while Obama looked the other way, national security be damned.   By now, all Americans should know that there are two kinds of truth.  The actual truth and the always malleable truth fed to us by our media, our politicians and our celebrities who fancy themselves as arbiters of our culture. They lie for their living and deny the truth of the depravities that thrive in their midst.

The Clintons and the Obama administration did terrible and increasingly dangerous damage to America.  Trump was elected to reverse course but the forces of the left and the entrenched Republicans are all aligned to sabotage him and the agenda he was elected to implement.  They cannot abide an outsider in their club.  He does not operate like them, speak like them or think like them;  all to the good for his supporters.  These people, the DC establishment,  have no reverence for actual truth. They believe in their divine right to dictate their “truth” to the rest of us. The Democrats and establishment Republicans mean to submarine tax reform and likely will, just as they did with Obamacare repeal.  Is there anything more disingenuous than campaigning on repeal for seven years and then not doing it?  It is a conspiracy of the establishment to subvert Trump and thumb their noses to those who voted for him.  

The sexual and/or power predators of the Hollywood left and in Congress are all of a piece, a nasty piece of collective work.  The good guys among them are too few to bring about a change in how the country is governed.  We are at the mercy of a corrupt ruling class unless we fight back very hard.  The old guard needs to be gone; Schumer, Pelosi, McConnell, Durbin, McCain, Corker, Leahy, etc.  They are a scourge upon us.  They adhere to the morality-free fake truth of politicians.  They eschew the real truth.  It doesn’t matter to them.   They bend and mold their malleable truth, the truth of politicians, charlatans, corrupt lawyers [think Mueller] and their clients to serve whatever purpose is at hand.



Source link

Has Ben Shapiro Been Watching Too Much Judge Judy?


Ben Shapiro is one of a number of conservative journalists recently bent on assuring us we’re at liberty to disregard due process of law in formulating our verdict on Roy Moore.  We have his permission, he tells us, because we’re deciding on political issues whose disposition won’t result in sending anyone to jail.  But this misunderstands what due process is and strips us of much needed protections.

Protections? you may ask.  Wherefore do we need protections if the state is not involved in our decision to, say, condemn someone we feel has been proven to our satisfaction to be a child-molester?  Simple.  We need the institutional model of due process as a reminder to shield us from brow-beating rhetoric like Shapiro’s that would structure our choices for us and insult our morality and intelligence if we don’t acquiesce to its forced conclusions.

There are many reasons due process is relevant to our responses to the allegations against Roy Moore.  But first, contrary to popular portrayals, let it be said that due process is not a “concept.”  It is an umbrella term referencing a constitutionally derived bundle of rights and time-proven procedural requirements that shape any governmental process of judgment that may deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property.  It is a threshold matter, not one factor in a series, as depicted in Shapiro’s list of arguments.  This means it predetermines what fairness will look like and binds equally all parties to a dispute to its prescribed standards.

How fundamental due process is was brought home to me, ironically, only after many years of practicing Big Law.  When I became a solo practitioner, I was in the unaccustomed position of counseling individuals and micro-businesses.  A shocking question was put to me by many of my clients: if my adversary sues me in court, how will I know about it?  What guarantee do I have that he won’t go before a judge and persuade him before I get a chance to tell my side? 

My clients were not naïve, mind you.  They were successful and educated.  They had simply never been involved in a legal dispute before.  Since I took for granted (and regarded as a pain in the rear end) the extraordinary number of detailed rules relating to “notice” to the other side that apply to each and every action taken before the bench, I hadn’t until then given a thought to their anxieties.  Nor had I appreciated how well the law’s safeguards address them and their right to be heard.  Our insecurities run deep, with good reason.  So before Mr. Shapiro dismisses the intelligently designed architecture of restraint associated with due process, before he miniaturizes its principles, he might pause to give thanks for the ways it erects a bulwark between us and brute power.

Speaking of brute power, there is something even more troubling here, and it resides in Ben’s very left-sounding admonitions that if we don’t give the right answer to the questions as he has posed them, we’re condoning “by default” terrible crimes or doing an injustice to the accusers.  There is something grisly and familiar about his attempt to intellectually boss us around, to bully us into believing, on his authority alone, that his version of complete knowledge (“here’s what we know so far”) must command our deference.  Those who insist in this fashion that they are in possession of the truth, even in the active presence of emerging contradictory facts and counter-interpretations, aren’t just displaying a lack of humility.  They are caricaturing the legal process.  They are self-appointed triers of fact whose air of importance is parasitic on the gravity of the law. 

In other words, people who talk at us as though they’re delivering a closing statement at a trial are playing at being both jurors and prosecutors.  Why else the hectoring gestures and language (“It’s a yes or no question!”) that might have been cribbed from a script of Law and Order?  In pronouncing pseudo-verdicts, such people are attempting to shut down doubt by vesting in themselves the dignity and consequentiality that comes with being officers of the court, which is what jurors are.  Thing is, they do all this without assuming any of the duties.   

Don’t get me wrong.  Discovering that Al Franken is the creep I always felt he was is deeply gratifying.  Hearing Democrats repent of their support for Hillary Clinton and (what I would call) her accomplice liability in her husband’s abuses of women doesn’t get any better.  Revisiting Nina Burleigh’s attempt to equate feminism with procuring for powerful men (What man would believe he should perform sexual favors on a political leader whose agenda he supported?) affords bittersweet relief.  If nothing else, now is not then.  Burleigh’s frisson over being cruised by a lascivious president stands revealed for the piteous vanity it is.  She used the “Women’s Movement” to self-deal, trading ideological favors for the benefits of aligning with the powerful and letting women who weren’t so lucky or simply had more integrity to pay the cost. 

There were other female bagmen.  She wasn’t alone.  Some of us remember what it was like to have our indignation overridden by “feminists.”  The Roy Moore question is not that.

But, hey, weighing in on scandalous revelations can be fun.  Why not?  Maxine Waters’s staging around the filing of articles of impeachment against the president is pure show biz.  Heck, the excuse to hold a Las Vegas-style extravaganza, with herself in the role of Celine, may have been the point of filing the articles in the first place.  (How else to publicly play out your fantasies if you’re not Al Franken?)  Likewise playing TV jurors.  On a healthier note, mimicking the drama of the truth-seeking process gives vent to our indignation, exercises our powers of deduction, and promotes interaction.  It may even result in actual valuable discussion and engagement. 

I can dig it.  But let’s not lose sight of how far the court of public opinion falls short of the real thing.  The least we can do where someone’s reputational assets are in the balance is acknowledge that without the discipline of law, our confidently delivered judgments may well be…how shall we put it?  Narcissistic?  Not for nothing did Edmund Burke, foreseeing the pitfalls of excessive self-love, warn that “individuals do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations.”

The usual response to this from non-lawyers is, But the law is not infallible.  It is time-consuming and expensive.  It allows the culpable to get off on technicalities (such as the fact that the statute of limitations has run on many of these allegations).  The guilty sometimes go unpunished.   

And so they do.  And so the law recognizes its own imperfections by imposing finality on its adjudications and the ability to seek recourse anyway.  And so it protects us from coercion (including the coercion of totalitarian rectitude) even though sometimes we must live with ambiguity and the possibility that suffering goes unredeemed.  

Get used to it, Ben.

Ben Shapiro is one of a number of conservative journalists recently bent on assuring us we’re at liberty to disregard due process of law in formulating our verdict on Roy Moore.  We have his permission, he tells us, because we’re deciding on political issues whose disposition won’t result in sending anyone to jail.  But this misunderstands what due process is and strips us of much needed protections.

Protections? you may ask.  Wherefore do we need protections if the state is not involved in our decision to, say, condemn someone we feel has been proven to our satisfaction to be a child-molester?  Simple.  We need the institutional model of due process as a reminder to shield us from brow-beating rhetoric like Shapiro’s that would structure our choices for us and insult our morality and intelligence if we don’t acquiesce to its forced conclusions.

There are many reasons due process is relevant to our responses to the allegations against Roy Moore.  But first, contrary to popular portrayals, let it be said that due process is not a “concept.”  It is an umbrella term referencing a constitutionally derived bundle of rights and time-proven procedural requirements that shape any governmental process of judgment that may deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property.  It is a threshold matter, not one factor in a series, as depicted in Shapiro’s list of arguments.  This means it predetermines what fairness will look like and binds equally all parties to a dispute to its prescribed standards.

How fundamental due process is was brought home to me, ironically, only after many years of practicing Big Law.  When I became a solo practitioner, I was in the unaccustomed position of counseling individuals and micro-businesses.  A shocking question was put to me by many of my clients: if my adversary sues me in court, how will I know about it?  What guarantee do I have that he won’t go before a judge and persuade him before I get a chance to tell my side? 

My clients were not naïve, mind you.  They were successful and educated.  They had simply never been involved in a legal dispute before.  Since I took for granted (and regarded as a pain in the rear end) the extraordinary number of detailed rules relating to “notice” to the other side that apply to each and every action taken before the bench, I hadn’t until then given a thought to their anxieties.  Nor had I appreciated how well the law’s safeguards address them and their right to be heard.  Our insecurities run deep, with good reason.  So before Mr. Shapiro dismisses the intelligently designed architecture of restraint associated with due process, before he miniaturizes its principles, he might pause to give thanks for the ways it erects a bulwark between us and brute power.

Speaking of brute power, there is something even more troubling here, and it resides in Ben’s very left-sounding admonitions that if we don’t give the right answer to the questions as he has posed them, we’re condoning “by default” terrible crimes or doing an injustice to the accusers.  There is something grisly and familiar about his attempt to intellectually boss us around, to bully us into believing, on his authority alone, that his version of complete knowledge (“here’s what we know so far”) must command our deference.  Those who insist in this fashion that they are in possession of the truth, even in the active presence of emerging contradictory facts and counter-interpretations, aren’t just displaying a lack of humility.  They are caricaturing the legal process.  They are self-appointed triers of fact whose air of importance is parasitic on the gravity of the law. 

In other words, people who talk at us as though they’re delivering a closing statement at a trial are playing at being both jurors and prosecutors.  Why else the hectoring gestures and language (“It’s a yes or no question!”) that might have been cribbed from a script of Law and Order?  In pronouncing pseudo-verdicts, such people are attempting to shut down doubt by vesting in themselves the dignity and consequentiality that comes with being officers of the court, which is what jurors are.  Thing is, they do all this without assuming any of the duties.   

Don’t get me wrong.  Discovering that Al Franken is the creep I always felt he was is deeply gratifying.  Hearing Democrats repent of their support for Hillary Clinton and (what I would call) her accomplice liability in her husband’s abuses of women doesn’t get any better.  Revisiting Nina Burleigh’s attempt to equate feminism with procuring for powerful men (What man would believe he should perform sexual favors on a political leader whose agenda he supported?) affords bittersweet relief.  If nothing else, now is not then.  Burleigh’s frisson over being cruised by a lascivious president stands revealed for the piteous vanity it is.  She used the “Women’s Movement” to self-deal, trading ideological favors for the benefits of aligning with the powerful and letting women who weren’t so lucky or simply had more integrity to pay the cost. 

There were other female bagmen.  She wasn’t alone.  Some of us remember what it was like to have our indignation overridden by “feminists.”  The Roy Moore question is not that.

But, hey, weighing in on scandalous revelations can be fun.  Why not?  Maxine Waters’s staging around the filing of articles of impeachment against the president is pure show biz.  Heck, the excuse to hold a Las Vegas-style extravaganza, with herself in the role of Celine, may have been the point of filing the articles in the first place.  (How else to publicly play out your fantasies if you’re not Al Franken?)  Likewise playing TV jurors.  On a healthier note, mimicking the drama of the truth-seeking process gives vent to our indignation, exercises our powers of deduction, and promotes interaction.  It may even result in actual valuable discussion and engagement. 

I can dig it.  But let’s not lose sight of how far the court of public opinion falls short of the real thing.  The least we can do where someone’s reputational assets are in the balance is acknowledge that without the discipline of law, our confidently delivered judgments may well be…how shall we put it?  Narcissistic?  Not for nothing did Edmund Burke, foreseeing the pitfalls of excessive self-love, warn that “individuals do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations.”

The usual response to this from non-lawyers is, But the law is not infallible.  It is time-consuming and expensive.  It allows the culpable to get off on technicalities (such as the fact that the statute of limitations has run on many of these allegations).  The guilty sometimes go unpunished.   

And so they do.  And so the law recognizes its own imperfections by imposing finality on its adjudications and the ability to seek recourse anyway.  And so it protects us from coercion (including the coercion of totalitarian rectitude) even though sometimes we must live with ambiguity and the possibility that suffering goes unredeemed.  

Get used to it, Ben.



Source link

How a New York Senator Can Rag on the Clintons without Risk of Death


On November 16, 2017, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) kicked off her run for the 2020 presidency by intoning that Bill Clinton should have resigned (in disgrace?) in 1998 over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Talk sure is cheap, isn’t it?  That’s because the Democrats had in their power to dump Clinton in 1999 and kick him right out of office – and took a pass on it.  They could even have accomplished this with a minority of their Senate membership.  And not only would it have been easy, but it would even have rebounded to their benefit, by guaranteeing their continued rule for at least six more years and probably ten.  They would have only benefited from doing so.  And how!

The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that “no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”   This means that if Vice President Albert Sidney “Al” Gore had succeeded to the Presidency in 1999, he would have been enabled to serve out the time remaining in Clinton’s term – and then two full terms of his own.  Gore would have been on a fast track to become the longest serving president in American history, save only Franklin Roosevelt himself.

We can reasonably infer that if Gore had succeeded to the presidency in 1999, the 2000 election line-up would have been the same in that alternate reality as it was in ours: Gore versus Bush.  But would the outcome have been the same?  Almost certainly not.  The easiest way to win a presidential election is to run as an incumbent.  Even with Gore not running in 2000 as the incumbent president, he gained 500,000 more popular votes than Bush did.  If Gore had been the incumbent, Gore’s winning margin would certainly have been several million popular votes, and Bush would never have been able to win in the Electoral College.  Gore would have had the added advantage of claiming to be the stand-in for the “martyred” President Clinton.  So why not just dump Clinton then and there?

What, exactly, did the Democrats owe Clinton in 1999, anyway?  Exactly nothing.  What had Clinton ever done for them?  Using Dick Morris’s “triangulation” strategy, Clinton had enacted much of Newt Gingrich’s agenda, which was anathema to true-blue Democrats.  Even worse, Clinton’s excesses during his first two years in office had aroused so much disgust among the American people that they sent Republican majorities to both the House and the Senate in the 1994 midterm elections, exactly the way Democrat majorities in both Houses were wiped out in Barack Obama’s own first midterm elections in 2010.

That’s a lot of committee chairmanships lost, not to mention the forced departures of friends and colleagues.  The Democrats should have been seething with rage.  On both occasions, excesses wrought by Democrat presidents cost the Democrats the majority rule that they believe is theirs by birthright.

So the national Democrats had excellent reason to resent Bill Clinton in1999 and every motive to seek revenge.  And the Republicans gave them the golden trigger by which to get that revenge: impeachment and conviction.  All that would have been needed was for at least seventeen of the forty-five Democrat senators to vote to convict Clinton of one of the impeachment charges that had been voted on by the House.  That’s about 40%.

Instead, all forty-five Democrat senators stood, phalanx-like, behind Clinton.

Why did they do this?  He had caused them nothing but electoral losses and loss of power.  Why not just dump him in 1999 and then complain to the public about how unfair it was?  Gore would have been golden for at least six more years and probably ten.  He probably would have had coattails, too, at least in 2000.

Did the Democrats stand by Clinton because they sincerely believed that the Constitution was in peril if the Republicans could get away with getting rid of one of theirs?  That was Clinton’s defense, but the premise is so absurd as to be laughable.

Did they think Clinton could help them recover their fortunes in 2000?  This is likewise laughable, because Gore and the entire Democrat down-ticket in 2000 thought Clinton was so radioactive that they didn’t want him to campaign for them.

So why did the Democrats stand by Clinton in 1999, when it would have been to their advantage to get rid of him then, as well as giving them the chance to wreak their revenge on him?

Only one reason comes to mind: blackmail files.  The Clintons did have those 900 FBI raw files.  They also had their own minions of paid hacks.  Does anyone think that only Republicans’ dossiers were contained in those files?  The Clintons must have had dirt on everybody, of both parties.  That’s an obvious reason for the iron hold Clinton was able to wield over them.

And Kirsten Gillibrand?  Why does she act as if she’s free of Clinton blackmail worries?  Simple.  She didn’t enter the House of Representatives until 2007.  The Clintons never assembled blackmail files on her.

Talk sure is cheap.  Sometimes it costs nothing at all.

On November 16, 2017, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) kicked off her run for the 2020 presidency by intoning that Bill Clinton should have resigned (in disgrace?) in 1998 over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Talk sure is cheap, isn’t it?  That’s because the Democrats had in their power to dump Clinton in 1999 and kick him right out of office – and took a pass on it.  They could even have accomplished this with a minority of their Senate membership.  And not only would it have been easy, but it would even have rebounded to their benefit, by guaranteeing their continued rule for at least six more years and probably ten.  They would have only benefited from doing so.  And how!

The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that “no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”   This means that if Vice President Albert Sidney “Al” Gore had succeeded to the Presidency in 1999, he would have been enabled to serve out the time remaining in Clinton’s term – and then two full terms of his own.  Gore would have been on a fast track to become the longest serving president in American history, save only Franklin Roosevelt himself.

We can reasonably infer that if Gore had succeeded to the presidency in 1999, the 2000 election line-up would have been the same in that alternate reality as it was in ours: Gore versus Bush.  But would the outcome have been the same?  Almost certainly not.  The easiest way to win a presidential election is to run as an incumbent.  Even with Gore not running in 2000 as the incumbent president, he gained 500,000 more popular votes than Bush did.  If Gore had been the incumbent, Gore’s winning margin would certainly have been several million popular votes, and Bush would never have been able to win in the Electoral College.  Gore would have had the added advantage of claiming to be the stand-in for the “martyred” President Clinton.  So why not just dump Clinton then and there?

What, exactly, did the Democrats owe Clinton in 1999, anyway?  Exactly nothing.  What had Clinton ever done for them?  Using Dick Morris’s “triangulation” strategy, Clinton had enacted much of Newt Gingrich’s agenda, which was anathema to true-blue Democrats.  Even worse, Clinton’s excesses during his first two years in office had aroused so much disgust among the American people that they sent Republican majorities to both the House and the Senate in the 1994 midterm elections, exactly the way Democrat majorities in both Houses were wiped out in Barack Obama’s own first midterm elections in 2010.

That’s a lot of committee chairmanships lost, not to mention the forced departures of friends and colleagues.  The Democrats should have been seething with rage.  On both occasions, excesses wrought by Democrat presidents cost the Democrats the majority rule that they believe is theirs by birthright.

So the national Democrats had excellent reason to resent Bill Clinton in1999 and every motive to seek revenge.  And the Republicans gave them the golden trigger by which to get that revenge: impeachment and conviction.  All that would have been needed was for at least seventeen of the forty-five Democrat senators to vote to convict Clinton of one of the impeachment charges that had been voted on by the House.  That’s about 40%.

Instead, all forty-five Democrat senators stood, phalanx-like, behind Clinton.

Why did they do this?  He had caused them nothing but electoral losses and loss of power.  Why not just dump him in 1999 and then complain to the public about how unfair it was?  Gore would have been golden for at least six more years and probably ten.  He probably would have had coattails, too, at least in 2000.

Did the Democrats stand by Clinton because they sincerely believed that the Constitution was in peril if the Republicans could get away with getting rid of one of theirs?  That was Clinton’s defense, but the premise is so absurd as to be laughable.

Did they think Clinton could help them recover their fortunes in 2000?  This is likewise laughable, because Gore and the entire Democrat down-ticket in 2000 thought Clinton was so radioactive that they didn’t want him to campaign for them.

So why did the Democrats stand by Clinton in 1999, when it would have been to their advantage to get rid of him then, as well as giving them the chance to wreak their revenge on him?

Only one reason comes to mind: blackmail files.  The Clintons did have those 900 FBI raw files.  They also had their own minions of paid hacks.  Does anyone think that only Republicans’ dossiers were contained in those files?  The Clintons must have had dirt on everybody, of both parties.  That’s an obvious reason for the iron hold Clinton was able to wield over them.

And Kirsten Gillibrand?  Why does she act as if she’s free of Clinton blackmail worries?  Simple.  She didn’t enter the House of Representatives until 2007.  The Clintons never assembled blackmail files on her.

Talk sure is cheap.  Sometimes it costs nothing at all.



Source link

In the Franken Scandal, Be Careful What You Wish For


The outing of U.S. Senator Al Franken (D-MN) as the latest high profile alleged abuser of women – accompanied by photographic evidence – calls for a cautious analysis. Not because there is any doubt about the veracity of the accusations by Franken’s main accuser, Leeann Tweeden. After all, Ms. Tweeden has come forward with an incriminating photo and a detailed recounting of Franken’s sexual harassment and humiliation of her in 2006, two years before he was elected to the U.S. Senate. As of this writing, Franken has issued three increasingly detailed written apologies for what he did to Ms. Tweeden which adds significant credibility to her claims.

The incriminating photo: Al Franken and Leeann Tweeden December 2006

What needs to be examined closely and critically is how the mainstream media and the powers that be – including elements of the Resistance, the Shadow Government, and the Deep State – are preparing to use this story to advance their ultimate agenda: The take down and removal from office of President Donald J. Trump.

It was surprising to see the media, and even many Democrat politicians, jump on the Franken story as soon as it broke on Thursday November 16. It was full-speed ahead to attack Franken and even to call for his resignation from the Senate. The Teflon coating that almost always protects Democrats and, until recently, most left-wing moguls and celebrities when they get in trouble, especially of a sexual harassment nature, was stripped away – and the feeding frenzy piling on of Franken was off and running.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not sorry to see Al Franken exposed for being the creep that he is. His entire career as a writer, comedian, and performer before he got into politics in 2007 absolutely reeks. Examples of his sleazy and disgusting work that have helped to lower the bar of the popular culture starting in 1975 are abundant. Until Thursday, Franken, to my knowledge, was never publicly accused of actually acting against anyone based on his immature, puerile, and sexist beliefs.

Jake Tapper interviews Leeann Tweeden CNN Nov. 16, 2017

An example of the unusual media focus on this story is the coverage of it on CNN on day one. On Thursday evening, CNN preempted the second hour of Anderson Cooper’s AC360 at 9 P.M. E.S.T. and substituted a “special edition” hour long episode of The Lead with Jake Tapper that usually airs five hours earlier.

Tapper’s special prime time show started with an uninterrupted, commercial-free replay of his entire interview with Leeann Tweeden that originally ran live on his afternoon show earlier Thursday. The fact that no commercials were shown for over 35 minutes straight was almost unprecedented. That kind of rare preemption of advertising spots is usually reserved for instances of major breaking news, like a terrorist attack or a hurricane about to make landfall on the U.S.

Amanda Carpenter

Symone Sanders

The prerecorded segment with Tweeden, with a new live intro by Tapper was followed by a live discussion featuring familiar CNN talking heads Amanda Carpenter, former communications director for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and Symone Sanders, former press secretary for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and a CNN political commentator. Both of these analysts are consistently anti-Trump.

From CNN’s transcript of the program:

JAKE TAPPER: And this – this is not a partisan issue.


AMANDA CARPENTER: No.


TAPPER: Democrats are doing this to women. Republicans are doing this to women.


SYMONE SANDERS: Independents have probably done it as well, Green Party folks, people that – don’t even believe in a political system.


This is about the overall culture and system. We have – it has far exceeded a problem. (INAUDIBLE) had a really great piece in (INAUDIBLE) a couple weeks ago specifically about sexual culture, and talking about the fact that this is from the Hollywood Hills, to the boardroom, and everywhere in between. And so this is a system and we have to examine what it is about our culture or sexual culture that seems to support this. We talk a lot about rape culture, but rape should not have been the bar that is met for us to have a conversation about this, for us to do something. Because it’s not just rape, it’s those sexual microaggressions, the cat calling on the street, it’s the someone “pushing up” on you in an office in a professional setting.


None of these things are OK, but we are only now liberated to have these conversations because women have been courageous in coming forward, so now – because this is bigger than Al Franken. . .


CARPENTER: They [U.S. Senate] can vote to censure him [Franken] in a simple majority vote and take a stand on this issue. And for that matter, Donald Trump or anyone else they see fit.


SANDERS: Yes. I mean, I guess it’s just – it just troubles me because Donald – it seems like everyone else in this moment has had to account for what they’ve done and what they’ve been accused of except for the president of the United States [emphasis added.]. . .


CARPENTER: – I remember America –


SANDERS: We are America.


CARPENTER: [In 2016] I was encouraging the delegates to vote for someone else other than Donald Trump. I stood on a panel with Van Jones. He said you cannot abort your candidate at this point in time. I said it is the right thing to do and look what happened, Donald Trump became president. . .


SANDERS: Yes. Sarah Huckabee Sanders called the accusers of Donald Trump liars. And so, people that live in glass houses have a tendency not to want to try to throw stones. And that’s what we’re seeing here.


So, the president, his hands are essentially tied. If he thinks Roy Moore should step down, I’m wondering if he then is going to turn in his resignation as president of the United States of America. [emphasis added.]


TAPPER: Well, I am hearing a lot of people today saying Al Franken needs to step down, but they’re not saying the same thing about President Trump. I mean –


SANDERS: We have to address this across the board, OK? So if we are going to really attack this issue, if we really want to change the system, we have to have a certain set of standards by which we engage in this work of combating sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual microaggression. So, we can’t have one standard for somebody and another standard for someone else.

Accusations of sexual harassment and worse that were leveled against candidate Donald Trump in the closing days of the 2016 campaign, which were never heard in a court of law and largely disappeared as soon as he was elected, clearly did not impede his path to victory in the November election. During the past year, however, the perception of him as a sexual aggressor has permeated virally especially through social media. It continues to motivate the anti-Trumpers and is now gaining new currency. The scorched earth campaign that assumes men accused of sexual misconduct are automatically guilty is expanding – apparently by design now – to include Democrats, giving it a patina of bipartisan credibility. This strategy is already being used as a tactic in the effort to destroy President Trump.

Thomas Lifson had a summary of his similar concerns about the Franken story and what it might lead to, in the November 17 American Thinker, “Al Franken’s career is collateral damage for the Dems on the way to getting Trump:”

That sinking feeling Al Franken is experiencing is the realization that his career is now a pawn in the fanatical efforts of Democrats to get President Trump out of office. . . The logical steps for getting Trump are clear.


Step one: Establish that sexual harassment before taking office is sufficient grounds to remove someone from office. This is the necessary predicate. Franken’s departure from office will establish the purported sincerity of the Democrats in establishing this brand-new principle. . .


Step two: Apply this doctrine to Roy Moore if he should win the Senate seat for which he is running. If he loses, triumphantly announce that even the reddest of red states agrees that previous misbehavior is dispositive in removing an incumbent.


Step three: Throw Bill Clinton under the bus. . . .


Step four: As the hysteria mounts, following the blood sacrifices, demand that President Trump be impeached for actions before he took office. Failing that, tell voters that by hanging onto office, he is disgracing the nation and telling little boys to grope their little girl classmates in first grade.

Lifson was prescient in his predictions, including his step three. On Thursday evening November 16, Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat U.S. Senator from New York and a potential candidate for president in 2020, in an interview with the New York Times in effect threw Bill Clinton under the bus. The Washington Post reported Friday morning, “Why Kirsten Gillibrand saying that Bill Clinton should’ve resigned is a big deal:”

Asked directly if she believed Mr. Clinton should have stepped down [when as president he faced his own allegations of sexual impropriety], Ms. Gillibrand took a long pause and said, “Yes, I think that is the appropriate response.”

On Friday evening, the most read article at the Washington Post was “What Trump has said about assault allegations against Franken, Moore, Clinton — and himself.” The #2 article was the one on Gillibrand.

On Hannity, Fox News Channel Friday evening, with Jeanine Pirro substituting for Sean Hannity, Democrat strategist Doug Schoen, echoing the opinions of many in his party, insisted that Franken should resign. Another guest, Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce, a libertarian conservative and former feminist, commented:

What this [the Democrat Party’s reaction to the Franken scandal] is really about is the fact that the Democrats – they’re this dangerous now. They don’t care that they facilitated this [serial sexual misconduct by Bill Clinton] in the ‘90s. All they want to do now is to try to remake history so that they can pretend to be our moral betters – our moral superiors – again so that they can lecture us on the Republicans who are doing it. They do not care about the issue, they do not care about women. The bottom line here is that this is a complete meltdown – and it’s not just Gillibrand. It’s pretty much every [Democrat] throwing Clinton under the bus. . . The Democrats have been treating women like crap for decades and this is a reckoning. 

Over at CNN, April Ryan, a CNN political analyst, speaking on Don Lemon’s show, commented that President Trump’s alleged past sexual misconduct before he became president “is an albatross around the president’s neck.” In my opinion, Ryan speaks for many representatives of the MSM and the Deep State in terms of where this all goes from here. Target: Donald J. Trump.

My recommendation: Pay very close attention as this story unfolds. Be prepared to read between the lines and keep Lifson’s, and my, analysis and admonitions in mind.

Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran reporter and analyst of news on national politics, media, and popular culture.  Follow Peter on Twitter @pchowka.

The outing of U.S. Senator Al Franken (D-MN) as the latest high profile alleged abuser of women – accompanied by photographic evidence – calls for a cautious analysis. Not because there is any doubt about the veracity of the accusations by Franken’s main accuser, Leeann Tweeden. After all, Ms. Tweeden has come forward with an incriminating photo and a detailed recounting of Franken’s sexual harassment and humiliation of her in 2006, two years before he was elected to the U.S. Senate. As of this writing, Franken has issued three increasingly detailed written apologies for what he did to Ms. Tweeden which adds significant credibility to her claims.

The incriminating photo: Al Franken and Leeann Tweeden December 2006

What needs to be examined closely and critically is how the mainstream media and the powers that be – including elements of the Resistance, the Shadow Government, and the Deep State – are preparing to use this story to advance their ultimate agenda: The take down and removal from office of President Donald J. Trump.

It was surprising to see the media, and even many Democrat politicians, jump on the Franken story as soon as it broke on Thursday November 16. It was full-speed ahead to attack Franken and even to call for his resignation from the Senate. The Teflon coating that almost always protects Democrats and, until recently, most left-wing moguls and celebrities when they get in trouble, especially of a sexual harassment nature, was stripped away – and the feeding frenzy piling on of Franken was off and running.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not sorry to see Al Franken exposed for being the creep that he is. His entire career as a writer, comedian, and performer before he got into politics in 2007 absolutely reeks. Examples of his sleazy and disgusting work that have helped to lower the bar of the popular culture starting in 1975 are abundant. Until Thursday, Franken, to my knowledge, was never publicly accused of actually acting against anyone based on his immature, puerile, and sexist beliefs.

Jake Tapper interviews Leeann Tweeden CNN Nov. 16, 2017

An example of the unusual media focus on this story is the coverage of it on CNN on day one. On Thursday evening, CNN preempted the second hour of Anderson Cooper’s AC360 at 9 P.M. E.S.T. and substituted a “special edition” hour long episode of The Lead with Jake Tapper that usually airs five hours earlier.

Tapper’s special prime time show started with an uninterrupted, commercial-free replay of his entire interview with Leeann Tweeden that originally ran live on his afternoon show earlier Thursday. The fact that no commercials were shown for over 35 minutes straight was almost unprecedented. That kind of rare preemption of advertising spots is usually reserved for instances of major breaking news, like a terrorist attack or a hurricane about to make landfall on the U.S.

Amanda Carpenter

Symone Sanders

The prerecorded segment with Tweeden, with a new live intro by Tapper was followed by a live discussion featuring familiar CNN talking heads Amanda Carpenter, former communications director for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and Symone Sanders, former press secretary for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and a CNN political commentator. Both of these analysts are consistently anti-Trump.

From CNN’s transcript of the program:

JAKE TAPPER: And this – this is not a partisan issue.


AMANDA CARPENTER: No.


TAPPER: Democrats are doing this to women. Republicans are doing this to women.


SYMONE SANDERS: Independents have probably done it as well, Green Party folks, people that – don’t even believe in a political system.


This is about the overall culture and system. We have – it has far exceeded a problem. (INAUDIBLE) had a really great piece in (INAUDIBLE) a couple weeks ago specifically about sexual culture, and talking about the fact that this is from the Hollywood Hills, to the boardroom, and everywhere in between. And so this is a system and we have to examine what it is about our culture or sexual culture that seems to support this. We talk a lot about rape culture, but rape should not have been the bar that is met for us to have a conversation about this, for us to do something. Because it’s not just rape, it’s those sexual microaggressions, the cat calling on the street, it’s the someone “pushing up” on you in an office in a professional setting.


None of these things are OK, but we are only now liberated to have these conversations because women have been courageous in coming forward, so now – because this is bigger than Al Franken. . .


CARPENTER: They [U.S. Senate] can vote to censure him [Franken] in a simple majority vote and take a stand on this issue. And for that matter, Donald Trump or anyone else they see fit.


SANDERS: Yes. I mean, I guess it’s just – it just troubles me because Donald – it seems like everyone else in this moment has had to account for what they’ve done and what they’ve been accused of except for the president of the United States [emphasis added.]. . .


CARPENTER: – I remember America –


SANDERS: We are America.


CARPENTER: [In 2016] I was encouraging the delegates to vote for someone else other than Donald Trump. I stood on a panel with Van Jones. He said you cannot abort your candidate at this point in time. I said it is the right thing to do and look what happened, Donald Trump became president. . .


SANDERS: Yes. Sarah Huckabee Sanders called the accusers of Donald Trump liars. And so, people that live in glass houses have a tendency not to want to try to throw stones. And that’s what we’re seeing here.


So, the president, his hands are essentially tied. If he thinks Roy Moore should step down, I’m wondering if he then is going to turn in his resignation as president of the United States of America. [emphasis added.]


TAPPER: Well, I am hearing a lot of people today saying Al Franken needs to step down, but they’re not saying the same thing about President Trump. I mean –


SANDERS: We have to address this across the board, OK? So if we are going to really attack this issue, if we really want to change the system, we have to have a certain set of standards by which we engage in this work of combating sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual microaggression. So, we can’t have one standard for somebody and another standard for someone else.

Accusations of sexual harassment and worse that were leveled against candidate Donald Trump in the closing days of the 2016 campaign, which were never heard in a court of law and largely disappeared as soon as he was elected, clearly did not impede his path to victory in the November election. During the past year, however, the perception of him as a sexual aggressor has permeated virally especially through social media. It continues to motivate the anti-Trumpers and is now gaining new currency. The scorched earth campaign that assumes men accused of sexual misconduct are automatically guilty is expanding – apparently by design now – to include Democrats, giving it a patina of bipartisan credibility. This strategy is already being used as a tactic in the effort to destroy President Trump.

Thomas Lifson had a summary of his similar concerns about the Franken story and what it might lead to, in the November 17 American Thinker, “Al Franken’s career is collateral damage for the Dems on the way to getting Trump:”

That sinking feeling Al Franken is experiencing is the realization that his career is now a pawn in the fanatical efforts of Democrats to get President Trump out of office. . . The logical steps for getting Trump are clear.


Step one: Establish that sexual harassment before taking office is sufficient grounds to remove someone from office. This is the necessary predicate. Franken’s departure from office will establish the purported sincerity of the Democrats in establishing this brand-new principle. . .


Step two: Apply this doctrine to Roy Moore if he should win the Senate seat for which he is running. If he loses, triumphantly announce that even the reddest of red states agrees that previous misbehavior is dispositive in removing an incumbent.


Step three: Throw Bill Clinton under the bus. . . .


Step four: As the hysteria mounts, following the blood sacrifices, demand that President Trump be impeached for actions before he took office. Failing that, tell voters that by hanging onto office, he is disgracing the nation and telling little boys to grope their little girl classmates in first grade.

Lifson was prescient in his predictions, including his step three. On Thursday evening November 16, Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat U.S. Senator from New York and a potential candidate for president in 2020, in an interview with the New York Times in effect threw Bill Clinton under the bus. The Washington Post reported Friday morning, “Why Kirsten Gillibrand saying that Bill Clinton should’ve resigned is a big deal:”

Asked directly if she believed Mr. Clinton should have stepped down [when as president he faced his own allegations of sexual impropriety], Ms. Gillibrand took a long pause and said, “Yes, I think that is the appropriate response.”

On Friday evening, the most read article at the Washington Post was “What Trump has said about assault allegations against Franken, Moore, Clinton — and himself.” The #2 article was the one on Gillibrand.

On Hannity, Fox News Channel Friday evening, with Jeanine Pirro substituting for Sean Hannity, Democrat strategist Doug Schoen, echoing the opinions of many in his party, insisted that Franken should resign. Another guest, Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce, a libertarian conservative and former feminist, commented:

What this [the Democrat Party’s reaction to the Franken scandal] is really about is the fact that the Democrats – they’re this dangerous now. They don’t care that they facilitated this [serial sexual misconduct by Bill Clinton] in the ‘90s. All they want to do now is to try to remake history so that they can pretend to be our moral betters – our moral superiors – again so that they can lecture us on the Republicans who are doing it. They do not care about the issue, they do not care about women. The bottom line here is that this is a complete meltdown – and it’s not just Gillibrand. It’s pretty much every [Democrat] throwing Clinton under the bus. . . The Democrats have been treating women like crap for decades and this is a reckoning. 

Over at CNN, April Ryan, a CNN political analyst, speaking on Don Lemon’s show, commented that President Trump’s alleged past sexual misconduct before he became president “is an albatross around the president’s neck.” In my opinion, Ryan speaks for many representatives of the MSM and the Deep State in terms of where this all goes from here. Target: Donald J. Trump.

My recommendation: Pay very close attention as this story unfolds. Be prepared to read between the lines and keep Lifson’s, and my, analysis and admonitions in mind.

Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran reporter and analyst of news on national politics, media, and popular culture.  Follow Peter on Twitter @pchowka.



Source link

Colin Kaepernick Needs the Truth


On the same day that GQ — sometimes known as Genuflecting Quarterbacks — named Colin Kaepernick as its “Citizen of the Year,” several mainstream media outlets — including Christian websites — reported that some Christian players in the NFL who support Kaepernick’s protest of “systemic oppression and… police brutality toward black people” are frustrated at the criticism directed at Mr. Kaepernick. They are especially frustrated that the out-of-work quarterback isn’t getting more support from the Christian community within the NFL.

As ABC News reported,

Eric Reid and other Christian players who support Colin Kaepernick’s social justice movement want believers on the opposite side of the controversial anthem protest to ask themselves a simple but powerful question: What would Jesus do?

Reid — then a teammate of Kaepernick — was quick to join the back-up quarterback last year in taking a knee during the National Anthem. Reid would later tell the AP that his faith was instrumental in his decision to kneel. Referencing Proverbs, Reid declared that he wanted to be a “voice for the voiceless.” He added,

We all have a love for people. The Bible tells us love your brother as yourself so that’s why we’re doing it. We have to speak up for those who can’t do it for themselves. My faith is ultimately what led me to start protesting and it’s what continues to drive me. Faith without works is dead. I feel like the past year before we started protesting, the Lord has prepped me for this moment.

Reid — one of three NFL players who took a knee during the NFL’s Veteran’s Day celebration — expressed particular frustration with his Christian colleagues,

I do see some hypocrisy with the people that call themselves Christians. If you know Jesus, he went into the house of God and turned over the tables and was angry and said they made the house of God into a marketplace so I would say this is something that He would do.

Baltimore Ravens tight end, Ben Watson — a long-time outspoken Christian in the NFL — was also critical of Christians who put “politics above the gospel, empathy and understanding.” He added,

We talk about what Jesus would do. Let’s think about that. How should I Biblically look at this situation? Is my response as an American going against what my response should be as a Christian?… Being kind is not predicated on what you can do for me. Justice is not predicated on if I experienced injustice or not. We can advocate for people who have experiences that we don’t even have. True justice is blind and righteous. Christians should be about expanding and promoting the gospel. If you listen or think about the subject matter that players and people are concerned about, you could not as someone who reads scripture turn a blind eye to it.

Philadelphia Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins, who often raises his fist during the anthem, wants the Christian community to be more united.

As big as we are, as much influence as we have on policy and politics, if the Church ever got behind really being for equality and really being for justice, it would show up, it would come. But a lot of times we don’t show the empathy, we don’t take the time to listen and we’re just as segregated as the world is right now.

I’m not sure about the “Christian cred” of these other professionals, but I’ve long admired and respected the words and deeds of Ben Watson. As I’ve noted before, more than once Mr. Watson has boldly and articulately stood for the truth on some of the most important moral issues of our time — namely marriage and abortion. However, I think he needs to reexamine his approach to Colin Kaepernick and his protest and get his coworkers to do the same.

For example, when it comes to “What Would Jesus Do?” in this situation, of course, I can’t say for sure how Jesus would deal with a modern-day millionaire “social justice warrior,” but from what Scripture reveals, I imagine He would begin and end with what He always did: the truth.

As He did with the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus might start by asking Mr. Kaepernick about his spouse. The woman of Samaria told Jesus, “I have no husband.” Likewise, Mr. Kaepernick would have to reply that he has no wife. Yet, as was the case with the Samaritan woman, Mr. Kaepernick is steeped in an immoral (sinful) relationship.

It is well known that for several years now Kaepernick has been “dating” (often known as “living in sin” with) Nessa Diab. Ms. Diab is a “radio and TV personality.” Specifically, she is an MTV host. That alone should send shudders down the spine of any spiritually “woke” individual. As if we needed direct clarification, Diab has openly spoken of her sexual exploits with Kaepernick.

What’s more, while Kaepernick claims to be a Christian, Diab is a Muslim and a raging liberal. (While this seems very contradictory, Islam and liberalism do have much in common.) Before trying to understand his kneeling protests, maybe Mr. Watson should speak to Colin about being “unequally yoked” and the sin of fornication.

What if Diab gets pregnant? Will they kill yet another black baby? Will they bring yet another American child into the world who doesn’t have a married mother and father? In other words, instead of being part of any a solution to what really plagues the American black community, Mr. Kaepernick is part of the problem and is very likely about to make things even worse.

What if, while standing among the crowds of urban youth — where he so often finds himself — instead of talking about the myth of “systemic oppression and police brutality,” Mr. Kaepernick would speak of the importance of marriage, family, and sexual morality? And more importantly, what if he lived those truths himself?

Again, Kaepernick kneels for a lie and is living his life according to multiple lies. Instead of trying to “understand” a lie, Mr. Kaepernick’s Christian friends should tell him the truth.

Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.

www.trevorgrantthomas.com

Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

On the same day that GQ — sometimes known as Genuflecting Quarterbacks — named Colin Kaepernick as its “Citizen of the Year,” several mainstream media outlets — including Christian websites — reported that some Christian players in the NFL who support Kaepernick’s protest of “systemic oppression and… police brutality toward black people” are frustrated at the criticism directed at Mr. Kaepernick. They are especially frustrated that the out-of-work quarterback isn’t getting more support from the Christian community within the NFL.

As ABC News reported,

Eric Reid and other Christian players who support Colin Kaepernick’s social justice movement want believers on the opposite side of the controversial anthem protest to ask themselves a simple but powerful question: What would Jesus do?

Reid — then a teammate of Kaepernick — was quick to join the back-up quarterback last year in taking a knee during the National Anthem. Reid would later tell the AP that his faith was instrumental in his decision to kneel. Referencing Proverbs, Reid declared that he wanted to be a “voice for the voiceless.” He added,

We all have a love for people. The Bible tells us love your brother as yourself so that’s why we’re doing it. We have to speak up for those who can’t do it for themselves. My faith is ultimately what led me to start protesting and it’s what continues to drive me. Faith without works is dead. I feel like the past year before we started protesting, the Lord has prepped me for this moment.

Reid — one of three NFL players who took a knee during the NFL’s Veteran’s Day celebration — expressed particular frustration with his Christian colleagues,

I do see some hypocrisy with the people that call themselves Christians. If you know Jesus, he went into the house of God and turned over the tables and was angry and said they made the house of God into a marketplace so I would say this is something that He would do.

Baltimore Ravens tight end, Ben Watson — a long-time outspoken Christian in the NFL — was also critical of Christians who put “politics above the gospel, empathy and understanding.” He added,

We talk about what Jesus would do. Let’s think about that. How should I Biblically look at this situation? Is my response as an American going against what my response should be as a Christian?… Being kind is not predicated on what you can do for me. Justice is not predicated on if I experienced injustice or not. We can advocate for people who have experiences that we don’t even have. True justice is blind and righteous. Christians should be about expanding and promoting the gospel. If you listen or think about the subject matter that players and people are concerned about, you could not as someone who reads scripture turn a blind eye to it.

Philadelphia Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins, who often raises his fist during the anthem, wants the Christian community to be more united.

As big as we are, as much influence as we have on policy and politics, if the Church ever got behind really being for equality and really being for justice, it would show up, it would come. But a lot of times we don’t show the empathy, we don’t take the time to listen and we’re just as segregated as the world is right now.

I’m not sure about the “Christian cred” of these other professionals, but I’ve long admired and respected the words and deeds of Ben Watson. As I’ve noted before, more than once Mr. Watson has boldly and articulately stood for the truth on some of the most important moral issues of our time — namely marriage and abortion. However, I think he needs to reexamine his approach to Colin Kaepernick and his protest and get his coworkers to do the same.

For example, when it comes to “What Would Jesus Do?” in this situation, of course, I can’t say for sure how Jesus would deal with a modern-day millionaire “social justice warrior,” but from what Scripture reveals, I imagine He would begin and end with what He always did: the truth.

As He did with the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus might start by asking Mr. Kaepernick about his spouse. The woman of Samaria told Jesus, “I have no husband.” Likewise, Mr. Kaepernick would have to reply that he has no wife. Yet, as was the case with the Samaritan woman, Mr. Kaepernick is steeped in an immoral (sinful) relationship.

It is well known that for several years now Kaepernick has been “dating” (often known as “living in sin” with) Nessa Diab. Ms. Diab is a “radio and TV personality.” Specifically, she is an MTV host. That alone should send shudders down the spine of any spiritually “woke” individual. As if we needed direct clarification, Diab has openly spoken of her sexual exploits with Kaepernick.

What’s more, while Kaepernick claims to be a Christian, Diab is a Muslim and a raging liberal. (While this seems very contradictory, Islam and liberalism do have much in common.) Before trying to understand his kneeling protests, maybe Mr. Watson should speak to Colin about being “unequally yoked” and the sin of fornication.

What if Diab gets pregnant? Will they kill yet another black baby? Will they bring yet another American child into the world who doesn’t have a married mother and father? In other words, instead of being part of any a solution to what really plagues the American black community, Mr. Kaepernick is part of the problem and is very likely about to make things even worse.

What if, while standing among the crowds of urban youth — where he so often finds himself — instead of talking about the myth of “systemic oppression and police brutality,” Mr. Kaepernick would speak of the importance of marriage, family, and sexual morality? And more importantly, what if he lived those truths himself?

Again, Kaepernick kneels for a lie and is living his life according to multiple lies. Instead of trying to “understand” a lie, Mr. Kaepernick’s Christian friends should tell him the truth.

Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.

www.trevorgrantthomas.com

Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com



Source link

Robert Mueller Is the Cover-Up


Friendship is a beautiful thing, and it’s really good to know that Robert Mueller, Comey, Brennan, and Clapper have known each other for many years.  They’re loyal friends. 

Mueller is a former top FBI dude, who helped to clear Bill Clinton after that impeachment mess, and like Mr. Comey, he did his very best.  Clapper was the single most powerful man in the “intelligence” “community,” a centralized directorate (as the Soviets used to call it), which was George W. Bush’s principal response to 9/11/01. 

Now don’t get me wrong: I’m sure all these brave men (or persons, I should say) made great contributions to the safety and welfare of all of us.  But here they are at the peak of their careers, each one of them, and Democrat candidate Hillary is suddenly exposed to the world with her email fiasco as SecState.  Violating the very first rule of intelligence and statecraft, to protect your country’s secrets.  And she obviously sold secret and sensitive information to Clinton Foundation “donors” around the world, including old friend Vladimir Putin (who now owns 20 percent of U.S. uranium, or possibly more), the Muslim Brotherhood (friends of Huma), the Iranians (who sponsor half the terror attacks in the world), the Chinese (who want more of our secret high tech), and probably the French (who understand bribery and just wanted to get access to Hillary as POTUS). 

We’ve seen how Bill sold U.S. rocket-launching secrets to the Chinese for campaign money…or personal money.  It’s so hard to tell the difference. 

Well, skip that. 

So the wife of the perp becomes a senator from the State of New York, which is well known for the purity of its politics.  Why did she become senator?  Was she a resident of N.Y. State?  Was she the best qualified person to represent the Great State (etc.)?  Or did the N.Y. machine just pick her and scare everybody else away? 

So Hillary has violated any number of laws all of her adult life, ever since she was hired by the Senate Watergate Committee to lynch Richard Nixon – which worked just as it was meant to.  Nixon resigned, but for the Democrats, he should have been hanged, drawn, quartered, waterboarded, and made to read the NYT op-ed page for extra punishment.  I know Democrats who still hate Richard Nixon with a hellish fury.  Nixon is the gift that keeps on giving.  Hillary’s major role in the persecution of President Nixon – a duly elected POTUS – was to urge that all his constitutional rights be taken away.  That was the young Hillary right after law school. 

The major difference from Watergate today is that no sane and sentient human being believes the NYT or the WaPo anymore.  They have permanently blown their cover. 

And yet the Axis of NYT-WaPo tells us that Donald Trump is just suspected of nefarious dealings with the Russians, which presumably caused the Russians to break into Hillary’s ridiculous emails and the DNC file system, sending truthful (but wicked) information to WikiLeaks, to be dumped at strategic moments of the election campaign. 

Notice well that nobody claims that the Hillary dumps were false.  They were true enough.  That’s why they hate Trump and his imaginary Russian sources.  It’s the truth that hurt Hillary. 

So that’s their problem.  It’s not that Hillary isn’t a crook, as proven by an endless number of leaked sources, including her ridiculous email setup.  This was arguably treason by the U.S. secretary of state in a time of war – a war that the Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas refused to name, because that might kick in the constitutional provisions for declaring war and living with the reality of treason. 

So Trump catches wind of that swamp stink and fires Comey, Clapper, and Brennan.  Comey then plants a bomb in the media alleging that Trump had Moscow ladies of the night peeing on Obama’s bed. 

Seriously. 

That’s what set off this whole witch hunt, and Oliver Cromwell would have been ashamed of these goofballs.  When the English witch-hunters went after suspects, waterboarding was the least of their methods of interrogation. 

Along the way, the Brits got involved in this story of high crimes and misdemeanors, because if you believe that that old MI6 guy Chris Steele didn’t tell his fellow spooks over there about dumping Moscow prostitute stories into the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA, not to mention the top of the DNC, you’d better think again.  The U.K.-E.U. role in all this is never talked about – a mighty suspicious gap in the story.  Chris and his old MI6 buds probably passed the story around just for laughs. 

So Trump and Russia allegedly colluded, according to the Steele “dossier,” which was freely passed around D.C. for months while no “respectable” news outlet would publish it. 

Now, that phoney-baloney “dossier” looked mighty suspicious to the Monsters of the Deep, like Comey, who instantly demanded a special counsel to pursue Trump and anybody associated with him.  The “special counsel,” an invention of the Watergate plot against Nixon that violates every principle of the U.S. Constitution, turned out to be…guess who! 

Yes!  It’s former FBI boss Robert Mueller, who got Bill Clinton out of all that trouble with the Chinese missile secrets. 

Mueller’s integrity is unquestionable.  See?  Proof of that is his close friendships with Comey, Clapper, Brennan, and the rest.  Friends of Bill and Hillary.  This man’s integrity is above suspicion. 

Now, let’s suppose that all these characters are monument of human integrity, fierce defenders of the United States and its Constitution.  Like Hillary, Bill, the Obamas, and all. 

I know it’s hard to believe all that, but try your best. 

Now Robert Mueller has recruited for his honest and even-handed process a posse of Democrat lawyers who have proven their prosecutorial zeal for scapegoats like Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart. 

The obvious kicker in all this is that Robert Mueller is part and parcel of the Hillary Cover-Up.  We know more about Hillary’s misdeeds, thanks to all those WikiLeaks plus FOIA exposures of misfeasance and malfeasance galore, going back to the Bill Clinton and Paula Jones days, when Hillary ran the Bimbo Eruptions intimidation campaign.  We have huge amounts of believable evidence about these crooks and corruptocrats, going back to Arkansas and the rest. 

The single most important facts is that nobody has ever been prosecuted for these crimes.  That fact by itself throws serious doubts on the entire justice system of the United States.

The farcical Mueller witch hunt against POTUS Trump is going to slather the whole U.S. Justice Department with that same stinky swamp water.  It’s inevitable. 

You can’t put a close friend of the perps in charge of the “special counsel” – a made-up name that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or the Federalist Papers.  It’s just an eructation of swamp gas from the Watergate years, meaning nothing. 

And when Robert Mueller comes out with his solemn report on the Moscow prostitutes and Trump’s golden showers, you can expect every single liberal paper to cheer itself hoarse. 

Because “justice” is not what this is about. 

Friendship is a beautiful thing, and it’s really good to know that Robert Mueller, Comey, Brennan, and Clapper have known each other for many years.  They’re loyal friends. 

Mueller is a former top FBI dude, who helped to clear Bill Clinton after that impeachment mess, and like Mr. Comey, he did his very best.  Clapper was the single most powerful man in the “intelligence” “community,” a centralized directorate (as the Soviets used to call it), which was George W. Bush’s principal response to 9/11/01. 

Now don’t get me wrong: I’m sure all these brave men (or persons, I should say) made great contributions to the safety and welfare of all of us.  But here they are at the peak of their careers, each one of them, and Democrat candidate Hillary is suddenly exposed to the world with her email fiasco as SecState.  Violating the very first rule of intelligence and statecraft, to protect your country’s secrets.  And she obviously sold secret and sensitive information to Clinton Foundation “donors” around the world, including old friend Vladimir Putin (who now owns 20 percent of U.S. uranium, or possibly more), the Muslim Brotherhood (friends of Huma), the Iranians (who sponsor half the terror attacks in the world), the Chinese (who want more of our secret high tech), and probably the French (who understand bribery and just wanted to get access to Hillary as POTUS). 

We’ve seen how Bill sold U.S. rocket-launching secrets to the Chinese for campaign money…or personal money.  It’s so hard to tell the difference. 

Well, skip that. 

So the wife of the perp becomes a senator from the State of New York, which is well known for the purity of its politics.  Why did she become senator?  Was she a resident of N.Y. State?  Was she the best qualified person to represent the Great State (etc.)?  Or did the N.Y. machine just pick her and scare everybody else away? 

So Hillary has violated any number of laws all of her adult life, ever since she was hired by the Senate Watergate Committee to lynch Richard Nixon – which worked just as it was meant to.  Nixon resigned, but for the Democrats, he should have been hanged, drawn, quartered, waterboarded, and made to read the NYT op-ed page for extra punishment.  I know Democrats who still hate Richard Nixon with a hellish fury.  Nixon is the gift that keeps on giving.  Hillary’s major role in the persecution of President Nixon – a duly elected POTUS – was to urge that all his constitutional rights be taken away.  That was the young Hillary right after law school. 

The major difference from Watergate today is that no sane and sentient human being believes the NYT or the WaPo anymore.  They have permanently blown their cover. 

And yet the Axis of NYT-WaPo tells us that Donald Trump is just suspected of nefarious dealings with the Russians, which presumably caused the Russians to break into Hillary’s ridiculous emails and the DNC file system, sending truthful (but wicked) information to WikiLeaks, to be dumped at strategic moments of the election campaign. 

Notice well that nobody claims that the Hillary dumps were false.  They were true enough.  That’s why they hate Trump and his imaginary Russian sources.  It’s the truth that hurt Hillary. 

So that’s their problem.  It’s not that Hillary isn’t a crook, as proven by an endless number of leaked sources, including her ridiculous email setup.  This was arguably treason by the U.S. secretary of state in a time of war – a war that the Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas refused to name, because that might kick in the constitutional provisions for declaring war and living with the reality of treason. 

So Trump catches wind of that swamp stink and fires Comey, Clapper, and Brennan.  Comey then plants a bomb in the media alleging that Trump had Moscow ladies of the night peeing on Obama’s bed. 

Seriously. 

That’s what set off this whole witch hunt, and Oliver Cromwell would have been ashamed of these goofballs.  When the English witch-hunters went after suspects, waterboarding was the least of their methods of interrogation. 

Along the way, the Brits got involved in this story of high crimes and misdemeanors, because if you believe that that old MI6 guy Chris Steele didn’t tell his fellow spooks over there about dumping Moscow prostitute stories into the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA, not to mention the top of the DNC, you’d better think again.  The U.K.-E.U. role in all this is never talked about – a mighty suspicious gap in the story.  Chris and his old MI6 buds probably passed the story around just for laughs. 

So Trump and Russia allegedly colluded, according to the Steele “dossier,” which was freely passed around D.C. for months while no “respectable” news outlet would publish it. 

Now, that phoney-baloney “dossier” looked mighty suspicious to the Monsters of the Deep, like Comey, who instantly demanded a special counsel to pursue Trump and anybody associated with him.  The “special counsel,” an invention of the Watergate plot against Nixon that violates every principle of the U.S. Constitution, turned out to be…guess who! 

Yes!  It’s former FBI boss Robert Mueller, who got Bill Clinton out of all that trouble with the Chinese missile secrets. 

Mueller’s integrity is unquestionable.  See?  Proof of that is his close friendships with Comey, Clapper, Brennan, and the rest.  Friends of Bill and Hillary.  This man’s integrity is above suspicion. 

Now, let’s suppose that all these characters are monument of human integrity, fierce defenders of the United States and its Constitution.  Like Hillary, Bill, the Obamas, and all. 

I know it’s hard to believe all that, but try your best. 

Now Robert Mueller has recruited for his honest and even-handed process a posse of Democrat lawyers who have proven their prosecutorial zeal for scapegoats like Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart. 

The obvious kicker in all this is that Robert Mueller is part and parcel of the Hillary Cover-Up.  We know more about Hillary’s misdeeds, thanks to all those WikiLeaks plus FOIA exposures of misfeasance and malfeasance galore, going back to the Bill Clinton and Paula Jones days, when Hillary ran the Bimbo Eruptions intimidation campaign.  We have huge amounts of believable evidence about these crooks and corruptocrats, going back to Arkansas and the rest. 

The single most important facts is that nobody has ever been prosecuted for these crimes.  That fact by itself throws serious doubts on the entire justice system of the United States.

The farcical Mueller witch hunt against POTUS Trump is going to slather the whole U.S. Justice Department with that same stinky swamp water.  It’s inevitable. 

You can’t put a close friend of the perps in charge of the “special counsel” – a made-up name that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or the Federalist Papers.  It’s just an eructation of swamp gas from the Watergate years, meaning nothing. 

And when Robert Mueller comes out with his solemn report on the Moscow prostitutes and Trump’s golden showers, you can expect every single liberal paper to cheer itself hoarse. 

Because “justice” is not what this is about. 



Source link

Snowflakes and the Great William Gladstone


The meaningful, if unstated, question is whether the Beatles, the enormously successful rock band formed in Liverpool, northern England, in 1960 can save William Gladstone, the British politician and leader of the Liberal Party who served as prime minister for 12 years in nonconsecutive four terms between 1868 and 1894, the only British prime minister to serve four terms.

Now, students at the University of Liverpool, led by a 20-year-old named Alisha Raithatha, are petitioning the university to have Gladstone’s name removed from a dorm, a hall of residence, which also carries the name of Roscoe, in a building which is currently being demolished to be redeveloped. Raithatha may be regarded as one of the increasing number of “snowflakes” among British students, youngsters who are part of and live according to the prescriptions of grievance culture, judging the past by the standards of today, more prone to take offence than previous generations, disinviting or preventing controversial speakers at their universities. The sad situation now is, as Professor Robert George has said, “too few have courage to stand up to those who want to shout down dissenting speech.”

Snowflakes are falling and keep falling all over the political place, bringing with them an atmosphere of self-righteousness, temper tantrums, and unwillingness to engage in any robust debate on issues not to their liking. The snowflakes are attempting to “decolonize” the English Department at Cambridge University in England, to remove the 19th century imperialist, though generous philanthropist, Cecil Rhodes from Oriel College, Oxford, to influence the BBC TV production of Howard’s End by incorporating black characters who never appear in the famous novel by E.M. Forster published in 1910. Curiously, a sentence from the book seems relevant to present circumstances: “Actual life is full of false clues and signposts that lead nowhere. We nerve ourselves for a crisis that never comes.”

The issue of past slavery is a compelling one in Britain as in the U.S. One surprising target in recent years has been and remains Lord Nelson, the heroic and widely admired admiral, whose tall statue in Trafalgar Square, London, is the welcome home for pigeons who rest on his head. Snowflakes have called for the removal of the statue. The pigeons should not suffer because Nelson used his seat in the House of Lords to support friends who ran slave plantations in the West Indies. And now in New York City, Italian-Americans and others may soon be saying Goodbye Columbus to the great 16th century Admiral from Genoa.

The Liverpool snowflakes were “horrified” that were living in a building that was made unpleasant by the name of Gladstone. The students evidently lack any real knowledge of this austere figure, educated at Eton and Oxford, member of Parliament at age 23, a reformer who switched parties from conservative to liberal, and grew more radical with age. In many ways he laid the basis of the British welfare state, introduced the secret ballot for voting, expanded in 1884 the vote to working men in rural areas, critic of imperialism, and a person who spent a lifetime trying to obtain Home Rule for Ireland, a project that was defeated in the House of Lords in 1893. 

The snowflakes did not know all this, but they perhaps know that William’s father, Sir John Gladstone, owned sugar plantations in the Caribbean, British Guyana, and Jamaica, for which he was compensated with £100,000 for losing hundreds of slaves when slavery was abolished in 1833. As an MP, William Gladstone, who favored banning the slave trade, had also favored owners getting compensation as well as calling for the improvement of the conditions of the slaves.

Instead of Gladstone, the snowflakes suggested the name of their building should be changed to Jon Snow, a Channel 4 newsreader. Paradoxically, Snow, now 70, had been expelled from the university in 1970 while a law student there for participating in a demonstration against the university’s investments in apartheid South Africa. However, later in 2011 he got an honorary degree from the university.

This call for change of name in the case of Gladstone resembles that a few years ago when the Colston Girl’s School in Bristol, west England, had to grapple with the call to change the name of the school because of the link to Edward Colston, a prominent slave trader in the 17th century.  He had shipped 100,000 African slaves to the West Indies and America, but was also a leading philanthropist in Bristol and had financed the creation of the school. The Colston name remains.

In the case of Gladstone in Liverpool, the Beatles may come to the rescue. One of their well-known songs is “Penny Lane,” written in 1967 probably by Paul McCartney. Penny Lane is a bus terminus and a shopping area in Liverpool where McCartney and John Lennon used to meet.  The possible problem is not the sexual allusions in the song, but that the area is named after James Penny, a slave ship captain, a local slave trader who opposed the abolition of the slave trade.

Liverpool public authorities are not likely to entertain, and thousands of Beatle fans would agree, any call to remove the name Penny Lane, “in my ears and in my eyes.”  It must remain, irrespective of past slavery. Similarly, Liverpool University authorities should act in similar fashion. And perhaps the remaining Beatles might write another song, Gladstone is my bag.

The Liverpool snowflakes should go back to their dorm and their studies and be informed of the amusing words of Benjamin Disraeli on Gladstone, his fierce political rival, “he had no single redeeming defect.” From a meteorological point of view, snowflakes are light and pleasant, but in mass they are dangerous, and may cause a blizzard and obstruction. Liverpool should take care. 

The meaningful, if unstated, question is whether the Beatles, the enormously successful rock band formed in Liverpool, northern England, in 1960 can save William Gladstone, the British politician and leader of the Liberal Party who served as prime minister for 12 years in nonconsecutive four terms between 1868 and 1894, the only British prime minister to serve four terms.

Now, students at the University of Liverpool, led by a 20-year-old named Alisha Raithatha, are petitioning the university to have Gladstone’s name removed from a dorm, a hall of residence, which also carries the name of Roscoe, in a building which is currently being demolished to be redeveloped. Raithatha may be regarded as one of the increasing number of “snowflakes” among British students, youngsters who are part of and live according to the prescriptions of grievance culture, judging the past by the standards of today, more prone to take offence than previous generations, disinviting or preventing controversial speakers at their universities. The sad situation now is, as Professor Robert George has said, “too few have courage to stand up to those who want to shout down dissenting speech.”

Snowflakes are falling and keep falling all over the political place, bringing with them an atmosphere of self-righteousness, temper tantrums, and unwillingness to engage in any robust debate on issues not to their liking. The snowflakes are attempting to “decolonize” the English Department at Cambridge University in England, to remove the 19th century imperialist, though generous philanthropist, Cecil Rhodes from Oriel College, Oxford, to influence the BBC TV production of Howard’s End by incorporating black characters who never appear in the famous novel by E.M. Forster published in 1910. Curiously, a sentence from the book seems relevant to present circumstances: “Actual life is full of false clues and signposts that lead nowhere. We nerve ourselves for a crisis that never comes.”

The issue of past slavery is a compelling one in Britain as in the U.S. One surprising target in recent years has been and remains Lord Nelson, the heroic and widely admired admiral, whose tall statue in Trafalgar Square, London, is the welcome home for pigeons who rest on his head. Snowflakes have called for the removal of the statue. The pigeons should not suffer because Nelson used his seat in the House of Lords to support friends who ran slave plantations in the West Indies. And now in New York City, Italian-Americans and others may soon be saying Goodbye Columbus to the great 16th century Admiral from Genoa.

The Liverpool snowflakes were “horrified” that were living in a building that was made unpleasant by the name of Gladstone. The students evidently lack any real knowledge of this austere figure, educated at Eton and Oxford, member of Parliament at age 23, a reformer who switched parties from conservative to liberal, and grew more radical with age. In many ways he laid the basis of the British welfare state, introduced the secret ballot for voting, expanded in 1884 the vote to working men in rural areas, critic of imperialism, and a person who spent a lifetime trying to obtain Home Rule for Ireland, a project that was defeated in the House of Lords in 1893. 

The snowflakes did not know all this, but they perhaps know that William’s father, Sir John Gladstone, owned sugar plantations in the Caribbean, British Guyana, and Jamaica, for which he was compensated with £100,000 for losing hundreds of slaves when slavery was abolished in 1833. As an MP, William Gladstone, who favored banning the slave trade, had also favored owners getting compensation as well as calling for the improvement of the conditions of the slaves.

Instead of Gladstone, the snowflakes suggested the name of their building should be changed to Jon Snow, a Channel 4 newsreader. Paradoxically, Snow, now 70, had been expelled from the university in 1970 while a law student there for participating in a demonstration against the university’s investments in apartheid South Africa. However, later in 2011 he got an honorary degree from the university.

This call for change of name in the case of Gladstone resembles that a few years ago when the Colston Girl’s School in Bristol, west England, had to grapple with the call to change the name of the school because of the link to Edward Colston, a prominent slave trader in the 17th century.  He had shipped 100,000 African slaves to the West Indies and America, but was also a leading philanthropist in Bristol and had financed the creation of the school. The Colston name remains.

In the case of Gladstone in Liverpool, the Beatles may come to the rescue. One of their well-known songs is “Penny Lane,” written in 1967 probably by Paul McCartney. Penny Lane is a bus terminus and a shopping area in Liverpool where McCartney and John Lennon used to meet.  The possible problem is not the sexual allusions in the song, but that the area is named after James Penny, a slave ship captain, a local slave trader who opposed the abolition of the slave trade.

Liverpool public authorities are not likely to entertain, and thousands of Beatle fans would agree, any call to remove the name Penny Lane, “in my ears and in my eyes.”  It must remain, irrespective of past slavery. Similarly, Liverpool University authorities should act in similar fashion. And perhaps the remaining Beatles might write another song, Gladstone is my bag.

The Liverpool snowflakes should go back to their dorm and their studies and be informed of the amusing words of Benjamin Disraeli on Gladstone, his fierce political rival, “he had no single redeeming defect.” From a meteorological point of view, snowflakes are light and pleasant, but in mass they are dangerous, and may cause a blizzard and obstruction. Liverpool should take care. 



Source link

Hillary's Boomerang


The irony.  So rich it could give you gout.

At a fundraiser on September 9, 2016, Hillary Clinton made a soul-baring gaffe.  With uncharacteristic candor, she stated that half of all Trump supporters are a “basket of deplorables,” that they’re “irredeemable,” as well as “racist, sexist homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it.”

Naturally, with her epic lack of self-awareness (see What Happened book tour, 2017) and a blind spot about herself that rivals a covered wagon’s, she said this adjacent to a banner pimping her slogan, “Stronger Together.”

Because Hillary Clinton is all about the unifying.

I checked.  Page 1 of How to Get People to Like You begins with the following sound advice: “Don’t insult, belittle, demean, diminish, castigate, or otherwise excoriate people you want to like you.”

Stands to reason.

And yet, if you’re Hillary Clinton, apparently this helpful truism is much harder to glean when you have a steady stream of smoke being blown up your symbol for the Democratic Party.  Accomplished as she is, the Queen of Pantsuits fell prey to the fawning sycophants surrounding her.  You’d think the most qualified candidate in history would’ve figured out it was a bad idea to middle-finger middle America – but you would’ve thought wrong.  Helpful truism, part 2: The only thing that rivals Hillary Clinton’s bred-in-the-bone penchant for lies and corruption is her reliably flummoxed efforts to GPS a clue.  She just doesn’t get it.

This is sad.  And astonishing.  And hilarious.  And exhausting.

Clinton’s dirty bomb that day wedded her forever to the sneering elite tribalism so memorably fire-started by Barack Obama a few years earlier, when he casually derided the desperation of the flyover states with his comments about bitter people clinging to guns and religion.  When these two blue-chip democrats revealed their true selves, the curated façade of caring cultivated by the left for years finally yielded to the dark bigotry beneath.  It was a clarion call to the progressive left that the extreme bias against which they loudly and incessantly claim to take the moral high ground is actually warranted and welcome – as long as it’s leveled against the right.

The left got the message, like a bat signal in the sky.  The cordial, buttoned up, stealth loathing of yesteryear gave way to pitchforks and torches.  The left’s hatred of Trump now goes to 11, and by the associative property of partisanship, they hate his supporters with nearly the same level of fear and loathing.  Gone are the Golden Rule, the idea of understanding “the other,” and any effort to walk around in someone else’s shoes, as per Atticus Finch.  They have all been jettisoned in favor of an almost apocalyptic mission directive to destroy the president of the United States of America by any means necessary.

So Clinton finally let her hair down and said what she really felt that night – which is the divine right of grandmothers everywhere.  She was never really interested in being the president of all Americans anyway – just the president of the Cool Kids on the Coasts.  When Hillary Clinton coughed up the hairball that was her deplorables comment, it was id-based, gasp-worthy, and gross.  But it was also the opening salvo in a new war that allowed leftists permission to be their worst selves.

This was clearly freeing for them – and eye-opening for the rest of America.

Given the kraken-level nightmare known as the Weinstein scandal, and the horror show of entrenched corruption that is the DNC (recently affirmed by former DNC chair Donna Brazile – herself an admitted cheater and liar), the progressive left and the Democratic Party are lately doing a good impression of something craven, crumbling, and near collapse.  The moral posturing, virtue-signaling, and imperious judgment ended up not being a good look for them.  But that’s all they appear to have now.

The ink-black irony of that fundraising night has spawned a siege of similar inversions.  With the recent Uranium One, Steele dossier, and Podesta collusion exposures, not to mention the Wasserman Shultz I.T. imbroglio, it is worthwhile to once again note the mind-bending irony of the Jan Brady-like “Russia, Russia, Russia!” hysteria in which leftists have steeped themselves for over a year, as it now gives way to what might be a bona fide Russian scandal – implicating (wait for it) Clinton and the DNC.

The hits keep coming.  Will in our elected officials to get to the bottom of the Clinton Foundation’s pay-to-play schemes?  Will we ever know what was in those bleach-bitted Hillary “yoga” emails or the many thousands recovered from sexting enthusiast Anthony Weiner’s computer?  What about the nexus of conspiracy suggested by the Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton “grandkids chat” on the tarmac as it dovetailed with James Comey’s premature decision to not indict Hillary for her “grossly negligent” choice to set up that private server?  Do James Clapper, Donna Brazile, and Susan Rice merit Get Out of Jail Free cards for their straight-faced, verifiable lies – Clapper while under oath?  And now that Tony Podesta has stepped away from the lobbying firm he ran with his brother John, will the special counsel even bother to expose their Russian affiliations when it has a clear agenda and bigger fish to fry?  

All of them look a little…well, deplorable.  And all of them have Hillary Clinton in common – the author of their despair.  She has maelstromed all those around her into her vortex of deceit.  But how much longer will the Manchurianed faithful who carry Hillary’s water continue to do so, even as it breaks their backs?  When will the dam finally break and drown Clinton’s vaulting ambitions once and for all?

Hillary Clinton now evokes Miss Havisham in Great Expectations – stuck in time, muttering away to herself in a darkened room about what might have been, on a hopeful night long ago, gone terribly wrong.  She cast her own shadow across all those people who think differently from how she does in the American heartland.  She condemned them, because she was never possessed of the strength of character, honesty, or self-awareness to condemn herself.  

But this is hardly a surprise, as her political calculus was established early on: whatever it takes.  With her attempts to shame and silence her husband’s accusers even as she asserted the right of all rape and sexual assault victims to be believed, Hillary Clinton made her deal with the devil of political fortunes.  With her nimble side-stepping of the avoidable tragedy in Benghazi, complete with stone-faced lie about the origins of the attack to the parents of murdered soldiers – while attending their funerals, no less – she made her peace with being beneath contempt.  And with the news of her commandeering of the DNC to hamstring Bernie Sanders and game the system, the circle is complete.  Clinton’s ongoing health issues turn out to be an infection of the soul – and she is beset.

Like the oblivious irony of her fundraising night slam on red-state America, even as she sought be their president, Clinton continues to live a life of hypocrisy and desperate careerism.  Recall how she pearl-clutched at Trump’s “horrifying” debate comment when he said he’d keep us “in suspense” about whether he’d accept the election results?  With a straight face, Clinton has now almost literally spent a year blaming Russia, the DNC, sexism, misogyny, Bernie Sanders, WikiLeaks, James Comey, Barack Obama, uninformed voters, voter suppression, self-hating women, the media, and the Electoral College for her loss – and has never accepted the results of the election.

Every day, I thank America for dodging that bullet.  It was Matrix-like.

With each new revelation, the kismet she brought on herself relegates Clinton closer to political oblivion.  Her reductive bigotry said more about her, after all, than it ever did about her intended targets.  Hillary Clinton took aim at those she deemed “irredeemable” that fundraising night and let fly her weapon of choice.  Her words boomeranged back to crown her in the end.  Let the record show – Hillary Clinton is the real deplorable.

It’s a twist ending you saw coming all along.

The irony.  So rich it could give you gout.

At a fundraiser on September 9, 2016, Hillary Clinton made a soul-baring gaffe.  With uncharacteristic candor, she stated that half of all Trump supporters are a “basket of deplorables,” that they’re “irredeemable,” as well as “racist, sexist homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it.”

Naturally, with her epic lack of self-awareness (see What Happened book tour, 2017) and a blind spot about herself that rivals a covered wagon’s, she said this adjacent to a banner pimping her slogan, “Stronger Together.”

Because Hillary Clinton is all about the unifying.

I checked.  Page 1 of How to Get People to Like You begins with the following sound advice: “Don’t insult, belittle, demean, diminish, castigate, or otherwise excoriate people you want to like you.”

Stands to reason.

And yet, if you’re Hillary Clinton, apparently this helpful truism is much harder to glean when you have a steady stream of smoke being blown up your symbol for the Democratic Party.  Accomplished as she is, the Queen of Pantsuits fell prey to the fawning sycophants surrounding her.  You’d think the most qualified candidate in history would’ve figured out it was a bad idea to middle-finger middle America – but you would’ve thought wrong.  Helpful truism, part 2: The only thing that rivals Hillary Clinton’s bred-in-the-bone penchant for lies and corruption is her reliably flummoxed efforts to GPS a clue.  She just doesn’t get it.

This is sad.  And astonishing.  And hilarious.  And exhausting.

Clinton’s dirty bomb that day wedded her forever to the sneering elite tribalism so memorably fire-started by Barack Obama a few years earlier, when he casually derided the desperation of the flyover states with his comments about bitter people clinging to guns and religion.  When these two blue-chip democrats revealed their true selves, the curated façade of caring cultivated by the left for years finally yielded to the dark bigotry beneath.  It was a clarion call to the progressive left that the extreme bias against which they loudly and incessantly claim to take the moral high ground is actually warranted and welcome – as long as it’s leveled against the right.

The left got the message, like a bat signal in the sky.  The cordial, buttoned up, stealth loathing of yesteryear gave way to pitchforks and torches.  The left’s hatred of Trump now goes to 11, and by the associative property of partisanship, they hate his supporters with nearly the same level of fear and loathing.  Gone are the Golden Rule, the idea of understanding “the other,” and any effort to walk around in someone else’s shoes, as per Atticus Finch.  They have all been jettisoned in favor of an almost apocalyptic mission directive to destroy the president of the United States of America by any means necessary.

So Clinton finally let her hair down and said what she really felt that night – which is the divine right of grandmothers everywhere.  She was never really interested in being the president of all Americans anyway – just the president of the Cool Kids on the Coasts.  When Hillary Clinton coughed up the hairball that was her deplorables comment, it was id-based, gasp-worthy, and gross.  But it was also the opening salvo in a new war that allowed leftists permission to be their worst selves.

This was clearly freeing for them – and eye-opening for the rest of America.

Given the kraken-level nightmare known as the Weinstein scandal, and the horror show of entrenched corruption that is the DNC (recently affirmed by former DNC chair Donna Brazile – herself an admitted cheater and liar), the progressive left and the Democratic Party are lately doing a good impression of something craven, crumbling, and near collapse.  The moral posturing, virtue-signaling, and imperious judgment ended up not being a good look for them.  But that’s all they appear to have now.

The ink-black irony of that fundraising night has spawned a siege of similar inversions.  With the recent Uranium One, Steele dossier, and Podesta collusion exposures, not to mention the Wasserman Shultz I.T. imbroglio, it is worthwhile to once again note the mind-bending irony of the Jan Brady-like “Russia, Russia, Russia!” hysteria in which leftists have steeped themselves for over a year, as it now gives way to what might be a bona fide Russian scandal – implicating (wait for it) Clinton and the DNC.

The hits keep coming.  Will in our elected officials to get to the bottom of the Clinton Foundation’s pay-to-play schemes?  Will we ever know what was in those bleach-bitted Hillary “yoga” emails or the many thousands recovered from sexting enthusiast Anthony Weiner’s computer?  What about the nexus of conspiracy suggested by the Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton “grandkids chat” on the tarmac as it dovetailed with James Comey’s premature decision to not indict Hillary for her “grossly negligent” choice to set up that private server?  Do James Clapper, Donna Brazile, and Susan Rice merit Get Out of Jail Free cards for their straight-faced, verifiable lies – Clapper while under oath?  And now that Tony Podesta has stepped away from the lobbying firm he ran with his brother John, will the special counsel even bother to expose their Russian affiliations when it has a clear agenda and bigger fish to fry?  

All of them look a little…well, deplorable.  And all of them have Hillary Clinton in common – the author of their despair.  She has maelstromed all those around her into her vortex of deceit.  But how much longer will the Manchurianed faithful who carry Hillary’s water continue to do so, even as it breaks their backs?  When will the dam finally break and drown Clinton’s vaulting ambitions once and for all?

Hillary Clinton now evokes Miss Havisham in Great Expectations – stuck in time, muttering away to herself in a darkened room about what might have been, on a hopeful night long ago, gone terribly wrong.  She cast her own shadow across all those people who think differently from how she does in the American heartland.  She condemned them, because she was never possessed of the strength of character, honesty, or self-awareness to condemn herself.  

But this is hardly a surprise, as her political calculus was established early on: whatever it takes.  With her attempts to shame and silence her husband’s accusers even as she asserted the right of all rape and sexual assault victims to be believed, Hillary Clinton made her deal with the devil of political fortunes.  With her nimble side-stepping of the avoidable tragedy in Benghazi, complete with stone-faced lie about the origins of the attack to the parents of murdered soldiers – while attending their funerals, no less – she made her peace with being beneath contempt.  And with the news of her commandeering of the DNC to hamstring Bernie Sanders and game the system, the circle is complete.  Clinton’s ongoing health issues turn out to be an infection of the soul – and she is beset.

Like the oblivious irony of her fundraising night slam on red-state America, even as she sought be their president, Clinton continues to live a life of hypocrisy and desperate careerism.  Recall how she pearl-clutched at Trump’s “horrifying” debate comment when he said he’d keep us “in suspense” about whether he’d accept the election results?  With a straight face, Clinton has now almost literally spent a year blaming Russia, the DNC, sexism, misogyny, Bernie Sanders, WikiLeaks, James Comey, Barack Obama, uninformed voters, voter suppression, self-hating women, the media, and the Electoral College for her loss – and has never accepted the results of the election.

Every day, I thank America for dodging that bullet.  It was Matrix-like.

With each new revelation, the kismet she brought on herself relegates Clinton closer to political oblivion.  Her reductive bigotry said more about her, after all, than it ever did about her intended targets.  Hillary Clinton took aim at those she deemed “irredeemable” that fundraising night and let fly her weapon of choice.  Her words boomeranged back to crown her in the end.  Let the record show – Hillary Clinton is the real deplorable.

It’s a twist ending you saw coming all along.



Source link

What Colin Kaepernick Needed


Colin Kaepernick’s election as Gentleman Quarterly’s Citizen of the Year brings up a number of questions.  What exactly it is that makes a good citizen is first and foremost among these, because Kaepernick has spent a good amount of his time saying the average American citizen is the worst.  It leads us to wonder what exactly a good citizen champions if it’s not the citizens themselves.  If it’s the reformation of the citizens, then maybe so be it, and if it’s only a small and extremely fractious minority of the citizens, then doesn’t this make him a rebel?

This question has plagued humanity ever since we had city-states, and it happens to be the defining feature of the Old Testament: the idea that entire peoples can go wrong and that if they go right again, it’s because a few people kept themselves pure and called the miscreants back to Yahweh and were usually murdered by the majority for it.  If anyone can call the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel patriots, we can call Kaepernick one, too – if only we could agree with him.

How he got to where he is is the bigger mystery, and this half-white, half-black boy, abandoned by his own black father and white mother and picked up, seemingly at random, by two middle-class honkies who loved him and cared for him and got him an education, ensuring he was able to play football and that through his formative years he was always supported – this guy, who owes his fame and fortune not to the black race, but to the white; whose scholarship was paid by historically white institutions; whose career is owed to people who looked past the color of his skin to value what he could do – for this guy to be found on the side of America that not only rejects white America, but denies the beauty of the American Dream while in the middle of enjoying it – that this guy could be found where he is is one of the most puzzling things we have come across this year, a year when men are saying they’re women and women are saying they’re men, and a whole host of people believes that if you deny it, you’re a monster.

I believe that Colin Kaepernick is where he is because he wants to be loved.  Abandoned by his actual parents and adopted by two strangers, Colin Kaepernick grew up wondering why the natural bond of parenthood was weak and the “artificial” bonds of charity were strong.  He was wanted, but he never knew why, and he knew that the people who were supposed to love him the most were the people who didn’t love him probably at all.  As an adopted and intelligent child, he probably knew that if it hadn’t been he, his adopted parents could very well have picked someone else, and that the love he experienced in that home was part choice on the part of the parents and part lotto ticket.  He could look in the mirror and see he was different.  He was told he belonged but wondered if he ever did.

Then he began playing sports, and the fact that he did it so well made people go wild.  Suddenly, this wanted-unwanted youth became wanted not with the love of a parent or the love of a do-gooder, but because of something within him – something tangible he gave instead of something he received and couldn’t explain.  The cheers from the crowd, an entourage of adoring cheerleaders, the promise of millions and a lifestyle of fame arrived at his doorstep, and still this – all this, which many people would die for – wasn’t enough.  He wanted to know he was loved for real – for something deeper than playing sports or an accident.

His moment came when the black crises hit us – after Ferguson was on fire and Philando’d been shot and Colin’s career had been lagging behind after he’d promised so many things but just couldn’t deliver.  At this moment, besieged by doubts about his value as a player, hounded by that part of him that saw other black men and imagined himself in their shoes, this questioner of his own worth decided to take a stand by kneeling at the anthem and immediately arrested the nation’s attention.

His popularity among the majority dropped rapidly, but another thing took place.  The core fans he had had before grew louder and more loving.  They looked to him not for what he could do with his body, which was beginning to disappoint them anyway, but for what he could do with his voice.  He began to be not a champion of a team in a locality, but a symbol for black men all over the States – a man who cared about them and was because of this cared for.  He was loved not just because of what Colin Kaepernick did, but for who Colin Kaepernick is.

This total revolution in affairs changed Colin’s life entirely.  Before, he was loved or unloved for inscrutable or shallower reasons.  Now he had a handle on the feeling, and not only did the people thronging around him have a spiritual connection with him, but for the first time in his life, he was able to have a racial connection with them – to be wanted by the black man who had abandoned him at first, connected by blood and by cause.

One look at Colin in Harlem with his ridiculous afro, surrounded by the black men and women he champions, standing beside a small boy with a shirt with a slogan, all facing the camera in a silent and powerful unity, and you know what the man feels.  He feels as if he belongs somewhere.  It’s a shame he never knew that the people most desperate for black champions isn’t the black race, but the Republican Party.

Jeremy Egerer is the author of the troublesome essays on Letters to Hannah, and he welcomes followers on Twitter and Facebook.

Colin Kaepernick’s election as Gentleman Quarterly’s Citizen of the Year brings up a number of questions.  What exactly it is that makes a good citizen is first and foremost among these, because Kaepernick has spent a good amount of his time saying the average American citizen is the worst.  It leads us to wonder what exactly a good citizen champions if it’s not the citizens themselves.  If it’s the reformation of the citizens, then maybe so be it, and if it’s only a small and extremely fractious minority of the citizens, then doesn’t this make him a rebel?

This question has plagued humanity ever since we had city-states, and it happens to be the defining feature of the Old Testament: the idea that entire peoples can go wrong and that if they go right again, it’s because a few people kept themselves pure and called the miscreants back to Yahweh and were usually murdered by the majority for it.  If anyone can call the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel patriots, we can call Kaepernick one, too – if only we could agree with him.

How he got to where he is is the bigger mystery, and this half-white, half-black boy, abandoned by his own black father and white mother and picked up, seemingly at random, by two middle-class honkies who loved him and cared for him and got him an education, ensuring he was able to play football and that through his formative years he was always supported – this guy, who owes his fame and fortune not to the black race, but to the white; whose scholarship was paid by historically white institutions; whose career is owed to people who looked past the color of his skin to value what he could do – for this guy to be found on the side of America that not only rejects white America, but denies the beauty of the American Dream while in the middle of enjoying it – that this guy could be found where he is is one of the most puzzling things we have come across this year, a year when men are saying they’re women and women are saying they’re men, and a whole host of people believes that if you deny it, you’re a monster.

I believe that Colin Kaepernick is where he is because he wants to be loved.  Abandoned by his actual parents and adopted by two strangers, Colin Kaepernick grew up wondering why the natural bond of parenthood was weak and the “artificial” bonds of charity were strong.  He was wanted, but he never knew why, and he knew that the people who were supposed to love him the most were the people who didn’t love him probably at all.  As an adopted and intelligent child, he probably knew that if it hadn’t been he, his adopted parents could very well have picked someone else, and that the love he experienced in that home was part choice on the part of the parents and part lotto ticket.  He could look in the mirror and see he was different.  He was told he belonged but wondered if he ever did.

Then he began playing sports, and the fact that he did it so well made people go wild.  Suddenly, this wanted-unwanted youth became wanted not with the love of a parent or the love of a do-gooder, but because of something within him – something tangible he gave instead of something he received and couldn’t explain.  The cheers from the crowd, an entourage of adoring cheerleaders, the promise of millions and a lifestyle of fame arrived at his doorstep, and still this – all this, which many people would die for – wasn’t enough.  He wanted to know he was loved for real – for something deeper than playing sports or an accident.

His moment came when the black crises hit us – after Ferguson was on fire and Philando’d been shot and Colin’s career had been lagging behind after he’d promised so many things but just couldn’t deliver.  At this moment, besieged by doubts about his value as a player, hounded by that part of him that saw other black men and imagined himself in their shoes, this questioner of his own worth decided to take a stand by kneeling at the anthem and immediately arrested the nation’s attention.

His popularity among the majority dropped rapidly, but another thing took place.  The core fans he had had before grew louder and more loving.  They looked to him not for what he could do with his body, which was beginning to disappoint them anyway, but for what he could do with his voice.  He began to be not a champion of a team in a locality, but a symbol for black men all over the States – a man who cared about them and was because of this cared for.  He was loved not just because of what Colin Kaepernick did, but for who Colin Kaepernick is.

This total revolution in affairs changed Colin’s life entirely.  Before, he was loved or unloved for inscrutable or shallower reasons.  Now he had a handle on the feeling, and not only did the people thronging around him have a spiritual connection with him, but for the first time in his life, he was able to have a racial connection with them – to be wanted by the black man who had abandoned him at first, connected by blood and by cause.

One look at Colin in Harlem with his ridiculous afro, surrounded by the black men and women he champions, standing beside a small boy with a shirt with a slogan, all facing the camera in a silent and powerful unity, and you know what the man feels.  He feels as if he belongs somewhere.  It’s a shame he never knew that the people most desperate for black champions isn’t the black race, but the Republican Party.

Jeremy Egerer is the author of the troublesome essays on Letters to Hannah, and he welcomes followers on Twitter and Facebook.



Source link