Category: Hypocrisy O’ The Day

AOC Invokes Jesus, Compares Religious Freedom to White Supremacy, Slavery, Segregation

She’s a radical marxist whose relationship with God, I’ll just mention as:
“…by their fruits ye shall know them” As in, ‘what they do will tell you’.

On Thursday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Grow Yucca in NYC) compared religious freedom advocates to Americans who twisted scripture to defend white supremacy, race-based slavery, and segregation. She suggested that Republicans would dismiss Jesus Christ as a radical and condemned the Trump administration for giving religion a bad name.

“It’s very difficult to sit here and listen to arguments in the long history of this country of using scripture and weaponizing and abusing scripture to justify bigotry. White supremacists have done it, those who justified slavery did it, those who fought against integration did it, and we’re seeing it today,” Ocasio-Cortez declared at a hearing entitled, “The Administration’s Religious Liberty Assault on LGBTQ Rights.”

She went on to suggest Republicans would condemn Jesus Christ Himself.

“And sometimes, especially in this body, I feel as though if Christ Himself walked through these doors, and said what He said thousands of years ago, that we should love our neighbor and our enemy, that we should welcome the stranger, fight for the least of us, that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into a kingdom of heaven, He would be maligned as a radical and rejected from these doors,” AOC declared.

She contrasted her faith with that of traditional Christians.

“And I know, and it is part of my faith, that all people are holy and all people are sacred, unconditionally. We love all people,” AOC insisted. “There is nothing holy about rejecting medical care of people, no matter who they are on the grounds of what their identity is. There is nothing holy about turning someone away from a hospital. There’s nothing holy about rejecting a child from a family. There’s nothing holy about writing discrimination into the law. And I am tired of communities of faith being weaponized and being mischaracterized because the only time religious freedom is invoked is in the name of bigotry and discrimination.”

She turned to Evan Minton — a female who identifies as a man and who is suing a Catholic hospital in California for not performing a hysterectomy. During the hearing, Minton accused the Trump administration of having “singled me out” by issuing a Health and Human Services (HHS) ruling protecting the consciences of medical professionals who refuse to perform abortions, hysterectomies on healthy women, or other controversial services.

“I’m tired of it. My faith commands me to treat Mr. Minton as holy because he is sacred, because his life is sacred,” AOC declared. Turning to Minton, she added, “Because you are not to be denied anything that I am entitled to. That we are equal in the eyes of the law and we are equal in my faith in the eyes of the world.”

“But what this administration is advancing is the idea that religion and faith is about exclusion,” she argued. “It is not up to us to deny medical care, it is up to us to feed the hungry, to clothe the poor, to protect children, and to love all people as ourselves.”

Ocasio-Cortez would have more credibility on these issues if she actually followed the tenets of the church to which she claims to belong, the Roman Catholic Church. If “there is nothing holy about rejecting medical care of people … turning someone away from a hospital [or] rejecting a child from a family,” then why does AOC staunchly support abortion, which denies unborn children medical care, hospital visits, and a family? If she believes that “all people are holy and all people are sacred,” why does she support the killing of any person in the womb?

Democrats Didn’t Care When Obama Granted Clemency to a Terrorist, But Want to Investigate Trump’s Pardons

Trump can’t seem to even breathe without Democrats wanting to launch an investigation or expressing outrage. The recent commutation of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s prison sentence is the most recent thing to trigger Democrats. “Today, Trump granted clemency to tax cheats, Wall Street crooks, billionaires, and corrupt government officials,” tweeted Bernie Sanders. “Meanwhile thousands of poor and working-class kids sit in jail for nonviolent drug convictions. This is what a broken and racist criminal justice system looks like.”

But Democrats aren’t just expressing faux outrage over Trump using his presidential clemency power. According to Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), his party plans to investigate Trump’s commutations and pardons.

“I mean, we will, of course, I expect, have hearings on this,” he told CNN. “There’s a process that the president is expected to follow in granting pardons or granting clemency. We’ll try to bring attention to this issue on behalf of the American people. We will continue to do oversight.”

Oversight? I think “harassment” would be a better word. We’re way beyond oversight at this point, considering all the bogus investigations that Democrats have had against Trump. The most absurd comment Cicilline made was when he said, “I think past presidents have used restraint,” with the use of clemency powers.

Really?

Was it really restraint when Obama commuted the sentence of convicted terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera? Lopez Rivera was a leader of the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña (FALN), a Puerto Rican terrorist group responsible for 130 attacks in the United States, and at least six deaths. An unrepentant Lopez-Rivera was serving a 70-year sentence when Obama set him free. Democrats showed no outrage at this commutation.

And what about when Obama commuted the sentence of Bradley Manning (you may also know him as Chelsea), who leaked hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to WikiLeaks? A traitor in every sense, in 2013 Manning was convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison. But, Bradley Manning became a hero of the political left for declaring himself to be transgender, and Obama made this controversial commutation days before leaving office. Was this “restraint” or pandering to the LGBT lobby?

What about Bernie Sanders’ heart attack? At 78, he says you know enough.

An easy conclusion to make is that the heart attack was worse than he’s letting on.

Quietly, amid all the attempted primary vote-counting, the nationally-televised debating and the political charges flying back and forth, Sanders just made a confession unintentionally. Under polite but firm questioning from NBC’s Chuck Todd, Sanders admitted he’s broken a promise to release his full medical records. But he claims on the basis of no authority whatsoever that’s OK.

Last fall, you may recall, Sanders was stricken with a heart attack that knocked him out of campaigning. Taking the oath of office at 79, if successful, Sanders would be older than any other U.S. president, entering or leaving the White House. Today, he’s already 13 years past the average lifespan of a man born before Pearl Harbor in 1941.

“The American people,” Sanders said in September, “have the right to know whether the person they’re going to be voting for for president is healthy. And we will certainly release our medical records before the primaries. It will certainly be before the first votes are cast.”…..

After Democrats Purge All the ‘Nazis,’ Who Will Be Left?
Trigger warning: This essay is about America’s growing Nazi problem. Some Nazis may be offended.

Democrats are on the hunt for Nazis. Their own elected officials tell us so. Senators and congressmen assure us that in Donald Trump’s America “hate is on the rise.” Nobody can feel safe, they say. Not Jews, not blacks, not immigrants, not women, not even American Indians drumming in the faces of young school boys. Everyone must be on constant guard for hate. It must be confronted and nipped in the bud. If you’re not sure who is spreading this hate, look for red ball caps with catchy political slogans. Otherwise, your default presumption should always be that white males, no matter how ordinarily dressed, are secretly plotting to oppress, harass, and threaten you. Sometimes they do so with smiles on their faces while opening doors.

The important thing to know is that Democrats are all over this problem. They have lawmakers all across America pursuing legislation that targets language for its hatefulness. No longer will people have to sit back and endure distasteful points of view; there are now laws that will allow us to throw people in jail based on what they say and write.

Thank goodness we have reached the Enlightenment’s final stage of liberalism, where we finally understand the danger of words. It has always been an oversight of freedom. Some words are hateful and must be banished. In fact, every day, more and more words are discovered to be hateful, and it turns out there is no shortage of people who believe they have the right to use them.

Here’s the important lesson: if you hear or read something from a person you believe to be oppressing you, then it is best to report that person’s words so he can be added to the list of things we are not allowed to say.

Next to the list of banished words is the list of approved education. Democrats are here to inform, not influence. It is appalling that in this year of 20 A.G. (After Gore), there are still people perpetuating the lie that man-made global warming is a con meant to justify huge increases in taxation, expanded government coercion, and international socialism. Just the idea that people could be so ignorant as to believe that the very molecule they exhale with every breath is not also a pollutant that will force us to cut back on those allowed to exhale boggles the mind.

If you can’t understand that killing off four fifths of the global population and returning to Stone-Age comforts is necessary in order to prevent free markets from destroying the modern world, then you are brainwashed and beyond reach. The best we can do now is censor any of your pseudo-science research from publication so the larger public’s enthusiasm for one-world government is not dampened.

This goes for sex and babies, too. The Dark-Ages superstition of believing that XX and XY chromosomal pairings determine whether a person’s DNA contains the genes unique to males is so absurd that it hardly merits discussion. Anyone who refuses to believe that genetics is simply a social construct imposed on one’s state of mind is living in an age before science and should be openly mocked.

If you don’t believe that men can have babies, then you probably live in a red state where education is low and concentration of Nazis is high. If you don’t believe that males should shower with high school girls after gym class, you are a Nazi. This goes, too, for the outdated patriarchal notion that an expectant father should have any say in what happens to the baby who shares half his DNA. If, after a suitable amount of time has passed after birth, the mother decides to keep the baby, then by all means that the sperm donor is financially beholden to that child for the rest of his life.

Until that time, however, interfering with a woman’s choice to cancel her pregnancy up to and including delivery is nothing less than an assault on her constitutional rights and an unacceptable threat to her “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” When Thomas Jefferson wrote those words, he said nothing about the life and liberty of an unwanted fetus. You would think the very Nazis who prattle on about originalism and the “Founding Fathers” would understand that a baby doesn’t have any rights until the man/woman giving birth makes it official with a legal birth certificate.

That’s what happens when you give fascism room to breathe, though. Nazis begin to insist that the constitution protects everyone, even those too premature to speak up.

That brings us to guns. For too long, Nazis in America have been untouchable because they own all the weapons. That is why Democrats have a plan to end this injustice once and for all. There is no reason in the modern world why anyone needs a weapon to survive. Supermarkets give us food, not hunters. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying to you, or worse, secretly arming himself against the government. There is absolutely no reason in a free society for anyone but the police, military, and federal agencies to be heavily armed. An armed country is a dangerous country. That is why Democrats have the wisdom and strength to demand all citizens hand over their weapons as their first piece of legislation. They have made a promise to the people that they will collect all the guns before pursuing any fundamental changes to the nation in the future.

But before they do that, they have to get rid of the Nazi in the White House. Because Americans refuse to do what’s in their best interest, Democrats will do it for them. It’s never really about the votes, after all. It’s about who counts the votes, and in 2020, Democrats will make certain that Democrats are counting the votes. Just to be certain, they’ve spent years preparing for every contingency.

While American Nazis go overseas to die for American freedom, Democrats have been building a secret army of anti-fascists right here at home. They are trained, armed, and ready to go. Democratic mayors have been giving them space to breathe and grow for years.

Unlike the Nazis in America, Democrats know their history. Using armed paramilitary units in uniform under the color of law is exactly how Heinrich Himmler transformed a little-known outfit of beer hall troublemakers into one of the most feared agencies of surveillance and terror throughout Europe. Whereas he used his thugs for fascism, Democrats will use their peaceful protesters for socialism. There is a big difference.

So, to the American Nazis out there, know this: you have nowhere to hide, nowhere to go, and no future in front of you. Democrats will save freedom from itself, even if they must put some of us up against a wall before tearing it down. They know what they’re doing. They have met the enemy; from every mirror, he stares back at them.

Dershowitz: I Have Proof Obama Ordered FBI Investigation At Request Of George Soros

demoncraps have been trying to claim that President Donald Trump is improperly inserting himself in DOJ cases, like the one on Roger Stone.

Cue the last meme about hypocrisy.

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz revealed in an interview on Sunday that he has proof that former Democrat President Barack Obama ordered the FBI to investigate someone after far-left billionaire George Soros asked for the investigation.

Dershowitz’s remarks come after critics have attacked President Donald Trump for tweeting about matters related to the Department of Justice, which led to Attorney General William Barr publicly asking the president to stop last week.

“There was a lot of White House control of the Justice Department during the Kennedy administration and I don’t think we saw very many liberal professors arguing against that,” Dershowitz told Breitbart News. “I have some information as well about the Obama administration – which will be disclosed in a lawsuit at some point, but I’m not prepared to disclose it now – about how President Obama personally asked the FBI to investigate somebody on behalf of George Soros, who was a close ally of his.”

“We’ve seen this kind of White House influence on the Justice Department virtually in every Justice Department,” Dershowitz continued. “The difference this president is much more overt about it, he tweets about it. President Obama whispered to the Justice Department about it.”

“You said that George Soros asked Barack Obama to have his Justice Department investigate somebody?” Breitbart News pressed.

“That’s going to come out in a lawsuit in the near future, yeah,” Dershowitz responded. “I have in my possession the actual 302 form which documents this issue and it will at the right time come out, but I’m not free to disclose it now because it’s a case that’s not yet been filed.”

Source: Democrat Senator Held Secret Meeting In Munich With Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and other Democratic senators had a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference last week, according to a source briefed by the French delegation to the conference. Murphy’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment by press time.

Such a meeting would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia.

“Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – even during a transition period – may be illegal and must be taken seriously,” Murphy said in 2017 after anonymous leaks of Flynn’s phone call with Russian ambassador Sergey Kisylak were published. He also strongly criticized the open letter some Republican senators sent Iranian leaders during the Obama administration’s campaign for a nuclear agreement.

However, Murphy has previously defended rogue meetings if they’re done by Democrats such as former Secretary of State John Kerry.

“Unless it was authorized by the president or secretary of state, conducting independent foreign policy sends mixed signals to our adversaries,” said Christian Whiton, former State Department senior advisor in the Trump and George W. Bush administrations. “It seems very unpalatable. If we want to talk to Iranians, they know how to reach us and they don’t need to go through an intermediary.”

A State Department official who spoke on background said that the State Department was not aware of any side meetings with Iranian officials that Murphy was engaged in.

The Munich Security Conference, an annual forum on international security policy, welcomes hundreds of world leaders each February. This year’s conference featured robust debate on the United States’ maximum pressure policy against Iran, China’s handling of the coronavirus and technology concerns, and the European alliance with the United States. Other Democrat senators at the conference included Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Former Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts also attended.

Both Murphy and Zarif spoke publicly during a two-hour session on Middle East policy, with Murphy and Zarif both fiercely criticizing U.S. policy.

President Donald Trump has reoriented American policy in the Middle East away from President Barack Obama’s friendly posture toward Iran. He departed from Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a nuclear arrangement with the Republic of Iran that was not ratified by the United States Senate.

Trump has exerted instead a “maximum pressure” campaign against the regime, with 12 demands on Iran before a new deal is reached. Those demands include a full account of its nuclear program, ending its proliferation of ballistic missiles, releasing all U.S. citizens held on spurious charges, ending support to terrorist groups, withdrawal of forces in Syria, and cessation of its threatening behavior against its neighbors.

The “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions has devastated the Iranian economy, which is in recession and faces rising inflation. It has made it difficult for Iran to pay foreign fighters engaged in supported terror operations. Iranians have taken to the streets in protest.

Iran recently killed an American contractor in Iraq and the United States killed Iranian general Qassim Suleimani, a top Iranian leader who was responsible for the killing and maiming of thousands of U.S. soldiers. Iran’s retaliatory strike for that killing resulted in no U.S. deaths, but the country did shoot down a Ukrainian passenger plane then lied about it for days.

At the conference, Zarif said official retaliation for the killing of Suleimani had ended, although he suggested independent attacks from others in the country might follow.

Murphy is a frequent speaker at the National Iranian American Council, a lobbying group with alleged links to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Republican Sens. Mike Braun of Indiana, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, and Ted Cruz of Texas recently asked the Department of Justice for potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

They wrote that the influential lobbying group “purports to improve understanding between American and Iranian people but in reality seems to spread propaganda and lobby on behalf of the Iranian government.” Evidence indicates that evidence Zarif himself was involved in founding the group.

Flip-Flop: Amy Klobuchar Says English Should Not Be Official Language of U.S.

Demoncrap hypocrites, but I repeat myself.

Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said at a recent campaign stop that English should not be the official language of the United States, even though she voted for a pro-English language bill during her time in the Senate.

Klobuchar said at the campaign event in Las Vegas on Friday that she has “taken a strong position against” the English-language amendment, which she voted in support of in 2007, the Associated Press reported……

Her policy shift comes a week before the caucuses are set to take place in a state with a large Latino population and an area where Klobuchar has about 10 percent support.

Klobuchar has flip-flopped on immigration policies, once supporting projects like a wall and E-Verify to ban employers from hiring illegal aliens back in 2006.

The Minnesota senator has also been open about supporting amnesty but has hidden her support for exporting college graduate-level jobs overseas.

Will Somebody Please Hate My Enemies For Me?

Mr French is being sarcastic as he’s one of the big Never-Trumpers

“So my problem with David French’s claim that Christians shouldn’t vote for Trump is that if you take it seriously, Christians shouldn’t vote for anyone because no president in my lifetime was Christ-like enough to meet French’s standard. (No, not even Jimmy Carter, whose public piety is merely cover for a poisonous personality). Now if you want to argue for monastic exclusion from politics, that’s fine (though to my mind stupid). But if you want to argue for it only when Trump is president, then I question your sincerity, and French’s rather pharasaical tone doesn’t help.

But despite his argument, I think even a serious pro-life Christian might conclude that, given a choice between an un-Christ-like politician who is loudly and vigorously in favor of abortion (i.e. any Democrat these days), and an un-Christ-like politician who is without doubt the most pro-life president we’ve ever had, it’s okay to support the latter. French attempts to engage this argument but to my mind he is not successful. I doubt many will find the piece all that persuasive but I think that French’s main intended audience was David French, whose faith in neverTrumpism may need bolstering at this point. And I’m not sure it’s impossible to love your enemies while still trying to kick their ass.

On a broader note, so long as we’re talking about sin, I’ll note that pride and envy seem to play a major role in the NeverTrump movement in general: Pride in (self-proclaimed) moral superiority, and envy of Trump’s accomplishments, which make him by any reasonable measure the most conservative president of my lifetime. I’d suggest some self-reflection on this point'”–Dr Glenn Reynolds

Hate has no place in pro-life America. None. And embracing or defending hate—even hatred of the movement’s most vigorous opponents—for the sake of life contradicts the spirit of the movement and stands to do more harm than good to the political cause that so many Christians value the most.

American Evangelicals represent one of the most powerful religious movements in the world. They exercise veto power over the political success of any presidential candidate from one of America’s two great parties. Yet they don’t wield that power to veto the selection of a man who completely rejects—and even scorns—many of their core moral values.

I fully recognize what I’m saying. I fully recognize that refusing to hire a hater and refusing to hire a liar carries costs. If we see politics through worldly eyes, it makes no sense at all. Why would you adopt moral standards that put you at a disadvantage in an existential political struggle? If we don’t stand by Trump we will lose, and losing is unacceptable.

“WE’RE LOSING OUR **** MINDS”

What he seems to be saying is that the demoncraps should stop with removing their masks and showing that they’re actually commies.
Their problem with Bernie Sanders is that he’s so open with it.

Cast your mind back to 2009, when Democrats, coming off Barack Obama’s convincing victory in the 2008 election, had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a more than ample majority in the House. Happy days are here again! Here comes pro-union card check, higher income taxes, amnesty and open borders, sweeping climate change legislation, and universal health care! It was around this time that James Carville, the impresario behind Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 campaign, confidently declared that Democrats were now set to rule for the next 40 years! He even published a book—40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation

Carville had drunk the Kool Aid of the liberal-Hegelian conceit that demographics and “the side of history” had delivered Democrats into the Promised Land, from whose commanding heights it was Progress as far as the mind’s-eye could imagine. Well, that glorious 40 years quickly became a fast one-way trip to the wilderness, as it didn’t even last 40 months. All liberals got out of that heavily Democratic Congress was . . . Obamacare? And oh what a success that was. No card check for labor unions, no amnesty for illegal immigrants, only a slight increase in income taxes for the very rich, while climate change legislation went down in fossil-fueled flames, as U.S. oil and natural gas production soared. Obama resorted to trying to get some of these things through executive action, but much of that was stymied in the courts or reversed by President Trump, who came to office and said, “Hey look—I found Obama’s pen!” In the 2010 election, the Democrats got creamed, with Republicans achieving their strongest position on all levels in 70 years.

All this came back to mind watching the Democrats’ debate in New Hampshire last night, which occurred conveniently during cocktail hour out here on the Left Coast, so in fact I literally ate popcorn along with adult beverages while I watched the Democratic field show once again that it is running to be president of Twitter more than President of the United States.

And this brings me to the angst of James Carville, who gave an extraordinary interview to MSNBC that has been transcribed by Vox: “We’re Losing Our Damn Minds.” Read the whole thing if your schadenfreude medication is at full strength. Here are a few excerpts:

Sean Illing: Why are you “scared to death” about the 2020 election?

James Carville: Look, the turnout in the Iowa caucus was below what we expected, what we wanted. Trump’s approval rating is probably as high as it’s been. This is very bad. And now it appears the party can’t even count votes. What the hell am I supposed to think? . . . And now it’s like we’re losing our damn minds. Someone’s got to step their game up here.

Sean Illing: Give me an example of what you mean by distractions.

James Carville: We have candidates on the debate stage talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration. They’re talking about doing away with nuclear energy and fracking. You’ve got Bernie Sanders talking about letting criminals and terrorists vote from jail cells. It doesn’t matter what you think about any of that, or if there are good arguments — talking about that is not how you win a national election. It’s not how you become a majoritarian party. . .

Sean Illing: So your complaint is basically that the party has tacked too far to the left?

James Carville: They’ve tacked off the damn radar screen. And look, I don’t consider myself a moderate or a centrist. I’m a liberal. But not everything has to be on the left-right continuum. . .

Here’s another stupid thing: Democrats talking about free college tuition or debt forgiveness. I’m not here to debate the idea. What I can tell you is that people all over this country worked their way through school, sent their kids to school, paid off student loans. They don’t want to hear this shit. And you saw Warren confronted by an angry voter over this. It’s just not a winning message.

The real argument here is that some people think there’s a real yearning for a left-wing revolution in this country, and if we just appeal to the people who feel that, we’ll grow and excite them and we’ll win. But there’s a word a lot of people hate that I love: politics. It means building coalitions to win elections. It means sometimes having to sit back and listen to what people think and framing your message accordingly. . .

James Carville: I want to give you an example of the problem here. A few weeks ago, Binyamin Appelbaum, an economics writer for the New York Times, posted a snarky tweet about how LSU canceled classes for the National Championship game. And then he said, do the “Warren/Sanders free public college proposals include LSU, or would it only apply to actual schools?”

You know how ****** patronizing that is to people in the South or in the middle of the country? First, LSU has an unusually high graduation rate, but that’s not the point. It’s the goddamn smugness. This is from a guy who lives in New York and serves on the Times editorial board and there’s not a single person he knows that doesn’t pat him on the back for that kind of tweet. He’s so fucking smart.

Appelbaum doesn’t speak for the Democratic Party, but he does represent the urbanist mindset. We can’t win the Senate by looking down at people. The Democratic Party has to drive a narrative that doesn’t give off vapors that we’re smarter than everyone or culturally arrogant.

But looking down on people is now a core value for the left, but I’ll need to write a separate post about the serious basis of this. (For academic readers, go back and find John Wettergreen’s dense but profound 1977 essay in the Western Political Quarterly, “Is Snobbery a Formal Value?” Short answer: Yes, yes it is.)

But finally, this:

Sean Illing: Buttigieg seems to model the sort of candidate you think can win.

James Carville: Mayor Pete has to demonstrate over the course of a campaign that he can excite and motivate arguably the most important constituents in the Democratic Party: African Americans. These voters are a hell of a lot more important than a bunch of 25-year-olds shouting everyone down on Twitter.

So he’s not happy. Democrats won’t like Carville when he’s not happy. I wonder if Carville was watching last night, and if so whether there are any un-smashed TV screens left in his house this morning.

Victor Davis Hanson on Hubris, Nemesis in the Deep State

This interview with Dr. Hanson is just too long to post and even excerpts wouldn’t do it justice. Just ‘Read The Whole Thing™‘ at your convenience about the corruption, hypocrisy, mendacity and sheer idiocy that’s endemic in our current government, bureaucracy and higher ‘education’.

Mueller ‘pitbull’ Weissmann appears to let slip they were trying to oust Trump by setting a perjury trap

Weissmann is the one who also did the work to get General Flynn indicted for perjury. Seems to be his usual tactic is to use a perjury charge because doing real investigative work is just too hard for him.
Just the kind of “Law Enforcement Officer” that you need when you want a tyrannical police state.

Andrew Weissmann, one of the most prominent members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russia, let slip on Thursday that they were “trying to get rid of” President Trump, in part by laying a perjury trap to get him on record under oath.

Known as Mueller’s “pitbull,” Weissmann was heavily involved in the criminal case against Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort. He stepped down before Mueller released his final report and struck a deal with a publisher for a book about his experiences on the special counsel.

He would also sign with NBC and MSNBC as a legal analyst, and appeared Thursday afternoon on MSNBC to comment on President Trump’s remarks earlier in the day on his acquittal by the U.S. Senate, where the president denounced the effort by political enemies to take him out.

Republican National Committee spokeswoman shared a video clip of the segment on Twitter, saying that “Weissmann just admitted what we always knew.”

Taking a shot at Trump for “mouthing off” earlier in the day, Weissmann said, “He never submitted to an interview, he never testified under oath — it’s true, the same happened in the Mueller case.”

“Why do you think that is?” MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace asked.

“There’s a classic reason,” Weissman replied. “There is legal jeopardy that attaches if you sit for an interview or if you say something under oath to federal prosecutors, to federal prosecutors, to the House, to the Senate — so if you notice, the president is happy to talk today about ‘oh, this is evil and these people are corrupt,’ but when it came time for him to put up or shut up, which is are you willing to actually say this under oath or even in an interview, he’s completely silent.”

This being, of course, Trump’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Speaking from the East Room on Thursday, the president said the Russian collusion probe was “all bullshit,” insisting that he was “treated unbelievably unfairly.”

Trump called former FBI director James Comey a “sleazebag,” and slammed the “top scum” at the bureau, to include disgraced former bureau agent Peter Strzok.

“We’ve been going through this now for three years. It was evil, it was corrupt, it was dirty cops, it was leakers. It was a disgrace. Had I not fired James Comey, who was a disaster, by the way, it’s possible I wouldn’t even be standing here right now,” he said. “We caught him in the act. Dirty cops. Bad people.”

“These are the crookedest, most dishonest, dirtiest people I’ve ever seen,” he added.

Weissmann was the epitome of the “13 angry Democrats” Trump often referred to when speaking of the special counsel……

As for bias, while there are many signs, the fact Weissmann attended Clinton’s 2016 election night party in New York City, according to The Wall Street Journal, may say all that needs to be said.

VA Dems Make It Clear: It’s About Guns, Not Crime

HB1617, authored by Republican Del. Jason Miyares, a former prosecutor, would have provided grant money to cities in order to implement two programs; Project Ceasefire and Project Exile.

The two programs work in conjunction with each other, both targeting the cities most violent and prolific offenders. Those individuals are given a choice. They can stop shooting, in which case they can work with the Ceasefire folks to help put their life on the right path, whether it’s through a GED program, job training, an apprenticeship, and the like. Or, if they keep shooting, they’ll be dealing with the men and women in Project Exile, and their cases are going to be referred to federal court where they’ll be facing long prison sentences without the possibility of early release.

“You’re going to stop shooting. We’ll help you if you let us, but we’ll make you if we have to.” That’s the message and the strategy behind these programs and it works, as has been detailed by researchers like David Kennedy, who has helped implement the strategy in many cities over the past twenty years. It works because it targets the people who are actually committing violent crimes. In many cases, these most likely to offend are also the most likely to be victimized. They’re responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime and tragedy in the communities they live and prey upon. But many of them are not beyond redemption, and lives have not only been saved but changed by these efforts.

This is the bill that Democrats killed, while passing bills to ration handgun purchases, limit firearms training, establish red flag laws, and even allow localities to pass their own gun control laws. They want cities across the state to be able to put useless, ineffective, and unconstitutional laws on the books, while preventing them from putting proven and effective programs in place that don’t require any new legislation beyond establishing a funding mechanism.

This is shameful. I’m not being hyperbolic when I say that I believe this bill, had it been enacted into law, would have saved more lives than all of Gov. Northam’s gun bills put together, and Democrats killed it in committee. This is not common sense. In fact, it makes no sense, given the fact that the Project Ceasefire model has support from a lot of liberal politicians.

No, I believe the reason Democrats killed this bill are simply because it was authored by a Republican and it didn’t do anything to restrict the rights of legal gun owners. Those two things made it unsupportable for the majority of the General Laws committee, and Virginians in high-crime neighborhoods are going to pay the price for the Democrats’ partisanship.

Climate Hypocrite: Bernie Leads 2020 Field in Private Jet Spending

The Bernie Sanders campaign spent just under $1.2 million on private jet travel last quarter, outpacing the entire 2020 Democratic presidential primary field.

The most recent filing from Sanders reveals $1,199,579 in spending during the final three months of 2019 to Apollo Jets, LLC, a “luxury private jet charter service.”

The campaign spent an additional $23,941 for transportation to Virginia-based Advanced Aviation Team.

The candidate who comes closest to matching Sanders in private jet spending was former vice president Joe Biden, whose campaign spent $1,040,698 to Advanced Aviation Team last quarter.

Students demanded divestment from fossil fuels, a professor offered to turn off the gas heating.

When consequences become personal, clotheads usually start backing up.
This is a primary principle of asymmetrical, 4th generation warfare.
A word to the wise should be sufficient for political and other purposes.

Professor Andrew Parker of St John’s College at Oxford University is my new favorite person. The Times of London reports that a group of students wrote to Professor Parker to discuss demands being made by student protesters about fossil fuel divestment. His response wasn’t what they were expecting:

Two students at St John’s College wrote to Andrew Parker, the principal bursar, this week requesting a meeting to discuss the protesters’ demands, which are that the college “declares a climate emergency and immediately divests from fossil fuels”. They say that the college, the richest in Oxford, has £8 million of its £551 million endowment fund invested in BP and Shell.

Professor Parker responded with a provocative offer. “I am not able to arrange any divestment at short notice,” he wrote. “But I can arrange for the gas central heating in college to be switched off with immediate effect. Please let me know if you support this proposal.”

One of the students wrote back and said he would present the proposal but he didn’t think Parker was being appropriately serious. Professor Parker responded to that note saying, “You are right that I am being provocative but I am provoking some clear thinking, I hope. It is all too easy to request others to do things that carry no personal cost to yourself. The question is whether you and others are prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve the goals of environmental improvement (which I support as a goal).” The best part of the story is the response from the organizer of the protest:

Fergus Green, the organiser of the wider protest, who is studying for a master’s degree in physics and philosophy at Balliol College, said: “This is an inappropriate and flippant response by the bursar to what we were hoping would be a mature discussion. It’s January and it would be borderline dangerous to switch off the central heating.”

Yes, it would be rash and “borderline dangerous” to do something like that.

Now step back and take notice how closely this small debate at one college is a microcosm of the larger debate taking place around the globe. The teenage face of the anti-fossil fuel movement, Greta Thunberg, recently demanded “real zero” emissions starting right now. Following her advice would be the equivalent of cutting off the gas that heats the campus in the middle of winter. It wouldn’t just be “borderline dangerous” it would almost certainly be catastrophic for millions of people. Despite this, I bet protest organizer Fergus Green thinks she’s part of a “mature discussion.” In any case, a lot of people like him seem to think so.

Professor Parker’s response focuses the mind on the fact that this isn’t a game. There are significant costs to real people associated with eliminating fossil fuels. Natural gas, for instance, isn’t something we can simply cease using overnight or even in ten years. If we’re not careful about how we proceed, a lot of people could get hurt. So a fair response to people demanding an end to the use of fossil fuels is the one the professor put to these protesters: You first.

Lying Billionaires and Gun Control

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- I listened to Billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s remarks after the attack at the West Freeway Church of Christ in Texas. I paraphrase, but you can check the video of his remarks for yourself.

‘It is the job of law enforcement to have guns and to decide when to shoot. You don’t want average citizens to have guns in public. That is the job of the police.’

This was a prepared speech so we have to assume Mayor Bloomberg meant what he said. One mistake is an accident, two mistakes are carelessness, and three or more falsehoods are propaganda. I had hope for Mayor Bloomberg, but, sadly, this qualifies as propaganda. To his credit, Mayor Bloomberg is probably telling us what he knows, but you know things that the Mayor doesn’t.

You know how to defend yourself and your family. I’ve taught beginners to handle firearms. My students have been properly intimidated by the moral weight of the gun. My student’s questions change with time in a consistent pattern.

They often evolve through this chain of thought:

  • How do I shoot?
    •  When can I shoot?
      • When must I defend myself and those I love?

The law says you have may use lethal force when you face a certain level of threat under certain circumstances. With time, most people who carry concealed fall back to the situation where they must shoot. They are beautifully reluctant to harm others. They plan to use a gun to prevent a greater harm, and to do so only when they have no other choice. I’ve seen those decisions fall into place. That is my experience, but we know far more.

Contrary to what Mayor Bloomberg implied, people with a concealed carry permit are more law abiding and less violent than the police. That makes sense when you consider their very different situations. Police and civilians are figuratively headed in opposite directions. Police have to close with a criminal and make an arrest. The ordinary citizen wants to get away from the bad guy. I think police have a much tougher job, but more citizens have contact with criminals every day than do the police. In fact, thousands of honest citizens defend themselves from criminal attack by using a firearm in self-defense every day. Mayor Bloomberg chose to ignore those facts.

You know something else that Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t know. You know how you live. You know who belongs in your home and at work. You know your neighbors, your co-workers, and your customers. You know many of the people you meet routinely on the street. That knowledge gives you an incredible advantage when things go wrong. Because of what you know and who you know, you know the good guys from the bad guys. That helps explain why armed civilians are so much less likely than the police to shoot the wrong person. You saw the problem unfold while the police arrive later and have to figure it out in a hurry.

Again, Mayor Bloomberg chose to ignore those facts.

Time is critical when you defend yourself from a violent attack. When we look at the attack at the West Freeway Church of Christ, the defenders had only a few seconds to respond. (The video of the attack is here.) We have an advantage that the police don’t have. We are there when the problem unfolds. The police arrive some 11.1 minutes later, on average. In mass murder attacks, that delay costs about a dozen lives. Mayor Bloomberg chose to ignore the lives we save.

Perhaps I’m being too hard on the Mayor. You have the knowledge and experience that the Mayor doesn’t have. Tens of millions of us bear arms every day. In contrast, it has been years, if not decades, since Mayor Bloomberg lived without a paid security detail. Maybe he is telling the truth as he knows it since most of his security detail are former law enforcement officers. In that sense, the former Mayor still lives with police protection. The rest of us can’t afford that, so we do it ourselves.

Mayor Bloomberg hired New York cops to defend him, so of course, he wants you disarmed.

I understand that politicians want to give us simple answers, but the world is a complex place. We’ve seen gun prohibition fail time after time. Can we afford a political leader who gets something as simple as self-defense so consistently wrong? I won’t trust Mayor Bloomberg with the safety of my family.

 

Democrats on House Impeachment Team Voted Against the Aid Package for Ukraine They Want to Impeach Trump Over (Video)

Standard operational demoncrap hypocrisy.

The Democrat Party and their colleagues in the liberal mainstream media want to impeach President Trump for not sending lethal aid to the Ukraine quick enough.

President Trump waited 55 days before releasing taxpayer-funded US aid to the Ukrainian government in 2019.
Democrats want you to believe this was a “crime or misdemeanor”.

BUT NOW THERE’S THIS…
Those same Democrats on the House Impeachment Team VOTED AGAINST the aid package to the Ukraine last year!

Three of the House Impeachment Managers voted AGAINST Aid to Ukraine.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) all voted against the bill that included the aid to Ukraine.

And Jerrold Nadler voted against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 that included aid to Ukraine.

Sen. Whitehouse on impeachment trial: Repetition is key to building a case
Jan. 24, 2020 – 1:50 – Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., pushed back Friday against defenders of President Trump who have argued that Democrats are making a repetitive impeachment case.

“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”—-Joseph Goebbels

Need I say more?

Virginia Gov. Northam Smears Gun Control Opponents to Frighten His Base
If politicians are going to paint their opponents as illegitimate, they should be prepared to receive the same treatment in return.

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam is misusing a regularly scheduled political rally to frighten his base and gin up support for his troubled administration. Flinging scare-mongering language, the Democratic governor has portrayed a grassroots lobbying effort against gun restrictions as a potential source of “violent extremism” and declared a state of emergency.

It’s a cheap attempt to build support by delegitimizing opposition to his policies. On the way to declaring a state of emergency, Northam breathlessly warned:

Credible intelligence gathered by Virginia’s law enforcement agencies indicates that tens of thousands of advocates plan to converge on Capitol Square for events culminating on January 20, 2020. Available information suggests that a substantial number of these demonstrators are expected to come from outside the Commonwealth, may be armed, and have as their purpose not peaceful assembly but violence, rioting, and insurrection.

The “events culminating on January 20, 2020” consist of the Virginia Civil Defense League’s (VCDL) annual lobby day, in which it gathers at Capitol Square, like many other organizations (the Virginia Nurses Association has four lobby days planned for the end of January and beginning of February) do. In the case, the organization is advocating for self-defense rights and against restrictions on the same.

Images of the VCDL’s peaceful 2017 rally are on display at the organization’s website. This is a normal, regularly scheduled gathering intended to influence public policy.

But the governor warns that this year’s event features “white nationalist rhetoric and plans by out-of-state militia groups to attend.” He links the gathering to “events that occurred in Charlottesville,” as if a gathering by opponents of his policies must inevitably descend into violence launched by fringe-dwellers.

Will fringe racists and right-wing radicals attend today’s rally? Almost certainly. Back when anti-war protests were a thing (remember them?) an even more predictable feature than Susan Sarandon on the stage were clusters of far-left types wandering through the crowd trying to convince attendees that a desire for peace implies a workers’ revolution and liquidating the bourgeoisie. Radicals frequently court recruits by piggybacking their causes on mainstream ones. In and of itself, that doesn’t reflect on the mainstream cause.

In fact, one of the groups joining the rally is Antifascists of the Seven Hills, an anti-capitalist group which opposes gun restrictions because “gun control serves to weaken our defense positions.” They don’t want to leave any racist presence at the rally unopposed by other pro-gun voices.

“In considering how to deter their recruitment and nullify their ability to harm folks lobbying or otherwise going about their business, we recognized that the VCDL was drawing lines in the sand on optics, and trying to distance themselves from other issues and symbols like the Confederate battle flag,” the group notes on its Facebook page.

Whatever your opinion of antifa (I’ve been a critic), it’s clear that this isn’t the unalloyed white nationalist gathering that Northam describes.

No, whether you agree or disagree with it, the rally’s message is certainly mainstream. Even as VCDL warns that “proposed bills will turn many semi-automatic firearm owners into felons,” 86 of Virginia’s 95 counties had passed measures declaring themselves sanctuaries for self-defense rights, as of the end of December.

“They suggest that the counties might not enforce new state laws limiting gun rights,” the Wall Street Journal reports of the sanctuary jurisdictions.

To a large extent, that’s a reflection of the state’s version of the national urban-rural divide, which has too many politicians favoring one side while vilifying and punishing the other. In Virginia, support for Northam and the Democratic legislative majority is concentrated in the state’s urban crescent, while the sanctuary counties are in rural and exurban areas that even a Democratic county chairman accused his party of treating with “malevolent neglect.”

With an immediate post-election victory push for gun restrictions, state Democrats play to the prejudices of their urban-to-suburban base with legislation that sticks it to the rural areas where such laws are largely unpopular.

Playing the same game a year after news reports that, years ago, he dressed in blackface, Northam seeks revived credibility among urban, progressive voters by pushing his party’s gun control proposals. And then he doubles down by smearing his opponents as bent on “violence, rioting, and insurrection.”

But what about that “credible intelligence” Northam claims was gathered by law enforcement agencies? Maybe it exists, but governments have a long history of feeding the public’s fears to delegitimize opponents and justify extraordinary actions.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary,” H. L. Mencken mused decades ago.