Category Archives: RASHIDA TLAIB

No. 10 Bookworm Podcast — Tlaib, Omar, Israel, and the Times takes on slavery

The advent of the internet means that ordinary people like me can loudly criticize Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and the Times‘ ridiculous 1619 project.

(If you prefer listening to reading, the companion podcast is embedded below, or you can listen to it at Libsyn or at Apple podcasts. I’m trying to make a go of my podcast so, if you like it, please share it with your friends and on social media. Giving it good ratings helps too.)

An internet world lets ordinary people praise Israel. It’s very hard to cast ones mind back to a pre-internet era when traditional news outlets were the only game in town and news was on a day-to-day cycle. In today’s world, the fact that two junior Congresswomen were denied admission to Israel has received 24/7 coverage in the old-line news media (television and what we still call “print,” even though it’s really internet). In addition, politicians — especially Leftists — have spoken about it steadily, flooding Twitter with their opinions.

Here are the basic outlines: Rashida Tlaib (D-Palestine) and Ilhan Omar (D-Somalia) have consistently and openly demonized both Israel and Jews. Among other things, both have actively pushed the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement, which seeks to destroy Israel economically. Of course, those who argue that this is an appropriate activity because of Israel’s alleged human rights abuses have not pushed a BDS movement against any other country that has provably violated human rights. The same people behind BDS are horrified that Trump would use economic sanctions against China, never mind that China’s human rights abuses against its own people are legion and that its economic abuses are terribly damaging to Americans here at home.

Anyhoo, Tlaib and Omar planned to travel on the taxpayers’ dime to visit Israel. Oh, wait! I misspoke. They planned to travel on the taxpayers’ dime to visit a place called Palestine:

Omar Tlaib itinerary Palestine Israel

Israel mulled letting the women into the country but eventually decided against it. In so doing, it relied on an existing law holding that Israel has the right to bar from entry people who support the BDS movement. One could add that it’s quite reasonable to prohibit entry to people who call for your country’s destruction and openly embrace activists who use violence to advance that destruction.

Democrats went nuts. How dare Israel enforce its borders! How dare Israel insult the U.S. Congress! How dare Israel insult American citizens! How dare Israel listen to Trump’s advice about the women!

Tlaib then upped the ante by announcing that Israel’s decision was barring her from seeing her beloved 95-year-old grandmother. She promised, in writing, that if Israel agreed, she would not engage in any anti-Israel provocation:

Israel yielded to this humanitarian request, only to have Tlaib immediately throw it back in Israel’s face:

In other words, the whole thing was a stunt to keep the news cycle going a bit longer. Which gets me back to my point about the non-stop news cycle. Would this kind of non-news also have been a story in the old days? I think it would have been. I distinctly remember when the media turned on Jimmy Carter (hoping, I’m sure, that Ted Kennedy would become the Democrat candidate for 1980). The traditional media was suddenly flooded with endless iterations about killer rabbits, lusting after the Polish people, and defecting from America.

The virtue of the internet era, despite the best efforts of Google, Facebook, and other Leftist outlets exerting out-sized control over the internet, is that people other than the mainstream media still have a say in the matter. That means that I — and you and every other sane person — can tweet or blog or podcast about the fact that, if Tlaib and Omar can boycott Israel, Israel can boycott them.

And I can point out that it’s really irrelevant that Israel is barring those two women from entering Israel, since their plan is to go to some other country altogether. That other country would be Palestine, a place found only on UNRWA maps and on the map that Tlaib put in her office when she was elected as a U.S. Congresswoman. (UNRWA, for those who don’t know, stands for United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. It is the only UN agency devoted entirely to a single group of refugees, a group, moreover, that gained its refugee status 52 years ago. All other refugee groups in the world have either been repatriated or absorbed into their new locales.)

One other opinion I’ve seen floating around is that Israel should let Tlaib and Omar in and have them see places unique to Israel, in the hopes of changing their minds. Daniel Pipes, one of the most profound thinkers about anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment believes this:

For starters, the possibility exists that the congresswomen would have learned something during their travels to diminish their hostility to Israel. It has happened before. Jesse Helms, the longtime Republican senator from North Carolina, who died in 2008, was renowned for his hostility to Israel, for example calling in 1982 for a “shut down” of U.S.-Israel relations. But he was strongly affected by a 1985 trip to the Holy Land and became Israel’s staunch supporter. In a more recent case, former Islamist Maajid Nawaz recalled on Twitter Thursday that a “trip to Israel & engagement with Israeli humans changed me profoundly.”

This is one of the few times I find myself at odds with Pipes. First, Israel can’t force the women to do anything, and visiting “pro-Israel” sites was not on their itinerary. Second, these woman have a political, public, and media investment in hating Israel. There’s no benefit to them in changing their minds. Third, serious haters are surrounded by a mental force field. This is especially true when it comes to calls (not Pipes’ call, by the way) that it would have helped Israel to take Tlaib and Omar to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Museum. I can’t think of a more terrible idea.

I can assure you that seeing Yad Vashem will not move these two open anti-Semites to see the error of their ways. Instead, whether they gloat openly or inwardly, a visit to Yad Vashem will represent something they devoutly wish — the bloody and complete destruction of the Jewish people. Keep in mind that their pals in Hamas have as part of their charter calls for the obliteration of the Jewish people and the complete Muslim takeover of their land. In other words, what Hitler started, they wish to finish. Yad Vashem is not a place of horror for them, but a reminder of work yet to be done.

So, I’m fine with the fact that Tlaib and Omar don’t get to go to Israel, that they don’t see Yad Vashem, and that the internet world, while every bit as Leftistly vicious and repetitive as the old, pre-internet mainstream media world, for the first time gives the rest of us a voice.

One more thing: I’ve seen a bunch of headlines for the past two days about the fact that that Tlaib’s grandmother called for “God to ruin Trump.” She didn’t. If you listen, you hear that she called for “Allah” to ruin Donald Trump.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve never considered Allah to be the same creator as the Judeo-Christian God. Monothesist, yes. God, no. Just sayin’.

The risible Times’ take on slavery and America. Byron York has garnered deserved praise for his article describing the latest New York Times project, which isn’t just to say that Trump is racist (its planned narrative for the next 15 months), but to say that all of America is racist:

In the Times‘ view (which it hopes to make the view of millions of Americans), the country was actually founded in 1619, when the first Africans were brought to North America, to Virginia, to be sold as slaves.

This year marks the 400th anniversary of that event, and the Times has created something called the 1619 Project. This is what the paper hopes the project will accomplish: “It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”

[snip]

The basic thrust of the 1619 Project is that everything in American history is explained by slavery and race. The message is woven throughout the first publication of the project, an entire edition of the Times magazine. It begins with an overview of race in America — “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.” — written by Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones, who on Twitter uses the identity Ida Bae Wells, from the crusading late 19th-early 20th century African American journalist Ida B. Wells.

The essays go on to cover the economy (“If you want to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the plantation.”), the food we eat (“The sugar that saturates the American diet has a barbaric history as the ‘white gold’ that fueled slavery.”), the nation’s physical health (“Why doesn’t the United States have universal healthcare? The answer begins with policies enacted after the Civil War.”), politics (“America holds onto an undemocratic assumption from its founding: that some people deserve more power than others.”), daily life (“What does a traffic jam in Atlanta have to do with segregation? Quite a lot.”), and much more.

[snip]

A major goal of the 1619 Project is to take the reframing message to schools. The Times has joined an organization called the Pulitzer Center (which, it should be noted, is not the organization that hands out the Pulitzer Prize) to create a 1619 Project curriculum. “Here you will find reading guides, activities, and other resources to bring The 1619 Project into your classroom,” the center says in a message to teachers.

The paper also wants to reach into schools itself. “We will be sending some of our writers on multi-city tours to talk to students,” Hannah-Jones said recently, “and we will be sending copies of the magazine to high schools and colleges. Because to us, this project really takes wing when young people are able to read this and understand the way that slavery has shaped their country’s history.”

I have a few points I want to make, in no particular order.

To a hammer, everything is a nail. To the extent the Left is monomaniacal about America and racism, this truly is the prism through which it views this country. Nothing will change that.

The goal here is obvious: To make it clear that America is rotten to its very core. There can be no salvation. It must be destroyed root and branch, for the sin of African slavery is so deeply woven into the fabric of America’s soul that it cannot be expiated. There is no level of remorse or redemption that will wipe out this canker. The more than 600,000 American men whose bodies littered American soil are meaningless. The Civil Rights Movement is meaningless. The first black(ish) president . . . meaningless. The corruption is so interwoven with America that the country needs to be ended.

I’m reminded somehow of my aunt. She, along with her siblings (one of whom was my father) and her mother managed to escape Nazi Germany before the war. After the war, she found her way to Israel. Israel was socialist, which ought to have satisfied her, but it wasn’t socialist enough. She wanted communism, so she abandoned her husband and child and returned to Berlin. When people asked her how she could return to the land of the Nazis, she assured them that this was not a problem: “They’ve been purified by communism.” Looking at how East Germans suffered compared to their Western compatriots over the next 73 years, I have to say she was right. That’s the kind of purification the new American Left wants for us.

The Left ignores or misunderstands the history of slavery. Slavery is not uniquely American. Slavery is a part of the world and its history. I don’t believe that there has been a time or place in the world during which slavery has not existed. In the early years of European activity in North America, it was the Europeans — the Spaniards, French, and English — who brought slavery to these shores. At the same time, throughout the Muslim world, there was a huge traffic in European slaves, with millions of Europeans vanishing into Africa and the Middle East.

Moreover, slavery in America wasn’t initially driven by race. The British made a serious effort to use the Irish as slaves — in the form of indentured servants for debts or penal servitude for crimes — but the Irish, stubbornly, kept up and dying. It was black resistance to malaria, rather than their skin color, that initially made them the preferred unpaid servant race.

Put another way, for all of America’s pre-revolutionary history, slavery in every part of the world wasn’t the exception, it was the norm. Moreover, the fact that slaves ended up being black wasn’t a racial decision, it was a pragmatic decision based upon survivability.

The only places in which slavery ceased being the norm were those places that embraced capitalism. Slavery is an inefficient system, since those who labor without recompense produce at the most minimal level possible. It’s when people’s labor is tied to profit that they put energy into their work. Moreover, although the slave owner isn’t getting good work from slaves, he still has to maintain them. They must be fed, housed, and clothed. Moreover, a slave owner with the even most limited conscience also had to care for them at some level after their work years ended. After all, at this point they were unsaleable and, even in the cruelest of times during the Roman empire, slaughtering them like old horses wasn’t the done thing.

Beginning immediately after the Civil War, the northern states took off like gangbusters, creating the amazing American economic engine that exploded onto the world in the second half of the 19th century. Meanwhile, for more than 100 years after the War, the former slave states — the ones that immediately embraced Jim Crow — were economic backwaters. To the extent that they had a slavery legacy, it screwed them economically. It wasn’t until they turned their collective backs entirely on their racist pasts that the Southern states finally caught up with the northern states economically.

But again, to a hammer, everything is a nail. America is evil and modern Americans must be made to suffer until, as my aunt said, they are purified in the fires of communism.

The post No. 10 Bookworm Podcast — Tlaib, Omar, Israel, and the Times takes on slavery appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Bookworm Beat 5/7/19 — the Vanishing Conservatives on Social Media edition

There are reasons for you to be very afraid of the social media crackdown on conservatives (even fringe ones), plus other scary stuff in today’s world.

Democrats prepare for 2020 by silencing conservatives.  If I had to identify the scariest news today, it would be Twitter’s purge of conservatives, which follows closely on the heels of Facebook’s purge of conservatives. These social media outlets, which hold power unimagined at any past time, are using that power to silence non-Progressive dissent.

When it came to Facebook’s most recent purge, I won’t argue that Alex Jones is an unpleasant, possibly slightly demented character. Others, though, are merely vocal not-Leftists, such as Paul Joseph Watson, whose platform is Alex Jones’s InfoWars, or provocateurs, such as Milo Yiannopoulos. As a sop to “equality,” Facebook also finally shutdown arch anti-Semite (and Democrat friend) Louis Farrakhan, whom two major Leftist media outlets promptly identified as “right wing.”

Other than Farrakhan, both Twitter and Facebook do not appear to have gone after Left wingers. Most conspicuously, they continued to ignore Left wing “news” sites that, for two years, promoted the biggest hoax in American political history or blue-checked Lefties who revel in fantasies of murdering Trump or slapping around conservatives, including the innocent Covington School boys, whose only crime was to wear MAGA hats. These same social media behemoths have also left alone Hamas sites that advocate for Israel’s destruction and the genocide of her people; and unhinged Leftists sites that screech hysterically about toxic whites, masculinity, straight people, etc., all in the most vile and violent terms.

Moreover, currently both Facebook and Twitter seem comfortable providing a platform for Pennsylvania State Representative Brian Sims, who proudly posted video of himself verbally harassing an old lady praying outside a Planned Parenthood clinic and then went on to promise to pay anyone who would dox three pro-life teenage girls.

When called on his behavior, the out-and-proud Sims doubled down on the hateful rhetoric, all of which seems to have escaped Twitter’s eagle eye for “hate speech”:

Speaking of Pennsylvania, do you recall Facebook closing down the social media account showing a school recital in which darling little American Muslim children joyously recited lines about becoming martyrs to take back the Al Aqsa mosque, all while beheading perfidious Jews in showers of blood? If you recall that, you recall more than I do. Of course, the Muslim American Society Islamic Center in Philadelphia (MAS Philly), the group that posted the video, did say that it erred in posting it, so I guess that was enough. Neither Facebook nor MAS Philly seemed troubled by the video’s genocidally anti-Semitic content, never mind the child abuse it displayed.

Given the prominence social media has in American communication, it’s fairly obvious that Twitter and Facebook both want to prevent a repeat of 2016. Their silencing of conservative voices, while doing nothing about the vile content emanating from those affiliated with the political Left, is their way of achieving that goal.

I’ve already harped on the fact that California’s open primary silences conservatives completely during November elections. This happens because California’s Leftist majority means that only Democrats show up on the ballot for state and federal offices. In other words, when voters are paying attention, the only voices they hear are Leftist ones.

My preference is for these social media outlets to be declared publishers. After all, they clearly exercise control over content. If these social media sites are identified as publishers, they can be sued over content. Then, sue them into oblivion or into even-handedness, one or the other. Failing that, the government is going to have to step in . . . and that’s never a good thing.

Why are gays and lesbians so stridently anti-abortion? One of the things Brian Sims’s behavior highlights is that, when it comes to abortion, gays and lesbians are on the front lines. On my real-me Facebook page, the most vicious posts attacking pro-Life people are from gay men, with lesbians following at a close second. (I grew up and lived for decades in the Bay Area, so I have/had a lot of lesbian and gay friends and acquaintances.)

I find peculiar the fact that people whose preferred form of sexual congress cannot result in pregnancy are the ones loudest and most aggressive in their loyalty to abortion on demand up to and including the moment a baby is born.

Is it hostility to procreators?

Is it the fact that they live in essentially child free worlds and therefore have no empathy for babies?

Is it that, when gays and lesbians are politically Left, they hew to the extremes of that ideology?

Honestly, I don’t know. What do you think?

Jews, Israel, and the Democrat presidential candidates Here are two stories, that are definitely related. The first is that 42% of American Jews, when polled, complained that Trump is too pro-Israel:

Roughly four-in-ten (42%) say they think Trump is favoring the Israelis too much, while a similar share (47%) say he is striking the right balance between the Israelis and Palestinians. The rest either say he is favoring the Palestinians too much (6%) or they don’t know (4%).

Daniel Greenfield, who brought this poll to my attention, sees a bright side:

On the bright side, this means that about 53% of American Jews are pro-Israel.

He makes another, even more important, point about those anti-Israel Jews (all of whom, I guarantee you, are products of American institutions of higher indoctrination and anti-Semitism):

Many don’t like the Jewish State and their idea of being Jewish is watching Woody Allen movies or, for millennials, Broad City.

In other words, these are Jews in name only (“My last name is Goldberg, I vote Democrat, I fast on Yom Kippur, I hate Trump, and Israel is a Nazi nation.”).

The other, related, story is that, after Hamas in Gaza (territory without any Israeli control or oversight) rained over 600 rockets down on Israel, killing four Israelis, not a single Democrat party presidential candidate spoke up.

Indeed, the only Dems who seemed willing to mention the issue were Representative Ilhan Omar (D. Somalia) and Representative Rashida Tlaib (D. Palestine). Ilhan Omar bemoaned that “cycle of violence” as if the facts weren’t that Israel did nothing until she’d been hit by hundreds of missiles. Tlaib, meanwhile, who is ostensibly an American politician, mourned what was happening to “our Palestinian people.” Not “the Palestinian people” or “our allies {as if!) in Palestine,” but “our Palestinian people.” I honestly can’t decide whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing that these two women are in Congress. On the one hand, they’re way too close to the levers of power. On the other hand, ordinary Americans can finally see what conservatives have been worrying about for years.

One of my Democrat Facebook friends, who is deeply concerned about Israel’s well-being and about rising anti-Semitism around the world, noted the Democrat primary candidates’ silence. He urged people following his Facebook feed to contact these candidates to complain. Because I don’t believe people can be harangued into agreeing with you, I confined myself to pointing out that, even if pressure caused these Dem pols to issue a belated pro-Israel statement, it was worth remembering that their initial instinct was to remain silent. I hope that thought fell on fertile soil.

I think we will see some Jewish migration to Republicans and even more Jewish migration away from Democrats. (That is, the latter group won’t be able to bring itself to conservativism, but will no longer be able to tolerate both open and covert anti-Semitism in the Democrat party.) The numbers will be small, but every vote — or lack of a vote — counts.

I’m personally ambivalent about Jews joining the Republican party. If their only reason for being there is to support Israel, but they remain Leftist in all their other values, they will do to the Democrat Party what Leftists did to red states when they fled high tax states for low tax states — they turned those states blue and promptly imposed in those states the same policies that had them fleeing their states of origin in the first place. Rush describes those people as locusts, and he’s right to do so.

My real preference is for disaffected Jewish Democrats just to sit out the 2020 election — or, even better, to cast a single protest vote for Trump and then do nothing.

Trump may have China’s number. To my great surprise, the New York Times published an opinion piece that says, not that Trump is an idiot in his dealings with China, but that Xi Jinping may have been the one who let the glory days of the Obama years go to his head. Yi-Zheng Lian argues that, while former Chinese premiers made nice with American presidents, Xi Jinping got increasingly aggressive in his policies, whether in trade, intellectual property theft, or attempts to expand China’s military and economic reach.

Lian says that Xi’s overreach happened because he became president in 2012 when China was still enjoying a great “economic miracle,” as compared to America’s ongoing recession. What Lian tactfully ignores is that Xi became Chinese’s president when Obama was America’s president — and the latter was always willing to back down and sell out.

Now, not only are China’s economic chickens coming home to roost because of its over-extension, Xi is facing a president who rightly views China as an economic and military threat. Additionally, rather than backing down, Trump is slowly but surely pushing China into a corner.

No wonder then that Steve Bannon, who may be unpleasant but is nobody’s fool, thinks that yesterday (Monday) was the most important day in Trump’s presidency:

“I happen to think that today [Monday] was the most important day of Donald Trump’s presidency,” Bannon told Dobbs. “He’s president of the United States because of the rejection of working-class people and middle-class people, about the managed decline of our country at the hands of people like Hillary Clinton. The Clinton global initiative, the whole Clinton apparatus. These globalists and elitists were very comfortable with the managed decline, particularly vis-a-vis the rise of China. And Donald Trump confronted that, particularly in the upper Midwest. This is the reason he won states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio. People understand […] the factories went to China, the jobs went to China, and the opioids came in. So I think that Trump understands that tariffs are more than taxes. They’re more about self-empowerment of the working class.”

Not only does Trump understand this, Bannon said, but he also explained it very well. “Today he said that […] ‘I’m not going to do this, you’re not gonna come back and retrade us. I’m going to hit you with the tariffs.’ And I think this is a very big week in American economic history,” he added.

In this regard, Bannon explained, it’s important to keep in mind that the pressure on Trump to be soft on China has been enormous. “The IR department of the Chinese Communist Party, the Investors Relations department, is Wall Street, the lobbyists of corporate America. The pressure on President Trump has been relentless, and it’s all the Fear Project.”

If you like seeing Leftists viciously attacked in the media, then you must read Kyle Smith’s preemptive strike against New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who is apparently planning to run for president:

Like an insecure college student trying on various personalities in an effort to capture the attention of the cutest girl in Postcolonial Gender Politics — now a preppy tennis player, now a tortured Goth guitarist, now an angry male feminist — de Blasio keeps trying to repackage himself, unable to perceive that it is the contents that people don’t like.

[snip]

De Blasio is not just a snoozy, groundhog-murdering buffoon who causes the city embarrassment on a par with the New York Knicks or JFK Airport. He’s also a skeezy money grubber who borrows tricks from his former boss Hillary Clinton (for whom he served as campaign manager in 2000). He has a tendency to set up noble-sounding activist groups that by miraculous coincidence attract dollars from entities wishing to grease the wheels with City Hall.

[snip]

What’s most salient about de Blasio is the sheer scale of his incompetence: Without even an “Oops,” he just shuttered his disastrous “Renewal” program, which torched three-quarters of a billion dollars on failed educators who were happy to cash the checks and delivered approximately zero results. De Blasio’s New York City Housing Authority — the outfit that runs all those charming housing projects — is so unspeakable (mold, rats, lead paint, unsafe elevators, leaky pipes, etc.) that the city was forced to accept oversight from a monitor appointed by Ben Carson’s Department of Housing and Urban Development. That’s right: The mayor bungled one of his central duties so badly that it’s now under the control of the administration of . . . Donald J. Trump.

What should really shake up the few sane people still loyal to a Democrat party is that de Blasio, with all his faults and failures, fits perfectly into the current Democrat party presidential candidate line-up.

Not all children’s deaths are equal. I sometimes get the sense the Progressives’ “compassion” is circumscribed by political need. For example, think of Democrats on the border issue: They’re all about “the children, the children, the children,” except that they don’t seem to care at all that, with the flood of people crossing our southern border, children are being rented out to create temporary families for asylum claims. These children are merchandise and, I suspect, get handed over to sex traffickers when their utility is over.

Moreover, many of the complaints about “the children, the children, the children,” don’t seem to be rooted in fact. For example, Sheriff David Clarke (ret.) wrote an article pointing out that three “cause célèbre” dead children all died from illnesses unrelated to the U.S. border. Each death was a tragedy, but none had political weight, so the media and their pro-immigrant fellow travelers had to lie about or obscure the reasons these poor children died.

Reading Sheriff Clarke’s article made me realize that I’ve seen almost nothing in the American media about Anders Holch Povlsen’s children. If you’re saying “Anders Holch who? And why his children?” you’ve made my point for me.

Asos is a huge British online fashion and beauty retailer. Its founder, however, is a Danish billionaire, Anders Holch Povlsen. He and his family — Povlsen, his wife, and his four young children — were in Sri Lanka for a vacation a little while ago. They stayed at a very nice hotel. Well, it was a very nice hotel until Muslim terrorists blew it up, along with several churches on an ill-fated Easter Sunday.

That explosion killed three out of the four Povlsen children: Alfred, Alma, and Agnes. Only little Astrid remains. You can see the surviving Povlsens’ overwhelming grief in this photo essay about the funeral, where they had to watch three of their children get carried away in little, white, flower-covered coffins.

Normally, you’d think the media would be all over a story about the deaths of three out of four children in a billionaire’s family. Imagine if they had died in a car accident or while marching in a pink pussy hat parade. We would have seen non-stop coverage, along with hand-wringing, about unsafe cars (a green world without cars would be better) or about the incredible evil of alt-right people.

But that’s not how these children died. Instead, they died quite politically incorrectly at the hands of Muslim terrorists. Their deaths, not being politically useful, have been ignored as much as possible.

Remember, if it doesn’t fit the narrative, it doesn’t exist.

If the only thing Trump did was change the federal judicial bench, he will have been the most important, consequential president in our lifetimes.

I say this because an Obama appointee just couldn’t bear to imprison for an extended period a young man who, at age 18, decided he wanted to blow up a whole bunch of people in the name of Allah. Fortunately, Adel Daoud confided, in between happy giggles, his plan to an undercover FBI agent, rather than a real terrorist. That’s why, when Daoud pushed the detonator on a car bomb outside a crowded Chicago bar, nothing happened.

But for Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, an Obama appointee, Daoud’s utterly evil intent didn’t matter. What mattered was that he was a poor, lost little boy:

Coleman said Daoud was uniquely immature at the time, when he was 18, noting how Daoud is heard giggling almost constantly as he brainstorms attacks to avenge what he saw as the West’s war on Muslims.

At an impressionable age, the judge said the “awkward young man with few friends” was immediately drawn to the 38-year-old FBI agent who first met with Daoud. Daoud promptly began tossing out ideas to impress the agent posing as a terrorist, once suggesting they mount an attack with “flying cars” packed with explosives.

“He continued to do what teenage boys do … talk big,” Coleman said.

Somehow that “big talk” translated into big action, because Daoud actually pushing what he thought was a detonator button. Coleman, though, was moved most by his giggles. Seeking to make things better for this poor little baby, Coleman gave Daoud the lightest sentence possible.

Thomas Lifson, who wrote about this story, explains:

All of that happened on 2012, and after years of incarceration while the case was prosecuted and he was tried, yesterday Daoud was sentenced to 16 years in federal prison, not the 40 years the prosecution asked for, with the six-plus years he has spent in jail credited against the sentence. In addition, he will concurrently serve (in other words, no extra prison time) for two other crimes: hiring an assassin to kill the informant who turned him in and the attempted murder of an inmate who he thought had insulted the Prophet Mohammed.

Next time you look at Trump in despair because he tweeted something that offended your sensibilities, think of Judge Coleman and ask yourself if you want more of her or fewer of her on the federal court. If you think her judicial sensibilities are too Progressive, just be grateful for Trump. Imagine what the federal bench, all the way up to the Supreme Court, would have looked like with four years of Hillary.

(Speaking of the Supreme Court, who believes that Justice Ginsburg is effectively fulfilling her responsibilities on that body? I’m not arguing that she’s dead; I just wonder if she’s functional.)

Helping out a friend. I just learned that Garry Hamilton, husband of master blogger Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, is being treated for cancer. And as is the case with cancer treatments, the experience is awful and expensive. Our thoughts and prayers can help the personal awfulness of it all and your donation to their GoFundMe campaign can help the expense. So, if you’ve got any spare change lying around, please send it their way.

The post Bookworm Beat 5/7/19 — the Vanishing Conservatives on Social Media edition appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Are there any normal Democrat primary candidates?

Watching the Democrat primary candidates emerge on the debate stage will be like watching a clown car disgorge its contents. Currently, they’re a joke.

I’ve been looking at the roster of current candidates for the Democrat primary and I have to ask — are any of them normal? Please understand that I’m not talking about qualifications. I’m really just talking about normalcy, as Warren G. Harding would have said. And for the ones who are normal, they are so undistinguished it’s almost breathtaking.

Just think about this roster of announced or thinking-about-announcing Dem presidential candidates. They make Jeb! look like a normal dynamo. Indeed, they make every Republican candidate ever look normal, scintillating, and highly qualified:
John Francis O’Rourke — Hit and run drunk driving, cow porn poetry, feeding his wife baby feces, eating dirt, sweating excessively, and so much more. Much, much more.

John Hickenlooper — Watches hardcore porn with his mother. ‘Nuff said.

Elizabeth Warren — She’s Fauxcahontas with a tin political ear and she drinks beer like a robot.

Joe Biden — Do I need to say more than “bad touch” Biden?

Cory Booker — I call him Spartawuss. Ace calls him “the Fiercely Heterosexual Cory Booker.” I’d respect Booker more if he’d just admit that he’s gay. Oh, and he admits to assaulting a woman in college.

Amy Klobuchar — The politician who would give Joan Crawford a run for her money in the “no wire hangers” category.

Kamala Harris — A woman who started her political career by sleeping her way to the middle, who lacks any charm, who has bad political instincts, and who lies about smoking pot in college. No, just no.

Andrew Yang — There’s the whole “don’t circumcise me, bro” thing, plus there’s that thing about handing out taxpayer money like candy. Why doesn’t he start with handing out his own money like candy?

Marianne Williamson — Her campaign asks people to “think. love. contribute.” She’s a New Age guru. Do I need to say more about that, either?

Bernie Sanders — Aside from being a hardcore communist, which means he cheerfully accepts one of the most evil, deadly ideologies in human history, he honeymooned in the Soviet Union, never met a totalitarian dictator he didn’t like, and drunkenly sang songs half-naked while in Russia. Really?

Kirsten Gillibrand — Do we really want as president a woman who sounds like a Barbie doll on helium and one, moreover, who panders to the Left even more than Elizabeth Warren? I don’t think this woman has stuck to any principled position ever.

Jay Inslee — This is a man with zero name recognition. Other than that, he’s a generic Leftist politician who’s been tight with the Clintons. He’s a Leftist of last resort.

Pete Buttigieg — The only openly gay candidate (sorry, Cory, you should have been honest). Buttigieg sounds great on paper, at least if you’re a Leftist (he loves Bernie), and he’s got that whole Bill Clinton Rhodes Scholar thing. The problem is that Buttigieg presides without distinction South Bend, Indiana — and that’s the sum total of his management experience.

Julian Castro — Like Inslee, a completely generic Leftist politician. His only distinctive qualification in the Democrat Party is that he’s Hispanic. Haven’t we learned from Obama that electing to the presidency because he’s a token representative of his race doesn’t presage good outcomes?

Tulsi Gabbard — Sorry, Tulsi, but you’re way too close to Assad in Syria. That’s some serious bad judgment.

John Delaney — Who?

Trump is now and always has been an eccentric, so maybe he doesn’t meet the “normal” metric. Nevertheless, before becoming president, he had a stunningly accomplished career distinguished by actual accomplishments. Moreover, in his two years as president he’s racked up a string of executive successes both domestic and foreign capped by getting a clean bill of health from political operative Robert Mueller and his team of Trump-hating attorneys.

I don’t see any of the Democrat clown car passengers taking Trump on successfully in 2020. Of course, that’s what everyone said about Trump vis-a-vis the Republican primary candidates so no, I’m not making predictions. I’m just struggling to deal with the facts before me.

Sitting here, I see a bunch of really weird or totally blah people, all of whom lack significant accomplishments. And that’s not even factoring in their hard, harder, hardest Leftist positions and their active or passive embrace of the anti-Semitism Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have made the Democrat Party’s worst kept secret.

The post Are there any normal Democrat primary candidates? appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Bookworm Beat 3/8/2019 — the Democrat Party goes full anti-Semitism

An illustrated edition focusing on the Dems’ weirdly ecumenical transition from anti-Black (slavery, Jim Crow, ghettoization) to untrammeled anti-Semitism.
(Plus other examples of the myriad threats socialists pose to America, and the way Trump is a bulwark against those threats.)

Before getting to the posters, a short video I urge you all to watch:

We now return to our regularly scheduled illustrated edition

Anti-Semitism Ilhan Omar David Duke Democrats















































The post Bookworm Beat 3/8/2019 — the Democrat Party goes full anti-Semitism appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.