Category Archives: DE BLASIO

Thoughts about the two Democrat debates

The Democrat Debates were indeed boring, but they were also a wonderful insight into Democrat policies and candidate strengths and weaknesses.

I watched both of the Democrat debates. I’ve now had 43 hours to ruminate about Wednesday’s debate and 19 hours to ruminate about Thursday’s debate. That’s given me a little perspective. For what it’s worth, here’s what I think:

I. The debates as a whole.

When Obama ran in 2008 and again in 2012, he tried to underplay his radicalism. Both times, he played lip service to the center and then governed to the Left. A perfect example concerns how he handled LGBT issues, whether for open military service or getting married. He assured voters that neither would happen and then went and supported the more Leftward policies anyway. I’m not opining about the policies. I’m just pointing out that Obama lied.

What’s refreshing about the current crop of candidates is that they are not disguising their political beliefs and practical goals. Given that Trump is completely open about his traditional American political values and that the Democrats have stopped hiding their Leftism, this may be the most honest political campaign since the one in 1860.

Indeed, if the ultimate Democrat primary victory retains that honesty into the election campaign, rather than trying to rewrite the history of whatever he or she said during the primaries, we will not see the usual presidential campaign in which candidates circle the middle (a middle that moved increasingly Left beginning in the 1990s). Instead, there are some very stark differences here. Talk about American having a true “time for choosing.”

One of the major differences between every single Dem candidate on the one hand and Trump on the other hand, is the way in which they view America. Obama occasionally leaked out comments showing his dislike and disdain for both America and Americans, but he tried to dress his politics in the upbeat, and entirely meaningless, mantra of hope. Yeah, sure America was great he said, but he would make it so great it would be “fundamentally transformed,” apparently into a different kind of greatness entirely. But it was all great.

Trump, of course, is Mr. Optimistic. He has wonderful visions about a great America that will still be a recognizable America, although better than ever before. Most importantly, it won’t be socialist country. It will continue to be a free market, sovereign nation in which people benefit from small government, individual liberty, and true equality before the law. Our foreign friends will respect us and our foreign enemies will fear us (as they should). Indeed, some of our foreign enemies may well have abandoned their wicked ways to join the community of nations. Trump is optimistic and endlessly upbeat.

The twenty Democrat candidates paraded before the American people on Wednesday and Thursday are pessimistic, angry people who live in a dystopian reality that they hope to make worse for everyone. Theirs is a world in which people are starving and dying in the streets, filth is piled everywhere, there are no jobs, an apocalyptic climate “emergency” is waiting around the corner, the races despise each other, and gay people are marginalized and dying.

Thinking about it, there is some truth to their reality: They’re pretty much describing Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, inner city Washington D.C., de Blasio’s New York, the whole states of California and Illinois, and any other communities in which Leftists have been free to have their wicked ways.

Listening to Democrat candidates’ dystopian visions, it was as if the Trump economy never happened. There is no record low unemployment amongst blacks and Hispanics; there is no 3%  or more quarterly economic growth; and there is no vibrant stock market, one based on real economic gains rather than the Obama market, when fearful investors parked their money in the market because they were afraid to put it into an unstable real economy.

No one should be too surprised, I guess, about the fantasy world the Leftists have built. After all, these are the same people who believe that a person’s biological sex is a social construct, that the sun has nothing to do with the earth’s climate, and that pot is harmless. Facts tend not to interfere with their belief systems.

Significantly, none of the 20 candidates is a happy warrior. All of them, instead, seem to be auditioning for a leadership role in a Mad Max movie — they will be the only stable dictator in a world of horrific violence, despair, and decay.

In addition, none of the 20 candidates has charm or charisma. I’ll talk about their individual traits below, but my overall takeaway was that these are very weak people. If you look at Trump, whether when he was campaigning in 2015 and 2016 or during his years as president, what you see is an effortless alpha male. He commands any space he’s in. He is optimistic and powerful. Whether or not you like where he plans to lead America, he is a relaxed, happy, effective leader. He’s also very, very funny and can show tremendous warmth and charm.

In contrast, the 20 Democrats are frenetic, shrill people who hoped to disguise their fundamental personal weaknesses by outshouting each other. Funnily enough, when I think of them, I think of a movie review I read at National Review. Yeah, I know that sounds like a non sequitur but it’s not.

The review was about Murder Mystery, a made-for-Netflix movie staring Jennifer Aniston and Adam Sandler, both of whom are capable of being appealing. What piqued my interest about the review was the fact that Kyle Smith likened their teaming to Nick and Nora Charles, the dynamic married duo who starred in a series of Thin Man movies in the 1930s. Nick was played by the debonair William Powell and Nora by Myrna Loy, one of the most beautiful, charming, funny, appealing actresses ever to grace the silver screen. Here’s what Smith had to say:

Murder Mystery: An Old Comedy Genre Gets Polished UpAdam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston make a fine Nick and Nora Charles.

[snip]

In Murder Mystery, Sandler does the unexpected and plays a character who’s neither Kurt Cobain nor Jerry Lewis but just an ordinary working stiff with a slightly disappointed but basically loving wife. Thanks to a deft, funny script by James Vanderbilt and brisk direction by Kyle Newacheck, this throwback comedy turns out to be an easygoing charmer.

[snip]

Murder Mystery takes us back to the days when Nick and Nora Charles were martini-sipping crime-solvers in the six-film Thin Man series, updating the formula with a superb twist: This time the couple are working-class types who get pulled into a world of international playboys and billionaires’ yachts. Sandler’s Nick is a frustrated NYPD cop (he tells everyone he’s a detective, but he keeps flunking the exam) and Aniston is Audrey, his hairdresser wife of 15 years. He promised her a trip to Europe one day, but the money to pay for it has never come. He’s the kind of guy who buys her the wrong allergy medicine at the drugstore to save 50 cents. When he finally does decide to max out the credit card to get her that transatlantic vacation, Audrey sneaks into first class, where she meets a charming bon vivant (Luke Evans) who likes her enough to invite the pair of them to hang out on his yacht. She’s Jennifer Aniston, so this is plausible enough.

I have to part ways with Smith. Aside from the upper class setting, Aniston and Sandler are nothing like Nick and Nora. They’re neither witty nor charming. They are, instead, shrill, angry, and irritating, three traits that no sane Thin Man writer would ever have thrust upon those characters. I slogged through the end of Murder Mystery to see whodunnit (not worth the slog), and came away desperately disliking the lead characters.

That’s exactly how I felt watching the debate. I’d been promised that at least some of the candidates would offer charisma, if not wit and charm, but none offered anything. They were alternately shrill, angry, paranoid, irritating, greedy, totalitarian, and completely loopy (an adjective that’s not reserved solely for Sanders and Williamson). The thought that these types of human beings might lead our great nation was quite disturbing.

The candidates’ policy prescriptions matched their personalities. Across the board, they want to increase government power, raise taxes, impose socialized medicine, upend the Second Amendment, abort babies up to the minute of birth, and open our borders while promising free medical care, education, and welfare to all comers. In other words, they imagine a dictatorship of the elite — an angry, paranoid, elite that hates so much the people over which it governs that it wants to import an entirely new, more amenable group of people over which it can govern.

Regarding importing a whole new demographic, as several people commented it was often unclear whether the candidates in these Democrat debates wanted to be president of existing, legal American citizens, or were seeking the votes of Latin Americans who have yet to arrive here illegally. I listened to Derek Hunter’s podcast today, and he said it was as if the candidates vying for Angela Merkel’s position in Germany tout to the voters all the good things they promise to do for France.

It’s the rare, peculiar, and frightening candidate who doesn’t pander to his own voters, but panders instead to citizens of another nation entirely. It’s hints that these candidates believe that, between now and November 2020, they can get enough illegal aliens into America to vote a Democrat into office.

II. The individual candidates

And now a few thoughts about the individual candidates at the Democrat debates. It’s a given that all of them said things intended to appeal to their mad base (open borders, socialized medicine for all comers, unlimited abortion, high taxes, gun seizures, abasement before Iran, the destruction of the American economy through a Green New Deal, etc.). My comments are just about their personalities. Ladies first.

Kamala Harris presents with a flat, Fran Drescher voice and a naggy personality. She can definitely go on the attack, as she did with her probable lies to Biden about busing. My question, though, is whether American voters really want to elect as president their hated ex-wife or the mother with whom they had issues, especially when she’s made it plain that she wants to empty their bank accounts and control every aspect of their lives? Heck, if they wanted that, they could have stayed married to that shrew or accepted living in mad Mom’s basement….

Also, contrary to Harris’s “I’m the only black person here” statement, she has something significant in common with Obama: She’s a fake American black, for her black-skinned father is very elite Jamaican man and she was raised for a significant part of her life outside of America. In other words, Harris has no connection to the American black experience.

Kirsten Gillibrand presents with a shrill, childish voice and an angry, bossy personality. She demands attention, rather than earns it, and when she gets it, she hectors people sharply. For all her anger, her history of flip-flopping frantically to whatever the political winds demand tells me that, if you put her in a room with a mullah or a member of North Korea’s Kim clan, she’ll collapse like an old tissue.

Amy Klobuchar has a no-nonsense affect that reminds me strongly of my 4th grade teacher, Mrs. Fukuda. Or maybe she’s like some Mary Poppins-esque nanny who firmly puts you in your place. Indeed, her presentation is so firm and normal that it’s easy to forget that, when it comes to policies, she’s as Leftist as the rest of them. In other words, she’s the school teacher from Hell.

Tulsi Gabbard was in the military. Did you know that? She definitely was in the military. She’s happy to tell you over and over again that she was in the military. When she talks about the military, her voice takes on the harsh tones of a drill sergeant. The rest of the time, she sounds, not sedate, but sedated. And by the way, she was in the military. I’ve also heard she looks nice in a bikini. Trump, I’m certain, does not.

Elizabeth Warren is someone about whom I cannot be objective because I’ve disliked her for thirty years, going back to her banking law class. Learning that Warren leveraged family lore into a well-paying Harvard gig based upon imaginary diversity did not make me like her more. Learning that she lied her way into fame by gaming statistics about medical care and family bankruptcy did not make me like her more. Hearing her denigrate individual achievement in America (“you didn’t build that”) did not make me like her more. Her current assurances that for everything she dislikes about America she has a plan, when it’s clear that the plan is always about more taxes and more power for the government, do not make me like her more. And finally, her spinsterish, scolding presence on the debate stage does not make me like her more. I really dislike her.

Marianne Williamson is the hippie whom time forgot. Most of the time she spoke with the earnestness of a stoned preacher on the corner of Haight and Ashbury in 1967. “Love, man . . . yeah, that will heal the world. Just more love and maybe some health-giving flowers for America’s inner being. I’ll drop love bombs on Kim Jong-un and the Mullahs. Even our archest of arch enemies, Donald Trump, will feel the healing power of my love deep in his evil soul. Nameste, America. Peace.”

And now the men, in alphabetical order:

Michael Bennet had a hysterical quality I found very disturbing. There’s something emotionally off about the man.

Joe Biden really did try to be Mr. Normal in a field of radicals but he lost it there when he said that his first act as president, should he win, would be to defeat Donald Trump. Otherwise, he was pathetic as he tried desperately to find his footing while crossing the ice floes made up of his decades in Democrat politics all the while fending off the snapping young Democrat dogs surrounding him.

Cory Booker will be defined forever by the horror that showed on his face when he realized that Beta has stolen his “I speak Spanish” shtick. Otherwise, he was his usual glib, insincere self. His insistence that the rights of black transgenders is a matter of paramount concern was peculiar. He also sounded ineffective when he complained about crime in the city in which he once sat as mayor. All I could think of was “you had once job….”

Pete Buttigieg is another ineffectual mayor. He presides over the 300th largest city in America, a position he won by 8,000 plus votes. That’s not 8,000+ votes more than his competitors. That’s total votes. The blacks in his city despise him because it’s obvious that he always viewed them, not as his job, but as stepping stones to something bigger. His constant attacks on Christians are a glaringly obvious psychological insight into his anguish about living a life inconsistent with Biblical precepts (for the Bible is not fond of gay sex), but are decidedly unappealing in an American presidential candidate. Also, he looks like Beaver Cleaver’s radical Leftist brother — immature and politically dangerous.

Julian Castro is short and wants abortions for transgender women (i.e., men). He cannot win and should leave the national stage before he embarrasses himself further. By the way, I too am short and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just that in a telegenic age, a pipsqueak who is confused about basic human biology squaring off against the alpha male Trump is not a good look. Buttigieg, by the way, also suffers from the short man problem.

Bill de Blasio has only one advantage in the race, which is that he’s tall enough to square off physically against Trump. Otherwise, I wouldn’t buy a used car from that corrupt, hypocritic, and I certainly wouldn’t trust him to take possession of American’s money and redistribute it. Also, considering that monied New Yorkers are leaving in droves, taking away the funds supporting his crazed, corrupt socialism, is not a selling point for the rest of America.

John Delaney was slightly more sane than the rest of the people on the stage. He’s also bland and is a little too obsessed with his own father. He has no chance.

John Hickenlooper is a nattering old maid. Old maid men do not win in American politics. The only thing that puts the lie to his old maid status — and most decidedly not in a good way — is that he sat through a porn flick with his mother.

Jay Inslee is a scary dude. He’s an apocalyptic street corner preacher, but with a better haircut. His end-of-days climate obsession is not a winner.

Beto O’Rourke is Beta O’Rourke. Take away the skateboard and the flapping arms (and did you notice how careful the MSNBC/NBC camera men were to hide his hands?) and you’ve got the kid in the dorm who thought he was deep and cool while everyone else knew full well that he was a not-very-bright dork. Dork’s don’t win presidential campaigns.

Tim Ryan is visually identical to Inslee. Other than that, I can’t remember a darn thing about him.

Bernie Sanders — I’ve covered Bernie in a separate blog. He’s a mean-spirited, evil, foaming-at-the-mouth, yellow-toothed socialist tyrant wannabe.

Eric Swalwell is running a campaign that can be summed up thusly: The Second Amendment is toilet paper. All the other candidates also want to take your guns, but Swalwell is the most fanatic on the subject. Let me remind you of other politicians who seized guns: Hugo Chavez, Hitler, Stalin, the Kims, etc. I’m sure Swalwell doesn’t believe he ever could be a tyrant, but the temptation is always there for a political leader once the people he’s disarmed stand helpless before him.

Andrew Yang opposes circumcision. Aside from being fundamentally anti-Semitic, because circumcision is Judaism’s core covenant with God, it’s also an unhealthy position, for there’s indisputable evidence that circumcision slows the spread of certain sexually transmitted diseases, most notably AIDS. I cannot support him under any circumstances. I also think the whole “give every $1,000” is stupid. Why not just lower tax rates? That way, taxpayers will keep their own money in proportion to the money they’re forced to pay, while those who don’t pay taxes don’t just get more free cash.

The post Thoughts about the two Democrat debates 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.