Rodman’s Dramatic New Ad Against Dunnavant: Inaccurate Again!

Are the Dems Against Choice in Health Care?

Delegate Debra Rodman came up with a new ad for TV last week. Alas it was not a clarification and apology for her previous inaccurate ad on health care. Instead she doubled down on her claim that Senator Dunnavant wants to deny you the right to buy health insurance insurance for pre-existing conditions and CITED the SAME statute again! She is continuing to mislead voters that Senator Dunnavant and the GOP support taking away health insurance for pre-existing conditions.

Then the Delegate decided to play the Trump card: That Senator Dunnavant is trying to destroy health care! But she cited the American Medical Association (on 11/15/18) saying that short-term plans were injurious.

So I went to the AMA website and found out the quote is from a friend of the court brief the AMA filed in a suit in the United States District Court for DC:

The strongly worded brief argues that the rule “sabotages” the ACA and endangers the broad-based risk pools that make coverage affordable.

“The rule will be devastating to the health, well-being and pocketbooks of millions of Americans—and disproportionally so for women, children and the chronically ill,” the brief says. The rule would, further, threaten “to undo the ACA’s vital patient reforms, moving the health insurance market back to the days where Americans had no or inadequate insurance.”

The “rule” is the Trump Administration rule that allows the creation of short-term plans. The AMA contends that allowing these plans will undermine the Obamacare scheme by diverting healthy persons out of the health insurance system and skewing premiums for sick people.

That could be a good argument. But that is not what the delegate is saying. Delegate Rodman is saying that Senator Dunnavant is advocating harmful health insurance plans. It’s not a fair contention. You’re up to TWO apologies to the senator!

Bookworm Beat 9/28/19 — the Ukraine and climate change illustrated edition

When politics get stupid, as they did last week with climate change and Ukraine whistle blowers, the memes get really good — and I’ve got lots of them.




Pennywise Adam Schiff Ukraine hoax






























































And as a bonus, Mini-AOC is back with back with a wonderful parody:

The post Bookworm Beat 9/28/19 — the Ukraine and climate change illustrated edition appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Whistle Blowin’ In The Wind

Progressives want to portray any investigation of Biden or the Trump Russia hoax as fundamentally illegitimate.  Is Joe Biden above the law?

We’re getting stuff in a bit of reverse order.  Yesterday, the White House made public the memorialization of the July 25, 2019, phone call between President Trump and President Zelinskyy of Ukraine, the text of which I embedded here.  That phone call, as it turns out, was the entire centerpiece of the whistle blower complaint.

Today, that Whistle Blower Complaint has been released, along with a cover letter from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IG IC) detailing the IG IC handling and assessment of the complaint.  Neither the whistle blower nor the IGIC had seen the memorialization of the July 25 phone call prior to writing their documents.  The whistle blower had no first hand knowledge of the conversation, nor any of the other facts alleged in the complaint that did not appear publicly in the news (itself hearsay).  All of the allegations in the document are hearsay or multi-layered hearsay, most coupled with bald accusations and spin.  At the center of it all, this from the complaint:

Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’ s 2020 reelection bid. According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to:

  •  initiate or continue an investigation the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son , Hunter Biden;
  • assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U . S. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U . S . cyber security firm Crowdstrike, which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC’ s networks in 2016; and
  • meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters,Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem .

Of the whistle blowers three claims above, the only one seemingly being pushed as meaningful concerns Joe Biden blatantly conditioning American aid to Ukraine on shutting down the corruption investigation that was, in part, aimed at his son.  And other than the July 25 conversation,  much of the rest of the complaint concerns meetings taken by Rudy Giuliani that show nothing.  The meat of it all is the phone conversation of July 25, something that does not on its face establish that Trump proposed an unlawful quid pro quo to Zelinskyy.

So now what do the progressives and the MSM do?  They start by outright lying about what was said in the phone conversation between Trump and Zelinskyy.  And for that, we go to Adam Schiff’s opening statement at today’s House Intelligence Committee Hearing on the whistle blower complaint.

A Fantasy Full of Schiff

This may be the most scurrilous opening statement ever given.  Rep. Adam Schiff made up a series of facts and quotes out of whole cloth to portray the July 25 phone call between President Trump and President Zelinskyy as a Trump demand that Ukraine fabricate “dirt” on 2020 candidates if he wanted to receive American aid:

The Washington Times tells us just how vile Schiff’s conduct was:

Rep. Adam Schiff acknowledged on Thursday that he made up parts of the Ukraine phone call transcript when he delivered his opening statement at a much-watched TV hearing with the U.S. top intelligence officer.

Mr. Schiff, California Democrat and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said his reading was “part in parody”––but made the admission only after Rep. Mike Turner, Ohio Republican, called him out.

In his opening statement, Mr. Schiff said Mr. Trump asked Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky for fabricated dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and said Mr. Trump threatened to make the same request Mr. Zelensky eight times–––both quotes not in the transcript.

When it came his time to question Joseph Maguire, the acting Director of National Intelligence, Mr. Turner noted inaccuracies uttered to a large TV audience as Democrats rev up talk of impeachment.

“It’s not the conversation that was in the chairman’s opening statement,” Mr. Turner said. “And while the chairman was speaking I actually had someone text me, ‘is he just making this up?’ And yes, yes, . . .

Parody my eye. Schiff did nothing to point that out his fabrications during his speech.  It was an utterly outrageous attempt to influence public opinion with scurrilous lies.  Schiff should be subject to an ethics complaint and expelled from the House for that.

The Quid Pro Quo Wasn’t Stated In The Phone Call Because Supposedly It Was Common Knowledge To The Ukrainians

With no quid pro quo in the July 25 phone call, a second effort is underway to make it seem as if the quid pro quo was so well known to the participants that it did not require statement during the phone call.  The whistle blower states:

During [the May – June] time frame, multiple U . S. officials told me that the Ukrainian leadership was led to believe that a meeting or phone call between the President and President Zelenskyy would depend on whether Zelenskyy showed willingness to play ball. . . . This was the state of affairs as conveyed to me by U.S. officials from late May into July. I do not know who delivered this message to the Ukrainian leadership, or when.

Apparently, no one delivered that message to the Ukraine.  This from President Zelenskyy in a press conference yesterday:

Zelensky insisted that “nobody pushed me” on the Biden matter.

“I think we had good phone call. It was normal, we spoke about many things,” Zelensky said. “I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed me.”

Hours before President Zelinskyy spoke at the press conference, ABC News ran a story, “Ukrainians understood Biden probe was condition for Trump-Zelenskiy talks, says former Ukrainian adviser.”  ABC described their source, Serhiy Leshchenko, as an “adviser to the Ukrainian President.”  Except that . . .

Oh my.  This is going nowhere.

The MSM’s Christopher Steele Gambit

For their final attempt at breathing life into this farce, the MSM is taking a page from the FBI and their treatment of Christopher Steele.  The FBI, in their four applications for a FISA warrant, tried to redeem the fact that all the information in their applications was hearsay by telling the Court that Christopher Steele, the source providing the hearsay, was trustworthy and knowledgeable.  Now it is the MSM’s turn to try and pull that same trick as pertains to the anonymous whistle blower.

This from the NYT today:

The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for his re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his identity.

The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said. Little else is known about him. His complaint made public Thursday suggested he was an analyst by training and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law.

The whistle-blower’s expertise will likely add to lawmakers’ confidence about the merits of his complaint, and tamp down allegations that he might have misunderstood what he learned about Mr. Trump. He did not listen directly to a July call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the political firestorm over the president’s mixing of diplomacy with personal political gain.

No need to worry about reliable facts or the actual law. Trust the Deep State and they will take care of it all.

Getting Dirt or Investigate Corruption?

We can thank Adam Schiff for one thing today, and that is making it crystal clear that he wants America to believe that what Trump was doing in the June 25 phone call was nothing more than to “make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of dirt, on this and on that.”

Except that is not what Trump asked Zelinskyy to do.  The first thing Trump asks of Zelinskyy is to provide the information he has on 2016 election interference coming out of the Ukraine and help in locating the DNC server.  None of that is aimed at the 2020 candidates, though progressives want to try and bootstrap that information into being viewed as illegitimate as well.  Indeed, Schiff, in his statement, implies that all the information Trump asked for will be false and made up by the Ukraine.

Trump did raise Joe Biden’s outrageous abuse of power to shut down an investigation aimed at Hunter Biden.  Here is precisely what Trump said:

Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair.  A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. . . .  The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.

Taking Trump’s words at face value, he asks for nothing other then to look into an incident that supposedly occurred, not to create dirt out of whole cloth.  So is Joe Biden, who indeed has been quite open about extorting the Ukraine with American aid money, now immune from any investigation because it might in fact show him in a bad, possibly criminal, light as he is running for the highest office in the land?  Is he above the law?

Part of the answer to that question rests on whether there indeed was an ongoing Ukrainian investigation that reached to Hunter Biden on the day when Joe extorted the then Ukrainian President to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor.

As Breitbart reported, despite many MSM claims to the contrary, such an investigation was ongoing:

In March 2016, Joe Biden threatened to withhold IMF funding from Ukraine if officials did not fire Viktor Shokin, who was then serving as Ukraine’s Prosecutor General. At the time, Shokin’s office was overseeing an investigation into Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. According to Bloomberg’s source, Shokin’s investigation had been “shelved” in 2015, well before Biden’s intervention, and “[t]here was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky.” Various outlets seized on the report to dismiss coverage of the Biden scandal:

  • PolitiFact“It’s not even clear that the company was actively under investigation”
  • Axios: “Ukrainian official knocks down Biden conflict scandal”
  • New York Magazine: “The investigation into Burisma was dead long before Biden started his campaign to oust Shokin”

Do read the whole article.  It goes on to explain that the information was incorrect.  That said, probably the definitive answer to the Hunter Biden question comes from investigative reporter John Solomon.  His answer, based on hundred of documents and interviews, is yes, the investigation was quite active when Biden shut it down. (H/T Ace)

So the real question at issue is whether Joe Biden above the law. Because, as Andrew McCarthy points out today at NRO, to claim he should not be investigated seems the mother of all double standards.

What Laws Did Trump Violate In His Phone Call With President Zelinskyy?

By Joe Biden’s own admission, he extorted the Ukraine with American tax dollars.  What he demanded and received benefited his son and prevented the Obama-Biden administration from being embarrassed.  That certainly seems an act of corruption.  If so, can asking a foreign power to continue what had been a valid investigation of corruption on its own soil constitute an impeachable offense?

In the IC IG letter linked at the top of this post (and, in an act of pure incompetence, composed by the IG IC without ever seeing or even asking to see the memorialization of the July 25 phone conversation), the IG IC laid out the supposed offenses that the President is alleged to have violated with his conduct:

Here, the Complainant’s Letter alleged, among  other things, that the President of the United States, in a telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodyrnyr Zelenskyy on July 25, 2019, “sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid.” U.S. laws and regulations prohibit a foreign national, directly or indirectly, from making a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.  Similarly, U.S. laws and regulations prohibit a person from soliciting, accepting, or receiving such a contribution or donation from a foreign. national, directly or indirectly, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election. Further, in the ICIG’s judgment, alleged conduct by a senior U.S. public official to seek foreign assistance to interfere in or influence a Federal election would constitute a “serious or flagrant problem [or] abuse” under 50 U.S.C. § 3033 (k)(5)(G)(i), which would also potentially expose such a U.S. public official (or others acting in concert with the U.S. public official) to serious national security and counterintelligence risks with respect to foreign intelligence services aware of such alleged conduct.

I am having real trouble identifying how Trump could have violated any of those statutes based on the facts as we know them now.  I will admit that I am not an expert in this area of the law and, if anyone can correct me, feel free.  This is not a case of soliciting donations or offering bribes.  This is not a case, unlike 2016, where there were alleged underlying crimes in which Trump was alleged to have conspired.

Information itself may be of value, but I do not know of any court case where obtaining foreign information was deemed a violation of the law.  If that’s the case, lock up the DNC and Hillary for life after what they did in 2016, paying a Brit to get information from Russia and publish it a month before the election.

As Kevin Williamson points out, the threat to impeach Trump began in December, 2016, even before he came to office.  His real impeachable offense, in the eyes of the left, was winning the election.

To conclude with Victor Davis Hanson:

. . .  Any president has a perfect right to tell a foreign head of state and recipient of major U.S. aid that his corruption-plagued country has played a destabilizing but still murky role in recent American elections and in scandals that have affected the American people, and in particular the current president of the United States — and that it would be a good thing to get to the bottom of it.

Americans, left and right, would like to know the exact nature of Ukrainian-Russian interference and the degree, if any, to which CrowdStrike played a role in the Clinton-email imbroglio and why CrowdStrike (which analyzed the server that the DNC refused to turn over to the FBI) was apparently exempt from FBI investigation.

That Biden is now a Democratic front-runner does not provide immunity or excuse the fact that he was vice president of the United States tasked with Ukrainian affairs when his problem-plagued son, without any energy or foreign-policy experience, made a great deal of money for apparently nothing more than lending his Biden name to benefit a corrupt Ukrainian-Russian-related company. Nor should we overlook that Joe Biden threatened to cut off U.S. aid — $1 billion — to Ukraine if it did not within six hours fire the too-curious prosecutor who was looking into the mess. And that prosecutor was fired. And that $1 billion in aid was not cut off. And Hunter Biden was no longer a target of any investigation. And he made a great deal of money. . . .

I agree with Hanson’s ultimate conclusion, that this will destroy Biden’s candidacy.  And . . . it will do nothing more than strengthen Trump in the eyes of voters.

 

The post Whistle Blowin’ In The Wind appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

No. 19 Bookworm Podcast – Bookworm Beat 9/26/19: Ukraine stuff and more

In this Bookworm Beat, I cover the motives behind the Ukraine whistleblower kerfuffle, things at college that scare parents, and gender neutral dolls.

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

Thoughts on the Ukraine whistleblower scam.  As a preliminary matter, I’ve read both the Trump transcript, which was innocuous, and the “whistleblower’s” allegations, which are not only hearsay, but are as ephemeral and meaningless as chalk on a sidewalk before the rains come. Neither document even hints at a quid pro quo. The MSM knows this, which is why it uses ellipses to remove more than 540 words between Trump’s request for a favor and any reference he makes to Biden and his son.

I’ve learned, as others have, that Bill Clinton signed off on a treaty in the 1990s allowing cooperation between the U.S. and Ukraine to investigate and prosecute crimes. I’ve seen the growing suspicion that Adam Schiff engineered this whole thing. And I’ve seen that John Solomon reports that he has hundreds of pages of documents showing the remarkable coincidence that the same prosecutor who was investigating Biden’s son was the person Biden demanded be fired – and remember that Biden did so using the weight of U.S. finances as a cudgel and then boasting about it later. I’m also fully cognizant of the fact that Hunter Biden is a morally lost young man who has made himself fabulously wealthy selling his complete lack of expertise to foreign governments such as China and Ukraine, countries that, at the time, hoped for favors from a Veep who claimed to have Obama’s ear.

All that’s the obvious stuff. I bet you know it too. What I find more interesting is the blind hatred and the actual motive driving the Democrats here. A post from Frank Bruni over at msn news exemplifies what I’m talking about. Bruni pretends to be terrified about impeachment, although he assures readers that “President Trump deserves to be impeached.” Bruni then spells out why Trump “deserves” to be impeached:

Arguably, it’s the only move, at least in terms of fidelity to the Constitution and to basic decency. From the moment that Trump stepped into the office of the presidency, he has degraded it — with words that a president has no business speaking (or tweeting); with ceaseless lies; with infantile and often unhinged behavior; with raging conflicts of interest; with managerial ineptitude; with a rapacious ego that’s never sated; and with foreign dealings that compromise America’s values, independence and interests. How can principled lawmakers not tell him, in the most emphatic manner available, that enough is enough?

Reading over the above, with it’s exuberant use of adjectives, I’m reminded that, just today, the Pope warned people away from adjectives. How boring! Also, how Big Brother-ish to limit people’s thoughts by limiting the words available to them.

What does Bruni’s avalanche of words (including adjectives) really mean? Let me run this through the logical translator:

  • When Bruni says “with words that a president has no business speaking (or tweeting)” he means “he hurt our feelings.”
  • When Bruni says “with ceaseless lies” he means “he’s made statements of fact with which we disagree or that we deliberately (and repeatedly) misinterpret.”
  • When Bruni says “with infantile and often unhinged behavior” he means “Trump’s being an ordinary guy who fails to live up to the hip, no-drama Obama cool image we basked in for eight years.”
  • When Bruni says “with raging conflicts of interest” he means “Trump was and is a successful businessman, rather than a Leftist member of the perpetual political class, and his success more than anything exposes the weakness of our policies and the strength of his.
  • When Bruni says “with managerial ineptitude” he means “we hate that Trump gets more done in a week than Obama got done in eight years and, worse, he’s managed to undo most of what Obama did manage to do.
  • When Bruni says “with a rapacious ego that’s never stated” he means “we deeply resent that Trump has figured out a way to circumvent the fact that 90% of the media is Progressive and refuses to acknowledge his accomplishments.”
  • When Bruni says “foreign dealings that compromise America’s values, independence and interests” he means “we can’t stand that Trump has used his Constitutional authority over foreign policy and national security to turn away from Obama’s love affairs with Islamic theocrats, such as Iran’s mullahs, and hardcore communists, such as Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, or Xi Jinping and, instead, has turned towards liberty-loving countries such as Israel, the Central European countries that threw off communism’s yoke, and the East Asian nations worried about a rapacious China.”

In sum, what Bruni really means is that Progressives hate everything Trump stands for, that they don’t trust the voters, those stupid, stupid voters who elected Trump in the first place, and that they must kick Trump out of office in 2020 or sooner, because he’s just a totally icky, white supremacist troglodyte.

Bruni ostensibly worries that impeachment, rather than driving Trump out of office, will solidify his hold on the White House. Moreover, he legitimately worries that the Democrat base will be enraged when, despite the House’s efforts, the whole initiative comes to a dead-end in the Senate.

Still, angry Progressives notwithstanding, when Bruni says he’s terrified he’s being disingenuous. Of course he knows impeachment will fail. Even the squad – that weird sister foursome of Omar, Tlaib, Occasional-Cortex, and what’s her name again –understands this. To the extent he’s Bruni is tapping the brakes here, he does so only to spare the fanatics too much disappointment when impeachment goes down in flames. But Bruni himself still really wants impeachment. Why?

Daniel Greenfield, aka Sultan Knish, nails what’s really going on here:

Impeachment plugs into the same narrative [as Russian collusion] which is not just about winning, but delegitimizing.

Democrats want to win elections. Radicals want to delegitimize the entire idea of elections. Pelosi wants to win an election. The radicals don’t want to win elections. They want to destroy them. Their real goal is to use blind hatred of Republicans to convince Democrats that elections are inherently illegitimate. All their arguments, whether about Russian Facebook bots or the Electoral College circle back to that.

The choosing of governments, it follows, is too important an issue to be left to mere voters whose voting machines and brains are all too easily hacked by disinformation campaigns and FOX News.

And the removal of President Trump from office is also too important to be left to those same voters.

This true motive, to delegitimize both Trump and the entire Constitutional, electoral system is something that I can assure you Bruni supports wholeheartedly.

Put another way, what we’re seeing here is the twin to the motive that Christine Blowsy-Fraud and other Leftists had when making their manifestly false and salacious claims against Justice Brett Kavanaugh – delegitimization. We suspected that, of course, but Blowsy-Fraud’s attorney totally gave the game away:

It will be fascinating to watch this story unfold, although it will be fascinating in the same way one watches a horror movie, frozen with fear as the killer sneaks up on his victim. The best outcome would be for this whole charade to destroy the Democrats.

When I read my Facebook feed, though, which is mostly made up of Democrats who became part of my life during the decades I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, I see that they are true believers and will never give up. Instead, they’ll become only more outraged and enraged. This is a scary thought because most of them are college-educated and in positions of power over the culture and over up-and-coming generations. Their children also show every sign of following in their footsteps.

Maybe Democrats are wising up to problems with college. Those who know me know that I have a real bee in my bonnet about American college education. My hostility to higher ed isn’t new. Indeed, it goes back to my days at UC Berkeley, at the end of the 70s and the beginning of the 80s.

I excelled at Cal as a liberal arts major, which is not a boast. It’s a complaint. I’m not that smart and I didn’t work at all. I ought not to have excelled. The fact that I did so means that standards for liberal arts majors, even back then, were abysmal. Being marginally literate was enough to push you to the head of the class.

I also had a real problem with the Marxist gloss so many of the classes had. I didn’t realize it was Marxist because I was politically uninformed. I did realize, though, that teachers were contorting themselves in ridiculous ways to put a class veneer on medieval, Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover England. Their lessons made no sense, and one thing I do have is a fairly good BS meter.

That was all a long time ago, and things have only gotten worse. In my last Bookworm Beat post, I launched one of my obsessive attacks on today’s colleges and universities as the incubators for every bad idea in America. I’ll spare you and won’t repeat it here. I’ll say only that, if Americans want to return our country to its Constitutional roots, the best way for them to do so is to demand that their congressional representatives enact a bill to withdraw all federal funds (aka taxpayer money) from colleges and universities (although I might be amenable to a tiny, tiny carveout for research directly related to national security issues).

Given that I just went on this rant a few days ago, why am I doing it again? I’m doing it again because a couple of my true believer Progressive Facebook friends have been sharing a June 2019 article entitled “A Very Dangerous Place for a Child is College.” It’s fascinating and worth reading in its entirety.

The author, Louis M. Profeta, is an emergency room physician who decided to take on the road the information he’d learned from seeing college kids head into the ER.  His point, and it’s a good one, is that too many American kids are immature and naïve to the point of death or permanent disability.

Dr. Profeta’s crusade started a couple of years ago when he wrote his first essay on the subject, “A Sunday Talk on Sex, Drugs, Drinking, and Dying with the Frat Boys.” That’s the title. In fact, it’s not just about frat boys. Profeta is talking about young people generally who are drowning in data and who pull all the wrong lessons from what comes their way.

Thanks to that article, Dr. Profeta got a second gig as a college speaker. In his current article, he describes, not just the information he gives the students, but also the questions they ask him. These questions make sense only if you consider that this is the “hey, let’s eat Tide Pods” generation:

I hadn’t held anything back from the students. I warned them beforehand. I was coming from a different place, a place where doctors do rape exams, pump veins full of narcan and epinephrine, look at the clock and pronounce time of death and break horrible news to moms and dads. I had become kind of sick of it (giving out the bad news, I mean). It didn’t seem like much was working to change the tide of opiate abuse, reckless behavior, and other causes of death in young people so I figured I’d start going to the source and begging these students to, well, grow the fuck up.

Most loved the candor, the openness, the willingness of a seasoned ER doctor to answer uncomfortable questions about drugs and alcohol, sexual assault, and hazing, and a whole host of semi-taboo topics. But it was the questions when the “adults” were out of the room that made me say to myself, “Holy shit … so many of these ‘kids’ have absolutely no business being in college.”

“What about whippets, what if I just snorted one xanax, can you really soak a tampon in alcohol and get drunk, is cough syrup OK to mix with vodka, is ecstasy and molly the same thing, can’t you just strap a backpack to them to keep them from rolling over so they don’t choke on their own vomit, what about phenergan, what’s in skittles (not the candy), how many milligrams of THC can you eat and not die, are they starting to add stuff to coke (not the cola) that makes you more hyped, how much does it cost to go to an ER, will you call my parents if I go, how can you tell if your roommate is suicidal, what if you know your roommate is using heroin … should I tell their parents, how do I tell if the ‘bars’ I bought online are not fentanyl, I got raped last year … should I tell someone now, I think my roommate is going to probably kill herself…who do I tell?”

For a long time, Leftists have been assuring us that colleges are the “rapiest” places in the world. (No, this isn’t a non sequitur. Stick with me.) For example, here’s presidential wanna be, and chief groper and hair sniffer, Joe Biden, when he was still Veep, parroting that claim:

Of course, we’ve long known that parents don’t really believe that 20% of all college women will be raped. If they did, they’d never send their daughters to a place that has a higher rape rate than South Africa, a country that annually sees around 95 rapes per every 100,000 people.

Because the sex ratio in South Africa is roughly equal, that means that, out of every 50,000 women in South Africa, 95 of them can expect to be raped (and that includes women from ages 1 day old to 100 years old). If my math is correct, means that roughly .2% of the South African female population risks rape. In other words, I think we can all reasonably believe that Biden and the feminists have been exaggerating by at least a factor of 100 the risk of rape on American college campuses.

What isn’t exaggerated is what Dr. Profeta talks about. Progressive parents know in their heart of hearts that this the risks he describes are the real deal: It’s a youth culture saturated in drugs, depression, and dangerous behavior. Knowing this is what may make these Progressives finally turn their back on these colleges and have their children enter the real world, instead of pushing them into a dystopian Marxist fantasy-land, one that almost proudly assures parents that, by graduation 30% of all the kids could be diagnosed with a mental health disorder.

Certainly that’s what Dr. Profeta thinks should happen. He urges parents to save college for when their kids have grown up a bit:

We need to encourage our kids to slow it down, to take a longer path to college, perhaps. Expose our kids to real education—the kind of education that comes with a W-2, a boss, getting up early and working late and interacting with people who can’t afford a higher education. Make them appreciate the life experiences that come with nailing a 2 x 4, washing dishes, wheeling people to X-ray, picking up garbage, answering telephones. Make them earn their spending money BEFORE college and decide on their own if they’d rather use it on alcohol, weed, a four-block Uber ride, or laundry and food.

Teach them these things and send them off to school as adults.

Profeta’s advice is sound no matter how one looks at it. Not only will kids do fewer stupid things, it also means that young people who have indeed seen how the real world works will be less vulnerable to the social justice warrior, victimhood, Marxist politics preached at America’s institutions of so-called “higher education.”

As an aside, or maybe a follow-up, the crazy isn’t just in college. Our K-12 schools are staffed by graduates of these Marxist fantasy lands. That’s why we get stories about 5-year-old autistic boys being accused of sexual harassment for kissing a classmate on the cheek. And that’s why we get stories about a 6-year-old girl being arrested and led off in handcuffs and fingerprinted when she threw a tantrum at school and kicked a classmate. It’s hard for me to imagine the extenuating circumstances that could justify labeling a 5-year-old as a sexual harasser, especially one with autism, or cuffing a 6-year-old girl having a tantrum. The children were reacting, as children do; the adults were overreacting, as progressives do.

Not all college grads go into education, though. Most go into corporate America, which is how we get my next story, about a doll….

What happens when college grads get hold of dolls. Toymaker Mattel has admittedly taken a lot of grief over the years for Barbie, the impossibly voluptuous doll launched in the 1950s. I could never understand the outrage. I adored playing with my Barbies and, to the best of my knowledge, did not fight going to college or law school because of Barbie, nor did I develop a complex because I didn’t get a triple D bust, a 16 inch waist, 32 inch hips, and legs proportionately longer than Wilt Chamberlain’s with feet stuck in permanent high heel mode. To the extent I’m not normal, I blame my parents [joke] and a childhood in San Francisco [sort of a joke], not Barbie.

But as I said, Mattel got the flack. Fortunately, now that it’s fully staffed with woke college graduates, Mattel has a new plan: “Gender neutral dolls.

From that video, I want to focus specifically on the words you heard from Jess Weiner, a 1995 University of Pennsylvania graduate. Let me repeat them for you:

This will be really challenging for a population of people. We will challenge people’s points of view about how they think boys and girls should play. You know, it’s so funny parents often tell me that they want to raise their boys to be really wonderful fathers. How do we expect to raise wonderful, nurturing fathers if we don’t encourage nurturing play when they’re boys?

I raised a boy (and sometimes it seems as if I raised a dozen boys, because so many were always in my house). Asking them to play with dolls was anathema. They wanted to run, roll, tumble, tussle, yell, shoot play guns, do sports, and just about anything but play with dolls.

I raised my son, and my friends raised their sons, to be wonderful, nurturing people by helping them understand that, to be good men, they had to care for those weaker than they are, and that to be good people they had to be kind and, within the family unit, loving. Buying a Mattel doll wouldn’t have reinforced these ethical lessons about being a good man; they would have confused and disgusted the boys.

If you watch the whole video, you’ll see a few other people earnestly assuring parents that the way to raise the best boys and girls (but especially the best boys) is to get them playing with dolls who look like confused refugees from a San Francisco hipster Starbucks. As I  noted above, Weiner is a UPenn grad. Other voices are Lisa McKnight, a Denison University grad; Kim Culmone, a 1992 Louisiana State University grad; Linda Jiang, a 2013 Otis College of Art and Design grad; and Monica Dreger, a Boston University grad from (I’m guessing) the early to mid-1990s.

To give you a little idea about the colleges from which these women graduated, UPenn hosted a toxic masculinity seminar during this past year’s Super Bowl; Boston University just got hit with a $100,000 verdict against it in a lawsuit that John Doe brought because they mishandled sexual assault allegations against him; Denison was home to a professor who felt that the chant “all lives matter” was irritating and showed covert racism; Louisiana State University made news when the administration tampered with photos to remove crosses that students were wearing; Boston University is placing audience size restrictions on Ben Shapiro’s upcoming talk; and at Otis College, to the extent faculty members made political donations, 100% of those faculty members gave money to Maxine Waters.

Did I mention that we need to take federal money out of academia?

The only place in which I find gender confusion even marginally amusing is in the Kinks’ great song, Lola – which I’d like to believe never changed anyone’s sexuality:

Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It’s a mixed up, muddled up, sup world, except for Lola
La-la-la-la Lola
Well, I left home just a week before
And I’d never ever kissed a woman before
But Lola smiled and took me by the hand
And said “Dear boy, I’m gonna make you a man”
Well, I’m not the world’s most masculine man
But I know what I am and I’m glad I’m a man
And so is Lola

The post No. 19 Bookworm Podcast – Bookworm Beat 9/26/19: Ukraine stuff and more appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Media Bows Down; ADL Calls OK Gesture A Hate Signal

This is getting crazier and crazier…the ADL now calls the OK gesture a hate signal!

As CNN ‘reported’ today,  “The ADL added that symbol along with several others on Thursday to its long-standing database of slogans and symbols used by extremists.”

Of course, ADL leader Jonathan Greenblatt  said in a statement that his organization believes “law enforcement and the public needs to be fully informed about the meaning of these images, which can serve as a first warning sign to the presence of haters in a community or school.”

Of course what this is really about is obvious. It’s to create  another way that the Left’s political enemies can be labeled as racists and right wing extremists in order to smear them and ruin their lives simply for using a common OK gesture. Although some racists and extremists do use this gesture…

Thumbnail

CCTV - Alt-Right Symbols: Trump Promotes | Page 2 | The ...

…is the OK gesture a hate signal that means ‘white power?????’ Really? Or just when people theLeft wants to smear use it?

It helps if you know something about ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt. Remember that Greenblatt came right out of the pro-Obama J Street, an anti-Israel group formed and financed by Obama and George Soros. It’s function was to cover for the Obama Administration’s hatred of Israel and love of  the PLO, Iran, jihadis and Islamists. And of course, to provide an organization for anti-Israel Left wing Jews.

The ADL, like the NAACP is no longer a civil rights group. It’s an organism and shill factory for the Democrat party and the angry left.

And that ‘s not OK.

Rob Miller
Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Examiner, American Thinker, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, The Times Of Israel, Breitbart.Com, Yediot and other publications.

 

The post Media Bows Down; ADL Calls OK Gesture A Hate Signal appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Does Del. Rodman Owe Senator Dunnavant an Apology/Retraction?

MAYBE

Republicans are going to have to fight and they might have to fight tough (not dirty – leave that for the Dems!)

Example is the Del. Debra Rodman ad attacking – very effectively – Senator Siobhan Dunnavant for her support of a bill that would take away protections for pre-existing conditions. It is hard to tell if this is the same bill that Sheila Bynum-Coleman suggests is a sellout by Speaker Cox to insurance interests.

I was open to admiring Delegate Debra Rodman for her sincerity in her ads, even though I disagree with her positions. But I think she misrepresented this bill about the pre-existing conditions. The term Rodman uses is DENY. The clear implication is: Dr. Dunnavant voted to allowed insurers to DENY coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The bill Rodman cites is SB 844 (2018) and it governs short-term policies of less than 365 days in duration. The bill actually would give (It passed the General Assembly but was vetoed by Governor Northam) people more choices in health insurance. NO ONE HAS TO BUY THIS POLICY! And here is the mandatory warning label for these policies:

5.Every short-term health plan sold or offered for sale in the Commonwealth shall include the following disclaimer:

“This is a short-term health insurance policy. The policy does not provide comprehensive health insurance coverage. It covers only the services as specifically described in the policy. Such services may be subject to caps, cost-sharing, and other limitations. The premium costs may reflect your age, gender, and pre-existing conditions, which conditions may not be covered or may be subject to coverage limitations. Renewal of the policy after the expiration of its term is not guaranteed. You should read this policy carefully in order to understand all of its terms.”

Nothing is being taken away here (contrary to the intent of the Rodman ad) and there is the disclaimer (I would have had a more conspicuous disclaimer in language like the following sentence: BUT THIS BILL DID NOT REQUIRE ALL INSURERS TO EXEMPT FOR PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS [As Rodman’s ad implies]).

The Republicans will have to fight hard and tough. Say what you stand for!

Del. Rodman ought to either understand the bill better and/or she owes a series of commercials that apologize to Senator Dunnavant for misstating her position.

Bombshells But No Wrongdoing In Trump Phone Conversation with Ukraine’s President

Alternate title:  Ukraine, Donald Trump and Joe Biden — Quid Pro No

First, for all those of you deep in a dark fantasy of impeaching Trump, an oldie but a goodie

Watch.  Recapture the excitement as you waited expectantly for impeachment to overturn the election results but a few months ago.  This one has it all.  Progressive politics as religion.  An indictment of Trump for the high crime and misdemeanor of winning the 2016 election, of being the “worst” and, in addition, committing almost all forty of the fantasy crimes and wrongs articulated by the NYT that Bookworm addressed in her post yesterday.   After you’re done with the sing-along, might I suggest a safe space and some My Little Pony coloring books.  Hold on tight to your dreams.

For the rest of us . . .

President Trump this morning released the transcript of his phone call with President of Ukraine.  The transcript of the entire conversation is below.  A few comments on it first.

The Bombshells:

It appears that the DNC Server — the one that was hacked and set off the whole Trump-Russia mania — is in the Ukraine.  This from the memo (emphasis mine):

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it.  There are a lot. of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re _surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.

Holy smokes!!!  What in the world is going on with that?  This stinks to high heaven.

One of the most corrupt aspects of the entire Trump-Russia coup attempt was the FBI’s failure to secure and investigate the DNC server. You remember, of course, that the DNC claimed Russia hacked its server. The DNC based this claim upon a report from Crowdstrike, a computer analytic firm that Perkins Coie hired on the DNC’s behalf. Because the DNC refused to hand its serve to the FBI / DOJ, those agencies could only clutch to their collective breasts a redacted, draft version of the Crowdstrike report. It was this report, based upon a server they never analyzed, that the FBI / DOJ used as a foundation for the Trump investigation.

What’s staggering is that the above conversation strongly indicates that the DNC server, which the DNC refused to allow even the FBI or Special Counsel Robert Mueller to examine, is being stored outside U.S. borders and in the Ukraine.  What the hell?

Further, it seems from what Trump said that people in the Ukraine were involved both in the hoax and in meddling with the 2016 campaign.  That was news to me.  I haven’t seen that information before, but here is the Washington Times today verifying it:

U.S. Attorney John Durham is investigating Ukraine’s role in the 2016 FBI probe of President Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, the Department of Justice confirmed Wednesday. . . .

“A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement.

Ms. Kupec said Ukrainians who are not government officials have already volunteered information as part of the probe. She also said that Mr. Barr has not yet contacted the Ukrainian government over the investigation. . . .

A few points: One, this is starting to sound like a Tom Clancy novel.  Two, it is no wonder that some people are near frantic to impeach Trump and short circuit the investigation into the Trump-Russia coup.  Three, the MSM is studiously ignoring any part of the transcript Trump released that doesn’t deal directly with Biden. This means that the MSM’s audience, unless its members are curious enough to read the transcript themselves, will never know about the peculiar relationship between the DNC and Ukraine or about the missing DNC server that triggered the whole Russiagate hoax. So, for example, you get this from the NYT:  Trump Asks Ukraine’s Leader to ‘Do Us a Favor’ and Also Urges Inquiry of Biden

Quid pro NO

Sorry, progressives, notwithstanding all your swamp fever dreams of impeachment, Trump did not propose a quid pro quo nor did he commit any wrongdoing vis-a-vis his phone conversation with Ukraine’s president.  Biden predicated previously-agreed-upon financial aid to Ukraine by demanding at the last minute that Ukraine agree to fire the prosecutor general investigating his son.  (“Nice little country you’ve got here. It would be a same if something happened to it.”) There is nothing in the transcript that sees Trump saying “I’m doing nothing for you unless you first do this for me.”

Nor did Trump propose aid in return for investigating Joe Biden’s corrupt act.  It is apparent that, while Trump’s request for a follow-up investigation occurred in the context of other agreed-upon exchanges of goods and services (so to speak), none of these other arrangements were contingent upon Ukraine agreeing with Trump’s request.

Most importantly, perhaps, as to those things the President of the Ukraine indicated that he intended to investigate, the only promises he made to President Trump were to conduct open and fair investigations and to provide honest information.

Crazy Nancy has given in to the radical fringe of her party (as an aside, it was not long ago that she was the radical fringe) and is still trying to keep the dream alive.  She issued this statement today, as slanderous as it was based on falsehoods:

The release of the notes of the call by the White House confirms that the President engaged in behavior that undermines the integrity of our elections, the dignity of the office he holds and our national security.  The President has tried to make lawlessness a virtue in America and now is exporting it abroad.

“I respect the responsibility of the President to engage with foreign leaders as part of his job.  It is not part of his job to use taxpayer money to shake down other countries for the benefit of his campaign.  Either the President does not know the weight of his words or he does not care about ethics or his constitutional responsibilities.

“The transcript and the Justice Department’s acting in a rogue fashion in being complicit in the President’s lawlessness confirm the need for an impeachment inquiry.  Clearly, the Congress must act. . . .

You decide how far out of touch with reality she is.  This from the memo (emphasis mine):

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it  There are a lot. of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re _surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended
with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

President Zelenskyy: Yes it is. very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. . . ., I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly .. That I can assure you.

The President: Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair.  A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. . . .  The other thing,
There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the
prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so
whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.

President Zelenskyy:  . . .  The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case.

This is Biden’s Waterloo

Biden is already in trouble, running a moribund campaign and falling behind Sitting Bull in the latest national poll.  This transcript turns the spotlight onto Biden’s corrupt act in the Ukraine, a topic that will be invoked endlessly as long as it is in the news.  And it is just going to get worse when all of the China corruption involving Hunter Biden is forced into the mainstream.  I can’t see how Biden survives it.  And the real irony of it all is that the “whistleblower’s” lead attorney has donated to Biden.

——————

Here is the memo of the conversation released today in it entirety:

Telephone Conversation with President
Zelenskyy of Ukraine
Pre·sident Zelenskyy of Ukraine
Notetakers: The White House Situation Room
July 25, 2019, 9:03 – 9:33 a.m. EDT

Residence

The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific.job. The way.you came from behind, -somebody who wasn’t given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It’s a fantastic achievement. Congratulations.

President Zelenskyy: You· are absolutely right Mr. President.  We did win big and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example for our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation  that we  were able to achieve a unique success. I’m able to tell you the following:  the first time, you· called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often.

The President: [laughter] That’s a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that.

President Zelenskyy:   Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.

The President:  Well it’s very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it’s something that you should ·really ask them about. When I.was· speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn’t do  anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way, so I think it’s something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very  good to Ukraine.

President Zelenskyy: Yes you are·absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her. I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine.  It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest· partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than.the European Union and I’m very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation.  I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense.  We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United· States for defense purposes

The· President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it  There are a lot. of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re _surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

President Zelenskyy: Yes it is. very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President,-· it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to· open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United· States and Ukraine.  For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will. personally tell you that one· of my assistants· spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also· wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly .. That I can assure you ..

The President: Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair.  A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor bf New York Ci:ty, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General.  Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States,· the woman was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that  The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.

President Zelenskyy:  I wanted to tell ·you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament; the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make· sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one. who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree·with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.

The President: Well, she’ s going to go through some things. I will. have Mr. Giuliani.give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to· the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot· of assets. It’s a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible ·people.

President Zelenskyy: I would like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States.  Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC.  On the other hand, I also wanted to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of  the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence.  I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities· and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support

The President: Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we’ll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.

President Zelenskyy: Thank ·you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and I . . . get to know. you better. I am looking forward to our meeting arid I also would like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city bf Kyiv which is a beautiful city. We have a beautiful country Which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on September_l we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine.

The President: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in· Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time.

President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much Mr. President.

The President: Congratulations on a fantastic job you’ve done. The whole world was watching. I’m not sure it was so much of an upset but congratulations.

President Zelenskyy: Thank you Mr. President bye-bye.

The post Bombshells But No Wrongdoing In Trump Phone Conversation with Ukraine’s President appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

On Trump, Progressives confused by irony and facts

The NYT published an article asserting 40 “facts” indicting Trump. In truth, each of those “facts” was false or pure opinion based upon intractable bias.

The New York Times published an article by one of its opinion columnists, David Leonhardt, that purports to indict Trump in a mere 40 sentences, each asserting a supposedly devastating “fact” showing Trump to be a criminal, a fascist, or a fool. Reviewing these 40 sentences, I found that most are premised on erroneous facts, with the remainder relying on underlying assumptions that deserve to be challenged. A fisking is in order.

“He has pressured a foreign leader to interfere in the 2020 American presidential election.”

Follow this link and you’ll discover that it refers to the fact that Trump asked the president of Ukraine to finish a legitimate corruption investigation that then-Vice President Biden had stopped through the use of strong-arm tactics. We know that’s what Biden did because he boasted about it, loud and proud. Of course, reopening the investigation means Ukraine will resume asking questions about Hunter Biden’s business dealings in that country — which is no doubt the reason that Biden stopped the investigation in the first place.

As one would expect from alleged “news” reports of late, this is absolutely, completely 100% poppycock. John Solomon explains what actually happened — and it had nothing to do with Trump begging for Ukraine to throw the election (emphasis mine):

But there is a missing part of the story that the American public needs in order to assess what really happened: Giuliani’s contact with Zelensky adviser and attorney Andrei Yermak this summer was encouraged and facilitated by the U.S. State Department.

Giuliani didn’t initiate it. A senior U.S. diplomat contacted him in July and asked for permission to connect Yermak with him.

Then, Giuliani met in early August with Yermak on neutral ground — in Spain — before reporting back to State everything that occurred at the meeting.

[snip]

Why would Ukraine want to talk to Giuliani, and why would the State Department be involved in facilitating it?

According to interviews with more than a dozen Ukrainian and U.S. officials, Ukraine’s government under recently departed President Petro Poroshenko and, now, Zelensky has been trying since summer 2018 to hand over evidence about the conduct of Americans they believe might be involved in violations of U.S. law during the Obama years.

The Ukrainians say their efforts to get their allegations to U.S. authorities were thwarted first by the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, which failed to issue timely visas allowing them to visit America.

Then the Ukrainians hired a former U.S. attorney — not Giuliani — to hand-deliver the evidence of wrongdoing to the U.S. attorney’s office in New York, but the federal prosecutors never responded.

In other words, the Ukrainians have long been concerned about Americans engaged in illegal conduct in their country, but when they tried to raise those concerns, Deep State operatives rebuffed their efforts.

As for more specific information about what Trump’s allegedly “treasonous” phone call said . . . we don’t have any. Instead, the more credulous among us have been tricked again by one of those Lefty games of telephone. You know what I mean. We saw it with the latest Kavanaugh attack, which is that an alleged reporter heard something from someone who heard it from someone else who heard it from. The same is true with regard to the Ukraine telephone call, for it turns out that the Deep State whistleblower didn’t hear the call himself (herself?) and was not acting in his professional capacity when s/he relayed hearsay information to other Deep State officials:

It turns out the complaint is nothing more than a rumor reported by someone in the intelligence community. Buried in a lengthy CNN article about the complaint is the following paragraph:

The whistleblower didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower’s concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration’s determination that the complaint didn’t fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said.

Granted, this is yet another anonymous source giving more context on what another anonymous source told a different outlet, but it still calls the entire story into question.

In other words, this whole Ukraine thing has nothing to do with Trump having done anything wrong and everything to do with Biden abusing his power to protect his family. Biden gets points for family loyalty, but demerits for corruption.

“He urged a foreign country to intervene in the 2016 presidential election.”

Back in the days when Hollywood made anti-communist movies, one of the tropes was that communists have no sense of humor. The whole point of both the 1939 movie Ninotchka and its 1955 musical remake Silk Stockings was to show that believing in socialism is a singularly joyless activity and that only embracing capitalism can bring humor and laughter back to ones life. Indeed the whole campaign for the original movie was built around the gift of laughter:

Ninotchka garbo laughs

What Americans understood when socialism was still a dirty word is that being a Leftist is a very serious business. You’re remaking the world, after all. This photo of a hysterical, enraged, and deeply frightened Greta Thunberg is the modern incarnation of humorless, angry socialism:

The adults who did this to an Asberger’s child — meaning that she has high anxiety and often erroneous fixations — should be prosecuted for child abuse . . . but that’s for another post.

Moreover, when you’re in the midst of a revolution, you always have to keep an eye out for fellow revolutionaries, who might be more zealous than you or, worse, who might openly question your own zeal. In Soviet Russia, that last led to an actual death sentence. In today’s America, it means social media death. In our brave new revolutionary world, there is no place for humor.

I’m not writing this to bemoan the lack of comedy in late night TV, which is now devoted to joyless attacks on Trump, or the fact that comedy is dead on college campuses, where blank-eyed, angry students kill visiting comedians with strident cries of “That’s not funny. I’m offended.” I’ll leave that for other writers. What I want to talk about, because it will show up in other rebuttals to Leonhardt’s indictments, is that Progressives can’t take a joke.

Leonhardt’s umbrage is directed to the fact that Trump stated at a rally (to much laughter from the crowd), “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” The crowd was in on the joke, which is the fact that Hillary’s uber-illegal decision to forfeit the State Department’s secured email system for an unsecured system in her bathroom meant Russia already had the emails — and so did China and any of a number of bad actors in the world. The joke was that the national security horse had not only long since left the barn, it was grazing in a field somewhere outside of Moscow.

In other words, Trump wasn’t inviting a foreign country to steal America’s secrets. He was using humor to show that Hillary Clinton, by intentionally violating America’s national security laws, had long before handed those secrets over to other countries.

“He divulged classified information to foreign officials.”

Much as Progressives don’t like it, Trump is America’s president. And as president, commander in chief, and head of the executive branch of government, including national security, it is he who has the ultimate say about whether something is classified or not, and when to declassify something.  His power is plenary and he got it when the American people elected him.

Moreover, it appears that Leonhardt isn’t in the habit of reading his own newspaper, because the story to which he links is the recent report that Trump’s big mouth resulted in a spy having to be exfiltrated from Russia. Except that, as even the Times later had to acknowledge, it was the media’s collective big mouth that exposed the spy during the Obama administration. Moreover, the CIA made the decision to withdraw the spy in 2016, again during the Obama administration. As for the other alleged security breaches in the linked article, let me say again: The president gets to make the call about what is and is not classified; not the New York Times.

“He publicly undermined American intelligence agents while standing next to a hostile foreign autocrat.”

Again, this is an example of the fact that being a Leftist means never understanding a joke. It also represents another chapter in the never-ending book entitled I Don’t Care What Mueller Said Or The Evidence Shows — I Still Think Trump Colluded With Russia. Thus, the article to which Leonhardt links, although it was written long after the Mueller report and after Mueller’s Sergeant Schultz-style testimony (“I know nothing. Nothing!”), is premised on the debunked theory that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. The article also ignores entirely the fact that Hillary paid for all of the baseless and salacious claims that came out of Russia meaning that she, not Trump, conspired with a foreign agency to try to win the election.

So let’s go back to the claim that Trump “publicly undermined American intelligence agents.” One of Trump’s chief negotiating skills is to create an amicable environment within which to negotiate. He doesn’t insult the person unless, of course, the person insults him first, in which case Trump is a no-holds barred fighter. What he’ll fight like a demon over is the substantive matter at issue.

In this case, reporters were demanding that Trump call Putin a spy to his face. Doing so would have made a viable negotiation impossible. Putin would have been publicly offended and could not possibly engage in meaningful discussions with Trump. In other words, the media, intentionally or not, was doing its best to sabotage talks before they began.

Trump did the only thing possible under the circumstances — he made a joke, and it was a good one too, considering that we’ve learned in the last two years that high-level operatives in the intelligence community actively worked within American politics to destroy a candidate and, when that candidate still won the election, engaged in a coup attempt to get him out of office. All things considered, Trump’s little joke that “They [intelligence agencies] said they think it’s Russia [but] I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia,” was a perfect way both to defuse his relationship with Putin before talks began and to lob a humorous grenade in the direction of those who, for the first time in American history, tried to thrown an election.

“He hired a national security adviser who [sic] he knew had secretly worked as a foreign lobbyist.”

Considering that Leonhardt works for a newspaper, you’d think he could do better than to use a newspaper article from early 2017 to attack Michael Flynn. In the two years since then, we’ve learned a lot about the intelligence agencies’ successful attempt to take out Flynn and about Robert Mueller’s despicable tactic of destroying someone economically and going after his family in order to get him to plead guilty to the process crime of lying to the FBI.

Worse, in the years since the linked article was written, we’ve learned that there probably wasn’t a process crime at all because the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn contemporaneously agreed that he wasn’t intentionally lying. There’s also the little “fruit of the poisonous tree” problem, given that the entire basis for questioning Flynn for a Logan Act violation was a blatant attempt to create a process crime without any good faith belief that an underlying crime had been committed.

And what about the merits of the claim that Flynn “secretly worked as a foreign lobbyist”? Well, not quite, according to The Hill. In November 2016, Flynn wrote an op-ed defending Erdogan, who had survived a coup attempt, in which Flynn claimed that the American-based coup-plotter, an Imam named Fethullah Gulen, was a “shady Islamic mullah.” That article gave intelligence agencies, who were already gunning for Flynn because he’d challenged Obama’s Iran Deal and because he’d clashed with intel types on myriad occasions, an opening.

I’ll say right off the bat that I think it showed bad judgment and bad taste for Flynn to defend Erdogan, who is (in my opinion) a bad actor. Nevertheless, it appears that Flynn didn’t realize that Bijan Rafiekian, who co-founded Flynn Intel Group (“FIG”), had the group working with Turkey. Instead, what Flynn knew was that a Dutch-based company called Inovo BV got paid $530,000 to do PR work to boost Turkey’s image. It was Inovo that had ties to the Turkish government. In March 2017, FIG did a retroactive registration as foreign agents on Turkey’s behalf. By December 2017, Flynn claimed that was a false filing and that he knew about Turkey all along. Well, maybe….

The problem with my wholeheartedly believing that Flynn’s December 2017 statement is true is that, by December 2017, Mueller had Flynn in a vice and was hell bent on destroying him. Flynn was trying to salvage his life savings, avoid jail, and protect his son from Mueller’s army. Things may be quite different in a few weeks if Judge Sullivan grants the discovery motion that Flynn’s new attorney, Sidney Powell, filed. In it, she alleges that the alphabet agencies railroaded Flynn and that they’re hiding the documents that prove it — including exculpatory documents that they were required by law to produce to Flynn and his counsel.

Frankly, of all the charges Leonhardt levies against Trump, this is probably the most serious, not in terms of Trump being treasonous, but just in terms of bad judgment — but I remember, as others may not, that Trump was treated like such a pariah, he had a hard time finding people willing to work with him in the beginning. He was in a “beggars can’t be choosers” position, and, at least on paper. And as I said, it’s entirely possible that Flynn is simply another victim of the Deep State who will be gloriously exonerated in the near future.

“He encourages foreign leaders to enrich him and his family by staying at his hotels.”

This is the “emoluments clause” argument that Democrats cannot let go. However, the emoluments clause was never meant to address a situation in which a foreign government tries to curry favor with the president by staying in a hotel from which president’s family, after taxes and costs, will earn a small amount of money.

Let’s start with the source, which is the Constitution. At Art. II, Section 1, it states as follows:

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

It scarcely needs to be said that Trump’s businesses, to the extent they provide him with money, do not constitute payments from either the federal government or the individual states. Incidentally, Trump, unlike any other president before him, donates every penny of his salary as president to charity or government agencies.

the real question, then, is whether hotel stays fall into the next part of the emoluments clause, the part that bars any person — including the president — “without the Consent of the Congress” from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” (Const. Art. I, Section 9.) Both history and constitutional analysis reveal that Indirect income from foreign nationals using Trump hotels does not fall into that category, since any monies are so diffuse they can only be incidental to Trump’s overall wealth.

But wait, there’s more, which I’ll quote from National Review article on the subject:

Trump’s opponents claim that every time, say, a foreign diplomat books a room in a Trump hotel or pays for a meal in a Trump restaurant, the Constitution is violated. They seek to force the president to sell off all his holdings and demand disclosure of his tax returns to track foreign payments.

Before assuming office, President Trump disposed of his publicly traded and liquid investments. He put his illiquid assets (e.g., hotels, golf courses, and commercial properties) into a trust. He further resigned from all official positions with the Trump Organization and turned over management of the businesses to his adult sons. None of this is enough for his enemies.

[snip]

the term “emolument” is not in our modern vocabularies. In his first inaugural address, George Washington used the term as synonymous with government salary when he refused “any share of the personal emoluments, which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the Executive Department.”

In Hoyt v. United States (1850), the U.S. Supreme Court defined emolument as “embracing every species of compensation or pecuniary profit derived from a discharge of the duties of the office.” Accordingly, President Trump argues that “emolument” must be understood as a prohibited benefit arising from the services a federal officer provides to a foreign power, either on account of his office (making a decision favorable to a foreign government for pay) or as an employee/agent of the foreign power. He further argues that the foreign-emoluments clause does not prohibit his companies from engaging in market transactions on the same terms as any other citizen or private business.

Early presidential practice supports the president’s interpretation. Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe all owned massive plantations and sold agricultural commodities in Europe. Undoubtedly, some of their customers were foreign governments, but no political opponent ever raised the specter that they were violating the foreign-emoluments clause.

‘Nuff said, I think.

“He genuflects to murderous dictators.”

First, politics makes for some ugly bedfellows. For example, I loath the Saudis because they are violent, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian, but they’ve also been our stalwart allies throughout the Cold War and after. (Also, I currently have hope that Prince Mohamed bin Salman will be an effective reformer and I appreciate that Saudi Arabia and Israel are discovering that life is better when they cooperate than when they don’t.)

Second, because I know Leonhardt’s statement refers to Kim Jong-un, the New York Times is effectively saying that the only way to deal with him is what’s been done before: insult him and then, when he rattles his saber, give him money. That, after all, is what Clinton, Bush, and Obama did — and every time, the North Korean saber grew bigger until a nuclear bomb practically landed in Trump’s lap. Trump is using a different tactic, which is to try and bring the Swiss-educated dictator back into the fold by offering him wealth, respect, and personal security instead of national poverty, world isolation, and the constant fear of being assassinated in the dog-eat-dog world of a total tyranny.

Third, people who live in Progressive houses shouldn’t throw stones. Exhibit A is Obama making nice with Turkish dictator Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, a man whom Obama described someone with whom he’d forged “bonds of trust.” Indeed, looking back, you really can’t blame Flynn for working with Erdogan given Obama’s liking for the man.

Exhibit B is Obama’s reverential bow before the Saudi King. Right now, the Progressives are gunning for the Saudis because they see the Saudis as a barrier to reinstatement of Obama’s Iran deal. Back in the day, though, Obama became the first American president ever to bow before a foreign monarch. It wasn’t a good look.

Exhibit C is Obama’s chumminess with Raul Castro, brother of Fidel. Cuba’s communist government is a dictatorship that has murdered, imprisoned, impoverished, and starved its people for over 60 years. I think we can call the Castro brothers murderous dictators — and yet, here we have a picture in which Obama looks like a puppet with the murderous Raul literally pulling his strings:

Exhibit D is Obama with Hugo Chavez, the man who, through socialism, started the rape of Venezuela. Under his and Maduro’s leadership, Venezuela went from one of the richest countries in Latin America, to one of the poorest, with people dying of starvation and disease — when they weren’t being murdered in the streets by their own government. It is a tragedy beyond comprehending, but Obama still managed a friendly smile and a handshake for this murderous dictator:

“He has alienated America’s closest allies.”

This is a matter of opinion. By “America’s closest allies,” I assume Leonhardt is referring to European leaders. But European leaders have not been acting like allies. They won’t pony up money for their own defense, they undermine American efforts to restrain Iran, and they provide succor for Islamists who murder Americans and Israelis. They liked Obama, who reflected their values, but they were routinely hostile to the country he led (never mind all the money from America that kept their soft socialism afloat for decades after WWII). With Trump in office, they’re no longer make any pretense of hiding their disdain for both our country and its duly elected president.

So no, Trump hasn’t alienated anyone. He’s simply revealed that European leaders resent America, no doubt because America had to rescue Europe twice and keep it afloat for the entirety of the Cold War. It made Europeans feel weak, so they responded, like trapped rats, by turning vicious. Trump’s presidency merely exposed what was there all along.

But what about other alliances? Do others like Trump? In a word, yes.

Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Trump get along extremely well.

Trump also gets along extremely well with India’s popular Prime Minister Modi, something the media has been at pains to hide. Just the other day, the media went out of its way to ignore a rally for Modi in Houston that attracted 50,000 people who greeted Trump with resounding cheers. I happen to like this earlier picture of the two leaders:

Trump also gets along extremely well with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyanu. Much as the media doesn’t like Israel, the reality is that Israel has been America’s friend through thick and thin for 60 years now. It is one of America’s most stable allies and, when it comes to technology, both military and civilian (oh, and medical), it is one of our most important allies.

When Trump visited Saudi Arabia, the respect accorded him was so great that, not only did his wife and daughter not cover themselves Saudi-style, but his daughter, Ivanka, had important meetings with high ranking Saudi officials:

Now that’s respect. I bet you all can think of other leaders I haven’t thought of.

“He lied to the American people about his company’s business dealings in Russia.”

Like the emoluments clause and the Russia conspiracy, this is one that the Democrats just won’t let die a natural, decent death. Putting aside Hillary’s profitable dealings with Russia (often at America’s expense), there was nothing nefarious in Trump’s business dealings with Russia before he went into politics.

A comprehensive IBT article details the Trump business interests in Russia. The main takeaways are that, during the Soviet era, Trump said it wasn’t profitable to do business in Russia; in 2008 Donald Trump Jr. puffed about Russian money; in 2015, before throwing his hat in the ring, Trump talked about building a Trump Tower in Moscow; and in 2013, Trump held the Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow.

Trump’s conduct was neither illegal or nefarious. The Democrats just gave it an evil gloss when paired with the imaginary Russia collusion accusation. Stripped of the heavy breathing, we get a hotelier who saw Russia as a good emerging market after the Soviet Union fell. End of story.

“He tells new lies virtually every week — about the economy, voter fraud, even the weather.”

The above statement offers a cognitive bias that’s impossible to overcome. Those who like Trump understand that he employs puffery, boasting, and New York style humor to make his points. Those who hate Trump are incapable of appreciating these things. As Salena Zito so perfectly said, “When he makes claims like this [i.e., using statistics from sources other than those that the Progressives prefer], the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.”

In other words, although Leonhardt dresses this statement up as “fact,” it is actually an opinion — and one with which I disagree.

“He spends hours on end watching television and days on end staying at resorts.”

So what? Obama was a famously lazy president. Trump is a ferociously energetic president, who went to work within hours of his inauguration. He hardly sleeps and he churns out material constantly. So what if he watches TV? So what if he hangs out at his resort? Weren’t were told during the Obama presidency that it was racist to point out Obama’s endless rounds of golf? I guess it’s not racist to do so if the golfer is the wrong color (i.e., white).

There’s also the strong possibility that, when Leonhardt makes this claim, he’s still getting confused by the gorilla channel joke that so many in the media took seriously.

“He often declines to read briefing books or perform other basic functions of a president’s job.”

Again, this is opinion. I think it’s fairly obvious that Trump is an auditory learner, preferring to have people provide oral, rather than written, briefings. Regardless of how he’s getting the information, he’s achieved a great deal more than Obama ever did in terms of making the economy grow, lowering unemployment across all demographics, slimming the welfare roles, reinvigorating the military, and keeping his campaign promises, such as building the wall, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, cutting back on over-regulation, and so forth.

At the end of the day, the well-read Obama had a sluggish economy, record unemployment, unenforceable agreements on climate and with Iran, a weakened military, and a self-destructing Affordable Care Act.

In other words, it appears that Trump is doing just fine — and then some — when it comes knowing what’s going on and performing his “basic functions.”

“He has aides, as well as members of his own party in Congress, who mock him behind his back as unfit for office.”

The GOP loathes Trump. He’s a disrupter. Of course, they’re going to go after him.

Conservative voters understand that there’s a schism on the Republican side of the aisle, with Republicans divided unequally into a huge bollus of pro-Trumpers and a dwindling, constantly humiliated little cadre of NeverTrumpers facing off. Significantly, the NeverTrumper’s dwindling numbers are composed primarily of Washington insiders, since they had a good little sinecure whining about Progressive initiatives and Trump, by actually addressing the things about which they whined, is upsetting their apple cart. After all, if you’ve built your brand being the perpetual opposition, you lose money when there’s nothing left to oppose.

For this reason, it’s instructive to true conservatives to see that the NeverTrumpers are backing Democrat candidates even as Trump enacts the most conservative agenda since Reagan, or even before. In other words, Trump’s supporters fully understand that Trump is weeding out Big Government types, faux-conservatives, and do-nothings, and they greatly appreciate that he is doing this, both through his actions and merely by being Trump.

“He has repeatedly denigrated a deceased United States senator who was a war hero.”

McCain was a rat-weasel. The Left hated him right up until he got into a fight with Trump (with McCain throwing the first verbal punch). Then, suddenly, McCain became a saint-like figure who is worthy of such reverence that the rough-and-tumble of American politics no longer has meaning.

Read my paragraph immediately above about Trump haters and you’ll understand why conservatives appreciate that Trump took no guff from McCain. One can be a POW who survived horrible treatment, with all honor due for that fact, and still be a horrible human being with bad values and no decency.

“He insulted a Gold Star family — the survivors of American troops killed in action.”

Again, Trump is a counter-puncher and a dirty fighter. The Gold Star family insulted Trump, so he insulted them back.

For years, Republican politicians politely took it on the chin when they were savaged in the crudest, most vile terms. Funnily enough, that did not make Democrats respect them more.

No wonder, then, that conservatives and Republicans (who are not always the same group) thirsted for someone who would fight back. Trump does. He never throws the first punch, but he always finishes the fight good and hard.

“He described a former first lady, not long after she died, as “nasty.”

See my point above about Trump being a counter-puncher. Barbara Bush was a nasty woman. She was proud, strong, funny, loving, and . . . extraordinarily mean and vicious. When she attacked Trump, he never forgot and he called her out.

I don’t believe in de mortuis nil nisi bonum if the dead person was on record being vile to achieve political ends.

“He described white supremacists as ‘some very fine people.'”

The Democrats cannot let go of this hoax. It is an absolute certainty that Trump described as “some very fine people” only those people who showed up because they were disturbed about statues being torn down, something that has a very banana republic feel to it. Trump made absolutely clear only a couple of minutes later that he condemned absolutely the white supremacists who showed up as well:

very fine people hoax

If Trump weren’t a public figure, he would be able to sue every media outlet in America for defamation and win.

“He told four women of color, all citizens and members of Congress, to ‘go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came.’

First, although the tweet was taken as going to “the squad” of four new Democrat congresswoman, in fact Trump simply refers to “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen. I’ve always understood it to refer, primarily, to Ilhan Omar, who in fact comes from a broken country yet constantly denigrates America and, secondarily, to Rashida Tlaib, who may be from Michigan, but acts as if she comes from — and represents — an imaginary country called Palestine and also constantly denigrates America.

As for the other two in the squad — and, mind you, Trump does not refer to either “the squad,” AOC, or Pressley directly, or even the number four — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez plays up her Puerto Rican roots over her American upbringing and constantly denigrates America, while Rep. Ayanna Pressley is a hanger-on-er, whom nobody remembers most of the time.

Another problem with Leonhardt’s “fact” is that, whether Trump was talking to one, two, three, or four Progressive congress woman, he didn’t tell them to exile themselves from America. The fact is that Trump said that, if their political ideas are as great as they claim, the Progressive congresswoman should use them to fix their broken countries (Somalia and the imaginary Palestine). Then, having proved that their theories work, they can bring them back to America.

But don’t take my word for it. Read Trump’s tweets:

Fact: Trump didn’t say what Leonhardt accuses him of having said.

“He made a joke about Pocahontas during a ceremony honoring Native American World War II veterans.”

The Native Americans at that ceremony were not offended, merely confused. Had they not been confused, they still wouldn’t have been offended because the joke wasn’t about Pocahontas.

That is, Trump wasn’t insulting that fascinating and important historic figure. Instead, he was throwing in a cutting remark about a white woman who falsely claimed to be a Native American so she could take Ivy League jobs that were reserved for genuine minorities. Now that’s offensive.

“He launched his political career by falsely claiming that the first black president was not really American.”

Again, Leonhardt completely misstates (or maybe deliberately lies about) what Trump said. Contemporaneous reporting reveals that Trump took note of the fact that Obama’s birth certificate had become a cause célèbre because some people claimed that Obama was born in Kenya. Indeed, you can see where they might think that, because Obama’s literary agency stated that in an author’s bio in the 1990s, and it’s inconceivable that Obama didn’t provide the info, or at least know or approve of the bio as written:

With the debate raging across the country, Trump didn’t take sides. Instead, he insisted that Obama produce the birth certificate to quiet the debate, something that Obama, rather peculiarly, refused to do:

“I want him to show his birth certificate. I want him to show his birth certificate,” Trump shouted to the show’s five co-hosts. “There’s something on that birth certificate that he doesn’t like.”

Indeed, contrary to Leonhardt’s assertion, when it came to the question of Obama’s natal country, Trump held that he came from America (emphasis mine):

Trump, who was on the show to discuss his own potential presidential run in 2012, said he felt Obama was probably born in the U.S.

But the follicle-challenged “Apprentice” host argued the president has been reluctant to definitively prove his detractors wrong.

“I really believe there’s a birth certificate,” Trump said. “Why doesn’t he show his birth certificate? And you know what? I wish he would. I think it’s a terrible pale [sic] that’s hanging over him.”

So Leonhardt’s “fact” is a lie.

“He launched his presidential campaign by describing Mexicans as “rapists.”

Once again, Leonhardt’s facts and actual facts diverge. What Trump said is that illegal immigration means that the raff and scaff who inhabit every country — in this case, with the country being Mexico — were crossing the borders. He also implied that Mexico wasn’t sad to see its worst citizens leave so that it could hang on to the good ones:

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.

Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

It’s apparent that he’s saying that too many illegal immigrants are from the criminal class (think MS13 or Maryland rapists), while he acknowledges that other illegal immigrants are not criminals. That is most decidedly not the same as saying that all Mexicans are rapists.

As always, it’s hard to tell whether the collective Progressive media is so stupid it believes this crude misinterpretation or just too vicious to let a manifest falsehood go.

“He has described women, variously, as “a dog,” “a pig” and “horseface,” as well as “bleeding badly from a facelift” and having “blood coming out of her wherever.”

Yeah, these appellations were tacky. On the other hand, did I mention the thing about counter-punching and being the first conservative ever to hit back at the endless stream of lies and insults emanating from a Democrat-run media machine? If you insult Trump, he’ll come back at you twice as hard.

“He has been accused of sexual assault or misconduct by multiple women.”

Yes, he was accused — and every one of those accusers was a Democrat party operative or Hillary fanatic. Bias and context matter. I can accuse Leonhardt of being a big fat doody face, but that’s kind of meaningless once you learn that I’ve never actually met him although I dislike his politics.

All of these accusers vanished back into the woodwork immediately after the election, suggesting that their charges were both false and opportunistic. They were also a trial run for the attacks on Kavanaugh.

“He enthusiastically campaigned for a Senate candidate who was accused of molesting multiple teenage girls.”

Are you noticing a pattern here of Democrat women smearing Republican politicians with charges of sexual wrongdoing? This charge too appeared when Moore, who had been in politics for years, was threatening Democrat power and disappeared the instant he lost the election. There is no serious proof at all that Moore behaved criminally or inappropriately.

What happened in Alabama with Roy Moore was that Progressives (and some NeverTrumpers) used sleazy, unsubstantiated accusations to tar a political opponent. There were no videos, no confessions, no blue dresses. Instead, there were just old, stale charges from arguably quite unreliable sources. Rather than convincing me that Moore did something truly bad, my takeaway was that Moore was making the wrong people very nervous.

I think it’s also relevant that when the #MeToo movement finally went wild in Hollywood, it was stalwart Democrat men, not conservatives, who proved to have been bad actors.

“He waved around his arms, while giving a speech, to ridicule a physically disabled person.”

No, no, and no again. I won’t debunk this myself, but will instead direct you to another solid debunking.

Incidentally, it was Obama who made an explicitly derogatory remark about people with handicaps, for he once said his bowling was so bad he looked like someone in the Special Olympics. Ouch!

“He has encouraged his supporters to commit violence against his political opponents.”

Agreed. It was appalling when the president said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl.”

Oh, wait. That wasn’t Trump; that was Obama.

But it really was bad when Trump said of his political opponents, “They can come for a ride, but they gotta sit in the back.”

Oh, my! Wrong again. That was also Obama.

Still, Trump was really out of line when he talked about kicking people’s asses.

Boy, is my face red. That was Obama too.

Here’s what Trump has done and still does: Trump the counter-puncher counsels his supporters to counter-punch. If they hit you, don’t cower, he says. Hit back. He’s not big on turning the other cheek. Insult deserves insult and punch deserves punch.

I raised my kids the same way. I told them that they should never ever throw the first punch but, if someone punched them, they had the right to finish the fight. When the hyenas circle, the only way to survive is to show you’re alive and have fight in you.

“He has called for his opponents and critics to be investigated and jailed.”

Yeah, Trump has called for some of his opponents and critics to be investigated and, if found guilty, to be jailed, and was right to have done so. As report after report has come down in the last few months, it’s apparent that the Obama government operatives behaved badly during his administration (Hillary’s national security violations, Lois Lerner’s illegal use of the IRS as a partisan tool, Eric Holder’s illegal Fast and Furious operation, Biden’s potential use of financial extortion against Ukraine, to name just a few). Moreover, once Trump became the Republican candidate and after he was elected, first the Obama administration and then administration holdovers violated one law after another in a coup attempt against a duly elected president of the United States.

Trump is not engaging in a Lavrentiy “show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” Beria style witch hunt. Rather, he is saying that, to the extent there are laws on the books, and Democrats from Hillary on down blatantly and repeatedly violated those laws, they need to be brought to justice.

As I said, Trump is right to do this. If there’s one law for the Democrats and another law for everyone else in America (i.e., Democrats don’t even get indicted, while every Tom, Jane, and Joe Shmo ends up in jail), the rule of law in America is over. Instead, we are headed into true banana republic territory.

“He uses a phrase popular with dictators — “the enemy of the people” — to describe journalists.”

If we had real journalists, this might be offensive. But since we have a mainstream media that functions as a branch of the Democrat party. Rather than reporting facts, the media routinely works to destroy Republicans in ways that include revealing wartime secrets, trying to overthrow elections, and, lately, reporting every bit of gossip and garbage as if it’s real news — all in stark contrast to the groveling obeisance shown Obama.

Under these circumstances, Trump’s not far off the mark. The people elected Donald Trump and the media, by trying through unethical means to undo that election, are an enemy of the people.

“He attempts to undermine any independent source of information that he does not like, including judges, scientists, journalists, election officials, the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the Congressional Budget Office and the National Weather Service.”

The media and other Democrats can give it but they can’t take it. Trump has never used his presidential powers unethically to attack his political opponents and, yes, enemies. However, he does something that horrifies Democrats: He routinely, and loudly, calls out the bad actors. He calls out the partisan hacks. He calls out the dishonest brokers. He calls out the corrupt Deep Staters. He calls out those who falsify scientific records to achieve political ends.

Again, Americans have watched, appalled, as the administrative state has become a permanent self-serving entity, the members of which have nothing but disdain for Americans. Instead, these members of the perpetual bureaucratic class imagine some vast international brotherhood of bureaucrats and politicians, all controlling the little people for the little people’s own good and for the brotherhood’s enrichment. For me and people like me, it’s refreshing to see Trump calling them out and speaking the truth about their behavior.

Again, not a single one of these people Leonhardt names has been denied due process when/if their wrongdoing finally caught up with them. None have been tortured. Their families have not been “disappeared.” They haven’t languished in jail or been executed. Instead, Trump merely pointed to the things they did and said and then explained to the American people why these things were problems.

To which I say Bravo!

“He has tried to harass the chairman of the Federal Reserve into lowering interest rates.”

Don’t you love this language? Trump didn’t actually harass the chairmen of the Federal Reserve. Instead, “he tried to harass.” In other words, once again, Trump spoke. Ye, gads! The gall of the man.

“He said that a judge could not be objective because of his Mexican heritage.”

Yeah, I’m not going to go too far here to defend Trump, other than to say that what he did is a typical litigation tactic.

My bias is that I loathe judges, especially Democrat ones — and I’ve loathed them since I was a Democrat. With few exceptions, I learned when I worked as a litigator in San Francisco that Democrat judges tend to rule based upon their belly buttons, rather than the law. Back then, I didn’t realize it was a Democrat thing. I just knew I hated certain judges.

When I crossed the Rubicon and became a conservative, I went back and checked the bios on the rotten judges, at which time I learned that every last one was a Democrat. As for the few good judges, I am not exaggerating when I say that every last one was a Republican.

“He obstructed justice by trying to influence an investigation into his presidential campaign.”

When Mueller and his team, despite spending tens of millions of dollars and destroying several people both professionally and financially, could not find any evidence whatsoever that Trump worked with the Russians to win the White House, they threw a little poison pill in the report to give Democrats something to hold onto: Trump, they said, was kind of obnoxious during the investigation. They said this even though he gave them full access to everyone involved other than himself and handed over millions of pages of documents.

Mueller couldn’t deny how forthcoming Trump and his people were. Nevertheless, complained Mueller, Trump said mean things; discussed with his attorney whether he could end the investigation, after which he did nothing; and generally was not enthusiastic about being investigated by the same group of people whom he knew had created and published the false stories that led to the investigation in the first place. Other than rabid anti-Trumpers, of whom Leonhardt is one, people were not impressed.

“He violated federal law by directing his lawyer to pay $280,000 in hush money to cover up two apparent extramarital affairs.”

No, he did not violate federal law by directing his lawyer to pay $280,000 in hush money. It would have been a violation of federal law had Cohen used campaign funds to silence the women. However, he did not. Cohen used Trump’s own money, so there was no violation. Also, Trump consistently denies knowing about the payment at the time it was made, although he said he has since reimbursed Cohen for the money paid to Stormy Daniels.

Sordid? Yes. But the American people didn’t elect a saint. They elected a shaker, a mover, and a fighter.

“He made his fortune partly through wide-scale financial fraud.”

The headline of the linked story tells it all (emphasis mine): “Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father” In other words, we have no proof; we’re just guessing.

“He has refused to release his tax returns.”

So what? Last I looked, there was nothing in the Constitution or the federal statutes requiring someone to release his tax returns to prove his fitness for the presidency. Admittedly, there was no such thing as a tax return in 1783, but Congress could have amended the Constitution at any time after taxes became the bane of American life.

Producing tax returns has become a “thing” amongst presidential candidates in large part, I suspect, because they’re career politicians who’ve earned straight government salaries for decades. Producing tax returns is a reasonable way to prove that they weren’t augmenting their salaries with graft. Then, Hillary hit upon the idea of setting up a separate foundation for the graft, so her returns looked clean, thereby making ridiculous the whole exercise.

I applaud Trump for keeping a zone of privacy about himself. The last thing he needs is financially illiterate journalists and politicians leafing through his private financial information and drawing risible conclusions.

“He falsely accused his predecessor of wiretapping him.”

You can truthfully claim that Obama did not “wiretap” Trump if you’re a simplistic literalist and, by using the term wiretapping, you mean this:

However, if you understand that Trump meant that the Obama administration spied on him, Leonardt is the one who is lying. It’s all coming out now that, through fallacious applications to the FISA court, Obama’s security apparatus was able to obtain FISA warrants that were void from the get-go. Armed with those ill-gotten FISA warrants, Obama’s Deep Staters listened in on Trump and everyone connected to him.

If that doesn’t outrage you, you may have lost contact entirely with notions about free and fair elections, about the rule of law, about ethical law enforcement agencies, and about the clean and honest transfer of power in a republican democracy.

“He claimed that federal law-enforcement agents and prosecutors regularly fabricated evidence, thereby damaging the credibility of criminal investigations across the country.”

See the above. When it comes to actually supporting true law enforcement, nobody does it better than Trump. It was the Obama administration who, using Trayvon Martin and Ferguson as springboards, denigrated police across America and sparked a hot war between police and the people they try to keep safe. Trump calls out the bad actors with specificity, and throws his wholehearted support behind the myriad reputable, hard-working law-enforcement agents and prosecutors across America.

“He has ordered children to be physically separated from their parents.”

How heartless.  If only this wasn’t an Obama administration policy as well; if only illegal aliens crashing the border were not kidnapping children to claim as their own in order to get into the country; and if only men and children could be housed safely in a single detention facility.

This is one of those situations where there are tough choices that have to be made with the safety of the child in mind.  Crying about how heartless it is to separate the children is nothing but pure demagoguery that makes wonderful NYT press, but that actually endangers illegal alien children.

“He has suggested that America is no different from or better than Vladimir Putin’s Russia.”

This falls into the category of “How dare Trump repeat our talking points.” If you follow Leonhardt’s link, you’ll see that, when O’Reilly said Putin is a killer, Trump responded that America has killed. By making this statement, he perfectly parroted Progressive talking points about America being a warmongering destablizer around the world, a killer of black men within America, and an exploiter of brown people from its inception.

I also suspect that Trump was trolling Obama, the king of drone attacks that frequently targeted resulted in collateral civilian deaths.

“He has called America a ‘hellhole.’”

If you follow all the links to the LA Times to CBS, what you will find is a 2015 article where Trump did indeed refer to the America being created by Obama a “hell hole” and that Trump said he was thinking of running for the Presidency to “make America great again.”  A significant majority of the electoral college firmly agreed over a year later.

I also think Trump was again trolling the Democrats. If you’ve paid any attention to the Democrat presidential candidates this time around, you’ll see that they describe America in dystopian terms as an impoverished, violent, racist . . . hellhole. Trump long ago accepted the Democrats’ characterization of our once great nation and promised to reverse that damage.

If you like this post, please share it with others. That’s the only way this blog can grow.

The post On Trump, Progressives confused by irony and facts appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

NEWS, NEWS, NEWS: NO IT’S NOT, BECAUSE—Democrats Create Fake Reality, Phony Worlds, and A Universe Of Lies.

 

763A54B0-0E5E-4A7F-B266-D4DDD0E89093
Hierronymus Bosch

NEWS: By Jeffrey A. Friedberg

4F499141-9D8D-4795-8875-99178E42FA48
Jeffrey A. Friedberg

Impolite and Brief

<<<<<——->>>>>

NEWS: from Democrats, Liberals, “Progressives,” Socialists, Communists, Suburban Housewives, and Canadian Supergirl has created politicized worlds that don’t exist.

This ranting excursion into a twilight (zoned) area of their own creation appears to be a one-way drop for them. They seem to be lost souls flailing for a formula—any devious, formulaic plot which they may think can ultimately beat Donald Trump in the coming election of 2020.

Time, and again, they flog that bestiary of demonic forms, seeking totalitarian salvation for deranged, murderous worlds within nightmare worlds. Their own, drug-infused, or alcohol-soaked, or hatred-infused worlds of domination, terror, horror, and global Communism.

Why should serious writers—daily—struggle to meet and answer Democrats’ every delusion and deranged smears of Trump?

I mean—how may times can I say, “Democrats have lost all sanity.

“Gone, are great men—Democrats—like Harry Truman, JFK, Hubert Humphrey, and the amazing Daniel Moynahan. They are dead, and their like is nowhere.”

Today’s “youth” (and tomorrow’s voters,) probably never even heard of these  Democrats. Because, today, NONE of these men would even be allowed in the New Hollywood Special Effects Communist Totalitarian Democrat Partei.

Die Partei.

 

78861DFC-9D4C-431D-B326-D7D45A6F746A

 

NEWS  FLASH! STOP THE PRESSES!

As reported—even in their own propagandist, so-called, “Media”—every deranged “scandal” they launch against Trump turns out to be a total lie.

Are “they” ever “called out” on it? Not really.

Are such make-believe scripts and shadow-plays ever retracted? Not really. Are any of the perpe-traitors ever punished, discredited, defrocked, or removed from their apparent, journalistic “priesthood?” Not really; no.

Neo:
I thought it wasn’t real

Morpheus:
Your mind makes it real

—THE MATRIX, (1999)

So why should serious writers try daily to counter, block, or “answer” the hurtling worlds of lies launched by Democrats?

It’s silly, right?

It forces the writer to politely chronicle and repeat the lie. It plays directly into the Play Itself.

It “makes it real.”

It makes me sick.

Yet, I have been urged by Conservative luminaries, and way more important and better writers, to keep on keepin’ on. To continue writing.

Wherein, I believe, this continued writing is ludicrous: sides have already been chosen; heroes have been picked and set; the universe has been capped off and the debris carted away.

Everyone already knows what they are going to do.

So—why should anybody keep writing?

I guess because we have to. Because these lying basterds cannot be allowed to go un-answered. Because they are lying,and too many people believe the lies.

Because they will stoop as low as they have to go—in order to “win.”  In order to even steal the election, if necessary. Whatever it takes.

NEWS:

We Write Because the Truth must be printed.

Because that’s how it was in America.

Because that’s how it still is—in what remains of the real America.

B8543E4A-F936-4D6F-BAC0-4FF8518003B4
“TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE AMERICAN WAY.”https://ethicsstupid.com/accountability/truth-justice-american-way/

<<<<<——->>>>>

The post NEWS, NEWS, NEWS: NO IT’S NOT, BECAUSE—Democrats Create Fake Reality, Phony Worlds, and A Universe Of Lies. appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.