A theory behind why government is sexualizing children

Governments are enthusiastically weaponizing the Leftist trend of sexualizing children, because doing so dramatically increases government power.

Yesterday I caught up with a month-old article from The Federalist, entitled The Pedophile Project: Your 7-Year-Old Is Next On The Sexual Revolution’s Hit Parade. The article details the myriad ways in which the Left is intent upon sexualizing children as fast as possible. A significant part of this sexualization has to do with the transgender movement, which was the train the Left hopped on the moment the Supreme Court found the previously invisible gay marriage clause in the Constitution.

If you have the stomach for it, you can watch this sickening Good Morning America video showing eleven-year old Desmond — a boy — dressed in full drag and writhing suggestively on the floor for a cheering audience. I’m still shocked that not one person in that theater stood up and said “This is wrong. Not just wrong, but evil.” But no one did. We have reached the point at which is it impossible to imagine someone saying, as Joseph Welch once did, “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

What’s terrifying about the child transgender movement is that it’s moved beyond the moral degenerates of the entertainment and media worlds. We’ve now reached the point at which governments are rapidly internalizing it and using it to sever the parent-child bond. Last year in Ohio, parents actually lost custody for not being sufficiently supportive of their daughter’s claimed transgenderism. Currently, in Texas, a father is being told that, if he doesn’t get with his ex-wife’s program of insisting that their six-year-old son wants to be a girl, he will lose any access to his son.

Two years ago, Ontario, Canada, passed a law including gender identity in a panoply of protections the government extends to children. Ontario has been trying to assure parents who are not on board with giving their children hormones that cause cancer or sterility that the government really doesn’t intend to swoop in and take away their children. Instead, it will only take children away if that refusal to acknowledge the child’s new identity causes the child emotional distress — except we all know that the transgender shtick is that denying a child’s transgenderism is itself a form of emotional abuse. Can we say Orwellian language? Meanwhile, in the UK, parents are being told that if they do not let their autistic son have hormone treatments that could damage his body permanently, they will lose custody over him.

That there is no medical / scientific authority whatsoever for transgenderism, which seems to be a tragic mental illness akin to anorexia or other body dysmorphia problems, only this mental illness is one that the media, education establishment and entertainment world actively encourage. With that in mind, it’s terrifying to watch speed with which the government is weaponizing the transgender world view.

It’s also something I predicted almost nine years ago when I wrote Sex and State Power, which I reprint here in its entirety (with permission from American Thinker, where it originally appeared). Some of the links may be dead, and the push to sexualize children has gone far beyond what was happening a mere nine years ago, but I think the article holds up well and goes a long way towards explaining why governments in America, England, and Canada are so anxious to jump on board the transgender band wagon.

Sex and State Power — July 13, 2010

For many years, physicists have tried to find a unified theory of everything. They have faith that somewhere out there, there is a theory that will explain the physical properties of all things, without any exceptions. I’m not sure that dream will be realized in the scientific arena, but I think I might have stumbled across a unified theory that underlies statist philosophies, whether they are socialist or theocratic: sex.

Before you get too excited, this article isn’t going to be about voluptuous women in slinky, abbreviated clothes, or scantily clad men with rippling pecs and washboard abs. Sorry.

Instead, this article focuses on the sordid, depressing, government-controlled side of human sexuality. That is, it examines sex not from the viewpoint of any given individual’s particular desires, but from the viewpoint of a state intent upon gaining maximum control over that same individual.

Those of us who came of age before the 1980s, when the Judeo-Christian, Western tradition, though battered, was still ascendant, view our sexuality as a private matter. We believe that our bodies are our own property, which means that we should not be touched or controlled sexually without our consent. A person raised with this worldview inevitably believes as well that his ability to control his body is the essence of his individuality. This physical individuality is the antithesis of slavery, which represents a person’s ultimate lack of control over his body.

Statist regimes, of course, cannot tolerate self-ownership, which is the natural enemy of government control over the individual. The easiest example one can find of a statist regime using sexuality to deny individuality and dominate its citizens is, of course, Islam.

A wise friend of mine once opined that Islam’s entire quarrel with the West rests on its fear that Western values will undermine Islam’s control over its women and, with that, its control over the men who benefit from a system that subjugates one half of the population to the control of the other half. There’s a great deal of truth in that observation.

Unlike most other conflicts, Islam’s quarrel with the West does not revolve around borders, water supplies, or economic control over assets. Instead, it focuses on culture — and the heart of the Islamic cultural difference with the West, at least in the Muslim mind, is Islam’s statist determination to erase a woman’s individuality through control over her sexuality.

In the Muslim world, women are viewed as temptresses, and men as feeble creatures incapable of resisting feminine wiles. The only way to control the anarchy that this perceived sexual imbalance creates is for the State — and remember that Islam and the State are indistinguishable from each other — to exert total dominion over the women within its reach.

The best way to regulate women is to remove them entirely from view. Islam has traditionally relied upon harems to isolate women from view (and, not coincidentally, from the body politic). This practice is still used in Saudi Arabia, where women may not leave the home unless they are accompanied by a male family member.

Should the imprisonment option be unavailable, however, wrapping the women in completely obscuring, shapeless mountains of cloth is an adequate substitute. Women so enveloped, aside from losing any individuality, are relatively dysfunctional and, therefore, are entirely dependent on men.

Women who seek to express (or are suspected of or falsely accused of expressing) their sexuality free of statist constraints are subject to exceptional cruelty in the Muslim world. This cruelty often comes directly from the State. Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani, an Iranian woman and mother of two, was due to be stoned to death for allegedly having an adulterous relationship. When an outcry arose, the Iranian government threw in a surprise murder conviction to justify making adultery a capital crime. Ashtiani is not alone: Twelve other women and three men await the same fate for having allegedly committed an act that, in Western culture, is not a crime against the State.

Islam also sanctions private actions to control women’s sexuality in the form of so-called “honor killings.” These “all in the family” murders are endemic wherever Muslims live, whether in the Middle East, Europe, England, or America.

The Islamic state manipulates men sexually, too. On the one hand, it theoretically offers men the benefit of an enslaved female population. On the other hand, though, the isolation it imposes on women means that vast numbers of Muslim men are deprived of any access, normal or otherwise, to women.

This deprivation enables Islamic leadership to use the mere promise of sex to entice men into committing suicide on behalf of the state. Islam assures men that, if they engage in suicidal attacks against nonbelievers in order to advance Islam, their reward in the afterlife will be unlimited sex with the famous seventy virgins (or, maybe, they’ll enjoy sexual congress with seventy raisins, a much less titillating inducement to suicide).

What’s interesting is that, because the Left expresses itself in terms of “freeing” people’s sexuality, many people miss the fact that it is every bit as sexually controlling in its own way as Islam is. This control comes about because the Left works assiduously to decouple sex from a person’s own sense of bodily privacy and, by extension, self-ownership. If a person has no sense of autonomy, that person is a ready-made cog for the statist machinery.

The practical problem for the Left when it tries to attack individuality as expressed through sexuality is the fact that a person’s sense of an inviolate physical self develops quite early, during childhood:

Once a child individuates, he becomes aware of being his own self. … The most basic thing one can own is one’s own self, and not letting others touch that self in ways you don’t like is an exercise in self-ownership. (Emphasis mine.)

The Left, therefore, needs to decouple self and body as early as possible in a person’s development — and it does this by bringing its own peculiar notions of sexuality into the realms of child-rearing and education.

Once upon a time, the radical Leftists were quite open about their agenda. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, German Leftists explicitly sought childhood “sexual liberation” as a political goal. In practice, this meant exposing children to adult sexual practices, focusing obsessively on the children’s external sexual organs, speaking about sexual matters in the crudest terms, and, unsurprisingly, engaging in actual sexual molestation. The Leftists advocating this liberation framed it as a way to break free of stifling bourgeois notions of morality that enslaved people and prevented them from realizing full sexual pleasure.

Reading the Leftists’ contemporaneous literature, however, reveals a more comprehensive aim than merely breaking those much-derided bourgeois sexual chains. The Leftists also intended to destroy the traditional nuclear family, with its bright lines between parent and child, and to bring down the capitalist system, which is dependent on a competitive, and therefore individualized, workforce:

For instance, “Revolution der Erziehung” (“The Revolution in Education”), a work published by Rowohlt in 1971, which quickly became a bestseller, addresses sexuality as follows: “The de-eroticization of family life, from the prohibition of sexual activity among children to the taboo of incest, serves as preparation for total assimilation — as preparation for the hostile treatment of sexual pleasure in school and voluntary subjugation to a dehumanizing labor system.” (Emphasis mine.)

Nor can the above ranting be excused as the thoughts of a radical fringe. For example, these same European Leftists infiltrated the Catholic Diocese in Mechelen-Brussels, in Belgium, creating a sickening environment that actively promoted pedophilia. In other words, this particular church’s forays into perversion were not the secretive gropings of individual priests. Instead, there was a concerted effort, led by a liberal Belgian church hierarchy, to make pedophilia a routine practice within the Church.

Incidentally, Frank Marshall Davis, a radical Leftist who was Obama’s surrogate father and mentor during his childhood years in Hawaii, fully supported this politically-driven hyper-sexualization, including sex with children. He engaged in and wrote about disturbing sexual practices such as bondage, simulated rape, undinism, and pedophilia (or, at the very least, pederasty). Since Obama’s political ascendancy, both his poetic forays and his peculiar disassociative behavior have supported speculation that Davis, giving free rein to his personal preferences and his commitment to preventing the child from gaining ownership of his own body, may have practiced what he preached on the fatherless young boy given so unthinkingly into his care.

While the overheated Marxist rhetoric of the 1960s has died away, the Leftist preoccupation with childhood sexuality, and its relentless desire to have the state control a child’s sexual development — and, by extension, to deny the child self-ownership — is still alive and well. The primary pathway the Left currently uses to decouple childhood sexual development from self-individuation is the gay rights agenda.

Many of us who believe that gays and lesbians should be free to pursue their personal lives free from discrimination have felt bewildered by our discomfort with and resistance to all of the homophilic programs that have suddenly invaded our children’s schools. To use the language of the Left, though, we should “listen to our feelings.”

Subconsciously, we recognize that these pro-homosexual programs have nothing to do with teaching tolerance, which is a virtue in a pluralistic society. Instead, the programs have everything to do with having the state substitute its goal of sexual, and therefore social, control in place of a parent’s desire to inculcate his children with traditional Judeo-Christian values, values that focus on the inviolability of the individual, beginning with his body.

Examples abound of supposedly anti-discriminatory programs that, instead of focusing on tolerance, work to direct a child’s sexual development away from the zone of privacy that is a hallmark of Western sexuality. Robin of Berkeley describes a group called “Gender Spectrum,” which has the ostensible goal of allowing “transgender, gender bending, [and] gender nonconforming” children and teens to hang with each other and share their experiences. She rightly sees this not as an effort to promote tolerance, but as a way to make it “cool to dabble in polyamory and gender nonconformism,” thereby “destroy[ing] the West by degrading traditional values.”

Only four years ago, California narrowly escaped a legislative effort to pass a bill that would have required all California textbooks, starting in first grade, to include materials focusing on famous homosexuals — with the focus not on the achievement that made them famous, but simply on the homosexuality itself. A parental outcry forced the legislature to retreat to something more in keeping with a free society, which is the requirement that children may not be exposed to material that is discriminatory to people based on their sexuality.

In Helena, Montana (Montana!), the school board is contemplating a K-12 sex ed program that repeatedly blurs the line between demanding tolerance, which should be an imperative in a free society, and advocating alternative sexuality, which is consistent with the Leftist agenda of separating sexuality from individuality. In Grade 2, children would be taught, appropriately, that “making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g. ‘homo,’ ‘fag,’ ‘queer’) is disrespectful and hurtful.” By Grade 3, however, the focus is on breaking down traditional familial norms, as children are taught that to “[u]nderstand media often presents an unrealistic image of what it means to be male or female, what it means to be in love & what parenthood & marriages are like.” And so it goes, with a proposed curriculum that veers wildly between respect and advocacy.

The relentless Leftist obsession with homosexuality and variations on traditional sexual gender roles is deeply embedded in the Obama administration. Last year, a vigilant blogger exposed the fact that Kevin Jennings, Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar,” as part of his leadership role in the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (“GLSEN”), aggressively promoted child pornography in the classroom. GLSEN’s actions had nothing to do with creating a safe, non-discriminatory environment for young people with different sexual orientations and everything to do with using the government (i.e., public schools) to inculcate in children the notion that their bodies have no boundaries. A body with no boundaries, of course, is a body that can easily be decoupled from the individual’s control and then ceded to the state.

While the gay agenda, which is cloaked in civil rights language that makes it hard to challenge, is the leading edge of the state’s desire to control children’s sexuality, Leftists also use the schools to manipulate heterosexual behaviors so as to destroy a child’s physical boundaries. In England, parents were aghast to learn that a school was requiring its first-grade pupils to massage each other. In Iowa (Iowa!), one middle school has abandoned any pretense of traditional morality and, instead, is teaching its eighth-graders “how to perform female exams and to put a condom on a 3-D, anatomically correct male sex organ.” The body is a tool, and nothing more.

Freud was right when he speculated that sex, perhaps because it is the least easily satisfied human need, may also be the most powerful physical need driving human beings. Freud, however, viewed sexuality through the spectrum of a given individual’s desires. What the statists understand — and have always understood — is that our bodies are the first line in the battle between statism and individualism. If a person is allowed to develop a sense that his body is his own to control, he will never willingly yield to the demands of the state. Only by convincing its citizens that they have no personal autonomy, beginning with control over their own bodies, can a state completely subsume the individual to the bureaucracy.

So if you’re getting an itchy feeling between your shoulderblades when you contemplate your child’s hyper-sexualized reading list and gender-bending sex education curriculum, you need not fear that you have turned into a repressed, homophobic Victorian. Instead, there’s an excellent chance that you are someone with a deep respect for individual freedom who resents the Leftists’ efforts to co-opt your child’s body as a necessary sacrifice to the State.

The post A theory behind why government is sexualizing children appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Nothing Underhanded in the 97th Convention Race! Please?

Let me start this post with genuine admiration – for John Fredericks – he was one of the first if not the first talk show host to support Donald J. Trump – way back in 2015. As one of his trailers put it: Fredericks was a one person conductor of the Trump Train. If I had been as smart as Fredericks was, I’d be a federal judge or ambassador to Zimbabwe now!

I also like Fredericks’ style; he tries to be civil in dialogue and is very patient with callers. He also has a variety of viewpoints, although his big issue is economic nationalism (and I strongly agree).

However, I was profoundly disturbed by what I heard about the 97th delegate race. Let’s start with what I agree with Fredericks about it:

I agree there could have been more transparency about the process and how to decide it. Primary or convention? I found out about the issue in an ironic way that might get someone fired from the Peace campaign ( 🙂 ): I heard it from a call from the Peace campaign (I am sure sent to hundreds if not thousands of callers so I am not special!) with a polite instruction to call Scott Wyatt and ask for a primary because all Republicans should be involved in the process. (And yes I did call Supervisor Wyatt and spoke at length about things. I’ll let the Las Vegas rule govern that phone call.)

However. I am also told that the process was known to GOP insiders and I cannot refute that. The candidate selection process of a political party is not something that is required to be broadcast to the general public. Since I hang out more with libertarians and Libertarians and am not a member of any political party, I was not familiar with internal GOP politics.

I also agree with Fredericks in part about the Wyatt candidacy issue but I do not find the comparison with the Senator Carrico fiasco on all fours. The senator in the far west was accused of deciding not to announce his retirement to the public until after the filing deadline but he allegedly told his hand-picked successor. Even if Wyatt was a candidate in his heart when the process started and even if he picked a proxy that he knew he’d vote convention to “rig” the method selection that is not the same thing as rigging the selection so as to ENSURE his hand-picked successor got the GOP nomination. However, Supervisor Wyatt did recuse himself from the actual vote and my review of the state GOP party plan allows a proxy to vote as he or she sees fit.

I agree with Fredericks Wyatt should have distanced himself even more from the process. But, now there are two candidates in the race and who do we select.?

I want to warn both sides how I feel about it: I have already indicated to the Libertarians to maybe find a candidate to run in the 97th. The reason is because I fear there will be underhanded tactics in this process or at the convention. I will not hesitate to attempt to recruit a LP candidate in the 97th if I feel that the process was abused by either side.

That time when Democrats were responsible for low Black unemployment

Trump boasted in his Grand Rapids speech that his policies were responsible for historically low Black unemployment. Dems shouldn’t take that lying down.

Low Black Unemployment under Democrats

Never forget which American political party was the slavery party.

And don’t forget either that it was the Democrats who, ignoring the great Frederick Douglass’s insistence that America could serve Blacks best by allowing them to thrive unhindered,* instead foisted government dependency on them beginning in the 1930s, with an extra dose of the hard stuff in the 1960s. After all, it was Democrat President Lyndon Johnson who, when speaking to two like-minded politicians, boasted that his Great Society legislation would ensure that “I’ll have those n*****rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Looking at these trends in Black employment — that is, almost full employment through slavery; unemployment through government dependency; and almost full employment through the free market — American Blacks must decide what system served them best, both at an individual level and as a community. If they conclude that being independent, self-sufficient, and gainfully employed is a good thing, it’s time for them to leave the Democrat plantation and, as free men and women, vote for Trump and the Republicans in 2020.
*Here’s what Douglass wrote in 1862 when people were worried that society would be overrun by indigent Blacks were slavery to end:

These objections are often urged with a show of sincere solicitude for the welfare of the slaves themselves. It is said, what will you do with them? they can’t take care of themselves; they would all come to the North; they would not work; they would become a burden upon the State, and a blot upon society; they’d cut their masters’ throats; they would cheapen labor, and crowd out the poor white laborers from employment; their former masters would not employ them, and they would necessarily become vagrants, paupers and criminals, over-running all our alms houses, jails and prisons. The laboring classes among the whites would come in bitter conflict with them in all the avenues of labor, and regarding them as occupying places and filling propositions which should be occupied and filled by white men; a fierce war of races would be the inevitable consequence, and the black race would, of course, (being the weaker,) be exterminate. In view of this frightful, though happily somewhat contradictory picture, the question is asked, and pressed with a great show of earnestness at this momentous crisis of our nation’s history, What shall be done with the four million slaves if they are emancipated?

This question has been answered, and can be answered in many ways. Primarily, it is a question less for man than for God — less for human intellect than for the laws of nature to solve. It assumes that nature has erred; that the law of liberty is a mistake; that freedom, though a natural want of human soul, can only be enjoyed at the expense of human welfare, and that men are better off in slavery than they would or could be in freedom; that slavery is the natural order of human relations, and that liberty is an experiment. What shall be done with them?

Our answer is, do nothing with them; mind your business, and let them mind theirs. Your doing with them is their greatest misfortune. They have been undone by your doings, and all they now ask, and really have need of at your hands, is just to let them alone. They suffer by ever interference, and succeed best by being let alone.


As colored men, we only ask to be allowed to do with ourselves, subject only to the same great laws for the welfare of human society which apply to other men, Jews, Gentiles, Barbarian, Sythian. Let us stand upon our own legs, work with our own hands, and eat bread in the sweat of our own brows. When you, our white fellow-countrymen, have attempted to do anyting for us, it has generally been to deprive us of some right, power or privilege which you yourself would die before you would submit to have taken from you. When the planters of the West Indies used to attempt to puzzle the pure-minded Wilberforce with the question, How shall we get rid of slavery? his simple answer was, “quit stealing.” In like manner, we answer those who are perpetually puzzling their brains with questions as to what shall be done with the Negro, “let him alone and mind your own business.” If you see him plowing in the open field, leveling the forest, at work with the spade, a rake a hoe, a pick-axe, or a bill — let him alone; he has a right to work. If you see him on his way to school, with spelling book, geography and arithmetic in his hands — let him alone. Don’t shut the door in his face, nor bolt your gates against him; he has a right to learn — let him alone. Don’t pass laws to degrade him. If he has a ballot in his hand, and is on his way to the ballot-box to deposit his vote for the man whom he think will most justly and wisely administer the Government which has the power of life and death over him, as well as others — let him alone; his right of choice as much deserves respect and protection as your own. If you see him on his way to the church, exercising religious liberty in accordance with this or that religious persuasion — let him alone. –Don’t meddle with him, nor trouble yourselves with any questions as to what shall be done with him.

The post That time when Democrats were responsible for low Black unemployment appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

West Hollywood government sponsors anti-Israel propaganda

West Hollywood government cannot censor citizens but it should certainly censor itself from showing a blatantly anti-Semitic film.

The First Amendment prevents American governments from censoring citizens, no matter how vile the ideas those citizens may advance. There are some limitations that I won’t discuss here, but (thankfully) free speech in America is real. Having said that, government should and can censor itself when it comes to promote utterly vile ideas.

Today, I received an email (reprinted below) urging West Hollywood to re-think its decision to use its money and power to promote an actively anti-Semitic and anti-Israel movie. There is no reason whatsoever for the West Hollywood government to screen something so deeply dishonest and offensive. Even as hard Left a government as West Hollywood should have some sense of shame and decency, not to mention a modicum of political discretion.

This is especially true given that West Hollywood is driven by its deep commitment to LGBT rights. In that regard, it would do well to consider the way LGBT people are treated in Israel versus the way LGBT people are treated in the Palestinian territories. In Israel, they have full civil rights. Under Palestinian rule, they are treated the way people on the LGBT spectrum are treated throughout the Muslim world: Death. Violent, horrible death. 

Dear friends,

For the past several months, there has been an ongoing issue at the City of West Hollywood related to the screening of a movie entitled “1948: Creation and Catastrophe” and we need your help on April 1st to ensure that a screening of this film is not sponsored by the City Council.

The film “1948” is filled with outright lies and distortions, declaring that the rebirth of the modern State of Israel was in fact a Holocaust for Palestinians, and is being promoted by an organization called Jewish Voice for Peace; an organization that overtly calls for Israel’s destruction. The movie claims that Jews never had a connection to the land of Israel and that Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust ethnically-cleansed indigenous Palestinians in order to establish their own country.

This kind of propaganda is unacceptable for any government to promote or subsidize, especially the City of West Hollywood, which has been an example of mutual respect and tolerance for all people. Please see the information below and join us on April 1st to stop this screening:


Show up and speak out against the showing of an anti-Israel movie at the City of West Hollywood, Council Chambers.

Speaking Time:
Each participant in the council session will receive two (2) minutes to speak.

Monday, April 1, 2019 at 6:30 PM.
Best to arrive by 5:30 to 6 PM to secure a seat.

West Hollywood Library and City Council Chambers; 625 N San Vicente Blvd, West Hollywood, CA 90069

Parking: Free parking is available on site. Availability may be limited, arrive early.


NOTE: DO NOT go to West Hollywood City Hall on Santa Monica Blvd. This is NOT where public council sessions are held.


Key Points

1. Ask: Why is the City showing a film that is clearly Anti-Israel and filled with Anti-Semitic undertones in content? Why is the city supporting a film filled with blatant lies, omissions, and manipulations of the facts? It denies any historic Jewish ties to the Land of Israel.

2. The City of West Hollywood should not be using City resources to promote a film that is deeply offensive to the Jewish and Israeli communities. In this instance, the City is subsidizing hate and facilitating the marginalization of a community.

3. In a time of heightened anti-Semitism locally and nationally, this film is an incitement to hate.

4. This film is being shown without resident or stakeholder input- it was a staff decision and without consulting the Jewish community or West Hollywood Israel community.

5. Express outrage, upset, anger, but don’t attack anyone personally.

If you would like to see the movie, please click here to watch for free on YouTube.

Dillon L. Hosier

Chief Advocacy Officer

Israeli-American Civic Action Network | Israeli-American Civic Education Institute
Mobile: 202-888-4240
Email: Dillon@IsraelUSA.org
Web: www.IsraelUSA.org

The post West Hollywood government sponsors anti-Israel propaganda appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

No, Mr. Rove, There Needs To Be A Reckoning On Russian Collusion

Contrary to Rove’s advice that Trump “move on” from Russian collusion, Trump needs to use his bully pulpit to expose Deep State crimes for Americans to see.
by Wolf Howling

Karl Rove appears in the WSJ this morning with some advice: Move On From Mueller, Mr. President.  Mr. Rove is dangerously clueless. His is not advice President Trump needs nor is it advice that would serve the country.

Rove rightly observes that “William Barr’s letter summarizing special counsel Robert Mueller’s report lifted an enormous political weight off President Trump and his team.”  But then Rove advises that Trump leave all the unanswered questions about what was in essence an attempted coup to those below him in the executive office hierarchy.  Trump, he opines, should float above it all and ignore it.

These questions should be answered, but Mr. Trump need not devote much time to pressing them. He can count on Mr. Barr, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz to continue cleaning up the FBI and Justice Department. Mr. Horowitz is already investigating possible FISA abuses.

There’s also Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, who promises to get to the bottom of “disturbing” aspects of the FBI and Justice Department’s 2016 and 2017 activities. As House manager of the 1998 Clinton impeachment effort, he learned the importance of not overplaying your hand.

Further, Mr. Rove advises:

Mr. Trump now has an unusual chance to fashion something like the presidential honeymoon that media bitterness over Hillary Clinton’s loss denied him when he took office. Team Trump should use the Mueller report to pivot to issues, like the economy and the opioid crisis, that matter to swing voters who will decide the 2020 presidential election.

Where has Rove been?  Despite this ongoing, slow motion coup aimed at President Trump, our President has been addressing the economy, the opioid crisis, and most other of the serious issues effecting our country.  He does not have to “pivot” to those issues.  They have to make it into the press.  But the media has been focused like a laser on Mueller and Russian collusion.  They won’t start reporting in any meaningful way on other issues until Trump goes on the offensive and things start to look very bad for the left.  Then their focus will change.

It is amazing just how out of touch Rove is with this country.  This is decidedly not the America of 2000 when Rove partnered with George Bush to craft a successful run for the Presidency.   The Democrat Party of 2000 was dominated by Clinton centrists with at least some remnants of intellectual honesty.  The Left of today is a different beast, given over wholly to identity politics, post modern subjectivity, autocracy, and socialism.  Leftists are spoon feeding that toxin to every person coming out of higher education and, increasingly, K-12.  The Left in America started fast transitioning to this ideological “end stage” of hard core neo-Marxism, during the Bush Presidency.  No one more than Mr. Rove should recognize that, at least in hindsight.

To take a walk back down memory lane, in the wake of the 2000 election, you had the 60’s radicals completing their take-over of academia, the rise of far Left politically savvy groups like that led by Kos, and a massive infusion of money into far Left causes from George Soros and his mid-90’s creation, the Open Society Foundation.   The Democrats’ Overton window went from Bismarck’s welfare state to Marx’s socialism.  And with it came a whole host of toxins, including post-modernism, lawlessness, unequal application of the rule of law, disdain for the Constitution, and contempt for any American who does not wholly agree with the neo-Marxist dogma.

The first serious manifestation of this was the claim that Bush lied about WMD.  I am sure you all remember that.  It started out with Barbara Boxer on the Senate Floor in 2003, if I remember correctly, and then “Bush lied, people died” became both a mantra and a mythical dogma, endlessly repeated by the left and their increasingly corrupt media partners.  Rove advised Bush to ignore it and let those below him respond, much as he is advising Trump now to ignore this attempted coup and let others handle it.  That worked out well,

While Bush, at Rove’s urging, maintained dignified silence, the left and their number in the media succeeded in rewriting history into dark fiction and moving this nation hard to the left.  Indeed, at one time, at least as late as 2010, recognized this reality.  That was when he penned an op-ed in the WSJ admitting My Biggest Mistake in the White House, Failing to refute charges that Bush lied us into war has hurt our country.

In the end, Rove’s strategy gave us Obama, ISIS, Obamacare, a wildly triumphal class of neo-Marxists intent on seizing power by any means, and a series of constitutional crises — from DACA (presidential assumption of legislative powers), to the Iran Deal, to the Paris Accords, to using the regulatory bureaucracy to replace Congress, and to the Supreme Court assuming power to rewrite the Constitution — that threatened and, because there have been no systemic fixes, still threaten the fabric of our nation.

And yet Mr. Rove opines that:

Mr. Trump needs to understand that despite months of relentlessly railing against a “witch hunt,” his supporters are not as revved up as his detractors. That’s the conclusion of the March 20 Fox News poll, which surveyed voters before the Mueller probe ended. While it found Mr. Trump’s approval rating to be 46%—approaching his February 2017 high of 48%—only 27% strongly approve of the president while 42% strongly disapprove.

Has Rove had his head in the sand?  The fact that Trump has an approval rating anywhere in the double digits is simply amazing, given the relentless attacks on him every single day from virtually every single media outlet over a period of years.  There are a huge number of Americans who have no clue that this “Russia collusion” scam was an attempted coup.  Might that not be impacting the poll numbers.  This attempted coup could not have been more serious a direct attack on our nation, one designed first to throw an election and then, in the aftermath, to overthrow a validly elected President or, failing that, to utterly hamstring his administration and render him ineffective.  If this gets swept under the rug without the wrongdoers exposed and punished, our nation will not long survive.  It will only further embolden those who would destroy our nation in the future.

Trump needs to do the opposite of what Rove has suggested.  He needs to stand before the American people and lay out what is publicly known:

  • That the DNC paid for Fusion GPS to generate opposition research, generating a series of what is now known to be wildly false allegations. Moreover, if those allegations were knowingly false when presented to the FBI to start an investigation that constitutes a crime.
  • That it appears that certain members in the leadership of the FBI and DOJ, in an effort to spy on his campaign and to investigate himself and his administration in the hopes of finding a crime, themselves broke laws regarding FISA.
  • That it appears that several people involved may have committed the crime of lying to Congress.
  • That a whole host of leaks of false information seemingly came out of the FBI and DOJ in an effort to undermine and bring down the lawful government of the United States.
  • That a number of innocent people were unlawfully unmasked as part and parcel thereof, in violation of the law and their rights under the 4th Amendment.

Once the president loudly identifies those grievous alleged criminal acts, the President should say that he is joining with Congress to request that the AG appoint a special counsel to investigate what happened and to punish any who in fact have broken the law.  This is well beyond the powers of the Senate to fully investigate, however much I look forward to the entertainment of watching Lindsey Graham 2.0 unleashed.

Then, and only then, can Trump pivot, Mr. Rove.  Though actually, it won’t be Trump pivoting.  It will be the media pivoting, both to avoid showing the inner workings of the attempted coup that just played out and their own duplicity.

Two final notes.  One, Lee Smith at Tablet has an exceptional article up today, System Fail, excoriating the press for being nothing more than partisan mouthpieces for their favored ideology.  He concludes:

American democracy is premised on a free press that does its best to provide the public with information. Misinforming the public is like dumping toxic waste in the rivers. It poisoned our democracy—and it continues to do so. In fact, the most important thing for the public to understand is that Russiagate is not unique. It’s the way that the expert class opines on everything now, from immigration to foreign policy.

Take for instance last week’s big news that President Trump had decided to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The decision was universally praised in Israel, by both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and by opponents like Yair Lapid. Yet Obama’s former ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, insisted that the decision was politically motivated, telling the Washington Post that “the timing seems pretty transparent.” Surely, like his ambassadorial colleague, McFaul, Shapiro knew exactly what he’s talking about when he tweeted that the decision was made without “any policy planning process to consider potential reactions by Russia, Assad regime, Hezbollah, Arab states, Europe, etc., some of which may not be immediate. A decision like this should factor in such questions. No evidence it has.”

Shapiro was dead wrong. As the Atlantic noted in a detailed reported piece posted hours after Shapiro’s tweet, “the push for Trump to make such a move has been going on for more than a year, due to parallel efforts by Israeli officials and members of Congress.”

But whatever. Experts can say anything they like—the Saudis hacked Jeff Bezos’ emails and photos of him and his girlfriend; Jamal Khashoggi was an American journalist; Jussie Smollett was nearly lynched by Trump supporters; Brett Kavanaugh was part of a rape gang, etc., etc. And reporters will print it, and editors will shrug, because that’s what the press is now—a pass-through mechanism mostly used for manipulative, ill-informed and often nonsensical propaganda.

Americans still want and need accurate information on which to base their decisions about their own lives and the path that the country should take. But neither the legacy media nor the expert class it sustains is likely to survive the post-dossier era in any recognizable form. For them, Russiagate is an extinction level event.

I couldn’t agree more.  But again, this goes to my point about Rove, that it is not enough for Trump now to float above this mess, but rather to set in motion the processes that will expose all of this to the public.  Otherwise, Russiagate will not be an extinction level event for a press full of partisan hacks, it will be an extinction level event for this nation.

Lastly, from Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, there is this:

RAND PAUL: Former Obama CIA chief promoted ‘dossier,’ demands investigation of Obama team.

Sen. Rand Paul escalated his demand for an investigation into former Obama officials who “concocted” the anti-Trump Russia scandal, revealing that former CIA Director John Brennan was the key figure who legitimized the charges and discredited “dossier” against the president.

In an interview, the Kentucky Republican said the Senate Judiciary Committee should immediately ask Brennan about his involvement in the document that helped to kick off the Russia collusion investigation of President Trump.

“I think we need to find the truth,” he told Washington Secrets. He said the goal would be to stop similar faulty investigations into future administrations, “Democratic or Republican.”

I think we need a special prosecutor to investigate this, not just Senate hearings.


Rove Russian Collusion

The post No, Mr. Rove, There Needs To Be A Reckoning On Russian Collusion appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Comey is right that there are questions — but he’s asking the wrong one

Jim Comey is now claiming his firing was obstruction of justice.  Apparently, Comey must hear those “walls [that were supposed to be] closing in” on Trump.
By Wolf Howling

Jim Comey was part and parcel of several events that could end up with him in prison.  One was the DOJ / FBI cover-up of crimes by Hillary Clinton under the cover of an ostensible investigation.  That cover-up almost certainly involved the crime of spoliation of evidence.  Next was his involvement in the FISA abuse predicated on the unverified Steele dossier.  Lastly, there was his release of potentially classified information to the person whom he employed to leak his anti-Trump screed to the NYT.

Those are just the things we know in the public domain.  So it’s no surprise that Comey, a man who has been silent of late, apparently felt like a man lost in the woods . . .

. . . when his carefully choreographed effort to give Trump the Lavrentiy Beria treatment (show me the man, I’ll find you the crime) ended with Robert Mueller’s complete exoneration of President Trump on charges of collusion with Russia and punting the decision on obstruction of justice back to the DOJ.  They have since decided.  Comey knows how this goes.  No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

To quote Scooby Doo, “Ruh-Roh.”

And thus it was no surprise to find Comey on NBC Nightly News pushing the canard that Trump’s decision to fire Comey was in fact obstruction of justice:

FBI Director James Comey said in an interview Wednesday that President Trump may have obstructed justice in his decision to fire him.

Comey’s remarks came via a clip from his NBC Nightly News interview, during which Lester Holt brought the conversation back to early May 2017, when Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

During that hearing, Comey spoke on a variety of topics, including the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

“But you declined to answer questions specifically about evidence of collusion at that point. A couple days later, you’re fired,” Holt said.

“A few days after that, I sit down with President Trump,” he continued. “He says, ‘when I decided to just do it,’ talking about firing you, ‘I said to myself, I said you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story.’ What did you think when you heard that?”

Comey replied: “I thought that’s potentially obstruction of justice and I hope somebody is going to look at that.”

A swing and a miss, but it’s all Comey has left.  Now its someone else’s turn at bat.  This today from Fox:

President Trump was enthusiastic about the idea of appointing a second special counsel to review the origins of the Russia investigation when it came up during a meeting Tuesday with Republican senators, a source familiar with the discussions told Fox News.

The president was specifically reacting to GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham’s call for another special counsel as well as the senator’s vow to look into issues like the alleged abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act at the dawn of the Russia probe. The source told Fox News that the president seemed excited about that course during a Senate GOP lunch on Capitol Hill, which Graham and other senators attended.

All I can say is it’s about time.

To date, the collusion narrative has resulted in enough criminal activity (filing of false reports, FISA warrants, unmasking) and likely perjury (Christopher Steele to the FBI, Glenn Simpson to the House) to more than justify appointment of a special Counsel.  Since we now know definitively that there was no “collusion” on the part of Trump or anyone associated with him, that leaves the question of whether this was an outrageous and unlawful political dirty trick designed to throw the 2016 election to Hillary Clinton, then  afterwards, to destroy Trump’s Presidency, in essence overturning the results of the 2016 election.

In that spirit Sharyl Attkisson has listed The Many Unanswered Questions About the Trump Investigation she would like answered.

If, in the end, Mueller found no convincing evidence that Americans colluded with Russia, how did top current and former U.S. intel officials supposedly become so convinced otherwise?  In fact, one might ask, were they really convinced, or were they promulgating a narrative they knew was at best unproven and quite possibly false?

How and why did ex-MI6 spy Christopher Steele come to meet with certain Russian sources close to President Vladimir Putin in 2016, as they supposedly passed on the wildest sort of rumors about Trump, which Steele then wrote up in his “dossier” for Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS?

Did these Russian sources, Steele, and Simpson conspire to influence the 2016 campaign?

How did the former UK ambassador to Russia, Sir Andrew Wood, learn about the “dossier,” and how was it that he then told Sen. John McCain and McCain’s onetime adviser David Kramer about it as they attended a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in November 2016?  Did this contact qualify as an additional foreign attempt to influence our election?

Who at the FBI and Justice Department believed that the dossier, funded by Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign, passed the credibility test without even minimal verification?

Who further determined that the dossier merited inclusion as evidence in an application to wiretap Trump campaign adviser Carter Page?

Who thought it was a valid idea to continue to wiretap Page, time after time after time, as if he were a Russian agent, while they apparently turned up no evidence that he was?

Did any Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges question the FBI’s relentless pursuit of Carter Page and the dragnet the wiretaps allowed them to secretly cast for those around him, including, quite possibly, Trump?

Who was behind the campaign of anti-Trump leaks—frequently including false information—that became ubiquitous in the news media?

Who worked to make the entire false conspiracy theory about Russia colluding with Trump or the Trump campaign dominate our news and political landscape day in and day out?

What does it say about the judgment of some of our one-time top intel officials if they really believed Trump colluded with Russia? This includes former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former national security adviser Susan Rice, and former ambassador Samantha Power.

What other mistakes did they make, and what actions did they take based on any such mistakes?

Were any of the “unmaskings” of American citizens by these intel officials in 2016 politically motivated?

[Samantha] Power reportedly told Congress that many of the hundreds of “unmasking” requests made in her name in 2016 were not made by her. It should be simple to track where those requests originated and who signed her name to them. Has anybody attempted to learn who committed this alleged national security crime?

What did the Justice Department ever do about the criminal referral Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) made against Steele in January 2018?

What happened to the criminal referral made by the Justice Department inspector general almost a year ago against former FBI official Andrew McCabe over his alleged lying to investigators about his media contacts?

Has anyone been held accountable for the FBI’s supposedly lost or accidentally erased text messages and emails relevant to the investigation?

Were some of those involved in furthering the false Trump–Russia collusion narrative trying to deflect from real crimes or other wrongdoing? If so, what?

Did Mueller’s investigation touch upon or attempt to answer any of these questions as his work led him to conclude that Trump–Russia collusion never happened?

I think that we’d all like those answers.

The post Comey is right that there are questions — but he’s asking the wrong one appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Bookworm Beat 3/27/19 — the post-Mueller report illustrated edition

The MSM is trying to make the Mueller Report exoneration old news, but it’s not, and even Chicago “justice” for Jussie Smollett won’t wipe that issue away.

(Yes, you’ve been Rick-rolled.)

The post Bookworm Beat 3/27/19 — the post-Mueller report illustrated edition appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

The Mueller Report – The End Of the Beginning

Well, the Mueller Report was  long awaited by Leftist Democrats like a junkie waiting for his next score. Even at this point, with no junk in the needle,  they have yet to acknowledge what anyone with a fighting chance of an IQ of 70 always knew…

There was no collusion with Russia in the 2016 elections by the president or any member of his campaign. Period.

It astounds me how ‘journalists’ and a number of deranged Democrat politicians are still chewing on this one. I’ve even seen stories mentioning Donald Trump Jr’s meeting with ‘an attorney with ties to the Kremlin.’ And of course, not mentioning that the meeting was supposed to be about oppo research (which is perfectly legal) and was actually about Russian orphans! Rod Rosenstein also signed off on no collusion. Yes, that Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller to head the special counsel.

There was no obstruction of justice.

For one thing, since there was no crime, there cannot be obstruction of justice as Attorney General William Barr pointed out. And as far as Comey’s firing, simply leaking confidential intel to the media as he admitted he did was ample excuse by itself. In fact given his connections with the Clintons  and his role in quashing the investigation into  Mrs. Clinton’s felony offenses, Trump erred in not firing him outright once he took office.

The Media, who picked sides early on and avidly released biased and even deliberate lies as news have lost much of their credibility with the American people or at least most of them with any semblance of fairness and open mindedness.

Now that we know the truth, we’ll see what happens when people lose confidence in a free press. The Mueller Report has already shown them up as biased hacks who might as well be paid agents of the Democrat Party. And while it was obvious to many of us, it’s now an open wound for all to see. Even some of the unwilling are admitting it. A plumber I use for various jobs described Trump as a ‘hater’ and ended our friendly conversation on the matter by saying he’d wait and see what the Mueller Report had to say. He’s now changed his mind and so have a lot of other people. They won’t be suckered again, not by the likes of MSNBC and CNN. Imagine, Rachel Maddow in tears, on the air, because a sitting US president was proven NOT to have engaged in treason! And I won’t even mention the crap that came out of Hollywood. No one should be deceived about how these people feel about our country.

President Trump has a strong weapon for re-election in 2020.

Barring, of course, a manufactured ‘recession’ like the one in 2008. Although President Trump is a lot smarter about such things then GW Bush ever was, so the effect might be nullified somewhat.

OK. So know we know where things are. So why is this the end of the beginning? Because now America’s real redemption begins. Because now, it’s time for thewheels of justice to turn so the American people can find out what really happened in 2016…an organized attempt by top level officials in the CIA and FBI to affect an election by using a bogus dossier  paid for by the Clintons was used  by the Obama Admoinistration to obtain a  FIFA warrant under false pretenses to wiretap and spy on the campaign of Donald Trump. And when that failed, to try to annul the results of a democratic election and mount what amounted to a coup against a sitting president and oust him from office,

There was indeed collusion in 2016. Collusion to let Hillary Clinton walk away free after it was proven she had committed felonies as secretary of state, included unauthorized storage of classified documents on a bathroom unprotected server, destroying evidence (talk about obstruction of justice) and violating her oath as Secretary of State. Collusion with the so-called media to leak things like transcripts of selectively worded  classified conversations with world leaders and conversations with US intelligence and military personnel.  Collusion in leaking supposed conversations with presidential cabinet members based on anonymous sources. Collusion even in the staging and performance of those debates during the campaign, even to the point of leaking questions before hand to Mrs. Clinton, giving her extra time while cutting off Donald Trump in the midst of his answers constantly.Luckily for us, even CBS and NBC couldn’t make Hillary Clinton look like anything more than the dishonest, self-serving corrupt creature she was except to the true believers.

Obvious collusion and obstruction of justice galore

Senator Rand Paul had the right of it:

The president was at lunch today and he voiced his support for investigating the people who concocted this hoax.” . “He didn’t use the word hoax, those are my words, but I think we should get to the bottom of this and he believes we should get to the bottom of this because this should never happen to another president. He feels that it’s damaging to the country, damaging to the ability to lead the country, that we basically—somebody within the Obama administration, within the DOJ and the FBI, basically concocted an investigation, trumped it up to be something that it wasn’t and then we’ve gone through two years of the country being stalled because of this fake investigation.”

When asked specifically if former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice should be called to testify about their role in the matter—and be subpoenaed to force their testimony if they refuse to voluntarily comply—Paul said: “Absolutely.”

“We have John Brennan, who lied to us, who spied on the Senate and tapped into Senate computers,” Paul said. “We have James Clapper who came before the Intelligence Committee and said they weren’t collecting all of our phone data. So both Brennan and Clapper have been known to lie in official testimony. They should be brought forward and asked what was their part? What was their role in ginning up this dossier? Amazingly, most media outlets wouldn’t even print the dossier because they thought it was so unsubstantiated. And then all of a sudden, the FBI gives it credence. There’s one interesting story out today that says still no one would print it, so then Comey gives it to President Trump and that’s when it’s been leaked and then we have a news story saying that this dossier had been given to the president and that became the hook or the story.”

That’s the new beginning in a nutshell. And it’s imperative. The American people deserve to find out who the real culprits are. And I while I  wouldn’t be surprised to see some of the small fry and perhaps even Mrs. Clinton in jail, rest assured that the true culprits behind what amounted to an attempted coup and the annulment of the 2016 election go unpunished.

That trail leads right to the Obama White House, and no one is going to have such a high regard for justice as to go after Barack Hussein Obama, who almost certainly put the whole shebang in motion and gave the orders to his willing underlings down the line.

First black president, you know. Can’t do that.

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.

Follow him on Twitter here and on Facebook here.

And connect with him on Linked In.

The post The Mueller Report – The End Of the Beginning appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Busting the meme about Betsy DeVos “defunding” the Special Olympics

If the above link doesn’t work, here’s the same info:

Special Olympics

There were lots of memes outraged by this proposal to “eliminate all $18 million in funding for the Special Olympics” but they don’t provide much context.

-The $18 million is not *all* Special Olympics funding, it’s just the portion that the federal government grants them. According to their 2017 income statement, the Special Olympics received $129 million in total revenue, the bulk from private and corporate donations. And their most valuable contribution, the help from millions of volunteers. Just $15.5M was from government grants, which apparently was slotted to rise to around $18M in FY 2019.

-Government grants make up less than 15% of their revenue. Still, a significant amount, but ironically in 2017 they ran an $18M surplus, meaning they would be completely solvent without federal funding, even absent increased donations to make up for it.

-The Special Olympics is a great program, but why does it need federal funding? More specifically, why does part of the Department of Education budget go to it? There are lots of worthy charities and organizations that do important and great work, but they are great in part because they are privately funded and held accountable by their donors to be efficient and focused.

-Government grants provide harmful incentives to private charities. They tend to become reliant on tax dollars as a guaranteed income stream (often increasing each year), have an incentive to lobby the government for more funds as special interest groups and begin to receive revenue that doesn’t hold them accountable by private donors.

-To put all of this in perspective, this was part of Betsy DeVos’s attempt to reduce spending by 10% in the Department of Education, a $7 billion cut. Total education spending on public elementary and secondary education in the US is $668 billion/yr. If you’ve ever wondered why government spending is out of control, witness the outrage when cuts even this small are proposed.


The post Busting the meme about Betsy DeVos “defunding” the Special Olympics appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.