Bookworm Beat 4/30/19 — the New York Times Antisemitism illustrated edition

As the posters in my illustrated edition show, when it comes to New York Times antisemitism, it’s 1933 all over again (plus many other interesting posters).

New York Times antisemitism

The post Bookworm Beat 4/30/19 — the New York Times Antisemitism illustrated edition appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Imprinting America on Kids

Vassar Bushmills

This short piece is for Teaching Vets (who would appreciate your support) and who someday will plant these seed as he/she looks into a room full of un-woke teenagers. This also applies to home-schooling parents (and many blessings on your House for your undertaking) and of course, regular citizens today who should be asking themselves why our public schools no longer teach children good things about America, and whose butts do we have to kick in order to change that back to the way it once was. How do we go about assimilating our own native-born children into “being American” again?

It’s one of those subjects almost no parent ever thinks about these days, or probably even thought about when I was a kid in the 1950s. Parents just naturally assumed their children were being taught about the basics of American History and Citizenship, and love of country. In those days, it was a complete package that followed them from First Grade to Graduation Night.

Parents rarely got down in the weeds to find out exactly what Bobby and Sally were taught, or when (4th, 5th, Soph or Senior) they just assumed it. To my knowledge curriculum was never a subject of PTA meetings, but still parents did have their say, as when my town’s most notorious foul-mouth, Earl Hodge, stormed the stage demanding to know “why in the g-d hell can’t you teach my boy not to say ‘ain’t’?” He had clear reasons.)

America was never spoken of disapprovingly in schools those days. Every state had its own history book, taught in middle school, 6-thru-8. Each state had its own heroes from pioneer days on. Kentucky had Daniel Boone and Boonesborough. Nebraska had early pioneers on their way to Oregon and whose wagons broke down while there. (Almost no one went to Nebraska on purpose before the Civil War.)


Continue Reading


The post Imprinting America on Kids appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Trump is no better or worse than other recent presidents

Hand-wringing about Trump’s personality and private life — when compared to most other recent Presidents — is akin to complaining that a leopard has spots.

One of the things I hear from those who hate Trump personally is that he is worse than any other president who’s ever occupied the White House. Perhaps because I’m a history major, I have to disagree with that. We’ve had a lot of truly reprehensible people in the White House plus a couple of truly reprehensible people trying to get into the White House.

Woodrow Wilson was a model of rectitude in his private life. He was also an ardent racist who segregated the federal civil service, showed the KKK-loving film Birth of a Nation in the White House because he thought it was accurate history, used the excuse of WWI to bring fascism to America, and refused to step down when incapacitated, so that his wife effectively became president of the United States. Bottom line: Awful man, awful president.

Franklin Roosevelt, despite his disabilities, was a fairly compulsive womanizer, a habit he kept up while in the White House. Many people also feel that his innate antisemitism helped enable the Holocaust.

Roosevelt’s bottom line: Awful man, effective president if you like the Leftward tilt he gave the country, and a good wartime leader.

Harry Truman was also a model of rectitude in his private life, but there’s no getting away from the fact that he came up politically through the completely corrupt Pendergast political machine that dominated Missouri. Maybe he kept his nose clean but the reality is that, when you play politics with the corrupt big boys….

Truman’s bottom line: Decent man, decent president. A rarity

John F. Kennedy was disgusting. He got into the White House because his father made a deal with the union bosses, whose last-minute get-out-the-vote effort (in a style only the union bosses know how to do), tipped the balance for him. In exchange, one of Kennedy’s first acts was an executive order unionizing federal employees. Even ardent Leftist Franklin Roosevelt didn’t do that, because he understood that the unions and the politicians would simply throw taxpayer money back and forth at each other, which is precisely what has happened since 1961. Without that dirty deal, it’s doubtful a Democrat would ever have won the White House again. After all, the biggest spenders in every election are always government unions and it’s always on behalf of Democrats.

Kennedy was also a gravely ill man (get it? gravely ill because he had Graves disease) and a drug addict, hopped up on steroids and amphetamines. There were also all the pain medications for his lifelong back problems, which were compounded by the back injury he sustained during the war.

Kennedy’s compulsive womanizing was sickening. We learned recently that deflowered a 19-year-old intern, passed her around to “service” his buddies at the White House, and when he thought she was pregnant, sent her to an abortionist even though that was illegal and Kennedy was a Catholic. We’ve also known for years that he potentially put himself under the control of the mafia thanks to his affair with Judith Exner.

His handling of the Bay of Pigs was a disaster.

Really — and ironically — the only thing that saved Kennedy’s presidency, or at least the reputation of his presidency, was his early demise. Let the Democrat myth-making begin. . . .

Kennedy’s bottom line: Awful man, with a presidency too short to grade.

Lyndon Baines Johnson was also a truly disgusting man. I love this intro from a 1998 Atlantic article about Johnson:

URINATING in a sink, inviting people into his bathroom, showing off his abdominal scar, exposing his private parts: after a while nothing surprises a biographer of Lyndon Baines Johnson. After fourteen years of research for a two-volume biography, of which the second volume, is forthcoming from Oxford University Press, I have, however, found some new evidence, in three areas, that even by Johnson standards is surprising.

That intro doesn’t even mention his sadistic delight in forcing people to do business with him while he was having his bowel movements. Or his racism, for while there may  have been actual principles behind his push behind the Civil Rights Act, he definitely envisioned chaining blacks to the Democrat Party. I remember my father’s revulsion about the fact that Johnson liked picking beagles up by the ears which my father, a man who didn’t even like dogs, thought was unspeakably cruel.

Regarding those “revelations” in the Atlantic article from which I quoted, above, most of them have to do with Johnson’s feelings about the Vietnam War and his political manipulations. Still, I found this bit telling:

Johnson had “an unfillable hole in his ego,” [Bill] Moyers says. Feelings of emptiness spurred him to eat, drink, and smoke to excess. Sexual conquests also helped to fill the void. He was a competitive womanizer. When people mentioned Kennedy’s many affairs, Johnson would bang the table and declare that he had more women by accident than Kennedy ever had on purpose.

Johnson’s bottom line: Awful man who worsened an awful war (it took Nixon to save that) and who proved to be an ineffective leader for a country besieged by overt and covert communist influences.

Nixon was another man who was faithful to his wife, but we all know about his paranoia and political dirty-dealing. Nevertheless, he was an extremely effective president before he left office.

Nixon’s bottom line: Deeply unpleasant man, yet a truly consequential president in terms of his policy initiatives, both good and bad.

Jimmy Carter, was a man of rectitude who eventually proved also to be a man who never met a dictator he didn’t like. Moreover, he was (and continues to be) such an ardent foe of Israel, the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, that one can only suppose antisemitism. It was Carter’s hatred for Israel that led my father, a Democrat, to vote for Reagan in 1980.

Carter’s bottom line: Decent man if you like smug, moralistic antisemites, and one of America’s worst presidents.

Speaking of that 1980 election, how about Teddy Kennedy, the venerable “lion of the Senate”? Manslaughter, alcoholism, compulsive womanizing, sexual assault, and colluding with Russia. There’s a peach of a man.

Teddy Kennedy’s bottom line: Awful in every respect.

Reagan was a decent man while in office. Nevertheless, I recall that when Reagan ran for the presidency, many people were distressed by the fact that he was a divorced man entering the White House with his second wife. It’s worth noting that Trump, another divorced man in the White House, and someone who definitely played the field, has not given rise to any “cheating on Melania” stories since he was elected. (I also find unconvincing the hysteria about the whole “grab ’em” uproar.) Given the colonoscopy level of scrutiny to which Trump is being subjected, I suspect he, unlike many of the presidents in this list, has not used the White House as a cat house. As every romance writer will tell you, rakes can reform.

Reagan’s bottom line: Decent man despite a divorce that could still upset people in 1980 and one of the best presidents to ever occupy the White House — and that’s true despite problems, both of his own making and the making of others, that plagued him during those eight years.

Bill Clinton. Compulsive womanizer, probable rapist, possible pedophile (on Jeffrey Epstein’s Pedophile Island), and unbelievably politically corrupt, along with his even more corrupt wife. Do I need to say more?

Clinton’s bottom line: Utterly reprehensible human being, who had a successful presidency, although it planted a lot of time bombs, such as North Korea, the housing mortgage crisis, punting on rising Islamic terrorism, that bit us in the ass later.

Barack Obama. No matter what Biden says, Biden ran one of the most corrupt White Houses in American history, culminating with his using his administrative agencies to spy on Republican campaigns. (And yes, I’m certain he spied on all of them. It simply became focused on Trump when Trump won the primary.)

There were also the little things that ought to have distressed everyone during the Obama era, such as his inviting hate-filled, misogynist, antisemitic, anti-American rappers to the White House. There was the constant racial division that poured out of him (“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” “The police acted stupidly.” Etc.). There was his increasingly openly expressed hostility to Israel, something that paired well with the openly anti-Semitic people who’d been a part of his political life for decades. He is the political Godfather of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. I could go on, but I think the next two years will do a good job of exposing just how bad Obama was.

Obama’s bottom line: It’s hard to say whether Obama has been a morally decent man personally. The press kept (and still tries to keep) such a tight lid on everything about him, before, during, and after the White House, that we really don’t know Obama the man. We do know that he’s a race baiter, an Israel hater, and a friend of antisemites, so to me that makes him an awful man. He was also an awful president, keeping the economy in chains, getting America into multiple wars, destroying our military, unleashing the malevolent Arab spring, turning on (admittedly unsavory characters) such as Mubarek and Qaddafi, pandering to Putin . . . the list is endless.

And now we’ve got candidate Joe Biden, a former Vice President and perennial senator, whom many of those who hate Trump are claiming represents the last gasp of “normalcy.” Speaking of “normalcy,” don’t forget that the phrase comes from Warren G. Harding, an adulterer and the man who had the most corrupt presidency right up until Obama appeared on the scene.

Let me count Joe’s sins: The obvious sins are that he’s a plagiarist, a liar, an unbelievably creepy man around woman and an even more creepy man around little girls, a racist (Obama is “clean”? Really?), a gaffe machine, and a man whose every political instinct for decades has been wrong. Cleverly, Biden hasn’t amassed great wealth despite a long career in politics (Harry Reid, anybody?) but as the developing Ukrainian and Chinese scandals show, that his merely a cover for his extreme corruption: He used his government power to enrich his son.

Joe also announced his run by claiming that foreign leaders are begging him to run. Does that sound good for America? It doesn’t for me. I’ve yet to see a foreign president who puts America’s interests first.

And most importantly, is all of the above “normal?” No. Joe is not normal. He’s weird, creepy, and dishonest. That’s the bottom line on Joe: Stupid and icky.

All of the above is not what-aboutism. That is, I’m not saying, “Well, sure, Trump lies . . . but what about. . . .?” “Or sure, Trump cheated on his wives, but what about. . . .?”

I’m trying to say something different, which is that, while the White House is certainly a bully pulpit, I don’t view it as an actual pulpit — because, since Washington, it never has been an actual pulpit. Moreover, the last guy I can think of who was both a model of rectitude and an extraordinarily successful president was Calvin Coolidge, who got elected 99 years ago.

I certainly don’t quarrel with those who claim that a job requirement for a president is that the president should be able to comport himself on the world stage, but I don’t confuse that requirement with moral decency. Moreover, Donald Trump does fine on the world stage. Trump, who’s been a top-of-the-world businessman for decades is, in fact, quite comfortable functioning at those rarefied echelons. Moreover, as I noted above, since Trump got elected, there haven’t been bimbo eruptions, there haven’t been nasty rappers, there haven’t been divorces . . . there haven’t been any personal scandals. He doesn’t drink or do drugs. Within the White House, he is a man of rectitude.

To the extent Trump is a sinner and a liar and a bombastic man, the laundry list I made above shows that America has never needed, and has seldom had, men of stunning moral rectitude and character in the White House. Moreover, those men who have had the best character in recent years were nothing to write home about. Jimmy Carter was arguably that man and he stank as a human being and a president. The two Bushes were arguably those men and they too were mediocre presidents at best.

Good men can be ineffective executives; bad (not corrupt, but just yucky) men can be effective executives. In my house, I want a good man; in my White House, I want an effective executive — and one, moreover, who loves America and Americans. That’s Trump.

The post Trump is no better or worse than other recent presidents appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Well, the 97th Still Has A Convention, Thank Jesus!

I did attend the fateful meeting at the Atlee Library today and I will give a testimony first: I did pray to the Triune God of the Bible on the way that He would intervene in this matter if it was His Will!

And there was NO motion to cancel the convention! When the 97th District Committee got to New Business, there was a preliminary matter about the rules for the convention, a motion to table the rules decision that the chair ruled out of order, two committee members protested the decision of the chair, [there had been a Candy Crowley moment where one of the committee members (I think Reynold from Hanover) asked for a parliamentary ruling from who I believe to be Boyd Marcus], that protest was ruled also out of order, adjournment was made but not seconded and then the chair declared the meeting adjourned and walked out.

The remaining three (the chair is non-voting) “moved” to table the rules question to Monday, April 29 at 7 pm at the Atlee Library.

BUT No motion was made to abolish the convention!

So what is the result? The convention is still on, I read a legal brief (I told the lawyer for Scott Wyatt’s campaign, Jeffrey Adams a legal brief was like porn for a lawyer but more holy!), brought my Venezuela flag, and later had the insight to say at this blog: Jesus did it!

It might make me a religious fanatic to say it but I do believe it was an answer to prayer! Will I show up Monday night? Maybe. But I am sure I will pray!

Will “Unprecedented Obstruction of Congress” Become The New Democrat Meme?

The NYT tests out a new Trump attack . . . and after 8 years of Obama, the NYT discovers “unprecedented obstruction” of Congressional Oversight.

The NYT editorial board is in high dudgeon.  Apparently, “Donald Trump Shows a New Level of Contempt for Congress.” Many presidents,” the NYT editors tell us, “have resisted congressional demands for testimony and documents. But not quite like Mr. Trump.” Really? Are they high? Or did the eight years of the Obama administration simply not count?

So what exactly has Trump done, . . . besides fully complying with a two-year fishing expedition for criminality that was the worst political dirty trick in our nation’s history. According to the NYT:

Mr. Trump’s top immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, has declined an invitation to discuss immigration policy;

Stephen Miller is not an agency head who would normally be subject to a subpoena over public policy.  So how is his declining an “invitation” that he is free to accept or decline without recourse in any way obstructing Congress?

the Justice Department has rebuffed a subpoena for John Gore, a deputy attorney general, to answer questions about the 2020 census;

Here’s what the NYT editors don’t say.  Gore was set to testify but the House Democrats set it up so that he had to refuse:

The Justice Department said Wednesday that it was defying a subpoena from House Democrats on the Oversight Committee for testimony this week from John Gore, a top lawyer in the department’s civil rights division, because the [Elijah Cummings] isn’t allowing a DOJ attorney to be present.

“In keeping with longstanding Department of Justice policy, neither Mr. Gore nor anyone else in the Department will be forced to testify in their capacity as a DOJ official on DOJ matters without DOJ counsel,” department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said.

This is not thwarting oversight, it is Kabuki theater with Democrats and the NYT both with starring roles.  So the complaint about Gore is more Dem./NYT b.s.  What next from the NYT?

and the White House has instructed a former staffer, Carl Kline, not to provide information about how security clearances are granted.

Again, b.s.  Here’s what the NYT editors don’t say:

Kline was slated to appear before the committee for an interview on Wednesday but was told by the White House to ignore the subpoena, unless a representative from the White House counsel is permitted to attend the interview.

Okay, what next?

Mr. Trump called the subpoena for Donald McGahn, the former White House counsel, “ridiculous.”

Trump has attorney-client privilege.  Did he waive it when he produced material by McGhan to the Special Prosecutor?  This might be the only thing that the Times writes that might state a colorable claim, but it is not so colorable as to be an easy case.

And lastly from the NYT:

And while the Internal Revenue Service is still officially considering the request by the House Ways and Means Committee for Mr. Trump’s tax returns, the president’s acting chief of staff has already declared that Democrats will “never” get their hands on them.

What right do the progressives have to go fishing for crimes?  And what right do the progressives have to publicize Trump’s tax returns when he has chosen himself not to publicize them or share them beyond what he is legally required to do?  The Fourth Amendment limits the power of the state in regards to every citizen and IRS tax returns are protected by law from exposure.  Trump is well within his rights to tell the proggies to go pound sand.

So according to the NYT, the above examples (of their mostly half truths and lies by omission) amounts to lawlessly resisting of rightful demands by Congress.  To show just how lawless Trump is, the NYT, being fair of course, shows that the Obama administration did a tiny bit of resisting as well:

The Obama White House rejected Congress’s demand for documents related to Operation Fast and Furious, the failed gun-trafficking investigation. The resulting showdown led to a legal defeat for the administration, which wound up having to surrender the documents; Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. became the first sitting cabinet member to be held in contempt of Congress.

Yet that is all the NYT seems to remember from the past eight years of a regime so lawless it turned the whole system of Congressional Oversight into a joke.  No administration in history showed more contempt for Congress than the eight-year-long Obama administration, repeatedly stonewalling lawful Congressional subpoenas, not to mention their own inspector general oversight.  But for a supine Congress deathly afraid of the race card — and a media willing not just to look the other way, but cheer on the stonewalling — Obama got away with it.  Just for example, how about three more egregious examples from the Obama years?

IRS Targeting of Conservative Organizations

. . . When the IRS targeting scandal was uncovered 2 years ago, many Democrats said there was never a smidgen of corruption. . . .

. . . Rather than transparency, we had obstructionism at every turn. Commissioner Koskinen recently had a chance to apologize for gaffes and untimely notification of Congress that the tax agency had lost thousands of emails sought by investigators.

At a hearing Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, noted a letter that Mr. Koskinen sent the Senate Finance Committee saying the IRS had handed over everything. Curiously, the letter didn’t even mention that the former Exempt Organizations chief Lois Lerner’s emails had been lost. . . .

Of course, it took the Inspector General to find the emails, proving they weren’t destroyed. Yet there, too, Mr. Koskinen remained defiant. . . .

It is another disappointment in the long and sordid story of the Lerner e-mail information.

NOAA & Scientist’s Right of Privacy?

In June, [2015] Tom Karl, a top level official at NOAA released a study, “Possible Artifacts Of Data Biases In The Recent Global Warming Hiatus,” purporting to show that temperatures over the past two decades have not paused but, instead, have been steadily increasing. On the recommendations in that paper, both NOAA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (“GISS”) have altered America’s historic temperature records. It was an incredibly fortuitous study as it not only found warming that science’s best minds and increasingly accurate measurements had missed, but it did so just as the UN prepares to host the Paris Conference and just before the EPA released its Clean Power Plan.

Karl’s study is problematic at best. . . .

Congress has decided to investigate this most recent change and has subpoenaed NOAA’s records related to the Karl study. The other day, NOAA announced that it will not honor the subpoena, citing to “the confidentiality of the requested documents and the integrity of the scientific process .” Obviously Mr. Karl has a very dark sense of humor to claim that the “integrity of the scientific process” is at stake by making all taxpayer-funded documents about a scientific study public. . . .


Lawmakers on the House Select Committee on Benghazi are protesting the State Department’s “stonewalling” as they seek to finalize a long-awaited report about the 2012 terrorist attacks.

Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Monday accused the Obama administration of purposefully deceiving his panel.

“Whatever the administration is hiding, its justifications for doing so are imaginary and appear to be invented for the sake of convenience,” Gowdy said in a statement. “That’s not how complying with a congressional subpoena works, and it’s well past time the department stops stonewalling.”

And just as a reminder, had the Obama State Department been forced to honor Congressional Subpoenas instead of use them for toilet paper, Hillary’s use of a private server to conduct all State Department business would have been exposed before 2012 and perhaps the damage to our national security would never have been in question.

And it was not just Congressional Oversight.  The Obama agencies, across the board, all but shut down the inspector generals in each agency.  Recall this from 2014:

In all, 47 inspectors general from across the federal government — many of them appointed by Obama — wrote to Congress this month warning that their work and investigations were being unlawfully impeded. Among other concerns, the officials cited denial of access to documents, wild interpretations of statutes purporting to authorize the stonewalling, undermining the independence of the inspectors general, and similar tactics being used by top administration officials. Analysts said the scheming was merely an extension of Obama’s ongoing “war on transparency. . . .

So, at any rate, fake news is alive and well on the banks of the Hudson.  If Trump were actually as lawless as the Obama administration, then Congress really would have ample grounds for impeachment.

The post Will “Unprecedented Obstruction of Congress” Become The New Democrat Meme? appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

BE THERE! Atlee Library Before 4 PM Today and Give Witness and Silent Protest to Any Change in Selection Method!

I am told by a very reliable source that the 97th GOP District Committee will vote today to change the method of election for the delegate. It cannot be changed to a primary but to a canvass or a mass meeting.

People will not be allowed to speak but signs will be made. If I attend, I’ll bring an appropriate flag – Venezuela maybe!

So to paraphrase an old song: be there or be square! 4 pm (maybe earlier) at the Atlee Library!


Vassar Bushmills

Over Easter weekend my wife and I watched a half-dozen Easter and Passover-themed films. Among them was the 1968 film “Shoes of the Fisherman” which actually laid out the then-current state of liberalism in Hollywood. The Catholic Church, played by Anthony Quinn, as it’s new pope, agreed to give away the Church’s entire wealth; land, reliquaries, art, cash, in order to feed the starving millions of a failed Marxist experiment in China, in order to avoid a war with what Liberals viewed at the time as a stable Marxist experiment in the USSR, played by Sir Laurence Olivier as its General Secretary. America was only a bit player in this drama, but still portrayed as interventionist because of our role in Vietnam, which was depriving China of its rice bowl. In shorthand, if a China-USSR war turned into a world war, it would be America’s fault, which has been a continuing Liberal chant since Ike.

If you weren’t alive in ’68, there are some things you wouldn’t have known, namely that Maoist China and the USSR actually were bitter rivals, with regular firefights along their shared border. I was a newly commissioned infantry lieutenant and we knew.

The theme of this film wasn’t war, however, but on the fantastical notion that the Liberalism of the 1960s should still willingly give its own money away to cure cataclysms such as famine. That noble sentiment would soon die, however, as LBJ cured Democrats of this delusion with his Great Society plan, in favor of the socialist notion that using other peoples’ money was less painful to give away, in fact, even profitable for the middleman.

In 1968 Hillary had not yet drawn the attention of Saul Alinsky, Cronkite had not yet declared the war in Vietnam lost, but American liberalism in Hollywood was already in its thirtieth year of its love affair with Soviet Marxism…only, as the next 30 years would prove, it never fully fathomed the darker side of its lover,, and the role extraordinary cruelty would have to play in holding onto power once all its other schemes have failed. As they invariably do.

Democrats are rehearsing for that eventuality now.

Hillary’s class blamed the failings of Soviet communism on the coarse Russians which held it. Hillary’s class could have done much better. In her class’s scheme, all Marxism needed was the steadying hands of a super-educated, insulated, spoiled rotten class, like Hillary and Barack, who could manage the administration of a multi-trillion dollar economy almost as well as it could their own personal checking accounts.

This was the original “separate reality” of the Left that has spawned all other separate realities ever since. It was predicated on the notion that their class was not a small but exclusive moon orbiting our “free and independent” planet, but rather America’s sole source of light and heat. Our sun.

(Trust me, that was an easy sell to Hillary’s class.)

Over the next 30 years since the Clintons the ruling class lost sight of the most significant difference in the two realities, size, or that even people of ordinary sense would ever notice it.

By 2016 we did.

Today, back on horseback, constitutionally in charge again, while they are now afoot, this has been our first clear look at the America landscape since the Liberals-cum-Left began trying to lay it bare in the 90’s[…]

Continue Reading

The post DEALING WITH THE SEPARATE REALITY OF THE LEFT appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

No Sports Imperialism Here: Nigerian Curling Team Wins First World Championship Match! Beat France 8-3!

It might sound like a misprint to say this but it is true: The Nigerian curling team just won a round-robin match at the World Mixed Doubles Curling Championship in Norway this week. First African team to win a match in a world championship of any type. Here’s some highlights:

OkayAfrica reports Tijani and Susana Cole initially experienced a blow-out in their first championship match against the Czech Republic, which ended in a 20-0 loss. However, the couple representing Nigeria, who reportedly picked up the sport only three years ago, made a triumphant comeback in their following match against France.

With an 8-5 mixed double win, the team honored their opponents with a handshake. Seconds later, the Norway Sormarka Arena erupted with celebratory cheers from fans and curlers alike in acknowledgment of the milestone defeat.

Think I’m crazy? Here’s the Nigerian curling federation site. And here’s a video about the rise of the sport in the African nation. Will Nigeria make the 2022 Olympics? Not sure yet but you can say this: I hope they make it to the Games. One more blow to the sports imperialism inherent in so much of the Games today. And let’s admit it: Isn’t this more fun? (And a certain blogger suggested a national curling team for Botswana together years ago!)

Here is the coverage of the championship right here and since you asked, the US is in the semi-finals against Canada and if they win that match tomorrow at 9 am (Norway time so I might have to get up at 3 am to keep track of the score!) they’ll play the winner of Australia and Sweden. And the male player for the US team is a fellow named Shuster. Yes that one! The John Shuster who skipped for GOLD at the last Olympics! GO USA! BEAT Canada!

Shall the 97th District GOP Committee Turn Into a Banana Republic?

Two sources have indicated that the 97th District GOP Committee might renounce the upcoming convention set for May 4 at Hanover HS at 10 am.

Here is the Bull Elephant’s version:

The 97th District primary process between Scott Wyatt and Delegate Chris Peace has been a brutal contest, but we are finally nearing the end with the May 4th convention right around the corner. Or so we thought.

The Hanover County Republican Committee’s (HCRC) Executive Committee—of which I’m a member of (for identification purposes only)—has asked Chairwoman Dale Taylor to remove her last minute appointee, Mr. Reynold, immediately for the reasons outlined in the letter below.

* * *

(Blogger’s note: This is from the letter that Nick Collette wrote for TBE:

We find your role in appointing Mr. Reynold to be unethical and directly violates any goodwill a committee has with a Unit Chairman to be a fair arbitrator of the process. You have subsequently ignored numerous attempts to be reached by members of the Executive Committee over the last few weeks, both by phone and email. It is our belief that the members of the HCRC deserve a leader who will be transparent, and the appointment of Mr. Reynold openly disregards all notions of transparency.
We do not wish to belabor this process or cause you any embarrassment but you have indeed diminished the dignity and credibility of the HCRC. For this reason, we hope you will see fit to remove Mr. Reynold and appoint a representative supported by the Executive Committee. Should you not remove Mr. Reynold, we immediately call on your resignation.

I would say this sounds like a banana republic but that is a slight at many great nations. This is a foolish move. No side can take their ball and go home in politics without ramifications.

Now here is the second source: The Virginia Gazette:

The 97th Legislative District Committee, the local arm of the state Republican Party that voted to hold a convention to select the district’s nominee for the general election, will apparently hold a special meeting Saturday to reconsider that decision.

Among the items on the meeting agenda is one titled “rescind or amend a motion previously adopted regarding the nomination method for the 97th House of Delegates District.”

Committee chairman Thomas Miller confirmed that discussion of the upcoming meeting is on the docket by providing a copy of the agenda, but he was unable to provide further insight into why the meeting was being called.

“I can guess at the answer, but you might wish to contact the two members of the 97th LDC who wrote and sent out the Call,” Miller said in an email.

The meeting, which is open to the public, has been called by committee members John Hubbard, who represents King William County, and Michael Reynold, who represents Hanover County. Miller said that he, as chairman, would normally put out the meeting call. That wasn’t the case in this instance for reasons that were “unknown” to him.

Now I recall Hubbard wanted a primary at the first meeting but was outvoted by the other two representatives. Of course the Hanover vote is the only vote necessary for a majority. So this newspaper story is ominous.

Let’s argue the side: What if the 97th committee votes for a primary tomorrow at 4 pm at Atlee Library? I will assume that the 97th can dispense with petitioning since it is now too late to make a primary ballot. I also assume Wyatt and Peace would be on the ballot. But the primary is June 11. April is gone; only May and first two weeks in June are available for events, rallies, fundraising, radio and print ads, and door-to-door. The incumbent would have a huge advantage.

Two wrongs do not make it right.

The 97th district GOP committee cannot dispense with the convention. It simply cannot. If they do this ultimate underhanded thing, I will endeavor to find a solid conservative and get him or her to run as a independent or a Libertarian so the people have an alternative.

There Must Be Some Sort of Election Coming up in the 97th…

It appears the 97th race is heating up: Bob Shannon has this new posting that is a question I too would love an answer for…

And Nick Freitas has issued a bombshell video at the Bull Elephant, accusing Del. Peace of in effect with a wink and nod offering to ensure one of Freitas’ bills gets a subcommittee hearing. Here is the article.

Freitas joins Senator Tommy Norment in commenting on the 97th race; both in a manner not favorable to Peace.

Here is the Shannon posting (it and the last posting slightly edited but not for content):


Del. Chris Peace brought the unwanted attention to the issue of his credibility and integrity on himself after claiming for years he didn’t support Medicaid Expansion……only to turn around and vote for it . Claims of compassion aside Peace went on to compare Medicaid Expansion to Social Security and Medicare. Too clever by half, since tax payers have paid all of their working lives into the latter two programs , while most of the 300,000—400,000 now eligible for Medicaid benefits have paid little to nothing , relative to the costs and the benefits they will receive. Medicaid is already swallowing some 25% of Virginia’s entire budget. Here however is the deciding question delegates should ask of both candidates before they make their final decision on Peace or Wyatt.

When next year the Feds pull the funding for the expansion, the General Assembly will almost certainly face a revenue shortfall since the costs of expansion will exceed 1 billion annually, a cost that now the State will have to pick up. Ask Del. Peace is push comes to shove will be support a tax increase on hard working Virginian’s to pay for this or which current programs will he support cutting to cover the new costs?

Then ask yourself if you can believe him.

Bob Shannon King William T.E.A Party ( Taxed Enough Already )

Maybe I ought to cover The Brexit Party in the UK! 🙂 Ought to be safer. AGAIN I SAY: If the Peace campaign or the delegate wants a rebuttal, I am glad to do so. Right here at the blog.