At a recent press conference with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House intelligence committee, announced the "urgency" with which impeachment proceedings needed to progress. Why the rush? The Democrats know that the Senate will not convict Trump, which requires a two-thirds vote. They talk about the threat to democracy and the Constitution. That is a farce. The Democrats rarely support the Constitution. They do not support the First Amendment. See today's other blog post. They do not support the Second Amendment. They do not support the Electoral College. They say that they support the separation of powers, except that when Obama said that he had a pen and a phone, and would take action on his own if Congress did not act, that did not seem to bother them. When Obama decided which provisions of the ACA, passed by Congress, he would enforce, that did not seem to bother them. So, sure, I buy the Dems' rationale that they need to protect the Constitution.
So what is the urgency? I can think of several reasons. First, if the proceedings go into the new year, many people who may otherwise support the Dems, are going to wonder why they are doing it with an election only months away, when the people will decide. Second, the primaries start in February. Do they want the Democratic candidates' messaging to be focused on impeachment? Third, it may be that the Democrats are worried that support for impeachment will wane with time, which happened with all their other "impeachable" offenses - Russian collusion, obstruction, Stormy Daniels, we just don't like Trump and so on. Interestingly, Hannity showed a clip covering every single month of Trump's Presidency, January, 2017 through now, in which either a Democrat in Congress or a talking head in the media, was advocating for impeachment. Every single month of Trump's presidency! But Tucker Carlson did one better. He found a video of an Obama appointee, Evelyn Farkas, from BEFORE the 2016 election. Farkas: "...if Donald Trump were elected, I believe he'd be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government, and I'm not even joking." Somebody else would take over? What, a military coup? Because a non-violent coup has been in the works since Farkas' comment.
Meanwhile, the esteemed Congressman Schiff got himself 4 Pinocchios from the Washington Post (the biggest lie), after claiming that he found out about the whistleblower from the ICIG (intelligence community's inspector general) only days before September 13. Actually, he knew about it a month earlier, but kept it quiet. On September 17, Schiff told MSNBC "we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower." Not so, as the whistleblower had contacted Schiff's committee for advice. And let's not forget that the inspector general stated that the whistleblower had an "arguable political bias...in favor of a rival candidate."
The propaganda arm of the Democratic party (formerly referred to as the mainstream media) did not hesitate to plaster their front pages and inside pages with transcripts of Trump's telephone call with the Ukranian President. Nor did they hesitate in claiming a "cover-up" by Trump - a "cover-up" that Schiff knew about and...covered up!
I have long admired the Democrats ability to speak with one voice - the way in which they perfectly coordinate their talking points. Whatever station I turned to, whatever Democrat was on, they all discussed the "threat to national security." Their concern for national security strikes me as being as sincere as their concern about the Constitution. They have no concern about protecting our borders. Some advocate no borders at all - aka "open borders." Remember when Obama was caught on the open mic telling Medvedev to let Vladimir (Putin) know that he would have more flexibility after the (2012) election? I do not recall the media or other Democrats being terribly concerned. I do not recall them asking if Obama might have engaged in some quid pro quo with Putin, and whether that flexibility reflected some unspoken deal that affected our national security. But why ask? It was Obama, after all. Everyone can trust him.
Of course, the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party was ready, willing and able to make excuses for Joe Biden, as Vice President, pushing the Ukranian government to fire their top prosecutor - under threat of not receiving $1 billion dollars in loan guarantees from the US. There is a video of Biden bragging about getting that prosecutor fired, and essentially claiming that he did so under the authority of then President Obama. That prosecutor, by the way, was investigating the Ukranian energy company, Burisma Holdings, on whose board sat one Hunter Biden. New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg (10/1/19 Op-Ed) told us that Joe Biden knew nothing of his son's business dealings, telling his son only "I hope you know what you are doing." You see, the Bidens had been through a lot, and Joe did not want to give his son a hard time. Just reverse the names, say, to Donald Trump and Donald, Jr., and I'm sure Goldberg would give the same unquestioning understanding to the Trumps.
Goldberg told us that Hunter Biden's position on the Board was "untoward," and trading on his father's name was "sleazy." But let's not criticize Joe. The 10/3/19 USA Today Editorial leads with the "stipulation" that there is no proof that Hunter engaged in illegal activity. Who is stipulating? They told us there is no basis to claim that Joe acted improperly in pushing for the prosecutor's dismissal. I get it - we can just assume that the Biden's are innocent, just as we can assume that the Trumps are always guilty of something.
What's that? You want me to discuss President Trump's 7/25/19 telephone call with Ukranian President Zelensky? The call that is purportedly the reason for all this impeachment talk. But is it really? Nancy Pelosi was telling us how serious it was before she even read the transcript. Did she already know what was in it from Schiff? Did they work together on the timing of all this? I think I'll pass. The President should be able to speak with foreign leaders without the Congress listening in. It is the President who speaks for the country on matters of foreign affairs. We just suffered through over two years of the Russian collusion story. They told us that Trump was a Russian asset. It was not that long ago that the Democrats and their propaganda arm were telling us that Trump was going to get us into a nuclear war with North Korea. More recently, they told us that Trump was going to start a major Middle Eastern war with Iran. Frankly, I am sick of the hypocrisy, the double standard, and the non-stop lies about Trump. So, I will not join in their games.
Sunday, October 6, 2019
The Cultural and Political Wars, Part III
In a sad story out of Los Angeles, we learned that an LA City Attorney, 60 years of age, shot and killed his 60 year old wife and 19 year old son. Thankfully, his 25 year old daughter escaped. Then I read a Facebook post by the sister of the deceased wife. I had to reread it a couple of times. "You never think this is going to happen to your immediate family. Still in shock, but completely heartbroken about losing my dear sister Sandy, nephew Michael and brother-in-law Eric to gun violence today..." What? Eric murdered your sister and nephew, and you put him in the same sentence, and make it about gun violence? No moral judgment about your now dead brother-in-law's horrific act of murder. No, the guns did it. I would bet this woman could make a moral judgment about second-hand smoke.
Earlier this year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal declared a Fort Collins, Colorado ordinance to be illegal. The ordinance forbid women from appearing topless in public. The Court's rationale is indicative of leftist thinking. They said the ordinance "discriminated against women and that it reinforced 'negative stereotypes depicting women's breasts, but not men's breasts, as sex objects.'" I get it - men's breasts are the same as women's, because there is no difference between men and women. I never needed an ordinance to tell me that a woman's breasts are sex objects. I bet I knew that by age 12. This is a perfect example of my oft repeated truism that the left lets their beliefs dictate their reality (while conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs). On the other hand, my next blog post will likely be from Fort Collins.
Here's a good one out of New York City. The Commission on Human Rights told residents they may be fined up to $250,000 for the offense of "threatening to call ICE when motivated by discrimination, derogatory use of the term 'illegal alien,' and discrimination based on limited English proficiency," because such acts constitute unlawful discrimination. Apparently, this rule provides that the fine shall be paid to the person making the complaint. That won't encourage abuse. And the First Amendment? What's that? The same commission previously barred employers and landlords from the use of gender pronouns if different from the preferred pronoun of the employee or tenant.
Here's a pleasant surprise. The Jewish Press reported on a Siena College poll. It turns out that only 4% of New York Jews support Bernie Sanders for President. Bernie does little to show his Judaism. He constantly criticizes Israel. He named Linda Sarsour to have some position in his campaign. He has supported the anti-Semites in Congress. Apparently, it has all caught up with him. In another interesting result from the poll, 44% of New York Jews have a favorable view of Trump (although only 33% say they will vote for him). Nevertheless, that favorability number is higher than for whites in general in New York.
In an Op-Ed in the 10/6/19 New York Times, is a piece by Andrew Marantz with this headline: "Free Speech is Killing Us." His concern has to do with Trump's use of the media, and the more serious issue of social media which may encourage some to commit acts of violence. Marantz is also concerned with speech "that's designed to drive a woman out of her workplace or to bully a teenager into suicide or to drive a democracy toward totalitarianism." After 3 years of the left telling us that democracy is dead under Trump, I've yet to see it or experience it. The First Amendment, as interpreted, does allow for certain time, place and manner restrictions on speech. And, Marantz, on staff at "The New Yorker," acknowledges that certain content may be even be banned - libel, incitement to violence and child pornography, for examples. Marantz: "We can protect unpopular speech from government interference while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks." But can we really protect unpopular speech from the government? See two paragraphs above re: the New York City Commission on Human Rights.
September 17 was Constitution Day, the Constitution having been ratified on September 17, 1787. A survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center revealed that 22% of Americans were unable to name even one branch of government. 25% named one branch, 14% named two branches and 39% named all three branches of government. The Center for American Progress reports that only nine states plus Washington, D.C., have a year long mandatory class on civics for their high school students. (D.C. plus Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, West Virginia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Virginia and Maryland.) I am confident that many of those unable to name a single branch of government would be able to tell us all about their favorite celebrities.
And finally, there was a rather upsetting story out of Texas, when a black man sitting in his own apartment and minding his own business was shot and killed by a white, female police officer. She was off duty and claimed that she believed she walking into her own apartment with an intruder inside. As I often do on police matters, I went to my friend, a retired cop. He opined that the female officer had many options short of discharging her weapon, starting with calling for back-up. She would also have had other non-lethal weapons on her, such as a taser and a baton. My friend: "I was proud to wear the uniform, but never thought it gave me a pass to be immoral, unethical or placed me above the people I served." Well said; it's an approach by which all of us could live.
Earlier this year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal declared a Fort Collins, Colorado ordinance to be illegal. The ordinance forbid women from appearing topless in public. The Court's rationale is indicative of leftist thinking. They said the ordinance "discriminated against women and that it reinforced 'negative stereotypes depicting women's breasts, but not men's breasts, as sex objects.'" I get it - men's breasts are the same as women's, because there is no difference between men and women. I never needed an ordinance to tell me that a woman's breasts are sex objects. I bet I knew that by age 12. This is a perfect example of my oft repeated truism that the left lets their beliefs dictate their reality (while conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs). On the other hand, my next blog post will likely be from Fort Collins.
Here's a good one out of New York City. The Commission on Human Rights told residents they may be fined up to $250,000 for the offense of "threatening to call ICE when motivated by discrimination, derogatory use of the term 'illegal alien,' and discrimination based on limited English proficiency," because such acts constitute unlawful discrimination. Apparently, this rule provides that the fine shall be paid to the person making the complaint. That won't encourage abuse. And the First Amendment? What's that? The same commission previously barred employers and landlords from the use of gender pronouns if different from the preferred pronoun of the employee or tenant.
Here's a pleasant surprise. The Jewish Press reported on a Siena College poll. It turns out that only 4% of New York Jews support Bernie Sanders for President. Bernie does little to show his Judaism. He constantly criticizes Israel. He named Linda Sarsour to have some position in his campaign. He has supported the anti-Semites in Congress. Apparently, it has all caught up with him. In another interesting result from the poll, 44% of New York Jews have a favorable view of Trump (although only 33% say they will vote for him). Nevertheless, that favorability number is higher than for whites in general in New York.
In an Op-Ed in the 10/6/19 New York Times, is a piece by Andrew Marantz with this headline: "Free Speech is Killing Us." His concern has to do with Trump's use of the media, and the more serious issue of social media which may encourage some to commit acts of violence. Marantz is also concerned with speech "that's designed to drive a woman out of her workplace or to bully a teenager into suicide or to drive a democracy toward totalitarianism." After 3 years of the left telling us that democracy is dead under Trump, I've yet to see it or experience it. The First Amendment, as interpreted, does allow for certain time, place and manner restrictions on speech. And, Marantz, on staff at "The New Yorker," acknowledges that certain content may be even be banned - libel, incitement to violence and child pornography, for examples. Marantz: "We can protect unpopular speech from government interference while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks." But can we really protect unpopular speech from the government? See two paragraphs above re: the New York City Commission on Human Rights.
September 17 was Constitution Day, the Constitution having been ratified on September 17, 1787. A survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center revealed that 22% of Americans were unable to name even one branch of government. 25% named one branch, 14% named two branches and 39% named all three branches of government. The Center for American Progress reports that only nine states plus Washington, D.C., have a year long mandatory class on civics for their high school students. (D.C. plus Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, West Virginia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Virginia and Maryland.) I am confident that many of those unable to name a single branch of government would be able to tell us all about their favorite celebrities.
And finally, there was a rather upsetting story out of Texas, when a black man sitting in his own apartment and minding his own business was shot and killed by a white, female police officer. She was off duty and claimed that she believed she walking into her own apartment with an intruder inside. As I often do on police matters, I went to my friend, a retired cop. He opined that the female officer had many options short of discharging her weapon, starting with calling for back-up. She would also have had other non-lethal weapons on her, such as a taser and a baton. My friend: "I was proud to wear the uniform, but never thought it gave me a pass to be immoral, unethical or placed me above the people I served." Well said; it's an approach by which all of us could live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)