Monthly Archives: April 2019

Because It’s Hateful

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s (D, MN) insulting (at best) and dismissive description of the 9/11 terrorist attack that murdered nearly 3,000 Americans as “some people did something.”  President Donald Trump—among a host of other Americans—called her out for that despicable comment with a video of his own that juxtaposed her…comment…with the death and destruction that that “something” done by “some people” wrought.

Now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) is actively distorting the facts surrounding the matter as she joins her fellow Progressive-Democrat in trying to make political hay out of Americans’, and the President’s, objections to Omar’s words.

The President’s words weigh a ton, and his hateful and inflammatory rhetoric creates real danger.  President Trump must take down his disrespectful and dangerous video.

Pelosi also loudly called the Capital Police to get them to

conduct[] a security assessment to safeguard Congresswoman Omar, her family, and her staff.
They will continue to monitor and address the threats she faces[.]

Because it’s disrespectful, dangerous—threatening, even—to call out hate speech when it’s spoken by Progressive-Democrats.

No. The only dangerous words are those of Omar’s saying that the murders of those nearly 3,000 Americans is no big deal.  The only violence done or threatened is by those Progressive-Democrats who agree, through their defense of Omar’s words, that those murders are only secondary to being criticized for their condoning Omar’s claims.

Incidentally, the comment thread in Trump’s video tweet illustrates just how ’round the bend the Left is, quite apart from their full-throated defense of Omar’s despicable bigotry.

Reparations, Again

Posted on by
Reply

Now the Progressive-Democratic Party members are desperately trying to show their virtue by touting reparations again.

HR 40 would establish a federal commission to study how slavery and Jim Crow impact African-Americans today. The bill’s language calls for suggestions to “remedy” slavery’s aftereffects.

My irony meter is pegged. Slavery and Jim Crow were then-Democratic Party institutions. The current crop of Progressive-Democrats doesn’t need taxpayer money to fund a commission whose purpose would be to dilute their past. They need only look in a mirror.

It [reparations] could amount to formal government recognition that slavery was an injustice committed by the US, for example.

I guess Progressive-Democrats think the Civil War was just some people [that] did something.

Of What are they Afraid?

Posted on by
1

Attorney General William Barr, during testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, said he thought the Trump 2016 Presidential campaign had been spied on by Federal authorities, and he wanted to be sure whether that spying was legitimately done or not.

I think spying did occur.  The question is whether it was adequately predicated. …  Spying on a political campaign is a big deal.

Oh, the hoo-raw.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA):

I don’t trust Barr, I trust Mueller.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D, MD) now insists that Barr’s “loyalties were compromised.”

He is acting as an employee of the president.  I believe the Attorney General believes he needs to protect the president of the United States.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D, NY):

Barr’s vow to probe the FBI’s 2016 counterintelligence probe amounted to nothing more than “Republican conspiracy theory nonsense.”

And there’s the manufactured whine over petty terminology.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D, CA):

[Barr] should not casually suggest that those under his purview engaged in “spying” on a political campaign.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D, CT)

said Barr should immediately retract his statement and apologize.
“The only spies interfering in the 2016 campaign were Russian ones.”

Senator Brian Schatz (D, HI):

took issue with Barr’s word choice, saying “the word ‘spying’ could cause everybody in the cable news ecosystem to freak out.”

And:

NBC News‘ Chuck Todd said this was a “conspiracy theory”

Of course, contra Schatz, the only folks who will “freak out” are those looking for excuses to display their virtuous outrage.  And those with something to hide.

Instead, Progressive-Democrats should welcome the Barr’s investigation; they then could use his finding of nothing to see to further impede Trump and to get their own candidates elected far and wide.

Unless….

Lost Brexit?

Posted on by
Reply

Great Britain’s Prime Minister, Theresa May, went begging to the EU for a delay on Great Britain’s date of departure from the EU, and she got it—31 October, with a caveat that if the Brits can get their act together sooner, they can leave sooner.

European Council President Donald Tusk:

…the call for action will be entirely in the UK’s hands.
… But he added that the UK can also use the time to “reconsider the whole Brexit strategy.”
Tusk…warned the UK: “Please do not waste this time.”

Especially with that “reconsider” bit, I’m no longer convinced Great Britain will leave the EU.  Instead, it’s increasingly likely they’ll meekly beg forgiveness, and with their humiliation plain, simply ask, wide-eyed, “Please, Sir, I want some more.”  Please, let me stay.

Dithering?

Posted on by
Reply

Or attention-whoring?  This is what Howard Schultz, Presidential candidate agonist, has said about the party of which he says he’s no longer a member:

The Democratic Party has shifted significantly to the left. The Democratic Party left me; I didn’t leave them.

I’ll elide, for this post, the petty cliché of that remark.

Instead, Schultz has been running around the countryside giving interviews, hosting town halls, drawing attention to the possibility that he might, someday, declare his formal candidacy for President as an Independent—or something.

He’s agonizing over whether his running would throw the election to Trump. He’s agonizing over whether he’d draw enough Trump voters to throw the election to the Progressive-Democrat candidate.  He’s agonizing over whether that Party candidate would be too Progressive or Socialist.  He’s agonizing over whether he would have a chance to win.

He’s even raising straw men about the fact that he’d be a Jewish candidate.

I am [would be…] running as an American who happens to be Jewish.

At least he’s got that much right.

On the other hand, Schultz could quit agonizing and shirt-rending and just run.  He could run as a Democrat in the Progressive-Democrat Party and try to draw the Party back toward the center (win or lose, that much would be a valuable service).  He could run as an Independent and make his own case for his value as President (did he actually believe in that value).

Sadly, right now—and possibly for the duration—he’s just acting like a porch dog, yapping from the safety of his front stoop, without any demonstrated interest in actually joining the fray.