Month: March 2019

The Democrats are in a dilemma. They’re desperately slavering to destroy President Trump. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Smith, for instance, has taken a “kitchen-sink” approach to finding something, anything, on President Trump now that the Mueller probe is winding down with little to show on the original charge, that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. So now it’s balls to the wall for the Democrats, to Get Trump, by any means necessary, even with virtually nothing on him. Here are a couple of choice Trump tweets to give the flavor:

The greatest overreach in the history of our Country. The Dems are obstructing justice and will not get anything done. A big, fat, fishing expedition desperately in search of a crime, when in fact the real crime is what the Dems are doing, and have done!

 

 

Congressman Chris Stewart: “No one is accusing the President of a crime and yet they (the Democrats) are issuing hundreds of subpoenas. This is unprecedented.” They are desperately trying to find anything they can, even a punctuation mistake in a document!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 6, 2019

 

 Politico reports that the issue is coming up now about whether to Get Trump’s Kids since the Democrats are having such a bad time pinning anything on Trump.

And like most things, they’re divided. Politico reports secondhand that House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) doesn’t think this is a good idea. Another experienced Democrat, Virginia’s Gerry Connolly, is openly stating his leeriness of the entire idea:

“Getting to family members I think is dangerous,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a senior member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee. “Only because it gets real personal, real fast. And it risks backfiring.

“Maybe at some point we have to call them in,” Connolly added, “but I’d rather let prosecutors look at that.”

Rep. Jamie Ruskin, another Maryland Democrat, is also in favor of steering clear.

Because the fact of the matter is, when you’re obviously going after someone’s kids in a desperate bid to take down the old man, because you can’t get the old man, the voters are going to see what’s happening and get pretty disgusted.  It’s an appalling state of affairs to see the prosecutorial dragnet target the kids and their spouses, who after all had little to say about who their father is. Ivanka, Jared Kushner, Don Jr. and Eric Trump are all potentially in the crossfire now. Internal polls and general voter behavior suggest that voters find this bad stuff and that does get some of these Democrats’ attention. No wonder they have the willies.

But in the Politico report, these three were the only cited examples. There’s also an abundant supply of the other kind of Democrats, the kind who can’t stop themselves and want to see an attack on all fronts to take down the kids, too. Do they outnumber the smarter Democrats?

Well, there’s Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, a member of the Oversight and Intelligence committees, and Rep. Steven Lynch (D-Mass.) of the Oversight Committee, who are still all in for trying to prosecute Trump’s kids now that Trump is proving elusive.

It’s hard to say at this point if they outnumber people such as Cummings and Connolly, but they are out there. Call them the dumber Democrats – and there are undoubtedly more of them beyond the Politico report.

What’s vivid here is how different these Democrats are from past Democrats who always sought to keep presidential children out of the line of fire. Remember how they yelled when Amy Carter was criticized for her anti-nuclear activities? Remember how they tried to shield President Obama kids from criticism of their open pot smoking in public places? (The Bush twins, who got falling-down drunk, of course, got the double standard.) But the broad precedent has always been to leave the kids out.

If the dumber Democrats succeed in dragging the Trump kids into their probes, trying to jail them, trying to heap the legal costs onto them, a lot more might happen than just voter disgust, although that problem is real enough. The bar will be lowered, and Democrats could find themselves seeing their own kids in the line of fire. U.S. politics will start looking like Mexican politics, with its jail-them-all, drive-the ex-president-out ethos.

Should the kids of Joe Biden and John Kerry, both of whom have gotten immensely rich in matters linked to their father’s position in public office, suddenly be targets of find-something, find-anything probes? How about the kids of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? And then there are the Kenndy kids – a look there can find all kinds of stuff. Shall the ‘can indict a ham sandwich’ style of prosecution be leveled at those kids, too? Anything that can be done on one side can be done on the other. Democrats, who changed House and Senate rules in the belief that theirs was permanent political power, looked on in dismay as Republicans took power and captured their weapons.

The dumber Democrats sound like they’re going to have to learn this lesson a second time.   

The Democrats are in a dilemma. They’re desperately slavering to destroy President Trump. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Smith, for instance, has taken a “kitchen-sink” approach to finding something, anything, on President Trump now that the Mueller probe is winding down with little to show on the original charge, that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. So now it’s balls to the wall for the Democrats, to Get Trump, by any means necessary, even with virtually nothing on him. Here are a couple of choice Trump tweets to give the flavor:

The greatest overreach in the history of our Country. The Dems are obstructing justice and will not get anything done. A big, fat, fishing expedition desperately in search of a crime, when in fact the real crime is what the Dems are doing, and have done!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 5, 2019

Congressman Chris Stewart: “No one is accusing the President of a crime and yet they (the Democrats) are issuing hundreds of subpoenas. This is unprecedented.” They are desperately trying to find anything they can, even a punctuation mistake in a document!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 6, 2019

 Politico reports that the issue is coming up now about whether to Get Trump’s Kids since the Democrats are having such a bad time pinning anything on Trump.

And like most things, they’re divided. Politico reports secondhand that House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) doesn’t think this is a good idea. Another experienced Democrat, Virginia’s Gerry Connolly, is openly stating his leeriness of the entire idea:

“Getting to family members I think is dangerous,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a senior member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee. “Only because it gets real personal, real fast. And it risks backfiring.

“Maybe at some point we have to call them in,” Connolly added, “but I’d rather let prosecutors look at that.”

Rep. Jamie Ruskin, another Maryland Democrat, is also in favor of steering clear.

Because the fact of the matter is, when you’re obviously going after someone’s kids in a desperate bid to take down the old man, because you can’t get the old man, the voters are going to see what’s happening and get pretty disgusted.  It’s an appalling state of affairs to see the prosecutorial dragnet target the kids and their spouses, who after all had little to say about who their father is. Ivanka, Jared Kushner, Don Jr. and Eric Trump are all potentially in the crossfire now. Internal polls and general voter behavior suggest that voters find this bad stuff and that does get some of these Democrats’ attention. No wonder they have the willies.

But in the Politico report, these three were the only cited examples. There’s also an abundant supply of the other kind of Democrats, the kind who can’t stop themselves and want to see an attack on all fronts to take down the kids, too. Do they outnumber the smarter Democrats?

Well, there’s Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, a member of the Oversight and Intelligence committees, and Rep. Steven Lynch (D-Mass.) of the Oversight Committee, who are still all in for trying to prosecute Trump’s kids now that Trump is proving elusive.

It’s hard to say at this point if they outnumber people such as Cummings and Connolly, but they are out there. Call them the dumber Democrats – and there are undoubtedly more of them beyond the Politico report.

What’s vivid here is how different these Democrats are from past Democrats who always sought to keep presidential children out of the line of fire. Remember how they yelled when Amy Carter was criticized for her anti-nuclear activities? Remember how they tried to shield President Obama kids from criticism of their open pot smoking in public places? (The Bush twins, who got falling-down drunk, of course, got the double standard.) But the broad precedent has always been to leave the kids out.

If the dumber Democrats succeed in dragging the Trump kids into their probes, trying to jail them, trying to heap the legal costs onto them, a lot more might happen than just voter disgust, although that problem is real enough. The bar will be lowered, and Democrats could find themselves seeing their own kids in the line of fire. U.S. politics will start looking like Mexican politics, with its jail-them-all, drive-the ex-president-out ethos.

Should the kids of Joe Biden and John Kerry, both of whom have gotten immensely rich in matters linked to their father’s position in public office, suddenly be targets of find-something, find-anything probes? How about the kids of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? And then there are the Kenndy kids – a look there can find all kinds of stuff. Shall the ‘can indict a ham sandwich’ style of prosecution be leveled at those kids, too? Anything that can be done on one side can be done on the other. Democrats, who changed House and Senate rules in the belief that theirs was permanent political power, looked on in dismay as Republicans took power and captured their weapons.

The dumber Democrats sound like they’re going to have to learn this lesson a second time.   

The Senate confirmed Allison Jones Rushing to the 4th US District Court of Appeals, making the 37 year old one of the youngest federal judges in history.

Rushing’s qualifications were questioned, but her greatest sin was her association with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a public interest law firm that has opposed gay marriage on religious freedom grounds and defended businesses and individuals who ran afoul of the various local and state gay rights statutes.

Rushing never worked for ADF, but did intern with the group in 2005. Do you think that stopped her detractors from trying to smear her as a hateful bigot and ADF as a “hate group”?

NBCNews:

“Throughout her brief legal career, Allison Rushing has supported and closely associated herself with one of the most extreme anti-LGBT organizations operating in this country today, the Alliance Defending Freedom,” Ian Wilhite, a spokesperson for LGBTQ legal group Lambda Legal, said in a statement shared with NBC News. “Rather than disqualifying her from consideration, this aspect of her record seems to have made up for all of the other deficiencies in her record.”

The 4th Circuit Court, which sits one level below the Supreme Court, covers West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas. Lambda Legal estimates there are roughly 1 million LGBTQ people who live in those states.

ADF’s mission is to defend their conception of religious freedom and free speech. Other public interest law firms defend their conception of “womens’ rights” or “civil rights.” The ADF holds views on gays and gay marriage that are at odds with the LGBT community, but faithful to their own interpretation of the Constitution. 

The designation of ADF as a “hate group” is spurious. It is one group’s – Southern Poverty Law Center – definition of “hate group” – wildly biased and hardly objective. This is a political construct bearing no relationship whatsoever to the reality that ADF’s activities center on protecting businesses and individuals from what they see as discrimination on religious freedom grounds. And they have been successful at it, recently winning a big victory for a Colorado baker who was being persecuted for his opposition to gay marriage and “gender transition.”

You can disagree with their interpretation of the law, but it’s grotesque to smear them as a “hate group.” 

That said, Rushing’s association with ADF was limited.

While Rushing does not hold an official role with the ADF, she interned for the group as a law student in the summer of 2005, authored amicus briefs for clients in support of the ADF’s positions on at least three cases, co-authored a legal brief about religious liberties with an ADF attorney, and spoke at ADF events at least once a year from 2012 to 2017.

Is that really enough to disqualify her from serving? The bottom line is that Democrats and their radical culture warriors despise the notion that anyone can disagree with them and not be a “hater.” Their routine smearing of Christians who disagree with them about gay marriage and some aspects of gay rights has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with politics.

The Senate confirmed Allison Jones Rushing to the 4th US District Court of Appeals, making the 37 year old one of the youngest federal judges in history.

Rushing’s qualifications were questioned, but her greatest sin was her association with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a public interest law firm that has opposed gay marriage on religious freedom grounds and defended businesses and individuals who ran afoul of the various local and state gay rights statutes.

Rushing never worked for ADF, but did intern with the group in 2005. Do you think that stopped her detractors from trying to smear her as a hateful bigot and ADF as a “hate group”?

NBCNews:

“Throughout her brief legal career, Allison Rushing has supported and closely associated herself with one of the most extreme anti-LGBT organizations operating in this country today, the Alliance Defending Freedom,” Ian Wilhite, a spokesperson for LGBTQ legal group Lambda Legal, said in a statement shared with NBC News. “Rather than disqualifying her from consideration, this aspect of her record seems to have made up for all of the other deficiencies in her record.”

The 4th Circuit Court, which sits one level below the Supreme Court, covers West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas. Lambda Legal estimates there are roughly 1 million LGBTQ people who live in those states.

ADF’s mission is to defend their conception of religious freedom and free speech. Other public interest law firms defend their conception of “womens’ rights” or “civil rights.” The ADF holds views on gays and gay marriage that are at odds with the LGBT community, but faithful to their own interpretation of the Constitution. 

The designation of ADF as a “hate group” is spurious. It is one group’s – Southern Poverty Law Center – definition of “hate group” – wildly biased and hardly objective. This is a political construct bearing no relationship whatsoever to the reality that ADF’s activities center on protecting businesses and individuals from what they see as discrimination on religious freedom grounds. And they have been successful at it, recently winning a big victory for a Colorado baker who was being persecuted for his opposition to gay marriage and “gender transition.”

You can disagree with their interpretation of the law, but it’s grotesque to smear them as a “hate group.” 

That said, Rushing’s association with ADF was limited.

While Rushing does not hold an official role with the ADF, she interned for the group as a law student in the summer of 2005, authored amicus briefs for clients in support of the ADF’s positions on at least three cases, co-authored a legal brief about religious liberties with an ADF attorney, and spoke at ADF events at least once a year from 2012 to 2017.

Is that really enough to disqualify her from serving? The bottom line is that Democrats and their radical culture warriors despise the notion that anyone can disagree with them and not be a “hater.” Their routine smearing of Christians who disagree with them about gay marriage and some aspects of gay rights has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with politics.

Google’s senior director of U.S. public policy, Adam Kovacevich appeared to describe the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) as a “sideshow Circus,” in a leaked audio recording in which he also argued that Google should remain a sponsor of the conference to “steer” the conservative movement “away from nationalistic and incendiary comments.”

The comments came to light in leaked audio files allegedly of a company-wide meeting at Google, part of which is now exclusively reported by Breitbart News. Another part of the transcript was released last Friday on Tucker Carlson Tonight, while further snippets revealing Google’s funding of establishment conservative think-tanks were published by the left-leaning tech magazine Wired in December.

The alleged meeting took place in the wake of Google’s sponsorship of CPAC in 2018, which triggered an internal rebellion from left-wing employees of the tech giant. Breitbart News exclusively reported on the revolt at the time, in which radical left-wingers inside Google accused CPAC of “ethno-nationalism” and “hate.”

Whenever you need some sanity, a dose of Thomas Sowell can sometimes be what the doctor ordered.

The venerable conservative economist and pundit was appearing on Fox Business Network on Tuesday in part to discuss his book “Discrimination and Disparities.” If you haven’t read it, the basic premise is that inequalities aren’t necessarily the result of historical injustices.

During the appearance, anchor David Asman asked Sowell about the current fad regarding reparations — one which has been embraced by at least two Democrat presidential contenders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.

Sowell said the premise of the idea — that present inequalities can be blamed on the past — can’t be backed up.

“This is one of any number of one-factor explanations as to why everyone doesn’t have the same outcome,” Sowell said.

TRENDING: Watch ‘Repentant’ ISIS Bride’s Body Language When She’s Asked About Murderous, Anti-American Tweets

“A hundred years ago it was genetics. In other times and places it was exploitation. But again, these are ideas that sound plausible, but when you do research, you discover that everywhere you turn, there are a thousand reasons why people don’t turn out the same.”

Sowell then gave one of the more curious examples from his recent tome.

“It goes right down to the family,” he said.

“In the first chapter of this book, I point out that the firstborn has higher IQs than his siblings and (in) later life has more achievements. Among astronauts, for example, of the 29 astronauts in the Apollo program that put a man on the moon, 22 were either the firstborn or an only child.

“Now, if you can’t get equality among people born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, why in the world do you think you’re going to get it among people who’ve had such different histories and cultures around the world?”

Video below:

In “Discrimination and Disparities,” Sowell presented even more evidence regarding this unusual disparity.

“Data on male medical students at the University of Michigan, class of 1968, showed that the proportion of first-born men in that class was more than double the proportion of later-born men as a group, and more than ten times the proportion among men who were fourth-born or later. A 1978 study of applicants to a medical school in New Jersey showed the first-born over-represented among the applicants, and still more so among the successful applicants … whatever the proportion in a given country, the first-born tend to go on to higher education more often than do later siblings. A study of Britons in 2003 showed that 22 percent of those who were the eldest child went on to receive a degree, compared to 11 percent of those who were the fourth child and 3 percent of those who were the tenth child.”

This clearly isn’t an issue of racial discrimination, and other disparities Sowell writes about aren’t either. Why, then, should we assume that discrimination is at the heart of our inequalities in this country?

RELATED: Shocker: AOC’s Financially Struggling Mom Moved to Low-Tax State to Make Surviving Easier

Sadly, Sowell — a Marxist in his youth — says he’s somewhat pessimistic about the future, particularly when it comes to socialism.

“I do have a great fear that, in the long run, we may not make it,” Sowell said.

“I hate to say that. The one thing that keeps me from being despairing is that we don’t know. There are so many things that we can’t possibly know. And so, we may make it, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

“So many people today, including in the leading universities, don’t pay much attention to evidence,” he added.

“When you see people starving in Venezuela and fleeing into neighboring countries and realize that this is a country that once had the world’s largest oil reserves, you realize that they’ve ruined a very good prospect with ideas that sounded good but didn’t turn out well.

“These so-called ‘exceptions’ (involving the failure of socialism) are almost universal on every continent among people of every race, color, creed and whatever.”

However, evidence is evidence. Equality can’t even be guaranteed within families, as the data Sowell cited shows.

How do liberals expect government to solve disparities on a grand scale when inequalities like the success of the firstborn exist?

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

One of the most shocking reports to come out of the trial for the murder of Italian teen Pamela Mastropietro is that she may have been dismembered while still alive.

The revelations come following testimony from Vincenzo Marino, a key witness in the trial of Nigerian drug dealer Innocent Oseghale who is accused of killing the Italian 18-year-old last year, Il Giornale reports.

Marino had been detained in prison at the same time as Oseghale and claimed to have overheard him admit to the murder.

A dean at Rider University resigned from her post as a protest over the administration’s decision to ban Chick-fil-A from campus. Cynthia Newman, the dean of the Rider College of Business, said in a statement that her values as a Christian align with those of Chick-fil-A, values Rider feels have “not sufficiently progressed enough” to fit in on campus.

According to a local news report, a dean at Rider University has resigned from her post in protest of the administration’s recent decision to not open a Chick-fil-A restaurant on campus. The decision was primarily made based on Chick-fil-A’s Christian values, which have been a target of progressive criticism over the past decade.

“[Chick-fil-A’s] corporate values have not sufficiently progressed enough to align with those of Rider,” the university wrote in a statement at the time. The university also told students that the decision to not welcome Chick-fil-A to campus was motivated by an effort to “promote…inclusion for all people.”