Had the National Review, the Weekly Standard, David Frum, Rick Wilson, Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Joe Scarborough, and the rest of this morally bankrupt crew called Never Trump won the day, Democrats would be looking at a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.
Had Never Trump got what they wanted in 2016 — a President Hillary Clinton — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia would have already been replaced with another Ruth Bader Ginsberg, which ensured an immediate 5-4 left-wing majority. But thanks to the man Never Trump told us was not a real conservative, we got Neil Gorsuch.
If that is not enough of a real-life nightmare (as I’ll explain below), Wednesday’s retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy would have increased that already unthinkable majority to 6-3, ensuring a left-wing court rewriting the Constitution for decades to come.
Just look at the hell these Never Trumpers would have unleashed during the Supreme Court term that just ended.
Cake artists forced to participate in same-sex weddings.
Public employees forced to contribute to Democrat campaigns through forced union dues.
Pro-life clinics forced by the state to advertise for abortion clinics.
States not allowed to clean up their own outdated voter rolls.
And on and on…
Those were the stakes, and Never Trump knew those were the stakes, and still this elitist tribe of narcissistic preeners chose to campaign for Hillary, chose to fight alongside CNN, MSNBC, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and the Democrats.
Had Never Trump won the day, the consequences to our way of life would have been very real, for we would not only would now live in a country where the government could force us to promote abortion (and God only knows where this precedent would have led), where the government could force artists to create art that violated their religious consciences (and put their very souls at risk), this would have only been a prelude to a parade of SCOTUS horrors Never Trump was willing to let loose in order to balm their neurotic egos.
Our Second Amendment civil rights would have vanished, illegal aliens would have won the right to vote, international law would have superseded the Constitution, and using the issue of gay marriage, our Church would have been effectively dismantled.
All of this was on the line — everyone knew it — and those of us who Never Trump smeared as racist, backwards, ignorant deplorables conned into voting for Trump knew this was on the line. And still, Never Trump sided with CNN and campaigned for Hillary Clinton.
What’s more, we now know that when Never Trump said it was driven by “muh principles,” by moral issues, that was also a big fat lie.
To begin with, Never Trump wanted Hillary Clinton, the most corrupt politician yet to be indicted, and her credibly accused-rapist husband back in the White House.
But these Never Trumpers truly exposed their dishonesty by vigorously backing Congressman Mark Sanford (R-SC) in his primary re-election bid against a pro-Trump Republican.
After months of attempting to shame Trump supporters and evangelicals over the possibility Trump might have had trysts with a porn star over a decade ago, Never Trump circled the wagons for Sanford, a man who just a few years ago disappeared from the governor’s office to have an extramarital affair in Buenos Aires.
And now that we might have a real chance to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is not only unconstitutional but the tacit approval of the cold-blooded murder of millions of unborn children, now that Trump has promised to put a “pro-life” justice on the court…
Oh, muh principles indeed.
Never Trump was never about morality, conservatism, individual liberty, and it certainly is not about America.
Never Trump is and was only about one thing — a bunch of spoiled, petty, small-minded, bigoted sore losers who desperately want to be on CNN and MSNBC.
These nihilistic peacocks all put their personal vanity above the fate of their own country, and all but a few have shown the integrity and humility to admit just how horribly wrong they are.
Someday I might be able to forgive, but for right now these Vichy Republicans can slow cook in hell.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.
A Reuters editor told President Donald Trump that “blood is on your hands” over Thursday’s mass murder at the Capital Gazette newspaper in Maryland — and then apologized and deleted his tweet after intense backlash, The Wrap said.
“This is what happens when @realDonaldTrump calls journalists the enemy of the people,” Rob Cox, global editor for Reuters Breakingviews, initially tweeted. “Blood is on your hands, Mr. President. Save your thoughts and prayers for your empty soul.”
At least five people were killed when a gunman stormed the offices of the Capital Gazette Thursday in Annapolis, Maryland.
What did Cox say next?
Cox later acknowledged, “Fair enough to call me out for jumping to a conclusion about the motives here. Vilifying any category of people — journalists, migrants, conservatives, liberals etc — can incite violence. This one hits close to home. Genuinely saddened.”
Fair enough to call me out for jumping to a conclusion about the motives here. Vilifying any category of people – journalists, migrants, conservatives, liberals etc – can incite violence. This one hits close to home. Genuinely saddened. https://t.co/pyr3HTFzbQ
Then he issued a lengthy apology on Twitter, saying he “responded emotionally and inappropriately” to “news today that a mass shooter had targeted the employees of a newspaper in Maryland.”
Cox continued: “Though my comments were entirely personal, they were not in keeping with the Reuters Trust Principles and my own standards for letting facts, not snap judgments, guide my understanding.”
He also said he was “pushed into a state of emotional distress” given his “experience as a member of the community of Newtown, Connecticut in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy, combined with the possibility that my colleagues in the press were being targeted.”
“I am sorry for my comments, which I quickly deleted and have disavowed,” Cox concluded, “and especially remorseful if they did anything to distract from the thoughts and love we must send to the community of Annapolis.”
How did Reuters’ editor-in-chief react?
Reuters’ Editor-in-Chief Steve Adler issued a statement about Cox’s tweet Thursday night, saying the news outlet “will take appropriate action” in response to it.
“Earlier this evening, Reuters Breakingviews Editor Rob Cox tweeted about the shooting in Annapolis, Maryland. He has since deleted the tweet and apologized,” Adler said. “Mr. Cox’s actions were inconsistent with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles requiring journalists to maintain freedom from bias. We do not condone his behavior and will take appropriate action.”
Here’s the apology from Cox:
When I saw the news today that a mass shooter had targeted the employees of a newspaper in Maryland I responded emotionally and inappropriately.
3 – My experience as a member of the community of Newtown, Connecticut in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy, combined with the possibility that my colleagues in the press were being targeted, pushed me into a state of emotional distress.
4 – I am sorry for my comments, which I quickly deleted and have disavowed, and especially remorseful if they did anything to distract from the thoughts and love we must send to the community of Annapolis.
“You do realize that what you posted earlier came not from your fear for fellow journalists, but instead from an excitement for another reason to bash Trump,” one Twitter user responded to Cox’s apology. “Look in the mirror…you ARE part of the divisiveness that pervades our country.”
Another user wrote that “NOW you know why people don’t trust the media, thank you for proving our point.”
“I don’t see an apology for [Trump] which was whom your tweet originally targeted,” another user noted.
In regard to Cox’s reference to Sandy Hook, one user said, “He is using dead kids as a personal shield because he wrongly used dead journalists as a political weapon.”
Others, however, accepted Cox’s mea cupla: “Thanks for apologizing,” one Twitter user noted. “We should take your tweets at face value and grant you that. Hopefully next time you’ll start from a place that doesn’t necessarily blame Trump or his supporters for causes of illness in this world.”
This is one giant reason why President Trump’s nomination for the Supreme Court seat vacated by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy matters: the innocence of children.
This week, in Great Britain, the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, known as Ofsted, denounced Yesodey Hatorah, an Orthodox Jewish school for girls in London, stating that it was “inadequate.” Why?
Turkey’s elections last Sunday did not produce any surprise results. The vote saw President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reelected with an outright 52 percent majority, as expected.
Erdogan’s AKP Justice and Development Party retained control over the Turkish parliament (albeit in conjunction with the ultranationalist, anti-Kurdish MHP party).
The results will not change the trajectory that Erdogan launched Turkey upon some 15 years ago when he first rose to power. But what the election does mean is that the obvious trends in Turkey’s domestic and foreign policies will be reinforced and expanded in an unimpeded manner.
From the America’s perspective, all of these trends are uniformly negative. As a result, it is time for a serious reconsideration of U.S. strategic ties with its erstwhile, and increasingly antagonistic, fellow NATO member.
Sunday’s election served as an endorsement of the constitutional changes that Erdogan forced through the Turkish parliament last year. Those reforms, which transform Turkey into a presidential system and cancel the office of the prime minister, provide Erdogan with unfettered power to govern by fiat. He can pass law by decree, call for elections at any time, appoint anyone he likes to any position he wishes, and declare a state of emergency whenever he wants for however long he likes.
Under the circumstances, whether or not the AKP controls parliament or not has become far less important than it was before the constitutional amendments were passed. Under the reformed constitutional system, the parliament is powerless to check Erdogan’s power.
So the question for foreign governments is: What is Erdogan’s will?
Erdogan has made no attempt to hide his goals. He has already transformed Turkey. When he rose to power in 2003, Turkey was the secular republic republic founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in the aftermath of the fall of the Ottoman empire at the end of World War I.
That secular republic no longer exists. Turkey is on the fast track to become an Islamist state.
Erdogan’s new Turkish Islamist state harbors active ambitions to reestablish the Ottoman empire. To that end, Erdogan, a vituperative antisemite, has become a major sponsor of Hamas, the Palestinian terror group and Muslim Brotherhood branch that controls the Gaza Strip.
During the Muslim Brotherhood’s year in power in Egypt, Erdogan cultivated close ties with then-president Muhammed Morsi.
For several years, Erdogan enabled the so-called “Islamic State terror group to use Turkey as its recruitment and logistical base. He also permitted Turkey to serve as Islamic State’s economic hub. Most of its oil sales were to Turkey. Arms and personnel en route to Syria travelled through Turkey.
As for illicit oil sales, Turkey served as a major purchaser of Iranian oil and gas in defiance of UN Security Council sanctions barring purchase of Iranian oil and gas exports.
Then there is Qatar. When last year the moderate Sunni regimes, led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, cut off diplomatic relations with Doha and blockaded its borders, demanding that it shut down its often-radical Al Jazeera satellite network, end its alliance with Iran, and stop sponsoring Sunni jihadist groups (including Hamas, al Qaeda and Islamic State), Erdogan rushed to Qatar’s defense. Turkish forces deployed to Qatar to protect the regime. Erdogan expects that in return for his protection, Qatar will behave as a Turkish vassal state.
As Turkey has cultivated jihadists as allies, Erdogan has spurned Turkey’s traditional allies — Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
As for Europe, Erdogan has taken an active role in undermining European societies through migration. Ahead of last year’s Turkish vote to approve or reject his constitutional changes, Erdogan sent representatives to Turkish communities in Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands to campaign among expatriates to vote for the amendments giving him absolute power. When the Europeans objected and Holland and Austria barred Turkish officials from entering their territory ahead of the poll, Erdogan condemned and threatened them. Ahead of Sunday’s vote, Germany, Holland, and Austria all banned Turkish politicians from campaigning in their territory. Erdogan against condemned them.
The mass migration of Syrians and others to Europe was largely a result of Erdogan’s will. He chose to push them into Europe. Since he did so, he has been effectively extorting European leaders, especially Germany, to finance his economy lest he open the floodgates of migration from the Middle East to Europe once again.
As for great power politics, under Erdogan, Turkey’s relations with the U.S. have become frosty. As he cultivates mass hatred of Jews in Turkey, so he has cultivated anti-Americanism. Television shows, bestselling books, and other cultural outlets are geared towards instilling deep-seated hatred for America among the Turks. And it is working.
When Erdogan indirectly accused the Obama administration — which went out of its way to embrace and support him – of sponsoring the failed coup of July 2016, Turkish public opinion was already primed to believe him. Since the coup — which was defeated by Erdogan’s shock troops — U.S.-Turkish relations have gone from bad to worse.
As he has cultivated hatred for America at home, Erdogan has gone to great lengths to cultivate closer ties to Russia. Russia has supported Turkey’s assaults on the Kurds in northern Syria. And Turkey has signed a deal to purchase Russia’s S-400 surface to air missile system. The latter deal lit every possible red light in Washington. As a NATO ally, Turkey is required to purchase systems that are interoperable with NATO platforms. The S-400 is not interoperable. Moreover, if Erdogan chooses to, once he receives his order of 100 F-35 combat fighters, he will be able to share the stealth technology with Russia and China and thus endanger the viability of the U.S.’s fourth-generation jetfighter.
Moreover, given his strategic ambitions, there is every reason to be concerned that Erdogan will deploy his F-35s against U.S. allies.
Cognizant of Erdogan’s anti-Americanism — which, among other things, is manifested in the imprisonment of American pastor Andrew Brunson on trumped up charges of involvement with the coup attempt — earlier this month the Senate overwhelmingly passed an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill for 2019 that bars the Pentagon from carrying out its deal with Turkey to sell Erdogan’s regime the F-35s.
Last week, the U.S. officially transferred the first two aircraft to Turkey. To a certain extent, the plane delivery was more apparent than real. The planes were transferred from a base in Texas to a base in Arizona, where Turkish flight crews and ground operators are being trained to use them. The training could last for as long as the U.S. wishes. And until it is completed, the F-35s will not be transferred to Turkey.
But the fact that they were formally transferred the week before Erdogan was elected the all-powerful neo-Ottoman leader of Turkey makes clear that the U.S. government has either not come to terms with the reality of Erdogan’s Turkey, or that it has come to terms with reality, but hasn’t figured out how to deal with it.
Some defense experts believe that Erdogan is not seeking an alliance with Russia through the S-400 purchase. They argue that Erdogan’s motivation is political, not strategic. He wants good relations with Russia, they say, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t going to remain in NATO, or that he shouldn’t be viewed as a long-term ally.
The problem with this view is not that it is wrong. Maybe it’s wrong. Maybe it’s right.
But assuming that is true, it doesn’t outweigh two other facts. First, Erdogan is using the S-400 system purchase to extract concessions from the U.S. just as he is using the hostage Brunson as a means of cutting a deal with Washington on things he wants.
Presently, Turkey risks penalties for violating renewed U.S. sanctions against buying Iranian oil. Erdogan may try to trade Brunson or the S-400 for an end to sanctions talk.
Then there are the Kurds. Turkey is demanding that the U.S. abandon its Kurdish allies in Syria and transfer control over the Kurdish enclaves in eastern Syria — including the town of Manbij, where U.S. Special Forces operate jointly with the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces — to Turkish control. He could be trying to trade the S-400 for the Kurds.
These prospects would amount to little more than extortion. Why would the U.S. sell its top warplane to a regime that seizes U.S. hostages, busts UN sanctions, and demands that the U.S. abandon its closest allies in Syria?
The second problem with the lenient view of Erdogan’s relations with Russia is that it ignores the wider context in which Erdogan is acting. He cares much less about superpower rivalries, and even his future in NATO, than he does about rebuilding the Ottoman empire in the Middle East. And every action the U.S. takes to empower him, whether by betraying the Kurds to appease him, or by taking his suggested “compromise” deals over the S-400 purchase seriously, fuel his ambitions and his capacity to advance them.
Turkey’s Middle East goals, in and of themselves, are deeply hostile to U.S. interests. All of Erdogan’s plans and beliefs align him with jihadists against moderate regimes that are actively fighting jihadists.
While it is important to be deeply concerned about the S-400 purchase in and of itself, when it is understood as part and parcel of Erdogan’s regional ambitions, it becomes an even greater cause for alarm. Because even in the unlikely scenario that Erdogan cancels the deal, the basic trajectory of Turkish strategic policy will continue to be diametrically opposed to America’s most basic regional interest of fighting and defeating the forces of radical Islam. This will not change, because Erdogan himself is a radical Islamist who supports jihad.
Some senior Pentagon officials continue to hope that the Turkish military will save the day. But that is a false hope. The generals who would have checked Erdogan’s ambitions are all in jail or dead.
After Sunday’s elections, Erdogan is Turkey. His positions are Turkey’s positions. And Erdogan’s position is that he should be an Ottoman emperor at war with America’s allies and directing America’s enemies.
It would be a mistake to let him lead the charge with a hundred F-35s.
Democratic lawmakers announced legislation Thursday intended to make it harder for public-sector workers to opt out of paying union dues, a right granted to them Wednesday by the Supreme Court.
The legislation would strengthen labor contracts that require workers, including non-union ones, to continue making payments.
The court’s 5-4 ruling in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees said it violated public-sector workers’ First Amendment rights to require them to pay their workplace’s union regular fees — common requirement in union contracts, dubbed a “security clause” — unless the employee “affirmatively consents to pay.”
So, if the employee ever signed anything, even unknowingly, that approved a deduction, the union can cite that to argue that the worker cannot exercise his rights under Janus.
The legislation is authored by Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and Rep. Matt Cartwright, D-Pa., and co-sponsored by 31 Senate and 19 House Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
The text of the legislation was not available, but in a joint statement Thursday, the lawmakers said the legislation would require that all public employers “recognize the employees’ labor organization … and to commit any agreements to writing in a contract or memorandum of understanding.”
That would put public employers in the position of siding with the union in any case when there was a dispute over whether a worker could invoke his rights under Janus. The legislation is dubbed the “Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act.”[…]
“This bill would force all 50 states to give monopoly bargaining powers to Big Labor, in a gross violation of the rights of public employees and the rights of those states’ policymakers. Monopoly bargaining has been a failure in the private sector, and a disaster in the public sector, for every state that has implemented it,” said Greg Mourad, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee. “Now the national Democrats want to force it on the rest of the states as well. It’s an obvious payback to the union bosses who spend $2 billion every election cycle to help them get elected.”
On Thursday, the day after Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he would retire, which could prompt the Court to reconsider the fate of Roe v. Wade, President Trump issued a letter to the National Right to Life Committee reiterating his pro-life stance while promising to protect the dignity of unborn children.
Bad news is rolling in for Peter Fonda. In the wake of his call to place President Donald Trump’s 12-year-old son "in a cage with pedophiles," the actor’s newest flick has taken a nosedive at the box office.
A new study released by the Pew Research Center shows that a majority of Americans believe it is likely that social media sites censor political views. A majority of both Democrats and Republicans believe social media sites censor political viewpoints.
According to the Pew study, 72 percent of Americans believe that it is likely social media sites “intentionally censor political viewpoints they find objectionable.” Of those who lean Republican, 85 percent of respondents claimed it is likely that social media sites censor objectionable political viewpoints, compared to 62 percent of Democrats.
Broken down further, 54 percent of Republicans said it is “very likely” that social media sites intentionally suppress political views and 32 percent said it is “somewhat likely” the tech companies crack down on objectionable political views. Of Democrats, 20 percent said it is “very likely” the social media sites intentionally censor objectionable political views, while 42 said it is “somewhat likely.” For all respondents, 35 percent said it is “very likely” social media sites censor objectionable views, while 37 percent said it is “somewhat likely.”
When it comes to which political views are likely censored, Democrats and Republicans disagree.
A majority of Republicans said they believe social media companies “support the views” of liberals over conservatives, with 64 percent of Republicans claiming that’s the case. For those identified as Democrats, 53 percent of respondents said the major tech firms support both sides equally. The poll found 43 percent of all respondents believe that tech companies support liberal views over conservative ones:
The survey of 4,594 respondents was conducted between May 29-June 11, 2018. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.
A 21-year-old woman has been sentenced to jail time for lying about being raped on a college campus in Michigan.
Mary Zolkowski will serve 45 days behind bars and two years probation after pleading guilty to falsely reporting a rape in March.
The woman told her mother she had been raped in a parking lot at Delta College in February. Her mother subsequently called the campus to report the false incident and Zolkowski followed up by filing a formal report.