Month: September 2018

Such is the divided state of politics today that each party seeks to portray the other as a mortal threat. For the Democrats, it is all about fantasies of Trump as Putin’s puppet, or a crazy man out of control (which kind of puts Putin in an awkward spot), an opponent of any foreign trade, or (the default Dem accusation for any Republican) a Nazi. The fact that the United States is booming, that life is getting better for nearly everyone, and that foreign countries are agreeing to relax some of their lopsided trade practices that have kept America in perpetual trade deficits means nothing to them. They don’t need evidence because they believe in their religion of progressivism. Salvation lies in unlimited government, and anyone who stands in the way is preventing an imminent paradise.    

Republicans, on the other hand, have plenty of evidence that the Dems have gone stark raving mad with Trump Derangement Syndrome. And finally, we are getting ads that reflect this: (hat tip: Ryan Saarveda of The Daily Wire)

The New York Times published an anonymous op-ed, purportedly penned by a “senior White House official” in the Trump administration.

Read the missive, and note that there are several clear “tells” in the piece – clues that indicate the motivations and leanings of the author, whoever the coward is.  And I will use that word, as someone with the character and fortitude claimed by the author would never write an anonymous piece, nor would he remain employed within an administration he so clearly despises.  The Times has called the author “he,” so I will assume a male is the person responsible

This first clue tells me that it is a member of the swamp, coming from the position that government is an entitlement belonging to an elite, never meant to be sullied by the hands of an “outsider.”

He is also among those who oppose Trump’s use of tariffs and opposed his taking NATO and the E.U. to task for their looting of our goodwill.

He grudgingly admits that good things have happened but immediately assigns credit to himself, not to the man who drove the initiatives, which is the hallmark of the committed “NeverTrump” and the spurned Obama holdover.

He further reveals himself by the use of such bromides as “rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels,” along with petty and unsubstantiated shots at the president, apparently claiming psychic abilities, as he claims to know that Trump “fears such honorable men as McCain.”

He ascribes to himself an admirable stoicism, never missing an opportunity to inform the reader of the terrible sacrifice he is making to save us all from our evil natures, as personified in the hulking frame of Donald Trump, whom we foolishly elected, knowing not what we do – a position echoed endlessly by the self-righteous Obama apparatchiks tossed unceremoniously by the will of the people last November.

“So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until – one way or another – it’s over.”

These words are the linchpin of the author’s sentiments…and, when taken in totality with the earlier admissions of “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations,” and “[having] vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office,” constitute coordinated acts of sedition cloaked in sullied robes of “patriotism.”

The author clearly idolizes McCain and denies the existence of a “Deep State,” preferring instead to describe the cabal responsible for the slow-motion coup conducted through the increasingly brazen “special counsel” as the “steady state” – an apt descriptor of the permanent government bureaucracy that has been weaponized against the president since early 2016.

There is one further “tell” in the ballyhooed NYT anonymous op-ed – one that indicates that this is even less newsworthy than I first thought.

The author says in his second paragraph:

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The emphasis is mine. A Republican would likely not say “his party,” but rather “our party” or “my party.”

I am of the opinion that this is likely an Obama holdover (of which there are still more than a hundred in the employ of the White House alone) writing as if he were in fact a disaffected member of the Trump inner circle when he is in truth a bitter refusenik still stinging from the rejection of November last.

I think I know why the NYT kept it anonymous.  “Disgruntled Obama holdover” doesn’t carry the same cachet as “anonymous senior member of the administration.”

So, in the final analysis, who is this mysterious, self-aggrandizing, honor-challenged “senior official”?

After reading his ramblings, I really don’t care, and I doubt that anyone who isn’t already ideologically enslaved to the icons of the NeverTrump right and the unhinged, establishment-royalty left will care, either.  He’s just another flack.

Despite Nike’s pompous slogan adorning its new poster child for its corporate insanity and the NFL’s ongoing death wish as both slap our military veterans and the flag and our freedoms in the face, former quarterback Colin Kaepernick has sacrificed nothing compared to those who risked their lives for this country and its freedoms like former Arizona Cardinals star Pat Tillman.

While some who would diminish and denigrate his genuine heroism and patriotism like to point out that Tillman was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan, the fact remains that he willingly gave up a lucrative Hall  of Fame career to put his life on the line for his country:

Former Arizona Cardinals safety Pat Tillman was posthumously awarded the Silver Star for leading his Army Rangers unit to the rescue of comrades caught in an ambush.

Tillman was shot and killed in Afghanistan while fighting “without regard for his personal safety,” the Army said Friday in announcing the award[.] …

The Silver Star, awarded for gallantry on the battlefield, is one of the most distinguished military honors[.] …

Tillman’s group was already safely out of the area, but when the trailing group came under fire he ordered his men to get out of their vehicles and move up a hill toward the enemy.

As Tillman crested the hill he returned fire with his M249 automatic weapon, a lightweight machine gun.

“Through the firing Tillman’s voice was heard issuing fire commands to take the fight to the enemy on the dominating high ground,” the award announcement said.  “Only after his team engaged the well-armed enemy did it appear their fires diminished.

“As a result of his leadership and his team’s efforts, the platoon trail section was able to maneuver through the ambush to positions of safety without a single casualty.” …

Tillman, 27, walked away from a three-year, $3.6-million contract offer from the Arizona Cardinals to join the Army in 2002.

Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.  Kaepernick was last seen running to the bank to deposit his Nike checks while muttering something about oppression, racism, and social injustice.  Yet, like many of the social justice warriors now prevalent in the NFL, Kaepernick never took a knee as young black men were being slaughtered with impunity on the streets of Chicago and other inner cities under President Obama.  Now he and his ilk conjure up imaginary conspiracies of police to murder as many black men as they can.  As Fox News host Sean Hannity rightly observed:

“‘Sacrificing everything’ is not a multimillionaire social justice warrior whose greatest feat of bravery [is] kneeling on a football field[.]” …

[Hannity] said soldiers, law enforcement officers and firefighters are the ones who truly sacrifice everything.

“There are millions of men and women who have really sacrificed everything for strangers they didn’t even know, so the world, this country, could be a better, safer, freer place[,]” Hannity said.

“There are plenty of heroes in this country that Nike could feature, but [a] Castro-loving … cop-hating, ex-three-year-backup quarterback is not one of them.”

Everybody is free to pick his own heroes, but Kaepernick complains about oppression and social injustice as he once defended Cuban oppression while sporting t-shirts honoring Cuba’s Communist murderer Che Guevara, dictator Fidel Castro’s right-hand man:

When the reporter, who hasn’t been named, pressed Kaepernick specifically on Castro’s history of oppression, he replied: ‘One thing that Fidel Castro did do is they have the highest literacy rate because they invest more in their education system than they do in their prison system, which we do not do here, even though we’re fully capable of doing that.’

The reporter replied: ‘He also did something that we do not do here: he broke up families, he took over a country without any justice and without any election’.

Excusing the oppression and tyranny of a communist dictator who denied his people freedom of speech, press, religion, and movement as thousands languished in Cuban jails is on par with Kaepernick’s ignoring that most of the injustice he bemoans happens in cities run by progressive liberal Democrats like the Chicago of Barack Obama and the soon to be former mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, who abandoned his re-election campaign after Chicago blacks told him to get lost.

Whenever I hear NFL players who take a knee during the National Anthem, I am reminded of the double amputees who have returned from America’s wars and the fact that while, because of their sacrifice over centuries, we are entitled to speak freely, none of us is entitled to a particular forum.

NFL players are employees of a larger organization, just like Curt Schilling was when ESPN fired him for what he thought was protected speech.  The speech is protected.  Your access to a particular forum is not.  They are teammates in a sport that pays these allegedly oppressed spoiled brats millions.  Their teammates may share a different view, so does the locker room become a game prep area or a debating society?  Does the field remain a sporting arena or a campaign rally?  Those who take a knee were indeed given that right by many who no longer have knees and are privileged to take a knee in a sport paid for by millions of fans who may disagree with them and who paid to see a game, not a protest.  Players who take a knee think they are being patriotic, when they are merely being self-indulgent and selfish.  Go rent out a stadium and invite people to pay just to see you take a knee, and see if anybody shows up.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell whines that President Trump’s remarks about respecting the flag and the National Anthem are disrespectful of NFL players:

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said Saturday that President Trump’s recent comments about players kneeling during the national anthem are “divisive” and show a “lack of respect” for the pro football league and its players.

“The NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture,” he said in a statement.  “Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities.”

Millionaires taking a knee during the National Anthem to protest alleged social injustice do not build unity and are not a force for good.  Look up in the stands, players, and see the diversity and equality of those, including veterans, who came to see you shut up and play.

Those who would take a knee to protest the American flag likely have never been handed a folded one.  NFL players who want to take a knee should talk to the wounded warriors who no longer can.

Honor the likes of Pat Tillman, not Colin Kaepernick, whose idea of a social justice warrior is Che Guevara.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

According to the NYT, whose credibility is shot, a dishonest, disloyal member of the Trump administration has attacked his boss in an anonymous editorial.

This came out just after Bob Woodward released a book basically pitching the same story as the editorial and based entirely on anonymous sources whose claims have already been shot down by the people the anonymous sources talk about.  When, within hours of the book coming out, two of the people who supposedly said things about Trump have gone on record saying Woodward’s anonymous sources are wrong, the credibility of Woodward has to be in doubt.

Because this editorial is clearly going to help Woodward sell books and give him credibility even though on-the-record sources are denying his anonymous claims, the NYT, which has made it clear that it hates Trump and the people who voted for him, has every reason to make up this supposed source or at least inflate the source’s position in the administration.

We know that the fake news media have been lying to the people ever since Trump won the election.  Note that CNN is still standing by a story that its anonymous source has gone public to repudiate.  Further, CNN lied to us by saying its source didn’t tell the network anything. 

Hence, it’s likely that either the editorial writer doesn’t exist or he’s simply a low-level disgruntled NeverTrump.  The writer’s praise for Republican policies that Republican voters rejected in the primary is another sign that despite his claims, he’s probably more interested in sabotaging Trump than advancing the agenda that got Trump elected.

Even if, by some miracle, the NYT is not completely fabricating this story, the charges are mostly that the coward doesn’t like Trump’s management style.

A key complaint by the possibly fictional author is that Trump lacks a moral compass based on how Trump makes decisions.  But if we’re going to talk about moral compasses, let’s look at our past presidents:

Obama:

Intentionally and repeatedly lied to the American people about Obamacare letting them keep their doctors and save money.

Supported infanticide.

Destroyed the government of Libya and sentenced the Libyan people to anarchy.

Protected Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.

Hated Israel.

Weaponized the IRS, the FBI, and the DOJ to attack his political opponents.

Told the Russians that after the election, he could give them more of what they wanted but purposely hid that from the voters.

Said implementing DACA would be unconstitutional and then implemented it anyway.

Refused to enforce laws he didn’t personally approve of.

Bush: From a conservative perspective, Bush did have a good moral compass, but here’s what the left – the folks who are applauding this editorial – said about him.

Lied about Iraq and got thousands of Americans killed in order for oil companies to make profits.

Clinton:

Was accused of rape.

Cheated on his wife.

Sexually harassed subordinates.

Lied under oath to avoid a civil lawsuit on sexual harassment.

Compromised on every issue but abortion in order to get re-elected.

Nixon:

Lied to protect his subordinates from criminal charges.

LBJ:

Escalated the Vietnam war and conducted it in a way that led to lots of innocents dying.

Established a welfare system that destroyed black families.

JFK:

Cheated on his wife extensively.

To date, the only evidence we have that Trump has done anything remotely like any of this is that he’s cheated on his wife, though that seemed to stop at least a few years ago.

Keep in mind that the same folks who are attacking Trump’s moral compass said Clinton sexually harassing subordinates was irrelevant to his ability to be president and that Obama’s IRS targeting political opponents was nothing of importance.

Similarly, they condemned Bush for getting us involved in Iraq while condemning Trump for not wanting to drastically escalate tensions with Russia – which, unlike Iraq, has thousands of nuclear weapons.

We can all agree that Trump hasn’t been a choir boy, but how has that hurt the American people?

So rather than depend on a possibly fictional, disloyal, and cowardly source, let’s look at Trump’s record and see what sort of moral compass he has based on what he’s done as president.

Why would the people care about how the sausage of Trump policy is made so long as the sausage is great?  Does anyone really believe that Obama or any previous president was always serenely right and presided over some dispute-free staff?

The cowardly “source” says Trump’s advisers have steered him away from bad things.  Given that the president has the last word, that means that Trump’s moral compass includes listening to others and being willing to admit he’s made mistakes and take actions to fix the mistakes.  It’s unclear how that’s a bad thing.

Trump promised the American people he’d nominate judges who would interpret the law, not make it, and he’s done precisely that.  Is a politician keeping his promises a sign of a missing moral compass?  It probably is to Deep-Staters and NeverTrumpe who believe in the right of the elites in D.C. to rule over the people, but it’s not to the average American.

Trump promised to get the economy moving, get jobs back to America, and reduce taxes.  He’s done all of that and shown that the NYT and the rest of the left were wrong when they said that 2% GDP growth was the new normal.  If that’s a sign of a missing moral compass, then we should have more presidents with missing moral compasses.

Even if the coward is credible, and even if he’s not lying, nothing he said really shows any major moral flaw on the part of Trump, and certainly no moral flaw worse than the massive moral flaws Obama demonstrated.

All this “editorial” proves is that the Deep State includes both Republicans and Democrats whose primary concern is nullifying the 2016 election and retaining the corrupt structure that lets politicians rule over the people.  Obama said elections have consequences, but the Deep State is working hard to prove Obama wrong by annulling the 2016 election.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

Having presided over Chicago’s descent into rampant crime, “wilding” attacks by “urban youths” in the city’s prime shopping districts,  and a murder rate that shocks Baghdadis,  Rahm Emanuel pulled the rip cord on his mayoralty and announced he would not run for a third term. As Rick Moran wrote:

In the end, Emanuel’s tattered reputation would have suffered even more in a third term.  The “police reforms” are likely to lead to more crime and more violence.  There is a pension crisis with city employee unions that is likely to get worse.  Taxes will have to be raised.  Who can blame Emanuel for declining to serve under these circumstances?

The ugly truth is that doing something to make Chicago solvent, safe, and a sane place to do business would require taking on the vested interested that dominate the Democratic Party. Public employee unions, the racial grievance industry, and the rent seekers all would lose under real reform.

So, what does Rahm do to salvage his reputation after two terms as mayor of a city rightfully scared about becoming the new Detroit? If real reform is out of the question for a lame duck, then one way to look good is to have things really start spiraling downward after he leaves office. Call me cynical (as if one could be too cynical about Rahm Emanuel), but this suggests support for the “make voters regard my administration as the good old days” strategy. Bill Ruthhart of the Chicago Tribune:

Chicago police officers would be required to document every instance in which they point a gun at someone under an agreement reached Wednesday between Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Mayor Rahm Emanuel, two sources familiar with the deal confirmed.

The new requirement, which will be agreed upon formally in a federal court hearing Thursday morning, marks a win for Madigan who had pushed for the new level of documentation as part of her ongoing negotiations with Emanuel on a federal consent decree that will govern sweeping reforms to the Chicago Police Department in the coming years.

Prior to deciding to leave office, Rahm had fought Madigan, an ambitious pol whose father has been the most powerful figure in the state legislature for many years:

For more than a month, however, the mayor and attorney general had been at odds over whether Chicago police officers should have to document every instance in which they point a gun at someone. Madigan called the requirement essential to ensuring that officers properly use the threat of a gun, given the department’s history of excessive force and misconduct. Emanuel portrayed the documentation as superfluous, while Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said it could make officers hesitant to draw their weapons in dangerous situations.

After weeks of talks, both sides told U.S. District Judge Robert Dow Jr. last week that they planned to litigate the matter in court.

But on Wednesday — the day after Emanuel announced he would not seek a third term — the mayor’s team agreed to the provision, according to sources who were not authorized to discuss the agreement publicly. 

Superintendent Johnson is exactly right. Cops hate paperwork, and are likely to avoid situations in which they might have to unholster a weapon. That means even less “active policing” and even more failures to intervene to stop crimes. The blog Second City Cop comments:

Make no mistake, Rahm is going to fold on a lot more points before this “consent” decree takes effect. He has nothing to gain by siding with a Department that disliked him pretty much from day one and grew to hate him the more we got to know him. (snip)

…the only thing this agreement does is keep åmore cops and their supervisors off the street for extended periods of time, during which patrol officers aren’t visible, streets are undermanned, backup isn’t available and supervision non-existent.



You know how to avoid useless paperwork? Slow roll, make a lot of noise arriving, cut a report, advise warrants, leave.

What could go wrong?