Why They Hate Trump

Why They Hate Trump

By Steve Feinstein
——————————

Nearly 50% of the American political world hate President Trump. Truly hate him. This is no mild disregard like it was for President Bush 43 “Dubbya,” he of the cowboy foreign policy. This is not the “He’s a total lightweight but he’s pretty harmless so we can sandbag him,” disrespect they had for George HW Bush. This is even deeper than the outright derision and scorn in which they held for Ronald Reagan.

No, this goes farther. This is hatred on a deep, visceral level. A we’d-revert-to-violence-if-we-could-get-away-with-it hatred. They really, really hate him — personally, politically, any way you can slice it.

Here’s why:

He’s not one of “them.” He’s not a lifelong politician and he doesn’t practice the usual conventions of referring to his fellow politicos with false niceties, nor does he observe the tradition regarding respectful treatment of a hostile media. On the contrary, if a rival politician or national figure behaves badly, he calls them out in no uncertain terms, in a most horrifyingly “unpresidential” manner. Likewise, he’s turned the tables on the liberal media (coining the term “fake news”) and forever ended the past Republican tradition of rolling over and cowering in the face of liberal media criticism. His example has flowed downstream to many rank-and-file Republicans. Now, they too stand up and fight back. Trump has showed them how. He’ll never be forgiven for it.

His tweets tend to be harshly worded and extremely direct. The liberal media hates that President Trump has found an effective way to circumvent the liberal media filter and go around them completely. In response, they have stepped up their attacks dramatically in a vain effort to pre-emptively undercut his credibility. But harshly-worded or not (so much so that even some Republicans cringe), his tweets are invariably grounded in truth and they resonate with exactly how his supporters feel. The liberal media and his Democratic opponents on the Hill hate him for this.

His enemies blather wildly inaccurate inanities like, “He’s shredding the Constitution,” or “He’s a Russian asset,” or “He’s a racist, a misogynist, anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, a homophobe, an Islamophobe,” and so on, ad nauseum. All of it is demonstrably false. The entire Mueller Probe and the so-called “Impeachment” were colossal wastes of time and money, without the thinnest sliver of any allegation being anywhere near true. Yet his sworn enemies continue to sling accusations in the wild hope that something will stick.

The real reason they hate him so deeply is that he’s accomplished so much, kept so many promises, made so many Americans’ lives tangibly and obviously better. From lowering taxes and cutting job-stifling, burdensome regulations, to strengthening border security, to unleashing domestic energy production to the point that we’re now essentially energy-independent (proven by the non-rise in oil/gasoline prices following last year’s Iranian-backed attack on the Saudi oil refineries), to his appointment of two Supreme Court justices and close to 200 federal judges, to the incredible stock market gains (thus preserving and guaranteeing the viability of pension plans for millions of retired Democratic unionized workers), to the lowest unemployment in decades across all demographic categories (including women and minorities), to rebuilding the military, to great new international trade agreements that redound significantly to American workers’ benefit, President Trump has unequivocally made life in America far better for virtually everyone.

And he rubs the Democrats’ nose in it every single day, unashamedly and accurately pointing out that he’s accomplished in just three years what the Democrats couldn’t get done over many decades. He’s shown that his way is the right way. It produces results. The Democrats and the Fake News are too preoccupied with trying to derail his leadership, all because he sends out critical, no-holds-barred tweets that unapologetically pull back the curtain on D.C. corruption and the insidious insider nod-nod/wink-wink behavior that puts the needs of unethical bureaucrats over the needs of the American people. His success shows the Democrats that their way is wrong and his way is right.

President Trump is not looking to become rich after he leaves office (he’s already rich), he’s not looking to hobnob with the upper crust of the entertainment world (he already had a long-running hit TV show), he’s not looking to become a bestselling author (he already is). Unlike any former President, he is not beholden to party interests and major contributors and therefore he’s free to have the best interest of the country as his prime motivator.

But most of all, they hate him for this: They know he’s going to absolutely trounce any Democratic candidate they put up in November 2020. For the desperate Democrats — longing to implement their world of government control over individuals’ lives, their desire to restrict personal wealth by severely limiting free-market capitalism and entrepreneurship, their irrational yearning to ban fossil fuels well before the development of a suitable replacement, and of course, their avowed aim to roll back centuries of societal norms of gender definition and the free expression of religious beliefs —  the prospect of another four years of President Trump is frightening indeed.

I’d hate him too.

Via:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Democratic Establishment Desperate to Stop Him’

NBC’s Todd: Sanders May Have ‘Crushed the Hopes of a Democratic Establishment Desperate to Stop Him’

Pam Key, 652
 

Host Chuck Todd explained Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) win in the Nevada caucus was upsetting to the so-called “Democratic establishment” hoping to impede his push to the party’s presidential nomination.

Todd said, “Sanders, indeed, won a smashing across the board victory. He won among men and women, college graduates and non-college graduates, liberals and moderates union and non-union members, people who decided early and people who decided late. In short, Sanders crushed it.”

“And in doing so, he may have crushed the hopes of a Democratic establishment desperate to stop him,” he continued. “The enthusiasm among Sanders supporters is matched by trepidation among other Democrats who fear that Sanders will not only lose to President Trump but will take down the House majority and any chance of winning back the Senate as well.”

Via:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Bloomberg’s China Apologetics

Bloomberg’s China Apologetics Should Disqualify Him from the Presidency

Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg speaks during the Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas, Nev., February 19, 2020. (Mike Blake/Reuters)

A man who would lie or delude himself about the nature of the Chinese regime to protect his business interests is unfit for the White House.Michael Bloomberg has a China problem, and his Democratic opponents, the media, and President Trump should harp on it relentlessly: Bloomberg’s accommodating stance toward China contradicts the emerging foreign-policy consensus on China, as well as the plain evidence before our eyes.

For decades, the conventional wisdom in Washington was that China’s economic liberalization would lead to political liberalization. It was always odd that this theory caught on. The same theory had been au courant in Central and Eastern Europe in the 1980s, and in the end political revolution proceeded economic liberalization there. Nevertheless, Western policymakers clung to the notion that rising fortunes would create a Chinese middle class with the clout to successfully demand basic freedoms.

But after the election of Trump, and reforms to the Chinese Communist Party that further empowered Chairman Xi, this consensus has been turned upside down. It is now clear that trade with the U.S. and the prosperity it achieved for millions of Chinese actually empowered and expanded their state’s repression. China has begun to renege on its promises of political liberty in Hong Kong, and is currently carrying on a campaign of ethnic cleansing in its westernmost province, one featuring mass surveillance and the building of re-education camps.

Perhaps worst of all, it turned out that American businesses with significant interests in China, including the NBA, were willing to protect those interest even if doing so meant deploying the Communist political tools of censorship, false propaganda, and public struggle sessions — all of which followed after the relatively mild pro-Hong Kong comments of Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey.

Now Bloomberg has entered the presidential race, and his view of China runs in the exact opposite direction of conventional wisdom. “Xi Jinping is not a dictator. He has to satisfy his constituents or he’s not going to survive,” Bloomberg told Firing Line’s Margaret Hoover last year. It’s a comment he has repeated elsewhere. “The Chinese government is no less impacted by what their constituents — i.e. citizens, voters — want than anyplace else,” he said at one conference. …

Full Story:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Marine is awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal

Marine is awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for saving a pregnant woman on high seas

By Andrea Widburg
——————————-

While off duty in Okinawa, Marine major William Easter dove into a sea with 10-foot swells to rescue a pregnant woman who had been swept away by unexpected bad weather combined with a riptide.  Easter described his decision to rescue her as a “moral obligation” that he was unable to resist.  By doing so, he revealed one of the mysteries of the human condition, which is one person’s decision to risk, or even sacrifice, his life for a stranger.

There is no Darwinian reason for a person to risk his life to save a stranger.  After all, each person’s instinct for survival of the species is tied to that person’s lineage.  That’s why male lions when they take over a pride will kill the former lion’s cubs — to ensure the best survival for their own — and why women develop herculean strength if it’s needed to rescue their children.

Humans can bring to the tribe the same sense of obligation they feel to their own lineage.  We see this every time troops willingly sacrifice themselves to save each other.  There’s no reason, though, ever to save a random stranger.  Nevertheless, that’s exactly what people, especially men, do.

When the Titanic sank, the code of “women and children first” meant that a disproportionate number of men went down with the ship.  At day’s end, roughly 75% of women and only 20% of men on the ship survived.  (Children had a lower survival rate of 50%, presumably because they were more vulnerable to the icy cold.)

In 1982, Calvin Eugene Simmons was enjoying a spectacular career.  Although only 32, he was a well known conductor throughout California and even debuted at the Metropolitan Opera.  His swift rise was made all the more impressive by the fact that, in each venue, he was the first African-American to conduct the orchestra.  Simmons died at 32 because, while boating on Lake Placid in New York, he tried to rescue a child following a canoe accident.  Simmons could not swim.

Fortunately, Major Easter could swim, although last December, that ability could scarcely prepare him for the rigors of diving into 10-foot swells, strong winds, and riptides in the East China Sea along the Sunabe Seawall to rescue a pregnant woman whose own husband had staggered out of the water, exhausted, to beg for help.

Easter later said, “I was confident in my skills and training,” but reading about the rescue shows that Easter, when he leaped into the sea, also made a huge leap of faith:

Easter’s first reaction to the desperate calls from the exhausted husband ― separated from his wife by a rip current after bad weather quickly approached ― was to help the husband search for help, he told Marine Corps Times in an email Thursday.

But the Marine quickly realized he was the only one capable and willing to rescue the pregnant woman from drowning, he said.

[snip]

The Marine first attempted to get ashore, but when the woman was overcome by exhaustion and could no longer help him swim Easter focused on keeping her afloat until rescuers arrived, according to the Navy and Marine Corps Medal citation.

After staying afloat for almost an hour, the first rescue craft arrived. Because of the choppy sea and the size of the craft the boat capsized, sending Easter and the pregnant woman back in the water until a larger boat finally arrived and rescued them.

What’s utterly fascinating is Easter’s reason for doing what he did: “I didn’t know what the victim’s state was, but I felt like I had a moral obligation to do something.”  That is an extraordinary statement.  At a pure genetic survival level, the last thing he should have done was sacrifice himself, but he had a “moral obligation to do so.”

That moral obligation is so often allied with masculinity that is anything but toxic.  Moreover, age doesn’t matter.  Noah Woods, a five-year-old boy, rescued his whole family from a burning house, dragging his two-year-old sister out and then getting help.  Peter Yang received a posthumous admission to West Point after he died saving his classmates following the Parkland shooting.  Kendrick Castillo, who dreamed of becoming a Marine, charged another school shooter, saving his classmates as well.  Some people go into the military for the adventure, some to gain skills, some to benefit from the G.I. Bill — and some just have that altruistic gene that drives them to save others, no matter the fact that it makes no Darwinian sense.

For his heroism, Major Easter received the Navy and Marine Corps Medal, which is the highest honor awarded to those who engage in noncombat heroism.  He also received a letter of appreciation from the mayor of Chatan, Japan.  It is a wonderful thing that these were not posthumous honors.

Via:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Arrogant Elitist

Michael Bloomberg, Arrogant Elitist

By Norman Rogers
—————————-

There is a YouTube video featuring Michael Bloomberg speaking at the University of Oxford on the verge of Trump’s inauguration in December 2016. The video reveals much about Bloomberg’s beliefs and thinking: He is dismissive of the working class, seeing them as ignorant and insufficiently intelligent to be able to find useful work in this advanced technological age. He sees himself as a member of an intellectual elite.

And the voters will quickly grasp his real opinion of them. They are unlikely to vote for someone who sees them as serfs in need of guidance and patronage from nobility such as himself.

In three years, Donald Trump has blown apart Bloomberg’s theory that the working class is composed of useless oafs. Under Trump’s policies, the workers that Bloomberg wrote off have found jobs and it wasn’t necessary for the government to hire them with make-work programs.

It is clear that Bloomberg’s mind rarely treads beyond the intellectual bounds of Manhattan and Wall Street. His description of agriculture is a comedy. He thinks there is nothing to it to run a farm and that any dumb person can be a farmer. Bloomberg may realize that food originates from farmers, not from grocery stores, but he has only a foggy idea of how that happens. He reveals himself as a classic New Yorker who is under the impression that the world ends at the Hudson river.

Bloomberg and Carl Pope, a former executive director of the Sierra Club, wrote a book together titled Climate of Hope.

From reading their book, I think it is fair to say that both Pope and Bloomberg lightly realize that just as food does not originate in the grocery store, electricity does not originate at the wall outlet. They realize that there is some infrastructure that generates the electricity and transmits it to the wall outlet. But they think that it is being done in a manner that is all wrong.

We are using coal and natural gas to generate that electricity. To them, we should be using windmills and solar panels instead. Pope has the excuse that he was a Harvard history major. It is very clear that he has absolutely no understanding of electricity infrastructure. Bloomberg, on the other hand, was an electrical engineering major at Johns Hopkins, so he has less excuse. Yet there is no sign he understands much about the nation’s electrical grid, either. He only knows that is all wrong because it is not being powered by windmills and solar panels.

Bloomberg gave $50 million to the Sierra Club for their Beyond Coal campaign. Bloomberg claims that Pope opened his mind about the danger of coal when he provided the “numbers” in 2011. The numbers in question are exaggerated, junk-science claims by the Sierra Club, warning of death and disease from burning coal.

Bloomberg does not appear to harbor any skepticism concerning the power elite or establishment. That may be because they are his friends and he is a member of that tribe. It does not occur to him that climate scientists might be embellishing their claims of climate doom in order to improve their own careers. The corruption of science by federal financial support was highlighted in Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell address. The claims of climate science are obviously embellished in order to influence public policy and the welfare of the climate science academic discipline.

Anyone having firsthand experience with computer modeling and the disbursement of federal research funds knows instantly that the claims of climate science to predict the climate 100 years into the future by using computer models of the Earth’s atmosphere is corrupt science inspired by the desire for money and fame. I doubt that Bloomberg ever harbored skepticism concerning predictions of climate doom by the climate science clique.

If he is ever elected president Bloomberg’s public policy proposals will be the ideas that emanate from his important friends and acquaintances that share his Manhattan and Wall Street-centric views.

And it’s not just on climate science that makes Bloomberg an intellectual midget.

Bloomberg’s views on minorities and crime are not reflections of authentic racism. He just sees the world as divided into top people, like himself and other rich Wall Street types, and everyone else. Heavy-handed treatment of criminals by the police is simply his solution for the problem of unruly peasants. But not every black person is a criminal and not surprisingly they get upset if they are constantly treated as suspects.

People may sell their political support to Bloomberg but they are unlikely to feel good about it. Bloomberg is buying support from Democratic operatives that he hires and from left leaning organizations that he gives money to. The voters will at some point understand that Bloomberg’s supporters are bought rather than heartfelt believers. They will realize that Bloomberg is a Mr. Fancy Pants, not someone concerned with the average man’s problems.

Bloomberg was born a middle-class descendent of Eastern European Jewish immigrants. His father was a bookkeeper. But through a natural talent for leadership — and the Harvard Business School — he made a lot of money, ascended into the social elite, and never looked back.

Once he succeeded in joining the Manhattan and Wall Street elite, it is not surprising that he lost all skepticism concerning the worthiness of the elites. Bloomberg would not be running for president if he harbored doubts concerning the natural right of his particular club of elites to rule everyone else.

Although both Trump and Bloomberg are natural leaders, and both lived their adult lives in New York City, their backgrounds are distinctly different. Trump was born with a small fortune premised on entrepreneurship. Trump is an out-of-the-box thinker with powerful instincts. Trump is a natural skeptic. Bloomberg became a card-carrying member of the elite as soon as he was able. Bloomberg is a plodding thinker applying formulas that he learned at the Harvard Business School and Salomon Brothers to his life. Trump is a genuine genius instinctively able to take roads that no one else sees. Because he is bold and a risk-taker, Trump is often in trouble.

When Bloomberg tries to empathize with the problems of the voters, he comes across as wooden and artificial. Trump comes across as genuine because he is genuine, and he is loved by his fans.

If Bloomberg gets the Democratic nomination, a remote possibility, Trump, a vastly more talented politician is sure to win.

Via:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Bloomberg Candidacy Still Small Scale

Charles Hurt–Mike Under Microscope: Bloomberg Candidacy Still Small Scale

Bloomberg, podium, Vegas debate
NBC News
Charles Hurt, 94
 

In the land of political toadstools, former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a giant. Even without a box to stand on behind the debate podium.

But, boy, was that a shootout Wednesday night in Las Vegas.

Welcome, Mr. Bloomberg, to the 2020 presidential campaign that you are supposed to salvage for Democrats.

It was almost painful to watch all the blows landing on the bewildered Mr. Bloomberg, the savior with the invisible campaign. Last night, Mr. Bloomberg was the Incredible Shrinking Candidate.

Which is a really terrible thing when you start out so tiny.

The whole debate offers an astonishing indictment of the Democratic Party that a guy like Mr. Bloomberg can rocket to the top of the heap without a single day of actual campaigning and in spite of his political record.

Just a few elections back, he endorsed President George W. Bush, a Republican, for reelection. Heck, Mr. Bloomberg himself was a Republican more recently than that.

And in 2012, Mr. Bloomberg begrudgingly endorsed President Obama, a Democrat, for reelection just days before the election. Today, of course, Mr. Bloomberg is running tens of millions of dollars worth of ads claiming he was a crucial right-hand man for Mr. Obama during his presidency.

To understand just how devastating this crackup of the Democratic Party is, consider this: The only candidate other than Mr. Bloomberg who has a shot at the nomination refuses to actually join the Democratic Party. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a “democratic socialist.”

Even now, since Mr. Bloomberg officially switched his party registration to “Democrat,” he is a curious candidate for the party to run against President Trump in November.

First is his towering arrogance. In a memo released by his campaign this week, Mr. Bloomberg’s staff wags its finger at all the actual Democrats in the race and says they must abandon their own campaigns to make way for Mr. Bloomberg.

Of former Vice President Joe Biden (Mr. Obama’s actual right-hand man during his presidency), Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign officials warned that “his continued presence in the race — along with that of [Pete] Buttigieg, and [Amy] Klobuchar — will siphon votes away from the best performing Sanders alternative (Mike Bloomberg) and increase the likelihood of a Sanders blowout.”

This from a guy who has earned exactly ZERO delegates, lecturing four people who have at least proved they can win a delegate.

In his first words during his first live appearance in a presidential debate, he declared that Mr. Sanders — the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination — will never beat Mr. Trump in the general election.

And then there was the rest of the debate. It was almost like Mr. Bloomberg joined the stage to give Mr. Biden a hand. I mean, next to Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Biden came off like a brain surgeon.

It was so bad that Joe Biden could actually turn around and win South Carolina next week. All thanks to Mike Bloomberg.

Via:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

That Wasn’t What Bloomberg Expected

Posted in Politics, Video | Tagged | Leave a comment

“Donald Trump Will Destroy Michael Bloomberg”

Posted in Politics, Video | Tagged , | Leave a comment

‘blatant suppression of exculpatory evidence’

Flynn defense accuses Mueller prosecutor of ‘blatant suppression of exculpatory evidence’

FILE PHOTO (Screenshot: YouTube/CNN)

The defense team for General Michael Flynn has issued a new filing in support of the motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of “egregious government conduct.”

In this filing, Flynn’s team accuses the government of “refusal to recognize its obligations to seek justice not convictions,” and specifically accuses Mueller prosecutor Brandon Van Grack of suppressing evidence in order to protect “the prosecutors, his team, and the cadre of malfeasant FBI agents from the discovery of their negligence, crimes, and wrongs.” It further claims that the IG report from Michael Horowitz reveals Van Grack’s blatant “suppression of evidence that is undeniably exculpatory to Mr. Flynn.” The filing claims this was done as a retaliatory measure.

Flynn’s defense claims that there is so much evidence of government wrongdoing here that it warrants an immediate and absolute dismissal of prosecution, but was careful to note that “the dismissal of prosecution does not mean the dismissal of indictment.”

You can read the document in full below:

US v Flynn; Flynn Reply in … by Techno Fog on Scribd

In January 2020, Flynn attorney Sidney Powell announced that her client would be motioning to support his request to withdraw his guilty plea.

She alleges that her client maintains his innocence and that his “guilty plea (and later failure to withdraw it) was the result of the ineffective assistance of counsel provided by his former lawyers” who she says were encumbered by conflicts of interest when representing Flynn.

Powell says that her client would never have pled guilty if he “had been given constitutionally adequate advice,” and as a result, should have his plea withdrawn. Flynn’s sentencing, which was scheduled for February 27th, was canceled and the government filed for an extension in considering the withdrawal.

While it’s still largely unclear what is going to happen to Flynn as the result of Van Grack’s accused misdeeds, many on Twitter are arguing that the retired General was shafted by corrupt government officials.

Via:

Posted in Politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Bloomberg “IT”

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

AR-15 Ban Rejected in Virginia

Bloomberg’s AR-15 Ban Rejected in Virginia

By Daniel John Sobieski
——————————–

It was supposed to be the best state government money could buy, bought and paid for by Mike Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety for the purpose of overturning the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms in Patrick Henry’s Virginia. Bloomberg overwhelmed the NRA in spending during the Virginia state election campaign. As CNBC reported last November:

A gun-control lobbying group funded largely by billionaire Michael Bloomberg just helped Democrats take over the state government in Virginia — right in the National Rifle Association’s backyard.

In Tuesday’s elections, the Democrats tipped the Virginia House and Senate in their favor, giving them full control of the state government for the first time since 1994.

While the results could be a good omen for Democrats’ chances in 2020, it may also be a tipping point in the money battle over gun rights. Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun-control advocacy group that the former New York mayor helps fund, spent $2.5 million this year to influence voters in Virginia versus approximately $300,000 by the NRA, which has its headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia.

Yet despite early success in Bloomberg’s Virginia House, the Virginia Senate stood fast for the Second Amendment as the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-5 to reject House Bill 961 on February 17th. The bill is dead for this legislative session. As the Washington Times noted, it was a huge defeat for Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, famous for going beyond abortion-until-birth by proposing that babies who survive an abortion be made “comfortable” while they are left to die:

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s push to ban the sale of assault weapons has failed after members of his own party balked at the proposal.

Senators voted to shelve the bill for the year and ask the state crime commission to study the issue, an outcome that drew cheers from a committee room packed with gun advocates.

Four moderate Democrats joined Republicans in Monday’s committee vote, rejecting legislation that would have prohibited the sale of certain semiautomatic firearms, including popular AR-15 style rifles, and banned the possession of magazines that hold more than 12 rounds.

Northam had every intention of using this legislation to shred the Second Amendment in Virginia and using the full powers of Virginia state government to coerce law-abiding citizens, particularly those living in the scores of Virginia’s Second Amendment sanctuaries that have popped up to resist gun confiscation. As Cam Edwards writes at BearingArms.com:

What’s happening in Virginia right now — dozens of cities and counties declaring themselves to be Second Amendment sanctuaries while Governor Ralph Northam, Attorney General Mark Herring, and other Democrats vow there will be “consequences” for any defiance of the governor’s proposed gun control laws- has become a national story, and not just among gun owners.

When Virginia Congressman Donald McEachin called for the governor to use the National Guard to enforce the impending restrictions on legal gun owners, interest in the state’s showdown over the new gun laws understandably exploded…

There are 75 Second Amendment Sanctuary counties in Virginia at the moment, and 17 Second Amendment Sanctuary cities or towns.

Virginia Democrats like Northam and allies like Bloomberg hinged their hopes on a similar ban in Maryland and a court ruling falsely claiming it was constitutional, that the Second Amendment, written in the age of muskets, doesn’t protect scary-looking “weapons of war” of the modern era. As BearingArms.Com notes:

“This weapons restriction is clearly constitutional,” claimed (bill sponsor Del. Mark) Levine, noting that in a challenge to a similar ban in Maryland, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that so-called assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. What Levine didn’t say is that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t taken up a case dealing with semi-automatic long guns.

Gov. Northam’s director of public safety, Brian Moran, also claimed the bill would pass constitutional muster by citing the Kolbe case as well, calling the guns that would be banned under HB961 “weapons of war.” According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the guns that would have been banned under the bill are the most commonly manufactured rifles in the United States today, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment.

That is certainly true of the AR-15. As one wag put it, a gun in the hand is betters than a cop on a phone and the response time for a bullet from an AR15 fired in self-defense is a lot quicker than calling 911. Other non-scary weapons are just as lethal and the AR15 has been chosen by popular demanded as the defensive weapon of choice, despite that earlier nonsensical ruling by another federal judge. As Investors Business Daily commented in August 14, 2014 editorial:

As the Ferguson riots raged, U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake, appointed by President Clinton, issued a ruling that upheld the Maryland law, saying, “the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes… and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.”

Now the Second Amendment, written in the era of muskets, does not mention what arms we have the right to keep and bear. But we have an idea, based on how they were used: to protect their owners’ homes, businesses, farms and families, and to fight the tyranny of the British crown. It’s been said that the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to protect the other nine.

Gun control advocates say, with some snarkiness, that the Second Amendment doesn’t allow one to own nuclear weapons or tanks, so it’s merely a question of where we draw the line. They would draw the line at the AR-15 and its counterparts — which, despite the judge’s claim, are commonly used for legal, defensive purposes.

While used in several high-profile mass shootings, the AR-15 is favored among homeowners, hunters and sport shooters. It’s popular for both sport and self-defense among women, who find it easy to carry and handle.

Crime rates and homicides have dropped as concealed-carry laws spread nationwide. As more citizens are armed, predators find it harder to find unarmed victims except in gun-free zones such as the school in Newtown, Conn., or the theater in Aurora, Colo.

Critics of the Second Amendment say that they are not going after guns used for legitimate activities such as hunting. But when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment it was because the British were coming, not because it was the start of deer season. The musket was used in both war and defense of home and family It can be said the musket was the AR-15 of its day. It can be argued George Washington would have owned an AR-15 and armed his army of farmers, carpenters, and merchants with them. It is also a weapon used by private citizen Stephen Willeford to cut short a massacre and a pregnant mom to defend her house, her family, and unborn child

Bloomberg aspires to be President of the United States, the most heavily guarded human being on this planet. Bloomberg won’t give up his armed security, why should I give up mine? Bloomberg should ponder the fact that we owe our freedom to armed citizens who echoed Patrick Henry’s famois cry, “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Via:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Epic Donald

The Epic Donald

By Deana Chadwell
——————————-

We voting Americans need to sort out our thinking and do so before next fall. I am so tired of hearing reasonable, intelligent people express anti-Trump attitudes based on truly flimsy grounds.  A relative said to me that she’d never vote for Trump because “he’s an a**hole.” I have had other people voice similar concerns in more genteel terms -– they don’t like his tweeting, his braggadocio, his unpredictability. Okay, okay. At first, I didn’t either.

Now, it’s true that Trump can be a jerk. But so was Julius Caesar. So was Winston Churchill. So was George Patton. For that matter, so was King David, who was appointed by God to be king of Israel, and who was that country’s best king despite his dalliance with Bathsheba and his setting up her husband for certain death on the battlefield. David’s multiple wives and their offspring caused much upheaval in the country, but David, whom history still regards as a great king, brought peace and prosperity to his country throughout most of his lengthy reign.

Perhaps it would clarify things if we were to define our terms and priorities. Is greatness usually measured by hairstyle? By smooth talk? By delicate sensibilities? What are the attributes of a truly great man? What does tradition tell us?

I’m an English teacher, so I think in literary terms. Let’s look to the “epic hero” to find a standard for the epitome of human greatness. It seems to me that a person who would willingly take on the leadership of the greatest, wealthiest nation on earth would qualify as either a madman or a hero. Agreed? Reach back to your college lit class –- what are the official attributes of an epic hero?

  1. An epic hero has to be involved in a battle of epic proportions and he has to be winning that battle.
  2. An epic hero has to be strong physically and mentally.
  3. He has to be wise, fearless, and tenacious.
  4. He needs to be kind to women, children, and the poor.
  5. He has to be of the aristocracy –- the butler never rises to the rank of epic hero.
  6. He has to be selfless, risking his life for others.
  7. An epic hero is honest, saying directly what is on his mind.

Is that such a different list from what any country would want for a president?

Now, let’s hold the Donald up to that standard.

  • Is he fighting an epic battle? That’s pretty obvious. And he’s fighting it with little support. I think of Beowulf and that nasty fire dragon. Only our hero and his trusty sidekick Wiglaf fought the beast -– everyone else cowered back in the charred village. I think of Beowulf fighting Grendel barehanded, for no weapon could harm him. What about today? The entire western world depends on Trump being successful in cleaning out American government, in draining the fen of nicors. Definitely an epic battle.
  • Is he strong? Not in the bench-pressing-250 sense of the word. But this man works 20 hours a day, subsists on only a few hours of sleep a night, and always appears energetic and cheerful. He’s 73 years old –- about the same age as Beowulf was when he fought that fire dragon –- and while Trump’s not fighting with a sword and buckler, he’s fighting a whole swampful of monsters.
  • Is he strong mentally? This question is almost funny. That his detractors say he’s an intellectual slug while he appears to be effortlessly saving the nation — economically, morally, and diplomatically — makes it a hilarious allegation. Does he sound like he went to Harvard? No. Is he a member of Mensa? Don’t think so, but who cares? He’s running mental rings around his enemies and that’s what counts.
  • Wisdom? Not as the Old-Man-of-the-Mountain; he’s no one’s guru;  he doesn’t sit around with his forehead resting on his fist pondering the meaning of life -– he doesn’t hold still long enough. But he certainly understands people –- ordinary folk. He knows what makes people tick, even Chinese people, North Korean people, Iranian people, so his dealings with other world leaders have been hugely successful. He knows that people want to love their own country; that they’d rather work productively than be handed other people’s money. He knows that a strong relationship with God is what holds this country together. He knows that military readiness is essential and that borders must be maintained; that national sovereignty is important.
  • Is he fearless? Tenacious? He has to be given full marks on these. For over three years he’s been dueling with the left — people who want to impeach him, imprison him, kill him — all while running the country with breathtaking expertise and nonstop success. Some see his tweets as offensive and unnecessary, but I see them as his Excalibur, his sword. He just says what he needs to say and doesn’t fear the repercussions. When there is push back and horror at something he’s said, he just keeps on keeping on. We would expect that he’d be daunted by all the attacks and therefore be unable to function, to get anything done, but on he goes, checking off one accomplishment after another. Tenacious.
  • Kind to women, children, and the elderly? One can go back 20 years and fault him for once using the word “pu**y” and for his divorces. Yes. But right now? His lovely wife seems happy in his presence; he appears to be thrilled with her. His children are all productively helping him with his agenda. Now and then a story leaks out where he –- as a private individual –- provided housing or assistance for just regular folks who were in need –- Saeed Abedini comes to mind. Trump doesn’t treat underlings with disdain –- a pleasant change from our last president.
  • Is The Donald of the aristocracy? Yes and no. He’s fabulously wealthy — though not as much so as he was before he became president. He has a gold-plated penthouse in Manhattan and a palatial estate in Florida. He’s tall and handsome; his wife is a fashion model who speaks five languages; his kids behave with great nobility. However, he didn’t go to Harvard; he wasn’t inducted into Skull and Bones; he actually worked and built things for a living, unlike the elite. For these faux pas, he cannot be forgiven.
  • Is he selfless? Yes. It’s true he’s enjoying the crowds’ adulation at his rallies. He loves, like the typical epic hero, to list his accomplishments; he can do an excellent “boast.” He likes winning. But note that, unlike others who go to Washington, he’s not making money either doing his job, or taking advantage of his position. He donates his salary every quarter, and so far the only people better off because of his presidency are the American people in general.

I know — Trump is odd. I have no idea why his skin is that color. His Elvis hair is a total wonder, though I have to admit I’m growing fond of it. His speech cadences are noticeably non-Ivy-League. He repeats himself. He says, “I can tell you that much,” much too often. He tweets — aggressively. But nowhere in literature is the hero expected to be cocktail-party sophisticated. Nowhere does it say he can’t be eccentric. After all, most truly great people are.

Via:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

What’s Bill Barr Really Doing?

Posted in Politics, Video | Tagged | Leave a comment

How FBI and Media Destroyed an Innocent Man

Explosive Book Shows How FBI and Media Destroyed an Innocent Man

By Elise Cooper
——————————

The Suspect by Kent Alexander and Kevin Salwen is a must-read book.  It details how Richard Jewell was accused of being the bomber at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.  Instead of being a hero for saving many lives, he became the main person of interest by the FBI and the press.  Former U.S. attorney Kent Alexander and former Wall Street Journal reporter Kevin Salwen reconstruct all the events leading up to, during, and after the Olympic bombing, showing how much of the law enforcement evidence was ignored, mainly because of tunnel vision.

Elise Cooper: Why did you write it now?

Kent Alexander: I have wanted to write this book for over two decades, ever since delivering Richard Jewell’s clearance letter.  My coauthor Kevin Salwen and I started reporting and writing The Suspect in earnest five and a half years ago.  This past November, we were finally ready to publish.

EC: Do you think that Jewell is still considered by many a suspect?

KA: Not by many, but a few.  One of our main characters, former FBI Special Agent Don Johnson, went to his grave convinced Richard Jewell was complicit in the Olympic bombing.  He was wrong.

EC: Do you think the press and media made Jewell out to be not the brightest?

KA: Yes.  Richard was no academic or intellectual, but he was a law enforcement professional who took his job quite seriously.  Sometimes overly so.  He prided himself on having a “seventh sense” to detect danger, and thank goodness he did.  He saved countless lives.  Richard Jewell is a bona fide hero.

EC: Kathy Scruggs was no angel in the book or movie — are you surprised by the press’s reaction to the movie?

KA: Yes and no.  I knew Kathy.  She was a great police reporter, and also quite edgy and colorful: smoked a lot, drank a lot, talked smack, dressed provocatively.  Kevin and I absolutely loved writing her as a character.  But we found no evidence that Kathy traded a promise of sex for her Jewell-is-the-suspect scoop, as depicted in the movie.  To me, more surprising than the press’s reaction to the film was the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC)’s pre-emptive strike that triggered it.  The AJC got ahold of an early copy of the script and began criticizing the movie before it even hit the theaters.  The paper defended Kathy’s integrity as a journalist and, at the same time, deflected scrutiny of its own role in outing Richard Jewell as the suspect.  Brilliant, really.

EC: How could the FBI get it so wrong?  Did the Bureau have an agenda?

KA: The FBI’s agenda at the start was singular: to find the bomber before he struck again during the Olympic Games.  But a combination of stranger-than-fiction factors that we weave into The Suspect led to the rush to judgment.  Leading the way was a behavioral science profile, developed by the Quantico unit featured in Silence of the Lambs.  We reveal its contents for the first time.  Many readers find the profile to be one of the most jaw-dropping elements of the true story.

EC: How would you describe Jewell, FBI agent Don Johnson, Kathy Scruggs?

AK: Tough question to answer in short strokes, because our book is character-driven and features all three.  But here goes: Richard is the hapless hero-turned-suspect, who loves law enforcement and is full of surprises.  Who knew he was the lead singer in a rock ‘n’ roll band that played college campuses?  Don is the crusty veteran FBI agent with a dark past who makes the case that wasn’t.  Ultimately, he faces a crisis largely of his own making.  Kathy is the blonde bombshell ace police reporter who broke the Jewell story and spends the rest of her life tracking down the real bomber, Eric Rudolph.  Halfway through The Suspect, we add Rudolph as a character.  He strikes again and again.

EC: Do you think the FBI was malicious?

AK: No, but certainly wrong.  Some in the Bureau fell prey to what many today label “confirmation bias.”  The behavioral science profile all but said Richard was the bomber, and much of the investigation centered on proving that speculation correct.  Quirky comments became evidence.  Coincidence became proof.  And, too quickly, suspicion turned to presumed guilt.

EC: How could BSU get it so wrong and go beyond what they normally do?

AK: That remains a mystery to me. They so often get it right, but certainly not this time.  I vividly remember agents handing me the four-page, single-spaced profile on July 30, 1996, the day the BSU faxed it down to Atlanta.  I stood slack-jawed, reading the analysis.  When I was finished, the agents asked for it back.  I didn’t see the document again for another twenty years, when Kevin and I unearthed a copy during our research.

EC: Why did the FBI have tunnel vision toward Jewell and not investigate anyone else or even the evidence that did not fit the crime?  

AK: They actually did investigate others.  Early on, there was a “Jewell team” and an “Other Suspects Team.”  For a time, though, the task force mostly focused on Richard.  Unfortunately.

EC: The role of then–FBI director Freeh in this incident?

AK: We detail Louis Freeh’s role, especially his controversial and to our knowledge unprecedented step of an FBI director interrupting a field interview (of Jewell) midway with instructions to change course of questioning.  Many agents criticized him — fairly or unfairly — for micromanaging.  As we detail in the book, when headquarters suspended Agent Don Johnson after the interview, his colleagues in Atlanta took their own unprecedented step in response.

EC: The role of the press in this incident — why didn’t they do any investigative work?

AK: Kevin, who oversaw the Wall Street Journal’s Olympics coverage at the time, often laments the paucity of original reporting.  Too often, news outlets simply repeated what others wrote.  Media confirmation bias contributed mightily to Richard’s trial and conviction in the court of public opinion.  That said, there was some good investigative media work.  For instance, we detail Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Bill Rankin’s epiphany that Richard could not have made the 911 call warning of the bomb.  Though the FBI already knew that fact, the AJC story marked a turning point in both the public’s and the media’s perception of the investigation and of Richard Jewell himself.

EC: The FBI was very devious: entrapment with the video, not putting Jewell’s lawyer through to talk with his client, leaking to the press, and the ruse of Miranda rights.

AK: There were plenty of Bureau mistakes, but most glaring may have been the handling of Miranda.  Back in 1996, when I first saw the video of the Richard Jewell interview, I felt sick to my stomach.  As Kevin and I write in The Suspect, I hit the pause button and called my main contact at the Justice Department, Merrick Garland.  (Yes, that Merrick Garland.)  The leak?  No excuse.  The training video, along with several lawyer exchanges, is the stuff of novels.

EC: Anything you want to add, and what do you want Americans to get out of it?  

AK: We hope readers continue to enjoy The Suspect, which we’ve written in narrative nonfiction style of terrific books like Eric Larson’s Devil in the White City and Daniel James Brown’s Boys in the Boat.  Lessons for Americans?  First and foremost, slow down and avoid rushes to judgment, especially in this 24/7 social media news era.  Wait for the facts, and value accuracy over speed.  Who knows?  At the end of the day, a suspect may even turn out to be a hero.  Richard Jewell certainly was.

Via:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Mike Bloomberg belittles farmers

Posted in Politics, Video | Tagged | Leave a comment