Pete Buttigieg, Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, envisions himself a presidential candidate. Whereas I see him as a modern day Joseph Smith, but without the claim of the golden plates, no make that a Fred Phelps for a new mileneum, from TIME
“People talk about things like marriage equality as a moral issue, and it is certainly a moral issue as far as I’m concerned,” Buttigieg said. “It’s a moral issue because being married to Chasten has made me a better human being — because it has made me more compassionate, more understanding, more self-aware and more decent. My marriage to Chasten has made me a better man and yes, Mr. Vice President, it has moved me closer to God.”
Now Mr. Pete Buttigieg is certainly entitled to both hold and preach his particular religious beliefs, whatever they happen to be. However if Mr. Pete Buttigieg chooses to preach in public he should clearly identify his particular religion. Further more, he should absolutely refrain from using his personal religions beliefs as any basis for criticism of public policy.
Maybe Mr. Pete Buttigieg’s personal god has, or has not, made him a better person. It has certain not made him a better politician
John Hinderaker says:
Do you think illegal immigration is a serious problem? If you are like 67 percent of likely voters, you do. If you think illegal immigration is a very serious problem, you have plenty of company–47 percent of voters.
Of course, if you are running for president as a Democrat, you don’t think illegal immigration is a problem at all. Eight percent of likely voters agree with you. Not only do none of the Democratic presidential candidates want to build the wall, some of them want to tear down barriers where they already exist. Open borders! Come one, come all!
How can the Democrats be so out of touch with voters on what most regard as a very important issue? I don’t know.
John, I do understand that your commentary is slightly tongue- in- cheek, but let’s lay it out here
The reason that “you don’t know” John, is this… you’re still operating from the premise that Democrats want to represent the views of the people, when the fact is precisely the opposite is true.
The Democrats think they know better than anybody else what needs doing, and won’t be happy until you adopt their ideas, and their policies in lockstep. There is perhaps no clear example of this than Obamacare. Or before it, Hillarycare.
Freedom, individualism, self-reliance, all the things that this country was founded on, are an anathema do the Democrats and have been since Woodrow Wilson and quite probably before.
Matt Margolis says:
This morning, award-winning investigative journalist John Solomon reported at The Hill what could be an explosive story about potential collusion between American Democrats and Ukrainian nationals, including interference with the 2016 election and the obstruction of criminal investigations.
Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Department, told me he and other senior law enforcement officials tried unsuccessfully since last year to get visas from the U.S. embassy in Kiev to deliver their evidence to Washington.
“We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States,” Kulyk told me in a wide-ranging interview. “However, the (U.S.) ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.”
One focus of Ukrainian investigators, Kulyk said, has been money spirited unlawfully out of Ukraine and moved to the United States by businessmen friendly to the prior, pro-Russia regime of Viktor Yanukovych.
Ukrainian businessmen “authorized payments for lobbying efforts directed at the U.S. government,” he told me. “In addition, these payments were made from funds that were acquired during the money-laundering operation. We have information that a U.S. company was involved in these payments.” That company is tied to one or more prominent Democrats, Ukrainian officials insist.
In another instance, he said, Ukrainian authorities gathered evidence that money paid to an American Democrat allegedly was hidden by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) during the 2016 election under pressure from U.S. officials. “In the course of this investigation, we found that there was a situation during which influence was exerted on the NABU, so that the name of (the American) would not be mentioned,” he said.
While this sounds like a potentially explosive story, according to Solomon, “Ukraine is infamous for corruption and disinformation operations,” and so “allegations emanating from Kiev usually are taken with a grain a salt.” However, this story may be different, Solomon says, because the allegations shared with him “by more than a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials are supported by evidence that emerged in recent U.S. court filings and intelligence reports.” Evidence includes sworn statements from two Ukranian officials “admitting that their agency tried to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton,” and contacts between “Democratic figures in Washington and Ukrainian officials that involved passing along dirt on Donald Trump.”
The thing is, weve known about this for a long time. As Matt points out in his piece:
Politico reported back in 2017 on evidence of Ukraine government officials working to undermine Trump and boost Clinton. The evidence Solomon claims to have is more than the evidence alleged to prove that Trump colluded with Russia, and yet we had a 22-month-long special counsel investigation on the Russian collusion nonsense, not the Ukrainian/Democrat collusion.
The Lid has more:
Kostiantyn Kulyk told John Solomon their evidence includes:
- Sworn statements from two Ukrainian officials admitting that their agency tried to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton.
- The effort included leaking an alleged ledger showing payments to then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort;
- Contacts between Democratic figures in Washington and Ukrainian officials that involved passing along dirt on Donald Trump;
- Financial records showing a Ukrainian natural gas company routed more than $3 million to American accounts tied to Hunter Biden, younger son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, who managed U.S.-Ukrainian relations for the Obama administration. Biden’s son served on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings;
- Records that Vice President Biden pressured Ukrainian officials in March 2016 to fire the prosecutor who oversaw an investigation of Burisma Holdings and who planned to interview Hunter Biden about the financial transfers;
- Correspondence showing members of the State Department and U.S. embassy in Kiev interfered or applied pressure in criminal cases on Ukrainian soil;
- Disbursements of as much as $7 billion in Ukrainian funds that prosecutors believe may have been misappropriated or taken out of the country, including to the United States.
And there’s more because “Kulyk’s boss, Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, told me he has enough evidence — particularly involving Biden’ to warrant a personal meeting with AG Barr.
So what we have here is solid evidence that the only collusion that was really going on was between the Democrats and the Ukrainians, as well as evidence that this effort was aided and abetted by Democrat Party operatives within the State Department and the FBI.
No wonder the Democrats are panicking so.
Special counsel, anyone?
Over at The Spectator, Roger Kimball:
Third, this monologue, like many other statements from Tucker Carlson, illustrates something about him that his enemies, as well as many of his friends, are loathe to acknowledge. It is this: though he is conservative, and though he is a sharp and effective critic of many of Trump’s enemies, he is by no means an unreflective supporter of the president. On the contrary, he dissents from Trump on many issues — from his policy in Syria to the slate of possible domestic initiatives he mentioned in his recent monologue.
This is the hardest thing for the Left (and, again, some ditto-head elements on the Right) to swallow: there are some independent commentators out there who call the shots as they see them and offer commendation or criticism on the basis of their own principles, not on the basis of parti pris. When it comes to the virtue of independence, Tucker Carlson leads the pack.
The reason that I post this, is because I’ve run into this myself, and from people who in the past I have had respect for, and I know very well of what Roger speaks. This seems to me an opportunity to explain long-held positions, and to answer the basic philosophy of my writings here.
Understand, that prior to the election I consider that I was one of the strongest anti Trump people out there. (Example)
Not because I thought the Democrat nominee was worth a damn, but because the Republicans could do better. To this day, I strongly believe that we would have been better off dealing with Ted Cruz as president. Not, mind you, because it would have mollified the Democrats. (I am firmly convinced that nothing would, then, or now.)
Rather, because Cruz has always been a reliable conservative, operating from conservative values. Not so much with Trump.
Frankly however, the Democrats are only half the problem.
The remainder of it is the establishment GOP, who has almost invariably dumped on anyone who dares to come out as operating from those conservative principles, (which would include both Trump and Cruz) as I explained here a couple years ago. Every blessed one of them is a lock- stepper, and I’m having none of it.
All that explained, however, we ended up with Trump as President… At which point I was forced into the pragmatic stance of supporting him when he’s right, and ripping him a new one when he’s wrong. Fortunately for myself, and for the country the latter of those two situations is by far the fewer. I have to tell you, from long, often bitter experience, that is a source of confusion like few others.
The fact is, I have not been in lockstep with either side through any of this. I do completely reject the Democrat Party it’s socialism its candidates and its partisan nonsense. I also reject a goodly portion of what I see in the GOP establishment which seems bent toward being Democrat lite, and not being actual conservatives.
That’s a position that I have held for the last two decades of writing in this website, and elsewhere. In that process, it’s fair to say that I’ve been chastised, banned, mocked, unfriended, and more, for the stands I’ve taken, over time.
To say the least it’s a position that angers and confuses both sides.
You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.
— Winston Churchill
Ironic, that more than once I’ve been accused of having insufficient subtlety in my arguments, by people who have exposed themselves over time as being either hard left, or GOP establishment. In my view, the subtlety of those positions are directly comparable to that of your average train wreck.
Those who sharpen their wits too much, lose them. To be over-subtle is to be stupid, my dear sir. The world at large will never be the fenced precinct or the desert island of the professors of economics.
— H. E. Jacob
For me, it all comes down to this… Over time, my positions have been proven correct far more than they have been proven incorrect, and almost invariably when they have been proven correct, it was after an extended period of criticism from the above-named people.
So, I will continue to speak my mind on any subject, how others react to that, notwithstanding.
And the fact is, I would expect, and demand, nothing less from any of you.
Over at Red State:
Big League Politics reports eyewitness John Tighe’s account of how the New York senator sat at the NXIM table for a Hillary fundraiser:
“The very first time I ever met Gillibrand she was at an event for Hillary Clinton in the Hall of Springs in the State Park. This was in 2006. … I was on the Democratic committee at the time and was given two comp tickets. Gillibrand came up to me introduced herself and said she was running against John Sweeney. … I then commented to Mike that with her baby voice and demeanor that she was a lightweight. Boy was I wrong. But the kicker was when the mixing was over and Clinton went to speak. Gillibrand sat with one of the front tables. Yeah the three front VIP tables were all brought by NXIVM and she was sitting with (group co-founder) Nancy Salzman. You can quote me on that.”
Ok, I will.
But what in blazes is NXIVM?
NXIVM has been labeled by several journalists as a pyramid scheme, a sex-trafficking operation, and a sex cult. NXIVM has also been accused by former members of the organization of being a recruiting platform for a cult operating within it (variously called “DOS” or “The Vow”) in which women were branded and forced into sexual slavery.
It gets better, but I won’t bother quoting much more of this… I think you get the idea. I would urge you to dive into it because the mainstream media is never going to report this.
And yes, all of this has been verified. But not by the mainstream media…not that they haven’t had ample opportunity to do this. This stuff has been bubbling under the surface for years now, and memberships in the organization of included Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.
if these were Republicans we were talking about, the news would be all over the place and it would be 24/7 until those numbers saw some serious jail time, or at least saw their political ambitions tossed into the gutter where they belong. But since these are all uniformly Democrat Party members we’re talkin about, these stories remain under a shroud.
As somebody else once put it… “When you consider the mainstream media to be the voice of the socialist Democrats, it all starts making sense.”
At what point does this charade end?
The cannibal pot continues to simmer, as we see at The Federalist:
“You look great,” said Don Marsh, the 80-year-old host of the radio show “St. Louis On the Air,” to recently retired St. Louis news anchor Karen Foss (75 years young) when she entered the studio for an interview. The two veteran journalists then went on to have this pleasant and collegial conversation aired by KWMU, National Public Radio’s St. Louis affiliate.
The next morning, Foss learned that Marsh, a St. Louis institution, was leaving St. Louis Pubic Radio. Why? Someone at the KWMU studio had overheard Marsh’s complimentary greeting to Foss, perceived it to be inappropriate, and tattled to the bosses. That’s right, a man telling a longtime friend whom he hadn’t seen in a while that she looked great was Not Okay.
Foss posted a response on Facebook:
Reportedly Marsh was reprimanded for greeting me with a ‘you look good’. The assertion being that Don was making a sexist comment.
I am appalled.
As a woman who has long argued for the equitable treatment of women, I am highly alert to sexism and discrimination and I sensed absolutely none of that in his greeting. In fact I strongly suspect I responded by saying ‘so do you’. It is a common way for those of us who are aged to greet each other – meaning we share our pleasure at being vital and healthy. It is in no way leering or meant to diminish anyone’s intellectual or professional contributions.
If indeed this simple exchange between professionals who have been friendly competitors for nearly 40 years was considered evidence of sexism, I must protest vehemently. After sixty years in the workplace, I know very well what sexual harassment and innuendo look like and this was most assuredly nothing of the kind
Apparently, despite all efforts to the contrary, John Marsh was coming off as being “insufficiently woke” to his superiors.
Several comments spring from this, the first one being why anyone still questions removing taxpayer money from such radio stations.
It strikes me as interesting that’s Joe Budden is suffering from the same fate.
And finally, it strikes me as amusing that all of this is coming from the party of Bill Clinton.
Never doubt that the American people know when they’re being lied to… As Breitbart explains
Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show earned more viewers last week than all of CNN’s primetime line up combined, reports the Daily Wire’s Ryan Saavedra.
This has to be a bitter pill for CNN. For years now the far-left network has done everything in its power to bring Carlson down.
By any measure, CNN has conducted what can only be described as a straight up, deliberate demonization campaign.
CNN has also participated in the effort to have Carlson blacklisted by advertisers due to his right-of-center political beliefs. Since the fake news outlet cannot beat Carlson in the ratings, it is hoping to drive him off the air through McCarthyism.
And here’s the point;
For two years, CNN flooded its network with one fake news bombshell after another and a narrative that assured viewers the Mueller Report would be the end of Trump — that impeachment was right around the corner.
CNN was certain Mueller would come through with some ginned-up allegation against the president. And so, for two whole years, CNN baited its viewers with this nonsense, and when Mueller failed to come up with the goods, those viewers fled in droves.
If the reaction to CNN is like that, can you imagine what the reaction is going to be at the voting booth, at the first opportunity, for the American voter?
It’s as I said yesterday:.
So, if we take my friends advice, what we’re seeing out of the Democrats now, is all for show, so as to keep their own necks out of the guillotine. It’s a thought that frankly hadn’t fully occurred to me before.
But you know I can’t look at that situation and not Wonder when the Democrats will be paying the price for years of lies and misdirections… and who will be pulling that rope.
While shooting the bull over some coffee this morning with a friend of mine down in New Jersey, the subject fell to the Mueller report and the Democrats rejecting it. The subject of the conversation was what Nadler would do, and why he’s calling for the complete release of the Mueller report including all the background information, Etc.
anybody who’s been reading here lately knows full well that I’ve been calling for a full release of the report anyway because as I’ve been saying, the worst thing you can do to a Democrat is give them exactly what they ask for.
My friend, though, suggests that the reason that Nadler is calling for all of that is because he’s trying to satisfy the Democrat base who has spent the last two years screaming bloody murder that “there has to be something that Trump has done wrong so we can get rid of him. ”
He went on to suggest that if the leading Democrats even thought about accepting the idea that Donald Trump was on the up-and-up, they’d have a complete revolt on their hands.
My friend went on to say, “It’s like Mark Twain told us years ago… It’s a lot easier to fool somebody than it is to convince them that they’ve been fooled.”
Funny how he should use that quote given that I had used it here just a few short weeks ago. But he’s got a point, and I think it’s one that deserves serious consideration.
The one thing that bothers me about it all is the fact that eventually they’re going to figure out that what Meuller found and what is in the report including all the background material, is going to exonerate Trump as well. The political cost of the Democrats on that score is going to be nothing short of earth-shaking.
To which, he responded, “They’re never going to get what they’re asking for. And they know they’re not going to get what they’re asking for.” For proof, he pointed at the demands for the last 6 years of tax returns that came from house Democrats just this morning, which he suggested the Democrats aren’t going to get, either.
For the Democrats their current stance is a win-win situation. If they do manage to get something, anyting, that even slightly matches their Trump hatred, they can consider it a victory. If they don’t get anything that feels that particular bill, they can go on claiming that they’re being stonewalled. Either way, the base is satisfied. At least for now.
So, if we take my friends advice, what we’re seeing out of the Democrats now, is all for show, so as to keep their own necks out of the guillotine. It’s a thought that frankly hadn’t fully occurred to me before.
But you know I can’t look at that situation and not Wonder when the Democrats will be paying the price for years of lies and misdirections… and who will be pulling that rope.
Addendum, Eric
Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler is huffing and puffing away about his committee’s subpoena-in-waiting lest Attorney General William Barr not be sufficiently forthcoming about the details of the Mueller Report.
“But if we cannot reach an accommodation, then we will have no choice but to issue subpoenas for these materials,” Nadler warned. “And if the department still refuses, then it should be up to a judge — not the president or his political appointee — to decide whether or not it is appropriate for the committee to review the complete record.”
Methinks the chairman doth protest too much. In other words, it’s all a charade for the faithful. He doesn’t really want to do anything. Likely Nadler is secretly praying Barr redacts the whole damn thing or ties things up in the courts for long enough for the investigation to disappear at least somewhat down the memory hole.
If you’ve been reading here the last two days you know Roger and I are on the same page with this thing.
The natural question will then be — what was all this for? Cui bono? A full airing of the report, what Nadler claims he wants, will instead “open the door,” as they say in court, more than ever for an investigation of why this probe was launched in the first place, by whom and for what reason. The results of that investigation will be quite scary, if not humiliating, for Democrats because they will lead close to, if not over, their highest doorstep — the portals of the Oval Office during the previous administration.
Over the next few months we will be seeing the fight of our political lives to keep that threshold from being crossed. The skirmish over the report is but a relatively tame preamble. Nadler has to be very careful not to anger Barr too much because the attorney general has within his control the ability to appoint a special counsel and make life miserable for the Democratic Party straight to the election of 2020 and beyond.
Personally, I’m hoping that he will. because when that happens, the justice department will actually live up to its name for the first time in over a decade.
Son of a dendum: Eric
Now, Mueller has gone, his report having found no evidence of an election conspiracy. There is no longer a rallying cry of Trump-Russia collusion.
In other words, an investigation that for two years had reconciled the irreconcilable no longer serves as a source of Democratic unity.
And so….
To escape punishment, all of these players in the Russian collusion delusion may now begin to turn on one another after being so united in going after Donald Trump.
…and I think we’ve already seen that happening, in other areas of progressivism as I noted here earlier today.
It’s time to get tough with China, says the South China Morning Post.
Deal or no deal, the ongoing US-China trade war has already taken its toll on the Chinese economy. The latest evidence is the decline in profits in China’s export-oriented manufacturing industry. In the first two months of the year, Chinese industrial firms’ profits fell 14 per cent year on year, to 708 billion yuan (US$105 billion), according to the latest data from the National Bureau of Statistics. It is the sharpest contraction since 2009.
Obviously, the trade war with the United States has dealt a severe blow to China, the world’s second-largest economy, and weighed on Chinese factory activity, corporate earnings, business and consumption.
The trade row halved China’s industrial profit growth, from 21 per cent in 2017 to 10.3 per cent in 2018. Some sectors were hit harder than others. Automobile industry profit fell 42 per cent in the first two months of the year, as vehicle sales dropped for eight straight months up to February.
I know it was interested this is exactly what Gordon Chang over at The Daily Beast has been saying for some time now.
(And by the way, Gordon Chang is the only reason to bother with The Daily Beast.)
China is going to be desperate for a deal assuming that we’re willing to play hardball with them.
Of course this is something you’ll never hear the Democrats talking about. They might have to admit Trumps got this one right.
Well now… this is an interesting turn;
BREAKING: Judicial Watch announced today it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) seeking records of communications between former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan and CNN around the time the Clinton-Democrat National Committee Trump dossier was being pitched to key media outlets.
A House report detailed that Clapper leaked information regarding the dossier to CNN in January 2017. The former ODNI chief signed on as an analyst for CNN in August 2017.
Judicial Watch is also seeking records of communications between Clapper and Obama CIA Director John Brennan regarding the dossier , which was authored by former British spy and FBI payee Christopher Steele.
“Judicial Watch is again in court trying to get the truth about the Obama gang illegal leaks and conspiracy targeting President Trump,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Clapper and Brennan were key proponents of the big lie, exposed by the Mueller report, that President Trump colluded with the Russians. Judicial Watch FOIA litigation is the best hope for getting full accountability on this attack on our constitutional republic.”
http://jwatch.us/sfMnJL
It’s it’s about time.
Uh huh.
In the space of a week in early February, the public was stunned by revelations about each of the three highest statewide elected officials, all Democrats: the racist photo in the governor’s yearbook; accusations of sexual assault against the lieutenant governor; and the attorney general’s appearance in blackface at a party in college. Protesters and news crews swarmed the Statehouse. Calls for resignations came from fellow Virginia Democrats, Republicans and even 2020 presidential candidates.
And then? “It just went poof,” said Natalie Draper, a librarian sitting in the back of a coffeehouse last week in Richmond. “It’s like it never happened.”
Mark Herring, the attorney general, has taken questions from the public on a few occasions since his own blackface scandal broke. But The New York Times stopped reporting on it.when he talked recently with reporters in Washington, after a Supreme Court hearing on gerrymandering, no one asked him about the episode.
…
Democrats fully acknowledge that there is unfinished business in all this. But they cite the lack of resolution as a reason to slow down on those immediate calls for resignations.
The New York Times will claim that they don’t understand why the whole thing went poof… and why so many Democrats in Virginia want to slow down and not be pointing the finger at the guilty… Stencil that matter, the reason why The New York Times stopped reporting on it.
Why?
Because it was only hurting Democrats. Particularly, Democrats they couldn’t afford to lose.
Which makes a strange juxtaposition with the recent attacks on Joe Biden that I spoke of this morning, doesn’t it ?
Well, maybe not. As much as I’d like to suggest that these attacks on Biden are simply more of the same circular firing squad antics that we’ve come to expect from Democrats forced to live up to their own ever-changing rules, it’s more complex than that.
As I suggested this morning, the feeling amongst most watchers (even many Democrats) seems to be the Joe Biden returning to the White House would be a return to the Obama years, which given the success of Trump in terms of policy are being increasingly viewed as an abject failure, comparatively speaking.
And keep in mind, it all together depends on whether or not the subject at hand is going to cause the Democrats any problems with maintaining power.
For example, CNN called JFK’s sex life “legendary.”
These are the same people who gave full credit to Stormy Daniels, and the accusers of Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Bill O’Reilly, and Roger Ailes, to name but a few.
And how did Creepy Joe Biden, end up on that list? By way of the recognition that there was no way on God’s green earth he was going to win a general election even if he managed to win the primary. Certainly, Democrats can afford to lose Joe Biden, in the context of maintaining power… So my meaning is clear, I say again, it all together depends on whether or not the subject at hand is going to cause the Democrats any problems with maintaining power.
And how did the top Democrats in Virginia end up off that list? Because the Democrats couldn’t afford to lose them, because they would also lose their positions and therefore their power.
I’ll close on two interesting and seemingly contradictory notes. First, Joe Biden is still the leading candidates in terms of polling data. Secondly, he’s not declared for the office yet.
I’m not going to try to steal David’s thunder on this one… But let’s face it… the evidence against Joe Biden and his touchy-feely fingers has been out there for a long time. And yet, the Democrats put up with it when he was Obama’s vice president.
To explain this, maybe we should consider the role of the vice president, which is in essence to make the president look good.
In this, having the brainpower of the average earthworm, Mr. Biden was uniquely qualified to that task. Therefore it was in Obama’s interest to keep complaints about Creepy Joe from making it to the all too compliant press.
Now, however, the situation has changed rather dramatically with Obama not being in the White House any longer.
The Democrats found out a long time ago that a good sexual scandal was a very usable tool for removing somebody from political contention for a given office. Clarence Thomas, and more recently Brett Kavanaugh seem good examples.
Well, if it works for members ostensibly of the opposite party, such things can also be used against your political enemies in your own party. So now, with supporting Obama no longer being a requirement, it’s almost as if Donald Trump nominated Joe Biden for the US supreme Court given the number of charges that are coming out of the woodwork now.
There is no way that this sudden onrush of accusers is organic in nature.
It’s almost impossible not to conclude that there are Democrats who recognize that Joe Biden would be a complete electorial disaster and are manipulating the situation to prevent him from running at all.
Is Joe Biden, former Vice President, a pedophile, or does he just play one on television? video:
Would you trust you daughter with Creepy Uncle Joe?
Ladies and gentlemen here is yet another example of how anti-discrimination policy ends up being discrimination policy.
Yale based its decision on a unanimous recommendation from the school’s Public Interest Committee. The committee explained: “The logic of our broader recommendation is that Yale Law School does not and should not support discrimination against its own students, financially or otherwise. Obviously, the Law School cannot prohibit a student from working for an employer who discriminates, but that is not a reason why Yale Law School should bear any obligation to fund that work, particularly if that organization does not give equal employment opportunity to all of our students.”
The law school also thanked Outlaws for raising this issue.
We have now reached past the point where discrimination against Christians is totally acceptable…at least, in the mindsets of the leftists running Yale and other such institutions.
Personally, I believe this all federal and state funding should be pulled from places who act in this manner, on First Amendment grounds.
Over the last couple of years I have begun to understand that Matt Taibbi is a very …. Ummmm confused individual. but even in his confused mind he’s starting to get some things very close to correct.
The 2016 campaign season brought to the surface awesome levels of political discontent. After the election, instead of wondering where that anger came from, most of the press quickly pivoted to a new tale about a Russian plot to attack our Democracy. This conveyed the impression that the election season we’d just lived through had been an aberration, thrown off the rails by an extraordinary espionage conspiracy between Trump and a cabal of evil foreigners.
This narrative contradicted everything I’d seen traveling across America in my two years of covering the campaign. The overwhelming theme of that race, long before anyone even thought about Russia, was voter rage at the entire political system.
The anger wasn’t just on the Republican side, where Trump humiliated the Republicans’ chosen $150 million contender, Jeb Bush (who got three delegates, or $50 million per delegate).
It was also evident on the Democratic side, where a self-proclaimed “Democratic Socialist” with little money and close to no institutional support became a surprise contender.
Because of a series of press misdiagnoses before the Russiagate stories even began, much of the American public was unprepared for news of a Trump win. A cloak-and-dagger election-fixing conspiracy therefore seemed more likely than it might have otherwise to large parts of the domestic news audience, because they hadn’t been prepared for anything else that would make sense.
Well, yes, and it had the added attraction of not exposing the complicity of the press in all that… A point which Taibbi is not willing to admit just yet, apparently keeping the Rolling Stone audience in mind.
Taibbi apparently he understands that Trump is the result of a great deal of anger in both parties, but I will warn you up front that he comes up with precisely the wrong answer to the problem. Personally I can’t wait to see what he comes up with in terms of analysis, of Trump’s runaway victory in 2020. The outstanding question seems to me to be, if he will at that point, admit that it comes down to the success of Trump’s policies…. policies that the vast majority of Americans have been clamoring for since Reagan left office?
I’m taking bets right now that he will not. There’s only so much truth that he can absorb at one time, I suspect.
People like Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald, who have long been leftist heroes, have of late become the pariahs of the left, simply for speaking the truth…. Albeit, in dribs and drabs. So much for the tolerance of the left. Anything outside complete lockstep must be immediately excised some the body politic in general and of course from the extensive news media in particular. My expectation is that the discovery of truth among these people will be thereby somewhat limited so as not to lose their positions.
By the way, does anyone remember when Rolling Stone (as well as MTV) used to be about music?
