Ponder the idea that had Obama’s actions as regards to Assad and his chemical weapons program had actually worked as he claimed, there wouldn’t have been a chemical weapons facility for France and the US to bomb. Funny how nobody in the Press has mentioned this.
Now, consider that the people who told us that Assad didn’t have chemical weapons are the same ones who told us alternately that Saddam Hussein had or did not have WMD. Funny how nobody in the Press hasn’t mentioned this, either.
When even Lanny Davis has it nailed, you’re done.
David Hogg[wash]’s fifteen minutes of fame have expired, from Biz Pac Review:
Money talks and BS walks. Just ask Ace Hardware, which resumed advertising on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show after it dominated the ratings despite rabid calls for boycotts by anti-Second Amendment activist David Hogg.
“The Ingraham Angle” was No. 1 for its timeslot this week — the first week since Ingraham returned from a one-week hiatus at the height of the advertiser boycott. Here are the average ratings for the week of April 9-14, 2018:
Maybe Hogg[wash] can call Cindy Shehan or Sandra Fluke for some sympathay?
The difference between automobiles, tobacco and firearms is simple. The former two are dangerous even when used legally, and the case of automobile even when used safely. Whereas, with firearms there is virtually no danger, to either the user or innocent parties, when a firearm is used legally and safely.
The problems with firearms are almost entirely the result of illegal or unsafe use. So quit trying to further restrict the rights of law abiding and safety conscious citizens to curtail the crimes of those not inclined to obey laws in the first place.
Hat tip and background: Cincinnati.com
Yesterday I quoted Reynolds, thus;
The problem is, many, many people won’t believe claims that nonpartisan officials using meticulous procedures are acting fairly. There’s been too much egg on too many faces already. But the potential consequences here go beyond embarrassment. There can’t even be a shadow of a possibility that someone is overturning an election via bureaucratic war, or there will be hell to pay, and I don’t just mean embarrassment for a few top bureaucrats.
So today, along comes Daniel John Sobieski, at The American Thinker:
If there was any doubt that Robert Mueller’s Ahab-like goal is the unseating of President Trump at all costs and by any means, it was erased by the thuggish FBI raid he orchestrated on the home and office of Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen.
Can’t find any collusion between Trump and Russia? Hey, why not look for collusion between Cohen and professional whore and porn star Stormy Daniels? Was she paid to go away with campaign funds? Even so, that’s an FEC violation punishable by a fine and something that does not require a SWAT team.
It certainly does not compare with money funneled by Team Hillary and the DNC though a law firm to Fusion GPS and British foreign agent Christopher Steele to put together a fake dossier on Trump using Russian sources. But where were the raids on the offices of the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and Fusion GPS?
What Mueller and his team are engaged in right now strikes me as nothing so much as a Beria operation in Stalin’s time.
However that may be, the standard of “a shadow of a doubt” that Glenn sets in his comments, most certainly cannot be achieved so long as these other cases are outstanding.
Now remember, Donald Trump was never my guy, (Example) but the day-glow orange painted neon-lit double- standard being played here is going to draw a reaction from John and Jane Public and it will not be pretty I promise you.
I’m going to say this plainly. The only reason that Muller went to the extent of raiding the office of President Trump’s lawyer, is to provoke Trump into firing him. That way, he can play the Martyr and the Democrats, (in which I include idiots like Bill Kristol) can point the finger and say “see there was something”.
Because otherwise, they’ve got nothing. Absolutely zero… And certainly nothing that would indicate anything along the lines of Russian collusion. Remember that’s what this was supposed to be about?
Again, Without Trump taking the step of firing him, Mueller has nothing.
And that’s going to be a problem for him and his team in the near future. As Jonah Goldberg points out:
. “I’ve talked to several lawyers with DOJ experience. There are serious and strict guidelines against doing anything like this at the DOJ and FBI, particularly when the subject/target has been cooperating. They — and a judge — must have seen something significant to go ahead with this. Back on the first hand, I think Hugh Hewitt is right that this is a politically unprecedented move to go after the president’s lawyer and, by extension, the president’s private papers. Which means that whatever warranted this had better be big enough and clear enough to the public to justify such a move, or a lot of people are going to have egg on their faces.”
Thing is, at this point Muller doesn’t have anything to lose because he doesn’t have anything in hand. Nothing.
Glen Reynolds notes the same article and adds:
.The problem is, many, many people won’t believe claims that nonpartisan officials using meticulous procedures are acting fairly. There’s been too much egg on too many faces already. But the potential consequences here go beyond embarrassment. There can’t even be a shadow of a possibility that someone is overturning an election via bureaucratic war, or there will be hell to pay, and I don’t just mean embarrassment for a few top bureaucrats.
The emphasis is mine, and it’s a key point that a lot of people are missing.
The only people that are going to buy the notion that Mueller is acting in a “meticulously nonpartisan” fashion, are Democrats. Like for example, those who make up all of his legal team.
Everybody else on the planet recognizes that there is nothing non-partisan about this entire charade.
Imagine with me if you will, an entire team of Republican donors investigating Hillary Clinton. Do you think for a moment that the Democrats would believe that they’re acting in a non-partisan fashion? Even if they did believe it would they say it in public? You know as well as I do that would never happen.
The consequences on this, when Mueller comes up empty, as he will, are going to be severe. I promise you this is not going to end well.
So China caved in on the trade War.
BEIJING — President Xi Jinping promised Tuesday to cut China’s auto tariffs and improve intellectual property protection in possible concessions aimed at defusing a worsening dispute with Washington over trade and technology that investors worry could set back the global economic recovery..
Look, the only reason that China was rattling its swords in this affair was because they had hoped that the GOP Congress Critters would override Trump.
Somehow, however they caved before that could happen.
Of course the problem now is that the GOP establishment still hasn’t learned their lesson I will bet.
As for what CBS calls investor worries, at some point the Press is going to have to assume going into a situation that Trump will win.
For eight years, the downturns in our economy and the failures in our foreign policy were labeled by our leftist friends in the Press as “unexpected”.
These days, they’re treating Trump and his winning as unexpected… As you see in the CBS article.
What do you suppose that Trend means?
So says Reynolds. He’s right of course, so far as he goes.
Over it instapundit, Charles Glasser points out:
.Much has been written about the MSM freakout regarding Sinclair here, and here. What’s happening is this is nothing more than a campaign from the left to demonize Sinclair so that readers avoid it, and more importantly, relegate it to their list of “must ignore” platforms, like InfoWars or GatewayPundit. It’s a pre-emptive move to further control the narrative and censor by repudiation what you see and hear.
Exactly so.
As Bill Buckley once suggested, the left claims to be all for opposing views being expressed and then expresses shock and outrage that people actually have opposing views.
Thing is I doubt Bill Buckley could have foreseen just how blatant the left would get on these points.
Not news, Jeffery Goldberg of the Atlantic magazine has hired and fired one Kevin Williamson. The offense, Williamson believes human life begins at conception, and openly stated his opinion of the consequences. To wit, Williamson held that one the killing of a human being, to wit a fetus, by another human is a homicide. Two, that homicide of killing of human being by another human, should treated like an other homicide. Three that mothers should be held legally responsible for their actions with respect to their abortions.
So two questions. One, what assumption of Williamson do you find wrong, and two, which belief does not logically follow from the preceding?
Background: Scott Johnson, Power Line.
Bruce nails it here, when He suggests unplugging the internet.
.That’ll fix it, won’t it? I mean if removing an instrument used in mass violations of the rights of others under the 2nd Amendment (namely guns) will stop these violations and make everyone safer, doesn’t the same logic dictate the removal of the instrument of mass violations of the rights of others under the 1st Amendment?
According to the “repeal the 2nd Amendment” crew’s logic, those sorts of bans will end all these mass violations of rights, won’t they? We can be assured that by taking things away from everyone, no one will use them improperly.
Of course as Bruce suggests in his piece, the majority of Americans understand quite well and that this has nothing to do with safety or rights for that matter and everything to do with control.
Go and read the whole thing.
It strikes me as both amazing and instructive that while YouTube has been clamping down and attempting to silence conservative voices for years, it was a progressive that ended up shooting up the place.
It should also be a lesson to anyone watching closely that a woman managed to get her hands on a gun in an area of the country that has some of the strongest anti-gun laws in the country and indeed in the world. So much for the value of anti gun laws.
And, isn’t it amazing how quiet the internet has gotten, particularly from Progressives, who were quite quick to authoritatively suggest, even before the bodies were cold, that the shooter was a conservative white male Christian, when they found out that the shooter was in fact female, and Iranian immigrant, a vegan, and a strong supporter of the Democrat Party?
Has YouTube given us the most recent Vivid example of the value of gun-free zones? Did the employees at YouTube discover the value of the anti-gun rhetoric that the company has been spewing?
It’s also interesting that while the anti-gun Lobby has been screaming about these types of shootings being the fault of the NRA, none of whose members were involved, there has been a reluctance from the gun lobby to blame PETA, for one of its members shooting up YouTube.
Here it is folks. If we could just get Democrats to stop shooting each other, the majority of gun violence would simply disappear.
This is what the military calls a target rich environment:
Shooter at YouTube Campus Identified as Iranian, Vegan, PETA Activist, Angry Over YouTube Policies…
Police have identified the shooter who attacked a San Bruno YouTube campus wounding three employees and killing herself as Nasim Aghdam. Apparently Ms. Aghdam was a user of the platform and was considerably upset about YouTube ad revenue policies.
Hat tip: Sundance, Last Refuge.
Quips:
- No Christians, males, or Europeans involves. What is the WaPo or Brian Ross going to use for the lede?
- Apparently Aghdam disapproves of killing pigs. Her fellow humans not so much.
Diversity is our strength.
Addendum I: Mary Chastain, Legal Insurrection, identifies a few:
Information came out about the YouTube shooter overnight that will surely make the story disappear. The shooter was an Iranian born female who held anti-capitalist, animal rights views. She used a pistol, not an AR-15. It also looks like the police could have prevented this.
Anti-capitalist, capitalist, think of all the Micheal Moore jokes here. No evil pseudo assault weapon. About what will David Hogg[wash] rant?
Addendum II: (Eric)
Saw a lot of these…
So, what are they going to do now?
You can almost feel the confusion setting in.
From Fox News:
The organization behind the 1,000-person strong caravan of Central Americans surging toward the United States’ southern border accused President Trump on Monday of “bullying” immigrants and threatening “mass violence” — while Trump again warned the advancing procession “had better be stopped.”
There are reports of over twelve hundred wetbacks from Honduras and Central America traveling through Mexico intent on breaching our border by any means necessary. The President of the United States speaks in defense of our sovereign border and some alien gets offended. Cry me a river.
Meet force with force. Call out the Screaming Eagles, the 101st Airborne.
President Hits 50% Approval, Despite 100% Negative Media Coverage
RUSH: A shocking news item from Rasmussen Reports today. Donald Trump’s personal approval and presidential approval number has reached 50%! Fifty percent approve, 49% disapprove.
Call it a quibble, but is President Donald Trump’s approval rating, despite or because of the lame stream’s constant negative coverage? I say the latter. What say you?
