Saturday, January 12, 2019

Phony Unity


PHONY UNITY

Antipods
A guest column by Tom McCaffrey on Mitt Romney and his  Phony Unity.”
 .

Mitt Romney renewed the familiar charge last week that President Trump has been dividing Americans rather than uniting them. But it is not Mr. Trump who is dividing America.

When Barack Obama commandeered one seventh of the U.S. economy in the name of making health insurance available to a small minority of Americans who did not have it, and he did so through political chicanery, with no support from the Republicans, and against the wishes of the majority of Americans, that was divisive.
.

When Colin Kaepernick intrudes on our Sunday recreations to let us know that, in his estimation, the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world does not merit his respect, that’s divisive.

Unity is possible in America only when there is fundamental agreement as to what this country is and ought to be. But such agreement no longer exists, and this is the fault not of those who would preserve our commitment to individual rights, limited government, and private property, but of those who since the 1960s have sought to refashion America in the name of an impoverishing, soul-destroying, state-managed “equality.”

 
When Mr. Obama tried to force schools to allow males who “identified as” females to use women’s bathrooms (and vice versa), and he did so with no public debate of the matter and in the complete absence of credible scientific evidence that a biological male can in any psychologically healthy sense claim to identify as a female, that was divisive. 



Pretending that we are still one unified people, as Mr. Romney and the Republican establishment do, is worse than useless

Pretending that we are still one unified people, as Mr. Romney and the Republican establishment do, is worse than useless. For two generations the leftist juggernaut has rolled across our cultural landscape, like the Panzers across France in 1940, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, but never backwards. The Left owe their success in no small part to the failure of men like Mitt Romney first to identify the American Left as inimical to everything the U.S. should represent and then to take a principled, uncompromising stand against them.
Alone among the political leaders of this nation, President Trump has had the courage to say “No more.” He has identified the enemy unequivocally, and he has sounded a long-overdue rallying cry to a people besieged from within by Marxists masquerading as moralists. Mr. Trump is president precisely because he has refused to remain silent for the sake of a phony unity.
End

Friday, January 11, 2019

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, two Zeroes uttering Zeroes


Hark! News from the Democratic mortuary
The alleged “rebuttal” of Senator Chuck Schumer and House of the Representatives head Nancy Pelosi to President Trump's Tuesday evening address to the nation about why the wall on the Southern border must be built, is now history. Given the volume of laughter on the Internet a sample here) at their funereal delivery of the “rebuttal” and the mockery it inspired, I don’t think it’s history that the pair had intended or planned for.  See my column, “Nancy Pelosi wants to Erase Freedom of Speech,’ for details. Some commentators called the “rebuttal” a flat rehearsal for a Saturday Night Live skit.

Schumer and Pelosi uttered nothing but predictable Democratic banalities in their rebuttal. Their dead-pan delivery of any substance lacked even the pretance of substance, and did nothing to counter or contradict Trump’s expressions of fact about the criminals and drugs creeping or sneaking across the border and wrecking mayhem on America and its  citizens (e.g., the murder of Officer Singh in California by an illegal immigrant, and the rape and claw hammer death of Marilyn Pharis).  And of course there is the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by another illegal and repeatedly deported immigrant, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez.

Did anyone get the impression, while watching and listening to them, as I had, that Schumer or Pelosi were even aware of these crimes? I didn’t. Perhaps they were aware, but they did not let on that they were, or the information was deleted from their prepared scripts, so it was handily passed over or ignored. 

Schumer exuded nothing but his “Do as I say, I’m the authority because I’m a senior Senator who wears custom-made befocals” look, while Pelosi resembled a deer frozen in the headlights. To both Schumer and Pelosi, the crimes committed by illegals here in America and south of the border, were irrelevant they were not to be reminded of the crimes, lest one could be charged with racisim or bigotry or hatred.They would be offended, and would probaly remind you of the incivility of raising the subject of facts. Schumer, when reading something while wearing those glasses, always impressed me as looking down his nose at everyone and not just through his bifocals.

Advertising tattoos for nihilism
Trump mentioned MS-13 and the gang's crimes, but Schumer and Pelosi deigned not to mention them, regardless of the horrific murders committed by the scarily tattooed gang. Neither of them care what they are willing to subject Americans to.

One blogger remarked that MS-13 is on a par with Islamic jihadists, especially the ones who raped, murdered, and beheaded Louisa Vesterager Jespersen, of Denmark, and Maren Ueland, of Norway in Morroco.  Jihadists hate life, and hate the good, and are willing to destroy for the sake of killing. In truth, MS-13 members have an operating philosphy at root the same as that of the jihadists, and are no better than them. But, these creatures do not stir an ounce of abhorrence in Schumer, Pelosi, and their Democratic colleagues in the House. 

The Democrats are hell bent on defeating Trump, to make him bend to their will and wishes, to atone for defeating Hillary Clinton. I discern no other motive behind their actions. They have nothing to say.

Wednesday, January 09, 2019

Nancy Pelosi wants to erase Freedom of Speech


Nancy Pelosi: The aged, decrepit face

of socialism, power lust, and corruption

President Donald Trump isn’t Nancy Pelosi’s only target. It is the Freedom of Speech.


One of Nancy Pelosi’s first projects as new speaker of the House [for the 116th Congress] will be passing a government overhaul of campaign-finance and ethics rules that will, among other things, “expand voting rights.” One of the new bills — specifics are still cloudy — reportedly allocates a pool of taxpayer money to match small-dollar donations 6-to-1, as a way of encouraging “grass-roots campaigning,” according to The Wall Street Journal…

Some big cities have already begun handing out tax-funded “democracy vouchers.” In other words, politicians have passed legislation that subsidizes the speech of people who will, for the most part, support them. It’s quite the racket. Pelosi wants to take this corruption national….

There is something about abridging freedom of speech.  And money is speech. This fact has been codified by the Supreme Court. Writing is speech. Speaking is speech. Speaking anonymously is speech. Joining a group of other Americans to petition the government is also speech.

The Campaign Finance Law, the Federal Election Committee, and the IRS collude to control how citizens support candidates through contributions and for whom.

Yet Democrats will also include a provision in their package that would make tax-exempt 501(c)(4) charitable groups disclose donors who’ve given $10,000 or more during an election cycle. As I’ve written elsewhere, this obsession with eliminating anonymity is also a transparent attempt to chill speech and undermine minority opinions.

As Harsany stresses, Pelosi’s new bill is intended to intimidate anyone from donating more than $10,000 (by insinuating that the donor would be audited, or smacked with a fine), or to give less than $10,000 to a candidate’s PAC. The better to reduce a candidate’s war chest. They hope the actions against and the sentencing of Diniah D’Souza will serve as an example and a warning.   

Conservative author Dinesh D’Souza, one of the most brilliant conservative political writers of the modern era, was sentenced by a judge last week to eight months in a halfway house and probation. He was also ordered to pay a $30,000 fine within 45 days. His alleged crime? He made two contributions to a losing political campaign under the names of friends. D’Souza accepted a plea agreement admitting he used straw donors to donate $20,000 to the U.S. Senate campaign of Wendy Long, a friend of his. Federal campaign law limits contributors to U.S. Senate campaigns to $5,000 each.

To obviate a donor’s anonymity is to expose the person to what is called “doxing” or the broadcasting of his residence and family to harassment by groups opposed to his chosen charity. Although related to Campaign  Finance Law strictures, the harassment of prominent figures by doxing.

Now, you might recall that one of the central criticisms Democrats leveled at the Citizens United free speech decision was that corporate funding would force employees and shareholders to support issues and candidates against their will. This was facile claim since, in the private sector, workers and shareholders are free to associate with companies that comport to their politics.

At the same time, however, Democrats are perfectly comfortable impelling taxpayers to contribute to campaigns. Liberals simultaneously bitterly complain about the Supreme Court’s Janus decision, which finally stopped public-sector unions from coercing workers to pay “agency fees” to fund their political activities.


Pelosi isn’t the only one in the House to oppose freedom of speech. IIlhan Omar, newly installed representative for Minnesota, endorses the Boycot, Divest, and Sanction movement to target companies trading with Israel, and ultimately see it replaced by “Palestine.” The Washington Times reported on November 19th: She has given America the finger in favor of "Palestine."

…BDS doesn’t just criticize Israel’s government, it denies its right to exist as a Jewish State. Omar also said she supports a two-state solution. “Rep-Elect Omar, you owe it to your new constituents to clarify your views.”

The “two-state” solution is a fantasy. It is as much a delusion as a milkshake of oil,  water, and a dollop of egg nog.