Errant Nonsense

Responding to the clarion call to harass and intimidate Republicans where they dine, where they work and where they live, issued by unhinged left-wing Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an Antifa mob gathered outside the residence of Fox News host Tucker Carlson last night and broke the front door while his terrified wife locked herself in a room.

First and most important question: where are the Democratic unequivocal condemnations of the out-of-control Antifa mob tactics? Has any prominent Republican (where are you Mitt?) spoken out about this outrage and asked prominent Democrats to condemn these tactics? This game of disavowal is a long-practiced tactic used effectively by Democrats on Republicans.

Secondly, why haven’t charges been brought for this clear criminal act of attempted breaking and entering in addition to assault (Carlson’s wife fear that she would suffer imminent harm)?

If the police are able to identify and locate the perpetrators, they should immediately be arrested and indicted on the criminal charges referenced above.

Finally, Republicans should tie the increasingly strident and intimidating tactics of the fringe left on Maxine Waters and other Democrats.

What to expect next? Justification for the assault on grounds of Trucker’s White Supremacy and his White Privilege.

Here is a sampling, from Vox’s Matthew Yglesias, of how how other progressives view the assault.

Those Democrats who aren’t completely deranged should worry about these incipient trends that could ultimately impair the party’s prospects in the next election.

I’m waiting for CNN’s Brooke Baldwin to confirm on her show that the assault and break-in at Tucker Carlson’s home was not the action of a mob, but rather a peaceful protest by individuals of good will who were merely expressing their political views.

There good news and bad news. Bad news first. Had president Trump Tweeted a lot less, there is a good chance that Republicans could have maintained some of the seats that flipped. There is anecdotal evidence that despite the booming economy, Trump’s infelicitous manner of speaking irritates some voters — particularly suburban women — and they registered their disapprobation at the ballot box.

The good news is that Republicans only lost 25 seats, which is in line with historical results for mid-term elections and a far cry from the “blue wave” that so many pundits, commentators and Democrats assured us was inevitable. Americans, once again, voted for divided government.

By way of comparison, in 2010, Obama and the Democrats lost 63 House and 6 Senate seats. Republican losses in the House look almost inconsequential against the shellacking visited upon Democrats in 2010..

With a comfortable margin of 55 seats in the Senate, Trump’s next conservative Supreme Court nominees will be confirmed, which means there will be no need to appease potentially equivocating Susan Collings and Lisa Murkowski. Control of the Senate may turn out to be more consequential than the loss of the House.

It is also interesting to note that Obama ended up 0 for 4: the progressive candidates in close races he supported all came up short. So much for the new progressive coalition of the ascendant. Going forward, Democrats might want to ask themselves:does it make sense any more to invite Obama to hit the campaign trail?

With the migrant caravan from Central America slowly working its way to our Souther Border, a long-overdue debate is raging about not only the policy is sound immigration policy or beneficial to the interests of the United States.

The discussion was prompted by president Trump’s comments that he would rescind, by executive order the long-standing and until recently, unchallenged birthright citizenship provision in the constitution. Of course, this caused the usual hackneyed response on the left, that Trump is a racist, white supremacist, white nationalist, xenophobe,  ………………………..  (fill in the remaining blanks with the democrats “ism” du jour).

In terms of the wisdom of such a policy, it should be noted that no other country in the world has a similar legal or statutory provision. Naturally, the question as to why, answers itself: because it is nonsensical.

There are those who claim that birthright citizenship is mandated by the language of the constitution and the discussion ends there. This is idiotic for two reasons. One, the entire constitutional birthright citizenship provision was enacted by amendment after the Civil War. That should be definitive proof for the proposition that the entire creation for this exceptional category for citizenship was related to how to grant freed slaves the benefits bestowed upon all other Americans after the Civil War.

Trump’s opponents argue that the 14th Amendment grants illegal aliens ( a term unheard of when the 14th amendment was ratified) citizenship, I.e., anyone child born here, regardless of the parents legal status mustbe granted citizenship.

However, as Andy McCarthy notes, “That is a lot of weight to put on an amendment that had nothing to do with regulating aliens — an amendment ratified in 1868, a time when there was no federal-law concept of illegal aliens.”

Ann Coulter makes the identical and unassailable argument in her own colorful way,

As the court has explained again and again and again:

“(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th) amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”

That’s why the amendment refers to people who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “and of the state wherein they reside.” For generations, African-Americans were domiciled in this country. The only reason they weren’t citizens was because of slavery, which the country had just fought a civil war to end. “

That was the entire and sole purpose of the 14th Amendment. This contention, as Coulter properly notes, is bolstered by the fact that even American Indians weren’t deemed citizens,

“The amendment didn’t even make Indians citizens. Why? Because it was about freed slaves. Sixteen years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court held that an American Indian, John Elk, was not a citizen, despite having been born here.

“Instead, Congress had to pass a separate law making Indians citizens, which it did, more than half a century after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. (It’s easy to miss — the law is titled: “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.”) Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship?”

Contrary to open borders advocates, birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, is not compulsory or mandated by the constitution, it is an issue that can be addressed by the Article I branch, namely Congress. Trump may try and force the issue by litigating whether his executive order exceeds the authority and powers of the executive branch.

In light of the incontrovertible evidence that the 14th amendment, birthright citizenship provision was a solution to a unique problem, those liberals who argue that the migrants must be legalized, might want to review U.S. history as well as the U.S. constitution.

I think president Trump’s phrase to characterize the corruption of the media is injudicious and causing him political problems. A more accurate and less inflamatory term to describe the Mainstream Media-Democratic Party-Complex is The Opposition Party. As they amply demonstrated during the last election, when the mainstream media decided to join the Resistance, they insured that their relationship with Trump from the moment he was inaugurated, would be an acrimonious one. For purposes of responding to the incendiary comments that Trump is responsible for all the divisiveness and corrosion in political discourse, including his low opinion of the press, the acerbic political environment was not the work of Trump exclusively.

I am inserting a passage from my new book, The Story of How Trump’s Politics Changed the Mainstream Media Democratic Party Complex and Why He Continues to Drive Them Madentitled, The Opposition Party, that is germane to the present toxic relationship between the mainstream media and the president.

The Opposition Party

Any meaningful analysis that seeks the reasons for the hostile interaction between Donald Trump and the political media must begin with an acknowledgement about the nature of the institution arrayed against him. The mainstream media that confronted Trump at every turn, from the latter stages of the presidential election, up to his first day in the Oval Office operates as an extension of the Democratic Party. Trump’s attacks against journalists and reporters must be adjudged against this unwavering truth in terms of whether his diatribes and conduct were warranted, or represented, as the media consistently argued, an attack on press freedoms. Reviewing journalists ideological predilections is necessary for an assessment of whether Trump’s missives against the Washington media establishment were justified.

“Mainstream Media-Democratic Party-Complex” is an appropriate term to describe the indissoluble nexus between Democrats and political journalists. Others, have used different phrases to denote the relatively new institutional phenomenon. Victor Davis Hanson calls the conglomeration of the entertainment industry, the mainstream media and the Democratic Party as a new “fusion party.”

The evidence for such an assertion is bountiful and simply indisputable. When one hears the results of a study conducted by Harvard’s Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, that found the overall coverage of Trump during the first 100 days of his Administration was 93% negative, can any sane individual not agree that such an a stunning and unprecedented finding could never have been recorded had the nation’s news media not operated as a de facto extension of the opposition party.

Members of the media are homogenous in their world-view, their education, the social circles in which they travel and their party affiliation. It is a fact that political journalists are overwhelmingly liberal. Every survey that has studied the issue yields the same results.1

Journalists over the past twenty-five years have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats by lopsided margins; their views on hot-button issues are consistently liberal and to the left of the country at large. In short, despite their specious protestations to the contrary, there are no conservative employees in the media that could act as a countervailing force to the prevalence of progressive political philosophy to which members of the mainstream media subscribe.

Given this ubiquity in ideological preferences among journalists, it is simply ludicrous to argue that they can put their political preferences aside, like a leopard shedding its spots, and report the news objectively. When the entire journalism profession is comprised almost entirely by registered Democrats, that is exactly the direction in which news is going to be slanted. No other result is or can be possible. Election 2016, was the political event that confirmed this reality.

When there is ideological homogeneity as well as cultural conformity, media bias is not a probability, it is an absolute certainty. Nowhere was this ineluctable fact more apparent than the lopsided pro-Hillary bias during the election.

Prior to the 2016 election, in a moment of pre-Trump uncharacteristic candor, even the New York Times, concurred with this assessment of bias, as noted by Politico,

“The people who report, edit, produce and publish news can’t help being affected—deeply affected—by the environment around them. Former New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent got at this when he analyzed the decidedly liberal bent of his newspaper’s staff in a 2004 column that rewards rereading today. The “heart, mind, and habits” of the Times, he wrote, cannot be divorced from the ethos of the cosmopolitan city where it is produced. On such subjects as abortion, gay rights, gun control and environmental regulation, the Times’ news reporting is a pretty good reflection of its region’s dominant predisposition.2”

Thus, as the incontrovertible evidence reveals, the mainstream media Trump faced after the election was an institution that was culturally and politically aligned with the Democratic Party that was determined to exact its revenge, after he had put out to pasture journalists’ candidate of choice.



1 “The Liberal Media:Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It”, Media Research Center, https://www.mrc.org/special-reports/liberal-mediaevery-poll-shows-journalists-are-more-liberal-american-public-%E2%80%94-and

2 Jack Shafer And Tucker Doherty, “The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think” Politico Magazine, May/June 2017, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048

If the nation learned anything from the spectacle of the Kavanaugh hearings, it was that the entire dogma or political philosophy of the new Democratic Party now rests singularly on the perverse and absurd idea of the menacing nature of “Whiteness.”

Over the past decade, the ludicrous ideas of white privilege, white supremacy and white nationalism, were confined to the precincts of the fringe academic left. The Kavanaugh hearings unequivocally demonstrated that these zany social theories embedded in concepts of identity politics have now been incorporated within the official political platform of the Democratic Party.

Although “white privilege” and “white supremacy” were the principal terms bandied about by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, the phrases diversity, white supremacy, white privilege and identity politics are all inextricably intertwined. Indeed, in most instances the terms are interchangeable, for the goal is the same: the belief that the oppressive nature of “Whiteness” is responsible for alleged past injustices toward minorities and women and is currently hampering their progress.

The lifeblood of the entire diversity concept requires establishing a cause and effect dynamic for explaining alleged discrimination against women and minorities or “historically disadvantaged” groups. The racial/gender classification of oppressed and disadvantaged members of protected classes. requires an oppressor. Since diversity concerns itself solely with skin pigmentation and gender, by default, the natural bogeyman in this entire grievance equation has to be white men. Not white men as individuals, but white men as a group. Brett Kavanaugh was a card-carrying member of this group and suffered the mandatory stigma and punishment demanded by white privilege theory.

The expressions concerning Whiteness during the Kavanaugh hearings were quite illuminating, as they have finally exposed the distinction between the theory of diversity and how diversity is actually practiced. Whatever its original intent, diversity has now become a punitive measure to be levied against white men as a group; no distinctions are to be made within the Caucasian category. However, exemptions are available for white men of wealth and privilege (e.g., many CNN commentators) who enthusiastically embrace and proselytize the underlying principles of identity politics. There is nothing more comical than watching rich white male cable TV commentators mercifully mocking the whiteness of the Republican Party. Too enamored of their exalted status as loyal progressives, these pundits cannot appreciate how the spectacle becomes theater of the absurd

A befuddled viewer of the Kavanaugh hearings might ask how Democratic Senator Hirono could, in one breath, condemn White Supremacy, yet in the same breath, elevate Christine Blaise Ford, an undeniably privileged white woman, to martyr status.

The answerer to that glaring contradiction is that white privilege exemptions are also readily available for white women. For purposes of diversity politics, gender always will trump whiteness, as it enhances the group grievance nature upon which diversity and identity politics is based.

How enamored is the Democratic Party of the new disparagement of Whiteness as a basis for its ideology and policy platforms?

It is telling that during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, not one prominent leader of the Democratic Party came forward to challenge, dissent from or criticize the party’s new standard for equal justice under the law, all predicated on the color of Kavanaugh’s skin and his gender, which in and of itself for Democrats, was sufficient to disqualify him from being afforded two hundred years of presumption of innocence legal standard, not to mention rudimentary principles of fairness.

The dirty little secret is that not only do progressives declare their right to unilaterally define the ever-shifting and evanescent terms of grievance theory, but also, they exclusively get to create the exemptions. Such a social theory is doomed to collapse by its own internal contradictions and incoherence. The glue that binds Whiteness theory is based on nothing more than pretzel logic, that in the end, will be revealed as nothing more than an exercise in monumental silliness.

The incoherence and spitefulness of stigmatizing “Whiteness” as the pillar of progressivism’s new political philosophy, demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of the modern-day Democratic Party.

Former president Obama tore into president Trump and the Republican Party recently, accusing the GOP and Trump of, “blatantly, repeatedly, baldly, shamelessly, lying.”

During his mid-term campaign stump speech, Obama proceeded to cite a litany of alleged lies and half-truths made by Republicans.

One portion of his speech is rather amusing, for it represents a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black:

“But – but – but you know what? There’s a more important point here. When words stop meaning anything, when people can just make up anything, Democracy doesn’t work, society can’t work.”

If you can say anything and there are no consequences if it turns out what you’re saying is not true, well, how are we going to have any kind of accountability? And frankly, part of the problem is that we’ve gotten used to it; we just expect that, like, people just are going to just make stuff up. We just expect it.”

How preposterous it is for Obama to accuse any politician of making stuff up and say anything without suffering any consequences. There are millions of Americans who remember well one of the biggest political whoppers ever made. It was: “if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance.”

How about blaming the well planed terrorist attack against our embassy in Benghazi on an anti-Mohammed video. Obama knew quite well that it had nothing to do with the coordinated and premeditated assault, yet he continued to cite the video as the substantial and proximate cause responsible for the ensuing carnage.

People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Senate Judiciary Chairman, Chuck Grassley, recently referred both Julie Swetnick and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti for possible criminal prosecution for making materially misleading statements to the Committee when it was conducting confirmation hearings on Brett Kavanaugh. In the referral letter, Grassley writes that Avenatti committed “outright fraud.” On this score, the facts are going to undoubtedly support Grassley’s damning claim.

This is a big deal for two reasons. First, the conduct of the attorneys’ involved in the Kavanaugh hearings was deplorable. It is high time that lawyers , who are supposed to be “officers of the court” are cashiered for their misconduct.

Based on her testimony that she was unaware of the Committee’s offer to question her in California as an accommodation, Ford’s attorneys may have failed in their duty to notify their client of the offer. If that is not the case, then Ford was not truthful with the Committee while she was under oath.

Ford’s attorneys also clearly conducted themselves in bad faith throughout the hearings and used that forum for political purposes. Judicial Watch has already made a referral to the appropriate Bar authorities for likely violations of the rules of professional responsibility.

There can be no doubt that the cheerleading on the part of the media for Ford as well as every single other crackpot witness who came forward, regardless of their credibility, was instrumental in facilitating the material misrepresentations made by Avenatti and his client Swetnick.

Both Avenatti and Ford’s attorneys knew from the outset that as far as the media was concerned, they were untouchable. This no doubt contributed to their willingness to step over ethical lines prohibited by the code of professional responsibility by which all attorneys are bound.

Grassley’s referral is a long overdue attempt to restore faith in the judicial system so that those who openly flaunt the law will be held to account.

Hillary Clinton, her husband Bill, and Loretta Lynch, acting attorney general during the presidential election, attorneys all, were guilty of violating numerous laws as well as ethical provisions of the Canons of Professional Responsibility. Lynch’s conduct was particularly egregious. Lynch, the head of the Department of Justice met with the husband of a woman who was the target of a criminal investigation being conducted by her department.

What a surprise that Lynch, as well as both Clintons, received no sanctions, no public rebuke, not so much as a slap on the wrist for their wanton flaunting of the laws.

Grassley’s referral to the Department of Justice is a reversal of an unfortunate trend in our political and legal system whereby those who have committed infractions are never held to account for their abuses of power.

The referral is a breath of fresh air in a town that has reeked of corruption for far too long and has maintained two standards of justice: one for elite bureaucrats, politicians and their allies. The other for ordinary Americans.

The second reason Grassley’s notifying the DOJ of possible suborning of perjury is that it will put a harsh spotlight on the mainstream media, who were clearly rooting for Ford and in their quest to assist her team, demonstrated a willingness to give the most wild and utterly fantastical allegations an air of legitimacy. This includes the tall tales spun by Avenatti and his client, Julie Swetnick, who both now face investigation for possible criminal prosecution for perjury.

Swetnick’s preposterous claims lacked credibility form the start. That was apparent to everybody but the media, who disgracefully, strained our credulity to bolster the thin reed on which these utterly bogus allegations were based.

NBC news looks particularly bad as they acted as Avenatti’s conduit by broadcasting an interview with Swetnick with admittedly no corroboration. They are now in the process of furiously backtracking — the effort being led for the moment by Chuck Todd.

Lest anyone forget, the vile Avenatti was a CNN guest 48 times in one month.

The following is an excerpt from my newly released book, How Trump’s Politics Changed the Mainstream Media and Why He Continues To Drive Them Mad available on Amazon. This section describes how the last White House Correspondent’s Association symbolically marked the beginning of the end for the political media.

Foreward

How fitting for the mainstream media that it should end where it all began: the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. Over the years, this event has become for journalists a gala of self-indulgence — a public forum for their collective virtue signaling and expressions of self-regard. At the 2011 dinner, then President Obama, mocked one well-known person in the ballroom by noting the man in question was exploring a run for the presidency. Much laughter ensued. Some say, at that moment, Donald Trump made the decision to throw his hat in the ring.

If Obama could have only foreseen the future, the revelation would have wiped the smirk off his face, as five years later, the object of his ridicule that evening, would be dismantling his “legacy” brick by brick. In a display of poetic justice, it would be Trump who had the last laugh that night. For as they say, he who laughs last laughs best.

Nine years later, all the beautiful people of the political media establishment were once again gathered for the 2018 jovial affair. The only thing missing was the White House part of the White House Correspondents’ dinner. The man who was the subject of Obama’s quip at the 2011 event, was now president and decided, wisely, to skip the event — for the second year in a row.

President Trump’s nonattendance at the 2018 dinner, didn’t prevent members of the media, resplendent in their formal evening attire, from yukking it up among themselves in the ballroom, hobnobbing with Hollywood celebrities and other members of the jet set. The assembled multitude of political journalists in the room were all self-absorbed, quite pleased with themselves as valiant watchdogs, holding a repressive president Trump at bay.

Members of the Mainstream Media-Democratic Party-Complex present in the room were political and cultural clones: all were unabashedly liberal; all were Obama progressives and all despised president Trump and fervently believed it was their sacred duty to help drive him from office at any cost. There wasn’t an original thought or idea among them.

At prior occasions, Obama had previously been the object of the journalists humor and while there were some good-natured and pointed barbs, the White House correspondents dinners during the Obama Administration retained a modicum of decorum and restraint.

But the atmosphere for the vilify-Trump show in 2018 couldn’t have been more different. The mood in the ballroom was combative and pugnacious. The individual who was supposed to be the object of good humor wasn’t present. The dinner was a pathetic sham.

The single most distinguishing and incongruous feature of the entire event was that the guest of honor was in abstentia. The comedian chosen, Michelle Wolf, a card-carrying progressive, took aim at the no-show president and instead of entertaining the audience with her wit, made the entire evening a tasteless orgy of Trump-bashing, all to the eager and riotous applause of a decadent audience of Washington journalists. Coarseness, masquerading as comedy, was the subject matter of the tirade.

Those who were watching on television, must surely have been appalled at the crudeness of the purported jokes as well as the nastiness of the delivery. The spectacle was beyond the pale and indicative of an institution in the throes of irreversible decline.

The political media, with their tasteless and contemptible comedian of choice, may have viewed the event as a joyous and festive occasion for maligning a president they deplored, instead, it revealed to the nation their true selves; it bared their souls. All were willing members of the Resistance. They believed it their duty to speak truth to power and hold the menacing and malevolent president Trump accountable. They fancied themselves the guardians of our liberties, toiling valiantly on behalf of a grateful public. The theme of the evening was the First Amendment; the choice of a potty-mouthed B-grade comedian purportedly an example of free speech in action.

The only thing worse than the vulgarity displayed by Michelle Wolf, was the correspondents, reporters, anchors and pundits who all laughed, with reckless abandon, at the “jokes.” Had they any sense of propriety or good sense, these elite members of the mainstream media should have voted with their feet. [click to continue…]

The following is an excerpt from my newly released book, How Trump’s Politics Changed the Mainstream Media and Why He Continues To Drive Them Mad available on Amazon. This section describes Trump’s early relationship with the media shortly after he announced his candidacy in June, 2015. It gives on a fairly good idea of how Trump refused to be bound by the media’s suffocating dictates of political correctness.

Trump Sets His Own Rules

Trump’s unorthodox style and assault on conventional norms of political behavior, was one of the reasons that he was so singularly effective in offending the sensibilities of the media. When Trump burst on the scene in June, 2015, they were wholly unprepared for the show that awaited them from a man, who not only was a successful real estate developer, but also was a skillful entertainer. Trump was neither a politician, attorney nor a Washington insider: he was the consummate outsider, who had his own set of rules, his own way of speaking and his own unique way of dealing with the press.

Trump was not a product of Yale or Harvard and the social circles in which many of the political and media elites travelled, but rather, a product of Queens and the rough and tumble of the New York City commercial real estate business. He was brash, indelicate, and unschooled in the ways of Washington political-speak. As such, many in the chattering classes considered his unwillingness to conform to Beltway traditions a fatal character defect that would inevitably doom his candidacy. No one liked Trump’s plain, forthright and wholly unscripted manner of speaking and delivering his message except those who voted.

Even though their expectations for Trump were low, reporters and commentators believed that he would not breach the etiquette and unwritten rules by which all candidates were bound. In this sense, Trump stunned the media, because he was unlike any other Republican they had ever encountered.

After his announcement, instead of tempering his rhetoric, as many pundits had suggested, instead of staying within the permissible parameters of political discourse, defined and enforced by the Mainstream Media-Democratic Party-Complex, Trump continued to speak his mind and that of many others, when he assailed directly and forcefully the shibboleths of the Left.

When a Republican candidate makes a controversial statement, or more accurately, refuses to abide by or deviates from politically correct speech, reporters and commentators always ask that candidate to retract his statement. The second prong of this well-established tactic is to ask other Republicans candidates if they will disavow or condemn the statement made by the candidate. This song and dance never works out well for Republicans, yet they continued to play the media’s game year in and year out. Trump didn’t play along with this chicanery.