Ho Hum
/
Continuing a long tradition, and always a sign that a campaign is failing.
Red State’s Jennifer Van Laar (say, that sounds suspiciously German, nein?) does a nice takedown of this pathetic creature’s entire squawk, but this seems particularly apt, given the recent leak of Israel’s war plans by unknown actors in the Harris administration:
Kamalla:
In just the past week Donald Trump has repeatedly called his fellow Americans the enemy from within and even said that he would use the United States military to go after American citizens. And let's be clear about who he considers to be the enemy from within: anyone who refuses to bend a knee or dares to criticize him would qualify, in his mind, as the enemy within. Like judges, like journalists, like non-partisan election officials.
Van Laar:
It's very clear that the "enemy within" Trump refers to are people like Mahar Bitar, Rob Malley, Ariane Tabatabai, and more, who are more loyal to Islamic fascists than they are to the United States.
And then this:
FORMER WAPO LEGEND CARL BERNSTEIN INADVERTENTLY EXPLAINS TRUMP’S RISE. Carl Bernstein Rejects Comparing Trump to ‘Principled’ Barry Goldwater: “I think Donald Trump is an authoritarian. He’s not an ideologue, he’s not a principled man in the way that Goldwater was….I think that the times are different and I think the people are altogether different,” Bernstein tells CNN’s Don Lemon. Earlier this week, as Mediaite notes, Bernstein “told CNN’s Brian Stelter that Trump is ‘a new kind of fascist in our culture’ with an ‘authoritarian demagogic point of view.’”
I’d much rather a proto-libertarian such as Barry Goldwater as president than a center-left celebrity candidate such as Trump. But to paraphrase the famous sign seen at Tea Party rallies in 2009 which read “It Doesn’t Matter What This Sign Says, You’ll Call It Racism Anyway,” it doesn’t matter who the GOP runs, you’ll call him a Nazi anyway. Celebrities from Louis CK to Sarah Silverman are pulling out all of the fascist references to Trump (Silverman even appeared with a brown uniform and tiny mustache to criticize Trump on Conan O’Brien’s show last week.) But no less a figure than Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News in 1964 insinuated that Goldwater the champion of small government, whose father was Jewish was a Nazi, as left-leaning Cronkite biographer Douglas Brinkley wrote in 2012:
As managing editor of the CBS Evening News, Cronkite seemed to relish pricking Goldwater from time to time for sport. In late July, he introduced a report from CBS correspondent Daniel Schorr, a hard-and-fast liberal working from Munich. With an almost tongue-in-cheek smile, Cronkite said, “Whether or not Senator Goldwater wins the nomination, he is going places, the first place being Germany.” Schorr then went on a tear, saying, “It looks as though Senator Goldwater, if nominated, will be starting his campaign in Bavaria, the center of Germany’s right wing.” The backstory was merely that Goldwater had accepted an invitation from Lieutenant General William Quinn for a quick holiday at Berchtesgaden, a U.S. Army recreational center in Germany. But Schorr made the takeaway point that Berchtesgaden was once “Hitler’s stomping ground.” Goldwater, trying to show off his NATO bona fides, had granted an interview with Der Spiegel in which he mentioned a possible trip to Germany soon. Some Democratic opposition researcher floated the idea that Goldwater was infatuated with the Nazis. It was ugly stuff.
Indeed it was; but then, every Republican presidential candidate, from Thomas Dewey (smeared as a Nazi by no less than Harry Truman) to the present will be attacked by the left in this fashion, no matter his temperament, or his small government, libertarian bona fides. Speaking of temperament, perhaps Bernstein would have preferred a more milquetoast CEO as president than Trump – say, Mitt Romney. But in 2012, the Daily Beast ran one of Bernstein’s columns titled “Carl Bernstein on Mitt Romney’s Radicalism,” which, as Accuracy in Media noted at the time:
The article is based on anonymous sources who claim to be associated with the “moderate” wing of the GOP and are warning about the “crazy right” that might entice Mitt Romney to govern as an extremist as president. “Plainly put,” Bernstein says, “today’s Republican Party (and its Tea Party wing) represent the first bona fide radical political party to rise to dominance in Washington in nearly 100 years.”
At a time when we have a Democratic Party in power in the White House, led by a politician with links to communists and terrorists in Hawaii and Chicago, the Bernstein article has to be seen as ridiculous on its face. But Bernstein represents the mentality of much of the media who see the far-left orientation of the national Democratic Party as nothing unusual or worth commenting on.
Bernstein’s 2,100-word article is full of bizarre statements about Romney and the GOP.
Alluding to the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement, Bernstein writes, “It represents as extreme a shift in political philosophy as any of the radical ideologies that have prevailed in our history.”
Tea Party members oppose Big Government, excessive federal spending and debt. Bernstein is claiming that it is somehow “radical” to want to return to the founding principles of the United States and save America from financial bankruptcy and economic ruin. Who is the real radical?
To ask the question is to answer it. As Glenn noted earlier, in regards to David Brooks, “The Tea Party movement — which you also failed to understand, and thus mostly despised — was a bourgeois, well-mannered effort (remember how Tea Party protests left the Mall cleaner than before they arrived?) to fix America. It was treated with contempt, smeared as racist, and blocked by a bipartisan coalition of business-as-usual elites. So now you have Trump, who’s not so well-mannered, and his followers, who are not so well-mannered, and you don’t like it.”
Exit quote: “The lowest form of popular culture – lack of information, misinformation, disinformation, and a contempt for the truth or the reality of most people’s lives – has overrun real journalism. Today, ordinary Americans are being stuffed with garbage.”
—Carl Bernstein, 1992. Choose the form of your destructor.
UPDATE: In his 1944 State of the Union address, FDR smeared the laissez–faire Coolidge era of the 1920s as “the spirit of fascism:”
One of the great American industrialists of our day—a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of “rightist reaction” in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop—if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called “normalcy” of the 1920′s—then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.
Classy stuff.
And of course, Nixon was far from immune from receiving “Reductio ad Hitlerum:” “In 1971, the year before the Watergate scandal, President Richard Nixon was described by his Democratic rival George McGovern as a warmonger like Hitler. ‘Except for Adolf Hitler’s extermination of the Jewish people, the American bombardment of defenseless peasants in Indochina is the most barbaric act of modern times,’ said McGovern. After the arrests of the five agents who broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters, McGovern said Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate break-in was ‘the kind of thing you expect under a person like Hitler.’”
UPDATE (5/1/20): Since I’ve rounded up numerous examples of Republican presidents and candidates being slurred as National Socialists by the left in this post, I’m adding a link to “Democrats and Their Reductio ad Hitlerum Slander” by Steve Hayward of Power Line, which sets the clock back from ’44 to 1940:
By now we are used to Democrats calling Trump literally Hitler, just as they did for George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, etc., but [Fred Siegel in his 1984 book, Troubled Journey: From Pearl Harbor to Ronald Reagan] points out that this favorite liberal calumny began at least as early as 1940:
If Republicans diehards insisted that Roosevelt was “that Bolshevik in the White House,” ideological New Dealers returned the favor by denouncing conservative Republicans as fascists. Henry Wallace, the point man for the New Dealers, fought the 1940 election with the slogan “Keep Hitler out of the White House.” Wallace conceded that “every Republican is not an appeaser. But you can be sure that every Nazi, every Hitlerite, and every appeaser is a Republican.” Wallace glossed over the isolationism of leading Democrats like Burton Wheeler who were left-leaning at home yet impassioned appeasers. [Siegel might have included Joseph Kennedy here.] . . .
At their harshest, fervent New Dealers dropped the qualifiers and pronounced Wendell Willkie, Roosevelt’s middle-of-the-road Republican opponent, “the man Hitler wants elected president.”
Things really got rolling with the 1944 election, where the Democrats’ reductio ad Hitlerum argument was directed at Thomas E. Dewey.
Read on for the rest, which is a sneak preview of the attack Dewey would receive from Harry Truman as the 1948 election approached the wire.
New Old Greenwich listing
/
27 Tait Road, $2.9 million. South of the Village, pleasant street, whachagonna do? Prices have gone up.
Cos Cob Contract
/
104 Orchard Street, $1.950 million, pending after just 8 days. The only question is how much above ask it’s selling for.
Sure it's a silly story, but the state media has gone crazy trying to refute it, so it must be hurting
/
Meet the NYT’s McDonald’s source
Yesterday I weighed the evidence bearing on Kamala Harris’s claim of employment by McDonald’s in the summer of 1983. By contrast with the Washington Free Beacon story raising doubts about Harris’s claim, the New York Times asserted that there was no evidence to rebut Harris’s claim. “Donald Trump has claimed without evidence that Ms. Harris never worked at the fast-food chain,” the Times wrote said. “Her campaign and a friend say she did.”
However, the Free Beacon story included real evidence — indeed, evidence of a kind that would be admissible in court — raising doubts about the veracity of Harris’s claim. The Times story was limited to the word of one Wanda Kagan, who alleges that she heard from Harris’s deceased mother that Harris worked at McDonald’s. By my lights that left Harris’s claim hanging by a thread against the evidence compiled by the Free Beacon. No reasonable finder of fact would buy it. The Times story is a self-parodying piece of hack work.
…. Today the Free Beacon impeaches Kagan’s hearsay in “Meet the New York Times Source Who Claims Kamala Harris’s Late Mother Told Her That Her Daughter Worked at McDonald’s. She’s a Harris Campaign Surrogate Who’s Visited the White House.” It’s an intensely reported story. The story observes, for example:
“What the Times did not tell its readers is that Kagan is a full-throated Harris supporter who has appeared alongside the vice president at several campaign events. She also served as a surrogate for her old friend on television during the Democratic National Convention.
“ ‘It’s an emotional and chilling ride, and I’m just overwhelmed with happiness for my friend, and I’m happy to be alive to be able to witness her now fighting for the people of America’ Kagan told MSNBC during the Democratic convention in August.”
Johnson:’
All of the impeachment evidence lovingly compiled by reporters Joe Simonson and Chuck Ross was of course omitted by the Times. The rout of the Times by the Free Beacon’s happy warriors is complete. I can only add the comment that the Free Beacon may be having too much fun.
Yes, steam could be considered an "emission", but that's clearly not how Fox News intends for its readers to understand this picture or its caption
/
Fox uses the photo above to illustrate today’s article on a suit to stop the EPA’s mandated conversion of trucks and farm vehicles to batteries: oooh, scary emissions! How awful!
The tone of the article itself is sympathetic to the plaintiffs, but the photograph is not, either through the ignorance of the editor and reporter, or malice — a combination of both is the safest way to bet these days.
Who wants to tell them?
/
NPR is baffled, but its “journalists” know one big thing:it must be Trump’s fault
MEXICO CITY — Cuba’s power grid collapsed for a second time on Saturday, shortly after Cuban officials announced they had begun reestablishing service, in what has become one of the worst crises in the country’s history.
The massive outage leaves 10 million people on the Caribbean island without electricity, and with no clear indication of when power might be restored.
It is a new low in a country that has already been dealing with a deepening economic crisis, compounded by the U.S. embargo and widespread food shortages.
The crisis began on Friday when one of the country’s largest power plants, the Antonio Guiteras power plant in the western province of Matanzas, failed shortly before midday on Friday. The failure prompted a total breakdown of Cuba’s electrical system.
Cuba’s prime minister, Manuel Marrero Cruz, blamed the problem on deteriorating infrastructure and fuel shortages exacerbated by Hurricane Milton, which has made it difficult for much-needed fuel deliveries to reach the island.
Declaring a “energy emergency,” Marrero Cruz introduced measures to reduce power use across the country — state workers were told to stay at home, and schools and non-essential industries were closed. He also sought to assuage concerns saying he expects an influx of fuel from Cuba’s state-owned oil company.
While the collapse of the electrical grid comes as a surprise, the crisis is years in the making. Cuba’s power plants are dilapidated and in desperate need of maintenance. In addition, Cuba produces very little fuel of its own, meaning it relies on imports to keep the electrical grid afloat.
The big problem for the island is that Venezuela — a political ally that for decades was Cuba’s principal provider of fuel — has slashed shipments amid its own economic crisis. Mexico and Russia have also cut exports, leaving Cuba in a vulnerable position.
[That’s a problem, not even close to the real problem]
For months [decades,actually], there have been rolling blackouts across the island, with the situation coming to a head with the failure of the power plant on Friday.
Cuba’s economy initially began tanking during the pandemic [it was booming until then; trust us, we’re NPR] , when international tourism plummeted and inflation soared. During that same period, former President Donald Trump imposed a range of sanctions on Cuba after re-designating the country a "state sponsor of terrorism."
Then in March, hundreds of protesters took to the streets in Santiago de Cuba, the island’s second largest city, furious over the lack of electricity and food. Cuba’s communist government — which uses a rationing system to provide a certain amount of food per household — started limiting its allocations of bread only to children and pregnant women. Some analysts say conditions are worse than the economic crisis that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a time known as the Special Period.
The Cuban government has long blamed its woes on decades-old U.S. sanctions that have complicated the island’s purchase of fuel and food.
While the causes of the crisis are multifaceted, the country-wide blackout is a new low for the government — and those Cubans still living on the island. Amid growing desperation, an unprecedented number of Cubans are trying to migrate to the U.S. by any means possible. The island has lost an estimated 10 percent of its population over the last three years.
Today marks the 62nd “anniversary” of JFK’s Cuban Missile Crisis Speech to the nation; it seems fitting to also remember the history of Cuba’s food rationing program, also imposed that year, and used to starve thee peasants and control the dissident.
Cuba’s power infrastructure is as old as its cars, but not as well maintained —that would be because the cars are privately owned.
Transsports
/
(both) my dads can beat up your mom, so nahnananana!
Women’s soccer club embroiled in trans controversy after team fielded two ‘bearded guys’
And ….
UN reveals how many female athletes have lost medals to trans opponents in explosive report
Female athletes have lost nearly 900 medals to transgender rivals competing against them in women’s sporting categories, an eye-opening United Nations report has revealed.
The study — titled “Violence against women and girls in sports” — stated that more than 600 female athletes have been bested at various events by competitors who were born male.
“According to information received, by 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports,” the report said.
And then there’s this, naturally (well, unnaturally, but you get the point):
New York AG Letitia James threatens ‘decisive legal action’ over county’s transgender athlete ban
Green Energy
/
The Energy Department’s own data, entered last week into the Federal Register, shows that electricity, much of it generated by wind and solar, is more than three times as expensive as natural gas, an out-of-favor-with-the-elites fossil fuel.
A little more than a year ago, a New York Times headline proclaimed what so many have said is absolutely, undeniably so: “The Clean Energy Future Is Arriving Faster Than You Think." Despite the story's examples that were supposed to buttress the claims, reality tells a different story.
A recent analysis by Bloomberg found that “the fast money on Wall Street has taken a close look at key sectors in the green economy and decided to bet against them.”
“Despite vast green stimulus packages in the U.S., Europe, and China, more hedge funds are on average net short batteries, solar, electric vehicles, and hydrogen than are long those sectors; and more funds are net long fossil fuels than are shorting oil, gas, and coal.”
Hedge fund institutions have concluded, says Bloomberg, that “many climate investments” haven’t posted returns as quickly nor as profitably as they had expected.
Bloomberg’s sources blamed politics, both in the U.S. and abroad.
If so, we say good, because the green energy crusade has been driven solely by Democratic and progressive politics rather than rigorous research and compelling arguments. It’s about time that the skeptical side posted a few victories in trying to stop the wholly unnecessary climate agenda of the left.
It matters not to the political left that at least half the country, and maybe nearly half in Europe, is uncomfortable with the renewable energy shift that is being dropped on developed nations by the elites. Central planners are force-feeding Westerners a dish they don't like, and investors have taken notice.
Could green energy’s declining popularity be tied to its high costs? That’s a factor. The Energy Department’s own data, entered last week into the Federal Register, shows that electricity, much of it generated by wind and solar, is more than three times as expensive as natural gas, an out-of-favor-with-the-elites fossil fuel.
Are the intermittence and unreliability of wind and solar also factors? Of course. Americans don't want to live a Third World existence in which energy production and delivery are substandard.
Do the climate skeptics and “holdouts” — we would place ourselves solidly in both groups — also resent being told that they must comply with the commands of their betters? Those who aren't looking to impress their friends, neighbors, and strangers with their green street cred, who simply want to live their lives, and in many cases just getting by, are justifiably offended by our ruling class.
If green energy were an unalloyed advancement and a can't-miss investment, then it wouldn't need the hundreds of billions in taxpayers' dollars that have been poured into it. Governments wouldn't have to set deadlines for transitioning to zero-emission power grids and all-electric vehicle fleets if the evidence of the goodness of renewables were undeniable. There'd be no reason for "government dictates and the confiscation and redistribution of people’s money."
Renewable energy isn't so much green as it is red, the color flown by communist governments and violent leftist movements since the late 19th century.
Harmony — C'mon, People Now, Let's Get Together, and blather
/
September 7, 2018
Yes, how indeed? As Jon Gabriel explored at the beginning 2017: President Obama’s Disastrous Record on Race.
On Election Day 2008, many Democrats welcomed a new post-racial America. The hideous blight of slavery and Jim Crow could never be forgotten, but our first African-American President would in some small way help atone for those sins and ultimately transcend them. Even Republicans shared the emotions of Grant Park, where thousands crying elderly blacks finally saw that America could elect a person of color.
Despite these bipartisan hopes, the nation is more racially obsessed than it has been in 25 years. In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 63 percent of Americans think race relations are “generally bad.” Shortly after Obama took office, that number was 22 percent. In the same time period, those who think race relations are “generally good” plummeted from 66 percent to 32 percent.
Of course, Obama fans assert that this increase in racial division is due to white contempt for a black president. This is illogical since months after he took office, the American people thought racial harmony was higher than it had ever been. So what changed?
Watching Ferguson, MO go up in flames, I ironically remarked, “My favorite part about the Obama era is all the racial healing.” Little did I know how many times people would republish that line in the years that followed.
Eric Garner’s death created racial unrest in New York City. Baltimore was racked with days of violence following Freddie Gray’s death. Five officers were murdered by a black separatist in Dallas. Other law enforcement officers were ambushed in Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, and Mississippi. The police-involved shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile sparked more violent protests in New York City, Chicago, St. Paul, Baton Rouge, and elsewhere. In each case, the major media misreported the facts, stoked the literal fires, and characterized the rampages as “mostly peaceful.”
* * * * * * * * *
Before getting into politics, Barack Obama was a community organizer. This anodyne term was created by Chicago leftist Saul Alinsky who created the position to “rub raw the sores of discontent.” Many thought Obama’s moderate sounding speeches meant he had tossed Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals in the dustbin. Instead, upon entering the White House, Obama created Organizing for Action, which has trained 5 million Americans in Alinsky tactics.
Occupy Wall Street, Wisconsin’s anti-Walker protests, and Black Lives Matter didn’t arise of their own accord. They were the bitter fruit intentionally cultivated by OfA.
Remember when? HAHAHAHAHA
Or this bit of nonsense, beloved 1970s hymn of earnest, naive college students everywhere while they were pretend communists, and before they advanced to their careers on Wall Street.
