A stunning level of deception

Melania’s parents become U.S. citizens, the left melts down by Karen Townsend – “First Lady Melania Trump’s parents became U.S. citizens Thursday. In Trump’s America, this feel-good story turned the ugly left and their cohorts in the press into indignant critics.”

“And, the critics continue to conflate President Trump’s intention to reduce illegal immigration with an attempt to eliminate immigration. The descriptive word that is left out is the most important – ‘illegal’.

What is stunning to me, really, is this level of deception from the legal community and the journalists who can’t wait to quote them. That’s the real hypocrisy. They know better but they just don’t care because it is how they frame the narrative.

Graham: Why didn’t the FBI warn Trump like they warned Feinstein? By Ed Morrissey – “In order to get Lindsey Graham’s point in this discussion with Harris Faulkner, first you’d have to know about the spy on Dianne Feinstein’s staff.”

“Graham wants to know why the FBI warned Dianne Feinstein about a suspected spy but never bothered to tell Donald Trump about their suspicions over Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.

Let’s not forget that the penetration in Feinstein’s case was much more significant, too. The warning from the FBI came after the man had been in Feinstein’s employ for “two decades,” as the local CBS affiliate noted last week. The FBI had evidence of direct and covert contact between the suspect and China’s intelligence operatives. Feinstein was also a high-value target as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, with access to the most sensitive information held by the US government, including from our intelligence partners around the globe. And yet, the FBI reached out to Feinstein rather than open a counter-intelligence probe with her as a potential target, even though Feinstein’s family has profited extensively through contacts with China during her tenure.

In contrast, Donald Trump was a businessman running for president with three questionable advisers. Graham doesn’t see why the FBI didn’t prioritize hygiene over investigation in that case as they did with Feinstein

Too bad readers of the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times won’t know what Graham’s talking about.

Cotton to Kamala Harris: no more Kavanaugh documents by Karen Townsend – ‘You Already Said You’re Voting No’ https://t.co/Hh5w4QQetg

“Harris’ intentions have been clear from the start. She hasn’t even met with Kavanaugh yet she has expressed a definitive opinion.

When Democrats realized that they have no procedural way of railroading Kavanaugh’s nomination, other than excessive demands of documents to slow it down, their level of frustration grew to a new level. Senator Harris is even on record declaring that “We’re looking at the destruction of the Constitution of the United States” with the nomination. Talk about hyperbole! She said it on MSNBC to host Chris Matthews so she was picking the right audience for such partisan drama.

There was a time that senators recognized that a president is entitled to his nominations, barring no extraordinary circumstances. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated by President Clinton in 1993 and was confirmed 96-3. No Republican was under the impression that she was a moderate. It was even common practice to use voice votes for nominees up through the LBJ administration. That would be impossible now.

The Problem with Gay Marriage by David Solway – “Although I regard the reduction of identity to one’s sexual preferences, whatever these might be, as a diminishment of the complex spectrum of human personality, I have nothing against the practice of homosexuality – to each his own – and considered it a non-issue and none of my business.”

“Then and now, however, I believed as a matter of principle that redefining marriage was another kettle entirely. People can manage their private passions as they wish, provided they remain within the common law, but marriage has to be defended not only as a binding compact between two people and an expression of religious faith, but as a social institution whose role is twofold: the preservation of cultural life and the procreation of the species.

For these reasons, marriage can be only a contract between a man and woman.

This is why Marxism, for example, considers marriage an institution that needs to be destroyed, since procreant marriage with all its attendant responsibilities is the foundation of bourgeois society.

None of these considerations carried any weight with my literary colleague, who accused my wife and me of rejecting his “essential humanity” and broke off all communication, saying the issue was “non-negotiable” and all discussion would henceforth cease.

My friend would have none of it. He demanded total assent and expected our congratulations. But as he once wrote me about another matter, “you don’t owe a friend a lie.” It’s a maxim worth living by.

First step in a lie is the lie to one’s self. It is one thing to be intransigent on a position but another to cut off any discussion about that position or, especially, any one or any thing that might even just hold differing views.

Comments are closed.