Is reprehensible only in the eye of the beholder?

Birds of a feather: Why are so many Democrats so reprehensible in exactly the same way? Patricia McCarthy – “it is impossible to miss the defining characteristics of the most repugnant Democrats driving the impeach Trump campaign.”

“Pelosi, Swalwell, Schiff, Blumenthal, Nadler, Cohen, Waters, Harris, Booker, et. al. are all of a piece. Each of them seems to possess an almost identical and wholesale lack of any character at all. Each of them is vicious to the core. Each of them is either wholly unaware of his or her own hypocrisy, as in falsely accusing Attorney General William Barr of contempt, when those who were in Congress at the time, were hysterical when Attorney General Eric Holder was found to be in contempt of Congress. Or, they assume the American people are ignorant and unable to discern the deviousness of their plan to destroy Trump.

Likewise, the criminals who invented and perpetrated the Russia collusion hoax are equally unable to see themselves as they are: corrupt and treasonous. Like the Democrats in Congress, and their counterparts in the media, this coterie of thugs felt absolutely justified in breaking countless laws and abrogating the constitution to prevent Trump from taking office. One of Dennis Prager’s most oft-repeated quotes is that “Those who do not confront evil resent those who do.”

There is another quote of Prager’s that is appropriate here: “If we continue to teach about tolerance and intolerance instead of good and evil, we will end up with tolerance of evil.”

Senator Braveheart. Dan Brophy – “She understands bigotry at a personal level. Her critics are the intolerant bigots.”

“WE and its state media allies saw opportunity again in February and used their network to create a false controversy. They would make an example of Hutchings, make her feel public disdain, then watch her melt in the glare of negative publicity.

Rather than consider Hutchings’ hard questions, the GSA delegation complained. Worse, WE never offered its own legal definitions of these behaviors. They simply want protection against their notion of “discrimination”. Failing their goal, why not fabricate a story to smear a senator their lobby had previously targeted?

Predictably, the media network went into action. In “fake news” style, the media maulers never reported any side to the story other than the students’ claim.

There was also another unreported side. Senate leaders issued a calm statement. Hutchings received hundreds of supportive calls and emails. On Cheyenne’s KGAB talk radio, callers asked questions that fake news never asked. What were students doing at the legislature in the middle of the school day? Did their parents sign for travel permission? How is lobbying on this graphic topic a legitimate educational matter? Why did school administration permit it?

When our own legislators are intimidated into silence, we descend into mob tyranny. This won’t happen in Wyoming. Not yet.

Bravo, Senator Braveheart. If only there were more of you …

Behind Comey’s Claim That Trump “Eats Your Soul”. Paul Mirengoff – “Comey must not have read Robert Mueller’s report very carefully.” … “Clearly, Comey isn’t writing honestly about Trump’s team. Is he writing honestly about himself?

“I suspect that the real target of Comey’s op-ed isn’t Trump, but rather William Barr.

But given Barr’s standing and (I assume) their past relationship, he can’t plausibly make Barr the main villain. Thus, he attributes supernatural powers to Trump and claims, notwithstanding Mueller’s findings regarding McGahn, Lewandowsky, and others, that Barr is under some kind of nearly irresistible spell.

Brooks: Democrats are “making a terrible mistake” on contempt, destroying checks and balances. Ed Morrissey – “How surprising would it be to see Jerrold Nadler ripped at the New York Times for becoming the villain in the Mueller wars? So much so that columnist David Brooks felt the need for explaining just how unpopular he expects his latest column to be.” The content tells quite a story but so does the behavior, which is becoming so obvious and predictable that Ed uses it for reference.

“That recognition appears to play a role in the way Brooks makes his argument. He starts off his column with a heaping serving of poxes on both houses, especially Trump. Brooks writes that Trump “never understood checks and balances,” or “anything that stands in the way of his spoiled-boy will.” With that box checked in paragraph two, Brooks proceeds to dole out blame to both parties for the corrosion of checks and balances all the way down to paragraph five, where Brooks finally gets to the point

Brooks then covers in brief some of the arguments made yesterday by Jonathan Turley at more length. He notes that the contempt charge won’t actually solve anything, using Eric Holder as an example while also pointing out that Republicans gave Holder well over a year to produce Operation Fast and Furious documentation before triggering the contempt charge. Brooks then gets to his main point, which is that Democrats’ politicization of checks and balances will destroy them — and play right into Trump’s hands

Both sides are playing a dangerous game, but Democrats have much more to lose in it.

Go back to Prager’s quote on good and evil. Consider a war where both sides are playing a dangerous game. Does this sort of moral equivalency serve any purpose? Ed makes it very clear that there is a difference. The McCarthy and Brophy posts cited above note the difference. Why is Ed still avoiding and excusing and trying to pretend what he clearly shows is not so?

Comments are closed.