Feel good? Does anything else matter?

This Leftist Tantrum Is an Information Operation and Trump Is Winning It. Kurt Schlichter – “do not get frustrated because Donald Trump has not sent the 101st Airborne in to powerwash the human grunge from Seattle’s feces-bedecked streets.”

  • Scumbagistan is a giant zit on the face of liberalism, and why should Trump pop it? He’s letting it fester for all of us to see – and winning the information war.

  • The media shot its wad on the hyperbolic reaction to clearing out the park in front of the White House, demonstrating that even the most gentle and restrained of kinetic actions was going to get transmogrified into Hitler’s blitz across the Low Countries.

  • And those generals screwed-up too, bad. They should have waited to wring their hands over Trump’s violent and dangerous employment of the military until he actually violently and dangerously employed the military.

You can’t order police officers to die for your politics. Jazz Shaw – “Suggesting that Congress can simply roll out some new rules about a crisis situation where the cops wind up in a physical and potentially deadly confrontation with a subject is magical thinking.”

Why We Won’t Have a Civil War. Bruce Thornton – “We’re mistaking an availability error––the fallacy of coming to conclusions based on what is most recent and first comes to mind––for a more probable reality. But that doesn’t mean that we are not facing serious political danger in the coming months.”

“But couldn’t such a volume of manipulated images and their attendant duplicitous commentary spark a civil war? Anything can happen, but the transient nature of such events like the riots, and the short attention-spans of most viewers, argue against it.

Next, we forget how parochial the political class, whence comes most of the commentary predicting a civil war, really is. Those of us who are immersed in politics forget that the majority of voters and normal people are not as invested or even interested in the daily fluctuations of opinion.

Such a disconnect between the opinions of the political class and American reality does not suggest enough of a broad and passionate consensus necessary for an actual civil war involving mass violence.

a different world in 1861, when regional differences were more distinct, political identities more local, and experience with weapons and fighting more widespread than today. When we watch on our screens the well-nourished, leisured protesters, looters, and vandals, we don’t see the kind of young men who did hard physical labor from an early age, who were familiar with disease and early death, and who knew how to handle firearms. There were no snowflakes in the 1860s.

That a civil war is unlikely, however, doesn’t mean that there aren’t dangers ahead. The Dems have suffered decades of disappointment in their desire to “fundamentally transform America” into a socialist state. … They are doubling and tripling down on the left’s mantra “by any means necessary,” even to the point of endorsing socialist and utopian policies

The Media Are Lying To You About Everything, Including The Riots. John Daniel Davidson – “The media lied about the Russia collusion hoax, about the Mueller probe, about impeachment, about the coronavirus—and now they’re lying about the riots.”

The Great Society Has Failed. Lt. Colonel Allen West – “In reflection, we should all agree, and stop whistling past the graveyard, that this was a program intended to do one thing — create economic enslavement, dependency.” … “Sadly, with the advent of reality TV and other mindless programming, we are becoming a nation of lemmings and useful idiots, not critical thinkers. We prefer to succumb to the irrational emotionalism of which we are bombarded by the lords of propaganda. We used to have a responsible press.”

In a world of sheep-like conformity, Hillsdale College takes a stand. Andrea Widburg – read it.

An outrageous prosecution in Atlanta. Paul Mirengoff – “The Fulton County DA’s decision to charge officer Garrett Rolfe with murder struck me as highly dubious. It strikes Andy McCarthy as outrageous. Having read his article, I’m with Andy.” … “Howard’s charging of Rolfe isn’t just unfounded, it is transparently political — an attempt to appease a mob.” It also appears that the Stepmother Of Ex-Atlanta Officer Who Shot Rayshard Brooks Fired From Job.

Atlanta shooting exposes the lie of BLM. Daniel Horowitz – “BLM: Blood libels matter” … “when a dangerous lie criminalizing all police and victimizing every black criminal is allowed to metastasize, it turns America into a violent, lawless nation, harming the very people that movement purports to champion.” … “Clearly, this case is in line with the vast majority of police shootings of both black and white suspects and many of the others that the media turned into a blood libel against the cops”

Vengeance, they name is Paul Howard. Neo – “DA Paul Howard of Atlanta took overcharging to a whole new level in his press conference on Officer Rolfe, who shot and killed Rayshard Brooks.”

Facebook breaks own free-speech policy over bogus ‘symbol of hate’ charge. New York Post – “They showed a red, upside-down triangle similar to what Nazis used to classify political prisoners, so they violated the platform’s ban on “using a hate group’s symbol to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol.”

“There are only two possible explanations for the company’s decision: 1) Its speech cops are confused and incapable of figuring out what speech to ban. 2) They’re looking for any excuse to silence the president and his team or make them look bad. Both may have factored in Thursday’s decision.

The Military-Intelligence Complex. (National Review nagware warning) Victor Davis Hanson – “The generals and spy chiefs entering the political arena to slam Trump forget that voters chose him — and not them.”

“What is striking about these admonitions are not specific charges that Trump has violated the Constitution — indeed, we are daily reading more evidence of the Obama administration’s efforts to sabotage a campaign, a presidential transition, and the early months of the new Trump presidency.

Yet being dubbed obnoxious or off-putting by a retired general, or pushing policies deemed wrong or divisive, is not a reason to prematurely remove a president, or to virtue-signal that he must in some vague way be stopped. None of these self-described constitutional experts seem to realize that our system of government and laws was intended to protect not messianic figures whom we worship but unpopular people and their speech that we don’t like.

As with Joe Biden’s giddiness about the thought of retired generals helping him remove a supposedly seditious Trump, no one paid any attention to Schumer’s warning of an active resistance.

Fairly or not, there has been a widespread wink-and-nod assumption in the media that the military-intelligence complex finds the president repugnant. That personal animosity is fine if that is their wont. But what is not fine is their effort to enter the political arena and try to remove or cripple a president by using the powers and influence of their offices, present or recently past. When a retired general calls the president a Mussolini, or when an FBI director hires a foreign national and contracted employee of another presidential candidate to find dirt on her opponent, then we have grounds to worry.

SCOTUS rules for the continuance of DACA. Neo – “One thing this decision underlines is that at this point Justice Roberts (a Bush nominee to the Court) is a reliably liberal vote, or at the very least the new swing vote.” DACA illegal? Not a question. SCOTUS and even former President Obama who made it agree. But, Orange Man Bad: “Another thing it underlines is that the liberals on the Court have consistently applied subjective feeling standards (as well as mind-reading, in some of its decisions) to reach the goal it happens to like.”

“very seldom if ever in those days did I find that a ruling with which I disagreed had really poor reasoning behind it, rather than just questionable reasoning. In recent years, though, that’s been happening more and more frequently – the rulings with which I disagree involve either some sort of tortuous and convoluted reasoning/sophistry, or the application of a subjective and arbitrary judgment.

Today’s decision by Roberts falls along those lines – to choose the least disruptive path in terms of keeping the status quo.

Supreme Court Blocks Termination of DACA Program – Justice John Roberts Makes Political Stand… sundance – “The admission that President Trump has the authority to terminate DACA, and the simultaneous admission they don’t like what Trump might do after the termination, is why I say this is the most political decision to ever come out of the Supreme Court.”

Democrat Lawmakers All Retire Since Supreme Court Doing Their Job For Them. Babylon Bee

Comments are closed.