Too many coincidences

Victor Davis Hanson does a good job today summarizing what to date has been a slow but steady drip of information indicating Special Counsel Robert Mueller grossly stacked the deck in terms of staffing his investigation of the Trump team’s activity during last year’s election.  Excerpt:

By now there are simply too many coincidental conflicts of interest and too much improper investigatory behavior to continue to give the Mueller investigation the benefit of doubt. Each is a light straw; together, they now have broken the back of the probe’s reputation.

In inexplicable fashion, Mueller seems to have made almost no effort to select attorneys from outside Washington, from diverse private law firms across the country, who were without personal involvement with the Clinton machine, and who were politically astute or disinterested enough to keep their politics to themselves.

It seems readily apparent from what has been revealed that the investigation is the logical culmination of the Obama administration’s partisan weaponization of government.  Much as the IRS illegally discriminated against Tea Party-affiliated organizations, there is evidence the FBI and other agencies improperly surveilled U.S. citizens during an election, selectively leaking information upon which to base an investigation.  The many media misfires in recent days is further indication this investigation is a conclusion looking for evidence, rather than the other way around.  Ironically (and most likely deliberately), much clearer evidence of mishandling classified information, and improper quid pro quos between Russia and the Clinton Foundation are completely free from any official scrutiny.

Such politicizing of governmental institutions to overturn or thwart the result of a presidential election is a grave and present danger to the health of what’s left of our representative government.  It has further polarized a heavily divided electorate.  Those who support the administration see a partisan witch hunt.  Those who oppose him readily grab onto whatever “bombshells” are illegally leaked to the press from within the investigation in an attempt to further delegitimize Trump and his team–even though many of those “bombshells” quickly turn out to be less than meets the eye.

As Hanson notes, the existence of special counsels is already a poor reflection on the ability of representative government to reach just and fair conclusions in some circumstances.  If that safety valve is itself compromised (which seems highly likely in this case), what options for resolution of the issues are left — short of social unrest and violence?

Our political class continues to lead us down a very dangerous road.

Advertisements

Who needs credibility?

UPDATE: a good summary of a bad media week can be found here.

The mainstream press is tripping all over itself trying to manufacture scandals for the Trump administration — and in the process, shredding what little credibility they have left.  They are as uniformly hostile to Trump as they were protective of Obama, and anyone who believes their claims of objectivity is simply either not paying attention, or is beyond reasoning with.  The press is being aided in their efforts by Robert Mueller’s investigative politically partisan team, which is habitually (and illegally) leaking material to said press.

The Department of Justice would do well to look into both the leaking by the special counsel’s investigative team, and the editorial processes that keep producing these slanderous misfires by the press.

CNN thought it had a major scoop indicating Donald Trump and his inner circle coordinated with Russian-aligned operatives in 2016 to tilt the presidential election.

CNN was wrong

The CNN report hinged entirely on an email that was supposedly sent on Sept. 4. The September email to Trump and his team included a “decryption key and website address” for the WikiLeaks dump, the article added.

There’s a major, glaring error in this story, which CNN promoted all Friday morning and into the afternoon.

The email upon which the entire story hinges was sent on Sept. 14, not Sept. 4, meaning the email merely pointed Trump’s team to a trove of already-public hacked DNC documents.

The difference between Sept. 4 and Sept. 14 is difference between someone merely flagging already public information and someone quietly slipping the GOP nominee and his team advance access to hacked correspondences.

CBS News also misreported independently that the email was dated September 4.

No intention of reconciliation

It’s becoming ever clearer that the decades-long campaign for civil rights has morphed into a campaign against Western Civilization and European ethnicity.  As the most recent evidence of this, I submit an editorial published Tuesday in the Texas State University newspaper (click the picture to enlarge to read; if needed, save to your computer then use the zoom feature in a photo viewer ap):

DNA

“Until then, remember this: I hate you because you shouldn’t exist.”  This pretty well encapsulates leftist identity politics.  There is no compromising with such an attitude.  That this showed up in a campus newspaper should cause everyone to examine more closely what’s being taught in our universities.  No apologies over historical wrongs, let alone reparations, will satisfy those who hold such hatred. Our language has been so tortured that “anti-racism” has really come to mean “anti-White,” and “anti-fascism” merely fascist thuggery in disguise.

The more I see of this, the angrier I become.  If there is no intention of ethnic reconciliation, then we are left with tribalism.  I’m not sure these hotheads understand their rantings will cause many who never gave their European ethnicity a second thought to begin to defend it ever more strongly.  The principle of actions having equal and opposite reactions shows up in social sciences, too.

Sadly, the hatred being expressed toward whites is likely to reawaken in them some of the same attitudes many worked hard to overcome in the middle of the last century.  The seeds people like the campus writer are planting will bear bitter fruit indeed.

“It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late
With long arrears to make good,
When the English began to hate…”

– Rudyard Kipling

It’s a mystery

At least, it’s a mystery to the New York Times why the phrase “Allahu Ackbar” has become synonymous with terrorism:

When H. A. Hellyer is out walking with his family, strangers sometimes approach him and declare, “Allahu akbar!”

RES_d9a28254-94e0-48b9-aa16-c2d467f16ac9SELRES_3ad5f98a-35b5-49d0-850d-c990a37560bfSELRES_7b62172d-4292-4cdc-a53d-5bcef31d7408SELRES_5a1912fd-94d8-4209-9025-b22fe1ce7809SELRES_d74be42a-80bc-484e-bbc1-10729004b017Many Westerners may find it hard to believe these days, but Mr. Hellyer does not recoil in fear.

“I’ll be walking out with my kids,” he said, “and someone will say: ‘Oh, they’re so cute. Allahu akbar.’ And I’ll joke: ‘Thank you — now stop talking to my kids.’”

The Arabic phrase, which means simply “God is great,” has, it sometimes seems, become intertwined with terrorism.

I wonder how on Earth such a connection could be made?  As he often does, David Burge cuts right to the chase:

Allahu Ackbar

It’s telling that one of the top priorities of the NYT and other major outlets after EVERY. SINGLE. ATTACK. is to leap to the defense of Islam and Muslims. I get it: we’re not supposed to judge an entire people by the actions of a few. The problem is, it’s not just the actions of a few and frankly, the foundations of that faith are more than a little problematic.

For what it’s worth, I spent quite some time overseas interacting with Muslims in their home nations. I don’t recall a single time the phrase “Allahu ackbar” was uttered in such a casual fashion as the NYT describes. I heard plenty of “inshallah,” (if God wills) and “Alhamdulillah” (basically “praise Allah”).  But what the NYT is trying to get us to do is ignore observable reality: when the phrase “Allahu ackbar” pops up in the West outside of a mosque, bad things happen.  I just have one response to them for that attempt at obfuscation:

Go to hell, Wormtongue.

Fantasy vs. reality

Just two days ago, the organization Latino Victory Fund posted this racist video to Twitter as part of their support of the Democratic candidate for Governor of Virginia:

They’ve since taken the video down (but not before it was archived). What prompted the removal? The aftermath of a REAL instance of a vehicular manslaughter:

A man in a rented pickup truck mowed down pedestrians and cyclists along a busy bike path in New York City Tuesday, killing at least eight and injuring 13 others in what the mayor called “a particularly cowardly act of terror.”

In a tragic irony, at least five of those killed were Hispanics — Argentine nationals in New York to mark the 30th anniversary of their high school graduating class.  But the driver of the rented truck had nothing to do with the Tea Party (a libelous smear added to the video), Ed Gillespie, or even the Confederate flag for that matter. He DID, however, exit his truck screaming “Allahu Ackbar!” just as his fellow travelers have done in London, Nice, Stockholm, Berlin and Barcelona. (By the way, CNN, that doesn’t translate literally as simply “God is great.”  There’s a lot more to it.)

Conservative, patriotic Americans are not the problem.

The Second Amendment is not the problem.

The problem is the practically unfettered migration of jihadists and their descendants to the West(The truck driver’s name — Sayfullo — is the Uzbeki form of “Saifullah,” which literally means “Sword of Allah.”)

That’s not a popular thing to say, and tragically, not enough people will say it.  Already the press is wringing its hands, worrying over the expected “backlash” against Muslims that never quite seems to materialize, no matter how often we’ve been down this road since 9/11.  Because of this willful blindness, Americans keep dying from these supposed “lone wolf” attacks.  It’s time to ask: why do we have an immigration “diversity lottery” that allows people to come here from places like Uzbekistan where this sort of ideology is a known problem?  Sure, we can pat ourselves on the back for accepting “refugees” (an abused status claim if there ever was one), but what’s in it for America?

We applaud individual charity, and rightfully so.  But what would we think of a man who gives so much to charity that his wife and kids don’t have enough food, clothing or shelter?  Or one who picked up a hitchhiker who proceeded to murder the family and steal their minivan?  It’s said that charity starts at home.  So does security.  Those are good foundational concepts for our immigration policies.

Those who made the video above see the descendants of those who built America as the greatest threat to America.  George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” would be so proud.

Hagiography exemplified

hag·i·og·ra·phyˌ   haɡēˈäɡrəfē,/        noun

1. The writing of the lives of saints.
derogatory: adulatory writing about another person.
– biography that idealizes its subject.

See for example the New York Times article about “How Mao Molded Communism to Create a New China.”  In amongst the portrait of Mao as a “tiger” and “monkey king,” the article completely fails to mention Mao as the greatest mass murderer in history, responsible for an estimated 45 million deaths.

It’s as if the newspaper’s “Red Century” series is meant to indoctrinate a new generation into believing communism wasn’t all that bad

For more fun examples, see the Times’ story on “Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s Odd Journey From Victim to Criminal”…   (Note to the Times: entering a ‘naked plea’ — essentially “no contest” — on charges of desertion tends to have that effect.)

Sir Hollywood the not-so-brave

It’s been decades since Tinseltown was content with just making entertainment.  No, today everybody has to have a message, an agenda and a cause, and these usually overshadow the actual business of TV and movie making (which is probably a large part of why very little worth watching comes out of there anymore).  The big names claim they have an obligation to speak out in support of others, to “speak truth to power.

Unless that power is someone like Harvey Weinstein.

The real story with Weinstein isn’t that an entertainment mogul has been revealed to have used his position to harass and abuse women in the industry.  Frankly, given the stories coming out of Fox News and elsewhere, that much is almost blasé.  No, the real story is why it took so long for this to be publicized.  Now that the dam has broken, it’s like more than half of Hollywood is saying “well, of course there was a problem.  Who didn’t know?”

In other words, when Weinstein was at the height of his power, nobody was speaking truth to him.  On the contrary, if allegations are true, a number of big names in the business were active enablers of his behavior.  Does anyone believe this is the only rock that needed kicking over?  Is it any coincidence that so many child stars (particularly those who work for Disney) seem to grow up and lose their mind?  If Congress can find the time to investigate the use of steroids in baseball, why can’t it find the time to investigate the toxic environment of Hollywood?

Probably because of the money involved.  Weinstein was a generous supporter of the Democratic Party and a very close friend of Bill and Hillary (whose judgement only appears more evil and self-serving by the day).  But money alone doesn’t explain it all.  Does anyone doubt if one or both of the Koch brothers were found in the same circumstances that the media would be demanding every Republican in Washington publicly denounce them?   So why hasn’t anyone brought Weinstein up with Hillary, who is still giving lucrative speeches well after her sell-by date?  Barack Obama, who seemed to be speaking as a shadow president during Trump’s early efforts to reverse his disastrous legacy, also seems strangely silent and out of sight.  He’s far from the only one who’s lost his usually overactive tongue.

It’s called partisan protection.  As Glenn Reynolds frequently says of the corporate media, “just think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines and it all makes sense.” There is so much overlap in the Venn diagram of Democrats, Hollywood and the Media that reporters risk being cast out of the bubble of their incestuous clan if they ask the difficult questions.  So much for “bravery:”

In the absence of personal risk, haranguing the powerful can be soul-satisfying, and sometimes it forges careers, but it isn’t brave by a long shot. Thomas More spoke truth to Henry VIII, and it cost him his head. Dietrich Bonheoffer spoke truth to Adolf Hitler and was hanged in a concentration camp. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn spoke truth to the Soviet Union and suffered grievously for it. Stephen Colbert piddled on the president’s rug, and he’s been cashing big-bucks checks ever since.

See the difference?

The protection afforded Weinstein by his liberal enablers doesn’t stop at silence or the reluctance to make him the subject of standard late-night comedy roasts.  Donna Karan, a well-known fashion designer, was forced to walk back comments that perhaps Weinstein’s victims were ‘asking for it’ by the way they dressed!

Certainly in the country of Haiti where I work, in Africa, in the developing world, it’s been a hard time for women.   To see it here in our own country is very difficult, but I also think how do we display ourselves? How do we present ourselves as women? What are we asking? Are we asking for it by presenting all the sensuality and all the sexuality?

If a conservative comments on how lasciviously many women dress today, it’s considered “victim blaming” by alleged Neanderthals.  But if such an examination is a way to help out a Hollywood mogul, it’s OK?  Is your head spinning yet at the audacious double standard?  Sure, Karan was pressured to disavow the statement, but the fact she made it shows it’s part of the toxic self-justifying entertainment industry’s environment. It’s easy for them to hold conservatives’ feet to the fire over standards.  It’s harder to do so for liberals, when it appears they have none other than the will to power.

The public has more reason than just simple decency and morality to be outraged. Hollywood derives tremendous benefit from tax breaks and government incentives to churn out their drivel.  In other words, cord-cutting or not We the People pay for this filth.  Just as the immature posturing of NFL players has caused some to look at the League’s anti-trust exemption and frequent use of municipal bonds to build their palatial stadiums, perhaps Weinstein’s downfall should cause America to truly confront the moral sewer that is Hollywood.  Public funding for both (including PBS) should dry up entirely.  Let them earn their profits by making edifying fare that Middle America actually wants, versus their tax-supported propaganda.

Final thought: what are the odds Weinstein actually goes to jail (versus some sort of high-profile “rehab”)?  Roman Polanski and Woody Allen after all, are still considered persecuted entertainers by many in Hollywood.  And there’s not exactly a tradition of holding Leftists criminally accountable these days (see: Hillary, Bill, Huma, Lois Lerner, Loretta Lynch, etc., ad nauseum).

Remember that, when Social Justice Warriors ask if we ‘normal Americans’ have any decency.  It’s called projection.  And they don’t really have the courage of their convictions when it comes to policing their own.