From the “Everything You Hear Is Wrong” Dept:
Last week, the judge in charge of overseeing the Trump Administration’s efforts to reunify over 2,000 children with their illegal immigrant parents took a jackhammer to the liberal narrative by praising the White House, saying it deserves “great credit” for its good faith efforts to bring separated families back together.
But wait, the rubble of the liberal media narrative is about to be reduced to pea gravel: Turns out there are still hundreds of children in government facilities whose parents are not in federal custody, and it’s longstanding ICE policy to let these parents take their children with them. But an ICE spokesman said a surprisingly large number of these parents decline and prefer to leave their children in the ICE holding facilities. He said, “We cannot force a parent to take a child…and we cannot force a child out of the country” without a court order. So contrary to the anti-Trump politicians and media, there are many kids in those facilities who are there because their parents want them there, maybe figuring they would be better off.
Of course, the whole point of our laws requiring the separation of children from adults was to protect the children. It was assumed they would be safer in a facility for kids only instead of in detention centers with adults who might be criminals or sexual predators, or even with people claiming to be their parents who were actually human traffickers. By insisting that they be housed with their parents (or "parents"), the self-appointed protectors of the children may actually be putting them into harm’s way.
It’s a complicated issue, and one I had to deal with as a governor. News flash: illegal entrants aren’t the only people who are separated from their children. All people who commit crimes that land them in custody are barred from bringing their kids with them to jail, which requires states to have child services and foster systems to take care of them. It’s an expensive, complicated problem. Everyone involved wants to help the kids, and there are disagreements about the best ways; but enforcing the law on parents doesn’t mean you hate their children or want to separate their families. That was the parents’ doing; the state is just trying to protect their kids from the consequences of their parents’ bad decisions.
You’d think the media would understand such nuances, but if they can further Democratic electoral prospects by simply repeating the canard that “Trump hates immigrants and wants rip children from their mothers’ arms,” then expect that to stay in the headlines from now until November.
Must read article
This is a must-read article for those who think that talking a lot about your leftist opinions makes you qualified for an important executive position. It’s by a “social justice attorney” who worked for the City of New York. She didn’t like Mayor Mike Bloomberg on philosophical grounds (not far left enough for her, I guess), but was pleasantly surprised at how efficient and effective he was at running the city and dealing with problems such as homelessness. You see, he was a businessman and actually knew how to manage people and run things (sound familiar?)
But then came the far-left Mayor Bill DeBlasio (whom she admits she voted for.) The well-oiled system Bloomberg built quickly fell to pieces under the weight of mismanagement, arrogance, corrupt and greedy political appointees, poor communications, pointless and burdensome new rules and regulations, massive fraud, lack of oversight and outright incompetence. Homelessness increased even as the budget to fight it doubled. Trying to point out the problems got her fired – while she was on family leave (liberal compassion, ladies and gentlemen!)
Read it all, but here’s the moral: “I was shocked to discover that I actually preferred Michael Bloomberg’s very corporate City Hall to Bill de Blasio’s failed socialist utopia. Who wouldn’t?”
I have no idea, but New Yorkers just reelected de Blasio in a landslide (ironically, if New York suffered a real landslide, he'd be totally unprepared to deal with it), and now they’re poised to send a wet-behind-the-ears socialist utopian to DC to fight Trump’s successes at lowering taxes, creating jobs and more than doubling GDP growth. I guess some people must really like failure and incompetence. I just wish they’d quit voting to inflict it on the rest of us.
Amusing “listicle”: “5 Reasons Hillary Clinton Was the Worst Presidential Nominee in History.” I think it shortchanges the strength of Trump’s campaign. Still, it must’ve been hard to keep it down to 5. You can add more in the comments if you feel inspired.
New to Hollywood
Well, here’s something you don’t see every day: a Hollywood director who is passionate about fighting sex traffickers admits that Obama did nothing to help while Trump and his family members (Ivanka, Jared, Don Jr.) have been very active in the fight. What do you bet the director who was fired for tweeting pedophile jokes gets another job before this director does?
POLL RESULTS: Would President Trump be right to revoke the top-secret security clearances of those who misuse classified information? Over 25,000 votes cast! 92% YES 4% UNDECIDED 4% NO
More on Roseanne
If you’re not tired of hearing about Roseanne Barr, then you might appreciate this perspective from black comic/actress Mo’Nique. She not only has a story about Roseanne that she thinks proves she’s not a racist, but that makes some powerful people in Hollywood who likely condemned Roseanne look pretty racist themselves. Mo’Nique also says she, too, has been blacklisted in Hollywood for saying things she wasn’t supposed to say. I seriously doubt this will help end that, but hooray for her for having the guts to say it.
And speaking of African-Americans who dare to speak out and shatter the leftist narrative…
Obama did it
I recently commented on the media going ape over President Trump’s so-called “war on the press” because the White House barred one CNN reporter from a Rose Garden event after she interrupted the previous event by yelling irrelevant, hectoring questions. In that post, I noted an incident in which the White House reporters themselves helped remove a reporter who didn’t show proper respect and awe for President Obama.
In case you think I was exaggerating, here’s proof I was actually understating the case. While it’s "the death of the First Amendment" for Trump to bar a single reporter who doesn’t know how to behave in public, this link compiles a long list of examples of Obama banning or even ejecting reporters, either for trying to ask an unwelcome question or merely for representing conservative media outlets he didn’t like. In those cases, the reactions of the other reporters ranged from ignoring the removal of their colleagues to literally applauding it.
This is why, when liberal news outlets rail about how the vital role of the press in reporting the truth is in danger, conservatives say, “It certainly is. So why don’t you get back to doing that?”
Even Huck’s Heroes deserve a break. Check out this great photo of some brave firefighters catching 40 winks wherever they can before returning to battling California’s devastating Carr wildfire. FYI: nobody invited them inside because the houses are all evacuated.
A look at Manafort and Cohen as Manafort trial starts
Tuesday marks the start, with jury selection, of one of Paul Manafort’s two trials –- this one in the U.S. District Court of Eastern Virginia, the other in Washington DC. The jury pool will be very different for these two trials, and the judges may be, too. In pre-trial hearings in Virginia, Judge T. S. Ellis III made it clear he knows why special counsel Robert Mueller is pursuing Manafort so relentlessly; he’s seen prosecutors apply pressure to get witnesses to “sing,” or even “compose.” We all know Mueller is after bigger fish; namely, the Orange Trumpy, known for its brazen behavior and thick skin.
Manafort surely has endured much pressure. He and his wife were awakened, pre-dawn, by armed officials for a search of their home. While awaiting trial on charges totally unrelated to the Trump campaign, he’s been treated like a convicted criminal, held in solitary for 23 hours of every day. That’s when suspects typically start “composing.”
You know, Manafort might be guilty of these years-old charges. We don’t know what evidence will be brought against him; reportedly, over 35 people are on the witness list, five of whom have received immunity. In the Virginia trial, he’s charged with laundering over $30 million in Ukrainian political consulting fees and hiding it from the IRS. There will likely be testimony about his lavish lifestyle –- his Mercedes, pricey property, finely tailored suits, and high-end furnishings and art. Maybe he’s a smart businessman who profited from legal investments. If that’s true, let’s hope his nightmare –- which, it must be said, started because he dared to help elect Donald Trump –- ends soon.
But if he’s guilty, questions arise: Did Trump know of Manafort’s shady finances when he hired him for his campaign? If so, why didn’t he anticipate the political fallout? He trusted Michael Cohen, too, to handle very personal matters before Cohen showed how utterly untrustworthy he is. What does this say about Trump’s ability to judge character? These will be issues for Trump to address if Manafort is convicted.
But I’ll give Manafort one thing: he apparently is loyal, unlike Michael Cohen, who, when subjected to the Mueller search-and-destroy treatment, opted to “flip” and cooperate with the special counsel, even if it meant disclosing that he had secretly taped his own client. That’s about as disgraceful as it gets, even for an attorney known as a “fixer.” He could (and should) be disbarred for that, but at this point it hardly matters to his career in law; who in the world is going to trust him with anything now that we know he’s done that? Likewise, who can believe him when he claims, without evidence, that Donald Trump, Jr., told his father in advance of that meeting with some –- gasp! –- Russians in Trump Tower? Giuliani refuted this assertion thoroughly in an interview with Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday.
Maybe Cohen is looking at a second career in broadcasting, with (appropriately) CNN or perhaps MSNBC. It’s easy for leakers and liars to get jobs there if they’re sufficiently anti-Trump.
Trump’s current attorney, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, said over the weekend that two retired FBI agents examined the recording leaked to CNN of Cohen’s conversation with Trump about paying a Playboy model and concluded that someone had “played” with it. They say it’s “a tape of a tape.” Giuliani needs to be able to analyze the original recording but says chances of that are “slim.”
Now, I assume that in 2016, they’re not talking literally about a piece of magnetic tape like we used to use when I started in radio. (I recall one episode of “Columbo” in which the murderer’s secretary would press “play” on a reel-to-reel tape machine in her desk drawer to record all his phone calls. Her boss’s crafty editing of that tape was used to make it sound as if he were talking on the phone when he was really out murdering. But I digress.) I assume this was some sort of voice-activated digital recording. Gosh, digital recordings are a cinch to manipulate, but experts can still tell. That includes the way this “tape” abruptly cuts off.
Speaking of “Columbo,” I wish we had Lt. Columbo right now, to walk into the special counsel’s office and say, “You know, there’s something about this that bothers me...”