August 3, 2020
By Mike Huckabee
ANDREW MCCARTHY: OBAMA INVESTIGATED TRUMP
If you would like a preview of the story we hope the Durham report will make official in another month or two, Andrew C. McCarthy has a great, very detailed column that sums it up. It’s all here --- long, but a must-read
McCarthy makes the essential point that all the machinations of the FBI and other members of the intel community --- up to and including the highest level of government --- were implemented to GET TRUMP, not “the Trump campaign.” That’s an important distinction. As McCarthy puts it, “..Do you suppose they moved heaven and earth, surreptitiously plotted in the Oval Office, wrote CYA memos to cover their tracks, and laboriously sculpted FBI reports because they were hoping to nail...George Papadopoulos?”
We know at this point that President Obama himself authorized the investigation of his political opponent in 2016-17, with no actual evidence that would warrant this, on the ludicrous pretext that Donald Trump was an agent of Russia. Something this big could not have happened without Obama's knowledge and approval. (Of course, Biden was present at the Jan. 5, 2017, meeting as well.) They kept Trump’s name off the case files to try to disguise what they were doing, but they can't hide it any longer.
THE TRUTH ABOUT GOP SWAMP GATORS
There’s this small little gang of people who once made lots of money in DC as Republican political consultants, pollsters, party insiders, and commentators who really hate President Trump. They have always been tied to the establishment of DC, or the swamp as some like to call it. They once were the toast of the town because they were joined at the hip with the well-established elites who really didn’t have deep convictions about issues, but rather just enjoyed playing for the Republican team because the pay was good and they got invited to all the cool parties in Georgetown, Manhattan, and Hollywood. They were also the reason nothing ever changed or was even challenged in Washington. They worked for candidates and elected officials who pretended to care about issues like the sanctity of life, our alliance with Israel, the middle class, jobs leaving the US for China or Mexico, and health care. In reality, neither they nor the candidates or elected officials they worked for really cared at all. We voted for them because our alternatives were candidates with far-left positions that threatened free enterprise, the lives of unborn babies, small businesses, factory jobs, important court appointments, and more. But the election of Donald Trump messed up their legalized looting of the political donor class. Donald Trump didn’t become President because he was bought and owned by the political class. He mostly used his own money to become President and hasn’t had to do the bidding of the typical political hacks and they aren’t happy! In fact, he’s called on very few of them for anything and they aren’t going away quietly. They don’t hate him because he failed to do what he said-they hate him because he did exactly what he said he would do. The so-called Lincoln Project is about as true to Abraham Lincoln as I am to Weight Watchers. They loved the power and money and when Donald Trump became President, they just didn’t matter that much.
I do have friends who claim to be conservative but say they will vote for Joe Biden because they think President Trump is vain and vulgar. The same Joe Biden caught on a hot microphone uttering a truly vulgar term when talking to President Obama about signing Obamacare and who has cursed at the very people who attended his lightly attended events? But are elections even about a candidate’s tone, Tweets, or temperance? Sure, I’d love for all the people I vote for to be near perfect in personality, piety, and personal manners. But I care even more about whether the performance matches the promises on issues that really matter.
Believing in the intrinsic worth and value of every human life from conception is sacred to me. A candidate right about everything else and wrong in respecting the God-given worth of every human life is a candidate I can’t support. No candidate—not even Ronald Reagan, has taken the number of bold concrete steps to protect innocent human life as has President Trump. Donald Trump has done more for preserving religious liberty than ANY President in my lifetime. I believe strongly in the 1st amendment and with it, untouchable religious liberty. Other Presidents have claimed to be champions for churches, synagogues, and mosques to be free from government control, but President Trump has delivered. Most Presidents promise to create jobs and preserve middle-class jobs, but until the shut-down of the economy because of the Chinese Virus, President Trump had delivered, marking record jobs for blacks, Hispanics, women, and youth with record pay increases. And while the previous administration said our manufacturing jobs would never return, they actually have come back under President Trump. He has unflinchingly stood for the 2nd amendment. He’s insisted that America stop being the chump for China and its cheating. He’s stood for our border security while his opponent believes in open borders. Instead of folding like a cheap tent in a windstorm in the face of violent riots and mass looting, he’s called for the protection of private and public property and the arrests of anarchists who have turned streets of major cities into war zones. And he has cut 7 regulations from the backs of Americans for every new one enacted.
So I understand why the ruling class of elitist snobs who run the DC Swamp would vote for Biden to restore their control. But it means the not-so-connected American being abandoned, so I don’t understand those who call themselves conservatives or even moderates voting for Biden, a candidate 180 degrees from what they claim they believe, and 100% a return to a government for the elites and the swells. Donald Trump went to Washington to shake things up. His problem wasn’t that he failed at that. It was that he succeeded.
ICYMI: CAPITALIZATION WARS
The Washington Post is breaking with the AP’s new stylebook change of capitalizing “Black” when referring to someone’s race, but not “white.” WaPo plans to capitalize both.
They also list all the other ethnicities that will be capitalized, from Latino to Asian American to Pacific Islander. But here’s the problem for all those who still care about grammar: those are capitalized because they refer to places with proper noun names (Latin America, Asia, the Pacific Ocean, etc.) Black and white are just adjectives describing skin tones.
WaPo claims that "The use of Black is recognition & acknowledgment not only of the cultural bonds & historical experiences shared by people of African heritage, but also the shared struggles of descendants of enslaved people, families who immigrated generations ago & more recent immigrants." Except that’s rather insulting, even racist. It assumes that all black people have slave ancestors, or share the same culture.
As for capitalizing “white,” WaPo rationalizes, “White is a distinct cultural identity in the United States...” and is a “collective group that has had its own cultural and historical impact on the nation.” In short, they plan to blame everything wrong on White people, so they’re throwing us the bone of capitalizing it. This is all nonsense since white people of British, German, Italian, or Australian heritage have no more of a “common culture” than black people from Haiti, Jamaica, Ghana, or Chicago.
To me, white refers to nothing but the relative amount of melanin in my skin, which I have no more control over than any other human being on Earth. I believe that judging others because of it is a sin against God’s creation. So you can keep your capital “W.” Frankly, capitalizing “White” when you’re not doing it for blue, purple, or pea green sounds a little “white supremacist” to me.
On the other hand, the news that WaPo is capitalizing “white” did cause a lot of leftists to go berserk on Twitter, so there is the entertainment value…
AINSWORTH: AN OPEN LETTER TO MISS MANNERS
By Laura Ainsworth
AN OPEN LETTER TO MISS MANNERS (Judith Martin)
Dear Miss Manners,
Please let me preface this letter by saying I am a longtime fan of your column, as I am distressed by the lack of courtesy in today’s society and always appreciate your witty replies. You may or may not be aware that I have even affectionately parodied your column with “Miss Mannerly,” here on this very website. That said, here is the original, very thoughtful letter you received and your answer ("Clarifying racism for a white man") that has prompted my missive to you:
I do agree with you that talking about what racism is (or is not) is a semantic discussion. We currently have two “working” definitions of racism being used simultaneously, and we also have many people far too willing to throw around the “r-word.” Under one (the “classic”) definition, anyone of any race can be racist; it means the notion that people of another race are inferior to you and don’t deserve the same treatment as people of your own race. Under the other (the “evolved”) definition, only a white person can be racist, and, in part because he has lived his entire life with racial privilege by virtue of being white, he cannot be considered the victim of racism, either. Add nuance to taste, and stir.
The man who wrote to you, a self-described white male, told you he’d been informed that he would be viewed as racist for bringing up examples of how he personally was abused, targeted with racial epithets, and even lightly hit by a car while living in a mostly non-white country where he was in a racial minority.
The man was obviously trying to show empathy for others who have been treated badly because of their race. But because he is white, his view was considered unwelcome. They told him that the treatment he received was not out of racism, but “rather out of resentment for white people’s history of cruelty and injustice towards others.”
In your answer, you essentially agreed with his friends, saying that even though the treatment he had experienced had been “horrid and unfair,” it was not the same as “the experience of most marginalized groups” because it never took away his basic rights and equality. (Not having been in whatever country this was and experienced what he went through, I don’t know if that is necessarily true. As a woman, I could easily name countries that would take away MY basic rights and equality.)
You made what you called the "key" distinction between “retaliatory” bias and “inherent” bias. With all due respect, being on the receiving end of “retaliatory” bias for something one’s ancestors, as opposed to oneself, did is, to me, as unacceptable as any other kind of bias. I would make the case that it is also extremely racist.
You said his argument makes this gentleman look naive. I am hardly naive, and I agree with him.
If the treatment this man received was “...out of resentment for white people’s history of cruelty and injustice towards others,” I’m sorry, but that was still racism. The man himself had done nothing to anyone; he was being judged –- judged –- by the color of his skin. The argument being used to defend that, which you helped further, is a rationalization for racist behavior. One may agree with that rationalization or disagree as I do, but a rationalization it is.
One problem we have right now is that we’re all encouraged to be having “conversations” about race, but these “conversations” all have to be very carefully articulated in certain ways in order to avoid charges of racism. The man who wrote you obviously is not a racist, but he must speak in exactly the "right" way in order to avoid a minefield. The slightest deviation is heresy. I’m sorry, but that is not real conversation, Miss Manners. It is control. A real conversation is a two-way street, with give and take, and people try to understand each other. I don’t see that happening with this subject. To create a “safe space” for others --- even his own partner --- this person’s thoughtful view is being shut down.
Thank you, Miss Manners, for your attention. Though you are correct in saying this gentleman risks alienating some people –- that they might challenge his point and perhaps call him naive and even racist –- simply telling him to “stop” is to inhibit honest, heartfelt conversation. I, for one, am willing to (very politely) have that conversation, and if someone wants to wrongly accuse me of racism, that is the person who needs to learn some common courtesy –- and some common sense.
BIBLE VERSE OF THE DAY (KJV)