From reader Karen L. DeSantis:
“Doesn't the Congressional record show that in 1964 the vast majority of congressional Democrats voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act? And congressional Republicans voted unanimously FOR the Civil Rights Act? Sure - once it was made law, the Left seized the moral high ground, took all the credit, and promptly started their finger-pointing campaign to assign bigotry to conservatives. I'm mystified as to why you gave them all the credit in your piece today.”
Thanks for your comment, Karen. You make a great point about the vote on the Civil Rights Act. The irony here is thick. Indeed, it was Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act. In the South, which was overwhelmingly Democrat in those days, white Democrats fought to prevent this legislation. Back then, Southern Republicans would meet semi-annually in a phone booth in Chattanooga.
But I do think there were some on the left who deserve credit for the push for civil rights. Keep in mind that most on the left in those days were not nearly as far-left as the Democratic Party became; someone with the views of John F. Kennedy would never be nominated by the Democrats today and would be be slammed as a moderate, pro-business, center-right candidate. On the other hand, I certainly would never give “all the credit” for fighting racism to the left, even the left of 1964, and didn’t say that.
Link to story is here: https://www.mikehuckabee.com/latest-news?id=ba9136d9-46a7-4060-b56b-bbfd816f2d2a
You are absolutely right that over the years the left has managed to rewrite history (as in “1984”) to take full credit for civil rights reform and smear the right as racist. Shelby Steele’s article was an attempt to explain why they did that, and why they have to keep that narrative in place, regardless of the reality.
Need one more reason to see the new movie, “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Worst Serial Killer”? Try this: Planned Parenthood desperately wants to prevent you from seeing it.
President Trump's UN speech
If you didn’t see President Trump’s address to the UN Tuesday, then I urge you to go to this link and watch it.
It will remind you why you voted for him and what “Make America Great Again” really means, not the twisted definitions that his detractors have tried to imply over the past two years. It was the kind of stirring, unapologetic defense of America and its values and principles, and rejection of globalism in favor of “patriotism, prosperity and pride,” that many of us despaired of ever hearing again during the Obama years. Here are just a few brief quotes to whet your appetite:
“America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control, and domination… America will never apologize for protecting its citizens…Sovereign and independent nations are the only vehicle where freedom has ever survived, democracy has ever endured, or peace has ever prospered. And so we must protect our sovereignty and our cherished independence above all.”
This was such a welcome 180-degree turn from the past eight years of bowing to dictators and “leading from behind” and “apologizing for America” tours that the news media apparently didn’t even know how to process it mentally. So they reverted to the only crayon in their box: covering the ridicule from Trump critics. Headlines about the speech ignored the vastly important substance of Trump’s comments and instead focused on the UN Peanut Gallery laughing when Trump declared that “in less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.” But as the old saying goes, it ain’t bragging if you can do it.
For instance, some liberal economists (you know, those geniuses who predicted a worldwide depression when Trump was elected?) are claiming there’s nothing special about the US economic boom. We’re just part of a general global boom and Trump is taking bows for something his policies had nothing to do with. Well, guess again.
As Investors Business Daily reports, CNBC’s latest quarterly survey of Chief Financial Officers of the world's top 113 companies found that the US is the only economy that’s currently improving. All the others were rated as either “stable” or “declining” while ours is accelerating. As recently as 2016, our economy was plagued with slow growth, and the experts expressed worried that the US had “entered a prolonged period where any expansion will be weaker than it has been in the past." Gee, I wonder what could have happened between 2016 and now that changed that?
On the other hand, when it comes to America’s economy, who are you going to believe: liberal reporters and politicians or your lyin’ eyes? Jack Hellner at American Thinker points out that the Washington Post recently ran an article headlined, “Is Trompnomics Working? Not Really.”
Yes, really. Hellner lists some of the irrefutable facts, including: quarterly GDP growth up to 4.2%l; consumer and business owner confidence at near record highs; unemployment among all demographics at or near record lows; jobless claims at their lowest in half a century; wages and bonuses up due to the tax cut; oil production at record highs, making the US the world’s leading energy producer; imports, exports, and business and retail sales all up; stock prices hitting record highs over 100 times; median family income rising at the fastest rate in a decade; and more.
So with all that evidence staring them in the face like a “Jurassic Park” velociraptor, how can WaPo claim that “Trumponomics” isn’t working? Because his hardball policy of threatening tariffs to force trading partners to sign better deals might spark a worldwide trade war that will lead to a recession. Sure, so far, it’s been very successful at forcing other nations to sign better deals with us without harming the economy, but why wait until something actually goes wrong to criticize Trump?
As Hellner points out, this November, Americans will have a clearcut choice: stick with the Trumponomic policies of low taxes, less government regulation and putting American workers and producers first, or return to the “Obamanomics” policies of the left that gave us the slowest economic recovery in 70 years.
Personally, I’d say the only thing good about “Obamanomics” is that it’s a fun word to try to say eight times fast.
Here's today’s must-read in preparation for the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing scheduled for Thursday that may or may not happen, depending on the accuser’s ever-changing demands. An attorney specializing in labor and employment law offers 10 red flags that an accusation of sexual assault might be false. They might give you a feeling of déjà vu because reading them is like looking back over the headlines of the Kavanaugh accusation story from the past week.
NSA contractor sentenced
Former National Security Agency software developer Nghia Hoang Pho has been sentenced to five years in prison plus three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to one count of willful retention of national defense information. That means he took classified NSA documents from work and stored them in his home, where they were not secure. Five years in prison for one count is actually fairly lenient, considering he could have gotten 10 years under federal law.
The big question is: Where did they find an unreasonable federal prosecutor to make the case against him? I ask because according to the former FBI Director, “no reasonable prosecutor” would ever press charges against a federal employee for storing classified information in an unsecure place.
Note to all the people who are full-throatedly backing the Democrats’ campaign of vague, unprovable allegations against Judge Kavanaugh: You are being played. And here’s the game plan, if you’re interested.
Changing the facts
Once again, the New York Times’ plea with readers to help them identify sources of false and misleading news stories designed to influence elections has resulted in readers suggesting that the Times editors look in the nearest mirror.
Political debates often turn on spin, shading and putting the best possible nuance on your point of view to sway voters. But when you once caused a DUI traffic accident while staggering drunk and left the scene, then claim at the debate that you didn’t leave the scene, even if you’re a liberal media darling, the Washington Post still calls that a 4-Pinocchio whopper.
One interesting side note, if you read between the lines of WaPo’s fact check: “Perhaps in his memory, O’Rourke believes he did not try to leave. But, given his blood alcohol content at the time of the crash, O’Rourke’s memory 20 years after the fact is not nearly as credible as the police reports written just hours after the crash.” So the Washington Post is suggesting that memories recalled from decades before, at a time when you were drunk, are not reliable as evidence? You’d never know that from their coverage of the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh.
Alex Jones? Banned from Twitter! James Woods? Locked out of his Twitter account. ISIS? Tweet away!
About that "Murphy Brown" reboot
Considering it’s not even in syndicated reruns because its constant topical references have aged so badly, I don’t know why anyone thinks that bringing back the ‘90s sitcom “Murphy Brown” is a good idea. I assume that most of its previous liberal audience is now old enough that they’ve gotten wiser and turned into conservatives. And we’re hardly so lacking for TV shows that condescendingly mock President Trump and Republicans that we need to dig this one up out of the TV graveyard. In fact, the reboot’s liberal smugness is so insufferable that it even annoyed Rolling Stone's critic, which is sort of like being called a sore loser by Hillary Clinton.
Normally, I wouldn’t even bother to write about this, but it was pointed out to me that in the review, the critic notes that the upcoming second episode has the character of liberal news anchor Murphy Brown (Candice Bergen) “lecturing Sarah Huckabee Sanders about the fundamental dishonesty of her press briefings.” Okay, now you’ve poked the bear.
First of all, my daughter is one of the strongest, bravest and most honest people in DC, and I’m proud to say she was raised that way. She has to walk out every day and face some of the most hypocritical, dishonest and biased propagandists masquerading as journalists that the world has seen since the old days of “yellow journalism.” They brand as “lies” anything that doesn’t fit their preconceived agenda, then rush to print stories that nobody bothered to source. Then after they’re exposed as “fake news,” they attack President Trump for assaulting the sacred cow of journalism by branding them as purveyors of fake news. Which they plainly are.
But let’s put that aside and focus on the staggering amount of gall that it takes for the creators of “Murphy Brown” to lecture anyone about dishonesty in communicating information to the public. You see, some of us who were around during the first incarnation of this overpraised show recall that its most celebrated episode was, in fact, a shining example of looking viewers straight in the eye and lying to their faces. It was the show that responded to then-Vice President Dan Quayle.
Some background, since it’s likely you haven’t seen this show since Bill dumped Monica: Quayle criticized its creators for having Murphy decide to have a baby without a father around because it was an unrealistic depiction of single motherhood that misled young female fans. The character was rich and famous, and her baby was like a lifestyle accessory that could simply be written out that week if it wasn’t convenient to the story. That’s not what life is like for the vast majority of real single mothers, as study after study has shown. One famous Brookings Institution study found that among people who finish high school, get a full time job and wait until age 21 to get married and then have children, only 2% are in poverty and 75% join the middle class. Quayle was discussing the hardships faced by teenage single moms when he said it didn’t help when TV shows like “Murphy Brown” depict single motherhood as just another lifestyle choice.
The show’s creators, however, took that clip out of context to imply that Quayle was attacking real single moms by attacking Murphy Brown (note to creators: despite those “dumb Dan Quayle” jokes that have aged so badly, he wasn’t the one who didn't know that Murphy Brown wasn’t real.) They brought real single moms on, and self-righteously tried to shame Quayle for attacking these poor, brave women. It was smug, smarmy, utterly shameless and totally disingenuous; a dishonest and deliberate distortion of what Quayle actually said…and of course, liberal Hollywood hailed it as moving and brilliant. In callous defiance of Quayle’s genuine concern for the damage they were doing to impressionable young women, they misrepresented his criticism of their misrepresenting the problems faced by single mothers.
I’ve already gone on long enough about this largely forgotten sitcom whose reboot will also probably be forgotten before long. I just wanted them to know that when it comes to lecturing other people about dishonesty, they are standing in a pit of quicksand.
Excellent editorial cartoon: