For a paper that thinks it’s qualified to rewrite American history, the New York Times doesn’t seem to have much of a grasp even on recent history. No, the Twin Towers were not brought down because “airplanes took aim” at them, but because radical Islamists who hijacked the planes took aim at them.
One great way to show our appreciation for our American heroes, the military members and first responders who put their lives on the line to protect us, would be to mark 9/11 by signing up to help the Stephen Siller Tunnel To Towers Foundation. Siller was a New York firefighter who was coming off duty when the first Tower was struck. He grabbed his gear and headed toward the scene. When he discovered traffic was shut down in the tunnel, he got out and covered two miles on foot to climb up into the Towers and rescue others. He never came out alive.
His family started the Foundation to help fellow first responders and wounded veterans and the families of those who gave their lives protecting us. It’s grown into a great organization, and his brother who co-founded it, Frank Siller, was our Huck’s Hero on last weekend’s “Huckabee” on TBN. Click on the link to see that interview:
And please consider what he says: If one million people signed up for their current campaign to donate just $11 a month, the amount of one lunch out, then every year, they would have enough funds to pay off the mortgages of every Gold Star military family and every family left behind when a cop is killed in the line of duty, plus provide a “smart home” to every military vet who returns with catastrophic injuries, to help make their lives easier and restore some of their independence.
What a great and inexpensive way to say thanks to those who sacrifice so much for all of us every day. Find out more at http://www.tunnel2towers.org
In a much-ballyhooed House special election Tuesday in North Carolina’s 9th District, Republican Dan Bishop won a narrow 50.8%-48.6% victory over Democrat Dan McCready. The media had blown it up as a harbinger of the 2020 election, claiming that if the Democrat won, it could mean a “blue wave” and possible losses for Trump and the GOP Senate. As it is, they’re trying to spin the Dems’ narrow loss as a sign of leftwing enthusiasm and eroding GOP support, since that district went for Trump by 12 points in 2016. Remember, according to the media, every Democratic win is a sign of rising Democratic support, while every Republican win is either an outlier or voter fraud.
The truth is this race was hardly indicative of any national trends. It represented an extremely unusual set of circumstances, including a scandal that forced a special election, massive media coverage, an off-year election with no higher race coattails, and ridiculous levels of spending (over $6 million on each side by the campaigns and outside groups combined), all of which can affect turnout and distort the results. To show how unique this race was, in another special election in North Carolina’s 3rd district, the Republican won by 62%-to-38%. That exactly matches the partisan breakdown of the district. There were zero defections on either side.
A couple of actual takeaways from the North Carolina races:
By snarking that it took a “last-minute Trump rally” to help Bishop win, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairwoman Cheri Bustos was tacitly admitting that Trump is not the unpopular pariah the media keep telling us he is and he can still fire up the base to go to the polls.
Also, few people who are trying to use the 9th District race to predict the next election are mentioning the biggest thing about it that makes it completely inapplicable to the 2020 Presidential race: Democrat McCready was a fresh-faced ex-Marine and Iraq War veteran running on a platform of moderation, pocketbook issues, and working across the aisle to end partisanship and solve problems for America.
If you can point out even one Democratic Presidential candidate with a remote chance of winning the nomination who is in any way comparable to that, then I’ll worry that Trump voters might support him/her instead.
In a surprise announcement, President Trump revealed Tuesday that he had requested and accepted the resignation of National Security Adviser John Bolton. He thanked Bolton for his service but said he and others in the Administration strongly disagreed with many of his suggestions, and he would name Bolton’s replacement next week.
Naturally, this set off the usual flurry of media stories about “chaos” at the White House, without regard to the fact that every Administration has people coming and going all the time. I greatly admire John Bolton (he’s been a guest on my show), but it was no secret that his hawkish views were likely to clash with Trump’s inclinations to seek deals and avoid intervention in foreign disputes whenever possible. Feel free to opine in the comments about whether you think it’s a good thing or bad that Bolton is no longer there, but what’s undeniable is that every President has the right to choose advisers he feels comfortable with.
One interesting aspect of this news was watching the anti-Trump media’s kneejerk frenzy of negative reactions to the departure of an adviser that they’d previously vilified as a trigger-happy, war-mongering interventionist. That was too much even for favorite liberal political analyst Nate Silver, who tweeted, “Maybe I’m a simpleton, but it seems like if you criticized Bolton’s hiring, you probably shouldn’t also criticize his firing.”
September 11th seems like a very appropriate day to report this story: A study by a Lancaster University researcher found that when a violent altercation breaks out in public, strangers will step in and try to help 90% of the time. The cases all took place in urban, inner-city environments in Amsterdam, England and South Africa, so they haven’t yet determined the rate at which people in rural areas would intervene to help the victim, or how often that would happen in America, although I can’t imagine it would be less than 99% of the time in rural America.
The researcher said these findings offer “an alternative narrative to…‘stranger danger.' Bystanders should be recognized as ‘first responders’ who can provide informal help before the arrival of the police.”
Or as we call them here, “concealed carry permit holders.”