Late last night, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman suddenly resigned in the wake of stunning allegations of physical and sexual abuse. Schneiderman, an outspoken liberal Democrat, had been making a name for himself as a crusading champion of the “Me Too” movement, posturing as a defender of women with his public criticism and legal targeting of President Trump and his move to press charges against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein.
But four women who’d had past relationships with him got fed up with seeing him be praised as a feminist hero and take bows for fighting violence against women, and they came forward with some truly disturbing allegations against him. As one of the women put it, “His hypocrisy is epic. He’s fooled so many people.” Two of the women went on the record; the others were afraid to give their names for fear of reprisals, but they told similar stories.
The link below is to a detailed report by the New Yorker, which investigated their stories and found that numerous acquaintances corroborated that the women had talked about their abuse at the time, and one doctor confirmed a serious injury that could be explained by the sudden, hard slap to the ear that she claimed Schneiderman inflicted on her.
I warn you before clicking to the link: this story contains rough language and shocking details. The women make it clear, this was not sexual role-playing: it was sudden, uninvited, unexpected physical assault and extreme bullying and emotional abuse. They claim Schneiderman was especially dangerous when drinking, which he did a lot; and that he abused his official powers to threaten them with death or arrest if they dared leave him or tell anyone about his private behavior. One of the women recalled an alleged incident that she said perfectly summed him up: he once yanked her across the street, and when she protested that jaywalking was against the law, he snapped, “I AM the law!” Why is that such a common failing of politicians? Maybe the belief that government should be all-powerful makes them believe that running something all-powerful makes them gods. And yet so many of them now seem to think that people who know the true all-powerful God should be banned from public service because "those people" have the wrong attitude.
I don’t want to be accused of being a hypocrite, so I will accord Schneiderman the same caveat that I would anyone else: he has a due process right to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. But these charges are so horrifying, so detailed, so consistent from accuser to accuser, and stand as such a staggering betrayal of both public trust and basic human decency that I hope and pray that he will very soon have the opportunity to exercise those due process rights in court. It sounds as if he’s the latest in a long line of public virtue-signalers, from Bill Cosby to Harvey Weinstein, who liked to point one finger at others while ignoring the three pointing back at them.
For all of Schneiderman’s pious anti-Trump moralizing, it’s worth noting that way back on September 11, 2013, after New York Democratic politicians Anthony Weiner and Elliot Spitzer were both brought down by sex scandals, Trump tweeted, “Weiner is gone, Spitzer is gone – next will be lightweight A.G. Eric Schneiderman. Is he a crook? Wait and see, worse than Spitzer or Weiner.” I wonder what Trump had heard even back then but couldn’t publicly reveal or verify? But I no longer wonder why powerful Democrats hate Trump’s Twitter feed so much.
With all the endless cable news talk about vital issues like porn star lawsuits and, of course, “Russia, Russia, Russia,” you might not have heard this minor story: April was the best month for the federal budget in history.
The April 15th tax haul came in, and thanks to a surging economy and Americans earning more money, the Congressional Budget Office reports that the government took in $515 billion and spent $297 billion. That left a record $218 billion monthly surplus. It broke the previous record of $190 billion in 2001, and was $40 billion more than “experts” predicted (the same economic experts who are always as surprised as rabbits in car headlights by whatever the economy actually does.)
Hey, wait! I thought that tax cut was going to lead to fiscal Armageddon?! Well, it turns out that people are paying more taxes because they now have higher incomes. Weird how that worked out, huh?
President Trump got tax rates lower, which is boosting economic growth and personal income, which is increasing tax revenues, which is exactly what the “discredited” supply side economists predicted. Now, he has an even bigger challenge: get Congress to stop spending money so fast that they need to bring in over half a trillion dollars every month just to stay in the black.
That may be a difficult mission, but I can make one prediction with absolute certainty: if the voters give the House, with its budget-making and spending power, back to the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi, it will be a Mission Impossible.
It’s always a little difficult to be lectured with the nonsensical leftist cliché that you’re on “the wrong side of history” by someone who’s apparently not yet taken History 101. Or who took that class, only to be spoon-fed highly selective anti-American propaganda. George Santayana said that those who can’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it, but what is there about our current youth that makes them think they can predict the future when they don’t even know what happened in the past?
You could make that case about young people’s current flirtation with the hideous, tragic failed system that is socialism, but the article at the link focuses on the current high school anti-gun movement and the sage tweets of Master David Hogg. He seems to think that the movements for India’s independence and civil rights for blacks were examples of peaceful change that disprove the need for guns for self-defense. We won’t go into how many people were killed in India during the “peaceful resistance” era, or how lying down in front of tanks would have worked against a nation like, say, Nazi Germany, China or the USSR, that didn’t care what other nations thought of it.
But I wonder if he even realizes that without private firearms, many blacks in America would have gone unprotected by local racist authorities and been at the mercy of the KKK? And which civil rights organization fought for their right to arm and defend themselves, even allowing blacks to organize chapters of its group when other national organizations excluded them? It was Hogg’s bogey-man, the National Rifle Association, one of the oldest civil rights groups in America.
Read the article, or better yet, make your teenagers read it. It will make you want to take a more active role in overseeing what your kids are being taught in history class. Or maybe even reconsider which school you’re sending them to.
Yesterday, First Lady Melania Trump announced a new initiative to help children. It's called the “Be Best” plan. It focuses on well-being, fighting opioid abuse and promoting positivity on social media. You can see the video of her talking about it here:
I wish her great success with this, and I hope the promotion of positivity on social media will also extend to adults who launch the childish attacks on her that permeate the Internet. I suppose I can understand why so many on the left attack her husband (he thwarted their Hillary coronation and is rolling back that “fundamental transformation” of America into Venezuela that they’ve long dreamed about). But the mindless venom aimed at his wife and son have long baffled and angered me.
Melania Trump is a beautiful lady, inside and out. She’s unfailingly kind and gracious, but also a fashionable and elegant hostess and perfect representative of America at state events. She didn’t seek a role in politics, but she’s tried to use the fact that she ended up there in a positive way to help America’s children. She’s a loving and conscientious mom, and an incredibly successful immigrant and accomplished career woman in her own right.
And for all of that, the left has relentlessly attacked, scorned, mocked and demeaned her in terms that, if they were aimed at any other woman or immigrant, they would brand as hateful and misogynistic. I’ve even seen this woman who speaks five languages mocked for having an accent by people who can barely speak one language coherently, to judge by their Twitter tweets. And through all those unfair verbal assaults, she’s continued on with quiet dignity and grace. As James Woods rightly noted, if she weren’t a Republican and married to Trump, she’d be on every fashion magazine cover and the liberal trend-set would be gushing over her as if she were the American Princess Diana.
Well, it’s taken over a year, but I think the majority of Americans are finally starting to see through the cruelty, unfairness and downright meanness of the attacks on the First Lady. A new CNN poll shows that her favorability rating has shot up to 57% (although I don't understand why it isn't 100%). She was already popular with Republicans, but the rise came mostly from a 15% increase among Democrats. CNN tried to explain it away as just sympathy over the embarrassment of the Stormy Daniels story, but that doesn’t pass the smell test, since that story hasn’t harmed the President's approval rating. I’d say if anyone is being embarrassed by that story, it’s CNN for giving it more airtime than the economy or denuclearizing of North Korea. And their embarrassment over it certainly hasn't made them more popular (in the latest ratings, Fox News’ lowest-rated show had more viewers than CNN’s highest-rated show.)
I like to think that Melania Trump’s soaring approval rating is due to the fact that Americans are basically fair people, and they're getting tired of the carping and negativity and unwarranted attacks on someone who’s done nothing to deserve them. Maybe the 24/7 Internet/media vitriol machine is finally starting to break down from overuse. Let’s hope so. I can’t think of anything that would please me more than to see it crumble into a useless pile of junk, defeated by the grace, kindness and elegance of our terrific First Lady.
You’d think that if any state actually reflected the liberal narrative that Obamacare is now working great and too popular to get rid of, it would be Maryland, the Lobbyists’ and Lawyers’ LaLa Land and major suburban residence of so many well-heeled Washington, DC, heels.
But yesterday, insurers on the Maryland Obamacare exchanges sent consumers reeling by requesting 2019 rate hikes that average 30%, with a top hike of a staggering 91% for an “extended network” plan – which we used to call “choosing your own doctor” back when that was standard procedure.
And what is the Democratic excuse for these whiplash-inducing rate hikes on Obamacare policies? It’s Trump’s fault, of course! These are examples of how Trump’s health care policies are causing hikes in premiums!
Note that according to a study by EHealth.com, from the year before Obamacare arrived through 2016, the average individual health insurance premium in the US rose by 99%, and family policy premiums increased by 140%. I have to tip my hat to the insurance companies’ actuaries for having the remarkable foresight to predict Trump winning the election and taking office in 2017 when they asked for those massive rate hikes during the four previous years.
Comedian and Trump nemesis Rosie O’Donnell could find herself in hot water over allegedly making illegal campaign contributions to at least five Democratic national candidates. She gave a combined $5400 beyond the legal limits, but she claims it was “nothing nefarious” and she didn’t know there were limits (individuals may donate to as many campaigns as they like, but only $2700 for each primary, run-off and general election race). O’Donnell says she donated money through the liberal fundraising site ActBlue, assuming they would refund any overages. For the record, it’s never a good idea to rely on any website run by liberal activists to tell you when they’ve taken too much of somebody else’s money. It’s what they live for.
O’Donnell’s protestations of innocence are meeting with some skepticism, with critics noting that if she wasn’t trying to evade the laws, then why did she donate under four slightly different variations of her name and five different addresses? Also, she has a history of disregarding campaign finance laws, such as tweeting an offer of $2 million each to Senators Susan Collins and Jeff Flake to try to bribe them to vote against the GOP tax cut bill.
Usually, this is the kind of infraction that barely earns a tap on the wrist, but conservative author Dinesh D’Sousa is calling for O’Donnell to be prosecuted just as harshly as he was. He was accused of encouraging an associate to donate to a friend’s Senate campaign, then reimbursing them. Coincidentally, this was just after he’d released a documentary critical of Obama. Also coincidentally, he had the book thrown at him and was fined $30,000, sentenced to eight months in a halfway house followed by five years’ probation, and he’ll be branded as a felon for the rest of his life. He says that O’Donnell broke five campaign donation laws, which is five times worse than what he was accused of, so why should she be allowed to skate?
But I have a solution that I think is better, and Rosie may be surprised to hear that it doesn’t involve sending her to jail. How about if we let her off with a warning, and make the government refund D’Sousa’s fine with interest, apologize and clear his record? Then we could all agree that since we live in a free country, citizens who have strong enough beliefs about some public policy should be allowed to give as much of their own hard-earned money to promote that belief as they want. Free speech! (In elections, where paid advertising is essential, money is speech.)
Why is there an arbitrary limit of $2700, and who decided that was the magic number anyway? Why not just let everyone give as much as they want, but with all donations on the public record? You could offer a politician your entire life savings if you’re that passionate (or dumb)…but he would be under pressure to refuse it for fear of appearing to be selling himself to the highest bidder. Call it “big checks and balances.”
This story could be one of those “teachable moments” that could be used to teach so many things. Like teaching children what “equal justice under the law” means. Or teaching liberals that there really are too many federal laws, so many that we all break them without even knowing it. That's why we need to prevent out-of-control, politically-motivated prosecutors from railroading citizens they disagree with into jail for inadvertently violating one. Granted, that’s probably not a lesson Rosie O’Donnell wants to hear right now, but it could keep her out of the Big House.
PLEASE LEAVE ME A COMMENT. I READ THEM!
OR IF YOU WOULD PREFER TO SEND ME A MESSAGE, GO HERE.