I'll make you an offer Mr. Blake
Washington Post writer Aaron Blake wrote an incredibly disingenuous column, trying to spin away my daughter, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’, dead-on accurate list of acts of open media hostility against her, President Trump and other Trump officials and supporters. Among the microscopic hair-splitting, he actually tries to claim she lied about MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace calling for “choking” her, because Wallace merely asked if someone wanted to “wring her neck,” and that’s not the same as calling for her to be choked.
I’ll make you an offer, Mr. Blake: Let me wring your neck, then let me choke you. Afterwards, you can tell me if you felt any difference.
Who, exactly, is “destroying democracy” again?
On Friday, federal Judge John Bates in Washington, DC, ruled that the Department of Homeland Security’s explanation for President Trump’s rescinding of Obama’s DACA amnesty program for children of illegal immigrants wasn’t persuasive enough for him. So he ruled that the phase-out of DACA was illegal and ordered the Administration to reinstate the program in full, with a stay placed until August 23 to give the DHS time to file an appeal.
Now, at this point, you might be wondering a few things. Like, how does one federal judge decide that he has the power to tell the President and the Congress to reinstate a particular immigration program, when the power over immigration policy rests entirely with Congress? And how does he have the power to override a presidential executive order that did nothing but rescind a previous presidential executive order (the creation of DACA), which Trump rescinded precisely because it’s unconstitutional for any other branch of government than Congress to create an immigration program? Maybe you’re thinking, “Isn’t it the job of judges to rule on whether laws or executive orders are constitutional, not to order that unconstitutional executive orders that have been rescinded be reinstated?”
And if that’s what you’re thinking, then you obviously haven’t been paying much attention to federal judges over the past 18 months. Somehow, the moment Trump took office, these unelected egomaniacs in black robes decided that they were the government equivalent of an “As Seen On TV” kitchen wonder utensil:
“Watch as it not only dices, slices, chops and filets the Constitution, it makes immigration laws better than Congress! It enforces national security better than a President! And just watch as it soaks up the powers of Congress AND the Executive faster than a paper towel! It does it all! Yes, there’s no longer any need for expensive, troublesome elections, now that you have the Amazing Ronco Miracle Judge!”
A reminder: Trump rescinded Obama’s DACA order precisely because it’s unconstitutional for anyone but Congress to create an immigration amnesty program. In doing so, he gave Congress six months to pass a Constitutionally-valid replacement, which they failed to do because the Democrats refused to compromise by including his measures to improve border security, so that granting amnesty to this group wouldn’t result in a big rush of new illegal entrants. The left talks a lot about their compassion for the “Dreamers,” but when it came to choosing between saving them or blocking Trump's border wall, they went with blocking the wall.
Meanwhile, the same people who keep accusing Trump of “destroying democracy” even as he keeps following the Constitution by presenting his agenda to Congress and respecting the appeals process, no matter how ludicrous the judicial rulings, have done the following:
Refused to accept the results of a free and fair election, attempted to intimidate electors into not reflecting their voters’ wishes, called for impeaching the President on no stated grounds, openly advocated for assassinating the President, backed a likely unconstitutionally-appointed special counsel as he put a 69-year-old man who hasn’t even been convicted of a crime into solitary confinement, and run to the courts over every policy decision with which they disagreed to ask unelected judges to impose their own personal opinions in place of actions taken by the people’s elected representatives.
Who, exactly, is “destroying democracy” again?
At the link, Michael Walsh explains why the judge’s “reasoning” (that Trump has the power to rescind a previous executive order, but his reason for doing so wasn’t compelling enough for the judge) is subjective, unconstitutional nonsense: as President, Trump has the power to rescind any executive order for any reason he wants, and he doesn’t have to ask some lower-court judge, “Mother, may I?” Walsh makes the argument that it’s time for Trump to just start telling out-of-control judges to go whistle up a rope. Of course, we all know what would happen: he’d be accused of “destroying democracy.” Actually, he would be reasserting it.
Double Standards on Social Media
If you caught my TBN TV show over the weekend (and if you miss an episode, visit https://www.tbn.org/programs/huckabee ), you know my monologue was about the double standard being imposed on conservatives on social media platforms. I warned that conservatives would be watching the Silicon Valley socialists who are trying to make the Information Superhighway into a one-way street. Little did I know that even as I was saying that, a prime example was unfolding.
Candace Owens, a young African-American conservative who has been fearless in speaking out against the “blacks must be liberals” narrative, conducted an experiment. She took two of the offensive, anti-white tweets of Sarah Jeong (the writer the New York Times hired, and is standing by) and changed the references to “whites” to read “blacks” and “Jews.” While Jeong’s liberal defenders insists her tweets weren’t racist, when you change just one word, they become obviously and shockingly racist or anti-Semitic.
But even though Ms Owens made it clear in her tweet what she had done and this was just a demonstration of liberal hypocrisy, not real racist comments, can you guess what happened next? Right: Twitter did something they never did to Ms Jeong: they banned her account for posting just one offensive racist tweet.
Twitter reinstated her 12 hours later, after conservatives raised a ruckus. Twitter apologized, blaming it on the usual mistake by bots, algorithms or whatever, which are totally neutral, yet mostly seem to ban conservatives while letting offensive liberal tweets slide.
The lesson: if you’re a conservative, posting one racist tweet about blacks or Jews will get you banned, even if it is clearly labeled as an illustration of the evils of racism. And if you’re a liberal, posting multiple racist tweets about white people will get you a job at the New York Times.
On the subject of social media censoring conservatives, Facebook banned a four-minute video ad for California GOP congressional candidate Elizabeth Heng. They claim it violated Facebook’s ban on ads that “contain shocking, disrespectful or sensational content, including ads that depict violence or threats of violence.”
Well, it’s true that it contains shocking depictions of violence. That’s because it starts with photos of the carnage wrought by the communist Cambodian genocide, which her parents fled to come to America. In fact, the story of how her parents came to be married is so shocking, it’s like something out of a spy novel, but it’s true – and it formed the basis of a loving marriage that’s lasted over three decades.
This ad that Facebook won’t let you see may be the most horrifying but ultimately inspiring video you will see all week. When you see how far Ms Heng and her family have come – and compare it to how little the Democratic incumbent has done for his struggling district – you might want to move there yourself just to vote for her. This is someone that her district, the US Congress, and America need in Washington.
Today’s Must Read!
The story of a man whose parents had to make a heartbreaking sacrifice to bring their family to America from their native Guyana, and how they waited, studied, worked and struggled for years to become proud American citizens.
There’s also another aspect to his story that you never hear in the media, even though it’s more common among legal immigrants than you’d imagine: how all the sacrifices and work to follow the rules and become citizens made the writer agree with President Trump that our immigration laws exist for good, even humanitarian, reasons and need to be enforced – even though, as an immigrant and a gay man from New York City, daring to voice his honest opinion born out of hard personal experience caused many of his “tolerant” liberal friends to stop talking to him.
News from Venezuela
As if socialist Venezuela could fall into any deeper chaos than it’s already suffering, someone allegedly launched an assassination attempt on President Nicolas Maduro by drone attack. I add the “allegedly” because there are questions about whether this was a real attack or a false flag operation to give Maduro an excuse to blame it on his opponents and launch a crackdown. It’s best to reserve judgement or comment until more is known for certain.
National Security Advisor John Bolton says the US had nothing to do with it, and an obscure group called “Soldiers in T-shirts” claimed responsibility. Nothing much is known about them, except I’d bet they aren’t wearing Che Guevara T-shirts. More at the link.
A good guy with a gun
Saturday in Titusville, Florida, a gunman started shooting after a fistfight broke out at a crowded public park during a children’s back-to-school event. Thankfully, in one of those instances gun control advocates claim never happen, there was an armed citizen with a concealed carry permit on hand. He pulled his weapon, shot the gunman and sent him to the hospital. There were no reported injuries other than the gunman’s.
Ironically, the event was called the “Peace In Our City” rally, a “day of fun and no violence.” Police praised the armed citizen, saying he will not face any charges. They said that without him there, “this could have been so much worse.”
So the next time someone tells you that the “good guy with a gun stopping a mass shooter” narrative is a myth, remember Titusville, where one good guy with a gun proved to be more effective at keeping our children safe than the police, a crowd of people with good intentions, or a banner proclaiming “Peace In Our City.”
Religion makes women safer
A new study published by the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion found that women are safer when they are around men with religious convictions. Male college students who have religious affiliations and who participate in religious activities are less likely to be sexually violent and aggressive toward women. They are also less likely to have friends who approve of forcing women to have sex, less likely to drink alcohol, to consume pornography, to be sexually promiscuous or to make coercive sexual advances toward women. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, these are the kind of findings that are so obvious, only intellectuals could be surprised by them.
The researchers say this study suggests that colleges should be more welcoming to religious groups, especially since “hostility to such groups may be counter-productive to reducing sexual violence on campuses.” Instead, while claiming that they are seeking to reduce sexual violence, they impose rules that allow males to intrude on once-private spaces for women, such as locker rooms and restrooms, and ban women from carrying weapons for self-defense; all while trying to drive traditional religious beliefs and organizations off our campuses.
It seems to me that if there really is a “war on women,” as liberals like to claim, all the shelling is coming from the left.
Targeting "Ladies Night"
Feminists demanded equality, and as H.L. Mencken once said, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” And so, the people who elected the ultra-liberal leaders of California who passed all those pro-equality laws are now getting what they voted for good and hard.
The latest targets for lawsuits are events that charge women less than men. Those used to be known as “ladies’ nights,” the idea being that gathering places want to entice women to come in, because they attract men to come in. Is this outrageous sexual discrimination or simply a recognition of the basic fact of life that’s been true for millennia that men pursue women?
Well, if it involves recognizing basic facts, it can’t be a California law. So, in the name of gender equality, originally touted as something to help women, women are being forced to allow men into their bathrooms and locker rooms, give up the safety and sisterhood of women-only social events, and pay more for things they used to get free or at discount.
The latest example: three single men are suing a San Diego Double Tree hotel for sexual discrimination for hosting a pool party that charged $175 per couple, $20 for single women, but no single men were allowed. The plaintiffs feel that $16,000 in damages each should soothe their hurt feelings at being barred from hitting on single women in swimsuits. Next, the attorney is suing a pool hall over an event that cost men $40 to enter and women $5.
Considering he’s making everything more expensive for women, and discouraging bars from doing anything to attract women, I have to imagine that he must be pretty widely hated by both women and men. But I guess being a lawyer, he’s used to that.
Here’s your feel-good story of the day:
How a simple act of kindness was unexpectedly repaid about 100,000 times over.