About that anonymous op-ed
Isn’t it incredibly coincidental that every time President Trump has a good week, or the Democrats have a bad week, the media immediately distract us with another “White House insider blows the whistle on Trump” story? I guess Judge Kavanaugh was so impressive and the Democrats so repulsive that the media felt the need to flog two such non-stories: first Bob Woodward’s latest Harry Potter-like tome of fantastic bleats, and then the New York Times ran an anonymous op-ed by an alleged “senior Administration official,” conveniently affirming all the most fevered anti-Trump claims of the left
The writer (the Times refused to give the name, but used the word “he”) claims that a secret cabal of patriots inside the White House is working to move the country in the right direction by undermining what they think are Trump’s wrongheaded policies, personality flaws, incorrect views and mental instability. I’m sure the Times sees this as heroic somehow.
First of all, a reality check: There are thousands of Administration staffers, hundreds of whom might be called “senior.” Some are no doubt bitter Obama holdovers who think it’s their job to play termite to any incoming Republican. I got a taste of that juvenile spitefulness in Arkansas when I arrived at work on my first day as Lieutenant Governor to find my office door inaccessible because the doors had been nailed shut. There were also reports of Clinton staffers destroying computer keyboards and other adolescent vandalism to make it hard for George W. Bush to get up and running. But nobody’s had to deal with more internal sabotage than Trump, because nobody previously was elected as an outsider to change business-as-usual.
To be blunt, with the New York Times having long ago flushed its journalistic integrity down the toilet, there’s no way to be certain that their op-ed writer is legitimate or even real. (It would hardly be the first time the Times ran fiction as fact – see “Jayson Blair.”) But if this person actually is a White House official with any responsibility over policy or access to the President, then he is no hero. He’s a pathetic weasel, pretending to be a patriot and taking a paycheck from the President while secretly betraying, subverting and undermining his Presidency.
The Times routinely opines that Trump is a threat to democracy, yet they give a positive platform to an anonymous, unelected turncoat who seeks to substitute his Beltway wisdom for the agenda Americans voted for. The people elected Trump precisely because they were fed up with arrogant, elitist Beltway insiders who think they’re geniuses because they got into an Ivy League school as legacies and whose policies have created the dangerous fiscal and international mess and the entrenched Deep State that Trump was elected to fix.
If this person thinks he can do the job better than the President, instead of hiding his name and cowering behind the Gray Lady’s skirt, let him do what I did: put his real name on the ballot and run for President. And when he loses, accept the will of the people (there seem to be precious few of us anymore who still cling to that hoary old American concept of respecting the will of the voters.)
Of course, all this only applies if the story isn’t a complete fabrication, which is entirely possible these days. The media crank these stories out so often, they sometimes spark mental whiplash as their contradictory anti-Trump narratives clash. For instance, on Tuesday, they were babbling that Trump was mentally unstable and had to be removed from office because he thinks everyone is working against him. On Wednesday, they said he needs to be removed from office because he’s mentally unstable, according to all the anonymous people around him who are working against him.
In fact, if this story is real, then the only thing it proves is that Trump was absolutely right to say there’s a “deep state” of entrenched Washington insiders who work to thwart the will of the people. You’d think that might be the story angle the Times would pick up on, but then, reporters ain’t what they used to be.
Here are some official comments from someone that this pathetic weasel isn’t fit to share office space with:
The best observation on the New York Times anonymous Trump termite op-ed that I’ve heard came from Roger L. Simon at PJ Media. He asked who would trust an abject coward and pathetic tattletale who won’t give his name because he’s too afraid of losing a government job? His answer:
“Oh, yes, I bet somebody did -- Bob Woodward. We should ask him who it is.”
Day 2 of the Kavanaugh hearings
As this linked story proves, Sen. Kamala Harris’ attempts to defend the protesters who disrupted the Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings were undermined considerably by the video showing how mindlessly disruptive they were. It reminded me of that moment in every old monster movie where the creature turns on its creator.
Not that the protesters were much more mindlessly disruptive than some of the Democratic Senators, at least on day one. By day two, I think they’d realized how thoroughly they’d beclowned themselves and tried to behave more like adults. Of course, for some, that just meant making the cheap shots in their “indoor voices.”
I was especially taken aback by Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s novel Constitutional theory that President Trump has no power to nominate a Supreme Court Justice because he’s an “unindicted co-conspirator in a federal crime.” By that, I assume he means the questionable, ever-changing allegation by a sleazy lawyer and his sleazy lawyer that Trump knew he was paying a woman who was demanding hush money to go away, a claim that remains unverified, as does the suggestion that it was even a crime at all if he did pay her to shut up and go away. All I know for sure is that after watching these hearings, I could name a lot of people whom I’d be happy to pay to shut up and go away.
On a side note, from Blumenthal’s kangaroo-like jumping of the gun on “federal crime” charges to both Trump and his critics accusing each other of treason, it’s obvious that just because you make or enforce laws, you can still be unclear on their meaning. I’m not an attorney, but you don’t have to be Perry Mason to know that “treason” is defined very narrowly in the Constitution. It requires someone to wage war against the US or give aid and comfort to somebody who is. So nobody is really committing treason, although if you include waging a war to overthrow the duly elected President, then Trump has a better claim on using that word than his critics do.
On a more positive note, in between the childish off-camera outbursts, Day 2 of the Kavanaugh hearings provided some very enlightening testimony for a change about the Constitution and how judges should approach their job and why a particular ruling has more to do with the evidence, law and facts of that specific case than with the opinions and prejudices of the judge (or it should, at least – I get the feeling the Democrats aren’t really worried that Kavanaugh will make rulings based on his personal political opinions, they’re just worried that his opinions don’t align with theirs.)
My favorite part of the day came when Ted Cruz exposed the empty political grandstanding of Kavanaugh’s opponents by pointing out that he and Obama’s blocked nominee Merrick Garland had supported each other’s opinions on the DC Court of Appeals more than 90% of the time. Yet according to the Democrats, Garland was an outstanding legal mind who should have been confirmed, while Kavanaugh is such a sexist, racist monster that they started condemning Trump’s nominee before they even knew who it would be.
Kind of makes you wonder if maybe they’re exaggerating about any of the other “end of the world” outrages that they’re constantly ranting about?
PS on the Kamala Harris story: she was asked about Sen. Ben Sasse’s description of protesters screaming that “women are going to die” as “hysteria” of a type that’s been going on for years on the left and that reflects a “fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Supreme Court in American life now.” Instead of addressing his substantive point, she tried to deflect by accusing him of sexism for dismissing women’s concerns as hysteria. So to be clear that there’s nothing sexist about calling hysterical people “hysterical,” let me just say that the male protesters who were also yelling like loons were hysterical. In this particular case, “hysterical” in every sense of the word.
Adapting to the tantrums
Like the overgrown spoiled children who “weren’t raised right” that they are, a lot of protesters are trying to disrupt Congress these days by yelling, crying and acting out. It’s been interesting to see how quickly the Republican Congress members have adapted to these tantrums.
For instance, a Senator will ask Judge Brett Kavanaugh a serious question about Constitutional issues, and Kavanaugh will get about two sentences into a thoughtful answer, and then a lot of idiotic yelling will break out. Instead of letting it detail their conversation, the adults simply stop talking for a moment while security drags the nuisance from the room and off to the big playpen with iron bars for a well-deserved “time-out.” Watching the hearings now reminds me of watching two parents who’ve learned to patiently time their conversations so that their words fall into the brief pauses between the screams of their terrible two-year-old’s tantrums.
That’s almost amusing, but this was downright hilarious. Before going into politics, Missouri Republican Rep. Billy Long had a real job as an award-winning auctioneer. When a protester started yelling during the hearings into social media bias (this was a rightwing protester, sadly adopting the left’s childish tactics), Long responded by drowning her out with his triple-time auctioneer’s spiel. Talk about fighting fire with fire…or in this case, gibberish with gibberish! That protester should have known that nobody wins a battle of baffling blather with a man who spent 30 years as an auctioneer and the last seven years in Congress.
Check out the must-see video at the link.
During Wednesday’s Senate Intelligence Committee probe into alleged bias against conservatives by Silicon Valley Internet giants, top officers of such companies as Facebook, Twitter and Yahoo showed up to be questioned. But Google’s leaders were conspicuous by their absence, which Senate Republicans emphasized by placing an empty chair where Google’s representative should have been.
I have to ask: Did anyone suggest launching a Google search?
Inspirational story for the week
I suspect one reason why so many people in show business badmouth capitalism is that in their world, they know so many celebrities whose success seems to have no connection to their skills or work ethic. It’s easier to believe success isn’t earned but simply granted by fate to (in Dick Gephardt’s infamous words) the winners of "life’s lottery” when you’re waiting tables between acting gigs while your stoner ex-roommate who never showered just made $10 million for playing Raccoon Man.
That’s why this week’s story about former “Cosby” actor Geoffrey Owens was so refreshing and inspirational. It all started when a woman recognized the actor as “Elvin” from the cast of the hit ‘80s sitcom (since relegated to rerun and residual oblivion because of Cosby’s ruined reputation) working at a Trader Joe’s supermarket, where he was bagging groceries. She sneaked a photo and shared it online. Tabloids quickly snatched it up and ran an “Oh, how the celebrity has fallen” story that went viral. (The woman has since apologized profusely, for what it’s worth.)
But that’s when the story took an unexpected turn. Owens admits he was devastated at first by the embarrassing exposure, but only for an hour or two. Then he was flooded with messages of support. And he refused to feel shamed for working at Trader Joe’s. He said acting work is sporadic, and he needs to support his family. That job gave him flexibility, and he’s done it for 15 years. He told CNN:
"It was hurtful but very short lived. What has been sustained, now over days, is how much love and support there is. Not just for me, but for working people. The idea that, 'Hey, what's wrong with working at Trader Joe's, or any job like that?’… What I hope continues to resonate is the idea that one job is not better than another. A certain job might pay more, it might have better benefits, it might look better on paper, but that essentially one kind of work isn't better than another kind of work, that we reevaluate that whole idea and we start honoring the dignity of work and the dignity of the working person."
Mike Rowe couldn’t have said it any better!
As for the media outlets that tried to embarrass him, Owens said, "They set out to exploit the thing in us, in the public, that wants to see stories about people who were once great or celebrated, now fallen. There's something in us that is titillated by that and that is what those news outlets are exploiting. I would say, I hope you learned your lesson. I hope that you see that people are better than you think they are, that people don't want to celebrate people's downfalls. They want to lift people up."
In another surprise twist, someone in the media who does believe in lifting people up (and is often scorned for it) is Tyler Perry, who said he had “so much respect” for Owens that he just offered him an acting role on the #1 drama on his OWN TV network. Owens says he’d feel uncomfortable taking a job just because of this, but it would be nice if he could get into an audition to prove himself (I’m liking this man more every time he talks.)
Between renewed acting offers and the distraction of all the publicity, Owens was forced to quit his Trader Joe’s job, but I’m not surprised that they told him to call it a temporary leave and he’s welcome back anytime. And if he ever takes them up on it, I’m sure he won’t consider it a demotion.