Yesterday brought a new flurry of accusations about President Trump and Russia that some in the media and camera-addicted House Democrats such as Adam Schiff are treating as serious revelations. I’ll withhold comment until they have better sources than known liar and perjurer Michael Cohen, who’s managed the impossible feat of giving lawyers a worse reputation, and anonymous sources in a story from Buzzfeed, a website whose reputation for journalistic accuracy ranks somewhere south of The Onion.
But just so you don’t think I’m being biased in not covering it, here it is. Supply your own shaker of salt.
There’s also this story that Cohen allegedly paid a tech company in 2014 to generate mass votes in online polls on sites such the Drudge Report to help boost Trump’s standing before he ever entered the presidential race. Again, consider the sources or lack thereof. If true, it’s kind of a skeevy thing to do, but in context of all the things done in recent years to try to manipulate data, social media, etc., for political advantage, it’s pretty small potatoes. I’m more concerned about candidates who pay for actual votes, and massive tech companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter attempting to silence conservative speech.
Just wondering: does anyone pay any attention whatsoever to online polls with self-selecting samples? Doesn’t everyone know by now that supporters of candidates on both sides try to jigger those polls with mass voting? There’s even a term for it on the conservative website Free Republic: “This poll needs freeping!
If the mainstream media polls are now the equivalent of someone who predicts the future by looking at chicken entrails, then online polls are like predicting the future by looking at fake chicken parts made of processed soy protein.
For years now, I’ve been warning people to pay no attention to polls. When one major poll had Hillary up by 11 points and everyone was saying the race was over, I was predicting that Trump would win. The talking heads nodded indulgently, saying that poor ol’ Huck was just being a good GOP soldier, trying to keep up party morale and put the best face on an inevitable defeat.
They never seem to understand this about me: I don’t look people in the eye and lie to them. Lying to others is a sin, and lying to yourself is stupid and self-defeating. I didn’t believe those polls because I examined the internals and saw how much they had to oversample likely Hillary voters to get her to an 11-point lead. They even touted her widespread support by citing a poll showing her up 5 points in Arizona. I checked it out: they had to oversample Democrats by about 24 points to get her to a 5-point lead.
To me, that poll showed she was toast, and it was her supporters/enablers in the media who were trying to rig poll results in her favor. They might have even done Hillary a disservice by fooling her into thinking she had more support than she did, hence her failure to campaign in swing states she thought she had in the bag. (Incidentally, Trump won Arizona. See how lying to yourself is self-defeating?)
Notice that in all the polls recorded on that linked page, Trump never led in any of them. The latest mid-October polls had Hillary ahead by anywhere from 6 to 10 points, and all of them were by “reputable” polling organizations. If that’s what passes for legitimate, dependable, solid polling, then why would anyone pay attention to self-selecting, unscientific, easily-manipulated, web-based “polls?”
If it turns out to be true that Trump paid someone to help boost his standing in them, then I’d be disappointed in him partly on grounds of integrity, but mostly because I expect him to be smarter about how he spends his money than to waste it on garbage like that.
There’s been so much news this week, it might have been easy to overlook that Wednesday was Religious Freedom Day. Ironically, that event was largely drowned out by all the media outlets attacking the Vice President’s wife as an anti-gay bigot because she volunteers as an art teacher at a Christian school. That coordinated assault on religious freedom is all the more evidence of why we need a reminder that in America, every day is Religious Freedom Day:
In an all-too-common occurrence, in a high-crime neighborhood in Chicago, a 19-year-old male approached a young woman waiting alone early in the morning at a bus stop, pulled a weapon and told her he was robbing her. He didn’t figure on her having a concealed carry permit. She pulled a pistol and shot him, and he was taken to a hospital and later died.
While any loss of human life is tragic, you’d think most people would side with the victim, and think, “Thank God she was armed, because who knows if he would have stopped with just taking her purse?” Of course, most people don’t “think” like liberal journalists, such as Zack Ford, the LGBTQ editor for the oxymoronically-named ThinkProgress, who lamented that the woman fought back. Why, if she’d just gone along with the criminal, they both likely would have survived (an assumption that’s easy to make when you’re not the woman being threatened on a dark street by an armed man.)
Ford wrote this tweet: “Conservatives are thrilled a woman with a concealed-carry permit shot and killed a 19-year-old would-be mugger. That’s not how justice works. The penalty for theft is not death, nor do we want it to be.” He went on to call the 19-year-old would-be armed robber a “kid,” and wrote, “I just feel like we’re being way too disposable with his life. A gun death is a gun death, and the fact that she was able to protect herself in no way motivates me to change my belief that she should not have had a gun in the first place.”
Understandably, Ford caught so much furious flak that he deleted the tweet and backpedaled furiously. Good. But there are a couple of important points that need to be stressed and that most media accounts haven’t mentioned:
1. When I was a kid, back in the Stone Age, many fathers taught their sons that the second you point a deadly weapon at an innocent person, you give up the right to protest that your own life is too sacred to be taken. This was especially common during the rise of news stories about criminals suing their victims for injuring them when they fought back.
2. This is the point that liberals really don’t want you to notice about this story: a larger, armed male threatened a lone woman on an empty street. It might have been just a robbery, or it might have progressed to an abduction, rape or murder. Instead, the attacker was stopped and the woman is alive and unharmed, for one reason only: she had a gun.
This story offers a shocking example of the liberal mindset: even though a concealed weapon is the most effective force equalizer between women and the men who would victimize them, some people would actually rather see the woman be victimized than protect herself if it means respecting her right to have a gun.
This Time It’s Personal: Why have so many Democrats who voted to fund a border wall or fence for years, and who even made speeches on the dangers of illegal immigration, suddenly done a 180? What is the real reason that they're willing to shut down their beloved federal government rather than provide a fraction as much money for a border barrier as they backed in previous years?
The CATO Institute did a study and found something intriguing: Democratic support for a border barrier was pretty strong and constant right up until mid-2015, when it suddenly plummeted from 44% to 11%. Take a look at this chart and see if you can guess the exact point at which Donald Trump entered the presidential race and embraced the building of a border wall.
Another suggestion for the State of the Union Address: Sen. Rand Paul says President Trump should just give it in the Senate chamber instead of the House. Not a bad idea. Just as a nice a setting, and far less likelihood that one of the distinguished federal office holders in the audience will start screaming profanity at him.
Warning: Don’t fall for fake “fake news.” Demand only real “fake news!”