What happened at the Red Hen was nothing like the Christian baker case
I wish I didn’t have to comment on the inexcusably rude treatment of a Virginia restaurant owner in asking my daughter Sarah and her family to leave, simply because she disagrees with their politics. But it became a major news story and seems to be part of a growing trend on the left, as these increasingly desperate losers ramp up the hysterical attacks (“Everyone who does anything I don’t like is worse than Hitler!!”) to cover for the fact that the policies they espouse in all areas are being exposed as hopeless failures, and more and more people are catching on that they’ve been conned. Their fury over their ever-declining influence has reduced them to the level of angry adolescents, screaming, “It’s not fair!!” and lashing out with temper tantrums.
SUBSCRIBE TO THE EVENING EDITION: CLICK HERE
If they can’t even behave like civilized adults, then I can’t imagine voters will entrust them with the vast powers of the federal government (aside from Maxine Waters’ constituents.) Seriously, does this woman not even remember that one of her own colleagues, Rep. Steve Scalise, missed quite a bit of work after being shot by an unstable Bernie Bro, hopped up on anti-Republican propaganda until he attempted to pull a massacre at a charity baseball practice? But I digress...
I’m not going to mention the name of this restaurant because they don’t deserve any more free publicity. But I do want to share a few reactions:
First, I am immensely proud of Sarah and her family for the graceful and dignified way in which she responded to this unconscionable (and possibly illegal) discrimination. Note that she didn’t throw a fit, pull rank, threaten anyone or file a lawsuit. She simply left quietly and ate elsewhere, I’m sure at a place where both the hospitality and the food were far superior.
I’d also like to implore her supporters not to lower themselves to the opposition’s level by making threats or vandalizing the restaurant’s website or Yelp page. The owner wanted publicity. Don’t give it to her. Instead, simply grant her wish of never having to serve anyone whose politics she disagrees with.
I’m also relieved this was a quiet, non-violent incident. There have been other shocking incidents of violent mobs harassing and threatening members of the Administration, forcing them to flee restaurants. Those people need to be arrested and prosecuted. As for those trying to gin up more ideologically-based violence (looking at you again, Rep. Waters), they are a perfect illustration of the Supreme Court’s exemption to the First Amendment, that inciting a riot (i.e., yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater) is not protected free speech. It’s also not something that any decent human being with a maturity level above age five does. Even the reliably liberal Washington Post recognized the dangers of such incendiary rhetoric and condemned it in an op-ed. And no, whining, “Trump started it!” doesn’t make you sound more like an adult.
Finally, I want to respond to the idiotic claims by the left that conservatives “have it coming” because this is just like that Christian baker who declined to make a same-sex wedding cake. No, it’s nothing like that. I know that people who use the word “nuanced” a lot don’t seem to understand what it means, so I’ll attempt to explain the nuances of the two cases clearly and in words short enough that even a liberal intellectual can understand:
The baker in question never ejected anyone from his store for being gay. He made it clear that everyone was welcome to the part of the store that serves the public, and he would happily sell them anything in the store. What he declined was a separate contract job custom-designing a cake that he felt violated his religious beliefs, for the same reason he refuses to use what he considers his God-given talent to design Halloween cakes or cakes that personally attack people. His objection to being forced to accept the custom contract job was based on his First Amendment right to be free from the government forcing him to violate his religious beliefs, not on some nonexistent right to ban gay people from the public area of his shop because he doesn’t like them personally.
I wonder if leftists who are cheering the restaurant owner for ejecting my daughter’s family from a public accommodation just because she didn’t agree with their politics even realize that they are making a very different argument that goes far beyond the defense of the Christian baker. In fact, they are making the same argument one would use in defending Southern lunch counter owners of the 1950s who refused service to black customers.
Although, come to think of it, those Southern lunch counter owners and the officials who defended them were Democrats, too. I guess some things never change.
Another irrelevant opinion that inexplicably made news over the weekend came when former Obama ethics watchdog…(sorry, I had to quit typing for a minute until I could stop laughing) Walter Shaub tweeted that my daughter Sarah violated five federal laws by using her official Twitter account to tweet what had happened to her and her family at that Virginia restaurant. Shaub seems to be laboring under the delusions that Sarah both threatened and endorsed the restaurant (a neat trick, but she did neither) and that she was the first to identify the restaurant, in an attempt to spur mindless rightwing mobs to attack it. If true, that would be the height of irony, since she was just one of a rising number of Republicans being attacked by mindless leftwing mobs. But it’s not true at all.
In fact, the restaurant identified itself first, with a staffer tweeting the story to the world. It was only after it made news that Sarah was inundated with requests for comment or confirmation by the media. Since responding to media inquiries IS her official capacity, she did so, in a completely dispassionate way (she did not call for any retribution against the restaurant owner. That sort of reprehensible and illegal incitement to violence is the province of leftists such as Maxine Waters.)
I’m really not surprised that partisan attacks are more in Mr. Shaub’s wheelhouse than researching facts, after reading his history and scrolling through his Twitter feed. He left his position after clashing with Trump and amid accusations of covering up for Hillary Clinton. When not attacking my daughter with bogus accusations of violating federal laws, he’s tweeting his adventures in Texas as part of a big protest of the enforcement of immigration laws. The slogan of the organization he’s backing, which is prominent in his posts, is “We Demand Families are Reunited and Free!” Notice this doesn’t stop at merely calling for reuniting families, but for setting them free, even though they violated federal immigration law.
So to recap: the “former director of the Office of Government Ethics" under Obama (pause for laughter) thinks that for a Republican to write a tweet in full compliance with the demands of her job is a quintuple federal offense, but entering the US illegally is not only fine but should be rewarded.
Now I finally understand why Obama seriously believed that he had a “scandal-free administration.”
"Visualize World Peace"
For those who sneered that there will be no real change from North Korea after the meeting between Kim Jong-Un and President Trump: aside from the return of three American detainees, and the dismantling of a nuclear test site, and the beginning of the return of the remains of US veterans, it’s been noted that the anti-American propaganda posters that used to be ubiquitous in Pyongyang have disappeared, seemingly overnight.
And what have all the Trump-haters with “Visualize World Peace” stickers on the bumpers of their Priuses actually done for world peace lately?
New study out
New study proves Washington, DC, is the psychopath capital of the world. We really didn’t need a study to prove that when we have Maxine Waters.
Think that’s catty? From the article: the psychological definition of a psychopath is “a person with a particular collection of antisocial traits, including a powerful sense of spite and an inability to consider the welfare of others.”
Excellent piece by Roger L. Simon on why the left is having a nervous breakdown in public. Hint: the fault lies not in Donald Trump, but in themselves.
Simon’s observation that they are going insane at the realization of their dwindling influence is born out in several recent news stories. We’ve read of Hispanics and African-Americans who are waking up to the fact that despite the left’s constant howls of “RACIST,” Trump’s tenure has resulted in the lowest unemployment numbers both groups have enjoyed…ever.
Meanwhile, Asian-Americans are also starting to rebel against discrimination in liberal institutions such as Ivy League colleges. At the link, UC-Berkeley law Prof. John Yoo calls on fellow Asian-Americans to reassess their allegiance to the Democratic Party, pointing out that they own many of the small businesses being helped by Trump’s tax cut, while liberal Harvard is using the same tactics against Asian-Americans that were once used to keep Jews out.
Even the New York Times recently admitted that it had no words to describe how great the economy is doing. More recently, the Times lamented that the increasingly strident attacks on President Trump not only aren’t repelling his supporters, they’re making them distrust the media and support him all the more. (I’d rather link to Don Surber’s entertaining article on that story, but you can find the link to the Times piece in it, if you really want to torture yourself.)
As I watch the remaining leftists rant and scream, and attempt to foment hatred and violence against people who are just trying to dine quietly at restaurants, and yelling the F-word at the Tony Awards and somehow being stunned that this is making them less and less popular with most Americans, I keep thinking of a scene in the movie, “Mars Attacks.” A belligerent general is struck with a Martian shrink ray, and the tinier he gets, the louder and angrier his threats become, until he’s finally squashed like a bug. If the rapidly-shrinking left in America doesn’t want to end up with the same fate, they’d better start growing up fast.
At this link, a terrific piece by Ed Driscoll, explaining why it’s embarrassing, insulting and self-aggrandizing for the consequence-free anti-Trump loudmouths to name themselves after the French Resistance and compare Trump to Hitler. He reminds us of what the genuine Resistance risked and the price they paid for standing up to real Nazis.
The Left turns it's fire on Half Pint
I guess Laura Ingalls Wilder should have rewritten her accounts of the past to reflect modern progressivist dogma, as in "Little Sensitivity-Training Center on the Prairie."
Strzok to testify: what if he pulls a "Bill Clinton"?
The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte, is getting ready for a scheduled closed-door deposition on Wednesday with FBI agent Peter “We’ll Stop It” Strzok, who is appearing in response to Goodlatte’s subpoena. In an interview Sunday with Maria Bartiromo on FOX News, Goodlatte pointed to Strzok as a key figure in both the Hillary and the Russia/Trump investigations, and he made it clear he’s very interested in questioning him about the extremely biased text messages he exchanged with Lisa Page.
As we all know by now, the most eyebrow-raising of his texts was sent to Page just eight days after he was placed in charge of investigating Trump. It suggests more than bias –- it reeks of the desire to act on that bias, and Strzok certainly was in a position to do so. And the fact that THIS PARTICULAR TEXT wasn’t included in the texts supplied to the IG by the Justice Department --- the IG had to use a painstaking process to turn it up himself --- gives the impression that the DOJ had drawn a red line on what it would and would not reveal and had decided that this was especially damning.
We all know the message in question. Lisa Page had written Strzok, “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Well, that’s pretty straightforward. But Strzok answers more cryptically: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”
What does THAT mean? Who is “we”? What are “we” going to “stop”?
Now, if this were, say, 1998 and the subject were Bill Clinton, we who knew him well could imagine just how he’d answer a question like this. Remember how we used to have to parse every word he uttered to figure out his dodge? (In fact, I think that’s when the word “parse” entered the common language.) It’s not that hard for a skillful lawyer to finesse an answer that deals with his own state of mind. After all, who’s to know, besides himself, what was in his mind? Here’s the type of answer Clinton might give:
“Well, I think it all comes down to what the meaning of ’we’...is. (small smirk) By ‘we,’ I didn’t mean myself and that woman, Miss Page. By ‘we,’ I meant, um, the AMERICAN PEOPLE. The American people...will stop it...at the BALLOT BOX! Yeah, that’s the ticket. Now, I want you to listen to me. I’m gonna say this again. (wagging finger) I did not...use...my...position...against that candidate. Mr. Trump. These allegations are FALSE.”
I chose a Bill Clinton parody simply to show how easy it is to bamboozle people about what you really meant by something. The word "is" meant just what was going to get Clinton out of immediate legal jeopardy. Strzok, I’m sure, is an exceedingly crafty lawyer as well, with access to a host of similarly crafty lawyers. If he tries to claim his text was about something innocuous like voters stopping Trump at the ballot box, I’m not buying it.
For one thing, if Strzok had meant anything other than what we think, he likely would have phrased it differently, as in, “No, he’s not going to get elected,” or “No, people won’t vote for him.” Also, it was four days after he sent the text that he and Lisa texted about meeting in Andy’s office and discussing the “insurance policy.” It’s doubtful he can convince anyone that this was about anything but an insurance policy against President Donald J. Trump. (Claiming you were talking about a literal insurance policy might work if you were in Health and Human Services ha-ha, but not the FBI.) And let’s not forget Page’s text to Strzok about being in the right place at the right time. The “stop it” text has to be be taken in context with scores of viciously anti-Trump messages. When that is done, any ambiguity falls away.
So let’s all put on our skeptics’ hats and hold them on through what are bound to be powerful gusts of wind from the witness chair. These seasoned lawyers have spent years shielding themselves from public view, and they’re not likely to “stop it” now.