I hate to see anybody lose their jobs, but I have a hard time believing public discourse will be greatly damaged by news that the Huffington Post is eliminating its entire “Opinion” section.
Particularly since the former editor-in-charge (who has a Ph.D. in…”romantic comedies?”) seemingly believed that the way to determine whether someone had a valid opinion and the talent to express it in a way engages readers was by hiring writers via a strict quota system based on (non-white) race, gender and sexual identity.
Cheers to Prof. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit for digging up these tweets from her, seven months apart. I wonder if her cluelessness as an editor extends to an inability to spot the connection between what she tweeted last May and her news from yesterday.
Round up the kids and call the neighbors, I have another great new episode of “Huckabee” coming your way tonight on TBN! On the news front, the Chief Washington Correspondent for CBS, Major Garrett, will fill us in on his new book, “Mr. Trump’s Wild Ride.” Economist and futurist George Gilder will explain why he thinks Google’s days are numbered. Producer, speaker and Special Envoy to the UN for the World Council of Independent Christian Churches, Laurie Cardoza-Moore, will talk about one of our key allies, Israel. On the lighter side, we’ll visit with Christian pop music sensation Julianna Zobrist. And actor/singer John Schneider of “The Dukes of Hazzard” will tell us about his amazing career and sing a special song for veterans. I’ll also have serious commentary, some crazy news “In Case You Missed It,” and more surprises, plus Tre Corley and the best band on TV, the Music City Connection!
It’s headed your way tonight at 8 and 11 EST, 7 and 10 CST, repeated the same times on Sunday, on TBN. To find your local TBN channel and stream previous episodes online, visit https://www.tbn.org/programs/huckabee
Once again, we need someone to fact-check the fact-checkers, in this case, Snopes.com. That site tried to “debunk” the claim that the radical new pro-abortion law in New York State legalizes abortions right through the ninth month. They did this by pointing out that the law only allows those under certain circumstances, such as to protect the health of the mother.
When I wrote about the bill, I addressed that by noting that the “health” exception is so vague that a doctor can subjectively allow an abortion of a viable late-term baby for virtually any reason by citing her “mental” or “emotional” health, family situation, or even her age.
At the link, the pro-life news site, LifeNews.com, rebuts Snopes’ misleading “fact-check” by quoting the exact language of the New York law and the Supreme Court’s Doe v. Bolton decision that defined the “health” exemption.
This isn’t even the first time this week that Snopes’ “fact-checking” has been accused of being biased and inaccurate.
Remember that Snopes is one of those sites that social media platforms rely on for accurate, objective fact-checks when they ban someone, usually a pro-life conservative. Keep this up, we may have to start referring to Snopes as “Oops!”
As long as we’re talking facts about abortion, here’s another expert voice with some facts that contradict the assumptions behind New York’s reprehensible new abortion law. Gov. Cuomo might not like what this man has to say about his shiny new pro-death bill, but considering he’s a Board-certified OB/GYN who’s delivered over 2,500 babies, I think he knows a little more about pregnancy than politicians do.
I can’t help wondering if Minnesota voters knew what they would be getting when they put Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar in office. Or do Minnesotans really think that representing Minnesota values and interests means attacking Catholic school boys, boycotting Israel and begging a judge for leniency for nine wannabe terrorists who tried to go to Syria to join ISIS?
Wait, so you’re saying that a carbon tax that its sponsors promise will be “revenue-neutral” will actually cost consumers $1 trillion over 10 years? Why, I’m so shocked, you could knock me over with a carbon atom!
I’m sure you know the poem about the person who didn’t stand up for various groups as “they came for” them, until, when they came for him, there was no left to stand up for him. I was reminded of that when I heard this story:
The left has “come for” everything that made America exceptional. They’ve attacked the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, the security of our borders, free speech, churches and individual religious freedom, patriotism and capitalism. They’ve demeaned our Founders and other American heroes for not living up to their ever-changing momentary standards of political correctness. They’ve sown distrust in our free and fair elections, while contributing to it by doing everything in their power to block prevention of voter fraud and to allow ineligible non-citizens to vote, thereby canceling out the votes of American citizens. Through “pro-choice” propaganda, they’ve even undermined respect for the sanctity of human life.
They’ve infested, corrupted and politicized movies, TV, sports, whole government agencies, universities, once-great cities, the very concept of men and women, and even shaving razors. Through it all, between biased mass media and angry mobs on social media, many Americans have been cowed into saying nothing, so that the mob wouldn’t “come for” them. Is there anything left that Americans revere that self-proclaimed “progressives” haven’t yet come for?
How about the Pledge of Allegiance?
Latino activist, “Dreamer,” co-director of the Dream Action Coalition (and non-US citizen) Cesar Vargas has decided that our current Pledge of Allegiance is “deeply rooted in nativism and white supremacy,” so he’s been kind enough to write a new one for us. Try this:
“I pledge allegiance and love to our indigenous and immigrant heritage, rooted in the United States of America, to our civil rights for which we strive, one voice, one nation, for equality and justice for all.”
Notice what’s in: indigenous peoples and immigrants. No assumption that the people saying the Pledge are all Americans with a shared history and culture. This isn’t really a pledge of allegiance to America, just to the heritage it’s “rooted in,” as if where we came from is more important than what we are now. Notice that we speak with “one voice” (and whose is that, the government’s?), not many voices, each one blessed with the God-given right to freedom of speech.
Also missing: any reference to God. Or the American flag. Or that we are a republic (that might impede their efforts to do away with the Electoral College and the 10th Amendment.) The word “indivisible” is gone, since dividing us is how the left achieves its power. And of course, “liberty” is gone (that’s like Kryptonite to the left; allowing people to think they can do what they want without the government okaying it is outrageous!) It’s replaced with “equality,” which would be fine if it were equality under the law, but we know they don’t believe in that. They do believe in equality of outcomes as dictated by the government, and a less American idea is hard to conjure.
The only thing that really survives is “and justice for all.” But coming from the people who invented the concept of “social justice,” that’s a sick joke. We know that there is nothing "just" about their definition of “justice.”
Throughout all of the left’s assaults on America’s traditions, morality and institutions, I’ve spoken up to point out their dangerous folly, and I’ve been willing to take the brickbats for it. But this is the line in the sand where we all should speak as “one voice” and say, “No! You will NOT ‘come for’ the Pledge of Allegiance!” We stand for the Pledge, and we will stand up to defend it, too.
And to Mr. Vargas, and anyone else who dreams of becoming an American, try starting with the best lesson ever given in what the Pledge of Allegiance really means (Hint: it has nothing to do with “nativism” or “white supremacy” or any other currently fashionable leftwing buzzwords.)
Many of President Trump’s supporters are expressing disappointment that he agreed to a three-week spending deal that will temporarily end the partial government shutdown without providing any border wall funding.
But before Nancy Pelosi gloats any further about her success at keeping our borders unsafe and porous, bear in mind that this is only a three-week bill. The deal will circumvent the media’s relentless focus on the government shutdown (and blaming Trump for it) and curtail rising problems like threats of air traffic controllers walking off the job. Unlike the last President, Trump doesn’t want a shutdown to be disruptive and inconvenient for average Americans. The three weeks will give him time to make his State of the Union Address and talk directly to the American people, and to disrupt the building “blame Trump for the shutdown” narrative and hopefully to turn public attention back to the border, where it belongs.
In three weeks, they’ll be back to square one, and as he made clear, if Pelosi still refuses to negotiate, he has other options for going around Congress. They might not even require declaring a national emergency.
I’d remind fellow Republicans not to throw in the towel and declare defeat when it’s only half-time.
Since yesterday’s late-breaking bulletin, more details have been released about the seven counts leveled by Special Counsel Robert Mueller against Trump adviser Roger Stone. There are more details at the link.
The charges include obstruction, making false statements and trying to get a witness to lie about what he knew about WikiLeaks’ release of DNC emails. But they do not charge him with conspiring with WikiLeaks or with any Russians.
These charges will give Trump haters more ammunition to say, “Look at all the indictments Mueller is running up against Trump associates!” On the other hand, they’ll give Trump defenders more ammunition to say, “Look at all the over-changing of felonies for process infractions and unrelated violations that have nothing to do with ‘Russian collusion,’ which was supposed to be the point of this investigation!”
Former Harvard Law Prof. Alan Dershowitz called it a “typical Mueller indictment,” in that it alleges no Russian collusion or any crimes committed before he was appointed, nothing but alleged crimes generated by the investigation itself.
Dershowitz said it’s obvious this is designed to put pressure on Stone, who is 66 and would likely die in prison if convicted, to incriminate President Trump. But so far, Stone has been adamant in denying the charges, which he says are meant to pressure him into bearing false witness against Trump, and he vows to fight them. Dershowitz also added that the pre-dawn FBI raid on Stone’s Florida home to arrest him was also likely meant to put pressure on him.
That raid is getting as much scrutiny as the charges, and rightly so. Stone is 66, doesn’t have a current passport, and he told the prosecutors that if he was indicted, he would voluntarily turn himself in. So why was it necessary to send a pack of armed FBI agents in body armor to launch a pre-dawn raid on his house, pounding on the door to haul him away and ransack his home as if he were John Gotti? Upon arriving in court, the judge quickly determined that he wasn’t a flight risk and released him on a $250,000 signature bond, which means he didn't even have to put up any money.
I know that anti-Trump liberals revel in any display of legal force against anyone associated with helping to elect Trump, but have they considered the precedent being set by allowing a prosecutor with an unlimited budget and no clear charges to go after American citizens and dig until he finds a crime, then send armed federal agents after them as he were staging the raid on Osama bin Laden? Do “liberals” really see no problem with that happening in the United States of America? I wanted Hillary Clinton to face a real FBI investigation, but I wouldn’t want them showing up at 6 a.m. to knock down her door and wave guns around at her family.
And that’s another issue: how can people who want all guns kept in locked safes, and who assure us that having any gun on the scene during a tense situation increases the danger of someone being hurt or killed, condone letting armed agents storm into someone’s house in the middle of the night to serve warrants for nonviolent process crimes against people with no criminal record?
And then there’s the issue of how CNN just happened to have a camera crew staked out and waiting at Stone’s house.
They claim it wasn’t a leak from the FBI or Mueller’s office; their reporter just has a great nose for news. Since the grand jury met on a Thursday, which was unusual, naturally, he requisitioned a camera crew to spend all night at Stone’s home, just in case. And that might be true.
Although I have a nose for something else, and that story is making it go off.