Advertisement

In case there are still any illusions that Black Lives Matter is a legitimate civil rights group rather than an organization run by radical leftists (not that it’s ever been much of a secret),

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/blm-founders-video-from-10-years-ago-reveals-her-love-of-maos-red-book_3815297.html

its leaders just declared “solidarity” with the Palestinians, accused Israel of colonialism and said, “We will continue to advocate for Palestinian liberation.” What that has to do with protecting black lives is beyond me. But it does put them squarely on the side of Hamas militants who started this current violence by firing hundreds of missiles indiscriminately at Israeli civilians, so it appears that Jewish lives don’t matter a whit to them.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/black-lives-matter-hamas-terrorists-israeli

Naturally, BLM’s siding with the Palestinians elicited cheers from odious groups such as the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, who accuse Israel of committing war crimes in striking back against Hamas. In response, the Israeli Defense Forces pointed out that Hamas hides among civilians, using them as human shields, and that the IDF warns civilians ahead of strikes on Hamas facilities to give them time to get to safety. They tweeted, "Israel fights to protect its civilians. Hamas uses civilians to protect itself."

It seems like a pretty obvious difference, but I guess if you think Hamas militants who are firing missiles at innocent civilians are the good guys, you’re easily confused. Not that I expect the leaders of BLM to read this, but here’s an article by Dennis Prager explaining why anti-Semitism is the worst form of racism.

https://www.westernjournal.com/dennis-prager-anti-semitism-worst-form-racism-seeks-exterminate-entire-ethnicity/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=huckabee

I always personally liked Jon Stewart, even though we don’t agree on much politically. Whenever I was a guest on “The Daily Show,” I thought he treated me fairly, and we had a good time jousting and joking with each other. Of course, that was back in the days when liberal hosts could have friendly debates with conservatives without the woke Twitter mobs branding them as heretics.

Still, it’s hard to argue with Matt Purple at the Spectator when he makes the case that Jon Stewart “killed comedy.”

https://spectator.us/topic/jon-stewart-killed-comedy-daily-show/

In his defense, I don’t think Jon meant to kill comedy. It was really more a result of too many people imitating him (badly), and audiences becoming too hyper-partisan to be able to laugh at anything other than vicious attacks on the “others” (i.e., Trump Derangement Syndrome.) Jon may have set the template, but EVERY late night comic on TV didn’t have to try to squeeze into it and then stretch it until they broke it.

Late night comedy used to mean Johnny Carson or Jay Leno poking fun at the foibles of both parties and giving all Americans something to laugh at together. Now it means someone sitting behind a desk like a pretend news anchor and lecturing us with DNC talking points, occasionally interrupted by a goofy metaphor, swear word or out-of-context video clip to remind us that it’s supposed to be “comedy.” You can tell where the “jokes” are (“joke” being redefined as “some political point I agree with”) because the studio audience cheers and claps instead of actually laughing.

Marketing experts explain that they do this because the viewing audience is so splintered that they don’t believe it’s possible to reach a mass audience anymore, so they’re pandering to the small leftwing slice they still have left in a desperate attempt to hang onto them. They don’t think conservatives or independents would watch a late night show anymore. Maybe they should try doing one that didn’t insult us constantly and find out. Greg Gutfeld seems to be doing all right with that strategy.

Remember the name Konstantin Kilimnik? The Mueller team and Democrats in Congress, with no evidence, tried to tie him with Russian intelligence as part of the “Russia hoax” and accused him of offering Russians, on behalf of Paul Manafort, sensitive polling information.

In an exclusive interview with RealClear Investigations, Kilimnik, who now lives in Moscow with his wife and two children, maintains that this was just very basic, publicly available polling, such as what was appearing in the LA TIMES. Also, he was sharing it not with Russians but with Ukrainian business associates. “I shared this info with a lot of our clients in Ukraine, who were closely following the race and who were excited about Paul [Manafort] working for [Trump].”

“I have no relationship whatsoever to any intelligence services, be they Russian or Ukrainian or American, or anyone else.”

He says he would be happy to talk with the FBI but that they have never contacted him. “I have been pretty open all my life,” he tells Aaron Mate at RCI, “and have not been hiding from anyone...But I refuse to be a toy in bizarre political games and have my life ruined more than it has been because of the senseless and false accusations.”

It’s strange: there’s a $250,000 FBI “reward” for Kilimnik in the Paul Manafort lobbying case –- they said they want to charge him with one count of witness tampering –- but according to him and also the public record, he has never once been contacted by a U.S. government official. The FBI has never reached out to him, he says, alleging that they are deliberately avoiding him. “The FBI and others could have had the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv or Moscow, or have any of my numerous contacts in the U.S., reach out and have a conversation,” he says. “But they do not really need it. All they need is a scarecrow. And as one of the few people within the Trump campaign who has a Russian passport, they picked me.”

“Nobody ever tried to talk to me because they know the truth," he says. "They understood damn well that I would tell them what I’m telling you.” I would add that they’ve treated WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who published the purloined DNC emails and knows the real source for those, the same way, with Mueller never contacting Assange and the Senate Intelligence Committee ignoring his offer of an interview.

Kilimnik says that if he tried to come back to America and defend himself, he would be “crucified by the media,” and that because of the current political climate here, he would have “zero chance of justice.”

“This is a sad continuation of a deeply wrong story,” he says. “I thought it would be over with Trump gone and the need to create lies about his ‘ties to Russia.’ But, obviously, I was wrong.”

With Trump being seen by Democrats as a re-emerging threat for 2024, get ready to hear a lot more unsubstantiated drivel about “Russia Russia Russia.” Political efforts to tie Trump to Russia are underway again already, and names like “Kilimnik” will be tossed around again, not because there’s any substance behind the accusations but because the names sound Russian and shady. For when you have time, this very detailed but engaging article shows how someone can be pulled into an investigation and made to seem like a criminal and a spy over what appears to be essentially nothing.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/05/19/accused_russiagate_spy_kilimnik_speaks_-_and_evidence_backs_his_no_collusion_account_777328.html

In a recent Intelligence Community Assessment, Kilimnik figures prominently and is identified with no evidence as a “Russian influence agent,” a term which is not defined. It says he was part of a “network of Ukrainian individuals...connected to the Russian Federation Security Service (FSB)...who “took steps throughout the [2020] election cycle to damage U.S. ties to Ukraine, denigrate President Biden and his candidacy, and benefit former President Trump’s prospects for re-election.

Ah, that’s the ultimate sin, of course. But Kilimnik insists he doesn’t know what they are talking about. And he says he’s never even met Andriy Derkach, a Ukrainian lawmaker with alleged Kremlin ties, with whom he’s accused of working. The report says that “Derkach, Kilimnik and and their associates sought to use prominent U.S. persons and media conduits to launder their narratives to U.S. officials and audiences.”

Kililmnik says, “I would really love to see at least one confirmation of the things they allege. Pulling me into this report with zero evidence shows that [U.S. intelligence] people high up do not give a damn about truth, facts or anything.”

His name also appears numerous times in the Mueller Report, where, in one colossal mistake –- Kilimnik calls it a “blatant lie” –- it says he obtained a “Russian diplomatic passport” in 1997 to travel to the United States. This makes it seem as though he were an intelligence operative, because spies often travel with diplomatic passports. But Kilimnik can show the passport he had from that period, and it’s the standard red passport, not the green one of the diplomatic corps. “I never had a diplomatic passport in my life,” he says. It’s one of many very sloppy things in the Mueller report, which don’t make sense.”

It should be noted that even the infamous Peter Strzok wrote, in unsealed notes from 2017, that “We are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.” But just as we’re going to hear a drumbeat of vague, unsubstantiated accusations related to the investigation into Trump’s business affairs being conducted by Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance –- a gigantic fishing expedition we recently reported on –- so we’re also going to hear about Russia, all over again.

The Democrats can’t help themselves; this is right out of their playbook of phony strategies.. The closer we get to 2024, the louder and more senseless it will get. The “collusion” narrative is alive and well and refuses to die.

…………….

Postscript: Just as the Manhattan DA is hounding Trump, so also is the attorney general of New York State, Letitia James, who ran for office in the first place on a platform of “getting” Trump. It was announced yesterday that she has opened the inevitable criminal investigation into the Trump Organization. Obviously, this woman is motivated by pure Trump-hate; in 2019, she said, “We just do our job to ensure that the man currently occupying the Oval Office is held accountable to any and everything he has done.” And in 2020: “Our investigation will continue when Mr. Trump becomes a private citizen. Nothing will preclude our investigation going forward, and we will...continue to investigate.”

It never ends. Laura Ingraham had an eye-opening segment on Wednesday night’s INGRAHAM ANGLE.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6255129256001#sp=show-clips

The NCAA threatened to remove championships from states that protected girls from having to compete with trans males who “identify” as girls. Many of those states’ leaders told the NCAA to pound sand and started talking about forming a new collegiate athletic association that puts sports ahead of enforcing insane leftist dogma. And guess what?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2021/05/19/ncaa-not-punishing-states-which-protect-womens-sports-after-all-n2589738

The NCAA backed down. Alabama, Arkansas and Tennessee will host girls’ softball tournaments as planned.

Incidentally, it occurred to me recently that the “trans males are biologically the same as girls” argument isn’t the first time Democrats have adopted school sports policies that flew in the face of biological reality. Remember way back when they cared about women’s rights, and there was a big feminist, “grrrl power” move to force schools to allow girls to play on boys’ sports teams?

We don’t hear much about that anymore, maybe because it soon became obvious that it’s a bad idea to let girls be crushed under a pile of football players who are all three times their size. But in case there’s still any doubt, a recent University of Glasgow study of three years’ worth of injury data involving about 40,000 teenage female soccer players in Michigan found that – brace yourself! – girls and boys are different!

The study found that girls are nearly twice as likely to suffer concussions as male players. While male players are more likely to be injured from colliding with another player (maybe because of more aggressive play), girls are most often injured from contact with equipment, such as the goal or ball. They’re also more likely to suffer concussions just from butting the ball with their heads.

The professor who authored the study said the “mechanism of injury appears different between boys and girls,” and this raises “the question of whether sports should consider sex-specific approaches to both participation and concussion management.” Gee, you think?

Now, imagine really defying biological reality by putting girls who are more prone to concussions just from butting the ball into the same game with biological males who are twice their size and more prone to injuries from violent collisions with other players. That sounds like a harebrained recipe for disaster. It’s also the current Administration’s official policy.

The New York Attorney General’s Office announced that it is joining with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office in investigating the Trump Organization, and that this is no longer just a civil investigation but a criminal investigation.

https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2021/05/19/the-new-york-attorney-general-announces-the-investigation-of-trump-inc-is-now-a-criminal-matter-n382864

Let me put that into plain English for you: “We haven’t been able to come up with any legitimate civil offense to charge the Trump Organization with, so our equally politicized state prosecutors are going to launch their own fishing expedition.”

If you think it’s coincidental that in making this monumental announcement, they failed to list any actual criminal activity of which Trump’s company is suspected, then you’re living in a fool’s paradise. This is Banana Republic territory, abusing the legal system to prosecute political opponents. Or more precisely, Stalinesque: it was Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s head of secret police, who infamously said, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” There’s a place for him in the New York “Justice” system.

As the article at the link points out, this idea that Trump is some sort of crime boss who personally keeps two sets of books is a bizarre fantasy of the left, the same one from which sprung the idea that if they could just see his income tax forms, they could prove he committed felonies. They seem to imagine him staying up till midnight on April 14th, filling out his tax forms himself. It never occurs to them that (1.) if he were going to commit felonies, he certainly wouldn’t admit it on his income tax forms, which the IRS has had for years and never brought charges over, or (2.) that the tax forms for Trump and his multinational network of companies run thousands of pages and are prepared by platoons of accountants and lawyers. They know every jot and comma of tax laws and how to take advantage of them legally.

As the article also points out, Trump undoubtedly has much better lawyers than the ones who work for the city and state, and they will be ready to legally justify every decision that’s questioned. You’d think that in a place where serious crime is skyrocketing, prosecutors might have better things to do than waste time and taxpayer money playing Captain Ahab against a political opponent who left office four months ago, and possibly driving yet another major employer out of New York. But then, you don’t have their warped priorities.

In a related story, and speaking of dumb decisions about criminal justice by blue city leaders, Baltimore is following the lead of Los Angeles and New York City in re-funding its police department with an extra $28 million.

https://www.outkick.com/baltimore-defunded-the-police-by-22m-last-year-after-crime-surge-its-refunding-at-28m/

This follows a huge surge in crime that happened after the city council defunded the police with a $22 million cut last June (who could've seen that coming?) So bottom line: Baltimore taxpayers get to pay an extra $6 million just to try to get the police department and the crime rate back to where they were before the city council caused so much pain and misery with their own stupidity.

Now that they’re re-funding the police, Baltimore voters should re-ject their city council and demand a re-fund of their salaries.

It won’t surprise readers of my newsletter, but there have been several studies recently proving that conservatives have a firmer grasp of facts about current events than liberals do, despite the left’s mockery of “Faux News” and claims that conservative beliefs are “misinformation.” Then again, when you claim to be the “Party of Science” and have to add “except biology,” you’re already on shaky ground.

To dig into the latest evidence:

A new poll by the Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports found that 53-54% of CNN and MSNBC viewers believe that climate change could doom mankind to extinction within 100 years.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/climate_change_liberal_media_viewers_think_we_re_doomed

Only 25% of Fox News viewers believe that. In fact, no credible scientific group has ever predicted mass extinction of humans due to climate change. The UN’s IPCC panel predicts that a hypothetical temperature increase of between 2.5 and 4 degrees C. by 2100 could reduce GDP by 2-5%, but since the global economy is expected to be 300-500% larger by then, humans will probably survive it.

CNN and MSNBC viewers are also more likely to overestimate the amount of warming that’s occurred since the late 1800s, but to be fair, they are exposed to an awful lot of hot gas.

Likewise, a new Franklin Templeton/Gallup survey found that Democrats are far more likely to overestimate the health risks of COVID-19. Forty-one percent of Democrats and only 28% of Republicans believe that more than half of coronavirus patients require hospitalization. Only 10% of Democrats chose the correct answer: 1-5% of patients.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/americans-overestimate-hospitalization-covid-study

The National Bureau of Economic Research blamed this on the relentlessly negative tone of US media reporting on the virus. Even with positive news all around, 91% of coronavirus coverage is negative. This also results in viewers overestimating the risk of the virus to children and believing we need to continue to keep businesses and schools shut down.

Finally, a national survey by Skeptic Magazine found that liberals are prone to wildly overestimating police shootings of black suspects.

https://twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1364024711592738817?s=20

The average liberal thought a majority of suspects killed by police in 2019 were black (only about a quarter were.) When asked to pick the number of unarmed black men killed by police in a typical year, the most common answers among self-identified liberal and very liberal voters were “about 100” and “about 1,000.” Nearly 15% of very liberal voters thought it was “about 10,000”! More than 45% of conservative and very conservative respondents picked the correct number: “about 10.”

I suspect this clinging to adamant belief in incorrect data is because, to the left, the “narrative,” or what they choose to believe, is paramount and must always be preserved, even if it obviously contradicts experience, statistics, history and evidence. As a conservative, I don’t see the point in believing in things that are verifiably false because that’s how you lose wars, money and your Constitutional rights.

It’s why conservatives can look at the unbroken record of misery wrought by socialism and wonder how anyone can possibly believe that it would ever work, while liberals can turn a blind eye and insist that it just hasn’t been tried by the right people yet. They probably also believe that the Hindenburg wouldn’t have blown up if only they’d been the zeppelin pilots.

The New York Post posed a question that I addressed a couple of days ago, about the AP’s claims that it was unaware Hamas was sharing their building in Gaza that Israel leveled (the AP ridiculously called that a “war crime” to “silence the media,” even though Israel gave them advance warning to clear out of the building.) The Post asked, "If the A.P. didn't know it was sharing space with terrorists, how can we trust its reporting?”

https://www.westernjournal.com/ny-post-ap-didnt-know-sharing-space-terrorists-can-trust-reporting/

I’ll point out that I already answered that question: we can’t trust its reporting, at least not from Gaza. That branch of the A.P. has a long history of covering up for Hamas, including not reporting when Hamas threatened them or that missiles were being fired from right outside their own building, and turning off their cameras at hospitals when wounded militant fighters arrived, to give the illusion that only civilians were being injured by IDF retaliatory strikes.

https://victorygirlsblog.com/yes-associated-press-did-know-hamas-was-in-the-building/

One of their own reporters slipped up and accidentally reported the truth in 2014, that Hamas regularly operated in and around the A.P.’s building.

So if it’s any conciliation, the answer to the Post’s question isn’t “No, we can’t trust them because they’re too stupid to be competent reporters." It’s “No, we can’t trust them because they’re lying propagandists for Hamas terrorists." Is that really any better?