Advertisement

NYT Tech Writer Has Doubts

January 15, 2021

Even the tech writer for the New York Times is slowly, haltingly, hesitantly beginning to wake up to the Orwellian nightmare of Big Tech flexing its power to crush free speech.

Of course, she bends over backwards to excuse and justify it…she surely knows she can’t voice her worries too strongly, or she’ll be “cancelled” by her own paper…or maybe the scary truth is only beginning to seep through the thick cocoon of leftist groupthink in which all Times writers dwell…but the fact that she admits at all to starting to feel a touch of the willies over the ruthless power of unaccountable Silicon Valley billionaires should tell you how bad it is. This is like the moment in “Jurassic Park” when the people notice ripples in their glass of water that are their first clue that a T-Rex is stomping toward them and about to devour everyone in its path.


SUBSCRIBE TO MY FREE, POLITICAL NEWSLETTER HERE---->


Scott Adams, creator of the comic strip DILBERT, has a subscriber-only service he calls “Coffee with Scott Adams,” featuring podcasts and posts from, you guessed it, Scott Adams. We recommend it as a way to challenge one’s confirmation bias and automatically boost IQ by several points, just by engaging every day. It’s on locals.com, which hosts independent "creators" (Greg Gutfeld is another) who prefer to be able to say what they want without getting black marks from the social justice warriors running Big Tech. That’s getting to be a challenge these days, in case you haven’t heard.

In Thursday’s podcast, Adams expresses a surprising lack of interest in what Congress has been doing with impeachment and the 25th Amendment to remove a President who is about to exit stage right anyway. He says: “If they want to do useless things in Congress, to me that just looks like another Tuesday. They’ve been doing useless things all year; why would this be the time they stopped doing useless things?”

He sees the people on the left as wanting to go beyond just enjoying the win. They want to “rub it in” and destroy Trump’s reputation, his family, his business, “everything about him.” And the only way that’s any fun for them, he says, “is if his supporters care.”

"I care about Trump as a person,” Adams says, “‘cause I like him,” noting that the real Trump, after you interact with him and get to know him a little, isn’t like his reputation at all. The left, he says, is also trying to grind the Trump SUPPORTERS down. It might really get to them to know that some of us don’t care more.

"If you care about this,” he says, “you’re caring about all the wrong stuff.”

Well………..let's think about that. It depends on what is meant by not caring. To not care in the sense of giving up and letting them continue to get away with what they’re doing --- that’s exactly what the left wants. To not care in the sense of staying strong –- getting stronger, even –- and pushing back against their agenda --- that’s what the left does NOT want.


SUBSCRIBE TO MY FREE, POLITICAL NEWSLETTER HERE---->


Regarding impeachment, Adams asks a very good question; namely, why aren’t the Republicans impeaching Kamala Harris for the same thing Trump has been impeached for? The article of impeachment against Trump says that he “willfully made statements that encouraged and foreseeably resulted in imminent lawless action at the Capitol.” If you change “at the Capitol,” he says, to “in Portland” or “in cities across the United States,” the statements holds true for Harris as well.

"That is so completely, obviously true,” Adams says, “that how do you not put that into an impeachment?” On Day One.

He feels as if Republican politicians are letting their supporters down. Indeed. I would add that ten of them actively went over to the dark side. (And, yes, we’ve listed them.) "Can’t one Republican at least call the Democrats out on consistency?" he wonders. “Is that too much to ask for the standard to be similar for all sides; I don’t think that’s unreasonable.”

Ah, but to point out those inconsistencies –- that’s the brand new made-up sin of “whataboutism.” I’ll tell you something about whataboutism: It’s GREAT. Leftist hypocrisy is so rampant that we need to see a lot more whataboutism right now!

In fact, one Republican did have the guts to employ whataboutism to make the point about holding everyone to the same standard, but he used it on someone besides Kamala Harris. One of the best illustrations of the double standard we’ve seen in a day or two (there are so many) happened on Wednesday, when Texas Rep. Louis Gohmert stood at the podium on the House floor and said, “Here’s a quote: ‘I just don’t even know why there aren’t more –- why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be.’ Or, 'Sadly, the domestic enemies of our voting system and honoring our Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in Congress.’ We were called ‘enemies of the state.’

"Those are all quotes from our Speaker,” Gohmert continued. “Now, on our side, we didn’t take those quotes to be impeachable because we didn’t think she surely meant that. But by the Democrats taking this action [impeaching Trump], you’re telling me, ‘No, when WE [Republicans] say those, we actually MEAN to incite violence.’ That’s what this action is saying.”

The first quote Gohmert offered was said by Speaker Nancy Pelosi in June 2018 in regard to President Trump’s “child separation” policy at the border. The second was also uttered by her, in August 2020 when the GOP expressed opposition to universal mail-in voting. (We've since seen what happened with that. I digress.)

A number of Democrats who weren’t listening to Gohmert very closely apparently missed his point --- inadvertently proving it --- as Twitter went crazy with demands that he be sanctioned, arrested, and/or kicked out of Congress for inciting violence. This led one Twitter user to offer this hilarious deadpan tweet: “Gohmert said something that has those on the left demanding he be arrested or kicked out of Congress, but it turns out he was just quoting Nancy Pelosi.”

It won’t surprise you that even “journalists” mistakenly attributed the quotes not to Pelosi but to Gohmert. “Holy s---,” CNN analyst Asha Rangappa tweeted. “Is [Gohmert] encouraging MORE ‘uprisings’??!? Did I hear that right??????????”

"You did,” replied LAW & CRIME columnist Elura Nanos. “His testimony should be used to immediately expel him.”

Some reportedly have deleted their tweets and acknowledged their errors. But none, to our knowledge, have called for Pelosi’s expulsion from Congress for inciting violence.

Anyway, Gohmert was making the same point about Speaker Pelosi that Scott Adams made about VP-elect Harris. Whataboutism --- we love it.

As Adams says in his podcast, “If you impeach Trump for this exact behavior, you HAVE to impeach Kamala Harris, or at least attempt to...If it’s not even introduced as an article of impeachment...it doesn’t feel like trying. It looks like they’ve just given up.”

There’s one difference Adams doesn’t mention: Kamala Harris wasn’t Vice President yet when she incited violence. But that brings up another point: Democrats heard her incite violence, more than once, as a candidate, and voted for her, anyway. That shows their hypocrisy even more. If they can vote for a person whom they know incited violence, how can they impeach someone else for doing what they consider to be the same thing?

Maybe Adams doesn’t care much that Democrats in Congress are acting like the useless time- and money-wasters they are and impeaching Trump right before he leaves the White House. But he does seem to care quite a lot about holding people to the same standards regardless of political affiliation. And truly, that’s what will be the most important consideration, long after Trump leaves office.

And now, for your entertainment pleasure, here are more tweets from numb-headed leftists who went crazy thinking Gohmert, not Pelosi, was the one inciting violence.


SUBSCRIBE TO MY FREE, POLITICAL NEWSLETTER HERE---->


While other issues have been dominating the headlines, the Supreme Court has quietly been making some welcome news. In a case involving privacy, free speech and freedom of association, the SCOTUS has agreed to hear an appeal by two conservative nonprofits of a 2015 case involving then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

Harris threatened the groups with hefty fines if they didn’t give their confidential IRS list of donors to her office, which has a history of leaking such information. They argue that in this atmosphere, that would expose their donors to threats and harassment, and that the state has no legitimate interest in demanding to know the donors of a nonprofit organization that has not been accused of doing anything illegal.

The most frightening thing about this: the person who launched the case is about to become Vice President, and the person who took it over from her is Biden’s pick to run the HHS and be in charge of all our health records.


SUBSCRIBE TO MY FREE, POLITICAL NEWSLETTER HERE---->


The SCOTUS will also decide whether public universities can be held accountable for infringing students’ First Amendment free speech rights…

…and the SCOTUS has ordered Nevada’s Democrat Governor to respond to a lawsuit by a church that his restrictions on in-person worship violate their Constitutional rights.

Let’s hope that the Supreme Court will ensure that a little good news will occasionally be coming out of Washington over the next couple of years.


SUBSCRIBE TO MY FREE, POLITICAL NEWSLETTER HERE---->


Just weeks after it was reported that Rep. Eric Swalwell was in bed with an alleged Chinese spy (possibly literally), he had the stunning hubris to accuse a Republican Congress member of siding with terrorists and committing a crime by disclosing the location of Speaker Pelosi to the Capitol rioters.

If it’s true that Rep. Lauren Boebert disobeyed orders not to make social media posts during the assault, then that was a serious lapse that deserves attention. But tweeting that “the Speaker has been removed from the Chambers” didn’t reveal where she was, just where she wasn’t. How is that useful to terrorists?

I’d be fine with an investigation into this issue, as long as there’s also a thorough investigation into what information Swalwell, with his place on the House Intelligence Committee, might have revealed to China. But then, he’ll be too busy to answer those questions, since Pelosi gave him a post on her committee to impeach Trump for allegedly betraying America.

Self-awareness is as rare in Washington these days as fiscal responsibility.

SUBSCRIBE TO MY FREE, POLITICAL NEWSLETTER HERE---->

Wednesday, to nobody’s surprise, the House voted to impeach President Trump a second time, on grounds that he incited the violent protesters who stormed the Capitol. They were in such a rush to impeach him before he leaves office that they didn’t take time for the standard legal procedure of presenting evidence and letting him defend himself.

The vote was 232-197, with 10 Republicans joining the Democrats against Trump.

One Republican, Rep. Liz Cheney, was particularly outspoken, declaring, "The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing."

However, the FBI later announced that they had picked up evidence of plans for violence at the Capitol as early as January 5, the day before the attack, and they suspect some of the participants left the Trump rally early to pick up supplies and meet at the Capitol.

SUBSCRIBE TO MY FREE, POLITICAL NEWSLETTER HERE---->

If so, that would mean that Trump’s speech, while it might have been irresponsible, did not incite the Capitol rioters, who planned their attack in advance and left before his speech to launch it.

This could mark the second time the Democrats rushed to judgement to impeach Trump, only to have their efforts collapse once they left the hyper-partisan House because they substituted partisan anger for solid legal evidence. This article explains how a Senate trial might not even happen.

Joe Biden seems to have cold feet about continuing this impeachment trial in the Senate, at least judging by his statement yesterday reminding Senators of “other urgent business” and his suggestion that they split their time between that and other things.

The fact is that by pulling this final rebuke of Trump, the House may have undercut Biden by handing the Senate a divisive, time-wasting responsibility (a trial to remove a President who’s already left office) just as Biden will be coming into office and wanting to fast-track his agenda. Mostly because they hope to ban Trump from running again, which it's doubtful the Senate has the power to do. It also tells us that for all their vilification of Trump, they still fear he might beat them in 2024.

Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats seem to think that they have put a real super-duper stain on Trump by impeaching him twice, but more so, they’ve stained themselves as rabid partisans and permanently devalued impeachment. Being “double-impeached” without proper procedure of evidence as he’s leaving office anyway is as hollow as Dean Wormer warning the frat boys in “Animal House” that they’re on “Double Secret Probation.”

Impeachment of a President is the most drastic of all remedies for the most serious of offenses. It’s a grave Constitutional crisis that should be undertaken with the utmost seriousness. By talking about impeaching Trump from the moment he was elected, then impeaching him over a phone call and having the Senate throw it out -- and then impeaching him again when he’s leaving office over a riot incitement charge that not only wouldn’t pass legal muster, but if it did, the people accusing him of it would be as guilty as he is -- they’ve reduced that most solemn of last-resort responsibilities to a nakedly partisan political ploy.

Want proof? A Georgia Republican Representative announced that she plans to introduce impeachment articles against Joe Biden the day after he takes office, over corruption related to China and Ukraine.

Of course, it won’t go anywhere in a Democrat House. But as satisfying as it might be for Republicans who’ve had to put up with Trump being attacked from day one – and now accused of attempting a coup by the same people who enabled the Russian Collusion attempted coup, and of inciting violent rioters by people who’ve spent the past year defending violent rioters – do we really want a banana republic-style nation where impeachment is just a meaningless political weapon that every President can expect to get hurled at him by the other party, like a mudball?

TO LEAVE ME A COMMENT, PLEASE CLICK HERE --->

SUBSCRIBE TO MY FREE, POLITICAL NEWSLETTER HERE---->

Electoral College Update

January 14, 2021

True to their word, several House Democrats have introduced a resolution to pass a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College and elect the President by national popular vote. Because unlike in previous times, New York, Montana, Minnesota, Alabama and Texas are all exactly the same now.

SUBSCRIBE TO MY FREE, POLITICAL NEWSLETTER HERE---->

The chances of this passing are pretty slim, since it would require a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress, then ratification by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50, or however many states there are after the Democrats get through transforming America.) I would hope that there aren’t that many states that would willingly give away their say over who becomes President to a handful of highly populated states like California, New York, Texas and Florida.

But I did want you to be aware of this, and also share their argument for why the Electoral College is obsolete. I think you’ll find it to be one of the funniest things you’ll hear all day:

“The development of mass media and the Internet has made information about Presidential candidates easily accessible to United States citizens across the country and around the world.”

I don’t think this is a very good time to claim that we can depend on the Internet to provide a free and nonpartisan flow of information about politics. Ask all the Biden voters who somehow never heard about Hunter’s laptop. Or the millions of former Parler users.

SUBSCRIBE TO MY FREE, POLITICAL NEWSLETTER HERE---->

Your Tax Dollars At Work

January 14, 2021

The latest Project Veritas expose allegedly shows Michael Beller, principle counsel for PBS, saying that if Trump were to win the election, people should “go to the White House and throw Molotov cocktails.” He also said that Trump supporters are bad parents who are “raising a generation of intolerant horrible people — horrible kids.” So “even if Biden wins, we go for all the Republican voters, Homeland Security will take their children away and we’ll put them into reeducation camps.”

Nothing screams “I’m pro-tolerance” like wanting to throw Molotov cocktails if you lose an election or take your political opponents’ children away and put them into reeducation camps.

In response, PBS downplayed Beller’s role and said he no longer worked there. They condemned violence and slammed Project Veritas as a “a far-right activist group that is known for producing deceptive videos,” although they didn’t specify what was “far-right” or “deceptive” about this video.

At least, I’m glad to hear that a leftist can actually lose a job over his hateful, violent, intolerant rhetoric, although I assume he’ll soon have a cushy new job as a commentator at CNN.

SUBSCRIBE TO MY FREE, POLITICAL NEWSLETTER HERE---->