Target Still Hasn’t Learned Its Lesson

Townhall  "As the nation prepares for the back-to-school season, Target still hasn’t learned its lesson. 

"Earlier this summer, a voyeur was caught taking pictures of two sisters in a Detroit-area Target changing room. This frightening incident is not the first to happen at Target because of its dangerous and misguided restroom and fitting room policy—and it won’t be the last. 

Old toon, but it fits the
occasion

"What was Target thinking when it proudly announced to the world in April 2016 that it allows men to use women’s restrooms and changing areas in its stores? Certainly not that voyeurs and predators are looking for places where they can victimize women and children, otherwise, the retailer would have never made such a perilous business decision. 

"Just days after that announcement, the American Family Association initiated #BoycottTarget, a movement that has brought together American families who have said “enough is enough.” More than 1.5 million people have signed the boycott pledge, vowing not to shop at Target until the company reverses its politically correct but potentially dangerous policy. These families—and AFA’s boycott—have had a significant effect on both Target’s foot traffic and sales. 

But as far as Democrats and rock musicians
are concerned...

"As millions are doing their back-to-school shopping, AFA continues to remind families that shopping at Target just isn’t worth the risk. Even though Target continues to be unapologetic, the #BoycottTarget efforts are having impact. But beyond the financial implications for the company, this is an important cultural issue, and Target chose to make itself the example by issuing a proactive statement on its not only controversial but alienating policy. 

"AFA has made it clear since the boycott began that our worries do not stem from fear of the transgender community, but rather from the very real threat that predators and voyeurs, or anyone with evil intentions, would take advantage of the Target bathroom policy to harm women and children. And they have." . . .

Manafort split verdict says nothing on Trump, Russia, and the 2016 election

Byron York  "What does the Paul Manafort divided verdict -- guilty on 8 fraud charges with a mistrial declared on the remaining 10 charges -- mean for the question of whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to fix the 2016 election?

"Nothing.

"Of course, everyone knew that going into the trial.

"Special counsel Robert Mueller was assigned to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." Mueller's authority also covered "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," plus any issues that might involve obstruction of the investigation. Prosecutors said before the trial that they would not mention the word "Russia" at all during the proceedings, and that was pretty much the case. They also barely mentioned the name Trump, although it came up briefly in the charges that Manafort gave a Chicago banker a spot on a Trump campaign advisory board in exchange for approving an iffy loan.

"Mueller did not allege any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, and none were revealed at the trial.

"That's not to say the public did not learn anything from the Manafort trial. Indeed, if nothing else, outsiders got a glimpse into what Washington influence peddlers have gotten away with for decades." . . .

As soon as Manafort is sentenced, he will face another and separate trial in Washington D.C.  . . . "He has been found guilty on five counts of filing false tax returns from 2009-2014. He was also found guilty on three charges of bank fraud. He faces a maximum 80 years in federal prison for his crimes and will be sentenced on August 28, 2018. The jury deliberated for four days." . . .

Ocasio-Cortez, the all-wise queen of the economic world

Daily Wire  "On his industry-leading talk radio show Monday, Rush Limbaugh discussed the young Democratic candidate who's become the face and voice of the Democratic Socialist wing of the party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and her instantly viral appearance on "The Daily Show" with Trevor Noah.
" 'The really important thing about this to understand is this woman has a degree in economics from Boston University," said Limbaugh before playing the clip of her "Daily Show" interview. "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a graduate from Boston U, she has a degree in economics, and it’s clear she doesn’t know anything. If this level, this degree of complete economic ignorance can get you a degree in economics from a major American university, then something is drastically, terribly wrong."

"He then played Ocasio-Cortez's explanation for how she proposes we pay for the "Medicare for all" and "free college for all" and "guaranteed" living wage for all that she is promoting. Here's her response:

OCASIO-CORTEZ: This is an excellent, excellent question — and, in fact, there’s a lot of back-of-the-envelope stuff based on our values. So, for example, I sat down, ummm, with a Nobel Prize economist last week. I can’t believe I can say that! It’s really weird. But one of the things that we saw is, if people pay their fair shore — share. If corporations and the ultrawealthy… For example, as Warren Buffett likes to say, if he paid as much as his secretary paid, 15%… If he paid a 15% tax rate, if, uh, corporations paid… If, uh, we reverse the tax bill but raise our — our corporate tax rate to 28%, which is not even as high as it was before. Um, if we… If we do those two things and also close some of those loopholes, that’s $2 trillion right there.

"Somehow managing to contain himself for that long, Limbaugh finally weighed in." . . .
Then offered his  "line-by-line rebuttal". Then this follow-up:
Rush Mocks CNN's Response To Him Mocking Ocasio-Cortez

This woman represents a bunch of people who do not like America the way it is and they want to transform it into something it was never founded to be. That’s why we can’t debate them. We’re not even on the same field, folks."

Ocasio-Cortez Visits Former Employer, They Just Went Out Of Business Because Of Policies She Supports
. . . "Ocasio-Cortez’s former employer, The Coffee Shop in Union Square, has shut down after a 28-year run due to high rent and an ever-increasing minimum wage — a policy that Ocasio-Cortez strongly supports." . . .

Jimmy Kimmel, Maxine Waters and, and...John Brennan

Townhall

Brennan's security clearance has nothing to do with his free speech  "By now, we're all familiar with former CIA Director John Brennan's unhinged tirades against President Trump. But in that activity, he simply joins the chorus of Jimmy Kimmel, Maxine Waters, and others too numerous to mention. Each of these loudly and continually announces one Trump sin or another, always without evidence.

"Last week, President Trump revoked John Brennan's security clearance. Brennan immediately declared that it was "part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech and punish critics." Moments later, over a dozen former intelligence officials denounced the President's action as "suppressing free speech." Somehow, the ability to see highly sensitive information is "speech." That's curious. I thought speech was something that came out of you, not something you took in.

"Since the First Amendment is so critical to our freedom, it's necessary to revisit what it says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"That's it. Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech. In short, you can say anything you want, short of inciting riot or the famously misquoted "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. That is, you cannot say things that would commonly be expected to cause physical harm to others. You also cannot say things that are deliberately defamatory, since libel and slander cause harm to reputations." . . .

'Unhinged' Omarosa says Trump will start a race war

Cartoonist Ben Garrison certainly has his take on her.

Rick Moran  "Is former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman just trying to sell books, or has Trump-hate sent her off the deep end?

"Omarosa said on MSNBC that Trump's efforts to help the black community are "disingenuous" and actually accused Trump of wanting to start a race war.

"Huh?

The Hill:

“We have a lot to lose right now,” Manigault Newman said on MSNBC’s “Politics Nation,” referencing Trump’s appeal to African-American voters during the 2016 campaign.

“I believe he wants to start a race war in this country,” she added.

Manigault Newman has made a flurry of media appearances over the last week to promote her new book, “Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House.” In the book, she recounts her time in the White House and on the Trump campaign, and accuses the president of being a racist.

Manigault Newman, who rose to fame on “The Apprentice” and was fired from the administration in December, argued she was as an advocate for the black community during her time in the White House.

“Every single time he had some type of issue with the community, I was there,” she said. “The one thing I realized once I was there was he was disingenuous to his commitment to diversity.”

Manigault Newman said Trump is a “performer,” and that he’s more interested in using minority leaders as props than for in-depth conversations. 

"I hate to point this out but I thought only Kluxers and skinheads believed that a race war is coming. Is Omarosa living a secret life as a Klansman that we know nothing about?

"Probably not. So she's either a paranoid loon or is hustling her book. Or maybe both. Her shameless self-promotion since her book came out has no doubt helped propel the tome to #1 on Amazon. But at what cost to her dignity and reputation?

"Maybe she needed the money."

CNN and NBC should eat this up.

The Double Standards of Postmodern Justice

Our institutions offer no principles to explain why some people’s lives are harmed or destroyed, and others’ lives are not.

Victor Davis Hanson

"The New York Times recently hired as a writer and board member Sarah Jeong. The Times knew that in recent years Jeong had posted a series of unapologetically racist anti-white tweets. She had offered wisdom such as “#CancelWhitePeople” and expressed hatred for males.
"Yet when the Times discovered less graphic versions of such tweets from newly hired technology writer Quinn Norton earlier this year, the newspaper immediately fired Norton.
"The message of disparate treatment was that what bothers the New York Times is not racism per se, but who is the racist and who are her targets.
"Over at The Atlantic, there are also no ostensible rules concerning who is and is not fired, and for what reason. Essayist Kevin Williamson was allegedly dropped by The Atlantic for his prior incendiary suggestion that abortion might warrant the death penalty.
"Fine, it is a free country, and private companies can fire whomever they chose. But The Atlantic had no problem hiring writer Julia Ioffe. She had been let go at Politico for tweeting that President Trump might have engaged in incest with his daughter Ivanka.
"Again, the impression conveyed is that The Atlantic is not so concerned with inflammatory speech as with calibrating at whom the venom is directed. If Ioffe had tweeted the same perversities about Barack Obama and his daughters, The Atlantic surely would have fired her immediately.
" 'The American people are losing confidence in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation not just because after 15 months, he has not charged anyone with Russian collusion — the original reason he was appointed. Instead, the pushback is due to the growing sense that rules are made up ad hoc." . . .