Shame on virtue-signalling liberals and we who admire them

Hollywood: Enablers 'R' Us  "Actress Rose McGowan is fast becoming Hollywood's worst nightmare. 

"Her reckless disregard for P.C. etiquette in the "#MeToo" movement, outing sexual predators, has spilled over into her pointing the finger at the "conspiracy of silence" in the entertainment industry – which eventually led to her own rape by the titan of Hollywood violators, Harvey Weinstein.

"No one is off limits in a world where McGowan feels she has nothing to lose.  As if to prove the point, McGowan refers to the black-clad actors on the night of the Golden Globes – attired in the funeral color to call attention to sexual abuse – as an example of "Hollywood fakery."  She cited Meryl Streep, a once untouchable thespian, as a prime illustration of powerful women in entertainment who turned a blind eye to Weinstein's outrageous criminal conduct to advance their own careers.  "You are such a lie," McGowan railed, blasting Streep, on social media for alleging she "did not know" about the three-decade-long sexual rampage of the now disgraced producer.

"There is a cumulative justification to McGowan's rage." . . .

Dem women to wear black to SOTU address to celebrate sexual harassment

"Wearing black is an excellent theater performance in virtue-signaling.  It accomplishes nothing but lets the audience know that the person wearing the costume is noble.  In reality, every Democratic woman wearing black will be wearing that color to celebrate sexual harassment in Congress, something they have been willing conspirators in, sometimes for decades." . . .
"Why doesn't Speier, instead of putting on a black dress, name names and tell us who the sexual harassers are?  That would require courage.  That would require conviction.  That would require friendly fire, which Speier is not prepared to engage in.  So instead, she and the chorus of silent Democratic women will virtue-signal to Donald Trump.  Their wardrobe coordination will secretly celebrate the past, current, and ongoing sexual harassment in Congress, which they refuse to fight outside the world of fashion." . . .

God forbid the further Oprah-izing of America

 "Consequently, blacks moved economically and culturally backward during Obama's reign.  Yes, Trump has been economically "mo' better" for us blacks than Obama. " . . .

Lloyd Marcus  "The American left's Oprah-mania about her running for president in 2020 is truly absurd.  What on Earth qualifies Oprah to run our country?  I do not consider myself White House material.  But if Oprah qualifies, I am a far superior candidate.

"Years ago, when Oprah became a national phenomenon, I coined the phrase "the Oprah-izaton of America."  It seemed as though Oprah had seduced many Americans into placing feelings above facts and logic.

"Fake news media and most politicians have become Oprah-ized, behaving as though feelings trump everything.  For example, rather than honestly dealing with the negative consequences of illegals invading our country, leftists and politicians are most concerned with the emotional side of the issue.  God forbid we hurt the feelings or harm the self-esteem of illegals who do not give a rat's derrière about our country or assimilating.

"So now the American left is giddy over the thought of Oprah becoming our first queen.  We've seen this horror movie before, titled Eight Years of Obama.  Fake news media and wimpy Republicans would allow Oprah to behave as queen, free to overrule the Constitution, given free rein to cram extreme liberalism down our throats.  Opposing or disagreeing with Oprah would be deemed racist and sexist.

"In 2008, over 90% of my fellow black voters were hypnotized by Obama's skin color.  I tried to warn black family and friends that Obama was not black in terms of being one of us.  Obama was first and foremost a liberal Trojan Horsedisguised in black skin, totally focused on furthering the liberal agenda rather than dealing with issues plaguing black Americans.

"Consequently, blacks moved economically and culturally backward during Obama's reign.  Yes, Trump has been economically "mo' better" for us blacks than Obama. " . . .  Full article here.

We are becoming a silly people indeed. Can we not identify these voters as being Democrats?

First Obama, Now Oprah: Here We Go Again  . . . "It has been 150 years since the abolition of slavery but feelings take time to heal. By the year 2008, many whites continued to harbor negative opinions about blacks. Some of those views were irrational hangovers from the past. Many were honest reactions to the violence and self-destructive behaviors rampant in the African-American community. Decent whites found themselves pulled apart by these competing attitudes. Their ambivalence was interpreted as evidence they were guilty of a moral crime. What were they supposed to do to make themselves feel okay about their own thoughts and emotions?" . . .

Photo added by TD

White Americans are waking up from their nightmare. They are mad as hell and they are not going to take it anymore. White voters recognize that their racial guilt is a fiction. White men are pushing back against the male bashing industry. The country is pulling out of the moral stagnation caused by eight years of Obama. 

"Hollywood power, Hollywood wealth, Hollywood fame: who, let's face it, has celebrated these things more ardently than Oprah?"  . . ."She's an American original, but bears traces of a range of other American originals, from P.T. Barnum to Aimee Semple McPherson.
"She's also, to borrow a pair of terms from Shelby Steele, not a “challenger” in the mold of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton – blacks who exploit white guilt to get ahead – but a “bargainer.' ”  . . .

Something is seriously wrong at ICE

Ed Straker  . . . "The problem is that ICE doesn't have the manpower to deport millions of aliens.  Donald Trump wants to expand their manpower, but so far Congress has not cooperated.

"This is not ICE's fault.

"What is ICE's fault, however, is how it uses the existing manpower it has.  The raid on the ninety-eight 7-11 stores must have involved hundreds of ICE agents, but it netted only 21 illegal aliens.  It's great that businesses like 7-11 are given notice that employing illegals is no longer acceptable, but raids like this show that ICE is using its limited manpower terribly inefficiently.

"Part of the problem is the leadership.  ICE is led by an Obama-era holdover named Thomas Homan.  Incredibly, nearly a year after taking office, President Trump still had not appointed his own nominee to run the most important agency related to his most important campaign issue.  He finally relented in November...deciding to nominate Homan, the acting director, to take the job on an official basis." . . .

"Given Homan's involvement in the Obama era, when ICE was turned into babysitters for illegal aliens, it is inexplicable that Trump has nominated him to continue in the job.

"What Homan is doing now is a few high-profile "trophy" raids to get press attention but actually yield few results, such as the 21 arrests from the ninety-eight 7-11 raids." . . .

Lasting images of our past Democrat presidents

Coulter: "It Turns Out Bannon Was Trump's Brain"

Ms. Coulter is not a happy camper over that Trump televised meeting.

Ann Coulter  "In order to prove he doesn't have dementia, as alleged in a recent book, President Trump called a meeting with congressional leaders on Tuesday -- and requested that it be televised. 

"Ivanka: Show them at your best, Daddy! 

"He then proceeded to completely sell out the base and actually added to his problems by appearing senile. 

"In a half-dozen exchanges -- which, again, he wanted televised -- Trump responded to remarks as if he had no clue what the person was saying. One senator would talk -- he'd agree. Someone else would say the exact opposite -- he'd agree with that, too. 

"Actual exchange: 

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: "What about a clean DACA bill now, with a commitment that we go into a comprehensive immigration reform procedure? ..." 
TRUMP: "... I have no problem. ... We're going to come up with DACA. We're going to do DACA, and then we can start immediately on the phase two, which would be comprehensive." 
SEN. FEINSTEIN: "Would you be agreeable to that?" 
TRUMP: "I think a lot of people would like to see that, but I think we have to do DACA first." 
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY: "Mr. President, you need to be clear though. I think what Sen. Feinstein is asking here: When we talk about just DACA, we don't want to be back here two years later. You have to have security, as the secretary would tell you." 
TRUMP: "But I think that's what she's saying." 
REP. MCCARTHY: "No, no, I think she's saying something different. ..." 
TRUMP: "I do believe that. Because once we get DACA done -- if it's done properly -- with, you know, security and everything else ..." 

"Trump was more than willing to sell out the base to solve a personal problem of his -- the Michael Wolff book -- but managed to not convince a single American that he's articulate, bright or a good leader." . . .

On MSNBC, the hosts didn't say, "You know, we saw a new side of Trump today ..." Instead, they could barely suppress their giggles over the great negotiator being rolled.
The Democrats' opening bid is: Not only does every poor person in the world get to come live here, but all their relatives get to come, too!
They don't control any branch of government, and they're not budging from that.
Trump's counter-offer is: OK! My immigration policy is whatever you send me! 

Let's just hope this is Coulter's point of view and not reality. TD 

Fashionable Bigotry

For most UM faculty and administrators, anti-Christian bigotry is acceptable. In fact, going along with it is fashionable and wins them points in academic circles. Those who don’t accept it keep it to themselves. They fear becoming outcasts for siding with Christians in the current culture war.

Mike Adams

"Since my last column on academic hypocrisy several readers have written to express the view that intolerance toward conservative Christians is the only form of intolerance that academics are willing to tolerate. Such a view seems reasonable at first glance. Upon further reflection it misses the mark. Tolerance presupposes a) a moral judgment against something and b) the choice to permit it. Hence, my readers’ views are overly charitable. In order to elaborate, I ask my readers to imagine the following thought experiment:

"The Dean of Journalism at a large public university refuses to sponsor a speaker as a part of a distinguished lecture series. In an email to the series benefactor, the Dean provides five reasons for the refusal. His words are reprinted below:

1. In his public commentary, the speaker appeared to be siding with the Mexicans in recent immigration controversies.
 2. In his public commentary, the speaker appeared to be siding with the blacks in recent police brutality cases. 
3. In his public commentary, the speaker appeared to be siding with the Jews in recent conflicts in the Middle East.
 4. In his public commentary, the speaker appeared to be siding with the homosexuals in recent religious liberty cases. 
5. In his public commentary, the speaker appeared to be siding with Christians in the ‘culture war.’ 

"If such an email were sent and somehow leaked to the general public, the reaction would be swift and severe. Virtually every member of the university faculty would condemn statements one through four. This would be followed by calls for the Dean’s removal. In other words, the faculty at a public university simply would not tolerate the first four statements.

"But would faculty at a public university tolerate the fifth statement? I may surprise my readers by arguing that such a statement would not be tolerated. Granted, there would be no condemnation of the fifth statement. But the reasons for the silence, which would be twofold, would place them squarely outside the definition of tolerance:

1. The faculty and administration would overwhelmingly approve of the statement. 2. Those who disapproved would remain silent only due to a fear of reprisal
. . . Full article here.

The writer: . . . In addition to lecturing on the First Amendment, Mike Adams is actively involved in legal challenges to campus censorship. Represented by the ADF, he won a landmark First Amendment case before the 4th Circuit in Richmond, VA. Decided in 2011, Adams v UNCW held that professors publishing columns and giving speeches have the full protection of the First Amendment when discussing matters of public concern. Hence, when professors report such activities as part of their annual review, tenure, or promotion materials the university does not have license to discriminate on the basis of the professor's viewpoint. . . .

Fusion GPS Admits They Used John McCain to Pass Anti-Trump Dossier to Obama-Era Intel Agencies

Encyclopedic News   "The founders of the controversial opposition research firm Fusion GPS admitted that they helped the researcher hired to compile the infamous, largely discredited 35-page dossier on President Donald Trump to share the document with Sen. John McCain.

"The goal of providing the dossier to McCain, the Fusion GPS founders explained, was to pass the information contained in the questionable document to the U.S. intelligence community under the Obama administration.

"The disclosure raises questions about whether McCain knew that the information he delivered to the intelligence community was actually an opposition document reportedly funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
. . . 

Breitbart News sent the following questions to McCain’s office but did not receive a reply before press time: “Given that Fusion GPS is openly an opposition research firm, did Sen. McCain know that he was sharing political opposition research on Trump with the intel community? Did he know the dossier was partially funded by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign?”

usbacklash

The Trump dossier’s credibility is collapsing  "No sooner did Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, unilaterally release the testimony of Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson than liberals and their advocates in the media were claiming victory. Look, they argued, the Donald Trump investigation was completely justified because the infamous “dossier,” according to Simpson, had been corroborated by the FBI.

"It was a dramatic moment. Also, as far as we know, untrue." . . .

What about Iran now?

America can and should help the cause of freedom in Iran

Utilizing our economic, political, and technological might, rather than armed intervention, the United States should rectify past inaction and amplify the voices of Iranians. 

From The Skeptics: America Should Keep Iran's Protesters at Arm's Length
" . . . the expressions of solidarity that some U.S. officials and foreign-policy activists have voiced are ill advised. Washington’s close embrace easily could do more harm than good. There are two crucial reasons for greater reticence and caution. First, the political and ideological composition of the demonstrators is murky. Second, many Iranians, even those who have no love for Khamenei and his ilk, are suspicious of any indications that the United States is meddling, once again, in Iran’s internal political affairs." . . . 

Iran and Daesh Lite in North America  "Recent mass demonstrations in Iran, and the government's violent crackdown has been met with a deafening silence by Muslim "civil rights" organizations in the U.S. and Canada.  Why have they refrained from supporting the Iranian people's uprising to overthrow the oppressive mullahs?  After all, the same organizations have vocally and financially supported the mass demonstrations in the Middle East and North Africa that erupted in December 2010 and led to the rise of Egypt's short-lived Muslim Brotherhood government and caused turmoil and destabilized these regions." . . .

. . . Taha Ghayyur explained the rationale behind the harsh punishments in Islam (execution, stoning, cutting off thieves' hands, etc.) and argued that the Islamic law (sharia) can be implemented in North America. 

The biggest Hillary Clinton scandal no one's talking about

Washington Examiner

"You've heard of Benghazi and Uranium One. But more than a year after Hillary Clinton’s resounding loss to President Trump, she must now grapple with a new scandal: An ongoing Federal Election Commission investigation into an alleged $84 million money laundering scheme orchestrated by the Hillary Victory Fund — the $500 million joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and Democratic state parties.

"Based on former DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile’s public comments, a memo by former Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, and months of reviewing FEC reports, the Committee to Defend the President has filed an FEC complaint accusing the Democratic establishment of using state chapters as straw men to circumvent campaign donation limits and launder money to Clinton’s campaign. The Hillary Victory Fund solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including Calvin Klein and “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane, “papered” them through state parties en route to DNC and then the Clinton campaign.

"In reality, the fund either never transferred $84 million to state parties, sending the funds straight to the DNC, or it made the transfers without state parties having actual control of the money. In either case, the fund violated campaign finance laws in precisely the way the Supreme Court deemed illegal in its 2014 McCutcheon v. FEC ruling. And that’s only the tip of allegations in this particular iceberg." . . .

Rich Terrell

Full Replay: Trump Meets With Congress on DACA in Rare Public Negotiation    54 minute video of the meeting

Victor Davis Hanson: From Resistance to Nullification to What Next?
. . . "Yet, so far, the Resistance, despite helping to drive down presidential approval ratings to the low 40 percent range, has not stopped the Trump agenda. The Mueller investigation will likely settle for face-saving charges against a few Trump officials for crimes not envisioned under its original directives. Its own biases and the FBI’s involvement with the discredited Steele dossier may result in a number of successful appeals of those who confessed or acquittals of those charged." . . .Full article.

CNN's Dana Bash: "I'll Get Hit For This," But Meeting Was What People Thought Trump Was Capable Of   "CNN's Dana Bash delivered praise for the nearly hour-long recorded meeting President Trump held with Congressional leaders on immigration reform Tuesday afternoon. However, the CNN correspondent was nervous what the reaction would be when she delivered commentary on the transparent meeting." . . .

"This really was a negotiation," she said. "We really got to be the fly on the wall in this room listening to the way they talk. I'm really not convinced that it would have been any different had the cameras not been in there. I was just communicating with now two Republicans who were in that meeting who said that they had no idea that the cameras were going to stay in there as long as they did. The president before the cameras came on said we will just do a typical thing. They're going to come in, I'm going to make a remark and you guys can too. And so on and so forth.' "

Well, CNN is the channel California school districts encourage their students to watch. I have seen this for myself on a Ventura homework assignment.TD

Dershowitz: The Left Couldn't Criminalize Trump, Now Trying To "Psychiatrize Political Differences"  . . . "Dershowitz said it is tyrannical governments that use the power of psychiatry and not the merits to debate their political opponents.

" 'They're trying to say, 'Oh maybe we can't get him on crime but we're going to show that he has mental problems, that he's disturbed.' The guy on CNN today was talking about he has Alzheimer's and he should be subjected to a neurological exam," Dershowitz said.

" 'That is so dangerous," he added." . . .

Why was Juanita Broaddrick never a guest on Oprah's show?

If she runs for president thinking she can ride recent events in Hollywood and politics as a champion of women, Oprah will have to explain why such a powerful and self-made woman at least sat in stony silence as people like Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein preyed on the very women she claims to champion.

Phantom of the Oprah  "There was Oprah Winfrey at the Golden Globes, with her big glasses and 2020 visions of a presidential run, speaking to the greatest collection of sexual predators and their enablers pontificating about the rights of women in an industry where not long ago these same people, led by the pompous and condescending Meryl Streep, gave a standing ovation and an award to director Roman Polanski, child rapist. 

"Oprah didn't mention Polanski, or Harvey Weinstein, or Bill Clinton, or why she didn't use the show that made her rich and famous to condemn predators such as these and the Hollywood culture that demeans women and exploits them for fun and profit.  If Oprah wants to run for president as a champion of women, she has a lot of explaining to do." . . .

. . . "Juanita Broaddrick was never a guest on Oprah's show and noted that Oprah was a willing participant in the "nothing to see here" Clinton cover-up.  She also promoted the presidential candidacy of Bill Clinton's enabler, Hillary Clinton, who ignored his predatory activities and covered up his "bimbo eruptions" as she rode his stained coattails to political prominence:" . . .  By Daniel John Sobieski

President Oprah: Another hypocrite  . . . "If Oprah and her Hollywood pals dressed in expensive black gowns had given this speech in 1997 when Bill Clinton, darling of the Hollywood left, was abusing Monica Lewinsky, groping Kathleen Willey, harassing Paula Jones by dropping his pants, and credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick, then Oprah and Hollywood would have some credibility.  Oprah and her Hollywood pals did not support the victims of Bill Clinton, nor say they should have been believed.  Clinton's victims were vilified and insulted by the Clinton thugs, such as James Carville, as "trailer trash," as if a certain social class of women can be sexually abused by Clinton with no recourse and no support from the Oprah crowd." . . .

Speaking of Hollywood's hate for conservatives, never forget this Law & Order stunt:
"Law & Order": another TV show that sucker-punches half the American population  From 2011:
"Why, you ask? Because this same episode of Law & Order ran on TNT again this week

"We began watching a 2009 episode of "Law and Order" entitled "Fed" last night and I had to shut it off at the start. We saw people like ourselves - TEA par-tiers, portrayed as rifle-toting, hateful bigots. Only Hollywood is capable of inspiring dislike and outrage by the simple means of the skillful acting of those who portray people like you and me as despicable and violent. They give us the same treatment they give to pharmaceutical  and insurance companies.

"May God bless all courageous conservatives in our country trying to stem the socialist tide sweeping America because the left has such massive force to bring against them. And the propaganda is being spoon-fed to the American public. How do we stand a chance?"

Hail To The Oprah

Being Oprah, she is a master of speaking with applause lines*.  

Remember, Oprah Winfrey Is Our Premier National Snake Oil Salesman . . . "There are a great many reasons Winfrey should not run for president. Chief among them is that she has built her career, not just as a charismatic daytime television star, but also as our nation’s premier snake oil salesman. She is responsible for promoting a whole variety of quack medical nostrums and launching the careers of questionable experts. She may not be as prolific as Gwyneth Paltrow—to my knowledge, she has never tried to sell us a coffee enema—but she is far more influential.

"She invited Suzanne Somers onto her show to peddle hormone injections and an absurd vitamin regimen." . . .The religion of Oprah has its saints, too

While Hollywood Gushes Over Oprah, Juanita Broaddrick Delivers a Devastating Reminder  . . . "A number of individuals close to Winfrey have since revealed that the media mogul is seriously considering a 2020 White House bid, according to CNN. Any plans she might be entertaining hit an early snag, however, when a woman who has long accused former President Bill Clinton of rape spoke out against Winfrey’s perceived indifference to the claim.

"In response to a tweet celebrating Winfrey’s speech, Juanita Broaddrick accused her of ignoring accusations against her “friend.” . . .

“You’ve had so many opportunities to bring up my allegations, which have never been discredited,” she wrote. “Why??' ” . . .

British actress Kadian Noble came forth with shocking accusations.
. . . "Noble is the most recent in a long list of actresses and models who claim Harvey Weinstein either forced himself on them or coerced them into sex. After meeting Weinstein for the first time in London, Noble brought along her “show reel” to his hotel room when she met up with him again in Cannes in February 2014. During their second meeting, Noble alleges Weinstein used promises of career advancement to lure Noble to his hotel room, where he forced himself on her." 

Make Hollywood Great Again "I watched NBC’s broadcast of the Golden Globe awards last night with morbid fascination to soak in the self-love and the self-praise of the Hollywood crowd. The hours spent in psychotherapy seem to have paid off big league, though introspection was nowhere in evidence. The sexual harassment panic featured as a motif. My favorite moment was Halle Berry’s appearance as a presenter in the obligatory black gown with the voluntary exposure of cleavage." . . .

In "The Godfather", a guy like Weinstein woke up to find his horse's head in bed with him.

Richard Young photo

Oprah Winfrey may be the perfect Democratic presidential contender, but her Hollywood cheerleaders compromise her chances.


Dems pin their 2020 hopes and dreams on Oprah   . . . "The ability to give an emotionally evoking speech and tell a good story and a healthy dose of star power is all it takes to get liberals excited about a presidential run these days:" . . .

It’s easy to imagine that, to match Trump, a Democratic party burdened by a deep bench of mediocrities will embrace their own media celebrity with no political experience. But there is one potentially serious problem to her candidacy that the unexpected launch of the Oprah movement revealed.

*Start with a steadily rising pitch and volume. Then lower the pitch to a mid point to signal finality. Slow right down towards the end and put strong emphasis on the final few words." . . .