Mayor Pete Will Make You Bake the Cake

Free Beacon

Despite calls for pluralism, Buttigieg would force small business owners to violate religious conscience

"Democratic presidential contender Pete Buttigieg's public calls for pluralism do not apply to religious small business owners.

"South Bend Mayor Buttigieg has made his Episcopalian faith and tolerance a centerpiece of his campaign, but the policies he champions would force religious small business owners to participate in ceremonies they find objectionable under penalty of law. Buttigieg, who is married to a man, will keynote the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner. The nation's largest LGBT lobbying group credited his support for the Equality Act for the invitation.

" 'Buttigieg is an outspoken advocate of the Equality Act—critically important, bipartisan legislation that would finally provide clear protections against discrimination for LGBTQ people across the country," HRC said in a Tuesday release.

"House Democrats introduced the Equality Act in March. It would strike down religious freedom protections for private citizens if they exercised their consciences in running their own businesses. It is designed to trump Religious Freedom Restoration Acts at the state and federal level, according to critics. Greg Baylor, director of the Center for Religious Schools at the non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom, said he agrees that "our laws should respect the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of every citizen," but said the legislation "fails to meet this basic standard."

" 'This federal law would force Americans to participate in events and speak messages that violate their core beliefs," he said. "We should reject laws that single out and punish citizens on the basis of their peacefully expressed beliefs.' " . . .

Remember this from 2016: Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Booker Town Hall Audience Member Mocks CNN Town Halls: ‘It’s All Fake’

Young Conservatives with a hat tip to Chicks On The Right

"Gotta love the unscripted moments in politics. 

"And that was the exact point made by an audience member at a black caucus town hall for Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) in Iowa when he blasted CNN town halls for being fake."

From the Free Beacon

“If CNN is in this house, you need to take a lesson from her. This is what you call a real town hall meeting,” the guy said. “All that mess that CNN be doing is all fake. They already got people out in the audience already picked who they want to ask a question. It ain’t going down like that here, so CNN need to take a lesson of this.”

“All that signing in and all that old mess that y’all got to do and you got to have a ticket and all, show your new phone that you–hey, I’m here and able to come in and all that old mess,” the guy continued.

. . . Booker laughed at his mockery of CNN and then asked him to go ahead and ask his question. The guy referred to President Donald Trump as the "so-called president" and went on to criticize him for "lying." Booker, who is running for president, took several questions from Iowa voters in the audience and stayed around afterwards to take selfies and answer more questions."CNN has already held numerous town halls for Democratic candidates. CNN has scheduled five town halls on Monday, April 22 in New Hampshire. The candidates will be Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.)."Fox News held a town hall for Sanders earlier this week and it was the highest rated 2020 candidate forum, surpassing the town halls hosted by CNN and MSNBC." . . .

Barr: White House Hasn’t Seen Unredacted Report, Didn’t Suggest Redactions

Mairead Mcardle  "Attorney General William Barr said Thursday that President Trump and his lawyers offered no input on any of the redactions in the version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report that will be released to Congress.

“Because the White House voluntarily cooperated with the special counsel’s investigation, significant portions of the report contain material over which the President could have asserted privilege. And he would have been well within his rights to do so.”

“ 'The president confirmed that, in the interests of transparency and full disclosure to the American people, he would not assert privilege over the special counsel’s report,” Barr said at a press conference at the Justice Department hours before the redacted report is to be released to Congress. “No material has been redacted based on executive privilege. The president’s personal lawyers were not permitted to make, and did not request, any redactions.” 

"The president’s personal lawyers were granted a request to read the redacted version of the report earlier this week, which is allowed under the Ethics in Government Act, Barr said, but they have not seen the unredacted version." . . .

Ian Macfarlane

Barr: Report Shows Trump Campaign Did Not Cooperate with Russia. No Obstruction Either.

Newsmax  "After two years of investigation and thousands of subpoenas and witness interviews, Special Counsel Robert Mueller confirmed that that the Russian government sponsored efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election, but didn't find that the Trump campaign or the American people colluded with them, Attorney General William Barr said Thursday.

"Further, after reviewing the "facts and legal theories" outlined in the report, Barr said in a press conference before the report's release, he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that the evidence developed for the report was not sufficient to establish that Trump committed the offense of obstruction of justice." . . .

National Review reports: William Barr says Mueller report found no obstruction or collusion . . . “The special counsel’s report states that his, quote, investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Barr said at a news conference at the Justice Department, hours before the report was released publicly.
. . . “So that’s the bottom line. After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the special counsel confirmed that the Russian government-sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election, but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans excluded in those efforts. after finding no underlying collusion with Russia.” . . .

Barr: Mueller Found ‘No Evidence of Any Collusion‘ Between Trump Campaign and Russia  . . . “After two years of investigation the special counsel did confirm Russian meddling in 2016 campaign but no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia,” Barr said.
"Barr’s categorical description puts to rest the suggestion by many of the president’s critics that, while Barr’s summary of the report made clear that Mueller could not prove criminal coordination beyond a reasonable doubt, his report would likely include evidence of wrongdoing." . . .

“Wikileaks then made a series of document dumps.  The Special Counsel also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts,” he continued. “Under applicable law, publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy.  Here too, the Special Counsel’s report did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials.“

. . .  

Naturally, Democrat candidates are "troubled"

Ian Macfarlane

From Beto to Butto: Why did the media dump Beto for Pete?

This kind of hero-worship of politicians is idiotic.  And the reasons for treating both Beto and Mayor Pete as actual, real leaders despite their massive lack of experience is as childish as it gets: they're telegenic.

Rick Moran  "In case you haven't noticed, South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg is running for president.  And the rollout of his campaign has been nothing short of spectacular.  He's getting rave reviews from the media and Democrats (I know, I know — they're the same thing) and has wowed audiences in Iowa.

"Lost in the shuffle is yesterday's Golden Boy, Beto O'Rourke.  After an initial burst of enthusiasm from the media-Democratic complex, the love affair appears to have cooled a bit.

"Politico explains Beto's fall from godhood:

The Buttigieg boom has also benefited from the stumbles of our previous political shooting star, Beto O'Rourke. Was it only weeks ago that the press began swooningfor O'Rourke like a drunken conventioneer, writing about him with the same frequency it does for Buttigieg today?  The things that once seemed so appealing about O'Rourke to the press — the generalities, the platitudes, the offhanded charisma, the rolled-up sleeves — seem off-putting now.  The clearest sign of the press corps' O'Rourke infatuation was its routine reference to him by his first name in its stories — something it has moved on to doing with Buttigieg.  Such shameful and transparent familiarity.  . . .

. . .

"A Democratic primary voter who chooses to support O'Rourke, or Warren, or Bernie can't display their tolerance and fairness by voting for a straight white male or female.  But Democrats can glory in their own innate goodness by choosing to support a gay man claiming to be married.  He is a symbol of their support for "diversity."  Supporting him makes Democrats feel good about themselves.  All Buttigieg had to do was present himself as a reasonable, articulate promoter of Democratic issues, and the groundswell was bound to begin.

"Pete Buttigieg has a lot of problems heading into the primaries, and it's likely that his halo will become skewed at some point along the way.  But we should never underestimate Democrats' capacity to feel they have to "prove" how tolerant and diverse they are by choosing a candidate based on little more than the idea that he belongs to some favored constituency. "

Kamala Harris introduces bill to let illegal aliens work in Congress

Media Equalizer

"Sen. Kamala Harris, who is running for president, unveiled this week her plans to introduce a measure that would allow illegal aliens to work in Congress.

"If passed, her measure would allow Dreamers — who are illegal aliens protected under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program — to work in Congress and oversee actions that directly impact Americans citizens.
"Here’s what Politico reported:

Harris is moving aggressively to highlight her immigration reform bona fides — and her latest push comes as a growing number of Dreamers try to flex their muscle by becoming more involved in federal policymaking, after years of being shut out. Outside of Congress, hundreds of thousands of so-called DACA recipients were granted permits allowing them to work legally in the U.S.

“The giant sign outside my office says ‘DREAMers Welcome Here’ because we know and value the contributions that these young people have made to their communities,” Harris said in a statement. “Government works best when it reflects the people it represents.” . . .

Thanks a lot, California. 

Reclaiming our language from transgender activists

Bookworm Room

The speech demands that transgender activists and other Leftists make on us exceed the bounds of good manners and enter the realm of pure totalitarianism.

. . .  "At this blog, I have written at some length about the lack of science behind the whole transgender movement. My two main posts on the subject are here and here. You can find most of my other posts about the transgender movement here. My point, over and over, is that the claim that someone is “transgender” has no basis in science, but that we are nevertheless being forced to change our language and even our thinking to accommodate a minute percentage of Americans who have severe body dysmorphia.

"Speaking in a PragerU video, Abigail Shrier spells out in clear terms the way in which Leftists, through transgender activism, are upending the First Amendment and trying to implement IngSoc in America (AmSoc?)."

. . . "I would sum up the video by saying that, without losing compassion for transgender people, who I believe suffer either from mental illness or imbalanced hormones (which should by treated by balancing those hormones), we must resist this totalitarian movement. Sympathy should not equal surrender." . . .

"Even before I was aware of the video, I added my mite to the debate only this morning when I put up the following tweet(which still lives there because my following is too small for Twitter to care about my challenges to the Leftists’ AmSoc):" . . .

The Anti-Trump Media’s Attack on Monica Crowley

Toons added by TD

Andrew C. McCarthy  "My friend Monica Crowley was the subject of a major hit job by CNN a few weeks back. She is a serious scholar, but she was portrayed as a serial plagiarist who never had an original idea in her head. The emotional toll of the uproar caused her to withdraw from her appointment by President Trump to be the senior director of communications at the National Security Council. 

"It is the country’s loss. Over the last two decades, Monica has been one of the most effective commentators on the national scene regarding the geopolitical challenges confronting the United States, and in particular the phenomenon of jihadist terror catalyzed by sharia-supremacist ideology — radical Islam. As much as anyone I’ve encountered, she has been invaluable: communicating the threats, debating them, and defending sensible national-security measures. 

"All writers make mistakes. But Monica’s have been blown wildly out of proportion, to the point of smear. The well-regarded copyright attorney Lynn Chu has done a careful study of the plagiarism allegations and posted her findings on Facebook. Two things leap out.
. . . 
That said, though, Monica’s missteps are overwhelmed by the valuable work she does. As Ms. Chu concluded:

I found CNN’s splashy “plagiarism” accusation to be ill-supported — a heavily exaggerated, political hit job. Instead, after reading texts side by side with footnotes, I came away impressed by the very high quality and care taken by Ms. Crowley in her writing, scholarship and research overall. Many parallels in fact read on the page as rather different even if certain content or phrases were the same, and they were largely short, fragmentary, and routine.

Historical research inevitably draws heavily on the work of other scholars. Dissertations exist to synthesize. The relatively few examples of unsourced copying found was in my opinion de minimus, should just be corrected, and not allowed to besmirch Ms. Crowley’s reputation. 

"Monica Crowley is a strong voice on national security and a great patriot. It is important to recognize, moreover, that this was never really about her. It’s the president’s scalp that they want. Along the way, they’ll take what they can get. I’m sorry to see my friend get caught in the crossfire."

Perhaps we have access to too much news

"Historic SC Church Vandalized With Islamic Graffiti on Palm Sunday" Sure, no one would dream of faking this; I don't buy this for a minute and suggest the same to you. 
We conservatives have been on the receiving end of too much of this stuff. Remember the fake nooses and, oh, yes: Jussie Smollett. Then recall how much past evil was blamed on "a big black guy". TD

Bernie Comes Out in Favor of ‘Abortion up to Moment of Birth’

De Blasio Threatens to Sue if Trump Sends Immigrants to Sanctuary City NYC 

. . . “ 'Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only,” Trump tweeted.

"So-called “sanctuary cities” are cities where local authorities do not report the immigration status of residents to federal authorities." . . .

Ocasio-Cortez Admits In Interview She Thinks About About Running For POTUS
Hoping to sit where Abraham Lincoln once sat and representing our nation before the world.
Her supporters make me fear for this nation and our ability to preserve our republic. TD

MSNBC Falsely Claims Fox News Blamed Muslims For Notre Dame Blaze…
Also here: MRC/ Newsbusters

ISIS Celebrates Burning Of Notre Dame…  Via UK Daily Mail.  Awaiting comments from Ilhan Omar. Quoting:

• ISIS affiliated propaganda group made a heartless poster of the inferno in Paris
• It was accompanied by a cruel message bidding 'au revoir' to Notre Dame . . .

• 

The Progressive Revolution: From Democratic to Liberal to Progressive to Socialist

 All this was largely the legacy of an otherwise mostly unsuccessful Obama administration whose record was one of massive debt, an ossified economy, decreased sovereignty, increased ethnic and racial tensions, and a confused foreign policy perceived abroad as apologetic and contrite, and therefore useful to rivals and enemies.

Victor Davis Hanson

Obama kick-started a cycle that moves ever farther left — even he now seems passé.

Americans voted for Barack Obama in 2008 despite, not because of, his most partisan voting record in the Senate. They were once willing to look past his earlier dubious associations with abject anti-Semites such as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, former terrorists like Bill Ayers, and unhinged characters such as Father Pfleger. They also averted their eyes from Obama’s often quite offensive commentary, in his autobiography and during the 2008 campaign (e.g., “typical white person” and “they cling to…” speech).
"Instead, voters were tired of the Iraq War (which was over for all practical purposes by the time of the November 2008 election).
"They were, of course, terrified by the September 2008 financial meltdown (which had been mostly stabilized four months later by the time of the inauguration) and irate at the kid-gloves treatment accorded often conniving banks and investors.
"They were convinced that Obama might be healing and transformative as the first African-American president, supposedly only slightly to the left of a far steadier and more qualified Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell. And half the Democrats were already becoming sick of Hillary Clinton once they became reacquainted with her on the 2008 primary-campaign trail.
"As is typical of American politics, voters in 2008 also wanted to change the party in power after it had been in the lead for eight years, and the lame-duck president fell out of favor. Voters certainly were underwhelmed by an uninspiring, herky-jerky, mostly incompetent John McCain campaign, notable for his “that’s not who we are” comments and his willingness to “lose nobly.”  
"Such was the naïve dream." . . .

Behind the Obama administration’s shady plan to spy on the Trump campaign

The fact that spying had occurred was too clear for credible denial. The retort, then, was misdirection: There had been no spying on Donald Trump or his campaign; just on a few potential bad actors in the campaign’s orbit. It was nonsense then, and it is nonsense now.

NY Post with a hat tip to Socio-Political Journal

"In Senate testimony last week, Attorney General William Barr used the word “spying” to refer to the Obama administration, um, spying on the Trump campaign. Of course, fainting spells ensued, with the media-Democrat complex in meltdown. Former FBI Director Jim Comey tut-tutted that he was confused by Barr’s comments, since the FBI’s “surveillance” had been authorized by a court.

"(Needless to say, the former director neglected to mention that the court was not informed that the bureau’s “evidence” for the warrants was unverified hearsay paid for by the Clinton campaign.)

"The pearl-clutching was predictable. Less than a year ago, we learned the Obama administration had used a confidential informant — a spy — to approach at least three Trump campaign officials in the months leading up to the 2016 election, straining to find proof that the campaign was complicit in the Kremlin’s hacking of Democratic emails.

"As night follows day, we were treated to the same Beltway hysteria we got this week: Silly semantic carping over the word “spying” — which, regardless of whether a judge authorizes it, is merely the covert gathering of intelligence about a suspected wrongdoer, organization or foreign power." . . .

Bernie Confirms What We Already Knew: He Literally Refuses To Put His Money Where His Mouth Is

Rich Terrell

Bernie Confirms What We Already Knew: He Literally Refuses To Put His Money Where His Mouth Is

1) Bernie can't answer whether or not he'd pay the very tax he'd propose. It's convenient, isn't it? He's all about taxing everyone...but not himself.  2) He failed to mention that the majority of Americans actually paid less taxes over the course of the year. Their tax refunds were smaller but they saw the tax breaks in their paychecks throughout the year. 

So the Russians wanted Bernie Sanders elected president in 2016 all along...
They didn't promote Trump because they thought he had no chance at all.
. . . "But actually, [Assange] was soliciting Russian mischief back when Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were duking it out on the primary stage .. and looking to help Bernie. What's more, the Russians obliged." . . .
. . . "The Russians were rooting for someone all right - and it wasn't Trump. One can only wonder now what the Russians have planned for the man now that he's the frontrunner in this coming election, too." 

Fox News Hosts Ask Bernie Sanders A Question That Left Him A Bit Tongue-Tied
Bernie pronounced his leftist platitudes and scores of youthful voices cheered. Listen to Bernie's speeches and tell me if the cheers you hear are not children's voices. TD