The White Supremacy Hoax

Center for American Greatness   

"The specter of white supremacy haunts America. Let us empower the government to crush it.

"Just yesterday, “the deplorables” were to be deplored because they were “racist, sexist, homophobic,” clingers to “God and guns,” and Russian dupes to boot. Today, the agility and unanimity with which our politicians and media—heck, the ruling class—have shifted to indicting roughly 72 percent of the population as white supremacists, likely violent, would fill with envy their homologues in China, Cuba, North Korea, and other tyrannical places. By comparison, Joseph Goebbels had sloppy message discipline. Not even the Soviets in their salad days were so “on message!”

"One may suppose that our ruling class merely intends to energize its constituencies and cower the opposition in the 2020 elections. But this is no game. Their proposals would impose pre-punishment for pre-crimes on persons accused or “suspected” of being a “white supremacist.” By whom? On the basis of what?

"In practice, a “white supremacist” is anyone whom anyone in power dislikes enough to so label him. Who would accept being outlawed at will? Our ruling class plays with matches in a house drenched in gasoline.

"Here is the latest. The Wall Street Journal on Saturday featured an essay by one Clint Watts, formerly of the FBI and West Point’s Counter-Terrorism Center. Watts makes those proposals using the word “white” 16 times in 18 paragraphs. The sociopolitical ideas rife among white people are the main matrix of terrorism in America, Watts contends. Racial profiling, anyone?

"Bemoaning the fact that U.S. law now restricts surveillance of, never mind restrictions on, U.S. persons to those who have committed or may be about to commit crimes, Watts proposes legislation that would permit designating persons associated with what the government may identify as “white supremacist ideology” as subject to surveillance to “preemptively assess whether these white supremacists are taking a radical turn toward violence.”

"Watts also proposes “red flag” laws, that would allow the government to take away weapons from someone so designated. Loss of weapons would be the least of burdens imposed on anyone so “red-flagged.” Career, reputation, possibly family, would be gone because someone in the notoriously impartial FBI so decided, perhaps with the agreement of the highly scrupulous FISA court, subsequent to ex parte, secret proceedings.

"This has become ruling-class conventional wisdom. Desire to wage war on ordinary Americans—to disadvantage them and even to kill them—had long been bubbling in the ruling class’s basements. The countless, nearly identical pronouncements from on high in recent days can be taken as an announcement that the ruling class has raised them into its forceful mainstream." . . .

Woke privilege: The lynching of a good man's reputation

"I am with Dinesh on this one. Beyond that, I have no particular comment, other than to note that we are reminded, once again, that there is literally no depth to which the Democratic Party will not sink in pursuit of power."

Democrats Haven’t Given Up On Smearing Kavanaugh  "Those who take such things seriously are abuzz about a book that will come out on Tuesday, written by a couple of New York Times reporters activists. It alleges that decades ago, when he was in college, Brett Kavanaugh misbehaved at a party. As I understand it, the woman toward whom he allegedly misbehaved says she remembers no such thing, but apparently one or more rabid Democrats who say they were at the party are now, many years later, willing to smear Kavanaugh."
. . .

"Is that the Democrats’ motive? In part, probably; they want to intimidate Kavanaugh into being a moderate. They also are trying to intimidate anyone who in the future may consider accepting an important appointment by a Republican president. 

"Dinesh D’Souza has advice for Kavanaugh:" . . .

I have a message for #BrettKavanaugh . Don’t let these attacks intimidate you. Don’t pivot left to appease the jackals.  Instead never forget what they tried to do to you, and use your lifetime position to teach them a lesson they will never forget 

The New York Times Anti-Kavanaugh Bombshell Is Actually a Dud 

The authors omit the fact that the alleged victim has no memory of the alleged incident.
. . . "So they corroborated the fact that Stier made the allegation to the FBI, but the authors give no indication that they have corroborated any details of the alleged incident." . . .

"And yet liberals wonder why public trust in the media has plummeted."

The NY Times Never Disappoints (2)  "It is increasingly clear that the real problem with the country is not “white privilege,” but the woke privilege of the New York Times. Further to John’s item immediately below about the Times‘s newest attack on Justice Kavanaugh, and my item last week on how Times seems to have decided to operate without editors, behold this Tweet the Times issued in support of their latest hit piece:" . . .

So, almost everyone willing to comment on the record has positive things to say about Kavanaugh, but everybody who hates him does so anonymously. Once again, seems legit….  . . . "Again, Hemingway is talking about Ramirez.  Hemingway also notes that a leftist congresswoman found no partisan agenda from leftist accuser Christine Blasey Ford – even though Ford’s attorney has now admitted Ford was motivated by her support for abortion.
"What are the odds that every single woman accusing Kavanaugh would happen to be a raging leftist?
"Also, it’s recently been reported that Ford’s own father supported Kavanaugh’s nomination despite his daughter’s allegations."

Politico Doubles Down on Fake Turnberry Scandal

Occasional Air Force layovers at a Trump hotel in Scotland, which were started under Obama, are a pathetic excuse for an exposé.

National Review

"It’s tough to be an investigative reporter. Everybody who feeds you a tip has an axe to grind. Or, alternatively, you find yourself going, “I wonder if . . . ?” You put in your research, you talk to lots of people, you accumulate a huge pile of information, but you still haven’t proved your hypothesis. A wise reporter says to herself either “I don’t have the story yet” or “I guess this didn’t pan out.” In either event, she doesn’t publish. More likely, since reporters always think they have the story and always want to publish, an editor says, “Kid, you haven’t got the story.”
"One of the many rules of the road that have changed in the Trump era is that reporters have taken to blasting out their BREAKING NEWS about scandals that they haven’t actually proven to be scandals. There is so much hay to be made during this administration, so many reporters are becoming superstars, so many comfy houses in Bethesda are being bought with so many large book deals. Any fresh angle you can find on the iniquity of the administration is going to be lapped up eagerly by everyone you know. But what if your new angle isn’t . . . actually. . . the truth?
. . . 
"Politico reporters Natasha Bertrand and Bryan Bender suspect President Trump has been directing Air Force flights to an obscure Scottish airport and fuel stop in order to generate business for his nearby hotel. Since the Obama-era Air Force also used the fuel point (which Trump has no interest in) scores of times, and since those troops also understandably stayed at the hotel because it’s affordable and close to the airport, there is only a scandal here if Trump, or someone operating at Trump’s direction, is ordering the Air Force to do things differently than it ordinarily would in order to benefit Trump. The numbers at issue here are paltry. The hotel is charging $130 a night. How much of that winds up in Trump’s pocket, 11 cents? Bender and Bertrand inform us in dire tones that Air Force crews have made “at least four stays” at the Trump resort in the last year. How much do four stays at a cheap hotel really mean to a billionaire?" . . .

The Electability Myth of Joe Biden

"Instead, the Democrats are on course to elect an avowed socialist or a close facsimile in Biden.  To loosely paraphrase advice given by Napoleon, never interfere with the Democrat establishment when it's in the process of destroying itself by nominating a boring, radical, unlikable liar like Lunchbox Joe." Fletch Daniels

Pinterest

The Electability Myth of Joe Biden  "The leftstream media characterization of Joe Biden is that he is moderate, likable, and the most electable Democrat candidate.  He is affable Uncle Joe, the self-made lunchbox-toting common man of the people. 

"In truth, he is none of the above." . . .

. . . "The media regularly compliment Biden for his sterling personality.  He's that crazy but lovable uncle we should all want to meet for a beer to swap stories about toiling for a workman's wage in the coal mines.  But, like most of Biden's biography, his entire persona is a lie.

"Biden has always been a plagiarist and prevaricator.  Most of his lies have served his own biography.  These are among the creepiest of lies.  He is relentless in his biography-building.  He was the original valor thief, seeking to steal the best parts of other people's biographies to add to his own." . . . 

Biden Tells A Story Of Standing Down A Razor-Wielding Gang Leader Named “Corn Pop”

Joe Biden recalls lessons learned as the only white lifeguard at city pool in 1962 "Now I don't know how it works where you live, but in my hood, you don't actually get a laminated street credential card from the neighborhood thug council but, then again, I've never been on the mean streets of Wilmington." Michael Harriot

Reporter Asks Biden If He Will Release Medical Records, He Challenges Reporter To Wrestle To Address ‘Concerns’ 
Tom Elliot: 

Reporter: “Will you commit to releasing your medical records to address concerns by — “@JoeBiden: “Yes — what concerns, man? You want to wrestle?” https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/joe-biden-record-players-and-racism.php
Joe Biden, record players, and racism . . . "Now, I gather that Biden was, indeed, losing command. A rambling answer to a question in the third hour about race produced a head-scratching reference to record players. It has also resulted in an accusation of racism. "Here’s is the question that was put to Biden and his curious response:" . . .

Is this the Joe Biden that Democrats hope will face Donald Trump in 2020?

Who could believe Joe Biden's strange conduct during the Biden-Ryan debate for Vice-President in 2012? Chris Wallace said that he was shocked by how "openly contemptuous" Biden appeared to act towards Ryan and that he thought Biden's behavior lacked historical precedent. Excerpts from The Tunnel Wall back on Friday, October 12, 2012. TD

Biden accused of being disrespectful in vice presidential debate with grins, laughs
. . . " 'Our vice president has shown he is an abusive political bully who belittles, mocks, ridicules and laughs at his opponent, the moderator, the viewers and anyone who questions this administration's lack of leadership," Martin said. "Solutions require respect. These skills the vice president, and this administration, clearly lack."
"Democratic strategist Joe Trippi, a Fox News contributor, said he thought Biden delivered a strong performance overall, but it was "diminished" by the "smirking."

“I don’t know about the likeability of that smirking … I found it condescending and overdone," Trippi said." . . .

Chris Wallace Shocked By Biden's 'Disrespectful,' 'Openly Contemptuous' Debate Treatment Of Ryan
. . . "You could talk about the smirks, the smiles, the head shaking, the mugging -- it was openly contemptuous and disrespectful," Wallace said. He said he was put off by the words as well as the style -- calling Ryan's statements "malarkey" and "stuff" and "loose talk.""Wallace called it "unprecedented" and "extraordinary.""Bret Baier asked if it was appropriate for Biden to smirk during the discussion of the Iranian nuclear issue. Wallace said he was laughing at Ryan and not Iran specifically, and on foreign affairs Ryan did better than most other subjects."


Krauthammer: Biden’s ‘disrespectful,’ ‘hugely condescending’ demeanor undid potential debate win  . . . “ 'If you heard it on radio, what you heard was Biden being aggressive, forceful, he was sort of on the attack all the time and he pushed the argument his way,” Krauthammer continued. “He did a lot of interrupting as well. And Ryan reacted with, I thought, excessive deference, allowing himself to be cut off and often just ending with a point that you might understand — for instance, when he talked about the Catholic Bishops — he made a point after Biden had said, ‘Oh, the Bishops of the Catholic church is not going to be compelled to do anything under ObamaCare.'”
“ 'Ryan said, ‘Then why is that the Bishops are suing the administration?’ But that is almost an aside, and it was lost, and then it was over by the next question.”
"Krauthammer’s conclusion? If the televised interpretation trumps the audio and the transcript, Biden’s the loser." . . .

Many links at National Review Online under the heading "Classless Joe". Here is a small sample:   

The VP Debate by Yuval Levin 

 Mark Steyn; Laughing All the Way to the Bank Collapse "Ryan isn’t a funny guy. But, when you’re earnest and a bit wonky and up against a smarmy third-rate lounge-act flashing his dentistry, you don’t have to be funny. A bit of righteous indignation would have helped. 

"An opportunity missed."

John Fund writes about Joe the Bully  "Al Gore lost his first debate to George W. Bush in 2000 with his audible sighs and sneering manner. Biden wasn’t quite that bad, but independent voters usually don’t like candidates who come off as a jerk. Biden’s rude demeanor hurt him tonight, providing a poor contrast to Ryan’s calmness on the split screen."

To say Trump is Hitler, America is Germany in 1933, or a grimy detention facility is a concentration camp means you have never been to Dachau.

CNN, are you aware? How long will it take for silly CNN to ever re-establish respect for it as a news source?

American Digest  "You think, after all that reading and those museum exhibits (and it is a thorough education, much more than an Instagram collection of artifacts, and oh look, a real prisoner’s uniform, honey!) you understand something. But not yet. You have really just arrived and in front of you is Dachau itself, the ground, the air — the same ground they saw and air they breathed — and you have a choice. Many visitors turn back toward the snack bar, falsely satiated after an hour thinking they saw Dachau and anxiously trying to remember if the shuttle bus runs back to the station on the hour or the half-hour.

"But if you wait for them to leave, now you can see Dachau.

"Most of the place is empty, acres of crushed stone with flat markers showing where the now-missing barracks where. The trees lining the central road bisecting the camp are old. They were here when Dachau was working. You can match up an individual tree from a 1942 photo with the one in front of you and touch it. The sun is warm this day, a beautiful late summer afternoon with those wonderful tickles of early fall around it. A day to be alive grandpa would have called it. There must have been days just like this in 1942 here. Were there afternoon moments when for the length of time one could close one’s eyes the prisoners left the camp?

"Yet while CNN works to convince viewers silver mylar blankets instead of comfy quilts for migrants means there are concentration camps in America, Dachau reminds physicians here dissected human beings alive as part of medical experiments. Just as is taught in beginning writing courses, truth comes from showing not just telling. For those who think there is little significant difference between Germany 1933 and America today, there is Dachau to visit…."

Entire original article at Hooper's War

This is not a sentimental place. It is not clean. A universe of victims died here but this is not a place that acknowledges victimhood, or raises awareness, or gives voice, or traffics in the shallowness of hashtags. Dachau is here to declare what happened and to charge you with doing something with that information on the scale and with the accuracy Dachau requires.

Trump’s Taliban Gambit; What’s next after the cancellation of the Camp David talks?

"I would note the departure this week of National Security Advisor John Bolton, though inelegantly executed, is not a major problem. Ronald Reagan had six national security advisors and was one of the most successful foreign policy presidents in history."

 Conrad Black "President Trump made the correct decision in canceling the peace talks with the Taliban of Afghanistan. These were never really peace talks. They were surrender talks. The primitive and barbarous Taliban represented them as such and to underline the point, engaged in a number of bombing atrocities in a cluster to correspond with their ill-considered invitation to Camp David to discuss peace with the Afghan government.

"The American manager of these discussions⁠—the well-respected former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad—tentatively arranged for a complete American withdrawal from Afghanistan if the Taliban would promise not to tolerate any part of Afghanistan becoming a staging or training center for any external terrorist organization. Thousands of Taliban prisoners were to be released, and the arrangement was to be capped by an extended cease-fire, which the Taliban broke in a particular act of contemptuous bad faith just as the talks were to open at Camp David. The Afghan government was to join these talks for the first time. The Taliban has long regarded the Kabul government with extreme derision as puppets and stooges of the Americans.

"Khalilzad and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo seem to have been acting on President Trump’s desire to fulfill his campaign intention to wind down the effort in Afghanistan. The president’s fidelity to his pre-election promises is admirable and part of his apparently unshakable hold on the loyalty of almost all his original supporters. But if that commitment becomes a fetishistic objective in itself and does not respond to changed circumstances, it can be self-defeating inflexible dogma.

. . . Afghanistan Isn’t Worth It

"The Taliban have never treated agreements with any seriousness; making and then brutally violating them is part of their modus operandi. Apart from being militant Islamists, they seem not to have any commitment to any behavioral norms; they are completely uncivilized merchants of terrorist violence and primitive dictatorship, opposed to scholarship, liberality, or any emancipation of women above the status of slave labor, chattels of their men, and involuntary breeding stock.

"The Taliban have almost no general public appeal and enjoy the support of less than 10 percent of the Afghan population. But Afghanistan is a country with very weak internal structures apart from tribal arrangements. Its vulnerability is that it is a rugged, landlocked country with practically no resources beyond basic agriculture and has never been worth the effort that
 would be needed for a stronger country to impose control over it." . . .

So sad:

Let's talk gun safety, shall we?

Ian Macfarlane

Apparently, the off-duty cop didn't see the "No Guns Allowed" sign at the door.

Third Dem Debate was a Trip to Crazy Town, USA

Image by The Earl of Taint

Townhall  "On Thursday, 10 Democratic candidates took the stage for the third debate in the 2020 race for the White House. And let’s just say, crazy town is at full capacity with this crew and the policies they support.
"You name the problem—genuine or overblown—and they have a big government program or initiative that will fix it. At least, that’s what they claim. The candidates had many opportunities to highlight them during the three-hour primetime spectacle." . . .
. . . "It’s difficult to sit on the couch and watch these candidates tout far-fetched initiatives that will bankrupt the country and its taxpayers. But I guess that’s what’s expected when these presidential hopefuls and their policies are stuck in crazy town."

Yes, They Are Coming for Your Guns   . . . "For years, advocates of the right to keep and bear arms have suspected that confiscation was the endgame but have been rebuffed as paranoiacs in the press. Such a rebuffing is no longer possible. If it ever was, “Nobody is coming for your guns!” is no longer true — which means that a host of commonly posed inquiries now have the same simple answer. “Why do you oppose federal licensing?” Because leading Democrats are threatening confiscation. “Why do you oppose ‘universal’ background checks?” Because they would create a registry. “And why do you oppose a registry?” Because leading Democrats are threatening confiscation. Unwittingly or not, O’Rourke and his acolytes have stuck a dagger into the exquisitely calibrated gun-control messaging on which their party has worked for the better part of 20 years. No voter can now say he wasn’t warned."