(Paul Mirengoff) My friend who reads the New York Times calls attention to this article about how, allegedly, the left and the right are reacting to the Rittenhouse verdicts. Here is my friend’s take:
While the piece wants to appear even-handed, it is anything but. The liberals quoted are all politicians or heads of organizations. For conservative responses, the Times goes fishing for memes and social media comments from QAnon and the Proud Boys.
Readers of the Times may think they know how conservatives are reacting after reading this. In fact, they will have little sense of what conservatives consider the real issues: for example, false claims by the media and candidate Biden that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, false or misleading claims that he had “crossed state lines,” and the failure of Gov. Evers to keep order.
I’ve also seen people demeaning the people of Arkansas for not buying into the whole mask for everyone everywhere trope. Apparently, according to the compassionate leftists, everyone in Arkansas lives in trailer parks and whole families have one tooth among their members.
ANALYSIS: Liberal Animosity Toward Minorities, Teachers, and Poor People is Out of Control.
Obnoxious liberals, the ones who fill the yawning void in their lives by posting online, are expressing an unhealthy degree of animosity toward minorities, teachers, poor people, and other marginalized communities, a Washington Free Beacon analysis has determined.
As you might expect, Lincoln Project operatives are some of the worst offenders. Tom Nichols, one of the super PAC’s former advisers, griped last week that the United States was “threatened by millions of spoiled, stupid adult children” who are reluctant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. His much wealthier former colleague, Rick Wilson, agreed: “We’re so fucked.”
The extremely online duo’s outbursts were presumably in response to successful black athletes publicly expressing their vaccine hesitancy. NFL wide receiver DeAndre Hopkins, for example, suggested a day earlier that he didn’t “want to partake” in the COVID-19 vaccine. Dallas Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott was also ruthlessly mocked for refusing to divulge his vaccine status, just as NBA star LeBron James repeatedly insisted his decision to get the vaccine (or not) was a “private thing.”
Nichols went on to describe Hopkins, using racially charged language, as “some jamoke in a red hat who has the mentality of a rashy toddler.” Red just happens to be the primary color of Hopkins’s NFL team, the Arizona Cardinals. He feels “almost no emotion and zero empathy” for the successful black man and other marginalized individuals whom he finds annoying.
Polling shows that vaccine hesitancy is most prominent among racial minorities, individuals without a college degree, and those who earn less than $50,000 a year. Additionally, teachers’ unions have been some of the most outspoken opponents to President Joe Biden’s effort to mandate vaccines for government employees.
As a result, these marginalized communities have been singled out for derision by overeducated white liberals who earn many times the median household income. Many of the hateful attacks, including some in the pages of the New York Times, have used racially explosive rhetoric commonly associated with white supremacy movements.
In one letter to the editor published in the Times, Naomi Stephen of Cambridge, Mass., praised the NFL’s policy of penalizing players for refusing to get vaccinated as “brilliant” because it promotes personal “responsibility” among the league’s mostly black athletes—a common racist trope and white supremacist dog whistle. “Accepting responsibility for one’s choices is surely a principle that all people can agree on,” Stephen wrote, controversially.
Daniel Fink of Beverly Hills, Calif., was even less subtle in his attack on black athletes and other individuals who refuse to get vaccinated. “If you don’t like being protected by your government, go to countries where people aren’t getting vaccinated because they don’t have vaccine to administer,” he wrote to the Times, which published his letter despite its explicit call to violence against marginalized communities.
Washington Post columnist Max Boot, who is bald, recently argued it was time for the federal government to “stop making reasonable appeals” to “granola liberals who believe in alternative medicines and African Americans who distrust the health care system,” and concluded with a curious word choice that could only be interpreted as an appeal to white supremacists. “We should not grant an unreasonable minority [emphasis added] the power to endanger public health,” he wrote, with racism in his heart.
Few libs have been more aggressively antagonistic in their disdain for marginalized communities than Nichols, the former Lincoln Project adviser. “It’s astonishing to think we’re facing another round of pandemic measures because of people who are willing to get sick and risk death because they think it’ll piss off someone like me for a few months,” he tweeted in a recent display of pathological narcissism.
Democrats of all stripes have devoted years to investigating Donald Trump and finding very little. The latest example is Thursday’s indictment of the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer for classifying employee benefits as business expenses rather than compensation.
Manhattan D.A. Cyrus Vance Jr. and New York Attorney General Letitia James subpoenaed millions of documents and years of tax returns, and that’s all they’ve come up with. The indictment lists 15 criminal counts, including second degree grand larceny. But the evidence in the indictment boils down to misreporting compensation to the Internal Revenue Service and New York tax authorities.
Prosecutors allege that Allen Weisselberg, the 73-year-old accountant and CFO, received as much as $1.76 million in compensation over a 16-year-period—for cars, an apartment rental, and tuition for Mr. Weisselberg’s grandchildren at a private school—in a way that kept them off the books for tax purposes. The indictment says he avoided paying $901,112 he owed in taxes and collected federal and state tax refunds of $133,124 he wasn’t entitled to.
If true and willful, this is rotten behavior. But it isn’t Teapot Dome, and disguising compensation as expenses is far from unusual in corporate America. It’s typically handled as a civil matter and settled with the payment of back taxes, interest and fines. It is rarely the basis for a criminal indictment.
The prosecutors are throwing the book at Mr. Weisselberg to get him to turn state’s evidence against the former President. The same goes for the highly unusual decision to indict the Trump Organization, which is presumably intended to squeeze its business prospects. Notably, neither Mr. Trump nor his children who run the business were charged.
The political motives at work are transparent. Mr. Vance has pursued Mr. Trump and his tax records for years, even as street and violent crime proliferates in New York City. Ms. James campaigned on a promise to shine “a bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings, and every dealing, demanding truthfulness at every turn.” She all but promised a selective prosecution—that is, pick a target, then search for a crime to allege.
The expectation among Democrats is that the charges will finally diminish Mr. Trump’s political appeal, but will they? Like impeachments one and two, the case gives Mr. Trump another chance to portray himself as the populist knight taking on the corrupt powers that be. If the charges fail in court, and prosecutors have nothing else, Mr. Trump will claim blanket vindication.
Source: Indicting the Trump Organization
This week is why. Mr. Trump, who is not the fool some imagine, knew winning the presidency was a dangerous mishap from a personal legal standpoint. Mr. Trump, until then, mainly tussled with sharpies who wanted only some of his money, not his destruction. He also knew that in our overgrown regulatory state, prosecutors can find something on anybody, even those who conduct their affairs with a scrupulousness foreign to Mr. Trump.
It’s “political,” Mr. Trump says of this week’s charges. Yes, inevitably and partly. That’s why people with Mr. Trump’s deep pockets and checkered history are unwise to go into politics, however much it might benefit the nation to have a broadly welcoming presidential talent pool.
The charges brought by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. and New York Attorney General Letitia James are over the top for what amount to tax violations related to employee compensation. Larceny? Who stole what from whom? Mr. Trump’s company and its major-domo, Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg —though not Mr. Trump himself so far—are accused of doling out perks as normal business expenses, thereby avoiding personal income and payroll taxes.
Mr. Trump’s lawyer said, probably accurately, that such complaints usually are settled as a civil matter with the Internal Revenue Service for the reasons alluded to above. The IRS cares mainly about getting maximum money at least cost for its enforcement efforts. Not so elected officials such as Mr. Vance and Ms. James. If the prosecution is a giant net loser financially for the state of New York, that’s fine with them.
If the charges are right, among the expenses Mr. Trump picked up for his employees to maximize the bang for his compensation buck were school tuition, a company Mercedes, and free apartments for employees and their family members.
In a recent radio interview on the Joe Pags Show, I explained why I wasn’t concerned by the Trump supporters who came to Washington on Jan. 6 to protest peacefully. Thousands of protesters—no one knows the actual number—marched to the Capitol. Only about 800 people illegally entered the Capitol. Still fewer engaged in violent acts. I condemned those lawbreakers at the time and continue to do so. But I feel compelled to push back as Democrats and their media allies try to equate the two groups by implying that all present were “armed insurrectionists” determined to overthrow the government.
I told Joe Pags the truth: I honestly never felt threatened on Jan. 6. But, I added, I might have been worried if Donald Trump had won and the violent leftists who burned Kenosha, Wis., and Minneapolis last summer had come to Washington. Here’s exactly what I said: “Now, had the tables been turned—Joe, this could get me in trouble—had the tables been turned, and President Trump won the election, and those were tens of thousands of Black Lives Matter and antifa protesters, I might have been a little concerned.”
Leftists who want to memory hole last summer’s political violence immediately started lecturing me that the 2020 protests were mostly peaceful. Apparently they’ve forgotten that, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, 570 leftist protests became riots last year. Twenty-five people lost their lives and 700 law enforcement officers were injured. Braying about “peaceful protests” offers no comfort to those victims or the other innocent Americans whose homes, businesses and property were destroyed. The same people fail to see the damage they do by pushing a narrative designed to portray the 74 million Americans who voted for Mr. Trump as potential domestic terrorists or armed insurrectionists.
Their politics, together with their taste for violence—so different from the Trump supporters I know personally or the Trump rallies we all saw carried out peacefully—should concern us. There’s a reason why the boarded-up windows in the downtowns of major cities came down soon after Joe Biden won the election: Nobody was worried what Trump supporters would do if their guy lost; they were worried about what Biden supporters would do if their guy didn’t win.
Source: I Won’t Be Silenced by the Left
(John Hinderaker) The Democrats’ pompous characterization of the mini-riot at the Capitol on January 6 as an “insurrection” is a transparent political ploy. The idea of appointing a “9/11-style” commission to investigate a riot in which no one was killed or seriously injured by the rioters is self-refuting.
U.S. Senator Cory Booker, often mentioned as a Democrat Presidential or Vice-Presidential nominee, hailed the vicious rioters, saying: “God bless the protesters.”
That is today’s Democratic Party: the vicious, the violent, the anti-democratic, the bullies. The fascists.
Which looks more like an insurrection? What a handful of Trump supporters, Antifa activists and random nuts with fur hats and horns did on January 6, or what thousands of Democratic Party activists did across the country after Donald Trump was elected in 2016? I would add that I don’t remember a single Democrat Party politician denouncing the violence of 2016. Not one.
Source: Insurrection, 2016
A Michigan-based ammunition shop is refusing to sell to any customer who voted for President Joe Biden in the 2020 election. ” We’ve had a few potential customers call this morning to ask why they have to check a box stating they did not vote for Joe Biden in order to purchase our ammunition,” Fenix Ammunition tweeted yesterday morning.
So which is it when private companies get political—a brave and respectable act, or something that should be totally disallowed and result in anyone who tries it getting destroyed?
Conservatives can’t have it both ways.
Neither can Leftists. If the rule is, “private businesses can refuse to do business because they don’t feel like it”, they should not be too surprised when conservatives decide to play by the same rule.
The fact that this storm of false accusations and cover-ups obscures is that no presidential candidate – no president ever – has been so brazen and malicious at telling political lies as Joe Biden. Before an audience of 70 or 80 million viewers of the final presidential debate, for example, Biden accused Trump of being a mass murderer, of killing hundreds of thousands of coronavirus patients because he “did nothing” to fight the virus. Vote for me, Biden appealed to his audience, because if elected, I will rescue you from the clutches of a villain who doesn’t have a “plan” and doesn’t care how many innocent people die. As president I will change that. I have a “plan.”
This was Biden’s opening salvo in the presidential debate – the “one thing” he wanted voters to remember and take to heart. It was also a monstrous lie. Biden had no plan that would affect the course of the pandemic. He conceded this after the election when one of the first announcements he made as president was: “There is nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.” No apologies to Trump. No apologies to the people he deceived into voting for him. No apologies at all.
Source: Our Biggest Liar? Joe Biden
The progressive press decides that dissenters should be suppressed.
Most Americans learn in school about flagship political excesses in U.S. history like Joe McCarthy’s 1950s inquisitions, the post-World War I Red Scare and the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Yet a recent Washington Post opinion piece purports to explain “what the 1798 Sedition Act got right.”
The law banned a wide range of political speech and publication. It was passed by the ruling Federalists to suppress the rival Democratic-Republicans, whom they saw as seditious. The Post piece argues that though their solution was “flawed,” the Federalists had reason to worry about “unregulated freedom of the press.”
We highlight this as one example among many of the emerging appetite for viewpoint suppression among journalists, intellectuals and Democrats in the wake of the Trump Presidency. They increasingly see domestic enemies wherever they look, and are devising ways to use levers of power to restrict, regulate and boycott opposition. It’s an extraordinary and ominous turn in a democracy.
Many calls to sanction opposition media come from voices that claimed to be most alarmed by Donald Trump’s attacks on the free press. Margaret Sullivan, the Post’s media columnist, wrote this week that “corporations that advertise on Fox News should walk away,” declaring that the outlet’s “role in the 400,000 U.S. lives lost to the pandemic and in the disastrous attack of Jan. 6” has been “deadly.”
Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times called for “pressure on advertisers to withdraw from Fox News so long as it functions as an extremist madrasa.” He added that “cable providers should be asked why they distribute channels that peddle lies.” A CNN writer asserted that providers like Comcast “have escaped scrutiny and entirely dodged this conversation.” By conversation he means political bullying from the left.Wall Street Journal
The Ministry of Truth strikes again…
When The Washington Post published a 2019 campaign trail feature about then-presidential hopeful Kamala Harris’ close relationship with her sister, it opened with a memorable anecdote in which Harris bizarrely compared the rigors of the campaign trail to…life behind bars.
And then proceeded to laugh—at the idea of an inmate begging for a sip of water.
It was an extremely cringeworthy moment, even by the high standards set by Harris’ failed presidential campaign. But now that Harris is vice president, that awful moment has seemingly vanished from the Post’s website after the paper “updated” the piece earlier this month.
“It’s a treat that a prisoner gets when they ask for, ‘A morsel of food please,’ ” Kamala said shoving her hands forward as if clutching a metal plate, her voice now trembling like an old British man locked in a Dickensian jail cell. “‘And water! I just want wahtahhh….’Your standards really go out the f—ing window.”
Kamala burst into laughter.
The scene was a brilliant bit of reporting and writing because it did what few political features can accomplish: showing, rather than telling, something about the candidate at the center. Harris made her name as a prosecutor, and her track record includes defending dirty cops and laughing off criticism of her history of throwing poor parents in jail when their kids missed school. The Post profile provided a mask-slipping moment that seemed to perfectly capture a warped sense of justice and lack of basic human dignity—all in just a few hundred words.
Source: Reason Magazine