Sunday, November 19, 2017

Thank liberals if Roy Moore survives the charges against him

Thank liberals if Roy Moore survives the charges against him


We’re told the time of judgment is upon Bill Clinton at last. In the wake of the Weinstein-Halperin-Moore revelations that have shaken the foundations of the country’s cultural and political elites, liberals are acknowledging Clinton’s conduct toward women was unconscionable.
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes got the ball rolling when he tweeted: “Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him.” This week, the New York Times published an op-ed called “I Believe Juanita” — thus accepting the single most incendiary charge ever leveled at the former president.
This one was not about Clinton propositioning women, as he did with Paula Jones in 1991. Or having had affairs with them, as with Gennifer Flowers in the 1980s. Or making advances on them in the Oval Office, as was the case with Kathleen Willey in 1993. Or having sought out an underling for sex, as was the case with Monica Lewinsky in 1995 and 1996.
No, the Times’ Michelle Goldberg said she believed Juanita Broaddrick, who says Clinton violently raped her in 1978 when he was Arkansas attorney general.
It was painful, Hayes and Goldberg acknowledged, to bring these matters up because they feared they’d look like they had somehow surrendered to a right-wing lynch mob. Hayes complained about how “gross and cynical and hypocrtical [sic] . . . the right’s ‘what about Bill Clinton’ stuff is.”
Goldberg said liberals were right to be skeptical of women’s claims against Clinton during his presidency due to the right-wing campaign to delegitimize him: “In this environment, it would have been absurd to take accusations of assault and harassment made against Clinton at face value.”
Just replace “Clinton” in that sentence with “Trump” and you have the gist of the conservative defense of the current president.
Yet Goldberg cannot keep herself from seeing a truth that was evident during the Clinton presidency to anyone with eyes to see: Bill Clinton was a sexual reprobate whose ascension to the Democratic nomination after the revelation of his relationship with Flowers during the primaries was a hinge moment in American history.
No one before him would’ve survived it. He did by denying it hotly — and was saved from perdition’s flames by his Hillary. She sat there on “60 Minutes” and supported him even as she said she wasn’t the type of woman who’d just “stand by her man.” Later, Clinton acknowledged the five-year Flowers affair in testimony before an independent counsel.
In 1998, when the news of his liaison with Lewinsky became public, the Clintons did it again. Bill said he did not have sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky, and Hillary went on the “Today” show and said her husband had unjustly been placed in the target sights of a “right-wing conspiracy.”
If you want to know how Roy Moore of Alabama might survive these charges against him and win the Senate race in December, look no farther than Hillary Clinton’s words. Again, replace “right-wing” with “left-wing” (or “GOP establishment”) and you have the entirety of Moore’s defense.
The Clinton play in the wake of the Lewinsky revelation was to signal to their supporters and the entire Democratic liberal left that any crack in their defense of him would allow a Puritanical right-wing flood to engulf the country.
And anyway, even if you believed he’d done it, what had he done? It was a peccadillo, really nothing more than the sainted JFK had done in his tragically shortened time in the Oval.
Moore is saying exactly the same thing to conservatives: Allow yourselves to believe in the truth of these claims and you are going to surrender this country to godlessness and transgenderism.
And anyway, what did Moore do that was really so terrible? After all, Joseph was an older man and Mary was a younger woman, right?
Clinton won the argument in 1998. And if you want to see his monument, look around. His wife became a popular Democratic politician in the wake of her 1998 crucible. And then, in the last cycle, she ran the worst presidential campaign in US history and lost the race to a man she couldn’t plausibly or effectively criticize for his conduct toward women.
After all, hadn’t Hillary Clinton been married to the man who had so lowered the standards for presidential behavior that he made Trump an acceptable choice?
So many Trump supporters had watched in disgust as Clinton escaped from his due reckoning, survived his impeachment and readied to re-enter the White House as the First Gentleman. And many of them said to themselves, 18 years later, “if it was OK for Clinton to tell Paula Jones to ‘kiss it,’ it’s fine by me that Trump said he wanted to ‘grab women’ by the . . .”
Which means this, Michelle Goldberg. If you or people like you had believed Broaddrick in 1998, or Jones in 1994, or Flowers in 1992, and said so, here’s what might have happened. Clinton might have been impeached and removed, in which case, guess who would have been president? Al Gore.
Which means you might not have gotten George W. Bush in 2000. And, most important, you wouldn’t have President Trump today.
Nice work, liberals.
FILED UNDER              

THE FARCE OF BILL CLINTON’S “RECKONING”

THE FARCE OF BILL CLINTON’S “RECKONING”

Is there anything in the news more farcical than liberals and feminists saying it’s time for “a reckoning with Bill Clinton”? Clinton was credibly accused of severe sexual misconduct by several women. One of them, Juanita Broaddrick, alleged that Clinton raped her. Her claim was highly credible, inasmuch as she complained contemporaneously to five people.
Clinton also admitted, after brazenly lying about it, to having sex with Monica Lewinsky. The White House intern was barely out of her teens at the time.
If Roy Moore, against whom no allegation of sexual misconduct has been conclusively established, is unfit to occupy one of 100 Senate seats, then surely Bill Clinton was unfit to serve as our president. Yet Democrats and feminists rallied to Clinton’s defense, while shrugging off, if not applauding the fact that the Clinton machine — spearheaded by Hillary Clinton — demonized Clinton’s female victims.
Did any Democrat or liberal media type say “I believe the women”? If so, I don’t recall it.
During Clinton’s post-presidency, Democrats and feminists continued to ignore his predatory sexual history. Even now, when that behavior is mentioned some (like Ruth Marcus) accuse those who bring it up of “what-about-ism.”
Let’s be clear. Responding to the allegations against Roy Moore by citing Clinton isn’t a defense of Moore. It’s an indictment of Clinton defenders for intellectual dishonesty. Unless Ruth Marcus will admit to intellectual dishonesty, she needs a substantive answer to the “what about” question.
Some on the left realize this. That’s why they call for a Bill Clinton “reckoning.”
But such a reckoning two decades after the fact won’t cut it. Does anyone believe there would be such a reckoning if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016? I don’t. Bill Clinton can be “reckoned with” now because the Clintons are a long way from power and many on the left want to keep it that way.
Does anyone believe there would be a Bill Clinton reckoning if Roy Moore hadn’t credibly been accused of serious sexual misconduct? Given the timing of most of the reckoning talk, I don’t.
It’s true that Harvey Weinstein had his reckoning before Moore was accused (but only after major obstacles to it were overcome). But Weinstein isn’t Bill Clinton. Sure, he served the left, but others in Hollywood can provide that service. Surely, there are one or two male tycoons, or potential tycoons, in Hollywood who haven’t sexually harassed anyone. Or, here’s a thought — how about a female Hollywood tycoon?
Bill Clinton, by contrast, was indispensable until recently and his legacy is still of marginal interest to many liberals.
I’ve heard it said that if the Clinton sex saga of the 1990s were to occur in 2017, it would play out very differently. Nonsense. Sexual harassment was a major issue in the 1990s and feminists had already staked out the “I believe the women” position. Or have you forgotten the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill drama of 1991?
When political power is in the picture, Democrats and feminist “believe the women” only when they accuse political enemies. This was true in 1990s and it’s true today.

Limbaugh: Moore was a Democrat at time of sexual misconduct allegations

Limbaugh: Moore was a Democrat at time of sexual misconduct allegations

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday criticized Republicans for distancing themselves from Alabama GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore, while saying that Moore was a Democrat at the time he allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct with teenage girls.
“Did you know that before 1992, when a lot of this was going on, that Judge Moore was a Democrat?” Limbaugh said on his radio show. “Nobody said a word.”
“When he supposedly was attracted to inappropriately-aged girls — he was a Democrat,” Limbaugh added.
Limbaugh also went after Republicans who have called on Moore to step aside from the race.
“No matter what the real stories are here, and no matter what the evidence is, these guys, these people on the Republican side, are making it clear they are going to prevent this guy from ever being seated in the United States Senate,” Limbaugh said.
Moore earned an appointment to the circuit trial court in Etowah County in 1992 after switching his political affiliation from Democrat to Republican, according to Politico.
Limbaugh’s remarks come after a fifth woman on Monday accused Moore of sexual misconduct when she was a minor.
Beverly Young Nelson said that Moore, who was serving as the Etowah County district attorney, sexually assaulted her in a diner parking lot in 1977, when she was a 16-year-old high school student.
Nelson’s allegations followed those in a bombshell Washington Post report last week in which four woman accused Moore of sexual misconduct, including one who accused Moore of inappropriate touching when she was 14 and he was 32.
Moore has repeatedly denied the allegations, calling them “completely false.”
Prominent Republicans have called on Moore to step aside from the Alabama Senate race to fill Sen. Luther Strange's seat. Strange was appointed after Jeff Sessions was appointed attorney general.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called for Moore to drop out of the race on Monday while Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), who serves as the chairman of the Senate GOP’s campaign arm, said the Senate should expel Moore if he wins the election.

Saturday, November 18, 2017

CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISM IS FOUNDED ON DISHONESTY

CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISM IS FOUNDED ON DISHONESTY

I’ve said many times that I believe global warming alarmism to be the worst fraud in the history of science. What follows is just one of many illustrations of that point.
The No Tricks Zone reminds us of how NASA GISS, keeper of temperature data for the U.S., has changed historical records to serve the political agenda of the alarmists:
As recently as 1990, it was widely accepted that the global temperature trend, as reported by NASA (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987), showed a “0.5°C rise between 1880 and 1950.
Pirazzoli, 1990
This 0.5°C rise in global temperatures between 1880-1950 (and 0.6°C between 1880 and 1940) can clearly be seen in the NASA GISS graph from 1987:
Schneider, S. H. 1989. The greenhouse effect: Science and policy. Science 243: 771-81.
Today, it is no longer acceptable for the NASA global temperature data set to graphically depict a strong warming trend during the first half of the 20th century. This is because anthropogenic CO2 emissions were flat and negligible relative to today during this abrupt warming period.
So as to eliminate the inconvenience of a non-anthropogenic warming trend in modern times, NASA has now removed all or nearly all the 0.5°C of warming between 1880 and 1950.
The data don’t fit your theory? No problem. Change the data! That is how the global warming alarmists operate.

Why the Narrative That Right-Wing Hate Killed JFK Is False

Why the Narrative That Right-Wing Hate Killed JFK Is False

Ginny Montalbano is the administrative assistant for the communications department at The Heritage Foundation.
Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jarrett.

The tragedy of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination remains one of the most significant and dissected events of the past century.
From pop culture, to Hollywood, to academia, to old-fashioned conspiracy theories, the legend of Camelot has been ingrained in our cultural and national identity. And there’s no sign that the fascination is going away anytime soon, especially now that thousands of once-secret documents will be revealed to the public.
President Donald Trump authorized the release of 2,800 records connected to the JFK assassination last week, following the Presidential John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.
In a series of tweets, the president voiced his intention to authorize all remaining documents, but in a controversial move, the CIA delayed the full release, citing national security concerns.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>
In a memo, Trump stated that the remaining withheld documents will be reviewed once more, with a deadline of April 26 for agencies to demonstrate a need to prevent disclosure.
Even with the full release of the files, many questions will still likely surround Kennedy’s murder, but one thing isn’t a mystery.
It wasn’t “right-wing hate” that killed the president on Nov. 22, 1963. Instead, it was almost certainly a far-left radical, Lee Harvey Oswald, who had ties to the American Civil Liberties Union and was an avowed communist. He was about as far from the American right as one could be.
Oswald had been involved in socialist and communist politics from a young age. When he was in the U.S. Marine Corps, his fellow soldiers called him “Oswaldskovich” because of his obsession with the USSR.
Immediately after being discharged in 1959, Oswald made a visit to the Soviet Union and unsuccessfully tried to defect.
In his letter announcing his intentions, Oswald wrote, “I want citizenship because I am a communist and a worker. I have lived in a decadent capitalist society where the workers are slaves.”
Soon thereafter, Oswald murdered the president.
Given these facts, Oswald’s political persuasions should be fairly clear cut.
But the left has repeatedly tied JFK’s assassination to right-wingers in Dallas and various other sordid groups. This entirely false but persistent narrative was popularized not even a day after Kennedy was killed.
On the night of the murder, The New York Times printed an editorialtitled “Why America Weeps: Kennedy Victim of Violent Streak He Sought to Curb in the Nation.”
“He was in Texas today trying to pacify the violent politics of that state,” read the editorial.
The Times continued:
From the beginning to the end of his ad­ministration, he was trying to damp down the violence of the extremists on the right. It was his fate, however, to reach the White House in a pe­riod of violent change, when all nations and institutions found themselves uprooted from the past.
This view continued to resurface over the years, but became particularly prevalent again around the 50th anniversary of the murder.
The New Yorker’s George Packer explained how the “potent brew of right-wing passions, much of it well organized and well funded—Bircher anti-Communism, anti-Catholicism [and] racism” led to Kennedy’s death.
While acknowledging that Oswald was a communist, Packer wrote that this didn’t absolve the “city’s right wing of any responsibility.”
That’s right, angry right-wingers somehow made a communist assassinate the president, not the virulent anti-Americanism or unstable mind of the man who pulled the trigger.
Another New Yorker piece at that time took the narrative a step further, and drew comparisons between the “climate of hate” in Dallas and the tea party.
This narrative just won’t go away.
But it’s important to correct this record and correct the pseudo-history that tarnishes people who had no connection to the ghastly murder of the president.
Not only is this extremely irresponsible, it does a great disservice to the powerful lessons that can be found in our nation’s vast history, including those found in the life, presidency, and death of JFK.
As we approach the 54th anniversary of JFK’s death, a quote from his 1960 inaugural address is especially poignant in this political climate: “With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”