Sunday, March 24, 2019



We wrote last June about New Yorker fact-checker Talia Lavin, who falsely accused a disabled veteran of being a “Nazi” because she misinterpreted his military tattoo. It made quite a stir at the time, and the New Yorker fired Lavin. Her libel of the amputee veteran wasn’t a one-off; she hates Republicans, or suspected Republicans, in general:
The truth of the matter is that anyone who willingly declares themselves [sic] a Republican is aligning themselves [sic] with an administration whose official policy is to torment minorities, to empty the public purse both for private gain and for sheer cruel parsimony, to strip away healthcare from the afflicted and to comfort the wealthy.
Anyone who is a current Trumpist might as well be an ICE agent ripping an 18-month-old child from its mother’s arms, or shipping a five-year-old boy to Michigan to dream of his father and weep in a stranger’s house.
One companion to the legion of Trump-voter-as-curious-oddity portraiture is the endless stream of op-eds prevailing upon liberals to be more tolerant. To cease being smug. To simply reach across the aisle, grasp a hand, and speak softly, leaving the big stick at home.
To which I say: tough nuts, sugar. When they go low, stomp them on the head.
Surprisingly, Lavin’s ignorant and baseless libel of a disabled veteran didn’t end her career. On the contrary: she was immediately snapped up by Democratic Party propaganda outlet Media Matters to report on “far right extremism.” There is, many would say, an irony there.
Not long thereafter, she embarked on an academic career. New York University hired her as a professor of journalism. Because insanely libeling people who might possibly be conservatives is just what NYU thinks journalists should do.
New York University has hired Talia Lavin as an adjunct journalism professor less than a year after the former New Yorker fact checker resigned after falsely accusing an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent of having a Nazi tattoo.
What will Professor Lavin be teaching to NYU students who pay way too much for the privilege? You guessed it:
Lavin’s undergraduate course “Reporting on the Far Right” will kick off in the fall semester of 2019 at NYU’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. In its official faculty bio, the university billed Lavin as an expert in “far-right extremism and social justice.”
A neutral observer might say that Lavin, having accused a veteran of being a Nazi because he had a U.S. military tattoo, is an expert on far-left extremism. Needless to say, NYU doesn’t have any such course.
While NYU’s administrators and faculty are probably beyond hope, a few students, albeit liberals, retain a measure of common sense:
At least one current NYU journalism student questioned the decision to hire Lavin. “I sympathize with Lavin’s politics, but I don’t know why someone who had to quit their journalism job for falsely implying someone is a Nazi should be teaching at NYU,” said the student, who requested anonymity for fear of academic reprisal. “I know there are plenty of reporters out there in need of work who haven’t made a mistake like that.”
“For fear of academic reprisal.” NYU, RIP.

Democratic Superstars Get Away with Questioning the Integrity of Elections

Democratic Superstars Get Away with Questioning the Integrity of Elections

Stacey Abrams / Getty Images
Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams were 2018 runner-up candidates for governor in the country's third- and ninth-largest states, are considered "rising stars" in the Democratic Party, and are engaging in "horrifying," "shocking" rhetoric that is "threatening our democracy."
That's according to Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. That's what they said about Donald Trump, after all, for questioning the results an election that hadn't even happened yet. Surely they must feel the same about Gillum and Abrams doing the same.
Gillum and Abrams have, to varying degrees, openly impugned the integrity of their governor's race losses in Florida and Georgia, to the sound of crickets in mainstream and liberal media.
Clinton, Kaine, Democrats, and the media were understandably vexed when Trump infamously said he would keep us all "in suspense" about accepting the results of the 2016 election. Even now, cable news talkers wonder in hushed tones if Trump would refuse to accept a 2020 defeat and leave the White House, or something.
Yet Abrams and Gillum continue to get away with irresponsible self-pity and delusion.
When Abrams finally acknowledged defeat 10 days after the election, she said, "I will not concede because the erosion of our democracy is not right." She has since stated "it was not a free and fair election in Georgia." And finally last week, she said, "I did win my election, I just didn't get to to have the job."

Stacey Abrams, fresh off her meeting with Joe Biden earlier today in DC, said someone outside asked if she’s ever going to concede the Georgia gubernatorial election.

“I said, ‘no.’”

View image on Twitter
On a presidential run, Abrams says she feels she has to consider it b/c people like her aren’t frequently mentioned, & tshe has much to offer.

Then, discussing her credentials, she added a possible Beto reference: “I did win my election, I just didn’t get to have the job.”

266 people are talking about this

It doesn’t translate to text but she put emphasis on the word “did” and it was in the midst of her discussing the Democratic field on the same day O’Rourke declared. Doesn’t feel like a stretch to me.
Full quote, and again, there was vocalized emphasis on the word “did.” Tough to interpret it as referring to anyone else:

"With all due respect to everyone else in the race, I bring something to the table too. And I *did* win my election. I just didn't get to have the job."

See Adam Kelsey's other Tweets

That will be Four Pinocchios and a Pants on Fire. Abrams did not win her election—she lost by more than 50,000 votes—and Kemp exceeded the 50-percent threshold to avoid a runoff.
Also, digging into her complaints about Kemp—Georgia's secretary of state before becoming governor—reveal her claims of a rigged race are unfounded. Turnout and registrations? They spiked in Georgia during his time in office. The purging of inactive voters? Implementation of a law passed by Georgia Democrats in the 1990s.
The 53,000 voters placed on "pending" status by Kemp's office? They could still vote, in spite of violations of "exact match" laws that were frequently committed by Abrams's own voter-registration group. Knowing this is the difference between reading a headline and reading a story.
And Clinton, who said "one of our hallmarks has always been that we accept the outcomes of our elections"? She said Abrams's race was stolen from her. So did Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio), and 2020 candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.). Yet Morning Joe did not burst into flames over these revelations.
At least Abrams has been consistent in her complaints.
Gillum conceded to Republican victor Ron DeSantis the night of the election in Florida, then retracted his concession several days later as a machine recount began, and then conceded again when the recount showed him trailing by more than 30,000 votes.
But basking in the glow of a Bill Maher audience, Gillum cast doubt anew on the integrity of his and Abrams's races on Friday.
"Guess what? Had we been able to legally count every one of those votes not just in Florida but also in Georgia, I wonder what the outcome may be," Gillum said.

Gillum accepted the results of the recount in November. What changed?  I'll leave you to imagine whether Republicans who are considered the future of their party would go uncorrected by our nation's cadre of fact checkers if they made these sorts of charges.
Again, these are no back-benchers. They are often included in lists of names of possible presidential candidates in 2020 and beyond. Abrams delivered this year's Democratic State of the Union response.
They should be called out by someone other than conservative media for their sore-loser-at-best, conspiratorial-at-worst blather.
Until then, enjoy pretending Trump will chain himself to the Resolute Desk the day of President-elect Andrew Yang's inauguration.

Saturday, March 23, 2019

The Media/Left’s Mueller Madness Or It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like another Blue Fitzmas

The Media/Left’s Mueller Madness Or It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like another Blue Fitzmas

Once again the left’s dream of destroying a GOP administration via a prosecutor has gone up in smoke.
The Mueller report has been delivered to the AG and the only real result has been the conviction of a beltway insider whose corruption had gone on for years happily ignored by all until he a couple of months on the Trump campaign, and a plea from a soldier for a crime even the person questioning him didn’t believe happened.
Amazingly the biggest winner in this whole situation has been, you guessed it President Donald Trump in fact Trump is in better shape than if there had not been a special council at all, or if he fired him, or if he pardoned those who had been convicted or who had coped a plea.
And I haven’t even started talking about all the revelations that have hurt the left.
Already the spin has begun, not enough is being released, the report is “a floor not a ceiling”, the house needs to peruse this even further, that the full truth hasn’t been discovered, all the underlying documentation needs to come etc etc etc but let me answer this with a single point.
Mueller had two years, a group of some of the most partisan investigators in the business and not only an administration containing people actively seeking to bring down this President but members of his own party pushing the idea of crimes going on…and they got NOTHING.
If you don’t believe me watch the video of CNN & MSNBC from Friday evening. Look at the anchors and their guests. They may be trying to insist that there is still hope of finding something anything to prove a crime but they all look like the want to throw up.

The Democrats' $100 trillion agenda

Remember when Democrats complained that $5.7 billion for a border wall was too expensive? Well, that’s chump change compared to what many of the congressional Democrats and nearly all of those 15 declared Democrats in the presidential race are now rallying behind.
The price tag isn’t in the billions, but in the tens of trillions. President Trump was attacked earlier this month by Democrats for a budget blueprint that would run fiscal deficits of 5 percent of GDP. That’s too high for sure, but count up the spending plans of Democrats and deficits could easily hit 20 percent to 30 percent of GDP and tilt the nation toward Greece and Puerto Rican-style bankruptcy.
Let’s start to add it all up.
Start with “Medicare for All,” the new health care anthem of the left. It is touted as a way to make medical services “free” for everyone. The cost to taxpayers? By some estimates $32 trillion over the next decade, according to a study by the Mercatus Center. Medicare, just for the seniors it was designed to cover, is already projected to run deficits in the tens of trillions of dollars over the next four decades, according to the program’s own Trustees.
Then there is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal,” which is supposed to turn America into an eco-friendly paradise and avert the apocalypse that AOC claims will occur in just over a decade. Four presidential candidates have endorsed some or all of that agenda.
Of course, the politicians pushing these plans remain suspiciously quiet whenever they’re asked to explain exactly how much their pet projects will cost U.S. taxpayers and whether they’re worth the investment. But thanks to public-policy watchdog groups, we have some preliminary estimates. According to one recent study by the American Action Forum, the “Low-carbon Electricity Grid” proposed in the Green New Deal will cost taxpayers $5.4 trillion over 10 years, or $39,000 per household.
Similarly, a “Net Zero Emissions Transportation System,” another part of the environmental proposal, will require up to $2.7 trillion, or $20,000 per household, while guaranteed “Green Housing” would cost an additional $4.2 trillion.
The Democrat-backed welfare programs in the Green New Deal are even more daunting — according to the study, “guaranteed jobs” and “universal health care” would together cost each American family $582,000, or $80.6 trillion in total.
Then there is the loss of as many as 10 million jobs in the oil, gas and coal industries, which would add to welfare and unemployment benefit costs, let alone the severe financial hardship this would impose on millions of middle-class families whom Democrats once said they care about.
Added together, these preliminary Democratic proposals are projected to cost about $92 trillion over 10 years.
But wait, there’s more.
Another hot proposal on the left gaining momentum is called “universal basic income.” Everybody gets a free check from the government. A key sponsor of this is U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California, a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination. This would give families making less than $100,000 a check of up to $6,000 from the government every year. “Americans are working harder than ever but stagnant wages mean they can’t keep up with cost of living increases,” Ms. Harris says.
Then there is the cost of “free” college tuition, another federal freebie supported by Democrats. That would add trillions more to the taxpayer tab over the next decade while further inflating the outrageous tuitions that universities already charge.
The $15-an-hour minimum wage would also impose new costs on government at every level.
Now the latest craze on the left is for “reparations” payments for slavery. Beto O’Rourke and other presidential wannabes have endorsed this radical income redistribution scheme. A 2015 study by a professor at the University of Connecticut estimates that the cost of reparations would be between $5.9 trillion and $14.2 trillion. These results were published in the journal Social Sciences Quarterly.
Add it all up and the estimated 10-year cost of creating the Democratic-socialist utopia envisioned by the likes of AOC, Sen. Bernie Sanders and other leaders of the Democratic Party reaches well north of $100 trillion.
Who will be left to pay for the Democrats’ America when everything is “free.” To the extent that any of the Democrats currently running for president has offered an answer to this question, they’ve invariably claimed that they would finance their schemes by levying punitive taxes on “the wealthy.” But even if you took every penny of income from every millionaire and billionaire in America it wouldn’t even pay half the cost. Some say we will just put on the federal credit card. President Obama took our national debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion, but that might be loose change compared to the new spending spree.
Ultimately, the burden of paying for this radical transformation of America would fall predominantly on the middle class, as usual. Just one example: Many Europeans pay gas taxes that are double what we pay in the United States. That’s part of the tab for their green energy policies that Democrats are eager to bring here. Anyone want to pay $5 a gallon to fill up?
The Democrats balked at spending $5.7 billion to protect American communities by securing the border, but they’re perfectly happy to mortgage our future by spending nearly 20,000 times that amount on their own utopian fantasies. We will all have everything we want, and our country will be bankrupt.