Friday, August 31, 2018



Why are democratic socialists performing so well in Democratic primaries including, most recently, in the non-blue state of Florida? The answer resides partly in the ignorance of many Democratic voters, especially young ones. They know little about history and less about economics (or is it the other way around?).
But there’s an additional explanation: funding. Benjamin Wallace-Wells of the New Yorker reported:
Gillum [the far-leftist who won the Florida primary] recognized that the big money in the Democratic Party—Steyer’s money, George Soros’s money—is now on the left, not the center. Last year, Gillum watched closely as Soros’s cash helped propel progressive candidates to victory in several local elections, including the Philadelphia District Attorney’s race.
Gillum was familiar with Soros and his organization, the Open Society Foundation: a few years ago, he helped launch a national network for young progressive elected officials, and the Open Society Foundation was the group’s main donor. He had been in the financier’s New York apartment, addressed his board of directors, and, this spring, dined with him in San Francisco when the two men happened to be in town.
Soros committed to back Gillum’s gubernatorial campaign. “If I’m remembering it correctly, it was, ‘We don’t know if you can win, but we would like what it could represent,’ ” Gillum said. “I interpreted it to mean that it would be significant to see a person of color taken seriously in a statewide race.”
(Emphasis added)
I interpret it to mean that, plus that it would be significant to see a far-left candidate (regardless of race) win the nomination.
Wallace-Wells continues:
Gillum managed to get a meeting with [Tom] Steyer [the ultra-leftist billionaire], too. “At the beginning, he told me he had a rule around trying to stay out of primaries,” Gillum told me. “As I talked to him about what I believed, I told him, straight up, ‘In your brand of politics, you are never going to have anyone come out of these primaries who shares that belief system if you don’t get involved.’ ” He needed money to beat money. On June 28th, Steyer’s organization, NextGen America, announced it would commit a million dollars to support Gillum’s campaign.
(Emphasis added)
Then, on the Thursday before the election, Gillum received a last-minute windfall of $650,000 — $300,000 from Steyer, $250,000 from Soros, and a $100,000 from anonymous individuals “affiliated” with the two billionaires.
It’s tempting to see a parallel between the two nominees for Florida governor, Gillum and Rep. Ron DeSantis. One said to be is hard-left, the other hard-right.
But DeSantis is a fairly traditional conservative. According to George Rasley, there was little of substance that separated DeSantis from his establishment primary opponent except that the opponent was seen, perhaps unfairly, as the candidate of a notoriously corrupt state capitol.
This was not the case on the Democratic side. Gillum ran far to the left of Gwen Graham. According to Wallace-Wells, she ran a traditional liberal campaign that focused on environmental protection and incremental increases in spending for health and education.
By contrast, Gillum advocates a steep corporate-tax increase to pay for a billion-dollar boost in public-education spending, Medicare for all, and a fifteen-dollar-an-hour minimum wage.
Gillum has demonstrated that with enough Soros and Steyer money, and given voter ignorance about history and economics, that platform can bring victory (albeit with just one-third of the vote) in a Democratic primary in a moderate-to-conservative state. Can it bring victory in the general election? Will Florida voters “monkey” with, and indeed overturn, the success that conservative policies have helped confer on the state?
One would think not. But in what be a very good year for Democrats, and with Soros and Steyer pouring money in and the mainstream media demonizing Ron DeSantis, who knows?

Poisoned Fruit of the Poisoned Tree

This week, the month-long mystery of the missing college student, Mollie Tibbits, was sadly resolved, with the discovery of her body in a local cornfield. Developments in the search for her were updated frequently over the last few weeks, and always featured at the top, or near to the top of headlines on the English tabloid, the Daily Mail. Which, for all its’ eccentricities, abuse of grammar, spelling, penchant for the flamingly obvious, providing Piers Morgan with a salary, extreme Kardashian-worship, and light-to-moderate Trump disdain, does cover the American news scene without much fear or favor.
The longer the mystery of her disappearance went on, though – the greater the chance of a less than happy ending. And as it turns out that the chief suspect in her kidnapping and murder is a man with a distinctly dodgy background – an illegal alien of Mexican background, whose’ identity papers are something of a mystery. His American employers seemed to believe that everything was hunky-dory; this lends the cynical among us to assume that such paperwork must have been better forgeries than the usual run.
Political shining star Senator Elizabeth Warren, when asked for a reaction to the Tibbits murder, immediately pivoted to opine indignantly on the matter of children separated from their mothers at the US border, apparently seeing that as a matter of higher priority than of crimes committed by illegal aliens after they cross the border – a remarkably tone-deaf reaction. Or maybe not, considering that Senator Warren speaks from a position ‘ex cathedra’ reflecting, “the set of values and beliefs that justify the existing order of society and, not coincidentally, the privileged place of the managerial aristocracy in that order.” In other words, as a member of the American ruling class, to whom uncounted numbers of illegal immigrants to the country mean restaurants with exotic new international cuisines, very cheap labor, and well-cultivated vote-plantations – an in-the-pocket electorate so much more obedient than stiff-necked members of the middle and working class. Such citizens have, of late, been much less biddable than their betters would wish; witness such indicators of deep dissatisfaction as the Tea Party, the election of Donald Trump, and the Just Walk Away movement.
To the ruling class, an affection for, the sheltering of, and the unstinting support for undocumented immigrants is an unmitigated good. All the benefits listed in the previous paragraph, along with being able to conspicuously virtue-signal, accrue to the ruling class, secure in their wealth, their gated communities, social clubs and private schools. All the disadvantages, hazards, and expenses both social and actual land like a ton of bricks on everyone else – and have been doing so for at least two decades, possibly more. It’s not just the criminal element; incidents of rape, robbery, murder, drunk driving, uninsured driving, and identity theft which victimize ordinary Americans, native and legalized at the hands of the illegal. All over Texas, the Southwest and California – stories of auto accidents caused by uninsured and probably illegal drivers abound, also spectacular drunk driving incidents committed by the same demographic.
A few years ago, another blogger drilled down through the comments appended to Yahoo news story of the woman who was arrested at her OB-gyn’s office – an illegal with such badly-forged picture ID that the office staff called the authorities. As far down as the blogger (and I) explored the comments on the story – which was posted as ‘oh, pity the poor pregnant woman, busted at the doctor’s office’ none of those commenting on the story were sympathetic. Without exception, they were infuriated; outraged over how someone elses’ SSAN had been stolen to facilitate the woman’s residence in the US. Multiply this by a thousand, a million times over the last twenty years and more – and you have ordinary Americans almost lethally angry and with cause over the abuse of our trust, our social cohesion, and our pocketbooks. Illegal aliens willing to work under the table at unskilled labor in construction, agriculture, in factories, and at domestic work for much less than minimum wage undermine native American workers. It’s not that there are jobs that Americans won’t do – they won’t do them for a pittance. The ruling class, and their handmaidens in the established press also prefer to downplay the burden placed on public schools; yes, for every Dreamer who is their high school graduating valedictorian and bound for college to be a doctor or an astronaut or something like that, I’d bet there are ten or twenty who have never adequately learned English, are illiterate in any language, and headed for a lifetime of petty criminality intermixed with welfare poverty. At taxpayers’ expense, coming and going, to our mounting exasperation – an exasperation equally fueled by the insistence of the ruling class that this exasperation and mounting anger is just proof of our own racism.
The establishment press, and the ruling class wish to disappear these incidents and issues, of course. But the murders of Kate Steinle, and now of Mollie Tibbits may be precipitating a preference cascade. Your thoughts?

How the war on climate change slams the world’s poor

How the war on climate change slams the world’s poor

When a “solution” to a problem causes more damage than the problem, policymaking has gone awry. That’s where we often find ourselves with global warming today.
Activist organizations like Worldwatch argue that higher temperatures will make more people hungry, so drastic carbon cuts are needed. But a comprehensive new study published in Nature Climate Change led by researchers from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis has found that strong global climate action would cause far more hunger and food insecurity than climate change itself.
The scientists used eight global-agricultural models to analyze various scenarios between now and 2050. These models suggest, on average, that climate change could put an extra 24 million people at risk of hunger. But a global carbon tax would increase food prices and push 78 million more people into risk of hunger. The areas expected to be most vulnerable are sub-Saharan Africa and India.
Trying to help 24 million people by imperiling 78 million people’s lives is a very poor policy.
We’ve heard similar stories before: In a few short decades, climate policy has often created more damage than the benefits it attempts to deliver.
Ten years ago, a biofuels craze swept rich countries with the full-throated support of green activists who hailed any shift away from fossil fuels. Food crops were replaced to produce ethanol, and the resulting spike in food prices forced at least 30 million people into poverty and 30 million more into hunger, according to UK charity ActionAid.
If we want to eradicate hunger, there are more effective ways. Around 800 million people are undernourished today, mostly because of poverty. The single most significant initiative that could be undertaken tomorrow is not a policy that slows the global economy, but one that cuts poverty: a global trade deal.
The Doha free-trade deal was allowed to collapse with just a fraction of the attention given to global climate-change negotiations.
Reviving Doha would lift an extra 145 million people out of poverty by 2030, according to research commissioned by Copenhagen Consensus. It could make the average person in the developing world $1,000 better off every year — allowing them to not only better feed themselves and their children, but also afford better health care, more education and lead more prosperous lives.
The EU’s climate policy under the Paris agreement, meanwhile, will realistically cost the bloc about $600 billion each year for the rest of the century, yet at best it delivers a trifling temperature reduction of just 0.09°F by the end of the century.
When comparing the massive cost with the slight delay in climate damage, each dollar spent delivers just three cents of climate benefits — i.e., lower hurricane damage, fewer heat waves, less agricultural stress.
Forcing poor countries to reduce emissions does even more harm, because cheap, abundant energy brings prosperity. Example: Activists argue Bangladesh should cut coal expansion. That would deliver global climate benefits worth nearly $100 million. But the forgone boost to the Bangladeshi economy would cost about $50 billion.
Aside from the immorality of obliging poor nations to avoid policies that would reduce poverty, the big problem with forcing carbon cuts is that green energy is not yet the savior that it is portrayed as.
Even after decades of heavy investment in subsidies to support green-energy production — costing more than $150 billion just this year — the International Energy Agency finds that wind provides just 0.6 percent of energy needs, and solar 0.2 percent.
By 2040, even if all of the grand promises in the Paris agreement on climate change were to be fulfilled (which seems unlikely), the IEA finds these figures will inch up to just 2.1 percent and 1.5 percent.
The flawed Paris agreement, which is the closest we have to a global scheme, will achieve at best merely 1 percent of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2°C, according to the UN. It’ll cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion annually. This is money that can’t be spent improving nutrition, health or education.
We need to get smarter about climate change. My think tank asked 27 top climate economists to explore all the feasible policy responses, and the conclusion was that the best long-term investment is in green energy R&D. For every dollar spent, $11 of climate damages would be avoided.
That makes much more sense than today’s climate approach, which mostly does more harm than good.
Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.

Thursday, August 30, 2018

GOP rep touches off firestorm with claim FBI leaked info, used stories to get FISA warrants

GOP rep touches off firestorm with claim FBI leaked info, used stories to get FISA warrants
 By Brooke Singman

FBI documents show Russia dossier author deemed 'not suitable for use': Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton on how the FBI released 70 pages of heavily redacted records, which showed that ex-British spy Christopher Steele was admonished and deemed unsuitable as a confidential human source.

A Republican congressman touched off a firestorm Tuesday after claiming on Twitter that his office had information suggesting the FBI leaked information to the press and used the resulting articles to help obtain surveillance warrants.

"We've learned NEW information suggesting our suspicions are true: FBI/DOJ have previously leaked info to the press, and then used those same press stories as a separate source to justify FISA's," House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., tweeted overnight.

Mark Meadows

 We've learned NEW information suggesting our suspicions are true: FBI/DOJ have previously leaked info to the press, and then used those same press stories as a separate source to justify FISA's

Unreal. Tomorrow's Bruce Ohr interview is even more critical. Did he ever do this?

7:20 PM - Aug 27, 2018
26.1K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The claim stemmed in part from FBI intelligence analyst Jonathan Moffa’s Friday testimony behind closed doors before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees. 

But what exactly Moffa told the committees is a matter of dispute.

A source with knowledge of the testimony initially told Fox News that Moffa said FBI personnel would use media reports based on information they leaked to justify applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants, echoing Meadows. The source said Moffa, who worked with controversial former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, acknowledged this “had been a practice in the past.”  

But an FBI official pushed back, telling Fox News the initial claims about Moffa’s testimony were incorrect. 

The source later clarified that Moffa testified the FBI routinely uses media material to corroborate their work product, including FISA materials, but “never said directly 'we utilize FBI leaks for FISAs.'” The source maintained, however, that the FBI has a “culture of leaking for their own gain” and uses media reports to support their work: “There's quite a bit of evidence raising concerns that the FBI engages in this without Moffa saying it."

Republican member of the House Oversight Committee Mark Meadows says he has 'about 60 questions' for the DOJ official about his connection to the anti-Trump dossier, says the integrity of the FBI and the Department of Justice are at stake.
Republicans have long questioned to what extent leaked information, related to the unverified anti-Trump dossier, was used as a basis for surveillance warrants against former Trump adviser Carter Page in 2016 -- when the bureau was led by James Comey and deputy Andrew McCabe. 

The source told Fox News that Moffa did not specifically confirm whether leaking was employed with regard to the dossier.

Another source familiar with Moffa’s testimony offered a more nuanced version of events. The source told Fox News that Moffa said the FBI keeps track of open source reports related to their cases -- and when asked whether a FISA application would reference a news account, he said it could be possible, hypothetically, but the FBI aims to find better information.

The source stressed that this was not related to any specific situation and that Moffa did not suggest this was a common practice at the FBI.

Meadows, though, largely stood by his claims – yet also offered a clarification in a Tuesday afternoon statement to Fox News, drawing a distinction between what Moffa testified and what his office has learned from other materials.  

“Jonathan Moffa made it clear to the committee the FBI routinely uses media reports to corroborate analytic work product. We have emails and texts plainly showing the FBI leaks to the media, raising major red flags. If FBI executives want the American people to believe they haven’t used leaks to their advantage, they are not being honest,” Meadows said in the statement, while saying this includes FISA materials.

Meadows also told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” earlier Tuesday that the committee had evidence of the FBI’s practice that would be “hard to refute.”

“We know that some people at the Department of Justice and the FBI actually gave information to the media, then the stories were reported. Then they used those reports to justify further investigations,” Meadows said. “You know, that’s like saying, we’re going to incriminate on one hand, and be the jury on the other. It just doesn’t work that way.”

The Daily Caller first reported on the specifics of Moffa's claims. 

The Trump dossier, which contained salacious allegations about the then-presidential candidate, was compiled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. Steele, who was also working as an FBI source, had been hired by research firm Fusion GPS to compile details for the dossier, which was funded by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. 

One source familiar with Moffa's testimony told Fox News that his statements raise concerns that the bureau indeed used this practice with the dossier, referencing an article written by Yahoo! News’ Michael Isikoff.

The Isikoff article was published on Sept. 23, 2016, focusing on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. According to a House GOP memo earlier this year, the Isikoff article did “not corroborate the Steele dossier” as the article was “derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News.” Yet the subsequent FISA application to spy on Page cited the Isikoff article, among other pieces of evidence. 

“The [Carter] Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not properly provide information to Yahoo News,” the memo read. “Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News—and several other outlets—in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS.”

Moffa served on the FBI’s “Mid-Year Exam,” the code name for the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information and use of a private email server while secretary of state.

Moffa’s name often appeared in text message conversations between former FBI officials Strzok and Page, who came under scrutiny for their anti-Trump and politically charged exchanges. One text message exchange between the two on July 24, 2016 discussed their need to read “Moffa’s thing,” referencing an FBI “302”—which is an interview or witness deposition in an FBI investigation.


Another reference was on Aug. 8, 2016.

“Hey no update yet, waiting on Moffa, he’s in with Dina at mtg scheduled to end at 11,” Strzok texted Page. An hour later, he added: “Hey, talked to him, will let him fill you in. Internal joint cyber cd Intel piece for D, scenesetter for McDonough brief, Trainor [head of FBI cyber division] directed all cyber info be pulled. I’d let Bill and Jim hammer it out first, though it would be best for D to have it before the Wed WH session.”

In the texts, “D” referred to former FBI Director James Comey, and “McDonough” referred to former chief of staff for former President Barack Obama, Denis McDonough, according to GOP investigators.

Page left the bureau in May, and Strzok was fired earlier this month.

On Tuesday, House lawmakers have the chance to question Justice Department senior official Bruce Ohr on the same FBI practice, as Ohr testifies behind closed doors. 

Ohr had frequent contact with Steele before and after the publication of the dossier, and the FBI’s ultimate decision to cut ties with the ex-British spy. Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS at the time of the creation of the dossier.



Bruce Ohr, the number four official in Barack Obama’s Department of Justice, testified before the House Oversight and Judiciary committees today. Given what we know about his role in the DOJ/FBI scandal, his testimony should have been riveting. However, he testified in closed session, so this will be a short post. Fox News hints at what happened behind closed doors:
While lawmakers told reporters that Ohr was being cooperative, Rep. Darrel Issa, R-Calif., said that Ohr “has a poor memory.”
“He seems to not remember a lot of details and, you know, poor memories are often claimed by people who want to stick to what they can say and not be caught in perjury,” he told Fox News.
That was what Richard Nixon told his subordinates: if you say you don’t remember, you are immune from perjury charges.
Republicans allege that Ohr played a key role in selling the dossier, commissioned by Fusion GPS and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee. They were expected to ask why Ohr broke with protocol and kept up communication with its author, Steele, long after the FBI fired him as a source in late 2016 due to his contacts with the media.
“I don’t know if it’s improper but I want to know who at DOJ knew and it certainly looks like he continued to meet with Mr. Steele after the FBI had terminated their relationship with Mr. Steele,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told Fox News ahead of the hearing.
I don’t believe there is any doubt about that. Ohr also functioned as an intermediary between Steele and Robert Mueller after Mueller picked up the ball on behalf of the now-out-of-office Obama administration:
Text messages obtained and reviewed by Fox News show that Steele also tried to use Ohr as a go-between with Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
“We are frustrated with how long this reengagement with the Bureau and Mueller is taking,” Steele wrote to Ohr. “Anything you could do to accelerate the process would be much appreciated.”
Months later, Ohr confirmed to Steele that he had passed along his questions to Mueller’s team.
Of course he did! Ohr’s wife worked at Fusion GPS and was one of those hired by Hillary Clinton to dig up dirt on Donald Trump. That dirt became the infamous fake “dossier” that DOJ and the FBI used to get a warrant to surveil Americans involved with the Trump campaign, even though the Bureau knew the “dossier” was fraudulent. Steele leaked the “dossier” to the press, and the heads of the FBI and CIA brought about publication of the fake “dossier” by purporting to brief President-elect Trump on its contents, and then leaking the fact that the pretend briefing took place. Can anyone tell me why this isn’t the biggest political scandal in American history?
About two hours into the session, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., came out and told reporters that the FBI knew there were “credibility” issues surrounding the dossier before it was used to secure the first FISA warrant on Page in October 2016. Meadows said Ohr had never acted or handled evidence in this way before.
Of course he hadn’t. The Democratic Party hadn’t faced a crisis of this magnitude during the time Ohr was a high-ranking FBI official. When the occasion arose, Ohr and his wife Nellie swung into action on behalf of their party, engaging the FBI in the lowest sort of partisan hackery.
These must have been stirring events, but strangely, Bruce Ohr apparently doesn’t remember much about them.

Wednesday, August 29, 2018



The Trump administration has cut more than $200 million in aid for the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza. This decision followed a review by the State Department “to ensure these funds are spent in accordance with U.S. national interests and provide value to the U.S. taxpayer.”
According to the Washington Post, the cut “effectively means the United States is giving no money to the Palestinians.” I’m not sure that’s the case. The Post also says that this year’s budget for the aid was $251 million.
In any event, the decision is good news. Palestinians have no legitimate claim to U.S. taxpayer dollars. It’s particularly shocking that taxpayer money is being sent to Gaza which is run by Hamas, a terrorist organization and enemy of the U.S.
I believe in foreign aid for allies and for humanitarian purposes, up to a point. But there are many in the world who deserve our aid far more than the Jew-hating, terrorist-supporting irredentists on the West Bank and in Gaza.
The news surrounding the story of cuts in aid to Palestinians isn’t all good, however. The Post speculates that the cuts are an attempt to gain leverage with the Palestinians in peace negotiations.
Negotiations have been halted ever since President Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. But now Trump, sounding like the parent of two equally deserving children, says the Palestinians will “get something very good because it’s their turn next.” And Jared Kushner is expected to present a Middle East peace proposal soon, assuming he isn’t completely preoccupied with his other pet issue — leniency for drug felons.
The problem, of course, is that anything the Palestinians would regard as “very good” would be very bad — indeed, potentially fatal — for Israel, and contrary to the interests of the U.S. It’s disappointing that Trump and Kushner don’t seem to understand this.

The Left Won’t Stop At Alex Jones. The Slippery Slope Is Real, And We’re On It

They do not want to compete in a marketplace of ideas. 
Their goal is to silence dissenting voices.
Jesse Kelly
Ever watch “The Dick Van Dyke Show?” My folks used to put it on the TV for me when I was a kid. It was good comedy and harmless fun. What you may not have noticed about the show was the two main characters (a married couple) slept in SEPARATE beds in the same room. Obviously not an accurate portrayal of most marriages, the exception being Anthony Weiner’s, but in the early 1960s anything more than that would have been deemed inappropriate for public consumption. When public views on morality started shifting later that decade and television shows started getting a little more risqué, there were immediate cries that this would be a slippery slope. There were concerns that allowing even the slightest moral degradation of Hollywood would inevitably end in Caligula-style debauchery.
The people who warned of this slippery slope were laughed off. But today, “Sex and the City plays on regular cable with brief interruptions so Cialis can run commercials. So, about that slippery slope …
Sorry to disappoint you modern day Puritans, but this is not an article about the Sodom and Gomorrah Sunday night TV lineup and your potential for turning into a pillar of salt. It is about the tendency of some men to deny the existence of a ravenous left and their insistence that the slippery slope is something of a myth. It is anything but a myth. The slippery slope is how the left imprints their agenda into our culture. They know many on the right have little stomach for a fight about the ridiculousness of separate marriage beds. They know once they get momentum you’ll one day have to explain to your six-year-old what “dominatrix” means.
The federal income tax was established in 1913. (The government has not always stolen a cut of your paycheck before you get it.) There were warnings then about where that kind of sticky-fingers governing would end. The rates were 1 percent. Today the rates are almost 40 percent. In the 1930s, President Roosevelt was pushing for Social Security and folks on the right were warning of socialism. Social Security was then intended to be a temporary relief program. Today it’s a permanent retirement program for many and it’s also 14 percent of our $21,000,000,000,000 debt. Yesterday conservatives were warning about the left’s takeover of public schools and where it would lead. Today students are taught the evil of Trump’s immigration policies and football coaches lose their jobs if they pray on the field with their teams.
Many on the left and the right gave a loud cheer last week when Alex Jones was banished from Facebook. Twitter later suspended him. While it is not surprising to see the jackals on the left cheer at the burning of books, one would hope folks on the right would look in the mirror and realize their time is coming soon. The leftists will not stop (and did not stop) at nutty Alex Jones, because they do not think you are much different from him. You rightly think your belief in immigration enforcement is much different than his disgusting conspiracy theory about Sandy Hook. But you must understand the left thinks you are both equally vile. They just knew Jones was the weak member of the herd. They could pick him off as a test run. Next they’re coming for you.
But we didn’t get a unified message of support from the pinky-out people on the right. We were scolded for defending Jones. They sang so sweetly into the left’s ears: “Alex Jones is icky. And there is no slippery slope. And you should frankly be censored anyway, if you don’t at least have a Master’s degree.”
The same people who ceded control of public education, the federal bureaucracy, the media, movies, and music to the left have once again found another hill not worth dying on. “It’s only social media,” they say. Yeah, fear not. Around 2.5 billion people use Facebook and Twitter. What’s the worst that can happen if we just let the left have them?
While this denial of the slippery slope is frustrating, it is also understandable if you understand the nature of man. Very few people in this world actually enjoy fighting. It is much easier on the mind to just avoid a fight. That is why so many on the right ignore the obvious truths staring them in the face. “It’s only Alex Jones” is not necessarily something they believe to be true.
“It’s only Alex Jones” is a comforting blanket. It’s the child who closes his eyes and covers his ears in the naïve hope that the monster disappears if you can’t see or hear him. But the monster does NOT disappear. And it is most definitely NOT just Jones. Yesterday it was Jones. Today, YouTube censored human vanilla Dennis Prager. Tomorrow, there may be a knock on YOUR door.
Freedom is not something you acquire by practicing it. You don’t one day wake up and decide you are free. Freedom is something tangible and it requires the cooperation of others. If others will not give you that cooperation, you have to take it from them. We need to stop whistling past the graveyard and realize the left is seeking total victory. They do not want to compete in a marketplace of ideas. Their goal is to silence dissenting voices.
Look down at where you’re standing at this very moment. That is where you draw your line in the sand. Do not give them another inch.

Jesse is a Marine Corps combat veteran, former congressional candidate in Arizona, and host of "Jesse Kelly Brief." Jesse resides in the Houston area with his wife and two sons.

Tuesday, August 28, 2018



The New York Times, undeterred by its failure to find any nuggets by digging through Ashley Kavanaugh’s emails as town manager of Chevy Chase, Maryland–“the records were … mundane dispatches about town business, from snow removals to local newsletters”–has now served a request for the records of any 911 calls made from Judge Kavanaugh’s home for the last 12 years.
The New York Times requests digital copies of all policing pertaining to Brett Kavanaugh, a resident of Chevy Chase Section 5. Specifically, we request all policing records, including police reports or calls of service (911 calls or otherwise), pertaining to Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and their home address.
Somehow, I’m guessing there aren’t any. But when it comes to a Supreme Court nominee, the Times “had to try.” Of course. You remember how hard they tried to dig up dirt on Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, don’t you? Don’t you?
Then there’s this, from the New Yorker: “Brett Kavanaugh, Sportswriter.” It is one of those pieces where it’s hard to tell whether the humor is intentional. It is part of the magazine’s “The Bench” series, not normally thought of as comedy. Still, when a column includes a line like this–“Could there be hints of potential Supreme Court rulings under headlines like ‘Elis Trounce Jaspers’ and ‘Hoopsters Head West’?”–it is hard to say.
The New Yorker piece is based on 24 columns on sports that Kavanaugh wrote for the Yale Daily News as an undergraduate. It consulted “experts” to judge whether Kavanaugh’s youthful writings on sports provide clues to his judicial philosophy:
Steve Rushin, who has written for Sports Illustrated for the past three decades, saw a clue in Kavanaugh’s language. “No one was ever shooting room temperature,” Rushin observed. “Everyone was either blazing or ice-cold. In one single sentence: ‘As torrid as Yale’s shooting had been twenty-four hours earlier, it was ice cold in this contest.’” Rushin suggested this might indicate “a kind of good-evil, hot-cold, Manichean world view.”
Sure. It sounds like this “expert” is serious:
Kavanaugh the sportswriter seemed unwilling to challenge the status quo, noted J. A. Adande, who runs the sports-journalism program at Northwestern’s Medill School. “His tendency to approach his stories from the angles set forth by the coach indicates that he doesn’t want to buck authority figures,” Adande wrote in an e-mail. “It would make sense if he supported unlimited Presidential power.”
On the other hand, I think Larry Tribe is kidding. I hope so, anyway:
Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law professor who mentored Barack Obama, zeroed in on the lead sentence in Kavanaugh’s account of a midseason game against Cornell: “In basketball, as in few other team sports, it is possible for one person to completely dominate a game.” Was this a harmless observation? Tribe noted, “Kavanaugh’s seeming fascination with single-player domination might be a muscular view of executive power.” On the other hand, he found a departure from Kavanaugh’s typical jurisprudence in “Dartmouth Rally Upends Streak.” “Kavanaugh complained that the refs let the game ‘get completely out of control’ as Dartmouth players ‘consistently hammered’ a Yalie ‘without the whistle blowing’ once,” Tribe said. “One might see in that a rare early condemnation of judicial restraint.”
Frankly, the Democrats have gone so crazy that it is hard to tell when they are being funny on purpose.
Judge Kavanaugh has one of the longest resumes of anyone appointed to the Supreme Court. He has ruled in more than 1,000 cases and has authored hundreds of opinions. The fact that liberals are seeking ammunition in his wife’s emails, in phantom 911 calls and in his teenage sports columns indicates how little they have found to criticize in Kavanaugh’s judicial record.