Archive for 2019

NEW SOCIALIST “IT GIRL” CONTINUES TO PAY DIVIDENDS: AOC tells Ted Cruz nobody reacted to the ‘eat our babies’ lady because she was nothing ‘compared to what we deal with on the NYC subway system.’

Even in New York City’s Death Wish-era bad old days, I don’t recall any stories of babies being eaten on subways. But give credit to Ocasio-Cortez for the evolution of her opinions. She began the year with a desire to ban cars — at the start of October, she’s just tacitly given the best defense of private automobile ownership ever.

EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN: The Beatles’ Abbey Road Is UK’s No. 1 Again, 49 Years & 252 Days Later.

The remixed MP3s certainly sound great on my Bose headphones. There’s quite a bit more bottom end (which ought to make the two surviving Beatles — their drummer and bassist — happy), as recordings made in the LP era had to limit bass frequencies to prevent the needle from skipping on LPs.

This Sound on Sound article on the remixed version of Sgt. Pepper from 2017 gives a sense of what George Martin’s son, Giles Martin, and his engineers go through to rework the new editions. And next year should be a real treat, as the remixed version of Let It Be (recorded before Abbey Road in 1969, but not released until the following year) will be accompanied by both the original documentary (which has been off the home media market since the early 1980s — the days of VHS tape and laser discs) and a new reworked “happy ending” documentary assembled by Lord of the Rings superstar director Peter Jackson.

THERE’S THE IMPEACHMENT NARRATIVE AND THEN THERE’S THE FACTS: Former U.S. Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker’s closed-door testimony before Congress can now be read in full by anybody who wishes to do so. You should wish to do so and you can, courtesy of Sean Davis and The Federalist.

Davis, by the way, is tearing it up in reporting on Ukrainegate. He’s also got a story up on the fact the director of investigations for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the House Select Committee on Intelligence is a former MSNBC legal analyst. That explains a lot by itself.

WELL, YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT EVERYTHING IS PROBLEMATIC, AND PROBABLY ILLEGAL, WHEN TRUMP DOES IT: Marc Thiessen: Sorry, Dems: It’s OK to ask for foreign help in a criminal justice investigation.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking foreign heads of state or intelligence officials to cooperate with an official Justice Department investigation.

As George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley explains, “It is not uncommon for an attorney general, or even a president, to ask foreign leaders to assist with ongoing investigations. Such calls can shortcut bureaucratic red tape, particularly if the evidence is held, as in this case, by national security or justice officials.”

Americans support the Durham probe. For two years, they were told by Trump’s opponents that the president was “working on behalf of the Russians” and had committed “treasonous” acts that were of “a size and scope probably beyond Watergate.” Those were serious accusations, and Americans took them seriously. They waited for special counsel Robert Mueller to tell them whether the president had indeed betrayed the country.

Then Mueller issued his report, and they found out that none of it was true. They understandably wanted answers. How did it come to pass that our government was paralyzed for two years and spent tens of millions of their tax dollars, chasing a Trump-Russia collusion-conspiracy theory?

A Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll following the Mueller report’s release found that 53% of Americans said that “bias against President Trump in the FBI played a role in launching investigations against him,” and 62% supported appointing a special counsel to investigate the investigation of Trump.

And Democrats, and the media — but I repeat myself — don’t want Americans to know the answer.

Plus: “But keep in mind, it was the Democrats who told us there is nothing wrong or illegal with a presidential candidate hiring a private lawyer to conduct opposition research in a foreign country on their political opponents. After it emerged that the Clinton campaign and the DNC had paid Christopher Steele to dig up dirt in Russia on Trump, the Democrats’ defense was: That’s just opposition research. Everyone does it.”

Well, sure. Just as everything Trump does is illegal, anything Hillary does is no big deal.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: The Tea Party Movement.

It was hopeful and enthusiastic, open to anyone – and the Left treated it like the KKK merged with radical anarchists. The Republicans took their support and generally did nothing.

So, people tried something different. Romney was the ultimate nice-guy candidate. Unimpeachable ethics, a proven record of success, and moderate credentials. The Left chewed him up and spat him out. If Abe Lincoln or George Washington rose from the grave and ran for president, they would get the same treatment.

Thus, after you send in friendly folks with SUV and pickups, then a philanthropist in a limo, might as well send in a tank. Trump refuses to just take it like a proper Republican; he’s not a model of civility and noble citizenship, he’s a brawler. This is why TEA Party conservatives are flocking to his banner.

Read the whole thing.

QUESTION ASKED: Why does The New York Times want you to have less free speech?

What moralistic scolds like Marantz and his kind want is control. They want to monitor your speech so that they never feel uncomfortable, and so that only the views they agree with are heard. They yearn for fiats. They are certain that if they just shut you up, then some sort of social justice utopia will surely emerge. What they never seem to understand is that they’re next. For some reason, they always assume that they have immunity from the mob. Wise observers of our culture over the last few years know that no one is safe. Marantz and The New York Times are free to rail against free speech, but it is unwise to do so. Free speech is one of those sacred, fundamental rights that, once taken away, is impossible to get back.

Read the whole thing. The Times’ attitude is very much akin to Meryl Streep’s Hillary-esque “Chief Elder” character in the 2014 movie The Giver: “When people have the power to choose, they choose wrong. Every single time.” Best to let the Deep State take care of all those decisions for you. It’s for your own good, you know.

Related: Free Speech Is Killing Us — a Babylon Bee op-ed by Kim Jong Un.

Using “free speech” as a cop-out is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. Yes, free speech is a glorious pastime of our wonderful, prosperous empire, but it’s not the only one. It must be held in tension with other values, such as equality, safety, good citizenship, worshiping me, and stamping out anyone who would be foolish enough to speak up against our utopia.

Look, I am not calling for repealing free speech entirely. What I’m arguing for is silencing those whose speech your majestic rulers—namely, me—find to be potentially seditious. Only when speech is carefully policed, with your betters determining what can be said and what cannot be said, can speech truly be “free.”

The intentionally satiric Babylon Bee shouldn’t give the Gray Lady any ideas for guest contributors, since they’ve already allowed Vladimir Putin to have a column there — on September 11, 2013. (Evidently, Bill Ayers couldn’t generate 500 words for them that year.)