Archive for 2022

GOOD. Judge Admonished for Ad Which Said He “Got Into Law in Part to Advocate for Marginalized Communities.” “Judge Keenan admitted the ad could confuse the public into thinking that he, as a judge, advocated for marginalized communities. . . . The ad in which Judge Keenan appeared does not promote confidence in the judiciary. It has the appearance of impropriety. The language of the ad reasonably can be read to suggest that Judge Keenan has a leaning, or preference, and would advocate accordingly for marginalized communities. He is ‘changing the world.’ A reasonable reader could also infer the same message from this ad.”

THE ONLY PIPELINES BIDEN SUPPORTS ARE THE ONES THAT BENEFIT RUSSIA: US No Longer Supports EastMed Gas Pipeline. “Washington no longer supports the proposed EastMed gas pipeline from Israel to Europe, according to a Jerusalem diplomatic source. The Biden administration reportedly informed Israeli, Greek, and Cypriot officials in recent weeks of its change in attitude.”

See, this pipeline helps Israel, whom the Biden administration doesn’t like, and hurts Russia, by limiting its leverage with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

Related: Biden acts much more like Putin’s puppet than Trump ever did.

#RESIST: A reader writes: “H-E-B Plus in New Braunfels, TX.”

Another reader sends this: “I live in a little podunk town, Clinton, Louisiana, north of Baton Rouge. Fell out when I saw an ‘I Did That’ sticker on a gas pump at the Dollar General. Only Dollar General I know of selling gas. Former Walmart Community Market with gas pumps that wasn’t open long when Walmart closed many stores a few years back. We don’t even have a street light here, but we’ve got an ‘I Did That’ sticker. AND mostly dems here, except me.”

And there’s this from Granite Bay, California:

Hey, they’re everywhere. Even NPR noticed.

CAYMAN PUSHBACK: Cayman’s Covid rules have been extraordinarily harsh, but also ineffective. Now Caymanians are protesting.

MARK JUDGE: Breaking Up With Carl Bernstein and the Communist Media.

Like a lot of people from the Watergate era — Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Jesse Jackson — Bernstein has lived long enough to see himself go from hero to villain.

As with Hillary, the irony surrounding Bernstein’s hypocrisy is particularly acute. He helped expose a president who was orchestrating opposition research on opponents, including digging into their psychiatric files. Now Bernstein, like the rest of the media, celebrates the very same kind of tactics, and even kicks it up a notch. . . .

The problem with Bernstein is not just evident in his obviously deranged leftism. It’s that this totem of journalistic integrity is a founding father of fake news and has been for years. It’s not just his recent madness that calls into question his integrity. It’s his evasiveness going back decades.

The roots of it can be found in his 1989 memoir, Loyalties: A Son’s Memoir. Bernstein’s parents were members of the Communist Party. But, in his memoir, the famed Watergate sleuth plays dodge with the extent of their involvement with the Party. He was called out for this not by conservatives, but by radical lefty Martin Duberman in “Bernstein’s Left-Wing Legacy,” a 1989 review in The Washington Post. Duberman chided Bernstein for not defending his parents’ Communism, and thus revealing that Bernstein may have been hiding something about his family’s true links to that murderous and evil false religion.

Commies always lie. It’s essential to their creed.

BIDEN VOTERS POSTING THEIR L’S ONLINE: Andrew Sullivan: How Biden Lost The Plot.

One explanation, perhaps, for Biden’s dense and hard-to-sell legislative juggernauts is that if he’d broken them up and prioritized any single policy, he’d have split his own party. Look what happened when infrastructure passed the Senate first: the left went nuts. In that sense Biden is not so much governing the country as trying to keep the Democrat coalition together, and in the end, achieving neither.

Another aspect of the problem is that so many Dem activists and groups have deeply imbibed the notion that America in 2022 is a “white supremacist” country, designed to suppress non-whites, and that we are now living in a system of de facto “legal fascism,” with a minority “white” party holding the country in its undemocratic grip, perhaps forever. The Democrats and elite liberals really seem to believe that we are back in the 1960s or 1890s or even 1860s, that we live in a black-vs-white world of good vs evil, and that the choice today is literally, in Biden’s words, between backing Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis. This is as self-righteous as it is ludicrous. It’s MLK envy. It’s an attempt to recreate the moral clarity of the civil rights movement, in a country no one from 1964 would begin to recognize.

The Democrats also increasingly view the Constitution itself as a problem for democracy. Notice how frequently they bring up the anti-majoritarian nature of the Senate and the Electoral College, as if that’s a bug and not a feature of the American republican balance. Notice how adding seats to the Supreme Court is also popular among Dems, because they have been outmaneuvered by the wily and shameless McConnell in the Congress. And how many more columns in the MSM do I have to read by people who believe the next election will be our last if the Republicans win? I remember when Norm Ornstein and Ron Brownstein, for example, were solid pillars of centrist conventional wisdom. Now, they both appear to believe it’s 1933 in Weimar, and without a federal takeover of elections, our democracy is over. Our democracy isn’t over. It’s our liberal democracy that’s under threat, and this kind of morally pure Manicheanism is one reason why.

Weimar, you say? Flashback to 2020: Niall Ferguson: ‘Weimar America?’ The Trump Show Is No Cabaret. Detractors have been equating the U.S. with 1920s Germany for 85 years, and they are still wrong:

Weimerica has recurred in dystopian function: in Stephen King’s “The Running Man” (1982), Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” (1985), Philip Roth’s “The Plot Against America” (2004) and Suzanne Collins’s “The Hunger Games” (2008). In each case, although the focus is on life in a fascist America, there is a version of the Weimar back story, for without the degeneration of the republic, the rise of the dictatorship is inexplicable. (For some reason, the Weimar syndrome rarely claims dear old Canada, which provides a bolt-hole for the U.S. resistance.)

So when my old friend Andrew Sullivan urged us last month “to be frank” about recent developments in American politics and admit that it is all “very Weimar,” he was adding to an 85-year-old tradition.

“The center has collapsed,” Sullivan wrote. “Armed street gangs of far right and far left are at war on the streets. Tribalism is intensifying in every nook and cranny of the culture. The establishment right and mainstream left tolerate their respective extremes because they hate each other so much.”

It’s not the first time Sullivan has made the Weimerica argument. Six months before the 2016 election, he warned that “our paralyzed, emotional hyperdemocracy” was leading “the stumbling, frustrated, angry voter toward the chimerical panacea of Trump” — and from there to tyranny.

As far back as September of 2007, Sullivan referred to then-President Bush as “The Weimar President,” as a way to do the Bush is Hitler analogy that every other leftwing pundit was making back then without fully redlining the Godwin Meter.

USA TODAY SEEMS DISAPPOINTED IN THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS’ UNWILLINGNESS TO SUPPORT THE PROGRESSIVE LINE:   “60% of People Awaiting Trial Can’t Afford Bail.  A Civil Rights Commission Can’t Agree on Reform.”

The article laments the Commission’s failure to agree on “findings and recommendations” for its bail reform report and extensively quotes my colleague, Michael Yaki:

“We find ourselves in a position where we lack a majority to continue our mission,” wrote Commissioner Yaki, a Democrat. . . .

. . .

Yaki placed the blame at the feet of the newly Trump-appointed commissioners.

“The first action that the conservatives took was to kill a report–much less findings and recommendations–on voting rights that took over a year and a half of investigation and testimony,” Yaki wrote in an email to USA TODAY.

Alas, the killed voting rights report was killed for a reason.  It was a partisan screed.  The bail reform report released yesterday wasn’t exactly brilliant either, but it made more sense to let it go, so long as the Commission was willing to allow the conservative to include their own (dissenting) statements as part of the reports.  Here’s mine.

Prior to Trump’s appointment of Stephen Gilchrist and Christian Adams to the 8-member Commission, my long-time colleague Peter Kirsanow and I could only dissent from reports, since we didn’t have the votes to actually stop a report (or even to affect them much).  Even clear errors in the reports often went through without correction.  We had to content ourselves with writing dissents.

Some of those dissents include this one on immigration detention centers, this one on environmental racism, and this one on jobs for individuals with Down Syndrome. And don’t forget this one on school discipline.  In each case, the Commission’s report had major flaws that in a sane world would have required the draft to be extensively rewritten.

Now that the Commission is split 4-4, you’d think everyone would understand that compromise is necessary to get anything done.  Some members of the progressive caucus, however, don’t seem to have noticed how the situation has changed.  Even small proposals for improving the Commission’s output are often ignored.

A SMALL MEASURE OF FREEDOM: Pennsylvania lawmakers make new push to privatize liquor sales. “For decades, Republicans have tried to get Pennsylvania out of the booze business, but have been unsuccessful. However, a new approach that would let voters decide may have the GOP popping champagne corks in the next few years.”

UPDATE NEWSPEAK DICTIONARIES ACCORDINGLY, COMRADES! New York Times Refers To Women As ‘Menstruators’ For The First Time.

The New York Times referred to women as “menstruators” for the first time in a Thursday article on changing attitudes towards feminine hygiene products.

“New menstruators,” the article said in reference to young girls who have recently started their periods, “often turn to a parent for products and advice — now parents can hand over more than a disposable pad or tampon.”

The article avoided using feminine pronouns when noting that “the average menstruator can use thousands of tampons in their lifetime.”

The author did not use the words “woman” or “female” at any point in the article, and the article only says “girls” in reference to two specific girls the NYT interviewed for the piece. Instead, the author says “people” when referring to women experiencing menstruation periods and “young people” to describe girls experiencing menstruation.

Related: Watch: Matt Walsh Destroys Woke Gender Narrative With One Simple Question.