Ronna is Better Off

For John, BLUF:  With the NBC news staff following in the wake of those folks at The New York Times, we are seeing the employees telling management how to operate, even if, in the long run, it isn't good for profits or the news.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

NBC News Division Cretins Are So Awful That They're Almost Making Me Like Ronna McDaniel

From PJ Media, by Commentator Stephen Kruiser, 26 March 2024, 3:55 PM.

Here is the lede plus three:

The reports of former Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel getting hired by NBC News didn't get much attention from me at first. It was very much a "Let them have each other" situation as far as I was concerned. My overwhelming dislike of Ms. Romney McD's tenure at the RNC has been well documented here.

The NBC News division, however, is far and away the worst of the behemoth disseminators of American leftist propaganda. It didn't take very long for its prevaricating horde of Democratic National Committee lapdogs to make even my icy heart want to side with McDaniel.

Sort of.

The brouhaha among regulars in the NBC News division is being presented as consternation over the fact that McDaniel is, according to them, an "election denier," the Left's grammatically clunky catch-all label for anyone who questions any part of any election. They're beating their cancel culture drums and pretending that they occupy the ethical high ground.

I would say Mr Stephen Kruiser is a little over the top in his comments on Ms Ronna McDaniel, former Republican National Committee Chairwoman.  She may have had a different drift from other Republicans, but she is a Republican and Republicans should have a big tent.  The real issue here is not Ms McDaniel, but the deplorable bigotry of the talking heads at NBC and MSNBC.

Take, for example, this Tweet by News Reader Chuck Todd:

The issue isn’t about ideology, it’s about basic truth. Those trying to make this a left-right issue are being intentionally dishonest. This is about whether honest journalists are supposed to lend their credibility to someone who intentionally tried to ruin ours.
5:49 PM · Mar 25, 2024

In what reality is Mr Todd living?  Why would he think the average Joe Schmoe would take him as the model of Journalism?  I woould not.  He comes from a barn yard of hacks who have only one way of viewing things and who are dismissive of those who do not align with them.

I believe Ms McDaniel is better off not being with NBC, and I suspect she will pocket a nice chunk of change.  In fact, if she is not compensated for this outrageous termination by the executive suite stiffs at NBC, she should sue them for several million dollars.  Now there is some news I could enjoy following.

Good Luck Ronna McDaniel.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

You Have to Win the Electoral College

For John, BLUF:  Well, at least tie it, throwing the election into the House of Representatives.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Wargaming the Electoral College:  Welcome to the Thunderdome, 2024

From PJ Media / VodkaPunit, by Blogger Stephen Green, 27 March 2024, 3:45 PM.

Here is the lede plus four:

Welcome to the inaugural Wargaming the Electoral College column for the 2024 campaign. I've been doing this as VodkaPundit since 2004 and in my private life — inspired by "The McLaughlin Group" at the tender age of 19 — since 1988 when George Bush squared off against Mike Dukakis.

Coincidentally, that race took place years ago and was Joe Biden's first outing in the Democrat primaries. It's amazing to think about how long ago that was since today he doesn't look a day over a hundred and seven.

Democrats have been playing two very dangerous games with their lawfare against Donald Trump. The first is the damage they're doing to the political health of our republic. The second is the danger to themselves. It's clear that the Biden camp wanted a rematch against Trump, having beaten him (by whatever means...) once already. The lawfare campaign — waged locally but orchestrated from the White House — was meant to rally GOP primary voters to Trump. And that it surely did. But they may have taken it too far, perhaps causing independent voters to rally to Trump, too.

As always, thanks to the fine folks at 270toWin for their excellent online EC tool.

Let's go to the maps.

And from that point we see a series of maps, with analysis of different state decisions in November on obtaining the needed 270 Electoral College votes.  The US Electoral College has 538 electors, 535 from the 50 States and 3 from the District of Columbia.

In the view of the VodkaPundit, the breakdown is, at this point, fairly even, with a slight edge to President Biden, but 98 Electors in play (unlike the map, he gives Minnesota to President Biden).  but, it is seven months until the election, and, I assert, the half-life of a political memory in the United States is 90 days.  Even so, I like the examination of several possible future paths.

No discussion of Candidate Robert F Kennedy, Jr.  Thus no examintion of how Mr Kennedy would pull votes from either of the main candidates, or even if he might win in one or more states.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Israeli Military Operations in Gaza

For John, BLUF:  The linked article is about a piece in The Atlantic about anti-Semitism on campus, but it also talks to Israeli operstions in Gaza.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Let's Talk About the Absolute Worst Thing in the World

From PJ Media, by Commnentator Stephen Green, 27 March 2024, 10:45 AM.

Here is the key excerpt:

But there is no Israeli genocide in the Gaza Strip, no matter what lefties and other concern trolls might have you think.

Let me share something utterly remarkable with you.

Urban combat is about as bad as war gets. That's not just for the soldiers doing the fighting — it's also for the civilians caught up in it. Typically, civilian casualties far outnumber military casualties in city fighting.

Until now.

John Spencer is the chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point and an infantry combat veteran.  He's just back from the Gaza Strip, where he witnessed the extraordinary measures Israel has taken to avoid civilian casualties.

"By my analysis," Spencer reported for Newsweek on Monday, "Israel has implemented more precautions to prevent civilian harm than any military in history — above and beyond what international law requires and more than the U.S. did in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

The net result — and this is that "utterly remarkable" thing — is that civilian casualties do not outnumber military losses.  The best estimate is just one civilian casualty for each military casualty.

Israel has accomplished this unprecedented feat "in intense urban warfare against an enemy trying to maximize its own civilian casualties."

Nations like South Africa,♠ and demonstrators here in the United States (and elsewhere_ who are demonstratying against Israeli operation is in Gaza, are playinbg the Hamas game.♥ 

I am on an internet discussion group with the gentleman cited, retired Major Johhn Spencer, a former Infantryman and with the Urban Warfare Studies section of the Modern War Institute at West Point.  I believe he should be listened to.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff
♠  South Africa went to the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of Genocide.  While they didn't get everything they wanted, they furthered the line that Israel is doing bad things in Gaza.
♥  To be honest, Hamas is doing a brilliant job working the political (informatonial) side of this conflict, and could seriously hurt Israel's standing in the world.

Immigrants Learning

For John, BLUF:  Just because it was OK where you came from does not mean it is OK here.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Discovery From Denmark's Crime Stats That the Left Doesn't Want You to See

From PJ Media, by Comedian Kevin Downey, Jr, 25 March 2024, 3:46 PM.

Here is the lede plus three:

A peek at the Danish crime statistics from 2010-2021 delivered a gut punch to the globalists looking to tear down Western cultures by gavaging "asylum seekers" into Europe and North America. It turns out that Muslims commit violent crimes way more than people of Danish descent.

Back in 2020, Mattias Tesfaye, Denmark's minister for Immigration and Integration, did the unthinkable and decided to create a category for criminals from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), mostly Arab and/or Muslim nations. Guess what Denmark learned? MENA immigrants have a higher tendency for unemployment and violent crime than any other ethnic group in Denmark.

Leftists flipped their wigs when Denmark "singled out" the group — largely Muslim men — for committing the lion's share of crimes.

"Amazing, why not give them a little symbol to stitch on their clothes, so we can keep an eye on them," a social media commentator blasted, trying desperately to compare the peaceful Jews of Europe sent to concentration camps with the violent and unemployed Muslims of Denmark.

The article contains this little gem:  "Muslim/Arab men are convicted for rape in Denmark seven times more than Danish-born men."  This suggests that different cultures may have different values.  This, in turn, raises questions of immigration.  Are you, as an immigrant, supposed to adapt to the host culture, or should you be able to bring your culture with you?

We should be open to other cultures.  The Amish live in the United States without issues.  In the same way, there are Orthodox Jewish Commnunities, like Kiryas Joel, that are an entity, but fit like a puzzle piece in the larger puzzle of the United States.  However, the host nation must make clear that outside the specific immigrant community, host nation laws will be applied.  And sometimes within the immigrant community, for example, Sati (or Suttee) would likely not be tolerated in this nation.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Speak Freely, as an American

For John, BLUF:  The Babylon Bee headline:  Ketanji Brown Jackson Warns Right To Free Speech Could Lead To People Speaking Freely.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘concerned’ First Amendment is ‘hamstringing’ government from censorship

From The Washington Examiner, by Reporter Annabella Rosciglione, 18 March 2024, 5:00 pm.

Here is the lede plus six:

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the First Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique times.

In Monday’s oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, Jackson appeared to be skeptical that the government could not censor social media posts in “the most important time periods.”

“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” Jackson said to Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga.

“You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information,” Jackson said. “So, can you help me? Because I’m really worried about that because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances, from the government’s perspective, and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.”

Aguiñaga said his view was that the government should intervene in certain situations, but it has to do so by following the First Amendment.

“Our position is not that the government can’t interact with the platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and especially young people,” Aguiñaga said in response. “But the way they do that has to be in compliance with the First Amendment. And I think that means they can give them all the true information that the platform needs and ask to amplify that.”

Jackson said a “once-in-a-lifetime pandemic” or other emergencies would provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are misinformative.

I am not a lawyer, just a graduate of Grade School, but I thought the Founders gave us the First Amendment for the purpose of allowing People to speak out against the Government, when the Government would rather they didn’t.

For example, The Great Barrington Declaration.

Is it that Justice Jackson not only doesn’t know what a woman is, but also doesn’t know the role of free speech in our federal Government?  If the federal Government drifts into tyranny, how else do the People give it correction, except by speaking out against the tyranny they see.  As Delegate Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1776, "let Facts be submitted to a candid world."  This requires free speech.

Sadly, we are still seeing reverberations from the Federal Government suppressing information on COVID-19. To quote Wikipedia, "In March 2024, Kulldorff announced that Harvard had dismissed him."  Dr Kulldorff was one of the signatories of the Grest Barrington Declaration.

With the outbreak of COVID-19 we embarked on a path that damaged the lives of Citizens and harmed our economy.  Decisions were taken without a larger debate.  Mistakes were made and the average Citizen, and dissenting experts, were made to kowtow to the dictates of the Federal Government.  There was no larger debate.  There was no Congressional Declaration of War, in any form.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Massaging the Numbers

For John, BLUF:  This is a takeoff of Lord Wellington's quip to a reporter on statistics.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Playing With Numbers

From The Instatpundit, by Editor Mark Tapscott.

Here is the lede plus two:

THREE KINDS OF LIES:  There are lies, damned lies and Biden’s statistics.  Exhibit A from his recent State of the Onion, according to Issues & Insights (I&I), is his claim that the richest Americans pay on average a net tax of 8.2 percent.  What???  Biden should have asked his IRS:

“It calculates the actual tax rate that various income groups pay, including the ultra-rich.  Its data show that the 400 people with the biggest incomes in America were paying an average tax rate of more than 23 percent.  Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation figures that the tax rate on the top 0.4 percent of families is 26 percent,” I&I explains.

“So where does Biden come up with an 8.2 percent tax rate?  He changes the definition of taxable income to include all unrealized gains from investments.  If you have money in the stock market, any gains in the value of those stocks would count as income to Biden, even if you don’t sell the stock.  Presumably so would any gains in the value of your home.  Or the value of any other assets you possess.”

Posted 11 March, at 10:41 am, by Editor Mark Tapscott

This should put us on alert for any time we hear a statistic coming from President Biden or the White House.♠  I saw several exsamples of questionable statistics in President Biden's most recent State of the Union speech.  Then, of course, there is his amorphous "everyone pay their fair share".  But, what is a fair share?  Is it related to a percentsge of your income, or your wealth, or related to the value you are able to withdraw from the economy?  Or is it that since everyone has the benefit of being an American, should everyone pay the same?

The worst part of this Presidential performance is it is causing young people and people in their middle age to think that all of us near the age of President Biden are stumble bums and mentally deficient.  This is the worst sort of ageism.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Or is it all Democrafts or is it all Politicians?

Stopping The Donald

For John, BLUF:  There are a noticable number of Democrats who are exploring ways to thwart Former President Donald Trump from regaining the Oval Office.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Most Democrats Don’t Want Congress to Certify Election if Trump Wins

From Rasmussen Reports, on 11 March 2024.

Here is the lede plus three:

After the Supreme Court rejected attempts to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot, a majority of Democratic voters now support another way to block Trump’s possible return to the White House.

A national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and The National Pulse finds that 35% of Likely U.S. Voters say, if Trump wins this year’s election, they would support Democrats in Congress refusing to certify the election results, including 20% who would Strongly Support such a move.  However, a majority (55%) would oppose Congress members refusing to certify a Trump victory, including 44% who Strongly Oppose the idea. Another 10% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Before the Supreme Court ruled against Colorado’s effort to bar Trump from the ballot in that state, it was suggested that Democrats in Congress could stop Trump from being certified as the election winner.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Democratic voters would support such a maneuver, including 34% who Strongly Support it.  However, the idea of Congress blocking Trump from office is opposed by majorities of both Republicans (78%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (67%).

One wonders if they would be willing to show up, and demonstrate on Capitol Hill, ahead of the vote come January 2025.  Mais non Monsieur.  Good, America loving Democrats would never do such a thing.  Or would they?

Perhaps the old saw applies—What goes around comes around.

Stopping Donald J Trump, through means fair or foul, seems to dominate the thinking of Democrats.  Or is it just the Progressives?

Regards  —  Cliff

6 Jan Issues Again Surface

For John, BLUF:  Some wish to make 6 january into a terrible tragedy and a threat to our way of Governmnent.  I am not sure they are convincing.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Liz Cheney, Jan. 6 Committee suppressed key evidence of Trump pushing for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect Capitol: Report

From Blaze Media, by Reporter Paul Sacca, 10 March 2024.

Here is the lede plus six:

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and the January 6 Committee suppressed key evidence that former President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the U.S. Capitol building ahead of the riots, according to a report.

Cheney and the Democratic-led House Select Committee on January 6 contended that there was "no evidence" to support Trump officials' claims the White House had pressed for 10,000 National Guard troops ahead of the protests in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

However, a transcribed interview conducted by the committee from January 2022 appears to show evidence that Trump urged Democrat leadership to bring in thousands of National Guard troops to prevent any widespread violence on Jan. 6, according to a new report from The Federalist.

Then-Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato was interviewed by the committee on Jan. 28, 2022.  The transcripts show that he told Cheney and other investigators that he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows urge Democrat D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as she needed to protect the city before the demonstrations centered around the results of the 2020 presidential election.

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content that may sometimes include advertisements.  You may opt out at any time. Ornato testified that Meadows "wanted to know if she need[ed] any more guardsmen."

"And I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, 'The president wants to make sure that you have enough.'  You know, 'He is willing to ask for 10,000.'  I remember that number," Ornato told the January 6 Committee.  "Now that you said it, it reminded me of it.  And that she was all set.  She had, I think it was like 350 or so for intersection control, and those types of things not in the law enforcement capacity at the time."

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway wrote, "Not only did the committee not accurately characterize the interview, they suppressed the transcript from public review.  On top of that, committee allies began publishing critical stories and even conspiracy theories about Ornato ahead of follow-up interviews with him.  Ornato was a career Secret Service official who had been detailed to the security position in the White House."

President Biden's State of the Union characterization of our political ssituation is dire:

Not since President Lincoln and the Civil War have freedom and democracy been under assault here at home as they are today.

Do we believe that, aside from the persecution of Donald Trump by a form of Lawfare,♠ that our political system is in trouble?  I am not so sure.  How does it compare to the Palmer Raids or the 47,000 who showed up for the Bonus March?  What about the shoot-up of the House of Representatives, wounding four Congressmen, back on 1 March 1954, just over 70 years ago?

A for the 6 January 2021 event itself, there is too much hand waving to satisfy me.  For example, the murder of Ashley Babbitt.  The pipe bombs.  The Capitol Police waving in visitors.  The failure to release hours of video.  The fact that arrests in the wake of of 6 January are increasing today, rather than decreasing.♥ However, there are certain time limits.  U.S. Attorney for D.C. Matt Graves says the statutes of limitations for many of the charges used by prosecutors will expire on 5 January 2026 – "on the eve of the riot's five-year anniversary."

If then Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not appeared to stack the Special Committee I would be more trusting of the cohnclusions.  As it is, it appears tainted and that is on Ms Pelosi.

Regards  —  Cliff
♠  The thing most glaring to me is the way DoJ has passed over Preside4nbt Biden's mishandling of classified information from when he was a Senator and Vice president, but prosecution of President Trump for like offenses, from when Mr Trump was President, when he had vastly greater powers.  while some don't see it, it screams at me. ♥  Is this some form of political intimidation?

Fighting Trump All the Way

For John, BLUF:  I expect Democrats to fight a Trump Second Term through Inauguration and beyond.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

If Trump wins in November, expect a real insurrection from Democrats

Here is the sub-headline:

Hostile to freedom, fair elections, and America itself.

From Behind the Black, by Blogger Robert Zimmerman, 6 March 2024 3:29 pm.

Here is the lede plus five:

The reaction by Democratic Party politicians and pundits to the Supreme Court ruling on March 4, 2024 — voiding the effort by Colorado to throw Donald Trump off its ballot — reveals some very fundamental realities that must be faced by all Americans. To put it bluntly: These Democrats have no intention of accepting a victory by Donald Trump in the upcoming election, even if he should win by a majority so vast that no amount of election rigging can disguise it.

The first reaction to that decision was a major tell. Jean Griswold is the secretary of state of Colorado who had taken Trump off the ballot, claiming he was an insurrectionist even though that was merely her opinion as Trump has not only never been convicted of that crime, he has not even been charged with it. Immediately after the court rejected her actions unanimously, she tweeted the following:

I am disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates. Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrections from our ballot.

Spurred by her blind hatred of Trump, Griswold’s refusal to deal with reality here is disturbing, to say the least. First, the court made it very clear, unanimously, that the states don’t have this authority when it comes to federal elections. That she as a lawyer could not recognize the plain legal arguments here that were agreed to by even the most radical leftists on the court indicates how blind she has become to reasonable disagreement.

Second, Griswold clearly thinks she by herself, based on nothing but her opinion, has the right to determine who is or is not an insurrectionist. In a country where by law and a very long tradition all people are innocent until proven guilty, by what law does she think she has that right?

The bottom line is that Griswold reveals the mindset of the Democrat Party. They are mentally unprepared to accept a Trump election victory, no matter what, and will do anything to block his victory.

I think Mr Zimmerman may be underplaying the hostility of Progressives to Mr Trump and his reelection.  I have been reading about a broad range of people, with a broad range of ways of thwarting the election and inauguration of Mr Trump.  Then there are the eg,) of the nation talking about thwarting Mr Trump if he makes it to the Oval Office.

It would appear that the Progressives have adopted as their motto "We had to destory the village in order to save it.".  that is a pretty stark view of the situation.  I winoder wht the villagers thought?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Getting to the Truth

For John, BLUF:  It takes Mr Kruiser a while to get to his point.  But, it is an important one.  Governments are not the best way to deal with false information.  They have a bad track record in that area.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

MSNBC Legal Lunatic Frets Over America's 'Deep Commitment to Free Speech'

Here is the sub-headline:

From PJ Media, by Reporter Stephen Kruiser 29 February 2024, 2:48 PM.

Here is the lede plus nine:

In the ever-leftward marching world of the erstwhile American political party known as the Democrats, assaults on our most cherished constitutional freedoms are the cornerstone of their efforts to fundamentally transform the Republic.

We're all used to them making a lot of noise about their disdain for the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the few freedoms that they're at least a little bit honest about wanting to take away. They may not admit to their gun-grabbing fantasies, but many of them now don't say "no" when asked if that's the end game.

The assault on due process is mostly denial-based. They've been using college campuses to test market their gulag/kangaroo court approach to justice for years now. That approach was put into public practice with their treatment of the J6 defendants. When any of the Democratic elite are pressed about the J6 victims of injustice, however, they get the kind of blank stare that Joe Biden would if someone told him to find the exit on his own after a speech.

The Democrats' assault on the First Amendment has always been the most complex of their anti-American initiatives for a couple of reasons. One is that they love to cherry-pick the First Amendment when needing justification for their war on religion or their right to riot and burn everything to the ground peaceably assemble. The other is that they need to avail themselves of the very right that they seek to destroy.

Awkward.

Leftists come at free speech from a variety of euphemism-laden angles, the most popular one of late being a concern about "disinformation." Caterwauling about disinformation was key to the Democrats' political weaponization of the COVID-19 pandemic.

They had so much success with it that they're not letting it go.

The New York Post:

MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade argued Monday that the United States’ “deep commitment to free speech” makes Americans uniquely susceptible to disinformation campaigns.

McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor, went on “The Rachel Maddow Show” to promote her new book, “Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America.” She said her “goal” with the book was to spark a “national conversation about truth and our commitment to it.”

Professor McQuade sounds like that Army Spokesman from the Viet-nam War:  "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

We have been sorting through misinformation and disinformation since we got here.  And think of the Vikings, with that whole Iceland/Greenland thing.

For over two hundred years we have been well served by freedom of information.  This era is no more fraught than others in our history.  We can deal with it.  Give us access and let us sort it out.  After all, that is what Voting is all about.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Except When Inconvenient

For John, BLUF:  A Federal Judge has decided that press freedoms don't apply in his courtroom.  Sad.  Very sad.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Judge holds Catherine Herridge in contempt, fines her $800 per day for protecting source.  But where is the media outrage?

From The Blaze, by Reporter Chris Enloe, 1 March 2024.

Here is the lede plus one:

federal judge held veteran investigative reporter Catherine Herridge in civil contempt of court on Thursday for upholding journalistic ethics and not revealing her confidential sources.

Federal district Judge Christopher Cooper ordered Herridge to pay a fine of $800 per day until she divulges the information the court wants.

I would say $800 a day is serious money.  In a month that is $24,000.  In less than a year it is a nice home in some suburb.  And, it is outrageous.

What is happening to Freedom of the Press?.

Yes, the media is a mixed bag, but we still need press freedom so we are somewhat informed and able to have insight into wat the government, at whatever level, is up to.

Regards  —  Cliff