The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Monday, April 30, 2018

Boycotting Various State Agencies

For John, BLUFI wonder if the "wedding cake" theory means that this is illegal?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From the Blog The Truth About Guns, by Dan Zimmerman, 27 April 2018.

Here is the lede:

We recently noted the thinly-veiled threat that New York State comptroller Thomas J. DiNapoli made when he sent a friendly letter to most of the nation’s largest financial institutions.  In it, he hinted — wink, wink — that it could be bad for their business if they continue to facilitate transactions that involve firearms and related products.
So, Mr Steve Hornady, president of Hornady Manufacturing Company (Ammo), is not going to associate himself, or his company, with such abuse of power.  Sort of reminds one of various boycotts of products from nations that are deemed to be "in error".  In this case, a refusal to sell.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Showing Initiative

TRIGGER WARNING:  In which I talk about how President T Jefferson colluded with the French to displace a large number of Native American tribes.

For John, BLUFThis day in history, a long time ago.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From the Instapundit, Posted by Gail Heriot, 30 April 2018.

Here is the blog post:

On this day in 1803, American Minister to France Robert Livingston, James Monroe and Barbé Marbois signed the Treaty for the Louisiana Purchase in Paris.  The Americans had been authorized by President Jefferson to offer up to $10 million for New Orleans and its environs and were shocked to be offered the whole enchilada for only $15 million (cheap!).  Certain that the United States would approve, Livingston took the deal.  Back then, owing to the difficulty of communications, diplomats had to have more discretion that they do now.  That was also true for a whole lot of other people separated by distance from their “superiors.”
And, today the proposed increase in scope would have to be staffed through several Departments and independent agencies.  The establishment would then say no.

Ah, for the days when the Admiral could put his telescope to his blind eye and act on his own judgement.

Regards  —  Cliff

They're Back

For John, BLUFDid they ever go away?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Here is the sub-headline:

The Clinton family has made sporadic and often subdued appearances in the 18 months (538 days) since Hillary Clinton lost her presidential election. But we're about to see a lot more of them this spring.

From Axios And Mr Mike Allen, 30 April 2018.

I wouldn't call the tour of India subdued.  Not with Mrs Clinton's comment about how many American women vote the way their husband, boss or son tells them.  The hicks in the sticks didn't like that.

So, is this about money or about 2020, or about missing the adulation?

Am I going to need a Tag for Chelsea?  I am resisting.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sunday, April 29, 2018

We Have Lost Our Mind

TRIGGER WARNING:  In which the Blog Post talks to "cultural appropriation".

For John, BLUFI was lost about how God fitted into this thing.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Quoting from the Instapundit.


David Burge

David Burge Retweeted Jeremy Lam

Remember: when Americans wear silk dresses it's cultural appropriation, when people in other countries wear Levis it's American cultural imperialism

Jeremy Lam

My culture is NOT your goddamn prom dress.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Better United With Differences

For John, BLUFHere is a totally bad idea, but it will take a lot of thinking through to realize it.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Here is the sub-headline:

This idea of breaking up the country may seem a bit outlandish now, but you won’t think so once real domestic unrest comes to your town.

From The Federalist, by Mr Jesse Kelly, 10 April 2018.

Think of this as a thought experiment.

Here is how he author introduces the idea:

“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…” — The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Divorce is hard, but it’s easier than cutting the brake lines on your wife’s car.  It is long past time for an amicable divorce of the United States of America.  There is simply no common ground with the Left anymore.  We are now the couple screaming at each other all night, every night as the kids hide in their room.

We cannot come together, but we do not have to live like this.  The history of the world is nations breaking up and redrawing their borders.  If we want to avoid this political divide turning into a deadly one, we should do likewise.

Stop clinging to the past and acknowledge where we are as a country, not where you want us to be, not where things were when your grandpa was storming the beaches of Normandy.  Where we truly are.

We are a nation hopelessly divided. We are more divided now than we have ever been in our history.  And before you start screaming at me about the Civil War, keep in mind that bloody conflict was fought over one major issue.  In those days, take ten families from New York and ten families from Alabama, put them all in a room, and you’d find they mostly had the same values (and bad accents).

I think the problem here is that we are not in big blocks, but are intermixed.  For example, even California, Oregon and Washington State, known as Progressive bastions have big patches of Conservatives/Republicans within their own state boundaries.  Thus, the idea of The State of Jefferson.

Given that we are intermixed we will see a lot of migration as people move from their homes to new homes in areas where the political and religious ideas are move simpatico.  That often results in large numbers of deaths, as when the Greeks left Turkey and with the Patrician of India.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Possible Mueller Path

For John, BLUFWell, here is a plan.  The issue is in the assumptions.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From The Hill, by Ms Rebecca Savransky, 10 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus five:

Attorney Alan Dershowitz said he thinks special counsel Robert Mueller's goal is to produce a report in the hopes that Congress moves to impeach President Trump.

"I think that's the plan," Dershowitz told Fox News's Sean Hannity, when asked about Mueller's ultimate endgame.

Dershowitz added that he doesn't believe Trump should "plead the fifth."

"If he pleads the fifth, Mueller gives him immunity and then he has to testify and immunity doesn't cover impeachment," Dershowitz said.

Mueller is investigating Russian election interference and possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Dershowitz's comments come after the FBI on Monday raided the office of Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen.

If this is the direction the Special Counsel investigation is going it is surely going to set a new, higher, standard with regard to political campaigns.  There will be no more hiding of information from the public.  We will expect to know about all peccadillos. 

I guess no more President Bill Clintons.

Or maybe our standards will change.

Regards  —  Cliff

  Will it be going too far to ask if any of the prosecutors have strayed from the straight and narrow if they go after Mr Trump or his Lawyer for trying to hid previous dalliances.

Crude is the New Blue

For John, BLUFCan't win.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From Twitchy, by Sam J, 29 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus five:

As Twitchy reported, Michelle Wolf said some pretty horrible and unfunny things about Sarah Sanders at the lame White House Correspondent’s Dinner last night and from we can tell from her equally lame tweets when people called her out, she’s not overly sorry she bullied Trump’s press secretary.

Liberals, right?

Welp, seems The Daily Beast’s Marlow Stern had someone else in mind to blame for the way Wolf treated Sanders:

Marlow Stern
‏ @MarlowNYC
The White House purposely sent Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kellyanne Conway to the #WHCD to then feign outrage at the jokes made at their expense, so... don't fall for it
9:56 PM - 28 Apr 2018
Ever been at a T-Intersection, where both the left and right streets were One Way, toward you?  I think that is where Sarah Huckabee Sanders is, vis-a-via the White House Correspondents.

God Bless you, Sarah.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saturday, April 28, 2018

At This Point, Who Do We Trust

For John, BLUFIf you repeat a lie often enough people begin to believe it, people with the power to change things.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Here is the sub-headline:

How that might have been the act that got us the special counsel investigation.

From The Weekly Standard, by Mr Eric Felten, 27 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

For example, it was quickly noted by scholars of the Steele dossier that the House document reveals (or, if one is dubious of the House Intel majority’s credibility, one can say “asserts” instead) that it was President Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper, who helped engineer the public release of the dossier.  That release may well be the essential act in producing the special counsel investigation that continues to hang over the Trump administration.

Here’s what makes the dossier release essential—and no, it isn’t that the release exposed credible evidence of collusion: After more than a year of investigations there is still no evidence (at least no evidence that has been made public) corroborating the dossier’s significant allegations against Trump.  Rather, without the publication of the dossier, President Trump would not have pressed FBI director James Comey to prove the dossier’s allegations false.  That pressure is central to the narrative that Trump fired Comey in an effort to obstruct the bureau’s Russia investigation.  That narrative led to the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel; the question of whether the president attempted to obstruct justice is reportedly the main issue Mueller’s team is still investigating.

So how did the dossier get released? It’s important to remember that, for all of its treatment as some kind of “intelligence” report, the dossier was no sort of official intelligence at all.  It was Clinton-funded opposition research.  The tight wraps on the dossier came not from any government prohibition on its publication, but because the many media outlets in possession of the document were hesitant to make public claims that, for all their efforts, they had been unable to verify, confirm, or corroborate.

The thing is, if you scream "Hitler" often enough you begin to believe it.  The end result is that you feel you must act as though the President really was the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler.

The question is, how far are folks willing to go?

From Breitbart we have this headline today:  "Dershowitz:  Dems ‘Prepared to Eliminate Civil Liberties’ to Get Trump – I’m Also Critical of GOP on This".

The first paragraph reads:

On Saturday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz stated, “Democrats and left-wingers obviously think President Trump is the devil, and they’re prepared to eliminate civil liberties.”  He also criticized Republicans for their trying to expand criminal law and grounds for impeachment to go after the Clintons.
I immediately flash on the scene between Saint Thomas more and his son-in-law, Hugh Roper, in A Man for All Seasons.  And two paragraphs down the article makes the same point.

And, the Professor finishes up:

It’s always a mistake to expand the criminal law or the grounds for impeachment against your political enemies.  Because it’s going to come back to bite you in the rear end.
Professor Dershowitz is not wrong here.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

  Giving rise to the expression, "Drink their own bathwater."

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Doing One's Duty

For John, BLUFHow do we restore ethical credibility at DOJ?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Here is the sub-headline:

His critics may be more corrupting to democracy and decency than he is.

From The Wall Street Journal, an Opinion Piece by Mr William McGurn, 23 April 2018.

Here is a bullet point from Mr McGrun which I find pointing to an especially unethical approach:

  • When Sally Yates was acting attorney general and President Trump issued an executive order on immigration she objected to, Ms. Yates ordered the entire Justice Department not to obey, despite a finding from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel that the order was lawful.  She was applauded in her insubordination by Andrew Weissmann, then a Justice attorney, who now serves on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team.  But it’s all for a good cause, right?
I don't dispute Ms Yates' right to find something to be illegal, although the finding of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel should have given her pause.  And, if she felt something was unethical or immoral she would have been within her rights.  And, every employee owes the boss a "But, Sir".  It is a duty one owes to one's supervisor.

It seems that this is not what we got from Acting Attorney General Yates.  It appears she decided that she should just say no to the President.  Not the kind of thing one should expect from Executive Branch Civil Servants, let alone those filling appointed positions.  This was just wrong.  She should have just submitted her resignation.

What is equally disturbing is that DOJ Attorney Andrew Weissmann applauded the activities of Ms Yates in circumvention of a lawful Presidential Order.  Having thus demonstrated an animus toward President Trump, he then failed to recuse himself from the work of the Special Counsel.  Mr Weissmann's actions may not violate the ethical rules of DOJ, but I find it to be unethical in a larger sense.  Why would I place any faith in Mr Weissmann's work for the Special Counsel?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Justice Delayed

For John, BLUFHere is another reason to think the courts are non funzionale.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From The Boston Globe and the keyboard of Crack Reporter Joshua Miller, 24 April 2018.

If you want to learn about the sordid details you can go to the link, where Reporter Josh Miller lays it all out in a well crafted article.

My concern is that the trial date is set for 25 March 2019.  That is almost a year from now.  How is that justice for Mr Hefner?  How is that justice for those who claim they were his victims.

Regards  —  Cliff

Entering Uncharted Territory

For John, BLUFIf Donald Trump's election cannot be allowed to stand, then there are only a small number of paths left if he can't be eased out of office via impeachment.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Here is the sub-headline:

When legal bloodhounds and baying critics fail to take out Trump, what’s next? The Resistance wants Trump’s head — on the chopping block.

From National Review, by Professor Victor Davis Hanson, 24 April 2018.

Here are the first two paragraphs:

n the domestic and foreign fronts, the Trump administration has prompted economic growth and restored U.S. deterrence.  Polls show increased consumer confidence, and in some, Trump himself has gained ground.  Yet good news is bad news to the Resistance and its strange continued efforts to stop an elected president in a way it failed to do in the 2016 election.

Indeed, the aim of the so-called Resistance to Donald J. Trump is ending Trump’s presidency by any means necessary before the 2020 election.  Or, barring that, it seeks to so delegitimize him that he becomes presidentially impotent.  It has been only 16 months since Trump took office and, in the spirit of revolutionary fervor, almost everything has been tried to derail him.  Now we are entering uncharted territory — at a time when otherwise the country is improving and the legal exposure of Trump’s opponents increases daily.

I think this is a pretty fair description of the situation, and the Resistance.

Then we get a recap of recent history

First came the failed lawsuits after the election alleging voting-machine tampering.  Then there was the doomed celebrity effort to convince some state electors not to follow their constitutional duty and to deny Trump the presidency — a gambit that, had it worked, would have wrecked the Constitution.  Then came the pathetic congressional boycott of the inauguration and the shrill nationwide protests against the president.

Next was the sad effort to introduce articles of impeachment.  After that came weird attempts to cite Trump for violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.  That puerile con was followed by plans to declare him deranged and mentally unfit so that he could be removed under the 25th Amendment.  From time to time, Obama holdovers in the DOJ, National Security Council, and FBI sought to leak information, or they refused to carry out presidential orders.

As the Resistance goes from one ploy to the next, it ignores its string of failed prior efforts, forgetting everything and learning nothing.  State nullification is no longer neo-Confederate but an any-means-necessary progressive tool.  Suing the government weekly is proof of revolutionary fides, not a waste of California’s taxpayer dollars.

The event that really stands out for me is Acting Attorney General Sally Yates refusing to implement a Presidential Order with regard to Immigration.  Sure, every subordinate owes the boss a "But, Sir".  However, it didn't appear, from the news reports, that Ms Yates asked to meet with the President to put her position to him one-on-one.  And, she didn't tender her resignation, which would have been the honorable thing to do when one feels there is an ethical or legal impediment to executing the order.  No, she just told President Trump to pound sand.  Not very professional  Does she feel the Department of Justice is independent of the Executive Branch?  Where did she go to law school?  .

Here is how Professor Hanson wraps it up:

The danger to the country this time around is that the Left has so destroyed the old protocols of the opposition party that it will be hard to resurrect them when progressives return to power.

We are entering revolutionary times.  The law is no longer equally applied. The media are the ministry of truth.  The Democratic party is a revolutionary force.  And it is all getting scary.

From this article I take it that the author thinks if Special Counsel Mueller strikes out, in the end, and especially if the Boston Globe touted Blue Tsunami doesn’t happen in November, that the Progressives/Never Trumpers only have revolutionary violence remaining.  The Author alludes to the French Revolution and the Committee of Public Safety.  That would not be good.  That would not be good because what comes next is Madame La Guillotine, or some suitable substitute.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

California to Vote on Dividing in November

For John, BLUFThere are major cultural differences amongst the various regions of California.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

The original article is from CBS New, 13 April 2018.

Here is how the article begins:

California voters may soon be asked to decide whether their state is too big and should broken into three, separate states.  Venture capitalist Tim Draper, who pushed for a six-state proposal, now has a three-state proposal called "CAL3," according to CBS San Francisco.

Draper did not have enough signatures to get his six-state measure on the California ballot in 2016.  For this new proposal, he needs 366,000 signatures.  On Thursday, he announced that he has more than 600,000 signatures.

"I'm proud to announce we've collected more than enough signatures to qualify for the 2018 ballot," Draper said.

Here is The New York Times map of the proposed division of California, come the Election in November:

This would not be the first attempt to divide California.  And it shouldn't appear strange to people from Massachusetts.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Deep State

For John, BLUFYou know the score.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Here is the sub-headline:

Jack Goldsmith, writing in the Guardian, tells us that the “deep state” is real and dangerous. His assertions carry weight for two reasons.

From the Power Line Blog, by Mr Paul Mirengoff, 22 April 2018.

You can read the Power Line Blog here, or the original Guardian article here, or you can buy the book Mr Goldsmith is flogging, Power and Constraint, here.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The DNC Sues

For John, BLUFThis seems like an unforced error on the part of the Democratic Party Apparatchiks.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From the Pope Hat Blog, by Mr Ken White, 23 April 2018.

This relates to the Democratic National Committee lawsuit against the Trump Campaign, which was dropped last week.

Here is a key paragraph:

First, federal judges hate RICO.  They hate it because it's unseriously overused by litigants without enough confidence to let their core substantive claims speak for themselves.  There are three groups that use RICO indiscriminately:  pro se litigants complaining that the Bureau of Indian Affairs implanted SatNav in their junk, plaintiffs' attorneys of the sort who go to court in a sports coat they keep in their glove compartment, and professional vexatious litigants.  That's why many federal judges often have standard orders they issue in civil RICO cases that say, in effect, "you think you have a valid RICO claim?  Fine, answer these 20 complicated questions to help me sort it out."  Judges don't do that for other claims.  So:  when you come into court with a RICO claim, you start (at best) with the judge suspicious of your professionalism and credibility.
In the depth of my heart I wonder if this lawsuit will end up just being an embarrassment for the Democrats.

And, I wonder, as this unwinds, if President Trump will give Mr Julian Assange a pardon (and cut a deal with Teresa May to let him leave the Ecuador Embassy to travel to the States), so he can come to the US to testify.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Monday, April 23, 2018

Educational Collapse

For John, BLUFYes, some of the ten suggest a failure of leadership.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From The Educators Room, by Educator Jeremy S. Adams, 16 April 2018.

It is a quick read and nicely organized, with ten short topics and explanations for each.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Tenth Amendment Democrats (For Now)

For John, BLUFI think of Senator Schumer as a bit of a grand stander.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Here is the sub-headline:

Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren want states to decide their own marijuana policies. They're big federalism fans — when the GOP's running America.

From USA Today, by Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, 23 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

If hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, then Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has delivered a whopping tribute to the constitutional doctrine of federalism.

In a series of tweets, he announced:  “Today, I am formally announcing my plan to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level.  It’s time we allow states, once and for all, to have the power to decide what works best for them.  I have long believed that states should function as their own laboratories of democracy.  My bill is a step in the right direction aimed at removing the barriers to state legalization efforts.” —

Schumer was joined by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who said: “The federal government needs to get out of the business of outlawing marijuana.  States should make their own decisions about enforcing marijuana laws.”

Ah, the idea that the individual States are the “laboratories of democracy” meme.  I think it is just political opportunism.  But, when you are losing to President Trump you need to exploit your opportunities.

Here are my thoughts on Mary Jane:

  1. It should be legal, like alcohol.
  2. It is bad for you, but, free will and all that.
  3. Smoking it in public is not just impolite, but perhaps bad for the health of those around you.
  4. No Government entity is going to make money off the taxing of the sale of marijuana.
  5. People under the age of 23, at which point the brain is pretty well formed, should be banned from using it
The Author, Professor Reynolds, the InstaPundit, wonders, further into the article, if Senators Schumer and Warren would feel the same way about guns and abortion.  I doubt they would.  I doubt they are all that happy with the Electoral College.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Justice For All

For John, BLUFThis is becoming a little like the Salam Witch Hunts.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From The Boston Globe, by WGBH Co-Hoast Ms Margery Eagan, 23 April 2018.

This is the #MeToo issue and the current moral panic over sexual harassment.  In this case it is about US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who was accused of sexual harassment by Ms Anita Hill.  The Accusations didn't prevent Justice Thomas' confirmation back in 1991.

The OpEd is just throwing stuff at the wall.  There is no suggestion that US Rep Seth Mouton introduce articles of Impeachment and that Senator E Warren lead the prosecution in the Senate.  Should we have demonstrations on Boston Common until Justice Thomas sets down?

If sexual harassment is as pervasive as is being suggested we need to find a path to rehabilitation and reconciliation, lest we find ourselves with millions of otherwise qualified men out of work and living on the dole, pariahs in our society, perhaps moving toward being derelicts.

I expect better of Ms Egan.  What is the path forward?  Remember, this isn't just about a couple of hundred Hollywood big wigs, plus Woody Allen.  We are talking about millions of unregenerated men across the fruited plain.

If you have any suggests for helping us avert a major economic and moral disaster, send them to Ms Egan, at WGBH.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sunday, April 22, 2018

Democrat Apparatchiks Try To Control Primaries

For John, BLUFWhat California has done will upset your plan for primaries.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

It is The Old Gray Lady and Reporter Alexander Burns, 21 April 2018.

This is about where I voted for almost thee decades; Orange Count, California.  Except that now they have changed the rules and there is a common primary election, with the top two, regardless of party, going to the General Election, in November.  That means that the General Election could be a Democrat vs a Republican or two Democrats or two Republicans.

Here is how the story starts:

The Democrats’ message to Mai Khanh Tran was polite but unsparing.  With half a dozen Democrats running for Congress in her Orange County district, they showed her a discouraging poll and argued that she could not win — and risked fracturing the party in the June primary election.

Ms. Tran pointedly replied that she was “the only qualified woman, the only immigrant and the only physician in the race.”

“I said to them, frankly, let the voters decide,” recalled Ms. Tran, a pediatrician.

The national Democratic Party was not chastened:  On Wednesday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took sides in that House race and backed Gil Cisneros, a Navy veteran and former Republican.

With their forceful intervention in Orange County, national Democrats have lunged into an impatient new phase of the 2018 primary season — one in which they are clashing more openly with candidates and local political chieftains in their drive to assemble a slate of recruits for the midterms.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the National Party arrives in our 3rd Congressional District, here in Massachusetts.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Do We Really Know the Facts Regarding Guns?

For John, BLUFYes, defensive gun use is a thing, and a big thing.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Here is the sub-headline:

CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year.  That matches the results of Gary Kleck's controversial surveys, and it indicates more defensive than offensive uses of guns.

From Reason Magazine, by Mr Brian Doherty, 20 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

Many people who support gun control are angry that the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are not legally allowed to use money from Congress to do research whose purpose is "to advocate or promote gun control."  (This is not the same as doing no research into gun violence, though it seems to discourage many potential recipients of CDC money.)

But in the 1990s, the CDC itself did look into one of the more controversial questions in gun social science:  How often do innocent Americans use guns in self-defense, and how does that compare to the harms guns can cause in the hands of violent criminals?

It is free.  Read the whole article.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Rules (and Common Sense) Ignored

For John, BLUFAre there no ethics down in DC?  Rules for thee, but not for me?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From the Blog Site, The Future of Capitolism, by Mr Ira Stoll, 20 April 2018.

Here is how it starts off:

A federal judge is threatening to appoint a "private prosecutor" to press a criminal investigation about FBI leaks to the press in an insider trading case.

The Justice Department opened a criminal investigation in December 2016 into the leaks.  But progress has been slow, or opaque, enough that Judge P. Kevin Castel of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York issued a two-page order on April 2, 2018, raising the prospect of hiring his own lawyer.

This has nothing to do with Russiagate.  But, it is a bad sign that a Federal Judge is upset about leaking by the FBI.

When I was a junior functionary in the Pentagon I thought that those who leaked information, always in the furtherance of their personal agenda, were unethical low lifes.  I still lean that way.  Earn it by the power of your arguments or go away.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

"The Fundamental Things Apply"

For John, BLUFWho hSN'T SEEN Casablanca?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Here is the sub-headline:

The story behind the movie that defines the movies is one of immigrants, timing and a “son of a bitch” director.

From The New Statesman, (UK), by Mr Tom Shone, 14 April 2018.

Just another look at Casablanca, a timeless movie.

Play it Sam, Play "As Time Goes By"
Funnily, two lines go:
Yet we get a trifle weary With Mr. Einstein's theory.
But yet it still had an important role to play just a couple of years on.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Looking at Looking at Global Warming

For John, BLUFColor commentary rather than facts.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From L'Ombre de l'Olivier, by Mr Francis Turner, 19 April 2018.

It starts:

The Wapo (Tagline – Where Journalism Dies in Darkness) has an article about how Climate Change Glowball Worming is harming Virginia, The article is risible on many levels and is pretty much a regurgitation of a PR from the Natural Resources Defense Council without querying any of the rather iffy things that the NRDC claims. Therefore it needs a good fisking to set the story straight.
It isn't a great fisking, but it is a good fisking.

I am with the author, who characterizes himself thusly:

Full disclosure I’m what is generally known as a “Lukewarmer” climate skeptic – i.e.  I think the earth has warmed in the 20th century and humanity (and CO2 emissions) may be responsible for some of that warming, however I don’t think future warming is likely to amount to much and is highly unlikely to be catastrophic
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Friday, April 20, 2018

Lack of Self-Control on the Left

For John, BLUFWe need to be sensitive to anti-Semitism around us, as it is the canary in the mineshaft.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From The Daily Wire, by Mr Hank Berrien, 20 April 2018.

Here are the key two paragraphs:

The Washington, D.C. council member who triggered a volume of criticism for insinuating Jews control the weather and later ditched a U.S. Holocaust Memorial tour halfway through the tour, has now been accused of making a donation to the very event at which vehement racist and anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan made virulent anti-Semitic remarks.

Trayon White Sr. (D-Ward 8) has been asked for details of the $500 donation he made to the Nation of Islam’s Saviours’ Day Event in Chicago, where Farrakhan declared “powerful Jews are my enemy,” and stated Jews “were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out turning men into women and women into men.”

The casual anti-semitism of the left is very bothersome.

And, this fits in with the City Journal "Delusions of Justice" article.  The sub-headline was "American Jews should wake up to which side their most dangerous enemies are on."  The author is Mr Joel Kotkin, on 19 April 2018.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

"OUCH! David Axelrod pours ICE-COLD water on DNC’s lawsuit, and the Dems WON’T like it"

"What is Truth?"

For John, BLUFSince I moved up here to Massachusetts I have also come to have my doubts about The Boston Globe.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Here is the sub-headline:

The newspaper’s ‘fake news’ about books

From National Review, by Mr Dennis Prager, 17 April 2018.

Mr Prager, a published author, starts out as follows:

About half the American people do not believe the mainstream media tell the truth.  They believe the media are more interested in promoting their left-wing views than reporting the truth.

I am, I note with sadness, a member of that half.

Here is but one more example: the New York Times best-seller list.

As a writer (who, for the record, had a previous book on that list), I have long known it isn’t a best-seller list, and I don’t pay attention to it.  But I paid attention last week to see whether my recently published book, which opened up on Amazon as the second-best-selling book in America, was on the list.  It wasn’t.

It isn't like all the news is fake, but one has to be careful.  As with all research, one needs to include control groups, just to be sure.

In the old days,s before I retired retired I would buy the Sunday Edition of The Old Gray Lady, mostly for MoDo's column and the Book Review.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Thursday, April 19, 2018

Working Together

For John, BLUFThe Bridge Rule is "A cheap trick now costs you later".  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From Twitchy, by Greg P, 17 April 2018.

From the article:

Here’s a little tidbit from yesterday’s Michael Cohen hearing that’s pretty interesting…

According to reports from inside the courtroom, Judge Kimba Wood was ready to allow Michael Cohen to submit the name of his 3rd client — who we now know is Sean Hannity — under seal, but an attorney for CNN and the New York Times convinced her otherwise.

I just want to see other media going after CNN and The Old Gray Lady with friend of court briefs, just to keep it even.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

The Beginning of the End, at Least They Hope

For John, BLUFIf you think Progressives tend to be atheists, you missed the absolute faith they have in the eventual impeachment or resignation of President Trump.  Some even believe that Mrs Hillary Clinton will return as President.  This is wilder than the Apocalypse of Saint John.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Here is the sub-headline:

Unless you can explain exactly how he gets impeached or why he resigns.

From Slate, by Mr Jim Newell, 16 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

Democrats and some concerned Republicans have been warning for months that firing special counsel Robert Mueller would be a point of no return for President Donald Trump.  That speculative frontier advanced even further over the weekend, after the New Yorker’s Adam Davidson declared that the Trump presidency has now entered its “end stages,” following a raid on the office and hotel room of Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen.  What these predictions rather conspicuously lack is any attempt to explain precisely the series of events that would be Trump’s formal undoing.

In the case of Mueller’s firing, Democrats, in typical Democratic Party fashion, have coalesced behind a talking point first used by a Republican in which they find some powerful, unifying value.  South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has been saying all along that such a move would mark “the beginning of the end” of Trump’s presidency.  When I asked Democratic senators last week whether firing Mueller would be an impeachable offense, they declined to answer, echoing Graham’s warning about the “beginning of the end” of Trump’s presidency.

Democrats say this because they don’t believe that raising the specter of impeachment is politically wise, especially when they’re in no position to make good on such a threat.  Democrats don’t control either chamber of Congress, and they’re not at all sure that firing Mueller would plummet Trump’s support among Republican voters and convince GOP congressmen to help impeach him.  In other words, they have no idea whether firing Mueller would mark “the beginning of the end” of Trump’s presidency.  It could just kick his approval rating into the lower 30s until a few news cycles pass, after which the Trump presidency returns to being generally unpopular but potentially survivable.

Democrats have no idea whether firing Mueller would mark “the beginning of the end” of Trump’s presidency.  But forget about Mueller.  The new rage is the investigation into Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen, whose office and hotel room agents from the Southern District of New York raided last week.  With the investigation—both investigations?  All investigations?—now turning toward Trump’s business and personal dealings, the public will see a fuller presentation of the Trump Organization’s crookedness and shabby infrastructure.

Mr Newell references a The New Yorker article by Mr Adam Davidson, on 14 April, "Michael Cohen and the End Stage of the Trump Presidency".  Mr Davidson is apparently not a deep believer.  His article doesn't mention the Second Coming of Hillary Clinton, but it is full of hope.  Here is the Conclusion:
Of course Trump is raging and furious and terrified.  Prosecutors are now looking at his core. Cohen was the key intermediary between the Trump family and its partners around the world; he was chief consigliere and dealmaker throughout its period of expansion into global partnerships with sketchy oligarchs.  He wasn’t a slick politico who showed up for a few months.  He knows everything, he recorded much of it, and now prosecutors will know it, too.  It seems inevitable that much will be made public.  We don’t know when.  We don’t know the precise path the next few months will take.  There will be resistance and denial and counterattacks.  But it seems likely that, when we look back on this week, we will see it as a turning point.  We are now in the end stages of the Trump Presidency.
As Alexander Pope said:
Hope springs eternal in the human breast
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Questions Never Asked

For John, BLUFSo here is an example of how the media is not interested in the truth, just the narrative.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Here is the sub-headline:

The former FBI director, during his book tour, fielded plenty of questions about the behavior of President Donald Trump

From Polizette, by Ms Kathryn Blackhurst, 18 Apr 2018.

Here is the lede plus three:

When WTOP’s Joan Jones asked former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday if the “smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails” during the investigation into Hillary Clinton was “obstruction of justice,” Comey said that he had never been asked that question before.

“You have raised the specter of obstruction of justice charges with the president of the United States,” Jones said to Comey concerning his new book, “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.”  The book was released earlier this week.

“Some are asking, though, ‘Why wouldn’t smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation clearly be obstruction of justice?'” Jones asked Comey.

Comey replied, “Now that’s a great question.  That’s the first time I’ve been asked that.”

Frankly, this says more about the Press than it does about Mr Comey.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Monday, April 16, 2018

Schumer as Sampson

For John, BLUFThe Democrats remind me of the phrase from my childhood:  "You would bite off your nose to spite your face."  Nothing to see here; just move along.

This was back on 10 April 2018.  It is from The Hill, by Reporter Jordain Carney.

Here is the lede plus one:

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned President Trump on Tuesday that removing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would spark a "constitutional crisis" given the Justice Department official's role overseeing the special counsel probe.

"I’d like to make something crystal clear to the president:  Mr. President, any attempt to remove Rod Rosenstein will create the exact same constitutional crisis as if you fired special counsel [Robert] Mueller," Schumer told reporters on Tuesday.

I would think the Senate Minority Leader threatening the President of the United States, a member of the other party, is, of and in itself, a Constitutional Crisis.  One can only conclude that if the Democrats get their "Blue Wave" in November that Senator Schumer and his ilk will come after the President hammer and tong.  It will be ugly and it will be just the playing out of a Constitutional Crisis in which the Democrats continue to dispute the results of the 2016 Election.

And think what this will mean for 2020.  If the Democrats win the White House in that election, say with Joe Biden at the head of their ticket, smearing all Republicans as Racists, will there be any self-respecting Republican who will accept the outcome as fair and legitimate?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Judge Harry Stone (RIP)

For John, BLUFI always enjoyed the show.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From Variety, by Reporter Cynthia Littleton, 16 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

Harry Anderson, the amiable actor who presided over the NBC comedy “Night Court” for nine seasons, has died at his home in Asheville, N.C., according to a local media report.  He was 65.
On Night Court he gave us all hope for justice.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

R Lee Ermey, (RIP)

For John, BLUFA great actor.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From Breitbart, by Reporter John Note, 16 Apr 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

Actor R. Lee Ermey, who died at 74 of pneumonia Sunday morning, was Exhibit A in the New Hollywood Blacklist.  After criticizing Barack Obama in 2010, Ermey’s thriving film career immediately dried up.  Even after apologizing, he was ostracized, fired by GEICO insurance and never did another commercial.  After disappearing completely for a few years, he managed to appear in a couple of C-grade reality shows in the last few years of his life.

Iconic and talented, Ermey was a walking-talking example of left-wing Hollywood’s intolerance toward those they condemn as thought criminals.

Ermey, who was known to his friends as “Gunny,” enlisted in the Marines in 1961 when he was only 17, and spent 14 months in Vietnam before earning a honorable discharge after 11 years of service.

I have never seen the movie Full Metal Jacket, but the character played by Mr Ermey is, even in the outtakes, iconic.

He voted for Senator Barack Obama for President and then two years later became disillusioned, and made the mistake of saying so publicly.  And thus he was blacklisted by Hollywood.

A Marine.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sunday, April 15, 2018

DAG Rosenstein Feels He Did Right

For John, BLUFThere is still a lot to learn about DOJ in 2016.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From The Daily Wire, by Mr Ryan Saavedra, 13 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

On Friday, a newly-released report revealed that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has allegedly told multiple people in private conversations that he did the right thing by firing disgraced former FBI Director James Comey, insisting that the American public does not yet have all the facts about him.

Rosenstein has reportedly told confidantes that he is prepared to be fired, saying that he is at peace with the likelihood because he knows he did the job with integrity.  NBC News reports:

Rosenstein has said in recent private conversations that history will prove he did the right thing by firing Comey in May 2017, claiming that the American people do not have all the facts about what led to his decision to write the memo that led to Comey's dismissal, the sources said.
For those of you who don't trust The Daily Wire, he is a Link to the original NBC News article.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is standing on a windy corner.  I wish him well.

And, I am looking forward to reading the DOJ IG Report, " A Report of Investigation of Certain Allegations Relating to Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe",which has gone to the US Congress.  The public release does have redactions.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saturday, April 14, 2018

Never Getting It Right

For John, BLUFWith the Feds tell the truth or take the Fifth.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From the Ace of Spades, on 13 April 2018.

Jake is wrong.  Mr I Lewis Libby didn't leak the name.  Just flat out wrong.

Incidentally, Mr Lewis was not convicted of "burning" Ms Valerie Plsme, but of lying to the FBI.

O F F E N S I V E   L A N G U A G E   W A R N I N G
Not here, but at the link at the top.

President Trump did give Mr Lewis a full pardon on Friday the 13th.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

  Full disclosure, while in the Pentagon for my second tour I interacted with Mr Lewis, a little.
  While Mr Lewis did get his law license back, it took President Trump to give him the pardon.
  Yes, it is OK for the Feds to lie to you, but not for you to lie to the Feds.  I think that is very un-American.

Whither Mueller?

For John, BLUFThis soap opera will probably go on for years.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From The San Jose Mercury, on Friday the 13th (of April), Professor Victor Davis Hanson, talks to the future of the Special Council Probe.

Here are his options for the future:

One, Mueller can wind up his investigations now.  He can write a report affirming that he has found no evidence while conducting his originally assigned inquiry:  Donald Trump did not collude with the Russians to throw the election hisway.

Two, Mueller might pause and await Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report concerning possible Department of Justice and FBI abuses pertaining to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court.

Three, Mueller could continue to investigate anyone close to the Trump campaign for another year.  If he did that, he would confirm that his inquiry has descended into a political cause.  If Mueller calibrates the release of his findings to the fall midterm elections, he will be hailed by Trump opponents as a crusading prosecutor — despite finding nothing related to collusion.  A Democratic takeover of Congress would shut down congressional investigations of FBI and DOJ wrongdoing and further empower Mueller.

Four, Mueller couldbmore evenly apply his investigations of lying, obstruction of justice and collusion during the 2016 campaign.  For example, in his search for instances of lying, Mueller might also re-examine the false testimonies given to investigators by McCabe and by Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin.

I think the old wine grower sums it up nicely.

Frankly, whatever Mr Mueller does after about Independence Day will influence the election adversely for the Republicans, unless he comes out and says that the Democrats (or FBI/DOJ) were trying to stage a coup against President Trump.  Baring that finding it will appear to many Republicans, if the report comes out at that point or later, that Mr Mueller was colluding with Nancy and Chuck to influence the US elections in November  However, those in the undecided middle will probably go with the Democrats.

However, the WORST possible outcome would be for Mr Mueller to dump his report, on say 1 August, and have the Republicans retain control of both houses.  That would cause the Democrats to restate, more boldly, their claim of Russian collusion and interference.

I do wonder what the writer would think of my thesis of Trump as Dreyfus?

Do you think there is a sign, somewhere in the Special Prosecutor spaces, that reads:  “Winning is Everything.  Ethics is for Losers.”

Hat tip to my Brother Lance.

Regards  —  Cliff

  Baring Kim Jung-un becoming President Trump's best buddy and giving up his nuclear weapons program.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

And What Did He Do About It?

For John, BLUFIt is beginning to appear that Special Counsel Robert Mueller, appealing to the same higher morality that former FBI Director James Comey appeals to, has the ethics of an Andrew Weissmann.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Do you think the Special Counsel spaces holds a sign that reads:

Winning is Everything.
Ethics is for Losers.

From The Boston Herald and the computer of Howie Carr, Thursday, 12 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus six:

What did Bob Mueller know about the FBI’s framing of four innocent men for a murder they didn’t commit, and when did he know it?

This is an important question for the “special counsel,” and for two days I’ve been emailing his press office, asking for answers about his tenure in the U.S. attorney’s office here, specifically, his time as acting US attorney in 1986-87.

No response.  Zip, zero, nada.

This is a major FBI scandal, perhaps the most outrageous one in American history.  The FBI railroaded four men to prison for a murder the G-men knew they did not commit, and then made sure they remained in prison for upwards of 30 years.

They (or their estates, because two of them died in prison) were eventually awarded a total of $102 million in 2007 by a federal judge for false imprisonment.

The four men were Henry Tameleo, Peter Limone, Louis Greco and Joseph Salvati.  They were convicted of murdering a small-time hoodlum named Teddy Deegan in a Chelsea alley in March 1965.  An FBI informant named Joe Barboza committed perjury in a state trial in 1968, to settle some old scores and protect one of his old friends, another serial killer who was the brother of another serial-killing FBI informant.

The FBI knew Barboza was lying. On March 19, 1965, one of the crooked G-men in the office, who later died in a prison hospital while under indictment for a 1981 gangland hit in Tulsa, wrote a memo to J. Edgar Hoover pointing out the names of the actual murderers of Deegan.

And then there is this take.  Newsmax, back on Sunday, 8 April of this year had this headline:  "Alan Dershowitz Rips Special Counsel Mueller as 'a Partisan and Zealot'".  And the same frame up of four innocent men comes up in the article.  The reporter is Mr Eric Mack.

Ripping FBI special counsel Robert Mueller as a political "zealot," Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz reminded staunch Mueller supporters about the former FBI director's role in protecting "notorious mass murderer" Whitey Bulger as an FBI informant.

"I think Mueller is a zealot," Dershowitz told "The Cats Roundtable" on 970 AM-N.Y. ". . .  I don't think he cares whether he hurts Democrats or Republicans, but he's a partisan and zealot.

"He's the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of Whitey Bulger as an FBI informer.  Those of us in Boston don't have such a high regard for Mueller because we remember this story.  The government had to pay out tens of millions of dollars because Whitey Bulger, a notorious mass murderer, became a government informer against the mafia ...

Yes, my membership in the ACLU has lapsed, because they are doing nothing for us.  They even rolled over for the raid on President Trump's personal lawyer, Mr Cohen.  Not even a whimper.

Hat tip to the The Howie Carr Show.

Regards  —  Cliff

  Blind rage against another person can be an ugly thing.  Worse is a self-righteous belief that one is saving the world from pure evil.

As Pure As Caesar's Wife

For John, BLUFMaybe we are returning to a more traditional Puritanism.  Or maybe we are just going to jettison all standards.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From The Hill, by Ms Jacqueline Thomsen, 11 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

FBI agents who raided the office of President Trump’s personal lawyer sought records related to the 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape released shortly before the 2016 election, The New York Times reported Wednesday. The agents wanted records related to the tape, in which Trump can be heard talking about grabbing and kissing women without their consent. They also were looking for any evidence that the lawyer, Michael Cohen, had tried to conceal damaging information about Trump during the election, sources briefed on the warrant told the Times.
If this is the direction the Special Counsel investigation is going it is surely going to set a new, higher, standard with regard to political campaigns.  There will be no more hiding of information from the public.  We will expect to know about all peccadillos. 

I guess no more President Bill Clintons.

Or maybe our standards will change.

Regards  —  Cliff

  Will it be going too far to ask if any of the prosecutors have strayed from the straight and narrow if they go after Mr Trump or his Lawyer for trying to hid previous dalliances.

Lawyering Up

For John, BLUFThis is an interesting development.  I wonder if the Special Counsel war gamed this?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Here is the sub-headline:

The move could be a gambit to obtain evidence from the U.S. and force a public trial without putting individuals at risk of prison.

From Politico, by Mr Josh Gerstein, 11 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus three:

A Russian company criminally charged with interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election formally notified a federal judge Wednesday that it has retained U.S. attorneys — a move that could be a bid to gain access to evidence that special counsel Robert Mueller's office gathered in preparing the case.

Two Washington-area attorneys — Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of law firm Reed Smith — filed official appearances on behalf of Concord Management and Consulting.

The firm is one of three companies and 13 individuals charged in a February grand jury indictment with using social media and various agents in the U.S. to foment political and social discord here before and after the 2016 election through a St. Petersburg-based enterprise known as the Internet Research Agency.

When the criminal case was filed, many legal experts predicted it would lie dormant indefinitely and never go to trial because none of the defendants were likely to set foot in the U.S. or in a country from which they could be readily extradited. However, no individual is required to appear on behalf of a corporate defendant, other than a lawyer for the company.

The thing about giving corporations personhood is that they, the corporation, can go to court.  Here is how University of Michigan law professor David Uhlmann, a former Justice Department official puts it:
A corporation under U.S. law enjoys personhood status and is entitled to many of the same procedural protections as individuals, including the right to counsel and the right to trial by jury.  A corporate criminal defendant also has the same right to obtain discovery of the case against it.
Maybe the Government will drop the case, just to avoid having to disclose what they know, including exculpatory information.  It is an interesting move.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Working Together

For John, BLUFWe, as a nation, are closely divided.  We need to look for ways to work together.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From The New York Post, by Salena Zito, 7 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus five:

APPOMATTOX, VA. — On April 9, 1865, Gen. Robert E. Lee strode onto the porch of a two-story brick home and stared out at a lawn filled with Union soldiers, his Confederate staff of two, and his horse Traveler.

Still wearing full military dress, Lee raised his gloved hands and punched his left fist into his right palm.  The sound of leather meeting leather echoed in the unsteady silence.

Then, as Lee mounted Traveler, Major Gen. Ulysses S. Grant emerged from the house onto the porch.

Now facing each other, Grant raised his hat, as did Lee. It wasn’t a salute, but clearly an acknowledgment of the moment.

As Lee turned towards the dirt road and headed east towards his troops, the 198th Pennsylvania Infantry played “Auld Lang Syne.”

The Civil War was over.

The resolution wasn't perfect, but General Grant was magnanimous.

Here is the end of the article:

As the two generals waited for their treaty to be prepared in McLean’s parlor, Grant introduced Lee to his staff, including Lt. Col. Ely Parker, a Seneca Indian, who later recalled their exchange.

“It’s good to see one real American here today,” Lee told him.

“General, we are all Americans today,” Parker replied.

Grant and Lee understood that a divided nation is a toxic nation — and that moment 153 years ago should serve as a reminder for all of us, to not just look to the bad and condemn, but to look to the good and apply it to our lives today.

We need to remember, as Americans, that things have been worse, but, working as one nation we have improved our lives.  We are not perfect, but we have come a long way, together.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Keep Your Thoughts To Yourself

For John, BLUFWe have to do a good job of opening up space for alternative ideas, because that is how we grow.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

This is about Penn State Law Professor Amy Wax, who has published, with University of San Diego Law Professor Larry Alexander, an Opinion Piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer (9 August 2017), "Paying the price for breakdown of the country's bourgeois culture".  This was summed up by The Daily Pennsylvanian here.

So, Professor Wax was sent to Coventry by the Penn Law School leadership.

From The Daily Pennsylvanian, by Ms Sarah Fortinsky, 9 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

Penn Trustee Emeritus and Penn Law School Overseer Paul Levy sent a letter of resignation to Penn President Amy Gutmann on April 6 over recent actions taken against Penn Law School professor Amy Wax.  A copy of the letter was also sent to The Daily Pennsylvanian.

As of April 9, Levy is no longer listed as a member of Penn's Board of Trustees or a member of the Penn Law Board of Overseers.

"Preventing Wax from teaching first-year students doesn't right academic or social wrongs," Levy wrote in the letter.  "Rather, you are suppressing what is crucial to the liberal educational project:  open, robust and critical debate over differing views of important social issues."

I am glad to see Mr Paul Levy stand up for free speech and free thought.  Maybe it will be a trend.

Or not.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Approved Before Disapproved

For John, BLUFOur belief in majority rule and minority rights seems to be going away.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

The Word of the Day is "defenestration" — "the action of throwing someone or something out of a window:  death by defenestration has a venerable history."

From American Greatness, by Ms Charlotte Allen, 10 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

ast week, as former National Review writer Kevin D. Williamson was defenestrated abruptly from his brand-new post as token “conservative” columnist for the Atlantic over his hardline stance on abortion, I was going through a bit of an abrupt left-wing defenestration of my own. So, Kevin: #MeToo.

I was curtly and unexpectedly barred from covering the 19th annual White Privilege Conference in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for the Weekly Standard, even though:  1) I had signed up for a press badge at least a month in advance, carefully and honestly identifying my conservative-press affiliation (the conference has been afflicted by right-wing reporters passing themselves off as participants, but I don’t do undercover); 2) I agreed in writing to an elaborate set of restrictions on my reporting, including no recording (fine—I’d just take notes); no reproduction of conference “content” such as handouts; no interviews without organizers’ permission, and so forth; and 3) I was actually given a press badge at the conference, a silky lavender piece of ribbon to wear around my neck bearing the word “Press” in prominent gold letters.  I (or actually the Standard) had to pay for my attendance, instead of getting in free as is often the case for media. But as I already knew, there are hardly any freebies when it comes to bashing white privilege.

We are going with "safe spaces" to the exclusion of any whose thinking is even marginally different.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Press Morphed

For John, BLUFNotwithstanding the way it is attacked, our local paper, The Sun, is pretty good.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From Imprimis, by Mr Michael Goodwin of The New York Post, from the May/June 2017 edition.

The article is adapted from a speech delivered on April 20, 2017, in Atlanta, Georgia, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.

You have the link, so go read the article.

Regards  —  Cliff

Schumer Saves the Day

For John, BLUFI don't think President Trump should be firing anyone in Main Justice, nor anyone from the Special Counsel Office, but that doesn't mean that I hold those folks in a lot of respect.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From The Hill, by Reporter Jordain Carney, 10 April 2018.

Here is the quote from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer:

"For the sake of our country, we plead with you.  Don’t put this country through a constitutional crisis.  ...  The rule of law is paramount in this country.  No man, not even the president, is above it."
How is there a Constitutional Crisis unless Mr Schumer stirs one up?

Maybe Mr Schumer believes that by shouting about it he has President Trump on notice and thus prevents anything untoward from happening.

As I think about it, the idea of a cabinet or sub-cabinet official who can not be fired is an absurdity.  Otherwise the President is hamstrung.  A hamstrung President is no President.  And, from a certain perspective, that is what the likes of Senator Schumer wishes.

But, the question of firing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is just a surrogate for the question of firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who appears to have no specific mandate, but seems to be roaming far and wide, perhaps having abandoned the original "Russia Collusion" topic for a search for every possible flaw in the President and those who work with him.

I don't think I would be OK with such a wide ranging search for criminality, given the potential to start the kind of banana republic approach of going after one's predecessor.  And it smacks too much of "Show me the man and I will find you the crime." Stalin era persecution. But, if I thought both sides were being examined I might at least find it balanced.  Maybe, in the end, Mr Mueller will be shown to believe in Truth, Justice and the American Way.  I sure hope so, but my hope is running a little thin.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

The Golden Rule

For John, BLUFBring Back Bobbie Battista.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Acronym Alter:  NDA is a Non Disclosure Agreement.

From Page Six, by Oli Coleman, 9 April 2018.

Here is the lede:

CBS has been using NDAs to try and suppress potential sources for an upcoming exposé about Charlie Rose’s sexual misconduct.  And top network execs who worked on Rose’s shows are panicking that they’ll be accused of turning a blind eye to his sexual misconduct.
Why yes, this is the same CBS that had Ms Stormy Daniel on "60 Minutes", encouraging her to ignore her $130,000 NDA.

I feel for these folks.  They are in a tough business, made tougher by slanted political reporting.

Did they forget the Golden Rule?  No, not the one about he who has the gold rules, nor the one about "Do unto others before they do unto you".

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Another Prosecutor Fails to Reveal Exculpatory Evidence

For John, BLUFThe thing is, if you can't convince the vast majority of the US public that you played fair, then the nation will be badly divided, and perhaps for a long time.  Think l'affaire Dreyfus.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From The Sentinel (Kansas and Missouri), 8 April 2018.

From a cut line:

The St. Louis Circuit Attorney has contrived a case against Gov. Greitens that Lewis Carroll would have been hard pressed to imagine.
There is winning at all cost and their is playing fair.  Which one do you think State and Federal Prosecutors think is the the way to play the game?

The reason it matters is because we are right now playing you bet your presidency.  And by "your" I don't mean Donald Trump.  I mean the American voter.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Knives are the New Guns

For John, BLUFAnd London.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From PJ Media, by Mr John Ellis, 30 March 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

While this country is embroiled in a shouting match over gun violence, Germany finds itself in an internal debate about the rise in knife violence.  Unlike this country, though, many in Germany seem to be focused on finding the root cause and, hence, the solution.  As The Local reports of Germany, "police statistics [show] that refugees and asylum seekers are significantly over-represented in violent crime statistics."

Titled "String of knife attacks further fuels debate over refugees and violence," the article begins by listing a series of violent knife attacks.  Almost all of the attacks were done by male teenage refugees.  The listed knife attacks are disturbing and the article concludes with the statement, "At least seven knife attacks were recorded last weekend alone."  The article then adds, "the prevalence of asylum seekers as suspects in these crimes has given voice to those who say the government's liberal refugee policies have made the country less safe."

The thing is, the Germans seem to be asking "what changed".

Why, all of a sudden, this eruption of knifings?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Monday, April 9, 2018

We Are Doing It Wrong?

For John, BLUF  Nothing to see here; just move along.


At least amongst humans.

From the Blog Radical Wind, a post from way back on 15 December 2013.

Here is the second paragraph:

This is a developed recap from what I’ve been saying in various comments here and there in the last two years or so.  [A]s a radfem I’ve always said PIV is rape and I remember being disappointed to discover that so few radical feminists stated it clearly.  How can you possibly see it otherwise?  Intercourse is the very means through which men oppress us, from which we are not allowed to escape, yet some instances of or PIV and intercourse may be chosen and free?  That makes no sense at all.
You ask, how does one get pregnant and the author rightly points out you don't need penetration for those aggressive little sperm to make it to the point of fertilization.

On the other hand, this takes the position that [some] women just aren't smart enough, or actualized enough, to understand that they are not enjoying sex, but rather are being repressed.

Here is the last paragraph:

Lastly, from a structural point of view, as a class oppressed by men, we are not in any position of freedom to negotiate what men do to us collectively and individually within the heterocage.  Men, by whom we are possessed, colonised and held captive, are the sole agents and organisers of PIV.  Men dominate us precisely so we can’t opt out of sexual abuse by them; intercourse is the very means through which men subordinate us, the very purpose of their domination, to control human reproduction.
So, whether it is Ms Hillary Clinton or the RadFem Author of the Radical Wind Blog, we are finding women who think that large numbers of women are ignorant and can't be trusted to do anything but what they are told to do by nearby male figure authorities.  This forms a puzzle for those of us who grew up thinking that women were strong individuals and capable of making their own decisions.  Are we now left to think that women, or at least large numbers of women, need protection and guidance.  I hope not.  I hope Mrs Clinton is wrong.

And what are we going to do about all those animals on farms and out in the wild?  Are we going to create more veterinarians, so that all animal procreation is by artificial insemination?  Then how do we control the randy males of each species?  This is a mess.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

  I had a college classmate get his girlfriend (later, wife) pregnant without penetration and through her panties.
  Ms Clinton's formulation in India, mentioning Husbands and Sons makes it sound almost Sharia-like.
  I still remember Susan Sawyer being the strongest person in Fourth Grade, able to open ink bottles the rest of us couldn't cope with.

Raid on Trump Lawyer

For John, BLUFI think President Putin never hoped to undermine US Elections to the degree Mr Mueller may, by accident.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From The Old Gray Lady And Reporter Matt Apuzzo, 9 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

The F.B.I. on Monday raided the office of President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, seizing records related to several topics including payments to a pornographic-film actress.

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan obtained the search warrant after receiving a referral from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, according to Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, who called the search “completely inappropriate and unnecessary.” The search does not appear to be directly related to Mr. Mueller’s investigation, but likely resulted from information he had uncovered and gave to prosecutors in New York. "Today the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York executed a series of search warrants and seized the privileged communications between my client, Michael Cohen, and his clients,” said Stephen Ryan, his lawyer. “I have been advised by federal prosecutors that the New York action is, in part, a referral by the Office of Special Counsel, Robert Mueller."

What ever happened to attorney/client privilege?  Or does this mean Mr Cohen really did pay Ms Clifford out of his own pocket?

I hope the seal of the confessional is still inviolate.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

New Movie on Chappaquiddick

For John, BLUFIf ticket sales are a signal, don't go see it.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From The Daily Caller and Ms Amber Athey, Media Reporter, 6 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus wo:

A New York Times contributor insisted in a Friday opinion piece that “Chappaquiddick” unfairly assassinates the character of former Senator Ted Kennedy.

The movie, which hits theaters on Friday, depicts the event surrounding the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, who drowned after Kennedy drove his car into a pond.  Kennedy failed to report the incident to police for ten hours.

Neil Gabler, who is writing a biography on Ted Kennedy, chose not to address the circumstances surrounding Kopechne’s death or Kennedy’s involvement in The New York Times.  Instead, Gabler flatly claimed that the movie is “outright character assassination.”

I will cut to the chase.  Unlikely to go to see the movie, which didn't need to be made.  Whose interest is served by dredging this up at this point?

Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy did some good things in his life.  He was for the F-35 Engine Second Source, which was being manufactured out of Lynn.  When the Boston Busing decision came down he said it was the right thing to do and he said it to the crowd assembled to protest the decision by Federal Judge W. Arthur Garrity Jr.

On the other hand, he was notorious amongst women working on Capitol Hill as one of three Senators not to get into an elevator with, alone.  That should say something.  He colluded with the Russians during the end of President Jimmy Carter's first (and only) term.  Not a good thing.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

  Unless you subscribe to the view that you don't care what they say about you, as long as they spell the name correctly.
  Intel picked up from my Cousin, EE, who was at the time an Air Force Major working in the Pentagon.