Those four chilling words were posted on social media the day after a mob of radical leftists descended on a Washington eatery and accosted both Sen. Cruz and his wife, while they were having dinner – ultimately driving out the Texas lawmaker and his wife from the restaurant.
The ugly incident was captured on video as a propaganda message, warning other Republican lawmakers that things are about to get nasty if they vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
Moreover, if Cruz and other Republican lawmakers didn’t get the message Monday evening, the Washington D.C. chapter of Antifa on Tuesday sent out another message to the Texas Republican lawmaker – and this one was a lot more ominous.
The initial disturbance in the restaurant was first regarded as a spontaneous demonstration by a little known group calling themselves “Smash Racism DC.” However, upon closer examination, the group is actually a spin-off to the violence prone anarchist group ANTIFA.
A recording of the incident within the restaurant actually illustrates just how well choreographed these organizations are – And how serious and potentially dangerous to lawmakers this radical organization has become.
“No, you can’t eat in peace; your politics are an attack on all of us You’re votes are a death wish. Your votes are hate crimes. Tonight Senator Ted Cruz arrived at Fiola, an upscale restaurant mere steps from the White House, to enjoy a hearty Italian dinner. He could have dined on a lavish four course meal for only $145 while millions of Americans struggle to buy groceries. He might have sampled from the top shelf wine list as migrant children languish in cages.”
The chilling message continued, “He’d have laughed with his wife while women and members of the LGBTQ community collectively gasp in horror as Senator Cruz pushes forward on Bret Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. At least he could have had activists not interrupted his evening just as he was being seated,” the Antifa group continued. “Instead, activists from Smash Racism DC, Resist This, DC IWW, members of DC Democratic Socialists of America, Anarchists, women, sexual assault survivors, and members of the LGBTQ community interrupted Ted Cruz’s peaceful meal.”
ANTIFA wasn’t satisfied with simply harassing Sen. Cruz at a restaurant, they wanted to instill fear within him by reminding him what they’re capable of doing if pushed.
The record is clear: these are violent thugs, who’ve demonstrated time-and-again just how violent they are. We’ve witnessed their violence within countless past demonstrations. Clad entirely in black, with their faces covered to hide their identity, these marauding misfits attack in packs – beating victims senseless with sticks, bats and bottles.
And on Tuesday this violent gang sent a blunt warning.
“This is a message to Ted Cruz, Bret [sic] Kavanaugh, Donald Trump and the rest of the racist, sexist, trans-phobic, and homophobic right-wing scum: You are not safe. We will find you. We will expose you. We will take from you the peace you have taken from so many others.”
The dire threat has since been removed from the internet, however the threat is real. Even ANTIFA realized they needed to remove the evidence before law enforcement got wind of the message.
However, nothing actually disappears from the internet, and apparently someone on the senator’s staff had the good sense of preserving the evidence for investigators.
Inscribed in marble in front of our National Archives Building in Washington are the words “What is past is prologue.” In terms of the confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the opposite may be true. What is past is meaningless. His confirmation will depend almost totally on what happens at the hearing – and both the Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee understand that.
Republicans have been smart and successful in moving the hearing along even though the Democrats have been smart and successful in interjecting delaying tactics.
Republicans made an incredibly smart move in bringing in a female attorney to do their questioning of accuser Christine Blasey Ford. They understood that any questions – no matter how appropriate or polite — from old men would create a problem of optics. They well understood that no matter how judicious they may be, the bulk of the liberal mainstream media would be twisting their comments as sexist, hostile, anti-women and anything else that would comport with the jaded media’s preconceived anti-Republican narratives.
Instead, Ford will be cross examined by a woman in a very professional manner. The same questions coming from a competent prosecuting attorney will have an entirely different optics than from some old geezer who looks like he is modeling for a Tobey Mug. In these biased times, and with the prejudices in the reporting, no man could escape the predictable reportorial propaganda that would ensue.
This will put Ford on the defensive if she cannot credibly change her testimony from the things she has already said. “Where was this party?” “I do not recall.” “When was this party?” “I am not sure.” “How did you escape the encounter? Did you run from the room in panic and did other see your distress?”
I do not know.” Since you did not have a driver’s license, how did you get to the party? How did you get home?” “I cannot recall.”
It now leaves the Democrats in a bit of a predicament. They have been setting the stage for the bad optics strategy. They have been chest pounding over their insistence that they would never use a counsel to ask questions on their behalf. Even though the use of attorneys to serve in that capacity has occurred in the past, one Democrat after another has claimed that they would never do that.
They can be up front with their inquiries, they figure, because they know they will only ask the most supportive oh-you-poor-girl questions. They will also use the opportunity to create the most salacious images to offset the lack of evidence. “Did he put his hands up your dress?” “Did he come into contact with your bare breast or vagina?” They will repeatedly find her unsubstantiated contentions as credible. That will be their version of the optics.
That strategy may be about to backfire, however. Suddenly, their circus-like antics will be seen in stark contrast to the professional approach on the Republican side. There political motivations will be on full display. In an ironic twist of fate, their questions could even make Ford appear even less credible.
It is because of this potential that a number of Democrats on the news shows have suggest that Democrats should bring in their own counsel. It is noteworthy that these suggestions came from pendant-lawyers with considerable courtroom experience. Suddenly the problem of optics rises on the minority side of the panel.
By attempting to pump credibility into the laughably flimsy statements of the so-called second accuser, Democrats and their friends in the press have already weakened the impact of the Ford testimony and damaged their own credibility. The fact that even the New York Times and the Washington Post would not publish the accusations of the second accuser should say a lot about the credibility of her claims and the about the quality of the journalism of The New Yorker that did publish that rubbish.
Speculate as the media is prone to do, no one can predict the outcome of the hearing. In fact, there will be no universal opinion after the hearing. This is a fight that will not end in a knock out but in a TKO declared by the American public – and that verdict may not come for another seven weeks.
Enough of the beating up on us old white guys!!
Given the political atmosphere of American society today, I well understand that I am among the least credible persons to speak about anything that comes up in the course of our public discourse. You see, I am an older white male.
Nothing I believe or say has any standing in the neo-world of political correctness and identity politics. According to left-wing ideology – especially among the radical feminists – any opinions I may hold lack substance, value or credibility because of my skin color, genitalia and age. By my count, I am the victim of three isms – racism, sexism and ageism.
Barely a day goes by in which someone in the news – personality or panelist – does not dismiss with disdain any opinion I might hold because it comes from an “old white man.” Somehow the new “snowflake” culture – in which nary a discouraging word can be uttered within earshot of the overly sensitive – does not protect old white guys. We can be disparaged with impunity. We are the prey of the politically correct crowd.
Somehow, I was on the wrong side of a cultural transition – more like a complete flip-flop. As a young man, I was taught to respect my elders. They were a source of wisdom and sound advice. When I finally reached that once vaunted age of respectability, the tables turned. Suddenly, I am an encumbrance to the rise of the younger generations. My genes and testosterone are considered a new age plague on society.
This is not some subtle subtext. The precocious Parkland student, David Hogg, has complained that the older folks – anyone over 40, I assume – will not “move the f**k off the plate” so that he can simply take over whatever it is he thinks he has a right to take over. To people like Hogg, whatever knowledge, skills, experience or values I might possess are irrelevant. I am to be relegated to a state of intellectual suspended animation. After all, he says “parents do not know how to use a f*****g democracy. So, we have to.” Hogg should be educated to the fact that it was a bunch of old white men who established this f*****g democracy.
Then there is Professor Piper Harron, of the University of Hawaii, who piped off with this gem to male professors and school administrators.
Not to alarm you, but I probably want you to quit your job, or at least take a demotion. Statistically speaking, you are probably taking up room that should go to someone else. If you are a white cis man (meaning you identify as male and you were assigned male at birth) you almost certainly should resign from your position of power. That’s right, please quit. Too difficult? Well, as a first step, at least get off your hiring committee, your curriculum committee, and make sure you’re replaced by a woman of color or trans person.
These nut cases already have undue influence in our schools, but this is Nazi-style annihilation stuff – sans the killing, at least for now.
In case you are not familiar with the “cis” gender designation, it refers to those of us who self-identify our gender consistent with our birth certificates and that equipment between our legs. To the radical left THAT makes us out of the mainstream of enlightened thinking even though those who self-identify differently are statistically immeasurable.
Another example of this demented mentality is Professor (yep, another professor) Suzanna Danuta Walters of Boston University. She not only wants men off the faculty, but she also wants us out of every position of authority. She even claims that women have a right – mind you, a RIGHT – to hate men.
I have long known that radical feminism is based on an underlying hatred of men. It is disturbing that it has reached such a fever pitch that it is acceptable to express it publicly. Suddenly hate is a positive attribute.
The New York Times – that publication liberals love to puff up as a “newspaper of record” – actually hired Sarah Jeong as editorial writing after she had posted vicious attacks on white people – especially men – on her Twitter account. She gave the movement a hashtag #CancelWhitePeople.
The bull’s eye of her wrath are old men, however. She wrote, “I am a cliff and all white men are lemmings” and “Its kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”
I recall wanting to engage in an intellectual and civic discussion on the issue of abortion with a proponent of the controversial procedure. She dismissed my effort by telling me that as a man, I had no right – no right, mind you – to talk about abortion. It is a woman’s issue … period.
Now we have the #MeToo movement which proffers the ridiculous and yet dangerous idea that when a woman makes an accusation, it is incumbent on society to believe her … period. No rule-of-law, no presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Perhaps it is just a male perspective, but when I see a bunch of women running around in knitted “pussy” hats and others walking around dressed like a human vagina, I am not going to take them too seriously. On the other hand, when I hear the kind of Hilter-esque authoritarian language coming from young people and women, I know the attack on old white men is real.
Ironically, by the time these folks could actually take over, I would be safely embraced in the arms of eternity, and THEY will be old people. Now, that is worth a good laugh.
The sexual accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have put his reputation on the line – as well as the reputation of the accuser, Professor Christine Blasey Ford. In the final analysis, however, it may be the reputations of the all-male Georgiopolitana Schola Preparatoria, more commonly known as Georgetown Prep, and the all-female Holton-Arms School that may wind up being ravaged.
Jesuit-run Georgetown Prep is where Kavanaugh spent his formative years. It is one of those east coast elitist schools where children of wealth and privilege tend to act … well … privileged. Most movies depicting these blue blazer campuses suggest that they are rife with under-age drunkenness and pre-mature debauchery – as opposed to mature debauchery. Turns out that the fictional movies may have captured reality far better than we could have imagined.
In addressing students of his alma mater, Kavanaugh assured them that “what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep.” What was once delivered as a humorous line has suddenly become fodder for questioning his character. And besides … what WAS going on at Georgetown Prep?
Kavanaugh’s claim of secrecy did not hold. His pal and classmate – and alleged witness to the alleged attempted rape — Mark Judge wrote about those early days under the tutelage of the Jesuits in his book ironically entitled, “Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk.”
And sure enough. What he describes are frequent episodes of drunkenness and debauchery based on an exuberance of teenage testosterone. Despite his general description of his youth days – which includes admissions of his own drinking – Judge says he has no recollection of the events described by Ford and told the Weekly Standard, “It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.”
Taking a look at Ford’s Holton-Arms alma mater, one can see an example of equity between the sexes. It seems that this pristine ladies’ institution was as wild and salacious as their male counterpart.
In the face of Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh, the administrators of Holton-Arms scrubbed their website – but not before a lot of embarrassing posts were spreading across the Internet like a pandemic outbreak of Swine Flu.
Ford’s own online yearbook described excessive drinking as a popular extracurricular activity. One item read “… we played such intellectually stimulating games as Quarters (in which you bounce a coin into a shot glass), Mexican Dice (where dice are used), and everyone’s favorite, Pass-Out, which usually resulted from the aforementioned two.”
The website referred to frequent parties to “celebrate any occasion” and stated that “Although these parties are no doubt unforgettable, they are only a memory lapse for most, since loss of consciousness is often an integral part of the party scene.”
Another report said that “Ann (last name redacted) and friends picked up some men who passed out in their apartment.”
In coming to the defense of Ford, 1000 Holton-Arms alumni were said to have signed a letter saying that they believed Ford. Their support was not based on any knowledge of the alleged event, but just good old school spirit. The organizers of the letter were paraded out before the press by Democrat Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii.
While the support of the lady alumni is touching, but irrelevant to the Ford-Kavanaugh controversy, the most noteworthy revelation that came out in the press conference was the apparent motivation of many the women signatories. Many of them, it was said, could relate to what Ford claimed happened to her because similar things happened to them. Based on that report, it would appear that Holton-Arms is in competition with the Pennsylvania Catholic Church for leadership in creating an environment of sexual abuse.
It was later learned that the 1000-signature letter was only endorsed by 599 lady alums. You would think that alums of such a prestigious school could count beyond their fingers and toes.
I attended a lot of parties in high school, but no one got raped – not even any attempts, as far as I know. No one got drunk. (We put that off for college). Now, was that because the times were so different? Or maybe because I attended one of those blue-collar urban public schools where no one had enough privilege to act privileged. Not even enough money to by booze.
Even if there were no other reasons for moving ahead with the Kavanaugh confirmation vote, putting an end to all this silly political gamesmanship would be reason enough. Then we could get on to the really serious subjects – such as a porn performer’s attorney running for president or anything to do with Congresswoman Maxine Waters.
Jim Carrey is funny when he is acting, but seemingly has no sense of humor when it comes to politics. He is another example of the tinsel town left-wing culture that abuses personal celebrity to advance opinions that only prove that talent and intelligence are not necessarily connected traits.
Of course, as a Hollywood insider, Carrey is obligated to hate President Trump, Republicans, conservatives and half those folks who have made him rich and famous by purchasing tickets to his movies.
In addition to being a spokesperson for the radical left, Carrey considers himself something of an editorial cartoonist. Artistically, they are not awful but were it not for his fame they would not be getting any attention whatsoever. Subject-wise, they are more the product of a propagandist than a real editorial cartoonist.
His latest contribution again reflects the low road traveled by Democrats and others on the left. It is a crude drawing – in content and style – that suggestively depicts an unclothed Judge Brett Kavanaugh raping a woman as a friend is departing the room with a beer in his hand and a smile on his face. It is unlikely that even the New York Times or Washington Post would publish such trash – although they may well backdoor it as a specious news story.
As if Carrey’s cartoons are not bad enough, he demonstrates a woeful ignorance of history, politics, and economics – mixed in with the radical left’s disdain for America and our tradition of freedom. Carrey is an avowed socialist. As such, he is oblivious to the free-market policies and principles of personal freedom that made America the most successful nation in the world.
In a recent interview on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Carrey said, “We have to say yes to socialism, to the word and everything. We have to stop apologizing.” Stop apologizing? Carrey would be well advised to start apologizing for misleading the American public with his ignorance.
If Carrey wants to really see the results of socialism, there is a world of examples where it has failed to the detriment of the masses of people suffering under its authoritarian principles. Socialism is, and always has been, a better theory than a reality. Perhaps Carrey should shuffle off to Venezuela to sign autographs and campaign for socialism.
I am sure Venezuelan columnist, Laureano Marquez, would be more than happy to serve as a tour guide. In an open letter to Carrey, Marquez said: “I admire you a lot, but sometimes it seems that the inability of Hollywood stars to understand politics is directly proportional to the talent.” It is hard to argue against Marquez’ belief that there is an inverse relationship between Hollywood success and worldly knowledge. For many, the greater the talent, the dumber they are on the reality side of the klieg lights.
Marquez went on to say that thanks to socialism, the people of Venezuela are fleeing the country in any way they can because they lack food, medicine and other basic needs. The wealth is almost all concentrated in the governing elite – those folks who peddled the snake oil of socialism to the poor – and now poorer – people of Venezuela.
It would take hours of education to explain to Carrey why socialism is an authoritarian concept that is particularly bad for the people it pretends to serve – and there is no guarantee that he would be able to absorb the information. So, to confine it to terms that Carrey may be able to comprehend, will someone please tell him that “socialism sucks?”
During the coverage of Hurricane Florence, with the outer bands starting to come on shore, CNN took a moment to have viewers listen to the winds and see the ocean. New Day host John Berman gave a very dramatic interpretation of the sound of that wind hitting an offshore microphone. His co-host, Alisyn Camerota drew viewers’ attention to the waves in the churning sea.
What I saw and heard with my very own eyes and ears were sights and sounds that one might encounter on a typical breezy day on the Ft. Lauderdale beach. What was being reported was a lot of hot air – figuratively and literally.
Berman went on to note that once the winds exceed 35 miles per hour, all rescue operations would cease and would not return until winds dropped below that speed, which – based on Florence’s slow movement — could take more than 48 hours.
Good Grief! In my hometown of Chicago, we would be getting the kites out when winds exceeded 35 miles an hour. It was business as usual – except for kite flying — when winds rose to 40, 50 and even 60 miles an hour. Residents can rest assured that those noble and brave rescue workers will be out saving lives long before the winds become a mild breeze.
The Weather Channel – where one would hope to get the most immediate and accurate information – gets the Emmy for the most outrageous hyping of the news. While a reporter on the scene was seen crouched over – seemingly fighting against the wind – a number of people walking around casually were seen in the background. While there was obviously a breeze, the reporters own clothing were not flapping against any major rush of air. He was faking the report.
Make no mistake. Florence is a disaster with many tragedies. There is extensive damage. Some folks have lost everything they own – and too many lost their lives. There is no reason for Berman and Camerota to overly dramatize the preliminary conditions for the sake of ratings. This type of reportorial hyperbole is at a cost to their own credibility – on this and all other matters.
But, it gets worse.
Some of the reporting – too much, in fact – spins Florence into a political story. They use it to compare their own dubious anti-Trump narratives regarding the handling of Hurricane Maria –, especially the Puerto Rican angle. Forget about any damage and dead from Florence, they are looking for angles to find fault with the Trump administration – and they will, whether legitimate or not.
The Washington Post had already opined that the damage TO BE done by Florence WILL BE Trump’s fault. Even as they confirm that “it is hard to attribute any single weather event to climate change” they say that “when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit.” Has Trump been colluding with Mother Nature? In their malignant view, deregulation has caused Florence – or at least made her a lot meaner. Greez! You would think they would at least wait until Florence past before attributing blame.
As one sidebar story, they are reporting on an inspector general investigation of the FEMA director’s alleged private use of government cars – spinning it into a major issue. It is, in their judgment, another example of Trump administration officials acting badly. More grist for the anti-Trump media mill. For most of us, it hardly deserves a mention on a slow news day.
An even greater political spin involves the scientific debate – and yes, it is a scientific debate – over climate change. According to the left, the earth is not only warming, but the primary cause is man-made pollution – AND it can be fixed. In their Draconian view, mankind’s very existence on planet earth is at risk. Hogwash!
Though many meteorologists and climatologists warn against using current weather – including hurricanes – as indicators of climate change, the media proffers that argument incessantly. A number of media personalities used Florence as the latest example. That mean old dame is bigger, more powerful and more dangerous than ever, they say. Unprecedented!!!
That was not true when Florence was peaking off shore as a Category 5 hurricane and most certainly not true as it dropped to a Category 1 as it reached landfall. Dangerous, for sure, but not unprecedented or even remarkable. While there was some record-breaking rainfall in some areas, Florence is less unusual and more typical of hurricanes that have been hitting America’s east coast for centuries. Just check the record.
The record breaking destruction has less to do with the claimed increasing power of hurricanes and more to do with the fact that over the years millions of people – with their homes and businesses — have migrated to the hurricane-prone climes of southeast United States. There are just a lot more things to knock down and tear up.
Those biased reporters and panelists who called on us to believe in global warming because of the unprecedented power of Florence should be wiping the egg off their faces, but instead, they are doubling down. Their opinions were not rooted in fact, but in politics. It gave them another opportunity to attack Trump and all those, like myself, who are not sure if recent global warming is man-made or a natural cycle – but who do believe that the only way to reduce our gaseous emissions – not addressing personal emissions here – is to restore a Stone Age culture across the globe.
By the way, have you ever noticed that whenever they report on climate change, they show a parched earth and starving people? Actually, scientists tell us that one benefit of global warming is that it will create an abundance of flora. That means plants and produce. There is a reason we call it a “greenhouse effect” and we use greenhouses to grow food. Imagine growing oranges in Michigan.
For sure, global warming would have some negative impacts on our current situation, but so would global cooling. Change of any kind creates winners and losers.
Wouldn’t it be nice to turn on the news – even the weather — and actually get fact-based reporting without the hype, the spin and the … you know … b***sh*t.
FOOTNOTE: I make it a practice to use the (*) when descending into gutter language, but a still wonder why. Even a 10-year-old can read between them … (*).
One of Republican presidential hopeful Donald J. Trump’s early campaign promises was to refuse to take his salary. It was one he repeated often. For example, in September 2015, Trump tweeted:
“As far as salary is concerned, I won’t take even one dollar. I am totally giving up my salary if I become president.”
As we know, Trump went on to win the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and opponents were quick to condemn the new American leader for breaking his word. A feisty headline ran two weeks before the close of the first annual fiscal quarter. On March 13, 2017, an unhappy and impatient observer griped:
“Trump continues to take salary despite promise, says he’ll donate money later – This isn’t the first time he’s broken that promise.”
Quoting the president-elect’s first big interview in November 2017, Trump had gone on record again about his federal paycheck:
“No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.”
It turns out that the president could not legally keep his campaign pledge because the U.S. Constitution (the law of the land) contains a Compensation Clause. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 7 says the president must receive a fixed salary during his time in office, which cannot be changed, eliminated, or refused during the duration of his presidency.
The idea behind this law, according to Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, was to keep the nation’s top leader financially free from outside forces because, “They can neither weaken his fortitude by operating on his necessities, nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his avarice.”
Billionaire Trump has shown everyone through many progressive actions that his fortitude is just fine – and he honestly does not need the extra income to maintain his lifestyle in the fashion to which he has grown accustomed.
The job of U.S. President has an annual salary, before taxes, of $400,000 a year. Upon learning of the constitutional requirement to accept payment for his services in office, Trump announced that “he would accept $1 and either give the rest back to the U.S. Treasury or donate it to charity.”
The nation’s leader has honored that promise in spirit, if not to the letter, by making donations to help fund a variety of federal projects each and every three months he gets paid.
Here’s a breakdown of President Trump’s salary donations since he took office through the first quarter of 2018:
2017Q1 $78,333 (his $100,000 salary for that quarter, after taxes) to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s National Parks Service towards two projects at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland.
When officials from the U.S. Interior Department met with Sean Spicer on April 3, 2017, they acted a bit surprised when President Trump’s Press Secretary announced:
“I want to just give you a quick update on something I know in the past there’s been several questions about the President donating his salary to charity…To that end, the President has spoken with Counsel and made the decision to donate his first-quarter salary, in total, to a government entity, and he has chosen this quarter to donate it to the National Park Service.”
Spicer went on to cite the Park Service’s contribution to the preservation of our nation and its national security since 1916. He said the President was proud to help out. Spicer then got to the point:
“So it is my pleasure, on behalf of the President of the United States, to present a check for $78,333 to the Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, and Superintendent of the Harper’s Ferry Park site, Superintendent Brandyburg.”
Someone in the room quipped, “After taxes?” and when Spicer answered that the offer was “straight up,” he got as far as, “It is every penny that the President received from the first quarter since the day he was —” someone said, “But it’s not a full quarter.” Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke was quick to jump in with, “We think it will cash, though.”
Critics like the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, Michael Brune, looked a gift horse squarely in the mouth and called Trump’s “giant fake check” a “publicity stunt” and “sad consolation prize” because Trump’s new budget proposed to cut Interior’s budget by $1.5 billion (12 percent).
2017Q2 $78,333 to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) camp for children, overseen by the U.S. Department of Education.
At a White House press briefing held on July 26, 2017, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos accepted the cash gift. At the time, no firm plans were in place and Trump asked around for suggestions to make a winning program.
A year later, DeVos visited the Smithsonian’s “She Can” STEM Summer Camp where “students learned about the science of flight and were exposed to a wide array of aviation-related activities and career paths.”
The Secretary of Education worked alongside sixth- through eighth-grade girls “to build and fly their own drones, was a passenger in an FAA-certified flight simulator and toured the Boeing Aviation Hangar.”
Pretty cool, huh?
2017Q3 $78,333 to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for a public awareness campaign about opioid addiction.
The Initiative to Stop Opioid Abuse was introduced in March 2018 as a new plan with several goals targeting public awareness and legal consequences.
Among the program’s highlights:
• Launch a nationwide evidence-based campaign to raise public awareness about the dangers of prescription and illicit opioid use, as well as other drug use.
• Keep dangerous drugs out of the United States by securing land borders, ports of entry, and waterways against illegal smuggling.
• Reduce the over-prescription of opioids which has the potential to lead Americans down a path to addiction or facilitate diversion to illicit use.
• Fund research and development efforts for innovative technologies and additional therapies to combat addiction and manage pain from drug withdrawal. Develop a vaccine against opioid addiction.
• Enforce the existing death penalty against hard-core drug dealers.
2017Q4 $78,333 to an infrastructure grant program overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao broke the news that President Trump would donate his net fourth quarter 2017 salary to help fund a new grant program for public and private physical improvements – like roads, bridges, tunnels, water supply, and sewers.
The project, called Infrastructure for Building America, “will reward state and local governments that have raised their own funds before asking for federal help.”
The new program has a planned $1.5 billion budget to distribute free grant money to Make America Great again by fixing the roads and bridges.
2018Q1 full salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs to assist caregiver programs.
On May 17, 2018, Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced that President Trump would continue his salary donation into the New Year. The recipient of his generosity was the VA (Department of Veterans Affairs).
Then-acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie added more detail. The Commander-in-Chief’s first quarter 2018 salary donation would help “caregiver support in the form of mental health and peer support programs, financial aid, education training, and research.”
There you have it. President Donald J. Trump is a man who tells it like it is. What a refreshing change from the White House.
As for the nay-sayers and boo-hooers, remember the famous words of President Abraham Lincoln who was quoting poet John Lydgate:
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”
All we know is that honesty and generosity are their own rewards. And midterms are coming.
History tells us that while Obama was personally able to be elected and then reelected to the presidency – his coat-tails were nonexistent. During the 8-years of his presidency, Democrats lost 1,030 seats within state legislatures, governorships and within Congress.
The Democratic Party had long languished in Obama’s shadow for years, so why are they taking another bite of the apple?
Daniel Galvin, a political science professor at Northwestern University and the author of a book on presidential party building, explained the apparent disconnect between Obama and the Democratic Party. “Obama just figured his important actions on policies like immigration and health care would solidify support, but that hasn’t really materialized,” he wrote.
Adding, “He’s done basically the minimal amount of party building, and it’s been insufficient to help the party.”
Many Democrats in hindsight blame Obama for an executive agenda that prioritized social wedge issues such as transgender rights and access to birth control rather than “bread and butter’ issues and other mainstream economic anxieties.
“The backlash to the Obama presidency was perhaps bigger than any of us really realized,” said Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democratic Network, a Democratic think tank.
So the question once again, why Obama?
Within his two brief outings, Obama has already demonstrated that it’s still all about “him” rather than helping the party find its way.
Obama’s reemergence on the campaign trail is more about attempting to salvage his tattered legacy by attempting to reinvent himself and arrogantly rewrite history.
“When you hear how great the economy is doing right now, let’s just remember when this recovery started,” an arrogant Obama reminded his young minions at the University of Illinois.
His comment once again gave critical thinking voters watching at home an opportunity to reexamine the facts. At one point during his speech, Obama referenced that his numbers regarding “new jobs created” matched that of his rival – and indeed he was correct.
What Obama cleverly omitted was the type and quality of those jobs. While the numbers were almost the same, Obama’s new jobs were almost all (94%) low wage, part-time jobs with little growth and no benefits.
Democrats should once again be extremely concerned with an angry narcissist attempting to patch up his legacy by giving a 64-minute speech and referencing himself over 100-times.
Remarkably, even with the massive decline of Democrats holding elective office during his presidency, Obama had the gall to suggest he would have been successful if allowed to seek a third term.
“I am confident in this vision because I’m confident that if I had run again and articulated it, I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it,” Obama told ex-adviser David Axelrod for “The Axe Files” podcast.
Of course, the left-wing media is attempting to run interference for Obama, hoping history won’t be repeated for the Democrats come this November.
One of the evergreen narratives of the #NeverTrump media is the speculation over the relationship between President Trump and his wife Melania.
By innuendo and spin, the media gossips suggest that the marriage is in trouble. After all, how could anyone love Trump – or even like him? This continuing narrative seems to be borne more out of wishful thinking — or even a strategy of provoking marital discourse — than knowledge. It is basically speculation based on scurrilous gossip that the so-called news media, itself, creates.
As with all gossip, the media shamelessly spin largely meaningless “signals” as “evidence.” “Melania did not accompany the president on the trip to (wherever).” “She was not holding his hand when they walked across the White House lawn.” “What was that grimace all about.” “Was that ‘I don’t care’ message on her coat meant for the President?” “Why has she not appeared in public for a few days?”
The media even proffers the argument that she dislikes his policies. If the media interpretation is to be believed, Melania is a secret anti-Trumper – and that she hates being First Lady.
They cobble these over-the-top interpretations into a continuous and speculative narrative. They have opened a “Melania hates Trump” file and lose no opportunity to drop in a new spin whenever possible.
To create a false narrative designed to propagandize the issue – at which certain portions of the media excel – one has to go beyond just spinning events with torturous logic. You have to ignore (not report) any indications or signs that the narrative is not true.
That is what got me thinking. First of all, I found the interpretations of those innocuous events to lack credibility. They are based on nothing more than biased opinion driven by a partisan political bias. On the other hand, I have seen small events that would suggest the relationship between the President and the First Lady is sound – or at least not fractured.
They actually hold hands a lot. They often kiss in public. If you do not think so, go online and search “Trump and Melania kissing,” and you will find hundreds of photographs. Seems like they show public affection at almost every event.
There have been no public spats. There have been no public reports of Melania throwing an ashtray at the president – as Hillary did to Bill when he was governor. Melania, herself, has said nothing that would suggest the marriage is unhappy or in trouble. Quite the contrary.
Melania has put her name on a number of fundraising communications in defense of her husband. In one, she said:
“Democrats and the opposition media are doing everything they possibly can to discredit Donald with false accusations by spreading their fake news and making it appear that he does not have the support of America’s voters.”
She went on to say:
“Everything you and I believe in regarding the future of America is on the line in the coming months. This is a battle we must win together.”
These do not sound like the words of a woman estranged from her husband personally or politically. She is fully engaged in supporting the Trump presidency.
I understand that these are words crafted for a fundraising appeal, but they come over the First Lady’s signature with her endorsement and approval. She has never been timid of speaking out when her views may be different from the president’s, so I think it is safe to assume that these words are a sincere reflection of her feelings.
I cannot say with knowledge or authority that I know the quality of the intimate relationship between Melania and her husband. But, I do know that all those offering up their own biased speculations do not know, either. Speculation, by definition, means lack of knowledge.
For decades, sex scandals involving Roman Catholic clergy have been rocking the world’s largest Christian religion. What started out as isolated incidents in obscure parishes began to spread horizontally first across America and then across the world. It also spread vertically, embroiling the highest ranks of the Church as either actively engaging in salacious activities or covering them up on a grand scale. The suspicions and accusations stopped just short of the Pope – but that may be changing.
Concern about pedophilia pederasty within the cloistered confines of the institutional Church hierarchy was raised as far back as 1947 by Father Gerald Fitzgerald, whose order, the Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete, functioned to aid troubled clergy – priests having difficulties with alcoholism, drug addiction and, most significantly, chastity. Through his work, Fitzgerald became aware of what he described as a growing culture of pederasty in the American Church.
Fitzgerald attempted to persuade bishops and even Pope Paul VI to take action. He recommended that corrupt clergy be removed from interaction with young boys. His concerns were never addressed, and the problem continued to grow.
In the 1970s, it was whispered that the Church was actively recruiting gay seminarians to bolster the declining ranks of the clergy. It was partially that gay recruitment was based on the belief that they would uphold the Church’s ban on clergy marriage. It was later alleged that the recruitment was led by priests and bishops responding to their own predilections. An article in Vanity Fair reported an estimate claiming that 20 to 60 percent of today’s Catholic priests are gay.
In the ensuing years, the Catholic Church suffered a series of scandals, each more serious than the former. In the 1980s, the American Church was again rocked by accusations. More and more victims were coming forward. It was no longer a matter of isolated incidents, the trail of accusations led to cover ups by bishops and cardinals. It was starting to reveal a significant culture within the Church.
The problem was not confined to America. Scandals popped up across the globe – Australia, Canada, Ireland and Chile — just to name a few. Suddenly, the Church was riddled with institutionalized pedophilia and pederasty. The culpability of the Church hierarchy went beyond cover-ups to participation. The sexual misconduct and the creation of sexual groups involved members of the College of Cardinals.
The globalization of the problem led critics to claim that such widespread moral and legal corruption – that the similar cover-up policies around the world – could not have happened without the knowledge and the guidance of the Church leaders in the highest offices in Rome. Supporting that theory was the falling from grace, and from office, of several prominent bishops and cardinals.
The number of bishops and cardinals accused of sexual impropriety stands at 88 from 30 nations. Sixty-four of the accused were cases of pedophilia, with most of those cases being homosexual in nature.
The problem has become so serious that a number of states in Australia passed laws that require priests to report child sexual abuse cases that are heard in confession. The Church is fighting back to protect the long standing “seal of confession” which bans the further revelation of any sin or crime confessed to clergy.
As is often the case, the cover-up becomes as serious a matter as the crime, itself. This has been particularly true for the Catholic Church. Investigators have found a pervasive pattern of ignoring allegations or taking defensive measures, such as moving guilty priests and bishops to new assignments – often where children would be part of their ministry.
For more than 70 years, since Father Fitzgerald first rang the alarm, the problem of pedophilia and pederasty has grown like a cancer in the Church. The number of clergy accused of criminality is in the thousands across the world, the number of known victims is in the tens of thousands. And, it is believed that greater numbers are yet to be discovered.
Despite the growing problem, the College of Cardinals, as an institution, and the Pope have not been dragged into the issue. Up until now, the popes have been perceived as the forces of reform. That assumption may be fading in the face of more facts and testimony.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former papal nuncio (ambassador) in Washington, released a statement in which he claims Pope Francis had not only been advised of specific cases, but that he acted to protect the perpetrators. Viganò elevated the issue to an unprecedented level when he wrote that Pope Francis’ participation in the cover-ups warrants his resignation.
Viganò specifically addressed the case of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, D.C. Evidence and testimony revealed that he had been having sexual relationships with altar boys and seminarians throughout most of his years in the Church – including as an auxiliary bishop in New York, the bishop of Metuchen, New Jersey and the archbishop of Newark, New Jersey. All these promotions came despite a series of complaints over many years.
Upon learning of his misdeeds, then-Pope Benedict had McCarrick removed from ministry and banned travel. Not only did Pope Francis lift the restrictions on McCarrick, but he took him as an advisor in naming bishops and cardinals, including his own successor, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, who has now been embroiled in controversy for covering up McCarrick’s immoral and criminal activities. Wuerl’s appointment was peculiar in that he was not on the list prepared for the Pope. It was Pope Francis’ personal decision based on McCarrick’s recommendation.
Critics within the Church have accused Pope Francis of creating what they call the “lavender Mafia” – a cabal of clergy with liberal views on clergy sexuality, including homosexuality. They are said to include those who both engage in pedophilia or protect those who do.
Though it has not received a lot of news coverage, Pope Francis’ is often dogged by protestors as he travels from country to country. The often carry large photographs of victims. In recent months, more and more protest signs have called for the Pope to resign.
The Pope’s public condemnations of errant clergy tend to only come after there is a major outbreak of news and protests. Critics point to his initial response to the pleas of victims during his trip to South America, when he warned against false accusations. He was confronted by the faithful protesting child sexual abuse by clergy at almost every stop on his tour of Argentina, Chile and Peru. It was only after he was back in Rome and the issue exploded in the media that he reversed himself and apologized to the victims. He has not yet taken any action against the accused.
The Catholic Church may be heading into the most significant institutional moral crisis since the Middle Ages. There are those who believe when all the facts are known, Pope Francis will be forced out of the papacy as a corrupt Pope. That may be a bit too speculative for this moment, but it is increasingly clear that the hems of the papal cassock may not be as pure white as they were once thought to be.