Virtually every person who follows current events even casually knows that the national news media has a left-wing tilt – actually more than a tilt. When it comes to putting the journalistic thumb on the partisan political scale, the elitist media is onboard with both feet. Even some of the most liberal observers admit to the media bias.
It has been firmly established by study-after-study. They show that approximately 80 percent of the so-called journalists are liberal Democrats. That figure goes even higher when you look at the east coast, bubble-encapsulated Big Seven – ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times and Washington Post. That is, by far, not a complete list of the biased media. You see others as regular panelists – including, but not limited to, The Atlantic, Associated Press, Politico, Axios, Huffington Post and on and on.
It is an empirical fact that FOX News — despite its conservative lean — provides the most balanced reporting than either of their chief competitors, CNN and MSNBC. Unlike MSNBC, FOX has anchors and permanent contributors who offer the more liberal viewpoint. It frequently provides a legitimate debate between representatives of opposing opinion.
The FOX News ratings swamp those of CNN and MSNBC – combined. The most hardline conservative hosts – such as Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham – draw a much larger audience than Rachel Maddow, Larry O’Donnell and the crew on Morning Joe.
Despite FOX’s relative objectivity and popularity, those panels of parroting pundits on CNN and MSNBC engage in classic projection by accusing FOX of being the captive of the political right – when, in fact, they are the promotional platform for Democrats and the political left – but I repeat myself.
Objective reporting is no longer the standard among the left-leaning press. What passes for news is opinion, conjecture, hypothecation and, as they say, spin. The once rare and unethical practice of single sources and unnamed sources has become standard operating procedure. They – with malice aforethought – refuse to report facts and opinions that are not supportive of preconceived narratives as news. Their analysis of events is uniform and consistent. It is anti-Trump, anti-Republican, anti-conservative and contemptible of the millions of Americans who disagree with their port-side perspective. Major portions of the east coast news industry have succumbed to propaganda as their stock-in-trade.
While there is considerable discussion about the manifest biases of the elitist mainstream media, there seems to be less attention paid to the all-important outcome. Are those biases tipping the political scale? And as the headline question asks: Can Democrats win without a biased news media?
The extent of the advantage should be recognized. Many Americans are living with an old image of the news industry – with a bygone belief in its honesty, integrity and fairness. The most ill-informed voters in America are those who fixate on MSNBC. They never hear the other side of the story. They absorb propaganda in the belief that they are getting all the news.
Consider, for a moment, the huge advantage that provides to Democrats and left-leaning advocacy groups. Whatever they say or claim will be given the highest credibility and most favorable spin. Arguably, it is one of the reasons that Democrats have become so outrageous in their comments.
Even after the Mueller Report put the lie to more than two years of claiming that President Trump criminally colluded with Russia – presented as a matter of fact – Democrats continue to press that claim and their allies in the media ignore the facts and continue to favorably report (spin) in favor of a political absurdity.
It is entirely possible – even likely – that the constant negative spin against Trump and the Republicans was a deciding factor that handed the House over to the Democrats. There can be no doubt that it is the strategic intent of the anti-Trump east coast media to hand the Senate and White House to the Democrats – an achievement that would seem far less likely in a political environment in which the Fourth Estate operated with the spirit, traditions and ethics of … journalism.
So, there ‘tis.
Heading into the 2012 election season, Barack Obama appeared to be the general favorite to win the election. When Republicans chose then former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to be their candidate to oppose Obama, many Republicans believed there was no way Romney could win, and they were right.
Romney had, and still does, act more like a Democrat than a Republican as he claims to be. I believed then that the only way Republicans could have defeated Obama was to run former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, but she said she was not interested in the job.
We are now entering the 2020 election season, where President Donald Trump is running for re-election against ???????? for the Democrats. There are currently at least 24 official Democratic candidates, vying for the opportunity to face off against Trump in the election. Watching all of the Democrats licking their chops, hoping for the chance to defeat Trump reminds me of a school of hungry piranha waiting for some animal to enter the water so they can attack and devour them.
If Obama was such a certainty at this stage of his first term, then what does that say about President Trump? If you listen to the sewagestream media and Democrats, you be led to think that Trump doesn’t have a chance of winning re-election. Don’t forget that virtually all of the sewagestream media and Democrats said there is no way that Trump could beat Hillary in 2016, but guess what? They were all wrong.
Two of the key issues facing any presidential candidate or president seeking re-election are the economy and national security.
With the tensions with Iran, and after going through the same tensions with North Korea, the media and Democrats claim that Trump has been an utter failure when it comes to national security.
As for the economy, most of the leading Democratic candidates are pushing a pure socialist economic agenda based on promising the people free healthcare, free college and the forgiveness of all student loans. They are not revealing that combined, these programs will have a price tag of at least $6 trillion a YEAR. (President Trump has proposed an increased budget for 2020 of $4.746 trillion.)
So, as we begin the campaign season, how would you answer the following two questions and how do the responses from voters compare to Obama at the same time in his first term?:
1* How do you rate the way President Trump is handling economic issues?
2* How would you rate the way President Trump is handling national security issues?
Rasmussen Reports asked likely voters – Republicans, Democrats and Independents these two questions and here is what they reported:
Voters rank Donald Trump well ahead of Barack Obama in his handling of the economy at this point in their presidencies. Trump’s national security approval is at the high level his predecessor enjoyed just after the killing of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters now think Trump is doing a good or excellent job handling economic issues. That’s up from 39% in mid-2017 shortly after Trump had taken office and just short of the high of 51% last October. Thirty-three percent (33%) rate his performance as poor. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Forty-seven percent (47%) give the president good or excellent marks for his handling of national security issues. That’s up from 41% in January 2018 and a high for Trump to date. Thirty-nine percent (39%) rate him poorly in this area.
By comparison, in late June of his third year in office, Obama earned positive marks from just 34% when it came to his handling of economic issues. Forty-five percent (45%) rated his handling of national security as good or excellent at that time, down from a high of 52% earlier in the month, shortly after the death of bin Laden.
If Obama was already considered a shoe-in for his 2012 re-election at stage of his first term, then these results should indicate that Trump should easily defeat whomever the Democrats throw at him in the general election. However, Obama was supported by a huge number of millennials who are the products of the socialist brainwashing program instituted in many public schools and those millennials would never go against their indoctrination to vote for Trump, so regardless of the polls, which were wrong in 2016, nothing can be considered certain in 2020.
NBC News has announced who they think was the winner of Wednesday night’s first of two debates between about half of the Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls, their pick may very well surprise you. The said the clear winner was –Donald Trump!
NBC News analyst, author and reporter Jonathan Allen declared President Trump the winner of the first Democratic presidential debate of the 2020 election cycle.
In assessing the debate, Allen “expressed surprise” that Trump emerged “largely unscathed” as the field of 10 candidates mostly avoided direct attacks on him.
Allen said the Democrats seemed more focused on positioning themselves furthest to the left to win over primary voters, rather than appealing to the swing voters that decided the 2016 election.
“For long stretches, it seemed, they completely forgot about the man who has been at the center of pretty much every discussion among Democrats for the last two-plus years — the man they’re competing to take on next year. The obvious reason, their motivation to beat each other was, on this night, more urgent than defeating Trump — a life-or-death moment for some of their campaigns. Trump was the chief beneficiary of that dynamic,” Allen wrote in his column.
Trump Not Totally Absent
Allen continued saying, “of course, he was occasionally thrust into the spotlight, such as when Washington Gov. Jay Inslee identified the President as the greatest threat to the country — a line that drew hearty applause from the crowd.
But for the most part, he was an afterthought.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., suggested that was intentional.
“You can’t just make this all about Donald Trump,” she told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in an interview after the debate. “He’s an old show that people are getting tired of.”
Instead, she said, voters want to know what Democrats plan to do with the presidency if they win it.
Allen said that Warren accomplished her pre-debate goal of delivering the message that the economic and political systems need major structural changes if lower- and middle-class Americans are to see their standing rise.
But concluded that, by largely ignoring Trump as they did, Democrats could allow the President “to exploit their divisions and position himself for re-election” and “he was one step closer to that after Wednesday’s debate.”
The sentiment was shared by MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who said it was “a missed opportunity” for Democrats to not go after frontrunner Joe Biden or President Trump.
Another MSNBC commentator, Donny Deutsch declared confidently after the debate that none of the 10 candidates on the stage could defeat Trump next year, including Warren.
The next presidential election is less than a year and half away. President Donald Trump is certain to be the Republican nomination unless something happens to him such as impeachment. If that were to happen, I would think that Vice President Mike Pence would be the GOP nominee.
For Democrats, the nominee is not all that certain, with over 20 declared candidates and about 200 others who have expressed interest. The current front runner among Democrats is supposed to be former Vice President Joe Biden, but then early polls are notoriously wrong. In fact, a recent poll from Iowa showed that Biden’s commanding lead has dwindled to the point of barely being ahead of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg. That list of four is scary enough, but there is something even scarier to consider as we approach the 2020 elections.
That scary thought really hit home when I saw a graphic that was forwarded to me in an email.
The graphic stated:
1944: 18 year olds stormed enemy beaches, parachuted behind enemy lines, and charged into German machine gun fire….
2018: 18 year olds need safe spaces, blankies, bubbles, coloring books, gun free zones, and counseling for “ptsd” caused by opposing views and offensive words…
I knew many of those 18-year-olds who fought to preserve America’s freedom. My dad was one of those, enlisting in the US Navy in 1940 at the age of 18. He signed up for 6-years active duty and was stationed in the Pacific when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the event that forced the United States to enter World War II.
Dad saw the battles at Bougainville, Saipan and the Solomon Islands. He admitted that most the young men and even the older men present at those battles were afraid, fearing for their lives, but their patriotism and sense of duty to protect America was stronger.
They were willing to rush into danger for the sake of their country. They were willing to sacrifice time away from their family and friends, along with the comforts of home. They willingly gave up their warm beds for wet and dirty foxholes. They willingly gave up mom’s home cooking for military rations, which many compared to dogfood. They willingly gave up the smiles, laughter and support at home for the grimaces, crying and discouragement of war because they loved America.
Then there are the same aged young people who in 2016, whined and cried because Hillary Clinton lost. They walked out of classrooms and sat on the lawns and sidewalks where their instructors brought them hot chocolate, crayons and chalk. This generation is lost and angry if their cell phone dies. They protest if anyone dare says anything negative about them, about their liberal idols and about their liberal ideologies.
Rather than feeling grateful for what America has to offer as those 18-year-olds who did in 1944, these 18-year-olds feel they are entitled to everything, regardless if they work for it or not. They feel that everyone owes them everything, which is why they are so gullible into believing the lying promises being made by socialist like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and most Democrats.
Instead of fighting for what’s right, they whine and cry for the right to do the opposite. In 1944, those young men fought to protect their traditional families and today’s young men fight to destroy traditional families. In 1944, those young men fought for the right to preserve the freedom of speech and religion for everyone while today’s young men fight to suppress the freedom of speech and religion of anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
The scariest part is that many of those young men and women who were 18 just a few years ago, will be voting for the first time in 2020 and you can be assured that many of them won’t be voting to protect families, freedom of speech and religion or out of patriotic duty. Instead, they’ll be voting for the socialist Democrats because they have been brainwashed by 12-years in the public education system.
Perhaps the main difference between that generation in 1944 and the one in 2018 can be summed up this way:
In 1944, those young men were rushing into harm’s way to fight against Nazism, fascism and socialism.
In 2018-20, the men are rushing to embrace and vote for socialism, communism and forms of fascism and I find that this makes the 2020 elections the scariest in American history.
As recently reported in these pages, Melania Trump’s spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham was the breakout frontrunner to replace outgoing Press Secretary, Sara Huckabee Sanders, now it is official. The White House has just announced that Grisham will indeed become the new White House press secretary. She will also serve as White House communications director.
Prior to her new appointment as White House press secretary, Grisham served as Melania Trump’s spokeswoman since 2017. Grisham had earlier acted as deputy to then-press secretary Sean Spicer before serving the first lady.
She developed a reputation as a staunch defender of the first lady during her tenure in the East Wing.
Single Mom and an Experienced, Dedicated Pro
Grisham followed Trump to Washington from Arizona, where she worked for state Republicans including then-Attorney General Tom Horne. In 2012, she was part of GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s campaign.
According to local paper the Arizona Republic, Grisham was one of Trump’s first staffers in Arizona. She set up his campaign stops around the state during the primary. Trump then tapped her to arrange his rallies across the US.
After Trump’s victory, she was named special adviser for operations and served on the transition team.
A single mother of two sons, when she joined the Trump campaign as a press aide in July 2015, her eldest son, Kurtis, was 18 and her youngest, Jake, was 8 years old, according to Politico.
Grisham was so dedicated to her job on the campaign that she once went five-and-a-half months without seeing Jake, the outlet said.
“Short term, it’s a small sacrifice to make,” Grisham told Politico of the time away from her sons. “Because I do think he’s best for the country.”
It was the first lady. and not President Trump, who announced the news.
“I am pleased to announce @StephGrisham45 will be the next @PressSec & Comms Director! She has been with us since 2015 – @potus & I can think of no better person to serve the Administration & our country. Excited to have Stephanie working for both sides of the @WhiteHouse. #BeBest,” Mrs. Trump tweeted on Tuesday afternoon.
Sanders’ final day is June 28.
President Trump has struck back at Iran for their increasingly aggressive language, by issuing “hard-hitting” financial sanctions against Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his associates. Signing an Executive Order (EO) imposing the new sanctions Trump said, “Today’s action follows a series of aggressive behaviors by the Iranian regime in recent weeks including shooting down a U.S. drone,” the president said in the Oval Office, calling Khamenei “responsible for the hostile conduct of the regime.”
Trump said the sanctions “will deny the supreme leader and the supreme leader’s office and those closely affiliated with him and the office access to key financial resources and support.”
Speaking to reporters in the White House briefing room, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the sanctions “lock up literally billions of dollars more of assets.”
“Along with that action today, we are also announcing specific actions targeting those responsible for recent activities,” Mnuchin said, adding that the president has instructed him to sanction Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif “later this week.”
Executive Action and a Cyberattack Against Iran
In a news release following the signing of the EO, the Treasury Department said, “any foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates a significant financial transaction for entities designated under this Executive Order could be cut off from the U.S. financial system.”
Amid the newly announced sanctions, Fox News has confirmed that the U.S. military also carried out a cyber attack against Iran last Thursday even as the president nixed plans for airstrikes in response to the downing of an American drone.
Sources said U.S. Cyber Command launched the cyber attack targeting the Iranian intelligence and radar installations used to down the U.S. Navy drone last week.
Fox News has learned that Iran shut off some of its military radar sites around the time the U.S. was poised to launch retaliatory strikes. It’s not clear if those radar sites were turned off by the cyber attack or if Iran shut them off deliberately in anticipation of this.
Every time I hear a Democrat politician refer to America’s rule-of-law I get a bit nauseous. They coddle violent demonstrators, say women accusers should be believed without proof, encourage … yes, encourage … illegal entry into the United States and generally ignore laws they do not like.
The latest manifestation of left-wing lawlessness is the response of many Democrat leaders and their media allies to the rounding up and deporting thousands of people in America illegally. A number of Democrat mayors – who hypocritically preside over institutional racism in their cities – are protecting criminals from the long arm of justice.
The latest mayor to defy both law and logic is Chicago’s new chief executive officer, Mayor Lori Lightfoot. In response to the increased enforcement of our immigration laws by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Lightfoot issues this statement.
“We are all aware of the threat from President Trump regarding raids by ICE, and in response, Chicago has taken concrete steps to support our immigrant communities. I have directed – and Superintendent Johnson has confirmed – that CPD has terminated ICE’s access to CPD’s databases related to federal immigration enforcement activities. I have also personally spoken with ICE leadership in Chicago and voiced my strong objection to any such raids. Further, I reiterated that CPD will not cooperate with or facilitate any ICE enforcement actions. Chicago will always be a welcoming city and a champion for the rights of our immigrant and refugee communities, and I encourage any resident in need of legal aid to contact the National Immigrant Justice Center.”
This is nothing short of defiance of the law of the land … the rule-of-law. This is what autocrats do to maintain power – develop an extra-legal constituency. And as a born and bred Chicagoan, I can assure you that it is a one-party autocratic system
What is particularly obnoxious and offensive about Lightfoot’s action – and the actions of all those other anti-law Democrat mayors – is that ICE is NOT … repeat NOT … undertaking a general sweep of those in America illegally. They are rounding up individuals who have gone through the legal system … who have had their day in court … and have been ORDERED by the courts to be deported.
These are people who have been determined to be unqualified for asylum – and a very large percentage have criminal issues. It you follow Lightfoot’s logic, no illegal alien – no matter of the criminal history or malicious intent – should ever be deported.
In an effort to build public sympathy, critics of the ICE efforts say these are also families. No doubt. But the real question is whether these families have one or more parents who are criminals. That could even apply to the so-called children since they refer to anyone under 18 as a “child” – again to give a false impression.
The left-wing media is complicit in this fraud on the public by echoing the false narratives with their false impressions. They rarely note that the people being sought have been judged and ordered to be deported. They play up the “family” reference without reporting why these folks have been found by our legal system to be unworthy of remaining in America.
Democrats say that some of these parents have children who are American citizens by virtue of birthright citizenship because they were born in the United States. While that may be true, it does not mean we should not follow the court order to deport.
Parents in that situation can take the kid with them or leave the child with legal relatives. Yes, it is a heart-rendering decision, but child separation is rather common when we send folks to jail. Having a child does not absolve a person for obeying the law.
Lightfoot’s states that her action is to protect Chicago’s “immigrant communities.” Sorry Mayor. The folks ordered out of our country are not “immigrants.” The are here illegally … period. Yes, we are a nation of immigrants – and that means, or should mean, legal immigrants. Just because Lightfoot calls them immigrants does not make them such.
It has always struck me strange that Democrats seem to be playing up to minority Americans or legal immigrants from Hispanic countries. As a person who has spent a fair amount of time in the Hispanic communities, I have found that the good people in those neighborhoods are not very fond of gangbangers and drug dealers who bring crime and violence to their doorstep – even if the criminals are of the same ethnic background. That is like saying our Italian communities love the Mafia or our Asian communities welcome Triad.
If you follow Lightfoot’s apparent thinking to its logical end, perhaps she should insulate the Latin Kings and MS13 because they might have families from which they would be separated if you toss them in the hoosegow. Oh! The Mayor is potentially insulating MS13 gangsters from law enforcement.
With this kind of selective law enforcement – or more correctly “non-enforcement” – it is no wonder that Chicago crime rates are so high, especially in the minority communities that Lightfoot claims to be protecting.
I am all for immigration reform that would normalize the presence of millions of people currently in America illegally – but we need both a legal and vetting system to accomplish that. My generosity of spirit does NOT apply to criminals and those the courts have ordered OUT. Sensible immigration reform is something congressional Democrats seem to be resisting like an invitation to spend two weeks in a motel in the Dominican Republic.
So, there ‘tis.
The Italian Council of Ministers – the principal executive organ of the Italian government – has authorized a new security degree drawn up by national populist interior minister Matteo Salvini that will restrict the activities of NGOs responsible for transporting illegal migrants into the country.
According to a report from Il Giornale, new provisions will grant the Italian government the authority to seize sea vessels from ‘civil society groups’ which breach government sanctions or that try to illegally enter Italy’s territorial waters with illegal migrants on-board.
One portion of the security decree will provide intelligence and police services with more freedom to use wiretaps and undercover operatives to fight illegal human trafficking into Italy.
Article One of the new security decree explicitly states that the Interior Minister now has the authority to “restrict or prohibit the entry, transit or parking of ships in the territorial sea, except in the case of military ships or ships in non-commercial government service, for reasons of public security and order.”
Apart from having their boats seized, captains who disregard the decree will face fines of 10,000 to 50,000 euros.
The authorization of this new security decree marks a significant step in the fight against illegal human traffickers and the migrant transporting NGOs who have aided them for years with impunity.
In fact, Pia Klemp, a German migrant transport vessel captain, is currently facing trial in Italy for her alleged collaboration with human traffickers. If she’s convicted, she could be faced with up to 20 years in prison.
Another portion of the new legislation enacts tougher penalties for individuals who assault police officers during political demonstrations. When asked about this section, Salvini explained: “I do not think that freedom of thought passes through instruments such as firecrackers, bats, and sticks.”
The new decree comes after the country’s 2018 migration and security decree which got rid the humanitarian residency permit and invested several million euros into funding deportations of illegal migrants.
Last year’s legislation addressed problems associated with far-left and Roma squatters and opened up the option to revoke Italian citizenship from convicted terrorists.
But the Italian government isn’t the only one in Europe taking meaningful measures to put an end to mass migration into the continent from the third world.
Last year in February, the Hungarian government also announced new legislation – called the Stop Soros bill – that would make it possible to imprison NGOs and individuals who help to facilitate illegal migration.
Currently, that legislation is in the midst of the standard process of public debate.
President Trump on Thursday night approved of limited air strikes against Iran in retaliation for the unmanned surveillance drone that was shot down in the Gulf of Oman – an area adjacent to the geostrategic oil chokepoint the Strait of Hormuz – in what Washington claims were international waters. For reasons that are still unclear, Trump called off the strike as planes and ships were being maneuvered into position for the strike.
Reports from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times cited a number of senior government officials, and mentioned that President Trump was ready to strike a number of Iranian targets, including its’ radar system and surface-to-air missile sites. Fortunately, however, he ultimately gave the order to stand down.
Had the president failed to change his initial course of action, the world would have witnessed the most significant escalation between the U.S. and Iran in decades. Such an escalation could easily degenerate into a nightmarish World War III scenario.
According to a Reuters report, a senior administration official said the American warplanes were in the air and Navy sea vessels were placed in position for a retaliatory attack when orders came from the top to stand down. No weapons were fired.
Strikes were planned to take place in the early hours of the morning so as minimize harm to civilians and the military. It’s still unclear as to whether the Trump administration will decide to strike at a later date.
If Trump had gone ahead with the strike, it would have marked the third attack ordered in the Middle East region during his presidency. In Syria, two missile strikes have been ordered by Trump – one in 2017 and another in 2018.
As of right now, it’s still unclear as to whether Trump simply changed his mind, or whether he and his military advisors were moving forward with another strategy.
After tensions between Washington and Tehran rose to new levels after two oil tankers were attacked in the Persian Gulf, Russia, China, and major European allies of the U.S. have called on all sides involved to show restraint.
The U.S. and its European allies remain divided over the issue of Iran.
France, Britain, and Germany have all made efforts to keep the nuclear deal with Iran intact and viable, but Trump hasn’t been so amicable. He pulled the U.S. out of the deal in 2018. Since then tensions between Washington and Tehran have steadily risen, reaching a high point last night.
You really get a sense of the Democrats’ and the anti-Trump media’s dismay over the 2016 election results not only in their push for impeachment, but for their desire to take down the entire administration. It is not just about Trump. It is not just about his personality. What they really want to take down is the entire Republican conservative agenda.
It seems like very time the left gets their undies in a bunch, they are calling for someone in the administration to resign. It is really becoming a bit of a farce. They have called for the resignation of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carlson, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders (who did resign, but not in response to the Democrats) and just about anyone serving in the White House. Every time they disagree with a policy or can make a mountain out of some political molehill issue, the Democrats run to the cameras and demand a resignation.
I suspect that the Democratic National Committee must have a boilerplate news release that goes something like this: “Today, Democrats in Congress have called for the resignation of (add name here) for violating (his/her) oath of office. (Last name here) has proven (himself/herself) unfit for the office they hold because …” It would go on for about five paragraphs, but you get the idea.
The latest target of the resignation regiment is Counsellor to the President Kellyanne Conway. According to the White House Officer of Special Counsel (OSC), Conway is guilty of making negative comments about some of the 23 Democrats who have jumped into the presidential race. She is accused of violating the Hatch Act.
As an aside, I confess to being a more-or-less libertarian First Amendment extremist. I tend to dislike anything that inhibits free speech – even speech with which I disagree and even offensive speech that hurts people’s feelings. It’s the old “sticks and stones” thing, I guess. I stick with the Founders in their devotion to free speech and not the politically correct … uh … okay, I will say it … wimps.
Conway’s indiscretion, as we might call it, was to say unflattering things about Democrat presidential candidates fighting over the opportunity to run against President Trump. Her mistake, according to the OSC, was to say those things on White House grounds. That’s right! If she had said the very same thing on the street in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, things would have been hunky-dory. That is how ridiculous these restrictions have become.
It is also noteworthy that she was usually responding to questions or ugly things one of the Democrat presidential candidates said about Trump. As far as I am concerned, if someone criticizes the President, the President or a spokesperson has every right to respond.
Consider how many times Democrats in Congress say the most God-awful things about Trump – and they say them on the floor of the House, in the hallways and in their offices. Shouldn’t the Hatch Act apply to them? And remember, a lot of those democrat presidential candidates attacking Trump are members of the House or Senate. We have often seen them asked leading questions by the press – and they answer.
The OSC claims that Conway violated the Hatch Act by mixing personal and political statements on her PERSONAL Twitter account. That would mean her right of free speech is blocked even on her personal account.
Washington lawyer Debra Katz told National Public Radio that the Hatch Act is “not a law with great nuance” and “not a hard Act to adhere to.” In fact, it is all nuance. The law is applied arbitrarily because political activity and statements and government activity and statements are virtually inseparable.
What seems to have motivated the OSC to take such a harsh position has less to do with her statements and more to do that she has generally disregarded their conclusions.
Of course, the OSC can scream about Conway from the top of the Capitol Dome, but there is not much they can do about it. It is not a criminal violation. Whether Conway keeps her job or gets booted is totally up to … Trump. And we all know how the OSC’s little theatrical production will end.
In the letter to Trump, the OSC said that if Conway is not fired, it would undermine the Hatch Act, itself. We can only hope.
So, there ‘tis.