Disrupting the Narrative of the New Left, its allies in Academia, Hollywood and the Establishment Media, and examining with honesty the goals of cultural Marxism and the dangers of reactionary and abusive political correctness.
THE NARRATIVE AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”-George Orwell
Showing posts with label Three Martini Lunch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Three Martini Lunch. Show all posts
Navarette points out that Housing Secretary Julian Castro and his twin brother, Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas don't speak Spanish well, and that hasn't harmed their political careers nor their sense of "authenticity." Reporters can look pretty silly when they make assumptions about their interview subject's heritage. A little while back, Andrea Mitchell asked Julian Castro about his "Cuban-American background," to which he replied, "Well, I'm Mexican-American."
I can understand the desire to go beyond the "tell us about your tax plan" line of questions. But Halperin came across as snide, presumptive, and arrogant, with the underlying tone of the questions suggesting Cruz was somehow faking his status as a Cuban-American.
Jonathan Tobin: "With two Republican presidential candidates of Hispanic background (Cruz and fellow Cuban-American Marco Rubio) and one GOP hopeful that is a woman (Carly Fiorina) and another an African American (Ben Carson), the liberal authenticity police will be out in force. But rather than merely ignore them as Cruz, who kept his cool with Halperin did, this insidious bias needs to be shown for what it is: a desire by the media to delegitimize anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas about identity politics as interpreted through the catechism of liberal ideology."
BuzzFeed's Katherine Miller observes, "nothing really happened after the interview! Besides Rush Limbaugh, no one on the Internet seems to have noticed this happened for… nine days." Maybe that says something about who's watching Halperin's program?
With a well-honed sense of perspective, Alison Flood of The Guardian writes: "some days, stories about the bleakest possible futures are strangely appealing. I'm in the mood for Raymond Briggs and Stephen King – how about you?" How have the celebrities of the Left reacted?
Deeply suspicious of anyone out and about in London who doesn't look completely devastated today.
Sens. Patrick Leahy and Mike Lee are calling on Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to bring up an NSA reform bill this month now that a court has ruled the program is illegal.
"The dragnet collection of Americans' phone records is unnecessary and ineffective, and now a federal appellate court has found that the program is illegal," Leahy and Lee said in a statement. "Congress should not reauthorize a bulk collection program that the court has found to violate the law. We will not consent to any extension of this program."
Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, is the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee while Lee, a Republican from Utah, heads the GOP's Steering Committee.
The two are co-authors of the USA Freedom Act, which adds significant restrictions to the government's controversial telephone surveillance program that was authorized in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The House is scheduled to take up the measure next week, where it is likely to pass with bipartisan support, but in the Senate, the future is less certain...
Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post wrote that former President Bill Clinton's "exclusive" interview with NBC's Cynthia McFadden was classic Bill Clinton. When the former president was asked if he would still be taking high dollar speaking fees because he has to "pay the bills."
Marcus went on to say that the interview from Bill and Hillary's point of view was ill-advised. Marcus described what viewers saw as a "toxic combination" of tone-deafness and being out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans.
During Bill Clinton's interview with McFadden, he mentioned that he takes 10 percent of his income every year to give back to the foundation. He also justified taking the speaking fees because for the past 15 years, he has taken almost no capital gains. Echoes similar to Hillary's comment that when the Clinton's left the White House they were "dead broke."
In her column Marcus wrote that Bill came off as if he stopped taking money for his paid speeches that the Clintons would be worried about actually paying the bills.
"The rest of us with a few $500,000 speeches could manage to pay our bills for quite a while," said Marcus.
The city of Baltimore received over $1.8 billion from President Barack Obama's stimulus law, including $467.1 million to invest in education and $26.5 million for crime prevention.
President Obama claimed last Tuesday that if the Republican-controlled Congress would implement his policies to make "massive investments in urban communities," they could "make a difference right now" in the city, currently in upheaval following the death of Freddie Gray.
However, a Washington Free Beacon analysis found that the Obama administration and Democratically-controlled Congress did make a "massive" investment into Baltimore, appropriating $1,831,768,487 though the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), commonly known as the stimulus.
According to Recovery.gov, one of Baltimore's central ZIP codes, 21201, received the most stimulus funding in the city, a total of $837,955,866. The amount included funding for 276 awards, and the website reports that the spending had created 290 jobs in the fourth quarter in 2013.
Of this amount, $467.1 million went to education; $206.1 million to the environment; $24 million to "family"; $16.1 million to infrastructure; $15.2 million to transportation; $11.9 million to housing; and $3.1 million to job training.
ZIP code 21202 received $425,170,937, including a $136 million grant to "improve teaching and learning for students most at risk of failing to meet State academic achievement standards."
Twenty-nine other ZIP codes listed in Baltimore city received a total of $568,641,684...
Schweizer then turns his attention to Ericsson, a Swedish telecom company that was providing services to the Iranian government, despite its sponsorship of terrorism, at a time when the State Department was cracking down on such deals.
"Ericsson decided to sponsor a speech by Bill Clinton and paid him more than he had ever been paid for a single speech: $750,000," Schweizer writes. "According to Clinton financial disclosures, in the previous ten years Ericsson had never sponsored a Clinton speech. But now it apparently thought would be a good time to do so."
Clinton gave the speech on November 12, 2011. "One week later, on November 19, the State Department unveiled its new sanctions list for Iran," the book continues. "Telecom was not on the list." Even when Obama imposed sanctions on telecom sales by executive order in 2012, "those sanctions did not cover Ericsson's work in Iran."
If Schweizer's theory is correct, Obama's rapprochement with Iran paid dividends for the Clintons more than once...
What next from Sharpton? How about this: a call to bring America's police departments under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. "We need the Justice Department to step in and take over policing in this country," he told reporters this afternoon, adding that it would take fighting states' rights to do so.
There is no better metric to measure the health of American hegemony than whether trade ships enjoy unfettered access to sea lanes. Global maritime law is among the more settled concepts in international law, and its violation has universally understood consequences. American naval power guarantees the right of safe passage, and hostile powers know that they will encounter resistance if they used military force to prevent commercial ships from proceeding along their routes. At least, they knew that until Tuesday. Today, the world awakes to a new reality in which the United States has blinked.
If you're watching affairs from Moscow, or Beijing, or Tehran, or the capital of any other revisionist power, why wouldn't you believe that America's alliances are barely worth the paper on which they are written? Why wouldn't the Kremlin think it could test NATO's commitment to the defense of Eastern European states. Would London, Paris, Berlin, and Washington really risk war with a nuclear power over a sliver of territory in eastern Estonia?
It no longer seems like much of a risk to find out. Similarly, why would the People's Republic of China believe that a flotilla of "fisherman" colonialists who establish a base on the contested Senkaku Islands would be resisted with force? There is simply no evidence to suggest that would be the case. At least, not under this administration.
It's a more dangerous world today, and much of that is a result of Barack Obama's repeated displays of impotence and irresoluteness. Before this week, when it comes to America's obligations to its allies, Obama's "you're on your own" doctrine was only perceived. Today, it's precedent.
In Baltimore, as the National Guard steps in, curfews are imposed, and business owners pick up the pieces from their burned-out, looted stores, let's not forget why one more American city has been torn apart by racial violence. Blue America has failed at social justice. It has failed at equality. It has failed at accountability. Its competing constituencies are engaged in street battles, and any exploration of "root causes" must necessarily include decades of failed policies - all imposed by steadfastly Democratic mayors and city leaders.
Are the riots caused by the Baltimore Police Department's "documented history" of abuse? Which party has run Baltimore and allowed its police officers to allegedly run amok? Going deeper, which American political movement lionizes public-employee unions, fiercely protecting them from even the most basic reform? Public-employee unions render employee discipline difficult and often impossible. Jobs are functionally guaranteed for life, and rogue officers can count on the best representation money can buy - courtesy of Blue America.
Are the riots caused by inequality? Orioles' owner Peter Angelos's son, John, made waves on the left with his "tweetstorm" stating that his "greater source of personal concern, outrage, and sympathy" was not with "one night's property damage" but with a litany of economic outrages that he claims have "plunged tens of millions of hard-working Americans into economic devastation." Mother Jones summed up his message by declaring, "At the end of the day, it comes down to social and economic inequality."
The Clinton Foundation joins Al Sharpton's troubled National Action Network on Charity Navigator's list. It seems appropriate that two great con artists, Bill Clinton and Al Sharpton, should be thus be joined.
Sharpton's outfit reportedly made the list because it didn't pay payroll taxes for several years. The Clinton Foundation's problems run deeper. According to the Post, it took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
It's important to note that the Clinton Foundation's status as a problematic charity is distinct from the "Clinton cash" issue that Peter Schweizer and others have highlighted. "Clinton cash" focuses on the fundraising methods used by the Clintons. Specifically, there are substantial allegations that they raise money in part because nations and wealthy individuals hope to influence U.S. policy through their donations, and very possibly have succeeded in doing so.
The problem flagged by Charity Navigator and other watchdogs focuses on what the Clinton Foundation does with the money it raises (whether ethically or not). The Foundation's profligacy and failure to spend a significant percentage of its funds on its alleged mission would be of concern even if there were no ethical problems associated with the Clintons' fundraising.
The two sets of problems are related, however. Both stem from the same greed, sense of entitlement, and arrogance. In this respect, both are related to a host of Clinton scandals dating back to Whitewater.
It is admittedly difficult to bear the obsequious servility that punctuates The New York Times editorial board's latest gentle attempt to convince Hillary Clinton that she has a serious problem on her hands. Viewed, however, as a window into the thinking of the Democratic Party's terrified pragmatists who are slowly coming to the realization that they backed the wrong horse, The Times' latest is clarifying. It is a desperate and helpless demand that Clinton somehow stop the bleeding.
It isn't just the scandalous revelations swirling around the Clintons that have jeopardized her political prospects either. The former secretary of state's efforts to appeal to the Democratic Party's restless left-wing have been sloppy, polarizing, and have demonstrated the extent to which Clinton's political instincts have atrophied. Rest assured, smart Democratic operatives are panicking, and they're already contemplating a Plan B.
The Times might not be outwardly panicking just yet, but this editorial is a sign that the façade of calm is crumbling. This story will survive the weekend, and it has as much potential as did the former secretary of state's email scandal to force her out of the bunker and in front of the media's cameras. The question then becomes, how many hastily assembled damage control press conferences can one hold before the public stops listening?
How should one think about the unfolding allegations rocking the Clinton-Industrial Complex (which includes both her campaign and her foundation)?
By now, you may have heard about Peter Schweizer's book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. The book isn't even out yet, and Clinton's team is already sheltering in place like Churchill's cabinet during the Blitz. That's in part because Schweizer, a conservative author and dogged investigative journalist, has teamed up with the notorious right-wing rags the New York Times and the Washington Post to essentially re-report and expand on allegations made in the book.
Because it would be absurd to claim that these papers are part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" - which won't stop flacks from saying it - they are much better equipped to drop the payload over the target.
Even Lawrence O'Donnell, a Democratic water-carrier of such sterling reliability that he makes Gunga Din look like a slacker, had to concede on MSNBC's Morning Joe that the Clinton campaign no longer has a Schweizer problem. It has "a New York Times problem."
Excuse me @realDonaldTrump but my friend says this will be your most embarrassing online moment, but I think you will top it. Who is right?
— Stacy Lenox (@Popehat) April 21, 2015
It's not every Tuesday you ponder whether you should block a billionaire because he's becoming a troll in your timeline.
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) April 21, 2015
@realDonaldTrump You're really hung up on the 14 year old girl quip. Kinda sad that gets under your skin, tough guy. Delete your account.
— Craig Ray (@caustinray72) April 21, 2015
Bing West is exactly right that the administration's decision to send a carrier battle group to Yemen and then broadcast that it's just there for show is "feckless." Even worse - given that Iranians are now buzzing U.S. ships - and engaging in other provocative acts, I fear that we're inviting ever-closer encounters - encounters that carry inherent risk of confrontation since they depend not just on American discipline but Iranian discipline as well. Under conventional rules of engagement, every American ship possesses an inherent right of self-defense, and decisions whether to exercise that right are being made with decreasing margins for error the closer Iranian forces get.
To be sure, going back to the Cold War, the American Navy has demonstrated that it can exercise extreme degrees of discipline - as did their Soviet rivals. But do we trust the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be as disciplined? Critically, do our own sailors trust Iranian discipline as much as they trusted the discipline of their Great Power rival?
We're sending sailors into close proximity of a shooting war, Iran is sending its own assets into the same area, and we're telling the world that we're not serious about our presence. Years of experience in the Middle East teaches us that our enemies always test the limits, consistently going up to and beyond danger zone. Unless the message the American forces are sending locally is substantially different than the message being sent internationally, we're playing games with an aircraft carrier, and that is perilous indeed.
Perhaps Victor Pinchuk was just the tip of the iceberg. A new book hits the shelves in two weeks that claims that Hillary Clinton traded favors for big-bucks donations to the Clinton Foundation while serving as Secretary of State. Unlike Newsweek, the New York Times' Amy Chozick doesn't lead with handwringing over what Hillary's "enemies" will do with this information, although the story does start with...Rand Paul:
The book does not hit shelves until May 5, but already the Republican Rand Paul has called its findings "big news" that will "shock people" and make voters "question" the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich," by Peter Schweizer - a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities - is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.
The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton's State Department in return.
"We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds," Mr. Schweizer writes.
The Newsweek story, once it dispensed with the Republican-overreach spin, never quite got around to making an explicit quid pro quo argument on Pinchuk. The best it does - and it's enough - is to show that Pinchuk's company violated UN and US sanctions on trade with Iran in the oil-production field, and that Hillary's State Department didn't do anything about it. That looks very suspicious, with Pinchuk's visibility high as a donor with at least $8.6 million invested in the Clinton family business, but a failure to act can be explained or excused out of ignorance - even if that ignorance seems implausible, to put it mildly.
Schweizer goes beyond Newsweek's model.He links payments to the Clinton Foundation to specific policy changes that benefit donors. For instance, one South American donor made a lot of money when Hillary Clinton pursued the free-trade policy with Colombia that her fellow Democrats had spent years blocking during the preceding Bush administration.
Chozick notes that Clinton Cash will focus more on money that went directly into their pockets, though, through the speaking tours of Bill Clinton. Eleven of the 13 $550K-plus speeches given by the former President took place during Hillary's tenure as SecState, Schweizer will document in the book.
"What difference does it make?" – Hillary Clinton discussing Benghazi, 2013
"We just wanted to get this thing over with and get on with it." – Clinton operative discussing her presidential announcement, 2015
Hillary Clinton's campaign launch video (no big speech among the little people for her) seems at first like a commercial for Target. It ends up with a message about — what, exactly? That all these people who are getting on with their lives just fine somehow need Clinton to be their champion.
Her website is long on biographical information, short on policy positions. ThinkProgress actually proposed some "economic policies Hillary Clinton could use to energize voters," since Clinton currently has none of her own. The lede of that article actually states that "the country may soon learn what the former secretary of state's economic policy platform will be - and how it will align with what voters want."
Because so far, we know nothing about what priorities a President Hillary Clinton would have. She's the frontrunner without even having a message. The Republican presidential hopefuls who have announced so far at least have generic Republican platitudes about reducing the size of government and changing foreign and immigration policies. Another potential presidential contender, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is well known for her anti-big bank rhetoric. She actually stands for something.
We know where Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Warren stand on important issues. The same cannot be said of Clinton. Which leads to the bigger problem with her candidacy: Is it about anything more than her gender? Is identity politics the only thing that matters any more?
