The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Tuesday, November 12, 2019


I grew up in a hard-scrabble mill town in Southern CT—a place that sadly, had its best years behind it. It was a wonderful place to grow up, even though there was crime and poverty and a rough feel to the place. You learned to become street smart very fast. You learned to recognize a street hustle before you were taken in by it, that you can't make nice with people who want to do you harm, and that some people have no compunction about taking what others have earned through hard work. Valuable lessons, all.

Sure there were a few nice neighborhoods where "rich people" lived, but in my neighborhood it wasn't unusual to see gangs of teenagers doing what gangs of teenagers do—only without the weaponry that today's gangs bring to bear.

And that is a roundabout way of getting to choreography. I can recall going to see the release of the movie "West Side Story" with my friends. When West Side Story's rival gangs broke into a choreographed dance number, I remember laughing out loud. I was too unsophisticated to recognize that a musical wasn't supposed to reflect real life, tough guys dancing in unison on city streets just looked silly to me.

I kinda get the same feeling today while watching the supposed congressional 'tough guy' Democrats dancing their way into an impeachment circus. It's all choreographed to such an extent that you just have to laugh out loud. We find the mysterious deep state and Democrat-connected whistleblower tap dancing behind an opaque curtain, unavailable for hard questions about his motivations and his connections. We listen to coordinated leaks from the "secret" testimony of disgruntled anti-Trump deep staters who tell us that they disapproved of Trump's handling of a phone call. We can't avoid the fake news and wailing of the trained hamsters in the main stream media as they work hard to amplify the Democrats' attempt to damage Trump before the 2020 election. We listen to inveterate liars like Adam Schiff and his new mini-me, Eric Swalwell, tell us repeatedly that the 'rule of law' must prevail as they consistently disregard it. It's a dance, and a very bad one at that.

Conservative commentator Cal Thomas writes:
A media largely committed to advancing the goal of Democrats to severely damage or remove him from office, a series of at first private testimonies by people who appear to have similar motives and connections to Democrats and/or anti-Trump forces, and now a new book by “Anonymous,” which claims the president has a bad attitude and is difficult to work with.

Where to start?

“Anonymous” is a self-admitted coward. He, or she, apparently still works within the administration. A true patriot would resign and go public so their accusations could be tested. Writing a book like this while still on the public payroll is more than cowardly; it is also an attempt to disregard, disrespect and dishonor the people who voted for Donald Trump.

Next comes the testimony starting Wednesday of carefully selected “witnesses” before Rep. Adam Schiff’s “intelligence” committee (now there’s a play on words).

These testimonies are designed to advance the left’s narrative about Ukraine, but only the narrative that fits their agenda and not the one featuring a real quid pro quo involving Joe Biden and his overpaid son, who held a directorship with a Ukraine energy company while his father was vice president and involved in U.S. policy on Ukraine. At the time, the elder Biden urged Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor, with the threat of withholding U.S. aid.
It's all choreographed for maximum effect—the timing, the visuals, the dance moves. There's only one problem. For tens of millions of Americans who live in a reality-based world, this choreography looks about as fake as the one in the street scene in West Side Story.

Monday, November 11, 2019

The Gang that Couldn't Think Straight

In a way, you almost have to feel sorry for the Democrats. Like the gang who couldn't shoot straight, they layout grand plans to take down their nemesis, Donald Trump, relying on a combination of lies, anonymous tipsters embedded in the deep state (which they now admit does exist after years of saying it didn't), and political posturing that would be embarrassing, if it wasn't so destructive. They invent "crimes" that never happened (think: Russian collusion), accuse Trump of trying to take down a political opponent when they have been caught doing just that (think: Hillary Clinton's purchase of the Steele dossier), and then, offer up a clown car of socialist presidential candidates most of who are so out of touch with the American mainstream that they struggle to remain relevant.

Last month they conducted secret star chamber impeachment investigation "hearings" in which they selectively leaked the most damaging comments from a collection of anti-Trump deep state denizens. This week, they'll attempt a public show trial, disallowing the testimony of anyone who might threaten their insane narrative. All you can do is shake your head and ask why?

The answer is fairly obvious. A real DoJ investigation of a real scandal is underway. If facts already known are any indication, the results of that investigation will not go well for either the Dems or the deep state. So ... it's critical for the Dems along with their trained hamsters in the media to change the subject before any damning evidence is released—to be able to claim that any report is just "political retribution" rather than a clear and irrefutable indictment of crimes committed as part of a 'soft coup' attempt.

Roger Simpon comments on some of this:
... the actual "favor" (that was the word used) being asked for on the phone by Trump to Zelensky was about CrowdStrike, not about the Bidens, who were an afterthought. You may have heard of CS by now. It's the digital firm with roots in California and Ukraine that was asked by the FBI to investigate the break-in of the DNC server during election 2016. Why the FBI, with all its vaunted cyber facilities, did not do this themselves is open to question—and everybody in the Beltway cesspool knows it, all the despicable creeps wringing their hands over Trump. Omertà rules in Washington, especially among the Democrats and the media (of all places).

They all know that the real investigation is in progress—what happened early in 2016 and thereafter that instigated the two-plus years of phony national hysteria known as the Russia probe, the probe that did everything it could, but thankfully failed, to upend the Trump administration. The characters who engineered this shouldn't just be impeached—some have already lost their jobs—they should be sent to stir. We shall see how this plays out, hopefully soon.

Meanwhile, if you were Donald Trump, wouldn't you ask a favor of a foreign leader if you thought he might have access to information solving that endless, vicious case against him that looks as if it was a set-up? Do bears you-know-what in the woods? You can bet Pelosi, Schiff, and even Rachel Maddow would do the same thing if they were subject to the same wretched, immoral, disgusting and unpatriotic treatment for three years and counting.

This whole show trial would just be an amusing farce in the farcical land of D.C. politics were it not for one thing—it just could (not likely, but could) be successful. And if it is, that's the end of our country as we know it. Half of our citizens will feel completely disenfranchised. Where it will go from there is anybody's guess.
After their show trial, the Dems (and possibly a few GOP #NeverTrumpers) will issue sham articles of impeachment against Trump. They're hoping that will drown out reports of actual crimes committed by Democratic partisans in the deep state. They're hoping that indictments of the perpetrators can be characterized as "just politics," and they're fighting hard to be sure that people don't connect the dots and come to a clear understanding that the previous Democratic administration was behind some or all of it.

None of this was supposed to happen to the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Hillary was supposed to win. The actions of the deep state against her opponent were supposed to remained buried forever. But it didn't work out that way.

Had the Dems accepted the result of the 2016 election and moved on, it just might be that the real 'soft coup' scandal would never have been revealed. But the Dems were so consumed with Trump Derangement Syndrome they could think straight. So they decided to wreck politics for a generation or more.


So ... let me see if I've got this straight. A few weeks ago, leading Democratic candidate for President, Socialist Bernie Sanders, stated that he would cut off all aid to our only true ally in the Middle east, Israel, if they didn't capitulate to the palestinians:
“I would use the leverage, $3.8 billion is a lot of money, and we cannot give it carte blanche to the Israeli government or for that matter to any government at all.”
Not to be outdone, Dem frontrunner, Liz Warren echoed the sentiment.

Wait ... what? Isn't that a quid pro quo? Where's the Dem outrage? Where are the hearings? Where's Adam Shiff?

The Left mindlessly hates Israel, so Bernie is just reflecting this extreme leftist position. If he were to be elected president (a frightening thought), he would be within his rights to modify aid to Israel -- although not without a tsunami of justified criticism. Would withholding aid be an impeachable offense. Nope. A catastrophically bad decision ... yes. But impeachable ... no.

But now, the Dems have created a precedent. So if Bernie or Liz or Pete or Joe or even Hillary (shudder) were to be elected in 2020 and place terms on aid to a foreign government, the GOP could then launch impeachment proceedings, right?

Friday, November 08, 2019

Responsible Journalism Stuff

Last week, an ABC reporter, Amy Robach, divulged that her three year effort to air a report on the actions of noted Democratic donor, friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton (not to mention many other celebrities and politicians), sexual predator and pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, was spiked because the brass at ABC contended it wasn't ready to air. Sources not verified, fact checking not complete ... you know, responsible journalism stuff. An analogous situation involving Democratic donor, friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton (not to mention many other celebrities and politicians), and sexual predator, Harvey Weinstein, was treated the same way by the brass at NBC News. The report on Weinstein was ready to air -- Sources not verified, fact checking not complete ... you know, responsible journalism stuff.*

Except it wasn't responsible journalism in either case. It was yet another case of this:

Now compare the approach used by ABC and NBC to their approach during the Brett Kavanaugh debacle. John Kass comments:
Let’s remember what ABC, NBC and other media did to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing just a year ago, destroying his reputation, smearing him without evidence because he wasn’t on their political team.

Oh, you don’t want to go near Kavanaugh? Then just get off the bus, because I’m going there.

There is just no responsible way to discuss ABC’s alleged spiking of the Epstein story — or NBC’s spiking of the Harvey Weinstein story — without dealing with how those news networks, and other media outlets, worked frantically to destroy Kavanaugh.

Many in the media had one standard for Epstein and Weinstein, who had clout with Democrats including Bill and Hillary Clinton.

But Kavanaugh? He’s a Bush Republican nominated by President Donald Trump.

So that other standard was applied, one that allowed unsubstantiated allegations to be reported and repeated, endlessly, in an attempt to ruin him and keep him off the Supreme Court.

It seems clear now, from the Ronan Farrow stories and other accounts, and from Robach’s hot mic take, that NBC and ABC showed great deference to Epstein and Weinstein.

But Kavanaugh? He wasn’t treated deferentially. His reputation was destroyed by wild, unsupported and fantastic allegations that he was a serial sex predator.

Without corroboration, Kavanaugh was even shamed as the leader of a gang-rape crew that drugged young women before attacking them ...
When Kavanaugh dared become angry about the smears, TV panels of talking heads said he was all but insane. Newspapers were also attacking Kavanaugh, and now many are busy skinning Trump and calling his 60 million voters — some being their own readers — stupid.

The Kavanaugh hearings gave us a look at Democrats in their most unhinged, and vicious form. It wasn't pretty. The Dems jettisoned honesty, they dismissed due process, they took unsubstantiated allegations as fact ... They. Were. Despicable.

And their trained hamsters in the media were no better ... in fact, even worse.

If you think that Kass is exaggerating the bias exhibited by the media on the Weinstein, Epstein and Kavanaugh stories, here's some data collected by Real Clear Politics:

It should come as no surprise that the Kavanaugh data (right section of the histogram) got about 10 times the number of mentions as the real sexual predators. No doubt some of this is justified given that a SCOTUS nomination was in play, but why the hesitancy to run the investigative reports in the case of Epstein and Weinstein and the enthusiasm to run outrageous and completely unproven allegations in the case of Kavanaugh?

With their kid-gloves treatment of two sexual predators who just happen to have connections to prominent Dems, the main stream media has demonstrated just how hypocritical and venal they are. They can no longer be trusted because they're no longer objective journalists. They're partisans who have become as unhinged and vicious as their masters.


* As if not be outdone, CBS has fired the whistleblower who is alleged to have leaked elements of the Amy Robach interview. After all, the "true professionals" in the main stream media protect their unnamed sources, at all cost—except when those unnamed sources leak information that is damaging to the Dems. You can't make this stuff up.


The trained hamsters in the main stream media (including ABC and CBS) have elevated the Trump "whistleblower"—by all accounts, a hyper-partisan Democrat (with ties to Biden, Brennan and Schiff) with a clear agenda to hurt Trump—to Mother Teresa status. His name (which we already know) and background (which does not lend itself to credibility) cannot be divulged because—impeachment! He is untouchable.

Yet CBS and ABC worked together to get a CBS "whistleblower" fired. The CBS whistleblower divulged the quashing of the Epstein investigation at ABC. James Freeman comments:
And now it seems that CBS, which as far as this column can tell hasn’t been harmed at all by the employee, has fired her on the principle that whistleblowing must not be tolerated—unless it damages people like Mr. Trump.


For just a moment, take no notice of the Dems' unwillingness to accept the results of a democratic election in 2016. Overlook their attempt to impede a legitimate investigation into a soft coup attempt by senior members of the FBI and CIA. Forget for just a sec their full-throated endorsement of the proven hoax that was "Russian collusion." Disregard for a moment their on-going frenzy to impeach a duly-elected president over a phone call that resulted in no action that could be construed as damaging.

It's the Kavanaugh hearings that tell all.

In a series of posts (e.g., here, here, here, here, and here) in September and October of 2018, I expressed my outrage (yes, it's possible to become outraged even if you aren't 'woke') at the treatment of Brett Kavanaugh at the hands of the Democrats (including a few presidential contenders). I stand by every word, and would suggest that through their behavior during that dark episode, the Dems have provided thinking Americans with sufficient evidence that they do NOT deserve to lead.

Thursday, November 07, 2019

Smart Kids

One of the most amusing things about far too many progressives, including a very large majority of Democrats, is they honestly believe they're the 'smart kids.' They and they alone see the flaws and injustices in our society and they and they alone have iron-clad "solutions" that if translated into policy and law, would make our irreparably flawed, country a leftist utopia. Everyone would get "justice," the rich would "pay their fair share," unkind words would never be spoken, diversity would triumph over merit, violence would disappear, and the United States would flourish as never before.

The 'smart kids' also think that anyone who doesn't agree with their solutions, who thinks that their utopian promises of a socialist paradise are bunk, who looks at the history of big government (and socialism) around the word and sees wreckage and failure is simply a low intelligence "deplorable" who must be ridiculed or when that fails, aggressively demonized. The Dem's trained hamsters in the media provide a major assist in all of this, smiling knowingly about 'the right-wing loonies, or conservatives, or Trump supporters. They want all of us to know that those people think monolithically—that's they're really no better than a cult. All of this is evidence of psychological projection on the part on progressives and Dems, but introspection has never been their strong suit.

Mollie Hemingway discusses a small example of this, based on the findings of a recent poll:
Coverage of a new poll out from Monmouth beautifully illustrates how Trump Derangement destroys what should be simple political analysis. The poll was brutal for impeachment fans in the media. Just less than 60 percent of respondents agreed that “people who want Trump out of office should just vote him out next year instead of going through impeachment.” Seventy-three percent have little or no trust in the impeachment process. And 60 percent say Democrats are more interested in bringing down Trump than in learning facts.
Staying true to form, the trained hamsters didn't mention any of that. Instead, much was made of poll findings that indicated that 26% of Trump supporters agreed with the statement that "nothing would cause you to support impeachment" and that 62% of Trump supporters said that they could think of nothing that would cause them to disapprove of Trump. The trained hamsters nodded knowingly and they smirked while reporting these results. But they decided to leave out still other results. Hemingway continues:
The numbers on that question for Democrats, which many in the media completely ignored, are even worse.

Trump approvers (43 percent of respondents) were asked if he could do anything that would make them disapprove of him. Of that group, 62 percent said there’s nothing he could do to make them disapprove of his job performance. That’s the question media are focusing on to prove how stupid and tribal those Republican voters are.

But Trump disapprovers (51 percent of respondents) were similarly asked if Trump could ever do anything aside from resigning that would make them approve of his job performance. Guess what: 70 percent of disapprovers said there’s nothing he could possibly do to earn their approval of his job performance.

So if one wants to argue that one party is mindlessly tribal, the numbers clearly show that the anti-Trump Resistance is the most mindless and tribal faction in American politics today.
Gee ... who are the 'smart kids' now?

Tuesday, November 05, 2019


The four constituencies that form the #Resistance think they are heroes, battling to save the republic from [you pick the epithet du jour] Donald Trump. They are not heroes.

The #Resistance rejects the notion that their actions literally are intended to negate the results of a democratic election (results that they didn't like one bit). They dismiss the simple fact that they perpetuated a proven hoax, leveling false accusations of Russian collusion that never happened. They moved on to false accusations of "obstruction" for a crime that never happened. When those accusations (and the many, many lies connected to them) were proven untrue (by their chosen investigator, Robert Mueller), they quickly chose another hoax—this time, Ukrainian quid pro quo—that smacks of The Beria Rule. Now, they gleefully march toward impeachment, rather than waiting less than 12 months to defeat the evil, orange-haired ogre at the ballot box—after all, if Trump is as bad, and corrupt, and lawless as they claim he is, the #Resistance candidate should win in a landslide, shouldn't she or he?

Victor Davis Hansen discusses all of this:
... the country witnesses about every six weeks a new “turning point,” “bombshell,” “walls are closing in” effort to subvert the Trump presidency. And the list of such futile and fabricated attempts to abort Trump is indeed now quite monotonous: the efforts to sue three states on false charges of tampered voting machines, the attempt to subvert the voting of the Electoral College, the invocation of the ossified Logan Act, the melodramas concerning the emoluments clause and 25th Amendment, the Mueller’s Dream Team and all-star 22-month failed effort to find collusion and obstruction, the personal psychodramas of Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen, Michael Avenatti, and the Trump tax returns, the desperate efforts to tar Trump as a “white supremacist,” followed by cries of “Recession! Recession!,” and now, of course, “Ukraine! Ukraine!”
And with the shouts of "Ukraine, Ukraine," the Democrats cycle a collection of #Nevertrump members of the deep state through starchamber-like hearings to tell us that they were "concerned with" or "disagreed with" Trump's telephone call with the Ukrainian president—a call that resulted in NO investigation of the sainted Joe Biden and NO witholding of military aid. Now, it appears, words are all that matter. If a few disgruntled folks express concern or disagreement with those words—will damn, the Constitution of the United States in under threat. What unmitigated B.S.!

The onslaught against Trump began immediately upon his election. Hansen writes:
Donald Trump had been in office less than a month when The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. intelligence agencies had decided on their own to withhold information from the recently inaugurated president of the United States: “In some of these cases of withheld information, officials have decided not to show Mr. Trump the sources and methods that the intelligence agencies use to collect information, the current and former officials said.”

What would one call that? Obstruction? A coup? A conspiracy?

Most of the major intelligence heads in the Obama Administration—James Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper—either leaked classified information aimed at harming candidate and then President Trump, later declared him a veritable traitor and Russian asset, or earlier took measures to monitor his campaign or administration’s communications.

In the coming months, the investigations of Michael Horowitz, the inspector general at the Justice Department, and the department’s own criminal investigations by U.S. Attorney John Durham, may well detail one of the most extensive efforts in our history by the American intelligence agencies and their enablers in the executive branch to subvert a campaign, disrupt a presidential transition, and to abort a presidency.
One can only hope that despite the predictable screams of "political retribution" which have already begun in the left-wing media, Michael Horowitz and the DoJ's John Durham will uncover the truth of this despicable conspiracy. It's time for some of these "heroes" to pay a price for their duplicity, but I continue to wonder if they will.


Jeff Tucker doesn't use the word "monotonous" when describing the impeachment travesty, but he comes close:
... I’m as civic-minded as the next guy. I’m against corruption. I’m for holding politicians accountable. Government should be good, morally upright, true blue. For this reason, I know that I’m supposed to find impeachment to be engaging, ominous, and fraught with significance for the future of our constitutional republic. Of course this is extremely important for our lives. Of course!

But maybe….maybe it is all kind of boring. For some reason, the whole affair is starting to take on the character of elevator music.

The trouble is that there are some things that everyone knows. Everyone knows how this ends. The Senate will stop the impeachment, and then the president will use this to amp up the drama for his re-election and energize his base as never before. That this whole thing will backfire to his benefit is as sure as sunrise. The Democrats these days are about as strategic as Wile E. Coyote and equally persistent in trying out their newest trick that will again end with a puff of dust emerging the ground below the cliff.

Everyone knows that the House Democrats and the entire party have been in an existential meltdown of fury, shock, and horror ever since election night 2016. The results were not supposed to be as they were, which everyone knew because nearly every living soul in the mainstream press assured us that Trump would flame out and die a disgraceful political death that night.

Everyone knows that the center-left has sought impeachment from that moment on. This Ukrainian business – even if the substance of every accusation is true – is the convenient excuse that they needed to do what they swore to do that night. The maudlin performances and pearl clutching in the House of Representatives are so much theater.
If you think clearly and dispassionately, it's difficult not to agree with Tucker's assessment. The problem, I suppose is that the Dems are driven by Trump Derangement Syndrome. As a consequence, they gave up thinking clearly and dispassionately a long, long time ago.

Tucker concludes with a remarkably accurate assessment of the entire political milieu as we approach 2020:
Finally, here is the core of what everyone knows. Everyone knows that the real-life business of government is shady, backstabbing, underhanded, duplicitous, dogs-eating-dogs, and fundamentally rotten. Both sides. All sides.

This impeachment, in particular, has a cast of characters out of the darkest corners of American life. We’ve got a salivating media hungry for readers, a gaggle of permanent bureaucrats wanting to drive out the interloping president, an opposition party consumed in fear and loathing, and vast partisan interests excited about how much money they can raise from the naive who join political tribes and cough up money to see their tribe win the day.
How. True.

Monday, November 04, 2019

The Crichton Conundrum

Until his death in the early part of this century, Michael Crichton (1942 - 2008) was a pre-eminent novelist and screen writer who focused on stories with a scientific plot line. Crichton accurately predicted a wide variety of scientific advances, and more importantly, the dangers of unintended consequences associated with them. He wrote about topics as varied as genetic engineering, climate change, artificial intelligence, robotics, among many others, making each a topic of broad discussion while he cranked out best sellers and blockbuster movies. Crichton was a futurist and a clear thinker whose writing and movies (e.g., Jurassic Park, Westworld, Sphere, Prey, State of Fear) still have relevance today.

In his later years, Crichton became very concerned that science was being bastardized in a way that allowed advocates of a specific ideology to use it inappropriately to make their arguments. Andy Kessler describes "The Crichton Conundrum" this way:
Crichton observed: “Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything is possible.” That includes children at the United Nations yelling, “How dare you.” It’s knee-jerk analysis. I call it the Crichton Conundrum: “I’m against it, so these theories must be right—even though the science is most likely bunk.” Shallow, but sadly a reality.

The conundrum is everywhere. Take the $15 minimum wage, a so-called living wage—who could be against that? The problem is that the alternative isn’t necessarily $8 or $10 an hour; often it’s no job and $0 an hour. Lo and behold, restaurants are closing in San Francisco.

Or take net neutrality. No one wants an un-neutral internet, even though that enables innovative pricing to help fund fiber-optic and wireless buildouts. Similarly, we all feel good about “natural” forest management, and now California burns.

These arguments are often vague, even Orwellian—the expressions “net neutrality” and “climate change” conceal their shallow concepts. But they’re also Crichtonesque in the way they foreclose any argument from the other side. If you’re against food stamps or children’s health spending, you’re heartless, even though they are inefficient, ineffective and rife with fraud. And friendly sounding No Child Left Behind and Common Core? Sorry, math scores went down.

Free college, day care and medical care? Didn’t Cuba try that? Free or price-controlled goods always end up like subsidized bread in the Soviet Union. You get less of it and empty shelves. The same is true of rent control, as California will soon learn.
The Crichton Conundrum has been a staple of those on the Left for many decades. The game plan works like this:
(1) package a Leftist policy or program inside an "big idea" that everyone favors (e.g., better education, less gun violence, cleaner water and air); (2) using snippets of scientific studies that neither prove or disprove a point or worse, data that has been manipulated to "prove" the point, argue that science unequivocally supports the Leftist policy or program; (3) when others question the accuracy or relevance of the "scientific data" accuse them of being against the "big idea" that the policy or program falsely claims to solve, (4) shut down further investigation and debate by making the statement that "the science is settled." (science is NEVER settled)
The problem today is that there is no referee. The mainstream media used to take on that role, but since they've become the trained hamsters of the Left, any countervailing scientific arguments, data, studies, or the like that show flaws in a Leftist policy or program never see the light of day. The result—ruinous, authoritarian decisions, wasted billions, and most important, not helping the very people or entities that those policies or programs were purported to serve.

Friday, November 01, 2019

A Heavy Price

At the beginning of the Democrats' latest impeachment frenzy, they dredged up a "Whistleblower" who told us that Donald Trump tried to get the Ukraine to investigate corruption that may have enveloped Joe Biden, the Vice President of the United States at the time. The Dems claimed that there was a threat to withhold military funding (which was NOT withheld) so that the Ukraine would conduct an investigation (which was NOT conducted) to find dirt on Biden (there is copious evidence that ethical lapses by Biden occurred). The Dems began braying about a lawless president who had the temerity to suggest that the Obama administration looked the other way as Biden's son enriched himself using his father's high government office as leverage (sort of like the Clinton family enriched itself when Hillary was Secretary of State). Never mind that the Dems' 2016 candidate did far more than threaten to withhold anyone's funds—she literally bought and paid for Russian help in digging dirt on Trump. But Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, so her actions are perfectly acceptable to the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.

But back to the Whistleblower. Have you noticed how the dems demanded that is identity remain secret. Wonder why?

The editors of Investor's Business Daily provide an answer:
The mainstream press has been oddly incurious about the identity of the “whistleblower” who got the Trump impeachment train rolling. Now we know the reason why.Real Clear Investigations on Wednesday published a bombshell account by investigative reporter Paul Sperry, who says that the identity of the so-called whistleblower “has been an open secret inside the Beltway.” There’s even a 40-page research dossier floating around on him compiled by former colleagues.

It turns out that the person who wrote the second-hand, factually inaccurate account of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky isn’t just some careerist, non-partisan CIA official, or even, as Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson put it, a person with “some indicia of an arguable political bias.”

Eric Ciaramella is, as Sperry reveals, “a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia ‘collusion’ investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.”

What’s more, Ciaramella left his White House post in mid-2017 “amid concerns about negative leaks to the media.” Sperry reports that, according to that 40-page dossier, Ciaramella also helped generate the “Putin fired Comey” narrative.

Oh, and he worked “on Ukrainian policy issues for (Joe) Biden in 2015 and 2016, when the vice president was President Obama’s ‘point man’ for Ukraine.”

As partisan icing on the cake, before filing his complaint against Trump, Ciaramella met with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff – who is running the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry – for “guidance.”
Oooo-kay then.

In other words, the "Whistleblower" is a partisan hack recruited and primed by the Dems as catalyst for their impeachment craziness. Every "witness" whose "secret" testimony has been leaked to the Dems trained hamsters in the media has been called using the Beria Rule.

The Dems conducted star chamber hearings with "witnesses" who tell us their interpretation of a phone call whose transcript is public. Why does anyone need their "interpretation"—read the transcript! Why should anyone care of any if these people felt "uncomfortable" with the call? Might it not be better to simply read the transcript to determine whether their discomfort was manufactured or genuine? And even if it was genuine—who cares? Is the job of the President of the United States to make everyone "comfortable" with his decisions and actions? Is it his job to be certain that no one is "concerned" with his words?

On Thursday, the Dems conducted a partisan vote to codify the rules for their impeachment inquiry. Donald Trump is correct when he calls their inquiry a "witch hunt" and a "sham." But it's more than that as Michael Goodwin writes:
The vote to formalize the impeachment jihad is a great day for Trump haters and a tragedy for democracy and common sense. Coming a year before an election and without a compelling claim that the president committed anything remotely resembling “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the action is an abuse of power for purely partisan purposes ...

Yet there is something bigger at stake than the next election. The effort to overturn the 2016 results is such a radical event that it raises the question of whether polarization has become fatal to our republic.

If so, then elections will never settle anything again. Each loser will simply look for a way to erase the outcome as if it never happened.
Driven by Trump Derangement Syndrome, the Dems have become increasingly dishonest and vicious in their attempts to remove Trump from office. There is no lie too big, no allegation too small, and no absurd theory too crazy for them to pursue. Yet they keep getting caught in their own lies. Their theories and allegations are disproven over and over again while their "witnesses" are outed for their political bias and/or their dishonesty.

At this point the Dems have invested so much that there's little doubt they'll impeach Trump. And if there's any justice at all, they'll pay a VERY heavy price for doing so.

Woke Culture

Regular readers of this blog understand that I was no fan of the Obama presidency or the man himself. I sometimes referred to him unkindly, but always because of things he actually did or failed to accomplish. I often questioned his policies because I disagreed with them. I occasionally noted that his followers resorted to magical thinking to justify his actions or words. I discussed the many real and serious scandals that plagued his administration. I praised his speaking style but never allowed his words to obscure his actions. And I never advocated that he be impeached or otherwise prematurely ejected from the office he was elected to serve. I never referred to his followers as "deplorables."

Having said all of that, I must admit that Barack Obama has mellowed, at least a bit. In a recent TV interview [video at the link] described by Ed Morrisey, he laments the current state of the "woke" culture that has embedded itself into progressive thought:
“This idea of purity, and you’re never compromised, and you’re always politically woke and all that stuff. You should get over that quickly,” he said. “The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws.”

Obama also called out what he perceived as a “danger” among younger people.

“There is this sense sometimes of ‘the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people, and that’s enough,’” he said, then offered an example:

Like if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb. Then, I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself because, ‘Man, you see how woke I was? I called you out.’ I’m gonna get on TV. Watch my show. Watch ‘Grown-ish.’ You know, that’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far.
Obama seems to understand that woke culture will NOT resonate with the broader electorate, and because it is tighhtly bound to the Democratic party and its candidates, it represents a net negative for them.

He's right.