Hopalong

There's a really funny tweet that goes to the reflexive Democratic reaction to anything that is said or done by Donald Trump. Here it is:

As if to drive home "Hopalong Ginsberg's" tweet, the Dems have leaped to the defense of race huckster, Rev. Al Sharpton, in his verbal battle with Trump. Presidential contender, Kamala Harris, tweeted this in defense of Sharpton:

Really? Madeline Osburn provides a little background:

Senator Kamala Harris defended the Rev. Al Sharpton as someone who has “spent his life fighting for what’s right,” after President Trump called the MSNBC host and controversial figure a “con man,” claiming he “hates whites & cops.”

If Harris believes inciting violence, leading race riots, rallying anti-Jewish protests, and corporate shakedown schemes count as “working to improve our nation,” then Sharpton has gone above and beyond.

Since the 1980s, Sharpton has engineered protests, boycotts, and riots, often pitting African Americans against Jewish communities. Perhaps the most gruesome being a four-day race riot in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, after a Hasidic driver killed the child of Guyanese immigrants in a tragic car accident. Sharpton stirred up anti-Semitic protesters, shouting, “No justice, no peace!” They targeted innocent Jewish homes, breaking windows and setting cars on fire, and an angry mob murdered the Jewish driver, Yankel Rosenbaum. Sharpton lead the mobs who chanted about killing “bloodsucking Jews” and “Jew bastards.”

According to reporter Philip Gourevitch, Sharpton used his speech at the child’s funeral to stoke anger.

“Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights. The issue is not anti-Semitism; the issue is apartheid. … All we want to say is what Jesus said: If you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise, no meetings, no coffee klatsch, no skinnin’ and grinnin’,” Sharpton said.

Then again, anti-Semitism is has become a core element of the leftist segment of the Democratic party, masked as anti-Zionist or Anti-Israel rhetoric. In that case, Sharpton's positions are rapidly becoming mainstream Dem positions. Here's a member of The Squad, Rashida Talib as related by Thomas Lifson [video at the link]:

As the Democrats [conduct] the second round of presidential debates in her own congressional district, Rep. Rashida Tlaib takes the opportunity of the spotlight to imply that Israel should not exist, echoing the "drive the Jews into the sea" rhetoric of previous Arab wars on Israel.

Speaking to CNN's Jake Tapper in downtown Detroit, Tlaib reiterated her support for the BDS movement and laughably claimed that she would support resolutions supporting boycotts of human rights–abusers like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, except that there aren't congressional resolutions doing so. This is absurd, since she could introduce such resolutions.

And here is the point where, as Tapper wraps up the interview, he asks the question about whether Jews have a right to a state in the land where Israel is. Tlaib evades by saying that she believes that Israel does exist and then launches into her seeming eliminationist rhetoric.

Talib is an outright Islamist. She's virulently anti-Israel and covertly anti-Semitic. And that's her right. The problem isn't with Talib, a fringe member of the Democratic party. The problem is with the party itself—a political entity that doesn't have the courage to reject her positions unequivocally and publicly. Then again, maybe it's not about courage. Maybe the Democratic party has moved closer to her positions than many mainstream Democrats would like to believe.

The Aftermath of a Loss

In yesterday's news, a growing number (almost half) of Democratic members of the House have decided that impeachment is in the offing. That rather than waiting for the 2020 election, they will put the country through the upheaval of an impeachment inquiry. They are either too historically ignorant, too stupid, or too blinded by hatred to consider how badly things worked out for the GOP when it put then-president Bill Clinton through an unnecessary and unwise impeachment attempt in 1998. But Trump Derangement Syndrome is a powerful psychological driver. The Dems have never accepted Trump's presidency, doing everything possible to destabilize it. Impeachment is just another step along their road to ruin.

But we don't have to go back to 1998. Instead, let's return to October, 2016—a month before the last presidential election. Donald Trump was asked whether he would accept the results of the expected sure-win by Hillary Clinton and indicated that he'd "wait and see." The Dems along with their trained hamsters in the media became apoplectic, suggesting that it was "unpatriotic" not to accept the results and support the new president. At the time, left-leaning Uri Friedman in The Atlantic wrote:

Donald Trump’s loose talk of imprisoning Clinton and his preemptive rejection of the election’s outcome pose one of the most serious challenges to U.S. democracy in recent memory. They endanger the “democratic bargain,” to quote the authors of Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. That study examines how losing works in democracies around the globe, and the bargain at issue “calls for winners who are willing to ensure that losers are not too unhappy and for losers, in exchange, to extend their consent to the winners’ right to rule.” This bargain is also one of the core components of democracy.

My goodness, that's rich, looking back at the events of the past two and a half years.

Friedman goes on to write:

Supporters of losing candidates tend to lose faith in democracy and democratic institutions, even after elections that aren’t particularly contentious. When your preferred politician or party loses, in other words, resentment is inevitable.

This is why the democratic bargain is so important: Winners do not suppress losers, which means losers can hope to be winners in the future. As a result, the losers’ doubts about the legitimacy of the political system gradually recede as they prepare for the next election.

But if the losing candidate doesn’t uphold his or her side of the bargain by recognizing the winner’s right to rule, that acute loss of faith in democracy among the candidate’s supporters can become chronic, potentially devolving into civil disobedience, political violence, and a crisis of democratic legitimacy. How the loser responds is especially critical because losers naturally have the most grievances about the election.

“[I]n the aftermath of a loss, there is plenty of kindling for irresponsible politicians to set fire to,” Bowler notes. “Most politicians who lose elections recognize this potential for mischief, and so they ordinarily make a creditable run at helping to keep matters calm.”

All losing presidential candidates in modern U.S. history have avoided the temptation to fan the flames of grievance, and have instead shown restraint and respect for the peaceful transfer of power.

Consider the third paragraph once more. By fomenting a proven Russian collusion hoax to destabilize and delegitimize a presidency they lost, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats have created an

"acute loss of faith in democracy [think: questioning the legitimacy of SCOTUS or advocating the dissolution of the electoral college] among the candidate’s supporters [that has] become chronic [Trump Derangement Syndrome], potentially devolving into civil disobedience [think: Sanctuary Cities], political violence [think: Antifa], and a crisis of democratic legitimacy [think Impeachment]. How the loser responds [think: unhinged accusations of "white supremacy' or "insanity"] is especially critical because losers naturally have the most grievances about the election."

I agree. "How the loser responds is especially critical ..." And in this case, the Democrats have responded with such venom, dishonesty, and unhinged emotion, they should be roundly condemned, using Friedman's own rational as a basis for that condemnation.

Baltimore

Think of the Baltimore controversy as a triangle.

On one vertex, we have the beleaguered citizens of Baltimore, many of whom are African American, and many, but not all, who suffer because the city itself, its institutions, its education system, its infrastructure, and its economy have all failed.

On the second vertex, we have "the infestation of rats"—by any rational assessment, a symbol of the myriad failures of a city that has been under Democratic leadership for 52 years!

On the third vertex, we have the political leadership of Baltimore, nine Democratic Mayors going back over five decades, legislators in an historically blue state, and federal representatives, including 11-term Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), who is often praised as a leader in civil rights.

And at the geometric center of the triangle, we have the President of United States, Donald Trump, who looked at the current state of Baltimore, MD and decided in his blunt and sometimes classless way, that one vertex of the triangle needed to be called out—aggressively.

Trump certainly didn't come out in favor of the Rats, because he used them as a metaphor for what's wrong with the city. He didn't come out against the people of Baltimore, because despite the deranged claims that his criticism was "racist," his comments were clearly anti-Rat, not anti-People. Trump attacked the third vertex—the Democratic leadership of the city at all levels, who have done relatively little to improve Baltimore's plight.

But criticism never goes over well with Democrats, and criticism by Trump, particularly when it hits far too close to home, deserves an appropriately outraged response. Hence, the Dems' old standby—"racism!" After all, when you've been in charge for five decades, and not very much has changed for the better, you're sorta in an indefensible position. So ... racism!!!

After all, it's dangerous to allow people to consider the ramifications of five decades of blue governance and as a consequence, ask a few fundamental questions:

• Has Democrat leadership been effective in Baltimore?
• Have Democrat promises been kept over the past five decades?
• Are the problems that are endemic in Baltimore and many, many other blue cities really due to systemic racism or are there other issues that need to be addressed?
• Have tax dollars (city, state and federal) been spent to help Baltimore's citizens appreciably or have they been spent on programs and projects that have benefitted only a few, including the politicians who administered them?
• What could the citizens of Baltimore lose by electing a GOP mayor, just to see if he or she might do a better job?

With a single tweet, Donald Trump brought those questions front and center, but the Dems really, really don't want African Americans inside Baltimore and across the United States to get honest answers, particularly when the answers will not reflect well on the party. So ... racism!!!

It's the perfect response. The questions don't have to be answered. In fact, they don't even have to be asked. Because ... racism!

UPDATE:
---------------
In my view, one of the five best multi-year series in the history of television was The Wire. Wikipedia provides a quick abstract for the series:

Set and produced in Baltimore, Maryland, The Wire introduces a different institution of the city and its relationship to law enforcement in each season, while retaining characters and advancing storylines from previous seasons. The five subjects are, in chronological order: the illegal drug trade, the seaport system, the city government and bureaucracy, education and schools, and the print news medium. The large cast consists mainly of actors who are little known for their other roles, as well as numerous real-life Baltimore and Maryland figures in guest and recurring roles. Simon has said that despite its framing as a crime drama, the show is "really about the American city, and about how we live together. It's about how institutions have an effect on individuals. Whether one is a cop, a longshoreman, a drug dealer, a politician, a judge or a lawyer, all are ultimately compromised and must contend with whatever institution to which they are committed."

Every character in The Wire was beautifully constructed, but in my view, the most compelling was Omar Little, played by Michael K. Williams. Omar was an ominous character—dangerous and violent with a long vertical scar across his face—who made his living stealing from drug dealers (and lived until season five to tell the story). But in his own way, he made the story real and was a philosopher of sorts. Here's an interchange between Omar and defense attorney, Maurice Levy:

Levy: You are amoral, are you not? You are feeding off the violence and the despair of the drug trade. You're stealing from those who themselves are stealing the lifeblood from our city. You are a parasite who leeches off—

Omar: Just like you, man.

Levy: —the culture of drugs...excuse me, what?

Omar: I got the shotgun. You got the briefcase. It's all in the game, though, right?

For the politicians who make empty promises, who enrich themselves and their supporters, who say all the right words, but accomplish little, "It's all in the game, though, right?"

The Terror

In an insightful commentary that draws loose parallels between the current state of politics in 21st century America and 18th century France, Peggy Noonan writes:

The [French] revolution had everything—a ruling class that was clumsy, decadent, inert; a pathetic king, a queen beyond her depth, costly wars, monstrous debt, an impervious and unreformable administrative state, a hungry populace. The task of the monarchy was to protect the poor, but the king had “abdicated this protective role.” Instead of ensuring grain supplies at a reasonable price, [Simon] Schama [author of a definitive history of the period] notes, the government committed itself to the new modern principle of free trade: “British textiles had been let into France, robbing Norman and Flemish spinners and weavers of work.” They experienced it as “some sort of conspiracy against the People.”

One does see parallels. But they’re not what I mean.

It was a revolution largely run by sociopaths. One, Robespierre, the “messianic schoolmaster,” saw it as an opportunity for the moral instruction of the nation. Everything would be politicized, no part of the citizen’s life left untouched. As man was governed by an “empire of images,” in the words of a Jacobin intellectual, the new régime would provide new images to shape new thoughts ...

So here is our parallel, our hiccup. I thought of all this this week because I’ve been thinking about the language and behavioral directives that have been coming at us from the social and sexual justice warriors who are renaming things and attempting to control the language in America.

There is the latest speech guide from the academy, the Inclusive Communications Task Force at Colorado State University. Don’t call people “American,” it directs: “This erases other cultures.” Don’t say a person is mad or a lunatic, call him “surprising/wild” or “sad.” “Eskimo,” “freshman” and “illegal alien” are out. “You guys” should be replaced by “all/folks.” Don’t say “male” or “female”; say “man,” “woman” or “gender non-binary.”

In one way it’s the nonsense we’ve all grown used to, but it should be said that there’s an aspect of self-infatuation, of arrogance, in telling people they must reorder the common language to suit your ideological preferences. There is something mad in thinking you should control the names of things. Or perhaps I mean surprising/wild.

I see in it a spirit similar to that of The Terror. There is a tone of, “I am your moral teacher. Because you are incapable of sensitivity, I will help you, dumb farmer. I will start with the language you speak.”

To me and millions of other Americans, it is that tone, now evinced by the social justice warriors of the Left, that is most offensive. How have the mini-Robespierres of the Left cornered the market in wisdom and morality? Why should any of us accept their moral mandates without critique and push back? How can any of us take them seriously when they are outraged by anything that they and they alone deem offensive or anyone who questions their words? Where do ad hominem accusations of "racism" or "misogyny" or "islamophobia" end?

After recounting many, many instances of the Left's thought control and historical revisionism, Noonan concludes with this:

It’s all insane. All of it.

But we’re moving forward, renaming the months and the sexes, reordering the language.

You wonder how the people who push all this got so much power. But then, how did Robespierre?

The answer to Noonan's last question is easy and unsettling. When you control vast swathes of the mainstream media, the arts, the entertainment industry, academia, and social media, you have power because you influence thinking. You see it as an opportunity for "moral instruction of the nation." The unsettling thing is that we can only hope that the current crop of social justice warriors who are grasping so desperately for power don't become like the "sociopaths" that led France into The Terror 230 years ago.

Bravo

Based on polling, the American public has had enough of the Russian collusion hoax (and the attendant investigations) and want us all to move on. The GOP generally wants us to move on because the story distracts from the many accomplishments of the Trump administration. The Democrats, doubling down on stupid, fantasize about a smoking gun that will lead to Trump's impeachment—they don't want to move on.

But some of us want the truth about the most significant political scandal in U.S. history to come out, letting the chips fall where they may. No ... Donald Trump did NOT collude with the Russians. No ... Trump and his people did NOT obstruct justice. Those are fantasy claims, that despite the lies of politicians like Reps. Nadler and Schiff, have no merit. But there is a scandal.

Kim Strassel comments:

Special counsel Robert Mueller testified before two House committees Wednesday, and his performance requires us to look at his investigation and report in a new light. We’ve been told it was solely about Russian electoral interference and obstruction of justice. It’s now clear it was equally about protecting the actual miscreants behind the Russia-collusion hoax.

The most notable aspect of the Mueller report was always what it omitted: the origins of this mess. Christopher Steele’s dossier was central to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe, the basis of many of the claims of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet the Mueller authors studiously wrote around the dossier, mentioning it only in perfunctory terms. The report ignored Mr. Steele’s paymaster, Fusion GPS, and its own ties to Russians. It also ignored Fusion’s paymaster, the Clinton campaign, and the ugly politics behind the dossier hit job.

Mr. Mueller’s testimony this week put to rest any doubt that this sheltering was deliberate. In his opening statement he declared that he would not “address questions about the opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment, or matters related to the so-called Steele Dossier.” The purpose of those omissions was obvious, as those two areas go to the heart of why the nation has been forced to endure years of collusion fantasy.

Mr. Mueller claimed he couldn’t answer questions about the dossier because it “predated” his tenure and is the subject of a Justice Department investigation. These excuses are disingenuous. Nearly everything Mr. Mueller investigated predated his tenure, and there’s no reason the Justice Department probe bars Mr. Mueller from providing a straightforward, factual account of his team’s handling of the dossier.

It is truly astonishing that the special counsel's team of Democrat partisans (apparently, Mueller had very little to do with the investigation that bore his name) had the chutzpa not to examine the origins of the entire mess. But then again, their unstated mandate was to skewer Trump and at the same time to protect the real Democrat and deep state perpetrators of an attempt to unseat a duly elected president. At the same time, being Democrat partisans, the Mueller team avoided anything that might sully Hillary Clinton, the DNC, or the party. That meant looking the other way—over and over again.

In the coming months, at least some of the truth will likely come out. Two major investigations are underway. But the Dems are counting on the fact that they have exhausted the public's patience, and no one will care about the results. I suspect that was their strategy all along. Bravo.

Contentless Smear

Over the past 2.5 years, the Democrats and their trained hamsters in the media have insisted that Donald Trump is a traitor to his country, that the "racist, white-supremacist, lawless" president, elected by over 60 million people who must also be racist-white supremacists, sold us out to the Russians, who with super-powers heretofore unknown throughout the universe, toppled the mighty Dems and Hillary Clinton and caused Trump to win an election.

At best, this narrative is the stuff of mass hysteria and delusion—a fantasy driven by overwhelming disappointment that an election that was theirs for the taking evaporated before their eyes. At worst, the Dems and their trained hamsters in the media understand full well that their claims are nonsense, but in a vicious and unprecedented attempt to unseat an elected president, they proceed with the narrative, doubling down over and over again as the narrative is shredded by real-world evidence. The only collusion was between the Clinton campaign and Russian sources along with various intelligence sources within the United States who conspired to effect a soft coup against an elected president. To the Dems horror, there'll be a lot more on that in the coming months.

Yesterday, the Dem's fantasy collided with reality, as when that happens, reality wins. Every. Time.

John Kass summarizes the now infamous Mueller hearings conducted by the Democrats yesterday:

There must have been a point in the Robert Mueller hearings when the big thinkers of CNN and MSNBC curled up on the floor in fetal positions and began breathing into brown paper bags, trying to remain calm.

Breathe. Collusion. Breathe. “Did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.” Breathe. Ted Lieu? Breathe.

Those paper bags popped in and out, out and in, when Democratic media wizard David Axelrod and Harvard Law’s Laurence Tribe pronounced the Mueller hearings an unmitigated disaster for their side. And Donald Trump puffed himself up to crow.

“The Democrats had nothing,” the president said after Mueller’s testimony. “And now they have less than nothing.”

The Dems, of course, doubled down yet again, suggesting that impeachment was just around the corner and that because Mueller didn't "exonerate" Trump, he's guilty. Funny, no one "exonerated" Hillary when she admitted to destroying evidence in an on-going investigation of her private server, but somehow the Dems didn't draw the conclusion that she was guilty. Oh well, that was then ...

Kass continues:

[The hearings were] clearly unfair to Mueller. It was as if you were watching an aging uncle sitting helplessly in a dentist’s chair for a root canal, his one foot kicking.

He wasn’t confident in his knowledge of his own report, which was clearly staff-driven, not Mueller-driven, and having his lawyer sworn in, sitting next to him, ready to help, said as much.

Republicans pounced. Democrats flailed. Privately, those Democrats on the Judiciary and Intelligence committees should be flailing in range of their chairmen, Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff, who wanted these hearings just for the sound bites they might provide.

Mueller and the Democrats were the losers in all this.

But double down was the word of the day. In the second hearing, as if to try to salvage the morning disaster, inveterate liar Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) did what he does best, using lies and innuendo in a pathetic attempt to look sage and competent. The editors of the Wall Street Journal comment:

As ever, the lowest moment came from the reliable Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, who revved up the demagoguery to accuse Mr. Trump of “something worse” than “criminal” behavior: “disloyalty to country.” If you don’t have the facts, obfuscate with a general, content-less smear.

But contentless smears have been the Dems' M.O. over the past 2.5 years. Why should they change tactics now?

Footnotes

Today is yet another installment of the Democrat-scripted circus intended to smear Donald Trump with now disproven claims of Russian collusion and obstruction of justice. It's worth noting that none of this travesty would have happened if we had an ethical news media that cared more about the truth and less about their own political biases. But that's naive.

As Robert Mueller testifies today, we'll get the usual histrionics by "outraged" Dems, the usual protective rebuttal by angered Repubs, and the usual fake news "reporting" and commentary by the Dems' trained hamsters in the media. There will be no attempt at context, no effort to probe beneath the surface, no work to help the public understand that much of the "evidence" presented by Mueller's team was based on hearsay and testimony (spoken and written) from people who are clearly biased against the president. And even with all of that, the Mueller team could find no criminal wrongdoing. Yeah, I know, the Dems insist that it's there, sorta like a 3-year old insists that unicorns, really, really exist.

The Dems have a clear advantage in all of this, because throughout the "Russian Collusion" investigation they trafficked in innuendo and dishonesty on a regular basis (think: the blatant lies of Rep. Adam Schiff). The truth lies in the weeds, and the general public has little interest in the details that provide a strong indication that: (1) the entire investigation was ginned up by a cabal of deep state operatives (e.g., Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strok) within the FBI and intelligence community with the specific intent of bringing down Trump's presidency, and (2) that the Mueller team was deeply biased against Trump from the onset of the investigation. Even given those assertions, the Mueller team still could NOT come up with any evidence of collusion nor could they accuse Trump or anyone else of obstruction.

If you're willing to spend the time, there are true journalists who have dissected Mueller's report. Eric Felton takes a look at the 2,000 footnotes in the report and writes:

Who knew that the humble footnote would loom so large in some of the most consequential documents of our time? Those bottom-of-the-page annotations are supposed to impose rigor on authors by forcing them to cite justifications for what they assert. But in the age of collusion claims, footnotes have become so much more -- places for officials to tuck away inconvenient information; discreet spaces in which to make dubious assertions; or fine print in which required disclosures can be hidden in plain sight.

It was in the footnotes, for example, where the FBI appears to have misled the FISA court in its application to spy on Carter Page – obscuring its reliance on opposition research, the Steele dossier, financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign ...

Most of the citations are matter-of-fact support for claims made in the main text. But a close reading reveals that many of the footnotes raise more questions than they answer, especially regarding Mueller’s methods and intent. Some footnotes show that key allegations often rely on the flimsy say-so of media accounts; others show a willingness to accept the claims of anti-Trump critics at face value. Mueller and his team also used the footnotes as the place to include unsubstantiated gossip and speculation .... If Robert Mueller is going to defend his document, he will have to be prepared to defend the footnotes too. It is there where the strengths and weaknesses of the Mueller report are most clearly on display. Come Wednesday’s hearings, the advantage may go to the questioners who know where to look.

Felton demonstrates just how shaky the entire Mueller investigation is. He further demonstrates how the Mueller team was perfectly willing to rely on hearsay and innuendo when it reflected badly on Trump, but were less interested when clear factual evidence existed that might yield a different conclusion. Read the whole thing.

It's highly likely that today's hearing will yield exactly nothing new. Sure, the Dems will tell us that this "new" testimony is a clear cut indictment of Trump and that IMPEACHMENT is required. They'll further tell us that 'our nation is in peril,' that 'democracy itself is under threat,' and that only they—pure of heart and the pinnacle of honesty—can save us from a "lawless" president and his minions.

Yawn.

Vigorously

Way back in 2017, I commented on Antifa immediately after the Charlotteville chaos. At the time I wrote:

Antifa is a violent group of extremists that espouses violence as a means to curtail speech they don't like. By the way, that violence is NOT limited to white supremacist rhetoric but can and sometimes is applied any speech that troubles them (think: Andy Ngo). Here's a group photo of one antifa cell:

Note that all antifa members wear masks (sorta like the KKK) and black uniforms (sorta like the white KKK uniforms), most carry clubs (sorta like weapons, would you say?), and all sit behind a red, black and white flag that looks a lot like another hateful symbol from the past:

Hmmm. Could it be that Trump was justified in noting that Antifa extremists are considerably more than non-violent protesters and deserve to be called out in the same sentence as the white supremacists. Both represent violence and hate. Both should be condemned.

Nah ... that truth so threatens the narrative that it can't be spoken. It's far better to smear Trump as a white supremacist.

Not much has changed over the past few years. Rick Moran characterizes the 2019 version of Antifa:

Antifa is a mish-mash of anarcho-communists, thugs, radical communiatarians, and gimlet-eyed revolutionaries who use the rhetoric of the left to sway addle-brained young people to be stage props in their street wars.

But their supporters aren't only a bunch of useful idiot millennials. This comment from a victim of Antifa violence, Andy Ngo:

The worst part is how prominent media figures and politicians glamorize and even promote antifa as a movement for a just cause. CNN’s Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon have defended antifa on-air. Chuck Todd invited antifa ideologue Mark Bray on “Meet the Press” to explain why antifa’s political violence is “ethical.”

Keith Ellison [ex-co-chair of the DNC and a noted anti-Semite] gleefully posted — and recently deleted — a selfie of himself holding Bray’s Antifa handbook. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA] met hard-left political operative Joseph Alcoff in 2016. Alcoff is currently facing felony charges for his alleged involvement in an Antifa mob beating of two Marines in Philadelphia.

That last choice of targets — Marines — was no accident. ­Antifa operates by a very broad definition of “fascists.” By ­antifa’s telling, fascists include mainstream conservatives and even centrist journalists who dare criticize them. But they save most of their hatred for US law enforcement and military service members. Antifa’s goal is ­violent political revolution, and it sees law-enforcement officers and the military as the main ­obstacles.

In the Pacific Northwest, where Antifa is especially active, the group has continually targeted ICE. Last summer, the local ICE building in Portland faced a five-week siege that shut down the facility. Why? Antifa seeks to destabilize and destroy the nation-state by attacking its sovereign borders. And the group draws morale from mainstream progressive politicians, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who normalize hatred of border enforcement and sovereignty as such.

This week, two GOP Senators are introducing a resolution to condemn Antifa as a domestic terror group. That gives these scum more credit than they deserve.

Maybe a better move would be to ask a platoon of U.S. Marines (one of Antifa's recent targets) to intercede during the next Antifa "demonstration"—you know, where they demand social justice by beating defenseless "fascists" to a pulp. Antifa's progressive protectors would become apoplectic as the marines persuaded the Antifa thugs that their actions were inappropriate. And if the Antifa thugs threw a punch or swung a pipe ... well, the marines would be within their rights to defend themselves ... vigorously.

The Growing Whirlwind

It's reasonable to state that MSNBC commentator Chris Hayes is NOT representative of main stream Democrats, but his world view does represent a substantial minority of the party and a substantial percentage of the hard-Left base of the party. Here's what he said (h/t: Victor Davis Hansen) recently:

“[The Republican Party] must be peacefully, nonviolently, politically destroyed with love, compassion and determination, but utterly confronted and destroyed. That is the only way to break the coalition apart… Not by prying off this or that interest. They are in too deep. They have shamed themselves too much. The heart of the thing must be ripped out. The darkness must be banished.”

That's pretty strong language from a left-wing partisan who worries so, so much about language that might incite violence, who obsesses about every word uttered by prominent GOP members, looking for the slightest hint of "racism" or the faintest "dog whistle" to help prove that they are all "fascist, racist, misogynist bigots."

After all, "destroyed" has an entirely different and more ominous feel than "defeated." Suggesting that the "heart of the thing must be ripped out" has violent connotations, but I forget, ONLY Republicans can have violence in their hearts. The hearts of progressives like Hayes are pure. There is no "darkness" there .... never!

It appears that Hayes is fine with one party rule. If we can accept his words at face value, the country doesn't need opposing views when those views impede the Left's march toward dominance and power.

But things go far beyond calls for the destruction of your opponents in another political party. People of color, people of preferred religions, women, and LBGT people must never, ever express an opposing view, even if they are titularly members of your own political party. This from Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-MA):

“We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice.”

The "voice" that Pressley refers to is the voice that expresses her left-wing world view. She and her ideological allies "don't need" other voices, and views them as a threat to the cohesion of the movement. 1984, anyone?

With these two rather small events as a backdrop, Hansen comments:

... by all means his opponents can, if they so wish, ridicule, caricature, and blast Trump and hope he fails. But after trying for nearly three years to destroy the president and prematurely remove him by any means necessary before a scheduled election, please do not appeal to the better angels of our nature—while deploring the new “unpresidential” behavior of Donald J. Trump for lashing out at those who sought to reduce him to a common criminal, pervert, traitor, dunce, and Satanic figure.

Such invective was always characteristic of the new progressive agenda rather than specific to Donald J. Trump. After the 2008 dismantling of John McCain into a senile lecher and reducing Mitt Romney into a tax cheat, animal tormenter, high-school hazer, elevator owner, and enabler of an equestrian wife with MS, and after George W. Bush was reduced to Nazi thug worthy of death in progressive novels, op-eds and docudramas, Donald Trump sensed that half the country had had enough and he would return slur for slur—and so may the best brawler win.

After all, in 2019, this 243rd year of our illustrious nation, most Americans are not simply going to curl up in a fetal position, apologize for the greatest nation in the history of civilization, and say, “Ah, you’re right, Representatives Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Pressley, and Tlaib. It is an awful country after all—and always was.”

While one may always wish that the president and his critics tone down their venom and play by silk-stocking Republican Marquis of Queensberry rules, it is hard for half the country to feel much sympathy for the Left that sowed the wind and are reaping an ever growing whirlwind.

Leftist politicians have been immune from criticism for decades as they dishonestly (and often viciously) slurred people like McCain, Romney, George W. Bush, and dozens of other prominent GOP men and women. Therefore, they continue to do so, knowing that their trained hamsters in the media won't call them on it, and expecting that prominent GOP politicians will just take it as they always have. But when vicious slurs come back at them, they don't like it one bit.

So when an angry crowd reacts to the anti-American rhetoric of Squad member Ilhan Omar and chants "Send her back ...," I'll defer to the words of Chris Rock, one of most insightful comedians of his generation, "I’m not sayin' I agree … but I understand."

#IStandWithIlhan

A prominent member of The Squad, Ilhan Omar, has tried valiantly to hide behind her immigrant/person-of-color/Muslim/gender force field to deflect criticism of her controversial positions on a variety of subjects. The Dems' trained hamsters in the media have leaped to her defense, helping her deflect legitimate criticism.

When Donald Trump attacked Omar, the SJW outrage brigades went into overdrive, suggesting that (you guessed it), his legitimate criticism of the congresswoman is "racist and white supremacist." It is true that Trump should NOT have suggested that she leave the United States to help the people of Somalia, and his supporters should NOT have angrily chanted "send her back," but those errors in judgement and temperament do not provide her with dispensation for her radical positions and her anti-American, anti-Israel stance. Omar thinks she'll become Trump's worst "nightmare" (her characterization), but it's far more likely she'll have Dems tossing and turning in 2020.

But of course her defenders have responded with the obligatory hash tag, proudly brandished by the SJW crowd:

#IStandWithIlhan

Really ... you stand with Ilhan, huh?

If you stand with Ilhan, you're concerned about the plight of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers at our southern border, but refuse to support a vote for funding to help mitigate the conditions that have been driven by the quasi-open border policies that you advocate. Nor do you have any substantive recommendations for correcting the problem, except to suggest that existing decades old laws NOT be followed.

If you stand with Ilhan, you argue that the death of U.S. troops who were in Somalia to stop violent thugs from terrorizing the residents of Mogadishu was justifiable payback for U.S. "imperialism." The fact that our solders were dragged through the streets after their deaths doesn't matter a whit to MN's social justice warrior.

If you stand with Ilhan, you minimize the 9-11 Islamist terror attacks in which almost 3,000 Americans died by suggesting that "some people did something." Omar is as close to an apologist for Islamist terror groups as any congressperson in the history of the United States.

If you stand with Ilhan, you're okay with a cozy relationship with the Islamist front group—CAIR and when asked directly whether you condemn Islamic terrorism, you obfuscate.

If you stand with Ilhan, you repeatedly and enthusiastically tweet anti-Semitic tropes, and then try to skate past them by suggesting that criticism of your words is racist and misogynist.

If you stand with Ilhan, you attempt to block sanctions against Venezuela's socialist dictatorship that has literally destroyed a once vibrant country, but regularly condemn the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel, and enthusiastically support the despicable BDS movement in an effort to destroy Israel.

If you stand with Ilhan, you believe that big government socialism is the answer to all the "problems" you see with capitalism, and then inadvertently illustrate how poorly big government government works by perpetrating immigration and tax fraud along with campaign finance violations (allegations supported by copious hard evidence) and then rely on friendly trained hamsters in the media who refuse to investigate.

I won't stand with Ilhan Omar. I, along with tens of millions of other Americans, reject her anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and leftist identity politics.

UPDATE (7/22/2019):
------------------------------
Brendan O'Neil comments:

Many on the woke left have been making excuses for Ilhan Omar’s anti-Jewish prejudices for a long time. But in the wake of the Trump v Omar controversy, culminating in those creepy chants of ‘Send her back!’ at a Trump rally, they’ve gone a step further. They’re now arguing not only that her prejudicial views aren’t prejudicial at all, but that anyone who claims they are is helping to fuel the ‘far right’. Yes, if you try to draw attention to Omar’s promotion of anti-Semitic tropes and her feverish, disproportionate obsession with Zionists, you will be denounced as the racist. Taking Orwellian contortionism to new levels, we’re now told it is racist to speak of Omar’s racism.

But wait ... Omar's immigrant/person-of-color/Muslim/gender force field sheilds her from criticism, right?

Politics of Vilification

The rhetorical excesses by Donald Trump in reaction to the rhetorical excesses of members of The Squad are getting increasingly ugly. For decades, the Left has felt comfortable labeling conservatives as "nazis" or "murderers" or "racists" or "deplorables" or any of a number of vicious epithets that characterize them as morally defective. With the election of Donald Trump, the Dems ran into a GOP politician who doesn't do the gentlemanly thing when confronted with one or more of those epithets, and turns the other cheek. For better or worse, Trump is unafraid to punch back, driving the Left to every greater levels of Trump Derangement and outright hysteria.

By using their own tactics again them, Donald Trump has sunk to the same level as the Left—encouraging his supporters to chant "send her back" after accurately accusing Ilhan Omar, a sitting Congresswoman, of decidedly anti-American and Anti-Semitic statements and positions. Omar is not a person to be admired and certainly a legitimate target for harsh criticism. But Trump has also done something else. By using their own tactics against them. Trump has forced many Leftists to take off their masks—you know the mask that would have us all believe that they and they alone are inclusive, understanding, broadminded, liberal and otherwise tolerant. With their now tedious accusations of "racist-white supremacist" against people with a different point of view, they have demonstrated that they are none of those things.

Richard Fernandez expands on this:

By forcing the pace, Trump obviously hopes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her companions will blurt out their unvarnished reactions in velocity veritas and it seems to be working. Despite the unpleasantness, the result has been clarity: Washington has laid all the ugly cards on the table, for once the capital is free of artifice and every seething emotion is on display. The choices are stark even if they are not very edifying.

What a scene it presents. On the one hand is a group of people who think America is the source of all evil that should spend the rest of its historical existence atoning for the mischief it has loosed in the world. On the other hand is a group who believe that for all its faults it is the greatest country in the world and that those who want to destroy it should go back to Somalia. Whichever point of view you subscribe to (or neither) it's hard to deny that these factions have existed for some time and are only now coming to grips in the open.

"Clarity" is the realization (based on things like the Kavanaugh hearings and the non-stop verbal assaults by members of The Squad) that the Democrats are not now, nor have they ever been, the center of virtue. The GOP is flawed, for sure, but no more flawed than the Dems. And it's that realization that then focuses the 2020 election on actual achievements and results, not promises of a utopian society in which the powerful are hobbled and everything else is 'free.'

Steve Cortez discusses the Politics of Vilification:

I appeared on CNN Monday night to discuss the firestorm over the president’s caustic tweets last weekend criticizing the four most progressive members of the House of Representatives. I deemed the tweets illogical and shrill, and said so on Twitter and on Anderson Cooper’s show. I also pointed out that the overreaction from Democratic politicians and their media allies revealed a hysterical attempt to castigate the president as prejudiced. I cited the incredibly incendiary accusation of my CNN colleague Wajahat Ali who retweeted an article and its headline: “Trump is a racist. If you still support him, so are you.”

Such an immense and broad condemnation of tens of millions of Americans represents, itself, an intensely bigoted tactic. After all, utterly dismissing wide swaths of our society just because they do not share prescribed political preferences represents a wholesale effort to delegitimize and dehumanize; it’s a classic tactic to “otherize,” to borrow a term from the left. Paradoxically, liberals like Ali unveil their own inherent and systemic bigotry by belittling their fellow citizens, merely on the grounds of policy differences. Rather than engage and debate and persuade, the intolerant left chooses the politics of vilification. Their rash judgment deems the “unwashed rabble” of our America First movement as deplorables and racists, simpletons unworthy of real consideration.

Democrats don't seem to understand that members of the general public sense the condescension that permeates much of the rhetoric that comes from Democratic presidential candidates, congressional leadership and, of course, many hard-left members (exemplified by The Squad), and react accordingly. The Dems also seem to be incapable of recognizing that their ideological positions are just that—one point of view among many. They are not anointed with supernatural wisdom nor are they immune from criticism.

Whether they realize it or not, the Dem's self-appointed spokeswomen, The Squad, through their spoken words and tweets that continuously criticize the United States, its military and law enforcement agencies as racist and worse, have a policy agenda that could be called 'Hate America.' That's not an agenda that will sell well politically, even if those on the hard-Left think it will.

Liz Shield writes:

The average American doesn't hate America, so "Hate America" is a tough platform to sell in order to mobilize people against Trump. Regular people don't like being told they are racists, Nazis, homophobic, bigoted privileged folk who achieved their success on the backs of oppressing minorities. It's offensive. Especially coming from a gaggle of ladies who have achieved significant political power. All this talk about Trump being divisive, all this talk about putting a Democrat in the presidency to unify the country, is just complete and total garbage.

Some Democrats and even a few of their most-recognized supporters in the media have begun to realize this. It will be interesting to see whether they stand-up to the Politics of Vilification and say, "Enough!"

Racist

"Racist!" ... "White Supremacist!" ... "Racist!" ... "White Supremacist!" ... "Racist!" ... "White Supremacist!" ... after a while this vicious accusation against those who are neither becomes nothing more than a tedious epithet. But according to far too many on the Left, if you have opposing views on open borders and border enforcement in general, if you think that the politics of victimization is wrong, if you argue that slavery reparations are ill-conceived and nothing more than an attempt to pander, if you say something innocuous that is later arbitrarily called a "dog whistle," if you oppose school busing based on its long, failed history, if you suggest that education and family structure may have more than a little to do with the 'wealth gap,' you are a "racist." And if you say these things too frequently or too publicly or too loudly, you're a "white supremacist." At least that's what the Left keeps telling us.

Roger Simon summarizes nicely:

To say that the Democrats are obsessed with race these days is the equivalent of saying the sky is blue.

I'm a racist. You're a racist. Donald Trump's a racist. Nancy Pelosi was a racist until she attacked Trump for racism. Your neighbor's a racist. Your insurance broker's a racist. Your dentist's a racist as well as your periodontist. All white males are racist. Some white females are racists, especially those married to white males. Everywhere a racist.

Never mind that many of those people have no history of racism. It doesn't matter. Never mind that their families came here in 1923 to flee the Armenian Holocaust or mass starvation in Ukraine, they owe reparations for slavery. It's all about racism—yours.

The Dems' presidential campaigns are based around proving the other man or woman is more of a racist and vice versa, or about showing you're not so racist as people say you are, even if you are or even if you pretended to be a race you weren't. And don't you dare criticize Ilhan Omar or you're a triple-racist even if her ideas are more racist than anyone else's. Got it?

Yep, got it. Hard-left Democrats (at this point a rapidly growing minority of the party) have decided that the ultimate in moral preening is to label anyone, or for that matter, any thing (think: border barriers), as racist. After all, they think that their moral acuity at identifying and calling out a "racist" is superior to anyone else's, meaning that they live on a higher moral plain than us common folks.

Simon goes on the quote an 2005 interview on 60 Minutes in which Mike Wallace asks Morgan Freeman about Black History Month. Wallace is shocked when Freeman calls it "Ridiculous." The following interchange occurs a bit later in the interview:

WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until...?

FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I'm going to stop calling you a white man. And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You`re not going to say, "I know this white guy named Mike Wallace." Hear what I'm saying?

Many of us do, but many, many Democrats do not. Because they see everything through a racial lens, they can't "Stop talking about it."

When good people (progressive or conservative) look at a person, they see that person, not a color. If the person says or does something good, they deserve and get praise. But if a person says or does something idiotic or vicious or just plain wrong, they deserve criticism. Their color doesn't matter—they said something idiotic or vicious or just plain wrong. If they are a person of color, they are NOT protected from criticism, and criticism of them is NOT "racist."

But when far too many progressives see a person, it's pretty apparent they see white or brown or black. In fact, color apparently rules their thinking to such an extent that they can't seem to get past it. In a way, that's a form of soft racism.

But Freeman's story doesn't end there. Again from Simon:

Unfortunately, not long after the sane comments by Mr. Freeman, Barack Obama was elected and what seemed at first to be the end or diminishment of racism went the other way. The scab kept being picked, by Eric Holder and Obama himself. They couldn't let go of it. Soon enough, Morgan Freeman walked back what he said under the sadness of peer pressure.

And now we are where we are—in the land of AOC and Omar—every one of us racists until we die. The revolution eats its own.

But not until it feasts on all of the rest of us first.

UPDATE:
------------------
John Hinderacker summarizes much of this when he writes:

The idea that politicians may or may not be subject to criticism or disagreement depending on their skin color is so un-American, and so profoundly stupid, that it is hard to imagine that anyone could assert it. Yet we live in such degraded times that one-third of Democrats are willing to tell pollsters that is what they believe.

It's awfully hard to give up the soft racism of the 'person-of-color' protective force field, but the Democrats might want to consider it. After all, they're so concerned about 'American Values' and all that.

Two Somali Women

Two Somali woman can be used to emphasize the blatant hypocrisy and outright bias of the main stream media.

One is U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who has over the past few months gotten little, if any media criticism or follow-up for her dishonest criticism of the United States' immigration policies, her subtle reluctance to condemn Islamic terrorism, her flippant dismissal of the 9/11 attacks, her loose affiliation with Islamist groups (e.g., CAIR) that actively support terror organizations such as Hamas, and her her continuing anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements. Her fellow Squad members, along with their trained hamsters in the media, leap to protect Omar from criticism, using race, gender and religion as her force field. But there's a problem with that approach.

There's another Somali women who has experienced the same (or worse) horrors as Omar, who has immigrated to the West, has been elected to political office, and is a rational, intelligent spokesperson for her positions. The problem is that her positions do not fit the current left-wing narrative promulgated by Democrats' trained hamsters in the media. This Somali woman, Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, is shunned by the media. She's almost never interviewed by main stream media sources, is called a bigot and an Islamophobe (she's a Muslim person of color), and is effectively told to 'go back where you come from' by progressives on a regular basis. Oh yeah, she expresses admiration for the United States and lauds the freedoms that we have and the opportunities for immigrants that we provide. The horror!



Two Somali women—one a bitter left-wing, anti-Semitic, anti-American ideologue. The other, a thoughtful critic of Islamist atrocities conducted against the West and against Muslims worldwide. Omar, lionized and protected by a media whose sole purpose is to promote the current leftist narrative. Hirsi-Ali, shunned and attacked because her lucid critique of Islamist ideology doesn't fit that same narrative.

Two Somali women. One treated as a hero by the trained hamsters in the media, the other as a non-entity at best or a villain at worst. There's only one problem—the trained hamsters have it exactly backward, but then again, they're too biased and too stupid to recognize any of that.

The Squad

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've now heard media accounts that tell us, for the 10 millionth time, that Donald Trump is a white supremacist and racist who this past weekend demanded that four first-term congresswomen, known collectively as "The Squad," "go back where they came from." Of course, Trump didn't really use those words, but in his ham-handed and in this case toxic manner, he stated that members of the Squad should travel back to their countries of origin or affinity and fix the myriad problems in those countries, thereby demonstrating that their hard left, socialist agenda would actually work in the real world. Upon their success in those countries, he then invited them to return so they could teach us all how to fix the human rights abuses, the racism, misogyny, bigotry, classism, unfair labor practices, immigrant abuse ... blah, blah, blah with which they characterize the United States on a daily (sometimes hourly) basis.

The Squad held a press conference in which they tried to look like reasonable, sage members of Congress. They suggested that they themselves and the Democrats shouldn't take the bait and instead continue to work on creating the socialist utopia they all envision. They then proceeded to take the bait, suggesting that Trump is a criminal and should be impeached.

Members of The Squad include: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has claimed that the United States has set up "concentration camps" on our southern border; Ilhan Omar whose anti-Semitic, anti-Israel vitriol continually crosses into the realm of Jew-hatred; Rashida Talib, a closet Islamist and pro-Hamas sympathizer, and Ayanna Pressley, a hard-Left advocate who looks at everything through a racial lens. The Squad refers to its members as "women of color," thereby creating a figurative force field that they believe will negate any legitimate criticism or argument with their extremist positions. The Democrats trained hamsters in the media swoon over the Squad, never questioning their outright lies, their hyperbolic claims, or their hard-Left ideology. Maybe they do have a force field after all.

The Squad's many admirers and defenders in the media keep emphasizing that all four congresswomen are citizens, elected officials, and 3 of the 4 were born in the USA. For once, the trained hamsters tell the truth. But using their citizenship as a defense to blunt their months and months of noxious statements about their country just doesn't work. Rich Lowry comments:

America has two assimilation problems. One is immigrants feeling only a tenuous connection to America and getting isolated in ethnic enclaves. The other is immigrants like [Ilhan] Omar [a member of The Squad] — and some of her second-generation colleagues — assimilating into the America of identity politics and grievance.

They have learned to speak not just English but the language of oppression. They understand our system — at least no less than the average officeholder — but hold it in low regard. They know our history, as taught by an instructor cribbing from Howard Zinn.

They may be citizens, but they are certainly outraged victims.

On a purely political level, Trump made a stupid and ill-timed political mistake by engaging The Squad. After all, members of the Squad had begun to criticize other democrats, going after House leadership, calling members of the Congressional Black Caucus insufficiently left wing and implying that they were Uncle Toms. The Squad thoroughly pissed off a large number of their colleagues.

Then again, Trump may not be as stupid as he sometimes seems. He has forced all three of the Democratic groups that dislike The Squad to defend them, and in so doing, he ties the Dems to the Squad's outrageous and dishonest criticism of their own country and its allies.

During their strident press conference, members of the The Squad told us many, many times that because they were "duly-elected" they therefore had every right to trash their country and its policies. That's one of the few things they got right. But at the same time, they outright refuse to accept the legitimacy of another duly-elected member of government, somehow suggesting that he has no right to criticize their actions or to suggest that if they don't like it here, they can leave. Despite the prevailing narrative, this had little if anything to do with race or religion and everything to do with a group of duly elected representatives who in words and deeds, don't seem to like their country very much. They were called on that, and the Left really, really doesn't like push-back when it gets too close to home.

UPDATE-1:
-----------------
Bobby Jindall comments on the increasing craziness and viciousness that has become the hallmark on American politics:

Politics seem more chaotic, polarized and extreme than ever ...

Liberals, including the mainstream media, still can’t believe that Donald Trump emerged victorious from a crowded Republican primary, much less beat Hillary Clinton, who personified the political establishment. Hers was the perfect résumé: Ivy League-educated attorney, first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state. She was safe and predictable; boringness was a virtue in contrast with the bombastic New York developer who had never before mounted a serious run for office. She was a Democrat comfortable speaking to and being paid by Goldman Sachs and other big corporations. She offered to shatter the glass ceiling without threatening the profitable status quo of media, business and government elites.

Mr. Trump’s penchant for personal attacks and undisciplined tweets drives even some of his supporters crazy. They wonder if he is his own worst enemy and hope he doesn’t sabotage his success. Yet many more supporters wanted a disruptive force and view his unorthodox behavior as a positive feature rather than an unfortunate price to pay for conservative judges and lower taxes. Both groups agree the craziness on the Republican side lies in the president’s personality and ego and not in his policies, which are working well in many cases ...

The craziness on the Democratic side lies in its leaders’ policies and the plan they want to impose on America. The party’s inability to condemn anti-Semitism with a unified voice and the current debate on whether America owes reparations to African-Americans and Native Americans are the tip of the iceberg. Democrats like Elizabeth Warren favor a steep wealth tax, even as Europe is largely abandoning such schemes. Others want to abolish the Electoral College and pack the Supreme Court.

Whereas President Obama realized fully government-run health-care was too radical for the American people, many in his party now believe the problem with ObamaCare was that it forced too few people off plans they liked ...

The Green New Deal dwarfs Medicare for All in potential cost and damage to the economy. Its supporters aim to do more than merely eliminate the use of oil, gas, coal and nuclear power—they aspire to rid the country of commercial airline travel and flatulent cows, retrofit every building, and provide a universal federal guarantee of economic security even to those “unwilling to work.” “Socialism” has gone from an epithet used by Republicans to discredit Democrats to a title some of them wear proudly.

But to members of The Squad, all of these proposals and much more are a road map to a socialist utopia that they envision. And when they are criticized, rather than defend these proposals with anything other than vapid abstractions, they regularly accuse their opponents of racism or misogyny. Maybe that why they are widely recognized by all Democrats, but also widely disliked by Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.

UPDATE-2
------------------
Of the members of The Squad, only Ilhan Omar is a first generation immigrant. She is also the most vicious in many of her positions and is forthright in her obvious dislike for the United States as it currently is. Charles Cooke dissects Omar:

Legally, Ilhan Omar has exactly the same rights as someone born here. And she should, without exception. Culturally, though, the idea that Omar does not “owe a special debt of gratitude to the” United States is ridiculous, as is the idea that Omar’s views of the United States should not be affected by that debt. Of course she should be grateful! The United States saved her from a warzone, let her stay, accepted her as a citizen, and then elected her to Congress. If one can’t be grateful for that, what can one be grateful for?

Should Omar “temper her critiques of American politics and culture”? That depends. Again: Legally, Omar should enjoy every Constitutional protection available. And, as a matter of course, she should feel able to take part in the political process on the same terms as everyone else. But, culturally, it is absolutely reasonable for Omar’s critics to look at her behavior and say, “really, that’s your view of us?” It’s absolutely reasonable for Omar’s fellow Americans to dislike her and to shun her as a result. It is absolutely reasonable for them to consider her an ingrate — or to believe, as David does, that she is “a toxic presence in American politics.” And it is absolutely reasonable for them to wonder aloud how a person who hails from a dysfunctional, dangerous place built atop dysfunctional, dangerous institutions can exhibit the temerity — the sheer gall — to talk about America in the way that she does. There is a big difference between saying “I oppose current federal tax policy” or “I want more spending on colleges” or “the president is an ass,” and saying that America needs complete rethinking. As this Washington Post piece makes clear, Omar isn’t just irritated by a few things. She thinks the place is a disaster.

Maybe that's why more than a few Democrats think Ilhan Omar is a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Alva

A female reporter tried to get a one-on-one interview with a Mississippi politician and the man demured. He told her that he'd meet with her only if another person was in the room. The reporter took the feminist line and was "outraged," suggesting that he made her feel like a "sexual object." Others believe the politician took a sensible, if a bit extreme, precaution in the era of #MeToo.

The politician took his position because of people like Alva Johnson. Who's she? Matt Walsh explains:

A former staffer for the Trump campaign, Alva Johnson, filed a lawsuit a few months ago alleging that she was the victim of "battery" when Trump "forcibly kissed" her without consent. In a teary-eyed interview with MSNBC in February, Johnson recounted being grabbed by the hands and kissed on the corner of the mouth. She says she turned away desperately, which is the only thing that saved her from a full mouth-to-mouth kiss. Using words like "terrified," "scared," and "distraught," she claimed that even months after the alleged assault, she was still "crying her eyes out" and traumatized from the experience. If this kiss had taken place privately, all we'd have is her word on the subject — a word that, we are told, must be automatically believed. Fortunately, though, it was not private.

This week, Trump's lawyers released footage of what Johnson describes as "battery." It does not show anything like the dramatic scene that she recounted. Instead, we see Trump lean in to give Johnson a brief peck on the cheek. His lips do not make contact with her mouth — nor does she lean away or in any way express any discomfort with the interaction at all. She smiles and appears to give him an air kiss on the side of the face, in return. It is just a very normal and friendly greeting between two people. No reasonable human being could possibly watch the video and describe what he sees as assault. If it is assault, then we have all been assaulted hundreds of times in our lives. A mother who gives her young son a goodnight kiss on the cheek is a child sex abuser. Late-night talk show hosts who kiss their female guests on the cheek are committing sexual assault in front of a live audience every night. Europeans who kiss everyone on the cheek are all a bunch of sex criminals. If Alva Johnson was sexually assaulted, then sexual assault is about as common and casual as a handshake.

Johnson says she called her parents immediately after the innocuous cheek kiss and had to pull over to the side of the road due to emotional distress. Is it plausible that she really reacted that way to something so utterly harmless and ordinary? Is it plausible that she was in her house "crying her eyes out" months after the fact? It's possible, I suppose. Maybe she is one of the most fragile people ever to walk the Earth. Or maybe she's lying. Maybe a combination of the two. Whatever the case, she took an innocent greeting and tried to use it to destroy Trump's political career. Trump survived because there's video, and because he's Trump. Those of us who lack both advantages may not have been so lucky.

There is a third possibility that describes Johnson and others like the infamous Christine Blasey-Ford, who without a shred of actual evidence but under the urging of Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, accused now SCOTUS justice, Brett Kavenaugh, of "rape" 35-years after the alleged "assault" occurred. Both woman may have serious mental problems driven by hatred of their target. This may be manifested by delusional thinking that turns an innocuous encounter (or no encounter at all) into sexual assault. Woman (or men) in this category honestly believe they were assaulted, but belief is not evidence nor is it reality. For example, people honestly believe they have been abducted by aliens, but that doesn't make their stories true.

When SJWs insist that we MUST believe the woman, there will be unintended consequences. Men (or woman) who believe they may be the target of a politically motivated accusation of sexual assault have every right to demand that any meeting with the opposite sex be attended by others who can serve as witnesses. It does seem a bit extreme, but not nearly as extreme as unsubstantiated claims of sexual assault like those levied by Alva Johnson or Christine Blasey-Ford. BTW, every evidence-free claim of sexual assault has the potential to ruin the life of an innocent person and at the same time, such claims devalue the legitimate claims of those who have actually suffered from a real sexual assault.

The Deficit

Throughout the Obama years, I roundly criticized Barack Obama and the Democrats for their profligate spending. Whenever any attempt was made to rein in the budget or cut programs, you'd think that the world was coming to an end. Children would be starved and grandmas would be thrown out of their wheelchairs and onto the curb. Even tiny cuts (e.g., the sequester) were deemed "catastrophic." A small cut in military budgets would "put our nation at risk." Cuts in social programs would "endanger the most vulnerable." It's all B.S., but that's what the denizens of the swamp (both Dem and GOP) do when spending is threatened. Spending consolidates their power and influence, so spend they must.

Today it was announced that federal spending has set a new record, along with the deficit. It looks like Donald Trump is no different than the administrations that preceded him where spending and deficits are concerned. He deserves to be roundly criticized for it.

Terrence Jeffrey reports:

The federal government spent a record $3,355,970,000,000 (for the numerically imparied—that's 3.35 trillion dollars or 3,350 billion dollars) in the first nine months of fiscal 2019 (October through June), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.

Prior to this fiscal year, the most the federal government had ever spent in the October-through-June period was in fiscal 2018, when the Treasury doled out $3,199,795,700,000 in constant June 2019 dollars. Before last year, the most the federal government had ever spent in the first nine months of the fiscal year was in fiscal 2009, when it spent $3,176,577,910,000.

Fiscal 2009 was the year that President George W. Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program legislation to bailout failing banks and President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, his economic stimulus plan.

Total federal tax revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2019 hit $2,608,855,000,000. That was more than the $2,582,688,760,000 in total tax revenue (in constant June 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in the first nine months of fiscal 2018, but less than the record $2,626,410,840,000 (in constant June 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in total tax revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2015.

The difference between the $2,608,855,000,000 in total taxes collected in the first nine months of this fiscal year and the record spending of $3,355,970,000,000 left the government with a deficit of $747,115,000,000.

Trump, like his predecessor, Obama, deserves nothing but criticism for uncontrolled and irresponsible spending across the federal budget. Even if waste and abuse accounts for only 10 percent of spending (and that's a VERY conservative estimate), Trump, along with the entire Congress has thrown away $355 billion dollars over the past nine months. That's $355 billion dollars of taxpayer money.

Even more depressing, there is no way to eliminate waste and abuse. The only viable approach is to spend less, resulting in proportionally less waste and abuse. Of course, that won't happen, until we run out of other people's money.

Occupation

Among the current front runners for the Democratic candidate for President is Liz Warren. Liz tells us she's a hardcore "capitalist" who simply wants big intrusive government solutions to everything from healthcare to college debt to stringent controls on "big" corporations to income inequality. But all of those things are a topic for another day. Liz was (note the past tense) a staunch supporter of our only true Middle East ally and the only true democracy in the Middle East, Israel, until she noticed the Democrats' hard-left lurch and the corresponding anti-Israel sentiment across the hard-left base of the party. So now, Liz is ... well, let's just say her attitude about Israel has changed.

Kim Hirsch reports:

Liz Warren has an Israel policy which has been “evolving” over the years, as liberals like to say. First, in 2012 she said she would work as a senator to “ensure Israel’s safety and success.” Then, in 2014, she voted to increase aid to Israel during the war on Gaza.

But that was then. Now she wants to be President.


Last year she called on Israel to use restraint against Palestinian protestors. Furthermore, a few months ago she opposed a bill which would fine businesses that participate in boycotting Israel.

Apparently Liz Warren could see the anti-Israel writing on that Democrat party wall, so she flipped to the Israel Bad playbook.

On Tuesday, she told a group she would make Israel end its occupation of the Gaza Strip. She also beamed when young Jewish millennials told her they were thrilled with her promise.

Sometimes, the breathtaking ignorance of some of the Dems' thought leaders is astonishing. Again from Hirsch:

... there’s one teensy little problem with that information [Israel's "occupation"]: Hamas took over control of Gaza in 2007. Israel no longer officially occupies the Gaza Strip. However, Palestinian apologists maintain that because Israel still controls borders, airspace, and territorial waters, Gaza is still “occupied,” according to their pretzel logic.

Now why would Israel be so downright mean to their neighbors?

Maybe it’s because the terrorist Hamas government is running a Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. And because the Palestinians in Gaza continue to lob rockets into Israel. — most recently at the rate of 700 within a 48-hour period.

What’s more, despite both Israel and Egypt blockading Gaza, terrorists have been increasing their rocket arsenal.

But, since the Democratic party continues its leftward lurch, led by radicals, Liz Warren is following along like a puppy dog.

None of this is the least bit surprising, nor is the continuing and often overwhelming support that Liz and other Dem candidates get from America's Jewish community. Think of the positions of Liz or Bernie ... well just about any of the Dem candidates and then ... #Walkaway.

Pusillanimity

Pusillanimity is one of those 10 dollar words that implies timidity—a distinct and noticeable lack of courage, determination, and grit. Over the past few years, a majority of corporate leaders have exhibited pusillanimity when confronted by patently ridiculous demands presented to them by social justice warriors who have become members of the Outrage Brigades. Daniel Henninger comments on the recent dust-up over Nike sneakers:

The remarkable thing about Colin Kaepernick’s banning of Nike ’s Betsy Ross flag sneaker to commemorate the Fourth of July isn’t that it happened, but how easily it happened. Nike’s management simply folded over “concerns that it could unintentionally offend.”

Translating this waffly phrase into odds, I’d put “concerns that it could” at about a million to one. But because the thought found its way into Mr. Kaepernick’s head that the shoe was about slavery, Nike’s senior decision-makers nodded without dissent: We’ve gotta pull it.

No one has ever thought to go looking inside corporate headquarters for profiles in courage, but the lurch toward timidity in our time by individuals at the top of America’s private and public institutions is something to behold. Pusillanimity has become a plague.

Henninger goes on to discuss baseball's Cleveland Indians ban on their Chief Waahoo mascot, and the Philadephia Flyer's banning of 1930s era singer, Kate Smith's redition of God Bless America because Smith recorded a racially insensitive song almost than 90 years ago. In some cases, there was mild pushback by the corporate chieftains (oops, is that a "cultural appropriation?") but in the main, they all folded like cheap suits.

Over the past few decades, faux-outrage has been a dominant strategy on the Left. The reason is simple—it works. It's all part of a broader strategy to delegitimize the country, to suggest that we as a nation are [fill in the list of pejorative adjectives], to convince people that what we have is soooo bad that it MUST be replaced by a socialist system in which government controls all aspects of our lives and where dissent is not only inappropriate, it is forbidden. If history serves, a proposed system like that would quickly devolve into an authoritarian dictatorship where the same social justice warriors that are now outraged by sneakers would become power brokers and the thought-leaders.

Henninger continues:

The rest of the time when a Chief Wahoo or Kate Smith happens, most people find space inside themselves to absorb it. But for the increasingly Mao-like American left, even this choked-down acceptance of their political assaults isn’t enough. They no longer seem content with winning. The left today has a compulsion to force obedience again and again. Thus, You didn’t like Wahoo and Kate Smith? Try this: We’re getting rid of your racist Betsy Ross flag, and you’ll shut your face and take it.

What they want from their opposition isn’t agreement with their ideas but submission—a kind of political lobotomization. And disturbingly, a lot of contemporary leaders—at Nike, the Yankees, the Flyers, almost any university—are volunteering to assist in the procedure.

Anytime thought suppression goes too far, people look for ways to resist. One thinks of the determined objectors in Ray Bradbury’s now barely fictional novel, “Fahrenheit 451,” evading the firemen who exterminate the possessions of people who read books. Today, the firemen are burning any symbol of American life they say has become unacceptable—to them.

Henninger suggests a "Mao-Like" stance among the SJWs. I have suggested that there are echos of the Khmer Rouge in their words and actions, albeit, faint at the moment.

When confronted with the idiocy that is now an everyday occurrence among the outrage brigades, the only acceptable response is push back—hard, directly, and vigorously. The best response is to flip the SJW accusations, using their language and memes to suggest that the SJW demands are themselves "offensive and outrageous." That they make the listener feel "unsafe." That those who don't agree with the SJWs are "hurt" by the SJW language, tone, and accusations. But that takes courage, not pusillanimity.

Orgy Island

It's pretty obvious that Jeffrey Epstein is a scumbag, who has been known to local authorities in South Florida and New York for more than two decades and who, until the most recent federal indictments in the Southern District of NY, has skated past serious sexually-oriented criminal charges involving underage girls. Epstein, a billionaire, had juice, connections within the establishment, that allowed him to continue his predatory behavior for years. Like Harvey Weinstein, he had rich and powerful friends who looked the other way. In fact, it appears that at least a few of Epstein's rich and powerful friends participated in his activities—and that gave him additional protection.

Until ex-President Bill Clinton became persona non gratia among the woke elements of the Democratic party, the media soft-pedaled Epstein's crimes, at least to the extent that they refused to dig too deeply into his association with other rich and powerful people (including Bill Clinton). Now, the media's interest in Epstein has changed. The reason—the trained hamsters think there is a way to connect members of the Trump administration, specifically Labor Secretary Andrew Acosta and even Donald Trump himself, to Epstein. Acosta was U.S. attorney in South Florida when Epstein faced a 53-page sex-trafficking FBI indictment. According to Frank Cerabino of The Palm Beach Post, Acosta "worked with Epstein’s lawyers to create a “non-prosecution agreement” that guaranteed immunity to any men who participated in Epstein’s underage sex parties, while also gifting Epstein with a shockingly lenient resolution to his crimes."

Cerabino continues:

What Acosta did was inexcusable, and the fact that he now runs a federal agency charged with exposing human trafficking, and was recently hailed as a possible nominee to fill the vacancy of U.S. Attorney General, makes things even worse.

But the original villain in this story is former Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer.

Acosta shouldn’t have been in the position to consider the Epstein case. Krischer got it first, and it was handed to the Palm Beach County prosecutor on a platter by the Town of Palm Beach Police.

The Palm Beach Police had conducted an in-depth investigation of Epstein and concluded that he was praying on underage girls. Krischer essentially looked away. Again from The Palm Beach Post:

Then-Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter was so outraged by the state attorney’s actions that he wrote a letter to Krischer asking him to disqualify himself from the Epstein prosecution.

“I continue to find your office’s treatment of these cases highly unusual,” Reiter wrote.

Reiter also complained to the FBI, asking the feds to take over the investigation. And the bureau did, calling the Epstein’s case “Operation Leap Year.”

That's where Acosta got involved. Interestingly, the Palm Beach County Epstein backstory involving Krischer, a Democrat, isn't getting much coverage. The equally egregious treatment of Epstein by Acosta, a Republican, is. No surprise there.
As this salacious case moves forward, it will be interesting to see how the media covers it. Will both Dem and GOP members of the establishment who are involved in this mess be exposed equally, or will the emphasis be on players in the current administration?

If past history serves, I suspect the the Epstein case will be used to create another faux-scandal (think: Russian collusion) that attempts to connect Donald Trump to Epstein in the public consciousness. There's little question that Trump knew Epstein and was in his presence multiple times. But unlike Bill Clinton,* there is no evidence that he participated in Epstein's predations or took multiple trips on Epstein's jet to visit "Orgy Island," Epstein's private retreat in the Bahamas. I have to wonder which set of facts gets more media coverage.

UPDATE:
----------------
This take on the Epstein saga by Thomas Lifson is worth considering:

It strikes me as quite unlikely that Jeffrey Epstein's motive for allegedly inviting powerful figures from the U.S. and Europe aboard the Lolita Express on a trip to Orgy Island was mere fellowship — as if they were playing a round of golf together. My dominant hypothesis is that he was video-recording highly illegal and morally reprehensible rapes for use as blackmail material. It might have been insurance against serious prosecution for his indulging in his own perversion, which would explain why his punishment the first time he was prosecuted was laughably light.

It will be interesting to see whether the same thing happens again. The Clintons have lost almost all of their political power and it appears that Bill is the most vulnerable Epstein connection here. But Bill and Hillary may have incriminating information about others that could still have powerful sway. We'll see what happens.

FOOTNOTE:
---------------------
* Steven Green notes that Fox News reported back in 2016 that Clinton ‘was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the ‘Lolita Express’ — even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.’ Oh wow. That sounds bad. Was he doing something unsavory?”

I have to wonder whether the trained hamsters will be as enthusiastic in following that story as they are in trying desparately to connect Trump to Epstein.

Too Hard

Some regular readers of this blog have suggested that I'm being too hard on the Left, that although there are extremist elements among them, the average progressive or Democrat is NOT a creature of the Left, and it's unfair to lump them all together. There's some truth to that.

For example, there are many (well, maybe at least a significant minority of) Democrats who think that it was a bad idea for Nike to pull their "Betsy Ross" shoe after historically illiterate complaints by left-wing activist Colin Kaepernick. And sure, there are some progressives who might question the Charlottesville, VA city council's decision to remove Thomas Jefferson's birthday from the city calendar (after all, 250 years ago, he was a slave owner) or the San Francisco's city council's decision to paint over a mural of George Washington because it made a small number of leftists feel "unsafe." And yes, at least a few old-school liberals are troubled by the hundreds of cases at American Universities in which conservative speakers were either disinvited or shouted down when they were asked to speak. Undoubtedly, at least a few Democrats are troubled by the obvious attempt by social media giants to shadow ban conservative voices, or Hollywood's concerted effort to avoid any story that might present a balanced political viewpoint. And quietly, more than a few Democrats express concern over the borderline crazy comments that often emanate from the cadre of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders. Yeah ... I get all that.

But something is going on here, and I think Rod Dreher might have identified what it is:

I can hear the squawking from liberals now: How can you blame the entire Left for this? How can you actually believe that a corporation’s decision about a shoe, and a city council’s decision about a local holiday, matters? Nike has a right to do what it did, and so does the Charlottesville city council! Anyway, what about this terrible thing Trump did, and this one, and the other one? Et cetera.

I have to chuckle. This is profoundly ignorant of how ordinary people think. Don’t you people get it? Little things like this are part of a developing narrative, one that emerges from the actions of people like campus activists, media and academic figures, city councils, and Woke Capitalists in corporate boardrooms. The narrative is this: the American nation is illegitimate, the American nation is wicked at its roots, America is loathsome. If we are going to dissolve this old, bad America, and replace it with something better, then we are going to need to start by teaching her people to hate her through and through. Meanwhile, let’s open the borders to let in a better class of future American.

Attacking figures like Jefferson, and symbols like the Colonial-era flag — again, not the Confederate flag, but a Colonial-era flag — make it clear that what’s under assault now by the Social Justice Warriors — not fringe campus hotheads, but institutionalists like senior corporate executives and city council members — is the symbolic core of America herself.

Maybe that's why socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gets so much positive media coverage when they claim that the United States of America is running "concentration camps" on our southern border. What an odious and dishonest assertion, yet it's celebrated by far too many Democrats and progressives who might otherwise suggest they aren't left-wing. Or maybe that's why elected leftists like Ilhan Omar or Keith Ellison get away with blatantly anti-Semitic tropes, or why they and others are never called to task for suggesting that Nicholas Maduro is a victim of American oppression in Venezuela, a nation leftists virtually destroyed.

Maybe that's why I'm hard on the left. They romanticize "revolution" (you know, Che tee shirts and Bernie Sanders' speeches) but what they really want is power and control. They had it just beyond their grasp when Barack Obama was elected president and then lost it completely when Hillary was defeated. They've become vicious—no lie too extreme, no action too offensive. They need to be called out. If that's being too hard on them, so be it.