A lot of my memo readers have been critical of my joining the ranks of the AOC Democrats.
Once they realize the emotional high of becoming an AOC Democrat and knowing that Uncle Sam is going to take care of me forever, I believe they, too, will see the light.
The burden of being responsible for my actions has been lifted from my shoulders. I no longer have to believe in God, carry a concealed weapon or pay my 1954 college tuition debt which is now over $a million. Soon I will be able to breathe clean air and can walk wherever I want because I will not fear being hit by a car, or a plane falling out of the sky onto my house. The VA will take care of all my health needs and the rich will be paying my "unfair" share of taxes.
One of the first initiation acts, in order to join the AOC Democrat Fraternity, is to find an historic statute and destroy it and the second is to go to New York and protest Charter Schools along with Mayor DiBlasio. If I pass these two challenges I then can go to Venezuela and experience socialism.
My final test is to come up with three reasons proving Trump colluded with Russia and then obstructed justice and I cannot rely upon the Mueller investigation which is biased and inaccurate.
I also get bonus points for enlisting others.
I have my work cut out for me. Would you like to join the AOC Democrat Fraternity?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
My kind of guy and obviously a Democrat! (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++'
The SPLC drifted from their roots and now are going to struggle to survive.
Like so many liberal causes that eventually turn radical, The SPLC started like pure snow and then melted into soot.(See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ According to Kim, Barr has two choices: a) follow the Democrats and, as chief law enforcer, break the law or b) do it his way and follow the law.
Will wimpy Republicans fall for transparency or stand tall for appropriate legal secrecy ? (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) I Am Liberalism - News With Views
by Lee Duigon
I am liberalism. I kill. I destroy. But mostly I distort.
I twist “compassion” into compulsion: one of my greatest triumphs. I start with “children’s health and safety” and finish with a SWAT team breaking down a family’s door in the middle of the night and taking the children away—all because a two-year-old child had a fever, the fever went away while mother and child were waiting in the doctor’s office, and the mother decided not to take the child to the hospital as the doctor had advised. All three children went to separate foster homes.
I twist “elderly care” into euthanasia.
A desire to help the less fortunate, I mold into taxes, bureaucracy, and a whole forest of regulations.
I twist truth into “your truth” and “my truth,” which means no objective truth at all; and my servants in the schools and colleges see to it that my truth always wins and yours always loses.
I twist “freedom” into crime and anarchy. In any city where my servants run the government, you’ll find trash and refuse on the sidewalks, the casualties of drug and alcohol abuse, tents pitched among mounds of rubbish, and multiple habitual offenders released within hours of being arrested, to continue their careers of crime.
I twist “love” into jail time for anyone who declines, on religious grounds, to cater to the delusions of the sexually confused. I twist religion into “hate,” and “tolerance” into intolerance for all things Christian.
I twist “diversity” into coerced uniformity of thought, severely punishing any deviation from the politically correct.
I twist “justice” into rage and envy, racial strife, and “education” into ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and sheer misinformation. It’s hard for me to decide which serves me better, the boiling-over anger and frustration that I pass off for justice, or the towering walls of lies and silliness that I call education. I would hate to part with either of them.
I twist “peace” into violence in the streets, “pride” into a parade of shame, and “progress”—oh, how I love progress!—into the deterioration of everything it touches. Visit Detroit and you’ll see what I mean.
I twist “science” into a morass of superstition, imaginary end-of-the-world scenarios, “settled science” that you’d better never dare to question, and a continuing excuse for growing the government and acquiring new and ever more intrusive power.
I have twisted “choice” and “women’s health” into a billion-dollar abortion industry. Indeed, these euphemisms have been so effective that I’ve been able to move on to out-and-out infanticide. I have high hopes for this, looking forward to the day when in the name of choice, not only babies but prattling, toddling children will be sacrificed to some such malarkey as “reproductive freedom.”
To make a long story short, I twist everything—and people love me for it! There is nothing healthy that I can’t make unhealthy, nothing sweet I can’t make bitter, nothing light I can’t make dark. Whole industries, whole institutions in government and society, bow down to me—news and entertainment media, the schools and universities, an entire political party in your two-party system, plus a fair-sized chunk of the other party, and an international ruling class that won’t be satisfied until they lay the whole world at my feet. There is an appetite for power that cannot be satiated—and by making it appear to be wise, compassionate, just, and even inevitable… I own it.
I am liberalism. I kill. I destroy. And I distort.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
We Were Smeared by the SPLC
Our work for religious liberty got us branded a ‘hate group.’ Such lies have real consequences.
By KristenWaggoner
The Southern Poverty Law Center’s co-founder, president and legal director have all departed amid a scandal over publicly unspecified workplace conduct, reportedly involving racial prejudice and sexual harassment. But the SPLC’s work itself is scandalous. The group falsely maligns ideological opponents in an effort to crush them rather than debate their ideas honestly. I know, because in 2016 the SPLC branded my organization, the religious-liberty nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom, a “hate group.”
The label has forced itself into my daily life in uncomfortable and unexpected ways. One of the top Google image-search results for my name has the word “HATE” plastered in red letters on a photo of my face. When speaking on a law-school campus, I was told that I needed security officers to accompany me everywhere I went. Days after I argued the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, I found the window of my car shot out in my church parking lot after a Sunday service. I don’t know if the SPLC’s hate label motivated the vandalism, but I fear that it did.
In 2012 an SPLC-inspired gunman attempted to enter the Family Research Council office in Washington, which ADF shared. A security guard, Leonardo Johnson, was shot while subduing the attacker. My colleagues at ADF have been accosted in public places and are rightly concerned for their families. Some have asked to have “ADF” removed from their company credit cards because they fear harassment.
When I graduated from law school, I expected tough arguments with ideological opponents. I didn’t expect to be smeared as a bigot or physically threatened simply for defending Americans’ freedom to speak and live in a manner consistent with their beliefs. But the SPLC insists on vilifying rather than debating its ideological opponents. Its method of choice is the “hate group” label—hurled at peaceful groups that disagree with its far-left worldview.
The SPLC has become partisan, unreliable—and lucrative. It’s ironic that a nonprofit with “Poverty” in its name has amassed a war chest of more than $500 million, $120 million of which is held in offshore accounts. The SPLC’s dark departure from its original mission hasn’t been a secret. Having successfully fought the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s, it needed a new opponent, so it began claiming that conservatives like me pose the same threat as violent racists.
“It was hard, for many of us, not to feel like we’d become pawns in what was, in many respects, a highly profitable scam,” Bob Moser, who left the SPLC in 2004, wrote for the New Yorker March 21, a week after the firing of SPLC co-founder Morris Dees and hours before the resignations of Richard Cohen as president and Rhonda Brownstein as legal director. “We were part of the con, and we knew it,” Mr. Moser added. He reports that he and his colleagues had a cynical slogan: “The SPLC—making hate pay.”
The SPLC is guilty of the same sorts of bad behavior of which it has long claimed the authority to accuse others. That’s reason enough for it to shut its doors and let others continue the work of combating racism and protecting freedom. Instead the SPLC remains afloat, and powerful companies including Amazon, Twitter , Facebook and Apple —plus most of the mainstream media and many elected officials—continue to treat it as if it were an authority.
I chose to work for ADF because I wanted to help defend a small, third-generation, family-owned pharmacy from hostile government regulation. I chose to work for ADF because I wanted to defend a sweet grandmother named Barronelle, a florist who cheerfully serves all customers but has been targeted because of her beliefs. I chose to work for ADF because we defend the little guy, the vulnerable, the individual who courageously stands up against government coercion, groupthink and discrimination.
If the SPLC thought smearing us would somehow weaken our resolve, it misjudged us. We’re happy to defend and protect the free speech and religious freedom of all Americans, even those with whom we disagree. The SPLC’s hate campaign and its efforts to deepen the country’s divisions have provided us with opportunities to review our purpose and identity. We emerge with deepened faith and fortified commitment to the free exchange of ideas in the public square.
Considering everything we now know about the SPLC, no one can claim the same innocence about it as Mr. Moser, who once asked an SPLC colleague, “What in God’s name is going on here?” The answer: “Clearly you didn’t do your research.” No one can claim anymore not to have done his research.
It’s time for America to show the SPLC the door, as the SPLC did to Messrs. Dees and Cohen. Let’s aspire to be a country characterized by tolerance, freedom of conscience and love of neighbor.
Ms. Waggoner is senior vice president of U.S. legal division for Alliance Defending Freedom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
The Mueller ‘Coverup’ Gambit
Why Barr is right to release the report with redactions and publicly, all at once.
Democrats and the media are still smarting over special counsel Robert Mueller’s no-collusion findings, but their “coverup” fallback has its advantages. They can claim Mr. Barr’s four-page summary of the report is a sham, that he’s hiding the real truth. That’s nonsense, but it allows them to continue stoking Trump-Russia collusion fantasies.
It also aids the Democrats in their larger goal: getting their hands on a fully unredacted report, along with its underlying documentation, before the public can see it. That way, they could plumb the voluminous documentation for more wild allegations and personal smears—and leak away.
The “coverup” claim is only one of the levers Democrats are pulling, aided by friendly scribes at the New York Times and Washington Post, who published stories Thursday claiming anonymous members of the Mueller team are dissatisfied with the Barr summary. The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday also authorized subpoenas for an unredacted report and documents. And Democrats everywhere are accusing Republicans of hypocrisy. How dare Republicans spend two years demanding documents from the Justice Department about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s behavior in 2016, but now accept a redacted report?
Some Republicans will be tempted to capitulate. Mr. Barr up to now has said he would release as much as he can within the law and departmental regulations. That means redacting from the report information pertaining to grand-jury proceedings, continuing investigations, sources and methods. He’s also removing details that might hurt the “reputational” interest of “peripheral” figures. This is proper—not radical or sneaky. But Republicans worry that they will never put to rest the collusion-obstruction claims until they give Democrats everything.
Memo: Even if they get everything, the Democrats will never put those claims to rest. The left is too invested. But Republicans could make matters worse—by handing Democrats the full Mueller monty, including thousands of pages of investigative material and grand-jury transcripts. Partisans will cherry-pick and leak every uncorroborated claim to fan the collusion-and-obstruction flames. They’ll mine the documents for nuggets they can turn into yet new scandals. The New York Times may have to boost its staff to keep up.
More important than the practical consequences of going along with the Democrats is the principle of standing firm. “Transparency” is one of those feel-good words that lead to sloppy thinking. Who doesn’t want more government transparency? Most people, when they think about it. Who wants generals posting attack plans online? Who wants President Trump tweeting out the nuclear codes?
More important, who wants the federal government spreading unfounded or uncorroborated accusations? Grand-jury and special-counsel investigations represent government power at its biggest and scariest. They can compel witnesses to reveal all manner of intimate details—banking records, personal text messages, loan defaults, medical information. The proceedings are kept secret to encourage candor—and candor also results in witnesses with grudges, speculation and even false testimony. Those swept up in probes like Mr. Mueller’s are often private citizens, innocent of any wrongdoing.
If the process yields no indictments, the proceedings normally go into a black hole. That’s because the government has no business spreading allegations or dirt from a case it is unwilling or unable to take to court. It’s why former FBI Director James Comey’s public trashing of Hillary Clinton was wrong (as Democrats fully understood in that context). And it’s why federal law prohibits public disclosure of grand-jury proceedings, and severely restricts those who are ever allowed access—and does not include members of Congress.
That’s also why Democratic demands for “transparency” are radical, unlike the Republican quest to obtain Justice Department records about the FBI. The GOP has focused its informational demands squarely on the work product of federal officials who stand accused of abusing federal laws. That is called oversight. Republicans have also acknowledged the importance of safeguarding classified information. Yes, they’ve complained about excessive or improper blackouts. But they have never disputed the executive branch’s authority to keep certain things secret.
The same should apply here. The point of the Mueller investigation was to provide clarity—so it can’t be treated with the same secrecy as most Justice Department investigations. That’s why Mr. Barr has promised to disclose whatever he can. But he’s right to insist on basic safeguards, and to release as much as possible to everyone all at once. It would be wrong to hand an elite group of political partisans a different version, which they would distort and wield as a weapon.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment