Thinking and My Kind of Guy. Three Important Re-Postings - Stacey, Voter Suppression, Inter-sectionalism, Constitutional Mincemeat and White Guys!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am bringing Salena to Atlanta and this from a very old and dear friend: "Dick,

Thanks for the heads-up. I have placed it in my calendar and will certainly be there. I wish I were closer to Savannah so that I could have the opportunity to see and visit not only you and Lynn, but also to hear the outstanding array of people you are instrumental in getting to your area to speak about issues facing our country and communities.

As always, I enjoy your daily “musings” as I start my day with toast and coffee.

The country’s implosion seems more imminent everyday.

Thanks for all you do to inform, to encourage critical thinking and reasoning, and to seek the truth.

All the best,

J--"

After my visit with Bossie and Lewandowski yesterday, I began to think about what they told me and why they believe Trump will be re-elected.  In 2016 he ran against an obviously flawed candidate who carried a lot of self-imposed baggage. a candidate who literally insulted those who comprise the core of Trump' strength, ie. Americans who no longer understand what has happened to America and their own increasingly insecure prospects.

The break up of what was once a nation comprised of communities, a rising middle class is no more.  As the urban population grew, a disconnect between neighbors became the norm and as wages and livelihood of the middle class faltered the "deplorables" looked to their political parties for solutions and answers. What they found was more failure.

The Democrat Party has no rational solutions and seem to believe if they focus on identity politics it will allow them to finesse problems their policies partially created and to which they have no answers.  Meanwhile, the policies they are now offering suggest they no longer embrace capitalism and they have even turned against those they once depended upon for votes. In fact they have actually begun attacking them, ie old white men. (Ironically an old white man just announced he is seeking the nomination of the party that is attacking his class.)

Democrats are now enamored with youth, females and cannot abate their hatred of Trump.  Driven by anger they obviously believe they have the winning formula - PC'ism and intersectionality.

As for the Republicans, they are being dragged, kicking and screaming on a joy/misery ride unlike any they have experienced and the philosophical fissures within their party are being exposed by Trump's goal driven desire to implement his campaign promises which are based on rebuilding American greatness.

Trump obviously thrives on combat but, in my opinion, though he has accomplished an amazing amount of positive good in the face of the greatest obstructionism I have witnessed, he could also wind up exhausting our nation.

While Trump is busy framing and addressing issues and solving problems red blooded "deplorables" relate to and actually hunger for, the opposition is busy turning more voters against America and Americans with their calls for taxing the wealthy, highlighting societal disparities, calling walls immoral and creating doubts about race .relations and how to maintain border security etc.

What we are witnessing is a war between patriotic titans and malcontents in search of more transformation as if we did not receive enough from Obama's pathetic  failed efforts.

Where this all ends is anyone's guess.

Certainly Correy  believes rising employment among blacks, penetration of Hispanic voters turned off by illegal immigration, the prospect of rectifying negative trade issues along with decriminalizing legislation will carry the day and Trump will win a second term.

Obviously, Democrats are betting on Mueller's revelations and their own constant harassment and investigations of everything Trump has done prior to and since becoming president as their meal ticket.

While all of this is going on, Democrats run the risk of over reach and being seen as  political hypocrites bent on power rather  than doing what is best for a tired, weakened and dispirited Uncle Sam.

As for Republicans, they run the risk of being what they always have been: too patrician to fight, too divided to win and incapable of meaningful messaging.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I believe these three repeat postings lay out a compelling story why what has been happening to both Trump and our nation is unprecedented.

You can dislike the way Trump conducts himself but the Democrats, their mass media friends and those corrupting holdovers from the Obama administration,who were engaged in treasonous activities, are far more dangerous than Russia, than China, than Iran.

Stacey and all the radical intersectionalists who want to transform what is left of America that Obama failed to ruin - deal with it.  

For us Georgians, Corey points out Trump should garner more of the black vote, he will be on the ticket, the new Criminal law and increased employment and the fact that Stacey is running against a far better Senate candidate and lost against a poor gubernatorial campaigner, should  make her election toast. Also, Hillary proved being a female is not enough even if you are a black one.

Add to this the fact that legal Hispanic citizens are unhappy with those who are trying to come illegally and you have some powerful forces working in Sen. Perdue's favor.

 Time will tell.

And:

'Suppression,' Debunked: Study Concludes Voter ID Laws Do Not Depress Voter Turnout Source: Townhall

A new academic study reviewed the data and reached important conclusions: Strict voter ID laws do not suppress turnout, a new paper finds, regardless of sex, race, Hispanic identity, or party affiliation.

READ MORE

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My kind of guy:

Farrakhan: The ‘Wicked Jews’ Use Me to Attack Women’s Movement, March Leaders

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan on Sunday blamed "wicked Jews" for trying to use him to criticize Women's March leadership and "break up the women’s movement."

Farrakhan, who has a long history of anti-Semitism and ties with Women's March organizers Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour, and Carmen Perez, spoke at his movement's Saviours’ Day conference in Chicago. He accused Jews of trying to put a wedge between him and some of the Women's March organizers because of their praise and association with him.

"The most beautiful sight that I could lay eyes on [was] when I saw, the day after Trump was elected, women from all over the world were standing in solidarity, and a black woman is the initiator of it," said Farrakhan, referring to Mallory.

"The wicked Jews want to use me to break up the women’s movement," Farrakhan said. "It ain’t about Farrakhan; it’s about women all over the world [who] have the power to change the world."

Later in his lengthy speech, Farrakhan asked the audience to applaud for "my poor little sister, Tamika" and appeared to imply that his critics used him to go after the Women's March organizers, CNS News reported.

"Tamika, Linda Sarsour, Carmen Perez, our sister with the #MeToo movement, Black Lives Matter – the women shook the world the day after President Trump was elected," he said.

"The women organized, and all over the world women rose up and men in government got shook. Because when women rise, change is going to come," he continued. "So when they saw that Tamika had helped bring that about, they came after her."

As of early last month, over 300 organizations have withdrawn their sponsorship of the Women's March amidst controversy over the ties of the group's co-chairs to Farrakhan and allegations of anti-Semitism. Organizations that have rescinded their support include AFL-CIO, NARAL, GLAAD, Human Rights Campaign, NRDC, OXFAM, Greenpeace, Amnesty, Southern Poverty Law Center, and EMILY’s List.

Teresa Shook, the founder of the Women's March, called out leaders Bob Bland, Mallory, Sarsour, and Perez in a November Facebook post saying they have "steered the Movement away from its true course."

"I have waited, hoping they would right the ship. But they have not. In opposition to our Unity Principles, they have allowed anti-Semitism, anti-LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs," Shook said.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Because I deem these articles so important I am not making further comments and/or postings. (See 1, 1a  and 1b below.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dick

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1) For the Record, Obama Made Mincemeat of the Constitution

By Jack Cashill

Good constitutional arguments can be made for and against President Trump's evocation of emergency powers to address the crisis at our southern border.  But the notion that such a declaration would encourage a future Democratic president to do something similar borders on the comic. Democrats don't need encouragement.

Under President Barack Obama, the Constitution was violated more wantonly than a goat at a Taliban bachelor party, and the faithful cheered every violation.  In early 2014, New Yorker editor and Obama groupie David Remnick wrote about his experience accompanying Obama on a west-coast fundraising tour.

At one stop, when Obama walked out on stage, "It happened again: another heckler broke into Obama's speech.  A man in the balcony repeatedly shouted out, 'Executive order!' demanding that the President bypass Congress with more unilateral actions."

Obama confirmed to the audience that, yes, people did want him to sign more executive orders and "basically nullify Congress."  At that point, wrote Remnick, "Many in the crowd applauded their approval.  Yes!  Nullify it!"  These were not wild-eyed tent-dwellers on Wall or some lesser street.  These were potential donors.

By 2014, Obama had successfully nullified any number of laws with negligible media objection.  In February 2011, for instance, Obama and "wing man" Attorney General Eric Holder came willy-nilly to the conclusion that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was not "constitutional."  President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996 with overwhelming support from Democrats in Congress and nearly unanimous support from Republicans.

No matter.  Going forward, Obama decided that the Justice Department would no longer enforce DOMA.  That simple.  Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley had a hard time making legal sense out of Obama's left-field decision to ignore DOMA.  For one, Turley found the timing curious.  The Obama administration had been defending the law for the previous two years, and the president, publicly, at least, had not changed his personal stance on redefining marriage.

For another, Obama was basing this policy change on an interpretation "that had thus far remained unsupported by direct precedent."  By refusing to enforce DOMA, Obama was setting a precedent and not a good one — namely, that a president could refuse to defend a law based on a legal interpretation that no court had ever accepted.

On the subject of illegal immigration, Obama did not bother deeming existing laws unconstitutional.  He chose not to enforce them because they did not poll well among Hispanic voters. It would get no deeper than that.

Since year one of the Bush administration, Congress had been trying to pass the awkwardly titled Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, better known as the DREAM Act.  In a nutshell, this bill would have provided permanent residency to those illegal aliens who had arrived in the United States as minors and behaved themselves well enough not to get their mug shots plastered on the Post Office wall.

Although President Bush supported immigration reform, as did President Obama, neither the DREAM Act nor any major immigration bill made it to their desks. The reason was simple enough: no variation of such a bill could muster adequate congressional support.

In his 2006 book, Audacity of Hope, Obama praised the system of checks and balances in that it "encouraged the very process of information gathering, analysis, and argument."  Once Obama ascended to the presidency, all those checks and balances just made it harder for him to transform America.

Obama's constituencies, especially labor and the Hispanic lobby, wanted action, not gathering and arguing.  They started leaning on him to ignore Congress and act unilaterally.  One minor obstacle stood in the way, and that was Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution.  For the previous 220 years, that article had informed Congress in some detail on how to turn an idea into a law.

Obama could not enforce the DREAM Act, said constitutional scholar Nicholas Rosenkrantz, "by pretending that it passed when it did not."  As late as March 2011, legal scholar Obama seemed to agree.  "America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law," he told a Univision audience.  "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed."

By June 2012, what Obama said in March 2011 seemed as stale as a morning-after bowl of tortilla chips.  The president had lost his taste for all that legislative analysis and argument, given that the result was "an absence of any immigration action from Congress."

Five months before the presidential election, he knew that the media would give him a pass, and he hoped Latinos would give him their vote.  So he decided to dispense with debate and fix immigration policy by his own lights, confident he could make that policy "more fair, more efficient, and more just."

This fix started with presidentially guaranteed relief from deportation for the so-called "Dreamers."  On top of that came the right to apply for work authorization, both guarantees in full defiance of existing federal law.  "There has long been a general consensus that a president cannot refuse to enforce a law that is considered constitutionally sound," said Jonathan Turley.  That chapter was apparently missing from Obama's law books.

On August 23, 2013, in a move that the major media barely noticed, the Obama administration subtly expanded the list of those who would be excluded from deportation.  Deep in a nine-page memo from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters to its field offices was an order that "prosecutorial discretion" be shown to parents or guardians of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, AKA "Dreamers."

The news scarcely troubled the media, let alone the citizenry, but at least a few Republicans noticed.  "President Obama has once again abused his authority and unilaterally refused to enforce our current immigration laws," said House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte.  Jonathan Turley agreed.  "In ordering this blanket exception," said Turley, "President Obama was nullifying part of a law that he simply disagreed with.  There is no claim of unconstitutionality."  Said Rosenkrantz, "Exempting as many as 1.76 million people from the immigration laws goes far beyond any traditional conception of prosecutorial discretion."

Encouraged by the media to keep drafting laws of his own choosing, Obama made nullification a central part of his governing philosophy.  "I'm eager to work with all of you," he said to Congress of the 2014 State of the Union speech.  "But America does not stand still — and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do."

Said veteran civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, "Obama is a bad man in terms of the Constitution."


1a)

Autopsy of a Dead Coup By Victor Davis Hanson *****
Ruth King

The illegal effort to destroy the 2016 Trump campaign by Hillary Clinton campaign’s use of funds to create, disseminate among court media, and then salt among high Obama administration officials, a fabricated, opposition smear dossier failed.

So has the second special prosecutor phase of the coup to abort the Trump presidency failed. There are many elements to what in time likely will become recognized as the greatest scandal in American political history, marking the first occasion in which U.S. government bureaucrats sought to overturn an election and to remove a sitting U.S. president.

Preparing the Battlefield

No palace coup can take place without the perception of popular anger at a president. 

The deep state is by nature cowardly. It does not move unless it feels it can disguise its subterranean efforts or that, if revealed, those efforts will be seen as popular and necessary—as expressed in tell-all book titles such as fired FBI Directors James Comey’s Higher Loyalty or in disgraced Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s psychodramatic The Threat.

In candidate and President Trump’s case that prepping of the battlefield translated into a coordinated effort among the media, political progressives and celebrities to so demonize Trump that his imminent removal likely would appear a relief to the people. Anything was justified that led to that end.

All through the 2016 campaign and during the first two years of the Trump presidency the media’s treatment, according to liberal adjudicators of press coverage, ran about 90 percent negative toward Trump—a landmark bias that continues today.

Journalists themselves consulted with the Clinton campaign to coordinate attacks. From the Wikileaks trove, journalistic grandees such as John Harwood, Mark Leibovich, Dana Milbank, and Glenn Thrush often communicated (and even post factum were unapologetic about doing so) with John Podesta’s staff to construct various anti-Trump themes and have the Clinton campaign review or even audit them in advance.

Some contract “journalists” apparently were paid directly by Fusion GPS—created by former reporters Glen Simpson of the Wall Street Journal and Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post—to spread lurid stories from the dossier. Others more refined like Christiane Amanpour and James Rutenberg had argued for a new journalistic ethos that partisan coverage was certainly justified in the age of Trump, given his assumed existential threat to The Truth. Or as Rutenberg put it in 2016: “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable. But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?”

I suppose Rutenberg never considered that half the country might have considered the Hillary Clinton presidency “potentially dangerous,” and yet did not expect the evening news, in 90 percent of its coverage, to reflect such suspicions.

The Democratic National Committee’s appendages often helped to massage CNN news coverage—such as Donna Brazile’s primary debate tip-off to the Clinton campaign or CNN’s consultation with the DNC about forming talking points for a scheduled Trump interview.

So-called “bombshell,” “watershed,” “turning-point,” and “walls closing in” fake news aired in 24-hour news bulletin cycles. The media went from fabrications about Trump’s supposed removal of the bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office, to the mythologies in the Steele dossier, to lies about the Trump Tower meeting, to assurances that Michael Cohen would testify to Trump’s suborning perjury, and on and on.

CNN soon proved that it is no longer a news organization at all—as reporters like Gloria Borger, Chris Cuomo, Eric Lichtblau, Manu Raju, Brian Rokus, Jake Tapper, Jeff Zeleny, and teams such as Jim Sciutto, Carl Bernstein, and Marshall Cohen as well as Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Harris all trafficked in false rumors and unproven gossip detrimental to Trump, while hosts and guest hosts such as Reza Aslan, the late Anthony Bourdain, and Anderson Cooper stooped to obscenity and grossness to attack Trump.

Both politicos and celebrities tried to drive Trump’s numbers down to facilitate some sort of popular ratification for his removal. Hollywood and the coastal corridor punditry exhausted public expressions of assassinating or injuring the president, as the likes of Jim Carrey, Johnny Depp, Robert de Niro, Peter Fonda, Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Snoop Dogg, and a host of others vied rhetorically to slice apart, shoot, beat up, cage, behead, and blow up the president.

Left wing social media and mainstream journalism spread sensational lies about supposed maniacal Trump supporters in MAGA hats. They constructed fantasies that veritable white racists were now liberated to run amuck insulting and beating up people of color as they taunted the poor and victimized minorities with vicious Trump sloganeering—even as the Covington farce and now the even more embarrassing Jussie Smollett charade evaporated without apologies from the media and progressive merchants of such hate.

At the same time, liberal attorneys, foundations, Democratic politicians, and progressive activists variously sued to overturn the election on false charges of rigged voting machines. They sought to subvert the Electoral College. They introduced articles of impeachment. They sued to remove Trump under the Emoluments Clause. They attempted to invoke the 25th Amendment. And they even resurrected the ossified Logan Act—before focusing on the appointment of a special counsel to discredit the Trump presidency. Waiting for the 2020 election was seen as too quaint.

Weaponizing the Deep State

During the 2016 election, the Obama Department of Justice warped the Clinton email scandal investigation, from Bill Clinton’s secret meeting on an airport tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to unethical immunity given to the unveracious Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, to James Comey’s convoluted predetermined treatment of “likely winner” Clinton, and to DOJ’s Bruce Ohr’s flagrant conflict of interests in relation to Fusion GPS.

About a dozen FBI and DOJ grandees have now resigned, retired, been fired, or reassigned for unethical and likely illegal behavior—and yet have not faced criminal indictments. The reputation of the FBI as venerable agency is all but wrecked. Its administrators variously have libeled the Trump voters, expressed hatred for Trump, talked of “insurance policies” in ending the Trump candidacy, and inserted informants into the Trump campaign.

The former Obama directors of the CIA and National Intelligence, with security clearances intact, hit the television airways as paid “consultants” and almost daily accused the sitting president of Russian collusion and treason—without cross-examination or notice that both previously had lied under oath to Congress (and did so without subsequent legal exposure), and both were likely knee-deep in the dissemination of the Steele dossier among Obama administration officials.

John Brennan’s CIA likely helped to spread the Fusion GPS dossier among elected and administrative state officials. Some in the NSC in massive and unprecedented fashion requested the unmasking of surveilled names of Trump subordinates, and then illegally leaked them to the press.

The FISA courts, fairly or not, are now mostly discredited, given they either were willingly or naively hoodwinked by FBI and DOJ officials who submitted as chief evidence for surveillance on American citizens, an unverified dossier—without disclosure that the bought campaign hit-piece was paid for by Hillary Clinton, authored by a discredited has-been British agent, relied on murky purchased Russian sources, and used in circular fashion to seed news accounts of supposed Trump misbehavior.

The Mueller Investigation

The Crown Jewel in the coup was the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to discover supposed 2016 Trump-Russian election collusion. Never has any special investigation been so ill-starred from its conception.

Mueller’s appointment was a result of his own friend James Comey’s bitter stunt of releasing secret, confidential and even classified memos of presidential conversations. Acting DOJ Attorney Rod Rosenstein appointed a former colleague Mueller—although as a veteran himself of the Clinton email scandal investigations and the FISA fraudulent writ requests, Rosenstein was far more conflicted than was the recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Mueller then packed his investigative team with lots of Clinton donors and partisans, some of whom had legally represented Clinton subordinates and even the Clinton Foundation or voiced support for anti-Trump movements.

Mueller himself and Andrew Weissmann have had a long record of investigatory and prosecutorial overreach that had on occasion resulted in government liability and court mandated federal restitution. In such polarized times, neither should have involved in such an investigation. Two subordinate FBI investigators were caught earlier on conducting an affair over their FBI-issued cell phones, and during the election cycle they slurred the object of their subsequent investigation, ridiculed Trump voters, and bragged that Trump would never be elected. Mueller later staggered, and then hid for weeks the reasons for, their respective firings.

The team soon discovered there was no Trump-Russian 2016 election collusion—and yet went ahead to leverage Trump campaign subordinates on process crimes in hopes of finding some culpability in Trump’s past 50-year business, legal, and tax records. The point was not to find who colluded with whom (if it had been, then Hillary Clinton would be now indicted for illegally hiring with campaign funds a foreign national to buy foreign fabrications to discredit her opponent), but to find the proper mechanism to destroy the presumed guilty Donald Trump.

The Mueller probe has now failed in that gambit of proving “collusion” (as even progressive investigative reporters and some FBI investigators had predicted), but succeeded brilliantly in two ways.

The “counterintelligence” investigation subverted two years of the Trump presidency by constant leaks that Trump soon would be indicted, jailed, disgraced, or impeached. As a result, Trump’s stellar economic and foreign policy record would never earn fifty percent of public support.

Second, Mueller’s preemptive attacks offered an effective offensive defense for the likely felonious behavior of John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, and a host of others. While the Mueller lawyers threatened to destroy the lives of bit players like Jerome Corsi, George Papadopoulos, and Roger Stone, they de facto provided exemption to a host of the Washington hierarchy who had lied under oath, obstructed justice, illegally leaked to the press, unmasked and leaked names of surveilled Americans, and misled federal courts under the guise of a “higher loyalty” to the cause of destroying Donald J. Trump.

The Palace Coup

All of the above came to a head with the firing of the chronic leaker FBI Director James Comey (who would lie to the president about his not being a target of an FBI investigation, lie to House investigatory committees by pleading amnesia and ignorance on 245 occasions, and repeatedly lie to his own FBI bureaucrats).

In May 2017, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe took over from the fired Comey. His candidate wife recently had been a recipient of huge Clinton-related campaign PAC donations shortly before he began investigating the Clinton email scandal. McCabe would soon be cited by the Inspector General for lying to federal investigators on numerous occasions—cynically stooping even to lie to his own New York FBI subordinates to invest scarce resources to hunt for their own nonexistent leaks as a mechanism for disguising his own quite real and illegal leaking.

The newly promoted McCabe apparently felt that it was his moment to become famous for taking out a now President Trump. Thus, he assembled a FBI and DOJ cadre to open a counterintelligence investigation of the sitting president on no other grounds but the fumes of an evaporating Clinton opposition dossier and perceived anger among the FBI that their director had just been fired. In addition, apparently now posing as Andrew McCabe, MD, he informally head counted how many of Trump’s own cabinet members could be convinced by McCabe’s own apparent medical expertise to help remove the president on grounds of physical and mental incapacity under the 25th Amendment. This was an attempted, albeit pathetic, coup against an elected president and the first really in the history of the United States.

At one point, McCabe claims that the acting Attorney General of the United States Rod Rosenstein volunteered to wear a wire to entrap his boss President Trump—in the manner of Trump’s own attorney Michael Cohen’s entrapment of Trump, in the manner of James Comey taking entrapment notes on confidential Trump one-on-one meetings and leaking them to the press, and in the manner of the Department of Justice surveilling Trump subordinates through FISA and other court authorizations.

McCabe was iconic of an utterly corrupt FBI Washington hierarchy, which we now know from the behavior of its disgraced and departed leadership. They posed as patriotic scouts, but in reality proved themselves arrogant, smug, and incompetent. They harbored such a sense of superiority that they were convinced they could act outside the law in reifying an “insurance policy” that would end the Trump presidency.

The thinking of the conspirators initially had been predicated on three assumptions thematic during this three-year long government effort to destroy Trump:

One, during 2016, Hillary Clinton would certainly win the election and FBI and DOJ unethical and illegal behavior would be forgotten if not rewarded, given the Clintons’ own signature transgressions and proven indifference to the law;

Two, Trump was so controversial and the fabricated dossier was so vile and salacious, that seeded rumors of Trump’s faked perversity gave them de facto exemptions to do whatever they damned pleased;

Three, Trump’s low polls, his controversial reset of American policy, and the general contempt in which he was held by the bipartisan coastal elite, celebrities, and the deep state, meant that even illegal means to continue the campaign-era effort to destroy Trump and now abort his presidency were felt to be moral and heroic acts without legal consequences, and the media would see the conspirators as heroes.

In sum, the Left and the administrative state, in concert with the media, after failing to stop the Trump campaign, regrouped. They ginned up a media-induced public hysteria, with the residue of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s illegal opposition research, and manipulated it to put in place a special counsel, stocked with partisans.

Then, not thugs in sunglasses and epaulettes, not oligarchs in private jets, not shaggy would-be Marxists, but sanctimonious arrogant bureaucrats in suits and ties used their government agencies to seek to overturn the 2016 election, abort a presidency, and subvert the U.S. Constitution. And they did all that and more on the premise that they were our moral superiors and had uniquely divine rights to destroy a presidency that they loathed.

Shame on all these failed conspirators and their abettors, and may these immoral people finally earn a long deserved legal and moral reckoning.

1b) Yes, I Am a White Male — 

Deal With It

By Dov Fischer

Just as I happened to miss the entire NFL season again this year, I recently missed the Stacey
Abrams Show that followed President Trump’s marvelous State of the Union (SOTU) speech two weeks ago. I was going to watch her cry about how she really had won the Georgia gubernatorial election in November because, after all, she had Obama and Oprah campaigning for her, so she
could not possibly have lost. My TV already was tuned to the station. But first I had to sharpen
some pencils. Then there were these two soda cans that were empty, so had to be put into our recyclables garbage. It was getting later at night, so I had to adjust the thermostat. I noticed two or three lint pieces on the carpet, so I had to pick them up. I don’t know where the time went.

Interesting, isn’t it, that the Democrat party, with free national television time on all the networks, selected the Un-governor of Georgia. They have a prominent member of the Cherokee Nation who proudly boasts enough Indian blood to provide one-third of an ant’s nutritional needs for twenty minutes. Another Senator from the Land of Minnesota Nice who abuses her workers, insults and demeans them, throws things at them, consequently has the highest of staff turnovers, and even
needed to be counseled privately by Gentleman Harry Reid. Another, Spartacus the Vegan
Gladiator of Newark, who published that he would fondle women as he worked his way around
the playing field from first base to second base, managing to avoid any short stop. Another, who
at age 30ish pranced about publicly up and down the Golden State with a married power broker in
his 60s, girlfriend and boyfriend, all while the Sugar Daddy’s wife, Blanche Brown, was telling the
news media: “Listen, she may have him at the moment, but come inauguration day and he’s up 
there on the platform being sworn in, I’ll be the b***h holding the Bible.”

So many wonderful choices — and they chose The Unguv. (For the record, Stacey Abrams also is
co-founder of Nourish, Inc.) Unguv Stace was chosen because (i) she is Black, not White; and (ii)
she is female, not male. In other words, in the world of Democrat Intersectionality, she was born
with two points, and all she needs is someday to convert to Islam, find Navajo, Iroquois, or Asian blood, and to express doubts about her gender identity, and she will be moved from the Pelosi Speakers’ Bureau to head their list of future Supreme Court nominees.

Here is the thing: In our new racially divided intersectionalist society that Obama created, I now
feel — more than ever — very, very White… and very, very male. Crazy Mazie Hirono wants men
 to “shut up”? The #MeToo crowd wants all women’s voices to be believed unquestioningly —
except when such trust might take down Michael Avenatti or hand the Virginia governorship to a Republican? Well, my response to Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory and the whole bunch of “Women’s March” Jew-hating, Christian-hating, European-hating, man-hating bigots is this: I am
a White male. Deal with it.

Here is the thing: In our new racially divided intersectionalist society that Obama created, I now 
feel — more than ever — very, very White… and very, very male. Crazy Mazie Hirono wants 
men to “shut up”? The #MeToo crowd wants all women’s voices to be believed unquestioningly — except when such trust might take down Michael Avenatti or hand the Virginia governorship to a 
Republican? Well, my response to Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory and the whole bunch of “Women’s March” Jew-hating, Christian-hating, European-hating, man-hating bigots is this: I am 
a White male. 

Deal with it.

Here is what my White Male privilege entails me to enjoy — and eat 
your hearts out: I get up every morning, and I go to work. I work very hard. If I do my work well,
 the fruits of my labors result in great personal satisfaction, touch others’ lives, and provide me and those I love with a respectable living. If I fail, I am left without anything because, as part of my 
White Male privilege, I was socialized never — not under any circumstances — to accept food stamps, welfare, or any government assistance if I otherwise could work for income. In our White Male privileged universe, the women with whom we associate signal that a man on 
government assistance is not a worthy marriage partner. For White Male privilege to generate 
female interest, we need not be millionaires — though that never hurts— but we definitely at least must be hard-working, and we get extra points if we project resourcefulness. 

Privilege.

When my former wife and I ran into a financially challenging time early in our marriage —this 
was many, many moons ago — it emerged that one of the two of us would have to set aside 
personal career aspirations and dreams, maybe for the next few years, maybe for the rest of a 
lifetime. And, feminism or no feminism, egalitarianism or no egalitarianism, it emerged that the marital partner with White Male privilege is the one who has to give up everything to bring in 
more money because, egalitarianism and feminism notwithstanding, “it is the man’s job.” So I left
the rabbinate and went to law school. 

Privilege.

1. Years later, no one gave my kids any extra wink-wink when they applied for college admission. The University of California has no seats set aside for the children of White Male privilege. Neither do the Ivy League schools. Yes, they do set aside some “legacy” spots for the children of the George Bushes and the Kennedys to get in, but those seats come with expectations that major donations will follow. For regular White Male privilege stiffs like me, though, my kids need to score in the upper stratospheres of the admission exams, or they will need to readjust their dreams while others get admitted ahead of them with lower entrance exams, profoundly meager extracurricular records, and weaker math and verbal skills.
2. With White Male privilege, I have to watch and hear my essence insulted every day by one of the two major political parties in this country. I am a really fair and enormously accepting guy, and I never would judge someone by race, by religion, by ethnicity, by gender preference. And yet the privileged White Male never knows when some sociopath may be lurking at the next Clintonian Basketful to point a finger and say “You voted for Trump — You are racist!” Or “You speak perfect English — You are ethnonationalist.” “You quote great works of European literature — You are a First Worlder.” “You believe in the Bible — You are homophobic and not suited to be a judge in an American court.” “You speak of how your grandparents entered this country legally through the port of entry at Ellis Island — You are xenophobic.” “You tell people there is opportunity in America — You are Deplorable.”
3. With White Male privilege, I end up regularly sharing some of my money with others. I cannot get away merely with virtue-signaling by kneeling at the National Anthem and buying Nike sneakers or Gillette female razors — and then wallowing in cash that I do not share. Unlike the NBA and NFL Gazillionaires who get paid millions because they can throw a ball or dribble in public or knock someone down, and who devote their Benjamins to their own narcissistic self-indulgences, it has been socialized into White Males of privilege like me that we give generously to those who need, not leaving it to Government to spread crumbs for the needy with other people’s money.

No, White males are not perfect; flaws are a defining aspect of the human experience. I have my issues with the cheapskates and penny-pinchers of NATO who will not pay their fair share of their defense but expect America to pay out in treasure and in blood. And as a Jew, I also am well aware of some past matters that occurred in Europe. But I look at my East European heritage with deep pride. That European heritage — whether East or West European — is at the source of the great ideas and world-changing values that produced governments dedicated to freedom from tyranny, the Protestant work ethic, the daring to explore new worlds and to take the risks to achieve great things, all of which have brought more prosperity, more comfort, better life, more learning and wisdom than ever could have been imagined. The wealthiest people of yore could not have imagined air conditioning in the summer, automobiles and air travel for vacations and for business. The White males of the West dared advance great theories and breakthroughs in science and medicine. Nobel Prizes list some of the heroes of world civilization, and one large chunk of them came out of North America, Europe, and Asia.

No, the Caucasian male experience has not been exclusively proud. The British and French and Germans seem to have killed each other for centuries, sometimes over religion, sometimes over national foolishness, sometimes (it seems) just to give Shakespeare something to write about. The British did terrible things to the Irish for a century and much, much more. The Spanish and Portuguese imposed the Inquisition — and their repayment is that, within a century or so, they both rapidly descended from their promontories as the world’s two greatest powers to become perpetual side stops on European vacations, all while reduced now to pleading for European Union handouts. Likewise, the barbarians of Rome saw their empire fall. And, yes, Christopher Columbus — G-d bless his memory — and those others occasionally made some very bad decisions that traverse today’s values and standards, but they lived in their times, and the people whom they encountered were not Quakers or Flower Children. Survival was hard. What were the Incas doing before Pizarro showed up in Peru? What was Montezuma doing before Cortez met the Aztecs? Were all the Native American tribes unified in one massive Coca-Cola commercial in Little Big Horn, arms around each other in some kind of hora, singing:

“I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.
I’d like to hold it in my arms and keep it company.
I’d like to build the world a home and furnish it with love.
I’d like Liz Warren for Tribal Chief and Stacey for the Guv.”

No, not really. They were butchering and scalping people, too, doing it to each other. It was a complicated world. But from those Europeans came not only the people who perpetrated the grave historic evil of slavery but also the more-than-300,000 White males who gave their lives courageously and died fighting or from disease while engaged in the Civil War battlefields, all in the name of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation to end slavery. It was White males who were compelled to leave their loved ones to go to liberate our allies from tyranny during World War I. Again, White Male privilege saw the honor of being summoned by one’s nation and neighbors to go to Normandy and to Market Garden and to Hürtgen Forest and to Bataan and Midway and Guadalcanal and Saipan and Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Many brave African Americans went, too. Perhaps the bravest and most heroic were America’s Japanese-American fighters who fought for a country that then was rounding up and interning their very families. But that, too, is what it means to be suffused with Male privilege.

Being a male is not only about choosing a lavatory (in places where the choice still is offered). Being a male means accepting certain burdens and responsibilities because the testosterone hormone impacts muscle development and strength, so demands more in certain areas. Being a male means that, when the tragedy of divorce hits, the family court judge almost-always will see two contending divorcing parents, each demanding maximal child custody for themselves and to be paid maximal alimony and child support from the other — and knowing that, almost always, the male will get hit with paying the alimony and the child support while the female will get the extra time with the kids.

Finally, being a White male means thanking G-d every day for a world balanced with females who bear so many of the awesome and enormous responsibilities — beginning with childbirth — that males biologically cannot do. It means understanding the Biblical advisory that it is not good for man to live on his own. We cannot do it without females. We cannot survive without females — not just in the biological and reproductive sense, but in the culture and civilization sense. When an all-male society is created, as during the Gold Rush and Wild West, history records that the society cannot function civilly long-term without women. There is something existential in the need each gender has for the other, and it goes beyond reproducing the species. In today’s world, where we have advanced to see women’s great academic and entrepreneurial heights of attainment, we marvel also at how women successfully defy all challenges to scale those plateaus even as they bear additional burdens that men often do not. And fair-minded women marvel at men who paradoxically do the same, only differently.

In the end, among fair-minded people who live lives rooted in appreciation rather than in venal jealousy, it kind-of all balances out, like three kids in a household. The first-born always will have had the advantage of having been first-born and always will get advantages on any given day when growing up (getting to stay up later, the first allowed to drive), but that first-born also will have had to fight tooth-and-nail for every “privilege.” The youngest always will have had the advantage of being treated as the gentlest cutie-pie while the older two were maturing and starting to get a bit rougher around the edges, but the youngest always will remember having had to go to sleep earlier than the others and just “missing out.” And the middle child always will have had all the advantages of being given instant privileges for which the oldest had to fight — and which still were being denied to the youngest — but also will grow up always beset with having been “in the middle”: denied things that the older one got, while not getting the extra-babying accorded the youngest.

Cruel? Unfair? There is not a darn that anyone can do about the line-up of the three kids born serially into a family. It was a matter of nature: one was born first, one second, and one third. And so it goes with gender, with race, with ethnicity. We are born as we are born. If psychologically healthy, we embrace who we are every day with joy and exuberance, and we celebrate every other person in every other group as part of our same human family. As the President beautifully says: we all bleed the same red, white, and blue.

Or we can sit around like a moping CNN panel discussion, seeing every event in racial terms, jealous of the next one. Intersectionalists and cynical Democrats who feed for personal gain off class jealousy promote that view. That is the way of division, the Politics of Intersectionality, the Curse of Obama that he wreaked on our society when we never had been racially healthier. That is the source of inviting the Unguv to present the counter-SOTU even though — NEWS FLASH! — she lost.

Ultimately, for the fair-minded, White Male privilege in this country is identical to Black and Hispanic and Asian and Native American and Gay and all other such privileges, male and female, here: It is a unique privilege to be an American.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++