The Nadler Hearing"s Did Not Want To Hear Have We Reached Tipping Point In Sports? Day Five.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VMKF3lRoqw
And:
Still working with China: https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/28/neil-bush-china-agreement-space/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Breaking: ONE LOOK at Joe Biden this Morning PROVES He is Too Weak to be President
The debates and  Durham's Report could be the killers.

And:

Fed-Up Police Agencies Now Refuse To Protect Democrats

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
Why they would not let Barr respond:

Democrats Refused To Let Barr Speak Because They Know He’s Right

If the Democrats had anything on William Barr, they would have forced him to answer questions. They don't, so they just talked over him. 

By David Marcus

Tuesday’s House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing with Attorney General William Barr was really something to behold. Almost every Democrat played from the same playbook, starting with Chairman Jerry Nadler, who told Barr he should be ashamed of himself. One after the other, they heaped scorn on the attorney general in a build up to some question that they refused to allow Barr to answer.

Here is a good mashup if you missed out on the fun for yourself.

There is a serious giveaway in this tactic. When a member of Congress thinks he or she has a witness dead to rights for having made mistakes, or made false statements, the lawmaker tries to compel the witness to answer hard questions, not refuse to allow it. The problem Monday was that Barr clearly had very good answers for every question he was asked. There was no gotcha because he did nothing wrong and could explain that.

One of the best examples was the questioning from Rep. Pramila Jayapal. She engaged in a long rant about how when Trump supporters showed up at the Michigan capital with guns and Confederate flags Barr did not react, but in Portland and Washington D.C. he did react. She drew the conclusion that this was bias. When Barr tried to explain the situation, she simply talked over him. Why? If this was such a gotcha question, why not let Barr squirm?

The reason of course is that when Barr began his answer it was obviously going to make complete sense, diffuse the angry rhetoric from Jayapal, and destroy her sound bite, which is all she wanted in the first place. He began to explain that the White House and the federal courthouse in Portland are under his jurisdiction, whereas the Michigan state house is not, and the Michigan authorities are capable of handling that issue, which they did with no violence or property damage. She did not let him get a word in.

This was flat-out not a question. In fact, there were almost no questions from Democrats and nearly every time there was they refused to let the witness answer. At one point Barr said, “This is a hearing. I thought I was the one who was supposed to be heard.” It was the only wrong thing he said all day. This was never about Barr being heard. This was about speechifying and silencing the attorney general whenever he sought to explain why the Democrats have this all so wrong.

As bad as the Democrats’ behavior was, and it made toddlers on timeout look like C.S. Lewis, the real culprit here is the media. These pontificating blowhards know that MSNBC and CNN will present their bloviating as speaking truth to power. And power is really what this is all about. This had nothing to do with finding out what is happening across America and why the Department of Justice is undertaking the actions it is, but purely about political theater.

If you need further evidence of this, note that there was not one successful line of questioning that left Barr with no good answers. Had such a moment occurred, not only would it have been newsworthy, it would have been plastered on every screen in the country. That would have been gold. But the Democrats knew there was no gold to be mined here, so instead they threw yellow paint on a pile of something else and the media ate it up with relish.

It is extremely likely that, had Barr been given a fair hearing and had the media paid as much attention to reasonable answers when GOP members allowed him time to speak as they did to Democrats yelling, the American people would see right through this. It isn’t that hard to see who wins a fair debate. But this was not a fair hearing; this was a sick reality show pretending to be governance.

The United States is very lucky to have William Barr as the attorney general. There may be no more essential person in the government at the moment. Time and again, he applies the law and only the law to his sound decisions. For this, he is rewarded with media scorn and threats of impeachment.

But Barr isn’t on the ropes. He remains in the center of the ring, impervious, throwing his punches.

David Marcus is the Federalist's New York Correspondent. Follow him on Twitter, @BlueBoxDave.

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

Unlike most males I have never cared for professional sports. Now I am really turned off because they have allowed political nonsense and anti-Americanism  to creep in and take over the games.

Tipping Point

As we approach the restart to the NBA season and the belated start of the MLB season, American sports is at a tipping point. At one time, sports were seen as entertainment, a diversion for fans to get away from the trials of life. Sports used to be fun. Sports used to be unifying. There was something pure about sports. The games were fair. The playing fields were level. The rules applied to all. The rewards were earned equally. There was something refreshingly just about sports. You either won or you lost. You either performed or you didn’t. You cannot fake or hide in sports.

The playing field is the ultimate proving ground. It reveals who you are. The thrill of victory. The agony of defeat.

But there is something sinister, something corrupting that has been creeping into
sports for the last few years which is tainting the purity of the game and driving f
ans away. More and more players have been using the sports arena to make their
political statements.

Sports used to be overwhelmingly apolitical. Sports would get involved in causes
like breast cancer awareness or the United Way. They were causes not political
agendas. We used to root for or against a player based on which team he or she
played on, not because of their political positions.

The first overt political statement made by athletes was the 1968 Olympics in
Mexico City. Two African-American track stars, Tommie Smith and John Carlos
raised a black-gloved fist during the playing of the National Anthem on the
podium at their medal ceremony, after winning the gold and bronze medals
respectively in the 200-meters. They were supporting the black power movement
of the 1960’s. More recently in 2016, Colin Kaepernick made a political statement by kneeling during the National Anthem in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. His political statement has been followed by other NFL players, and athletes from other sports.

This season, the NBA has approved of 29 “social justice” messages that can be
displayed on the player’s jerseys. But this is not standing up for the free speech of the players. The fact there are only 29 pre-approved messages, it is the exact opposite of free
speech. The players are not free to say whatever they want. Adam Silver is
controlling the message. It is the same thing as the NFL telling their players they
cannot kneel for the National Anthem. Both leagues are dictating to their
players which political statements are allowed within the venue and which ones
are not allowed. And these decisions are solely based on financial reasons. That is
why the NBA is banning the message “Free Hong Kong”. That type of messaging could alienate China and cost the NBA hundreds of millions of dollars regardless of how
virtuous the message is. If kneeling for the National Anthem gave the NFL a 15% increase in ticket sales, TV rating and merchandise sales as opposed to a 15% decrease, every
owner and even the commissioner would be kneeling right along with the players.

The politicization of sports is driving fans away from the game without changing
anyone’s political views. It only serves to fan the flames of the player’s ego and
self-ascribed virtue. It costs fans a lot of money to attend a professional sporting
event, and they want to watch the game, not hear the athletes’ political views. If
they wanted to attend a political event, they would go to a rally or debate. All of
the purity of sports, the unifying nature of sports is lost when politics are injected
into sports.

The political gestures of the players feel like propaganda. Athletes using their
status and exposure to millions of people to push one side of the issue without
pushback or cross examination. Complex societal issues cannot be summed up or
solved with a slogan or a gesture. Those are just ways to sway an uniformed
populace. Real solutions come from real discussions, looking at an issue from
multiple sides, getting into the weeds.

The NFL is now considering allowing players to wear the initials of people who
were victims of police violence, or anti-police messages on their helmets. The
NFL had always been very protective of its brand. It went to great lengths to
prevent players from using the NFL shield and the NFL venue to promote
personal messages or agendas. When NFL great Johnny Unitas, one of the
players who brought the league into national prominence, passed away, another
NFL great Peyton Manning wanted to pay a tribute to him by simply wearing a
pair of black high-top cleats, the signature shoe of the great Unitas. The NFL
claimed it was a violation of the dress code, no exceptions allowed. They
threatened Manning with such a high fine that he relented and did not pay tribute
to a man who helped make the NFL what it is today.

Not long after the tragedy on 9/11, the NFL started banning and fining players for
wearing NYPD hats on the sidelines. MLB prohibited Mets and Yankees players
from wearing NYPD and NYFD hats during their game on September 11, 2011,
marking the 10th anniversary of the tragedy.

But this season, the NFL and MLB are allowing players to kneel for the National
Anthem and disrespect the police, after previously fining players for paying
tribute to the police officers who ran into the burning buildings on 9/11, laying
down their lives to save others. If you’re looking for virtue in all this political
madness, that is virtue, to lay your life down for another. But according to the
NFL and MLB, players are not allowed to show respect for those heroic police
officers, they can only show disrespect to other police officers.

The overt mingling of sports and politics always ends bad. Jimmy Carter’s
boycott the 1980 Summer Olympics was a colossal mistake. It achieved no
positive political result, and denied many United States athletes their only chance
to compete in the Olympic Games.

Mixing of sports and politics is potentially dangerous. The 1972 Summer
Olympics in Munich, West Germany were tragically disrupted when members of a
Palestinian terrorist group took nine Israeli athletes hostage, killing two of them. These Israelis were athletes, not political operatives. They were ambassadors of peace, in the spirit of fair play, and they lost their lives because they were used as pawns in some political conflict beyond their control.

The goal of the Olympic Games was for the nations of the world to put down their weapons and hostilities and compete in sporting events in the spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play to promote a more peaceful world. That’s what all sports should be.

Sports should remain apolitical. We should keep the game pure, keep it separate
from the polluting aspect of politics. That does not mean that athletes should not
speak out about important issues. There are many platforms on social media for
athletes to voice their political views to be heard by millions, but there should be
a high wall of separation between the actual game and politics.

In days gone by, athletes made political statements not with gestures or slogans
but with their performances. Jesse Owens did not have to kneel or hold up a fist to
make his political statement in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. Owens simply did
what he did best, perform. His 4 Gold Medal winning performance was the
quintessential political statement against Hitler’s vision of Arian Racial superiority.

Joe Louis winning the World Heavyweight Boxing title in 1937 was a turning
point for African-Americans. He was seen as America’s champion, revered by
both black and white people alike. Louis followed up Jesse Owens statement
against Hitler by knocking out German Champion Max Schmeling in the 1st
round in 1938. And Jackie Robinson’s 1947 Rookie of the Year season was an
ultimate political statement against the evils of racial segregation, and all he did
was play ball.

Wilma Rudolph and Babe Didrikson’s Gold Medal performances in the Olympics
articulated the meaning and purpose of the women’s rights movements as well as
any speech or political statement could.

Jackie Robinson, Joe Louis, and Jesse Owens were far ahead of the Civil Rights
movement, and arguably they were its catalysts. They did more for civil rights and
more to unify this country through their performances than all of the gestures and
slogans we will be flooded with by all the present-day athletes combined.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Far too many Federal agencies remain in the hands of those who empathize
with Obama and other radicals.

Why the human-right 

community opposed a foe of 

college anti-Semites

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

Biden Dairy - Day Five:

Pelosi wants to meet with me to discuss how we can continue to attack

Trump now that he is no longer president and cannot hide under the shield

of the office.

I learned a great deal working with Obama about how to make another

person's life miserable and I have been a Democrat for 50 years.

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

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I recently wrote it was only a matter of time before the weaponry
being employed by rioters and those operating under the umbrella
of TIFA,  as defined  by Atty. Gen Barr, would escalate into truly
dangerous items and I fear, as I also stated, there will be a counter
response on the part of citizens who are fed up with their cities
being destroyed and the feckless political leadership allowing/
encouraging same.

Portland Rioters Using Knives, Rifles, And 

Explosives - Read More

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

as revealedby Atty. Gen.Barr

Department’s Civil Rights office, show why control of the federal 

bureaucracy matters.

JONATHAN S. TOBIN

(July 28, 2020 / JNS) As far as The New York Times and many in the

 so-called human-rights community go, the departure of Kenneth L. 

Marcus from the U.S. Department of Education couldn’t have come too 

soon. The newspaper’s Washington bureau has devoted a series of articles

on Marcus’s work in the last two years that depicted him as a foe of civil 

rights. According to the Times, Marcus, whom it claimed was stepping 

down “amid controversy,” had run the department’s civil-rights office

since 2018 after a bitter fight by Democrats to prevent his confirmation.

That sounds like the usual narrative about anyone serving in the Trump 

administration from much of the mainstream media. But despite the 

drumbeat of criticism he received from left-wingers, Marcus’s tenure in 

office is a case study in why the identity of those who fill seemingly 

minor posts in the federal bureaucracy matters greatly. During his two 

years in office, Marcus did cause trouble. The trouble he caused, however, was for anti-Semites and their enablers in academia and extremist organizations that 

masquerade under the rubric of human rights. Indeed, his work was so 

consequential that even a biased and deeply critical article about his 

leaving office had to concede that his record included “significant 

accomplishments.”

In two short years, Marcus did as much, if not more, to fight anti-

Semitism on college campuses as anyone in government has ever done.

While his work involved not only cases relating to Jewish issues, it was 

his role as a champion in the fight against Jew-hatred that put a target on 

his back while serving at the Department of Education. His reversals of 

Obama-administration rulings and policies that essentially took a hands-

off attitude to anti-Semitism on campuses enraged his critics. Left-wing 

groups that attack Jews under the cover of anti-Zionism and advocacy for

the Palestinians aren’t sorry to see him go. They are also hoping that 

someone chosen by Joe Biden if he is elected president in November 

might reinstate a laissez-faire approach to Jew-hatred when that job is 

filled next year.

Marcus came to his post after a distinguished career in government, 

academia and the law, during which he had established himself as a 

leading voice for civil liberties, free speech and opposition to anti-

Semitism. In previous government service during the George W. Bush 

administration, he had fought for women in enforcing Title IX protections

and against segregation. Most notably, he was also responsible for the 

Department of Education’s civil-rights office establishing that Title VI of 

the 1964 Civil Rights Act also protect the rights of ethnic groups that 

share a faith—an important distinction—as well as other minorities. That 

enabled Jewish, Muslim and Sikh students to seek redress against 

discrimination and intimidation.

While the Obama administration Justice Department upheld the legality

 of that interpretation of the law, it also chose not to enforce that law 

when it came to anti-Semitic activities that stemmed from advocacy for 

the destruction of the Jewish state.

After the nomination of Marcus to his post in 2018 by President Donald 

Trump, supporters of the anti-Semitic BDS movement feared that his 

appointment would cause them trouble—and they were right.

In one important case, Marcus reopened an investigation into a series of 

incidents at Rutgers University dating back to 2011 in which groups 

dedicated to demonizing Israel and Jews were allowed to engage in both 

threats and discriminatory conduct without the university lifting a finger 

to stop it or hold those responsible accountable.

What happened at Rutgers stemmed from an anti-Israel event held on the 

campus that employed a classic anti-Semitic trope that libelously 

portrayed Israel as a Nazi state. But, as a smoking-gun email revealed, 

organizers also sought to charge students that they believed were Jewish 

to attend while not charging others.

Rather than taking action to curb such behavior or look into threats made 

organizers against Jewish students, Rutgers did nothing. And when the 

Zionist Organization of America submitted a formal complaint to the 

Department of Education, the Obama administration dismissed it and 

refused to consider an appeal. Marcus reversed that indefensible decision.

His actions didn’t prevent anyone from criticizing Israel. But it did 

establish a precedent that said the federal government wouldn’t give a

 pass to those who allow federally funded college campuses to foment 

anti-Semitism and create a hostile atmosphere for Jews.

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

Netanyahu, Pompeo put Trump peace plan 

back on the table

However, they notably did not mention any timeline for Israel 

to apply sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria as the plan 

allows.

https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/netanyahu-pompeo-put-trump-peace-plan-back-on-the-table-636653

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

6653

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