We are the drain the swamp people

Now occupied by Trump Negativistas

OK, OK. We’re doing it again. Offering our humble criticism of what is arguably the leading national newspaper today… the Wall Street Journal. To suggest that it is also as liberal as the N Y Times, however, would be inaccurate. As we have oft noted, the “news” section of the paper features reporters and writers who do rival the Times in their disdain for Donald Trump and thus their disdain for objective, unbiased journalism.

One might accuse us of reveling in the opportunity to highlight the almost daily examples of their worst efforts. We may not agree with the term “reveling” but we do take some satisfaction in alerting our readers to just how they seek to, over time, establish in the minds of their subscribers that Donald Trump as president is BAD, conservatism is always EVIL and Democrats are ‘kind and caring’!

Which brings us to today’s exhibit A , contained in the story announcing Trump’s choice of Rep. John Ratcliffe to replace the departing Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats:

“Mr. Ratcliffe, who as a lawmaker has focused on counterterrorism and cybersecurity issues, has been praised by Mr. Trump’s allies for his strident questioning of former special counsel Robert Mueller for declaring Mr. Trump wasn’t exonerated on the question of obstruction of justice in his report on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.”

As most stories related to anything President Trump says, does, or writes (mostly as in “tweets”) the Journal’s reporters are insufferably disposed to include a subtle ‘slant’, reflecting their personal biases and attempting to present to readers in an almost subliminal way. In this story, the writers, Dustin Volz and Ian Talley, cannot resist ‘reporting’ that Mr. Ratclffe was “strident”, that is, having a “shrill, irritating quality or character” of questioning, according to dictionary definitions.

And, as the rest of ‘Dustin’s’ and ‘Ian’s’ report on Ratcliffe’s questioning of former Special Counsel Mueller indicates, they didn’t approve of the congressman’s ‘impertinence’ toward the ‘honorable one’.

Just all in a day’s work at the Journal. DLH

About Dan Coats

It appears to us that President Trump has made an excellent choice in picking Congressman John Ratcliffe to succeed Dan Coats as Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

For one reason, Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer doesn’t like him. That’s a big plus, in our book.

Another reason is, we were never ‘bowled over’ by Mr. Coats’ selection. And his performance as DNI further reinforced that view.

We have noted before that if a Trump nominee ever gets a majority of Democrat senators voting for his or her confirmation, that person is probably not a good pick as one who will support the president’s goals. In Coats’ case , he received a confirmation vote of 85-12. That means he got a lot of Democrat votes!

A second reason we suspected that Coats may not have been a good choice is that the Former Obama CIA Director, John Brennan liked him. That’s a really bad sign!

Coats had been considered a conservative by most everyone when he was nominated. And, he was a conservative on many issues…a strong right-to-life and traditional marriage proponent. He advocated for the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy in reference to gays in the military. He was a severe critic of Russia’s annexing of the Crimea.

He was against any attempt to establish a relationship with Russia and he was convinced that Russia had attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

Perhaps Coats’ strong animosity toward Russia may have negatively influenced him regarding Trump and the president’s foreign policies.

In our opinion, Dan Coats, in some ways, has undermined Trump’s foreign policy initiatives.

We also believe that Gina Haspel, Trump’s choice for CIA Director has, as well…and based on some of the same reasons we have for being suspect: a) John Brennan supported Haspel’s appointment; b) although her senate confirmation was more narrow, 54-45, she was opposed by a number of senators from both sides of the aisle, mainly for her tenure in the CIA during the period that the agency was alleged to have practiced ‘torture’.

Sadly, these two, and Christopher Wray’s selection as FBI Director are examples of Trump choices that have “Deep State” roots and have not been supportive of various Trump initiatives. And unfortunately they are a formidable force in the nation’s national security and law enforcement apparatus.

And, as we recall Chuck Schumer’s admonition: if you cross those agencies, they have “6 ways from Sunday to get you”.

So for us, it’s good riddance to Dan Coats in this role and welcome John Ratcliffe…an excellent selection in our view. DLH

As always, we welcome your view as a Veritaspac reader

0

0

The only border control allowed — hope it doesn’t offend anyone’s sensibilities

Excuse us for snickering but we found the following excerpt from Clarice Feldman’s column at American Thinker including a reference to the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of President Trump ‘s ‘border wall’ quite amusing (in boldface):

“Friday in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court determined that the Sierra Club, ACLU, and the Southern Border Communities Coalition had no cause of action to obtain a review of the determination to use $2.5 billion dollars from Defense Department Funds to build sections of the wall on the Mexican Border. (The administration had authorized other funds  — military construction, Defense department and the Treasury department’s asset forfeiture accounts [seized narcotics funds] — to supplement the $1.4 billion Congress had allocated for building a wall on the Mexican border, but  only the Defense Department funds were at issue.)

The case arose from — where else? — the Ninth Circuit, where a District Court judge  had issued a nationwide injunction against the use of those funds for wall construction.

U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued that private groups could not challenge this transfer and the majority of the court agreed. He added that even if they had a valid cause of action their “interests in hiking, bird watching, and fishing in designated drug-smuggling corridors do not outweigh the harm to the public from halting the government’s efforts to construct barriers to stanch the flow of illegal narcotics across the southern border.”

DLH

They are ugly, they spoil my bird-watching, and get in the way of my hunting rights

The complainants legal case is that the rest of the country’s self defense (and that is what we are talking about) is subject to their concept of aesthetics and personal pleasure. But heaven forbid someone complaining about wind farms . . . why such a complaint is un-American!!

Their aesthetics about illegal immigration also reminds us of the Trojans, “oh such a pretty horse, lets take it inside”

0

0

• It is much easier than paraphrasing

“A week later, the president wrote racist tweets aimed at the squad, all women of color, which prompted Democrats to rally around Ms. Ocasio-Cortez as well as Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts.”
———————–

We have long complained that the “news” sections of the Wall Street Journal are just as liberal as most of American media.

With the exception of a generally supportive stance toward the ‘anti-Trump’ crowd and “open borders”, its editorial page is a bit more right-leaning.

With Saturday’s edition, however, we might revise our assessment somewhat.

The “problem”, as we see it, could be that some, or many, of the Journal’s reporters in the “news” sections are biased ” journalists” or, perhaps, just poor writers.

It has been a long series of and numerous examples that have led to our conclusion but a story in Saturday’s edition headed, “Pelosi Works to Cool Caucus Splits” provides a rather stark example illustrating our conclusion:

“A week later, the president wrote racist tweets aimed at the squad, all women of color, which prompted Democrats to rally around Ms. Ocasio-Cortez as well as Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts.”

Admittedly, this is a rather subtle passage to use as an example of bias. However, it was the offhand, but firm assertion that,’oh, by the way, “the president (DID MOST CERTAINLY WRITE) racist tweets”.

Since I’m not in the camp of these two reporters (Natalie Andrews and Jesse Naranjo), I have a little disagreement with their self-righteous assertion that the so-called ‘tweets’ were “racist”.

I believe, though I’m not credentialed as a mainstream reporter/writer, that the sentence I find biased and offensive should more properly be written. “A week later, the president wrote tweets which some thought were “racist”…”

See Natalie and Jesse, how easy that was? You could have gotten the accusation you favor into print but, at the same time written it accurately. I, for one, did not think President Trump’s “tweets” you refer to were “racist”. I think there may have been a few other Journal readers who also did not.

Why is this even worth mentioning you might be asking?

Because this is done every day in every liberal news outlet…often not quite as subtly (and that may be good) but with the intent by the writers and editors to plant their own biased assertions in the reader’s mind as ‘facts’!

If you do it often enough and in every possible way get that viewpoint into stories, it soon becomes the “accepted wisdom”.

We are seeing it every day, and alarmingly…it may eventually work!      DLH

0

0

Back in September of last year our DLH raised the issue in these pages of how history is being taught at various levels in the educational system. More recently he commented on the influence of Howard Zinn.  Today at The Federalist we see an expose by Mary Grabar of how Zinn’s chickens have come home to roost:

How Howard Zinn’s Anti-American Textbook Inspired The Antifa Bombing Attempt
The power of ‘A People’s History of the United States’ to inspire violent action should not be underestimated after the ICE attack of Antifa supporter Willem Van Spronsen  

(excerpt)

In Tacoma, Washington, during the pre-dawn hours of Saturday, July 13, 2019, 69-year-old Willem Van Spronsen attempted to light a propane tank on fire, torched a vehicle, and threw “incendiary devices” at the outbuildings for the Northwest Detention Center and vehicles in the parking lot. When confronted by police, he pointed his rifle at them and was shot dead before he could fire.

Van Spronsen was a member of Antifa (short for “anti-fascist”), a masked domestic “protest” group. This group’s members recently beat up journalist Andy Ngo to the point he suffered a brain hemorrhage and had to be hospitalized. Van Spronsen had been previously arrested for grabbing a police officer at an Antifa protest. This time, as reported in the Washington Times on July 15 and then picked up by other conservative outlets, he left behind a manifesto.

Four days later, the Washington Post published part of the story in a watered-down article titled “ICE detention-center attacker killed by police was an avowed anarchist, authorities say.” In the interim, tributes from Antifa Facebook, Black Lives Matter leader Shaun King, and other likeminded sources came out describing Spronsen as a heroic “martyr.”

Van Spronsen and Zinn Admire the Same Violent Vigilantes

It’s apparent from his manifesto that Van Spronsen believed he was liberating a “concentration camp,” as U.S. immigration facilities have been described by Democrats including the socialist lightning rod Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. After rambling on about “the forces of evil,” “concentration camps for folks deemed lesser,” and the ineffectiveness of “the centrist” reformer, the manifesto told readers, “see howard zinn, ‘a people’s history of the united states.’” The book would provide, he alleged, support for Van Spronsen’s assertion that “we are living in visible fascism ascendant.”

Van Spronsen named as his “teachers” Don Pritts, his “spiritual guide,” John Brown, his “moral guide,” and Emma Goldman, his “political guide.” The first two were quoted on their calls to “action” and Goldman, on revolution: “if I can’t dance, I don’t want to be in your revolution.”

As they were to Van Spronsen, Brown and Goldman are Zinn’s heroes. Both figure prominently in “A People’s History of the United States,” a book billing itself as a textbook that has sold more than 2.6 million copies since it was first published in 1980. It is frequently bought with public tax dollars and used in public school classrooms, then and now.

Zinn’s ‘History’ Text Preys on the Naïve and Uninformed

By any reasonable definition, Zinn’s book does not deserve to have “history” in the title. Zinn’s book is filled with lies, omissions, distortions of evidence, logical fallacies, and plagiarism from dubious sources. In my forthcoming book, “Debunking Howard Zinn,” I detail all of these critical problems. I also describe Zinn’s life, from budding teenage communist to Pied Piper professor at Spelman College and Boston University, and globe-trotting anti-American agitator.

Sam Wineburg, a history education professor, is simultaneously one of Zinn’s harshest critics and most vociferous defenders. He notes that Zinn appeals to the “inner Holden Caulfield,” the jaded teenage anti-hero of the now-classic 1951 novel, “Catcher in the Rye.” As the 2017 movie “Lady Bird” mockingly revealed, if there’s one thing Zinn’s book has been associated with, it’s self-righteous adolescent pretension.

Seeing the book only in this way, however, ignores the influence of this work of propaganda. David Horowitz calls Zinn’s textbook “the Mein Kampf of the Hate America Left.” Yet Zinn’s book is not merely another leftist version of American history. Zinn succeeded where even Communist leader William Z. Foster could not (Foster’s 1951 work, “Outline Political History of the Americas,” shares some stunning parallels). No other leftist professor has ever produced a book that has vaunted him into a similar degree of rock-star status.

Grabar has written a book Debunking Howard Zinn to be published August 20th. We have pre-ordered it at Barns & Noble which at this writing seems to be substantially cheaper than Amazon for the title.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/mary+grabar?_requestid=2124166

0

0

JOAN LUNDEN – “A PLACE FOR BOB” SPOKESPERSON

Joan Lunden former host of Good Morning America is an advocate (~~ paid spokesperson anyway) for families seeking quality senior living and care options for their parent or loved ones at A Place for Mom Bob

Live Wire: Disaster Day in D.C. for Democrats as Mueller Testifies…

…Caught Contradicting His Own Report on ‘Collusion’…

…Pounded on Presumption of Innocence — Admits No One Besides Trump Has Ever Been ‘Not Exonerated’…

…Says Democrats’ Collusion with Russia ‘Outside the Purview’ of Investigation into Russia Interference

Montage: Confused-Looking Mueller Repeatedly Asks for Questions To Be Repeated
‘Can you repeat the question, sir?’

Mueller Starts House Intel Hearing By Correcting Major Bombshell 

“Now before we go to questions, I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning,” Mueller began at the outset of his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.

Watch → Mueller corrects @TedLieu’s assertion that he “didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.”

Mueller reaffirms findings in his report and says the Special Counsel’s Office “did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.” pic.twitter.com/HvCnJw1a7u

Congressman Ratcliffe Rips Mueller For Making Up a Bogus Standard of Guilt
for President Trump

Rep. Chabot Didn’t Have Much to Ask Mueller…But He Had Plenty to Say to His Dem Colleagues

ABC Anchor Tells Colleague Stephanopoulos: ‘Impeachment’s Over’

Democrats and Media Admit: Mueller’s Testimony Was a Total Disaster

Not all however as AP and Lee papers soldier on:

0

0

• The latest budget squeal — porkers delight

OK we get it, take government shutdowns, which presumably work against Republicans, off the table prior to 2020 election.

GIVEN THAT TRUTH, THEN WHY WOULD DEMOCRATS ACCEDE TO SUCH A THING IF THEY DO NOT HAVE ANOTHER ANGLE?

Democrat rhetoric always ignores truth or hides the truth when they are not outright lying. Democrats are solid for more spending and hide bound in their blame of evil Republicans for deficits.  And this latest deal, because of blown caps and such, still allows them to leverage rhetoric in that Nancy and Chuck can still bring the government to a halt on their own through whatever process (trust us they have it figured out) deriding insufficient spending or insisting on some favored appropriation —  and Republicans will be blamed for the so-called shut down and ensuing scares. This deal is just another version of Lucy’s promise “trust me”  THIS TIME she will hold the football.

But you decide. Personally I think Trump (and Republicans) could successfully hold everything together in the face of any shutdown and win reelection. Sufficient numbers of people are beginning to get the Democrats number and dial them out on this (Trump can hold his support either way, so why give into this?).  It just smacks of more of the same.

Here are two views, conflicting, from good conservatives. First Terry Jeffrey as he serves to explain the deal succinctly, his opinion aside. Then a link to Rush Limbaugh.  His lead up to his main point is tedious so you can scroll to the 15th or so paragraph down.

As for this writer, yeah I can be expedient in the furtherance of a greater cause (defeating Democrat leadership and their demonic ways), I just have no confidence in Republican congressional leadership or the party apparat that this isn’t just another deal where they get had, perhaps even willingly.    R Mall

Trump And Pelosi Team Up For Bigger Government, Deeper Debt  

There is one interest that almost all elected officials in Washington, D.C., share. It does not matter what state they come from. It does not matter what party they belong to. It does not matter whether they serve in the House, Senate or White House.
They want to be reelected.

A key tactic they often employ to achieve this shared strategic aim is sometimes celebrated by apologists as “bipartisanship.”

In practice, bipartisanship less often involves members of both major parties coming together to serve some great national interest and more often involves them coming together to serve their personal political interests as members of Washington’s elected class.    . . .

The basics of the deal are this: Over the next two fiscal years, Congress will pass and President Trump will sign spending laws that increase discretionary federal spending by $320 billion above the levels Republicans agreed to in a 2011 legislative deal to raise the debt limit they made with then-President Barack Obama. That 2011 deal essentially said, “We will increase the debt today and pay for it tomorrow.”

Now that it’s tomorrow, the new Trump-Pelosi deal says, “No, we won’t.”

The Trump-Pelosi deal also says there will be absolutely no limit on how much new debt the federal government can accumulate between now and July 31, 2021.

It also says that the appropriations bills Congress enacts to reach these new higher levels of federal spending and debt will not include any “poison pills.”

“Congressional leaders and the administration agree that, relative to the FY 2019 regular appropriations Acts, there will be no poison pills, additional new riders, additional CHIMPS” — changes in mandatory program spending — “or other changes in policy or conventions that allow for higher spending levels, or any nonappropriations measures unless agreed to on a bipartisan basis by the four leaders with the approval of the president,” says a summary of the deal published by House Speaker Pelosi’s office.

Now Rush who seems resigned if not sanguine, is too estimable a person not to read his considerations (link):     Are You Mad About the Budget Deal?

0

0

Sublime first

V.D. Hanson at American Greatness: Can’t We All Just Get Along?

The Profane

0

0

• LEFT IN SECRET TIZZY AS THEY INSTRUCT MSM, GOOGLE, TWITTER TO GO TO DEFCON 1 (DEFend the climate CON)
• THINK OF ALL THE SUBSIDIES AT LONG-TERM RISK JUST IN IOWA!!!
• OTHER JUSTIFICATIONS MUST BE FOUND TO SATISFY BUSINESSES  SO USED TO GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES (snark)

So far the usual suspects have been effective at spiking the story and changing the subject — in favor of matters like accusing Trump of racism in a “tweet” that has none.

The climate scare has been a useful boondoggle in order to get some interests to saddle up with what is in reality a stalking-horse for socialism and one-world government.  The process is to repeat scares surrounding weak or corrupted science endlessly, ridicule deniers, get all manner of useful idiots on the bandwagon (celebrities the Pope) build dependence on the lie. Resistance to the truth becomes the norm.

The theories and evidence of solar if not galactic controls over climate have been published for years but ignored. We pray this will not be. MUCH appreciation to Zero Hedge and Climate Depot.   More on this later, especially as regards what Republican political leadership will do with the information.

By: Marc Morano – Climate Depot  July 12, 2019 1:39 PM

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice

0

0