The Flood and the Shield

by baldilocks

A short history on the Edifice of Lies in our midst, built by perverts, mountebanks, bandits and/or their enablers — also known as the Mainstream Media.

For decades, ABC and other media outlets have hidden the truth about the serial abuse of women and young girls by the powerful Clintons, Weinstein, and Epstein.  The cover-up was to protect the Clintons from scrutiny as they sought to elect and re-elect Bill and to put the corrupt Hillary in the White House in 2016.  All these people pretending to be journalists didn’t care about all the women who were physically and mentally abused.

Now, with the “Me Too movement,” we are told they really care, but only some of the time.  How many women and young girls have been abused by powerful men while the media looked the other way — as long as they supported the Clintons and wanted Democrats in power?

The media do not want any investigation into the massive corruption and collusion by the Obama administration and other Democrats in 2016 as they sought to take out Trump and elect the corrupt Hillary.  Instead of media outlets wanting the public to learn the truth, they seek to impeach Trump for investigating the criminal activity.

The media absolutely hide the truth about the massive kickbacks by foreign entities and others to the Clintons and Bidens as they pretend no one is above the law.

The media know that Trump gave aid to Ukraine with nothing in return and Obama/Biden withheld aid and gave a loan to Ukraine only after they demanded and got a prosecutor fired, but they say Biden/Obama did nothing wrong and Trump should be impeached.

There’s more in the op-ed, but as good as it is, it barely scratches the surface. And it should make you wonder how many successful cover-ups there are – the things which we think are true, but are not — waiting to be exposed.

The thing which should give us all pause, however, is the shaping of narratives: how MSM stories are often twisted, mixing truth and lies. This is their most toxic practice.

In 2017, I called this flood of fallaciousness the Kingdom of Lies and posited that it is a parody of the Kingdom of God/Heaven.

There is only one defense against being overwhelmed by the flood of lies. But you have to take up the Shield of Faith willingly if you want to be protected.

It’s very easy and very hard.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

If You’ve Ever Wondered Why I Never Got a Job in What Some Call “Actual Media”

…It’s likely because I was willing to write about Jeffrey Epstein while stuff like this was going on.

Amy Robach, ‘Good Morning America’ Co-Host and Breaking News Anchor at ABC, explains how a witness came forward years ago with information pertaining to Epstein, but Disney-owned ABC News refused to air the material for years. Robach vents her anger in a “hot mic” moment with an off-camera producer, explaining that ABC quashed the story in it’s early stages.  “I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts (Now Virginia Guiffre) [alleged Epstein victim]. We would not put it on the air. Um, first of all, I was told “Who’s Jeffrey Epstein.  No one knows who that is.  This is a stupid story.”
She continues, “The Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways.”
Robach goes on to express she believes that Epstein was killed in prison saying, “So do I think he was killed? 100% Yes, I do…He made his whole living blackmailing people… Yup, there were a lot of men in those planes. A lot of men who visited that Island, a lot of powerful men who came into that apartment.”
Robach repeats a prophetic statement purportedly made by Attorney Brad Edwards “…[T]here will come a day when we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known,” and Disgustedly Robach states “I had it all three years ago.”

That’s via James O’Keefe and Project Veritas who had hot mic info that was so explosive that he actually activated a “dead man’s switch” to make sure that this came out in the event of his death.

It was so big that for once the MSM didn’t ignore what he was saying. ABC responded thus:

ABC News executives say their journalists were simply not able to corroborate the details of the reporting sufficiently for broadcast.
“We would never run away from that,” Chris Vlasto, head of investigations for ABC News, tells NPR. The network has filed approximately two dozen digital and broadcast stories on Epstein since early 2015, when ABC started talking to the accuser, Virginia Roberts Giuffre

For the sake of the few who might actually buy that argument let me remind you of something I wrote in 2014.

If there is one thing the media that loves to play the War on Women® card doesn’t want to touch it’s a story about people using their own private island to get laid that involves Bill Clinton.
What could the media do if this story involving the former 
father of the year? They would call it old news, not relevant, dirty tricks from a salacious lawsuit that doesn’t even involve him and an attack on Hillary that crosses the line. In fact the left will deploy a plethora of adjectives to discourage further discussion of this story from antiquated to zany, but there is one adjective that could not come out of their mouth to dismiss this story:
Unbelievable
The last few years have proven that the left can convince a low information voter of a lot of things, but even the full power of the mainstream media and the strongest zealots from the War on Women® brigade would not be able to convince the American public that Bill Clinton would have no interest or business on a private island where orgies took place.
That’s why you didn’t see this story in the news last month and why as the case moves forward you’ll not see it covered period.

And a piece I wrote during the 2016 campaign:

as I was watching Jake Tapper on Monday discussing this and the security implication of blackmail for the husband of a top aide of Hillary Clinton my head started spinning.
We are seriously talking about the security implication of Anthony Weiner due to his sexual peccadilloes when we are talking about letting 
Bill freaking Clinton back into the White House?
I know the MSM is still trying to pretend that this is no big deal but I have two words to say to such people:
Jeffrey Epstein

Along with some video from MSNBC at the time with this key exchange

Video that MSNBC suppressed once the Free Beacon linked to it

Maybe it’s just me but given how often we see stuff at mediaite et al it seems rather unusual for a news network to make a copyright claim over a clip from a news story that used as “fair use” by another news organization. Could this suggest that NBC wants to keep this clip out of the public view because it might hurt Hillary?


I can see the NBC reaction now: Nonsense, we’re not censoring the clip at all. The seven minute clip IS available IF you

  1. Go to the Morning Joe site
  2. Hit search taking you to the MSNBC search engine
  3. Search for Donald Trump
  4. Narrow the field to Morning Joe
  5. Narrow the field to May 16th 2016 and sit through all the videos till you find the right one.
  6. And skip ahead to the 12 minute mark on that video.

If you do so you CAN find the clip

Incidentally the clip does not work from the MSNBC site anymore as but the Free Beason has since found another Youtube account with it that is no longer suppressed as the election is long over and the Epstein Story is now public knowledge.

Apparently they aren’t so worried about their copyright after all.

So when ABC tells you they didn’t have the story, look at the faces around that Morning Joe table who all knew what was being said and then try to make that case.

I suspect writing about this type of thing when everyone wanted it suppressed might have something to do with me not making it bigger in the business but then again if I was bigger and writing about it perhaps it might have lead to a sudden heart attack.

Baseball and Game-Playing

Boston Red Sox 2018 World Series Championship ring that I’m sure Peter likes seeing again.

by baldilocks

Yesterday, a goodly portion of the Washington Nationals visited the White House in celebration of their victory in the 2019 World Series and at least two of the players were pummeled on Twitter for openly being fans of President Trump. I’m sure the two players will console themselves with that beautiful ring they get to wear.

In contrast, there were several players who skipped the White House visit. I didn’t notice much talk about them. But, of course it was their choice to make.

It’s a safe bet, however, that the latter received a digital pat on the back from the usual suspects. We know that it’s a safe bet because we have some comparative information

[R]etired Boston Bruins goaltender Tim Thomas and New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady turned down Obama’s invitation to come to the White House and were met with strong criticism from media.

Thomas’s decision not to visit the White House in 2012 was widely criticized. U.S. News & World Report writer Susan Milligan headlined a story on the incident that said his decision was not brave, “it was just rude.” ESPN writer Joe McDonald wrote that Thomas chose to put himself above the team through his decision not to attend.

“When the president of the United States invites you and all your teammates to the White House to honor your Stanley Cup championship, you go and represent the team,” McDonald wrote.

Emphasis mine.

Hahahahahahaha!

Of course, we know that this only applies when the president is a Democrat and it double applied in the lone case in which the president was of African descent.

And then there is a whole other category of rules for Orange Man Bad.

If I were a team owner, I’d make it mandatory (in the contract) for all players and coaches to attend a White House gathering in the wake of a championship victory – unless there’s a life or death emergency — regardless of who the president is. That or get fined/traded.

But I guess that’s why I’m just a broke blogger.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

The First Amendment under attack

The First Amendment should undergo significant changes, including jail time for hate speech and false news reports.

These findings come from a recent poll and analysis by the Campaign for Free Speech. See https://www.campaignforfreespeech.org/free-speech-under-dire-threat-polling-finds/

The organization found that 51% of Americans think the First Amendment is outdated and should be rewritten. 

The poll found that 48% believe “hate speech” should be illegal. (“Hate speech” is not defined but left up to the individual participant.) Of those, about half think the punishment for “hate speech” should include possible jail time, while the rest think it should just be a ticket and a fine. More millennials and Gen-Xers think hate speech should be made illegal—as do women, blacks, and Hispanics. The various regions in the United States think roughly the same.

The fundamental problem with regulating hate speech is who defines it? The courts have generally shied away from restricting hate speech because of that issue. The most important U.S. Supreme Court case that could be applied is Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire, a 1942 decision in which the court put forth the “fighting words” restriction on speech.

Chaplinsky was arrested for provocative statements made in the town square. While being transported to the local police station, he called the town marshal “a damned fascist and a racketeer.”

Justice Frank Murphy defined fighting words: “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting, or ‘fighting’ words, those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”

But some legal scholars think the lower courts have defined fighting words in an inconsistent way, while others think the decision remains a threat to free speech.

Whatever the case, an arrest for using fighting words is a rarity. One happened a few years ago here in Philly when a local teacher got in a cop’s face and threatened him and his family.

An estimated 57% think that the government should be able to take action against newspapers and TV stations that publish content that is biased, inflammatory, or false. Only 35% disagree with the statement, with the rest undecided. Men and women poll about the same—as do various sections of the country. The only slight difference is that millennials rise to a level of 61%.

Surprisingly, in my view, the poll found that many think the government should impose jail time for those who publish fake news. A total of 56% said that journalists should only face a fine, but the other 46% said that actual jail time should be imposed on the offenders.

The implications of the poll seem obvious, but the ramifications not so much.

The poll does underline the antipathy of the public toward the media, and it comes from all age groups, geographic regions, income brackets, and races.

The media would be well served if they did not ignore the bitterness toward news organizations from just about every group.

The Media/Left’s most Churchillian Moment

As I watched things from the left media like this:

and this

and this

and of course this

Old friend Neo is a tad upset at these developments and so was I, then it hit me, there is one word that can be used to describe the reaction of the professional and media left to the successful raid to kill the head of ISIS

Churchillian

In fact this may be the most Churchillian thing thing the left has done in decades. Why? To understand my argument you have to remember that to the left Trump is Hitler, he’s Goebbles etc etc etc.

And if there is one thing that we all know about Sir Winston, is that as long as you are fighting Hitler you get a favorable reference, I quote:

“If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”

So it’s simple logic

  • Churchill makes favorable references to those who Hitler attacks
  • Trump = Hitler
  • Trump attacks Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi
  • Media makes favorable references to Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi
  • Media = Churchill

It’s a simple rational deduction.

I predict this is the last Churchillian thing that the left will ever do.

Under the Fedora: Stein’s Sin, Mayor Pete’s Dodge, MSNBC holds the line, as does Twitter, but the pros do it best

I was rather shocked when I saw this from Jill Stein:

You know, you can’t just slander people. You have to present some basis and fact.

I’m shocked SHOCKED as must be many regular CNN viewers who watched this at the concept that you have to actually have a basis of fact to accuse people of things. That’s contrary to the entire gameplan of Democrats and their media allies for decades.

How DARE she invade the CNN safe space and suggest such a thing!


If this wasn’t bad enough Jake Tapper pressed Mayor Pete Buttgieg on the same network on the question of Tulsi Gabbard in the same context:

“Right. But do you think Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset?” Tapper pressed again, asking directly.


“I don’t know what the basis is for that,” Buttigieg sidestepped again. “But I consider her to be a competitor. I respect her service and have very different views than she does on foreign policy and I would prefer to have that argument in terms of debates and going forward.”


Tapper pushed back, asking why Democrats defended people when Trump smeared them but didn’t seem motivated to defend Gabbard from similar attacks from other Democrats, no matter how wild.

Not only do we have the spectacle of CNN viewers having the sacred concept of Democrats smearing opponents challenged twice in one week but you have an interviewer directly challenging a liberal gay man running for high office on his position. Unthinkable!

Maybe these O’Keefe CNN videos are having an effect after all.


Of course if you are a liberal snowflake and unable to cope with this kind of direct challenge to the liberal smear machine you till have MSNBC

A panel on MSNBC Live mocked Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard for not explicitly denying Hillary Clinton’s accusation that she is a Russian asset.
Clinton, 71, 
said that the Hawaii congresswoman is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party spoiler candidate in 2020 to help President Trump win reelection. Gabbard has since hit back at the 2016 presidential candidate.
“One thing that was interesting about Tulsi Gabbard’s response, I mean she went after Hillary Clinton strong, she said she wasn’t going to run as a third party candidate, she never denied being a Russian asset,” Kimberly Atkins of WBUR said while beginning to laugh on the show Saturday morning. “That was the one aspect that was missing from her response, which you think that would be in the first line or two. It was not there.”

At least the traditions and standards of the left’s attack machine are still sacrosanct somewhere.


I should also note said liberal standards are being held up by Twitter as well:

Maybe it was this next post that did him in. Everyone knows you’re not allowed to challenge the new gender theology. “These are both me. Sometimes I like looking like and androgynous emaciated albino space vampire. Sometimes I like looking like a strung out 90’s computer hacker. Sometimes I feel more gay vampire, sometimes I feel more sk8r boi. Guess what? That doesn’t make me my own special gender.”

That’s gay writer and model Mike Harlow before being permanently banned from twitter supposedly for “harassment” but more likely for being part of the #walkaway movement. Some think this is an attack on gays thinking for themselves but I object to that characterization:

There are plenty of straight folks that Twitter has banned for thinking for themselves, but generally it’s not so much a question of them thinking for themselves but for having the potential to influence others to do so as well.


Finally when it comes to seeing how properly repressing speech one doesn’t like is done you have to go to the pros:

A Facebook post that criticized Islam’s Prophet Muhammad sparked a riot in southern Bangladesh on Sunday that left at least four people dead.
Hundreds of Muslims took to the streets in the town of Borhanuddin, 195 kilometers (120 miles) from the capital Dhaka, to protest the offensive social media post allegedly written by a Hindu man.
A local official said a meeting was held on Sunday to try to defuse the tensions that began Friday as the Facebook post gained traction.

But the angry protesters started attacking security officials, prompting them to retaliate.

Now in fairness to the left’s minor league Rasputins with Islam becoming more and more a force in the Democrat party the day will likely come when posts like this are the excuse for Democrats to riot become the norm

Of course you have to disarm the targets of your violence first.

Why doesn’t the left cheer when they’re wrong about bad things too?

A few days ago I lead with a post about some apparent insanity in a school district in NH that I had seen at a site I frequent. Turns out the info in question was incorrect & I missed an email warning me of same so the post in question went up as scheduled.

When I saw the email I added an update as follows:

Update: Got a heads up that suggests there might be less to this than meets the eye, While that might be embarrassing for me it would be delightful as it would indicate that insanity does not reign at the school in question and that’s more important that a post getting hits. I don’t believe in pulling posts as it changes the record so for now I’m going to put the base post under a “more” tag until I get more data. For now we’ll wait and see and if a correction is warranted I’ll update the post with it.

Long story short the info was incorrect the author apologized to the people in question. I provided a 2nd update joining in said apology and rejoicing that the school in question was not in fact insane. As it’s likely who saw the 1st post but might never check it again a fresh post linking to the mea culpa was the proper and honorable thing to do which was the primary reason for this post.

Then it hit me. The reason why I wrote the base post was I don’t want public schools to be acting insane and the purpose of said post was to hold up a light to such behavior to stop this school & others from acting that way.

Thus when it turned out this school wasn’t doing so I was very happy regardless of any embarrassment from an erroneous post because my primary goal is schools not acting insane.

This is not the case with the Democrat/left media. Think about it for a second

  • The media/left went all in on the idea of a Supreme Court Nominee being a sexual predator, then the evidence showed the accusations were not credible
  • The media/left went all in on the idea that the President of the United State was colluding with Russia to steal an election, and even with an independent council, a staff full of partisans, the assistant AG working against the president it turned out their suspicions were unfounded.
  • The media/left went all in as various colleges being bastions of “rape culture with claims that as many as 25% of the women attending were assaulted but it turned out that the methodology of the studies and the definitions of assault were so stretched as to be meaningless.
  • The media/left went all in on various race hoaxes being furious that various individuals, some involving celebs, particularly at colleges were a bunch of racists and white supremacists, yet over and over these turned out to be hoaxes.

Now supposedly the left and media and the guests they brought in did this because they didn’t want a serial sexual predator on the supreme courts or a President conspiring with Russia, colleges being bastions of rape, gay black TV starts threatened with nooses or racist acts being committed all over the nation. That being the case all of these things turning out to be false should be cause for celebration for the left who can breathe a sigh of relief that none of these things that they considered beyond the pale had happened.

Yet instead their reaction has been at best been too ignore when such hoaxes are exposed as such or at worst to continue to insist they are true despite evidence to the contrary.

Now if you work under the assumption that the goal of the media/left is to prevent such behavior then you might be utterly confused at this reaction as it makes no logical sense.

However if you work from the assumption that the primary goal of the left/media is POWER and or WEALTH and that in search of said power & wealth the events and actions that they supposedly deplore are used to generate both the funds to gain them and the means to retain them, well it makes perfect sense.

To them the the only “crisis” in government is when they don’t control it and the only “abuse” of power is if it not in their hands. Work under that assumption and all the left/media does and you will never be shocked or surprised by anything they do ever again.

Fake news and me

One of my daughter’s colleagues recently asked me if I worked as a journalist.

“No,” I replied. “Neither am I a mass murderer.”

It wasn’t exactly like Peter denying Christ three times. But I am no longer proud of the job I did for more than 20 years and have taught students to do for nearly 25 years.

Although I have had a variety of difficulties with the mainstream media in recent years, I hadn’t jumped completely on the fake news bandwagon until the Ukrainian phone call and impeachment. The media in American have become so shrill–a partisan press without a purpose other than to attack Trump. That doesn’t apply to all reporters and editors, but I think it applies to a significant number, particularly among the media elite.

As a result, journalism has fallen on hard times in the eyes of the public. It’s been a long time since journalists have been held in high esteem, but many people looked to the news media to provide some insight into the issues of the day.

Every morning, I start my day by reading several websites, including The Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. I’ll usually check CNN and Fox News and may listen to the radio talk shows for 30 minutes or so.

I don’t read many opinion pieces because I find the analysis wanting, particularly from DaTimes and DaPost. It seems like all they want to do launch a new screed against Donald Trump.

Over the past decade or so, I have been advocating a change in how news organizations go about their business. The old standards of fairness, balance, objectivity, and a few others have been long gone from what I see.

In my view, the tenets should emphasize accuracy, transparency, and professionalism.

Transparency is one that sticks in the craw of most journalists. I want their political views, campaign contributions, past history of advocacy, and even tax records available to readers and viewers—much of which reporters and editors ask of politicians.

Michael Schudson, the noted analyst of journalism, wrote recently in The Columbia Journalism Review, that the issues transcend the current battle between the press and Trump.

“[T]he old days of ritually objective news reporting (he said/she said) are not gone but have been reduced in importance from the 1970s on, as mainstream outlets have increasingly emphasized analysis in news coverage—not quite so much ‘who, what, when, where’ as ‘why.’ There has been a profound cultural shift in journalism during this period. The limitations of straitjacketed objectivity came to be understood and journalism began to embrace the necessity of interpretation, as both quantitative studies and journalists’ recollections attest,” Schudson wrote.

“News organizations should have to explain themselves—to communicate the difference between the news department and the editorial page (more than a quarter of Americans do not understand the distinction); to show how they gather their news; to clarify why they sometimes cannot divulge their sources,” he added.

I hope journalists will listen to Schudson because I have failed in my mission to convince my former and current colleagues.

Whatever the case, I am no longer proud to call myself a journalist. I don’t think I am alone.

Review: Season 5 of Peaky Blinders

By John Ruberry

Earlier this month Season 5 of Peaky Blinders arrived on Netflix. If you haven’t heard of the BBC show, it centers on a Gypsy organized crime gang from Birmingham, England.

The Peaky Blinders are named for the razor blades the actual hoodlums,-they were an 1890s gang–wore in their flat caps.

The television Peaky Blinders, who usually refer to themselves as the Shelby Company, Ltd., are led by Thomas “Tommy” Shelby (Cillian Murphy), a World War I veteran. The first season takes place in 1919, Season 5 begins in the auspicious year of 1929.

Tommy, at the end of Season 4, is elected to Parliament as a member of the Labour Party.

A new season of course brings a new primary villain, this time it’s Sir Oswald Mosley (Sam Claflin), a minor member of the British nobility who also sits in the House of Commons. If you are American, it’s likely that you’ve never heard of Mosley, but he’s one of the most notorious figures of 20th century Great Britain. He didn’t go as far as Benedict Arnold did during the American Revolution, but had the Nazis defeated Britain in World War II, it’s probable that Mosley would have been prime minister—with Edward VIII restored to the throne. A 2005 poll of British historians determined that Mosley was the Worst Briton of the 20th century. Jack the Ripper took the title for the 19th. Mosley not surprisingly was a virulent anti-Semite.

Sir Oswald pursues Tommy as an ally while Winston Churchill (Neil Maskew) does the same. Maskew is the third actor to portray Churchill in this series. What’s up with that?

The Black Tuesday Wall Street Crash puts pressure on the rest of the Blinders, particularly Michael Gray (Finn Cole), who in the first episode of the season awakens from a stupor in Detroit to learn that the Shelby Company money he invested in America has evaporated. He wants a bigger say in the family business, as does his American wife (Anya Taylor-Joy). The family matriarch, Polly Gray (Helen McCrory), Michael’s mother, continues to struggle to keep the family from tearing itself apart, and their battles now directly effect her lover, Aberama Gold (Aidan Gillen). Tommy’s older brother, Arthur, continues to battle his “animal inside me.” While Tommy and Mosley, politically speaking, court each other, the Peaky Blinders face a new foe, the Billy Boys, a Scottish Protestant gang, who joyously sing their fight song, which is based on the melody of “Marching Through Georgia.” The Billy Boys hate Gypsies and Catholics–the Shelbys are both.

Peaky Blinders has always played loose with history. Lighten up, though, it’s fiction!

On the other hand…

As 1929 winds down, Mosely announces the formation of a new political party, the British Union of Fascists. But after leaving Labour, the real Mosley first formed another new party, called, well, the New Party. After that came his fascist party. I bring this up because in his introductory speech as leader of the BUF, Mosley, complaining about Indian competition forcing the closing of British textile mills, sounds a bit like Donald Trump, with a dash of UK Independence Party founder Nigel Farage thrown in. I’m not a fan of historical parallels with the present, particularly when it comes to individuals. And I get it, many people believe in “Orange Man Bad.” But sheesh, can TV scriptwriters give us a break from that for once?

I see Season 5, quality wise, as a step back for Peaky Blinders, but better than the Russian sinkhole two seasons back. But a Season 6 apparently is in the works, and maybe even a seventh. And perhaps we will see a couple of other men portray Churchill. The 1930s offers many plotlines as the world marches again to war. Still, even a below-par Peaky Blinders is worth your time.

Peaky Blinders is rated MA. It contains graphic violence, drug use, and overt sexual activity.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Kurds oh Vey, NBAin’ts , CNN Comedy, Byron York Nails it and one Quibble with Stacy under the Fedora

I must say that I’m not all that sure about the removal of US troops in northern Syria. As a general principle I don’t trust the Turks and I suspect that the Russians, Iranians nor the Syrian government have any interest in stopping Turkey from going after the Kurds who have been good friends to us. It’s generating a lot of critique and I think said critique is valid

It’s possible that this is just part of the standard Trump doctrine of disengagement when possible, it’s also possible that there is a bigger deal that has been made concerning Turkey that I’m unaware of (possibly concerning Israel and a deal there) but we really don’t know. My gut says it’s the wrong move but Potus has played a pretty good hand so far so I’m going to see how the cards fall before I go insane over it.


I’m a little pleased at the unity among left & right in the critique of the NBA over their kowtowing to China over a tweet on Hong Kong. When you’ve got Ted Cruz, Beto O’Rourke, Julian Castro, Rick Scott, Allahpundit, Rick Wilson and I all on the same page that’s really something.

The irony of NBA champs unwilling to go to the White House but NBA stars wiling to beg China’s forgiveness for one man’s support of the people of Hong Kong tells us all we need to know about the virtue signaling league and the degree of respect it deserves.


Was at the Happy Jack’s Buffet yesterday enjoying the all you can eat prime rib (yes you read that right) in it when I noticed CNN continuing to go over the top on Trump and impeachment in their on screen blurbs on one of the big screen which thankfully had no sound.

This is what happens when you decide to serve a niche market They simply aren’t trying anymore because it’s all about keeping said niche market happy. They’ve become a giant liberal infomercial and are just as informative and reliable.

Kinda sad.


Byron York has noticed something interesting about the so called “impeachment hearings“:

The hearings are part of an effort to remove the president from office. There could not be a matter of more pressing public concern. There could not be a matter in which the American people have a greater stake. And yet the public has no idea what is being discovered.
Last week’s sessions weren’t just secret. They were super-secret. The first hearing, in which the witness was former Ukraine special envoy Kurt Volker, was held in what is known as a SCIF, which stands for sensitive compartmented information facility. It is a room in the Capitol built to be impervious to electronic surveillance so that lawmakers can discuss the nation’s most important secrets without fear of discovery.
The second hearing, in which Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson testified, was also held in the SCIF.
Were highly classified matters discussed at the Volker and Atkinson hearings? Apparently not. Neither interview was classified. And even if some classified information were involved, it would be astonishing for Democrats to believe they could attempt to remove the president on the basis of information that is not available to the public.

I think it’s not astounding at all. If those hearing were public the networks that have been hyping them would be obliged to carry information that is devastating to their narrative. And while the number of viewers who would actually watch them are small, the amount of video it would provide to the Trump campaign illustrating that there is no “there” there would be more than the media/left could bear.


Finally while I would highly recommend Stacy McCain’s latest essay (he’s really been on a roll lately btw) I’d like to take issue with one impression that it gives.

Stacy’s history, particularly about the Hartford convention and New England being afraid of losing power is impeccable as are his assertions concerning Slavery in history and the left’s use of this for political purposes today. It leaves the impression that slavery itself was not the driving cause of the division and the Civil War which it produced.

This is a pet peeve of mine. In every way shape and form slavery was the driving force behind the American Civil War. If you read the newspapers of the era, the speeches of the era and the magazines of the era there can be no doubt that this was the case. Were there other issues involved as well, without question. Were the motives of some pushing abolition less that pure, I’d be shocked if it were otherwise. But let’s acknowledge the simple fact slavery was the engine that drive drove the separation and the war that followed.