It’s No Mystery , It’s Still the Tom Hagen Math (and Business)

Tom Hagen: Right now we have the unions and we have the gambling and those are the best things to have. But narcotics is a thing of the future. If we don’t get a piece of that action we risk everything we have. Not now, but ten years from now.

The Godfather 1972

I’ve been seeing a lot of articles on the sudden discovery that the Democrats don’t seem to care too much for Jews

Omar, a Muslim Somali-American elected last week to replace outgoing Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn.) in the House, fought accusations that she held anti-Israel views during her campaign. As part of that effort, she told a group of Jewish voters in the state that she opposed the economic boycott of Israel, calling it “counteractive” and “not helpful in getting that two-state solution.”

But Omar’s tune has changed since winning the election. In an interview published Sunday by MuslimGirl, Omar said she “supports the BDS movement.”

“Ilhan believes in and supports the BDS movement, and has fought to make sure people’s right to support it isn’t criminalized,” her campaign told MuslimGirl, which said Omar had been criticized for coming out against BDS. Omar’s campaign also pointed MuslimGirl to her vote against an anti-BDS bill in Minnesota’s state legislature and her argument that boycott movements were successful in South Africa.

Some say it’s the Socialism and comes straight from Marx:

Louis Farrakhan in his ‘Jews are termites’ mode? Nope. That’s old Karl himself in his classic anti-Semitic effusion of 1843, ‘On the Jewish Question.’

It’s worth keeping Marx’s views in mind as you ponder the rise of figures like Ilhan Omar, the young and comely Somali refugee who just took Keith Ellison’s House seat in Minnesota. Like many new Democrats, Omar was nurtured by the far-left Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. ‘Israel has hypnotized the world,’ Omar said on Twitter, ‘may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.’

Then there is the man she replaced, Keith Ellison, now the Attorney General-elect of Minnesota. ‘We can’t allow another country to treat us like we’re their ATM,’ Ellison said of Israel. ‘That country has mobilized its Diaspora in America to do its bidding in America.’

And let’s not forget the Democrat ‘It Girl’ herself, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has gone back and forth on the question of whether Israel has a right to exist at all but has been as never-varying as Dewar’s Scotch in referring to Israel’s ‘occupation’ of Palestine.

And in fairness a few have been sounding the alarm for a while

Minnesota Rep-elect Ilhan Omar presents as a case study in the way the Democrats hate now. I have pursued the case study for Power Line readers in numerous posts as well as for Weekly Standard readers in “The anti-Israel seat” and City Journal readers in “A question for Democrats.” I wrote all the most prominent Minnesota Democrats I could think of for their comment on the Omar case. To a man and woman, they all rested on their right to remain silent.

David Harsanyi took up Omar’s case this week in the New York Post column “Here’s the anti-Semitism the media doesn’t want to mention.” Citing Power Line, he has now followed up his New York Post column with the Federalist column “Ilhan Omar’s Election Shows Democrats Aren’t Interested In Confronting Anti-Semitism.” Indeed, from Omar’s case we may infer that Democrats are becoming purveyors of anti-Semitism.

But even as anti-Trump Nazis continue to cause grief it worth reminding everyone that all of this is entirely predictable, Why?  Simple Math:

Right now the left has the Gays and the Transgenders and the Hollywood elites & media in which they are overrepresented and they figure that’s the best things to have, but in America Islam is a thing of the future.  In 20 years the children of Muslims now being raised on the tenets of Sharia law in America will be old enough to vote and Democrats going to make sure they get those votes when the time come, not now but 10-20 years from now.

The math is still the math and as Islam becomes a growth industry for the left American Jews who are now asking for clarification from folks like Omar sound a lot like a phenom I’ve seen before:

  if there is one thing that human beings have an incredible capacity for, it’s self delusion and for a very long time there will be plenty of Jewish democrats who remain in denial even as their children attending elite colleges find themselves treated as second class citizens if ever and whenever they try to acknowledge and celebrate their Jewish identity and hide it due to fear.  It’s very much like some elderly faithful Catholics who somehow haven’t gotten through their heads that this is not the democrat party of JFK or Tip O’Neill anymore.

The Democrats will leave American non-religious jews (or “Plop Jews” as comic Evan Sayet calls them) behind as they continue to court the Muslim  vote, however said Jews I suspect will be in denial and will accept ” explanations” and “clarifications” that will keep the dollars flowing right up until the point where Democrats decide that even their funds aren’t needed anymore and when they find themselves isolated and rejected with only the GOP as a safe haven, they’ll somehow blame Trump.

Ironic final thought:  In one respect this is exactly how a representative republic is supposed to work, when a particular group gains in power or population their views, even ones beyond the pale tend to get respect as the parties vie for their vote.  Now if we still had a country where both parties signed onto the same Judeo-Christian culture the price of acceptance would be rejecting views that dehumanize Jews in general and Israel in particular, but as the left has largely abandoned that culture, an effort led by many of the same liberals who now wonder why their party suddenly finds them expendable,  the fruits of the poison tree of their Marxian labors are slowing becoming ripe.

Jeffrey Epstein Hillary Clinton Election 2020 & DaTechGuy’s Laws of Media outrage

On Wednesday I noticed this on twitter concerning Jeffrey Epstein and the Miami Herald:

The Miami Herald has put together a bombshell of an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and prosecutors who negotiated a sealed plea arrangement that allowed the billionaire to only spend a year in jail and avoid prosecution for allegedly sexually assaulting dozens of underage girls in what the paper described as a “sex pyramid scheme.”

As yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the blog, the name instantly brought back memories of days gone past, some very LONG past.

It’s axiomatic that sex sells so when you combine the words: “Private Island”, “Lawsuit” & “Orgies” you have a story that normally is guaranteed viral:

Tales of orgies and young girls being shipped to the island, called Little St. James, have been revealed as part of an ongoing lawsuit between Epstein and his former lawyers Scott Rothstein and Bradley Edwards.

That was from April 2014 and the entire gist of the piece titled

Private Islands, Orgies, Bill Clinton? Nothing to see here

was how this story did not go viral because it involved Bill Clinton:

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.

The real exclamation point to this argument came two years later in May of 2016 when on Morning Joe, Donny Deutch explained why the left’s attacks on Donald Trump vis a vis women could backfire because of the magic words: Jeffrey Epstein

“Here’s the tennis game,” Deutsch said. “Donald Trump kissed a woman in a bathing suit. Trump hits back: Tell me about the president’s relationship with a guy named Jeffrey Epstein. That’s your tennis match.”

and the entire Morning Joe table reacted, not in words but by their faces:

well take a look at the video and two things become immediately clear.

Everybody at the Table knows who Jeffery Epstein is, and what the story is

Nobody at the table wanted to talk about it

In fact they SO didn’t want to talk about it that NBC put in a copyright claim on the video that the Washington Free Beacon had excerpted in their piece thus hiding this previously viral video from anyone who didn’t remember the day, the segment and how to navigate the byzantine labyrinth of their embed system.  As I put it at the time:

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

Go to the Morning Joe site

Hit search taking you to the MSNBC search engine

Search for Donald Trump

Narrow the field to Morning Joe

Narrow the field to May 16th 2016

and sit through all the videos till you find the right one.

And skip ahead to the 12 minute mark on that video.

If you do so you CAN find the clip and watch the Morning Joe panel’s reaction to what Donny Deutsch says

All of this was of course completely consistent with DaTechGuy’s 1st law of media outrage which states

The level of Outrage or interest of the media and their allies on the left concerning any insult or prevarication concerning a person or thing will routinely be equal to the inverse of the degree of the political distance between said media / leftists and and the target of said insult or prevarication at the time it is made.

In this case we were talking an action rather than an insult or prevarication but the law fits.  There was no political distance between the left and Bill Clinton and a clear connection to Mr. Epstein, therefore the level of interest or outrage concerning Mr. Epstein’s actions concerning underage women were consequently zero.

So what changed the equation more than two years later?  This is partially answered by this line in the story at Twitchy (emphasis mine):

Since Epstein is linked to both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump and since the prosecutor who gave him the sweetheart deal is current Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta, we imagine we’ll be hearing a lot more about it in the coming weeks.

So there is a now a Trump/administration connection to be exploited here, but even so, Mr. Acosta has been secretary of labor for eighteen months and the Weinstein revelation and the #metoo have been a thing since at least Oct of 2017.  Why wait a full year to go there, particularly when a scandal involving a Florida republican might have been useful to bring up before a critical 2018 Florida election, an election that Democrats lost?

The answer comes from a seemingly unrelated story in the Hill from last month

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during an event over the weekend left the door open to a possible 2020 run, saying that even though she doesn’t want to run, “I’d like to be president.” 

Clinton’s comments come as speculation has increased over whether she will launch another bid after the midterm elections….

She added that she’s not going to think about a possible run until after the midterm elections next month. 

Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, announced this month that they will be embarking on a 13-city tour over the next year, hosting discussions about current events and politics across the country.

There are a lot of Democrats who are thinking of running in 2020 who believe they can beat Donald Trump but of all those potential 2020 candidates Hillary Clinton is unique as she is only one who we can say with complete certainty that President Trump is capable of defeating because he’s already done so once.

As the media primary purpose is to elect Democrats, it is in their interest and of course in the interest of every single other potential Democrat candidate that Hillary is NOT the 2020 Democrat nominee.  The problem of course is finding a way to shall we say persuade Hillary and Bill that a 2nd run for President is a bad idea without risking her wrath by a direct attack?

That’s where Jeffrey Epstein and DaTechGuy’s 2nd Law of Media outrage comes into play:

The level of acceptance of the positions and/or actions of any group or organization by the left and media is directly proportional to their current or potential value in electing liberal Democrats.

If the MSM thought a Hillary Clinton for President 2020 run was good for democrats then the Jeffrey Epstein story would remain on open Washington secret only to be mentioned by conservative bloggers who can be banned by twitter or whose traffic can be manipulated by Google.

But with Bill and Hillary Clinton’s potential value in electing liberal Democrats in 2020 low or perhaps even negative, the media can, and indeed MUST expose the sweetheart deal that Mr. Epstein received at the hand of prosecutors years ago not because of their faux outrage over Epstein acts but because of their desire to win in 2020.

You might think that’s a rather cynical opinion, and 10 years ago today I might not have held it, but as I said yesterday:

There is an old saying that familiarity breeds contempt and nothing has increased by contempt for the MSM then observing them closely for 10 years except for one thing, that is being in the room with them as credentialed press and simply watching and listening to what they say and do. 

After 10 years of watching these folks in action I submit and suggest that no other opinion is possible.

********************

—————–

if you think this site is still worth supporting after 10 years please consider kicking in here:



Or even better subscribing.


Choose a Subscription level


Or buying my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer

Either way it’s most appreciated.

 

Will a defeated left turn to Violence & Civil War? Only if they’re stupider than I think

Bring it on

Andrew Breitbart

Last week I wrote that For the Left November 6th 2018 is going to make November 8th 2016 Look like a Mild Disappointment

Think about it. You’ve got Hollywood, the media, the Tech giants and big education behind you. You’ve got tends of millions of dollars being spent in races all over the country and you and yours. you’ve got every possible advantage going your way. Add to that you and your allies are completely energized and engaged, literally counting the days until the election so you can defeat Donald Trump…

…and you STILL lose.

How will they deal with the realization that their anger, rage and panic over Donald Trump is not shared by the voting public?

While the meltdown will be fun to watch when it’s all done a much more serious moment will arrive.

Having failed to realize that their tactics and message aren’t working and in fact might be costing them power the Democrat/left will have to make one of three choices.

The first and the smart choice would be to moderate, to realize that socialism and open boarders are not a winning policy, to decide that people who worship God are not a bunch of dunces and make an honest attempt to recruit candidates who can appeal to the general public instead of the gender studies department of an expensive university. This would be the smart thing politically and give the Democrats a chance to rebuild.

This is the right thing and the smart thing both long term and short term and therefore I suspect the Democrat left, deeply rooted in unreality will not do it.


The second choice is denial as described in this piece at bearing arms:

It’s also possible that a couple of wins for Democrats in the right places–such as the Florida governor’s race, where the Democrat holds a strong lead over his opponent–might be enough to stave off the destruction for a time. Instead, what wins there are will be spun as evidence that the tide is turning against President Trump and that it’s a huge victory for the left.

Now I think the Democrat lead in Florida is smoke and mirrors but let’s say they do well in that state and maybe Wisconsin, then they might go this route on the theory that it allows them to not have to make the decision to moderate yet, after all two years in an eternity in politics and a million different things could happen with Trump, the economy et/al.  The advantage of this plan is it keeps the confrontation with their new base from taking place which amazingly consists of groups whose stated goals are diametrically opposed to wit:

Expect the Democrat establishment and media to play this card if humanly possible the real question is: will the base go along with it?   I’m betting not so much but in terms of what’s best for the country it’s better than the third option.


And that third option is riots and violence and perhaps even attempts to provoke civil war.

Now some of you might think this is nonsense and I wish to God you were right. But for the last several years we have seen as illustrated by ace the whole “kill trump” meme condoned and celebrated by the left.  Antifa has been cheered and authority ceded to them in leftist cities.  Violence and intimidation, as long as it is directed against conservatives has been either minimized, condoned or ignored while at the same time in the media, in the university and all over social media platforms and from Hollywood we have had the left insist that Donald Trump and anyone who supports him is a Nazi or worse whose ultimate aim is the most vile and violent acts against them.

Is it any wonder that we see stuff like this:

stated openly, without critique, without rebuke and without any risk to reputation or employment because of the hope that such a statement might generate one more vote for Democrats nationwide?

So when this defeat takes place and those fools who have bought into this narrative of Trump and his supporters are out to get them and must be stopped the violent left, seeing that the electoral process won’t get them power will now decide that the actual physical destruction of their foes is the only option to save them?

There is a real chance that the Antifa / Black Lives Matter crowd will decide to escalate into violence in the tradition of the Weathermen and the Black Panthers.  This possibility has disaster written all over it for Democrats as it has three inherent problems.

The first it’s unlikely to be embraced by black and Hispanics voters enjoying prosperity:

As a group, DILEs [Democratic/Independent Liberal Elites]  are younger, whiter, richer and better-educated than the rest of the country. Strikingly, it is the only cohort across the political spectrum not to rank jobs and the economy as a top priority, preferring the environment and climate change. Polls show that people like Winston’s DILEs are also far less religious and far more socially liberal than the rest of the Democratic Party on issues like abortion and LGBT rights. 

If you’ve seen ANTIFA up close you’ll notice right away that they’re whiter than wonder bread and are charter members of the DILE crowd.  A bunch of white elites in masks breaking things won’t win over blacks and Hispanics who now have jobs and want to keep them.

The second problem of course is that if the black lives matter crowd descends into violence (and some might argue that this has already happened in some cities it  but the MSM has decided it’s a “local issue” and not reported on it) justifying it per the results of election 2018 it will even further hurt the left in swing districts that they need to win in 2020 and beyond and further drive minority voters, more interested in getting ahead in the best economic times in years, to the party that’s providing it.

But the real kicker is if this violence comes it will almost certainly be directed in cities controlled by the left that haven’t seen a GOP mayor or city council in decades, because if the left as a group decides that violent revolution is a good idea they will find that directing it against conservatives in areas where conservatives are solicitous of their 2nd amendment rights will not end well for them.

And while the left might believe another “Kent State” might be useful electorally, particularly if instead of troops or police, shots are fired by Trump voters , unlike the last once they won’t control the message.

Kent State was a watershed for the left because their narrative was the providence of an anti-war media trusted by a nation who were able to sell it to them unopposed.  A “Kent State where these is cellphone video of the crowd attacking citizens or police with violent force before being countered by force is very different narrative than one the left wants to build.  In the age of the selfie a media tarnished by the “fake news” moniker isn’t going to get the public to buy violent protesters as victims.

The reality is the violent extremists of the left are primary a threat not to the right but to the left.  Mr. Cromwell might be right about blood in the streets but it will likely be Democrat blood in Democrat streets and I suspect that once the Democrat elites realize that said blood threatens them they’ll want no part of it.  I suspect any such rampage will end with the amusing spectacle of Democrat mayors and or Democrat governors begging President Trump for help as people who have lived comfortably in the Kindergarten of Eden who scream “Nazi” at the sight of Donald Trump discover the difference between pretend danger and violence and the real thing.

Perhaps those screaming “revolution” should ask themselves:  Are you really going to raise an Army to overthrow Donald Trump out of a lot of rich pampered kids who need safe spaces and counseling if Steven Crowder shows up to speak at their college?  I don’t think so.

But if I’m wrong and the left does go this route it will certainly be interesting to watch the Nancy Pelosi’s Bernie Sanders and Maxine Waters of the world try to put the monster they have unleashed back it it’s cage.  It will be even more interesting when they come crawling to Trump to do it for them.