Trump says thing that no other Republican will say. His statements often get at some underlying truth that is recognized by most reasonable people, Left or Right. It is the kernel of truth, and his willingness to express it, that drives the MSM and the Left to distraction. It is a beautiful thing to watch.

President Trump:

“…No. And you should see the horrible things that Tlaib has said about Israel, and “AOC plus three.” That’s what I call it. “AOC” – just take “AOC plus three.” And you should see the things that the four of them have said about Israel over the last couple of years.

I mean, Omar is a disaster for Jewish people. I can’t imagine, if she has any Jewish people in her district, that they could possibly vote for her. But what Omar has said, what Tlaib has said.

And then, yesterday, I noticed for the first time, Tlaib with the tears. All of a sudden, she starts with tears. Tears. And I don’t buy it. I don’t buy it. I don’t buy it for a second because I’ve seen her in a very vicious mood at campaign rallies – my campaign rallies – before she was a congresswoman. I said, “Who is that?” And I saw a woman that was violent and vicious and out of control.

And all of a sudden, I see this person who’s crying because she can’t see her grandmother. She can see her grandmother. They have her permission to see her grandmother, but she grandstanded and she didn’t want to do it.

So, that’s a decision of Israel. That’s not – a lot of people are saying that was my decision. That’s a decision of – of Israel. They can let them in if they want, but I don’t think they want to. When you read the things that they’ve said about Israel – how bad. And if you look at their itinerary before they found out – you take a look at their itinerary, that was all going to be a propaganda tour against Israel.

So, I don’t blame Israel for doing what they did. I have nothing to do with it. But I don’t blame them for doing what they did. I think it would’ve been very bad to let them in, including the four – I’m talking about all four – but these two that wanted to get in: Omar and Tlaib.

And I think it would be a very bad thing for Israel, but Israel has to do what they want to do. But I would not cut off aid to Israel. And I can’t even believe that we’re having this conversation.

Five years ago, the concept of even talking about this – even three years ago – of cutting off aid to Israel because of two people that hate Israel and hate Jewish people – I can’t believe we’re even having this conversation. Where has the Democratic Party gone? Where have they gone where they’re defending these two people over the State of Israel?

And I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty…”

Original

CNN’s Wajahat Ali: White Supremacists Are “Coming For All Of Us,” Trump “Will Not Win”

Mentally ill

Gabbard is smart, pretty, aggressive, and I disagree with almost everything she says. I like her.

Michael Tracey:

“…Tulsi Gabbard is on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic presidential debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd.

Take, for instance, her poll standing in New Hampshire, which currently places Gabbard at 3.3% support, according to the RealClearPolitics average as of Aug. 20. One might suspect that such a figure would merit inclusion in the upcoming debates — especially considering she’s ahead of several candidates who have already been granted entry, including Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Yang. But the Democratic National Committee has decreed that the polls constituting this average are not sufficiently “qualifying.”

What makes a poll “qualifying” in the eyes of the DNC? The answer is conspicuously inscrutable. Months ago, party chieftains issued a list of “approved sponsoring organizations/institutions” for polls that satisfy their criteria for debate admittance. Not appearing on that list is the Boston Globe, which sponsored a Suffolk University poll published Aug. 6 that placed Gabbard at 3%. The DNC had proclaimed that for admittance to the September and October debates, candidates must secure polling results of 2% or more in four separate “approved” polls — but a poll sponsored by the newspaper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire (the Globe recently surpassed the New Hampshire Union Leader there) does not count, per this cockamamie criteria. There has not been an officially qualifying poll in New Hampshire, Gabbard’s best state, in over a month.

The absurdity mounts. A South Carolina poll published Aug. 14 by the Post and Courier placed Gabbard at 2%. One might have again vainly assumed that the newspaper with the largest circulation in a critical early primary state would be an “approved” sponsor per the dictates of the DNC, but it is not. Curious.

To recap: Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in two polls sponsored by the two largest newspapers in two early primary states, but the DNC — through its mysteriously incoherent selection process — has determined that these surveys do not count toward her debate eligibility. Without these exclusions, Gabbard would have already qualified…”

Original

JOHN KASS:

“…What was the embittered left — Democratic presidential candidates and their media allies — supposed to do when their hopes of Russia-Trump collusion crashed on the boulevard of broken dreams?

Pivot.

They had invested so much in their fantasy that President Donald Trump was a treasonous agent of Russian boss Vladimir Putin. But when special counsel Robert Mueller’s report came out, and there was no collusion, no crime charged, their fantasy collapsed.

And so, after a brief spasm of despair, the left pivoted to their default position: race.

Race. Race. Race. Race. Race.

With Americans working and with money in their pockets again, with the 2020 election approaching, Democrats are reaching for the race card the way a sick man reaches for the waters of Lourdes. Desperately. Their allies in media followed suit, with Trump called everything from a white supremacist, to a Nazi, and on and on…”

Original

The Roddie Edmonds post below made me think of this Churchill quote

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Gail Heriot:

“…ON THIS DAY IN 1919, RODDIE EDMONDS WAS BORN NEAR KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE:  Almost a century later, in 2015, he was posthumously recognized as “Righteous Among the Nations,” Israel’s highest honor for non-Jews who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust.

He never told his story to his friends or family. His son learned about it only after his father’s death.

Master Sergeant Roddie Edmonds’ unit was surrounded by the Nazis during the Battle of Bulge. While they held out as long as they could, they eventually surrendered on December 19, 1944. On January 27, 1945, Edmonds arrived at Stalag IX-A along with well over a thousand fellow POWs, all of them exhausted, dirty, half-starved, cold, and no doubt frightened. As the highest-ranking non-commissioned officer among them, he was in charge.

For reasons I cannot begin to understand, the camp commandant’s first priority was to separate the Jewish from the non-Jewish POWs. Germany’s defeat was all but certain by then; you’d think he’d have given it a rest. Nevertheless, as soon as Edmonds arrived with his men, the commandant ordered Edmonds to assemble all Jewish soldiers the next day so that they could be dealt with separately.

“We are not doing that. We are all falling out,” Edmonds’ men remember him saying to them. So instead, all of the American POWs assembled that morning. The irate commandant held a pistol to Edmond’s head and ordered him to identify the Jews: “They cannot all be Jews!”

“We are all Jews,” Edmonds replied.

Edmonds told him that if he wanted to kill the Jewish POWs, he was going to have to kill them all. He reminded him that there is such a thing as a war crime and that under the Geneva Conventions name, rank, and serial number are all you get, not religion.

Miraculously, the commandant relented.

The Jewish-American prisoners at the other camp—Stalag IX-B—were not as lucky. It’s not clear what the facts were there. By some accounts, Jewish prisoners were asked to identify themselves and the senior officers there urged cooperation. By other accounts, the Nazis picked out the prisoners who looked Jewish (along with prisoners who were identified as troublemakers). Both stories may be true. In any event, those selected were sent to a slave labor camp where the death rate was horrifically high, despite the fact that the war in Europe lasted only another 3 ½ months.

Jews were only about 2 or 3% of the American population at the time, but they were a higher percentage of the prisoners at Stalag IX-A.  Edmonds’ courage is thought to have saved about 200 lives that cold, winter morning. He was then, now, and forever an American hero…”

Original

RICH LOWRY:

“…Beto O’Rourke has taken the measure of America and found it wanting.

“This country, though we would like to think otherwise,” he intoned last weekend, “was founded on racism, has persisted through racism and is racist today.”

This is now a mainstream sentiment in the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders said earlier this year that the United States was “created” in large part “on racist principles.”

The New York Times has begun its so-called 1619 Project, marking the 400th anniversary of the importation of slaves from Africa.

The series seeks nothing less than “to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”…”

Original

The straight dope on recession

James Piereson:

“…In response to recent volatility in the stock market, rising prices (and declining yields) for U.S. Treasury bonds, and difficulties in the trade relationship between the United States and China, some pundits and politicians are forecasting a recession in the U.S., timed to coincide with the 2020 presidential election. The increasing volume of these forecasts is driven partly by partisan hopes that an economic slowdown gives Democrats the best opportunity to defeat President Trump next year. But hopes of this kind do not make for sound economic forecasts.

None of the major institutional forecasters is looking ahead to a recession in 2019 or 2020. The Conference Board, while recognizing risks to the economy, is still forecasting real GDP growth of 2.3 percent in 2019 and 2 percent in 2020. The International Monetary Fund, in a July report, forecasts global growth to expand to 3.5 percent in 2020, with the U.S. economy expected to expand at 1.9 percent. The most recent forecast of the Federal Open Market Committee calls for 2 percent growth in real GDP in 2020, compared with 2.1 percent in 2019. This is the conventional wisdom, to be sure, and such wisdom has often missed the mark, as we saw in 2007 and 2008. Nevertheless, these projections come from current economic indicators, none of which is signaling a recession in the months ahead.

The current economic environment—low and declining interest rates, stable prices, modest quarter-to-quarter economic growth, the absence of wars abroad—does not suggest a recession-oriented climate. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has adopted a policy of stabilizing or lowering interest rates, another factor likely to reduce the odds of recession. Recessions typically occur in settings of rapid economic growth and rising interest rates, combined with overly bullish forecasts for stocks and business profits. That’s not the situation today…”

Original

Heather Mac Donald:

Original

The MSM goes predictably insane. I think it is an interesting idea.

Kurt Schlichter:

“…It’s always good to occasionally leave deep blue west Los Angeles and visit the United States. When your congressjerk is Ted Lieu, you get a skewed perspective on the country as well as suffer continuous embarrassment. My recent travels through parts of the country that aren’t populated and controlled almost exclusively by liberal nimrods gave me some hope for the future. America as a whole does not appear eager to become Scat Francisco. The problem is the people who want to transform our entire country into a socialist open sewer know nothing of this country outside their reeking pinko enclaves…”

And, talking about his hometown, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania:

“…History is not a hypothetical there. John Brown did some of the planning for the raid on Harper’s Ferry in C-Burg, and the Democrats burned it twice in the first civil war they provoked. Just up the road is Gettysburg, and visiting that battlefield with my grandmother (who had met veterans of that war) was one of my earliest memories. The problem is that this real American history, if it was ever learned by them, has been forgotten by the liberal dummies who need to learn it the most.

The battlefield was full of visitors, but these were almost all Normals. The same was true at Mt. Vernon and Arlington – a whole bunch of middle American folks and very few hipsters or liberals. How could I tell? You can tell. You saw families and a lot of vets, and not a lot of people who don’t look like they can do push-ups wearing t-shirts for obscure bands while their gender-indeterminate partner wears a kitty hat…”

Original

What Will California Ban Next?

Democrats must act to protect us from…

STEPHEN KRUISER:

“…After weeks of barking “RACIST!” like trained seals, the media shifted to another “r” word over the weekend: recession.

Sure, they’ve been murmuring it here and there for a while now, but they really upped their narrative-pimping game with it over the weekend and it’s only going to get worse going forward, I promise.

Perhaps someone at Democrat Central finally figured out that their “all racism, all the time” platform might not be winning the hearts and minds of the people they lost in 2016 and need next year.

Few things can turn the tide in an election like a tanking economy, so the Democrats are now praying to whatever passes for a god over there and hoping that, absent a real recession, they might be able to scare voters into thinking one is on the way.

On Twitter, it looked as if social media managers of various media outlets were being paid by the number of times that they could use the word “recession.”

Credit to the Washington Post, which really shook things up by running a headlineover a picture of President Trump with the word “Depression” in it.

The juiceboxers at Vox admitted halfway through their perfunctory recession postthat they didn’t know if one was coming.

That’s just it, no one does. If, however, the MSM can raise the noise level and use the power of repetition to create the sense that one is imminent, they might be able to create panic, even if a real recession doesn’t materialize.

I won’t link to them, but CNN’s site and social media feeds had enough recession talk that I checked my wallet a couple of times just to make sure things were all right.

The New York Times was shockingly honest as it opened its recession article:

These three things are all true: The United States almost certainly isn’t in a recession right now. It may well avoid one for the foreseeable future. But the chances that the nation will fall into recession have increased sharply in the last two weeks.

So, it’s not happening but it might and that’s reason enough sound the alarm.

One can almost feel the glee oozing out of the pores of the members of the media at the prospect of so many suffering. As long as they can get rid of President Trump, they care not if average Americans suffer. They are actually hoping for this misery to fall upon us…”

Original

SCOTT MCKAY:

“…“We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,” Baquet told the assemblage. “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”

Think about that statement for a minute. Baquet says he “built our newsroom” to cover a story which turns out to have been based on a hoax spread by Democrat Party operatives and used by a corrupt Obama administration to spy on innocent American citizens while attempting to prejudice a presidential election.

Had the Times actually covered the back half of the Trump-Russia story, in which the abuses by the Obama and Clinton camps turn out to have been the meat of the thing, it might have been justified to “build our newsroom” around it. But of course that’s not what Baquet did.

Not shockingly, as Baquet admitted, things went badly.

“Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump,” he said, “not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.”

Then came Honest Bob Mueller, who it turns out was a big disappointment to Baquet and his gang.

“The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened,” Baquet continued. “Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy s–t, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.’ And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?”…”

Original

ZIVA DAHL:

“…After fourteen years of being lulled by propagandists into believing that their boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign (BDS) is a human rights movement, we’re finally waking up to the deception.

The U.S. House last month overwhelmingly passed a bill opposing BDS efforts to target and delegitimize the State of Israel. Last February, the Senate passed a bill, never taken up by the House, legalizing the right of state governments and employee benefit plans to refuse to do business with companies boycotting Israel, thereby protecting the 27 states with anti-BDS legislation. Concerned about BDS similarity to Nazi boycotts and incitement of anti-Semitism becoming “the breeding ground for escalations to violence,” the German parliament recently passed a resolution declaring BDS anti-Semitic.

The Western world is acting, albeit slowly, to unmask BDS for what it is — a dangerous 21^st century iteration of the age-old scourge of Jew-hatred. Anti-Semitism is a mutating cancer, evolving and adapting, intent on destroying Jews in their host communities. Our State Department definition of modern-day anti-Semitism identifies expressions of hatred, including when disguised as Israel-bashing and anti-Zionism, the hallmarks of BDS…”

Original