Images | Commentary | Digital Scrapbook
David Harsanyi:
“…Impeachment is a political process. And judging the process strictly on political grounds, the impeachment of President Trump hasn’t been a success for Democrats.
After all, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff haven’t gotten any closer to convincing a single Senate Republican to remove the president. It’s highly probable that a Senate trial run by Republicans, with new witnesses and evidence, would further corrode the Democrats’ case.
Liberals will pretend that Senate Republicans are members of a reactionary Trump cult, but if there had been incontrovertible proof of “bribery,” a number of them would be compelled to act differently. No such evidence was provided.
Adding an obstruction article, based on the Mueller report, would only make the proceedings even more intractably partisan. Yet the recent push to force White House counsel Don McGahn to testify suggests Democrats could be headed in that direction…”
Frank Miele:
“…“Almost everything the left says these days is projection. They accuse you of exactly what they’re doing.”
With that in mind, it is time to look at the latest leftist trope against conservatives and see just how it fits Democrats themselves. This time it is the virulent accusation that Trump supporters are members of a cult — all 63 million of us!
It’s hard to know who started it for sure, but over the last month, the “cult” meme has been repeated by no less than CNN’s Brian Stelter, Dan Rather, Anthony Scaramucci, and the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank. Possibly that’s because a former cult member cashed in with a book called “The Cult of Trump.” Steve Hassan, a onetime “Moonie” who escaped the Unification Church’s clutches in the 1970s, sees President Trump as typical of cult leaders, and shared his fears with Stelter on the latter’s comically named “Reliable Sources” show…”
Thaddeus G. McCotter:
“…As a proud debunker of the apocalyptic climate scam, it’s only natural that the climate cult has a plethora of biodegradable slings and arrows to hurl at my person. Among their most common claims is that I use “straw man” arguments to describe the climate cult’s destructive agenda. Yet, no sooner is this straw man accusation leveled that some new fanaticism unwittingly provides me vindication.
For example: “Earth Needs Fewer People to Beat the Climate Crisis, Scientists Say” by Eric Roston in the “Climate Changed” (get it?) section of Bloomberg News (which I believe was founded by a billionaire former Republican mayor who oddly expects Democratic presidential primary voters to embrace his candidacy rather than confiscate his property).
In an “emergency declaration,” more than 11,000 of the climate cult’s high priests of politicized science pledged your lives, your fortunes, your sacred honor, and your genitalia to impose immediate, radical changes in how human beings acquire energy and food, and reproduce.
After noting that 40 years ago “scientists from 50 nations converged on Geneva to discuss what was then called the ‘CO2-climate problem’” and “predicted global warming would eventually become a major environmental challenge,” (but failing to note the earlier false alarms that the planet was heading into a “another ice age”) apparently “the scientists got to work, building a strategy on how to attack the problem and laying the groundwork for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s preeminent body of climate scientists. Their goal was to get ahead of the problem before it was too late.”
So who screwed the pooch?
You did.
Here comes our first clue: “But after a fast start, the fossil fuel industry, politics and the prioritization of economic growth over planetary health slowed them down.” (Emphasis mine.) Such is the cost of a venal concern for people over planet.
While some compassionate folks consider allowing their fellow human beings to pursue their happiness and avoid starving to death or dying from exposure to be a moral good, such is the road to global warming hell and it’s paved with good intentions, like preferring not to see people die. Small wonder, then, the 11,000 Malthusian “experts” in their BioScience jeremiad warn: better to gain the world and lose some souls in the process…”
Liz Peek:
“…Democrats are frantic. For decades, they have taken the black vote for granted. Today, there are signs that empty promises and radical leftist social policies are leaving black voters behind. Worse, polling shows that President Trump is picking up support from black voters. Having tarred the president as a racist and bigot, liberals cannot imagine that even one African American could possibly choose to support him. They are in denial, and it could cost them the 2020 election.
Democratic candidates are promising the moon to win over black voters. Reparations, massive support for historically black colleges, bail reform — everything is on the table. But there are signs that the candidate racking up the most consequential wins with minority voters is Trump.
Nothing — nothing — could be more threatening to Democratic prospects in 2020…”
You can’t make this stuff up.
Roger L. Simon:
“…While the media remains obsessed with an increasingly pointless impeachment by the House and the even more dubious removal of the president by the Senate, political news of genuine electoral importance has slipped in under the rug. According to two new polls, Trump has now gained popularity with African-Americans— and the numbers are significant, even “bigly.”
Both polls—Rasmussen, which usually tilts Republican, and Emerson, which is considered even-handed—came out almost exactly the same, putting Trump’s support among blacks at a surprising, almost astonishing, 34 percent. Typically, Republicans poll in single digits among blacks.
“Game Changer” may be one of the great clichés of our our time, but this would actually be one. If even remotely true, Democrats should be having a nervous breakdown. They depend more than ever on African-Americans for success in elections. If Trump were to garner even 18 percent of the black vote, he would easily win in 2020. If he had anything close to the 34 percent, it would be a runaway, a disaster for the Democrats.
But is this accurate? Polls are fickle, as we know, and are often distorted by the skewed nature of the questions; but in this case several factors lead me to believe there is truth to this…”
Watch the chyrons
