Images | Commentary | Digital Scrapbook
Madeline Osburn:
“…The Washington Post, in phone calls to people who knew Fairfax from college, law school and through political circles, found no similar complaints of sexual misconduct against him. Without that, or the ability to corroborate the woman’s account — in part because she had not told anyone what happened — The Washington Post did not run a story,” the newspaper reported on Monday.
This is quite the opposite of the standard the Post applied when reporting on allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year. The Washington Post reported Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh despite no evidence and no corroboration of Ford’s account. The Post claims the fact that Fairfax’s accuser, “had not told anyone what happened,” is a reason for not running the story — something that Ford did not do either until Kavanaugh was listed as a potential Supreme Court pick…”
“…On the Senate floor this evening, Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) called for unanimous consent on his Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which provides protections for any infants born alive after attempted abortion procedures.
Democratic senator Patty Murray of Washington objected to the bill on the floor, preventing it from receiving unanimous consent. Murray claimed that the legislation is unnecessary because there are already legal prohibitions on infanticide. Murray was the only Democratic senator to come to the Senate floor this evening and left immediately after objecting…”
Original
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD:
“…He does not believe existing arms treaties serve American interests; his withdrawal from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty was motivated by the same considerations that drove his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Meanwhile, he wants to reduce American commitments in the Middle East and sees close links with Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt as the best way for the U.S. to retrench militarily while containing Iran.
He holds international institutions and the bureaucrats who run them in low regard. He believes forums like the United Nations are stacked against the U.S. and American interests are better served by working directly with powerful leaders on a bilateral basis than by engaging in what he sees as the empty rituals of conventional multilateralism.
He thinks Europe is free-riding on American security commitments and exploiting the U.S. on trade, and that he can continue to reject the trans-Atlantic status quo until his complaints are addressed. He sees the European Union as a weak actor on the international stage.
He believes foolish American trade negotiators allowed China to become a great power through its abuses of the World Trade Organization, and he thinks a tough stand on trade with Beijing is good politics and policy. He believes the threat of tariffs gives him an important advantage and that U.S. trading partners need the U.S. more than it needs them.
He believes the U.S. faces a massive challenge from failing states and drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere and wants to move hemispheric policy from an afterthought to center stage. Diplomats impress him not at all; he sees the intelligence community as hostile; and after two years in the White House, he has lost much of his early respect for the Pentagon brass…”
Steven Greenhut:
“…Have you noticed how Californians move up and down the state?
They take Southwest Airlines, which offers low-cost, quick flights serving the major airports. Yet former Gov. Jerry Brown had focused his attention on building a $100-billion high-speed rail system that, if it ever is completed, will have ticket prices higher than airfares and will take nearly twice as long as flying to get from the Bay Area to Southern California. What is the point? The answer echoes my earlier point: Politicians and planners use public money to change how we live in pursuit of grandiose goals, such as slowing global warming. Easing cross-state travel is important, but if that were the primary goal, our leaders would consider a variety of practical—but boring—ideas, such as improving air service in hard-to-reach places such as Bakersfield, the Central Coast or Redding.
I think of my attempts to take transit to go from my exurb to downtown Sacramento. It would involve driving to a station 20 minutes away, paying for parking, buying a ticket and waiting for a train. It would take longer and cost almost as much as just driving downtown directly and parking. That train might make sense in the urban core, but not in the outlying areas, yet officials love to lecture us about our supposedly unsustainable reliance on driving…”
Ed Driscoll strung this together:
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RESULTS:
—The Virginia Pilot, yesterday.
—Tweet by Ben Tribbett of the Washington Times, yesterday.
● Hangover: Total Fiasco: VA Dem Gov Northam Retracts Apology, Says That’s Not Him In Blackface, KKK Photo.
—Matt Vespa, Townhall, today.
UPDATE: “Tfw you’re not completely sure you wore a klan hood or black face in medical school. Serious question: if it wasn’t him **wouldn’t he remember being pissed off when the yearbook came out?**,” Jonah Goldberg tweets.
Rick Scott:
“…I’ve been a U.S. senator for three weeks now, and I can tell you that reports of hate and incompetence in Washington are severely understated. Things are actually much worse than they appear.
One year ago, I called on Congress to make a simple deal on immigration requiring both Republicans and Democrats to do two things — compromise and respect the wishes of the American people. This deal is so logical and so easy, even politicians in Washington should be able to grasp it. But, as the events of the past few weeks have shown, they cannot.
Democrats would have to agree with the American people that our border needs to be secure, and that we need some kind of physical barriers to secure it. It’s not complicated; it’s common sense.
Republicans would have to agree with the American people that “dreamers,” kids who grew up here after being brought to the United States by their parents, must be welcomed into our society. Again, it’s common sense.
That’s it. That’s all. Done. It is simply asking politicians to agree with the voters and do something practical and logical. In what parallel universe is this a hard decision? Answer: Washington.
The truth is, the vast majority of Republicans are ready to make this deal, and are ready to provide a route for the dreamers. But Democratic leaders are not ready to make this or any deal.
Sure, the Democrats have voiced support and cast votes for border security in the form of physical barriers in the past, but they won’t do so now because of their hatred of the president of the United States.
Hate is bad that way; it clouds your judgment. As former senator Alan Simpson said at the funeral for former president George H.W. Bush, “Hatred corrodes the container it’s carried in.” That’s the predicament that Democratic leaders find themselves in now. They hate President Donald Trump so much that they cannot behave in a rational manner.
The public overwhelmingly wants our borders to be secure, plenty of public opinion polls show that. Likewise, the public overwhelmingly wants acceptance for these kids who, through no fault of their own, were brought here, and who have grown up here, gone to school here, and who are now part of the fabric of our country.
My state of Florida is home to more than 27,000 dreamers. The notion that we would — after educating them, protecting them and raising them — kick them out of the country, well, it’s just absurd.
Let’s be very clear here:I am inflexible when it comes to illegal immigration. I am against it, always have been and always will be. The president was completely correct when he said that we don’t keep our doors locked at night because we hate the people on the outside, but rather because we love the people on the inside.
Florida is home to nearly 21 million people, more than 4 million of whom are Hispanic. They want fairness for these dreamers. But guess what else they want: a secure border. That’s right, and it’s not something you hear on the news, but it is true: Hispanics want border security.
In a post-election survey of 1,014 Hispanic voters in Florida, my campaign asked this question: Thinking about our nation’s immigration laws, do you think we need stricter or looser enforcement of these laws?
Sixty-nine percent of the respondents said we need stricter enforcement of our immigration laws, while only 29 percent preferred looser enforcement. Hispanic Americans want our borders secured.
Securing our borders with a physical barriers is not a partisan issue, it’s a common-sense issue. Likewise, once we agree to secure our borders, it is only common sense to deal fairly and justly with the dreamers.
There is only one thing standing in the way of this common-sense solution for America: Irrational and clouded thinking motivated by hate from Democratic leaders in Washington.
Democratic-linked organizations spent nearly a record $60 million trying to defeat me last November. Why? Because Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) knew I was going to stand firm on my principles and fight for what’s right. I don’t hate him. I just disagree with him. And we have different views on how to help the American people…”
Kyle Sammin:
“…New York’s legislature last week passed a bill that drastically expanded access to late-term abortion in that state. Although ghoulish, it was unsurprising. It fits neatly within the mainstream opinion of the 21st-century Democratic Party. Neither was Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s signature a surprise, since the governor has followed the well-worn path of fake-Catholic Democrats on the subject.
Vermont and Virginia are considering similar laws. The shift has been building for some time. The radical fringe that pushes abortion rights has dropped all pretense that abortion has any downsides…”
and
“…As with the debate over abortion, the debate over slavery began in America mostly among moderates. Partly this was because, then as now, the people most deeply harmed by the institution were not consulted. Among the voices that were allowed to be heard, most wanted gradual changes if they wanted changes at all.
By the time the Constitution was written, slavery had already declined in the Northern states. Partially this was because their climate and terrain did not lend themselves to the South’s large-scale plantation economies, but there was more to it than that….More typical were slaveowners like Thomas Jefferson who, paraphrasing Suetonius, famously said of slavery, “We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.” Despite limited action by the remaining slaveholders, the general sentiment even among its supporters was that slavery was a necessary evil that someday would disappear…”
and
“…That trajectory toward freedom was not maintained…Instead, a new generation of slavery advocates arose that supported the institution even more than their fathers and grandfathers had. Sen. John C. Calhoun of South Carolina was foremost among these. In 1837, Calhoun gave a speech in the Senate that marked the transition to a new, more aggressive pro-slavery ideology:
I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good–a positive good. … I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe–look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse.
“…That phrase—“a positive good”—signaled that Calhoun and others like him were committed to their cause, and no reason, science, or moral suasion would divert them from their chosen path. Slavery advocates now proclaimed the institution as actually superior to any other sort of labor arrangement. They still had Jefferson’s wolf by the ears, but now they liked it just fine and had no intention of letting the wretched thing go…”
and
“…The parallels to the abortion debate are unmistakable. Although Cuomo lacks Calhoun’s rhetorical skill, his devotion to an unjust cause matches the South Carolinian’s. The #ShoutYourAbortion campaign began in 2015, and in 2019 it has only increased in reach. Abortion’s defenders now see that unholy act as a positive good in the world, not just a necessary evil. The lights of the World Trade Center were a burnt offering to Moloch, a pledge of allegiance to the cause of infanticide. This is abortion’s Calhoun moment…”