Here are links to three articles that have this in common--they give examples of liberal craziness that just may galvanize the country and even, as we saw with Naomi Wolf, bring some on the Left over toward a middle of some sort.
Does Merrick Garland Even Know What Day It Is?
Garland appears to be shockingly out of touch with the world around him. Even for a Leftist.
Garland’s hearing was an absolute train-wreck. He showed himself to be a left-wing partisan who couldn’t even answer some of the most basic inquiries. Further, he seemed to have no understanding of the fundamental facts surrounding a variety of issues.
As RedState previously covered, Garland made the ridiculous assertion that Antifa attacks on federal property, including trying to burn down a federal courthouse with people inside, might not be domestic terrorism because it happened at night. He also opined that he’d get to the bottom of the “Capitol Bombing” even though there was no bombing, nor any weaponry used at all in the January 6th riot.
And then there was his inability to "offer an opinion on the legality of crossing the border illegally."
Are Americans ready for this kind of AG? And who will really run DoJ?
Biden’s HHS Pick Advocates Sex Changes For Kids.
Meet Dr. Rachel Levine, who is an enthusiastic advocate for "sex changes for pre-pubertal people, otherwise known as 'children.'”
Meanwhile, polls have shown large majorities of voters oppose subjecting minors to sex changes and gender conversion therapy.
Imagine!
This final article is a classic tale of a liberal being mugged by reality:
Former New York Times Reporter Shocked by Censorship Liberals Employ Against Conservative Authors
The protagonist is, as indicated a former NYT reporter. He's also a huge best selling novelist. However, he seems unable to keep his mouth shut, and has been reporting on Covid in ways that don't pass the PC test. And so even his novels are being canceled. And he hurts.
Will liberals get woke to the cancel culture? After all, you never know who it will come for next.
UPDATE: Jason Chaffetz offers a pretty good rundown of other things that are not going well.
Biden-Harris' disastrous start – first month full of hypocrisy, scandal and incompetence
The first full month of the Biden-Harris administration could not have gone worse
The administration has nothing to show legislatively. [But they do have another failed impeachment fiasco.]
They're more interested in killing jobs than creating them.
They're failing our kids. [Schools? What schools?]
Destruction of women's sports.
Promises made, not kept.
So much for ethics.
Pandemic failure.
Full frontal attack on the Constitution. [2nd Amendment--just for starters.]
There's even more that could be said. And wait till the going gets a bit rougher.
He's as big a bumbling idiot as the bumbling idiot who nominated him.
ReplyDeleteRachel Levine is so obviously a very unattractive man that it makes one's eyes hurt to at it.
ReplyDeleteI looked at Garland and wondered if he was a serious drinker. Or maybe in a Biden state of mind.
Latest news on Garland is that he supports Biden’s gun control. No surprise.
ReplyDeleteAnd Mitch McConnell supports him being AG
Delete@ Bebe, my wife had the same impression of Garland. Said she thought there was something "off" about his whole demeanor, and wondered ...
DeleteMark, your wife’s comment is very apt. As my grandmother would have said “there’s just something about him….” I thought this New Republic headline was interesting.
Delete"President Obama's nominee, a former prosecutor, has spent his career being careful, persuasive, and collegial.”
https://newrepublic.com/article/131680/merrick-garland-moderates-choice-supreme-court
The accompanying photo from 2016 shows a smallish, soft-looking man. Timid. Tentative. (In that photo Biden and Obama seem to be looking at him the way they’d look at a precocious child giving a little speech.) He has aged noticeably in the last five years, so looks quite a lot older than 69… He should retire. No juice there.
Let’s see; Attorney General nominee can’t decide if “illegal” aliens are committing a crime, Sec. of Interior says the Imprerial City is on Native American land and the guy who thinks he’s a woman says we are still in the tall grass with covid while Zhou looks at his notes and mumbles! Yeh, I see no reason to not take this administration seriously.....
ReplyDeleteIsn't it 'coincidental' that after a year of 'Black Lives Matter', coupled with record Black Americans voting Republican and record numbers of Black Americans purchasing their first firearms...that Biden and the Communist Democrats are pushing for unprecedented gun control?
ReplyDeleteWhy, its almost as if Biden doesn't think Black Americans should be able to defend themselves or their property from roving gangs...OR...from an out of control Fascist government.
I mean, one could easily argue that Bidens gun grab is racist.
Yes Garland is a bumbling idiot. Same mold as bumbling Mueller. God help my kids as they went to the same High School (Niles West) Garland graduated from.
ReplyDelete@AC
Delete"God help my kids as they went to the same High School (Niles West) Garland graduated from."
From Wikipedia:
Garland attended Niles West High School in Skokie, Illinois, where he was president of the student council, acted in theatrical productions, and was a member of the debate team... He graduated in 1970 as the class valedictorian [and] was also a Presidential Scholar and National Merit Scholar.
Garland attended Harvard College on a scholarship, graduating as valedictorian with an A.B. degree summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in social studies in 1974...
Garland then attended Harvard Law School, graduating with a J.D. magna cum laude in 1977. During law school, Garland was a member of the Harvard Law Review, serving as an articles editor from 1976 to 1977...Garland ran for president of the Review, but lost to Susan Estrich.
Following graduation, Garland served as a law clerk for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1977 to 1978, and then Justice Brennan of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1978 to 1979.
Looks to me like your lucky kids should just put their heads down and follow in Garland's footsteps. Then they, too, can join the first ranks of America's 21st Century Elites.
:-)
@Cass: LOL; Don't remind me. He has "cult" like status over there. Fortunately for me I've been able to "influence" 2 of my 3 kids (25, 23, 21) to a large extent to be warry of bumbling liberals even though they went to the same High School as Garland.
DeleteSomewhere along the line Garland’s mind got tired working so hard… That is what I believe we’re seeing here. Deterioration.
DeleteGarland should be rejected just for help screw over Michael Flynn.
ReplyDeleteRob S
Merrick Garland is protégé of Abner Mikva. That's all that matters to JoeBama.
ReplyDeleteYes, speaks volumes.
Delete"Promises made, not kept." I continue to believe the National Guard and the fences are not for the right, but the radical left. They have shown their willingness to "burn it down" while the right "strongly objects", but just goes back to work. Swamp is afraid.
ReplyDeleteYou could nominate a bowl of Campbell's chicken soup as AG, the results will be the same. Opposed or perceived enemies of the state will be relentlessly persecuted and the actual evils will go un-prosecuted.
ReplyDeleteThe Bobblehead's talking points are just semantics when you look at the end function. Big government good, limited government bad, government knows better than the pheasants, therefore "shut up pheasants" or join the persecuted.
The last one was fat, this guy is skinny but does the appearance of the guy lying to you really matter? It doesn't to me.
I'll admit that I thought, at first, that Garland might be sort of okay. My error.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we'll get lucky and find that there are 41 Republicans who say, "No way," but I don't think so.
Based upon that pretty interesting New Republic article (2016) linked in my comment up the thread, they thought Garland would be acceptable to Republicans back then because he was more “moderate”. We know what “moderate" means in Demspeak.
ReplyDelete1/ An acute observer of the Washington scene, Lee Smith gave his opinion yesterday in the Epoch Times that, if confirmed as AG, Garland will shut Special Counsel John Durham down and will not permit him to issue a report on his findings about the origins and legality of Crossfire Hurricane. This is even though Garland told (lied to) Chuck Grassley on Monday that “I have no reason to think [Durham] should not remain in place.” Memo to Chuck: There is absolutely no reason to believe anything Merrick Garland tells you in his confirmation hearing. Get it in writing.
ReplyDeleteSmith reasons as follows:
1. As Vice President Biden was not only aware of the spying operation against Trump officials but participated in it. He knew that the FBI was framing incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and it was he who proposed that the Department of Justice charge Flynn for violating the Logan Act.
2. Thus, Biden was a participant and, effectively, a co-conspirator.
3. Unlike Bill Barr, and more in the vein of Eric Holder, Garland understands that his primary duty as Biden’s chief law enforcement officer is not (as Barr purported to see it and as Trump allowed Barr to see it) to oversee the fair and equal treatment of all Americans under the law, but rather to protect the president and the party he serves.
In this regard, Smith suggests, Joe Biden will be a very different animal than Donald Trump…and perhaps, I might say, the more effective politician, or at least, practitioner of realpolitik. Perhaps at the end of the day, Donald Trump, the master populist campaigner, did not fully and adequately understand the scope of his real power.
First of all, Smith suggests, Joe Biden will not hesitate to act ruthlessly to protect himself and his party.
Which Trump simply did not. Trump’s problem, Smith says, was that in pushing to carry out his agenda he sought cooperation and even love, but not fear and respect, from his subordinates.
As an example, Smith cites Comey’s memos of his meetings and conversations with Trump. He writes,
“They are unintentionally moving documents, showing that Trump solicited the help and even friendship of experienced bureaucrats like Comey. But to [Comey], Trump’s entreaties signaled weakness. Soon Comey saw that the new president had become frustrated when the director failed to publicly clear him of any ties to Russia. And Trump only asked him again to clear him. Instead of firing Comey in disgrace, he cut Flynn loose and then petitioned Comey to go easy on the retired general, the one man who was most loyal to the president. As a result, Trump got the Mueller investigation, which consumed two years of his presidency”.
As another example, Smith cites Trump’s response early last year when Bill Barr counseled him against firing the clearly disloyal and obstructionist Christopher Wray, warning (implausibly to me) that it would be taken as evidence the White House was in chaos in the middle of an election year. Which advice Barr gave against Trump’s best interests and even though Barr could (and should) have fired Wray himself, and had good reason to do so, for example, by withholding documents from DOJ prosecutors.
By accepting Barr’s advice, Smith says, Trump indicated there would be no price to be paid for crossing him. And Barr was thereby able to hedge his bets with the more ruthless Biden, who had already shown when he participated in the conspiracy to spy on Trump in 2016 that he was capable, if victorious in November, of retaliating against Barr in 2021 or down the road.
Then, with no pressure coming from Trump, Barr did not pressure Durham to choose between issuing indictments by late summer, as he had promised, or being replaced by someone who would. For all practical purposes, Smith writes, in hindsight the Durham investigation was over by April.
2/ Second, Garland must shut Durham down, Smith argues, because indictments of senior Obama officials would confirm the truth of what Republicans (and everyone here at meaninginhistory) have been saying about Crossfire Hurricane since 2017—that the FBI wasn’t investigating Russian interference, it was spying on a presidential candidate and then the commander-in-chief.
ReplyDeleteHe writes,
“To show that Biden’s party was lying about that would suggest that maybe the Democrats were lying about other things, too, maybe lying about everything. They lied about the phone call that got Trump impeached; they lied about the “mostly peaceful” George Floyd riots; they lied about the Jan. 6 protests by calling them an armed insurrection; and most importantly, they lied about the transparency and legitimacy of the 2020 election”.
It can’t happen.
Smith says Senate Republicans could try to fight Garland’s nomination or at least use the hearings to make the case about Democratic Party corruption. He concludes, however, that they won’t because, like Bill Barr, they fear the realpolitik of Joe Biden.
Link to Lee Smith article in Epoch Times (paywall): https://www.theepochtimes.com/why-a-durham-report-is-becoming-highly-unlikely_3708000.html
ReplyDeleteIn zerohedge (no paywall): https://www.zerohedge.com/political/why-durham-report-becoming-highly-unlikely
Cassander, I read Smith's article with interest earlier today. It's short on sources, perhaps understandably so, but seems plausible to me. It's why I've lost most interest in Durham. My real interest now is historical, and especially the role that Barr played. If Smith is right, then Barr played a consciously duplicitous game.
Delete@Mark
DeleteIf Smith is right, then, you're right, Durham is most likely moot.
That leaves not only the eventual historical assessment of Barr, which, as you suggest, may well not be flattering, but also the eventual reckoning with Trump. I remain worshipful, but connecting the dots may well show that Trump did not understand either Washington or the powers of his office as well as he might have.
Off the top of my head, here're a few Trump coulda/woulda/shouldas...
1. Trump should have fired Comey on January 21, 2017 and dismantled Crossfire Hurricane.
2. Trump should have fired Sessions when he recused himself from the 'Russia' inquiry.
3. Trump should have stood by Flynn.
4. Trump should have told (his AG to tell) Rosenstein he would fire him if he appointed Mueller.
5. Trump should have told Barr he would fire him
the first time Durham missed a deadline.
6. Trump should have fired Fauci the day he banned travel from China.
7. Trump should have fired Wray the first time he missed a deadline commitment.
8. Trump should have fired Alexander Vindman and the whistleblower the first time they ignored direct orders.
9. Trump should have fired Gina Haspel the first time she missed a document request deadline.
I know, its 20-20 hindsight, but still Trump had the power to do all of these things...
True, but understand what you're describing: a POTUS under siege in his own WH from day one--by officials of his executive branch. It's understandable that he should want to try to govern as a normal president. But not realistic, and that tells us as much about our ruling class as it does about Trump. Replacing all those firees would have been no simple task.
DeleteWon't historians likely conclude that Trump was facing a literally impossible task?
DeleteThe consequences of which we are seeing unfold before our eyes?
Seems a fair assessment.
DeleteIMO Smith does much "Monday morning quarterbacking" in his assessment. Hindsight is necessary to understand however at the time Trump was under much pressure due to the MSM, Russia investigation, thinking of firing Mueller and the like. You have to weigh this as part of Trump's calculations and I don't believe Smith does a good enough job with this.
DeleteAre Americans ready for this kind of AG? And who will really run DoJ? Edith Wharton said a century ago that politics isn't for gentlemen. We have evolved. Now politics is not for rational people. Now anyone with a functioning brain or a life will ignore Washington as much as possible. This is the new normal.
ReplyDeletePolitics these days is for thugs. Note to repubs - lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.
ReplyDelete0311
Between gentlemen and thugs are good strong men and women. Unfortunately they do not all want to get into politics, and government these days is all about politics. If it were not, we wouldn’t be stymied by a Dem presidency and Congress. Wall to wall Democrats.
DeleteIn my opinion,i t is pretty hard to “ignore Washington”… If anything, more Americans need to pay attention. I am amazed at how ignorant (uninformed/underinformed/misinformed) the average commenters on internet forums are. This forum is a notable exception so far…
What use is there in ignoring Washington when they are shredding the Constitution and taking away our rights? On the contrary, it takes a critical mass of Americans who recognize what is happening and get to work to do something about it.
Chinese American group fights against CRT - "... is a hateful, divisive, manipulative fraud..."
ReplyDeleteOf course, Asians are quite angry because, despite working hard and achieving good grades, they're being denied access to good schools and universities under cover of "racism".
I guess they know all about "Cultural Revolutions".
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1364634988319154178
Frank
I suspect CRT is gonna backfire big time.
Delete@Frank
Delete"I guess they know all about 'Cultural Revolutions'."
Yup. I had always thought many Asians had fled to the United States to escape repression at home, now only to find the ultimately even more repressive CRT here...
@Mark
"I suspect CRT is gonna backfire big time."
When you think about it, who does CRT really benefit? Does anyone think it actually benefits Blacks?
A very small elite class, only a few of whom will end up with the energy to keep up with the ever changing and ultimately subjective rules and obeisances.
DeleteOn "to keep up with the ever changing and ultimately subjective rules and obeisances", I'll repeat here something I posted weeks ago, from Michael Lind, on
Delete“… More and more Americans are figuring out, that “wokeness” functions in the new, centralized American elite, as a *device to exclude* working-class Americans of all races, along with backward remnants of the old regional elites.
In effect, the new *national oligarchy* changes the codes and the passwords every six months or so, and notifies its members through the *universities, and the prestige media and Twitter*.
America’s working-class majority of all races pays far less attention than the elite to the media, and is highly unlikely, to have a kid at Harvard or Yale to clue them in.
And non-college-educated Americans spend very little time on Facebook and Twitter, the latter of which they are unlikely to be able to identify….”
From https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/new-national-american-elite
@Mouse
DeleteI enjoyed reading Lind's article very much, even when in some respects I didn't necessarily agree with it. Thanks for sharing.
One thing for sure, though, is that Lind's view of the history of power in the U.S. conflicts enormously with the Woke's 21st Century narrative.
I suspect Lind's historical analysis is far closer to the truth.
Dyer argues against an American divorce being possible... so then what?
ReplyDeleteCaesarism coming, sooner or later. cf Oswald Spengler...
a pithy comment from one of the commentators:
"So like a bad marriage with both spouses stuck in the abusive interaction... the relentless passive aggressive Blues manipulating, stealing, cheating, lying, and abusing their way into the power position in the dysfunctional relationship... while the codependent Reds... passively take the beating and abuse, hoping for it to stop and praying for some sort of divine intervention."
https://libertyunyielding.com/2021/02/23/divide-istan-a-little-straight-talk-about-the-idea-of-breaking-up-the-u-s/
Frank
That sure doesn't appeal to me.
DeleteCurious, if I may ask, which part... the messy divorce, or Spengler and Caesarism, or both?
DeleteFrank
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5xu32LnDyU&feature=emb_logo
ReplyDeleteThis youtube clip is Tucker Carlson's 'Advice to the Woke Professional Class' delivered on his show Tuesday. To me, it is must-watch, brilliant satire, in the same tradition as Jonathan Swift's 'A Modest Proposal':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
Here's how I would describe Tucker's POV in slightly coarser language:
These f*cking assh*le Elitists want to wreck our country by destroying everything you believe in...and by destroying what it stands for. They insist that you should be ashamed by your systemic racism, and by your belief in hard work, virtue, freedom, merit, competition and individualism. And in God. In fact, if you believe in these things, you must be cancelled.
But at the same time the Woke are cancelling you, they want to insure that their children inherit and retain their power and in fact obtain even more of it...and the wealth and security that goes along with it. The Woke are overlords in a world of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion for everyone else. The rules don't apply to them. Do Barack Obama, John Kerry, or Bill Gates obey the rules? But because you are an un-Woke racist, the rules apply to you.
Tucker imagines a new world where the rules apply equally to all, including the Woke. Jonathan Swift couldn't have said it better.