theamericanconservative--2020-01-21--The Day the People Brought Peace, With Arms, to Virginia

Far from a 'state of emergency ' or neo-Nazi reunion , Monday 's rally re-affirmed this writer 's faith in his fellow citizens .
Today , the Commonwealth of Virginia , home to four of our very first presidents—framers and founders who shaped the nation we are today—triumphantly reaffirmed its place as a leader-state .
Delegate William Wampler ’ s office confirmed to me that at least 25-30,000 Second Amendment supporters surrounded the state capitol on Monday .
This had to be the largest gun rights rally ever , entirely surpassing the 10,000 people that the Virginia Citizens Defense League @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Capitol , while VCDL lobbied legislators inside the building .
This was “ lobby day ” —a longstanding tradition—after all .
Meanwhile , media estimates ranged from 22,000 , or more .
Every street , alley and byway circling the state temple seemed to be packed with gun-owning , and gun-bearing citizens , and those who support them .
The Northam administration strove and schemed to diminish and to denigrate the event from the start .
The media heartily complied .
Police were ordered to partition the streets and Capitol lawn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , channeling people into segmented , dead-end venues cut off from each other , while access to the lawn before the Capitol building was rationed to create a less-than-impressive camera-eye : A vista of modest protest alone .
Well , take a look at this vista , captured by my son at the climax of the event : Likewise , the Northam Government sought to throw serious shade on gun owners expressing open-carry rights , snapshotting them as surly , swaggering bullies , cowing innocents as they brandished the deadliest weapons .
Nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Despite being packed into narrow streets like sardines for harvest , every single armed citizen I met and squeezed by was unfailingly good-natured and courteous .
It was quite astonishing to encounter so many slung ARs borne with such rare grace .
There were no arrests ( except that woman violating the temporary anti-mask statute ) , no fighting , no confrontations .
For real , Virginia Gentlemen .
At one point , a frustrated Northam regime factotum put out the word to cops to pull the mic from State Senator Amanda Chase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The police , to their credit , failed to fulfill this directive .
The genuine comity between law enforcement and citizenry was noteworthy .
I saw women thanking officers as they left the event , to grateful replies .
Most poignant , perhaps , was the table set in the very midst of the throng , manned by county sheriffs , united to stand with the Second Amendment .
There , in effect , was an unending receiving line of citizens eager to shake their hands .
There were so many women .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , insisting on interviewing only “ representative ” men with beards ( and preferably , missing a tooth or two ) .
Yet the women spoke a passionate commitment .
Like Daphne from Virginia Beach , who had arrived by 7 a.m. , with media in full parade review , and not one outlet would speak to her .
Yet she was excited to find she wasn ’ t alone , with many women there with her in force .
She offered a wrenching reminder of what is at stake here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooting at a Virginia Beach municipal center , she said , testified at a recent Virginia Beach City Council meeting ( it was attended by 2,000 people she said ; the city voted to become a 2A sanctuary on Jan. 7 ) .
The man told the audience how he lies awake at night : “ At three distinct moments , if I had had a weapon , I could have stopped it.
” Then there was Lisa , with frost-white hair , from West Virginia .
She had driven nine and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rally .
“ Because it ’ s important .
Because it ’ s our Constitution.
” She added , “ And we have peace even though we are among arms — people don ’ t expect that.
” And there was Sarah , from Alexandria , who appeared tireless , working for the Virginia Citizens Defense League .
VCDL was the force behind this rally .
In contrast to an ineffectual NRA , VCDL has somehow pulled off one of the greatest convocations—for defending the Constitution—in recent memory .
From a purely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a test of wills .
Victorious in November , and owning all three branches of state government , the Democrat regime in Richmond sought to force an aggressive anti-gun agenda on a polity publicly committed , at least since the 1770s , to gun rights .
In prompt response , before the Blue-dominated legislature even sat down to a new session , 94 percent of Virginia counties and townships had declared themselves “ Second Amendment Sanctuaries.
” Hence , the rally today was less relevant as a traditional “ lobby day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which side in the Commonwealth could seize the narrative moving forward .
Northam and the Blue-run Media were out to paint gun owners as violent , desperate relics of a bygone era , while Red county Virginia was collectively united to present its armed citizenry as civilized upholders of the civic order .
For those who were there , there was no doubt which side came out ahead .
Mainstream Media , in contrast , will labor mightily to skew reality in their favor .
But the feed tells the real story .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure , and its capacity to quickly mobilize , while at the same time presenting a collective goodwill and forbearance that gives the lie to any accusations from the Left .
This just might be the political legacy of the rally .
Michael Vlahos is a writer and author of the book Fighting Identity : Sacred War and World Change .
He has taught war and strategy at Johns Hopkins University and the Naval War College and is a weekly contributor to The John Batchelor Show .
Follow him on Twitter @ JHUWorldCrisis

Today, the Commonwealth of Virginia, home to four of our very first presidents—framers and founders who shaped the nation we are today—triumphantly reaffirmed its place as a leader-state.
Delegate William Wampler’s office confirmed to me that at least 25-30,000 Second Amendment supporters surrounded the state capitol on Monday. This had to be the largest gun rights rally ever, entirely surpassing the 10,000 people that the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) was anticipating in front of the Capitol, while VCDL lobbied legislators inside the building.
This was “lobby day”—a longstanding tradition—after all.
Meanwhile, media estimates ranged from 22,000, or more. Every street, alley and byway circling the state temple seemed to be packed with gun-owning, and gun-bearing citizens, and those who support them.
The Northam administration strove and schemed to diminish and to denigrate the event from the start. The media heartily complied. Police were ordered to partition the streets and Capitol lawn into a warren of chokepoints and cul-de-sacs, channeling people into segmented, dead-end venues cut off from each other, while access to the lawn before the Capitol building was rationed to create a less-than-impressive camera-eye: A vista of modest protest alone.
Well, take a look at this vista, captured by my son at the climax of the event:
Likewise, the Northam Government sought to throw serious shade on gun owners expressing open-carry rights, snapshotting them as surly, swaggering bullies, cowing innocents as they brandished the deadliest weapons. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Despite being packed into narrow streets like sardines for harvest, every single armed citizen I met and squeezed by was unfailingly good-natured and courteous. It was quite astonishing to encounter so many slung ARs borne with such rare grace. There were no arrests (except that woman violating the temporary anti-mask statute), no fighting, no confrontations. For real, Virginia Gentlemen.
At one point, a frustrated Northam regime factotum put out the word to cops to pull the mic from State Senator Amanda Chase as she addressed the rapt crowd. The police, to their credit, failed to fulfill this directive.
The genuine comity between law enforcement and citizenry was noteworthy. I saw women thanking officers as they left the event, to grateful replies. Most poignant, perhaps, was the table set in the very midst of the throng, manned by county sheriffs, united to stand with the Second Amendment. There, in effect, was an unending receiving line of citizens eager to shake their hands.
There were so many women. Of course the Establishment Media spurned them all, insisting on interviewing only “representative” men with beards (and preferably, missing a tooth or two). Yet the women spoke a passionate commitment.
Like Daphne from Virginia Beach, who had arrived by 7 a.m., with media in full parade review, and not one outlet would speak to her. Yet she was excited to find she wasn’t alone, with many women there with her in force.
She offered a wrenching reminder of what is at stake here. A witness to the May 31 mass shooting at a Virginia Beach municipal center, she said, testified at a recent Virginia Beach City Council meeting (it was attended by 2,000 people she said; the city voted to become a 2A sanctuary on Jan. 7). The man told the audience how he lies awake at night: “At three distinct moments, if I had had a weapon, I could have stopped it.”
Then there was Lisa, with frost-white hair, from West Virginia. She had driven nine and a half hours, overnight to get to the rally. “Because it’s important. Because it’s our Constitution.” She added, “And we have peace even though we are among arms — people don’t expect that.”
And there was Sarah, from Alexandria, who appeared tireless, working for the Virginia Citizens Defense League. VCDL was the force behind this rally. In contrast to an ineffectual NRA, VCDL has somehow pulled off one of the greatest convocations—for defending the Constitution—in recent memory.
From a purely political standpoint, the rally was fated to be a test of wills. Victorious in November, and owning all three branches of state government, the Democrat regime in Richmond sought to force an aggressive anti-gun agenda on a polity publicly committed, at least since the 1770s, to gun rights. In prompt response, before the Blue-dominated legislature even sat down to a new session, 94 percent of Virginia counties and townships had declared themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries.”
Hence, the rally today was less relevant as a traditional “lobby day”—and more pointedly a contest over which side in the Commonwealth could seize the narrative moving forward. Northam and the Blue-run Media were out to paint gun owners as violent, desperate relics of a bygone era, while Red county Virginia was collectively united to present its armed citizenry as civilized upholders of the civic order.
For those who were there, there was no doubt which side came out ahead. Mainstream Media, in contrast, will labor mightily to skew reality in their favor. But the feed tells the real story.
The armed citizenry showed its strength for sure, and its capacity to quickly mobilize, while at the same time presenting a collective goodwill and forbearance that gives the lie to any accusations from the Left.
This just might be the political legacy of the rally.
Michael Vlahos is a writer and author of the book Fighting Identity: Sacred War and World Change. He has taught war and strategy at Johns Hopkins University and the Naval War College and is a weekly contributor to The John Batchelor Show. Follow him on Twitter @JHUWorldCrisis


theamericanconservative--2020-01-21--NYT’s Lukewarm, Wrong, and Ultimately Useless Endorsements

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) ( R ) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) ) walk on the stage after the Democratic presidential primary debate at Loyola Marymount University on December 19 , 2019 in Los Angeles , California .
( Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images ) A few times in the Tony-winning musical Hadestown , characters raise their glasses “ to the world we dream about , and the one we live in now.
” This folksy retelling of an ancient Greek myth seethes with progressive energy , holding out the hope that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitalist Hades and free the summer goddess Persephone to usher in an endless summer .
In the end , his success is only partial .
The normal cycle of the seasons is restored , but Orpheus is exiled , and the pragmatic Hades , having softened just the tiniest bit , remains on the throne of the Underworld .
In a venue as pie-in-the-sky progressive as Broadway , it was refreshing to see a synthesis of utopian radicalism and status quo realism , a mixture of Plato pointing up to the realm of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand of inductive moderation .
Striking a balance between the two is difficult , but necessary .
It ’ s also exactly what the New York Times Editorial Board failed to do with its perplexing dual endorsement of Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for the Democratic presidential nomination .
The Board ’ s first failure is its most obvious : it is definitionally absurd to “ endorse ” two candidates for a nomination only one of them can secure .
When Gollum found himself stumped as to what Bilbo had in his pocket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempt to guess “ String , or nothing !
” which the narrator observed was “ not quite fair—working in two guesses at once.
” I quite agree—and I ’ m tempted to echo Bilbo ’ s response : “ Both wrong.
” These endorsements are not “ wrong ” because Warren is , as Michael Warren Davis put it , “ the very avatar of a screechy , preachy schoolmarm ” and “ the most unlikeable candidate to seek the White House since Walter Mondale.
” Plenty of members of the Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manner during the episode of Hulu ’ s The Weekly that chronicled this uniquely transparent endorsement process .
Nor are they “ wrong ” because Klobuchar ’ s poll numbers are currently in snowball-in-hell territory .
The Board is well within its rights to pick the candidate whose policy proposals and leadership style they admire most and who they think has the best shot in the general election .
I didn ’ t complain in 2016 when the NYT endorsed a struggling John Kasich for the GOP nomination as a protest vote against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t even wrong because they just conveniently happened to endorse the only two female candidates still onstage .
( Even if , by ending the endorsement with “ May the best woman win , ” the Board invited that criticism . )
These endorsements are wrong by the Times ‘ own criteria .
The Board writes : After grouping the candidates into those who want to return to the status quo ante Trumpus ( Biden , Buttigieg , Bloomberg , Klobuchar , and—weirdly—Yang ) and those who want a revolution ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decides to abdicate its responsibility and instead choose an inferior example of each .
Rather than endorsing the most authentic representative of each camp , the Board chooses the most moderate radical and the most radical moderate .
If the Board wanted a utopian vision , Bernie was clearly their guy .
In his interviews at the NYT headquarters , he came off as populist to the core , promising to be an “ organizer-in-chief ” who would force Mitch McConnell to play ball or get him kicked out of office by mobilizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Maybe not the most realistic plan , but Warren didn ’ t handle the question of how she would get things done any better .
“ So what do you want to do ?
” she asked a Board member , clearly exasperated .
“ You want to just give up ?
!
Say , ‘ Oh damn !
Mitch McConnell has the Senate !
’ ?
” Bernie was notoriously shafted by the DNC in 2016 .
Now it ’ s beginning to look like , thanks to Democratic establishment organs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times , the fix is in for Warren this time around .
Just look at the ridiculous fake scandal surrounding the supposedly sexist remarks that Bernie supposedly made in 2018 and that Warren conveniently remembered to be mad about just last week .
And why ?
If you want my opinion , it ’ s because Bernie committed the sin of populism .
When asked whether he thought Trump was the disease ( the “ realist ” position ) or a symptom ( the “ radical ” position ) , Bernie ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afflict the comfortable in a way that made the Board visibly uneasy : “ I think it speaks to something that I talk about a lot and that is the fact that the — not everybody , but tens and tens of millions of Americans feel that the political establishment , Republican and Democrat , have failed them .
Maybe The New York Times has failed them , too.
” They edited that last sentence out of the episode of The Weekly , by the way .
“ Dishonest media ” indeed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” Board member Brent Staples shot back .
And there it is .
Bernie had dared to suggest that Trump voters were something other than reprehensible , backward hicks .
For that reason alone , he was unworthy of the endorsement .
After all , someone who can sympathize with Trump voters is himself suspect .
Or as the Board put it , “ Three years into the Trump administration , we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising , divisive figure in Washington for another.
” You heard it here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which , by the transitive property , makes him basically Hitler too ) .
Warren , of course , is too ivory tower to sympathize with the disaffected white working class and nowhere near charismatic enough to be any sort of demagogue .
She ’ s willing to retain enough of the establishment status quo to keep the NYT elites happy .
For the Editorial Board , she was the perfect faux-radical .
In Klobuchar , they found their perfect faux-moderate , rejecting the obvious choice : Joe Biden .
If the Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderate to balance out Warren , they could have hardly done better than Biden , who seems to be running on a platform that consists entirely of nostalgia for the relative normalcy of the Obama administration .
Instead the Board rejected him in favor of Klobuchar because his agenda “ tinkers at the edges of issues like health care and climate ” and “ will not get America where it needs to go as a society.
” In other words , the Board committed to endorsing a moderate and then rejected the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderate .
Perhaps after more than a decade of playing hype man for Hillary Clinton , they ’ re nervous about backing another old , white establishment type with a long track record , strong name recognition , and all the baggage that goes with it .
If Biden got the endorsement and lost to Trump ( despite Biden ’ s insistence that he would win the Midwest “ in a walk ” ) , the Democratic left wing would be furious , perhaps to the point of fracturing the party It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren .
She favors free community college , for example , while Warren wants to make all public colleges free .
The more significant difference between them , though , is one of brand positioning .
Klobuchar portrays herself as a unifier who can succeed in red districts , while Warren has trouble making any sort of argument for her own electability .
Plus Klobuchar voted for the bombing campaign that reduced Libya to a failed state with literal slave markets , which makes her presidential material in the eyes of the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have selected Klobuchar as a way of hedging their bets , a sort of Warren-lite .
She certainly isn ’ t an existential threat to the Warren campaign .
In summary , the two candidates on offer are an ivory tower “ radical ” who offers elements of Sanders ’ agenda without the distasteful flaw of treating Trump voters like human beings and a “ moderate ” who isn ’ t so moderate after all .
We ’ re left with a less populist Bernie and a more progressive Biden .
The Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ realist ” visions by rejecting the candidate who most fully embodied each .
The endorsement claims that the American people deserve to see a no-holds-barred debate between those two visions , but what the Board ’ s members really want is to ensure that this debate takes place within parameters that they find acceptable .
The Board , by failing to commit to one candidate and splitting the endorsement , proved itself to be “ lukewarm , and neither cold nor hot.
” By failing to choose the candidate who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it proved that a second time .
This decision by one of the most prestigious gatekeepers of the Democratic establishment reveals the extent to which the American left-liberal coalition has fragmented .
It also reveals the lengths to which those gatekeepers are willing to go to preserve their influence , playing both sides of the radical-realist divide while simultaneously working to shift the definitions of those two camps back toward some sort of consensus .
But will the Board and their ilk succeed in forging a new Democratic consensus somewhat further to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factionalism fracture the party irreparably ?
Grayson Quay is a freelance writer and M.A .
at Georgetown University .

A few times in the Tony-winning musical Hadestown, characters raise their glasses “to the world we dream about, and the one we live in now.” This folksy retelling of an ancient Greek myth seethes with progressive energy, holding out the hope that the hippy poet Orpheus will overthrow the greedy capitalist Hades and free the summer goddess Persephone to usher in an endless summer. In the end, his success is only partial. The normal cycle of the seasons is restored, but Orpheus is exiled, and the pragmatic Hades, having softened just the tiniest bit, remains on the throne of the Underworld.
In a venue as pie-in-the-sky progressive as Broadway, it was refreshing to see a synthesis of utopian radicalism and status quo realism, a mixture of Plato pointing up to the realm of the Forms and Aristotle extending the horizontal hand of inductive moderation. Striking a balance between the two is difficult, but necessary.
It’s also exactly what the New York Times Editorial Board failed to do with its perplexing dual endorsement of Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The Board’s first failure is its most obvious: it is definitionally absurd to “endorse” two candidates for a nomination only one of them can secure. When Gollum found himself stumped as to what Bilbo had in his pocket, he used his third and final attempt to guess “String, or nothing!” which the narrator observed was “not quite fair—working in two guesses at once.” I quite agree—and I’m tempted to echo Bilbo’s response: “Both wrong.”
These endorsements are not “wrong” because Warren is, as Michael Warren Davis put it, “the very avatar of a screechy, preachy schoolmarm” and “the most unlikeable candidate to seek the White House since Walter Mondale.” Plenty of members of the Board expressed concerns about Warren’s condescending manner during the episode of Hulu’s The Weekly that chronicled this uniquely transparent endorsement process.
Nor are they “wrong” because Klobuchar’s poll numbers are currently in snowball-in-hell territory. The Board is well within its rights to pick the candidate whose policy proposals and leadership style they admire most and who they think has the best shot in the general election. I didn’t complain in 2016 when the NYT endorsed a struggling John Kasich for the GOP nomination as a protest vote against Trump and the Tea Party.
They aren’t even wrong because they just conveniently happened to endorse the only two female candidates still onstage. (Even if, by ending the endorsement with “May the best woman win,” the Board invited that criticism.)
These endorsements are wrong by the Times‘ own criteria. The Board writes:
On the Democratic side, an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation. Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible. Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced. Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it.
After grouping the candidates into those who want to return to the status quo ante Trumpus (Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, and—weirdly—Yang) and those who want a revolution (Sanders and Warren), the Board decides to abdicate its responsibility and instead choose an inferior example of each. Rather than endorsing the most authentic representative of each camp, the Board chooses the most moderate radical and the most radical moderate.
If the Board wanted a utopian vision, Bernie was clearly their guy. In his interviews at the NYT headquarters, he came off as populist to the core, promising to be an “organizer-in-chief” who would force Mitch McConnell to play ball or get him kicked out of office by mobilizing a groundswell of opposition among Kentucky voters. Maybe not the most realistic plan, but Warren didn’t handle the question of how she would get things done any better. “So what do you want to do?” she asked a Board member, clearly exasperated. “You want to just give up?! Say, ‘Oh damn! Mitch McConnell has the Senate!’?”
Bernie was notoriously shafted by the DNC in 2016. Now it’s beginning to look like, thanks to Democratic establishment organs like the DNC and the New York Times, the fix is in for Warren this time around. Just look at the ridiculous fake scandal surrounding the supposedly sexist remarks that Bernie supposedly made in 2018 and that Warren conveniently remembered to be mad about just last week. And why? If you want my opinion, it’s because Bernie committed the sin of populism.
When asked whether he thought Trump was the disease (the “realist” position) or a symptom (the “radical” position), Bernie’s response was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable in a way that made the Board visibly uneasy: “I think it speaks to something that I talk about a lot and that is the fact that the — not everybody, but tens and tens of millions of Americans feel that the political establishment, Republican and Democrat, have failed them. Maybe The New York Times has failed them, too.” They edited that last sentence out of the episode of The Weekly, by the way. “Dishonest media” indeed.
“That explains the appeal of racism?” Board member Brent Staples shot back. And there it is. Bernie had dared to suggest that Trump voters were something other than reprehensible, backward hicks. For that reason alone, he was unworthy of the endorsement. After all, someone who can sympathize with Trump voters is himself suspect. Or as the Board put it, “Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.” You heard it here, folks: Bernie is basically Trump (which, by the transitive property, makes him basically Hitler too).
Warren, of course, is too ivory tower to sympathize with the disaffected white working class and nowhere near charismatic enough to be any sort of demagogue. She’s willing to retain enough of the establishment status quo to keep the NYT elites happy. For the Editorial Board, she was the perfect faux-radical.
In Klobuchar, they found their perfect faux-moderate, rejecting the obvious choice: Joe Biden. If the Board’s intention was to endorse a moderate to balance out Warren, they could have hardly done better than Biden, who seems to be running on a platform that consists entirely of nostalgia for the relative normalcy of the Obama administration. Instead the Board rejected him in favor of Klobuchar because his agenda “tinkers at the edges of issues like health care and climate” and “will not get America where it needs to go as a society.”
In other words, the Board committed to endorsing a moderate and then rejected the most moderate of the moderates for being too moderate. Perhaps after more than a decade of playing hype man for Hillary Clinton, they’re nervous about backing another old, white establishment type with a long track record, strong name recognition, and all the baggage that goes with it. If Biden got the endorsement and lost to Trump (despite Biden’s insistence that he would win the Midwest “in a walk”), the Democratic left wing would be furious, perhaps to the point of fracturing the party
It is true that Klobuchar is more moderate than Warren. She favors free community college, for example, while Warren wants to make all public colleges free. The more significant difference between them, though, is one of brand positioning. Klobuchar portrays herself as a unifier who can succeed in red districts, while Warren has trouble making any sort of argument for her own electability. Plus Klobuchar voted for the bombing campaign that reduced Libya to a failed state with literal slave markets, which makes her presidential material in the eyes of the New York Times. The Board seems to have selected Klobuchar as a way of hedging their bets, a sort of Warren-lite. She certainly isn’t an existential threat to the Warren campaign.
In summary, the two candidates on offer are an ivory tower “radical” who offers elements of Sanders’ agenda without the distasteful flaw of treating Trump voters like human beings and a “moderate” who isn’t so moderate after all. We’re left with a less populist Bernie and a more progressive Biden. The Board has watered down both the “radical” and “realist” visions by rejecting the candidate who most fully embodied each. The endorsement claims that the American people deserve to see a no-holds-barred debate between those two visions, but what the Board’s members really want is to ensure that this debate takes place within parameters that they find acceptable.
The Board, by failing to commit to one candidate and splitting the endorsement, proved itself to be “lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot.” By failing to choose the candidate who best represented each of their two categories, it proved that a second time.
This decision by one of the most prestigious gatekeepers of the Democratic establishment reveals the extent to which the American left-liberal coalition has fragmented. It also reveals the lengths to which those gatekeepers are willing to go to preserve their influence, playing both sides of the radical-realist divide while simultaneously working to shift the definitions of those two camps back toward some sort of consensus.
But will the Board and their ilk succeed in forging a new Democratic consensus somewhat further to the left? Or will populism and factionalism fracture the party irreparably?
Grayson Quay is a freelance writer and M.A. at Georgetown University.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-21--Over Gun Rights, Virginia Bleeds Deep Red, and Blue

Today , the Commonwealth of Virginia , home to four of our very first presidents—framers and founders who shaped the nation we are today—triumphantly reaffirmed its place as a leader-state .
Delegate William Wampler ’ s office confirmed to me that at least 25-30,000 Second Amendment supporters surrounded the state capitol on Monday .
This had to be the largest gun rights rally ever , entirely surpassing the 10,000 people that the Virginia Citizens Defense League ( VCDL ) was anticipating in front of the Capitol , while VCDL lobbied legislators inside the building .
This was “ lobby day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , media estimates ranged from 22,000 , or more .
Every street , alley and byway circling the state temple seemed to be packed with gun-owning , and gun-bearing citizens , and those who support them .
The Northam administration strove and schemed to diminish and to denigrate the event from the start .
The media heartily complied .
Police were ordered to partition the streets and Capitol lawn into a warren of chokepoints and cul-de-sacs , channeling people into segmented , dead-end venues cut off from each other , while access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rationed to create a less-than-impressive camera-eye : A vista of modest protest alone .
Well , take a look at this vista , captured by my son at the climax of the event : Likewise , the Northam Government sought to throw serious shade on gun owners expressing open-carry rights , snapshotting them as surly , swaggering bullies , cowing innocents as they brandished the deadliest weapons .
Nothing could be further from the truth .
Despite being packed into narrow streets like sardines for harvest , every single armed citizen I met @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courteous .
It was quite astonishing to encounter so many slung ARs borne with such rare grace .
There were no arrests ( except that woman violating the temporary anti-mask statute ) , no fighting , no confrontations .
For real , Virginia Gentlemen .
At one point , a frustrated Northam regime factotum put out the word to cops to pull the mic from State Senator Amanda Chase as she addressed the rapt crowd .
The police , to their credit , failed to fulfill this directive .
The genuine comity between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I saw women thanking officers as they left the event , to grateful replies .
Most poignant , perhaps , was the table set in the very midst of the throng , manned by county sheriffs , united to stand with the Second Amendment .
There , in effect , was an unending receiving line of citizens eager to shake their hands .
There were so many women .
Of course the Establishment Media spurned them all , insisting on interviewing only “ representative ” men with beards ( and preferably , missing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the women spoke a passionate commitment .
Like Daphne from Virginia Beach , who had arrived by 7 a.m. , with media in full parade review , and not one outlet would speak to her .
Yet she was excited to find she wasn ’ t alone , with many women there with her in force .
She offered a wrenching reminder of what is at stake here .
A witness to the May 31 mass shooting at a Virginia Beach municipal center , she said , testified at a recent Virginia Beach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 2,000 people she said ; the city voted to become a 2A sanctuary on Jan. 7 ) .
The man told the audience how he lies awake at night : “ At three distinct moments , if I had had a weapon , I could have stopped it.
” Then there was Lisa , with frost-white hair , from West Virginia .
She had driven nine and a half hours , overnight to get to the rally .
“ Because it ’ s important .
Because it ’ s our Constitution.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace even though we are among arms — people don ’ t expect that.
” And there was Sarah , from Alexandria , who appeared tireless , working for the Virginia Citizens Defense League .
VCDL was the force behind this rally .
In contrast to an ineffectual NRA , VCDL has somehow pulled off one of the greatest convocations—for defending the Constitution—in recent memory .
From a purely political standpoint , the rally was fated to be a test of wills .
Victorious in November , and owning all three branches of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Richmond sought to force an aggressive anti-gun agenda on a polity publicly committed , at least since the 1770s , to gun rights .
In prompt response , before the Blue-dominated legislature even sat down to a new session , 94 percent of Virginia counties and townships had declared themselves “ Second Amendment Sanctuaries.
” Hence , the rally today was less relevant as a traditional “ lobby day ” —and more pointedly a contest over which side in the Commonwealth could seize the narrative moving forward .
Northam and the Blue-run Media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violent , desperate relics of a bygone era , while Red county Virginia was collectively united to present its armed citizenry as civilized upholders of the civic order .
For those who were there , there was no doubt which side came out ahead .
Mainstream Media , in contrast , will labor mightily to skew reality in their favor .
But the feed tells the real story .
The armed citizenry showed its strength for sure , and its capacity to quickly mobilize , while at the same time presenting a collective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to any accusations from the Left .
This just might be the political legacy of the rally .
Michael Vlahos is a writer and author of the book Fighting Identity : Sacred War and World Change .
He has taught war and strategy at Johns Hopkins University and the Naval War College and is a weekly contributor to The John Batchelor Show .
Follow him on Twitter @ JHUWorldCrisis


theamericanconservative--2020-01-22--Lazy Reporters Parrot Democrats’ Talking Points on Impeachment

It 's only begun and the hive is already telling us how how to think about the process , the rules , the politics .
Strap in for a long ride .
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) speaks to members of the media during a break of the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump January 21 , 2020 at the U.S. Capitol in Washington , DC .
( Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images ) As the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump got underway Tuesday , one theme emerged that will likely haunt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complete inability to understand trial procedure .
Instead reporters lazily parroted Democratic talking points without any context or analysis .
Reporting on the impeachment proceedings got off to a rocky and inaccurate start Monday evening when news reports conflated two key issues at stake in the impeachment trial : the rules for said trial and whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would call witnesses or consider House evidence .
This continued throughout the day Tuesday .
Despite the fact that the Senate was considering a rules vote governing procedure in the trial , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Adam Schiff used their time to falsely claim that Republicans were denying them a chance to subpoena witnesses .
A vote on evidence to be admitted was needed before the rules vote because the public “ deserves the full truth , ” Democrats argued .
“ The documents will also show us how key players inside the White House , such as the president ’ s acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney , his deputy Robert Blair , and former national security adviser John Bolton helped set up the [ Ukraine ] deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid and withholding a promised visit to the White House , ” Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren said .
“ The documents include records of the people who may have objected to this scheme , such as Ambassador Bolton .
This is an important impeachment case against the president.
” House impeachment managers were assisted in their misdirection efforts by complicit members of the media .
“ GOP rejects effort to compel documents on delayed Ukraine aid , ” reads a headline in The Hill .
But that ’ s not what happened during Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate Republican position .
McConnell has said , and other Republican senators have affirmed , that votes on whether the Senate will call additional witnesses will take place after senators have heard the presentations made by House prosecutors and White House counsel , and senators have had time to ask their questions .
In other words , McConnell followed through on what he promised to do from the beginning : to adhere to the rules that were agreed upon by both Republicans and Democrats during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments before a vote was taken on evidence and witnesses .
Despite the spin Democrats are currently putting on events , it is important to remember that the McConnell rules “ do not forbid additional witnesses or documents , ” constitutional attorney Bruce Fein told The American Conservative .
The rules state “ only that there will be votes as to whether to do so… .
[ The ] Clinton [ impeachment trial ] rules did not [ include an ] open-ended right to have additional witnesses and documents.
” The Senate did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chuck Schumer ’ s amendment , which would have added language requiring the White House to turn over documents related to Ukraine aid to the rules resolution .
The media also trumpeted Tuesday an alleged retreat by McConnell , which is almost exactly the opposite of what actually took place .
“ McConnell softens hard-line tactics on Trump trial , ” a Politico headline reads , while an AP headline proclaims , “ McConnell backs off , abruptly eases impeachment trial limits.
” This phrasing casts small changes made to a first draft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats , when it was actually done at the request of Senator Susan Collins and the handful of Republican senators who hold all the cards in the impeachment proceedings .
“ Collins and others raised concerns about the 24 hours of opening statements in 2 days and the admission of the house transcript is the record , ” Collins spokeswoman Annie Clark said in a statement .
“ Her position has been that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible .
She thinks these changes are a significant improvement.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , McConnell changed a provision in the rules that would have required White House lawyers and House prosecutors to make 24 hours of legal arguments in just two days .
The modified resolution will grant each side 24 hours to speak over the course of three days , potentially extending the length of the trial by two days .
Collins also succeeded in having the House impeachment record entered into evidence .
A lot of what happens in this trial will come down to the Republican senators who are persuadable and could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Lisa Murkowski , Mitt Romney , and Lamar Alexander .
After the opening arguments are completed , these senators will likely vote in favor of motions to allow additional witnesses and documents .
Even the most hardcore Republicans in the Senate , like Texas Senator Ted Cruz , have not ruled out calling additional witnesses .
Remember that when you see the media regurgitating Democrat talking points .

As the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump got underway Tuesday, one theme emerged that will likely haunt the proceedings: the media betrayed a complete inability to understand trial procedure. Instead reporters lazily parroted Democratic talking points without any context or analysis.
Reporting on the impeachment proceedings got off to a rocky and inaccurate start Monday evening when news reports conflated two key issues at stake in the impeachment trial: the rules for said trial and whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would call witnesses or consider House evidence.
“McConnell Maps Late-Night, Evidence-Free Impeachment Trial,” blared a Courthouse News headline.
This continued throughout the day Tuesday. Despite the fact that the Senate was considering a rules vote governing procedure in the trial, Democrats like Senator Chuck Schumer and Congressman Adam Schiff used their time to falsely claim that Republicans were denying them a chance to subpoena witnesses.
A vote on evidence to be admitted was needed before the rules vote because the public “deserves the full truth,” Democrats argued.
“The documents will also show us how key players inside the White House, such as the president’s acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, his deputy Robert Blair, and former national security adviser John Bolton helped set up the [Ukraine] deal by executing the freeze on all military aid and withholding a promised visit to the White House,” Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren said. “The documents include records of the people who may have objected to this scheme, such as Ambassador Bolton. This is an important impeachment case against the president.”
House impeachment managers were assisted in their misdirection efforts by complicit members of the media.
“GOP rejects effort to compel documents on delayed Ukraine aid,” reads a headline in The Hill.
But that’s not what happened during Tuesday’s proceedings—nor does it accurately reflect the Senate Republican position. McConnell has said, and other Republican senators have affirmed, that votes on whether the Senate will call additional witnesses will take place after senators have heard the presentations made by House prosecutors and White House counsel, and senators have had time to ask their questions.
In other words, McConnell followed through on what he promised to do from the beginning: to adhere to the rules that were agreed upon by both Republicans and Democrats during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, where both sides presented their opening arguments before a vote was taken on evidence and witnesses.
Despite the spin Democrats are currently putting on events, it is important to remember that the McConnell rules “do not forbid additional witnesses or documents,” constitutional attorney Bruce Fein told The American Conservative. The rules state “only that there will be votes as to whether to do so…. [The] Clinton [impeachment trial] rules did not [include an] open-ended right to have additional witnesses and documents.”
The Senate did vote 53-47 on Tuesday to table Senator Chuck Schumer’s amendment, which would have added language requiring the White House to turn over documents related to Ukraine aid to the rules resolution.
The media also trumpeted Tuesday an alleged retreat by McConnell, which is almost exactly the opposite of what actually took place.
“McConnell softens hard-line tactics on Trump trial,” a Politico headline reads, while an AP headline proclaims, “McConnell backs off, abruptly eases impeachment trial limits.”
This phrasing casts small changes made to a first draft of rules as a major victory for Democrats, when it was actually done at the request of Senator Susan Collins and the handful of Republican senators who hold all the cards in the impeachment proceedings.
“Collins and others raised concerns about the 24 hours of opening statements in 2 days and the admission of the house transcript is the record,” Collins spokeswoman Annie Clark said in a statement. “Her position has been that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible. She thinks these changes are a significant improvement.”
In response to Collins’ concerns, McConnell changed a provision in the rules that would have required White House lawyers and House prosecutors to make 24 hours of legal arguments in just two days. The modified resolution will grant each side 24 hours to speak over the course of three days, potentially extending the length of the trial by two days. Collins also succeeded in having the House impeachment record entered into evidence.
A lot of what happens in this trial will come down to the Republican senators who are persuadable and could be swing votes, namely Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, and Lamar Alexander. After the opening arguments are completed, these senators will likely vote in favor of motions to allow additional witnesses and documents. Even the most hardcore Republicans in the Senate, like Texas Senator Ted Cruz, have not ruled out calling additional witnesses.
Remember that when you see the media regurgitating Democrat talking points.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-23--Bankruptcy Could Help Millions Struggling Under Student Debt

Is it not strange that an 18-year-old can not legally buy a beer or a pack of cigarettes , but can sign on to tens of thousands of dollars in permanent debt ?
The average student loan for the graduating class of 2016 , according to Forbes , was for $ 37,000 .
And the cruelest part is that the debts—like child support and taxes— can not be discharged by personal bankruptcy .
This is what Congress inflicted upon young Americans with the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 .
The law was written before the financial crash of 2008 when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation in Congress to favor itself .
Even more perverse was how government ’ s “ easy loan guarantees ” actually allowed universities to increase their tuition by thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars per year .
Total student debt now amounts to about $ 1.6 trillion and has become a terrible burden upon millions of young Americans and their families .
In practice , it spoils credit ratings and delays or prevents marriage and home ownership for millions .
Indeed , with additional late fees , penalties , and high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for many has grown to impossible amounts .
Furthermore , the law provides that the debt can not be refinanced with new lower interest loans—another abuse of student borrowers .
Fortunately there might be an easy solution : Congress should change the law to no longer exclude student debt from personal bankruptcy filing .
Yes , the individual would have his or her credit damaged for seven years , but that is far better than struggling for a lifetime .
Those with well paying jobs who are able should of course pay off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of poorer young Americans ( and their parents who have often co-signed the loans ) , it would be the most logical and least painful solution .
Indeed , if the bankruptcy write-off was only or mainly for student debt , credit card lenders might easily begin allowing small credit lines far sooner than seven years after .
Especially once a vast number took advantage of the bankruptcy option , credit card companies would quickly find a way to re-establish them as customers .
After all , these companies want the business , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bankruptcy is a safer credit risk because they can ’ t file for it again .
With personal bankruptcy in place , the U.S. government will lose money because it guarantees many of the loans .
But the amount would be far less than what ’ s needed for another year of endless wars .
Instead of endless wars , why not write off some student debt ?
Young people who visit colleges are easily mesmerized by the promise of a superior education and a great job afterwards .
But taking on eternal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after-tax income has become a tremendous burden for many .
Equally , if colleges feared student bankruptcy , many would be far more conscious of providing a good education at a decent price .
Filing a personal bankruptcy damages one ’ s credit for seven years .
However , one may acquire a new credit card after five years .
One can even start rebuilding credit within two years , by starting with a bank debit card or secured credit card .
If student debt is the only debt that shows on bankruptcy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not assume a spendthrift .
But this all depends upon Congress changing the law to permit it .
Obviously bankruptcy is a last resort , but it ’ s better than becoming an indentured servant for the rest of one ’ s life with loan balances increasing because of penalties and interest .
An article by Beth Akers of the Manhattan Institute in the Wall Street Journal suggests various cures for the lowest income debtors , those who owe $ 5,000 or less—by far the great majority—mostly students who did not complete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5,000 of debt in return for an equal sized refundable tax credit that would not accrue interest charges and would gradually pay back the debt as they earned higher wages .
This may be a good time to rethink the whole idea of college for everybody .
Some million and a half jobs are open in advanced manufacturing , most paying over $ 50,000 a year , yet they go begging .
America needs more skilled workers , like Germany has , to be trained through apprenticeships combining study and work .
Such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the ones many half-educated students can now find .
Democratic presidential candidates are making all sorts of wild promises to eliminate student debt at a cost of over $ 1 trillion .
But not all of it needs to be written off or lowered .
Top professionals , such as doctors and lawyers , are paying off their debts .
But for millions of poorer Americans trapped at 18 years old in almost unending payments , the proposal above would be fair and manageable .

Is it not strange that an 18-year-old cannot legally buy a beer or a pack of cigarettes, but can sign on to tens of thousands of dollars in permanent debt?
The average student loan for the graduating class of 2016, according to Forbes, was for $37,000. And the cruelest part is that the debts—like child support and taxes—cannot be discharged by personal bankruptcy.
This is what Congress inflicted upon young Americans with the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005. The law was written before the financial crash of 2008 when the banking lobby could dictate virtually any legislation in Congress to favor itself. Even more perverse was how government’s “easy loan guarantees” actually allowed universities to increase their tuition by thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars per year.
Total student debt now amounts to about $1.6 trillion and has become a terrible burden upon millions of young Americans and their families. In practice, it spoils credit ratings and delays or prevents marriage and home ownership for millions. Indeed, with additional late fees, penalties, and high interest rates tacked on, the burden for many has grown to impossible amounts. Furthermore, the law provides that the debt cannot be refinanced with new lower interest loans—another abuse of student borrowers.
Fortunately there might be an easy solution: Congress should change the law to no longer exclude student debt from personal bankruptcy filing. Yes, the individual would have his or her credit damaged for seven years, but that is far better than struggling for a lifetime. Those with well paying jobs who are able should of course pay off their student debts, but for millions of poorer young Americans (and their parents who have often co-signed the loans), it would be the most logical and least painful solution.
Indeed, if the bankruptcy write-off was only or mainly for student debt, credit card lenders might easily begin allowing small credit lines far sooner than seven years after. Especially once a vast number took advantage of the bankruptcy option, credit card companies would quickly find a way to re-establish them as customers. After all, these companies want the business, and a person who has filed for bankruptcy is a safer credit risk because they can’t file for it again.
With personal bankruptcy in place, the U.S. government will lose money because it guarantees many of the loans. But the amount would be far less than what’s needed for another year of endless wars. Instead of endless wars, why not write off some student debt?
Young people who visit colleges are easily mesmerized by the promise of a superior education and a great job afterwards. But taking on eternal debt that must be paid for with after-tax income has become a tremendous burden for many. Equally, if colleges feared student bankruptcy, many would be far more conscious of providing a good education at a decent price.
Filing a personal bankruptcy damages one’s credit for seven years. However, one may acquire a new credit card after five years. One can even start rebuilding credit within two years, by starting with a bank debit card or secured credit card. If student debt is the only debt that shows on bankruptcy records, lenders will recognize the issue and not assume a spendthrift. But this all depends upon Congress changing the law to permit it. Obviously bankruptcy is a last resort, but it’s better than becoming an indentured servant for the rest of one’s life with loan balances increasing because of penalties and interest.
An article by Beth Akers of the Manhattan Institute in the Wall Street Journal suggests various cures for the lowest income debtors, those who owe $5,000 or less—by far the great majority—mostly students who did not complete college. She suggests removing that $5,000 of debt in return for an equal sized refundable tax credit that would not accrue interest charges and would gradually pay back the debt as they earned higher wages.
This may be a good time to rethink the whole idea of college for everybody. Some million and a half jobs are open in advanced manufacturing, most paying over $50,000 a year, yet they go begging. America needs more skilled workers, like Germany has, to be trained through apprenticeships combining study and work. Such jobs provide far more income and dignity than the ones many half-educated students can now find.
Democratic presidential candidates are making all sorts of wild promises to eliminate student debt at a cost of over $1 trillion. But not all of it needs to be written off or lowered. Top professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, are paying off their debts. But for millions of poorer Americans trapped at 18 years old in almost unending payments, the proposal above would be fair and manageable.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-23--The Pro-Life Movement Readies for the Fight of Our Times

Pro life supporters and pro choice protesters in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington DC during the 2019 March For Life event .
By Jeff McCoy/Shutterstock Almost 47 years after Roe v. Wade , the abortion debate hasn ’ t gone away .
The last year saw red and blue states passing dueling abortion bills ; there was a surprise blockbuster film about the divisive social issue ; and the Supreme Court readied to handle yet another major abortion case .
While a lot of the action happened at the state level , President Donald Trump has remained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jeanne Mancini , the president of the March for Life , told me in an e-mail that Trump promised “ he would veto any legislation that would weaken federal policies on abortion protecting innocent , unborn life or policies that force taxpayers to pay for abortion.
” Mancini believes this has set the stage for Republicans in lower offices to continue to push for pro-life policies .
This includes a spate “ heartbeat bills ” advanced by Republicans in state legislatures .
These bills would ban abortion once a heartbeat is detected , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rape , incest , or medical emergencies .
Nearly half of the states have introduced or attempted to pass such bills .
However , in the handful of states where they have become law , none have withstood judicial scrutiny : all of the heartbeat bills have been temporarily blocked by a federal court or struck down .
Alabama ’ s legislature passed the Human Life Protection Act , which is a near-total abortion ban .
It was set to go into effect in November but a federal judge blocked it too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly pro-life .
Aaron Bear , president of Citizens for Community Values , assisted with the effort to pass a heartbeat bill .
After three attempts , it finally passed this year , only for a federal judge to block it .
In an e-mail , Bear told me , “ It ’ s likely to be a long road ahead ” before the bill passes judicial muster because of Roe v. Wade .
He noted that Timothy Black , the judge hearing the case , served as a director of the Planned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It is absolutely absurd that he did not recuse himself from such an important case , as he has on other abortion cases in the past , ” Bear said .
While this is frustrating for many pro-life advocates , they still hope their efforts will bear fruit .
The long-term strategy is that such legislation will ultimately be used to challenge Roe .
Bear argued , “ Ohio ’ s Heartbeat Bill in particular was designed with pinpoint precision for judges to find it constitutional .
However , many lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court could take such a drastic step as to contradict Roe v. Wade .
So while we think the lower courts should uphold it , we have always known that the Supreme Court ’ s decision is the only one that ’ s going to matter at the end.
” Georgia lawmakers passed a heartbeat bill that restricted abortions past six weeks .
Governor Brian Kemp signed it , and a federal judge blocked it .
Yet even before it was enacted , Hollywood liberals took a special interest in the Georgia legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state .
Statistics via the Motion Picture Association of America show in 2016 that the Hollywood industry employed about 25,700 people in Georgia .
Celebrities like Mandy Moore , Alyssa Milano , and Don Cheadle signed a petition claiming they would abstain from working in Georgia or hiring locals should Kemp sign the bill .
This effort failed to dissuade the governor .
Other states went in the opposite direction .
New York , Vermont , and Virginia all enacted laws that would permit abortion virtually until birth .
The New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andrew Cuomo signed , the “ Reproductive Health Act , ” which allows women to legally abort their babies into the third trimester .
After Cuomo signed the bill , the World Trade Center was lit up in pink to celebrate this advancement of “ reproductive rights.
” Virginia passed a law that bans abortion after 25 weeks , even though some babies born as early as 23 weeks have been known to survive outside the womb with significant medical intervention .
However , in September a federal judge upheld a state law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultrasound and wait 24 hours before she obtains an abortion .
Vermont passed a “ comprehensive abortion rights bill ” which asserts “ the fundamental right of every individual who becomes pregnant to choose to carry a pregnancy to term , to give birth to a child , or to have an abortion.
” Washington isn ’ t out of the picture , however .
The Supreme Court will hear June Medical Services v. Gee .
This case revolves around whether a Louisiana law that requires doctors who perform abortion to have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is constitutional .
Chief Justice John Roberts , along with the other four more liberal justices , blocked Louisiana from enforcing this law until abortion providers could appeal .
These admitting privileges rules are very similar to the Texas requirement justices anguished over in Whole Woman ’ s Health v. Hellerstendt .
The Supreme Court struck the requirements down in 2016 , but that decision was reached before Justice Anthony Kennedy retired and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were confirmed .
While the Louisiana law being upheld would not affect Roe or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signal that the Supreme Court is ready to hear a more fundamental challenge to existing liberal abortion jurisprudence .
But it is not just the law that matters for abortion policies , but also public opinion and the culture .
Mancini believes we are seeing an important cultural shift on the issue .
In February 2019 , Marist released poll numbers that astounded pro-life and pro-choice advocates alike : nearly 75 percent of Americans wanted to see abortion restrictions and the same percentage opposed late-term abortion .
“ The culture is shifting towards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young people who consider this a foundational social justice issue .
Advances in science and technology have fueled this cultural shift by allowing us to observe clearly developing life in the womb , ” Mancini said .
Another example is the film adaptation of Abby Johnson ’ s Unplanned , the story of her abortion conversion story .
Johnson wasn ’ t just pro-choice , she was a Planned Parenthood director and employee of the year .
Produced on a relatively small $ 6 million budget , Unplanned saw surprise commercial success , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Association of America rating of “ R ” because the film shows an abortion .
Multiple mainstream networks refused to air promotions of the film , citing its “ objectionable ” content .
Yet it still landed in the top five movies on opening weekend in terms of revenue , doubling its previous box office projection .
Months after its 2019 release , Johnson described the incredible impact the film has had on people .
For the last year , I ’ ve received so many emails and messages about how Unplanned radically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who saw the film .
It was more than I ever expected .
I heard of people who went into the movie pro-choice and left pro-life .
Others told me how babies were saved specifically because the mother saw Unplanned and decided abortion was no longer an option .
The positive effect of the film on laws has already happened in states like Georgia .
We ’ ve shown the film to several other lawmakers around the country and certainly expect more changes on the legislative front .
But I think that Unplanned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer and how compassion and gentleness and trust in God can move even the most hardened of hearts .
I look forward to the day that abortion is unthinkable and hope that the film had some part to play in that great day .
If a renewed culture of life comes about in America , maybe 2019 will be looked back on as a starting point .
Nicole Russell covers politics , law , and culture .
Her work has appeared in The Atlantic and The Washington Examiner .
Follow her on Twitter @ @ @

Almost 47 years after Roe v. Wade, the abortion debate hasn’t gone away. The last year saw red and blue states passing dueling abortion bills; there was a surprise blockbuster film about the divisive social issue; and the Supreme Court readied to handle yet another major abortion case.
While a lot of the action happened at the state level, President Donald Trump has remained an ally to the pro-life movement. Jeanne Mancini, the president of the March for Life, told me in an e-mail that Trump promised “he would veto any legislation that would weaken federal policies on abortion protecting innocent, unborn life or policies that force taxpayers to pay for abortion.” Mancini believes this has set the stage for Republicans in lower offices to continue to push for pro-life policies.
This includes a spate “heartbeat bills” advanced by Republicans in state legislatures. These bills would ban abortion once a heartbeat is detected, although a few states have exceptions for rape, incest, or medical emergencies. Nearly half of the states have introduced or attempted to pass such bills. However, in the handful of states where they have become law, none have withstood judicial scrutiny: all of the heartbeat bills have been temporarily blocked by a federal court or struck down. Alabama’s legislature passed the Human Life Protection Act, which is a near-total abortion ban. It was set to go into effect in November but a federal judge blocked it too.
Ohio is one state that is becoming increasingly pro-life. Aaron Bear, president of Citizens for Community Values, assisted with the effort to pass a heartbeat bill. After three attempts, it finally passed this year, only for a federal judge to block it. In an e-mail, Bear told me, “It’s likely to be a long road ahead” before the bill passes judicial muster because of Roe v. Wade. He noted that Timothy Black, the judge hearing the case, served as a director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati several years ago. “It is absolutely absurd that he did not recuse himself from such an important case, as he has on other abortion cases in the past,” Bear said.
While this is frustrating for many pro-life advocates, they still hope their efforts will bear fruit. The long-term strategy is that such legislation will ultimately be used to challenge Roe. Bear argued, “Ohio’s Heartbeat Bill in particular was designed with pinpoint precision for judges to find it constitutional. However, many lower courts may feel like only the Supreme Court could take such a drastic step as to contradict Roe v. Wade. So while we think the lower courts should uphold it, we have always known that the Supreme Court’s decision is the only one that’s going to matter at the end.”
Georgia lawmakers passed a heartbeat bill that restricted abortions past six weeks. Governor Brian Kemp signed it, and a federal judge blocked it. Yet even before it was enacted, Hollywood liberals took a special interest in the Georgia legislation because of the television and film industries in the state. Statistics via the Motion Picture Association of America show in 2016 that the Hollywood industry employed about 25,700 people in Georgia. Celebrities like Mandy Moore, Alyssa Milano, and Don Cheadle signed a petition claiming they would abstain from working in Georgia or hiring locals should Kemp sign the bill. This effort failed to dissuade the governor.
Other states went in the opposite direction. New York, Vermont, and Virginia all enacted laws that would permit abortion virtually until birth. The New York state legislature passed, and Governor Andrew Cuomo signed, the “Reproductive Health Act,” which allows women to legally abort their babies into the third trimester. After Cuomo signed the bill, the World Trade Center was lit up in pink to celebrate this advancement of “reproductive rights.”
Virginia passed a law that bans abortion after 25 weeks, even though some babies born as early as 23 weeks have been known to survive outside the womb with significant medical intervention. However, in September a federal judge upheld a state law that requires a woman to undergo an ultrasound and wait 24 hours before she obtains an abortion. Vermont passed a “comprehensive abortion rights bill” which asserts “the fundamental right of every individual who becomes pregnant to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion.”
Washington isn’t out of the picture, however. The Supreme Court will hear June Medical Services v. Gee. This case revolves around whether a Louisiana law that requires doctors who perform abortion to have the right to admit patients at a hospital is constitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with the other four more liberal justices, blocked Louisiana from enforcing this law until abortion providers could appeal.
These admitting privileges rules are very similar to the Texas requirement justices anguished over in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstendt. The Supreme Court struck the requirements down in 2016, but that decision was reached before Justice Anthony Kennedy retired and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were confirmed.
While the Louisiana law being upheld would not affect Roe or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it could signal that the Supreme Court is ready to hear a more fundamental challenge to existing liberal abortion jurisprudence.
But it is not just the law that matters for abortion policies, but also public opinion and the culture. Mancini believes we are seeing an important cultural shift on the issue. In February 2019, Marist released poll numbers that astounded pro-life and pro-choice advocates alike: nearly 75 percent of Americans wanted to see abortion restrictions and the same percentage opposed late-term abortion.
“The culture is shifting towards life and we see it especially with young people who consider this a foundational social justice issue. Advances in science and technology have fueled this cultural shift by allowing us to observe clearly developing life in the womb,” Mancini said.
Another example is the film adaptation of Abby Johnson’s Unplanned, the story of her abortion conversion story. Johnson wasn’t just pro-choice, she was a Planned Parenthood director and employee of the year. Produced on a relatively small $6 million budget, Unplanned saw surprise commercial success, despite roadblocks including an unforeseen Motion Picture Association of America rating of “R” because the film shows an abortion. Multiple mainstream networks refused to air promotions of the film, citing its “objectionable” content. Yet it still landed in the top five movies on opening weekend in terms of revenue, doubling its previous box office projection.
Months after its 2019 release, Johnson described the incredible impact the film has had on people.
For the last year, I’ve received so many emails and messages about how Unplanned radically changed the hearts and minds of people who saw the film. It was more than I ever expected. I heard of people who went into the movie pro-choice and left pro-life. Others told me how babies were saved specifically because the mother saw Unplanned and decided abortion was no longer an option. The positive effect of the film on laws has already happened in states like Georgia. We’ve shown the film to several other lawmakers around the country and certainly expect more changes on the legislative front. But I think that Unplanned showed how love is always the right answer and how compassion and gentleness and trust in God can move even the most hardened of hearts. I look forward to the day that abortion is unthinkable and hope that the film had some part to play in that great day.
If a renewed culture of life comes about in America, maybe 2019 will be looked back on as a starting point.
Nicole Russell covers politics, law, and culture. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic and The Washington Examiner. Follow her on Twitter @russell_nm.


theamericanconservative--2020-01-23--Lev Parnas is a Grifter and a Fraud and the Media Loves Him

Lev Parnas arrives at federal court for an arraignment hearing on October 23 , 2019 in New York City .
( Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images ) The media christened Lev Parnas the kind of witness the Senate needs to hear from .
Is he ?
Nah .
Lev Parnas is who we all hope is the last “ Did too !
Did Not !
” player in the term-long effort to find some way to drive Trump from office .
Parnas is a Ukrainian-born “ businessman ” who claims to be the missing link between Trump and the evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be under indictment for breaking campaign finance laws after disguising donations from foreign entities to a pro-Trump PAC , and so is singing like the girl from Frozen to be let go .
Parnas is mostly an opportunist , with notes of stalker , groupie , and crazy guy who imagines Jodi Foster is in love with him from afar .
He takes his place as the last Hail Mary play in the gladiator games that is impeachment .
In that , he joins James Comey , Michael Flynn , Paul Manafort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Avenatti , aggrieved porn stars , Christopher Steele , the tattered Russian oligarchs still waiting for their checks from Christopher Steele , the Masked Whistleblower , and so many others who came before them .
Though the media label Parnas a Rudy Giuliani henchman , associate , or thug , and thus by extension a Trump henchman , associate , or thug , what Parnas did was to pay Giuliani hundreds of thousands of dollars for “ business and legal advice.
” He didn ’ t work for Giuliani ; Giuliani worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t-make-this-up category , Parnas ’ company is called Fraud Guarantee .
Parnas was supposedly paying for the privilege of being used to gather dirt on Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch , which raises the question of why .
As America ’ s ambassador to Ukraine , Yovanovitch served at the pleasure of the president .
Trump did not need a reason to fire her .
He did not need dirt gathered .
He could simply instruct the State Department to recall her ( or any other ambassador ) and that ’ s that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ need for third-party , cloak-and-dagger work by a B-grade Clouseau .
Yet Parnas has since gone on at length about the process of firing Yovanovitch being so difficult that the most powerful man in the world with the Article II-guaranteed right to fire someone needed his help .
Actually the only “ work ” Parnas wanted in return for his generous payments to Rudy was the appearance of access , grip-and-grin photos , a sleazy form of currency in the circles people like him travel in Eastern Europe and Asia .
They decorate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ globe , like the “ awards ” small-town real estate agents and insurance brokers favor .
So via his payments to Giuliani and his generous donations , Parnas amassed photos of himself and Trump .
Those photos are the cornerstone of Democrats ’ case against Trump , who says he really does not know Parnas .
See , there are pictures , which the media insist now are to be called “ receipts.
” Want some photos with the big boys and girls ?
Easy .
You write a modest check .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a quick grip-and-grin picture , maybe at first with a tier-two Trump kid .
You write a bigger check , you get invited to another event and maybe are led past the Man himself for a quick snap .
More money , better photos .
Start to bundle donors , and you get invites to “ private ” breakfasts attended by dozens of people with a drop-by from the candidate .
None of this means you “ know ” Trump or he knows you .
You may not exchange a word of greeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fashion .
And of course , if your politics run Democrat , those same photos are available with Biden , Clinton , or whomever .
For a price .
Now show us a photo of you with Trump in matching Speedos poolside , and you ’ ll have our attention .
Along with most of the media and the American public , sleazy businesspeople in Eastern Europe don ’ t seem to grasp the meaningless of these photos and imagine a guy like Trump isn ’ t using Parnas as an ATM while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using Trump for pretend status .
Meanwhile , as con men do , Parnas was going around Ukraine telling everyone , without any evidence but the photos , that he was working for Giuliani and Trump , gathering dirt on the American ambassador .
But there was always a little wiggle room in the actual relationship—note the “ like ” when Parnas said , “ I became like Rudy ’ s assistant.
” How one works for someone one is paying is , like , unclear .
Parnas , like generations of grifters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around claiming he is important and trying to tie himself to important people , but none of that makes it true .
In fact , perhaps having been introduced to the legal term “ perjury ” or its vernacular cousin “ lying ” by his defense attorney John Dowd , a former Trump lawyer he and the media have made a big deal out of , Parnas further qualified his relationship with Trump to say , “ I mean , we ’ re not friends .
Me and him didn ’ t watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t eat hot dogs .
But he knew exactly who we were.
” Following his indictment and ahead of impeachment proceedings , Parnas has become a one-man media event .
He claimed to Rachel Maddow that he knew Trump knew everything bad that was going on , though he also admits he never spoke substantively to Trump and his knowledge is second- or third-hand at best .
To say he was photographed with Trump at fundraisers is miles from claiming Trump directed him in the Ukraine caper , which even Parnas does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him , imaging a selfie is a receipt for impeachable offenses .
And of course , there ’ s more , as the story oozes from drama into comedy .
Remember how the Russians had Trump on tape with prostitutes ?
And how the media headlined that Michael Cohen had incriminating tapes of Trump that no one had ever heard ?
Parnas supposedly has tapes , too !
Parnas , without evidence , accused Attorney General Bill Barr of being involved in all things Ukraine , and thus demanding that he recuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Parnas ’ unrelated campaign finance case due to this “ conflict of interest.
” Parnas also accused Vice President Pence of “ having to have known ” about the Ukraine stuff .
Parnas did dismiss hints by a drunk Trump supporter that Ambassador Yovanovitch was under Giuliani-ordered surveillance and/or the target of assassination .
Democrats have called for an investigation anyway .
The Dems have nothing to be proud of ; Adam Schiff falsely claimed Parnas was in touch with the president of the Ukraine when he was actually texting about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s son works for .
And the fact Parnas revealed all on TV , as opposed to in a proffer , or under oath anywhere , should not distract from his credibility .
Or maybe it should .
The federal prosecutors at the Southern District of New York ( yeah , that SDNY , the one which is supposed to take down Trump ) turned down Parnas ’ offer to spill all in return for a deal , sending him to testify on the Rachel Maddow show .
Enough .
There is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Trump .
There is no evidence supporting Parnas ’ claims that he in any way worked with , at the direction of , or otherwise for Trump .
His statements now , only after indictment , raise significant questions about his credibility and thus demand supporting evidence .
Selfies with Trump are not supporting evidence .
Nothing corroborates Parnas but Parnas .
That ends Parnas ’ value as a potential witness in the impeachment trial .
But what about his enablers in the media without whom he ’ d be telling his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some federal prison ?
This all started three years ago with Christopher Steele , who at least had a nicely typed dossier and an MI6 pedigree .
Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and a few of the others probably did know things , even if they didn ’ t snitch out like the media claimed they would .
But now we ’ re down to the mainstream media primping a guy who before he was a recognized as a savior by CNN was called by CNN a radioactive wolf who shook down Ukrainians pretending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House .
The old adage about not being able to cheat an honest person extends to the media ; a con man can only be elevated to the national stage by a dishonest press willing to ignore his lack of credibility for its own agenda .
And so the same people who drove the Russiagate train now switch their embrace to a bottom feeder like Parnas .
The New York Times ‘ own queen of that particular swamp , Maggie Haberman , admitted , “ One of the hallmarks of the Trump era @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets instant credibility .
We ’ ve seen it over and over again .
Michael Avenatti , Cohen even at points , even when he was admitting he was lying to Congress at some point after he pleaded guilty to other charges.
” That ’ s a hell of a thing for Haberman to say given how much credibility she and her paper of record have bestowed on a parade of transparent liars .
With impeachment soon to be over and the Democratic primaries starting , hopefully there won ’ t be bandwidth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The list of people who have been used to try to bring Trump down is long .
Some of them are now in jail , many were fired or disgraced , and a few received Pulitzer Prizes .
Time for this to end .
Peter Van Buren , a 24-year State Department veteran , is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper ’ s War : A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 99 Percent .

The media christened Lev Parnas the kind of witness the Senate needs to hear from. Is he?
Nah. Lev Parnas is who we all hope is the last “Did too! Did Not!” player in the term-long effort to find some way to drive Trump from office. Parnas is a Ukrainian-born “businessman” who claims to be the missing link between Trump and the evidence needed to impeach. Parnas also happens to be under indictment for breaking campaign finance laws after disguising donations from foreign entities to a pro-Trump PAC, and so is singing like the girl from Frozen to be let go.
Parnas is mostly an opportunist, with notes of stalker, groupie, and crazy guy who imagines Jodi Foster is in love with him from afar. He takes his place as the last Hail Mary play in the gladiator games that is impeachment. In that, he joins James Comey, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Robert Mueller, Michael Cohen, Michael Avenatti, aggrieved porn stars, Christopher Steele, the tattered Russian oligarchs still waiting for their checks from Christopher Steele, the Masked Whistleblower, and so many others who came before them.
Though the media label Parnas a Rudy Giuliani henchman, associate, or thug, and thus by extension a Trump henchman, associate, or thug, what Parnas did was to pay Giuliani hundreds of thousands of dollars for “business and legal advice.” He didn’t work for Giuliani; Giuliani worked for him. And in the you-can’t-make-this-up category, Parnas’ company is called Fraud Guarantee.
Parnas was supposedly paying for the privilege of being used to gather dirt on Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, which raises the question of why. As America’s ambassador to Ukraine, Yovanovitch served at the pleasure of the president. Trump did not need a reason to fire her. He did not need dirt gathered. He could simply instruct the State Department to recall her (or any other ambassador) and that’s that. It happens all the time without the need for third-party, cloak-and-dagger work by a B-grade Clouseau. Yet Parnas has since gone on at length about the process of firing Yovanovitch being so difficult that the most powerful man in the world with the Article II-guaranteed right to fire someone needed his help.
Actually the only “work” Parnas wanted in return for his generous payments to Rudy was the appearance of access, grip-and-grin photos, a sleazy form of currency in the circles people like him travel in Eastern Europe and Asia. They decorate the walls of fast talkers across the globe, like the “awards” small-town real estate agents and insurance brokers favor. So via his payments to Giuliani and his generous donations, Parnas amassed photos of himself and Trump. Those photos are the cornerstone of Democrats’ case against Trump, who says he really does not know Parnas. See, there are pictures, which the media insist now are to be called “receipts.”
Want some photos with the big boys and girls? Easy. You write a modest check. You get invited to a campaign event for a quick grip-and-grin picture, maybe at first with a tier-two Trump kid. You write a bigger check, you get invited to another event and maybe are led past the Man himself for a quick snap. More money, better photos. Start to bundle donors, and you get invites to “private” breakfasts attended by dozens of people with a drop-by from the candidate. None of this means you “know” Trump or he knows you. You may not exchange a word of greeting as the photos are taken in assembly-line fashion. And of course, if your politics run Democrat, those same photos are available with Biden, Clinton, or whomever. For a price. Now show us a photo of you with Trump in matching Speedos poolside, and you’ll have our attention.
Along with most of the media and the American public, sleazy businesspeople in Eastern Europe don’t seem to grasp the meaningless of these photos and imagine a guy like Trump isn’t using Parnas as an ATM while a guy like Parnas isn’t using Trump for pretend status. Meanwhile, as con men do, Parnas was going around Ukraine telling everyone, without any evidence but the photos, that he was working for Giuliani and Trump, gathering dirt on the American ambassador. But there was always a little wiggle room in the actual relationship—note the “like” when Parnas said, “I became like Rudy’s assistant.” How one works for someone one is paying is, like, unclear. Parnas, like generations of grifters before him, is free to go around claiming he is important and trying to tie himself to important people, but none of that makes it true.
In fact, perhaps having been introduced to the legal term “perjury” or its vernacular cousin “lying” by his defense attorney John Dowd, a former Trump lawyer he and the media have made a big deal out of, Parnas further qualified his relationship with Trump to say, “I mean, we’re not friends. Me and him didn’t watch football games together. We didn’t eat hot dogs. But he knew exactly who we were.”
Following his indictment and ahead of impeachment proceedings, Parnas has become a one-man media event. He claimed to Rachel Maddow that he knew Trump knew everything bad that was going on, though he also admits he never spoke substantively to Trump and his knowledge is second- or third-hand at best. To say he was photographed with Trump at fundraisers is miles from claiming Trump directed him in the Ukraine caper, which even Parnas does not assert. The media has done that for him, imaging a selfie is a receipt for impeachable offenses.
And of course, there’s more, as the story oozes from drama into comedy. Remember how the Russians had Trump on tape with prostitutes? And how the media headlined that Michael Cohen had incriminating tapes of Trump that no one had ever heard? Parnas supposedly has tapes, too! Parnas, without evidence, accused Attorney General Bill Barr of being involved in all things Ukraine, and thus demanding that he recuse himself and the entire Department of Justice from Parnas’ unrelated campaign finance case due to this “conflict of interest.”
Parnas also accused Vice President Pence of “having to have known” about the Ukraine stuff. Parnas did dismiss hints by a drunk Trump supporter that Ambassador Yovanovitch was under Giuliani-ordered surveillance and/or the target of assassination. Democrats have called for an investigation anyway. The Dems have nothing to be proud of; Adam Schiff falsely claimed Parnas was in touch with the president of the Ukraine when he was actually texting about the head of the Ukrainian company Biden’s son works for.
And the fact Parnas revealed all on TV, as opposed to in a proffer, or under oath anywhere, should not distract from his credibility. Or maybe it should. The federal prosecutors at the Southern District of New York (yeah, that SDNY, the one which is supposed to take down Trump) turned down Parnas’ offer to spill all in return for a deal, sending him to testify on the Rachel Maddow show.
Enough. There is no evidence Parnas ever spoke substantively about Ukraine with Trump. There is no evidence supporting Parnas’ claims that he in any way worked with, at the direction of, or otherwise for Trump. His statements now, only after indictment, raise significant questions about his credibility and thus demand supporting evidence. Selfies with Trump are not supporting evidence. Nothing corroborates Parnas but Parnas.
That ends Parnas’ value as a potential witness in the impeachment trial. But what about his enablers in the media without whom he’d be telling his tall tales to the cafeteria ladies at some federal prison?
This all started three years ago with Christopher Steele, who at least had a nicely typed dossier and an MI6 pedigree. Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and a few of the others probably did know things, even if they didn’t snitch out like the media claimed they would. But now we’re down to the mainstream media primping a guy who before he was a recognized as a savior by CNN was called by CNN a radioactive wolf who shook down Ukrainians pretending he had a connection to the White House.
The old adage about not being able to cheat an honest person extends to the media; a con man can only be elevated to the national stage by a dishonest press willing to ignore his lack of credibility for its own agenda. And so the same people who drove the Russiagate train now switch their embrace to a bottom feeder like Parnas.
The New York Times‘ own queen of that particular swamp, Maggie Haberman, admitted, “One of the hallmarks of the Trump era is anybody who is oppositional to Trump gets instant credibility. We’ve seen it over and over again. Michael Avenatti, Cohen even at points, even when he was admitting he was lying to Congress at some point after he pleaded guilty to other charges.” That’s a hell of a thing for Haberman to say given how much credibility she and her paper of record have bestowed on a parade of transparent liars.
With impeachment soon to be over and the Democratic primaries starting, hopefully there won’t be bandwidth left for another round of this. The list of people who have been used to try to bring Trump down is long. Some of them are now in jail, many were fired or disgraced, and a few received Pulitzer Prizes. Time for this to end.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent.