“I”m a Black man that’s the mayor but my story is being interpreted by people who don’t look like me,” Adams saidduring a press conference on Tuesday. “We got to be honest about that. How many Blacks are in the editorial boards? How many Blacks determine how these stories are being written? How many Asians? How many east Indians? How many south Asians? Everyone talks about my government being diversified. What’s the diversification in the newsrooms?“
Think about: a Black mayor whose only been in office since January 1st in a city completely dominated by Liberals, is accusing the most left-leaning group of individuals ever assembled in one industry of bias in their coverage of him based on his skin color.
In a related item courtesy of Townhall.com, Matt Vespa reports a…
And in a real shocker, not only was Brown granted bail, but it was posted by a pro-Black Lies Matter fund. Not that there’s a two-tiered justice system or anything, but can anyone remotely imagine a White supremacist who tried to bust a cap into candidate Eric Adams’s a*s being granted bail?!?
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, here’s the Vanity Fair article we mentioned earlier entitled…
* Editor’s Note: In the interest of fairness, the author got at least one thing right.
We won’t bore you with all of the incorrect assertions and subtle misdirections contained in the article, but suffice it to say, as we stated in our Quote of the Day, it misses the forest…the fact the Clinton campaign undeniably spied on candidate Trump in an effort to dig up dirt, then fabricated what they couldn’t find and then peddled their lies to the FBI and CIA…for the trees…The Donald’s standard bombast, hyperbole and exaggeration.
It’s also easy to prove FOX and Trump are hardly the only sources which have reported the story, as evidenced by these two editorials from the Journal and NRO previously featured in The Gouge.
“The defenders of Mr. Steele’s dossier also spent years insisting that the oppo researcher was nonpartisan and his work beyond reproach—only to be humiliated. The media is stepping out again at its peril. There’s plenty to show an ugly tale already—and Mr. Durham will likely have plenty more to come.“
Next, NRO‘s Charlie Cooke astutely observes while…
“…The first draft of the Emergencies Act defined an “emergency” as “an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that imperils the well-being of Canada as a whole or that is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it.” Upon further consideration, this language was removed, on the grounds that it was too broad, and that “urgent,” “critical,” or “temporary” could be applied to a whole host of situations that, while serious, did not provide sufficient reason for the invocation of powers as sweeping as those contained in the act. In the old language’s place, the Canadian parliament established an either/or threshold, by which the act could be used in such a situation as “seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it” or such a situation as “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.”
At no point in the last 34 years has anything that happened in Canada met either of these standards. By declaring that a medium-sized irritation — a group of truckers protesting in Ottawa — is severe enough to buck the trend (mostly, it seems, because the truckers happen to be his political enemies), Justin Trudeau has disgraced himself and his office.
Criticizing the Emergencies Act in 1991, Peter Rosenthal warned in the Manitoba Law Journal that the law as it had been passed was ripe for abuse. “The Act,” Rosenthal wrote, “creates the very real possibility that declarations of emergencies will be used to suppress demonstrations.” Imagining an anti-nuclear protest that caused disruptions in a major city, Rosenthal suggested that a future prime minister “might say that such a demonstration seriously endangered the health of Canadians by threatening the supply of food and medicines, and exceeded the authority of a province since the demonstrations affected trade and commerce and property throughout Canada, not just within a province.”Who, other than everyone with eyes, could have seen this coming?
Naturally, the Canadian government is not obliged to remain idle while protesters block bridges or violate other laws. Here, as elsewhere, there is a bright line between protesting and impeding the rights of others, and, insofar as the truckers’ protest has veered over that line, the government has the legal authority to respond. There is, and has been since the colonial era, such a thing as an illegal assembly. But to acknowledge that the Canadian government has a right to clear a domestic blockade is by no means to suggest that it should do so under the auspices of a piece of emergency legislation that was quite obviously intended for a much different purpose. This week, Joanna Baron, of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, concluded that the pretext for Trudeau’s invocation of the act is “extremely thin.” She is correct. When one imagines a set of circumstances that “seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians” or that “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada,” one imagines a 9/11 or a Pearl Harbor or a well-organized coup. Whatever excesses we may have seen from the truckers — and, while they have been mostly peaceful, they have not been perfect — do not come closeto clearing this bar.
Justifying his move, Trudeau told the world that he intended to do “whatever is necessary to reinforce the principles, values, and institutions that keep all Canadians free – and that’s what we’re doing with the Emergencies Act.”This is Orwellian nonsense. By “whatever,” Trudeau means his having instructed private banks that they must freeze the accounts of Canadian citizens without a court order. As for the “principles, values, and institutions that keep all Canadians free” . . . well, where are they? Principles are the reflexes one maintains under sustained pressure.Values are the rules by which one seeks to live as a matter of habit. Institutions are designed to stand strong as the world changes around them.If, as seems to be the case, Canada’s constitutional order has an escape hatch of this size and frivolity built into it, then it isn’t much of a constitutional order at all…”
We can’t speak for the average Canadian, but we find it hard to believe, based on those we know, they agree with Trudeau. This mamby-pamby probable love child of Fidel Castrois proof positive of the accuracy of the old adage, if you scratch a Liberal, you’ll find a Fascist.
And if one of Charlie Cooke’s columns is good, two is even better, particularly when the second poses the question…
I could never have imagined that I would come to long in earnest for the return of the insipid, aimless, and irrelevant version of Kamala Harris — the one who believes that she is being profound when she suggests that “it is time for us to do what we have been doing, and that time is every day.” Yet here we are. Yesterday, the vice president of the United States put out a statement in Farsi that read, “The truth is: There is segregation in America. Xenophobia exists in America. Antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, all exist. Wherever injustice is dealt with, there is activity ahead.” As a reward for her efforts, the Biden administration has decided to send Harris to represent the United States at a summit in Munich, during which she will take part in “a series of high-stakes, high-level diplomatic talks” designed to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine. Thankfully, we have no alarming historical examples of the regrettable consequences that flow from our sending the wrong peace negotiators to Munich.
We are told that Harris hopes to gain some foreign-policy experience ahead of a potential run for — or takeover of — the presidency. If so, the first step will be to understand that speaking for one’s country on the global stage differs profoundly from making the keynote address at this year’s Netroots Nation. Alas, it is unclear whether the Biden administration writ large understands this. At his disastrous January press conference, President Biden was asked bluntly whether he thought that Russia would go into Ukraine, and — twice — he reacted as if he were on a late-afternoon panel at a D.C. think-tank symposium. “I think,” Biden said, “what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do. . . .” Accurate or not, this was the wrong answer for an American president to proffer. The right answer was, “Russia must not invade Ukraine, and if it does there will be consequences.” If they wish, American citizens may be neutral on the virtues of their country.The executive branch doesn’t have that luxury.
Astonishingly, this does not seem to be obvious to the U.S. State Department, which has adopted a policy designed to “disarm critics and skeptics” by coupling demands for international change with a recitation of what the Democratic Party believes is wrong with the United States. This is extraordinarily foolish. Because they read the news, America’s adversaries recognize that American progressives neither admire the U.S. nor believe it to be exceptional, and they understand that they can exploit that under-confidence for their own geopolitical ends. President Ronald Reagan really did believe that the United States was a “shining city on a hill.” But he also grasped that, alongside military strength, civilizational self-assurance represented an enormous diplomatic asset. “Y’know, when you think about it, we’re not that great either”? Not so much.
Which is all another way of asking: What in the ever-loving hell does Kamala Harris think she is doing? Leave aside for a moment her grotesque false equivalence.How, I would like to know, did this ever happen? Why did Harris decide to engage in such self-flagellation in the first instance?Who translated the attempt for her? Who decided to put it out on an official account whose bio reads, “The US Department of State’s Persian Twitter posts the views of the US government”?Why did the U.S. Embassy in Iran choose to share it? Did the president know? The Biden-Harris ticket ran in 2020 promising a return to honor. Instead, it has set about continuing the tendency toward relativism and self-critique that began under Barack Obama and continued under Donald Trump.
After Bill O’Reilly suggested to him in 2017 that Vladimir Putin was a “killer,” Trump responded, disgracefully, “There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?” Well, actually, I do, yes. I think that it’s open and free and fair and stable and kind and hopeful, and that, when compared with every other country that has ever existed, it looks extraordinarily good. I think that there is no comparison to be drawn between the United States and tyrannies such as Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea. America is a beacon, an exemplar, and a refuge; those other nations belong in what Churchill called the “dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime.” If Kamala Harris does not agree, that is her right. But she might have the decency to step down from the executive branch before saying so aloud from the front of the international stage.
Kommielaa: truly a Progressive bird of putrid plumage.
Since we’re on the subjects of complete and utter…
…Joy Behar just confirmed her status as one of the most loud-mouthed, ignorant and obnoxious we’ve ever heard. We’d rather have ice picks driven through our ears than have to listen to this harpy who makes The Donald seem normal by comparison.
Which brings us, appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:
Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with an especially sordid story straight from the pages of The Crime Blotter, courtesy today of as depraved a couple as we’ve encountered:
“A disgraced Louisiana teacher has pleaded guilty to “horrific crimes” against children and admitted to serving her students cupcakes that contained sperm from her ex-husband, who is awaiting his own trial on child sex crime charges, according to authorities.
Cynthia Perkins, 36, agreed to plead guilty and testify against her ex, 44-year-old former Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office SWAT member Dennis Perkins, who is also charged with dozens of child sex crimes, according to prosecutors…”
…Perkins was a junior high English teacher until she resigned after police raided the couple’s home. The Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office immediately fired Dennis Perkins, who had been a special operations lieutenant.
Investigators said they received a tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children about the Denham Springs couple in 2019. Police seized photographs of the couple posing nude with a child, as well as other evidence while serving a search warrant in October of that year.
Court documents reported by WBRZ in May revealed that police also found pictures of Perkins’ students eating the semen-laced cupcakes and that the couple allegedly raped a child between the ages of 9 and 10. Investigators allegedly found hidden cameras in their attic and bathroom and said they uncovered more pictures on an iPhone…”
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.