{"id":109057,"date":"2023-04-25T20:33:48","date_gmt":"2023-04-26T00:33:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=109057"},"modified":"2023-04-25T20:34:11","modified_gmt":"2023-04-26T00:34:11","slug":"the-daily-gouge-archive-monday-april-24th-2023","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=109057","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge Archive, Monday, April 24th, 2023"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Monday, April 24th, 2023…but before we begin, note how even FOX News<\/em> manifestly mischaracterizes the subject at hand, as a…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Montana transgender lawmaker censured after ‘hate-filled testimony’ while debating bill<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

The Montana lawmaker refused to apologize for her remarks<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“A transgender\u00a0lawmaker in Montana\u00a0was censured Thursday after she was accused of presenting a “hate-filled testimony” while debating a bill that would ban transgender medical care<\/em><\/span><\/strong> for minors.<\/p>\n

…The bill that was being debated would ban\u00a0transgender minors<\/em><\/span><\/strong>\u00a0in the state from receiving surgical procedures, hormones, and puberty blockers<\/em><\/span><\/strong>…”<\/p>\n

First, “her” is a “he<\/em><\/span>“, and second, how on earth does one classify “surgical procedures, hormones and puberty blockers” for minors<\/em><\/span> as “medical care<\/em><\/span>“?!?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here’s the juice: Surrender the language, surrender the battle.<\/strong><\/p>\n

And now, here’s The Gouge<\/em>!<\/strong><\/p>\n

First up, NRO<\/em>‘s Andy McCarthy offers a must-read<\/em><\/span> look into what should be<\/em><\/span> the criminal activities of…<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Obama-Era Hatchet Man at the Center of Biden\u2019s 2020 Campaign Deception<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

Gee, what a surprise to find Mike Morell deeply involved in Biden\u2019s cover-up of the Hunter Biden laptop story<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“S<\/span>o<\/span>\u00a0how\u00a0shocked<\/strong>, shocked<\/span><\/strong><\/em>\u00a0should we be that, when the Biden campaign needed to call in a pro in the dark art of politicizing intelligence, it turned to none other than former CIA muckety-muck Michael Morell? You may remember him as the man behind the infamous Benghazi talking points . . . about which he has been just as honest as he is now in Deep State\u2013splaining to us that his effort to help Joe Biden slough off Hunter\u2019s scandalous laptop as Russian disinformation was not \u2014 really not, cross-his-heart \u2014 a scam to frame the laptop as Russian disinformation.<\/p>\n

As our Ari Blaff reports<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>, Morell has fessed up to the House Judiciary Committee that, in the weeks just before the 2020 presidential election, he and his pal Antony Blinken (then a top Biden campaign adviser, now the secretary of state) cooked up the shameful\u00a0letter<\/a>\u00a0signed by 51 partisan Democrats \u2014 I mean, er, scrupulously nonpartisan former intelligence and national-security officials. That letter, which\u00a0branded the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>, is itself an exquisite piece of disinformation, based on exactly zero, zip, nada evidence, and trading exclusively on the credentials of the former officials.<\/p>\n

In other words, this is strictly a case of Washington insiders\u2019 cashing in, for partisan gain, on the perception of credibility that results from having had privileged access to national-defense secrets<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. Worse<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, they issued their deceptive letter in the teeth of incontestable indicia<\/em><\/span><\/strong> of the Hunter laptop\u2019s authenticity<\/em><\/span><\/strong> \u2014 evidence so overwhelming<\/em><\/span><\/strong> that even alumni of our spotty\u00a0$90 billion per annum intelligence community<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0should have figured it out.<\/p>\n

As illustrated by\u00a0Steve Hayes\u2019s excellent review of Morell\u2019s revisionist memoir<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>, he and his admirers in the media\u2013Democrat complex have energetically labored to memory-hole his doctoring of the talking points generated by the Obama administration following the jihadist massacre of U.S. personnel in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. As Obama officials well knew<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, the operation in Libya that night, on the eleventh anniversary of al-Qaeda\u2019s 9\/11 atrocities, was a coordinated terrorist attack<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. But because it occurred less than two months before Election Day<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, with Obama campaigning for reelection on the fiction that he had \u201cdecimated<\/a><\/span>\u201d al-Qaeda<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, the unvarnished truth would not do<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. Thus did Obama officials strain to depict the massacre as triggered by protests run amok in reaction to an anti-Muslim video.<\/p>\n

The CIA knew right away<\/em><\/span><\/strong> that jihadists had attacked the compound. This patent fact<\/em><\/span><\/strong> was immediately reported to Washington,\u00a0including to the State Department<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>. Indeed, it was known<\/em><\/span><\/strong> that\u00a0jihadists were conducting surveillance of the American compounds<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0even before<\/em><\/span><\/strong> the attacks. The later indictment of Ahmed Katallah made the terrorism instigation clear<\/em><\/span><\/strong> (even though, of course, the Obama Justice Department made\u00a0no mention of al-Qaeda<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0in the charging document).<\/p>\n

In the days after the massacre, the Obama White House wanted the role of terrorism erased<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. To report what had happened forthrightly would not only have undermined the president\u2019s reelection-campaign messaging. It would also have underscored the reckless failures to secure the American compounds<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. That\u2019s what made them such an inviting target for jihadists who, on that fateful night, murdered U.S. ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, State Department official Sean Smith, and two government-security contractors and former Navy SEAL officers, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods.<\/p>\n

Consequently,\u00a0as Obama adviser Ben Rhodes put it<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0in outlining the administration\u2019s messaging \u201cgoals,\u201d officials needed \u201cto underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not<\/em><\/span><\/strong> a broader failure of policy.\u201d Gregory Hicks, the State Department official who was\u00a0briefing his superiors from Libya<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0during and after the attack, later testified that the video was a \u201cnon-event<\/a><\/span>\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/span> in Benghazi. Yet,\u00a0after consulting with President Obama<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/span>, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put out a statement blaming the video<\/em><\/span><\/strong> for the attack, despite privately informing her daughter and the Libyan president that the attack appeared to have been carried out by Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaeda affiliate<\/em><\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Talking points about the attack, to be shared with Congress and ultimately the public, were prepared by intelligence officials in coordination with the White House, the State Department, the FBI, and other relevant agencies. The originally drafted<\/em><\/span><\/strong> talking points mentioned attacks that had been conducted by Islamic militants with ties to al-Qaeda<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, including Ansar al-Sharia. The talking points were then edited<\/em><\/span><\/strong> and, as Hayes recounts:<\/p>\n

In every case, the changes made by administration and intelligence officials to the Benghazi talking points originated by the CIA had the effect of downplaying the significance of the attacks\u2014cutting \u201cIslamic,\u201d replacing \u201cattacks\u201d with \u201cdemonstrations,\u201d removing \u201cwith ties to al Qaeda,\u201d excising mention of the involvement of Ansar al Sharia<\/span><\/strong>.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The talking points became a script for Susan Rice, the Obama White House adviser \u2014 and now Biden White House adviser \u2014 who notoriously made the Sunday talk-show rounds to sell the administration\u2019s claim that the video had ignited the attack.<\/p>\n

When it eventually emerged that the intelligence had been politicized to obscure the role of terrorists and create the misimpression of a \u201cspontaneous<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>\u201d uprising, members of Congress pressed intelligence agencies for answers. At a House Intelligence Committee hearing in mid November 2012, Morell<\/strong><\/em><\/span> testified along with Obama\u2019s national-intelligence director, James Clapper<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, and other top intelligence officials. The committee asked Clapper who was responsible<\/em><\/span><\/strong> for the talking points. As Clapper replied that he had no idea<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, Morell \u2014 who had been directly responsible<\/em><\/span><\/strong> \u2014 sat mum<\/em><\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Later, as Obama mulled nominating Rice to replace Clinton as secretary of state but worried that her disastrous post-Benghazi Sunday show rounds would prevent her confirmation, the White House persuaded the ever-accommodating Morell<\/em><\/span><\/strong> to accompany her to Capitol Hill meetings with key senators. Morell knew Rice\u2019s statements in the media appearances had been misleading, but agreed to tag along when she met with three Republicans who had closely followed Benghazi developments \u2014 John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte. Pressed about the editing of the talking points,\u00a0Morell falsely told the senators that the FBI had been the culprit<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>. Risibly, he elaborated about how the bureau had supposedly raised concerns that allusions to al-Qaeda could compromise its criminal investigation.<\/p>\n

Senator Graham proceeded to call FBI headquarters, and later recalled that \u201cthey went ballistic<\/em><\/span><\/strong>\u201d over Morell\u2019s allegation. Whereupon Morell changed his tune<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, suddenly remembering<\/em><\/span><\/strong> that, well, actually, his CIA<\/em><\/span><\/strong> had made the changes to the talking points. Eventually, called to testify under oath<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, he further<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, shall we say, refined<\/em><\/span><\/strong> this account, conceding that he\u2019d personally<\/em><\/span><\/strong> made significant<\/em><\/span><\/strong> changes.<\/p>\n

I know this will stun you, too: Originally<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, Morell insisted that the talking points were developed by intelligence officials and shared with the White House only for its \u201cawareness,\u201d and certainly not to coordinate a message about the events in Benghazi. Later<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, when the administration was forced<\/em><\/span><\/strong> to release emails that showed<\/em><\/span><\/strong> close coordination, Morell admitted that, well<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, there just might have been<\/em><\/span><\/strong> some coordination afoot.<\/p>\n

Remarkably, in putting together the letter from the 51 former officials, Morell has told House investigators that his motive was twofold: \u201cOne intent was to share our concern with the American people that the Russians were playing on this issue; and, two, it was [to] help Vice President Biden<\/em><\/span><\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Good ol\u2019 Mike Morell, always with the security of the American people in the front of his mind<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. In point of fact, while the Russians<\/em><\/span><\/strong> had nothing<\/em><\/span><\/strong> to do with Hunter Biden\u2019s laptop, the data<\/em><\/span><\/strong> from the laptop elucidated the tight connection between the Biden family and America\u2019s most challenging adversary, the Chinese Communist Party<\/em><\/span><\/strong>. The latter\u2019s operatives, with their close ties to Xi Jinping and his regime, have poured millions of dollars into the Biden family coffers<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, and the laptop contents corroborate that the point of this operation was to buy the elder Biden\u2019s influence<\/em><\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

But why would that be of any concern to a selflessly dedicated, scrupulously nonpartisan intelligence pro<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, right?”<\/p>\n

Imagine that, Dimocrats lying<\/span><\/em>…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Investigation Finds Pennsylvania Teachers, Activists Concocted Bogus LGBTQ Bullying Epidemic for Political Gain<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

…for purely political purposes<\/em><\/span>!\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>Which begs the question why Morrell isn’t peddling his memoir from behind bars?<\/strong><\/p>\n

And if the country ever needed a reason to give Biden the boot in 2024, his EPA’s latest move to increase already sky-high energy prices should do it:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Biden admin preparing major crackdown on power plants that fuel nation’s grid<\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

Expected power plant rule is ‘latest in President Biden\u2019s anti-fossil fuels agenda,’ energy industry group tells Fox News Digital<\/span><\/a><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“The\u00a0Biden administration is reportedly finalizing\u00a0a proposal that would force fossil fuel-fired power plants to substantially curb emissions or utilize costly carbon capture technology. The proposal \u2014 which will soon be released by the\u00a0Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)\u00a0\u2014 is expected to require coal- and natural gas-fired power plants to cut or capture the vast majority of their carbon dioxide emissions by 2040, The New York Times reported on Saturday, citing officials briefed on a draft of the plan. The regulation, if finalized, would represent the first-ever<\/em><\/span><\/strong> federal action curbing power plant emissions.<\/p>\n

“EPA cannot comment because the proposals are currently under interagency review,” EPA spokesperson Maria Michalos told Fox News Digital in a statement. “But we have been clear from the start that we will use all<\/em><\/span><\/strong> of our legally-upheld tools<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, grounded in decades-old bipartisan laws<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, to address dangerous air pollution and protect the air our children breathe<\/em><\/span><\/strong> today and for generations to come,” Michalos said.<\/p>\n

An Office of Management and Budget filing from late last year stated that the EPA anticipates issuing a proposed rule for the action, described as a proposal to limit greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired plants, in spring 2023 and promulgating a final rule by summer 2024. The filing noted there are no EPA regulations on the books limiting emissions from existing electric generating units.<\/p>\n

Overall, there are 3,393 fossil fuel-fired power plants nationwide, the majority of which are natural gas plants, according to the most recent federal data. Those plants generate more than 60% of the nation’s electricity<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, compared to the roughly 14% of electricity generated by wind and solar projects<\/em><\/span><\/strong>…”<\/p>\n

Both of which are demonstrably undependable and require fossil fuel-powered back-ups.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>And need we ask how a naturally-occurring gas which plants need to grow became a “dangerous air pollutant”, let alone something the effects from which our children require protection?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Next, courtesy of The Corner<\/em>, John McCormack informs us…<\/strong><\/p>\n

TRUMP\u2019s Pollster Finds DeSantis Leading Biden and Biden Leading Trump<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A new poll conducted for<\/em><\/span><\/strong> the\u00a0Wall Street Journal<\/em>\u00a0by<\/em><\/span><\/strong> the polling firm run by<\/em><\/span><\/strong> Tony Fabrizio, the pollster for Donald Trump<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, finds Ron DeSantis leading<\/em><\/span><\/strong> Joe Biden by three points but Trump trailing<\/em><\/span><\/strong> Biden by three points:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The good news for Trump is that the same<\/em><\/span><\/strong> poll finds Trump regaining his lead<\/em><\/span><\/strong> over DeSantis in a head-to-head GOP primary matchup. After the midterm elections, which saw DeSantis win by 19 points while many of Trump\u2019s key picks\u00a0crashed and burned, DeSantis had a 13-point lead over Trump in a head-to-head matchup. Those numbers have now flipped:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The same poll finds that 51 percent<\/em><\/span><\/strong> of Republican primary voters would prioritize the electability of a GOP presidential candidate<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, while 44 percent<\/em><\/span><\/strong> would be most likely to vote for the candidate who \u201cbest represents\u201d a voter\u2019s values<\/em><\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Thus do Republican primary voters…<\/strong><\/p>\n