Sunday, June 25, 2017
Daniel Greenfield reveals why there’s no mystery behind the Democratic loss in Georgia, while Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the George Washington University Profiling Project Deepen the Mystery of the “Russian Hacking” narrative.
There was a great deal of press this week about the District 6 Georgia Congressional race in which once again -- for the fourth time -- the hyped “referendum on Trump” produced a Republican victory over a Democratic challenger in a special election.
As usual, David Burge tweeted the most succinct wrap up of the left-wing take on their latest failure to recapture Congress and impeach Trump:
“David Burge @iowahawkblog
So I gather GA06 has suddenly gone from Enlightened Sunbelt Suburban Panera Voters back to Inbred Reactionary Neo-Confederate Klansmen”
When hyping the Ossoff-Handel race, the media regularly misrepresented the district (Newt Gingrich’s former seat) as rock-ribbed Republican when in fact it has become more Democratic due to redistricting, and the race was tighter than represented. But as Daniel Greenfield – alone -- observed, the race was hyped as winnable only to fill the Democratic coffers. It was never likely that Jon Ossoff, a pajama boy who didn’t even live in District 6, was going to beat Karen Handel, a well-known and respected District 6, resident no matter how much money the Democrats spent there.
So why did the Democrats pour $31 million down the drain to advance his doomed candidacy? Daniel Greenfield explains: the DNC is badly short of cash and spun this (and the three losing races which preceded it) to raise cash for itself and its infrastructure.
Most of the money came through Act Blue, the big DNC fundraiser. And much of the money raised went to Canal Partners Media Mothership Strategies and Mission Control, Inc. the Democrats’ infrastructure.
[Ossoff] was sucker bait. And the suckers bit hard enough to make a special election in a conservative district the most expensive House race in history.Ossoff was a great way for Washington D.C. campaign pros to extract money from Bay Area lefties. His campaign had nine times more individual donations from California than from Georgia. He had almost four times more donations from nine Bay Area counties than all of Georgia.The Dems lost and they’re laughing all the way to the bank.There was much fussing in the Bay Area over snarky Republican ads in the race taking potshots at them. If they had any sense, they would be far more offended by the greedy contempt of their political allies.The Democrats have gone far to the left partly because of a profitable machine for transmuting the left’s worst instincts into money. The Washington Post scored record profits by tempting lefties with fake news promises of impeachment. The special elections scam offered lefties the seductive idea that throwing away millions on a doomed cause would somehow reverse Trump’s victory.Hey, it worked for Jill Stein, didn’t it?Angry, emotional people do stupid things. Like wear pink hats and shout in public about their private parts, subscribe to the Washington Post because they think it can deliver Watergate on demand or plow millions into backing an annoying hipster with no credentials in Newt Gingrich’s old district.Jon Ossoff’s slogan was “Make Trump Furious.” He failed even at that. But it isn’t Trump’s fury his backers were interested in. Instead they succeeded in cashing in on the angry stupid rage of the left.
The Press: Democratic Midwives
Once again, the DNC had the press shilling for its sting, but as Michael Goodwin wrote in a must read, journalistic standards died with the 2016 election:
I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale -- that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close. [snip] The realization that they had helped Trump’s rise seemed to make many executives, producers, and journalists furious. By the time he secured the nomination and the general election rolled around, they were gunning for him. Only two people now had a chance to be president, and the overwhelming media consensus was that it could not be Donald Trump. [snip] the so-called cream of the media crop was “engaged in a naked display of partisanship” designed to bury Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.[snip]For the most part, I blame The New York Times and The Washington Post for causing this breakdown. The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters. They set the tone, and most of the rest of the media followed like lemmings.[snip]I found the whole concept appalling. What happened to fairness? What happened to standards? I’ll tell you what happened to them. The Times top editor, Dean Baquet, eliminated them. In an interview last October with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, Baquet admitted that the piece by his media reporter had nailed his own thinking. Trump “challenged our language,” he said, and Trump “will have changed journalism.” Of the daily struggle for fairness, Baquet had this to say: “I think that Trump has ended that struggle... We now say stuff. We fact check him. We write it more powerfully that [what he says is] false.”Baquet was being too modest. Trump was challenging, sure, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be abandoned without consequence.
Having abolished journalistic standards in 2016, the trend is continuing. This week, the BBC was forced to retract -- at least online -- an outrageous headline respecting the story of an Israeli soldier stabbed to death in Jerusalem by three terrorists who were shot to death: “Three Palestinians killed after deadly stabbing in Jerusalem”.
On Facebook Daniel Goldstein offers up three updated headlines for a press which these days is acting merely as a security blanket for the coastal elites:
"Reports of Anti-Japanese Hate Crimes Surge After Battleship Sinkings in Hawaii." "Ex-Marine Shot on Live TV By Restaurant Owner After Tumultuous Dallas Weekend." "Unilateral Planting of American Flag 239,000 Miles From Earth Renews World Fears of Expanded U.S. Colonial Ambitions Under Nixon."
It appears the FBI is now following the press lead in distorting events to fit a leftist Democratic narrative.
The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway explains the gross misrepresentations in the FBI presser on the shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise:
James Hodgkinson was an active Democratic activist and Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer [whose office he visited] who hated Republican members of Congress. He held membership in multiple social media groups strongly opposed to Republicans, such as “The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans,” “Join the Resistance Worldwide,” “Donald Trump is not my President,” “Terminate the Republican Party,” “Boycott the Republican Party,” and “Expose Republican Fraud,” among dozens of other groups. He was a voracious consumer of liberal media and believed the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to secure the White House.”The FBI admits that Hodgkinson:• vociferously raged against Republicans in online forums,• had a piece of paper bearing the names of six members of Congress,• was reported for doing target practice outside his home in recent months before moving to Alexandria,• had mapped out a trip to the DC area,• took multiple photos of the baseball field he would later shoot up, three days after the New York Times mentioned that Republicans practiced baseball at an Alexandria baseball field with little security,• lived out of his van at the YMCA directly next door to the baseball field he shot up,• legally purchased a rifle in March 2003 and 9 mm handgun “in November 2016,”• modified the rifle at some point to accept a detachable magazine and replaced the original stock with a folding stock,• rented a storage facility to hide hundreds of rounds of ammunition and additional rifle components,• asked “Is this the Republican or Democrat baseball team?” before firing on the Republicans,• ran a Google search for information on the “2017 Republican Convention” hours before the shooting,• and took photos at high-profile Washington locations, including the east front plaza of the U.S. Capitol and the Dirksen Senate Office.We know from other reporting that the list was of six Republican Freedom Caucus members, including Rep. Mo Brooks, who was present at the practice.So what does the FBI decide this information means? Well, the takeaway of the briefing was characterized well by the Associated Press headline about it: “FBI: Gunman who shot congressman had no target in mind.”
Iowahawk was more on point than the FBI field office:
David Burge @iowahawkblog 3
Big takeaway for Democrats this week: $25 million in ad spending is less effective than shooting up a baseball practice
Speaking of mysteries, this week former DHS head Jeh Johnson testified that he was denied access to the reportedly hacked DNC servers. Former FBI head James Comey testified to the same effect earlier. Yet Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC during the supposed hacking, said that neither the DHS nor any federal agency had informed her of any hacking or sought access to the DNC servers.
Either the DNC is lying or the Obama-era FBI head (Comey) and DHS head Johnson are. And if she’s not the liar, were the DNC servers actually hacked by the Russians or anyone at all?
Some believe that the murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich was the source for Wikileaks head Julian Assange, giving him access to the emails which, inter alia, revealed the DNC plot to deny Bernie Sanders the party’s nomination. There was an interesting report on that murder this week. The crime-profiling project at George Washington University, aided by forensic experts issued a little-publicized report on the Rich murder.
After a three-month review and investigation into the death of Seth Rich, The Profiling Project notes the following:
1. Seth’s death does not appear to be a random homicide
2. Seth’s death does not appear to be a robbery gone bad
3. Seth death was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer
4. There may be additional video surveillance of the crime and crime scene
5. The resolution of prosecuting the individual(s) responsible appears to be hindered both actively and passively
6. Seth’s killer(s) most likely remains free within the community"
In sum, the “Russian collusion” story was fabricated upon a foundation that the Russians “hacked” the DNC servers, the federal agencies involved in investigating such matters say the DNC denied them access to their servers to examine them, but the head of the DNC vehemently denies they ever contacted her about the suspected “hacking” or sought access to the servers. Someone, whom independent investigation indicates was a professional killer, murdered the chief insider suspect for the leaked emails on those servers and the search for the killer is being hindered “actively and passively.”
I never bother reading spy and mystery novels anymore -- real life events are far more intriguing to me.
It was an idea too flaky, even for California, but don’t worry, it will be back: a single payer health care plan that would cover everyone who managed to cross the state line, regardless of immigration status or residency, was killed in the state legislature. Melanie Mason of the Los Angeles Times reports:
A high-profile effort to establish a single-payer healthcare system in California sputtered Friday when Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) decided to shelve the proposal.Rendon announced late Friday afternoon that the bill, Senate Bill 562 by state Sens. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), would not advance to a policy hearing in his house, making it all but certain the measure will not be acted upon this year.“SB 562 was sent to the Assembly woefully incomplete,” Rendon said in a statement. “Even senators who voted for SB 562 noted there are potentially fatal flaws in the bill, including the fact it does not address many serious issues, such as financing, delivery of care, cost controls, or the realities of needed action by the Trump administration and voters to make SB 562 a genuine piece of legislation.”Under the measure, California would have paid the healthcare costs for all residents, eliminating premiums, copays and deductibles that are common fixtures in the current healthcare system.This was a propaganda exercise, not a serious proposal. It would have doubled or tripled the state budget, and served as a magnet for the entire population of Mexico and Central America who need medical care. The purpose was not to actually establish anything – that would have required doubling or tripling state taxes, which would have driven away jobs and affluent but mobile professionals (who pay the bulk of the state’s income taxes). The nly goal was to pressure the federal government to go for single payer as Obamacare flushes itself down the toilet, as it was designed to do.
It is because of stupid tricks like this, and the mindset that considers the job of government to be to provide free stuff to everyone who wants it, that California is hemorrhaging jobs and businesses to other states like Nevada, Texas, and Utah. Americans are shunning California in large numbers, because the state makes is so hard and so expensive to do business there.
Trump Derangement Syndrome???
Why the Democratic party is doomed:
1. The Democratic establishment has vortexed the party's narrative energy into hysteria about Russia (a state with a lower GDP than South Korea). It is starkly obvious that were it not for this hysteria insurgent narratives of the type promoted by Bernie Sanders would rapidly dominate the party's base and its relationship with the public. Without the "We didn't lose--Russia won" narrative the party's elite and those who exist under its patronage would be purged for being electorally incompetent and ideologically passé. The collapse of the Democratic vote over the last eight years is at every level, city, state, Congressional and presidential. It corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures by a professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline in health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives, daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census). Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic groups combined) have not increased since 1973. In trying to stimulate engagement of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively promoted identity politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable strategic catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by seeing themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53% of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW Research).
2. The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is a political dead end. Despite vast resources, enormous incentives and a year of investigation, Democratic senators who have seen the classified intelligence at the CIA such as Senator Feinstein (as recently as March) are forced to admit that there is no evidence of collusion [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BS5amEq7Fc]. Without collusion, we are left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for being repelled by the words of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment. Is it a problem that the public discovered what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman Sachs and what party elites said about fixing the DNC primaries against Bernie Sanders? A party elite that maintains that it is the "crime of the century" for the public and their membership to discover how they behave and what they believe invites scorn.
3. The Democrat establishment needs the support of the security sector and media barons to push this diversionary conspiracy agenda, so they ingratiate themselves with these two classes leading to further perceptions that the Democrats act on behalf of an entrenched power elite. Eventually, Trump or Pence will 'merge' with the security state leaving Democrats in a vulnerable position having talked up two deeply unaccountable traditionally Republican-aligned organizations, in particular, the CIA and the FBI, who will be turned against them. Other than domestic diversion and geopolitical destabilization the primary result of the Russian narrative is increased influence and funding for the security sector which is primarily GOP owned or aligned.
4. The twin result is to place the primary self-interest concerns of most Americans, class competition, freedom from crime and ill health and the empowerment of their children, into the shadows and project the Democrats as close to DC and media elites. This has further cemented Trump's anti-establishment positioning and fettered attacks on Trump's run away embrace of robber barons, dictators and gravitas-free buffoons like the CIA's Mike Pompeo.
5. GOP/Trump has open goals everywhere: broken promises, inequality, economy, healthcare, militarization, Goldman Sachs, Saudi Arabia & cronyism, but the Democrat establishment can't kick these goals since the Russian collusion narrative has consumed all its energy and it is entangled with many of the same groups behind Trump's policies.
6. The Democratic base should move to start a new party since the party elite shows no signs that they will give up power. This can be done quickly and cheaply as a result of the internet and databases of peoples' political preferences. This reality is proven in practice with the rapid construction of the Macron, Sanders and Trump campaigns from nothing. The existing Democratic party may well have negative reputational capital, stimulating a Macron-style clean slate approach. Regardless, in the face of such a threat, the Democratic establishment will either concede control or, as in the case of Macron, be eliminated by the new structure.