Monday, February 1, 2021

February 1, 2021 The sleazy Lincoln Project has the sleaziest of all co-founders By Andrea Widburg

 

American Thinker

The sleazy Lincoln Project has the sleaziest of all co-founders

If you pay attention to politics, you know about the Lincoln Project. When a bunch of Republican campaign consultants realized that Trump's election would knock them off the D.C. cocktail party circuit, they created a fanatically anti-Trump PAC that attacked both Trump and his supporters.  But the Lincoln Project had a dirty little secret: co-founder John Weaver is a longtime sexual predator.  When the New York Times loudly broadcast that story, the Lincoln Project crew's response was both amusing and, allegedly, dishonest.

In 2019, the "Lincoln Project" represented the coming together of a bunch of ostensible Republicans who are so hostile to Donald Trump that they preferred Biden's socialism to Trump's re-election.  If you want to understand exactly what kind of people the Lincoln Project guys are, you can't do better than to watch this video, from exactly a year ago, in which Rick Wilson, one of the Lincoln Project crew, joins with CNN host Don Lemon and contributor Wajahat Ali to insult Trump voters:



When you hear Lincoln Project NeverTrumper toss around the word "Republican," the only logical response is to fall back on that famous line from The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

This weekend, a New York Times report introduced Democrats to a report that 21 men have accused John Weaver, who co-founded the Lincoln Project, of sending them unsolicited sexual messages:

These messages from Mr. Weaver, 61, who helped run John McCain's presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2008 and John Kasich's in 2016, did not lead to physical encounters except in one consensual case, and none of the men accused Mr. Weaver of unlawful conduct. Rather, many of them described feeling preyed upon by an influential older man in the field in which they wanted to work, and believing they had to engage with his repeated messaging or lose a professional opportunity.

Mr. Weaver sent overt sexual solicitations to at least 10 of the men and, in the most explicit messages, offered professional and personal assistance in exchange for sex. He told one man he would "spoil you when we see each other," according to a message reviewed by The New York Times. "Help you other times. Give advice, counsel, help with bills. You help me ... sensually."

In fact, the story's been known in conservative circles since January 11, although it got overlooked a bit because of the way Democrats were manipulating events at the Capitol just five days before.  Ryan Girdusky wrote an article at The American Conservative providing ample documentary evidence (in the form of screen shots) that John Weaver is a sexual predator.  In addition to sexually charged messages that he sent to young men and a boy who was only 14, Weaver also offered jobs in exchange for sex — and he's apparently been doing this for decades.

What makes the story newsworthy now is the fact that, with the New York Times article making waves, the Lincoln Project has finally issued its official denial, in which it says Weaver's predilections came as a complete surprise to it (although, as noted, his reputation goes back decades), that Lincoln Project members are appropriately disgusted, that they feel betrayed, and — this is the laugh line — "We are grateful beyond words that at no time was John Weaver in the physical presence of any member of The Lincoln Project."

Things got worse for the Lincoln Project crew when Ryan Girdusky said the statement about their ignorance was a lie.  In fact, the same young men who made the accusations had approached others at the Lincoln Project before Girdusky published his report, and Girdusky himself had notified them in advance about his January 11 article:

Don Surber used to have a Trumpenfreude list tracking people who attacked Trump, only to have bad things happen to them, usually without Trump being involved.  The point was that the bad things happened because they were bad people and part of their badness was hating a man who fought for Americans against an utterly corrupt political, entertainment, media, and technological class.

The Lincoln Project guys, with their pathological hatred for all things Trump, just zoomed to the top of that Trumpenfreude list, and it couldn't happen to more deserving people.

Image: Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson trashes Trump supporters.  Twitter screen grab.




February 1, 2021 We must demand a clear standard for 'peaceful protest' By Mark Andrew Dwyer

 

American Thinker

We must demand a clear standard for 'peaceful protest'

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

—Amendment I, U.S. Constitution

Our ruling class in general, and the U.S. Congress in particular, are using a double standard while deciding whether any given protest has been peaceful or not.

On one hand, BLM/Antifa protests that typically led to violent riots, gross property destruction, looting, burning of buildings, Red Guard–style "repudiations," and even homicides were mostly characterized by several leading members of the U.S. Congress as "peaceful" and, as such, protected by First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Hardly any rioters and looters, even of those who were apprehended while protesting, and those disobeying law enforcement instructions, were actually punished.

On the other hand, mostly peaceful protest in the Capitol area that resulted in relatively minor property damage inside the Capitol building and psychological discomfort of the participating members of Congress in session on Jan. 6, 2021 has been declared, by several congressional leaders, an insurrection and an act of domestic terror.  According to said members, not only are even those who did not break anything or threaten anybody not protected by First Amendment, but stern punishment is warranted for participants who just followed the crowd in their unobstructed way into the Capitol building in order to petition their government for redress of their grievances regarding what they considered dishonest and unfair elections.  It appears that the Congress may undertake an action (most likely in a form of legislation) that would result in enhancements of criminal penalties, as well as and broadening of their scope of enforcement, for participants of any Capitol protest.


YouTube screen grab (cropped).

We need our federal Legislature to clarify once and for all a clear standard of what the adjective "peaceful" in the context of protests means and to apply such standard equally to all protests without regard to the contents of the message that the protesters convey.  According to a Supreme Court's ruling (reference here), the government may impose, if it has a significant (and compelling, in the case of restrictions on political speech) interest of doing so, "reasonable time, place, and manner" restrictions on exercise of one's First Amendment rights, but only if they do not discriminate based on the content of expression. In particular, any restriction on protesters' First Amendment rights, by means of declaring their protest as not peaceful, that applies to those protesting elections "irregularities" and fraud must equally apply to BLM/Antifa and all other present and future protesters of their perceived racial inequality, etc.

It is true that a few of the unarmed individuals present on the scene did behave badly in the House (the people's House).  However, I have not seen any credible evidence that they were bona fide participants in the protest who were expressing their grievances regarding widespread election "irregularities" and fraud.  Some evidence exists that at least some were planted provocateurs (or "observers," as some of them called themselves) who intended to turn a peaceful protest into a violent riot.

Mark Andrew Dwyer's recent columns are posted at https://federalobserver.com/?s=mark+andrew+dwyer and at https://canadafreepress.com/members/1/Mark-Andrew-Dwyer/895.  Links to his other commentaries can be found here: http://www.oocities.org/readerswrite/List_date.htm.




February 1, 2021 The Dems care too much about the people in Gitmo By Silvio Canto, Jr.

 

American Thinker

The Dems care too much about the people in Gitmo

Not long ago, many Democrats were worried about the "human rights" of Gitmo terrorists.  They blasted President George W. Bush when he put them there and then when a few rough tactics were used to get information.

They were so outraged that President Obama signed an executive order on day one to end this terrible stain in our reputation.  As you know, Gitmo survived the order, and it's still there. 

The latest nonsense is giving the men in Gitmo a COVID vaccine shot.

As a practical matter, I am not opposed to vaccinating the Gitmo terrorists but not before millions of Americans get their shot.  What's the point of giving these men any consideration?  We can isolate them as much as possible until their turn comes at some point later.

Well, public opinion caught up with the Biden administration because the idea has been put on hold or halted.  The outrage came from New York and a few other places:

State Assemblyman Colin Schmitt (R-Rockland County) called the idea a "national disgrace" in a letter to Pentagon Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Dr. Terry Adirim.

"Every available dose slated for Guantanamo Bay detention camp prisoners should be immediately redirected to the Hudson Valley," he wrote.

"I have seniors and first responders in the Hudson Valley who are unable to receive the vaccine. Not a single dose of vaccine should be wasted on terrorists who killed American citizens." 

I can understand the sentiment.  Why take care of other people before your own?  There are thousands of Americans in line for a shot, and no terrorist should jump ahead of them.

PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk).

Image: Pixabay.




February 1, 2021 Iranian students are victims of the regime’s terrorism goals By Hassan Mahmoudi

 

American Thinker

Iranian students are victims of the regime’s terrorism goals

The Iranian regime, which Trump's sanctions have pushed close to bankruptcy, is trying in various ways to cover its budget deficit by starving its people, both physically and mentally.  The regime robs them of food and energy and denies Iranian youths an education that will allow them to escape poverty.

To raise money, the regime exports goods that are essential for its citizens' survival, such as eggs, poultry, vegetables, and other agricultural products.  It also exports gas and electricity at a discount to neighboring countries and converts the payments into foreign currency to use for meddling activities abroad.  Meanwhile, Iranians burn dirty, low-quality mazut at home, polluting the air for the country's citizens.

The regime engages in further savings by cutting various public services and education budgets.  It uses the money it saves to increase its military and security budgets and to support its proxy forces in the region.  It recently increased the IRGC and Quds Force budgets by 58%.

These policies have led to bitter poverty and misery in Iran.  A clear example is the misery that students experience.  On January 23, 2021, the Hamdeli newspaper wrote (my translation):

The suffering of Iranian students is a never-ending tale.  From the burning of classrooms to the collapse of school roofs to snake-infested classrooms made of bricks and mud and the challenges of schools made of huts and containers, etc., it is difficult to imagine a significant number of students in deprived areas of the country studying in dilapidated schools or schools made of huts or containers. But, these unsafe schools that do not have any educational standards, are the bitter realities of education in Iran, often associated with tragic events, such as the fire, on January 19, 2021, in the School in Dezful (southwestern Iran) that was made of containers in which three teachers were burned and two students died.

(You can read about the school fire here.)

On social media, someone under the name of Rahgozar wrote:

In the 21st century, in a country that is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of oil and gas resources, there are still schools made of huts and containers, isn't this a shame?

At the same time, since the start of the new school year, the media and government institutions have reported that many students have dropped out of school.

According to the Javan Newspaper of December 31, 2020 (my translation):

The increase in drop-out rate is alarming, and many provincial education directors across the country have announced the statistics and sounded the alarm. These harsh conditions have caused many students to drop out of school. The reasons for those who have left or are leaving range from joining the labor force to provide for their families, lacking equipment for online education, including not having a proper smartphone, and, in some regions of the country, lack or outage of internet. In some areas, because of bad coverage, students must go to higher elevations and mountainous regions in this cold weather.

Regarding children's drop-out rate, the Iran newspaper wrote on December 24, 2020 (my translation):

In the beginning of August, the Minister of Education announced that more than three million students were at risk of dropping out of school for reasons such as not having a smartphone or tablet, or not having internet access.

In contrast, students from wealthy families attend luxury schools that the regime supports.  They have teachers in every classroom and benefit from high-tech communication systems.  Discrimination and inequality in access to education are a direct result of corruption in the regime's educational system.

The Tasnim News Agency December 23, 2020, while pointing to the prevalence of coronavirus dictating the need for e-learning for many children and the inability of their families to provide e-learning facilities acknowledged the inequality between students from poor and rich families and wrote: "It made the issue of inequality more apparent in all aspects of society."

The mullahs in Iran are single-mindedly focused on terrorism to bring about their dream of a Shia caliphate.  To pay for that dream, they are willing to leave their situations starved, frozen, and uneducated.

Image: Iranian classroom (2007).  YouTube screen grab.




Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *