2nd Amendment Rally, West Chester TEA.
DAVID GERLERTNER: Vicious Left?
DEBATE: ANTLE – 3 Defining Moments.
LEADS: STRASSEL – Dem crack-up; JOHNSON – 13 Hours; NOLTE – 13 Hours; CROWLEY – Clinton devil dies?; WILL – Rubio’s misjudgments; ANTLE – Trump on conservatism; WESTWOOD – Clinton Foundation donors got access.
PA: KNEPPER – Kane’s hearing; SNYDER – 1/15 Ups & Downs.
END NOTES: MARK LEVIN (1/14/16); WILLIAMS – Atheist Dawkins praised Christianity.
2nd Amendment Gun Rally
|Saturday, January 16, at 1:00 PM – 2:30 PM
Providence Rd and Baltimore Pike, Media, PA 19063
“Gun rights haters want to celebrate Obama’s tyrannical dictates taking away our gun rights (http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/?u=8bdbfdf2c7&id=9dd7890e07&e=61a65450d6). We need to do as we did in 2014 (https://www.facebook.com/events/580457748734988/) and show them that we won’t give up
our rights to some elected dictator’s whim. Bring your signs, bring your guns, but most of all bring
your determination to resist tyranny!
Baltimore Pike in Media, PA. Around 2pm we’ll move 1 block down the road to rally across the
street from the Providence Friends Meeting House (http://www.providencemeeting.org/). Their
walkers are scheduled to arrive there at 2pm. “For safety all hand guns are to be carried securely holstered. All long guns and shot guns are to be
carried slung over the shoulder with barrels pointed straight up or down at the ground. No fingers on triggers and no rounds in the chamber. If the firearm has a manual safety please have it on. “Given that the gun rights haters may become angry at our presence and try to provoke us (as they
in this video shot back in March 2014http://youtu.be/WC6BDaxVurU ) I ask that all participants
agree to the following guidelines: 1. We will not use or carry alcohol or illegal drugs. 2. We will not run or make threatening motions. 3. We will not insult, swear or attack others. 4. We will protect those who oppose or disagree with us from insult or attack. 5. We will not assault, verbally or physically, those who oppose or disagree with us. From: http://www.brandywinepeace.com/nonviolence.html
West Chester TEA Party
January 20th, East Goshen Twp Building, 7PM.
Our subject matter will be on the 2nd amendment Please come and join in on the discussion What are our constitutional rights and how to defend them With all the information circulating what is the truth and what is false? What does history teach us? Please bring any information you have to share firstname.lastname@example.org
February 3rd, VFTP, CFL:
WHEN: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 WHERE: King of Prussia Volunteer Fire Company, 170 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA, 19406.
TIME: 7-9 (doors open 6:30) Mark your calendars and plan on joining us for this informative session on a very important and timely subject! SPREAD THE WORD – ALL ARE WELCOME – FREE! We will also have a free potluck dinner buffet (Feel free to bring something to share or just enjoy!)
CITIZENS FOR LIBERTY/VALLEY FORGE PATRIOTS IS PROUD TO PRESENT
David P. Ward is a Director with the National Association of Former Border Patrol Agents, an organization of former Border Patrol Supervisors and Managers, which advocates secure borders and interior immigration enforcement. David has over 33 years field experience with the US Department of Homeland Security and US Border Patrol, as an agent and field manager of enforcement operations. His experience is unique in that it covers both Border Security issues and Interior Enforcement.
David is considered a Subject Matter Expert and has been featured on local and national media broadcasts, in addition to live audience conferences and seminars regarding Border Security and Immigration Enforcement.
“. . .Obama was forced to repair to his most well-worn talking point: ‘If you doubt America’s commitment — or mine — to see that justice is done, just ask Osama bin Laden.’ Really? Five years later, that’s all you’ve got?” Charles Krauthammer
David Gerlernter, Weekly Standard: “What Explains the Vicious Left?”
“When politics becomes a religion, nonbelievers must be punished.
“The asymmetry of modern politics is clear to every conservative; painfully clear to several Yale undergraduates who asked me about it recently. Leftists, they pointed out, are hostile, nasty, and seem to have no concept of a civil conversation. Why? Because they are winning? Losing? Are natural-born bullies? And how can this dangerous mood be changed?
It’s not just a question of civility versus rudeness—which of course is no small thing in itself. The deeper problem is that the left seems to have lost its taste for democracy.
Naturally there are exceptions to the modern trend, benign leftists and nasty rightists. (Trump is a special case: see below.) The trend itself is partly explained by the Obama sneer; presidents have enormous influence. FDR’s bouncy, feisty smile, Reagan’s geniality, Clinton’s one-of-the-boys grin, W’s good-natured earnestness are part of history; and Obama’s real “legacy” (aside from worldwide crisis) is that bitter sneer. His rudeness to political opponents has made a rotten political climate much worse. But the left’s growing reputation for belligerent intolerance transcends Obama.
“You see characteristic leftist arrogance among global warmers, who show their respect for their opponents by refusing to listen to them and implying that they are crackpots. On campus, leftists have spit at conservatives, screamed obscenities at moderate liberals, yammered on about phony “rape crises” while doing everything they could think of to promote universal debauchery, rigged local votes to silence opponents of the Kill Israel (aka ‘BDS’) movement.
“The list goes on, the arrogance is staggering, the asymmetry all too obvious. Conservatives, bursting with facts and ideas (and anger and dismay), are eager to have it out with liberals and maybe even convince a few. Liberals are eager to make assertions and strike moral poses, but not to respond to rational argument or speak to the facts.
“Where does the asymmetry come from? American conservatives tend to be Christians or Jews. Liberals tend to be atheists or agnostics. (Yes, there are exceptions—to nearly everything, always; but that doesn’t mean we can stop thinking.) Almost all human beings need religion, as subway-riders need overhead grab bars. The religious impulse strikes conservatives and liberals alike. But conservatives usually practice the religion of their parents and ancestors; liberals have mostly shed their Judaism or Christianity, and politics fills the obvious spiritual gap. You might make football, rock music, or hard science your chosen faith. Some people do. But politics, with its underlying principles and striking public ceremonies, is the obvious religion substitute.
“Hence the gross asymmetry of modern politics. For most conservatives, politics is just politics. For most liberals, politics is their faith, in default of any other; it is the basis of their moral life. . .”
DEBATE . . .
Thx to WHAM 1180AM, Rochester, for broadcasting the debate!
James Antle III, Washington Examiner: “The GOP debate’s three defining moments”
“The latest Republican presidential debate will be remembered for three exchanges. Which one voters find most important will determine Thursday night’s winner in South Carolina.
“The first was the “birther” argument between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Trump has been coyly implying Cruz isn’t a natural-born citizen and therefore isn’t constitutionally eligible to be president, or at least that the issue will wind up stuck in court. Cruz was ready to hit back.
“Back in September, my friend Donald said he had his lawyers look at this from every which way and there was no issue there. There was nothing to this birther issue,” Cruz shot back. “Since September, the Constitution hasn’t changed, but the poll numbers have. And I recognize that Donald is dismayed that his poll numbers are falling in Iowa, but the facts and the law here are really quite clear.”
“Not only did Cruz emphasize his own experience arguing before the Supreme Court and portray Trump as a flip-flopper on his signature birther issue. He even mentioned Trump’s Scottish mother. But the Texas senator really hit Trump where it hurts: his poll numbers. And Trump didn’t handle it well, invoking liberal constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe on the legal issues and belittling Cruz’s support in Iowa. On this back-and-forth, advantage Cruz.
“The second big moment was when Cruz was asked to defend his assertion that Trump represented “liberal values.” The Texan obviously was tying Trump to a blue state.
“[E]veryone understands that the values in New York are socially liberal, are pro-abortion, are pro-gay marriage, focus around money and the media,” Cruz said. It was like Barry Goldwater suggesting we saw off the Eastern seaboard and let it float out to sea.
Except Trump was ready. . . .
“The third defining argument of the Republican debate was between Cruz and Marco Rubio. Rubio received an uncharacteristically pointed question from Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo on his 2013 Gang of Eight immigration bill. “Why are you so interested in opening up borders to foreigners when American workers have a hard enough time finding work?” she asked.
Rubio pivoted away from the economics of immigration and argued that we now needed a tougher approach than his original bill because of the national security threats to America. “There is a radical jihadist group that is manipulating our immigration system, and not just green cards,” the Florida senator said. “They are recruiting people to enter this country as doctors and engineers and even fiances. They understand the vulnerabilities we have on the southern border. They’re looking to manipulate the visa waiver countries to get into the United States.”
“So our number one priority must now become ensuring that ISIS cannot get killers into the United States,” Rubio concluded. Cruz smelled blood and pounced. He pointed out that ‘radical Islamic terrorism wasn’t invented 24 months ago’ and said he stood with immigration restrictionists like Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, agaisnt [sic!] Rubio’s Gang of Eight because he understood even then that ‘border security is national security.’
“Cruz added that the “Rubio-Schumer amnesty” also “expanded Barack Obama’s power” to approve Syrian refugees. He argued that he and Rubio were still voting against each other on refugee screening.
“Rubio promptly unloaded on Cruz . . .”
LEADS . . .
Kimberley Strassel, WSJ: “The Democratic Crack-Up”
“Barack Obama’s political legacy may be the dismantling of the party’s center.
“The nation tuned in to Round Six of the Republican debate mashup Thursday night, and the media is busy micro-covering every last rift between the GOP candidates. In the process reporters are ignoring the far more interesting party crackup going on.
“You might not know it, but the Democratic Party is in the middle of an internecine battle that potentially dwarfs that of conservatives. On one side is a real but weakened mainstream Democratic movement that has its roots in Clinton centrism. On the other is a powerful, ascendant wing of impatient and slightly unhinged progressive activists. This split has been building for years, but The Donald has been so entertaining that few have noticed.
“Now it’s getting hard to ignore. Polls this week show Bernie Sanders tying or beating Hillary Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire. Put another way, a self-declared socialist, a man who makes many think of their crazy uncle Bob, is beating a woman who spent eight years planning this run, who is swimming in money, and who oversees the most powerful political machine in operation.
“Some of Mrs. Clinton’s struggles are self-imposed. She’s a real-world, political version of Pig-Pen, trailing along her own cloud of scandal dust. Even Democrats who like her don’t trust her. And a lot of voters are weary or unimpressed by the Clinton name. For all the Democratic establishment’s attempts to anoint Mrs. Clinton—to shield her from debates and ignore her liabilities—the rank and file aren’t content to have their nominee dictated.
“Especially because many of those rank and file belong to a rising progressive movement that has no time or interest in the old Clinton mold. Barack Obama’s biggest legacy may prove his dismantling of the Democratic center. He ran as a uniter, but he governed as a divisive ideologue and as a liberal, feeding new fervor in the progressive wing. . .”
Ted Johnson, Variety: “‘13 Hours’ Is Light on Politics, But Sure to Stir Benghazi Controversy”
“. . . Last week, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly previewed the movie on “The Kelly File” and interviewed three of the CIA contractors at the center of the movie. Kelly introduced the segment as the “gripping new film that may pose a threat to Hillary Clinton’s hopes for the White House.” She then showed footage from the film.
“Sean Hannity interviewed three of the contractors, Mark “Oz” Geist, Kris “Tanto” Paronto and John “Tig” Tiegen, on his radio show and Fox News program.
“The movie focuses on the team of security contractors housed at a secret CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, and how they put their lives on the line to respond to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the nearby consulate.
“Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed, but the events of that evening almost immediately became a lightning rod in the presidential election that year. That has continued into the most recent campaign, in GOP attacks on Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, and on Capitol Hill, where a special Benghazi committee queried her in an October hearing that stretched to almost 11 hours.
“In the National Review, Stephen Miller wrote that Bay’s ‘straightforward portrayal of the attack will be as close as pop culture comes to analyzing the failures of the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton that night. Still, the fact that there is any reminder of Benghazi in our popular culture at all is doubtless giving the Clinton campaign major headaches.’ . . .”
Also: John Nolte, Big Hollywood: “’13 Hours’ Review: Riveting Indictment of Obama, Hillary, and the DC Media”
“Director Michael Bay’s riveting, heartbreaking, and infuriating “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” opens with five simple words: “This Is a True Story.” What it should have read was, “This Is a True Story The Media Has Covered Up For Years.”
“God damn these people to Hell.
“Let me start things off by pointing and laughing at George Clooney, Robert Redford, Meryl Streep, Tim Robbins, John Cusack, Leonardo Di Caprio, Paul Greengrass, Matt Damon, and Paul Haggis — all of whom made films critical of a sitting president’s foreign policy that ended up being, not only box office catastrophes, but creative embarrassments; completely forgettable, preachy, pedantic, just plain lousy movies no one will ever see again.
“Now I have even worse news for them…
“Michael Bay — you know, the guy who makes those ‘Transformers’ movies — just made a film critical of a sitting president’s foreign policy, and knocked it straight out of the park. . .”
Monica Crowley, Washington Times: “The deal with the Clinton devil is over”
Once untouchable, Hillary and Bill are getting pounded
“. . . For nearly a quarter of a century, the Clintons have been politically bulletproof. No charge, regardless of how salacious, illegal and true, seemed to stick. When they detected incoming fire, they activated their tried-and-true protocol: deny, stonewall, deflect and claim that the nation’s business was too important — they were too important — to respond: “I need to get back to work for the American people.” Exit left. Get protection from the leftist mainstream media.
“They were untouchable, having created a cult of personality rivaled (and surpassed) only by President Obama.
“And surprisingly, the issue that is currently unraveling their Wizard of Oz illusion isn’t the allegations of massive fraud at the Clinton Foundation or her mishandling of classified material on her private email server. (More on both fronts to come, courtesy of the FBI).
No, the issue posing the greatest risk right now to a Clinton Restoration is the public’s voiding of the deal it made with the Clinton Devil in 1992.
“The conventional wisdom has long been that Mr. Clinton’s lewd, abusive past is itself a thing of the past. His serial extramarital affairs, including the one with the barely legal intern, Monica Lewinsky, his textbook sexual harassment of subordinates like Paula Jones, his alleged assault of Kathleen Willey and the rape alleged by Juanita Broaddrick, were considered old news, episodes litigated in the court of public opinion and dismissed for three reasons: 1) His piggery was already widely known; 2) a strong economy absolved many of his sins; and 3) the public took cues from his wife. “Hey, if she’s OK with his piggery, who are we to judge?”
“This cleverly constructed protective shield is now crumbling because Mrs. Clinton, after enlisting her husband on the campaign trail in a retread of 1992’s ‘two for the price of one’ deal, is oblivious to the political ground shifting beneath her. . .”
George Will, NH Union Leader: “George Will: Rubio’s record of misjudgment”
“What boxer Sonny Liston’s manager said of him (Sonny had his good points, the trouble was his bad points) is true of Marco Rubio. His strengths include intelligence, articulateness and, usually, cheerfulness. His misjudgments involve, in ascending order of importance, the Senate immigration bill of 2013, sugar, Libya and S. 590. Together these reveal a recurring penchant for ill-considered undertakings.
“Rubio’s retreat, under withering political heat, from the immigration bill was undignified but not reprehensible. The bill had 1,197 pages because the 906-page Affordable Care Act had not slaked the congressional appetite for “comprehensive” solutions to complex problems. The immigration bill solved everything, down to the hourly wage of immigrant agricultural sorters ($9.84). Rubio shared this serene knowingness.
“His sugar addiction is a reprehensible but not startling example of the routine entanglements of big government and big business. He has benefited from the support of Florida’s wealthy sugar producers, who have benefited from sugar import quotas and other corporate welfare that forces Americans to pay approximately twice the world price for sugar. What is, however, startling is Rubio’s preposterous defense of this corporate welfare as a national security imperative: Without our government rigging the sugar market, “other countries will capture the market share, our agricultural capacity will be developed into real estate, you know, housing and so forth, and then we lose the capacity to produce our own food, at which point we’re at the mercy of a foreign country for food security.”
“This promiscuous invocation of national security brings us to Rubio’s enthusiastic support of the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton intervention in Libya, which Rubio faults for having been insufficiently enthusiastic . . .”
James Antle III, Washington Examiner: “Conservatism according to Donald Trump”
“Even conservatives who’ve never been hostile to Donald Trump are starting to ask how conservative the Republican front-runner really is. His enemies in the Republican Party have always claimed only one answer is backed up by the evidence: not very.
The Washington Examiner decided to go straight to the source and ask Trump himself. He defended his conservatism, but not always on his conservative critics’ terms.
First, the businessman argued he was growing conservatism and its primary political vehicle, the Republican Party. He didn’t mention Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Democrats, but he might have cited his big rallies in Lowell and Worcester — two blue-collar cities in Massachusetts, a Democratic state that twice went for Ronald Reagan but hasn’t come close to voting for another Republican presidential candidate since — as examples. Trump did say he would carry a number of states that haven’t been in the GOP column since Reagan or George H.W. Bush in 1988.
“If you think about it, if you take a look at what I’ve done, I’ve brought millions and millions of people to the Republican Party, and to the conservative party, because, as an example, the debate had 24 million people,” Trump told the Examiner‘s Byron York in an exclusive interview in Iowa. “If I wasn’t in the debate, would it have had three, or four, or two, or what would it have been?”
Sarah Westwood, Washington Examiner: “Nine times Clinton Foundation donors got special access at State”
But thousands of emails made public by the State Department between May of last year and Friday indicate donors to the Clinton Foundation were often given personal meetings, generous contracts or special consideration that was seemingly not afforded to the same number of private groups that had not written checks to the charity.
The allegations that sparked the reported probe, which the FBI has yet to confirm or deny, focus simply on whether the State Department extended preferential treatment to Clinton Foundation contributors.
Below are nine examples of the type of State Department access Clinton granted to her foundation’s top donors, as told by the private emails that have been made public so far by the agency.
PA . . .
Leo Knepper, CAP: “Senate Hearing on AG Kane was Theatre of the Absurd”
“Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Governor can request the removal of certain “civil officials” outside of the impeachment process. After the suspension of Kane’s law license, and refusal to resign, a Special Committee on Senate Address was convened to determine if Kane should remain in office without her law license. On Tuesday, the Special Committee on Senate Address held its final hearing on Attorney General Kathleen Kane.
“The hearing was eye-opening, to say the least. Although Attorney General Kane did not testify, her Chief of Staff, Jonathan Duecker, addressed the Committee in her stead. Duecker was frequently backed into a corner, mainly because his positions defied logic and were self-contradictory. When his statements didn’t put him into a corner, they were hedged and revealed how little Duecker knew about the operations of the Attorney General’s office. For example, Duecker had no idea what Kane’s day to day schedule was and couldn’t say for sure when she had last worked in Harrisburg. He also didn’t know if Kane had provided written instructions to the Attorney General’s legal staff about changes to procedure after she had her law license suspended. Duecker also was unable to answer fundamental questions about the contracting process Kane went through when she appointed a ‘Special Prosecutor’ related to her investigation into pornographic emails. His unfamiliarity with the details of this contract comes as a surprise considering its high profile and the controversy it caused among the legal staff in the AG’s office.
“If you have two and a half hours and want to watch the testimony, it can be found here. However if you wish to maintain any confidence in the operational capacity of the Attorney General’s office, you should probably skip it . . .”
Sy Snyder, PoliticsPA: 1/15 Ups & Downs
“Josh Shapiro. After months (really years) of speculation, the Montgomery County Commissioner finally made the jump into the race for Attorney General. Shapiro is making integrity the central slogan of his campaign, an effort to distance himself from the incumbent. He also scored the endorsement of Philly Council President Darrell Clarke, a valuable counterweight to Zappala’s support from Johnny Doc. Overall, it was a good first week for Shapiro and it will be interesting to see if he continues to gather momentum.
Ed Pawlowski. The ground is shrinking beneath the Allentown Mayor’s feet. This week the FBI charged their first elected official in their sting operation. Then, it was reported that the City Council were preparing to hold a vote of no confidence in Pawlowski in the hopes that he would resign. Whether Pawlowski steps aside or is taken down, it feels like the raid of Allentown City Hall last July was just the beginning of a long scandalous episode.
Luis Felipe Restrepo. The Philadelphia-based judge waited fourteen months to get confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Last Monday, the Senate finally voted 82-6 to confirm Judge Restrepo. Despite the long wait, Restrepo is one of the lucky ones as Politico notes that Senate Republicans are insistent that no more judges be appointed until after President Obama leaves office.
Kathleen Kane. It was yet another crazy week for the Attorney General, which kicked off with her new assertion that she’ll run for re-election this year after all. Kane went even further by contesting the State Supreme Court’s suspension of her law license and demanding that it be reinstated. Meanwhile, Ed Rendell showed up to testify for her before the State Senate. The former Governor urged that body not to remove her but rather to take up impeachment proceedings instead. All the while, our reader poll of the AG Democratic primary shows Kane still has plenty of supporters. For this moment at least, it feels like anything can happen in the Kathleen Kane saga.
Marco Rubio. This week the Florida Senator secured not one, but two, endorsements from PA State Representatives. Ryan Aument and Jim Christiana both threw their support behind Rubio. These are the first noteworthy supporters of the Floridian in the Keystone State. In fact, according to FiveThirtyEight, only two of Pennsylvania’s major elected officials have chosen a candidate in the 2016 GOP primary so far (Rep. Meehan is supporting Christie while Rep. Barletta chose Santorum). With Iowa less than three weeks away, even the smallest endorsements are good news for a campaign.”
END NOTES . . .
Mark Levin (1/14/16)
“On Thursday’s Mark Levin show, During Thursday night’s debate candidates should just be themselves, stand on their own record and not focus on the other guy. Americans should watch out for those who prefer to attack instead of talk. What do they have to have to hide?
“Also, It is clear now that the Bush dynasty and allies will not support Donald Trump if he is the nominee. Conservatives have won primaries fair and square and then the Republican establishment fails to support them, so we need to be watchful or they’ll back the Democrat. While the establishment doesn’t like Trump, they especially hate Ted Cruz because supports the Constitution and stands up to them. The left, who also is against Cruz, recently attacked him for not disclosing a loan to himself. The same NY Times that covers up for President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Americans should note that big banks and Wall Street bailouts are not the same as taking a loan out; it’s common sense.
“Finally, climate change is a fraudulent agenda that is driven by the left and the De-growth movement, so why not bring it up in Thursday night’s debate. A number of Republicans, including Chris Christie used to support climate change and have changed their tunes.”
Thomas Williams, National Security: “Professional Atheist Dawkins Says Christianity ‘Bulwark against Something Worse’”
“In a text that is coursing about on social media, professional God-slayer Richard Dawkins begrudgingly admitted that Christianity may actually be our best defense against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world.
“‘There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings,’ Dawkins said. ‘I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.’
“In a rare moment of candor, Dawkins reluctantly accepted that the teachings of Jesus Christ do not lead to a world of terror, whereas followers of radical Islam perpetrate the very atrocities that he laments.
“Because of this realization, Dawkins wondered aloud whether Christianity might indeed offer an antidote to protect western civilization against jihad.
“‘I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse,’ he said. . .”