The Madness of Progressive Projection
-Victor Davis Hanson
The only Trump “crime” was in his winning an election he was not supposed to win. So after the election, prior illegal acts were redefined as legal, and legal ones as illegal.
A cynic might conclude that the last past wasted three years were really not about Trump at all. He was entirely irrelevant, and was referenced largely as a means to preempt investigation of massive Obama-era illegality in 2016, which centered on warping the law to destroy his supposed widely detestable and dangerous campaign that threatened Democratic control of the government. As a result, in almost every instance of alleged Trump wrongdoing the accusers only bring attention to themselves and their own actual wrongdoing.
What is behind this strange collective psychological condition of projecting one’s own guilt on to another? In part, out of embarrassment that Hillary Clinton blew an election despite having the edge in money, the media, and the popular culture, Trump was recalibrated as a cheater. Otherwise it was impossible to accept that the Manhattan wheeler-dealer had outsmarted, out-campaigned, and out-hustled the progressives’ best and brightest—and worse yet might have every intention of keeping his campaign promises to undo the entire Obama agenda.
For tens of thousands of government careerists, by and large political partisans of the Democrats, using any means necessary was justified by the supposedly noble ends of ending the coarse Trump. Groupthink ensued that led to mass hysteria, as the fantasies needed to invoke the 25th Amendment, the Logan Act, and the emoluments clause, meant that their own “collusion” and “obstruction” simply no longer mattered. One would have thought Trump got caught on a hot mic offering a quid pro quo to Vladimir Putin or monitoring the communications of Associated Press reporters.
Given all the focus on nefarious Russia, you could be forgiven for missing the fact that Ukraine was always at the center of the Trump-Russia affair.
Viewed in this light, the Trump-Ukraine quid pro quo bribery narrative must compete with another explanation: Trump’s determination to get to the bottom of an underhanded years-long campaign arrayed against him. One of the first things he did after the Mueller report debunked the collusion narrative was to call the Ukranian president and ask him to help do just that.
The impeachment battle is not just about congressional probes and alleged presidential strong-arming, but about the Russiagate narrative. Anti-Trump forces in the government and media are working to vindicate their previous efforts and discredit a forthcoming Justice Department inquiry into the origins of Russiagate by again connecting Trump and a foreign power to a U.S. election.
Congressional testimony from the former top American envoy to Ukraine directly contradicts the impeachment narrative offered by congressional Democrats and their media allies. Ambassador Kurt Volker, who served for two years as the top U.S. diplomatic envoy to Ukraine, testified on Thursday that he was never aware of and never took part in any effort to push the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden or his son Hunter. He also stressed that the interactions between Giuliani and Ukrainian officials were facilitated not to find dirt on Biden, but to assuage concerns that the incoming Ukrainian government would not be able to get a handle on corruption within the country.
Volker’s full remarks, which were obtained by The Federalist, can be read here.
Emails, Audio PROOF: DNC COLLUDED WITH UKRAINE to TAKE DOWN TRUMP in 2016
The Democrats have struggled for years now to find the evidence they need to prove Russia colluded with Donald Trump during the 2016 election. But while they take Americans in circles with their empty allegations, the DNC was doing exactly the same thing in Ukraine. Specifically, Democrats hired lawyer Alex Chalupa to “investigate” Trump. Glenn explains the documents, finances, hacked emails, and AUDIO RECORDINGS that give us the proof we need to show you that this Ukraine scandal goes FAR beyond Joe and Hunter Biden, and their involvement with Ukraine oil company Burisma. It goes much, MUCH further than that.
UKRAINE SCANDAL EXPLAINED: Chalkboard on DNC Collusion, Joe Biden, Soros, Trump & More
Glenn explains EVERYTHING you need to know about the Ukraine scandal. And it goes MUCH further than Hunter and Joe Biden, and their involvement there. This timeline gives you all the facts and proof you need to show that there was DNC collusion, not collusion with President Trump, during the 2016 election. Democrats worked with Ukrainian officials to investigate “dirt” on Trump, and Glenn shows you EVERYTHING — including how even George Soros is involved — in a way that’s easy to understand.
Smoke and Mirrors: Trump Impeachment Inquiry Meant to Discredit Barr’s Investigation Into Spygate—Marc Ruskin
What is the basis for the “impeachment inquiry” into President Trump?
In the eyes of former FBI agent Marc Ruskin, in what ways is the inquiry highly irregular?
And how does the whistleblower complaint relate to Spygate and the upcoming Horowitz report?
Nixon: Victim of a Media Riot: For friends who ask, here’s the man I knew. And please remember him especially on Yom Kippur.
Nixon believed in human freedom almost as a religion.
He saw freedom on the back foot and put in on the front foot again. Saving Israel was a big part of that. He intervened mightily to save Israel in the Yom Kippur War so that Russia would not dominate the Middle East. He did it against the wishes of many of his top officials, and it worked prodigiously well. Since then Israel has been the safest it has ever been — although Iran is a huge potential threat to that security.
Why did Nixon have to leave office prematurely? A media coup, pure and simple. He didn’t do anything anywhere near as wrong as what LBJ and JFK had done, but the media stampeded the whole country against him. And so he left, and we have all been the poorer for it.
President Trump Is Absolutely Right To Assume Federal Agencies Are Against Him
-Inez Feltscher Stepman
Too many of the unelected bureaucrats who staff the alphabet soup agencies seem to feel entitled to circumvent the will of the American people when it conflicts with their priors.
Federal employees are anything but neutral administrators of the law. Fully 95 percent of donations from those working for agencies went to Hillary Clinton in 2016. And a web of civil service laws built over the past century effectively inures them to the consequences of defying the elected and appointed officials tasked by our political process with captaining the ship of state.
It takes up to two years to fire a federal worker, even those convicted of felonies while on the job. Four different appeal routes and a flowchart’s worth of avenues prevent most managers from even trying to rid themselves of incompetent or outright insubordinate employees.
“At the DOJ, we can’t really get fired,” a career employee chuckles over coffee in an undercover video from Project Veritas, while outlining how she uses her position to undermine the administration. As early as the winter of the president’s inauguration, federal employees were already publicly trading tips on how to “#resist” from within.
Does a Religious Upbringing Promote Generosity or Not?
-Tyler J. VanderWeele
An erroneous paper on religion and generosity is finally retracted.
In 2015, a paper by Jean Decety and co-authors reported that children who were brought up religiously were less generous. The paper received a great deal of attention, and was covered by over 80 media outlets including The Economist, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and Scientific American. As it turned out, however, the paper by Decety was wrong. Another scholar, Azim Shariff, a leading expert on religion and pro-social behavior, was surprised by the results, as his own research and meta-analysis (combining evidence across studies from many authors) indicated that religious participation, in most settings, increased generosity. Shariff requested the data to try to understand more clearly what might explain the discrepancy.