Ordinarily mild-mannered Hugh Hewitt quits the WaPo on air

The New Neo Posted on by

I don’t know how any conservative can stand to work for an organization like the WaPo and listen to their slanted coverage. But Hewitt couldn’t take it any more, a bit like Howard Beale in Network.

Here’s the video. Capehart’s incredibly off-putting attempt to convey the pretense not only that nothing much had occurred but that he didn’t have to answer Hewitt’s accusations is unintentionally revealing of how deeply biased and truly obnoxious he is. Ruth Marcus, another long-time shill for the left, was – to her temporary credit – at least more flummoxed by the whole thing. I’m not sure if she was also subject to a simultaneous technical problem, but the timing of it makes me think it was not an accident:

Hewitt actually quit the paper rather than just walking out of the interview:

“I have in fact quit the Post but I was only writing a column for them every six weeks or so,” Hewitt later told Fox News Digital.

I wonder what Bezos will say, or whether he’ll address it at all.

“Journalism” ceased to be journalism long ago, which is one of the main reasons we face the possibility that the execrable duo of Harris/Walz could well be elected next Tuesday.

[ADDENDUM: Found at Ace’s, this sarcastic comment:

Not knowing details of election fraud and just insisting that there was none at all is the way to go.

Well, okay, there was some, but it didn’t affect any outcomes.

How do I know it didn’t affect any outcomes? Because that’s impossible. People commit fraud in elections in order to have no effect on the outcome. It’s really more of a hobby.

Yes, that’s the way it’s spun by 98% of the press and every Democrat. As I’ve said so many times, once the voting rules are relaxed it becomes impossible to prove fraud and to prove it affected the outcome, except in a very few extremely local elections with only maybe a hundred votes or less cast, total, and minuscule vote differences between candidates. Other than that, it would be nearly impossible to prove and in any event courts are reluctant to hear the evidence in a timely fashion and to apply a remedy.

And what would a court-ordered remedy be, anyway? It can’t be to automatically award the win to the other candidate. It could be a do-over, but in a federal election that’s not going to happen. A fine wouldn’t matter, because the fraudsters often would consider it well-worth it to pay the price if the election is for national office. Criminal convictions? Maybe, but the proof would have to be ironclad and as I’ve already said, it’s very hard to prove.

No, it must be an ounce of prevention, because there really is no cure. Trust in elections is earned, not automatic. The stakes are way too high, the temptation too great, and the opportunities too available.

[Please SCROLL DOWN FOR NEW POSTS: this one has been bumped up] The Gerard Vanderleun book website is open and the book is ready for purchase

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, here goes – it’s book launch time for Gerard Vanderleun’s book of essays! The title is The Name In the Stone.

Please go to the book website VanderleunBooks, take a look around, and order a book or books. It’s published in a very handsome-looking paperback edition, if I do say so myself, and there are a couple of hardcovers available as well [NOTE: The hardcovers, which were a very limited edition, are already sold out, but I’m going to order another print run of hardcovers, and so you can order them now although there will be an estimated delay of about ten days in mailing the hardcovers out to customers]. Here’s a link to the description of the book.

You can communicate with me about the book either at my usual email address of jaybean33@yahoo.com or at the booksite’s email address, which is info@vanderleunbooks.com . I plan to add a page of reader testimonials at the website, and you can send a review that way if you’d like.

Can’t we all just get along?

The New Neo Posted on by

From the one and only Babylon Bee:

“Listen up, you Nazis. Here’s the deal,” Biden said. “Dangerous, inflammatory rhetoric has no place in our political discourse. That’s why I’m calling on all of Donald Trump’s nasty, disgusting, disease-infested, Hitler-loving, supporters to knock it off. Got it?”

The president stressed the need to leave insults behind and for the nation to return to civility. “The idea… that these sewer-dwelling, racist, woman-hating, fascists would try to infect our democracy with such vile, and by the way!” Biden continued. “They’re the worst. The absolute scum of the earth. Walking pieces of human scat. But this is a time for unity. When we can come together… as one people… all of us… along with the hideous, festering, buckets of slime who support Donald Trump… to unite this country. And that’s… that’s the… that’s it. End speech.”

Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign agreed with Biden, issuing a press release calling for the arrest and imprisonment of all Trump supporters in an effort to heal division in the country.

The sad thing is that it’s not too much of a stretch from their actual utterances.

As for the question of whether Biden’s “garbage” speech was a deliberate sabotage – I don’t think so. I think he genuinely wanted to capitalize on what he saw as a grave error by the Trump campaign in having a comic at their Madison Square Garden rally who told what seemed to be an anti-Puerto Rican joke (I doubt Biden or most of the audience realized it was actually about a very real problem concerning actual garbage in Puerto Rico). Biden wanted to do some sort of clever little play on the word “garbage,” but wordplay is not his forte (hey, that rhymes!).

In addition, there is little question that many Democrats have contempt for Trump voters and people on the right. It comes out in myriad ways. I’ve experienced it many times in my own life, both directed at me personally and in my role as listener to conversations. Because I appear to others to be a typical well-educated woman possessing the demographics that would ordinarily point to my being a Trump-hater, people often assume I’m sympatico to their contemptuous point of view about the right. They are always surprised to learn otherwise.

NOTE: This post’s title is a well-known quote attributed to Rodney King in 1992. But King actually said something a bit different:

And uh, I mean, please, we can, we can get along here. We all can get along. We just gotta. We gotta. I mean, we’re all stuck here for a while. Let’s, you know, let’s try to work it out. Let’s try to beat it, you know. Let’s try to work it out.

Make America Fun Again – with garbage

The New Neo Posted on by

If you follow the news you can’t help but have heard about Biden’s remarks in which he called Trump supporters “garbage,” and then about the MSM’s concerted attempts to explain his remarks away. You can read about it here
as well as here, if you were fortunate enough to have missed it previously.

I also want to briefly point out is something else: the terrible and yet typical quality of the rest of Biden’s statement. Here it is, with my comments:

Trump was a successful businessman and TV personality, and he’s not been unfriendly to latinos or Puerto Ricans specifically, although he certainly isn’t keen on illegal aliens of any ethnic origin. He cares about the middle class and not just billionaires, as the middle class is well aware. His comments about poisoning the “blood of the country” referred to criminal illegal immigrants who, among other things, have been helping fentanyl to addict many Americans. An end to birthright citizenship – or at least limitations on it – has been proposed by people on the right prior to Trump; I wrote about some earlier efforts here.

Now, back to garbage.

Trump responded with an epic troll. He is much much better than most standup comics:

Trump is an echo of political pranksters such as Andrew Breitbart, as well as the Yippies of an earlier generation. But I don’t recall any prankster political candidates before, at least not in my lifetime. Kamala and Walz have tried to do lighthearted stuff but it simply doesn’t work. They’re not funny and they’re not lighthearted. Kamala laughs at her own very unfunny jokes that wouldn’t even register as jokes if she didn’t laugh uproariously and embarrassingly at them.

Trump is genuinely funny. It occurs to me that, if the left hadn’t been out to destroy him from day one, America might have had a lot of fun in a Trump presidency. He and Vance – who also has a good sense of humor – would like to Make America Fun Again. Will they get a chance?

By the way, here’s Vance’s interview with Joe Rogan. I haven’t watched it yet, but I hear it’s funny:

Bill and Hillary and Kamala Harris: do they want her to win?

The New Neo Posted on by

From commenter “John Tyler”:

So Bill Clinton goes to Michigan and speaks to an Arab-American group and essentially tells them that HAMAS F’d up on Oct 7 when they butchered Israelis and he goes on to say that because HAMAS hides behind civilians, it is Hamas’ fault that civilians in Gaza are getting killed.

Don’t know – and don’t care – if his comments will help/hurt the CACKLER, but it’s not that often a demonkrat tells the truth and calls it like it is.

Of course, conservative outlets are claiming (in their stupidity) , that Clinton is just trying to sand bag the CACKLER’S campaign and it’s part of an Obama vs Clinton “war.”

The Clinton’s may not like Obama, but there is no way on earth that they would prefer to see Trump in office.

I can’t say I have the inside track on Clinton mindreading, but I can easily see a way on earth that they would prefer a Trump victory. It’s really rather simple: Hillary was supposed to have been the first woman president. She has nursed a nearly decades-long grievance at having lost to the likes of Trump. In addition, she’s so far the only person that has. Even the cognitively-challenged Biden won, whether by hook or crook or fair and square. So at the moment Hillary bears the distinction of being the first female presidential nominee but failing to win, and being the only person who lost to Trump.

I think you can see where I’m going: if Kamala were to win it would add insult to injury, because Kamala would be the first woman president. And Hillary would remain the only person who ever lost to Trump.

Plus, maybe – just maybe – Bill found anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment a bridge too far. So there’s that, too. I never got the impression that either Bill or Hillary were onboard with Obama’s anti-Israel actions and enabling of Iran, and I recall that Hillary quit her SOS job in the beginning of Obama’s second term. Why? Whether she was forced out or whether it was voluntary, I thought she had some disagreements with Obama’s foreign policy and the main one involved Iran. She was replaced with John Kerry, who was fully onboard.

The Clintons also have a Jewish son-in-law, much like Trump. Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism and Chelsea has not – but still, it may be a factor as well.

On abortion as the #1 issue

The New Neo Posted on by

From commenter “Peter Sells”:

t worries me, the notion that there are so many people in the voting public for whom it is possible that abortion might be the #1, #2 and #3 (…) issue. The economy could crash, the speech police could start arresting people, trial by jury could be thrown on the discard pile, their 401(k)s could be confiscated to cover the government debt, but as long as they can rest assured that those annoying “fetuses” can be eliminated whenever they decide it’s time, they can be okay with all of the rest. I really don’t understand it, I guess.

I’ll try to explain. Firstly, the women for whom that other list – the economy could crash, etc. – would be secondary don’t see the list as the likely consequence of voting for the Democrats. They think the economy will be good enough, trial by jury is going fine if jurors convict evil Donald Trump, and the like. You get the idea. It’s not as though, if not for abortion, they’d otherwise be conservative Republicans.

And although I suppose there are women who have abortions because they find the growing fetus and prospect of a child “annoying,” I think that for more women there’s a sense of true terror at an unwanted pregnancy. It’s often far far more than “annoying” – would that it were only that.

As a woman who has been pregnant and borne a deeply wanted child, I nevertheless found pregnancy very difficult and can well imagine what it might be like to experience it without choosing to do so. I’m not saying every woman feels this way, but even with a wanted pregnancy there is a sense of being taken over by something alien to your entire previous experience, and the physical and emotional discomfort that goes with it can be quite intense, as well as fear of the unknown. The woman’s entire body undergoes a change that is far-reaching and encompasses profound hormonal and emotional upheaval, the re-arrangements of her visceral organs, and then a childbirth that usually is very painful.

With a wanted child, it’s very much worth it for the end result – which is a child. With an unwanted child, the woman either has to raise that child and be its mother for the rest of her life – which sometimes works out fine but sometimes does not – or give it away, which is another wrenching experience.

Some woman do undertake abortions casually. I submit that most don’t see it that way. I’ve been fortunate enough to never have had one, and I don’t think I ever could have done so. But that doesn’t mean I don’t see how difficult and profound the decision often is.

Trust in the integrity of the voting process

The New Neo Posted on by

Jeff Bezos wrote this in an op-ed that appeared in the WaPo on Monday:

Voting machines must meet two requirements. They must count the vote accurately, and people must believe they count the vote accurately. The second requirement is distinct from and just as important as the first.

Interesting. Let’s say for the sake of argument that the first requirement is actually met. How about the second? After all, there’s a certain black box quality to such machines – at least for the average person – that paper ballots don’t have.

But the machines are only a small part of what’s needed in order for voters to believe in the security of elections. That’s a multi-step process. Clean voter rolls. ID to vote. No vote by mail except under extraordinary circumstances. No automatic mailing of ballots to everyone on the voter lists. Reliable signature checking for the small number of votes that are allowed by mail, with bipartisan poll workers making the decisions about the validity of signatures. Witness signatures, too, for the mail-in ballots, as well as envelopes that are kept rather than being thrown away, and could be matched up if needed in a disputed election. Watermarks or other special identifiers on the ballots. No ballots allowed to be counted that come in after voting day, and postmarks necessary. No ballot harvesting. No ballot drop boxes. And – although I think this part is less important – one day for voting and have it be a national holiday. Or at least, a shortened period of early voting.

Maybe then people would gain respect for the results. But is there any chance the Democrats would agree to all of this? I strongly doubt it.

Kamala Harris: the living, breathing oxymoron

The New Neo Posted on by

Translated: I was powerless as VP, although I would do plenty of things differently than Biden as president, although Biden and I actually did just great. The specific thing I will do so very differently is that I, the heretofore powerless VP, will be even better than Biden.

“Even better than Biden!” That should have been Harris’ campaign slogan.

Speaking of Biden, he’s been extending the escalating trajectory of Democrat demonization of those with the audacity to support the right. First we had the condescending Obama’s “bitter clingers,” which then segued into Hillary’s basket of “deplorables,” which has morphed almost seamlessly into Kamala’s “fascists” and now Uncle Joe’s “garbage.” Hey, why not? It’s another oxymoron: We, the Democrats, the party of unity and civility, call you, our opponents, the evil and wretched scum of the earth.

NOTE: Speaking of which, I just noticed that Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he’ll be voting for Harris/Walz in the interests – get this – of bringing us all together and an end to division, insults, and anger.

I kid you not:

‘I don’t really do endorsements. I’m not shy about sharing my views, but I hate politics and don’t trust most politicians,’ the actor wrote.

Despite that, the Terminator star, 77, said that it’s time for the country ‘to move forward,’ and that ‘the only way to do that is with Harris and Walz.’

‘We need to close the door on this chapter of American history, and I know that former President Trump won’t do that,’ Schwarzenegger said.

‘He will divide, he will insult, he will find new ways to be more un-American than he already has been, and we, the people, will get nothing but more anger.’

Schwarzenegger is certainly one reason not to trust politicians.

The ACLU mailing that masquerades as a survey but is actually fear-mongering propaganda for the Democrats

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday I got something in the mail from the ACLU that purported to be a survey. But although it had questions – all leading, all assuming I was on the left – it was the cover letter that grabbed my attention. Here’s how it started:

Dear Friend:

All across our country, an intense struggle is underway over the future of the rights and freedoms we cherish.

I can’t argue with that; seems fair enough.

Emboldened by the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, powerful forces in our country are driving to deepen their state-by-state assault on our civil liberties. They’ve made it clear they won’t stop until they’ve put abortion our of reach all across the country. And they aren’t stopping at abortion.

So they segue from Dobbs to the assertion that abortion will be banned everywhere if these nefarious unnamed “powerful forces” (which of course are understood to be the right) get their way. Of course, the lawyers at the ACLU are well aware that Dobbs actually gives each state control of its own policy on abortion, and that there is nowhere near majority support on the right for a national ban – and that Trump, for example, has made it crystal clear that he wouldn’t support one. But hey, it’s good fear-mongering for the left to assert otherwise.

And giving abortion decisions back to the states is just a gateway drug to the tyranny the right has planned for us all:

They’re attacking our right to use birth control and to vote.

No, they’re not.

They’re waging vicious assaults on the rights of transgender young people and using censorship and book banning to impose a whitewashed version of American history and current American reality on public school students.

The only “vicious assault” on transgender young people is the movement on the left to “treat” – with drugs and surgeries that often take away their “reproductive rights” to have children or to experience sexual pleasure – minors who lack the ability to consent. And the only strange and destructive version of American history and “current American reality” foisted on our young people is at the hands of the left.

The letter goes on it that general vein, segues into a pitch for donations, and then mentions the questions the survey will delve into. Note the way the conclusions are embedded in the questions:

– Are you concerned that, as state legislatures convene and as we look to the forthcoming elections, we are facing a new wave of efforts to ban abortion in state after state?

– Do you worry that racially motivated voter suppression could dilute the power of Black and brown voters in the 2024 presidential election?

– Are you alarmed by attempts across the country to censor talk about race and gender in our public schools, to muzzle schoolteachers, and to prevent students from having an open and equitable dialogue about our country’s history?

– Are you worried about efforts like the one in Texas to label gender-affirming medical cre as “child abuse” and to expose families to unwarranted government investigations?

After that, the letter goes on for some time about how the ACLU is fighting for abortion rights, and adds in bold letters for emphasis:

We don’t for a minute underestimate the seriousness of the threats we are facing – or the potentially devastating human impact of our opponents’ no-holds-barred assault. This upcoming election is not just about who will be president – it’s about our freedom, our future, and the trajectory of democracy.

Note the language in that first sentence, meant to panic women into feeling as though they and their children are under physical attack by the right and that it will only get worse: “threats,” “devastating impact,” “no-holds-barred assault.”

The ACLU and the Democrats know exactly what they’re doing with a pitch like this. They are purposely intensifying a primal type of fear. And I can assure you that the technique works. The women I know who are already voting for Democrats (and would never vote for Trump anyway) are fully energized to vote as though their lives and their children’s lives depended on it, and absolutely believe that the right is bent on the sort of program described in this letter and must be stopped at all costs. And from talking to some of them about this, I don’t think there’s anything that could change their minds.

And no, for the most part they are not and never have been radical leftists or especially politically oriented. For most of their lives, they voted for Democrats and followed the news in a surface manner, but didn’t hold especially radical views. And yet despite all of that, they accept radical moves on the part of the Democrats for whom they continue to vote, because pitches like the one in that letter strike them in very personal ways. The Handmaid’s Tale sort of scenario seems very real to them and exacerbates a primal fear of other people controlling one’s body and genitalia – and life – against one’s will. And the ACLU is one of many entities dedicated to fanning the flames of fear and dread.

Over last fifty or so years, women have become accustomed to abortion being legal everywhere, and states that are taking away what they see as a basic right feed into that fear, even if a woman lives in another state with unrestricted abortion. Harris’ recent Houston rally was an attempt to exacerbate that fear, as well. I think it may be that Draconian state abortion laws will backfire and cause the left to grow stronger.

I also believe that Trump’s approach is the correct one:

Trump, in the video, did not say when in pregnancy he believes abortion should be banned — declining to endorse a national cutoff that would have been used as a cudgel by Democrats ahead of the November election. …

While he again articulated his support for three exceptions — in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk — he went on to describe the current legal landscape, in which different states have different restrictions following the court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling on June 24, 2022, which upended the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

“Many states will be different. Many will have a different number of weeks or some will have more conservative than others and that’s what they will be,” he said. “At the end of the day it’s all about will of the people.”

But that’s nowhere near good enough for abortion absolutists on both sides. On the left we have those who want no restrictions, and on the right we have those who want an absolute ban.

On this blog I’ve discussed my own views on abortion many times, and so I’m not going to go into it again in any detail here. But I’ll add that, if we lose this election, I believe it will be due to this issue.