The Jewish New Year begins tonight: it’s 5784.
That’s a whole lot of years.
The Jewish New Year begins tonight: it’s 5784.
That’s a whole lot of years.
A few days ago I wrote a post saying that I didn’t care much about certain allegations concerning Obama’s sex life – allegations I didn’t believe anyway, but which involved consenting adults. One reason was because there were plenty of other reasons I was never voting for him. But I didn’t realize I needed to add a few caveats to that “consenting adults” rule, such as: unless the sex acts are what is now euphemistically known as “sex work” and/or broadcasting your sex acts online.
But now I realize that the political arena doesn’t seem to preclude such acts, so it’s necessary to mention them as being of concern. To wit:
Democratic Virginia House of Delegates candidate Susanna Gibson blasted her opponents for engaging in “the worst gutter politics” after videos surfaced of her and her husband performing sex acts online for cash.
Gibson, a 40-year-old mother of two who is running in a hotly contested race to represent the state’s District 57, hosted several live webcam shows on the adult streaming website Chaturbate, the Washington Post revealed in a bombshell report Monday.
The nurse practitioner has since railed against her political opponents, accusing them of engaging in dirty politics.
You almost have to admire Gibson for her bold rhetorical jiu-jitsu. You see, if a person “performs sex acts online for cash” (and by the way, these videos were recent, not something she did in her wild youth), that’s not the “dirty” thing. Opponents pointing out that this occurred is the dirty thing. Got it.
More Orwellian garbage from Gibson:
“My political opponents and their Republican allies have proven they’re willing to commit a sex crime to attack me and my family because there’s no line they won’t cross to silence women when they speak up,” Gibson told CNN in a statement on Tuesday.
And from her attorney:
Gibson’s attorney, Daniel P. Watkins, said the circulating videos are a violation of Virginia’s revenge porn law, which makes it a crime to “maliciously” disseminate or sell nude or sexual images of another person with the intent to “coerce, harass, or intimidate.”
That law was meant to involve private photos or videos, not sex work online for pay and open to the public, that has already been “disseminated” (the puns write themselves) by the participants themselves.
More details here – perhaps more details than you’d like, although perhaps not.
Speaking of Obama, I will also note that one of his early acts as a politician was to get henchmen to out Blair Hull and Jack Ryan in terms of allegations during divorce proceedings; here’s a memory refresher.
This is good news:
William Null, twin brother Michael Null and Eric Molitor were found not guilty of providing support for a terrorist act and a weapon charge. They were the last of 14 men to face charges in state or federal court. Nine were convicted and now five have been cleared.
The Nulls and Molitor were accused of supporting leaders of the plan by participating in military-style drills and traveling to see Whitmer’s vacation home in northern Michigan. The key players, Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr., were convicted of a kidnapping conspiracy last year in a different court.
In the latest trial, the jury heard 14 days of testimony in Antrim County, the location of Whitmer’s lakeside property, 185 miles north of the state Capitol.
These guys pulled out of all of it when talk of any sort of violence entered. But the prosecution insisted on trying them anyway. I haven’t read much about how the venue for this trial was chosen and whether it differed in political demographics from the areas in which the previous trials were conducted, but my guess is that the juror pool was significantly more to the right than for the other trials. The men may have been fortunate that Whitmer’s vacation home was so far north. And I am virtually certain that if this case had been tried in DC, like the J6 cases, these men would be going to prison for a long time no matter how weak the evidence.
Another interesting detail is that two of the three men took the stand in their own defense. That’s not all that usual in a criminal trial, but their lawyers must have felt they’d be good witnesses.
This was the scene when the verdicts were read:
Not a lot to celebrate related to American jurisprudence these days–so soak this in.
Verdicts announced in case of 3 men charged in Whitmer fednapping hoax. God bless this jury. pic.twitter.com/smBxXmB5eh
— Julie Kelly ?? (@julie_kelly2) September 15, 2023
NOTE: I’ve written a great deal about the Whitmer cases, which I consider to be government entrapment. Some of my posts can be found here.
The drumbeats get louder:
Multiple liberal columnists have now urged President Biden to ditch Vice President Kamala Harris as his running mate for the 2024 presidential election.
Columnists at The Washington Post, New York Magazine’s The Intelligencer and a prominent independent writer said there are “better options available” for Biden’s running mate and that he should choose one of them if he wants a shot at winning re-election.
Among the Democrats mentioned to replace Harris were Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, and Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth.
What on earth is “better” about those people? They are among the most leftist of Democrats, and I don’t see any of them as having national draw. What’s sort of funny is that each of them is a member of at least one favored victim identity group, and Harris’ intersectional favored-identity-group affiliations are why she was chosen. And although the article mentions that Harris isn’t especially popular with black voters, I think that a significant number might be offended anyway if she’s dumped, and the same is true for some women voters.
I don’t quite get why dumping Harris would help Biden significantly. People generally vote for president rather than vice president. However, I suppose the thinking on the left is that everyone knows Biden is so old and cognitively challenged that he might not serve out a term, and therefore a younger vice president might have a good chance of attaining the office during the four years following the 2024 election, if only the Democrats can manage to eke out a win with the unpopular Biden. But I wonder what they’re seeing in the polls indicating they might be having difficulty “fortifying” the 2024 election, because they certainly seem worried.
Since this year’s 9/11 anniversary, I’ve watched more documentaries about it on YouTube. This is one that tells an extraordinary story. You may already know a bit about it – as I did – but the details are astounding:
I bask in the heartfelt praise:
It’s constantly consequently lovely and in addition brimming with a thrilling time to me personally along with our business office co-workers to look your blog at the least thrice in a very full week to find out the revolutionary assistance exhibiting.
Well, this is interesting:
Hunter Biden was indicted Thursday on federal gun charges out of Special Counsel David Weiss’ investigation.
Biden was charged with making a false statement in the purchase of a firearm; making a false statement related to information required to be kept by a federal firearms licensed dealer; and one count of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.
These are felony charges. But previously, Weiss was ready to make a deal that wrote them off. The only reason that deal didn’t go through seems to have been that the judge asked a few questions and the answers were highly unsatisfactory.
But one wonders whether this is also related to something I wrote about a few minutes ago – the deep desire of the Democrats to rid themselves of Joe Biden, whose candidacy has become a possible liability. Otherwise, I can’t imagine they’d let this indictment go forward – unless, of course, the plan is to provide cover for legal “fairness” by indicting Hunter and then merely slapping him on the wrist. That’s certainly a possibility.
One more idea is that these charges are meant to deflect from the much larger issue of the influence-peddling financial scheme in which Joe is highly implicated. It may be a case of introducing the narrative: “haven’t Hunter and Joe suffered enough?” “Do those cruel pouncing Republicans want a pound of flesh?”
The present charges carry a maximum of five to ten years, but I can’t imagine that Hunter, if found guilty, would serve anything like that amount of time (or any time at all).
There’s also this:
Weiss also withdrew the two misdemeanor tax charges in Delaware with the intention of bringing them in California and Washington, D.C. — the venues where the alleged misconduct occurred. Prosecutors have not offered a timeline for those charges.
If Hunter is charged at all with those things, I predict the timeline will be whatever it needs to be to most benefit whatever the Democrats want to happen with Joe.
Hunter’s defense appears to be that the plea agreement that got him off so very easy is still in effect.
Interesting times, interesting times.
I’m in awe of the mental gymnastics it takes to write an opinion piece like this one by David Ignatius:
What I admire most about President Biden is that in a polarized nation, he has governed from the center out, as he promised in his victory speech. With an unexpectedly steady hand, he passed some of the most important domestic legislation in recent decades. In foreign policy, he managed the delicate balance of helping Ukraine fight Russia without getting America itself into a war. In sum, he has been a successful and effective president.
Pravda could not have done better. But Ignatius is not through – oh no, he’s just getting warmed up:
But I don’t think Biden and Vice President Harris should run for reelection. It’s painful to say that, given my admiration for much of what they have accomplished. But if he and Harris campaign together in 2024, I think Biden risks undoing his greatest achievement — which was stopping Trump.
Say what? Stopping Trump is his greatest achievement (I’d say it’s his only achievement, if you consider it to be an achievement, which I don’t). But why not run again, if Biden has indeed accomplished that great achievement and all the other ones that Ignatius claims have made Biden “a successful and effective president”? What more could a person want from a candidate, really?
This is why not, according to Ignatius: Biden is too old. And Harris is too unpopular – or, as Ignatius puts it: “Harris has many laudable qualities, but the simple fact is that she has failed to gain traction in the country or even within her own party.”
“Failed to gain traction.” Now, that’s a turn of phrase. But tellingly, Ignatius says that, although “time is running out” on finding an alternative to Biden, there’s another problem:
Right now, there’s no clear alternative to Biden — no screamingly obvious replacement waiting in the wings. That might be the decider for Biden, that there’s seemingly nobody else. But maybe he will trust in democracy to discover new leadership, “in the arena.”
Ignatius doesn’t speculate on why, in this enormous country full of Democrats in elected office, there are no clear alternatives to this old geezer and his incredibly unpopular veep. But I’ll take a guess: the Democrats have gone so far to the left that the vast majority – maybe even all – of their younger politicians are way too extreme for the general electorate. Biden was old enough and fake-avuncular enough to have been able to fool a lot of people into thinking he was a genial middle-of-the-roader, but the vast majority of younger Democrats would be unable to perform such a feat. And Kamala seems to be unable to perform even the simplest political moves without flubbing them.
Of course, it may not matter. If the Democrats “fortify” the election enough, by hook or by crook, any Democrat could win, even Kamala. But why should the Democrats make the task of winning more difficult for themselves by nominating Biden and Harris?
I am convinced, however, that Biden will not be listening to the likes of David Ignatius and leaving the field voluntarily. Of course, I very much doubt that Ignatius is speaking for himself and without coordination with other Democrat movers and shakers saying more or less the same thing. They would like Biden out; but, as I’ve written many many times, they face several obstacles in accomplishing that goal. One of them is Biden’s overweening ambition and stubbornness. The other – and probably the larger one – is the lack of a decent replacement.
I know this video is a lot like one I put up just a little while ago, but it’s got such crazy stuff on it that I just couldn’t resist. And the longer it goes on the crazier it gets:
Well, at least Mitt Romney says he’s bowing off the scene:
“I have spent my last 25 years in public service of one kind or another. At the end of another term, I’d be in my mid-eighties. Frankly, it’s time for a new generation of leaders. They’re the ones that need to make the decisions that will shape the world they will be living in,” Romney said.
Too bad he didn’t do it in 2018. However, he’s not retiring yet – he intends to serve out his term.
Does anyone believe that Romney wouldn’t be running again if he hadn’t burned his bridges with the Republicans in his state? I think that’s his main motive; he just doesn’t see a political future for himself. He’s not shutting up, though; he apparently is quoted as dissing the GOP in a new biography released to coincide with today’s announcement.
And Donald Trump had this to say about Romney’s statement that he won’t be running for re-election in 2024:
In response to the announcement on Wednesday, Trump wrote a statement in all caps on Truth Social, celebrating the news.
“Fantastic news for America, the great state of Utah, & for the Republican Party. Mitt Romney, sometimes referred to as Pierre Delecto, will not be seeking a second term in the U.S. Senate, where he did not serve with distinction,” Trump wrote, referring to Romney using a pseudonym of “Pierre Delecto” to operate a Twitter account anonymously.
Trump added, “A big primary fight against him was in the offing, but now that will not be necessary. Congrats to all. Make America Great Again.”
I’ve got to agree with Trump here – and I like the fine understatement of the phrase “where he did not serve with distinction.”
I supported Romney in 2012 when he was running against Obama for the presidency, but Romney was not my first choice and he wasn’t a great candidate, although he had his moments. Obama’s second term was worse and more destructive than his first term, and Romney or some other GOP candidate could have stopped him – although I’m not sure if that chance was not just theoretical, because Obama was still quite popular at the time.
[NOTE: I also think one of Romney’s aims is to get Biden to voluntarily bow out in 2024. Romney would like a better candidate to oppose Trump, whom he detests. But I doubt Biden is listening to him.]
A state of emergency is a tyrant’s best friend, as all students of history know. Whether or not New Mexico’s Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is a student of history, she has the instincts of a tyrant and has been unafraid to act on them by declaring an emergency based on some fatal shootings of minors, and suspending the right to carry guns in Albuquerque and its environs. The fact that such an edict would only be obeyed by the law-abiding, therefore undermining people’s right to self-defense – not to mention the Second Amendment – seemed lost on her. And the fact that as governor she is not empowered to do such a thing just by declaring some sort of emergency is also lost on her.
But perhaps this development won’t be lost on her:
The state senate has 27 Democrats and 15 Republicans; the state house has 45 Democrats and 25 Republicans. New Mexico has not failed to repeal or revise the state’s concealed- and open-carry laws because of GOP obstinacy. There simply aren’t enough votes supporting the changes Lujan Grisham wants. So she has chosen to ignore her state’s constitution and is attempting to unilaterally suspend laws she opposes.
Unsurprisingly, New Mexico’s law-enforcement communities want nothing to do with this blatantly unconstitutional act. Almost immediately after the governor’s announcement, Albuquerque mayor Tim Keller, Bernalillo County sheriff John Allen, and Albuquerque police chief Harold Medina all issued statements that they would not be enforcing the governor’s order. Medina stated, “Our officers at APD will continue to focus on the enforcement of criminal laws and arresting the criminals who are driving violent crime in the city.”
Yesterday, Lujan Grisham’s effort hit another significant setback when her state’s attorney general, Raul Torrez, declared that he, too, saw the governor’s action as unconstitutional and that he would not defend it in court …
The New Mexico legislature is controlled by Democrats. Torrez is a Democrat. Keller is a Democrat. I suspect the others are Democrats, too, although I couldn’t immediately get information on that. But the point is that even the Democrats in the area are against what the governor has done. One clue as to why is the fact that about 46% of New Mexican adults have at least one gun in the house, according to the linked article. That doesn’t mean they carry them – the governor’s ban had to do with carrying rather than possession in the home – but it nevertheless shows the extent of support for gun rights in the state. Even most of the Democrats in office in the state seem to be aware that what Governor Grisham is trying to do would be wildly unpopular in New Mexico, and they are eager to distance themselves from her.
They are also eager to distance themselves from the widespread perception (which I think is mostly correct, by the way) that most Democrat politicians are against the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns and would dearly love to take that right away if it wasn’t political suicide to do so.
Of course. Of course. The six billion is in exchange for five US prisoners.
Which of course – of course – will discourage the taking of more US prisoners – not.
Oh, but the administration says the money has to be used for “humanitarian purposes.” The Iranian leaders say Ha ha suckers:
Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi said his government will decide how it will spend $6 billion in previously frozen funds due to be released in a prisoner exchange agreement with the United States, telling NBC News’ Lester Holt that the money will be spent “wherever we need it.” …
Under the arrangement, Tehran will be granted access to the roughly $6 billion in Iranian oil revenues that were blocked in South Korean banks because of U.S. sanctions. But U.S. officials say Qatar’s central bank will oversee the funds and Iran will be permitted to use the money only for humanitarian purposes in accordance with U.S. sanctions.
In response to Raisi’s remarks, a senior Biden administration official said the released funds would first be transferred to Qatar. The Treasury Department would then track all transactions closely to ensure the money is used exclusively for humanitarian purposes.
Nothing could possibly go wrong – just as when this happened as a result of the prisoner exchange for Bergdahl:
Four of the five Taliban members released from Guantanamo Bay by the Obama administration in 2014 in exchange for admitted US Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl are part of the Islamic fundamentalist group’s new hardline government in Afghanistan, according to local media reports. …
As Bergdhal returned to the United States, the Taliban Five were flown to Qatar, where much of the Taliban’s political leadership resided at the time.
The agreement for the release of the prisoners was that Qatar would monitor them:
Concerns have been expressed by U.S. intelligence officials and Congressional advisers over the role of the Gulf emirate as a bridge between Washington and the world of radical Islam. But the White House says it received “very specific” assurances from Qatar on the terms under which it agreed to accept and keep tabs on the five Afghans.
“I have little confidence in the security assurances regarding the movement and activities of the now released Taliban leaders and I have even less confidence in this administration’s willingness to ensure they are enforced,” said Mike Rogers, a Republican Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
And that last paragraph is just how I feel about this latest prisoner exchange and the terms for Iran, as well as Qatar’s role.