Poor coke-addled Hunter, the Bidens’ shakedown man

The New Neo Posted on by

Hunter can’t be held responsible for any of this because, after all, he was a coke addict:

The House Oversight Committee released a Hunter Biden WhatsApp message to Communist Party-linked Chinese energy firm CEFC associate Gongwen Dong.

Hunter demanded $10 million because $5 million “is not acceptable obviously.”

Hunter then said his shell company Owasco “in consultation with Hudson” will determine his expenses along with the “BIDEN (loan 5M) capital.”

It also “baffled” Hunter if the “Chairman” didn’t think the relationship with the Bidens was worth at least $5 million.

Hunter reassured Gongwen that “The Bidens are the best I know at doing exactly what the Chairman wants from this partnership.”

Then Hunter told him not to”quibble over peanuts.”

Move along; nothing to see here – unless, of course, the Democrats decide it’s time to dump Biden, which I don’t think has happened yet because they don’t have a good replacement, and they can’t figure out how to deal with Kamala Harris.

Meanwhile, to refresh you memory:

One of the awful things about the Biden administration is being witness to this sort of corruption plus this sort of gaslighting about it.

We didn’t really mean we’re coming for your kids

The New Neo Posted on by

They say it was all a joke:

Over the weekend, a short video circulated widely on social media of an unidentified person at a New York City march during Pride festivities saying, “We’re coming for your children.”

In the 21-second clip, circulated by a right-wing web streamer channel, dozens of people march in the streets and are clearly heard chanting, “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re not going shopping.” But one voice that is louder than the crowd — it’s not clear whose, or whether the speaker was a member of the LGBTQ community — is heard saying at least twice, “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.”

To conservative pundits, activists and lawmakers, the video confirmed the allegations they’ve levied in recent years that the LGBTQ community is “grooming” children.

But to Brian Griffin, the original organizer of the NYC Drag March, if that’s the worst they heard, it’s only because he wasn’t there this year.

Griffin said he chanted obscene things in the past, like “Kill, kill, kill, we’re coming to kill the mayor,” and joked about pubic hair and sex toys during marches. People at the Drag March regularly sing “God is a lesbian.”

“It’s all just words,” Griffin said. “It’s all presented to fulfill their worst stereotypes of us.”

Just some lighthearted humor, folks. Nothing to get upset about. Sort of like if some fun-loving neo-Nazis started chanting about killing black people or gay people – as a joke, you know. Ha ha – as my brother used to say when we were kids, so funny I forgot to laugh.

In other words, don’t joke about things of that nature. And it’s especially unfunny to do it when you actually are engaged in putting gay porn in school libraries, or convincing school authorities to transition kids in school without telling their parents. Because if you – or, to be fair, your more extreme activist wing – are actually doing those things, no one will believe you are joking about this.

Why nominate Trump?

The New Neo Posted on by

For many months I’ve watched the arguments among people on the right as to who should be the GOP presidential nominee in 2024. It’s usually Trump versus DeSantis for the dubious honor of Saving the Republic.

But if the republic is going to be saved, it will take a lot more than one Republican president. That is for certain, for reasons discussed many times here but which can be summarized as the success of the Gramscian March.

Trump ran in 2016 on a promise to switch things up, and he did. But the changes were temporary for the most part, as we’ve seen, and they have been easily undone by the Biden administration. Except for SCOTUS, that is. But the Court’s composition is only a retirement or two under a Democratic president from turning far more to the left. And then there’s the possibility of court-packing if the Democrats get control of Congress and the presidency.

More permanent change towards the right in this country has to come on two levels: the institutional and the personal. That will take time and effort and I’m not sure how it can be done, but although a Republican president is one of the main first steps it’s only a small part of it.

So, for a nominee I think there are several major necessary qualifications. The person must be smart as well as willing to be bold and active in implementing conservative policies. The person must somehow unite the voters on the right behind him and appeal to enough voters in the middle not only to win, but to win beyond the margin of error, which would involve decisive appeal in the swing states.

That person is not Trump – as far as I can see. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. I cannot imagine him gaining traction with anyone not already supporting him, and that’s not enough. The potentially tragic thing – aside from how successful the left has been in demonizing and harassing Trump, and how at times Trump has played into their hands – is that Trump will almost certainly win the nomination and lose the general.

Those who will vote for him in the primaries anyway have many arguments. One is that he deserves your vote because of what a fighter he is and how very grievously he’s been wronged. I agree that he’s a fighter and that he’s been grievously wronged, but I don’t see why I should vote for a weakened Trump in the primary and therefore help elect Biden or Newsom or whoever the Democrats’ nominee will be.

Another argument used to persuade people to vote for Trump in the primary is that DeSantis is just a tool of the elites. I’ve dealt with that argument many times and find it preposterous. I’m not going to go deeply into it again here, but I refer you to this and especially this, this, and this.

Still another argument made for nominating Trump is that he’s the only person who can beat Biden. This also seems absurd. Polls don’t support it and logic doesn’t support it. It’s early in the game; but again, no one who doesn’t already prefer Trump will end up voting for him, and his bloc seems to be capped at around 46% or so. Plenty of people are unfamiliar with DeSantis and could move towards him in the general if by some chance he should be nominated, and as they see him debate (he’s smart and quick and no loose cannon). These are the people who hate Trump’s style and manner, and who want someone more “presidential.” DeSantis also has youth going for him, which Trump certainly does not.

In addition, some pro-Trump people say that, because of fraud, no Republican will win the general and so we must stand behind Trump on principle because he’s been so persecuted. This seems a very upside-down argument, one that concedes the election before the campaign has even really started. I think we need to reject such defeatist logic. What matters in an election is winning, not giving someone a pat on the back because that person has been wronged. Trump has been wronged, but that’s no reason to nominate him and lose. And yes, if DeSantis were to be the nominee, he would be attacked by the left just as viciously. But I think he’d be smarter about countering the attacks, and I think his personality is such that the attacks would be less likely to stick among the all-important moderate voters.

That doesn’t mean I think that DeSantis would win; the road is going to be very very hard for the eventual GOP nominee whether it’s Trump or DeSantis. But I think DeSantis has more of a chance to win.

However, the feud on the right could end up making it impossible for either man to win. If the Trump wing refuses to vote for DeSantis if he’s the eventual nominee, or especially if Trump runs third-party, there really would be no chance of victory. Unity is something that looks mighty elusive right now – and yet mighty necessary.

ADDENDUM: Please see this from Salena Zito.

Poor Hunter; just a junkie

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a good article by Jonathan Turley on the latest “pay no attention to Hunter, he was just a junkie and is to be pitied, exonerated, and praised” approach to Hunter Biden’s leveraging of his father’s position in order to get bribe money for the family.

Looking back even further than Turley does in that article, if I’ve got the entire trajetory right it went something like this:

(1) One reason Trump was impeached in late December of 2019 was for suggesting to Ukraine’s Zelensky in July of 2019 that Hunter’s and Joe’s dealings with Ukraine should be investigated.

(2) Just prior to the 2020 election, the Hunter Biden laptop material was labeled as manufactured and misleading Russian disinformation which the public should not even be able to read about, and the story was blocked in the MSM and on social media in order to help Joe Biden win the election.

(3) Hunter and Joe and the Democrats and the MSM presented Hunter as competent, upright, and fully capable of consulting on the myriad foreign projects for which he was hired.

(4) After Joe Biden was safely in office, it was admitted that well, perhaps that laptop information was true, but no biggee.

(5) Hunter was given a wrist-slap suspended sentence for his tax lies.

(6) The GOP investigation continued to reveal very incriminating information about Hunter selling foreign influence and the Biden family profiting from it in an elaborate money-laundering scheme.

(7) The Democrats claim that information is either false and/or also no biggee, because Hunter shouldn’t be blamed. He was just a bragging, lying junkie at the time, not a competent person at all and not to be trusted when he said Joe was involved. Now Hunter’s all better, though, saved by his father’s unconditional love.

The narrative is really quite astounding. But the left counts on the fact that no one ever went broke underestimating the American public.

This book by Heather Mac Donald looks worth reading

The New Neo Posted on by

The latest from Heather Mac Donald is called When Race Trumps Merit:

When Race Trumps Merit provides an alternative explanation for those racial disparities. It is large academic skills gaps that cause the lack of proportional representation in our most meritocratic organizations and large differences in criminal offending that account for the racially disproportionate prison population.

The need for such a corrective argument could not be more urgent. Federal science agencies now treat researchers’ skin color as a scientific qualification. Museums and orchestras choose which art and music to promote based on race. Police officers avoid making arrests and prosecutors decline to bring charges to avoid disparate impact on minority criminals.

When Race Trumps Merit breaks powerful taboos. But it is driven by a sense of alarm, supported by detailed case studies of how disparate-impact thinking is jeopardizing scientific progress, destroying public order, and poisoning the appreciation of art and culture.

Here’s the book’s Amazon listing. I haven’t read it, although I’d like to. But my list of books to read is about a mile long.

The leaked Trump audio recording

The New Neo Posted on by

By now you’ve probably read about the leaked audio from 2021 in which Trump discusses some documents he has that are supposedly classifed. Here’s a sampler of varied opinions: this from Andrea Widburg, this from William Jacobson, and this at RedState.

And here are my own questions and observations:

Was the audio edited in any relevant or misleading way, or not?

Who leaked it, and will there ever be repercussions for that? That last part is a rhetorical question, because I strongly believe the answer is ‘no.”

What is the meaning of the auido? I’m pretty sure that those who leaked it want you to think it’s some sort of smoking gun against Trump. And William Jacobson, whose opinion I respect, thinks the audio indicates that Trump was lying in his statements about the documents during his recent Bret Baier interview. I somewhat disagree; this may be the case, but I think there are possible explanations that don’t involve lying. An audio can’t indicate what a certain paper says unless it’s read or specifically described, as in “This paper I’m holding in my hand is classified and contains….”, nor can an audio show what was done with that paper unless you have people saying something like, “Wow! Now that I’m reading this paper on [whatever], I see that it indicates….” Nothing of that sort seems to be on the audio, although prosecutors certainly can claim it proves the document was classified and shown to others.

But I also think that, even if there are such benign explanations (for example, the paper or papers in question weren’t classified after all; Trump actually showed them to no one in a way that they could be read), those things may not matter in the court of law – or in the court of public opinion, which is the court to which the leakers are playing at the moment.

The reason they’re doing all of this – the leaks and the indictment – is twofold:

(1) To distract from Biden’s corruption and cognitive decline.
(2) To elevate Trump in the primaries by causing a backlash on the right that leads to his nomination, and to taint him further in the general.

And I believe that it’s highly possible that voters on the right will fall into that trap, although I hope they won’t.

I also will reiterate that I think Trump has shown poor judgment since he had COVID in October of 2020. I’m not sure what that’s about, but I’ve noticed it and noticed it.

Merrick Garland: criticize the DOJ and you’re attacking democracy

The New Neo Posted on by

From Garland:

“I certainly understand that some have chosen to attack the integrity of the Justice Department and its components and its employees by claiming that we do not treat like cases alike,” Garland said. “This constitutes an attack on an institution that is essential to American democracy, and essential to the safety of the American people. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

No, it constitutes a criticism of that institution, which is not the same as an attack – a word with tremendous emotional valence. Surely Garland understands the difference, and he understands that blurring the two is what really undermines American democracy, or more accurately the American republic.

When an essential institution goes bad, that undermines the principles on which this country is based. Such institutions are not above criticism; au contraire. They must be criticized when criticism is warranted. And in this case there’s plenty of evidence making the criticism valid.

All the outraged huffing and puffing, and declarations from Garland himself that the accusations aren’t true, do not change that fact. They only reinforce it.

Food for thought from William Blake

The New Neo Posted on by

William Blake was a unique poet and artist. I don’t think he fits into any category except “mystical visionary” and probably “some sort of genius.”

Many people are aware of his poem “The Tyger,” but he wrote a great deal more than that, and I’ve delved into a fair amount of it. And then there are his engravings, which are phenomenal.

Last night I came across Blake’s poem “I Saw a Monk of Charlemaine,” which I’d never read before (written some time around 1800). This particular stanza caught my eye:

The hand of Vengeance sought the bed
To which the purple tyrant fled;
The iron hand crush’d the tyrant’s head,
And became a tyrant in his stead.

There’s no question this sometimes happens, probably far more often than not. Is it inevitable, though? And does it matter whether the motive for “crushing the tyrant’s head” is vengeance or something more lofty?

One thing I’ve observed is that those who have “crushed the tyrant’s head” most always either think that their own motives are pure or pretend that their motives are pure.

Vivek in Sioux City, by “Cornhead”

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a post by commenter “Cornhead”, who went last week to see Vivek Ramaswamy speak and answer questions from the audience. Cornhead – aka David Begley – was impressed, writing that the appearance featured “intensely interesting and intellectually thrilling dialogue.”

I don’t see Vivek as having a chance for the GOP nomination. But he’s clearly a very intelligent guy.

Roundup!

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) This theory (from commenter “mkent”) about about what was happening with the Russian “coup” is as good as any and better than many.

But the jury is still out on what will happen to Prigozhin.

(2) FINA – the international swimming federation – demonstrates some sense about trans athletes:

The governing body of international competitive swimming announced a policy that will only allow athletes who’ve transitioned before the age of 12 [or Tanner Stage 2 of puberty; also see this] to take part in any of the elite international swimming competitions…

“Without eligibility standards based on biological sex or sex-linked traits, we are very unlikely to see biological females in finals, on podiums, or in championship positions,” read the statement in part.

The policy also includes a proposal for a new open competition category, which athletes “would be able to compete without regard to their sex, their legal gender or their gender identity.”

FINA cited coming to the decision after consulting with scientists and policy makers, but the policy still sent shockwaves throughout the world of swimming and beyond. USA Wrestling and the International Rugby League have already followed suit and announced similar policies and other governing bodies are likely to follow suit.

Good. It’s complete common sense, but of course the trans activists and trans women in sports who are actually biological males, such as Lia Thomas, are yelling discrimination.

(3) Kevin McCarthy supports “expunging” Trump’s impeachments.

(4) McCarthy also says now is not the time to impeach Biden:

At Wednesday’s closed door meeting, McCarthy argued that Republicans should let committee investigations play out and warning that jumping to impeachment now could threaten their slim majority, the sources said. The speaker noted that House Republicans have taken back the House five times in the last 100 years, and two of those times lost the majority the next cycle.

“What majority do we want to be,” McCarthy asked his conference, according to a source in the room “Give it right back in two years or hold it for a decade and make real change?”

In addition, the impeachment of Biden would have no chance for conviction in the Senate. That didn’t stop the Democrat with Trump, though. And apparently, with the slim GOP margin in the House, it might not even pass the House because some GOP members are in very purple districts. That’s what McCarthy means about the possibility that this would hurt the GOP in the 2024 election.

I’m not sure what I think about this. I’m somewhat in agreement with McCarthy here, but with one caveat: perhaps impeachment hearings would draw more attention to the charges against Biden than they are currently getting. However, knowing the MSM, maybe not – and whatever press they would get would distort them and turn it into “mean Republicans pounce!”. What’s more, I don’t think most people watch any hearings, and I think the ones who do watch them tend to have their minds made up already.

(5) Fox News has solidified its weekday prime time lineup. I generally don’t watch TV news anyway, nor am I pleased with Fox’s cancellation of Tucker Carlson, so I won’t be watching for the most part.