The debate tonight

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a thread to discuss it.

I fear I may be repeating myself – but I can’t stand debates. They make me a combination of nervous and angry as well as frustrated. Is a lot riding on this one? Biden’s supporters would never vote for Trump, and Trump’s would never vote for Biden. That said, there are the usual people in the middle who could be swayed. They tend to tip the balance of the voting in one direction or the other.

The expectations for Biden are so low that it’s easy to say he’ll probably exceed them. Then again, I don’t think the expectations are sky-high for Trump, either. I can’t put myself in the shoes of an “undecided,” so even if I were to watch the debate – which I might not – it would be hard for me to guess how that group would see it.

One interesting point is that this is a very rare situation – and no, it’s not just the advanced age of the two participants. It’s that they both have already served one term as president.

One of the things to watch is how the MSM will favor Biden, both during the debate via the moderators, and after the debate via the coverage.

Biden is “appalled” at violent anti-Semitism in LA

The New Neo Posted on by

Anti-Semitism was on display recently in Los Angeles, with keffiyehs and masks instead of brown shirts:

As RedState previously reported, disturbing scenes unfolded on a sunny Sunday in Los Angeles, where pro-Hamas agitators showed up to surround and harass worshippers at the Adas Torah synagogue while calling for a bloody intifada.

Chants of “Free Palestine” filled the air.

As we also reported, things escalated quickly as the worshippers attempted to defend themselves, each other, and the synagogue, “with eggs, pepper spray, and fists being thrown. Some people and journalists were thrown to the ground and kicked, while others were bludgeoned.”

Biden (or someone writing for him) made a comment on “X” to the effect that he was “appalled,” and Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz replied:

Good points.

Quite a few people affiliated with the synagogue fought back. This is an Orthodox synagogue in a Jewish area of LA, and my guess is that some of the members are either of Israeli origin, or the offspring of families who came years ago from Iran (LA is home to quite a few Iranian Jews from families who came here mostly after the Iranian Revolution). Those groups are not averse to defending themselves physically, if necessary.

It used to be that synagogues didn’t have to be guarded in this country. Then it used to be that a guard or two would do, because the threat was from a lone terrorist or maybe a couple working in tandem. Now it’s a mob. And if the police don’t defend the congregation – which they did not in this case, although they were present – the congregation must do so itself.

Here’s a more detailed story, including a description of the inaction of the police.

NOTE: Several sites covering the event have pointed out that the mob in LA that attacked the synagogue had many “regulars” who had earlier participated in anti-Semitic riots at UCLA, and that there’s a lot of overlap with Antifa. “Antifa” is one of those extremely ironic Orwellian names: anti-fascist, my foot.

SCOTUS is ok with government censorship via social media

The New Neo Posted on by

On yesterday’s SCOTUS decision in Murthy v. Minnesota:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to vacate a historic preliminary injunction granted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, finding that the Respondents protected by the injunction lacked standing to support injunctive (that is, future) relief. The injunction had barred officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Surgeon General’s office from encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.

… The Court today protected the government’s ability to censor truthful speech that opposed the government’s false and manipulative narratives on multiple aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic, including our clients’ true statements challenging government falsehoods about natural immunity, vaccine efficacy, masking, the origins of the Wuhan virus, and many other topics.

I think it’s not that hard to figure out what happened. I noticed long ago that Chief Justice Roberts’ general judicial philosophy can be summed up as “find some reason to not rock the boat” – if the boat is the way the government is operating. Kavanaugh and Barrett sometimes follow suit, as they did here. I believe it was a cowardly decision to avoid an outright fight with the Biden administration. Here was the reasoning in the opinion:

“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”

This tendency towards non-interference with the status quo is why I was surprised that the Court overruled Roe.

Judge Merchan loosens Trump’s gag but doesn’t remove it

The New Neo Posted on by

I guess he did it just in time for the debate on Thursday:

Merchan on Tuesday partially lifted the gag order because the trial has concluded.

Trump is now able to speak about protected witnesses and jurors.

Steven Cheung, Trump campaign spokesperson, said in a statement Tuesday, “Today’s order by Acting Justice Merchan leaves in place portions of the unconstitutional Gag Order, preventing President Trump from speaking freely about Judge Merchan’s disqualifying conflicts and the overwhelming evidence exposing this whole Crooked Joe Biden – directed Witch Hunt.”

Of course. Mustn’t cast aspersions on the integrity of the court, or of Biden.

I was curious to see how often only the defendant in a trial is bound by a gag order. So far I haven’t found the answer, but I did find this:

… [T]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit invalidated a broad gag order issued by a federal district court in the criminal trial of sitting Rep. Harold Ford from Memphis, Tennessee, back in 1987. Ford faced mail and bank fraud charges, and the judge issued a broad gag order prohibiting Ford from discussing the merits of the case. The order even prohibited him from making any statements about the trial, including an “opinion of or discussion of the evidence and facts in the investigation or case.”

The Sixth Circuit wrote in United States v. Ford (1987) that “such broadly based restrictions on speech in connection with litigation are seldom, if ever, justified.” It also explained that it is “true that permitting an indicted defendant like Ford to defend himself publicly may result in overall publicity that is somewhat more favorable to the defendant than would occur when all participants are silenced. This does not result in an ‘unfair’ trial for the government, however.”

Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit held such gag orders are justifiable only if the government can show public comments about the trial pose a clear and present danger to the fair administration of justice.

Obviously, there’s no comparable case involving a gag order on a front-runner in a presidential race who’s been prosecuted by people from the opposing party on a charge that uses a novel and preposterous legal theory.

Latimer beats Bowman in NY Democratic primary

The New Neo Posted on by

Jamaal Bowman – you remember him, the puller of the fire alarm in a House office a while back – lost his primary yesterday to George Latimer. It was quite a contest, and the defeat was well-deserved.

The district is “diverse,” combining part of the Bronx (heavily black and Hispanic, I believe) and Westchester (more whites and Jews). Israel was a big big subject of the campaign rhetoric. Here’s the charming Bowman (who used to be a middle school principal in the Bronx):

Speaking before Sanders and after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over the weekend, Bowman opened with a salty stemwinder aimed at AIPAC.

“We are going to show f**king AIPAC the power of the motherf**king South Bronx,” Bowman said. “People ask me why I got a foul mouth,” he added, accusing his opponents of attacking his family. “What am I supposed to do?”

AIPAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and is a pro-Israel lobbying group. I guess Bowman’s remarks didn’t serve to ingratiate him with the Jews of Westchester.

This primary was billed as the most expensive ever.

Latimer gave a post-primary speech about inclusion, and Bowman continued his AIPAC-bashing (and didn’t concede the election):

…[I]n a clear pivot to a general election race that he is expected to win, Latimer struck a bipartisan tone. …

Speaking at his own party in Yonkers, Bowman blasted AIPAC and its affiliates, which he said helped “brainwash” voters.

“Unfortunately some so-called Democrats are aligning themselves with radical, racist Republicans,” Bowman said.

As opposed to radical, racist Israel- and Jew-haters like Bowman. Such a gracious guy.

The margin of defeat was 17 points. Here’s a description of how the different parts of the district voted:

[Bowman] would maintain an overwhelming advantage in the Bronx throughout the night, but Latimer quickly took the lead when Westchester County began reporting early voting results. At the time AP called the race, Latimer held a 26-point lead in Westchester with almost half of the county’s estimated vote tabulated. Westchester accounts for about 90% of the district’s population. Latimer was also ahead in the district’s moderately Democratic areas, which make up most of the district, while Bowman was far ahead in the district’s most heavily Democratic areas.

NOTE: And Lauren Boebert won in her primary. Just as Latimer is in a heavily Democratic district and expected to win in the general, Boebert is in a heavily Republican district and is expected to win in the general.

Julian Assange plea deal

The New Neo Posted on by

It appears that Julian Assange will be returning to Australia, his original home:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is due to plead guilty on Wednesday to violating U.S. espionage law, in a deal that will end his imprisonment in Britain and allow him to return home to Australia, ending a 14-year legal odyssey.

Assange, 52, has agreed to plead guilty to a single criminal count of conspiring to obtain and disclose classified U.S. national defense documents, according to filings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.

He is due to be sentenced to 62 months of time already served at a hearing in Saipan at 9 a.m. local time on Wednesday (2300 GMT Tuesday). The island in the Pacific was chosen due to Assange’s opposition to travelling to the mainland U.S. and for its proximity to Australia, prosecutors said.

At this point, it does seem rather like ancient history, doesn’t it? Fourteen years ago for Assange’s leaks.

I have very mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I think that journalists should not get a pass on leaking classified documents especially concerning ongoing military operations, which was the case at the time of the Assange-assisted leaks. I don’t trust journalists’ judgments on this, to say the least, although it’s not as though I trust the government either. On the other hand, I’m not sure what the proper punishment would be for Assange; perhaps it is enough already in Assange’s case. On still another hand – I’m up to three hands now – sometimes we do get important information this way, but I don’t think it’s good to adopt an “ends justify the means” excuse.

Trudeau in trouble?

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter “Bob Wilson.”]

Could it be a portent of things to come?:

A Liberal stronghold for thirty years and one of the ridings that helped squeak out a minority government for Trudeau in the last election, swung Conservative in last night’s Toronto-St. Pauls by-election. This is most certainly a sign of things to come in the next general election, scheduled for late 2025.

Late 2025 is awfully late, though.

Canada has a parliamentary system, and Trudeau’s present government is a coalition. The left isn’t going to relinquish power easily, and so there’s talk of a tighter coalition next time: a Liberal/NDP merger. The NDP has never formed a Canadian government and stands to the left of Trudeau’s party. Sounds great. A merger, however, would create a stronger force – and an even more leftist one. So whereas Trudeau may not be the head of such a party, it’s possible it would be led by someone even worse and more leftist.

At least, as a bona fide non-expert on Canadian politics, that’s my take.

If such a merger were to occur, though, I’m not sure it would be all that strong, because if it moved even further left some of the current Liberal Party (Trudeau’s party) supporters might leave.

Any Canadians here who can shed a bit more light on this?

The wheels of Snopes grind slowly

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, well, well. Better late than never?:

In a news conference after the [Charlottesville] rally protesting the planned removal of a Confederate statue, Trump did say there were “very fine people on both sides,” referring to the protesters and the counterprotesters. He said in the same statement he wasn’t talking about neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who he said should be “condemned totally.”

The Charlottesville incident happened in 2017. The Democrats have talked about it incessantly, as has the MSM and Biden himself, stating that Trump said neo-Nazis and white supremacists were “good people.” The right has known almost from the start that he didn’t say that, and it wasn’t hard to discover. All one had to do was actually listen to an unedited version of what he said. Apparently, until now, Snopes was somehow unable or unwilling to do that.

The question isn’t why; Snopes is left-leaning. The question is why they finally have admitted this now. Is there a mole at Snopes?

The furor from the left was so great that Snopes issued this semi-disclaimer:

Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were “very fine people on both sides” of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump was wrong.

But Snopes is misleading its readers again, at least somewhat. While Snopes is quite correct that Trump explicitly excluded neo-Nazis and white supremacists, it fails to discuss who these “good people” on the right to whom Trump was referring might be. To the best of my understanding, he was talking about some of the people who were trying to stop the historical statues’ destruction.

It remains a bit hard to see why Snopes would now write something that even partially exonerates Trump. Is this part of the campaign to get rid of Biden? I doubt it, because this news would help Trump against any Democrat opponent who replaces him. Perhaps Snopes just feels the story has served its purpose lo nigh these seven long years, and it’s time to retire it. But that doesn’t make sense to me, either. There’s no expiration date on the political power of lies.

One thing seems true to me: most Democrats will continue to believe that Trump is a racist white supremacist who supported racist white supremacists and still does.