The left relies on the public’s ignorance of history
For the left, failing to teach history – or teaching the leftist version of history – is a feature rather than a bug. A big, big feature. It makes it easier to fill in the blanks with utter claptrap.
To wit:
The Obama-directed & Clapper-Brennan-Comey-created Intel Community Assessment on Russian meddling in the 2016 election claimed “the Kremlin has historically preferred Republican over Democratic candidates.”
Here is the *actual* historical record, which is 180 degrees different. https://t.co/zSRnMDF1Rw pic.twitter.com/mLaVe1fAd5
— Jerry Dunleavy IV ?? (@JerryDunleavy) July 25, 2025
In what alternate universe would that be believable? In the universe created by abysmal ignorance of history.
I’m not saying that Clapper, Brennan, and Comey are themselves ignorant of the actual history. I suppose that could be the case, but I very very very much doubt it. I think they rely on the public’s ignorance, particularly that of people under fifty.
Macron seems to think it would be just great to reward the Palestinians by giving them a state
Once again, no surprise here:
True to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognize the State of Palestine.
I will make the solemn announcement at the United Nations General Assembly next September.
The urgency today is to end the war in Gaza and to provide aid to the civilian population.
Peace is possible.
There must be an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and massive humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. It is also necessary to ensure the demilitarization of Hamas, secure and rebuild Gaza. Finally, it is essential to build the State of Palestine, ensure its viability, and enable it, by accepting its demilitarization and fully recognizing Israel, to contribute to the security of all in the Middle East.
There is no alternative.
I think the UN General Assembly is the perfect venue for Macron’s perfidy. And France is just the country to do it. Recall that it was French media who spread the al-Durah hoax around the world, making way for the carnage of the Second Intifada.
It reminds me that Arafat and the Palestinian cause got a huge boost from their massacre of the Israeli athletes at Munich in 1972; after which Arafat addressed the UN in 1974. Terrorism pays.
Why did the Russia Hoax co-conspirators use emails to document their plans?
I’ve seen speculation about that – for example, here.
It is indeed a puzzlement. I don’t think they were stupid people, so I reject that notion. I have a one-word answer – which of course, being a blogger, I’ll expand on – and that is:
Hubris.
They felt protected by firewalls of “classified” labels.
They had spent their lives conniving and plotting and had only been promoted and acquired more and more power.
They thought they’d be successful in stopping Trump, because they had a host of ways and a host of powerful allies in the cause. And, if successful, the right would never come to power, certainly not in their lifetimes.
They knew the left would certainly never tell or investigate, nor would the press. The left and the press would back them up and/or cover up whatever they did.
But in addition, they thought the right would never get access to those emails, and if they did, the press and the left would be able to deflect them. More importantly, the right would never prosecute. That last remains to be seen.
And if the right did prosecute, the right wouldn’t win the cases. That also remains to be seen.
On those last two points, I think that this article is relevant. Despite the left’s demonizing of the right as power-mad fascists, until now in the US in recent years the right – for the most part – was reluctant to play hardball to the extent the left does. From the piece:
… merely being in office is not enough. Conservatives (or those labelling themselves as such) also need to have a will to be in power and not just to be in office. The power truly to change things can be found not just in the realm of politics but also in culture, education, and entertainment. The Left fights wars—cultural, ideological, total—while conservatives content themselves with fighting single-issue battles. The Left controls culture, media, education—it is, essentially, always in power. Conservatives, meanwhile, take office now and again, but rarely shape the culture.
This time around for the Trump administration, I see some of that happening. But in the case of the Russia Hoax, the willingness to use legal power is especially important too. However, there can be danger of abuse of power in employing the law to try and to convict the opposition; after all, that is what the left has been trying to do to Trump and anyone who would work for him, the approach known as lawfare which culminated on the four legal cases against Trump in which the law was stretched to the breaking point to manufacture novel ways to “get” him. The right has an understandable reluctance to do that, and I share that reluctance.
But what if people such as Clapper and Brennan really are guilty? And of what? I’ve discussed that before, and I plan to discuss it again. But if people really are guilty of the sort of things of which the Russiagate co-conspirators are accused, they need to be prosecuted.
Of course, those who thought – and still think – Trump was guilty and should have been imprisoned will not be changing their minds on that, and they will see the prosecution of the Russia Hoaxers as a terrible and vengeful miscarriage of justice. And I believe that group of people may consist of half the country.
Open thread 7/25/2025
Challenging:
Russiagate: a house built on sand
Why would anyone ever believe Putin wanted Trump to be president? It never made sense – except to those who believe Trump admired a fellow dictator, and vice-versa, and that Trump had promised him favors. But it was a way the left saw to undermine Trump, something to which they’ve dedicated their lives for the last ten years and counting.
The January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment concluding that Russian President Vladimir Putin “developed a clear preference” for Donald Trump and “aspired to help his chances of victory” is revealed in a report released this morning by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to have been based on four pieces of evidence. One was the Steele Dossier. The surprise is that the other three were even less credible, each included over objections of the report’s CIA authors.
The first item was a “scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment” of one sentence that the report’s five CIA authors read “five ways” and initially left out, only to have Director John Brennan order it back in. The second item was an email with “no date, no identified sender, no clear recipient, and no classification.” The third was supposedly backed by “liaison,” diplomatic, and press reporting, as well as signals intelligence (SIGINT), except the “SIGINT” didn’t mention Trump, the “liaison reporting” didn’t mention Trump and was from 2014, and the “diplomatic and media” reporting was a post-election review by a U.S. Ambassador citing a Russian pundit who said Putin and Trump should “work together like businessmen.” This was “evidence” that Putin “developed a clear preference” for Trump.
All three reports weren’t just unsourced and unreliable, but discarded fictions pulled out of the CIA’s trash heap. …
The Assessment was written by just five CIA analysts hand-picked by Brennan, but even these most favored lieutenants couldn’t accept the key pieces of evidence. Two of the five went to Brennan to say, “We don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected,” only to be overruled. The same thing happened when members of the group objected to the Steele material, saying it didn’t meet even “basic tradecraft standards.” When confronted on this point, Brennan reportedly said, “Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?”
It served A Higher Truth, much like the Rathergate memo.
The report on which this was based was written eight years ago but Taibbi notes that it was “locked at Langley ever since” and only released at Trump’s behest, to be studied by Gabbard’s group. “Langley” refers to CIA headquarters. When the intelligence community does shady things, it can hide them by classifying them.
And of course on Taibbi’s X thread we get some predictable responses such as this:
Matt why are you covering this instead of Epstein?
The Democrats have their talking point.
RIP, Hulk Hogan and Chuck Mangione
Two entertainers from two different arenas.
Hogan was a character in every sense of the word. Even his name was a character – and what a great name it was! Who could forget someone named “Hulk Hogan” (real name: Terry Bollea)?
“WWE is saddened to learn WWE Hall of Famer Hulk Hogan has passed away,” the company wrote. “One of pop culture’s most recognizable figures, Hogan helped WWE achieve global recognition in the 1980s. …
Hogan was set to join former pro wrestling executive Eric Bischoff in a new venture called Real American Freestyle. It was a fresh attempt at putting freestyle wrestling on the map. Hogan also dipped his toe into the political waters. He stumped for President Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention and at a Madison Square Garden rally last year.
Mangione was a jazz trumpeter; he was 84 years old, which no longer sounds old to me:
Mangione was best known for his hits in the 1970s, such as “Feels So Good.” The 1977 track reached No. 4 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, per ABC News, and earned a nomination for Record of the Year at the 1979 Grammys.
“I think ‘Feels So Good’ was such a hit because of the Bee Gees,” he said in an interview with the Celebrity Cafe. “ ‘Saturday Night Fever’ had saturated radio; I think the top six out of 10 hits were from that album. Radio programmers couldn’t figure out what to put on instead and when somebody edited ‘Feels So Good’ from nine minutes down to three, they instantly started playing it as an alternative to what were the current top songs.” …
The artist was born and raised in Rochester, NY, and grew up surrounded by music. He and his brother Gap would listen to their father’s jazz records and eventually formed the group, the Jazz Brothers.
On weekends, Mangione and his family would drive into New York City to watch Miles Davis and Sarah Vaughan perform.
The artist’s parents were jazz buffs, which led to many meals with some of the genre’s biggest stars. …
“Their father would invite these amazing artists to come home with them for a good home-cooked Italian meal,” a biography on Mangione’s website reads. “Of course, they were more than happy to eat home cooking after being on the road. Chuck grew up thinking everyone had Carmen McRae and Art Blakey over for dinner.”
Sounds like a great family.
And here’s “Feels So Good”:
RIP.
RIP.
Let’s not ignore the tariff deal with Japan
Yesterday this was in the news, although it was easy to miss in the huge flurry of stories about Russiagate 2.0:
U.S. President Donald Trump struck a trade deal with Japan that lowers tariffs on auto imports and spares Tokyo from punishing new levies on other goods in exchange for a $550 billion package of U.S.-bound investment and loans.
It is the most significant of a clutch of agreements that Trump has bagged since unveiling sweeping global levies in April though, like other deals, exact details remained unclear. …
“I just signed the largest TRADE DEAL in history with Japan,” Trump said in announcing the deal on social media.
On Wednesday he said Japan and Indonesia were opening their markets to the U.S. “I will only lower tariffs if a country agrees to open its market,” Trump wrote.
The article mentions that US automakers are criticizing the deal because the tariff on Japan’s autos will be 15%, whereas US autos made in Mexico and Canada have tariffs of 25%. More here:
“American Automakers still need to review the details of the U.S.-Japan agreement, but any deal that charges a lower tariff for Japanese imports with virtually no U.S. content than it does North American-built vehicles with high U.S. content is a bad deal for the U.S. industry and U.S. auto workers,” said Matt Blunt, president of the American Automotive Policy Council, which represents the American companies Ford, General Motors and Stellantis.
“High US content” means, I assume, that some parts are made in the US but the vehicles are assembled in Mexico and Canada? Clearly, Trump wants them to bring the entire operation back to the US:
Though the White House has argued the tariffs will help the U.S. build more cars at home, domestic automakers have also taken a hit from the duties, due to the integrated nature of North American auto supply chains. U.S. companies rely on Mexico and Canada to help build cars and supply parts, particularly after Trump renegotiated a North American trade deal lowering duties between the countries. To ease some of the pain, the White House has offered a complicated rebate scheme for portions of certain North American-made cars’ sales value over the next two years, but automakers are still struggling.
I don’t think Trump is interested in harming the US auto industry, but I don’t know the details of what this really means, or how easy or difficult it would be to bring the manufacture of US cars wholly back to the US.
Commerce Secretary Lutnick said the following:
“Come on, there’s no tariff if you build it in America,” he said. “American manufacturers are going to do extremely well in America — as long as they build it in America. You build it in America, you’re good,” he said.
Easier said than done, but perhaps necessary.
Open thread 7/24/2025
Do we still call it “Russiagate”?
I think it needs a new name, because the evidence of conspiracy is growing bigger and bigger by the day, and now includes Hillary Clinton’s alleged health problems. The story has acquired so many moving parts that I haven’t familiarized myself with them all, which would probably take the reading of several books that haven’t yet been written.
I’m not going to be the one writing those books, either.
So this is not a comprehensive post on the subject; it’ll take me some time to digest the information out there. But in the meantime, I’d suggest reading this article, which is more thorough than most.
NOTE: For the new name: “Russiagate 2.0”? I’d wager you can improve on that.
It occurs to me …
… that one of the biggest reasons the left didn’t want Trump re-elected – and were willing to do almost anything to stop it from happening – was what an energized and enraged Trump, with aides fully on board, would be able to reveal about the left’s perfidy.
Biden’s unaccompanied minor hotline went cold
Why does this not surprise me?:
ABSOLUTELY INSANE
The Biden Admin setup a hotline so that unaccompanied minors could call if they had trouble with the strangers they were being placed with
65,000 calls to this hotline WENT UNANSWERED
“So you’re telling this committee that the Biden administration, while they… pic.twitter.com/4gUJWlj37c
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) July 22, 2025
“So you’re telling this committee that the Biden administration, while they were letting all of these unaccompanied minors into the country—and as we’ve talked about today, they weren’t keeping track of them—they issued these kids a hotline that they could call if they had trouble with the sponsor family they were placed with, and you’re saying that 65,000 calls to this hotline, designated to protect these kids, went unanswered. Is that what you’re telling this committee?”
Her response: “Yes, sir.”
It strikes me, not for the first time, that Democrat governance is a facade protecting their power and grift, and the MSM is their willing mouthpiece. Trump was the one, supposedly, who didn’t care about “migrant” children and families – separating them, putting them in cages, with AOC in tears about the cruelty. This was all propaganda for the stupid voters who believed the left and the MSM and didn’t go into the “why” of things – the need to make sure that unaccompanied minors weren’t being trafficked. The idea was that it was the Democrats who cared. The reality was completely different.
How many Democrats will actually watch or read about the above exchange? Vanishingly few, I think, and most of those will be able to discount it in some way. A mind is a difficult thing to change.