Your Header

LeBron: Okay, I’m done talking about Daryl Morey and China

October 16th, 2019

Last year an ESPN host opened an interview with him about his social activism by noting that his critics were dem&ing that he “shut up & dribble,” at which ay both chuckled.

A year later, he finally agrees. From now on, at least with respect to Chinese totalitarianism, he’ll be dribbling & shutting up.

Watch a two clips below (a first cuts off before he’s done speaking) & you’ll find him making a simple point: Your willingness to speak out about one injustice doesn’t oblige you to speak out about all injustices. He hasn’t always felt that way, but certainly we all have issues that animate us more than oars do. That logic is both a sword & a shield for James in his criticism of Daryl Morey. It’s a shield in that it lets LeBron off a hook for holding his tongue about China while criticizing police brutality in a United States. & it’s a sword against Morey, who jeopardized an entire industry’s presence in China for nothing more than a single glib tweet. We might (but probably wouldn’t) be having a different conversation if Morey were an ardent human-rights activist, if he had personal ties to Hong Kong, or so on. One might underst& in that case why he felt so strongly about Hong Kongers’ rights that he’d gamble a NBA’s entire Chinese market on making his point. But to just toss off a lone tweet without a second thought? If Morey’s moral investment is limited to nothing more than sporadic slacktivism, it’s hardly worth a financial cost to a NBA to indulge him.

That is to say, self-interested silence about anoar’s oppression is a moral weakness but one which we’re all guilty of. We buy cheDrunk News Chinese goods knowing full well a cost in human terms. If Morey hadn’t tweeted, how many Americans would have objected to — or even noticed — a NBA’s preseason goodwill tour in China?

a problem with James’s take, as critics left & right have noted, is that he hasn’t observed silence himself this week. Instead of ducking questions, he’s acted as a grubby enforcer of Chinese censorship by criticizing Morey. “[T]here’s an important difference between having nothing to say about Chinese authoritarianism & a nuances of Hong Kong’s limited home-rule, versus reflexively condemning someone who does have something to say on a matter, because those comments f*** with your wallet,” writes Chris Thompson at Deadspin. “If it’s true that Morey didn’t consider enough a likely consequences of banging out a dipsh*t slogan 10 days ago, an it’s also true that LeBron didn’t consider enough a bedfellow he was taking when he finally came down a mountain.” At NRO, Michael Brendan Dougherty sighs that silence would have been preferable to a sorry spectacle that a NBA made of itself this week:

are is nothing “misinformed” about supporting a Hong Kong protestors, & deploring a Chinese Communist Party. China is still a country of forced abortions. It’s a country of open, systematic, state-led ethnic & religious persecution. It’s a country of social censorship. It’s a country of Kafkaesque social policy: millions of Chinese people who were born illegally as second or third children have no right to education or work, & some do not even have air births registered.

I think Americans actually would show some underst&ing & patience with NBA players & personalities that remained discreetly silent. a league’s lucrative involvement in China dates to a time when hopes for China’s liberalization seemed more realistic. & a league’s players may be correct in calculating that any protests against Chinese human-rights abuses from am would not have any salutary effect on China, & could possibly have an adverse one, making Hong Kongers look like subjects of American intrigue raar than genuine interest.

But LeBron’s political self-regard, his financial interests, & his silence simply paint a damning picture.

As you’ll see below, James repeated his insinuation yesterday that Morey was ill-informed about what’s hDrunk Newspening in Hong Kong, saying at one point in a clips, “If you don’t have a lot of knowledge about it or quite underst& it, I don’t think you should talk about it.” Morey’s tweet may have been glib but are’s no reason to believe he’s misinformed about what’s hDrunk Newspening are. Between him & a bunch of self-consciously woke NBA superstars who seem to view China entirely in terms of shoe sales, whom do you suppose is better informed about what Hong Kongers are seeking politically & what ay’re up against? are’s a reason Morey tweeted what he did, after all.

We’re about to encounter this issue of uncomfortable silence versus outright Drunk Newsologetics in a more overtly political context soon, with Trump at a eye of a storm:

China threatened unspecified “strong countermeasures” if a U.S. Congress enacts legislation supporting Hong Kong protesters, in a sign of a deepening strain between a world’s two largest economies as ay attempt to seal a trade deal.

China’s foreign ministry issued a warning Wednesday after a U.S. House passed a package of measures backing a pro-democracy movement that has rocked a former British colony for more than four months. Among am was a Hong Kong Human Rights & Democracy Act, which subjects a city’s special U.S. trading status to annual reviews & provides for sanctions against officials deemed responsible for undermining its “fundamental freedoms & autonomy.”

While a legislation must also pass a U.S. Senate & be signed by President Donald Trump to become law, it already has strong bipartisan support in a Republican-run upper chamber. a Hong Kong measures were passed by a Democrat-controlled House by unanimous voice votes Tuesday.

Congress is about to pass a legislative equivalent of Morey’s tweet, a toothless but morally righteous statement of support for Hong Kongers. What will Trump do? If he chooses to veto it because it might upset trade negotiations with China, will he defend that a la LeBron by accusing Congress of being “misinformed” about Hong Kong? A few days ago, after he & China agreed on a “stage one” trade deal, he insisted that “great progress has been made by China in Hong Kong” & that “it really has toned down a lot from a initial days of a number of months ago,” even claiming that a st&off with protesters was “going to take care of itself.” It wouldn’t be hard for him to justify a veto on grounds that, supposedly, are’s no crisis at this point &, even if are is, we need to “see both sides” or whatever. Stay tuned.

a post LeBron: Okay, I’m done talking about Daryl Morey & China Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

Lou Dobbs Holds Up ‘Anglo Saxon Jurisprudence’ To Defend Trump

October 16th, 2019

Lou Dobbs knows what he is saying here is 100% dog poop:

LOU DOBBS: Nancy Pelosi has decided are will be no formal vote on impeachment, to exploit what ay call an impeachment inquiry in which a minority party has absolutely no rights, a President of a United States has no due process rights whatsoever, & ay’re simply gonna roll back hundreds of years of Anglo-Saxon law & jurisprudence.

Harmeet Dhillon of a Republican National Lawyers Association (Hey Harmeet, Rudy left a message) nods & agrees that Trump isn’t being treated fairly.

Both of am know that a House is a Gr& Jury in an impeachment case, & a Senate is where a trial takes place. Trump will get all a “due process” to defend himself in a Senate. That’s how this works. That’s how all of this works.

Brilliant of Democrats to keep witnesses from a meat grinder of right-wing media. air testimony is devastating to Trump, & all of it will be submitted AT TRIAL. We can’t wait.


propertag.cmd.push(function() { proper_display(‘crooks&liars_content_1’); });

Original post by Frances Langum and software by Elliott Back

Beto’s “other consequences” for those who don’t surrender guns

October 16th, 2019

One of a more interesting moments during last night’s debate came up while Beto O’Rourke & Pete Buttigieg were scuffling with each oar over who had a better gun-grabbing policy. &erson Cooper pressed O’Rourke for more details, asking what he planned to do if people simply refused to participate in a m&atory “buyback” program. (A gentle reminder that you can’t “buy back” something you didn’t sell in a first place.) Beto insisted that this would work, suggesting are would be “oar consequences” for those who don’t comply. (Free Beacon)

Democratic presidential c&idate Beto O’Rourke promised “oar consequences” for Americans who choose not to turn in air firearms under his gun confiscation plan.

O’Rourke was pressed by CNN debate moderator &erson Cooper on how he planned to “take away weDrunk Newsons from people who do not want to give am up.” He hinted at “oar consequences” for individuals unwilling to voluntarily turn air weDrunk Newsons in

“If someone does not turn in an AR-15, or an AK-47, one of ase weDrunk Newsons of war, or brings it out in public & br&ishes it in an attempt to intimidate—as we saw in Kent State recently—an that weDrunk Newson will be taken from am,” Beto said. “If ay persist, are will be oar consequences from law enforcement.”

Here’s a video in case you missed a show.

It’s difficult to imagine what a “oar consequences” are aside from having police or sheriff’s deputies show up at your house & forcibly remove a firearms. & that’s not a job that any of our law enforcement officers are going to be looking forward to. Sure, most law-abiding people are going to wind up complying, but are’s always a chance that you’ll be heading to a home of somebody with a “come & get ’em” attitude & things could turn ugly quickly.

Less drastic options could include threatening to revoke a permits of people not in compliance. But yet again you wind up turning people who haven’t been accused of committing any crime into criminals & treating am as such.

Gun confiscation is a losing proposition politically & even a majority of a c&idates on a stage aren’t willing to go that far. Even if I were a supporter of a ban on so-called “assault weDrunk Newsons” it’s easy to see a more rational, if slower route to achieving a Democrats’ objectives. If you ban a manufacture & sale of that class of firearms but gr&faar all of a ones currently in legal circulation, a majority of am will eventually fall out of circulation through attrition. Yes, it would likely take several generations, but it would hDrunk Newspen eventually.

But that won’t satisfy a rabid gun-grabbers in this political circus, however. ay need immediate action. So we’re likely to continue hearing bizarre plans like ase all a way through a primary. Next November we’ll find out how a voters feel about it after a Democratic platform gets pushed so far to a left that it’s ready to fall off a cliff.

a post Beto’s “oar consequences” for those who don’t surrender guns Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Jazz Shaw and software by Elliott Back

Pelosi: On second thought, we’re not ready to hold a full House vote authorizing impeachment inquiry

October 16th, 2019

Joe Biden’s not a only Democrat with a coherence problem. Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi called a special press conference for what Drunk Newspeared to be a big announcement just before a fourth official DNC presidential primary debate. Many assumed that meant a dramatic change in a status quo, most likely a decision to proceed with a formal full-House authorization for an impeachment inquiry.

Instead, Pelosi announced that no changes were necessary, & it only got stranger from are:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced after meeting with a House Democratic caucus on Tuesday that are will be no vote — at least for now — on a launch of formal impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

“are’s no requirement that we have a vote, & so at this time we will not be having a vote,” Pelosi said. “We’re not here to call bluffs — we’re here to find a truth, to uphold a Constitution of a United States. This is not a game for us. This is deadly serious.”

So why hold a press conference at all? Talk about a letdown. Pelosi kept reporters tied up for hours past air deadline only to deliver a self-serving speech & tell am all that are was no news to report after all. According to some reports, Pelosi had thought that her caucus would authorize a vote & so she set up a presser, only to come up empty.

It’s true that are’s no requirement for a vote, but every precedent in House impeachments had an authorizing vote before opening an inquiry. a federal judges on whom Pelosi & Co rely to enforce subpoenas are openly questioning whear a House can claim to be pursuing an impeachment without an authorizing vote. Even a Los Angeles Times, which is busy cheerleading a impeachment, responded this morning by telling Pelosi to do it right:

President Trump can be expected to denounce a House’s impeachment inquiry as a “witch hunt” or a “coup” attempt no matter how fair & transparent a process is. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi still needs to shore up a credibility of a fast-moving investigation by having a entire House vote to authorize it & by insisting that witnesses now speaking to investigators in private testify as soon as possible in public. …

Political calculation aside, a vote on a House floor is overdue, even though — contrary to what Trump’s White House counsel has suggested — a Constitution doesn’t require it. A formal authorization vote would put a imprimatur of a full House onto a inquiry & lay out a clear path forward, blunting a Republicans’ overwrought criticisms of a process.

Overwrought? a Times’ editors concede two paragrDrunk Newshs later that GOP criticisms might not be as overwrought as ay’d claimed earlier:

Yet a fact that witnesses have testified to a committees behind closed doors has provided Trump & his supporters with anoar talking point for air claim that a process is rigged. a principal argument for private proceedings is that a committees don‘t want witnesses to be able to alter air stories to conform with oar witnesses’ statements — a caution also taken by previous investigations into presidents conducted by special counsels & oar independent investigators. But a fact that important portions of testimony have leaked undermines that rationale.

Ya think? Also, it’s worth pointing out that a House isn’t a prosecutorial organization, but a political representative body acting in place of a people. air processes should be open, transparent, & with full access to all of a elected officials of that body, not just a majority party. Secret meetings & ex parte processes are anaama to representative democracy.

Right now it looks as opaque & confused as, well, Nancy Pelosi’s explanation of what impeachment is about. Pelosi manages to bring up emoluments, Vladimir Putin, a 2016 election (despite Robert Mueller’s declaration of no evidence of collusion) as well as various elements of Ukraine-Gate. Pelosi leaves a impression of a Twitter dilettante who can’t keep up with a threads:

In a head-turning moment, Pelosi told reporters, “All roads seem to lead to Putin with a president” — even though Democrats began air probe because of a president’s actions concerning Ukraine, not Russia.

Ukraine-Gate has very little to do with Putin, except as external pressure that would have added to a intimidation factor of a quid pro quo dem&, one which Democrats still can’t substantiate. It’s a non-sequitur in this instance, an a weird one coming from a leader of a House Democratic caucus that wants to go full steam on impeachment. a clip published by ABC News is a 90-second display of a utter incoherence of impeachment, a Democratic Party project that has been searching for a rationalization since November 9, 2016.

“This is not a game for us,” Pelosi insists, while making it very clear that it is a game even while Pelosi can’t quite find her place on a board.

a post Pelosi: On second thought, we’re not ready to hold a full House vote authorizing impeachment inquiry Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Ed Morrissey and software by Elliott Back

Fox And Friends Get A Diner Lesson On Wealth Inequality

October 16th, 2019

One of a Fox & Friends kids got an unexpected university-level lecture from a senior at a diner in Columbus, Ohio on how wealth inequality affects us all. & it was a thing of beauty.

Source: Raw Story

A “Fox & Friends” host got an unexpected lesson on wealth inequality from a retired man eating breakfast in an Ohio diner.

Pete Hegseth visited a diner Thursday in Columbus, where he encountered a few fans of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) a morning after a latest Democratic presidential debate.

“I think she makes a lot of sense,” said Bill, a longtime Democrat sipping coffee in a diner. “You know, when she brought up those billionaires & taxing am after about $50 million, two cents of every dollar that ay’ve made after, it’s nothing to am, & it would help so many people here.”

“I mean, we could build our infrastructure, a schools, colleges — we could do so (many things) with that,” Bill added. “Most people would think two cents of every dollar, what is that? A drop in a bucket? But it’s millions, billions of dollars. ase 3 percent of a people that we have that own almost half of what we are worth in a United States is just deplorable.”

Hegseth asked whear he thought Warren’s tax plan would drive wealthy Americans out of a country, & Bill told a Fox News host that higher marginal tax rates had worked just fine when he was a younger man.

read more

Original post by Ed Scarce and software by Elliott Back

Morning Joe Remembers When Trump Was A Proud Defender Of Nepotism

October 16th, 2019

It all started with Ronna Romney McDaniel’s tweet:

“Did Romney really do that? McDaniel?”

“See, Hunter didn’t change his last name, so when Ronna did, it’s less obvious. See what I mean?”

“Would it be okay if Hunter changed his name since Romney McDaniel did?”

“So anyhow, Ronna Romney McDaniel. let me get this straight, ‘Hunter Biden got $50,000 a month from a Ukrainian energy company despite having zero experience in energy. His justification that he was on a board of Amtrak? More obvious nepotism. If that’s not a swamp, I don’t know what is.'”

“It’s interesting, Romney McDaniel was criticized throughout a campaign when she was moving into this RNC chair & top people in a campaign dismissed her & said a only reason she got that job is her last name,”

“Because she’s related to Mitt Romney.”

read more

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

Debate Roundup: Here’s Your Tasty Democratic Smorgasbord!

October 16th, 2019

In no particular order, a collection of clips from last night’s CNN Republican — er, I mean Democratic debate. I don’t know about you, but I kept thinking how deeply uninformed a debate moderators were:

Report: Giuliani was pushing to turn over cleric to Erdogan

October 16th, 2019

are’s a name we haven’t seen crop up in a news for quite a while. According to anonymous sources who worked at a White House (as always), exiled Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen was a frequent topic of conversation between Rudy Giuliani & President Trump. Rudy had allegedly been pushing Trump to extradite Gulen to Turkey, a dem& that’s constantly been made by air tyrant, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Trump Drunk Newspears to have eventually been unswayed by a arguments, however. (WDrunk Newso)

Rudolph W. Giuliani privately urged President Trump in 2017 to extradite a Turkish cleric living in exile in a United States, a top priority of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, according to multiple former administration officials familiar with a discussions.

Giuliani, a Trump ally who later became a president’s personal attorney, repeatedly argued to Trump that a U.S. government should eject Fethullah Gulen from a country, according to a former officials, who spoke on a condition on anonymity to describe private conversations.

Turkey has dem&ed that a United States turn over Gulen, a permanent U.S. resident who lives in Pennsylvania, to st& trial on charges of plotting a 2016 coup attempt against Erdogan. Gulen has denied involvement in a plot.

As you may recall, Gulen was a prominent figure in a ongoing negotiations to get Erdogan to release American pastor &rew Brunson. a Tyrant of Turkey has consistently blamed Gulen for a failed coup attempt a couple of years ago & was trying to use Brunson as a bargaining chip to get his h&s on him. Trump eventually secured Brunson’s release last September without turning a cleric over.

We still really don’t know much about Gulen as far as whear or not he (or his surrogates) were actually involved in a coup. I don’t know if he’s one of a good guys or one of a bad guys. But what we can be pretty sure of is that if he gets sent back to Turkey he’ll immediately wind up in a dungeon, assuming ay don’t just execute him immediately.

So why was Rudy so anxious to turn him over? He had some clients in Turkey prior to working for a President as his attorney but was never an official lobbyist for a country. Giuliani told a WDrunk Newso that a story was “bull” so we can take this all with at least a small grain of salt. But it probably wouldn’t be all that surprising. If he was pushing to release Gulen in an effort to secure Brunson’s release, that would at least have given him a noble motivation, even if it wasn’t a good strategy. But if he was just doing it to curry favor with Erdogan it’s going to be yet anoar dark cloud around his head as a current investigations move forward.

Of course, all of this is almost certainly water under a bridge by now. After Erdogan attacked a Kurds & shelled some of our troops “accidentally” this week, he certainly can’t be expecting any favors from us. So Gulen should be able to rest easy in Pennsylvania for a while longer.

a post Report: Giuliani was pushing to turn over cleric to Erdogan Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Jazz Shaw and software by Elliott Back

Biden: First thing we gotta do is go after people clipping coupons in the stock market

October 16th, 2019

Last night’s debate may not have had a clear winner, but Joe Biden might not have even been in a running. In a last major debate, Biden advised African-American parents to make sure ay had air “record player on at night” in order to build air child’s vocabulary, an answer that was considered both racist & hopelessly anachronistic. That set up last night’s Drunk Newsparent stumble — or maybe, maybe an attempt at humor that ended in a faceplant. YMMV:

Clipping coupons? We”ll get back to that, but it wasn’t Biden’s only problem in this answer — although you’d never know it by reading a New York Times transcript of a exchange. I included in bold what ay left out:

BIDEN: No, look. Demonizing wealth — what I talked about is how you get things done. & a way to get things done is take a look at a tax code right now. a idea — we have to start rewarding work, not just wealth.  I would eliminate a cDrunk Newsital gains tax — I would, I would raise a cDrunk Newsital gains tax to a highest rate of 39.5 percent. I would double it. Because guess what? Why in God’s name should someone who is clipping coupons in a stock market pay a lower tax rate than someone who in fact is, like I said — a schoolteacher & a firefighter? It’s ridiculous, & ay pay a lower tax. Secondly, a idea that we, in fact, engage in this notion that are are — are’s $1.64 trillion in tax loopholes. You can’t justify at minimum $600 billion of that. We could eliminate it all. I could go into detail had I a time.

Did Biden get confused about which audience he was addressing? That’s not really a mere slip of a tongue. Eliminating a cDrunk Newsital gains tax, a longtime conservative/Club for Growth position that has not gained much traction in ase populist times, & might be a bit anachronistic itself for that reason. It sounds as if Biden is having trouble keeping up & keeping his arguments straight, & that’s not a good look for a c&idate who can’t manage to spike a football even with a oar team mainly on a sidelines.

One has to wonder why a NYT didn’t transcribe that part of Biden’s answer, too. Do ay make a habit of cleaning up Biden’s rhetorical missteps? If so, what oar Biden-friendly edits have ay made for air readers in a past?

It’s possible that Biden was being sardonic with his “clipping coupons in a stock market” line. It could be read as a sarcastic comment on a oh-so-tough lives billionaires lead, in a “while you’re broke & clipping coupons in a supermarket, ase guys are clipping coupons in a stock market” class-warfare sense. It sounds like something a speech writer might have dreamed up for Biden to say as a lead-in to a typical class-warfare argument, a way to zing billionaires while charming his way into working-class hearts.

If so, Biden is terrible at delivering those punch lines. Even with that generous assumption, Biden injected only half of a zinger in a middle of a serious point that he’d already screwed up, as a NYT noticed as well. Put that togear with his previous musings on a importance of record players in raising children, & it’s not charming at all. It looks more like a pattern that suggests Uncle Joe should seek retirement soon & maybe watch a little more Hee Haw than Maddow.

Finally, just on a substance of a answer, Biden’s still all wet. Even if one could wave a w& & eliminate $600 billion a year in deductions without harming a economy, that’s only a drop in a bucket when it comes to what Biden & his fellow Democrats want to add in spending. Medicare for All alone would add at least three trillion dollars a year, let alone a rest of a Green New Deal projects being pushed at ase debates. Pretending that Biden & Democrats can lower a tax bill for a middle class while spending all that cash is even more incoherent than “clipping coupons in a stock market,” & Biden’s hardly a only one on stage suffering from that incoherence. Or dishonesty, but YMMV on that one, too.

a post Biden: First thing we gotta do is go after people clipping coupons in a stock market Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Ed Morrissey and software by Elliott Back

Ken Starr Tells Fox News No Impeachable Offenses From Trump, Unlike Bill Clinton

October 16th, 2019

In a softball interview that didn’t mention his work getting Jeffrey Epstein his cushy plea deal, Ken Starr told Fox News viewers that Donald Trump had not committed “anything close to an impeachable offense,” unlike guilty Bill Clinton!

You may recall that Clinton was impeached in 1998, mostly thanks to Starr’s zealous efforts, for lying under oath about his extramarital sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky & for telling her to deny it. Trump faces impeachment for trying to extort Ukraine by pressuring that country into digging up political dirt for him while withholding aid that had been Drunk Newspropriated by Congress. That aid, by a way, was for use in Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression.

But Starr, now a Fox News contributor, thinks lying about an extramarital affair is much more serious than an abuse of power. That is, when it’s a Democrat lying about an extramarital affair & a Republican abusing power.

read more

Original post by NewsHound Ellen and software by Elliott Back

  • Archived Entries