PowerLine – Hillary Clinton –> Because we’re gonna put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business (video below).

PowerLine – Hillary  Clinton –> Because we’re gonna put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business (video below).

Sympathy for the miner

Posted: 14 Mar 2016 02:58 PM PDT

(Scott Johnson)

During the Clinton hour of the Democrats’ town hall infomercial on CNN last night, Hillary Clinton actually said this: “I’m the only candidate which [sic] has a policy about how bring economic opportunity using clean, renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we’re gonna put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business” (video below).

What is to be said? Madam Hillary, thank you for the lucid explanation.

She didn’t stop there. She flaunted the trademark Democratic compassion for her victims: “We’re gonna make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations. Losing their health. Often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. Now, we’ve got to move away from coal. And all the other fossil fuels. But I don’t want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.”

Via Doug Powers/Michelle Malkin.

Max Weber on Trump

Posted: 14 Mar 2016 12:57 PM PDT(Steven Hayward)

In our never ending quest to understand more deeply the Trump phenomenon and our current moment, my mind ran back to an old passage from the German sociologist Max Weber, who once said of the United States:

A corruption and wastefulness second to none could be tolerated only by a country with as yet unlimited economic opportunities.

Pretty sure the corruption and waste have now discovered (by imposing) the limits of our economic opportunities. Weber was also struck by the reasons Americans gave him, in his visit in the 1880s, for why they tolerated politicians they despise:

Scarcely fifteen years ago, when American workers were asked why they allowed themselves to be governed by politicians whom they admitted they despised, the answer was: “We prefer having people in office whom we can spit upon, rather than a caste of officials who spit upon us, as is the case with you.”

Well, we solved that problem, too.

Why Ben Shapiro resigned from Breitbart

Posted: 14 Mar 2016 08:32 AM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)

I don’t think we have written about the incident in which Donald Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski allegedly manhandled Michelle Fields as she attempted to question the candidate at a rally. The incident has been covered extensively elsewhere, including here.

The incident is hardly without interest, but I’m more intrigued by the fallout. Breitbart, whose chairman is pro Trump, refused to back its reporter. To the contrary , it published a piece seeking to cast doubt on Fields’ account. Moreover, a senior editor is said to have ordered staffers to stop defending Fields.

Understandably, Fields has resigned. So too has Ben Shapiro, Breitbart’s estimable editor-at-large. Here, via BuzzFeed, is Shapiro’s full resignation statement.

As a close personal friend and mentee of Andrew Breitbart’s, it saddens me tremendously to announce that as of 9:00 p.m. Pacific Time, I have resigned from Breitbart News as editor-at-large. I met Andrew Breitbart when I was seventeen years old and remained his friend until his tragic death; I signed on with Breitbart News two weeks before Andrew’s death because I believed in his mission.

I am proud of what we accomplished in the years following his death, fighting back against the leftist media and debunking the left’s key narratives. I have many good friends at Breitbart News, including editor-in-chief Alex Marlow and editor-at-large John Nolte, and I admire CEO Larry Solov for his dedication to ensuring a financial future for Andrew’s widow, Susie, and his four children.

Andrew built his life and his career on one mission: fight the bullies. But Andrew’s life mission has been betrayed. Indeed, Breitbart News, under the chairmanship of Steve Bannon, has put a stake through the heart of Andrew’s legacy.

In my opinion, Steve Bannon is a bully, and has sold out Andrew’s mission in order to back another bully, Donald Trump; he has shaped the company into Trump’s personal Pravda, to the extent that he abandoned and undercut his own reporter, Breitbart News’ Michelle Fields, in order to protect Trump’s bully campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who allegedly assaulted Michelle.

I spoke with Michelle the night after the incident. She told me her story. That story was backed by audiotape, eyewitness testimony from The Washington Post’s Ben Terris, physical bruises, and video tape.

Both Lewandowski and Trump maligned Michelle in the most repulsive fashion. Meanwhile, Breitbart News not only stood by and did nothing outside of tepidly asking for an apology, they then attempted to abandon Michelle by silencing staff from tweeting or talking about the issue. Finally, in the ultimate indignity, they undermined Michelle completely by running a poorly-evidenced conspiracy theory as their lead story in which Michelle and Terris had somehow misidentified Lewandowski.

This is disgusting. Andrew never would have stood for it. No news outlet would stand for it.

Nobody should.

This truly breaks my heart. But, as I am fond of saying, facts don’t care about your feelings, and the facts are undeniable: Breitbart News has become precisely the reverse of what Andrew would have wanted. Steve Bannon and those who follow his lead should be ashamed of themselves.

The Art of the Deal, ego stroking edition

Posted: 14 Mar 2016 08:07 AM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)

When he endorsed Donald Trump, Ben Carson said “there’s two Donald Trumps.” The first is “the Donald Trump that you see on television and who gets out in front of big audiences.” The second is “the Donald Trump behind the scenes.” The two “are not the same person,” Carson explained. “One’s very much an entertainer, and one is actually a thinking individual.”

At the time, I wrote:

The folks who eat up Trump’s public persona should take heed: the Trump they see is phony and Dr. Carson thinks they are entranced by unthinking entertainment.

Moreover, I’m not sure why being two-faced recommends Trump in Carson’s mind. Is this some sort of Christian virtue?

For Dr. Carson, the answer to the last question apparently is affirmative, for he is doubling down on Trump’s hypocrisy as a virtue. The Hill quotes Carson as saying he endorsed Trump only after the tycoon assured him “that some of the more outlandish things that he’s said. . .he didn’t really believe those things.”

Respecting, at least to some extent, the confidentiality of their discussion, Carson declined to say which of Trump’s “outlandish” positions the tycoon doesn’t “really believe.” The list of possibilities is long enough.

Carson went on to say that he’s focused on helping Trump shape his policy goals. He cited health care and education in particular.

The idea that Trump’s thinking can be shaped will be an emerging theme as more and more politicians join the Trump bandwagon. It’s a facially plausible one. Trump displays so much ignorance in so many areas that one is tempted to view him as a tabula rasa onto whom folks with more expertise can inscribe their views.

But Trump isn’t a tabula rasa. He has opinions about everything. The slate isn’t empty; it’s cluttered. Sure, the clutter is breathtakingly superficial, but we shouldn’t assume that Trump recognizes it as such.

It’s possible that a Ben Carson could help deepen Trump’s thinking on health care or education and/or that others could have the same effect in areas such as foreign policy and national security. It’s probable that Trump is a master at enticing people with big egos into believing they can influence him.

Unfortunately, history is littered with those who, fancying themselves able to manipulate unsavory rising political figures, found themselves irrelevant or worse once they made their bargain with the devil.

Judging the “Minnesota men” (with media alert)

Posted: 14 Mar 2016 07:33 AM PDT

(Scott Johnson)

The current issue of the Weekly Standard carries my article “Judging the ‘Minnesota men.’” It’s a companion to my earlier article “The threat from ‘Minnesota men.’” In the new article, I take a close look at the case of Abdirizak Mohamed Warsame, who pleaded guilty to one charge of supporting ISIS in federal court in Minneapolis last month. Judge Michael Davis has now created an experimental “de-radicalization” program under which Warsame is to be sentenced. The article quotes Andy McCarthy commenting on the program at some length.

Working on the article, I read transcripts of Warsame’s pretrial/detention hearing from this past December and his plea hearing in February. I have been following Warsame’s case closely, but I found some things that surprised even me. I think it’s an interesting and illuminating case. If you haven’t yet checked out the article, I hope you will.

Bill Bennett and producer Chris Beach have invited me to discuss the article tomorrow morning on Bill’s Morning in America show during the 7:30 a.m. (Eastern) segment. I think you can access the show via Bill’s Morning in America site. Please listen in if you can.

 

 

Leave a Reply