PowerLine -> John Hinderaker – In Massachusetts, No Gender Left Behind + How the media embraced en masse fake news about Trump Tower meeting

Powerline John Hinderaker at HoaxAndChange

PowerLine -> John Hinderaker – In Massachusetts, No Gender Left Behind + How the media embraced en masse fake news about Trump Tower meeting

Powerline John Hinderaker at HoaxAndChange

Powerline John Hinderaker at HoaxAndChange

Daily Digest

  • In Massachusetts, No Gender Left Behind
  • How the media embraced en masse fake news about Trump Tower meeting
  • At the Fifth District forum
  • CRB: Will the real authoritarian please stand up?
  • From Philadelphia, the Latest Liberal Outrage [Updated]
In Massachusetts, No Gender Left Behind

Posted: 07 Aug 2018 12:05 PM PDT

(John Hinderaker)Howie Carr’s latest column relates what happened when virtue-signaling Massachusetts Democrats introduced a measure to add a third gender to the state’s drivers’ licenses: Gender X. This is the sort of thing you would have expected to pass until Rep. James Lyons took the floor to object. How dare the Democrats take such a narrow view of the nearly infinite variety of Bay State genders?

Since all Democrats must admit that the number of genders is endless, how dare the commonwealth lump all the new genders together as “Gender X”?

“Separate but equal” — that’s what it by God sounded like to Rep. Jim Lyons. And he was willing to put his shod foot down. Hate Has No Home Here. Not on His Watch. Lyons decided to take a stand against Gender Jim Crow.

Every gender, he declared, must be listed on Massachusetts driver’s licenses! That was Lyons’ non-negotiable demand. No justice, no peace.

Every gender? That could add up!

Next question: How many genders are there? New York City under Mayor Bill de Blasio once ruled there are 31 — easy to remember, because it’s same number as Baskin-Robbins ice cream flavors.

Then the number began creeping upwards, getting close to Heinz’ 57 Varieties. Genders seem to be reproducing like amoebae, dividing and subdividing, trans to transsexual to trans man to trans male to trans person …

Sitting in the House chambers late Tuesday night, with the clock ticking down on the session, ­Lyons took out his smartphone and arrived at the latest updated number of genders: 73.

I asked Lyons Friday where he found his new number 73.

“Facebook,” he said.

Lyons was uncompromising: if Massachusetts is truly to keep up with the times, all 73 genders must be provided as drivers’ license options. Of course, this posed a logistical problem in the waning hours of the legislative session:

[L]egislative leadership couldn’t rule any of his gender amendments out of order as absurd, because if they did, it would be giving away the game. They would be admitting that the “X”-ercise was preposterous on its face.

Lyons began filing his affirmative-action amendments. Number 6 added as a gender “cis.” Amendment 9 — cis female, 13 — cis woman, 14 — cisgender female, 18 — cisgender woman …

By now, on the floor of the House, puzzled Democrats were coming up to Lyons, asking him what he was doing.

We can’t discriminate, he archly informed them. This is Massachusetts. Gender is an evolving paradigm, to coin a phrase. All genders must be protected. Equal protection under the law.

Amendment 21 — gender fluid, 22 gender non-conforming, 23 gender questioning, 25 gender variant, 26 genderqueer …

In all, 73 genders, 73 amendments to Spilka’s bill.

Under House rules, Lyons would have 10 minutes to debate each gender he proposed to add to the driver’s license. And then three minutes for a roll call vote, 73 times.

The leadership was beat. By midnight, they needed to pass legislation — real bills, not this PC nonsense, but their actual business, land takings and the like.

If Lyons insisted on going full Social Justice Warrior, there would no time for reality.

He had already filed 35 of his 73 amendments — six hours’ worth of debates and votes — when leadership threw in the towel. They ordered Gender X back … into the closet.

It’s a great story. But satire is hard these days. My fear is that Rep. James Lyons may unintentionally have given us a preview of drivers’ licenses of the future.


How the media embraced en masse fake news about Trump Tower meeting

Posted: 07 Aug 2018 07:44 AM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)On Sunday, I exposed as “fake news” a New York Times article touting President Trump’s “admission” that the purpose of his son’s meeting with a Russian lawyer was to obtain negative information about Hillary Clinton. In fact, Trump’s statement wasn’t news at all. He said the same thing more than a year ago.

Moreover, the Times misstated Trump’s “admission.” It characterized his statement as an admission that the meeting “focused” on Clinton dirt. This enabled the Times to claim that Trump was contradicting previous statements by his team that the focus was on adoptions of Russian babies.

The Times thus knowingly conflated the meeting’s purpose with its focus. The purpose, for Team Trump, was to come up with dirt. The focus — what was discussed at the meeting — was different by all accounts because the Russian lawyer talked about adoptions, not Hillary.

When I wrote my post, I didn’t realize but should have suspected, that the New York Times’ fake news story was only the tip of the mainstream media iceberg. Nearly every major anti-Trump media outlet — which is to say nearly every major media outlet — was pushing the same false line.

In addition to the Times, the dishonor role includes, inevitably, the Washington Postthe Associated Pressthe BBCCNBC, and CNN’s Chris Cillizza. It also includes The Atlantic’s David Frum, who must have known better. It would be difficult to find a mainstream media outlet that wasn’t part of the herd.

But there was more than herd mentality at work here. There was an enormous amount of frustration.

The anti-Trump media is fully invested in the Russia collusion story. I can hardly fathom the amount of psychic energy it has poured into this story.

Yet, after almost two years, the hole remains virtually dry. All its proponents have is the Trump Tower meeting. But it came to light more than a year ago and has produced barely a sip.

The Trump-haters have high hopes for Robert Mueller’s investigation. But his team is busy trying Paul Manafort on charges that don’t relate to Donald Trump or the 2016 election. Mueller certainly has other irons in the fire, but the Trump-haters don’t know with specificity what they are or what they have produced. And all of the public’s Mueller-related attention is on the Manafort trial now.

Thus, Trump’s old news tweet on Sunday was manna from heaven for the Trump-hating media. Sure, some twisting and outright dishonesty were required to make it fit for consumption. But when has that ever been a problem for The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the rest of the herd?

It’s not surprising that the mainstream media, en masse, dishonestly treated Donald Trump’s old news tweet about his son’s Trump Tower meeting as a new admission inconsistent with past statements by members of his team. Sickening, yes. Surprising, no.


At the Fifth District forum

Posted: 07 Aug 2018 06:59 AM PDT

(Scott Johnson)Last night I attended the forum of DFL Fifth District congressional candidates at Temple Beth El in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The forum was sponsored by the Jewish Community Relations Council and a variety of left-wing outfits with “Jewish” in their name although leftism is their religion (e.g., the National Council of Jewish Women). Maya Rao covered the forum for the Star Tribune in “DFLers tout experience at heavily attended Fifth District forum.” I sat next to KSTP’s Beth McDonough, who covered the event from the scene in the hit embedded below. KSTP has posted the video and a brief story here.

My friend Steve Hunegs is executive director of the JCRC. Steve has taken some heat from Republican sources for hosting this event. The winner of the primary will go on to win the election and represent the Fifth District for as long as she wants. It was important for these voters to see the candidates and hear them out themselves. I think the JCRC performed a service helping organize and put on this event. It was a first-class operation and informative event. All involved with putting it on have a right to be proud. I offer only a few observations for interested readers.

• The event was attended like a high holiday service. There must have been 1,000 people in the audience. The large sanctuary was filled to capacity. The space behind the regular sanctuary was opened and two-thirds filled. The place was packed. I wrote a friend that it was packed like Rosh Hashanah. He wrote me back: “The Rosh Hashanah service will never be that packed.”

• I sat with the media near the entrance to the sanctuary and saw many friends and acquaintances in attendance. My vague impression was that the audience was no more than one-third Jewish Democrats. The rest seemed to me much like the Fifth District DFL activists whom I saw at the special endorsing convention in south Minneapolis on June 17.

• This is the race to succeed former Nation of Islam hustler Keith Ellison in Congress. Ellison declared his candidacy for Minnesota Attorney General in such a manner as to ease the path for the party to endorse state representative Ilhan Omar at the special endorsing convention. With the set-up for Omar, Margaret Anderson Kelliher — Omar’s most formidable opponent — skipped the convention. I wrote up my analysis of the race the day after the convention in the Weekly Standard article “The anti-Israel seat” and went back for a second look in the City Journal column “A question for Democrats.”

• I think attendance last night was driven by the anti-Trump fervor that is roiling Democrats across the United States. The serious candidates all played to it incessantly.

• Mary Lahammer of the Twin Cities PBS station moderated the debate and cracked the whip to keep the candidates’ answers to her questions brief and to the point. Only two of the seven questions she asked bore on Jewish issues.

• Ilhan Omar is the endorsed DFL candidate in this race. She is the favorite to win the primary next Tuesday.

• The other serious contenders in the race are state senator Patricia Torres Ray and Margaret Anderson Kelliher. I liked both Senator Ray and Ms. Kelliher, but Ray pales by contrast to Kelliher. Indeed, by contrast, Omar came off poorly. Kelliher served in the state legislature for 12 years, four of them as Speaker of the House and the nemesis of Governor Tim Pawlenty. She is a formidable candidate and a total pro. In my judgment and that of everyone I spoke with, Kelliher won the event last night going away.

• The laziness and stupidity of the press covering (and not covering) the race is a great advantage to Omar. She is a problematic candidate and vacuous leftist who draws on a bottomless well of political cliches to express the animus that drives the left on every issue. By contrast with Kelliher, Omar’s vacuity was prominently on display last night.

• There was no substantial difference on the issues among the three serious candidates. Rao’s Star Tribune article rightly focuses on the question of experience for the position, on which one could see daylight between and among the candidates. On Israel, all three expressed support for the right of Israel to exist, support for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs and opposition to the anti-Israel divestment movement.

• Someone has gotten to Omar. Her frank Islamist antipathy to Israel as an apartheid regime and her support for BDS was nowhere in evidence last night. 

• I hung around after the event. As Omar shook hands and chatted with supporters in front of the media table at which I sat, I moved around to snap the photo on the right. I snapped the photo just before I introduced myself to her. She kept smiling as she told me, “You made me famous. I wanted to send you flowers.” I said I thought MSNBC deserved the credit.


CRB: Will the real authoritarian please stand up?

Posted: 07 Aug 2018 04:40 AM PDT

(Scott Johnson)When we previewed the Spring issue of the Claremont Review of Books earlier this year, we celebrated editor Charles Kesler’s receipt of a 2018 Bradley Prize at the 15th annual Bradley Prizes ceremony in Washington. I declared it the week of Charles in his honor. A good time was had by all. The CRB is, of course, the flagship publication of the Claremont Institute. Charles has turned the CRB into a great and essential magazine. The Bradley Prize paid tribute to Charles’s work with the CRB and its contribution to our understanding of the principles and institutions of American exceptionalism. I find in every issue an education in the true understanding of politics.

We turn now to the new (Summer) issue of the CRB. I have selected three review/essays from the issue to preview on Power Line this week along with a bonus review by our own Steve Hayward. We will have a big, beautiful share of the intellectual heart and soul of this issue. Purchase an annual subscription here for $19.95 and get immediate online access to the whole thing.

You may recall that the CRB published Michael Anton’s essay “The Flight 93 election” in the run-up to the presidential election the following November. (Anton wrote the essay under the pseudonym Publius Decius Mus.) The essay made a difference; it was certainly the single most important piece advocating the election of Donald Trump. Anton went on to serve as deputy national security adviser in the Trump administration until this past April. He is now Lecturer in Politics and Research Fellow at the Hillsdale College Kirby Center in Washington.

Well, of course, we all know that the Trump’s election foretold the descent of the dark night of fascism in the United States. Who better than Anton lead off our preview of the new issue of the CRB with his review/essay on books of varying quality bearing on the descent? Anton’s essay poses the pointed question “Will the real authoritarian please stand up?” It opens:

One of the nice things about a core curriculum—sadly disappearing from most of higher education—is that it forces you to read books you would otherwise have skipped. Although this can be painful in the moment, it often pays off in unexpected ways.

Sigmund Freud is not a writer I would have picked up had he not been assigned. But I’m glad he was. The older I get, and the more of the Left I see, the more useful becomes Freud’s concept of “projection,” an unconscious defense mechanism that protects the ego from guilt or anxiety. It has amazing explanatory power and can help one make sense of a trove of recent books by left-wing writers, and one disgruntled former conservative, that blame Donald Trump for “authoritarianism” in American politics.

I commend this witty and learned essay to your attention.


From Philadelphia, the Latest Liberal Outrage [Updated]

Posted: 06 Aug 2018 07:53 PM PDT

(John Hinderaker)This morning, Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens of Turning Point USA were eating breakfast in a restaurant in Philadelphia. They were spotted, apparently, by a liberal who ran to gather a mob. The mob of liberals besieged Kirk and Owens inside the restaurant, as you see here, and were waiting for them when they emerged. As you can see, the liberals are terrible human beings. One question, though: are there really people who wander around the streets carrying bullhorns?

The besiegers apparently were associated with Antifa, which Owens correctly labels a fascist organization:

To be clear: ANTIFA, an all-white fascist organization, just grew violent and attacked an all-black and Hispanic police force.

Because I, a BLACK woman, was eating breakfast.

Is this the civil rights era all over again? pic.twitter.com/piJfnopniW

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) August 6, 2018

Kirk and Owens were a heck of a lot more threatened than Jim Acosta was in Tampa a few evenings ago, but I haven’t seen any tears shed by liberal media.

There is a certain irony in a gang of white fascists chanting about “white supremacy” to an African-American like Candace Owens. But no one ever accused liberal activists of having brains.

Charlie Kirk and I just got ATTACKED and protested by ANTIFA for eating breakfast. They are currently following us through Philly. ALL BLACK AND HISPANIC police force protecting us as they scream “f*ck the racist police”. pic.twitter.com/x5WUNr9mM6

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) August 6, 2018

I can’t improve on Candace’s comments on the idiocy of the mob.

There is more on Candace’s Twitter feed–which, by the way, Twitter suspended a couple of days ago. Too much hate or something; they then explained it was a mistake. One more:

After all these years, white Democrats still believe that they own black people. When you go against how they desire you to think, they viciously attack you.
I was proud to stand with conviction alongside the minority police force today.

I escaped the leftist plantation.

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) August 6, 2018

This kind of thing is happening all the time. I keep asking myself: when will America’s voters wake up and realize that the liberals are crazy?

UPDATE: One more thing: here, one of the liberal Democrats throws a drink at Charlie Kirk:

I give Charlie lots of credit for self-restraint. He is a perfectly able-bodied guy but managed to refrain from beating any of the liberals senseless.


Leave a Reply