YOUR DAILY CHORTLE

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Greg Gutfield on Adam Schiff the Liar

Posted in Misc | Leave a comment

Dan Bongino: Adam Schiff Gets Busted Again

Posted in Misc | Leave a comment

Don Surber: The Opposite of Insight

Don Surber nailed it today regarding the “Syrian withdrawal.” I learn something every time I read his blog. I’ll let you read the whole thing, but here’s an excerpt, referring to Peggy Noonan’s blathering:

This situation does not fit Syria geographically or metaphorically because the Hitler in question is actually a NATO ally that President Trump can hold in check through economic sanctions.

He tweeted 3 days before her column ran, “As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!). They must, with Europe and others, watch over the captured ISIS fighters and families. The U.S. has done far more than anyone could have ever expected, including the capture of 100% of the ISIS Caliphate. It is time now for others in the region, some of great wealth, to protect their own territory. THE USA IS GREAT!”

So he had a plan.

It wasn’t impulsive; it was decisive.

Noonan can write what she wants but it is not very insightful because she has not learned a darned thing about Donald Trump in the 4 years since he entered the 2016 race.

Sad?

Common.

Posted in Misc | Leave a comment

YOU’RE KIDDING ME, RIGHT?

The Nobel COmmittee is now so worthless this is what they think worthy of a Nobel in Economics:

I suspect they were chosen in order to check off P.C. boxes: Indian, female (youngest, too) and token white guy.

Economists Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer won the 2019 Nobel Economics Prize for their work in fighting global poverty, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said on Monday.

French-American Duflo becomes only the second female economics winner in the prize’s 50-year history, as well as the youngest at 46. She shared the award equally with Indian-born American Banerjee and Kremer, also of the United States.

The Academy said the work of the three economists had shown how the problem of poverty could be tackled by breaking it down into smaller and more precise questions in areas such as education and healthcare, making problems easier to tackle.

“As a direct result of one of their studies, more than five million Indian children have benefited from effective programs of remedial tutoring in school,” the Academy said in a statement.

“Another example is the heavy subsidies for preventive healthcare that have been introduced in many countries.”

The 9 million Swedish crown ($915,300) economics prize is a later addition to the five awards created in the will of industrialist and dynamite inventor Alfred Nobel, established by the Swedish central bank and first awarded in 1969.

Economics is the last of the awards to be announced with the winners for medicine, physics, chemistry, literature and peace having been unveiled over the course of last week.

The 2018 Nobel Economics Prize was jointly awarded to U.S. economists William Nordhaus and Paul Romer, pioneers in adapting the western economic growth model to focus on environmental issues and sharing the benefits of technology.

Nordhaus’ recognition has proved controversial, with critics arguing the model he created to describe the interplay between the economy and the climate seriously underestimated climate change-related risks.

Posted in Misc | 3 Comments

WHAT A PIECE OF SHIT STORY

Someone decided to run a piece comparing Andrew Johnson (a democrat) to Donald Trump vis-a-vis their impeachment/impeachment effort.

Laugh along as you read how the oft-quoted “historians” are women.

Guffaw as you realize it’s a useless field when “historians” today attempt to make it seem like today is 200 years ago.

Chortle when you see how little mention is made of Johnson’s roots.

Vomit when you read that the author says Trump is a racist…..without running the parallels of Johnson’s administration which was blatantly racist.

Lastly, wonder how in the fuck they can say Trump’s trying to undo elections.

All this supposedly with a straight face (if faux-journalism can be given straight faces.)

Yeah, AP.

The president traveled the country, fanning racial animus. He viewed the Congress with disdain. He also tried to undo some of the most important achievements of his predecessor, using executive power.

That was not Donald Trump, but another president who faced the ignominy of impeachment: Andrew Johnson.

As the impeachment inquiry of Trump unfolds, Johnson, never among America’s most famous presidents, though widely considered one of the worst, is attracting renewed attention.

Johnson was the first president to be impeached, by the House of Representatives in 1868. He escaped removal from office by a single vote short of the required two-thirds after his trial in the Senate, but was so disgraced he was denied his party’s nomination that year.

Trump and Johnson came from opposite ends of America’s social spectrum — Johnson from deep poverty, Trump from great wealth. Yet they shared bellicose personalities, a disdain for political niceties, and a penchant for divisive, sometimes racist rhetoric.

Jon Meacham, a presidential historian who wrote a chapter on Johnson’s case in a recent book on impeachment, has drawn a harsh comparison after Trump suggested that four activist Democratic congresswomen of color “go back” to countries “from which they came.” Coupled with other statements by Trump, Meacham says Trump “now ranks with Andrew Johnson as perhaps the most racist of our presidents.”

Meacham sees other parallels as well.

“Like Trump, Johnson was a temperamentally tumultuous man who defied norms of the era,” Meacham said in an email. “In Johnson’s case, he actively sought to undo the verdict of the Civil War as the Republicans of the day saw it; in Trump’s case, he is actively seeking to nullify the constitutional order by using his powers to undo the sovereignty of our elections.”

Johnson, a Democrat, became vice president under Republican Abraham Lincoln on a unity ticket during Lincoln’s reelection campaign amid the Civil War in 1864. Johnson became president after Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865.

Friction grew steadily between Johnson, who contended blacks were incapable of self-government, and many of the Republicans who controlled Congress and favored extending voting rights to blacks.

Tensions peaked in 1868 when the House voted to impeach Johnson after alleging he had illegally fired War Secretary Edwin Stanton. Johnson was narrowly acquitted in a trial in the Senate.

Mark Summers, a University of Kentucky history professor, noted that many historians in the past argued that Johnson’s impeachment was a mistake and that it was fortunate he was able to stay in office. Summers, like many contemporary historians, takes a different view, depicting Johnson as “a very dangerous man.”

“I would have convicted him with great enthusiasm,” Summers said.

Summers says it’s also dangerous to seek precise comparisons of the Johnson and Trump impeachment dramas.

“Definitions of what presidents are allowed to do have changed,” he said. “Donald Trump is suggesting the whole process is illegitimate — Johnson made clear he’d abide by the Senate decision.”

Keri Leigh Merritt, a historian and writer in Atlanta, learned about Johnson’s personal background while researching her 2017 book, “Masterless Men: Poor Whites and Slavery in the Antebellum South.”

She said Johnson emerged from deeper poverty than any other U.S. president, even working as an indentured servant for a master who occasionally beat him.

Yet despite that sharp contrast with Trump’s wealth, Merritt sees a similarity between the two men that dismays her.

“You’re dealing with someone who puts themselves above their country — puts their reputation and legacy first,” she said.

In mid-September, Johnson was the subject of a “Worst President Ever?” presentation by University of Maryland history professor Michael Ross. It was part of a “Pints and Profs” series hosted by a tavern in Washington, D.C.

“I convinced a good portion of the room that Johnson was the worst president, though some were lobbying for Richard Nixon or Woodrow Wilson,” said Ross.

Ross said he made clear at the outset of the event that Trump would not be a formal part of the presentation on the ground that his legacy remains to be determined. Yet Ross said Trump shares some key traits with Johnson, notably that he’s “unpresidential in his conduct.”

Johnson “was by every measure an awful president. He set back American race relations probably by 100 years,” Ross said. Yet he said it was appropriate, on technical legal grounds, that the impeachment effort failed.

As for Trump, Ross doubts the Republican-controlled Senate will vote to remove him from office unless damning new evidence surfaces.

Among those intrigued by Trump-Johnson comparisons is author Brenda Wineapple. She has written several books about 19th century authors, but switched gears with her latest book, published in May — an account of Johnson’s impeachment trial called “The Impeachers.”

While Trump stands accused of improperly pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, Johnson angered many on the Union side of the Civil War with his solicitous approach to the defeated Confederacy, Wineapple said.

“You can say he was courting a so-called foreign power,” Wineapple said. “Johnson wanted to reintegrate that seceded group of states without any cognizance of the fact they were fighting for the perpetuation of slavery.”

She also sees similarities in the harsh rhetoric used or encouraged by the two presidents.

In public speeches in 1866, Johnson would suggest the hanging of some of his political rivals. Trump has grinned when supporters at his rallies chant of Hillary Clinton, “Lock Her Up” and he recently suggested that a whistleblower in the Ukraine case is “close to a spy” — possibly meriting the death penalty.

Though the bid to oust Johnson eventually failed, Wineapple believes the dramatic events of 1868 validated the concept of the impeachment process.

“It was a stain on Johnson’s reputation — he didn’t get renominated,” she said. “The country didn’t fall apart. It was a very orderly, serious process of trying to remove a president without a war.”

Professor Benjamin Railton, coordinator of American Studies at Fitchburg State University in Massachusetts, has studied Johnson’s impeachment trial and he sees echoes in today’s House inquiry of Trump.

He said there was broad concern about the two presidents due to their conduct and rhetoric, yet the impeachment proceedings took shape in regard to specific allegations of illegality — for Trump the Ukraine case, for Johnson his contested removal of Stanton.

Railton is curious what might lie ahead if Trump is impeached by the Democratic-controlled House but remains in office due to the Senate’s refusal to convict him.

He says that Johnson, denied the presidential nomination by his Democratic Party in 1868, “became even more aggressive” as a lame duck, for example issuing a blanket amnesty to all former Confederates, including ex-President Jefferson Davis, in December 1868. In March 1869, Johnson refused to attend the inauguration of his successor, Ulysses S. Grant, after Grant refused to share a carriage with him en route to the ceremony.

Posted in Misc | 2 Comments

HOW ABOUT AN AFTERNOON POLITICAL CARTOON?

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment