The Mika meltdown
It would be an understatement to say that the east coast elitist media did not take the results of the 2016 election very well. They have turned a morning-after political hangover into a relentless crusade against everything and everybody remotely associated with President Trump or his policies. However, no news host, no reporter, no partisan panelist can surpass MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski in her Camille-like on-screen emotional breakdowns. It is an Oscar-worthy performance.
Having taken her lap puppy lover, Joe Scarborough, to left-wing obedience school, Brzezinski has assumed the lead in setting the never ending nauseous narrative on Morning Joe – a program that should be relabeled Mourning Mika. In a state-of-the-art example of unbridled arrogance, she constantly offers up her unqualified opinion that Trump is literally insane – a diagnosis that receives a round of supportive second opinions from the cabal of equally unqualified bobble-headed panelists – Brzezinski herself seems to manifest symptoms of clinical hysteria with a touch of paranoia. (Apologies for my unprofessional medical diagnosis. I fear I succumbed to the fashion of the day.)
In many ways, she is the poster child for the problem of the liberal New York City elitist media culture. She seems unable to understand or respect those who are unwilling to take up her depressingly dark view of current events. She seems inflicted with a particularly virulent strain of the liberal virus that demonizes – and now diagnoses – disagreement.
If Roy Moore wins the Senate seat in Alabama, Brzezinski may need a straightjacket.
The effort to ban the ban is floundering
For months, the Democrats and allies in the press have been usurping the role of the United States Supreme Court in declaring President Trumps temporary halt of immigration from countries with poor vetting or no vetting at all — as in the case of Syria. They claim it is an unconstitutional religious ban even though it does not ban most Muslims. But why let facts interfere with good narrative?
The Supreme Court has now spoken on the issue – at least on the preliminaries. The Court decided against the Democrat requested injunction to ban the Executive Order until the case can be fully decided on its merits.
Those never Trumpers who see this as only a temporary setback are pinning their hopes on the final decision in the case. There is one detail that they are not considering seriously enough and the press has chosen not to report or analyze sufficiently. Is that because it tends to sever the last threads of hope to which the left clings so precariously?
The missing detail in much of the reporting is the fact that the vote in favor of Trump was 7 to 2. That’s right. This was not a split between the liberals and conservatives on the bench. It was a “yuge” win for the President – and strongly suggests that the Court believes the entire ban is within the constitutional powers of a president.
Teenagers are not children
One aspect of the criticism of Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore that makes me wince is the constant reference to the accusers as children at the time. I understand that the word is used to make the alleged actions by Moore seem even more dastardly, but that is not an honest justification.
As a teenager, myself (long ago), and a guy who has fathered six young people through those volatile teen years (not so long ago), I do not now believe, nor have I ever believed that a teenager is a child. I do not believe that a younger teenager is a full adult either, but they are closer to that than to the innocence and vulnerabilities of childhood. One past milestone on the road to adulthood was called “the age of reason” at which time humans could distinguish right from wrong. That was usually around the age of 7.
Having been a senior consultant to the Chicago and Detroit school boards, I can tell you that teenagers tend to be sexually active starting in Middle School and obviously more so in high school. This is especially true if you consider fondling, French kissing and clothed genital contact as sex – which seems to be the standard of the day. By the time the diploma is presented, most teens have experienced such sexual contact.
That brings to my mind those good old days when President Clinton tried to convince the nation that oral gratification (not talking kissing here) was not sex. And now a kiss on the lips is tantamount to rape in the eyes of those newly minted left-wing Puritans.
In terms of full blown (no pun intended) sexual penetration, fewer and fewer women and men come out of high school as virgins. In fact, pregnancies and births among high school women are no longer a rarity.
That raises questions about the age of consent. Obviously, a lot of young ladies in their teens are already consenting. Furthermore, there is no legal consistency in that age of sexual consent. Most Americans assume it is at 18 years old when those teenagers are officially recognized as contract signing, military serving, drinking, driving (not at the same time) and smoking adults.
The history of sexual consent is horrifying by today’s standards. As late as the late 1800s, the general age of consent in America was as low as 10 years old – and the good folks of Connecticut set that age at … get ready to be shocked … at 7. Maybe it was that age of reason thing.
The current age of general consent in America is 12, with sexual consent limited — not banned – up to 18. This means that it is not always a crime to have sex with a girl between 12 and 18. (I am not endorsing, just saying.) About one-third of the states have the age of consent at 18, another third at 17 and the final third at 16 – which incidentally includes Alabama.
Consensual sex with girls between 12 and 18 is generally not illegal if the guy is within what the law imprecisely refers to as “reasonably close” in age. In my teenage dating days, I had known girls who had their first sexual experience at 14, 15 and 16 – unfortunately, or fortunately, not with me.
Whatever you think of the laws or the actual sexual conduct of teenagers in our post-1960s sex revolution culture, teenagers are not children.
While we are on the subject, when does a polite kiss become harassment?
One of Donald Trump’s accusers, Rachel Crooks, recently appeared on CNN. She had seen Trump in Trump Tower on a number of occasions. She finally conjured up the nerve to introduce herself to The Donald at the lobby elevator. By her account, he complimented her looks and said she could be a model. (Seeing her on television, I can attest that the compliment was not idle flattery.) He kissed her on both cheeks and then planted a peck on her lips. Since she did not say he poked in his tongue, I assume it is safe to assume he did not.
From the tone, the vocabulary and expressions on the faces of Crooks and CNN’s Alisyn Camerota as interviewer, you might conclude that Trump had wrestled her to the ground and jump on top with hands roaming everywhere. But nooooo! The apparent offense was that “forced kiss” on the lips.
This is a woman who has no legal case … zippo … nada. In fact, she doesn’t even have a good moral case even though she described herself as a victim. Victim of what? This highly overblown incident happened in a public lobby after she approached Trump because she apparently wanted to meet a famous person. Putting her on the air is nothing more than an embarrassing example of the press piling on.
According to the Crooks/Camerota standard, I have been sexually harassed thousands — okay, hundreds — of times by kisses I did not solicit or permit in advance. While most were a quick connect with my cheek or lips, a few lingered. I must confess, I never objected in either case. It never even occurred to me to object. In fact, (wink) I sort of liked it. Just recently, a lady for whom I did a small favor thanked me with an uninvited kiss on the lips. Had I been an acolyte of the neo-Puritan inquisition standards, I might have had her 86-year-old butt arrested for sexual harassment.
Having grown up in Chicago, the only uninvited kiss that would bother me is one from a Mafia godfather.
This land is your land. This land is … whose land?
In the closing days of his administration, President Obama signed an Executive Order that seized control of millions of acres of land in Utah. It was rationalized as a step in preserving natural monuments. This is nothing new – and the practice goes far beyond preservation. It is just another means by the autocratic left to dismantle the federal system crafted by the Founding Fathers in favor of a unitary central government. If you think it is not a problem, just check out the map that shows how much land (in red) the several states encompass but do not own. Nevada, with 80 percent ownership by Uncle Sam, can hardly be considered a state. Millions of acres could be returned to the people of the states without trimming an inch off the national parks and monuments. President Trump has now returned a lot of that land back to the people of the states – and that is another good policy move.
Romney judging the judge
In response to President Trump’s endorsement of Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore and the Republican Nation Committee’s decision to restore funding to the Moore campaign, former Massachusetts governor and 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said the election of Moore would be a stain on the Republican Party and the United States Senate – and that no public policies, no majority in the Senate, is worth it.
In making that statement, Romney reveals himself as the consummate politician without any philosophic rudder. Maybe it’s a good political move for a guy who will be a likely candidate for senator from his religious (Mormon) home state of Utah, as opposed to his childhood home state of Michigan and his political home state of Massachusetts. Only a political pragmatist would put aside the all-important policy issues in favor of political imagery. As pointed out in my previous commentary, there are ample reasons for people of conscience and moral character to vote for Moore, as controversial and flawed as he may be based on those past allegations.
Romney joins the eastern liberal establishment in impugning the character of the many voters in Alabama who will cast their ballots for Moore – win or lose. He sees the election of Moore, if that is the case, as an issue to be handled by the Washington establishment regardless of the manifest will of the voters. That is not how a democratic republic works.
He also seems to be forgetting the past votes of the people of Massachusetts, who repeatedly reelected Ted Kennedy, Gerry Studds and Barney Frank – all of whom were involved in sex scandals of one sort or another. Each of them completed their political careers to the lavish praise of their Democrat colleagues and the fawning eastern press. Did their reelections reflect badly on the moral character of the people of Massachusetts? Hmmmmm … now that I think about it.
Echoing Romney’s pompous chest puffing is Jonathon Alter, from the appropriately named Daily Beast. He claims that if Roy Moore wins the Alabama Senate race, the Republican Party is a bunch of child molesters. This is how deranged these folks have become. Any time a major portion — maybe even a majority — of the public refuses to go along with their hateful strategies and objectives, they become more irrational.
In terms of Mitt, it is probably a meaningless irony that his niece, Ronna Romney McDaniel, is the head of the Republican National Committee that just restored funding to Moore – but I thought I would mention it anyway. I would say they are strange bedfellows, but some might see that as having incestuous undertones considering the current political climate. Regardless, methinks someone in the Romney family is going to wind up with coal in their Christmas stocking.