Patriot Philip Haney (see “Obama’s Eyes Were Dry When Nixing DHS Program”)—dismissed by Barack Obama from the Department of Homeland Security, and nowhere to be found in the Trump Administration—was on the Sean Hannity show (radio is always more informative). There he spoke about certain identifiers gleaned from pictures of the Westminster attacker. These gave Haney some ideas about the perp. Haney was careful to warn that these profiling impressions were preliminary, a starting point:
The configuration of facial hair would seem to indicate the murderer of three, including of a police officer, might be a Salafi Muslim. The body, said Haney, would indicate the murderer was likely a local lad, as Fake News would say. The Investigation Discovery addict in me would guess that Haney means the Wheat Belly on the (thankfully) dead Asian man.
No wonder Haney was given the boot by well-wisher of Islam Mr. Obama. Haney’s methods are effective because politically incorrect. You have to be effective. Otherwise you’re just decoration (like Ivanka in the White House. Sorry, but that situation is WRONG. We’d say the same if Hillary was POTUS and Chelsea got a White House office.)
Patriot (without a doubt):
Of course Theresa May is “unafraid.”
Cut out the Churchillian act, Pier Morgan:
Tommy Robinson, now there’s a hero.
Sadiq Khan should be afraid but he’s brazen, striking fear in Londoners.
The Big Lies:
I have no idea why media are emphasizing that a review 650,000 new emails in eight days, promised by FBI chief James Comey, was an impossible feat. Or that the emails found on Anthony Weiner’s PC were mere duplicates.
FBI chief James Comey told leaders in Congress hours earlier that a review of 650,000 emails discovered on a laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner had reinforced his July 5 decision to let her off the hook.
The new emails — on the computer of Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of Mrs. Clinton’s close aide Huma Abedin — contain nothing except personal messages and duplicates of emails that had already been reviewed, investigators found.
Doesn’t Clinton’s criminality—and the whole point of the investigation—lie in the fact that Hillary Clinton and her aides spread work-related correspondence all over the show, including to pervert Weiner’s computer?
That’s The Scandal.
Furthermore, while I’m no conspiracy theorist, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and President Barack Obama are said to have maintained confidence in Comey and his ability to run the FBI. Both Obama and Lynch were too cool for comfort about the Comey bombshell of October 28.
If only Ann Coulter would take him on and finish him off. In mannerism and pomposity, the insipid effete Charles Cooke is National Review’s Piers Morgan of the Right. These newer, washed-out British imports are nothing like the brilliant Christopher Hitchens. In fact, a Hitchens witticism nicely encapsulates the enterprise of the Cooke Republicans: “What is original is not true and what is true is not original.”
The few essays of Cooke I’ve read sport a sort of crass pragmatism. Perhaps it has to do with the impetus of his expertise: “British liberty,” and “American exceptionalism,” the latter being the hobby horse—really the Trojan Horse—of neoconservatives. As to British liberties: Our learned friend, Paul Gottfried, intimated, in Conservatism in American, that English prescriptive liberties are not exactly an American thing.
Note below Cooke’s silly psychologizing, connoted in Kelly’s tweet. Silly, since it is quite possible that Donald Trump is a natural strongman. Trump seems as authentic in his macho man persona as Charles Cooke is in his girly mannerism.
Progressives are evil, immoral; as clueless as the pope in their arrogant ignorance of the American political system and the role of government in the American federal scheme.
But one has to be a special kind of stupid to lose the moral high ground to the 500,000 dollars-a-year babe (Cecile Richards) and her congressional harpies, who plump for public funding for Planned Parenthood.
THAT Republicans certainly are. (I say this as a libertarian who doesn’t see how, in a free world, one can agitate for the arrest of a woman for what she does with her property: her body and all that’s in it. I do, however, see a clear and logical way to argue the outlaw of late-term abortion. The reasoning I’ll share in a new book.)
Progressives are gloating: “The GOP still has nothing to show for its anti-Planned Parenthood campaign.”
UPDATE: What I mean by outlawing” late-term abortion is arguing convincingly—well, almost convincingly, since it’s pretty hard—against the practice of late-term abortion based on libertarian reasoning. Libertarian law turns on private property rights and the non-aggression axiom. You cannot initiate aggression against a non-aggressor. To aggress against a woman for what she does to her body, however much you abhor the practice, flies in the face of libertarianism.
So the challenge is arguing for that aggression in the case of a late-term child. It’s almost impossible logically, but I think it can be done. Stay tuned. In the meantime, I’m interested in hearing from religious libertarians how they’d argue for outlawing abortion. Ron Paul is anti-abortion. Not sure it works in libertarian law. But please share. Don’t bother specifying that abortion should not be funded by the state. We all agree. In fact, this is the central silliness of the Repubs; they can’t explain to silly bimbos that to defund abortion is not to ban abortion.