July Fourth Illustrated

Barry's Legacy - Racial Healing

“There is a certain irony to our historical moment:”

HOW’S THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKING OUT FOR YOU?
Shot: Pillars of Black Media, Once Vibrant, Now Fighting for Survival.
Chaser: NBC Falls To Fifth Place — Behind Univision — During February Sweeps.
Yes that second link is from 2013, but it illustrates a rapidly changing America. As Kevin Williamson noted earlier this year,“There is a certain irony to our historical moment:”

At the very moment when a black American family has reached the apex of American social life — the presidency, and a cute movie about their first date! — African Americans are as a group experiencing a stressful disorientation: The racial dynamic in the United States was, for many years, effectively binary. Not any more. In an increasingly multiracial society whose most prestigious institutions are truly global, African Americans are no longer the moral yardstick by which the American commitment to our liberal founding ideals is measured. In 30 years, it very well may be the case that African Americans are no more of a significant interest group than Vietnamese Americans or Norwegian Americans, and the social and economic success of Nigerian American immigrant families, among others, complicates the meaning of “African American” as a concept, in that these communities are likely to maintain a certain distinctiveness that renders “black” devoid of clear meaning.
That is a big, attractive lever for the Al Sharptons of the world to let go of, which is why we’ll see more #BlackLivesMatter and #OscarsSoWhite rather than less, even as the question becomes less significant nationally.

As Glenn noted yesterday in regards to Charlie Rangel’s seat, “As In Chicago, Hispanics Are Replacing Blacks As The Urban Power…If the GOP were smart (ha, ha, yeah, I know) there would be big opportunities here.”

10Posted at 7:14 am by Ed Drisco

Obama Gives Up on Syria. Again:

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE UPDATE: Obama Gives Up on Syria. Again:

This deal might be a way for the president to slink out of the White House without having to do more to resolve the Syrian crisis. But it is also a horribly fitting end to years of mistakes and cowardice. When the history of the Syrian civil war is written, there will be plenty of villains and plenty of blame to go around. But by choosing cowardice and placing his trust in Putin, President Obama has earned his share of infamy and then some.

As with those who’ve tried to salvage the wreckage of the Carter administration, in the coming years, the spin from leftwing historians to explain away Obama’s disasters as some sort of ninth-dimensional chess playing will be spectacular to watch.
Related: “We can be overwhelmed by the present. At the time I thought Bill Clinton was an extraordinarily bad man, but Barack Obama has helped me understand how good we had it with Bill Clinton. Not to say that Clinton isn’t the most repugnant, but we now have a larger context within which to judge him. Perhaps Hillary Clinton will lend a similar context to our judgment of Obama. Ah, the uses of history,” Scott Johnson writes at Power Line.

7Posted at 8:14 am by Ed Driscoll 

Government in Our Schools - GET OUT

WHEN THE EDUCATION APPARAT IS JUST A POLITICAL ARM OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, THIS IS WHAT YOU GET:Washington state schools seek to create safe spaces from Donald Trump.

Officials at Washington state’s K-12 schools received an email last month suggesting they create “safe places” for their students because of 2016 political rhetoric, specifically from presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.
The email, sent June 16 from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, opened with a mention of the “Trump Effect” and a link to the “phenomenon.”
“Regardless of one’s politics, the impact of this year’s political rhetoric on K12 schools is huge,” the email, which was provided to the Washington Examiner, said. “It has produced increasing levels of fear and anxiety among students of all ages.”
The email goes on to claim that “Fear levels are becoming especially high among ethnic, racial and linguistic minority and LGBTQ youth.”
The email insists that “Perception is reality.”

Regardless of one’s politics. That’s rich.

34

WH - Bill & LorettaAT WENT DOWN ON THE TARMAC?

POSTED ON JULY 1, 2016 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN BILL CLINTON, GANGSTER GOVERNMENT,HILLARY CLINTON

WHAT WENT DOWN ON THE TARMAC?

What the hell was Bill Clinton thinking in springing a “spontaneous” visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix airport? He’s way too smart to know that the visit wouldn’t be explosive if revealed. There is reporting out this afternoon from The Observerthat Clinton delayed his departure from Phoenix so that he could meet Lynch, and that he caught Lynch by surprise. The first part of this is entirely believable; the second part is more difficult to believe, but not impossible. More difficult to believe is Clinton’s cover story that he was in Phoenix to play golf, as it was nearly 110 degrees there that day. As The Observer story makes clear, he would easily have gained advance word of Lynch’s itinerary from his own security detail, which is plugged into the security plans for other senior government officials as a matter of standard operating procedure. From there it was a simple matter of reserving a tee time to arrange a “coincidental” meeting.

Clinton may have thought the meeting could have been kept secret (it was apparently exposed by a local TV crew that just happened to be at the airport, but this sounds incomplete to me), but he’s too smart not to have known that news would likely leak out somehow. You have to surmise that it was sufficiently important for Clinton to get a few minutes with Lynch to take the risk. What could have been that important?

There are more theories than the number of Bill’s girlfriends. Maybe he was offering her the blandishment of a Supreme Court appointment in a Hillary Administration, or a nice well paying position with the Clinton Foundation. I’ve thought for a while that the FBI might recommend indicting several of Hillary’s underlings, who can be easily pardoned after the election, while making Hillary a Nixonian “un-indicted co-conspirator.” Perhaps Lynch wanted to tell this or something else directly to the Clintons, but couldn’t risk a logged phone call or even personal email. Maybe Bill was offering a deal whereby Hillary drops out for “health reasons”(which may well be genuine) if she quashes an indictment. I hear Joe Biden is out on the “campaign trail” today, whatever that means.

Another possible theory is that Bill wanted Lynch to be compromised such that she had to announce today that she’ll follow the FBI recommendation, as an indirect way of putting more pressure on FBI director Comey. Comey is reputed to be a straight shooter, but surely even he can’t be immune to the political ramifications of recommending an indictment of the First Woman Nominee. Now it’s all on him; he can’t pass the buck on to Lynch and the Justice Department.

Whatever the truth of the matter, it can’t be good. This is standard operating procedure for the Clintons.

Incidentally, apparently Lynch does not have any grandchildren. So thirty minutes to talk about Bill’s solitary two grandkids?

The imploding cabal to criminalize climate dissent

By Adam Brodsky

June 30, 2016 | 8:52pm

Modal Trigger 

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and his fellow greenies are getting a lesson about the dangers of believing their own propaganda.

These know-it-alls claim there’s a “consensus” on climate change and what to do about it. And they believe that consensus is so broad that even prosecuting dissent would be a slam dunk. Claude Walker’s monumental crash-and-burn this week blew up that theory. Schneiderman and his ideological pals, from Al Gore to Hillary Clinton, would be wise to take note.

Walker is the attorney general for the US Virgin Islands who launched a ludicrous racketeering probe of ExxonMobil and sent sweeping subpoenas to the company and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Ostensibly, his suspicion, like that of a similar probe by Schneiderman, was that Exxon fraudulently downplayed climate change’s dangers to the public and its investors.

But Walker sought Exxon’s correspondence with some 90 groups suspected of the “crime” of questioning climate-change orthodoxy. The obvious point was to make these groups think twice about the findings their research produces and their positions on the issue. It was also meant to scare off donors, like Exxon.

Yet Wednesday, Walker withdrew his Exxon subpoena. He’d already taken back his order to CEI.

So his probe, it seems, is kaput.

Walker & Co. miscalculated. Schneiderman launched his investigation in November. In March, he held a presser with attorneys general from nearly 20 other states, promising a cooperative effort against Exxon. Al Gore even appeared.

Yet only a few AGs actually launched probes and issued subpoenas. Massachusetts AG Maura Healey this week delayed her own subpoena of Exxon. Schneiderman is quickly becoming odd man out.

No surprise: The climate-change “consensus” isn’t as widespread as greenies claim.

Indeed, the claim itself is just another attempt to silence debate. The science is settled, they say. Anyone who disagrees must be a kook, a “denier.”

Schneiderman’s move and the March presser may have won plaudits from the radicals, who hope to end use of all fossil fuel. But it also drew outrage from First Amendment champions and those who saw the probes as an abuse of office.

Lawmakers like House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) questioned the actions of the AGs. Exxon counter-sued.

And this month, attorneys general from 13 other states bashed their counterparts’ gambit as a “grave mistake.” They made clear the hypocrisy and political motives of attacking Exxon: Schneiderman & Co. claim the firm may have fraudulently minimized climate-change risks. But what about, say, renewable-energy companies that might be exaggerating them?

If temperatures rise more slowly than expected (or not at all), they write, “many ‘clean energy’ companies may become less valuable and some may be altogether worthless.” Why aren’t Schneiderman & Co., who claim to be looking out for the public and investors, subpoenaing them?

If Exxon was wrong to fund researchers who “understate” climate risks, the attorneys asked, what about all the money going to those overstating it? “Does anyone doubt that ‘clean energy’ companies have funded nonprofits who exaggerated the risk?”

The Schneiderman gang targeted Exxon and fossil-fuel companies for a reason, and it’s not to protect investors. They see political hay here. They truly (or cynically) believe slamming these companies — and anyone who fails to toe the radicals’ line — will draw overwhelming support. (And campaign cash.)

Sure, states like New York (one of just a few places in America where fracking is banned) may applaud Schneiderman. But Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds, a law professor, also notes some ironic potential costs to the attack: Under federal law, he writes, it’s a felony “for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person . . . in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.”

The right to free speech is secured by the Constitution, even when it comes to climate change. Conspiring to deprive non-believers of that right certainly sounds like it meets the law’s definition.

Inspired by the 1990s victory against tobacco companies, the Schneiderman cabal thought it could score big-time by threatening a RICO case against fossil-fuel companies. How fitting if the same threat brings them to heel.