General Flynn Seeks Immunity: What Does It Mean?

General Flynn Seeks Immunity: What Does It Mean? by John Hinderaker.

The Democratic Party press is salivating at the Wall St. Journal’s report that General Michael Flynn’s lawyers are in discussions with Congressional committees investigating the criminal leaking of alleged information about Flynn by Obama administration holdovers in the intelligence agencies or the White House. The word is that Flynn has offered to testify in return for immunity. Is this a blockbuster story? Likely not.

This is from a statement issued by Flynn’s lawyers at Covington & Burling, one of Washington’s top firms:

General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit. …

Notwithstanding his life of national service, the media are awash with unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him. He is now the target of unsubstantiated public demands by Members of Congress and other political critics that he be criminally investigated. No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.

Hinderaker again:

I agree with that. If Flynn were paying me for advice, I would tell him to bargain for immunity and then let the Democrats have it with both barrels. Time will tell, but the fact that Flynn wants immunity, in the present crazed environment, tells us nothing about whether he actually has anything to hide.

On Mocking Dying Working Class White People

On Mocking Dying Working Class White People, by Matt Stoller.

I’m just going to cut and paste comments from this story at the Huffington Post on white working class people dying of despair. Keep in mind, the suicide, alcohol, and drug abuse is causing deaths at the level of the AIDS epidemic at its height. This sentiment is common, I just picked comments from one thread on one article.

“Sorry, not sorry. These people are not worthy of any sympathy. They have run around for decades bitching about poor minorities not “working hard enough,” or that their situation is “their own fault.” Well guess what? It’s not so great when it’s you now, is it? Bunch of deplorables, and if they die quicker than the rest of us that just means the country will be better off in the long run.”

“Is it bad news or good news? Middle aged undereducated white Americans are Donald Trump’s base. They brought us this clown and ensuing insanity. It’s bad news they are dying off if you happen to love one of them or are one of them. But, it’s the welcome news of hope that without that demographic dwindling and eventually gone, our chances of another Trump are significantly less. Now that’s good news.”

“maybe they should takt the advice they used to give minorities, take responsibilty and pull up your boot straps,only when it’s your boot straps you find it’s not so easy as a sound byte.”

“Hey as long as those white people keep voting republican they will continue to die off….. How stupid could you be….”

“I for one have little sympathy for these despairing whites. If they can’t compete against people of color when everything has been rigged in their favor, then there’s really no help for them. Trump and his G(r)OPers will do little to elevate their lot. If anything, these poor whites will be hired to dig grave pits and assemble their own coffins.”

“They have every know advantage in America; culturally, environmentally, educationally, etc. There is absolutely no reason that they should be in such despair. They should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.”

“Those numbers ain’t even real. They are made up by the white supremacist power structure to make the over privileged oppressors look like some kind of victim. It’s sick, and disgusting. It’s the same kind of crap they do with crime statistics. They try to make us, POC, the victims of white hate and oppression for centuries. Look like the criminal minded victimizers and the racist white power structure {ie the white population from top to bottom, upper, middle and lower class alike} look like victims.”

Loyalty Oaths Return with Faculty “Diversity Statements”

Loyalty Oaths Return with Faculty “Diversity Statements”, by George Leef.

One of the worst features of America in the 1940s and 50s was the persistent demand for national loyalty oaths. In those days, people were expected to declare their support for the U.S. and if they didn’t, they could be blackballed, expelled, or otherwise punished.

The ideological fervor for conformity abated for decades, but has recently returned on our college campuses in the form of mandatory “diversity statements” by faculty members and especially prospective faculty members. The difference is that instead of having to pledge adherence to America in its battle with communism, the new pledge is adherence to the “diversity” agenda in its battle against a color-blind, merit-driven academia. …

How it’s used to prevent non-leftists gaining entry to academia:

Traditionally, faculty candidates have been evaluated on the basis of four documents: a cover letter, their curriculum vitae, research statement, and teaching statement. Now, a fifth document is being added — a statement in which the individual expresses his or her commitment to “diversity.” That is, how important it is to the individual, how he or she acts to further diversity, and so on.

This is not merely idle curiosity, of course. The diversity statement has a purpose. That purpose, writes the paper’s author, Professor Bruce Gilley of Portland State University, is to weed out non-leftist scholars.

At many universities, he explains, there is an unspoken ideology that “emphasizes group identity, an assumption of group victimization, and a claim for group based entitlements.” On the other hand, “Classical liberal approaches that emphasize the pluralism of a free society, the universalism of human experience, and the importance of equality before the law have been regarded as invalid.

Obama’s bumbling, grasping, leaking aides are responsible for the Russian fiasco

Obama’s bumbling, grasping, leaking aides are responsible for the Russian fiasco, by George Neumayer.

The incompetence of the Obama administration was only exceeded by its arrogance, a toxic mix that led his aides to spy on the Trump campaign, leak to the press about a “multi-agency” investigation into bogus Trump-Russia ties, then whine about the unwelcome exposure Trump (and now Devin Nunes) drew to their antics.

The only known crimes in this unfolding fiasco are the ones they committed, namely, criminal leaks that they fed to reporters desperate to discredit Trump. It is impossible to overstate the audacity of the Obama aides’ partisan squealing in this matter. It is akin to a group of prisoners demanding that the warden be locked up. …

The New York Times placidly reported all of this activity, which makes its fury at Devin Nunes all the more bogus. He simply ratified what it had already reported. How dare he say disapprovingly what we have already said approvingly! That’s all its bleating about him comes down to. …

What has come out of all this snooping? No evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia, as even Obama aides James Clapper and Mike Morrell have conceded. But it is yielding plenty of evidence of criminal collusion between the Obama administration and the media.

Only the chattering class would have the Orwellian gall to shift the scandal from the Obama administration investigating a political opponent and inflicting damage on him through criminal leaks to the Republicans’ exposure of that devious gambit.

Powerful men regularly avoid one-on-one meetings with women, to protect their families. Women’s progress suffers..

Powerful men regularly avoid one-on-one meetings with women, to protect their families. Women’s progress suffers. By Olga Khazan.

In 2002, Mike Pence told The Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either. …

The Pences are evangelical Christians, and their faith animates both their policy views and how they express devotion to one another. …

But, especially in boozy, late-working Washington, the eating thing rankled. Sure, during the day, you can grab coffee instead of a sandwich. But no dinner? Doesn’t that cut an entire gender off from a very powerful person at roughly 8 p.m.? To career-obsessed Washingtonians, that’s practically happy hour — which, apparently, is off-limits too.

Pence is not the only powerful man in Washington who goes to great lengths to avoid the appearance of impropriety with the opposite sex. An anonymous survey of female Capitol Hill staffers conducted by National Journal in 2015 found that “several female aides reported that they have been barred from staffing their male bosses at evening events, driving alone with their congressman or senator, or even sitting down one-on-one in his office for fear that others would get the wrong impression.”

One told the reporter Sarah Mimms that in 12 years working for her previous boss, he “never took a closed door meeting with me. … This made sensitive and strategic discussions extremely difficult.”

Social-science research shows this practice extends beyond politics and into the business world, and it can hold women back from key advancement opportunities. …

Hewlett’s surveys, interviews, and focus groups found that 64 percent of executive men are reluctant to have one-on-one meetings with junior women, and half of junior women avoid those meetings in turn. Perhaps as a result, 31 percent of women in her sample felt senior men weren’t willing to “spend their chips” on younger women in office political battles. What’s more, “30 percent of them noted that the sexual tension intrinsic to any one-on-one relationship with men made male sponsorship too difficult to be productive.”

Comments Glenn Reynolds:

So you drastically expand the definition of “sexual harassment,” and then promote an ethic that says that all accusations must be believed, and then you’re shocked that workplace men don’t want to hang out with women? How stupid are you?

Australian Government and the Internet: Internet speeds slowed after NBN ‘blackmail’

Australian Government and the Internet: Internet speeds slowed after NBN ‘blackmail’, by Anthony Klan.

Consumers are having their internet speeds slashed under the $40 billion-plus National Broadband Network as Telstra and Optus are forced to withdraw their direct services from areas covered by the rollout.

Telstra and Optus operate hybrid fibre coaxial networks which deliver speeds of up to 140 megabits per second, but under Rudd government legislation they must withdraw from offering those services within 18 months of the NBN being made available in an area.

However, in many cases NBN connections are delivering just a fraction of the speeds promised and consumers are being forced from reliable, fast connect­ions on to slower, less stable NBN services.

Nino Iaccarino, of Ferny Grove in Brisbane, had a Telstra HFC 30Mbps plan that consistently deliv­ered the promised speed. “I was on Telstra cable and I never had a problem with my download speeds — it was a solid 30Mbps all the time,” he said yesterday.

However, on switching to the NBN, with the service provided by MyRepublic, paying for a package spruiking download speeds of 100Mbps, his internet speeds have dropped to as low as 1.41Mbps. …

Turning off existing services that are faster than NBN, by law:

Telstra and Optus cannot use the HFC networks directly within 18 months of NBN connect­ions passing through an area. That means customers are forced off their Telstra and Optus HFC networks and required to sign up with the NBN over the same networks.

NBN Co provides the service wholesale, with more than 140 retailer­s selling NBN internet packages to customers. As reported by The Australian this week, congestion issues, exacer­bated by a failure of some retailers to buy adequate band­width from NBN Co, has meant some users getting speeds at a fraction of what they pay for.

A customer paying Telstra for a package spruiking download speeds of 100Mbps has had speeds at peak times of just 0.2Mbps.

Beware the barge of bullies trumpeting diversity

Beware the barge of bullies trumpeting diversity, by Glenn Davies, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney.

There is only one upside from the recent attacks and unprecedented abuse directed at an academic and the directors of Christian organisations: people are beginning to wake up and take notice. They are starting to understand that the campaign for same-sex marriage is not sailing on a raft of rainbows but on a barge of bullies. …

At the beginning, the promise seemed to be innocent enough — change one word in the marriage legislation and there would be equality for all. Now, as people start to digest the magnitude of such a social change and the ramifications that would follow for families and the rest of the community when marriage is cut adrift from the significance of gender distinctiveness (the Safe Schools Coalition program is only one of these side effects), other voices are starting to speak up.

But, just as quickly, they are shut down in the name of diversity. I was one of the Christian leaders who convened a meeting of church leaders in Sydney last year, to be held at the Mercure Hotel. No sooner had we set the venue than staff were subjected to an ugly campaign of harassment and threats.

For the safety of staff and guests, the hotel cancelled the booking. Were we not harangued by political leaders opposed to a plebiscite on same-sex marriage, that such a debate would incite hate speech from those defending the traditional definition of marriage? Yet this has not happened. On the contrary, it is those who have been frustrated by the government’s determination to adhere to its election policy to allow the citizens to have their say who have taken the opportunity to harangue, marginalise and ostracise those who do not support a society where gender is interchangeable.

A case in point:

Catholic Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous was taken to the brink in Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Tribunal for espousing views on marriage that accord with Australian law, let alone being the view of his church, as well as all churches and that which civilisations have held for millennia. The avant-garde opponents of these time-honoured mores had hoped to silence him.

What kind of a society calls someone before a tribunal because they are defending the law of the land? What kind of state legislation allows such a travesty of justice to occur? Has our society been that deprived of common sense and love of freedom that a carefully ­articulated defence of commonwealth legislation can be deemed offensive merely because someone wants the law changed and is offended because their views are at odds with the current law? …

The real phobia of the bullies: they are not all that popular.

The real fear on this issue is not “homophobia”, which has become a slur against those who hold a different view from this regressive minority, but “plebiphobia”, fear of the people: the fear that a popular vote may be lost. …

Just a quick look through the diversity policies of the companies that wrote to the Prime Minister on same-sex marriage recently shows focus on gender, cultural background, disability and sexual orientation. Spot the gap: faith.

UK takes back the right to deport as Britain repeals powers from EU

UK takes back the right to deport as Britain repeals powers from EU, by Gordon Raynor.

Britain has begun to take back control from Brussels as David Davis announced that the first EU law to be scrapped after Brexit will be a charter that helps criminals avoid deportation.

Revealing details of the forthcoming Great Repeal Bill, Mr Davis told MPs that the controversial EU Charter of Fundamental Rights will be dropped on the day Britain leaves Europe.

MPs cheered in the House of Commons as the Brexit Secretary told them Britain would be regaining the sovereignty it last enjoyed in 1972.

He said: “A strong, independent country needs control of its own laws. That process starts now.”

UK Police SOUGHT OUT ‘Islamophobia’ Reports to Claim Rise After Westminster Attack

UK Police SOUGHT OUT ‘Islamophobia’ Reports to Claim Rise After Westminster Attack, by Jack Montgomery.

The “slight uplift” in Islamophobia following the Westminster terror attack may be attributable to the authorities actively encouraging Muslims to come forward with allegations following so-called “trigger events”.

Acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner Craig Mackey said there was a “slight uplift” in so-called “Islamophobic incidents” following the attack, although he confessed the increase was “small, and far smaller than we have seen in previous events”. …

The statement also revealed the sheer scale of the Met’s efforts to boost hate crime recordings – in line with official government policy – with some 900 specialists now … dedicated to investigating all hate crime. …

  • Wednesday (day of incident): 2 Islamophobic incidents
  • Thursday: 10 Islamophobic incidents
  • Friday: 11 Islamophobic incidents
  • Saturday: 5 Islamophobic incidents
  • Sunday: 8 Islamophobic incidents
  • Monday: 3 Islamophobic incidents

[The] incident log does not describe actual recorded crimes, but only hate crime allegations. These are recorded as “incidents” regardless of whether or not the reports can be substantiated. …

Breitbart London asked New Scotland Yard if any of the incidents they logged following the Westminster attack actually resulted in charges, but they declined to say without a formal Freedom of Information request – which authorities do not have to respond to for twenty days. …

In June 2016, Essex police force Assistant Chief Constable Maurice Mason admitted that some of the “hate crimes” reported following the Brexit vote included “members of the public complaining about Nigel Farage, or whatever … [But] if the person feels it’s a hate crime it will get recorded as a hate crime”.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Australian MP Wants to Make It Illegal to Cause Religious Offence to Muslims

Australian MP Wants to Make It Illegal to Cause Religious Offence to Muslims, by Kieran Corcoran.

An Australian MP has called for tougher speech laws so that it is illegal to offend Muslims because of their religion.

Anne Aly, Australia’s first female Muslim MP, said that race discrimination laws should be expanded to cover insults based on religion as well.

Anne Aly, now 50, is a federal Labor MP from WA. Born in Egypt, she came to Australia when 2 years old. Aly graduated from the American University in Cairo in 1990 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English Literature, with a minor in Acting. In 2008 at 41 she earned a PhD at Edith Cowan University in Perth, with a thesis entitled “Audience Responses to the Media Discourse on Terrorism: The Fear of Terrorism”. In 2015 she became a Professor at Edith Cowan.

[In the debate over 18C] Aly proposes doing the opposite – keeping the lower standard for the law, and adding “religion” to the current list of “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”.

Speaking to The Australian, she said: “I find it a little bit strange that someone can call you a ‘dirty Arab’ and that be covered under the bill, but if they called you a dirty Muslim you’re not covered.”

Comments Robert Spencer:

Anne Aly has for years been an Islamic supremacist foe of free discourse. In August 2014 I wrote here about her false claims that Islam doesn’t sanction beheading and grants equality of rights to women. Instead of responding on substance, which I understand that she could not really do since I had produced numerous Qur’an verses that rather directly showed her to be lying. So instead she claimed that she had received “hate mail” from Jihad Watch readers; six months later that claim had morphed into death threats. Predictably, that became the story, as dubious as her claims were, not her deceptions.

Now, if she gets her way in Australia, she could just have me arrested — not for the alleged hate mail or death threats, but for my initial post exposing her deceptions. This proposed law clearly would establish Muslims as a protected class, beyond all criticism, which would have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed.

Labor Party website on Anne Aly, the Member for Cowan. Here is their web page text in its entirety. Check out the spin, especially what gets omitted:

Before becoming the Member for Cowan, Dr Anne Aly was a Professor at Edith Cowan University.

Anne is an internationally renowned expert in counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation. Anne is committed to working with all levels of government to make our families and communities safe.

Anne was the only Australian to be invited to President Obama’s White House conference on violent extremism in 2015. She has worked with the United Nations on developing programs and policies on national security and counter-terrorism.

Anne moved to Australia when she was two years old. Her mum was a nurse and her dad an engineer, but they both worked in factories in Australia.

Anne was a single working mother of two young boys. She knows we all want our schools and hospitals to be the best in the world. Anne believes every child should be given the same chance to succeed as any other child in Australia and every person deserves access to quality healthcare.

Anne worked for years on the minimum wage to send her two boys to school and put food on the table. She knows how important secure, well-paying jobs are. That’s why Anne supports Labor’s plan for jobs in WA, protecting penalty rates and fibre-to-the-premise NBN to foster innovation.

Anne has a diverse background that spans education and training, public policy and community work.

Anne is the Founding Chair of a youth oriented not for profit organisation that harnesses youth entrepreneurship and innovation to address global issues at the local level. Anne has seen first hand how Mr Turnbull and the Liberals’ cuts have hurt our health and education system. She knows Western Australia needs Labor’s plan to create and keep jobs in WA.

hat-tip Stephen Neil, Scott of the Pacific