Mediaboss Marketing

It was inevitable that the implosion of the Biden administration would lure former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton back onto the political stage. The voters showed her the door five years ago, yet she remains unable to grasp what they were trying to tell her. The latest manifestation of this learning disability began last month with an online lecture series in which Clinton holds forth on The Power of Resilience. The series culminates with a cringeworthy reading, complete with feigned attempt to hold back tears, of the speech she purportedly prepared in anticipation of victory in 2016.

My fellow Americans, today you sent a message to the whole world. Our values endure. Our democracy stands strong. And our motto remains: e pluribus unum. Out of many, one. We will not be defined only by our differences. We will not be an us versus them country. Fundamentally, this election challenged us to decide what it means to be an American in the 21st century. And for reaching for a unity, decency, and what President Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. We met that challenge.

If this undelivered unity speech seems wildly at odds with Clintons actual behavior and rhetoric, before and after the 2016 election, it is no illusion. It is impossible to reconcile it with her infamous basket of deplorables remark, in which she characterized millions of Americans as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic. The speech is also inconsistent with her oft-repeated post-election claim that Trump was an illegitimate president. Indeed, it even fails to conform to the ostensibly benign point of her lectures, part of which she devotes to slandering Trump as a bully and a creep.

Such ad hominem cheap shots are, of course, far more characteristic of the Hillary Clinton we all know rather than the circumspect observations of a seasoned leader who has learned from her mistakes. She recently offered seemingly reasonable advice to the Democrats about avoiding a far left turn before the 2022 midterms, a clear reference to the Squad. Yet she continues to attack former President Trump based on the most absurd leftwing conspiracy theory since the Russia collusion hoax. During a recent CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria about her new novel, Clinton delivered herself of the following opinion:

I do think our democracy is under continuing assault by the former president, who masterminded a coup in the attack on our Capitol, has continued to promote the false accusation that the election of 2020 was somehow rigged. I think he poses a real clear and present danger to the United States. And having lived through that presidency, when it came time to write a political thriller with my friend and collaborator Louise Penny, of course I would draw from the reality that we all have experienced.

Never mind that the Justice Department has concluded that there was no coup to mastermind. As Reuters reported last August, The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result. Forget that not a single rioter has been prosecuted for treason or conspiracy to overthrow the government. Ignore the inconvenient fact that those who have been prosecuted were charged with such things as trespassing, disorderly conduct, and destruction of property. Yet Clinton doesnt hesitate to label Trump as the evil architect of a coup.

Many Democrats take this nonsense seriously. They believe, as Clinton maintains, that the republic will be in great peril if Trump runs again in 2024: I want people to understand that this is a make-or-break point. But they know how unpopular President Biden and Vice President Harris are with the voters. Consequently, high-profile Democratic operatives are casting about for a candidate who can defeat Trump. Douglas Schoen, an influential consultant, believes that Hillary Clinton may be the only Democrat who has any chance of defeating Trump in 2024. As he recently put it in the Orange County Register:

Democrats already have reason to be concerned about their presidential ticket in 2024. Indeed, voters are turning on the Biden presidency: Republicans lead in the 2022 generic vote for Congress; and in a hypothetical Trump-Biden rematch, 48% of voters say they would back Trump, compared with 45% for Biden. Clinton would offer Democrats a new approach that is separate from the Biden Administration. Clinton has the stature, the positions, and the record that Democrats need.

Schoen seems to have forgotten that whatever stature Clinton brings to the 2024 election, she would carry even more baggage than she lugged to the 2016 race. The heaviest load she carries is the role her campaign played in concocting the Russian collusion hoax. As Kimberly Strassel puts it in the Wall Street Journal, The Clinton campaign ultimately paid a Russian [Igor Danchenko] to gin up the core allegations against Mr. Trump. These tales ended up in the Steele Dossier that was deployed against Trump. In other words, the Russians did interfere with the 2016 election on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

This means the stench of corruption that has always enveloped Clinton and her associates will be more pungent than ever in 2024. Will this stop Hillary from running? Of course not. As former Clinton advisor Dick Morris recently phrased it, Ive always said that the way you could tell if Hillary is running again is check whether she has a pulse or not. There can be little doubt that Bidens many blunders has Clinton casting a lustful eye on the greasy pole once again, but can she reach its slimy pinnacle in 2024 carrying all those decades of baggage? Perhaps, but Trump will get there first, just as he did in 2016.

The rest is here:
Hillary Clinton: The Greasy Pole Beckons Again - The American ...

Hillary Clinton may end up in prison sometime after November 2022 as majority of the analysts in the world of politics believe, Republicans are going to win back control of the House of Representatives and the Republican lawmakers will use the opportunity to get revenge on Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton. It is also anticipated that with the US Congress going into the control of Republicans would initiate investigations in Hunter Bidens artwork scandal, which is seen by most of the political analysts as an indirect bribery channel of Joe Bidens scandalous son.

Florida Rep. Kat Cammack said, in an exclusive interview, that some Democrats could be headed to prison.

When we take the House back in the 118th, first and foremost, we are going to be focused on accountability, people need to go to jail, she said at Turning Point USAs AmericaFest in Phoenix, Arizona.

Im talking about the Hillary Clintons of the world, Im talking about the Eric Holders, Im talking about all these people who have continued to cause strife and division, break the law, subvert the Rule of Law, and they have never been held accountable, the congresswoman said.

Were going to go after the origins of COVID-19, were going to be looking at how we can earn the trust of the American people back, she said.

Because for so long, there has been two standards: one for thee, and then rules for the other people that dont have power, that arent well-connected.

She said she wants the new Congress to investigate election integrity and other issues including all of theissues weve had in years past that have gone unresolved, like Benghazi.

With Afghanistan now, thats going to be another one, she said.

She said that the plan is for Republicans to have an agenda that that everysingle Republican will be running on,campaigning on, and committing to putting that agenda forward.

And once we take the House, we roll hard on executing that plan, because the American people they deserve accountability, and they deserve action, she said. And those are the two things that were going to be giving when we take over the House.

House Minority Leader and California Rep. Kevin McCarthy also said in December that there would be payback for Democrats if Republicans get control of the House again in the 2022 midterms.

More:
Hillary Clinton may end up in prison in 2022 | Weekly Blitz

Dec. 7, 1941, isnt the only day that will live in infamy, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt eloquently put it in his historic speech to a joint session of Congress one day after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Jan. 6, 2021, as far as many Americans are concerned, was another day of infamy, a horrible day in its own right.

And one year later, we cant even agree on what to call what happened at the Capitol that day. Was it an insurrection? Domestic terrorism? Was it an attempted coup or simply a peaceful protest that got out of hand? Was it another day of infamy or much ado about very little?

What we call it depends a lot on whether were on the red team or the blue team, whether we watch Fox or CNN. We cant even agree on how the riot or insurrection or whatever we want to call it came about.

Lets compromise and simply call it what it was: a disgrace. And while were at it, lets be clear: The cast of characters who stormed the Capitol, irresponsible and thoughtless as they were, were merely playing bit parts in that pathetic show a show whose leading man was none other than Donald TrumpDonald TrumpPelosi on eve of Jan. 6: Capitol rioters 'lost' bid to stop peaceful transfer of power MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell sues Jan. 6 panel over subpoena for phone records Bipartisan Senate group holds call on elections amid reform chatter MORE, the man who also wrote the script.

For months before Jan. 6, 2021, Trump perpetuated the lie that the election was rigged. Then, for an hour he riled up his supporters with a fiery speech about the stolen election. The mob wouldnt have been there in the first place if Trump hadnt supplied them with dangerously false information.

Liberals know this and are all too happy to remind everybody about Trumps role in the fiasco that day. But too many Trump supporters even now pretend that what happened at the Capitol one year ago wasnt his fault, that it was some kind of leftist plot. This doesnt speak well for the red team.

Nothing you read from here going forward is intended to divert blame for what happened away from the bit players who stormed the Capitol, or from Trump himself. But nothing happens in a vacuum, especially when it comes to politics. Behavior especially when its partisan influences other behavior. One crazy theory often leads to another crazy theory, a political tit-for-tat.

So lets go back to November 2016. Just days after Trump was elected president, Gallup conducted a poll that found almost one in four Americans (23 percent) who voted for Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonJan. 6 is the GOP's fault line America isn't experiencing a crime wave we're suffering a crime hoax Eleven interesting races to watch in 2022 MORE did not believe Donald Trump was legitimately elected. And one week before he was sworn in, the late Congressman John LewisJohn LewisDemocrats scramble to lock down Manchin on filibuster 60 groups urge Senate Democrats to reform filibuster for voting rights The 5 most significant hits to our legal system in 2021 MORE, the civil rights icon from Georgia whose words often conveyed moral authority, was asked if he would try to establish a relationship with the president-elect. It's going to be very difficult, he said. I don't see this president-elect as a legitimate president. In 2019, Hillary Clinton told CBS News, I believe he [Trump] knows hes an illegitimate president.

Liberals would have more credibility when they attack Trump for delegitimizing elections if they werent guilty of the same crime. Maybe if more prominent liberals had accepted the fact that Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton fair and square, thered be fewer Republicans who so easily accept Trumps phony story about how Joe BidenJoe BidenPelosi on eve of Jan. 6: Capitol rioters 'lost' bid to stop peaceful transfer of power MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell sues Jan. 6 panel over subpoena for phone records Overnight Defense & National Security Nation marks 1 year since Capitol riot MORE stole the 2020 presidential election.

And while were at it, let me remind my liberal friends that while theyre condemning Trump for concocting a story about a stolen election, theyre the same ones who champion Stacey Abrams, who, to this day, insists she would have won the Georgia governors race in 2018 except that Republicans, she claims, stole the election.

As I say, one crazy theory often leads to another crazy theory, a kind of political tit-for-tat.

And now we have a poll from CBS News that chronicles how we feel about what happened one year ago on Jan. 6.

Theres good news and bad news in the poll. The good news is that a vast majority of Americans disapprove of what happened that day 83 percent. The bad news is that 17 percent which translates to millions of Americans approve of what happened at the Capitol.

Only 3 percent of Democrats strongly approve of what happened, and only 6 percent of Republicans strongly approve. Thats more good news. But while 81 percent of Democrats strongly disapprove, only 34 percent of Republicans strongly disapprove. Thats more bad news.

So what do we have to look forward to, one year later, besides more mindless partisanship? CBS News asked, In future presidential elections, what do you expect? Thirty-eight percent of respondents said that the losing side would concede peacefully but 62 percent predicted violence.

We cant agree on much anymore in the United States. Were either on the red team or the blue team. Acknowledging that the other side may have a point is considered treason in some circles. But maybe we can leave our respective teams long enough to at least acknowledge this much: that everyone who was responsible for what happened on Jan. 6, 2021, should be held accountable and that includes the former president of the United States.

Could he be indicted by a Democratic Department of Justice for inciting a riot? If he were, might he be found guilty in a Washington courtroom? Its possible, but do we really want to throw a former American president in prison for stupid, even reckless, things he said?

I suspect thats one more thing the two sides wont agree on.

Bernard Goldberg is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He was a correspondent with HBOs Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel for 22 years and previously worked as a reporter for CBS News and as an analyst for Fox News. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Patreon page. Follow him on Twitter @BernardGoldberg.

Follow this link:
Without the lies there would have been no Jan. 6 fiasco | TheHill - The Hill

Punta Cana, Dominican Republic.- Former president of the United States, Bill Clinton, and his wife Hillary Clinton, are vacationing in Punta Cana, La Altagracia province.

The couple was seen dining at an exclusive restaurant in the eastern part of the country, along with their friends, husbands Frank Rainieri and Haydee Kuret de Rainieri.

The former president, on his 24th visit to the country, welcomed the Dominicans who came to greet him.

He was also seen playing golf with Juan Jos Arteaga and Rolando Gonzalez Bunster, at the Corales Golf Course in Punta Cana where the PGA tournament will be held again this year.

Other celebrities

Various celebrities from art, politics, film and commerce preferred Punta Cana to wait for the new year, including the famous television presenter and businesswoman, Martha Stewart, who visited the Punta Cana Foundation and other attractions of the tourist destination located to the east of the country.

Read more:
Bill Clinton hobnobs with friends in the East - Dominican Today

Years ago, when teaching at seminary, I used to tell the students that moral relevance in the modern world was a cruel and fickle mistress. However much Christians accommodated themselves to her demands, sooner or later she would want more. Christian morality and the morality of the world simply could not be reconciled in the long term.

Apparently, this no longer applies simply to Christians and other moral traditionalists. It also applies to the artistic class. Last week, Constance Grady at Vox noted how so much pop culture of recent vintage has dated so rapidly. Hamilton, the hit musical of 2015, now appears, in 2021, to glorify the slave-owning and genocidal Founding Fathers while erasing the lives and legacies of the people of color who were actually alive in the Revolutionary era. The TV series Parks and Recreation is now considered an overrated and tunnel-visioned portrait of the failures of Obama-era liberalism. And the Harry Potter franchise is now the neo-liberal fantasy of a transphobe.

While Grady avoids the earnestness of those who regard Its a Wonderful Life as dangerous or the clichs of those who see Dolly Parton as a tool of systemic racist evil, she misses the deeper significance of the phenomenon she describes. For her, the transformed tastes of pop culture connect to the fading fortunes of Hillary Clinton and the values she represented. That makes sense. But there is a deeper cause of the shifting morals of popular culture and that is that our society has no stable framework for moral reasoning. It is therefore doomed to constant volatility.

Of course, the moral tastes of culture have always changed somewhat over time. What is notable today is the speed at which they change and the dramatic way they repudiate the immediate past. It took forty years for John Cleeses Hitler impersonation to be deemed offensive (and then, oddly, by a generation for whom Hitler was little more than a name in a history textbook). But now, jokes that were unexceptional five or ten years ago might well cost a comedian his career today. The moral shelf life of pop cultural artifacts seems much shorter now and the criteria by which they might be judged far less predictable.

The real problem underlying the phenomenon Grady observes is that the moral tastes of popular culture are just that: tastes, and thus subject to fashion and, in our social media age, to easy manipulation. Society has no solid foundation on which to build its moral codes. Decades ago, Alasdair MacIntyre noted that the loss of any shared metanarrative rendered constructive moral discourse impossible, as all moral claims were reduced to expressions of emotional preference. Philip Rieff made a similar point when he argued that the loss of any transcendent order upon which to build society meant that the moral framework of any given culture had to justify itself on the basis of itself. And that is an inherently unstable task.

Critical theory in its various forms represents the intellectualized form of this chaos. It is predicated on negationi.e., the dismantling of whatever structures happen to provide the status quo at any given momentand its advocates are committed to a constant dialectical destabilization of morality. After all, moral codes are instruments for oppressing the weak and the marginal. Yet this negation comes with a price tag for the very people committed to it. That is why so many of its major figures end up falling foul of their own philosophical tradition. Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno may have been the founding fathers of critical theory, but their views on the intimate connection between homosexuality and fascism would make them unlikely candidates for guest lectures on todays Ivy League campuses, let alone for tenure track appointments. And all of Adrienne Rich's brilliant contributions to feminist thought and even to intersectionality have not prevented her reputation from being posthumously buried outside the camp in the plot reserved for transphobes and other assorted bigots. Today race theory, not feminism, might be the critical theorists' soup du jour, but this will prove no more lasting than previous iterations of the voice of the oppressed. Intersectionality witnesses to that fact; and those who live by the sword of critical theory can expect at some point to die by the same.

The obvious riposte to this is that most people do not give critical theory a second thought. That is true, but my claim is that the world of which the critical theorist gives a sophisticated account is the world as many of us imagine it to be: one with no agreed upon moral compass and marked by a deep suspicion of any attempt by any one group to make its truth normative, out of fear that the result will be oppressive and unjust. The consequence is constant flux of the kind Grady observes in pop culture, where todays virtuous icons are tomorrows vile scoundrels.

In the years since my warning to my seminary students, the term mistress has become too flattering a metaphor for moral relevance, implying as it does a degree of longevity in the relationship. Today, moral tastes have too short a shelf life for that. Indeed, embracing the moral spirit of the age is now more akin to having a one-night standand that with somebody who kicks you out of bed in the morning and calls the police.

Carl Trueman is a professor of biblical and religious studies at Grove City College and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

First Thingsdepends on its subscribers and supporters. Join the conversation and make a contribution today.

Clickhereto make a donation.

Clickhereto subscribe toFirst Things.

See the article here:
The Strange Fate of Hamilton and Harry Potter | Carl R. Trueman - First Things