Jedediah Bila 'LIVE' (VIDEO)

On Twitter, I find myself agreeing with Ms. Jedediah more than anyone else, man or woman. She nails things every time. A national treasure.

Her new podcast, at Valuetainment, debuted June 8th.

Here's yesterday's show, on parenting and more.

WATCH:

Hands Off My Gun

At Amazon, Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America.

Bari Weiss Has a Lot to Say

A very important piece from Ms. Bari. RTWT.

Here, "Things Worth Fighting For: What we can learn from President Zelensky."

Toddler in Diapers Discovered and Rescued by Food Delivery Driver in Burbank (VIDEO)

At CBS 2 Los Angeles, "Caught on Camera Exclusive: Food Delivery Driver Rescues 2-Year-Old in Diapers Wandering Into Burbank Boulevard at Night."

The man's a guardian angel:

Structural Antisemitism

You don't have to like Jonah Goldberg --- and I don't much, especially his NeverTrumpism --- but he's a good writer. Or at least I think so. And he's especially good when he's writing about Israel.

This piece is worth your time, at the Dispatch.

Afghanistan Bomb Attack on Girls Highlights Threat to Women’s Education

Things are going badly in Afghanistan.

And at almost 20 years, I doubt the U.S. could do more to secure the country, besides sending in 500,000 troops and just take the whole place over. We're still in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, for darned sake, and as it is the U.S. would probably defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion, although who knows that "China Joe" Biden has up his sleeves? Both China and Russia are major threats, and it'd be nice to know exactly which country --- or countries --- hacked the East Coast power grid a few days ago. But it probably doesn't matter, because this kind of thing is going to happen more often, a lot more often, and the Dems probably do not care.

In any case, I'm not against the Afghan pullout, though I've also thought the most noble element of our intervention in that country has been our great earlier success at improving human rights, especially for women.

At WSJ, "Kabul residents on Sunday buried dozens of schoolgirls killed by explosions outside a school":

KABUL—Zainab Maqsudi, 13 years old, exited the library and walked toward the main gate of the Sayed Shuhada school to go home on Saturday when she was blown backward by an explosion. When she stood up, the air was thick with dust and smoke, and she was surrounded by shattered glass.

“Suicide attack!” everyone yelled, she said, reflecting how common such attacks have become in Afghanistan. She noticed she was bleeding from her arms. An older sister took her to hospital.

“I’m not sure if I will go back to school when I recover,” Zainab, who is in seventh grade, said from her hospital bed Sunday, with her parents by her side. “I don’t want to get hurt again. My body shakes when I think about what happened.”

Preventing girls like Zainab from going to school was the likely goal of the terrorists behind Saturday’s attack in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood of Kabul. Widening access to women’s education was one of the most tangible achievements of the 20-year U.S. presence in Afghanistan—progress that could be reversed once American forces leave the country later this year.

Afghan authorities on Sunday raised the official death toll from Saturday’s attack that targeted schoolgirls at Sayed Shuhada to 53. It was the latest assault on the area’s mostly Shiite Hazara minority, which in recent months has suffered horrific attacks by Islamic State’s Afghan affiliate, including on a maternity ward and an education center.

No group has claimed responsibility for Saturday’s attack. The Afghan president blamed the Taliban. The Taliban denied responsibility and condemned the bombings, accusing Islamic State of being behind them.

On Sunday, residents of the Afghan capital spent the day burying dozens of schoolgirls on a hillside on the outskirts of the capital. Hospitals across the city treated dozens of injured, including several who remained in intensive care.

The attack followed a rise in targeted assassinations of activists, politicians and female journalists. “We know if there is further violence, the groups who will be most vulnerable are women and girls,” said Shaharzad Akbar, chairperson of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. “The message this attack sends to children, especially to girls going to school, is a very bleak one, a very scary one.”

The Biden administration last month set Sept. 11 as the deadline for all U.S. forces to leave Afghanistan, but U.S. officials have suggested the drawdown could be completed as soon as July. The agreement follows a February 2020 deal between the Taliban and the Trump administration that committed the insurgents to enter peace talks with the Afghan government. However, American efforts to clinch a peace settlement before a full withdrawal have stalled, and bloodshed across the country continues.

The neighborhood of Dasht-e Barchi where Saturday’s bombings occurred is one of Kabul’s most disenfranchised areas. It is populated mostly by the Hazara minority, which historically has been marginalized and oppressed, especially during Taliban rule in the 1990s...

More at that top link.

 

Tucker Rips Bumbling and Stumbling 'China Joe's' Press Conference Debacle (VIDEO)

Following-up from last night, "Trey Gowdy Has the Clear Lead in Viewership for Fox News' 'Rotating' Fox News Primetime, Which Airs Daily, at 4:00pm Pacific Time (VIDEO)."

I will very pleased if Mr. Gowdy scores the 4:00pm broadcast, because then I might be able to have two straight hours of news programming that I actually would enjoy watching, and I won't get all the "woke" bullcrap from CNN, and, of course, I rarely, if ever, flip over to the clowns at MSNBC.

So, fingers crossed, because Tucker's "Da Man!"

Trey Gowdy Has the Clear Lead in Viewership for Fox News' 'Rotating' Fox News Primetime, Which Airs Daily, at 4:00pm Pacific Time (VIDEO)

The news is at Outkick, "MARK STEYN TO RETURN TO HOST FOX NEWS PRIMETIME AS NETWORK SETS NEXT 3 WEEKS DURING SEARCH." 

And Steyn is a worthy host, and he's even more hilarious than Tucker is at the 5:00pm show, "Tucker Carlson Tonight" (which, right now is the highest rated cable program out of all the cable networks, and it's no surprise, because he's just been killin' it).

Here's the list of ratings leaders for the 4:00pm "Primetime" program: 

In order of viewership:

3/8, Trey Gowdy: 2,057,000

2/1, Trey Gowdy: 1,988,000

1/1, Brian Kilmeade: 1,960,000

1/25, Maria Bartiromo: 1,877,000

3/22 (Mon-Wed), Brian Kilmeade: 1,777,000

3/15, Maria Bartiromo: 1,767,000

2/8, Mark Steyn: 1,759,000

2/15, Rachel Campos-Duffy: 1,728,000

3/1, Lawrence Jones: 1,713,000

2/22, Katie Pavlich: 1,647,000

Now, I'm a little surprised that Rachel Campus-Duffy beat out Katie Pavlich, who, I think, is 100 times smarter than Ms. Campus-Duffy, but who knows? Ms. Katie did look a little "green" in the role as "host" of an hour-long show, and, I don't recall, but perhaps Ms. Campos-Duffy is just more experienced. And Ms. Bartiromo's a freakin' pro, in any case, and I wish I saw her on T.V. more often, because I'm rarely up at 3:00am (Pacific) to watch her "Wall Street" program, although I do remember reading she got into a little "hot water" with her aggressive promotion of the "voter fraud" allegations being pushed by Team Trump. (And while there was fraud, and probably monumental fraud, I just wanted personally to "move on," and just gear up for the Georgia special elections, which Republicans lost, not just because of the hypocritical idiot Kelly Loeffler, but because all of those invovled, in the Washington G.OP. [the RNC], and folks down in the "Peach State," just refused to coordinate a wining electoral strategy down there).

'Authority for the Last Days'

Pastor Mike Webb's service this morning, at Foothill Family Church, in Lake Forest, California.

Thanksgiving Pardon for Retired United States Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn

Leftists destroyed this man's life as a political vendetta. He was convicted on a "process" crime with no substantial underlying linkage to the allegations of electoral collusion with the Russians. 

Now he's received a presidential pardon, but how does someone rebuild one's life --- a life of patriotism and exemplary national service --- after a diabolical ideological smear campaign like this?

Thank goodness for President Trump. 

Background at NPR, "Trump Pardons Michael Flynn, Who Pleaded Guilty to Lying About Russia Contact, and at NYT (with fear and trepidation, lol), "Trump’s Pardon of Flynn Signals Prospect of a Wave in His Final Weeks in Office." 

And for the analysis, see Grim's Hall, "Michael Flynn Pardoned":

It is my Great Honor to announce that General Michael T. Flynn has been granted a Full Pardon. Congratulations to @GenFlynn and his wonderful family, I know you will now have a truly fantastic Thanksgiving!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 25, 2020

In a particularly grueling miscarriage of justice, retired general Michael Flynn had to be pardoned for a crime of which he was innocent. Investigated by the FBI at the behest of President Obama, who decided for some reason that Flynn was a Russian spy, Flynn was cleared of all charges as a result of the investigation. The FBI closed the case. 

He was prosecuted anyway by a politicized Department of Justice, which nevertheless failed to produce the only piece of evidence it allegedly had against him. That evidence would have been the original "302" form showing that the FBI agents who interviewed him thought that he'd lied to them -- about a case in which the FBI had already cleared him. No such 302 was ever produced, allegedly being lost, but we do have one that we happen to know was edited long after the fact by disgraced liar and political agent Peter Strzok. We know this because he discussed it in unencrypted text messages with his lover, also-married disgraced former prosecutor Lisa Page. 

After a financially ruinous prosecution in which the FBI/DOJ produced almost none of the exculpatory evidence that the law requires them to produce -- including the record of the investigation that completely cleared him on all charges -- Flynn's sorry lawyers convinced him to plead guilty. This was done in such a way that the DOJ and his sorry lawyers (perhaps motivated by one of their partners, a former Obama attorney general) made an illegal deal to hide the agreement not to prosecute Flynn's son from the judge! Not only did the judge lack the information he needed to discern whether the guilty plea was coerced, anyone against whom Flynn later might have testified as a result of the deal would have been denied their constitutional right to know of the deal so they could raise it as a defense against the value of his testimony. 

That judge -- a personal friend of Obama's, it turns out -- wasn't upset about the fact that the law firm and the DOJ conspired to hide these facts from him in violation of the law. His ire was for Flynn, whom he accused of selling out his country even though the DOJ had never even attempted to charge Flynn with that. What they charged him with was perjury for "lying" to the FBI (in the vanished 302), and a paperwork violation for which the FBI investigation had already cleared him. 

(They cleared him of the FARA violation because he had in fact filed paperwork with the government under another act, on the advice of lawyers he hired specifically to help him meet the legal reporting requirements -- thus, he had not tried to hide his lobbying work for a NATO ally, and clearly they could not s how criminal intent. DOJ knew all of that and made him plead guilty to it anyway, if he wanted them not to send his son to prison on trumped-up charges too.) 

Then we spent a year while Flynn's new lawyer, Sidney Powell, managed to get all the exculpatory information illegally hidden from him in the first place. None of it convinced the judge one bit to let Flynn withdraw the coerced guilty plea, nor to accept the DOJ's determination that it should probably actually drop those baseless charges after all. Ordered to drop the charges by the DC Court of Appeals in a three-judge ruling, the judge instead sought en banc approval to continue the case. He was granted it, provided he would dispose of the matter with "dispatch." That was now several months ago, and instead of disposing of the case he has been dragging it out towards an obvious intent to sentence Flynn in spite of his innocence. 

What this case shows is how completely distorted our system has become...

Still more.

President Trump's Orlando Campaign Launch Crowd Video

From Michael Moore, of all people.

He's right to be worried.

Beautiful! #KeepAmericaGreat #KAG #ThankYouTrump 🇺🇸 https://t.co/qLf99UfF8B

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 21, 2019

Brace for a Voter-Turnout Tsunami

From Ronald Brownstein, at the Atlantic, "Even with a surge in overall participation, white working-class voters could still remain decisive in the 2020 election":

Signs are growing that voter turnout in 2020 could reach the highest levels in decades—if not the highest in the past century—with a surge of new voters potentially producing the most diverse electorate in American history.

But paradoxically, that surge may not dislodge the central role of the predominantly white and heavily working-class voters who tipped the three Rust Belt states that decided 2016: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Even amid a tide of new participation, those same voters could remain the tipping point of the 2020 election.

With Donald Trump’s tumultuous presidency stirring such strong emotions among both supporters and opponents, strategists in both parties and academic experts are now bracing for what Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political scientist who specializes in voting behavior, recently called “a voter turnout storm of a century in 2020.”

In a recent paper, the Democratic voter-targeting firm Catalist projected that about 156 million people could vote in 2020, an enormous increase from the 139 million who cast ballots in 2016. Likewise, Public Opinion Strategies, a leading Republican polling firm, recently forecast that the 2020 contest could produce a massive turnout that is also unprecedentedly diverse.

“I think we are heading for a record presidential turnout at least in the modern era, and by that I mean since the franchise went to 18-year-olds,” in 1972, says Glen Bolger, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies. “And I mean not only in total numbers [but also] in terms of the percentage of eligible voters [who turn out]. The emotion behind politics … is sky-high, and I don’t think it’s just on one side. I think it’s on both sides.”

McDonald thinks the turnout surge in 2020 could shatter even older records, estimating that as many as two-thirds of eligible voters may vote next year. If that happens, it would represent the highest presidential-year turnout since 1908, when 65.7 percent of eligible Americans cast a ballot, according to McDonald’s figures. Since 18-year-olds were granted the vote, the highest showing was the 61.6 percent of eligible voters who showed up in 2008, leading to Barack Obama’s victory. And since World War II, the highest turnout level came in 1960, with John F. Kennedy’s win, when 63.8 percent of voters participated.

Experts on both sides point to an array of indicators that signal turnout may reach new heights next year. Signs of political interest, from the number of small-donor contributions made to presidential candidates to the viewership for cable news, are all spiking. In polls, very high shares of Americans already say they are paying a lot of attention to the 2020 presidential race.

But the clearest sign that high turnout may be approaching in 2020 is that it already arrived in 2018. In last year’s midterm, nearly 120 million people voted, about 35 million more than in the previous midterm, in 2014, with 51 percent of eligible voters participating—a huge increase over the previous three midterms. The 2018 level represented the largest share of eligible voters to turn out in a midterm year since 1914, according to McDonald’s figures. Catalist estimated that about 14 million new voters who had not participated in 2016 turned out two years later, and they preferred Democrats by a roughly 20-percentage-point margin.

Yet one of the key questions for 2020 is whether Democrats will benefit as much from the likely expansion of the electorate...

Keep reading.

It's gonna be great.

As long as the economy holds up into late next year, Trump is going to be a very formidable incumbent, and difficult to beat.

A lot depends on who the Democrats nominate, and I'm hoping they nominate one of their far-left wing avatars, Bernie, Elizabeth, or Kamala. I'm positive Trump will make short work of them. Biden would be a tricky opponent. And I do think he could cut into some of Trump's working class support. But we'll see. We'll. see.

How Trump Can Win Reelection

It's Larry Sabato, who got pretty much everything wrong in 2016, at least concerning the presidential race, so caveat emptor.

At the Washington Post, "It’s easy to see how Trump can win reelection":

It's Easy To See How Trump Could Win Reelection -- from @LarrySabato and me in @PostOpinions https://t.co/DCt6aCewAr

— Kyle Kondik (@kkondik) April 24, 2019

President Trump thrives on chaos, much of it his own creation. But it would be a mistake to assume that the reelection campaign of this most untraditional president will mirror the tumult of his 2016 effort. It’s too early to handicap 2020, but Trump may try to capitalize on some of the same factors that helped three modern Republican presidents, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, win reelection.

The reelections of all three men were not always certain. Around this time in the 1972 election cycle, Nixon held only a modest lead over the early Democratic front-runner, Edmund Muskie, who in 1968 had been the vice-presidential running mate of Hubert Humphrey. In late January 1983, pollster Lou Harris found former vice president Walter Mondale leading Reagan 53 percent to 44 percent. John Kerry’s challenge to Bush was nip-and-tuck throughout 2004. Fast-forward to 2019, and Trump often trails some Democrats in presidential trial heats, but with his large, solid base and a continuing good economy, it isn’t hard to see how Trump could win again.

That is not to suggest that Trump is destined to win, much less that he would rebound to a gigantic victory like Nixon’s and Reagan’s. For one thing, the landslides that one finds at regular intervals throughout much of the 20th century don’t even seem possible in this highly partisan, polarized era. America is in a stretch of eight consecutive presidential elections where neither side has won the popular vote by double digits, the longest such streak of close, competitive elections in U.S. history.

Another caveat: Trump’s approval rating has been upside down for essentially his entire presidency, and he has shown no inclination to broaden his base of support by changing his policies or softening his sharp rhetoric. From that perspective, even matching Bush’s 50.7 percent in 2004 seems like a major reach. Yet Trump could again win the presidency without winning the popular vote because of the strength of his coalition in the crucial Midwest battlegrounds.

Trump is in the process of jumping one major hurdle: He lacks a major primary challenger. (Bill Weld, the 2016 Libertarian vice-presidential candidate who recently declared a GOP primary challenge, does not count as “major.”) With approval ratings among Republicans usually exceeding 80 percent, and with his allies firmly in control of the party apparatus almost everywhere, Trump has thus far boxed out major intraparty opposition. The last three reelected GOP presidents all waltzed to renomination.

Trump is also going to be in a much better financial position than he was in 2016, when Hillary Clinton vastly outspent him. Trump already has $40 million in the bank for his reelection bid, and he should be able to raise hundreds of millions more now that his party is more completely behind him than in 2016. Money is not everything, as Trump himself showed in 2016, but any campaign would prefer having more, not less.

The Internet will be a campaign wild card again. Trump will probably reprise his 2016 digital advertising strategy to dissuade specific demographic groups, such as African Americans and young women, from voting for the Democratic candidate. His army of domestic online trolls no doubt will also turn out in force, and foreign actors, particularly Russians tied to the Kremlin, will almost certainly try to influence the election. Don’t expect the Trump administration to devote a lot of energy to frustrating those efforts.

The Democratic Party may inadvertently boost Trump if it gets carried away with an impeachment frenzy that prompts a voter backlash. Opposition to Trump will help unify the Democrats and fund the eventual nominee after a standard-bearer emerges from what is a giant and growing field of about 20 candidates. But one or more factions of the Democratic Party may emerge from the primary season disappointed and angry. Trump’s well-funded digital strategy will work to widen these fissures.

Ultimately, Trump may turn out to be at the mercy of conventional factors...

More.

The Air Force is Buying New F-15s

This is really cool.

At Popular Mechanics, "The U.S. Air Force Is Buying New F-15s After All: The F-15X will complement the F-22 and F-35 in tomorrow's aerial battlefields."

The U.S. Air Force Is Buying New F-15s After All: The F-15X will complement the F-22 and F-35 in tomorrow's aerial battlefields: #USAirForce #Boeing 🇺🇸👍 https://t.co/JbS1Rhl3Dv

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 21, 2019

First Couple's Official Christmas Portrait

So happy we have the Trumps in the White House. We are blessed.

The first couple's "Official Christmas Portrait" pic.twitter.com/GJsoEIPD0k

— Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) December 18, 2018

The Case for Spending More to Help Israel (VIDEO)

This is excellent.

It's U.S. Gen Chuck Wald, for Prager University.

Brett Kavanaugh Will Bring Change to the Supreme Court

Here's Glenn Reynolds, at USA Today, in an excellent piece based on reason not emotion, thank goodness.

MY USA TODAY COLUMN: Brett Kavanaugh will bring change to the Supreme Court, but maybe not what you think https://t.co/Uyur75HASF via @usatoday

— Instapundit.com (@instapundit) October 8, 2018

President Donald Trump's Address at 9/11 Memorial in Shanksville, Pennsylvania (VIDEO)

I love President Trump.

Watch:

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings

Confirmation hearings begin tomorrow.

I've been seeing a lot of tweets on Kavanaugh, especially from that crazy leftist wench Lauren Duca.

Here's some stuff online:

For @teenvogue: Why we can and must #StopKavanaugh https://t.co/frXNQmgAO9

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) August 31, 2018

'The stakes are astronomical': Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing will be a battle royale https://t.co/JOynAks1yG

— The Guardian (@guardian) September 3, 2018

This isn't just any Supreme Court seat. https://t.co/JutYMnuYs2

— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) September 3, 2018

How Brett Kavanaugh would transform the Supreme Court https://t.co/X7F7GNDb84 pic.twitter.com/lnYEMIdzIR

— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 3, 2018

"Brett Kavanaugh’s views on privacy and the Fourth Amendment should make Republicans think twice" https://t.co/J5RXRdNk5v pic.twitter.com/31NEdp8lFB

— The Hill (@thehill) September 3, 2018

Lila Rose on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' (VIDEO)

She's the sweetest lady.