.
The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
The Sexual-Harassment Racket Is Over
by Peggy Nanoon
.
Kate Steinle's Killer Finds 'Sanctuary' Again
by Nate Jackson: On July 1, 2015, Kate Steinle and her father were strolling along a San Francisco pier when she was shot in the back, dying in her father’s arms. She was shot by Jose Ines Garcia Zarate (formerly known as Francisco Sanchez), an illegal alien (or just an “immigrant” in the parlance of The New York Times). Zarate claims he picked up a gun off the ground — a gun that had been stolen from a federal officer a few days earlier — and that it “accidentally discharged.” His case was aided by a ballistics report showing the bullet ricocheted off the pavement before striking Steinle. The jury acquitted him of all counts except for felony possession of a weapon. “Not guilty” of the second-degree murder charge is understandable if ballistics were accurate, but how could the jury not settle on even involuntary manslaughter?
by Nate Jackson: On July 1, 2015, Kate Steinle and her father were strolling along a San Francisco pier when she was shot in the back, dying in her father’s arms. She was shot by Jose Ines Garcia Zarate (formerly known as Francisco Sanchez), an illegal alien (or just an “immigrant” in the parlance of The New York Times). Zarate claims he picked up a gun off the ground — a gun that had been stolen from a federal officer a few days earlier — and that it “accidentally discharged.” His case was aided by a ballistics report showing the bullet ricocheted off the pavement before striking Steinle. The jury acquitted him of all counts except for felony possession of a weapon. “Not guilty” of the second-degree murder charge is understandable if ballistics were accurate, but how could the jury not settle on even involuntary manslaughter? The Justice Department is now considering federal charges. Zarate was a known serial offender. He had seven felony convictions and five deportations on his record already (he’ll be deported again now), but he chose San Francisco because it is a sanctuary city. In fact, The Washington Post reports, before killing Steinle, Zarate “had been released from jail, where he was being held on a drug charge, even though federal immigration authorities had sought to detain him.”
None of his previous record was allowed in testimony or jury deliberation. President Donald Trump correctly declared, “A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case! No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration.”
“Sanctuary” is defined as “a place of refuge or safety,” but leftists have perverted it to mean “a hiding place for illegals.” Those policies threaten the safety and lives of law-abiding citizens. If existing immigration laws were enforced, this repeat criminal never would have been in the U.S., and Kate Steinle would still be alive, walking with her father on that same pier. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52694
.
Cornyn Begins “Negotiations” For
Republican SURRENDER on DACA Amnesty
by rickwells.us
{rickwells.us} ~ Once again Republicans are attempting to proactively negotiate a surrender and a betrayal of the American people with their globalist Democrats allies... the obstructionists, the “my way or the highway” crowd that seems to inevitably get their way. Senator Charles Grassley appointed RINO-Mitch McConnell’s number two establishment toadie, John Cornyn (R-TX), to handle the sellout arrangements. So-called border security that excluded the wall was as far as the RINO went in fulfilling the wishes of American patriots. Without the wall it’s not border security but merely the false claims and illusions of such. The deal Cornyn came up with left out a border wall or fence but did include legal status for the DACA illegals, a sellout of the American people. The obstinate Democrats, led by Dick Durbin (D-IL) rejected it anyway because it didn’t go so far as to offer US citizenship to the illegals... https://rickwells.us/cornyn-surrender-daca-amnesty/.
Contempt of Congress Charges
Against Sessions DOJ, FBI May Be Imminent
by rickwells.us
{rickwells.us} ~ The segment opens with Fox News’ Bret Baier describing a situation which, if we hadn’t been witnessing the first year of President Trump’s obstructive DOJ and FBI in action.... nobody who voted for him would have imagined to be possible. Baier says, “House investigators seek contempt citations against the FBI and the Justice Department over the probe into the so-called dossier on then-candidate Trump. Again, contempt against the FBI and DOJ.” The fact that it is the Trump FBI and DOJ makes it particularly troublesome. Reporter James Rosen references an internal House memo from approximately three weeks ago in which the senior counsel for the House Intelligence Committee urged Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman, to pursue contempt of Congress citations against the Department of Justice and the FBI... https://rickwells.us/contempt-congress-sessions-doj/.
If You Were Mad About The Congress ‘Hush Fund’
For Sexual Misconduct, You’re Going To Hate This
by Lawrence Richard
{sarahpalinnews.com} ~ Taxpayers recently learned some of the money they were paying to the federal government was going towards a “shush fund”... to quietly pay off victims of sexual misconduct. Whether it be the actions of members of Congress, or someone on their staff, over 17 million has been paid out over the past 20 years to cover for related incidents. The discovery that Congress has a secretive fund to pay for their own wrongdoings rocked headlines across the nation. The Washington Times reports the problem may be worse than it originally appeared. They report there is another fund which members can draw from to pay off people for their misconducts... https://www.sarahpalinnews.com/2017/11/28/mad-congress-hush-fund-sexual-misconduct-youre-going-hate/.
Matt Lauer Wants $30 Million from NBC After Firing
by Mike LaChance
{legalinsurrection.com} ~ Matt Lauer wants $30 million from NBC after his firing for sexual harassment, report says... It seems Matt Lauer’s battle at NBC is not quite over. A new report indicates that the star’s lawyers are hoping to get him a reported $30 million for his contract that was supposed to take him through 2018, providing the disgraced TV host with a massive golden parachute. According to Page Six, Lauer’s lawyers are working on a plan to get him the remainder of his $20 million per year contract, which would have run another year and a half had he not been terminated over allegations of sexual misconduct... https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/12/matt-lauer-wants-30-million-from-nbc-after-firing/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29.
KATE STEINLE'S KILLER
SHOULD FACE FEDERAL CHARGES
by Daniel Greenfield
{frontpagemag.com} ~ Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the Mexican illegal alien who murdered Kate Steinle, got away with it... His lawyers made the case about Trump. The jury, at least three of whom were immigrants, bought it. Not recycling is now a more serious crime in California than murdering a young woman. After Zarate gets his slap on the wrist, he'll be deported. It's happened five times before. And didn't take. What are the odds he'll be back here after a sixth time? Rather good, I would say. But there is another option. And it would send a message to San Fran and California's government. Bring Federal civil rights charges against Zarate... http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/268582/kate-steinles-killer-should-face-federal-charges-daniel-greenfield.
.
The Sexual-Harassment Racket Is Over
by Peggy Nanoon
{peggynoonan.com} ~ This Thanksgiving I find myself thankful for something that is roiling our country. I am glad at what has happened with the recent, much-discussed and continuing sexual-harassment revelations and responses. To repeat the obvious, it is a watershed event, which is something you can lose sight of when you’re in the middle of it. To repeat the obvious again, journalists broke the back of the scandal when they broke the code on how to report it. For a quarter century we had been stuck in the He Said/She Said. Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas gave their testimonies, each offered witnesses, and the fair minded did their best with the evidence at hand while sorting through all the swirling political agendas. In the end I believed Mr. Thomas. But nobody knows, or rather only two people do.
What happened during the past two years, and very much in the past few months, is that reporters and news organizations committed serious resources to unearthing numbers and patterns. Deep reporting found not one or two victims of an abuser but, in one case, that of Bill Cosby, at least 35. So that was the numbers. The testimony of the women who went on the record, named and unnamed, revealed patterns: the open bathrobe, the running shower, the “Let’s change our meeting from the restaurant to my room/your apartment/my guesthouse.” Once you, as a fair-minded reader, saw the numbers and patterns, and once you saw them in a lengthy, judicious, careful narrative, you knew who was telling the truth. You knew what was true. Knowing was appalling and sometimes shocking, but it also came as a kind of relief.
Once predators, who are almost always repeat offenders, understood the new way of reporting such stories, they understood something else: They weren’t going to get away with it anymore. They’d never known that. And they were going to pay a price, probably in their careers. They’d never known that, either.
Why did this happen now? It was going to happen at some point: Sexual harassment is fairly endemic. Quinnipiac University released a poll this week showing 60% of American women voters say they’ve experienced it. Maybe the difference now is that the liar-Clintons are gone—more on that in a moment. And maybe there’s something in this: Sexual harassment, at least judging by the testimony of recent accusers, has gotten weirder, stranger, more brutish. The political director of a network news organization invites you to his office, trains his eyes on you and masturbates as you tell him about your ambitions? The Hollywood producer hires an army of foreign goons to spy on you and shut you up? It has gotten weird out there. These stories were going to blow up at some point.
Sexual harassment is not over because sin is not over. “The devil has been busy!” a journalist friend said this week as another story broke. But as a racket it will never be the same.
* * *
Some great journalism, some great writing and thinking, has come of this moment. Ronan Farrow’s New Yorker pieces have been credible and gutsy on all levels. Masha Gessen’s piece in the same magazine last week warned of moral panic, of a blurring of the lines between different behaviors and a confusion as to the boundaries between normal, messy human actions and heinous ones. Rebecca Traister of New York magazine has argued that it is a mistake to focus now on the question of punishments, that maybe the helpful thing is to focus on what’s going on in our society that predators think they can get away with this.
Caitlin Flanagan in the Atlantic wrote the most important political piece in “ liar-Bill Clinton : A Reckoning.” What is striking about this moment, she argued, is not the number of women who’ve come forward with serious allegations. “What’s remarkable is that these women are being believed.” Most didn’t have police reports or witnesses, and many were speaking of things that had happened years ago. “We have finally come to some kind of national consensus about the workplace; it naturally fosters a level of romance and flirtation, but the line between those impulses and the sexual predation of a boss is clear.”
What had impeded the ability of victims to be believed in the past? The liar-Bill Clinton experience. He was “very credibly” accused, as Ms. Flanagan wrote, of sex crimes at different points throughout the 1990s— Juanita Broaddrick said he violently raped her; Paula Jones said he exposed himself to her; Kathleen Willey said she went to him for advice and that he groped and assaulted her. These women “had far more credible evidence” than many recent accusers. “But liar-Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced.” He was rescued instead by “a surprising force: machine feminism.”
That movement had by the ’90s devolved into a “partisan operation.” Gloria Steinem in March 1998 wrote a famous New York Times op-ed that, in Ms. Flanagan’s words, “slut-shamed, victim-blamed, and age-shamed” the victims and “urged compassion for and gratitude to the man the women accused.” This revealed contemporary feminism as “a weaponized auxiliary of the Democratic Party.” Ms. Steinem characterized the assaults as “passes,” writing: “Even if the allegations are true, the President is not guilty of sexual harassment.”
Ms. Steinem operated with the same logic as the skeeviest apologist for Roy Moore : Don’t credit any charges. Gotta stick with our team.
Ms. Flanagan: “The widespread liberal response to the sex-crime accusations against liar-Bill Clinton found their natural consequence 20 years later in the behavior of Harvey Weinstein : Stay loudly and publicly and extravagantly on the side of signal leftist causes and you can do what you want in the privacy of your offices and hotel rooms.”
The article called for a Democratic Party “reckoning” on the way it protected liar-Bill Clinton.
It was a great piece.
I close with three thoughts.
The first springs from an observation Tucker Carlson made on his show about 10 days ago. He marveled, briefly, at this oddity: Most of the accused were famous media personalities, influential journalists, entertainers. He noted that all these people one way or another make their living in front of a camera.
It stayed with me. What is it about men and modern fame that makes them think they can take whatever they want when they want it, and they’ll always get away with it, even as word, each year, spreads. Watch out for that guy.
Second, if the harassment is, as it seems to me, weirder and more over the top now than, say, 40 years ago, why might that be?
Third, a hard and deep question put quickly: An aging Catholic priest suggested to a friend that all this was inevitable. “Contraception degenerates men,” he said, as does abortion. Once you separate sex from its seriousness, once you separate it from its life-changing, life-giving potential, men will come to see it as just another want, a desire like any other. Once they think that, then they’ll see sexual violations as less serious, less charged, less full of weight. They’ll be more able to rationalize. It’s only petty theft, a pack of chewing gum on the counter, and I took it.
In time this will seem true not only to men, but to women.
This is part of the reason I’m thankful for what I’m seeing. I experience it, even if most women don’t, or don’t consciously, as a form of saying no, this is important. It is serious.
Comments