Mid-Day Digest

Aug. 8, 2017


  • Google fires a guy for talking about diversity in an unapproved manner.
  • Loretta Lynch used an alias to coordinate spin on her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton.
  • Mueller’s probe is expanding, and there’s reason to keep an eye on politicization.
  • Daily Features: Top Headlines, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.


“I rejoice in a belief that intellectual light will spring up in the dark corners of the earth; that freedom of enquiry will produce liberality of conduct.” —George Washington (1789)


Google’s Diversity Purge

At Google, it appears that diversity doesn’t actually mean diversity. Recently, James Damore, a senior software engineer at the Internet giant, sent an internal 10-page memo in which he expressed his opinions of the company’s leftist slant on the gender gap among software engineers. Damore blamed “a politically correct monoculture” at Google for “shaming dissenters into silence” on those topics it has determined to be off limits for diversity of opinion.

As if to prove his point, Google fired Damore for “advancing harmful gender stereotypes.” In other words, Damore was guilty of stating the obvious and scientifically verifiable truth that men and women are different. Being different, they tend to make different choices. Indeed, the primary motivating factor behind the disparity in gender choices happens to be rooted in biology. You know, the “controversial” notion that men and women in general manifest their gender via differing goals, desires, ambitions, commitments, physical abilities and career objectives.

The imbalance between men and women working in software engineering is primarily due to America’s value for freedom of choice, not the myth of societal oppression via the patriarchy. Yet the execs at Google seem blind to their own ideological hypocrisy with self-contradicting statements like the following made by Danielle Brown, Google’s new vice president for diversity, integrity and governance: “We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company. We’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul.”

Well, except for that misogynist loon, Damore.

His firing exposes Google’s problem with intolerance. Only politically correct leftist opinions will be tolerated at Google; all others will be declared “intolerant” and therefore will be excluded, because at Google they’re all about espousing the virtues of inclusion and diversity.

Comment | Share

Real News About a Fake Name

We’re shocked — shocked — to report that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch used an alias to send official email. This was a common practice in Barack Obama’s administration. Lois Lerner, Eric Holder and even Obama himself used pseudonyms in official emails. Lynch’s attorney, Robert Raben, swears her practice was totally innocuous — to avoid “inundation of mailboxes” with spam and such — and that Justice Department staffers processing Freedom of Information Act requests were aware of Lynch’s alias. Of course we all know that the Most Transparent Administration in History™ wasn’t, as its members insist, “scandal free,” but used aliases and other obstruction tactics to hide all sorts of unsavory and politically inconvenient things from the public. The most guilty of all was Hillary Clinton and her infamous private email server.

In Lynch’s case, the alias was revealed after Judicial Watch and the American Center for Law and Justice, two conservative watchdogs, obtained 413 pages of DOJ documents. Those documents revealed Lynch’s Elizabeth Carlisle’s coordination with other DOJ officials about how to spin her clandestine tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton in June 2016 — at the height of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary’s emails. Just days after the meeting in which Clinton and Lynch insisted they discussed their grandchildren, Lynch’s subordinate, FBI Director James Comey, announced that the agency had plenty of evidence to pursue Hillary Clinton but would not do so. One of the main reasons was that pseudonymous Obama was guilty too. Shortly thereafter, Lynch also announced the DOJ wouldn’t pursue the Clinton Foundation for its shady relationship with the Clinton State Department, despite FBI recommendations.

Another part of the story here is the Leftmedia. Reporters for The New York Times, The Washington Post and ABC News all emailed Lynch to explain that tarmac meeting. In the words of Post reporter Matt Zapotosky, he was “hoping to put it to rest.” It’s not a stretch to read that as an offer to assist in the cover-up. What was that about the Post’s new motto, “Democracy Dies in Darkness”? And can anyone imagine the media ever putting the phony Trump/Russia collusion “to rest”?

Comment | Share

Top Headlines

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report.

Comment | Share

Don’t Miss Patriot Humor

Check out Challenge Accepted.

If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here.


Mueller’s Charge: A Search for Justice, or a Fishing Excursion?

By James Shott

Back in May, the Department of Justice announced that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein had appointed a special counsel “to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters.” That investigation is the source of much consternation.

Rosenstein said he had “determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,” adding that his decision “is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted.” Instead, he insisted, “What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”

Rosenstein chose former Department of Justice official and former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, a man roundly praised by Democrats and Republicans alike for his impeccable credentials and the knowledge and ability to do the right thing.

However, some inconvenient truths have arisen over recent months.

By statute a special counsel’s or special prosecutor’s job is to investigate known crimes. As Rosenstein even admitted, no actual crime has been identified. In fact, the Russian involvement in the election that has commanded the attention of the media and Democrats for more than a year did not begin as a criminal case but rather a counterintelligence case.

As Mueller began recruiting his team of lawyers to assist in the investigation, it was noted that some of the early ones were donors to Democrat candidates. And to date, as reported by The Washington Post, of the 14 names confirmed by the special counsel’s office, seven of them have “donated a total of $60,787.77 to [Hillary] Clinton and other party candidates.”

William Barr, attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration, told the Post, “In my view, prosecutors who make political contributions are identifying fairly strongly with a political party.” Can this investigation possibly be objective when such operatives are doing the investigating?

The order creating the special counsel ostensibly is for investigating Russian election involvement. However, it effectively has no limits. Having found nothing pursuable in the Russian intrigue, which was the reason for appointing a special counsel, Mueller has moved on to other topics. He is now looking into matters involving Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. If/when that one runs its course, another empty space awaits, like President Donald Trump’s business dealings over the years.

It is not unlike bringing a construction company executive to an empty field without a plan to follow, and saying, “Build something.” There is no definite end to this process, unless someone somewhere can be indicted, or be persuaded to confess to something.

Critics say that Mueller’s job, and that of prosecutors generally, is to find a crime, and then to find a perpetrator, and it apparently is of little importance what the crime is, or who is responsible for it. Remember the investigation of Bill and Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater matter? It ended up being the Monica Lewinski matter. The two were barely related, if at all.

Prosecutors are known for “flipping” witnesses, pressuring them with prosecution for something — anything — to persuade them to tattle on someone — anyone — in order to avoid prosecution. A prosecutor’s job is, after all, to prosecute. No indictment in this matter indicates a failed investigation. Who wants that on their record?

Recently, Mueller impaneled a grand jury in Washington, DC, of all places. That’s significant because it’s an indication that Mueller is hot on the trail of criminal activity, not counterintelligence, but it also might indicate partisan motives. Of the location, Newt Gingrich noted, “President Trump got 68.63% in West Virginia, 4.8% in Washington DC. Guess where Mueller has a grand jury? Guess how biased it will be?”

It’s not just conservatives catching on to this element. Leftist law professor Alan Dershowitz wrote, “The District of Columbia jury pool will be overwhelmingly Democratic, by a ratio of close to 10 to 1. … There is no guarantee, of course, that a Democratic juror would vote to convict an indicated member of the Trump administration… But in selecting jurors from among the pool, most prosecutors would favor Democrats.”

Conservative talk-show host Mark Levin, a lawyer and president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, has a more threatening scenario. Calling it a “coup,” Levin said, “Let me tell you what’s going on here: they want to drag Donald Jr. in front of a grand jury and everybody else who was in that meeting — all eight of them — and see if they can find any contradictions in their testimony.” Since there was no crime involved, Levin said the purpose is to “see if they can get somebody on a ‘lie.’ Perjury.”

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy warns of another possible angle: impeachment. “Instead of returning an indictment, a grand jury may issue a report that recommends an official’s removal from office,” he says. “Thus, the question arises: Is Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s impaneling of a new grand jury in Washington step one in the impeachment of President Donald Trump?”

Some suggest that Mueller is in breach of the rules and should resign.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) said, “Bob Mueller is in clear violation of federal code and must resign to maintain the integrity of the investigation into alleged Russian ties. Those who worked under them have attested he and Jim Comey possess a close friendship, and they have delivered on-the-record statements effusing praise of one another.” He added, “No one knows Mr. Mueller’s true intentions, but neither can anyone dispute that he now clearly appears to be a partisan arbiter of justice. Accordingly, the law is also explicitly clear: he must step down based on this conflict of interest.”

Franks, a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, noted that former FBI Director Comey, who first worked under Mueller, leaked information to the press to encourage the appointment of a special counsel. That presents a clear conflict of interest, defined by federal law as “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution.”

But Deputy AG Rosenstein insisted, “Bob Mueller understands and I understand the specific scope of the investigation, and so no, it’s not a fishing expedition.” Rosenstein promised to rein it in if necessary.

So to sum it all up, at best we have a bunch of Republicans being investigated by a bunch of Democrats, with a grand jury pool that is 10-1 Democrat. What could possibly go wrong?

Comment | Share




For more, visit Right Opinion.


Rich Lowry: “The first thing to know about the instantly infamous ‘anti-diversity screed’ written by an anonymous Google software engineer is that it isn’t anti-diversity or a screed. … The document was meant — before getting splashed on the Internet — as an internal conversation-starter. The author posits that innate differences between the sexes may account for the disparity between men and women in the male-dominated world of high-tech. … Women tend to be better with people, men with things. Is either of those superior? Women tend to put more emphasis on family, men on their status. Does that speak better of women or men? As the Google author cautions, ‘Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.’ In light of these differences, though, it is foolhardy to expect 50/50 gender parity in professional life, and otherworldly to believe such differences don’t have a role in the predominance of men in, say, software engineering. Obviously, the field should be open to women, and Neanderthal behavior in the workplace should be stamped out. But a company that believes implicit bias accounts for gender imbalances must be allergic to certain inconvenient facts. The Google author raised them, and will probably pay the price.”


Insight: “Laws which prescribe what everyone must believe, and forbid men to say or write anything against this or that opinion, are often passed to gratify, or rather to appease the anger of those who cannot abide independent minds.” —Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677)

Upright: “No nation can maintain its character without controlling its borders. Think of a simple analogy. If I fill a glass with water and then pour milk into the glass, the more milk I pour, the more water is displaced. That’s the United States, absent a sound and sane immigration policy.” —Cal Thomas

Braying Jenny: “I’ve said over and over again, I think [Donald Trump] is the most deplorable person I have met in my life. … I think [Robert Mueller] is going to connect the dots and I think we’re nearing a constitutional crisis” —Maxine Waters

The ends justify the means: “Of course we don’t want classified information leaked out. But I don’t think [The Resistance] would do that with a credible president.” —Maxine Waters

For the record: “Being black does not give you a license to call someone a racist just like being Jewish doesn’t give you a license to call people anti-Semites unless they actually are racists or anti-Semites.” —Alan Dershowitz to Maxine Waters, whom he says “tosses around that term so promiscuously that it dilutes the term”

The BIG Lie: “I grew up in the South when the civil rights movement was gaining momentum. Believe me, the resistance to civil rights was at least as ferocious as the resistance to the climate movement and solving the climate crisis.” —Al Gore

Shots fired! “I think Senator Blumenthal should take a nice long vacation in Vietnam, where he lied about his service, so he can at least say he was there.” —Donald Trump

And last… “It has been unnerving to read quotes from intelligence officials who claim to be astonished by North Korea’s advances. Perhaps if there were less surveillance of Trump officials and more surveillance of North Korean officials, our experts wouldn’t be so surprised.” —Gary Bauer

Comment | Share

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.