16 thoughts on “News/Politics 12-5-16

  1. Kevin D. Williamson describes the problem with Ellison as the leader of anything, let alone a congressman. When Obama and Jarrett leave office we will have removed the 2 biggest muslim brotherhood plants in America. Ellison would just be their replacement.


    “Keith Ellison (or Keith E. Hakim, or Keith X. Ellison, or Keith Muhammad, etc.) is campaigning for office. Not for the safe House seat he holds, but for the leadership of the Democratic party, a job until recently held by the hilariously incompetent and boundlessly vapid Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who was forced to resign — “resign” here meaning “transfer formally to the Clinton campaign” — when she was exposed conniving to stack the presidential primary elections against Senator Bernie Sanders (S., Portlandia)), who was temporarily replaced by Donna Brazile, who was exposed leaking debate questions to the Clinton campaign, a violation of trust for which she remains adamantly impenitent.

    Republicans should take a minute to simply enjoy all this before getting on to the serious business at hand. If they cannot have Debbie Wasserman Schultz organizing opposition to them, former Farrakhan fanboy Keith Ellison of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party is a great second choice.

    Ellison is the first Muslim elected to the House, and he complains that the recent spate of criticism directed at him is rooted in — ridiculous word — Islamophobia. But there is a bit more to it than that.

    Ellison has long been a vocal defender of the so-called Nation of Islam, the bow-tie gang founded by Elijah Muhammad whose relationship to orthodox Islam is approximately that of a UFO cult to the Anglican communion. The NOI and its charismatic leader, the former calypso musician Louis Farrakhan, is an explicitly racist organization, holding as a matter of doctrine that the white race is the result of a doomed mad-science experiment conducted by the biblical Jacob while he was living on the isle of Patmos. Farrakhan is a true religious entrepreneur who has attempted to graft L. Ron Hubbard’s fanciful “Dianetics” onto his own cracked version of Islam, but he has mostly relied on a very old and reliable tradition: Jew-hating.

    Farrakhan’s history of vicious anti-Semitism was already well established when Ellison was helping him organize the Million Man March. The Democratic representative says that he rejects anti-Semitism, but he has a long history of sticking up for Jew-hating weirdos, and not only Farrakhan. When Kwame Ture — you may remember him as Stokely Carmichael — claimed that Jews had collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust as a pretext for establishing the state of Israel, Ellison was there to defend him from criticism. When the head of a Minneapolis political group declared that the allegations of anti-Semitism against Farrakhan were made up and insisted that the real problem is racist Jews, Ellison said: “She is correct.” He is a defender of the terrorist Sara Jane Olson and the murderer Assata Shakur and the Islamic terrorist Sami al-Arian. He is a longtime admirer of the murderous dictator Fidel Castro.

    Ellison has said that he has since “rejected” the Nation of Islam and its anti-Semitism, and that his involvement with Farrakhan was simply an exercise in community organizing, i.e. the usual liberals-in-a-hurry bull. Ellison is invoking the unwritten Robert Byrd Rule: Democrats get a pass on associating with crackpot racist cults if they vote the right way on the minimum wage.”

    And of course he has the backing of the Democrats favorite money man as well.


    “Ellison’s defenders will claim he has changed. And maybe he has. That he has become the go-to congressman for pro-boycott anti-Israel groups raises doubts as to whether the change is complete.

    Regardless, why should the potential leader of the Democratic National Committee escape full and open scrutiny? Ellison will be the face of the Democratic Party at least until the next presidential election cycle.

    Will Ellison’s past and present receive a tiny fraction of the scrutiny paid to Steve Bannon? Next question, we already know the answer is No:

    Television networks have devoted almost 42 minutes, most of it negative, to covering President-Elect Donald Trump’s choice as chief White House strategist — while ignoring the controversial history of the man who might be the next leader of the Democratic Party.

    The Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog, compiled the data for a study published Wednesday. Trump’s selection of Stephen Bannon has generated 41 minutes and 46 seconds of coverage on the Big Three networks. Of that, 74 percent has been negative, focusing on topics like Bannon’s alleged ties to white nationalists and other bigots.

    Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) has gotten just two minutes and nine seconds of coverage with his bid for Democratic National Committee chairman. None has been negative, according to the Media Research Center.

    “They are covering his bid; they’re just not covering him negatively at all,” said Rich Noyes, the center’s research director.

    For some media, the failure to cover Ellison’s background may just be laziness. But for others, it’s part of a strategy.

    Ellison, after all, is part of the Soros network, huddling with groups such as Media Matters at a post-election Soros gathering. Politico reports, 2016 Soros bands with donors to resist Trump, ‘take back power’ (emphasis added):

    George Soros and other rich liberals who spent tens of millions of dollars trying to elect Hillary Clinton are gathering in Washington for a three-day, closed door meeting to retool the big-money left to fight back against Donald Trump.”

    Liked by 3 people

  2. The left is getting a little scary. I have mentioned an old work friend who seems to be coming unhinged over Trump’s election. She is posting a lot of anti-Trump stuff then telling people she will un-friend them is they disagree with her. I never answer her but I have read some of the comments. A woman just said that we all needed to try and move on and ended up being called a murderous Nazi by one of the other commenters. I wonder which one she will un-friend.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. I guess they need to decide if they’re institutions of higher learning, or criminal syndicates. For state schools this is easy. Revoke all state and federal funds if they refuse to comply.


    “Last month we learned that several universities were preparing to follow the “sanctuary city” model and attempt to block federal enforcement of immigration law where it might apply to illegal immigrants enrolled at their schools. I was a bit dubious at the time, figuring that at least some of this bluster was coming from sour grapes over losing the election. But as it turns out, the story has some legs and a number of schools are at least giving the appearance of laying the groundwork needed to set up what would essentially be criminal syndicates. (Fox News)

    Universities and colleges in several states are considering labeling themselves “sanctuary campuses” amid fears from immigrant students and pressure from activists following the election of Donald Trump.

    College administrators in New Mexico — the state with the highest percentage of Latino residents— are looking into proposals that would grant immigrant students living in the country illegally protections while they pursue their studies.

    Meanwhile, advocates in California, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota and Texas are pressing their state and private universities to provide sanctuary to these immigrant students, known as DREAMers.
    The University of Pennsylvania, which Trump himself attended, is vowing to block federal agents (at least without a warrant) from the campus. Others in Illinois, California and Arizona are following suit. New Mexico State University, however, is weighing in on the subject without placing their administration (and funding) in jeopardy.”

    “To be clear, any non-citizen students who are in the country legally under programs approved by Congress have nothing to worry about. If they are here because of some executive action taken by Barack Obama and that program is undone with a stroke of Trump’s pen (or if they just flat out jumped the border illegally), things will be different.

    I realize we’ve discussed this here before but it bears repeating. It’s not just the illegal immigrants attending these schools who are at risk legally. The students can be deported, but the school administrators who facilitate such lawless action may be facing even greater peril. I would point you yet again to 8 U.S. Code § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens. Sections (1)(A)(ii) and (iii) of that statute contain some provisions which sound as if they would apply directly to any University administration or staffers who seek to hide illegals from the feds:”


  4. Ricky @5:55 From all I’ve read about the TPP, it will give much more authority to world institutions as opposed to those of the US. That’s a bad deal for the long-term welfare of the US as a country. Of course, it’s not so bad if you are inured to the idea of countries, as we know them, ceasing to exist. I am not.

    I think we are going down an increasingly global path governmentally. It’s foolish to think that won’t eventually encompass the things most dear to us. And I don’t mean money.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Debra, Here is what the BBC says about the TPP.


    The TPP is mainly about removing tariffs. I have always been against tariffs. Before The War, the Yankees imposed tariffs on imports of our ancestors to try to force them to buy Yankee products rather than the European products they desired.


  6. The importance of the TPP is because most of this century’s economic growth will be in Asia. If the US allows China to dominate trade in Asia, China will soon dominate Asia (and the world) politically. However, as we have discussed, this may have an upside. If US trade with other countries and its political influence is reduced, it is possible that the spread of perversion may be curtailed.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Ricky, really I’m not that worried about China ruling the world. I think we’ve made terrible mistakes as a nation in the name of trying to prevent China from taking over the world—from Vietnam to granting most favored nation status on an oppressive communist country.

    The more salient problem is right here. We had better get our own house in order or we’re going to turn ourselves into a type of third-world nation run by a few over-lords. And the foreign treaties aren’t going to prevent that.


  8. @7:48 Ricky, I do wish our ancestors had tried harder to find a better way. Breaking up the house is rarely profitable and is usually self-destructive. I hope that our descendants never have cause to say the same of us. Peace, brother. :–)

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Debra, I agree that our biggest problems are at home. I would rank them:
    1. Rampant immorality.
    2. Widespread sloth.
    3. Incredibly overpriced healthcare.
    4. Ponzi schemes for Social Security and Medicare.
    5. Ruined public education system.
    6. Uninhabitable cities.
    7. Looming bankruptcy of federal, state and local governments.

    Trade has given us cheap consumer goods and a market for many products. Protectionism will make almost all of us poorer. There are worse things that could happen. It may be China’s turn to rule the world.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.