33 thoughts on “News/Politics 6-24-17

  1. Some good news….

    Most people realize these were trumped up charges for political reasons by a pro-abortion AG. This just proves that.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/court-dismisses-charges-against-pro-life-activists-for-now/article/2008612

    “Even in famously abortion-friendly California there is justice for abortion foes. On June 21, the San Francisco County Superior Court threw out 14 of the 15 felony counts that California Attorney General Xavier Becerra had brought against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, the anti-abortion activists who had made widely circulated undercover videos of Planned Parenthood officials haggling and joking over the compensation they expected to receive for supplying the organs of fetuses aborted at Planned Parenthood clinics to for-profit “tissue-procurement” companies.

    I wrote about the case for THE WEEKLY STANDARD shortly after Becerra lodged the felony charges on March 28, and it seemed to me more persecution than prosecution. California law forbids the recording of conversations without the consent of all parties involved, so Becerra, a former Democratic congressman from Los Angeles, assigned a separate criminal count to each of 14 secretly recorded conversations that Deleiden and Merritt, posing as tissue-procurers themselves, had had with high-level Planned Parenthood employees at restaurants, abortion conventions, and other venues during 2013 and 2014, and also with the CEO of StemExpress, a Placerville, California, tissue supply firm, that had partnered at the time with some of Planned Parenthood’s Northern California clinics to retrieve fetal body parts onsite. For the statute in question, California Penal Code Section 632, prosecutorial discretion allows charges to be brought as either felonies or misdemeanors. Becerra went the felony route. His aim seemed to be to put Daleiden and Merritt behind bars for as long as legally possible; each separate felony conviction for violating Section 632 could entail a year in state prison plus a hefty fine.

    There were always legal issues that could have stood in the way of automatic Section 632 convictions for the pair: How much expectation of privacy—an essential element of a violation of the anti-recording law—did the alleged victims really have in the public places where the conversations occurred, for example. But what really killed the greater part of Becerra’s case, at least for now, was his office’s insistence on keeping secret such key information as the names of the alleged Planned Parenthood victims. Superior Court Judge Christopher Hite ruled that those 14 charges were simply legally insufficient. “The complaint did not provide Merritt with the minimum notice required by the Constitution and California law as to what she supposedly did wrong, so that she can mount a proper and vigorous defense,” her lawyer, Mat Staver of LibertyCounsel said.. “The complaint was also vague and full of inconsistencies.”

    Hite gave Becerra’s office until mid-July to file a revised and more detailed complaint, and it will be interesting to see whether the attorney general’s obvious solicitude for the delicate feelings of Planned Parenthood officials will outweigh his obvious desire to throw the book at Daleiden and Merritt. There is also that 15th count: a conspiracy charge against the pair stemming from their use of a former StemExpress employee’s password to log into StemExpress’s email account so as to learn the ins and out of fetal organ procurement.”

    Liked by 3 people

  2. They’re wrong about everything…..

    And it’s why most have stopped listening to them.

    http://freebeacon.com/columns/theyre-wrong-everything/

    “Events are turning me into a radical skeptic. I no longer believe what I read, unless what I am reading is an empirically verifiable account of the past. I no longer have confidence in polls, because it has become impossible to separate the signal from the noise. What I have heard from the media and political class over the last several years has been so spectacularly proven wrong by events, again and again, that I sometimes wonder why I continue to read two newspapers a day before spending time following journalists on Twitter. Habit, I guess. A sense of professional obligation, I suppose. Maybe boredom.

    The fact is that almost the entirety of what one reads in the paper or on the web is speculation. The writer isn’t telling you what happened, he is offering an interpretation of what happened, or offering a projection of the future. The best scenario is that these theories are novel, compelling, informed, and based on reporting and research. But that is rarely the case. More often the interpretations of current events, and prophesies of future ones, are merely the products of groupthink or dogma or emotions or wish-casting, memos to friends written by 27-year-olds who, in the words of Ben Rhodes, “literally know nothing.” There was a time when newspapers printed astrology columns. They no longer need to. The pseudoscience is on the front page.

    Nor are the empty conjectures and worthless hypotheses limited to Donald Trump. Yes, pretty much the entire world, myself included, assumed he would lose to Hillary Clinton. Indeed, a not-insignificant segment of the political class, both Democrat and Republican, thought the Republicans would not only lose the presidency but also the House and Senate. Oops! I remember when, as the clock reached midnight on November 8 and it became clear Trump would be the forty-fifth president, a friend called. “Are we just wrong about everything?” he asked. Perhaps we were. But at least we had the capacity to admit our fallibility.

    There are few who can. Conjectures and guesswork continue to dog Trump in the form of “the Russia thing,” the belief that the president, his “satellites,” or his campaign worked with the Russians to influence the election in his favor. Months after the FBI opened its investigation into whether such collusion occurred, no evidence has been found. The charge itself is based on an unverified and gossipy and over-the-top memo prepared by a former British spy for Democrats.

    Compounded by Trump’s own mistakes, the Russia story has now traveled so far afield from the original suspicions that we in Washington are no longer all that interested in the underlying charges. What concerns us instead is the possible obstruction of justice in the investigation of a crime that seems not to have taken place. And yet Russia continues to dominate the headlines, command the attention of pundits, generate rumor and insinuations from people who ought to know better.”
    ————————

    Liked by 1 person

  3. In an Idiocracy all things work together for absurdity. This lengthy WP article details how the Obama Administration slowly and timidly responded to Russian interference in the election. Hilariously, thirty minutes after the Administration released a long-planned major announcement of Putin’s personal involvement, that news was completely drowned out by the release of Trump’s “Grab them by the #%£€#” tape.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_russiaobama-banner-7a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.289ef089be01

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I was telling a friend earlier this week, I, too, rarely believe what I read in the papers. In fact, I’ll go pull the straight quote from FB:

    As a former reporter, I haven’t trusted the media this century and I gave up on one sided TV news 20 years ago.

    Friend who should know better: “All I care about are the facts!”

    There’s no way of getting them unless you are there and examining both sides. I read across the spectrum but both sides are so full of bias and deliberate holes that they’re untrustworthy.

    Sorry. I look where the smoke is and turn around to see what both sides are really trying to obscure. :-(.

    It’s a difficult time to raise children when you have to tell them to trust nothing and read like the Soviet citizens read Pravda– from the end up. A hint at the truth is usually four or five paragraphs from the bottom, especially in a long article. :-(.

    Why yes, I am cynical in this subject.

    Back to today: The tragedy for me is, I’ve contemplated hiding her because I cannot tolerate the never-ending anti-Trump posts every single day. And yet on our mutual subject, she is clever, witty, charming and fun. It’s a conundrum and I’m so disappointed.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Michelle, We are the same age. I have been sifting through liberal bias in the MSM since I was fourteen. If you want to see real liberal bias, read any MSM story about the budget proposals or healthcare. On those issues, you really have to dig to get to the truth. That has been true for my entire lifetime.

    On the other hand, it really doesn’t take any liberal bias to report Trump’s obvious lies, self-reported abuses of power or sexual assaults. When the New York Times, Mona Charen, the Washington Post, George Will and Kevin D. Williamson all reach the same conclusions about Trump, I really don’t feel the need to dig much further, particularly when I have already reached the same conclusions by just listening to Trump or reading his Tweets.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. It is this part (from one of the articles AJ linked to last night) that makes me wonder what they were thinking: “…and preempts a St. Louis ordinance which bans housing or employment discrimination based on reproductive choices.”

    There may be some other reason they are overturning that ordinance – maybe it wasn’t even necessary in the first place – but it “sounds” like they are saying it is okay to discriminate based on “reproductive choices”.

    Like

  7. To continue from conversation on the Rod Dreher link about the Castile case yesterday….

    The optics in the Castile shooting are very bad. From the video, Castile is in compliance with the officer’s instructions. But apparently he was already in his back pocket reaching for the license. The officer told him ‘don’t reach for it (the gun)’. Castile told him that he was NOT reaching for it. And from the video, there was no conceivable time for Castile to do anything other than what he was doing—except freeze, which the officer never told him to do. There does not seem to have been any malice at all on either side. It was a tragic incident.

    It’s important to remember that the police and the military are armed government employees. If we take our right to bear arms seriously, then we should expect the police to do the same. This includes being trained and prepared to encounter law abiding, gun carrying people, even in traffic stops. Abuses by armed government employees, and highly controversial verdicts such as the Castile case, give oxygen to groups like Black Lives Matter. These groups gain legitimacy in the eyes of people who continue to live with widely perceived (and actual) race-contingent abuses. It further degrades respect for law enforcement and public safety—including the safety of police officers. No one is well served when the police are ill-trained and looked upon with suspicion. And verdicts like the Castile case do not inspire confidence.

    But the reason I found Rod Dreher’s take on the Castile case interesting [from the link on yesterday’s thread], is that he is not even necessarily second-guessing the jury verdict. Rather, in light of the broad range of dissent about the verdict (and other similarly controversial verdicts), he’s asking whether or not our many foreign armed conflicts and the subsequent militarization of the police here in the US is connected in making us more conditioned to being unquestioning of the police than in times past. “Has “questioning the police” become as taboo in American popular culture as “questioning the troops”?” It was interesting to me because I have had the same question.

    From where I now live in the Bible Belt South, I ask that question of myself more than ever before. Too often, I’ve seen rousing standing ovations and enthusiastic cheers at the mention of military troops or police, while in the same church congregation, a polite hand-patting is sufficient approbation for Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Living God. This lopsided adulation seems to be ingrained in the mindset of the population—many of whom have served in the military or police departments, or have family members who are serving still. But at the same time, I have noticed that virtually no one cheers for other public servants, and at many churches, they don’t even pray for them openly. So the ‘taboo’ of questioning police or police motives seems to me to be a logical extension of that way of thinking. And perhaps, it’s also a logical extension of employment and participation in wars and our many armed conflicts abroad.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. There’s nothing wrong with not liking Trump.
    I never liked Trump either. But I don’t like the alternative more.
    Trump we have. Hillary we don’t have. That’s the way it is and I’m happy with that.
    Rush said about Obama, “I hope he faille’s .” I won’t say that about Trump.
    I’m for”
    Repealing Obamacare
    Restricting immigration.
    Deleting most regulations, especially those climate orientated ones.
    Making America strong again.
    Fiscal responsibility. I know this is not likely to happen.

    Those in no special order, just as they came to me. I want America to be good again. Then, I want America to be strong again.
    I know that’s a dream.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. Sorry. That link did not work. You can go to lifesitenews.com and look up the case of the woman whose son was supposedly emancipated at 15. He was also given hormones all without his mother’s knowledge or permission. The taxpayers paid for this monstrously wrong action.

    Like

  10. I guess I do not live where people do not question the police or are afraid to do so. Everyone seems to be questioning them more and more, in fact, IMO.

    Like

  11. Kathaleena, I too find that horrible. Just yesterday I was reading about a British guy who was fined for taking his daughter out of school for a week to go to Disney World. He fought it and the costs were prohibitive so he stopped. The taxpayers paid even more than he did. It has long since passed when we knew our neighbors were watching out for our children and supporting the parents. It seems to be all about freeing the child from parental supervision (that is what happened to us and our fifteen year old son). Being friends with every child means not caring about their tomorrow, apparently.

    Liked by 4 people

  12. This is in the area where I grew up — and a very familiar road that cut through some hills to get to one of our older outdoor shopping malls back in the day.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-rodeo-road-obama-blvd-20170623-story.html

    Southwest L.A. loves ‘Obama Boulevard’ proposal but wonders: ‘Why not a major street?’
    ___________________________

    Even though it runs through the heart of L.A’.s Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw neighborhood, most Angelenos would be hard pressed to locate Rodeo Road on a map.

    In fact, they’d probably point to its ritzy doppelganger — Beverly Hills’ Rodeo Drive — instead.

    That may change very soon, however.

    Residents here are cheering a proposal to rename the asphalt thoroughfare in honor of former President Obama, who visited here when he was a U.S. senator.

    The news that southwest L.A.’s Rodeo Road may soon be renamed “Obama Boulevard” was received positively by residents of the surrounding Crenshaw district.

    “I’m so happy, that would be wonderful,” said Robbi Work, 60.

    A retired former prosecutor, Work was even wearing a shirt emblazoned with the former president’s face when she learned of the proposal to rename the road Obama Boulevard. …

    … Los Angeles City Council President Herb Wesson proposed renaming the street on Thursday. There are several other streets named after presidents in the area, including Washington, Jefferson and Adams. …
    _____________________________

    Like

  13. Bernie and Jane have lawyered up.

    Way to stick it to the rich, eh Bern?…..

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jane-sanders-apos-fraud-investigation-150226560.html

    “Sanders and his wife have been trying to ignore the federal investigation since reporters for VTDigger, an online publication, confirmed the FBI’s involvement in April. The original request for an investigation into the potential bank fraud did indeed come from Brady Toensing, an attorney who chaired Trump’s Vermont campaign, and whose January 2016 letter to the U.S. attorney for Vermont put federal agents on the trail. (Toensing, in an email to Politico Magazine, notes, “The investigation was started more than a year ago under President Obama, his Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and his United States Attorney, all of whom are Democrats.”)

    Now, Senator Sanders and his wife are taking the case more seriously. Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ longtime top political adviser who heads Sanders’ political organization, Our Revolution, confirms to Politico Magazine that Bernie and Jane Sanders have lawyered up. The couple has retained Rich Cassidy, a well-connected Burlington attorney and Sanders devotee, and Larry Robbins, the renowned Washington-based defense attorney who has represented I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and disgraced former Rep. Bill Jefferson, to represent Jane Sanders in the matter.

    Now, President Donald Trump’s Justice Department is handling an investigation that will proceed at the discretion of a U.S. attorney of Vermont that Trump has yet to appoint.”
    ———-

    “Bernie and Jane Sanders shrugged off the charges. Reporters, mesmerized by the rumpled Vermont senator’s razor-thin margin in Iowa and crushing defeat of Clinton in New Hampshire, ignored the letter. The allegations got no traction on the trail.”
    ————-

    Just like with the Obama story Ricky mentioned. The press was too busy talking about groping and ignored actual news that made their preferred politicians look bad. It’s 2 more indictments of the biased press. They ignored the real news for tabloid fodder.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. I read the Williamson article and almost posted the link myself, but I ran out of time. It’s long overdue that both parties take a realistic look at healthcare costs in the US, and work together to create some legislation that can be phased in over time. Necessary parts of a plan should include a cap on consumer costs, making basic coverage non-profit, coverage of the poor and preexisting conditions, etc. After those details are phased in I would be open to disconnecting coverage from employers, and some kind of mandate.

    However, I’m wary of heavy mandate fines until other implementations and safeguards are fully operational. Obamacare had minimal mandate fines but their required policies were outrageously expensive, especially for people whose incomes are more volatile and may fluctuate substantially from one year to the next. Such fluctuations might make one qualified for 100% subsidies for a basic policy, yet liable for $20,000 because of unexpected income at the end of the year. That’s not workable for a population that is increasingly self-employed and/or cobbling income together from 2 or 3 or more sources.

    Having said all that, I still think the VA is or should be the best predictor of healthcare policy success. And right now, that doesn’t look very good. For practical reasons, I would prefer to fix the VA first, but it doesn’t look like that is going to be an option for us. But at least people like Williamson are beginning to talk about it.

    Like

  15. A hospital in Boise is spending 300,000 dollars to move a one hundred year old sequoia two blocks. I would say that is an interesting expense. Wonder where the money came from?

    Liked by 1 person

  16. We were chasing a story this week about a guy, an arborist, who posed on social media that after the small beach city he lives in made him take out one of his favorite trees he secretly planted 200 redwoods throughout the city, including in the mayor’s yard and at city hall.

    Great story, but it turned out to be a hoax. Oh well. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Whether or not there is anything to the allegations, it is smart for Sanders & his wife to hire an attorney.

    We tend to think that only the guilty need to “lawyer up”, but from what I have read, it is the smart thing to do if being questioned by police or other authorities, even if you are innocent.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Twitter may be home to frenzied one-liners, but it can also be a good way to find links to interesting stories or opinion pieces. And Russell Moore used it to round up the voting members of the SBC a couple of weeks ago. It has its uses, but unfortunately I’m too wordy to enjoy posting there. :–)

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Good to see you back, Ricky. What happened to Charlie Jones on KRLD? I used to listen to him on the way home when I work fast track. They have some other syndicated guy. Very irritating.

    I am also not a Trump fan. However, each time he pulls one of his bone headed moves, I am thankful that it is not Hillary.

    Liked by 3 people

  20. Well here’s something else we can be thankful for. 🙂

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/06/republicans-steamrolling-dems-to-confirm-trump-judicial-nominees/

    “This may be the least covered major story of the Trump era, so far at least.

    While the media and Democrats are obsessed with increasingly bizarre Trump-Russia conspiracy theories, and failed attempts to flip Special Election congressional seats, an enormous change to the federal judiciary is well underway.

    We have been covering this story, and the relative lack of media coverage, for months. Most recently, I wrote While you were focused on COMEY, Trump nominated another group of CONSERVATIVE Judges:

    While everyone was focused on Comey’s prepared statement, Trump went about his business filling vacancies in the federal judiciary.

    I wrote about this a month ago, Trump begins counter-packing federal courts, Dems can’t stop him thanks to Reid Rule:

    As we have pointed out repeatedly, Trump has an unprecedented opportunity to nominate a substantial percentage of the federal judiciary.

    There are currently over 100 vacancies, and many more are likely to open up, Liberal nightmare: Trump could appoint half federal judiciary. Yet Democrats, so blinded by the light of #TheResistance, appeared oblivious to the approaching Tsunami of Trump lower court nominations.

    Today the first waves of the Trump judicial nomination tsunami hit the beaches in D.C.

    Those ten nominees received mostly rave reviews, as detailed in that prior post.

    The second wave of conservative nominees landed on Wednesday ….

    I ended that post with this caution:

    Now Mitch McConnell and the Senate Judiciary Committee need to do their job and get these people quick hearings and up or down votes.

    It appears that Republicans in the Senate are moving rapidly on the nominations. And some liberal media is beginning to pay attention.

    Huffington Post alerted readers earlier today, Donald Trump Is In The Perfect Position To Dramatically Remake The Courts.”

    Like

  21. I don’t know about the WTO, or what is healthy or trade issues. I do know Mexican Cokes taste better. They are The Real Thing.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Thanks for the info, Ricky. I would love to listen to preaching, but have not found any in my area. I don’t listen to music on my drive home, as it is like singing me to sleep. I will have to make it to the library for books on tape.

    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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s