15 thoughts on “News/Politics 1-10-19

  1. Once again liberal hyperbole over Kavanaugh and the loss of abortion “rights” seems to have been vastly overblown.

    And once again, the so-called “conservative” court really isn’t in any hurry to even allow limits to be placed. Same goes for the Republicans while they held all 3 branches. They talk a good game, but they never, ever deliver.


    “Supreme Court May Allow Mothers To Kill Babies For Being Disabled Or A Girl

    If the Supreme Court ultimately declines the case, it would be another failure on the road to ending the injustices abortion perpetuates.”

    “On Friday, the Supreme Court delayed its consideration of a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision that struck down two Indiana abortion statutes. The first banned abortions that take place as a result of the child’s race, sex, or disability. The second mandates that the remains of unborn children be buried or cremated.

    This decision comes hard on the heels on the failure of a Republican-controlled federal government to take any action towards limiting abortion in the United States. Even Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, escaped unscathed, maintaining their government funding.

    The Seventh Circuit’s rejection is even more frustrating considering the role abortion has played in legitimizing eugenics in both the United States and Europe. Such a resurgence is most notable in the plight of people with Down Syndrome.

    In Iceland, for example, every single mother with an unborn baby diagnosed with Down decided to end the pregnancy. Only two to three babies with Down are born in the country every year. The small island nation is far from alone in this regard. In Denmark, 98 percent of women choose abortion when they discover their child has Down Syndrome, and the issue is replicated at somewhat lower levels across Europe.

    In the United States, a smaller number of unborn babies diagnosed with Down are aborted compared to these countries, but our numbers are still unforgivably high. The best estimates claim abortion after prenatal diagnosis has reduced the total U.S. Down population by around 30 percent, a staggering amount.

    The first statute in the lawsuit would have banned this type of abortion. No longer would mothers be allowed to remove their children from the gene pool merely because they see their children as less desirable than they might have been without such a “defect.” The statute does not prohibit mothers from aborting disabled children for reasons other than their disability.”


  2. Gotta root out those Catholics and any other people of faith who may apply……..



    “Rep. Gabbard accuses fellow Dems of stoking ‘bigotry’ for questioning court pick’s Knights of Columbus ties”

    “Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, appeared to accuse fellow Democrats of stoking “religious bigotry” this week for their questioning of a Trump judicial pick’s Knights of Columbus membership.

    “While I oppose the nomination of Brian Buescher to the U.S. District Court in Nebraska, I stand strongly against those who are fomenting religious bigotry, citing as disqualifiers Buescher’s Catholicism and his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus,” Gabbard said in an op-ed for The Hill on Tuesday.

    Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, raised concerns about lawyer Buescher’s membership in the Catholic organization as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s review of his nomination by President Trump to sit on the U.S. District Court in Nebraska.

    As first reported by the Catholic News Agency, Hirono asked whether his membership in the Knights of Columbus would prevent him from hearing cases “fairly and impartially” and, if confirmed, whether he would end his membership in the charitable organization.

    “The Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions,” Hirono said in the questionnaire. “For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.”

    Harris, in her questions to the nominee, called the Knights of Columbus “an all-male society” and asked the Nebraska lawyer if he was aware that the group was anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage when he joined. The Catholic Church has opposed both abortion and gay marriage for centuries.”


  3. Once again, the NYTimes is leading the way……

    In fake news.

    Another narrative collapse on a story that all of the parrot media ran with. and turns out to be false. Again.


    “Blockbuster Russia collusion story collapses, NY Times issues devastating “correction”

    Manafort didn’t try to pass election polling data to the Russians after all, but to the Ukrainians. OOPS.”

    “The NY Times broke a story asserting that Paul Manafort passed secret polling data to a Russian Oligarch with close ties to Russian intelligence:

    Both Mr. Manafort and Rick Gates, the deputy campaign manager, transferred the data to Mr. Kilimnik in the spring of 2016 as Mr. Trump clinched the Republican presidential nomination, according to a person knowledgeable about the situation. Most of the data was public, but some of it was developed by a private polling firm working for the campaign, according to the person.

    Mr. Manafort asked Mr. Gates to tell Mr. Kilimnik to pass the data to Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to the Kremlin and who has claimed that Mr. Manafort owed him money from a failed business venture, the person said. It is unclear whether Mr. Manafort was acting at the campaign’s behest or independently, trying to gain favor with someone to whom he was deeply in debt.


    The seedy slimy usual suspects were ecstatic, they finally had Trump right where they wanted him. This was the proof they all had been waiting for. The walls were closing in on Trump.

    Josh Marshall called it “The Big Boom“:

    Marshall then doubled down, The ‘Collusion’ Debate Ended Last Night (emphasis added):

    As I signaled last night, the seemingly accidental redaction error in the Manafort legal filing combined with the news published mid-evening by The New York Times is one of the biggest revelations in more than two years of the Trump/Russia scandal. It’s bigger than the Trump Tower meeting in June 2016, though the two cases can’t be fully understood without reference to each other. Just as importantly, these new revelations combined with earlier reports effectively end the debate about whether there was ‘collusion’ between Russia and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. There was. It wasn’t marginal. It was happening at the very top of the campaign. The campaign manager was secretly funneling campaign data and information to a Russian oligarch closely tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin, someone who had no possible use for such information other than to use it in the Russian efforts to get Donald Trump elected President.

    Law Professor Paul Campos, citing Marshall’s analysis, took Republicans to task, The Collusion Debate Is Over:

    What follows is an incredibly damning and detailed account of how Donald Trump’s campaign manager worked directly with Russian intelligence to defeat Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. After the election, Manafort was debriefed by Russian intelligence, as any spy would be in such circumstances.

    Note that this revelation comes from one failure, intentional or otherwise, to fully redact one document in Mueller’s sprawling investigation.

    How long will the Republican party choose to continue to tolerate the Trump administration’s combination of profound corruption and utter incompetence? ….

    Martin Longman at Washington Monthly echoed the praise for Marshall’s analysis of this bombshell news:

    Josh Marshall does a very good job of explaining why it is now beyond doubt that Paul Manafort, while serving as the campaign chairman of the Trump campaign, actively colluded with the Kremlin in their efforts to get Donald Trump elected president. What this means is that the president will probably have to fall back to a position he should have taken from the beginning. He’s going to have to argue that he knew nothing about what Manafort was doing and that he’s appalled to learn the details….

    James Hohman at the Washington Post noted the significance of the news, and then summarized similar analysis from others, The new Russia revelations are more consequential than Trump’s newsless immigration speech (emphasis in original):”





    Pollys want a cracker? These people are a bad joke.


  4. Anti-Semitism goes mainstream…….

    In the Democrat Party.


    “Only Two Democrat Senators Will Publicly Oppose The Anti-Israel BDS Movement

    On Monday and Tuesday, we offered every Democrat senator an opportunity to clarify his or her position on boycott, divestment, sanctions policies. Only two offices responded.”

    “Sen. Marco Rubio threw a rock at a political hornet’s nest on Monday when he tweeted, “The shutdown is not the reason Senate Democrats don’t want to move to Middle East Security Bill. A huge argument broke out at Senate Dem meeting last week over BDS. A significant # of Senate Democrats now support #BDS & Dem leaders want to avoid a floor vote that reveals that.”

    Twitter erupted — as it is wont to do — with users arguing whether this reflected insider knowledge or was a convenient lie. Personally, I’m inclined to believe there’s something to what Rubio wrote. Anyone who’s followed American foreign policy in recent years knows that the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement is an explosive and barely contained hot-button issue for Democrats.

    Consider that one year ago, Pew Research polled Americans’ attitudes toward Israel and the Palestinians. They reported that “the partisan divide in Middle East sympathies, for Israel or the Palestinians, is now wider than at any point since 1978. Currently, 79% of Republicans say they sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians, compared with just 27% of Democrats.”

    Drilling down, Pew quantified the change within the Democratic Party’s progressive wing that’s been apparent to Middle East watchers for some time: “The share of liberal Democrats who sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians has declined from 33% to 19% since 2016. Currently, nearly twice as many liberal Democrats say they sympathize more with the Palestinians than with Israel (35% vs. 19%).”

    Lest these numbers be dismissed as theoretical concerns, Midwestern voters just elected the nation’s first two pro-BDS members of Congress. Of course, neither Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan nor Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota were particularly forthright about their views during election season. It wasn’t until after winning her Democratic primary that Tlaib “explicitly endors[ed] a one-state solution and oppos[ed] aid [to Israel], a change celebrated by far-left Palestinian activists, who sharply criticized her for seeking out and receiving the J Street endorsement.” Omar didn’t publicly acknowledge that she supported BDS until after November’s election.

    Leaving aside these two representatives’ real views, which I oppose, it’s dangerous for democracy if officials blatantly lie to their constituents about issues that can change votes. It’s also important for Israel and Jews that support for them is bipartisan. So, yes, answering Rubio’s allegation matters.”


  5. Yeah…….. 😦


    “Peter Jackson’s Restored WWI Footage Underscores The Flaccidity Of Today’s Culture

    Can any culture raise ‘rough men’ ready to defend it against a ruthless enemy when it cannot even fix in the minds of its developing youth what their sex is?”

    ““We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm,” Winston Churchill reportedly said. He knew a thing or two about combat as a young man, and as the leader of a great nation about facing annihilation as an old man. If Winston could only see us now. The contrast between those young people today who stand ready to protect us and those we protect has perhaps never been more stark.

    A December 19 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Failure 101: Teaching Resilience” reports many American universities feel the need to offer courses that teach “It’s OK to fail sometimes.” Really. The Journal reports that many colleges, including elites like Princeton and Vanderbilt, are offering workshops with vignettes showing students and staff “discussing their failures and moments of self-doubt.” The University of Central Arkansas, during “Fail Forward Week,” apparently hands out certificates giving students “permission to screw up ‘and still be a totally worthy, excellent human being,’” citing the document.

    On the same page of the print edition of the Journal, below the fold, is a much shorter article. In fact, it’s not an article at all. It’s simply a photograph with a caption. The photo is of a flag-draped casket being carried from a church in Export, Pennsylvania by six soldiers in dress uniform bearing the body of their fallen comrade, Army Sgt. Jason McClary, who was killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan last month.

    How striking the divergence in these depictions of our youth.

    The Journal devoted almost the entire above-the-fold portion of page A6 to discussing the delicate sensibilities of wealthy college students suffering the pangs of a poor grade on a test or having difficulty with a roommate. Or, to put it in professional counselor-speak: “We always painted failing a class or failing a test in a completely negative light, and we didn’t give the space to say if this does happen, it’s a moment in time, and here’s the process by which you learn from it.” So spake Amy Baldwin, the University of Central Arkansas’s director of the department of student transitions.

    Now below the fold, we see McClary borne by his brothers-in-arms. Somehow, I suspect that McClary would be entirely comfortable with the Journal’s editorial decisions about covering these two stories. In my experience interacting with active-duty and retired servicemembers, I fully expect that they would seek no extensive reporting of their deeds, or of their struggles with the difficulties and failures of everyday life. No certificates needed to assure them that they are still “totally worthy, excellent human beings.”


  6. “Is Rashida Tlaib Guilty of Bigotry?”

    In a word….. yes.


    “To single out only the “Jew among nations,” and not the dozens of far more serious violators of human rights is bigotry pure and simple, and those who support BDS only against Israel are guilty of bigotry.

    What is unacceptable is discriminatory actions, and nothing can be more discriminatory than singling out an ally with one of the best records of human rights in the world for a boycott, while continuing to do business with the worst human rights offenders in the world.

    Many of the same bigots who support BDS against Israel, oppose boycotting Cuba, Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other human rights violators. Legislation designed to end such discriminatory actions would be constitutional, if it did not prohibit advocacy.

    No one has accused Tlaib of forgetting what country she represents when she supports the Palestinian cause, even though Palestinian terrorists, acting in the name of “Palestine,” have killed numerous Americans. Americans of any religion have the right to support Israel, and most do, without being accused of disloyalty, just as Americans of any religion have the right to support the Palestinian cause. It is both bigoted and hypocritical to apply a different standard to Jews who support Israel than to Muslims who support the Palestinian cause…. If she is the “new face” of the Democratic Party, we Democrats should begin worrying.

    If Congress were considering legislation prohibiting boycotts directed against gays, women or Muslim owned companies, would Senator Bernie Sanders be arguing that such a ban would violate the First Amendment? If Congress were considering legislation prohibiting companies from boycotting majority Muslim countries, would Rashida Tlaib be accusing its supporters of dual loyalty?

    American laws have long dealt with discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and national origin. Our laws prohibited compliance with the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses in the 1930’s and the Arab boycotts of the 1950’s and 1960’s. Now Congress is considering legislation dealing with companies that boycott only the nation state of the Jewish people, and only Jews within Israel. To single out only the “Jew among nations,” and not the dozens of far more serious violators of human rights is bigotry pure and simple, and those who support BDS [boycotts divestments and sanctions against Israel] only against Israel are guilty of bigotry.

    Some supporters of BDS claim that it is a protest tactic designed to put pressure on Israel to change its policies. That is not what the leaders of BDS say. Their goal is the elimination of Israel and its replacement by a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea.”*

    So long as these anti-BDS statutes do not prohibit advocacy of such boycotts, but focus instead on the commercial activities themselves – namely the economic boycotts – there are no serious freedom of speech concerns. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, not freedom to discriminate economically based on invidious classifications. There are close questions, as evidenced by the difficult case involving a baker’s refusal to design a cake for a gay wedding, based on the baker’s claimed religious beliefs. But it is not a close case to prevent the bigot from renting an apartment to a black couple or even from advertising that he rents to whites only. I have in my collection postcards from Miami Beach hotels, as recently as the 1950’s, advertising “restricted clientele,” “discriminating clients,” or “gentile clientele only.” These were euphemisms for “no Jews allowed.” Or as one hotel brazenly put it: “Always a view, never a Jew.” Similar advertisements were directed against Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, African-Americans and other minorities. These advertisements would be illegal today despite the fact that they take the form of words. The First Amendment permits a hotel owner to advocate a return to “gentiles only,” or “whites only” hotels, but it does not protect the act of discrimination itself or boycotting based on religion or national origin.”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I thank God my daughter and SIL did not abort our beautiful granddaughter who happens to have Down Syndrome. There are many who do push anyone pregnant with a challenging diagnosis to abort. Thank God they knew better and did better. I pity those who think they can determine how perfect their offspring will ultimately be.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. Another blown up narrative,

    Liked by 1 person

  9. They don’t even try for objectivity anymore. Looks like the Branco cartoon above is accurate for Democrats and the press, but I repeat myself….

    The only thing that’s changed is the president.


    “Vox Then: TSA Is A Waste Of Money. Vox Now: TSA Is Necessary For Airport Security.”

    “What a difference two years and a president from a different political party makes.

    Way back in the glory days of September 2016, when the left-wing media could just parrot what their preferred president would say and point out government largesse without blaming said preferred president, Vox published an article titled “The TSA is a waste of money that doesn’t save lives and might actually cost them.”

    The article notes that when Homeland Security sent people pretending to be terrorists through the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) airport security with guns and bombs, they went undetected 95% of the time. Further, the article claims that TSA security measures have led to more people driving, which is more deadly than air travel:

    “The TSA doesn’t save lives, but it probably ends them. One paper by economists Garrick Blalock, Vrinda Kadiyali, and Daniel Simon found that, controlling for other factors like weather and traffic, 9/11 provoked such a large decrease in air traffic and increase in driving that 327 more people died every month from road accidents. The effect dissipated over time, but the total death toll (up to 2,300) rivals that of the attacks themselves,” Vox reported.

    The article goes on to cite another paper from these individuals finding that checked baggage screening led to fewer airline passengers, leading to more deaths from car accidents.

    So, in 2016, TSA was not just annoying and inefficient, it was actually harmful to the American people.

    Fast forward to Tuesday, January 8, 2019. A Republican is president and the government is “shut down” because President Donald Trump wants funding for a border wall and Democrats want… open borders? Now, suddenly, TSA is the most critical safety measure we have as a country. In an article titled “To build the wall, Trump is sacrificing airport security during the government shutdown,” Vox insists Trump is wrong to want a border wall and the TSA is working without pay. (Note: No government employee is currently working without pay as the next pay day is this Friday and they received their previous paychecks.)

    “So while the Trump administration is prepared to keep the government shut down to get funding for a wall that will supposedly protect Americans, it is actually weakening the security in gateways where people have actually been stopped: airports,” Vox wrote.

    TSA workers are apparently calling out sick since they think they won’t be paid this week (they might not be, or the shutdown will end), creating longer lines at airports and forcing the agency to possibly loosen security measures. The same security measures Vox previously reported do nothing for airport security but may actually kill people.

    Vox tweeted out the article in what might have been an attempt to scare people over a lack of airport security, but actually made the shutdown seem like a good thing for travelers.”


  10. Someone besides Trump gets it. And he’s willing to sacrifice personally to get the border secured.


  11. Thirteen year old Jayme Closs has been found alive and someone arrested in the case. She will be back with her aunt and uncle tonight. Her parents were murdered and she has been missing for 3 months.

    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.