28 thoughts on “News/Politics 1-29-19

  1. Mueller is wrapping up the witch hunt.


    Which is a good thing, since he has nothing, it’s time he stop wasting taxpayers’ money and time.


    “WaPo/ABC Poll: Majority Opposes Impeachment, Has Little To No Confidence In Mueller’s Fairness”

    “In other words, welcome to 1998. A new poll from the Washington Post and ABC shows that Americans still aren’t sold on impeaching of Donald Trump. Voters approve of investigations by Congress into the 2016 election and the White House, but strong skepticism exists that the House can do so without overreaching.

    Whatever you do, don’t tell Tom Steyer:”

    “The trend on impeachment has moved in Trump’s direction, by the way, despite Steyer’s multimillion-dollar campaign. Last August, the result was a 49/46 plurality in support of impeachment proceedings beginning in the House. In just five months, that has flipped 18 points in the gap in this series.

    Today’s results pretty much mirror the experience of 1998, when Republicans attempted to impeach Bill Clinton on grounds of perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from a civil suit. Voters were disgusted by Clinton’s behavior, but Republicans overplayed their hand in the end. Independent prosecutor Ken Starr was widely seen as having overreached in his report, although no one actually doubted the perjury and obstruction of justice allegations; Clinton had to settle those by writing a big check and losing his law license for several years. When removal went nowhere in the Senate, voters punished the GOP in the midterms, dealing them an unexpected setback and giving Clinton new political momentum in his final two years in office.

    They’re almost equally cynical about Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe now. Once burned, twice shy:

    Half of Americans report they have “just some” confidence or none at all that the Mueller report will be fair and evenhanded, and 43 percent say they have at least a good amount of confidence in its fairness.

    That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement. The poll was taken before Roger Stone’s dramatic arrest and indictment, but after Mueller publicly contradicted a Buzzfeed report that claimed Trump told Michael Cohen to lie to Congress. That demonstration of fairness apparently didn’t make much of a dent in the public consciousness. Almost a third of Democrats (32%) express little to no confidence in Mueller’s investigation, which increases to 53% with independents and 70% with Republicans.”


  2. 3rd world tactics.


    “The indictment of former Donald Trump associate Roger Stone follows a long pattern that should raise serious concerns about the special counsel. Like virtually all of these indictments, this one does not charge any major crimes relating to Russia that were committed before the special counsel was appointed. It charges crimes that grew out of the investigation and were allegedly committed after Robert Mueller was appointed in 2017.

    Recall that the primary job of the special counsel was to uncover crimes that had already occurred relating to Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Mueller also was authorized to investigate and prosecute crimes growing out of the investigation, such as perjury and obstruction of justice, but this role was secondary to the primary one. It turns out that the secondary role has produced many more indictments of Americans than the primary one. A review of all the indictments and guilty pleas secured by Mueller shows nearly all of them fall into three categories.

    First are process crimes such as perjury, obstruction, false statements, and witness tampering that have resulted from the investigation itself. That does not make them any less serious, but it is relevant to evaluating the overall success or failure of the primary mission. Second are crimes that occurred before Mueller was appointed but that cover unrelated business activities by Trump associates. The object of these indictments is to pressure the defendants to provide evidence against Trump. Third is one indictment against Russian individuals who will never be brought to justice in the United States. This indictment by was largely for show.

    The strategy used the special counsel, as described by Judge T.S. Ellis III, is to find crimes committed by Trump associates and to indict them in order to pressure them to cooperate. This is what Ellis said about the indictment of Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort: “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud. What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

    Ellis also pointed out the dangers of this tactic: “This vernacular to sing is what prosecutors use. What you have to be careful of is that they may not only sing, they may compose.” This is indeed a tactic widely employed by prosecutors, particularly in organized crime and other hierarchical cases. However, the fact that it is common does not make this tactic right. Civil libertarians have long expressed concern about indicting someone for the purpose of getting the individual to cooperate against the real target.

    I have been writing about this issue for decades. In fact, I coined the term “compose” that Ellis cited in federal court. However, most fair weather civil libertarians have remained silent with regard to Mueller because his target is Trump, who they despise. The American Civil Liberties Union, which has been flush with cash since Trump was elected, has expressed little criticism of the questionable tactics used by the special counsel.”

    Funny that…..


  3. Just. Do. It.


    “President Trump Can Fund the Border Wall with Unobligated Balances”

    “Over a month into the longest partial government shutdown in history, President Trump remains determined to make good on his promise to build a border wall to protect U.S. national security, while the Democrats remain staunchly opposed. President Trump has the opportunity to bypass Democrat opposition by drawing on unobligated balances to fund the border wall, effectively precluding a national emergency declaration and allowing for the government to reopen.

    To his great credit, President Trump has remained steadfast in his determination to build a border partition on the southern border. Such border partitions have proven to be effective. In San Diego, a border partition lowered apprehensions by 95%, while in El Paso, the number decreased by 89%. President Trump has correctly claimed that Israel’s southern border wall is 99.9% successful. According to a report released by Senator Ron Johnson, Israel’s southern border fence was central to a decline of 99.9% of illegal border crossings, with over 16,000 crossings in 2011 down to fewer than 20 in 2016. Israel’s security partition running near the Green Line has also proven extremely effective in an exceptional decline in terrorist attacks.

    Since completion of the partition in El Paso, they have seen a significant decrease in drug-smuggling and other crimes. In 2015, the U.S. Border Patrol seized close to 800 tons of illegal drugs, 99.4% of which were seized at the southern border. The sale of illegal drugs in the U.S. costs many thousands of lives each year, but due to the profitable nature of the sale of illicit drugs, a number of dangerous organizations, such as Hezb’allah, continue to be active in transporting drugs into the United States.

    As of August 2017, about 1,249 miles of the southern border remain unprotected, though the border wall continues to be built. Even with some natural barriers, the southern border is extremely porous. It is a national security imperative that the border partition be completed with complementary technologies, such as those used in Israel, to effectively seal the southern border. Even though each border is unique, the U.S. can learn a great deal from Israel’s effective southern border wall, including ensuring that the border wall is more cost-effective.

    According to the report released by Senator Ron Johnson, the cost per mile for Israel’s southern border partition is $2.9 million. A similarly priced partition on 1,249 miles of the U.S. southern border would be about $3.6 billion. Even with additional border patrol agents, and various new technologies, such as motion sensors, video cameras, night sensors, drones, and tunnel detection technology, an effective border wall would still be cost-effective and likely significantly lower than recent cost estimates of $15 to 25 billion. The amount of money saved on account of a precipitous decline in illegal immigration, drug-smuggling, and crime would almost certainly quickly exceed the cost of the border partition.”


    Democrats know this too.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. So Cali. Democrats don’t want the military defending our southern border, which would be within their job description to “defend” the US, yet it’s OK to have them working on tourist attractions for the California tourist industry?

    What’s wrong with this picture?


    “U.S. Marines and Navy Seabees are rebuilding the mountaintop runway on storied Santa Catalina Island, a tourist destination off the Southern California coast.

    About 100 Marines and sailors began working on the island this month under an agreement with the I Marine Expeditionary Force at California’s Camp Pendleton and the Catalina Island Conservancy. The work on Catalina’s Airport in the Sky is paid for by $5 million donated to the nonprofit land trust.

    However, the group isn’t paying the Marines and sailors for the work, which the military considers valuable training.

    The conservancy had been patching the runway at a cost of about $250,000 a year until the state Department of Transportation’s aeronautics division said it needed a long-term repair plan. The trust then partnered with the Defense Department’s Innovative Readiness Training Program, which looks to match up the needs of communities with military training opportunities.”


    Guarding the border and repelling invaders is valuable training too.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Obama, democrats, and BLM built this.


    “”We are sick and tired of having targets on our back,” Gamaldi said. “We are sick and tired of having dirtbags trying to take our lives when all we’re trying to do is protect this community and protect our families.”

    Gamaldi said while we live in the greatest city in the world, there are some who are fostering resentment against police in Houston.

    “Enough is enough. If you’re the ones out there spreading the rhetoric that police officers are the enemy, well just know we’ve all got your number now,” Gamaldi said. “We’re going to be keeping track on all of y’all, and we’re going to make sure to hold you accountable every time you stir the pot on our police officers.”


  6. Trump gets it done.



    “NATO Members Will Increase Defense Spending After Trump Calls Them Out

    “And we see that the clear message from President Donald Trump is having an impact.”

    “Ever since he announced his presidential campaign, President Donald Trump has applied pressure on NATO members to increase their defense spending.

    It’s now happening. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the organization heard Trump “loud and clear.”

    Stoltenberg made the remarks when he appeared on Fox News Sunday:

    “President Trump has been very clear,” Stoltenberg told fill-in host John Roberts. “He is committed to NATO. He stated that clearly just a few days ago and also at the NATO summit in July. But at the same time, he has clearly stated that NATO allies need to invest more. And therefore at the summit in July last year, we agreed to do more to step up — and now we see the results.”

    In all, Stoltenberg continued, “by the end of next year, NATO allies will add hundred – 100 billion extra U.S. dollars toward defense. So we see some real money and some real results. And we see that the clear message from President Donald Trump is having an impact.”

    Stoltenberg, while acknowledging that Trump was putting an unusual amount of pressure on NATO, said the harsh tactics were needed given Russia’s extraordinary aggression.

    “What he’s doing is to help us adapt the alliance, which we need because we live in a more unpredictable world with a more assertive Russia using violence and force against a neighbor, Ukraine,” Stoltenberg said. “And therefore NATO has to adapt.””

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Admitting there’s a problem is the first step…..

    And there’s definitely a problem…..


    “What Will It Take To Make You Understand And Accept That They Hate You?”


    “You need to die because of your smile.

    That’s the position of our enemies, and we know it because they told us – openly, proudly, in the garbage public forum that is Twitter and elsewhere. Oh, they backtracked a little when the extent of their killing fantasies got exposed, scampering like their insect analogy, the roach, when someone flips on the kitchen light. But that kid in DC with the Frigidaireborne reefer ranger banging that drum in his baffled mug? They wanted that kid to die for having a Wrong Smile.

    Cue the excuse chorus: “That’s nonsense! We just wanted to pummel that kid and then destroy him, his family and and all his classmates! Don’t look behind the curtain at the woodchipper comments and bomb threats, you cisnormative monsters!”

    Think of what they would do with real power…

    Accept that that kid was you, and me. If they’ll ice a kid for not having the right grin, they’ll waste you or me in a heartbeat. Murder is, after all, how leftists roll. The USSR, Red China, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba – that cadaver-strewn litany teaches what’s lurking at the bottom of the slope we’re sliding down. The Dems are spooning with socialism, and the goal of socialism is written in blood on the pages of history. The unapproved must be liquidated, and they are making no secret that you are unapproved.

    Understand that and accept it.

    I know it’s hard. It goes against everything you’ve been taught to believe to acknowledge that that a significant and influential group of other Americans – not that they identify that way – want you dead or enslaved. But they do. The Fredocons will scoff, but the conservaquisling collaborators’ actions speak louder than their weasel words – they’re currying favor with the enemy, betting that their abject groveling and supine submission will mean that they get the chop last.

    You better get your head in the game or you’ll find your head in a guillotine – definitely figuratively, maybe literally.

    You want to reject this reality, to dismiss it, to wave it off as crazy talk. But listen to what they say. Watch what they do. Have the strength to accept the harsh truth that is punching you in the face.

    They hate you for not submitting, for being an obstacle to their rule.”

    Liked by 1 person

  8. When there’s two systems of justice, one for the connected and one for the ordinary peasants, there is no justice.

    Lock this criminal scum up already DoJ. Do your dang jobs.


    “Obama administration CIA Director John Brennan lied notoriously and repeatedly to Congress, yet he remains at large. He is not under indictment. The FBI has not sent a heavily armed battalion to raid his home and take him into custody in front of his friends at CNN.

    Is there any dispute about Brennan’s lies? I don’t think so. Looking around for a summary of Brennan’s lies, I find Victor Davis Hanson’s useful compilation in the June 2018 NR post “A reply to Ronald Radosh’s smear.” The compilation purports only to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

    Brennan could certainly have been included in Rep. Devin Nunes’s list of those who should be charged with lying to Congress along with Roger Stone if lying to Congress is now to be treated as a serious offense (see “They need to start with themselves”). Brennan seems to have reacted with the consciousness of guilt in his wild response to President Trump’s query “what about the lying done by Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Lisa Page & lover, Baker and soooo many others?”

    Forget the whataboutism. It’s a good question. It makes us pause to ask yet again what is happening here. Twitchy collects some good responses on Twitter in “Mr. Projection!””




  9. More….


    “I have no idea whether Mr. Stone is guilty of some or all of the seven counts contained in his indictment. Stone was indicted on one count of obstructing justice, one count of witness tampering, and five counts of lying to Congress. The indictment cited threats by Stone to a former colleague (and the colleague’s dog) and included Stone referencing scenes from “Godfather II” that urge a witness to lie. These are, of course, very serious allegations, and, if proven, may mean prison time for Stone.

    None of these counts, however, involve allegations of violent behavior. None of these allegations justify the show of massive force against Stone and his wife at the crack of dawn. Let’s assume that Stone is guilty as charged on all seven counts: was there a need for the FBI to conduct its raid in this manner?

    Was Stone licensed to own one or more firearms? Did Stone and his wife have weapons? Was there any indication that Stone would resist arrest or be violent? Stone knew for nearly two years that he might be indicted and had ample time to destroy whatever evidence he might want to hide. With the FBI knocking at his door, just how much additional evidence could he destroy in the minutes before the agents entered?

    Given the nature of Stone’s alleged crimes, why couldn’t the FBI have taken Stone into custody with a lesser degree of force? After all, within just a few hours, a federal court released Stone on a $250,000 signature bond — a bond requiring no money down. With the FBI’s show of force, one would have expected Stone to have been incarcerated, not released.

    What happened during the early morning hours of January 25 is what we might expect in China, Cuba, Russia, Turkey, or Venezuela, where constitutionally protected civil liberties and the presumption of innocence do not exist. Stone might be a creep; he might even be a crook; but he is not El Chapo.”

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Good question.


    “The rising tide of intolerance against Christians in the U.S. has found a new platform for persecution — the spouses of public service officials. Karen Pence, her husband Vice President Mike Pence, and by proxy the current administration, have been accused by the media of “making a statement” against LGBT people because Mrs. Pence has chosen to teach art at a Christian school. The question was even raised as to whether taxpayers should continue to pay for her Secret Service protection.

    This is part of a striking and alarming trend — a trend that uses a religious litmus test to determine if individuals are fit for public service and demands that those in office deny their conscience and beliefs. Freedom of religion is a First Amendment right set forth by our Founding Fathers, not some new conservative fad adopted since the Trump administration came into office.

    Using a religious litmus test as a prerequisite to serve in office is unconstitutional, yet the current list of examples of this trend is too long: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) said of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Catholic “dogma lives loudly within you”; the Christian views of Russell Vought, the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, were called Islamophobic by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.); Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) repeatedly asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during his confirmation hearing, “Is gay sex a perversion?”; and most recently Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) challenged federal judicial nominee Brian Buescher about his ties to the Knights of Columbus, an international Catholic service organization with almost 2 million members.

    More examples can be cited, especially with regard to our Senate Judiciary Committee. This trend has now spread to accusing the spouses of our public servants of bigotry and hate for their religious beliefs, and it must stop. “


  11. While this may work in some cases, and feminists can attest that it has, it won’t in all.

    Seriously, they do realize that when they go full-on feminazi that most men stop listening, right?

    Because we do…….


    “In October, a few days after Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as a Supreme Court justice, The Washington Post published one woman’s account of channeling her rage into half an hour of screaming at her husband. “I announced that I hate all men and wish all men were dead,” wrote retired history professor Victoria Bissell Brown, entirely unapologetic despite conceding that her hapless spouse was “one of the good men.”

    While Brown’s piece was more clickbait than commentary, it was an extreme expression of a larger cultural moment. ‘Tis the season to be angry if you’re a woman in America—or so we’re told.

    The storm of sexual assault allegations that nearly derailed Kavanaugh’s confirmation was just the latest reported conflagration of female fury. The Kavanaugh drama coincided with the first anniversary of the downfall of the multiply accused Hollywood superpredator Harvey Weinstein. But this decade’s wave of feminist anger had been building for several years before that—from the May 2014 #YesAllWomen Twitter hashtag, created to express women’s vulnerability to male violence after woman hater Elliot Rodger went on a shooting and stabbing rampage in California, to the November 2016 election, in which the expected victory of America’s first woman president was ignominiously thwarted by a man who casually discussed grabbing women’s genitals.

    While the “female rage” narrative does not represent all or even most women, there is little doubt that it taps into real problems and real frustrations. The quest for women’s liberation from their traditional subjection is an essential part of the story of human freedom—and for all the tremendous strides made in the United States during the last half-century, lingering gender-based biases and obstacles remain an unfinished business. But is rage feminism (to coin a phrase) the way forward, or is it a dangerous detour?

    The case for rage is made in two new books published almost simultaneously in the fall: Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women’s Anger, by activist Soraya Chemaly, and Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Anger, by New York columnist Rebecca Traister.

    Traister’s book is, despite its forays into the history of American feminism, very much of the current moment. It is dominated by the 2016 presidential race, the Women’s March, and the #MeToo movement. Traister believes that Donald Trump’s election woke the “sleeping giant” of female rage at the patriarchy. (Along the way, she seems to suggest that pre-2016 feminism was a mostly “cheerful” kind, with a focus on girl power and sex positivity—an account that airbrushes not only #YesAllWomen but many other days of rage on feminist Twitter and on websites such as Jezebel.) She wants women to hold on to this anger and channel it into a struggle for “revolutionary change,” rather than to move on and calm down in deference to social expectations. “Our job is to stay angry…perhaps for a very long time,” Traister warns darkly.

    Rage Becomes Her provides a broader context for this anger. Chemaly, the creator of that #YesAllWomen hashtag, sets out to count the ways sexist oppression continues, in her view, to permeate the lives of women and girls in America. Her indictment includes inequalities in school and at work, ever-present male violence, rampant and usually unpunished sexual assault, the sidelining of women in literature and film, male-centered sexual norms, subtle or overt hostility toward female power and ambition, and a variety of petty indignities, from “mansplaining” to catcalls to long bathroom lines. Like Traister, Chemaly sees women’s long-suppressed anger as a necessary driver of change.

    The themes that preoccupy Traister and Chemaly are also explored in an earlier book—Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny, by the Cornell philosopher Kate Manne—which was published in late 2017 and has been widely hailed as a new feminist classic. Like Good and Mad, Down Girl views Trump’s victory as the triumph of patriarchal backlash; like Rage Becomes Her, it treats Rodger’s massacre as a defining moment in American male-female relations. Manne may not issue an explicit call for anger, but the logic of Down Girl is unmistakable: A deeply entrenched misogyny ruthlessly punishes women who refuse to defer to men, and female fury is a natural and salutary response.

    You can debate the extent to which gender inequalities in 21st century liberal democracies stem from present-day sexism, from cultural baggage from the past, or from personal choices and innate sex differences at an individual level. But does the gallery of horrors in the literature of feminist rage really reflect women’s lives in today’s America?”


  12. Michelle – Since shortly after this controversy arose, I have had the thought that it was the adults who were at fault here. It should have been up to the adult Nathan Phillips to defuse the situation, or to have not stirred it up in the first place.

    Not to mention the reprehensible behavior of the so-called Black Hebrew Israelites. As I wrote on Facebook, if they had been white, their behavior would have been the top story, and no one would be paying attention to a kid with an awkward smile.


  13. HRW – There is a difference in connotation between a “right to stand there” and a “right to stand his ground”. I’ll admit that I internally winced when I read that Nick Sandmann had said he had a right to stand there (which he did), knowing how that would sound to some.

    But it was Nathan Phillips who approached him, locked eyes with him, and stood there beating his drum in his face. The kid didn’t know what to do, and so he stood there. I don’t think he was attempting to block Phillips’ way. And if Phillips’ actually did think so, wouldn’t a polite, “Excuse me, may I get by?” have been a better way to deal with it? Or even a less polite, “Get out of my way” would have sufficed. (Sandmann has said that he thought there was room for Phillips to get by.)

    Apparently, Nathan Phillips is known for doing things to get attention for his cause. In general, I have no problem with that, but in this case, he picked on a kid.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Kizzie, good points.

    And on the the changing Democrat party:


    The Progressive Race to the Bottom

    Abolishing ICE, offering ‘free’ college to all, raising taxes to 70 percent. … Will the somnolent GOP take notice?

    The old Democratic party championed the working classes, wanted secure borders to protect middle-class union wage earners, and focused generous federal entitlement help on the citizen poor. Civil rights were defined as equality of opportunity for all.

    That party is long dead. An updated Hubert Humphrey or even Bill Clinton would not recognize any of the present “Democrats.”

    Andrew Gillum Joins CNN as Ethics Probe Proceeds

    Roger Stone Pleads Not Guilty to Lying to Congress, Obstruction

    The Uses of an Aristocracy

    2020 Democrats’ Progressive Profligacy

    Getting approved for 1 of these…

    by CompareCards

    Kamala Harris Vows to ‘Eliminate’ Private Insurance Market

    Kamala Harris’s History of Jailing Parents of Truants

    This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—January 29

    How to Term-Limit Congress

    The Koch Network’s High Hopes and Early Push for an Immigration Deal

    In Defense of Assimilation

    Two Cheers for Inequality

    Obergefell Pressures Portman on Judges

    Trump Outfoxes the Democrats

    DOJ Charges Huawei with Fraud, Intellectual-Property Theft

    More articles
    Previous articles

    The Progressive Race to the Bottom
    January 29, 2019 6:30 AM

    Signs at an immigration policy protest in Washington, D.C., June 2018. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)
    Abolishing ICE, offering ‘free’ college to all, raising taxes to 70 percent. … Will the somnolent GOP take notice?
    The old Democratic party championed the working classes, wanted secure borders to protect middle-class union wage earners, and focused generous federal entitlement help on the citizen poor. Civil rights were defined as equality of opportunity for all.

    That party is long dead. An updated Hubert Humphrey or even Bill Clinton would not recognize any of the present “Democrats.”

    Even the old wing of elite liberals is mostly long gone, with its talk of legal immigration only, opposition to censorship, pro-Israel foreign policy, let-it-hang-out Sixties indulgence, and free speech.

    It was superseded by grim progressives who are not so much interested in a square, new, or fair deal for the middle classes, as an entirely different deal that redefines everything from the Bill of Rights and the very way we elect presidents and senators to an embrace of identity politics as its first principle. …

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Is it true, though, that the proposed 70% tax doesn’t mean 70% on all income, but on whatever goes over a certain amount? I know I saw that somewhere, but can’t remember what the amount was.


  16. The compass has spun so fast and dramatically in the past few years that the political landscape (to me, as someone who’s closely followed U.S. politics for many years) looks completely different than it did for decades.

    70% is from AOC, only the “tippy-top” income people. So no worries, right? Right …

    One of my favorite lines from the article I linked to: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a valuable reminder of how university education results in self-importance coupled with witlessness.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. The billionaires will of course hide their income, move, or find other ways around that. All that to say that the left doesn’t “do” economics very well. 🙂 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Or they’ll just choose to make less — why would those so talented go to all that effort in producing more innovation and success when the government will only confiscate what they make for all that effort in the end?

    But free stuff is what everyone wants. Problem is, free stuff is never *really* free.


  19. New crop of progressives, same old anti-Semitism….


    “One of Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s key fundraisers, Maher Abdel-qader, has repeatedly promoted anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

    The Michigan Democrat is a member of a Facebook group where Abdel-qader and other members have shared anti-Semitic content.

    One video Abdel-qader shared with the group accused Jews of secretly controlling the media and exaggerating the Holocaust.

    Tlaib has already come under scrutiny for having ties to other anti-Israel figures and for questioning the loyalty of pro-Israel lawmakers.”


    “Democratic Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s ties to anti-Semitism run deeper than previously known, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found.

    Tlaib, part of a heralded freshman class of House Democrats, has already come under scrutiny over her positions on Israel and ties to fringe figures. But TheDCNF’s investigation uncovered additional ties to anti-Semitism.

    Tlaib is a member of the Facebook group “Palestinian American Congress,” where members often demonize Jews. The group’s founder, Palestinian activist Maher Abdel-qader, was a key fundraiser for Tlaib and organized campaign events for her around the country.

    In January 2018, Abdel-qader shared an anti-Semitic video that claimed Jews aren’t actually Jewish, and invented their historical claim to Israel and secretly control the media.

    The video, which described Jews as “satanic,” also questioned whether 6 million Jews actually died in the Holocaust.”


  20. It seems even her fellow Dems aren’t fans of AOC.


    “Are Democrats Trying to Make Ocasio-Cortez a One Term Congresswoman?

    One Democratic lawmaker told the New York delegation to find a primary opponent and make it happen.”

    “The Hill reported this morning that Congressional Democrats have grown so angry with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) that they want to recruit someone to primary her:

    At least one House Democrat has been privately urging members of the New York delegation to recruit a local politician from the Bronx or Queens to challenge Ocasio-Cortez.

    “What I have recommended to the New York delegation is that you find her a primary opponent and make her a one-term congressperson,” the Democratic lawmaker, who requested anonymity, told The Hill. “You’ve got numerous council people and state legislators who’ve been waiting 20 years for that seat. I’m sure they can find numerous people who want that seat in that district.”

    Ocasio-Cortez took everyone by surprise in the summer of 2018 when she defeated veteran Joseph Crowley. However, looking at the numbers, the primary produced a dismal turnout with only 27,658 votes, which means less than 12% of the voters came out. Ocasio-Cortez received 15,897 of those votes.

    The insider told The Hill that Ocasio-Cortez is “pissing off a lot of people,” mostly allies of Crowley. This insider mentioned Elizabeth Crowley, Joseph’s cousin, since she “is a woman” and has “been moving more to the left.””


    The Hill piece….



  21. hwesseli said this yesterday:

    “1….The boys jeered, taunted, tommokawked, harassed girls, made rape jokes….and that was just an afternoon at a pro life rally.”

    All false, with the possible exception of a couple guys doing the tomahawk, maybe for a couple seconds.

    Also, the rest of what hwesseli said was false, too.

    Would be curious to see which video hwesseli saw that showed a Covington guy make a rape joke.


  22. At a time when almost nothing is shocking anymore, this is shocking…


  23. The Atlantic finally has a good article summarizing how unfair it is to pick on high school kids, how against journalistic ethics all of it was, and how much the media got wrong.


    (The first day I became aware of the story, four of the top ten Atlantic articles were on this story! The one on how nasty these kids were had moved to the bottom of the list, a partial retraction by that writer above it, and the top story was “don’t believe viral videos,” but basically saying “Don’t believe the short video, but don’t believe the long video either.”)


  24. hwesseli, from yesterday: “Only entitled youth insist they can stand wherever they want.” No one insisted that, actually. But it is more than entitled youth who might stay where they are when they are standing in a public place where they have the legal right to be, where they are not in other people’s way, when someone attempts to intimidate them into moving. As a middle-aged woman, I wouldn’t be inclined to stand there, simply because I would feel the danger in doing so–but it would NOT be because I felt “entitled” in a smug sort of way, it would be because all my life I have detested making way for bullies.

    It was the man with the drums–and his entourage–who were the bullies, not the boys in the video. There might be other videos of boys from the school engaging in inappropriate behavior–I don’t know. But would you yourself be willing to be judged on any and every moment of your high school career? You never ever told a racist joke (or a joke that might be perceived to be racist, since it was about a minority), never said anything insulting to or about girls, and never had an awkward expression on your faith? And also, to go just a few years further back, did you never play cowboys and Indians and take the role of the Indian?

    The people who dissected the video that first weekend did the boys wrong–and those who continue to insist on trash talking the boys are really in the wrong. Whether the boys were perfect angels is beside the point. Nothing in the video deserves even censure, let alone death threats. And a teacher, of all people, should be able to see when society has wronged young people. The worst thing that has been said about the boys in the video itself is that some of them did tomahawk chops, and all I can say to that is so what if they did? If the man were a zookeeper, some of them would be acting like elephants or chimpanzees. Boys are physical, they were playing and goofing off, and a real live Indian came into their midst and they made an action they associate with his cultural background–so what? Are African kids being racist if they see a white man and they act out being an airplane because they associate white people with airplanes? Seriously, if that is the best they can do, then they need to move on, because there is truly nothing to see here.

    Liked by 3 people

  25. Blue states are also fighting back against Supreme Court changes, putting overly-liberal abortion laws in place so they’ll secure those “rights.” Not much media coverage, of course, but I think most Americans would be shocked at these laws.

    Does it feel like we’re in a free fall here?

    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.