22 thoughts on “News/Politics 3-11-19

  1. A reckoning is coming.


    “Democrats and the media will face a “reckoning” if special counsel Robert Mueller finds no evidence of collusion involving the Trump campaign, ABC News’ Terry Moran argued in a panel discussion Sunday.

    “How big a deal is it if they don’t find collusion for the president?” ABC “This Week” host Martha Raddatz asked Moran.

    “Huge,” said Moran. “He’s cleared. If Robert Mueller comes back, Mueller became a folk hero in the United States.”

    “The central and most serious question in this investigation, the reason Robert Mueller started it: Did the current president of the United States assist the Kremlin in an attack on our democracy? And if Mueller, after two years, comes back and says, ‘I don’t have the evidence to support that charge,’ that’s a reckoning,” he said. “That’s a reckoning for progressives and Democrats who hoped that Mueller would essentially erase the 2016 election. It’s a reckoning for the media. It’s a reckoning across the country if in fact after all this time there was no collusion.”


    And for Never Trump Republicans as well.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The only collusion that took place involved Democrats.


    “We’re just about out of popcorn for this entertainment. It’s difficult, even for specialists, to keep the whirling kaleidoscope of personalities straight. Once again, for about the tenth time, Robert Mueller is said to be almost, nearly, just about finished with his investigation into—into what? It’s hard to say. Tax evasion decades ago. Working as an unregistered agent for a foreign power (but not, as it turns out, Russia). Misspeaking to the FBI (why does anyone ever talk to the FBI?). And what was it that the jester Roger Stone is supposed to have done? Something very serious, one presumes, to earn a pre-dawn, swat-team enforced, guns-drawn raid on his house.

    Maybe we’ll be notified soon that the report is on its way to the attorney general. Maybe some bits of it will be made public. It was supposed to be Friday. But then again, it was supposed to be a couple of months ago, last fall, over the summer. . . . The Mueller Report is a little like that sea battle Aristotle talks about in disabusing us of too-simple a view of necessity: either the battle will take place tomorrow or it won’t take place tomorrow. It would seem that both statements cannot simultaneously be true. This is where the distinction between the potential and the actual comes in. Also contingency: the most humbling reality that our quest for certainty faces. Things happen. When they do, we know, but our knowledge is always glimpsed in a rear-view mirror, never, really, in the road ahead.

    But I digress. The news today—well, Friday, really—is that Doug Collins, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, released, motu proprio and sua sponte, a transcript of the committee’s interview with Bruce Ohr in August 2018. There are some interesting tidbits in the 250-plus page document. Anyone who has been following this production of “The Mousetrap” knows that Christopher Steele, the former British spook who compiled the infamous dossier of dirt on Donald Trump for Hillary Clinton, was fired by the FBI for leaking material to the press.

    But Ohr’s testimony confirms what was suspected, that his firing was no impediment to getting material from Steele to the FBI. Bruce Ohr provided “back channel” access. And his sources were good: his wife, for example, did anti-Trump research for Fusion GPS, which had hired Steele.

    For reasons that are mysterious, but not really, Bruce Ohr is still employed by the Department of Justice (though demoted), despite his having failed to report that his wife was working for Fusion GPS. The web, you see, is tangled!

    “She provided me with a memory stick,” Bruce Ohr said of his wife, “that included research she had done for Fusion GPS on various Russian figures. And the reason she provided that information to me is [that] . . . . it related to the FBI’s Russia investigation. And she gave me that stick to give to the FBI.” Why didn’t Nellie give the flash drive to the FBI herself? Former Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), one of those questioning Ohr, wondered that, too.

    Mr. Gowdy: Well, all marriages are different, so I’m trying to envision this cold start to a conversation with, “Here, honey, here’s a thumb drive.” There were no conversations before that?

    Mr. Ohr: Well, Nellie was present with me in the end of July, when I first heard Russia information—information relating to the Russia investigation from Chris Steele. So she was present for some of that conversation. So she was certainly aware at that point that Chris Steele was giving me some information about Russia. At some point, I don’t remember when, I became aware that she was looking at some of the same figures as part of her work for Fusion GPS.

    And on it goes. Shadowy Russian magnates. Lots of Christopher Steele. Lots of Fusion GPS.”


  3. Democrats once again show their hand, and where their true loyalties lie.

    Hint: It’s not with us.


    “In the Democrats’ rush to pass HR1, a serious snag emerged for Nancy Pelosi and the rest of her party’s leadership. Republicans were able to force a vote on adding language to the supposed voting rights bill condemning the idea of illegal aliens voting in any elections. It simply read, “allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.”

    Sounds fairly basic, right? It’s already against the law for illegal aliens to vote in federal elections, though a few liberal municipalities have moved to allow them to cast ballots on the local level, such as in school board elections. Surely this is one area where we can generate some bipartisan consensus, yes? Apparently not. Out of the Democrats’ significant majority in the House, they only managed to find six people who were willing to support the measure and it went down in flames. (Fox News)

    Nearly every House Democrat on Friday opposed a measure condemning voting in U.S. elections by illegal immigrants, as part of a sweeping election reform bill…

    The motion was voted down 228-197. All but six Democrats in the House voted against it. Just one Republican opposed it.

    Lauren Fine, a spokeswoman for House GOP Whip Steve Scalise, pointed out that an identical resolution was adopted by the House last September. But on Friday, 41 Democrats flipped to oppose the latest measure.

    “These 41 Democrats must now answer to voters why they were against illegal immigrants voting in elections six months ago, but are suddenly in favor of it now,” Fine said.

    With a presidential primary kicking into high gear, you’d expect the Democrats to toss a few bones to the furthest left reaches of their base. But this is one of those issues that’s going to come back to bite them in the general election. This idea is so far out of the mainstream that it would be funny if it wasn’t so insulting to the United States Constitution. In a 2018 poll conducted by The Hill and the HarrisX polling company, it was found that Americans reject this idea by overwhelming margins. The idea of illegal (or “undocumented”) immigrants voting in any elections was opposed by 71% of all voters, including 91% of Republicans and even 54% of Democrats”


  4. Thankfully, it’s D.O.A..


    “After a horrible week putting out fires set by the new Congresswomen on the far left, Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally got a victory. Her first item on the Democrat agenda passed in the House by a vote of 234 to 193. I think Minority Whip Steve Scalise put it best when he described the legislation as a solution in search of a problem. The “For the People Act” is chock full of all kinds of Democrat hopes and dreams.

    The bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. Majority Leader McConnell already said it is. The number one priority, as this bill shows, is for Democrats to continue their tropes of voter suppression while enacting measures that will provide taxpayer dollars for campaigns. It is a leftie’s fever dream of campaign finance reform. It also requires nonprofit groups that contribute to campaigns to disclose their donors. This “dark money” is a frequent complaint of Democrats though both political parties benefit from it. Conservatives consider a mandate to disclose the identity of donors a violation of First Amendment rights. Political donations are a part of free speech. Even the ACLU has a problem with that.

    A central provision establishes public financing for congressional elections, giving candidates as much as a 6-to-1 match for small donations to participating campaigns. Republicans have attacked the measure for funneling taxpayer money to political candidates; Democrats reworked the bill to tap revenue from fines from people and companies found guilty of corporate malfeasance.

    Another key campaign finance provision would require nonprofit “dark money” groups that engage in political activity to disclose their large donors — a provision that has generated opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups that argue the disclosure could chill free speech.

    The bill is seen as a drain the swamp measure but it skews heavily in favor of Democrats. Shocking, I know. “


  5. Here’s a list of 35 people who should be facing indictment that are not named Trump.


    “35 Key People Involved In The Russia Hoax Who Need To Be Investigated

    As their desperate search for collusion continues, Democrats want to interview 81 people. Try this list instead.”

    “Funny how things change. The Washington Post couldn’t say a nice thing about congressional Republican efforts to investigate the Obama administration and FBI shenanigans that occurred before and after the 2016 election. That’s if they even covered these efforts at all.

    But with Democrats controlling the House, and that legislative body’s subpoena power, the establishment media’s line has changed. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have just sent letters to 81 people, all associated with President Trump or the Russia probe, demanding answers on Russian election interference.

    This is part of Democrats’ effort to continue their hunt for proof of Russia collusion—although they are already sure that Trump is guilty—as Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation appears to be winding down. To cover these events, the Post’s Philip Bump wrote an article titled: “The 81 people and organizations just looped into the Trump probe—and why they were included.” Of course, the article is totally unquestioning of the House Democrats’ desired narrative and motivations.

    Investigated, But Not for the Reasons Dems Give
    It isn’t worth it to go through Bump’s whole article, but even the commentary about the first name on the list—Rinat Akhmetshin—omits glaring and important facts. Bump says Akhmetshin “joined his colleague Natalia Veselnitskaya, a lawyer linked to the Kremlin, at the June 9, 2016, meeting in Trump Tower predicated on providing information that would undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” But, Bump says, “the focus of the meeting instead reportedly focused on the Magnitsky Act—a law that resulted in sanctions on numerous prominent Russians.”

    Bump somehow forgets to tell us that Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm hired by Hillary Clinton to create nefarious ties between Trump and Russia, was working with Akhmetshin and Veselnitskaya to lobby for the Russian government. Fusion GPS even provided the documents that were handed out at that Trump Tower meeting. Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson also met with the Russians both before and after that Trump Tower meeting. Yet Simpson isn’t on the Democrats’ list.

    So there’s a few people on the Democrats’ list who should be investigated, but not for the reasons Democrats say. Some should also be charged with crimes.”


  6. Bad people.


    “An Associated Press story on global warming opens with, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed…” That’s not the entirety of the article’s opening sentence, but I’ll wait till later to finish it. First, a little more on the problem.

    Having failed to convert the voting age public into true believers on the environment, liberals set their sights on children. Adopting the tobacco company model of hooking them while they’re young, the indoctrination machine has churned out the first generation of the faithful who’ve been elected to Congress.

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a true believer – the unquestioning adherent to the idea of the destruction of life in 12 years if we don’t surrender to the liberal agenda right now. But the high priestess in the Holy Church of Global Warming is not enough alone to accomplish their goal. That’s why they’ve built an army.

    Children across Europe have been going on “climate strikes” in an attempt force capitulation to the “green agenda” by adults. Truth be told, it doesn’t get much easier than convincing school kids to skip class, whatever the cause, especially when teachers and school administrators grant permission.

    These “strikes” are coming to the United States. Organizers have thrust children to the front, with four of them writing in an op-ed announcing their plans, “We strike because our world leaders haven’t acknowledged, prioritized, or properly addressed the climate crisis. We strike because marginalized communities across our nation—especially communities of color and low-income communities—are already disproportionately impacted by climate change. We strike because if the societal order is disrupted by our refusal to attend school, then influential adults will be forced to take note, face the urgency of the climate crisis, and enact change.”

    Fear, indeed, is a powerful motivator.

    “With our future at stake, we call for radical legislative action—now—to combat climate change and its countless detrimental effects on the American people,” these brainwashed teens write.

    They conclude, “We strike because we believe the climate crisis should be called what it really is: A national emergency, because we are running out of time.” And they really believe it because they’ve been told it’s true by teachers, politicians, journalists, and other adults in positions of trust who’ve exploited their authority to advance the liberal agenda.

    Rather than attempting to quell the fears of these children and allow them to be instead of scared pawns in a farcical progressive power play, the Democratic Party celebrates their deception. They’re proud of their work. They’re proud of the lying, they’re proud of the fear.”


  7. Typical racists.


    “Ilhan Omar’s Anti-Jewish Views Are Typical For Democrats’ Congressional Black Caucus

    The Democrats’ internal fight over the anti-Semitism resolution reveals a stark picture of the competing factions vying for control over the party’s agenda.”

    “A House vote on a resolution to condemn anti-Semitism met fierce pushback from various factions within the Democrat Party this past week, leaving many to contemplate at what precise point in politics the condemnation of anti-Semitism became a controversial notion. We couldn’t agree last week that allowing a breathing, injured baby to be denied the care of a hospital was criminal. Apparently, we also can’t agree that hating Jews is despicable.

    As David Marcus of The Federalist remarked darkly, “Hatred of the Jews is nuanced.” As the Democrats’ indulging of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) reveals, perhaps to the left it is. Or, more perniciously, what we have witnessed this past week is a highly public fight for the soul of the Democrat Party, a sort of forced reckoning with the wildly left elements of the party that seem intent on dragging the party to the depressing depths of their ideology.

    The Democrats’ internal fight over the anti-Semitism resolution reveals a stark picture of the competing factions vying for control over the party’s agenda. Those most opposed to the resolution, the farther left members of the House, as well as key members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), have expressed outrage at the resolution, bemoaning that it “targets” Omar. Nowhere in the entire document does Omar’s name appear once.

    Although her commentary inspired the document, the political resistance’s hubris in believing that she is the only anti-Semite in Congress is laughably ignorant. There is something deeply and inexorably wrong when one of America’s major political parties cannot condemn hatred of the group that is subjected to the majority of religious hate crimes in this country.

    The litany of excuses presented by those opposed to the resolution, from minimizing the experiences of Holocaust survivors to infantilizing Omar to bemoaning Trump as a “bigot,” are all deeply unsatisfying and point to a far greater sickness within the Democrat Party that the establishment branch, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has allowed to fester unabated.

    In fact, there is a strong argument to be made that the Democrat establishment did not just ignore the radicalism but embraced it as a tool to capture a larger portion of the younger electorate. Like Rumpelstiltskin returning for the young woman’s first-born, the far-left elements are extracting their payment from the establishment—the latitude to be anti-Semitic with the unquestioning support of Democrat leadership.”


  8. There’s that foreign agent actively colluding with Democrats against America’s interests again. But I guess it’s OK when it’s Clinton and her flunkies, right?



    “A dark money group with links to several high-profile liberal activists contributed $2 million to The Democracy Integrity Project, an organization founded by a former Dianne Feinstein staffer that has contracted with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to investigate President Donald Trump.

    Fund for a Better Future (FBF) donated $2,065,000 to The Democracy Integrity Project (TDIP) in 2017, according to IRS filings reviewed by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

    TDIP was founded on Jan. 31, 2017, by Daniel Jones, a consultant who worked for Feinstein, a California Democrat, when she controlled the Senate Intelligence Committee. Jones has disclosed to the FBI that he hired Fusion GPS and Steele, the author of the anti-Trump dossier, to continue an investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

    He also told an associate that TDIP operated as a “shadow media organization helping the government.” Jones suggested to the associate, Adam Waldman, that his TDIP team planted several anti-Trump articles.

    Little is known about the donors behind both TDIP and FBF. Both of the organizations are 501(c)(4)s, the type of public advocacy group most closely associated with “dark money” contributions. FBF has contributed to a mix of environmental organizations and politically active groups, including Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Priorities USA — the political group that backs Democrats — and the League of Conservation Voters, a progressive dark money group.

    Scott Walter, the president of Capital Research Center, a conservative watchdog that tracks liberal groups’ funding, said the arrangement is a prime example of “dark money.””

    A set-up/witch hunt from the start.


  9. The Democrats’ anti-Semitism problem, and why it’s a bigger deal than the left wants you to think it is.


    “The fear in Nancy Pelosi’s eyes is what I’ll always remember about the Ilhan Omar Affair

    Nancy Pelosi doesn’t turn away from a fight, but turned away from a fight with Omar. That tells you how serious the situation is.”

    “The repeated antisemitic comments from Democrat Representative Ilhan Omar, while condemnable, are all too familiar to those of us who have closely followed the anti-Israel movement.

    Charges of dual loyalty or disloyalty lodged against Jews predate the creation of the State of Israel by many centuries. Those charges are a core accusation of the oldest hate.

    The dual and disloyalty cards are prominent features of the current anti-Israel movement, including by anti-Zionist leftist Jews. The nefarious “Israel Lobby” has been a prominent theme, as has the term “Israel Firster.” So when Omar makes similar accusations, consider me not the least bit surprised.

    Yet the Omar comments and the Democrat and media reactions have shaken the mainstream mostly-liberal Jewish community, which still overwhelmingly supports Israel.

    There have been some very good takes on the Omar Affair, and its impact. Here are three good takes, among dozens:

    Russ Douthat — This is what the left seems to want in the Omar controversy, and what I suspect it will eventually get: a left-of-center politics that remembers the Holocaust as one great historical tragedy among many, that judges Israel primarily on its conservative and nationalist political orientation, rather than on its status as a Jewish sanctuary, and that regards the success of American Jews as a reason for them to join white Gentiles in check-your-privilege self-criticism, ceding moral authority to minority groups who are more immediately oppressed. (This last shift was helpfully distilled by James Clyburn, the Democratic House whip, who defended Omar last week by basically saying that the Holocaust was a long time ago and her personal experience as a refugee and Muslim immigrant was more immediate and relevant.)

    Michael Walzer — … Omar is entitled to her falsehoods; it is, as we say, a free country. But the falsehoods have to be given their proper name. If Jewish Democrats don’t get tough about this, they will soon find themselves unable to be tough about anything. They will be pushed out of the Democratic Party just as Jews are being pushed out of the Labour Party in the U.K. Long ago, August Bebel gave a name to left-wing anti-Semitism: “the socialism of fools.” Now the fools are in Congress.”

    “It was a shock to the faith that it can’t happen here to watch the toughest Democratic Party politicians run scared of the anti-Israel far-left base of the party employing centuries-old antisemitic tropes.”




  10. On the rapid loss of local journalism (AP):

    “While national outlets worry about a president who calls the press an enemy of the people, many Americans no longer have someone watching the city council for them, chronicling the soccer exploits of their children or reporting on the kindly neighbor who died of cancer.”

    Poor guy in the video above is still trying to cover every meeting he can in his small town, sometimes leaving a recorder at one so he can go to another.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Our local paper stopped covering local meetings years ago. They barely even cover local news at all, not even the police blotters. When they do, it’s days later. They print the paper the night before in NY, 2 states away. It’s all old news by the time you get it on your porch. Sadly they offer nothing that I can’t already get elsewhere, for free, and quicker. Even their website has just become real estate ads and food ads cleverly disguised as real news stories, and little else. Top 10 Kitchens For Sale In My Area and Top 10 Cottage Cheeses is not my idea of real news.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Um, because their staff has probably been cut to shreds.

    And this: “Sadly they offer nothing that I can’t already get elsewhere, for free, and quicker.”

    You really sure about that? I highly doubt it, personally. If you’re talking about the social media wags, good luck with relying on that.


  13. Oh, and PS? — your paper no doubt has a web site with faster news available. We’d all frankly love to ditch our paper versions, they’re after thoughts for us compared to the digital sites that are updated throughout the day, but we can’t as the ads still provide revenue we can’t live without.

    And if you’re getting things “for free” you won’t be for long unless you’re satisfied with the social media gossip line. I’m about done with the whiners on our posts who gripe about paying for content (even though they always used to have to pay for it … ). People need to support the work it takes to cover their communities. It’s not a hard concept.

    We have several cities within our coverage area, we used to have a robust staff with reporters at nearly every City Council, school district meeting. Now we have to skip most of them because we’re a shadow of our former selves, thanks to our cut-throat owners and not charging readers for the content we produce in the beginning.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. DJ,

    If it’s necessary to pay for content, than something national is the way to go. Local can’t and doesn’t offer near as much. That’s just the reality of size and resources.

    I’m lucky, I have 2 to chose from. Surprisingly the one I favor sits behind a pay wall. The free one is garbage, as is their “free” website. I pay when it’s worth it. As long as they keep providing the local news I can’t get elsewhere, even though it’s regional not home city, that will remain the case. If they take that, I’ll dump them too.

    Who is responsible for the current state is another matter entirely. But you can’t expect customers to sit around and pay for something they deem not worth it while reporters, editors, owners, and publishers work that out. I feel bad for the ones out there (like you) who still do it right. Maybe if we had some more like you and less of the fresh, new NYC journalism majors they currently prefer, we’d have something folks don’t mind ponying up for. But I don’t see that changing anytime soon. 😦


  15. Yes, but who is going to cover all those boring meetings where so many local decisions are made? Our City Council meetings are impossible with all the special interests droning on for hours– which is why they exert such influence and we never hear about the poor decisions until it’s done.

    No matter what you think of the press, their coverage should hold people accountable in towns and at least provide information about what is going on.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. It surprises and dismays me how little interest there is in local politics and local, grassroots government. It’s where everything starts. It probably has something to do with our population being more transient but honestly, not to know what’s going on in your own immediate or neighboring communities is baffling to me.

    Why wouldn’t people want to know what’s being built in on the block down the street, what that huge port project is all about, why the street is all torn up? Read the paper, I always want to scream (but don’t) when people express complete ignorance over some project that’s been in the works for years and has been written about extensively. Usually once people have kids they begin to pay more attention and more closely follow the schools, cities and counties that most affect their day-to-day lives. The niche role of local journalism has been foundational to our nation and it’s very quickly going by the wayside. That will sadly be felt.

    We’ve become a nation enamored of hashtag and snark national, political journalism and we’re worse for it.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. “Exactly – so it’s OK no one watches your city council?”

    No, it’s not. But the paper made that decision, not me. Just like their poor choices effect you guys, they effect us too. But unlike you, we can just walk away, and we have.

    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.