12 thoughts on “News/Politics 4-1-19

  1. Follow the money, and keep cracking down.



    “SC police chief among several law enforcement officials indicted on visa fraud, drug charges”

    ” Nine people, including seven law enforcement officers, have been indicted in federal court in South Carolina on visa fraud and drug charges, U.S. Attorney Sherri Lydon announced Friday.

    Law enforcement officers, including Chief LaCra Jenkins of the Town of Springfield Police Department, are accused of accepting bribes to help others obtain visas to get into or stay in the U.S., according to the U.S. Attorney. In some cases, those indicted are also accused of protecting drug trafficking cartel proceeds in tractor trailers.

    Officials say SLED brought the case to the FBI after allegations of wrong doing. “We will find you. We will arrest you. And you will go to prison,” Jodi Norris with the FBI warned of lawbreakers.

    Four of the officers involved are Deputy Sheriffs with the Orangeburg County Sheriff’s Department. A fifth person involved is a former Orangeburg Deputy who is now a police officer for Springfield Police.

    The sixth officer involved in the case is Chief LaCra Jenkins, who is the Chief of Police for the Town of Springfield Police Department.”


  2. Awww…. You mad?

    Too bad.

    After her disgusting and lying behavior during the Kavanaugh proceedings, she deserves at least this. She should be removed from office and and put in a stockade too.

    It was always a courtesy, but since she had none for an innocent Kavanaugh, why bother?


    “Feinstein fumes as Trump administration pushes forward with 9th Circuit nominees without consulting her”

    “The Senate is poised this week to consider two more conservative nominees selected by President Trump to sit on the left-leaning 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — and the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee isn’t happy about it.

    That’s because the nominees, Ken Lee and Dan Collins, were picked without any input from either Dianne Feinstein or Kamala Harris, California’s two Democrat senators. Traditionally, the White House seeks to obtain a so-called “blue slip,” or approval, from a judicial nominee’s two home-state senators before pressing on with their nominations.

    But the Trump administration, which has successfully nominated several conservative judges to the 9th Circuit already, has pointedly disregarded that process as it continues its push to transform the appellate court that the president repeatedly has derided as hopelessly biased and “disgraceful.”

    “I take it that without notice or discussion, the blue slip is essentially dead,” Feinstein, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in televised remarks on Thursday. “This change in practice not only harms the Senate, it harms the federal judiciary. And I wish we could’ve had an opportunity to discuss it. I really believe it’s a mistake.”

    Feinstein, whose handling of the Brett Kavanuagh confirmation process still rankles conservatives, went on: “Before President Trump took office, the blue slip had been a Senate practice for nearly one century. And during the past 100 years, before this presidency, the Senate confirmed only five judges with only one blue slip, and the last one was in 1989 – and in 100 years the Senate had never confirmed a judge without two blue slips.””


    Don’t whine. You’ve earned this snub.


  3. Oh look. Yet another hate crime hoax. And once again the SPLC is exposed as a fraud as well.


    “Mississippi Man Pleads Guilty To Hate Crime Hoax SPLC Used To Slam Trump”

    “After the 2016 election, the Southern Poverty Law Center accepted every accusation of racism or sexism provided to it as evidence of America’s decline after electing President Donald Trump.

    But even before the election, the discredited “anti-hate” group was sounding the alarm on any story that could be used against Trump before waiting for the actual details. On November 2, 2016, the SPLC’s “Hatewatch Staff” posted a story titled “Authorities Suspect Voter Intimidation in Burning, Vandalism of Mississippi Church.”

    The article was about the Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church being set on fire and the words “Vote Trump” spray-painted on the side of the building. SPLC also mentioned this incident in its massive list of alleged hate crimes following Trump’s election (the vast majority of which were allegations from people reaching out to SPLC without providing a shred of evidence for their claims).

    Eventually, the SPLC had to append an Editor’s Note to its story, which reads in big bold letters: “In December 2016, a suspect, a member of the church, was arrested in connection with the crime, and authorities now believe the attack was not politically motivated.” The title and original article remain.

    The man who actually set the fire, 47-year-old Andrew McClinton, is African-American and a member of the church. On Thursday, he pleaded guilty to arson, according to the Associated Press. He will be sentenced in late April.”


  4. Another favorite leftist narrative gets busted and broken.


    “Quit Harping on U.S. Aid to Israel

    American commitments to Asian and European allies require more risk and sacrifice.”

    “Some 18,000 people descended on the Walter E. Washington Convention Center this week in the nation’s capital for the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. One of the country’s most influential lobbies, AIPAC has long been the subject of avid (and conspiratorial) condemnation by those who dislike the role it plays in sustaining bipartisan support for the Jewish state. In recent weeks, the famously press-shy organization unwittingly became the subject of a fierce national debate over anti-Semitism after Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar suggested that American elected officials support the Jewish state because they are paid to do so.

    Contrary to popular belief (an impression abetted by its confusing acronym), AIPAC does not donate money directly to candidates; it is not a political-action committee. What AIPAC does do, like any interest group, is encourage its politically active membership to back candidates who pledge support for its agenda. Foremost among the group’s policy priorities is upholding the annual U.S. military-aid package to Israel, which—at $3.8 billion a year—constitutes the largest direct American military subvention to any single country. And it is this subvention that critics most frequently cite to justify singling out Israel for opprobrium.”

    Contrasting the per capita amount received by Israel with that of “other allies who are as wealthy as Israel,” the New York writer Andrew Sullivan calls the disparity “absurd.” In a piece titled “Time to Break the Silence on Palestine,” the New York Times columnist Michelle Alexander decries “the $38 billion the U.S. government has pledged in military support to Israel” over the next decade. (Is there a cause whose advocates are less silent—in the media, on college campuses, in international fora—than those of the Palestinians?) Also in The New York Times, Nathan Thrall of the International Crisis Group states that Israel receives from Washington “more military financing than the United States provides to the rest of the world combined.” An organization ominously named If Americans Knew complains that “the U.S. provides Israel $10.5 million in military aid each day, while it gives the Palestinians $0 in military aid.”

    These seemingly objective attacks tend to cast Israel as a greedy, undeserving ward of American largesse, one that the United States should rein in. “It’s time to act like the big brother or the parent and to say, ‘Enough is enough, and we’re going to take the car keys if you don’t stop driving drunk’” is how Jeremy Ben-Ami, the executive director of the dovish J Street, described the U.S.-Israel relationship in 2008. Those with more sinister intentions, not content with likening Israel to an inebriated teenager, cite U.S. military assistance to Israel as evidence that American Jews want “wars for Israel.” In the early 2000s, a lucrative intellectual cottage industry sprung up peddling the idea that a nefarious “Israel lobby” had goaded the United States into war against Iraq. “What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel,” wrote Pat Buchanan in 2003.

    The size and advisability of U.S. military aid to Israel, like any appropriation of taxpayer dollars, are fair game. But U.S. assistance to Israel demands far less—in both blood and treasure—than many other American defense relationships around the world.”

    “Unlike U.S. aid to Israel, most of which is funneled back to the American defense sector, U.S. defense spending toward its forward-operating presence in Europe and Asia is composed of hundreds of thousands of “boots on the ground,” soldiers whose lives would be at stake in any scenario involving an attack on treaty allies. And these allies lie under our nuclear umbrella, meaning that conflicts on either continent could theoretically ensnare the United States in nuclear war.

    Viewed in this light, U.S. military aid to Israel looks less like the special dispensation of a powerful ethnic lobby and more like the logical extension of America’s postwar power projection. It is not all that spectacular compared with U.S. defense arrangements with the dozens of countries it is obliged to defend, up to and including with weapons of mass destruction. Of course, U.S. support for Israel has an emotional dimension, as the passionate speeches at AIPAC invoking the Holocaust attest. But much the same can be said for the United States’ military arrangements with Estonia, South Korea, and Taiwan: All are small, vulnerable democracies facing authoritarian, rapacious adversaries, and this underdog quality animates American public support. Yet for some reason, none of these alliances engenders anywhere near the same sort of antipathy as does the one between the United States and the world’s only Jewish state.”


  5. Good question…….

    Because some animals are more equal/crazy than others?


    “Why Isn’t Rachel Maddow Treated Like Other Crazy Conspiracy Theorists?

    Maddow’s performance on Trump-Russia collusion has been as pernicious and false as Alex Jones’ conspiracy theories, yet Jones is deplatformed while Maddow has a primetime show on MSNBC.”

    “MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has spent over two years pushing a conspiracy theory, yet she is celebrated by many people on the left in politics and media. Why is she treated any differently than say, Alex Jones?

    You don’t have to be a fan of Alex Jones (and I’m not) to be disturbed by the fact that he was virtually erased from social media, banned at every level, while Rachel Maddow is free to advance all the crazy ideas she can dream up.

    This weekend, Maddow actually made fun of Alex Jones in a tweet. I wrote a thread about this on Twitter that got some notice:



  6. Well, there goes the little credibility Jake had left.



  7. And speaking of carrying water for the narrative writers……

    CBS is praising illegal smuggling coyotes. Turns out, they’re just “helpers.”





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 )

Connecting to %s

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