13 thoughts on “News/Politics 4-3-19

  1. Let’s get to it.

    First up, Dems advocate mob rule, where large Dem cities rein over flyover country. Exactly what the founding fathers didn’t want, hence the Electoral College.


    “A group of Democratic senators on Tuesday introduced a measure to do away with the Electoral College, picking up on a talking point that has caught fire in the 2020 Democratic presidential field.

    The measure serves as companion legislation to one put forward in the House by Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., and counts one presidential candidate — Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York — among its co-sponsors. Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California and Brian Schatz of Hawaii also sponsored the resolution.

    The Electoral College has been the focus of renewed Democratic criticism in the wake of President Trump’s 2016 win. While he defeated Hillary Clinton in the electoral vote, he lost the popular vote by 2.9 million ballots.

    “Before the 2000 election, I introduced a bipartisan resolution to amend the Constitution and create a system of direct election for presidents,” Durbin said in a statement. “And I still believe today as I did then that the Electoral College is a relic from a shameful period in our nation’s history, and allows some votes to carry greater weight than others.”

    With her support of the companion legislation on Tuesday, Gillibrand is another 2020 Democratic hopeful embracing the idea of dumping the Electoral College in favor of a popular-vote election.

    “Every American should know that their vote counts equally no matter what state they live in, and that’s why we need a more democratic system that guarantees one person, one vote,” Gillibrand said. “The Electoral College has distorted the outcome of elections and disenfranchised millions of voters, and I think that’s wrong. I believe that it’s time to get rid of the Electoral College, and I am ready to fight in Congress and around the country to pass this constitutional Amendment to do that.””


    And yet what her and Durbin are advocating does no such thing. This would punish small states the most.

    And Durbin is extra clueless. While he calls it a “relic from a shameful period in our nation’s history, and allows some votes to carry greater weight than others” he demonstrates his ignorance. What we need is for our elected reps to pass a basic history course before being seated. Then we could eliminate morons like these from the get go.



  2. Yeah, never mind science, it’s all about my feelings. 🙄

    Now shut up and enable my degeneracy.


    “Science: Teen Vogue Declares There Is No Such Thing As Biological Sex Because Reasons”

    “Makes sense.

    Teen Vogue has a long history of promoting transgenderism in harmful and objectively false ways. That includes celebrating the child abuse of a 9-year-old boy whose parents allow him to believe he’s a girl named Lactatia.

    Ever the trailblazer, Teen Vogue put out a video proclaiming that there is no such thing as biological sex because nothing matters anymore.”

    “This is a common rhetorical game played by transgender activists, insisting that because hormone levels, for example, vary from person to person, that no person is ever equally male or female. That is then used to press the idea that there’s no actual biological sex at all. The (false) idea that sex/gender is just a never-ending spectrum of possibilities has become a more and more pervasive view among extreme inter-sectionalists.

    The video brings up intersex people but ignores the fact that even they have a biological sex dictated by their DNA. Hilariously, at the end of the video, you see a very confused individual assert that sex is actually defined by personal and political choices that are used to “assign meaning to different parts of our body.”

    The only problem with all this is that it’s complete garbage. You don’t get to assign different meanings to your body parts any more than I can assign my dog into a cat. Truth is not relative and those body parts being referenced are what science says they are. There’s no spectrum of infinite sexes or genders you get to choose, there’s simply scientific reality.”


  3. Once again Omar does the bidding of terrorists.

    Tell her to pound sand.


    Liked by 1 person

  4. Pelosi will never allow it. Can’t have them going on the record with their support.



    Liked by 1 person

  5. Poof, it’s gone.

    Just like that, thanks to the help of a compliant media.




    If only…..

    Liked by 1 person

  6. More here…..


    “The NY Times published a piece today about the trio of scandals that overwhelmed Virginia in February. It’s a curious fact that after numerous Democrats called for the resignation of Gov. Northam (over a blackface yearbook photo) and Lt. Gov. Fairfax (over alleged sexual assault), both men are still in office and seem to have no intentions of leaving.

    In the space of a week in early February, the public was stunned by revelations about each of the three highest statewide elected officials, all Democrats: the racist photo in the governor’s yearbook; accusations of sexual assault against the lieutenant governor; and the attorney general’s appearance in blackface at a party in college. Protesters and news crews swarmed the Statehouse. Calls for resignations came from fellow Virginia Democrats, Republicans and even 2020 presidential candidates.

    And then? “It just went poof,” said Natalie Draper, a librarian sitting in the back of a coffeehouse last week in Richmond. “It’s like it never happened.”

    How did this happen? The real answer seems to be that Democrats in Virginia decided they might be better off ignoring the scandal than caring about it:

    Whatever may happen in the 2021 election for governor, every seat in the Republican-controlled Virginia General Assembly will be up this November, and Democrats have a chance to take back power in at least one chamber of the legislature. That will be hard enough now, given the bales of fodder Republicans now have for attack ads. But the idea of trying to raise money and hold rallies while spurning the three highest officeholders in the state came to be seen by many Democrats as just a needless handicap.

    Betsy Carr, a Democratic delegate, said shortly after stepping off the stage last week with Mr. Northam that voters “want to move on.” “They want positive things to happen, they’re concerned about the elections,” she said.

    When you put this in perspective it’s very striking. If you had to rank the importance of allegations of racism and sexual abuse/harassment in terms of everyday Democratic priorities, you’d have to say they ranked pretty high. And yet, here you have Virginia’s top two figures caught in serious scandals involving these very topics and the response is to shrug and move on. ”


    I’m sure the press would do the same if they were Republicans, right?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Trump and conservatives.

    It’s complicated.


    “Donald Trump is not a conventional conservative. Far from it. He’s a populist of the right. His strong appeal to conservatives lies in his nationalism, tax cuts, deregulation, and appointment of originalist judges.

    Unlike Ronald Reagan, who had well-formed political ideas, Trump’s notions about public policy come from gut instincts, reinforced by cheering crowds. Their common thread is “Don’t tread on me.”

    Trump’s disdain for tradition is the opposite of orthodox conservativism. It is most visible in the wrecking ball aimed at NATO and other allies. If you are rich enough and want our military protection, he says, then pay up or forget it. Prove you deserve our protection. Show us the money.

    Trump’s threat to walk away is more credible than that of previous presidents because he is instinctively closer to Robert Taft’s isolationism than to Arthur Vandenberg’s internationalism. The Taft-Vandenberg debate in the late 1940s settled Republican foreign policy for the next 60 years. Vandenberg, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, led bipartisan support for President Harry Truman’s policies, including the Marshall Plan and forming NATO. The party’s stance was sealed in 1952 when Dwight Eisenhower defeated Taft for the presidential nomination.

    Republicans remained internationalist on both security and trade throughout the Cold War, the “Unipolar Moment” of the 1990s, and the Global War on Terror after 9/11. That consensus shattered in the endless mess of Afghanistan and Iraq and the hollowing out of U.S. manufacturing employment. The Democratic Party backed away from those policies even sooner.

    As a result, there is no consensus today on America’s proper role in the world. Our allies know it and are understandably nervous. Trump, a tough negotiator, is exploiting their anxiety to strike better deals for American defense support. That only works if allies believe he might actually pull back. They do, and so do internationalists in both parties. They are also worried about trade policy, where his strategy is similar.

    Trump’s personal style adds to those worries, including those of conservatives. Many are repulsed by his crudity, thin-skinned nature, and vitriolic personal attacks. They fret as he shreds established norms. They oppose his micro-interventions in the economy (“don’t close that GM plant”), which are the opposite of free-market economics.

    But—and this is crucial—conservatives and many independents recognize Trump’s biggest achievement, beyond strengthening the economy and rebuilding the military, is his persistent effort to roll back the administrative state, with its endless regulations and executive orders. The agencies that make the rules also enforce and adjudicate them. The result is fiat law—undemocratic, unaccountable, and unbearably expensive to fight. (If you think that’s also a major popular complaint about the European Union, you are correct.)

    To curtail this administrative overreach, Trump needs to downsize the permanent bureaucracy, pass laws that require congressional approval for major regulations, and keep appointing judges who will rein in bureaucratic excess. Eliminating specific regulations is not enough. The next Democratic president will simply reimpose them.

    Trump’s progress on judges is obvious—and consequential. That’s why Democrats are fighting so tenaciously. The latest battle, after Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court appointment, was Neomi Rao’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit. She proved her commitment to deregulation while heading the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Now she sits on the appellate court that hears those cases.”


  8. Cops doing their job.

    What a concept!


    “Resist: California cops, sheriffs ignoring new sanctuary law blocking help for ICE”

    “Nearly half of California sheriff departments are protesting a new California law that bars them from helping federal immigration officials find criminal illegal immigrants, according to a new report.

    What’s more, several of the 169 law enforcement agencies in California are challenging former Gov. Jerry Brown’s bid to hide criminal illegals by letting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to seize the wanted prisoners for deportation and not telling the state.

    The explosive new claims are in an Oxford University study of the implementation of the “California Values Act” which seeks to declare all law enforcement agencies sanctuaries for illegal immigrants, meaning they are not to work with ICE.

    The report from the University of Oxford Centre for Criminology-Border Criminologies reveals what many law enforcement agencies are doing to get around the law. The report is critical of those moves and calls on the state to crack down on agencies that help ICE to find and remove criminal illegals.”


  9. Tables, turned.

    Victor Davis Hanson lays it all out.


    “The irony of the entire Russian collusion hoax is that accusers who cried the loudest about leaking, collusion, lying, and obstruction are themselves soon very likely to be accused of just those crimes.

    Now that Robert Mueller’s 674-day, $30 million investigation is over and has failed to find the original goal of its mandate—evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russian government to sway the 2016 election—and now that thousands of once-sealed government documents will likely be released in unredacted form, those who eagerly assumed the role of the hunters may become the hunted, due to their own zealous violation of the nation’s trust and its laws.

    Take Lying
    Former FBI Director James Comey’s testimonies cannot be reconciled with those of his own deputy director Andrew McCabe. He falsely testified that the Steele dossier was not the main basis for obtaining FISA court warrants. On at least 245 occasions, Comey swore under oath that he either did not know, or could not remember, when asked direct questions about his conduct at the FBI. He likely lied when he testified that he did not conclude his assessment of the Clinton illegal email use before he had even interviewed Clinton, an assertion contradicted by his own written report. I guess his credo and modus operandi are reflected in the subtitle of his recent autobiography A Higher Loyalty: “Truth, Lies, and Leadership.”

    Andrew McCabe currently is under criminal referral for lying to federal investigators about leaking to the media. He and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein each have accused each other of not telling the whole truth about their shared caper of trying to force President Trump out of office by invoking the 25th Amendment.

    Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has admitted to lying under oath to Congress—and since lied about his earlier admission of that lying. His recent sworn congressional testimony of not having leaked information about the Steele dossier to the media is again likely to be untrue, given that Clapper had admitted to speaking to CNN’s Jake Tapper about the dossier’s contents. CNN, remember, would in turn go on to hire the mendacious Clapper as an analyst. And once on air, Clapper would insist that Trump was both a Russian asset and thus guilty of collusion crimes greater than those of Watergate. Lies. All lies.

    Former CIA Director John Brennan has admitted to lying under oath to Congress on two occasions. He may well face further legal exposure. When he lost his security clearance, he repeatedly lied that Trump was guilty of collusion, however that non-crime is defined. And as the Mueller probe wound down, Brennan with pseudo-authority and trumped-up hints of phony access to secret intelligence sources deceitfully assured the nation that Trump within days would face indictment—perhaps along with his family members.”

    “The motives of these bad actors are diverse, but they share a common denominator. As Washington politicos and administrative state careerists, all of them believed that Donald Trump was so abhorrent that he should be prevented from winning the 2016 election. After his stunning and shocking victory, they assumed further that either he should not be inaugurated or he should be removed from office as soon as they could arrange it.

    They further reasoned that as high and esteemed unelected officials their efforts were above and beyond the law, and rightly so, given their assumed superior wisdom and morality.

    Finally, if their initial efforts were predicated on winning not just exemption from the law, but even promotions and kudos from a grateful President Hillary Clinton, their subsequent energies at removing Trump and investing in the collusion hoax were preemptive and defensive. Seeding the collusion hoax was a way either of removing Trump who had the presidential power to call them all to account for their illegality, or at least causing so much media chaos and political havoc that their own crimes and misdemeanors would be forgotten by becoming submerged amid years of scandal, conspiracies, and media sensationalism.

    And they were almost—but so far not quite—correct in all their assumptions.”

    Liked by 1 person

  10. On the dangers of ‘hate speech’:



    … CNN’s Christiane Amanpour engaged in an extreme form of this fallacy while interviewing James Comey earlier today. She asked Comey whether he wished that the FBI had “shut down” people at 2016 Trump rallies who chanted “lock her up” about Hillary Clinton:

    ~ Of course, “Lock Her Up” was a feature of the 2016 Trump campaign. Do you in, retrospect, wish that people like yourself, the head of the FBI, the people in charge of law and order, had shut down that language, that it was dangerous potentially, that it could have created violence, that it kind of is hate speech? Should that have been allowed? ~

    Video at the link. The fact that a veteran journalist could ask such an insane question is shocking. (Comey explained that in the United States, it is not the job of the FBI to “shut down” political speech.) …

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Republicans have finally exercised the Reid Rule. No whining now, you Democrats built this. You know what they say about gooses, ganders, and sauce.

    They’ve nuked the obstructionists. 🙂


    “Republicans trigger ‘nuclear option’ to speed Trump nominees

    Democrats blasted the move as a blow to the Senate and a sign the filibuster might soon be on its way out.”

    “Senate Republicans used the “nuclear option” Wednesday to unilaterally reduce debate time on most presidential nominees, the latest in a series of changes to the fabric of the Senate to dilute the power of the minority.

    The move by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) immediately paves the way for quicker confirmation of President Donald Trump’s judicial and executive branch picks and comes amid deep GOP frustration with Democratic delays. Future presidents will benefit too, though McConnell and Trump stand to gain inordinately as they seek to fill 130 District Court vacancies over the next 18 months before the 2020 election.

    The nuclear option — a change of the Senate rules by a simple majority — gained its name because it was seen as an explosive maneuver that would leave political fallout for some time to come. But it’s now been deployed three times in just six years amid continuous partisan warfare over nominations.

    McConnell first sought to cut debate time on executive nominees, with the Senate voting 51-48 to overrule existing precedent. Later on Wednesday, McConnell will do the same for the District Court positions.

    McConnell trashed Democrats’ “systematic obstruction” as he stumped for his effort on the Senate floor. His move is particularly consequential in divided government when much of the Senate’s time is now spent confirming executive nominees and lifetime judicial appointments. Under the change, debate time on District Court nominees and subcabinet executive nominees is slashed from 30 hours to 2 hours, a shift that will allow Republicans to fill dozens more vacancies over the coming months.

    “It is time for this sorry chapter to end. It’s time to return this body to a more normal and reasonable process for fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities no matter which party control the White House,” McConnell said on Wednesday afternoon. Of Democrats’ slowing Trump nominees, McConnell said: “This is new. And it needs to stop.””


    “Notably, the latest rules change came with little of the drama of past maneuvers, in part because this reform is relatively modest but also because changing the Senate’s precedents is now increasingly common. The Senate defused the nuclear option and saved the filibuster during George W. Bush’s presidency, but not before Sen. Chuck Schumer and other Democrats blocked Miguel Estrada’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court.

    Nearly a decade later, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) used the nuclear option to kill the 60-vote requirement on most nominees. In 2017, McConnell made that rule apply to Supreme Court appointments. Then on Wednesday came the latest change, which Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) called “Miguel Estrada’s revenge.”

    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.