21 thoughts on “News/Politics 4-9-19

  1. And it begins……

    The progressives in the US are embracing their inner communist overlord.

    It was only a matter of time I suppose.


    “It Begins: Democrats, Media Promote Hiring Boycott Against DHS Secretary Nielsen, Other Trump Officials

    We’ve gone beyond “you will be made to care.” Now you will suffer as a result of any political affiliations or stances that don’t properly align with The Resistance’s goals.”

    “It wasn’t enough that #TheResistance shouted DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen out of a private DC restaurant in the summer of 2018. It wasn’t enough that they made it personal by converging on her home, yelling chants and playing audio clips of immigrant children allegedly being separated from their families at the border.

    Now, as Nielsen prepares to make her exit from the Trump administration, a group comprised of some familiar high-profile Resistance faces have taken it a step further by urging a hiring boycott. And not just against Nielsen, but against any Trump officials involved in the so-called “child separation” immigration policy.

    The DC Examiner reports:

    Fortune 500 firms are being urged to rip up the resumes of Trump immigration aides linked to policies that led to the separation of illegal immigrant children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border.

    “Many of you spoke out against this barbaric policy. However strong the opposition, your words are meaningless unless they are backed up with resolute action,” said a letter from a group called Restore Public Trust promoting its “Trump Administration Separation” campaign.


    The group names several officials including White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, chief immigration aide Stephen Miller, and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

    American Bridge, the SPLC, and NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice put their signatures on the letter.”



    And yet no Obama officials(you know, the guy who started these detentions)?


  2. More….


    “A letter was released by them Saturday and that was before Secretary Nielson’s resignation so I can only imagine how ramped up the demands will be to make sure she doesn’t have a soft landing elsewhere. She will be punished for doing her job as best as she could given the fact that Congress holds the law-making abilities. Her job was to enforce them and she did. Do you want stricter or more lax laws for enforcement? That’s on Congress, not a cabinet member. Their letter lists members of the administration and their titles while pointing an accusatory finger at each for their role in immigration policy. Some short explanations of their duties are included.

    The letter singles out 30 current and former officials including John Kelly, the former White House chief of staff, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, and Trump spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Also on the list are lesser known officials such as former Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection Robert Perez, and Ronald Vitiello, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    Many of you spoke out against this barbaric policy. However strong the opposition, your words are meaningless unless they are backed up with resolute action.

    We call on you to make it clear that you will not hire for employment, contract for consulting, or a seat on your boards, anyone involved in the development or implementation of the Trump administration’s family separation immigration policy.

    Furthermore, you should make it clear to the lobbying shops and consulting firms you hire and the think tanks, political committees, and candidates you fund — that you will not work with or support them if they hire these individuals.

    There are some lines that simply cannot be crossed.

    We will be watching.

    I can almost hear the “Let the doxxing begin!” cries coming from #TheResistance. April 6 was chosen as the date for the letter’s release as it was the anniversary of the date that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared a zero-tolerance immigration policy. The MAGA red hat worn by Trump supporters is used in a newspaper ad with the wording “Put Kids in Cages” .”


  3. The part I find most amusing about the above is that the frauds at the SPLC signed on to it.

    You’d think they’d be more worried about sending out letters to keep their bigoted perv leader from getting employment too, but alas, some animals are more equal than others with these morons.


    “Here’s Why The SPLC Fired Morris Dees (Why Wasn’t He Fired Decades Ago?)”

    “When the SPLC fired co-founder Morris Dees last month it cited vague misconduct and described the action as a “personnel issue.” Several subsequent reports suggested Dees was fired over multiple instances of sexual harassment and, ironically, racism toward black employees, but there were no specifics given about any of the allegations. Last Friday the Washington Post published a detailed story which spelled out some of the incidents which led to Dees’ firing.”


    “Dees denies all of this but women who work at the SPLC told the Post they had been privately warned by other women working there to avoid him. None of this rises to the level of sexual assault but some of it is reminiscent of the sort of behavior Joe Biden has been in trouble for recently, i.e. putting his hands on women in a way that seems too personal and inappropriate. The other allegations that led to his firing involved jokes and comments which were deemed racist by black employees at the SPLC.”


  4. Meanwhile, the slow speed train wreck that is Baltimore city govt continues to derail.


  5. Obama and Hillary built this, all to benefit the Brotherhood.


    “U.S. intervention in Libya in 2011 continues to reap the whirlwind of tragedy as forces in opposition to the “legitimate” Government of National Accord are attacking the capital city of Tripoli.

    In short, it’s a mess. A rogue general looking to take over the government is making the security situation for U.S. troops “complex and unpredictable,” according to the Marine general in command, Gen. Thomas Waldhauser.

    The Hill:

    “The security realities on the ground in Libya are growing increasingly complex and unpredictable,” Marine Corps Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, commander of U.S. Africa Command, said in a statement.

    “Even with an adjustment of the force, we will continue to remain agile in support of existing U.S. strategy.”

    Africom further clarified that the repositioning was in response to security concerns.

    “A contingent of U.S. forces supporting Africom temporarily relocated from Libya in response to security conditions,” the combatant command tweeted. “We will continue to monitor conditions on the ground and assess the feasibility for renewed U.S. military presence, as appropriate.”

    The worsening security situation is a direct result of policies formulated by President Obama and secretary of state Hillary Clinton when the U.S. led a coalition of forces to oust Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi. The reasoning behind the intervention — that the U.S. had a “responsibility to protect” Libyan citizens from Gaddafi — had no basis in any strategic interest of the U.S., and, with no organized opposition to Gaddafi, had no chance of succeeding in bringing peace.

    It was the worst foreign policy debacle of the Obama presidency. But it’s largely been swept under the rug — disappeared from history lest it tarnish the “legacy” of Barack Obama.”


  6. A losing issue for Democrats. 🙂


    “For Voters, Illegal Immigration Remains Big Problem, But Not for Democrats”

    “Voters continue to view illegal immigration as a serious problem but don’t think Democrats want to stop it. Cutting foreign aid is one tool voters are willing to consider.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 67% of all Likely U.S. Voters think illegal immigration is a serious problem in America today, with 47% who say it’s a Very Serious one. Thirty-two percent (32%) say it’s not a serious problem, but that includes only eight percent (8%) who rate it as Not At All Serious. “


  7. First Harry loses a fight with an exercise band.

    Now he’s lost his fight with the band makers too.

    Why? Well because he still thinks he’s in the Senate where he can lie with impunity and no one calls him on it.


    “Harry Reid Lost His Civil Lawsuit Against TheraBand (Opposing Counsel Noted His Problems Telling The Truth)”

    “Former Senator Harry Reid lost his civil case against TheraBand last week. Reid was seriously injured in 2015 while exercising with the band in his bathroom. He later sued the manufacturer claiming the product was unsafe for use by elderly people like himself. But during the trial, attorney Laurin Quiat who represented the company that manufacturers TheraBand, showed clips of Reid telling various stories about his injury, some of which contradicted things he said on the stand during the trial. Quiat argued that Harry Reid seemed to have difficulty telling the truth, which won’t surprise anyone who is familiar with Harry Reid. Let’s count the shifting statements with some help from the Associated Press. First, his reason for not running for office again:

    Reid testified last week his injuries were “the main factor” why he decided not to seek a sixth Senate term in 2016. Quiat, however, showed the jury a 2015 video news release in which Reid said his decision not to run had “absolutely nothing to do with my injury.”

    Here’s an interview where he says the inijury “wasn’t the decision-maker” with regard to running for office again.

    Second, Reid initially claimed the band broke then later claimed it slipped from his hand. And third, the location where the band was attached changed from a hook to a shower door:

    He noted that Reid at first said the band broke, not that it slipped his grasp, and that it had been attached to a metal hook in the wall of the bathroom in his suburban Las Vegas home.

    On the witness stand, Reid testified he looped a band through a shower door handle, not a hook, and that he spun around and fell face-first against hard-edged bathroom cabinets when it slipped from his grip on New Year’s Day 2015.”


  8. Facebook is joining the revisionist history movement, in a bid to target conservatives, of course.


    “Why is Facebook Targeting Conservative History-based Sites?

    Donald Trump, Jr. took Facebook to task in a recent article, and the censorship may be worse than even he thought”

    “Legal Insurrection readers are acutely aware of the deplatforming and silencing of conservative voices across social media and via outlets like Amazon.

    The latest victim to get slammed by the iron-hand of Big Tech is President Trump’s chief social media guru, Dan Scavino. Facebook blocked his account for simply responding to a question from a reader.

    The excuse was that his remark seemed like spam.

    Scavino is responsible for several of the president’s and White House’s social media accounts. He has been with the president for years.

    His accounts have a tremendous following, so a block on Facebook has a big reach. Already there are over 750 comments on his page, including:

    “Cory Critser Dan Scavino Daniel Scavino Jr. … I think it’s time for some Senate hearings with Facebook on there attempts to influence the election.”

    On a smaller scale, my personal website (Temple of Mut) was temporarily blocked from being linked in Facebook. The reason I was given: The website did not meet community standards.

    True . . . if your community consists merely of climate-change cultists and gender justice warriors. However, Facebook is supposed to be playing by the rules of a platform and not a publisher, so my science-based and news-focused content should be acceptable under any reasonable standard.

    Additionally, the Canto Talk Show program that I help host on occasion was also hit with a Facebook ban. Silvio Canto, the mild-mannered, thoughtful host and author of historic, sports, and political analysis was deeply troubled when his show promotion posts were deemed “inappropriate.”

    I am very angry. It took me several hours to calm down. They banned posts on World War II and baseball. What is offensive about that. Was it because I actually called Hitler “Hitler” instead of Trump? And my baseball piece was about Hank Aaron. How is that not appropriate? [transcript provided by author]

    Barry Jacobson, a former Green Beret who fought to defend the Constitution (including his First Amendment rights), was also impacted by Facebook censorship. The social media giant recently stopped the promotion of his military history podcasts.

    That Facebook deems discussion of WW-2 “in violation of community standards” is not only astonishing; it begs the question, what standard are they upholding? Ignorance? Put another way, is the banning of all discussion of the horrors caused by the Nazis somehow going to further the cause (which I assume Facebook supports) of hindering the spread of Nazi ideology?”


  9. Naming names.

    All the progressive plotters, from Victor Davis Hanson.


    “Right after the 2016 election, Green Party candidate Jill Stein—cheered on by Hillary Clinton dead-enders—sued in three states to recount votes and thereby overturn Donald Trump’s victory in the Electoral College. Before the quixotic effort imploded, Stein was praised as an iconic progressive social justice warrior who might stop the hated Trump from even entering the White House.

    When that did not work, B-list Hollywood celebrities mobilized, with television and radio commercials, to shame electors in Trump-won states into not voting for the president-elect during the official Electoral College balloting in December 2016. Their idea was that select morally superior electors should reject their constitutional directives and throw the election into the House of Representatives where even more morally superior NeverTrump Republicans might join with even much more morally superior Democrats to find the perfect morally superior NeverTrump alternative.

    When that did not work, celebrities and politicians hit social media and the airwaves to so demonize Trump that culturally it would become taboo even to voice prior support for the elected president. Their chief tool was a strange new sort of presidential assassination chic, as Madonna, David Crosby, Robert de Niro, Johnny Depp, Snoop Dogg, Peter Fonda, Kathy Griffin, and a host of others linguistically vied with one another in finding the most appropriately violent end of Trump—blowing him up, burning him up, beating him up, shooting him up, caging him up, or decapitating him. Apparently, the aim—aside from careerist chest-thumping among the entertainment elite—was to lower the bar of Trump disparagement and insidiously delegitimize his presidency.

    When that did not work, during the president’s first year in office, the Democrats and the media at various times sought to invoke the 25th Amendment, claiming Trump was so mentally or physically impaired that he was not able to carry out the duties of president. At one point, congressional Democrats called Yale University psychiatrist Dr. Bandy X. Lee to testify that Trump was unfit to continue. In fact, to prove her credentials, Lee edited The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump that offered arguments from 27 psychiatrists and other mental health experts. In May 2017, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein met secretly in efforts to poll Trump cabinet members to discover whether they could find a majority to remove Trump from office—again on grounds that he was mentally unbalanced. According to McCabe, Rosenstein offered to wear a wire, in some sort of bizarre comic coup attempt to catch Trump off-guard in a confidential conversation.

    When that did not work, 200 congressional Democrats……


    And on and on it goes.


  10. Once again, the media is stretching the truth to try and make Trump look bad.


    “US Secret Service Director says he wasn’t fired”

    “Don’t you just hate it when a liberal narrative falls apart?

    Well, not really. And in the case of Secret Service Director Randolph “Tex” Alles, who was reportedly fired yesterday, the narrative has gone off the rails.

    Conventional wisdom in the last 24 hours has Donald Trump engaged in a “purge” of Homeland Security. No so, says Alles, who stressed the “orderly transition” at DHS.


    “No doubt you have seen media reports regarding my ‘firing.’ I assure you that this is not the case, and in fact was told weeks ago by the administration that transitions in leadership should be expected across the Department of Homeland Security,” Alles said in a message to Secret Service agents.

    “The president has directed an orderly transition in leadership for this agency and I intend to abide by that direction,” Alles said.

    Sounds more like a reorganization than a “purge” to me. But then, “purge” is so much more dramatic, don’t you think?”


  11. These folk complaining about separation, what is their take on the foster care system? They must have something to say with five hundred thousand children in need of adoption.


  12. Mumsee – Are all 500,000 available for adoption? My understanding was that in a fairly large percentage of cases, the parents’ parental rights have not been terminated, so the children/teens are not available. (Or is the 500,000 the number who are available?)

    What gets me is when some people use the facts about children in foster care as an argument for abortion. I have asked if anyone would like to look into the face of a foster child and tell him that he should have been aborted. (Sadly, some of the children or teens might even agree.)


  13. She refuses to resign and there is no legal recourse to force her to. Her reason? “Other people have done worse things.”


  14. It is currently around four hundred thirty thousand in foster care each day, with one hundred thousand plus available for adoption. Many in foster care are eventually returned to the family, after the parents finish the required drug rehab or parenting classes or whatever. Time in foster care varies from a few days to several years. The average is two years and rarely is that in just one home, but they are shifted around, often for the convenience of the parents or social workers, not the child. After eighteen months, parental rights can be terminated. Many linger in foster care for ten or fifteen years, aging out at eighteen.

    To me, that is a lot more harsh than people coming into the country knowing their children will be removed for a time, even able to set up contacts with relatives for the children and getting their children back as soon as they have resolved their border issues. Or losing them if it turns out they are active in other criminal areas.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Once again, much ado about nothing. And the law is on Barr’s side here.

    Remember the good old days (like a month ago) when Mueller and “the rule of law” was a hit with Dems and the left? Yeah good times. 🙂


    “Barr told the members he asked Mueller if he wanted to review the four page summary, but declined. He also promised a redacted version within a week.

    After Mueller completed his report, Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein released a four page summary. They stated that no one else will face indictments, Mueller’s team found that no one within President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia, and no evidence of obstruction of justice.

    The last week, the media reported that some people on Mueller’s team believe that Barr and Rosenstein’s summary “failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated.”

    However, Barr told Congress this morning that he offered Mueller a chance to review the summary, but he declined.”


    “I see people on Twitter complaining about the redactions, but National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy wrote at Fox News three days ago that a court ruling forces Barr’s hands to redact grand jury information:

    I flagged this case, now called McKeever v. Barr (formerly McKeever v. Sessions), last week. It did not arise out of the Mueller investigation, but it obviously has significant ramifications for the Mueller report — in particular, how much of it we will get to see.

    At issue was this question: Does a federal court have the authority to order disclosure of grand jury materials if the judge decides that the interests of justice warrant doing so; or is the judge limited to the exceptions to grand jury secrecy that are spelled out in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure?

    The D.C. Circuit’s McKeever ruling holds that the text of Rule 6(e) controls. Consequently, judges have no authority to authorize disclosure outside the rule.

    That “Rule 6(e) does not contain an exception to secrecy that would permit disclosure to Congress.” So Congress may demand an unredacted version, but this ruling means they have no entitlements to it.”


    Awww… to bad. 🙂


  16. This will be fun to watch. 🙂

    I’d like to hear their explanation and reasoning behind perp walking an 80 year old man and his wife in front of cameras, in their pajamas, with a guns drawn, pre-dawn FBI raid. An explanation is in order. And maybe we’ll find out who leaked it to CNN as well.


    “Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for records of the planning and preparation of the raid of the home of former Trump campaign aide Roger Stone, as well as any communications between Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Office (SCO), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and CNN about the raid (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00795)).

    The suit was filed after the Special Counsel’s Office failed to respond to a FOIA request dated January 25, 2019, and the FBI failed to respond to two separate FOIA requests on January 25, 2019, and February 1, 2019.

    The January 2019 FOIA request to the Special Counsel’s Office sought all records of communications between SCO officials – and representatives CNN – regarding the January 25, 2019, arrest of Stone. Judicial Watch also asked for all records of communications between SCO officials or people acting on their behalf communicating with CNN regarding the arrest of Stone.

    The January 2019 FOIA request to the FBI sought all records of communications from government or commercial sources between officials in the offices of the FBI Director, FBI Deputy Director, Office of General Counsel, Office of Public Affairs, and/or the FBI Miami Field Office – and representatives of CNN – regarding Stone’s arrest.

    The February 2019 FOIA request to the FBI sought all planning materials used in preparation arrest and raid, as well as communications between the FBI Director, Deputy Director, Director’s Chief of Staff, and Executive Assistant Director for the Criminal Division. Judicial Watch also asked for all records of communications between the Special Agent in Charge of the Miami Field Office regarding the arrest and/or raid on the home of Roger Stone.

    The Judicial Watch FOIA request and subsequent lawsuit was in part prompted by the extraordinary and exclusive video access to the raid and arrest of Stone obtained by CNN on January 25, 2019. Questioned about the extraordinary early morning access, CNN claimed it was “the product of good instincts, some key clues, more than a year of observing comings at the DC federal courthouse and the special counsel’s office – and a little luck on the timing.”

    Later in the day, however, Stone told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson that CNN was aware of his arrest even before his own lawyer, “It’s disconcerting that CNN was aware that I would be arrested before my lawyers were informed. So, that’s disturbing.” And during his February 8, 2019, testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said, “It was deeply concerning to me as to how CNN found out about that.””


  17. I’m aware there are legitimate reasons for redaction but the time taken is suspicious. And if there is a lot of redactions suspicion will continue. I’m surprised Congress won’t have access to an unredacted copy to see in camera. I’m sure that will be be fought.

    I do find it interesting that after the Trump supporters did their victory lap, they were quick to support any type of suppression of the report.


  18. I supported seeing the whole thing…..

    That it’s legal for us to see.

    The law, courts, and judges have all been clear, some, like grand jury testimony where a subject has no right to defense so it’s all one sided info, isn’t viewable, for good and constitutional reasons. put in place specifically to stop abuses like the Democrats want to use it for. What they want it for is a disgusting abuse of power. The only people confused are those on the left. But they have little recourse but to rage. 🙂


  19. Kizzie,

    So her answer is to let more illegals in…. but give them jobs, to make sure they don’t further violate our laws by not showing for court?

    Seriously? Rewarding law breaking is not a solution. That’s one of the stupidest “solutions” I’ve heard yet.

    And Shikha Dalmia is an open borders whiner, who can’t hide her disdain for Trump in anything she writes. Stick to Bill Whittle and the like at Reason, you’ll be better off.


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.