What we can’t stand is having a racist, ungrateful, unqualified, anti-American, anti-Semetic, terrorist supporting, leftist shill in Congress. Not just her either, the other 50 or so infesting our Congress as well.
“Ilhan Omar: Republican “Goons,” And Many Dems, Can’t Stand Having A Black Muslim Immigrant Woman Who’s Equal To Them”
“I thought what they couldn’t stand was her accusing supporters of the Jewish state of being bought and sold by AIPAC’s “Benjamins” or questioning their loyalty to the United States outright.
The “goons” talking point works better for her audience.
This is a leftover from yesterday’s “Black Women in Defense of Ilhan Omar” rally in Washington. Among the speakers were Angela Davis (she’s seated to Omar’s left in the second clip below) and Rashida Tlaib, who vowed there’d be no! more! apologies! for … trafficking in anti-semitic tropes, I guess. As you’ll see, Omar made a point of equating anti-semitism with Islamophobia and laying both at the feet of Trump’s nationalist supporters, a talking point will serve her well until she inevitably decides to criticize Israel on Twitter one day with a passage from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or whatever.
The “goons” treatment for Republicans here is par for the course and will be a staple of Omar’s public rhetoric for as long as she’s in Congress. It’s the subtext of all messaging about the GOP from the AOC contingent in the Democrats’ freshmen class, but Omar is a freer than the rest to dispense with the trappings of civility since Republicans have hit her hard too over her Israel and 9/11 comments, which led to death threats. The more interesting comment is her aside that “many” Democrats in Congress also supposedly can’t stomach having to treat a black Muslim refugee as an equal. She should be asked to name names about her own caucus. Which racist, sexist faux-progressives are guilty of this terrible bigotry? They should be shamed publicly for it!
It wouldn’t happen to be all of the Democratic Israel supporters who objected to her dual-loyalty slander, would it?”
“Democratic State Legislators Propose Ballot Threats to Force Trump’s Hand on Tax Returns
In trying to outmaneuver Trump on the issue of his tax returns, Democrats are once again overplaying their hand.”
“In the last two months, Congressional Democrats have seen their collusion hopes go up in flames, and their dreams of impeachment more or less squelched by Democratic party leaders.
In spite of that, Democrats have what they believe is a viable backup plan they think will embarrass President Trump going into the 2020 elections: Increasing the pressure on him to release his tax returns.
To force the issue, Democratic party legislators in over half a dozen states want laws in place to keep him off of general election ballots in their respective states if he refuses to do so, per Axios (bolded emphasis theirs):
Driving the news: Illinois’ state senate recently passed a bill that would require people running for president or vice president to disclose their tax returns from the past five years.
The big picture: Illinois is not alone. Per the National Conference of State Legislatures…
“As of February 20, 2017 legislators in 18 states (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia) have introduced bills” to require “future presidential candidates to disclose income tax returns in order to be placed on the general election ballot.”
The bottom line: None of these bills have been signed into law (yet). But it seems possible — even likely — that at least one blue state might put it in place. And that potential scenario is giving Trump allies pause.
Presidential candidates are not required by law to release their tax returns to the public, and any state-level attempts at requiring them to would most definitely lead to court challenges, says the NCSL’s Dylan Lynch:
For many, the question is: Can states set this requirement, constitutionally speaking? Although states have authority to administer presidential elections, Article II of the U.S. Constitution outlines the qualifications for the presidency: The candidate must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old and have been a resident within the U.S. for the past 14 years. The possible addition of a new criteria established by a state would surely face a court battle.
Former assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy backed that up, saying these proposed laws were toothless:
While states do run elections, legal experts said they can’t add requirements to be president.
“The Constitution has spoken to that,” said Andrew McCarthy of the National Review Institute and a Fox News contributor. “And if you want to change the qualifications for presidency, including if you want to add a qualification that says you have to release your tax returns, you need to amend the Constitution.””
———————-
And thanks to Trump, we have a conservative Supreme Court, who will have the final say. 🙂 So Dems lose again. But don’t worry, I’ve seen this cartoon before, and the stupid coyote always comes back with another stupider plan.
A final kick to the teeth of lying poseur "Danang Dick" Blumenthal leaves him slack-jawed & drooling as AG Barr ends a tour de force testimony beating back bad takes, bad logic & bad intentions from Dems.
“First came the text messages between FBI lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, which gave us a painful glimpse at potential political bias inside America’s most famous crime-fighting bureau.
Now, a series of “Hi Honey” emails from Nellie Ohr to her high-ranking federal prosecutor husband and his colleagues raise the prospect that Hillary Clinton-funded opposition research was being funneled into the Justice Department during the 2016 election through a back-door marital channel. It’s a tale that raises questions of both conflict of interest and possible false testimony.
Ohr has admitted to Congress that, during the 2016 presidential election, she worked for Fusion GPS — the firm hired by Democratic nominee Clinton and the Democratic National Committee to perform political opposition research — on a project specifically trying to connect Donald Trump and his campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, to Russian organized crime.
Now, 339 pages of emails from her private account to Department of Justice (DOJ) email accounts, have been released under a Freedom of Information Act request by the conservative legal group Judicial Watch. And they are raising concerns among Republicans in Congress, who filed a criminal referral with the Justice Department on Wednesday night.
They clearly show that Ohr sent reams of open-source intelligence to her husband, Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, and on some occasions to at least three DOJ prosecutors: Lisa Holtyn, Ivana Nizich and Joseph Wheatley.
The contents tracked corruption developments in Russia and Ukraine, including intelligence affecting Russian figures she told Congress she had tried to connect to Trump or Manafort.
“Hi Honey, if you ever get a moment you might find the penultimate article interesting — especially the summary in the final paragraph,” Nellie Ohr emailed her husband on July 6, 2016, in one typical communication. The article and paragraph she flagged suggested that Trump was a Putin stooge: “If Putin wanted to concoct the ideal candidate to service his purposes, his laboratory creation would look like Donald Trump.” Nellie Ohr bolded that key sentence for apparent emphasis.
Such overt political content flowing into the email accounts of a DOJ charged with the nonpartisan mission of prosecuting crimes is jarring enough. It raises additional questions about potential conflicts of interest when it is being injected by a spouse working as a Democratic contractor trying to defeat Trump, and she is forwarding her own research to her husband’s department and co-workers.”
“Why Is Ilhan Omar’s Collusion With Islamists Acceptable?
Omar’s penchant for provoking millions of Americans with odious words has masked the related elements of her associations, ideology, and background.”
“Freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has distinguished herself with often offensive, outrageous, and unpatriotic rhetoric. One week she invokes classic anti-Jewish tropes. The next she trivializes the September 11 jihadist attacks. Another it is unearthed that she espouses morally relativistic if not overtly anti-American views about U.S. soldiers, the very ones who fought to defend civilians in her native Somalia to boot.”
——————–
“Worse Ties to Terrorist Front Groups
Perhaps the more troubling tie that binds President Erdogan and Omar is their shared affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood—the tip of the Sunni jihadist spear. Erdogan has publicly defended the Muslim Brotherhood, and vice versa, as he and the group share a common Sunni Islamic supremacist ideology. Erdogan’s Turkey has also been an ardent supporter of Hamas, one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s most notorious jihadist offshoots.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has effectively served as the public relations arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, in part through its support of Hamas. CAIR’s coordination with Hamas was revealed when it was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest jihad financing case in U.S. history, the Holy Land Foundation trial, in which several individuals were prosecuted for a scheme that resulted in millions of dollars flowing to Hamas.
The longstanding links between the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and CAIR have been detailed in proposed legislation that would designate the Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization. The unpassed law notes:
Shortly after HAMAS was founded in 1987, as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, the International Muslim Brotherhood ordered the Muslim Brotherhood chapters throughout the world to create Palestine Committees, who supported HAMAS with ‘media, money and men’. The U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood created the United States Palestine Committee, which documents reflect was initially comprised of 3 organizations: the Holy Land Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and the United Association for Studies and Research. CAIR was later added to these organizations. The mandate of these organizations, per the International Muslim Brotherhood, was to support HAMAS, and the HLF’s [Holy Land Foundation] particular role was to raise money to support HAMAS’ organizations inside the Palestinian territories.”
“It’s Getting Difficult To Tell The Difference Between The New York Times And Al Jazeera”
“It’s hard not to laugh reading The New York Times coverage of the Trump administration’s efforts to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. The three-person-bylined article kicks off by describing the group as a “storied and influential Islamist political movement with millions of members across the Middle East.”
Sounds like a global social club! Just some folks batting around ideas. The authors didn’t even have the decency to throw in a superficial adjective like “controversial” to create a veneer of balance.
Whether the Muslim Brotherhood’s many disparate groups and organizations meet the criteria of a single terror organization under U.S. law is debatable, but what isn’t debatable is that a large faction of the Muslim Brotherhood leads a Sunni movement that aims to implement sharia law under a global caliphate. Its deep network of “charitable” institutions and political parties form an infrastructure for extremist causes.
One could, if not a New York Times writer, describe its philosophy as dogmatic, illiberal, theocratic, and violent; and its “storied” history a long-term threat to secularism, Muslim reformers, liberalism, Christians, and Jews in the Middle East. These days, members of the Muslim Brotherhood advocate for child suicide bombings, political assassinations, mass murder of minorities, violent mobs—basically the entire deadly menu of jihadist activities.
This is context that Times readers would not learn. Nor would they learn that the Muslim Brotherhood helped birth modern Islamic extremism, first to undermine nationalistic Arabic governments, but later moving onto bigger goals. Readers would not learn that Muslim Brotherhood’s spurred the creation of al-Qaeda or that its intellectual founder, Sayyid Qutb, was an inspiration to Osama bin Laden.
Zachary Laub of the Council on Foreign Relations once noted that Qutb’s writings “provided the intellectual and theological underpinnings for many militant Sunni Islamist groups, including al-Qaeda and Hamas.” It would have been easy to include such a quote.
Also not mentioned in the Times’s article is that in 2001, the U.S. government designated the Muslim Brotherhood’s Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, then the largest Muslim charity in the country, a “Global Terrorist” group, whose employees would later be found guilty of funneling millions to terrorists groups. We have already treated Muslim Brotherhood affiliates as terrorists.
Also, one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s most successful offshoots, Hamas—designated a terror group by the State Department in 1997— still runs a mini-terror state in Gaza that not only undercuts any chance of the peace in the region, and not only oppresses its own people with theocratic strictures and fascistic rule, but is also responsible for the murder of American citizens.
Those meanies in the Trump administration, though.”
“Attorney General William Barr is sticking to his guns. Earlier this week, as I noted here, Barr rejected the demand of the Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee that, when he testifies about the Mueller report, he do so under extraordinary conditions.
One of the conditions was that Barr be questioned by non-members of the Committee — namely, staff lawyers. According to the Washington Post, the last time committee lawyers questioned a Cabinet official during open hearings was in the mid-1980s when Attorney General Meese testified about Iran-Contra. And Ed Meese was testifying about substantive matters, not about a memo regarding findings made by someone else in a publicly-available document.
Committee Democrats nonetheless have insisted that Barr agree to be questioned by non-members, as well as to their other demands. Barr has refused. Thus, unless something dramatic happens very soon, Barr won’t testify tomorrow.
Jerry Nadler, House Judiciary Committee Chairman, called Barr’s decision part of the administration’s “complete stonewalling of Congress, period.” That statement is so wide of the mark as to be a lie.
It’s not “complete stonewalling” when Barr agrees to be questioned for hours by Senate Judiciary Committee members on Wednesday and by House Judiciary Committee members for hours the following day, as Barr was willing to do. It’s not stonewalling at all. Nor is it stonewalling to insist on procedures that have been used, apparently without exception, for more than 30 years when Cabinet members testify publicly before Congress.
Democratic Senators were able to grill Barr without relying on staff lawyers to ask the questions. If Nadler doesn’t have enough competent questioners among his committee members to grill Barr, that’s his fault. It’s not grounds for special procedures for which there is no precedent in the past 30 years.”
“They smeared him, called him a liar and said he should resign. The same Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who tried to assassinate the character of Judge Brett Kavanaugh last year pulled the same stunt on Bill Barr — with the same result.
They failed because, once again, they were throwing mud while shooting blanks.
Despite the Dems’ desperate efforts to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination with false accusations, he is now on the Supreme Court. Barr was obviously prepared for his mud bath and was unflappable in the face of Wednesday’s mean-spirited assault, proving himself to be a rock-solid attorney general.
As he said at his confirmation hearing, “I won’t be bullied,” and he wasn’t.
On one level, the hearing on the report of special counsel Robert Mueller was predictable in its partisan divide. Republicans wanted to emphasize Mueller’s findings that no American, including those in President Trump’s 2016 campaign, conspired with Russia to meddle and Barr’s determination that there had been no obstruction of justice.
Democrats, as expected, tried to cloud the conclusions by suggesting there was too much smoke in the president’s actions for there not to be fire somewhere. The best hope they had was a letter from Mueller telling Barr he was unhappy with the AG’s initial four-page letter on the report’s conclusions, saying it “did not fully capture” the scope of the entire 450-page report.
Barr called the letter a “bit snitty,” and refuted the criticism by saying he had moved quickly to release the entire report, minus minimal redactions, and the whole world could see what Mueller had found — and didn’t find.
It was a legitimate, if thin, line of questioning, but Dems didn’t like the answer and lost it again. Obviously frustrated that their main talking point for the entire Trump presidency has come up empty, they savaged Barr and accused him of covering up for a corrupt president.
It was politics at its most dishonest as they tried to argue that up is down and black is white. Barr was mostly stoic, but allowed himself a brief moment to brilliantly summarize the outlandish effort to twist reality.
“How did we get to the point where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians, accused of being treasonous and accused of being a Russian agent, and the evidence now is that that was without a basis?” he asked. “And two years of his administration have been dominated by allegations that have now been proven false. But to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think the Mueller report had found the opposite.””
I ran across this while looking for something else.
It is pertinent to nothing happening here, except to show how trivial this nonsense that is going on WRT our real problem in the world.
Abul A’la Maududi (September 25, 1903 – September 22, 1979) was a journalist, theologian, Muslim revivalist leader and political philosopher, and a controversial 20th century Islamist thinker in British India, and later Pakistan.
• Human relations are so integrated that no state can have complete freedom of action under its principles unless the same principles are not in force in a neighboring country. Therefore, a, ‘Muslim Party’ will not be content with the establishment of Islam in just one area alone –both for its own safety and for general reform. It should try and expand in all directions. On one hand it will spread its ideology; on the other it will invite people of all nations to accept its creed, for salvation lies only therein. If this Islamic state has power and resources it will fight and destroy non-Islamic governments and establish Islamic states in their place.
o 1964, Haqiqat-i-Jihad, page 64, Taj Company Ltd, Lahore, Pakistan 1964.
• It [Jamaat-e-Islami] is not a missionary organization or a body of preachers or evangelists, but an organization of God’s troopers.
o 1964, Haqiqat-i-Jihad, page 58, Taj Company Ltd, Lahore, Pakistan.
• [Islam] leaves no room of human legislation in an Islamic state,
“North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows referred Nellie Ohr, a former Fusion GPS contractor, to the Justice Department for criminal investigation on Wednesday.”
“Let the contempt citations fly! True to his word, Attorney General William Barr was a no-show at the House Judiciary Committee this morning, and so was the fully-unredacted Mueller Report despite subpoenas for both. “Every member of this committee, Democrat and Republican alike,” chair Jerrold Nadler intoned, “should understand the consequences when the executive branch tells us that they will simply ignore a lawful subpoena from Congress.”
The consequences might not be as consequential as Nadler argues, but for now he’s planning on moving forward on a contempt citation:
“Good faith” in this case is in short supply all around. Nadler wants a full release of grand-jury testimony to all members of Congress, which is not just unreasonable but also violates the law. Furthermore, it’s unnecessary, since Congress has the full summaries written by Robert Mueller himself in hand. Unless they have reason to suspect that Mueller’s hiding information in those redactions that contradict his own conclusions, there’s no point in violating a very good law on grand-jury proceedings. Besides, Congress can — and the House has threatened to — recreate that testimony in their own hearings.”
“Barr: Mueller’s Letter Was “A Bit Snitty,” To Be Honest, And Was Probably Written By One Of His Staffers”
“Blumenthal gets the better of this exchange with Barr, although I’m sympathetic to Ted Cruz’s point in the second clip below that it’s absurd to debate the contents of Barr’s summary when we now have nearly the entire Mueller report, including the summaries that Mueller wanted released. That was the point of Mueller’s now famous letter to Barr on March 27: Why haven’t you released the summaries we prepared? Three weeks later, Barr released them plus much more. What’s left to say?
We seem to be having a public debate today about a hypothetical. What if Barr’s initial decision not to release Mueller’s summaries had so strongly shifted public opinion in Trump’s favor that even the full release of the Mueller report a few weeks later couldn’t alter it? What if the “no collusion, no obstruction” conclusions in Barr’s summary were so instantly persuasive that Mueller’s far more ominous treatment of the obstruction issue in his report went completely overlooked by the public? Back in reality, however, it wasn’t overlooked. Trump’s polling did decline a bit after Mueller’s report came out but it’s now stabilized at the ol’ familiar 43 percent mark. I think Mueller may have been worried on March 27 that Barr might get cold feet about ever releasing the summaries, not to mention the full report, and/or that Trump might try to block their release by asserting executive privilege over them.”
————-
What ifs and if onlys do not a case make. They. Got. Nothing.
“The Gloves Come Off As Even Ben Shapiro Hits Mueller For His Underhanded Behavior”
“Lots of eyes have been opened over the past two days in regards to Mueller’s behavior.
That behavior made it increasingly clear that the special counsel was more concerned with media perception and sliming Trump than the bottom line conclusions. This culminated in a “bombshell” letter that was leaked by Mueller (there’s no other logical possibility) purporting to show that he was upset with how AG Bill Barr had characterized the report.
In reality, it was actually just a whiny, made for media complaint that Barr hadn’t done the dirty work for the special counsel in the absence of Mueller not having the courage to recommend charges for Trump. Mueller wanted the report to come out piece-meal and serve as a roadmap for impeachment and Barr wasn’t going to play his games.
Mueller getting upset about media perceptions when he knew the entire report was being prepared for release anyway tells you a lot about the mindset and true purpose of his “investigation.” A special counsel shouldn’t give two shakes about media perception.
This revelation has led some conservative voices who formally defended Mueller to wake up and smell the stink in the air. Andrew McCarthy had a savage piece this morning about the entire ordeal. Another is Ben Shapiro, host of the “fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.”
———————-
“That confusion was Mueller’s fault. (NOTE: This is coming from someone who has defended Mueller’s integrity for years, called on Trump consistently to stop attacking Mueller, and stated that if Trump fired Mueller, impeachment ought to be on the table.) Mueller had the full capacity to recommend prosecution on obstruction of justice. He had full authority to state that in his view, Trump had obstructed justice. But he didn’t. His 448 page report is a listing of ugly details about Trump’s internal administration behavior, but does not recommend obstruction charges — and indeed, doesn’t substantiate activity that could sustain a prosecution. Mueller knew that.
The highlighted part is the key. If Mueller really wanted to stick it to Trump, he should have manned up and made the decision that he felt the President obstructed justice. Instead, the special counsel’s office wanted to wage warfare via leaks and innuendo, setting the stage for a Democratic House to act.
That’s not what prosecutors are supposed to do. Its improper and unethical on its face, no matter what you think of Trump personally.”
“Barr Bombshell: Mueller Told Us He Was NOT Saying That Trump Would Be Charged If He Was Not President”
“Attorney General William Barr revealed during a hearing on Wednesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had repeatedly told Barr that he was not indicating that he would have charged President Donald Trump if Trump were not a sitting president.”
“Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found obstruction,” Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “He said that in the future, the facts of the case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case.””
And now we know why they’re trying to smear Barr…..
We now know why the Democrats in Congress have ramped up attacks on Barr. There's an IG report that's coming out that is going to lay bare how the Obama DOJ spied on Trump. here's the first drip.
Vastly amused to see the panic the newly elected young ladies are causing. Its also amusing to see those who chanted drain the swamp are upset when the swamp is challenged. I don’t always agree with AOC and Omar but I do enjoy watching old established politicians sputter.
However Harris is the best. Watching Burr stumble over the definition of suggest was almost Clinton like. The ladies are definetely challenging the old guard. And the old men are running for a safe space. Burr won’t appear bc outside counsel will be present. But Christina Ford had no problem with outside counsel.
Its ironic that the last time an outside counsel was present was at the Iran-Contra hearings. Burr did some Republican clean up during that scandal. Given were at the same level of corruption and criminality, perhaps outside counsel is appropriate. Personally I think they should let the young ladies do the questioning and watch Burr stutter.
Mueller is a professional. He finished his report, submitted summaries and abided by DOJ guidelines not to indict a sitting president. Then Burr spun his report. As a professional, Mueller was offended and wrote a letter. (I work with similar people, their sense of professionalism is like a badge which if defaced they will feel compelled to protest. Personally, i find it a bit much)
However, thats not important. When questioned if he was aware of Mueller’s opinion of his summary. Burr said he didn’t know. But he did. He had the letter and discussed it on the phone. Regardless of Mueller’s actual opinion, Burr lied under oath. Perjury and obstruction.
“Mueller is a professional. He finished his report, submitted summaries and abided by DOJ guidelines not to indict a sitting president. ”
That’s just false. The guidelines have nothing to do with it. Mueller’s letter and report both say so. That played no part in the decision to not indict. Another false narrative from the left.
“Barr Bombshell: Mueller Told Us He Was NOT Saying That Trump Would Be Charged If He Was Not President”
“Attorney General William Barr revealed during a hearing on Wednesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had repeatedly told Barr that he was not indicating that he would have charged President Donald Trump if Trump were not a sitting president.”
“”Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found obstruction,” Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “He said that in the future, the facts of the case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case.””
Wandering Views 
What we can’t stand is having a racist, ungrateful, unqualified, anti-American, anti-Semetic, terrorist supporting, leftist shill in Congress. Not just her either, the other 50 or so infesting our Congress as well.
https://hotair.com/archives/2019/05/01/ilhan-omar-republican-goons-many-dems-cant-stand-black-muslim-immigrant-woman-whos-equal/
“Ilhan Omar: Republican “Goons,” And Many Dems, Can’t Stand Having A Black Muslim Immigrant Woman Who’s Equal To Them”
“I thought what they couldn’t stand was her accusing supporters of the Jewish state of being bought and sold by AIPAC’s “Benjamins” or questioning their loyalty to the United States outright.
The “goons” talking point works better for her audience.
This is a leftover from yesterday’s “Black Women in Defense of Ilhan Omar” rally in Washington. Among the speakers were Angela Davis (she’s seated to Omar’s left in the second clip below) and Rashida Tlaib, who vowed there’d be no! more! apologies! for … trafficking in anti-semitic tropes, I guess. As you’ll see, Omar made a point of equating anti-semitism with Islamophobia and laying both at the feet of Trump’s nationalist supporters, a talking point will serve her well until she inevitably decides to criticize Israel on Twitter one day with a passage from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or whatever.
The “goons” treatment for Republicans here is par for the course and will be a staple of Omar’s public rhetoric for as long as she’s in Congress. It’s the subtext of all messaging about the GOP from the AOC contingent in the Democrats’ freshmen class, but Omar is a freer than the rest to dispense with the trappings of civility since Republicans have hit her hard too over her Israel and 9/11 comments, which led to death threats. The more interesting comment is her aside that “many” Democrats in Congress also supposedly can’t stomach having to treat a black Muslim refugee as an equal. She should be asked to name names about her own caucus. Which racist, sexist faux-progressives are guilty of this terrible bigotry? They should be shamed publicly for it!
It wouldn’t happen to be all of the Democratic Israel supporters who objected to her dual-loyalty slander, would it?”
LikeLike
Poor babies. They can’t get what they want, so here come the tantrums.
As tactic after tactic fails, they just keep moving the goalposts.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/democratic-state-legislators-propose-ballot-threats-to-force-trumps-hand-on-tax-returns/#more-281471
“Democratic State Legislators Propose Ballot Threats to Force Trump’s Hand on Tax Returns
In trying to outmaneuver Trump on the issue of his tax returns, Democrats are once again overplaying their hand.”
“In the last two months, Congressional Democrats have seen their collusion hopes go up in flames, and their dreams of impeachment more or less squelched by Democratic party leaders.
In spite of that, Democrats have what they believe is a viable backup plan they think will embarrass President Trump going into the 2020 elections: Increasing the pressure on him to release his tax returns.
To force the issue, Democratic party legislators in over half a dozen states want laws in place to keep him off of general election ballots in their respective states if he refuses to do so, per Axios (bolded emphasis theirs):
Driving the news: Illinois’ state senate recently passed a bill that would require people running for president or vice president to disclose their tax returns from the past five years.
The big picture: Illinois is not alone. Per the National Conference of State Legislatures…
“As of February 20, 2017 legislators in 18 states (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia) have introduced bills” to require “future presidential candidates to disclose income tax returns in order to be placed on the general election ballot.”
The bottom line: None of these bills have been signed into law (yet). But it seems possible — even likely — that at least one blue state might put it in place. And that potential scenario is giving Trump allies pause.
Presidential candidates are not required by law to release their tax returns to the public, and any state-level attempts at requiring them to would most definitely lead to court challenges, says the NCSL’s Dylan Lynch:
For many, the question is: Can states set this requirement, constitutionally speaking? Although states have authority to administer presidential elections, Article II of the U.S. Constitution outlines the qualifications for the presidency: The candidate must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old and have been a resident within the U.S. for the past 14 years. The possible addition of a new criteria established by a state would surely face a court battle.
Former assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy backed that up, saying these proposed laws were toothless:
While states do run elections, legal experts said they can’t add requirements to be president.
“The Constitution has spoken to that,” said Andrew McCarthy of the National Review Institute and a Fox News contributor. “And if you want to change the qualifications for presidency, including if you want to add a qualification that says you have to release your tax returns, you need to amend the Constitution.””
———————-
And thanks to Trump, we have a conservative Supreme Court, who will have the final say. 🙂 So Dems lose again. But don’t worry, I’ve seen this cartoon before, and the stupid coyote always comes back with another stupider plan.
LikeLike
Here’s one of those coyotes now. 🙂
LikeLike
Conflict of interest and probably false testimony.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441580-nellie-ohrs-hi-honey-emails-to-doj-about-russia-collusion-should-alarm-us
“First came the text messages between FBI lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, which gave us a painful glimpse at potential political bias inside America’s most famous crime-fighting bureau.
Now, a series of “Hi Honey” emails from Nellie Ohr to her high-ranking federal prosecutor husband and his colleagues raise the prospect that Hillary Clinton-funded opposition research was being funneled into the Justice Department during the 2016 election through a back-door marital channel. It’s a tale that raises questions of both conflict of interest and possible false testimony.
Ohr has admitted to Congress that, during the 2016 presidential election, she worked for Fusion GPS — the firm hired by Democratic nominee Clinton and the Democratic National Committee to perform political opposition research — on a project specifically trying to connect Donald Trump and his campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, to Russian organized crime.
Now, 339 pages of emails from her private account to Department of Justice (DOJ) email accounts, have been released under a Freedom of Information Act request by the conservative legal group Judicial Watch. And they are raising concerns among Republicans in Congress, who filed a criminal referral with the Justice Department on Wednesday night.
They clearly show that Ohr sent reams of open-source intelligence to her husband, Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, and on some occasions to at least three DOJ prosecutors: Lisa Holtyn, Ivana Nizich and Joseph Wheatley.
The contents tracked corruption developments in Russia and Ukraine, including intelligence affecting Russian figures she told Congress she had tried to connect to Trump or Manafort.
“Hi Honey, if you ever get a moment you might find the penultimate article interesting — especially the summary in the final paragraph,” Nellie Ohr emailed her husband on July 6, 2016, in one typical communication. The article and paragraph she flagged suggested that Trump was a Putin stooge: “If Putin wanted to concoct the ideal candidate to service his purposes, his laboratory creation would look like Donald Trump.” Nellie Ohr bolded that key sentence for apparent emphasis.
Such overt political content flowing into the email accounts of a DOJ charged with the nonpartisan mission of prosecuting crimes is jarring enough. It raises additional questions about potential conflicts of interest when it is being injected by a spouse working as a Democratic contractor trying to defeat Trump, and she is forwarding her own research to her husband’s department and co-workers.”
LikeLike
Good question.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/30/ilhan-omars-collusion-islamists-acceptable/
“Why Is Ilhan Omar’s Collusion With Islamists Acceptable?
Omar’s penchant for provoking millions of Americans with odious words has masked the related elements of her associations, ideology, and background.”
“Freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has distinguished herself with often offensive, outrageous, and unpatriotic rhetoric. One week she invokes classic anti-Jewish tropes. The next she trivializes the September 11 jihadist attacks. Another it is unearthed that she espouses morally relativistic if not overtly anti-American views about U.S. soldiers, the very ones who fought to defend civilians in her native Somalia to boot.”
——————–
“Worse Ties to Terrorist Front Groups
Perhaps the more troubling tie that binds President Erdogan and Omar is their shared affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood—the tip of the Sunni jihadist spear. Erdogan has publicly defended the Muslim Brotherhood, and vice versa, as he and the group share a common Sunni Islamic supremacist ideology. Erdogan’s Turkey has also been an ardent supporter of Hamas, one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s most notorious jihadist offshoots.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has effectively served as the public relations arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, in part through its support of Hamas. CAIR’s coordination with Hamas was revealed when it was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest jihad financing case in U.S. history, the Holy Land Foundation trial, in which several individuals were prosecuted for a scheme that resulted in millions of dollars flowing to Hamas.
The longstanding links between the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and CAIR have been detailed in proposed legislation that would designate the Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization. The unpassed law notes:
Shortly after HAMAS was founded in 1987, as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, the International Muslim Brotherhood ordered the Muslim Brotherhood chapters throughout the world to create Palestine Committees, who supported HAMAS with ‘media, money and men’. The U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood created the United States Palestine Committee, which documents reflect was initially comprised of 3 organizations: the Holy Land Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and the United Association for Studies and Research. CAIR was later added to these organizations. The mandate of these organizations, per the International Muslim Brotherhood, was to support HAMAS, and the HLF’s [Holy Land Foundation] particular role was to raise money to support HAMAS’ organizations inside the Palestinian territories.”
LikeLike
Wait….. there’s a difference?
https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/01/getting-difficult-tell-difference-new-york-times-al-jazeera/
“It’s Getting Difficult To Tell The Difference Between The New York Times And Al Jazeera”
“It’s hard not to laugh reading The New York Times coverage of the Trump administration’s efforts to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. The three-person-bylined article kicks off by describing the group as a “storied and influential Islamist political movement with millions of members across the Middle East.”
Sounds like a global social club! Just some folks batting around ideas. The authors didn’t even have the decency to throw in a superficial adjective like “controversial” to create a veneer of balance.
Whether the Muslim Brotherhood’s many disparate groups and organizations meet the criteria of a single terror organization under U.S. law is debatable, but what isn’t debatable is that a large faction of the Muslim Brotherhood leads a Sunni movement that aims to implement sharia law under a global caliphate. Its deep network of “charitable” institutions and political parties form an infrastructure for extremist causes.
One could, if not a New York Times writer, describe its philosophy as dogmatic, illiberal, theocratic, and violent; and its “storied” history a long-term threat to secularism, Muslim reformers, liberalism, Christians, and Jews in the Middle East. These days, members of the Muslim Brotherhood advocate for child suicide bombings, political assassinations, mass murder of minorities, violent mobs—basically the entire deadly menu of jihadist activities.
This is context that Times readers would not learn. Nor would they learn that the Muslim Brotherhood helped birth modern Islamic extremism, first to undermine nationalistic Arabic governments, but later moving onto bigger goals. Readers would not learn that Muslim Brotherhood’s spurred the creation of al-Qaeda or that its intellectual founder, Sayyid Qutb, was an inspiration to Osama bin Laden.
Zachary Laub of the Council on Foreign Relations once noted that Qutb’s writings “provided the intellectual and theological underpinnings for many militant Sunni Islamist groups, including al-Qaeda and Hamas.” It would have been easy to include such a quote.
Also not mentioned in the Times’s article is that in 2001, the U.S. government designated the Muslim Brotherhood’s Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, then the largest Muslim charity in the country, a “Global Terrorist” group, whose employees would later be found guilty of funneling millions to terrorists groups. We have already treated Muslim Brotherhood affiliates as terrorists.
Also, one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s most successful offshoots, Hamas—designated a terror group by the State Department in 1997— still runs a mini-terror state in Gaza that not only undercuts any chance of the peace in the region, and not only oppresses its own people with theocratic strictures and fascistic rule, but is also responsible for the murder of American citizens.
Those meanies in the Trump administration, though.”
LikeLike
Good. Tell ’em to pound sand.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/barr-wont-testify-before-house-committee-given-its-unreasonable-demands.php
“Attorney General William Barr is sticking to his guns. Earlier this week, as I noted here, Barr rejected the demand of the Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee that, when he testifies about the Mueller report, he do so under extraordinary conditions.
One of the conditions was that Barr be questioned by non-members of the Committee — namely, staff lawyers. According to the Washington Post, the last time committee lawyers questioned a Cabinet official during open hearings was in the mid-1980s when Attorney General Meese testified about Iran-Contra. And Ed Meese was testifying about substantive matters, not about a memo regarding findings made by someone else in a publicly-available document.
Committee Democrats nonetheless have insisted that Barr agree to be questioned by non-members, as well as to their other demands. Barr has refused. Thus, unless something dramatic happens very soon, Barr won’t testify tomorrow.
Jerry Nadler, House Judiciary Committee Chairman, called Barr’s decision part of the administration’s “complete stonewalling of Congress, period.” That statement is so wide of the mark as to be a lie.
It’s not “complete stonewalling” when Barr agrees to be questioned for hours by Senate Judiciary Committee members on Wednesday and by House Judiciary Committee members for hours the following day, as Barr was willing to do. It’s not stonewalling at all. Nor is it stonewalling to insist on procedures that have been used, apparently without exception, for more than 30 years when Cabinet members testify publicly before Congress.
Democratic Senators were able to grill Barr without relying on staff lawyers to ask the questions. If Nadler doesn’t have enough competent questioners among his committee members to grill Barr, that’s his fault. It’s not grounds for special procedures for which there is no precedent in the past 30 years.”
LikeLike
The Kavanaugh treatment fails again.
https://nypost.com/2019/05/01/barr-exposed-the-rampant-desperation-of-trumps-foes/
“They smeared him, called him a liar and said he should resign. The same Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who tried to assassinate the character of Judge Brett Kavanaugh last year pulled the same stunt on Bill Barr — with the same result.
They failed because, once again, they were throwing mud while shooting blanks.
Despite the Dems’ desperate efforts to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination with false accusations, he is now on the Supreme Court. Barr was obviously prepared for his mud bath and was unflappable in the face of Wednesday’s mean-spirited assault, proving himself to be a rock-solid attorney general.
As he said at his confirmation hearing, “I won’t be bullied,” and he wasn’t.
On one level, the hearing on the report of special counsel Robert Mueller was predictable in its partisan divide. Republicans wanted to emphasize Mueller’s findings that no American, including those in President Trump’s 2016 campaign, conspired with Russia to meddle and Barr’s determination that there had been no obstruction of justice.
Democrats, as expected, tried to cloud the conclusions by suggesting there was too much smoke in the president’s actions for there not to be fire somewhere. The best hope they had was a letter from Mueller telling Barr he was unhappy with the AG’s initial four-page letter on the report’s conclusions, saying it “did not fully capture” the scope of the entire 450-page report.
Barr called the letter a “bit snitty,” and refuted the criticism by saying he had moved quickly to release the entire report, minus minimal redactions, and the whole world could see what Mueller had found — and didn’t find.
It was a legitimate, if thin, line of questioning, but Dems didn’t like the answer and lost it again. Obviously frustrated that their main talking point for the entire Trump presidency has come up empty, they savaged Barr and accused him of covering up for a corrupt president.
It was politics at its most dishonest as they tried to argue that up is down and black is white. Barr was mostly stoic, but allowed himself a brief moment to brilliantly summarize the outlandish effort to twist reality.
“How did we get to the point where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians, accused of being treasonous and accused of being a Russian agent, and the evidence now is that that was without a basis?” he asked. “And two years of his administration have been dominated by allegations that have now been proven false. But to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think the Mueller report had found the opposite.””
LikeLike
I ran across this while looking for something else.
It is pertinent to nothing happening here, except to show how trivial this nonsense that is going on WRT our real problem in the world.
Abul A’la Maududi (September 25, 1903 – September 22, 1979) was a journalist, theologian, Muslim revivalist leader and political philosopher, and a controversial 20th century Islamist thinker in British India, and later Pakistan.
• Human relations are so integrated that no state can have complete freedom of action under its principles unless the same principles are not in force in a neighboring country. Therefore, a, ‘Muslim Party’ will not be content with the establishment of Islam in just one area alone –both for its own safety and for general reform. It should try and expand in all directions. On one hand it will spread its ideology; on the other it will invite people of all nations to accept its creed, for salvation lies only therein. If this Islamic state has power and resources it will fight and destroy non-Islamic governments and establish Islamic states in their place.
o 1964, Haqiqat-i-Jihad, page 64, Taj Company Ltd, Lahore, Pakistan 1964.
• It [Jamaat-e-Islami] is not a missionary organization or a body of preachers or evangelists, but an organization of God’s troopers.
o 1964, Haqiqat-i-Jihad, page 58, Taj Company Ltd, Lahore, Pakistan.
• [Islam] leaves no room of human legislation in an Islamic state,
LikeLike
Well, well…..speak of the devil…..
https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/02/mark-meadows-nellie-ohr-doj/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push
“North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows referred Nellie Ohr, a former Fusion GPS contractor, to the Justice Department for criminal investigation on Wednesday.”
LikeLike
Drops mic…..
LikeLike
Thanks, Chas.
LikeLike
Awwww…. you mad, bro?
https://hotair.com/archives/2019/05/02/nadler-time-hold-barr-contempt-no-show-house-judiciary-session/
“Let the contempt citations fly! True to his word, Attorney General William Barr was a no-show at the House Judiciary Committee this morning, and so was the fully-unredacted Mueller Report despite subpoenas for both. “Every member of this committee, Democrat and Republican alike,” chair Jerrold Nadler intoned, “should understand the consequences when the executive branch tells us that they will simply ignore a lawful subpoena from Congress.”
The consequences might not be as consequential as Nadler argues, but for now he’s planning on moving forward on a contempt citation:
“Good faith” in this case is in short supply all around. Nadler wants a full release of grand-jury testimony to all members of Congress, which is not just unreasonable but also violates the law. Furthermore, it’s unnecessary, since Congress has the full summaries written by Robert Mueller himself in hand. Unless they have reason to suspect that Mueller’s hiding information in those redactions that contradict his own conclusions, there’s no point in violating a very good law on grand-jury proceedings. Besides, Congress can — and the House has threatened to — recreate that testimony in their own hearings.”
LikeLike
A bit snitty…..
Probably written by one of the 17 known Clinton supporters on his staff.
https://hotair.com/archives/2019/05/01/barr-muellers-letter-bit-snitty-honest-probably-written-one-staffers/
“Barr: Mueller’s Letter Was “A Bit Snitty,” To Be Honest, And Was Probably Written By One Of His Staffers”
“Blumenthal gets the better of this exchange with Barr, although I’m sympathetic to Ted Cruz’s point in the second clip below that it’s absurd to debate the contents of Barr’s summary when we now have nearly the entire Mueller report, including the summaries that Mueller wanted released. That was the point of Mueller’s now famous letter to Barr on March 27: Why haven’t you released the summaries we prepared? Three weeks later, Barr released them plus much more. What’s left to say?
We seem to be having a public debate today about a hypothetical. What if Barr’s initial decision not to release Mueller’s summaries had so strongly shifted public opinion in Trump’s favor that even the full release of the Mueller report a few weeks later couldn’t alter it? What if the “no collusion, no obstruction” conclusions in Barr’s summary were so instantly persuasive that Mueller’s far more ominous treatment of the obstruction issue in his report went completely overlooked by the public? Back in reality, however, it wasn’t overlooked. Trump’s polling did decline a bit after Mueller’s report came out but it’s now stabilized at the ol’ familiar 43 percent mark. I think Mueller may have been worried on March 27 that Barr might get cold feet about ever releasing the summaries, not to mention the full report, and/or that Trump might try to block their release by asserting executive privilege over them.”
————-
What ifs and if onlys do not a case make. They. Got. Nothing.
LikeLike
The gloves, they are off!
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/05/01/gloves-come-off-even-ben-shapiro-hits-mueller-underhanded-behavior/
“The Gloves Come Off As Even Ben Shapiro Hits Mueller For His Underhanded Behavior”
“Lots of eyes have been opened over the past two days in regards to Mueller’s behavior.
That behavior made it increasingly clear that the special counsel was more concerned with media perception and sliming Trump than the bottom line conclusions. This culminated in a “bombshell” letter that was leaked by Mueller (there’s no other logical possibility) purporting to show that he was upset with how AG Bill Barr had characterized the report.
In reality, it was actually just a whiny, made for media complaint that Barr hadn’t done the dirty work for the special counsel in the absence of Mueller not having the courage to recommend charges for Trump. Mueller wanted the report to come out piece-meal and serve as a roadmap for impeachment and Barr wasn’t going to play his games.
Mueller getting upset about media perceptions when he knew the entire report was being prepared for release anyway tells you a lot about the mindset and true purpose of his “investigation.” A special counsel shouldn’t give two shakes about media perception.
This revelation has led some conservative voices who formally defended Mueller to wake up and smell the stink in the air. Andrew McCarthy had a savage piece this morning about the entire ordeal. Another is Ben Shapiro, host of the “fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.”
———————-
“That confusion was Mueller’s fault. (NOTE: This is coming from someone who has defended Mueller’s integrity for years, called on Trump consistently to stop attacking Mueller, and stated that if Trump fired Mueller, impeachment ought to be on the table.) Mueller had the full capacity to recommend prosecution on obstruction of justice. He had full authority to state that in his view, Trump had obstructed justice. But he didn’t. His 448 page report is a listing of ugly details about Trump’s internal administration behavior, but does not recommend obstruction charges — and indeed, doesn’t substantiate activity that could sustain a prosecution. Mueller knew that.
The highlighted part is the key. If Mueller really wanted to stick it to Trump, he should have manned up and made the decision that he felt the President obstructed justice. Instead, the special counsel’s office wanted to wage warfare via leaks and innuendo, setting the stage for a Democratic House to act.
That’s not what prosecutors are supposed to do. Its improper and unethical on its face, no matter what you think of Trump personally.”
———————–
Nice to see some admitting their errors.
LikeLike
There goes their latest narrative…. down in flames.
So maybe the press and left should stop lying about it.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/46641/barr-bombshell-mueller-told-us-he-was-not-saying-ryan-saavedra
“Barr Bombshell: Mueller Told Us He Was NOT Saying That Trump Would Be Charged If He Was Not President”
“Attorney General William Barr revealed during a hearing on Wednesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had repeatedly told Barr that he was not indicating that he would have charged President Donald Trump if Trump were not a sitting president.”
“Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found obstruction,” Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “He said that in the future, the facts of the case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case.””
LikeLike
The word your searching for is spying……
—————-
And now we know why they’re trying to smear Barr…..
LikeLike
Vastly amused to see the panic the newly elected young ladies are causing. Its also amusing to see those who chanted drain the swamp are upset when the swamp is challenged. I don’t always agree with AOC and Omar but I do enjoy watching old established politicians sputter.
However Harris is the best. Watching Burr stumble over the definition of suggest was almost Clinton like. The ladies are definetely challenging the old guard. And the old men are running for a safe space. Burr won’t appear bc outside counsel will be present. But Christina Ford had no problem with outside counsel.
Its ironic that the last time an outside counsel was present was at the Iran-Contra hearings. Burr did some Republican clean up during that scandal. Given were at the same level of corruption and criminality, perhaps outside counsel is appropriate. Personally I think they should let the young ladies do the questioning and watch Burr stutter.
LikeLike
Mueller is a professional. He finished his report, submitted summaries and abided by DOJ guidelines not to indict a sitting president. Then Burr spun his report. As a professional, Mueller was offended and wrote a letter. (I work with similar people, their sense of professionalism is like a badge which if defaced they will feel compelled to protest. Personally, i find it a bit much)
However, thats not important. When questioned if he was aware of Mueller’s opinion of his summary. Burr said he didn’t know. But he did. He had the letter and discussed it on the phone. Regardless of Mueller’s actual opinion, Burr lied under oath. Perjury and obstruction.
LikeLike
“Mueller is a professional. He finished his report, submitted summaries and abided by DOJ guidelines not to indict a sitting president. ”
That’s just false. The guidelines have nothing to do with it. Mueller’s letter and report both say so. That played no part in the decision to not indict. Another false narrative from the left.
LikeLike
Here you go. Now stop spreading lies.
Mueller has said so repeatedly.
Barr didn’t lie, and you guys are pathetic. No low you guys won’t go to, huh?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/46641/barr-bombshell-mueller-told-us-he-was-not-saying-ryan-saavedra
“Barr Bombshell: Mueller Told Us He Was NOT Saying That Trump Would Be Charged If He Was Not President”
“Attorney General William Barr revealed during a hearing on Wednesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had repeatedly told Barr that he was not indicating that he would have charged President Donald Trump if Trump were not a sitting president.”
“”Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found obstruction,” Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “He said that in the future, the facts of the case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case.””
LikeLike
Barr has no credibility.
LikeLike
AG Barr has A LOT of credibility.
LikeLike