16 thoughts on “News/Politics 6-11-19

  1. First up, the circus comes to town today.

    And what a show it will be……. 🙄


    “Republican Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, blasted Democrats on the committee Monday for calling in former White House counsel and Watergate whistleblower John Dean to testify on the Mueller report.

    In his opening statement before the committee, Collins criticized Democrats for bringing in Dean to testify, saying “This committee is now a hearing from the 70s and want their star witness back,” adding “they have the Godfather here today.”


  2. No. Legislative. Purpose.



    “Collins wrote in a letter to the chairman:

    The fact you are attempting to make the case for starting an impeachment inquiry has no bearing on the applicability of the Rules. Outside of such an inquiry, Members are prohibited from accusing the President of a crime or alluding to potential impeachable offenses. Jefferson’s Manual further states:

    Although wide latitude is permitted in debate on a proposition to impeach the President, Members must abstain from language personally offensive; and Members must abstain from comparisons to the personal conduct of sitting Members of the House or Senate. Furthermore, when impeachment is not the pending business on the floor, Members may not refer to evidence of alleged impeachable offenses by the President contained in a communication from an independent counsel pending before a House committee, although they may refer to the communication, itself, within the confines of proper decorum in debate, and may not otherwise suggest that the President has done something worthy of censure or impeachment.

    “The Rules of the House dictate minimum standards of decency and decorum, setting forth how Members must conduct themselves during debate. However, Majority Members of the Committee have demonstrated they either do not understand the Rules or simply are under the mistaken belief the Rules do not apply to them,” he said.”


  3. You can’t have a circus without props.


    “Matt Gaetz To John Dean: Let’s Face It, You’re Here As A Prop Because Democrats Can’t Impeach Trump”

    “Gaetz is right that Dean is being used here as a prop, a point I made myself earlier. He’s also right about Dean’s “cottage industry” of attacking Republican politicians with a heavy emphasis on Nixon comparisons. He wrote three books during the Bush era, one called “Worse Than Watergate” about Dubya’s presidency, one entitled “Conservatives Without Conscience” about the failed leadership of the Republican coalition, and then the capper, “Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches.” Many cable-news talking heads have defined “niches” but Dean’s is unusually clear and narrow: He’s the ghost of Republican scandals past (as Gaetz almost refers to him here) who pops up from time to time to assure liberals that, whoever the GOP villain du jour happens to be, he’s worse than Nixon.

    Gaetz thinks Dean does this for money. Maybe, although I think it’s mostly for status. Surely Dean doesn’t need a stipend from CNN after years as an investment banker and successful author tailoring his work to Democrats who like to be told that it’s the other party that’s to blame for all of America’s problems. It must be psychologically seductive for Dean to be seen as a sort of moral tutor by one half of the country after he was disgraced by Watergate. His “every Republican is Nixon” shtick is a way to reclaim the high ground while constantly reminding people of his claim to fame. He’s never really discarded his famous role as witness against a corrupt Republican president when you think about it; he renews it every time a new Republican is sworn in, and instead of giving his testimony to the Judiciary Committee, he gives it to Anderson Cooper.”


    Quiet on the set!


  4. Here’s a 180 executives that feel women can’t succeed unless they can kill their babies.

    It’s also a list of companies I’ll be avoiding, so I appreciate the heads up.


    “The top executives of more than 180 companies have signed a letter that says abortion is essential in order for people to be successful in their businesses.
    “When everyone is empowered to succeed, our companies, our communities and our economy are better for it,” the executives say in the letter posted on a newly launched website titled “Don’t Ban Equality.”

    “Restricting access to comprehensive reproductive care, including abortion, threatens the health, independence and economic stability of our employees and customers,” they said, adding:

    Simply put, it goes against our values and is bad for business. It impairs our ability to build diverse and inclusive workforce pipelines, recruit top talent across the states, and protect the well-being of all the people who keep our businesses thriving day in and out.”


    Values? Please.

    And what of the other 50% of people you’re leaving out, those pro-lifers? Not part of the business plan? Seems short sighted.


  5. Google and YouTube are cracking down……

    On conservative content, and just in time for the election!

    And if you’re conservative, you don’t even need to bother, you’ll be banned eventually, de-platformed, and de-monitized, with or without a reason. They’ll just make one up.



    “A day after acknowledging that his videos did not violate its policies, YouTube decided to demonetize all of conservative comedian and commentator Steven Crowder’s videos in response to a left-wing Vox employee complaining that Crowder repeatedly made fun of him because of his identity. On the same day, YouTube announced a mass ban on all content promoting one group as superior to another “in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.”

    In an interview with Axios published Sunday but filmed before YouTube’s unveling of its new policy last week, Google CEO Sundar Pichai signaled YouTube’s crackdown and its plans to expand the ban to include “borderline content.”

    “Look, we aren’t quite where we want to be,” Pichai told “Axios on HBO.” While YouTube is improving on eliminating content it deems problematic, he suggested, they are still working toward even more extensive content-controlling measures.

    Google, said Pichai, “rank[s] content based on quality.” They plan to apply that same approach to YouTube. “And so we are bringing that same notion and approach to YouTube so that we can rank higher quality stuff better and really prevent borderline content,” he said.

    Pichai then offered a definition of what he means by “borderline content.” “Content which doesn’t exactly violate policies, which need to be removed, but which can still cause harm,” he said, in language echoing YouTube’s statement to Crowder days later.

    The issue is “a hard computer science problem,” said Pichai, but an even harder “societal problem because we need better frameworks around what is hate speech, what’s not, and how do we as a company make those decisions at scale, and get it right without making mistakes.”


    Their goal is to restrict the free speech of some.


  6. Now whoever could they mean? 🙄


    “DOJ investigating ‘non-governmental organizations and individuals’ as part of ‘broad’ probe into surveillance abuses”

    “As part of its ongoing “multifaceted” and “broad” review into potential misconduct by U.S. intelligence agencies during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Justice Department revealed Monday it is also investigating the activities of several “non-governmental organizations and individuals.”

    Additionally, the DOJ announced that the probe, let by Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham, was looking into the involvement of “foreign intelligence services.” Former Trump aide George Papadopoulos told Fox News last month that an informant who was likely “CIA and affiliated with Turkish intel” had posed as a Cambridge University research assistant in September 2016 and tried to “seduce him” to obtain information linking the Trump team to Russia.

    The information was contained in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., who had inquired as to the scope of Durham’s investigation. The letter could indicate that the DOJ is looking closely at work done during the campaign by Fusion GPS, the firm retained by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee (DNC) to conduct opposition research against the Trump campaign.

    Fusion GPS, in turn, hired British ex-spy Christopher Steele to produce an unverified and largely discredited dossier that the FBI went on to cite in secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court applications to surveil former Trump aide Carter Page.”


  7. Tell ’em to mind their own house.

    They’re terrorists who enable and fund terrorism, their opinion is irrelevant.


    “CAIR ‘Demands’ US Army War College Cancel My Lecture on Islamic History”

    “The “unindicted co-conspirator” Council on American-Muslim Relations (“CAIR”) and its Islamist allies are “outraged” because the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa. has invited me to give a lecture on my recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.

    On May 28, CAIR’s Pennsylvania leadership — namely, Jacob Bender, Timothy Welbeck, Ahmet Selim Tekelioglu — sent a letter to USAWC commandant Gen. John Kem and provost Dr. James Breckenridge urging them to revoke “the decision of the US Army War College to invite Mr. Raymond Ibrahim to deliver the prestigious 50th Annual Lecture Series of the US Army War College.”

    The reason CAIR cites to disinvite me is that “Raymond Ibrahim’s book … advance[s] a simplistic, inaccurate and often prejudicial view of the long history of Muslim-West relations which we find deeply troubling.”

    Much of this is covered in a Task Force report, which contains some responses from me, titled “Army War College under fire over historian’s upcoming lecture on ‘clash of civilizations’ between Islam and the West.”

    As a reflection of the unprecedented (and ongoing) nature of this Islamist campaign against me, the Task Force notes (emphasis added), “The trend of disinviting speakers on controversial subjects has been on the rise at American universities in recent years, but this appears to be the first time that a speaker at U.S. military educational institution has been subject to such a campaign, according to a database maintained by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.””

    Here’s why they don’t want him there. He speaks truth.


    “The fact is, Islamic hostility to the cross is an unwavering phenomenon—one that crosses continents and centuries; one that is very much indicative of Islam’s innate hostility to Christianity.

    For starters, not only is the cross the quintessential symbol of Christianity—for all denominations, including most forms of otherwise iconoclastic Protestantism—but it symbolizes the fundamental disagreement between Christians and Muslims. As Professor Sidney Griffith explains, “The cross and the icons publicly declared those very points of Christian faith which the Koran, in the Muslim view, explicitly denied: that Christ was the Son of God and that he died on the cross.” Accordingly, “the Christian practice of venerating the cross … often aroused the disdain of Muslims,” so that from the start of the Muslim conquests of Christian lands there was an ongoing “campaign to erase the public symbols of Christianity, especially the previously ubiquitous sign of the cross.”

    This “campaign” traces back to the Muslim prophet Muhammad. He reportedly “had such a repugnance to the form of the cross that he broke everything brought into his house with its figure upon it,” wrote one historian (Sword and Scimitar, p. 10). Muhammad also claimed that at the end times Jesus (the Muslim ‘Isa) himself would make it a point to “break the cross.”

    Modern day Muslim clerics confirm this. When asked about Islam’s ruling on whether any person—in this case, Christians—is permitted to wear or pray before the cross, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Tarifi, a Saudi expert on Islamic law, said, “Under no circumstances is a human permitted to wear the cross” nor “is anyone permitted to pray to the cross.” Why? “Because the prophet—peace and blessings on him—commanded the breaking of it [the cross].””


  8. Fortunately for me, none of those listed sound familiar, other than Ben and Jerry’s and I don’t think I have ever had any of their ice cream.


  9. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2019/06/mob-rule-militant-democracy/


    Mob Rule & “Militant Democracy”
    JUNE 11, 2019 BY GENE VEITH

    Kevin D. Williamson points to two tactics that have become part of our political culture, introducing two words that Americans today need to know: ochlocracy (mob rule, indirect as well as direct) and streitbare Demokratie (“militant democracy,” the notion that maintaining liberalism may require illiberal means).

    From Crowder Isn’t a Threat to Public Safety:

    ****Ochlocracy is an ancient concept that denotes, approximately, “mob rule.” But “mob rule” does not mean only riots and lynchings and other acts of extralegal violence. More commonly, ochlocracy functions through the legitimate organs of the state or through other entities, such as businesses and professional associations. In these cases, the threat of mob violence, or the simple fact of a mob demand, is sufficient to get those with power to act as the mob wishes, to do the mob’s dirty work for it and thereby relieve the rabble of the exertion of a riot. As Edward Gibbon tells the story, the mob need not murder its enemy — not if it can get the state to act on its behalf. ***

    Williamson then gives examples from Roman history–when the threat of mobs led the state too do what the mob demanded–and from big tech’s censorship of conservatives, including how and why YouTube and Facebook banished the mild Jewish traditionalist Dennis Praeger. …

    … This is why appeals to liberal principles, such as free speech, gets little traction when criticizing progressive’s censorship of speech. In their mind, they must censor free speech in order to preserve free speech. …

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Yes indeed, let’s put him under oath and ask.


  11. He would Omar, but your peeps would riot.



  12. Sounds about right.



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.