23 thoughts on “News/Politics 8-15-19

  1. Nope. No Deep State here…..

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/14/nellie-ohr-tracked-dozens-fusion-gps-bruce-ohr/

    “Bruce Ohr Gave His Wife’s Fusion GPS Research To The FBI. Here Are The Documents”

    —-

    “After the 2016 election, Bruce Ohr would serve as a back channel between Steele and the FBI after the bureau cut ties with the former spy over his contacts with the press.

    Republicans have questioned the arrangement, and said they wanted to find out whether Steele and Simpson used the Ohr husband-and-wife team to bolster the dossier. Steele’s work has been all but debunked by the special counsel’s report, which found no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian government.

    The Justice Department on Aug. 8 released FBI notes of 12 interviews conducted with Ohr after his contacts with Steele and Simpson. In a Dec. 5, 2016 interview, Ohr said that he would provide investigators with the research his wife did while working for Fusion.”

    ——

    ““I had heard that Fusion/FBI was tracking me and here’s the proof,” Caputo told the Daily Caller News Foundation about the Nellie Ohr spreadsheet.

    “Now I want to see the July 1, 2016 report, which led to the Clinton campaign’s first fictional press release on the politically commissioned Russia Hoax. That’s where this cabal took their first shot at me and my family.”

    Caputo says he’s now exploring legal action against Ohr.

    “She has no right to turn my family upside down just because she’s the notorious nexus between the FBI, Hillary Clinton and her paid Russian intelligence sources.”

    Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch said, “These documents show a crazed DOJ-FBI effort to use the Clinton spy ring at Fusion GPS, namely Nellie Ohr, to smear President Trump – even before he was sworn in as president.”

    “Clinton campaign operative Nellie Ohr may as well as have had a desk at the Justice Department.””

    Like

  2. Unmask the cowardly Antifa thugs. Don’t hide like little children. show yourself if your cause is so righteous. Own it.

    https://wset.com/news/nation-world/tenn-lawmaker-calls-antifa-cowards-organizer-says-theyre-fighting-white-supremacy

    “A U.S. Congressman from Tennessee says legislation he’s introduced is aimed at unmasking “cowards” in the anti-fascist group Antifa.

    The ‘Unmasking Antifa Act’ was introduced by U.S. Representative Tim Burchett, a Republican from Knoxville’s 2nd District. The bill would issue fines and/or imprisonment for up to 15 years for any individual who wears a mask or disguise while committing a crime, including threatening or intimidating another individual exercising their constitutional rights or privileges.

    Burchett says while the bill is aimed at the group, it would apply more broadly. “This applies to the Klan too,” Burchett says. Under the bill, anyone wearing a mask while committing a crime would be subject to the punishment.

    “I don’t think these cowards would act like they do if they had to show their faces,” Burchett tells FOX 17 News. A local Antifa organizer in Nashville disagrees, saying the masks are part of protecting the safety of protesters.”

    ——–

    He’s correct.

    Like

  3. Interesting. So someone else appears to have asked Trump to call out Cummings and Baltimore officials.

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/jack-brewer-trump-cummings-feud-fox-nation

    “Former NFL player Jack Brewer on Trump-Cummings feud: ‘I asked Trump’ to call him out”

    “Former NFL player Jack Brewer said he personally asked President Trump weeks ago to bring attention to the issues of Baltimore and call out Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., for his failure to address the poverty and crime that have overtaken his city.

    “I had a chance to meet with President Trump, and I told him please call out Elijah Cummings and Baltimore. I asked him to do that three weeks ago and he did it,” said Brewer, a former NFL linebacker from 2002 to 2006.

    Appearing on Fox Nation’s “Deep Dive,” Brewer said he reached out to the president following a recent trip to Baltimore, where he came away devastated by what he saw.

    “I’m seeing these kids that don’t have any core, no culture within them. They don’t have anyone teaching them or training them,” Brewer explained.

    Brewer, who went on to a successful business career after his playing days, blames the politicians in Baltimore for focusing only on “issues that help them raise money,” instead of the issues plaguing the “poor black kids whose parents are not donating to their PACs and funds.”

    Brewer called out Cummings directly for being “front and center” when it’s politically convenient and questioned his lack of action in his own city.

    Referencing the two horrific mass shootings this past weekend that took 31 lives, he questioned why the 51 people shot in Baltimore and Chicago the same weekend went unnoticed.”

    ———

    Because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

    Like

  4. Presented without comment……

    Thoughts?

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/13/need-christian-nationalism-religious-neutrality-failed/

    “We Need Christian Nationalism Because Religious Neutrality Has Failed”

    “A gaggle of representatives from theologically liberal denominations recently issued a statement against Christian nationalism in America, claiming that it threatens both American democracy and the ability of our religious communities to live in peace.

    To be sure, Christian nationalism is an extremely odd place to find the threat to religious freedom in a world that increasingly makes demands like “shut up and wax that woman’s b-lls.” But the irony goes deeper than that. It’s not some stroke of blind chance that lead to religious freedom in the Christian West—it was, in fact, due to our Christian faith.

    To be sure, although I know self-described Christian nationalists, I’m aware of no organized political movement for this statement to oppose and so, no standard definition. Nevertheless, I have never found the label to apply to some of what the statement opposes—calls for theocracy, a conflation of American and Christian identities, and certainly not a “cover for white supremacy,” which the statement tosses in to poison the well. I’ve no interest in contending on behalf of such things.

    Nevertheless, until “Christian nationalism” coalesces into something more definitive, in my experience the phrase best describes something much simpler: a rejection of the religious neutrality of the late 20th century in favor of 1) a recognition that Christianity has had a unique and privileged influence on our American heritage that overshadows the influences of other faith traditions, 2) a conviction that a Christian understanding of the world should predominate over other worldviews in American civic life, and 3) an understanding that a nation that successfully excised or sufficiently diluted this influence could no longer be called “American” in the same sense as before. Although more general than what the statement condemns, this understanding would actually encompass many Americans, whether they accept the label or not.

    Regardless of its other issues, the statement’s crosshairs certainly fall squarely on this simpler understanding as well. The statements condemns the preference for one religion over another, expresses the irrelevancy of religion for civic standing, and contends for all manner of religious neutrality in American civic life.

    But our religious liberty never proceeded from attempts at religious neutrality. It came precisely from the privileged position that Christianity has historically held in America and in the West.

    Early States Established Churches with Tax Support

    The First Amendment forbids the establishment of a state church in the United States, but it in no way imposes the incoherent burden of religious neutrality on our civic institutions, nor demands that the right to free exercise of religion end when one crosses from private life into the public sphere. We are already experiencing the erosion of religious liberties that these erroneous presumptions have caused, with Christian business owners and officials forced to promulgate ideas they abhor and facilitate celebrations that are incompatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

    Today, when the American left speaks about religious freedom at all, it speaks in terms of “freedom of worship” rather than of free exercise. But freedom of worship is nothing more than the right to go into a private building and follow one’s preferred liturgy on any day of the week so long as it is out of the public view.

    The right of free exercise of religion cannot end there, for no religion on earth ends there. Life is a series of choices in which we each decide what’s most important to us. As we order these priorities, every knee eventually bows to something more important than the rest—the “god” we consider to be the Most Important Thing. Whatever the specific details of one’s god, the very nature of a god is that it is supreme—it lays claim to one’s entire life rather than merely one’s private life.”

    Like

  5. An anti mask law is redundant. Wearing a mask while commiting a crime is already a crime in most jurisdictions and an aggravating factor for sentencing elsewhere.

    By calling the bill the antifa law, he’s politically posturing as targetiing a specific group within the writing of a bill guarantees it will be struck down. If a group wears a mask, hood or balaclava as part of an uniform, its usually deemed free expression and is not a crime in itself. The KKK has already successfully argued this.

    Like

  6. Instead of asking Trump to call out Cummings, why didnt the gentleman support or run in a primary against Cummings. I would agree many House Reps (R or D) have become far too comfortable in their gerrymandered districts and lazy in addressing constituent’s concerns. Perhaps someone should follow AOC’s example and run in the primary to oppose Cummings. It would be amusing if a left wing community activist used Republican criticism as a spring board to primary him.

    Like

  7. Finally (my car is getting detailed so I’m killing time),

    The federalist article is interesting but I disagee on the Christian origin of toleration. Prior to the Enlightenment era religion was determined by the ruler and there was rarely any tolerance. The “free exercise of religion” originates from the Enlightenment influnce on the constitution. Christianity is not inherently tolerant nor intolerant. It depends on the actions of its adherents whereas the Enlightenment demanded religious toleration. The Netherlands, the closest example to a modern classical liberal state, was also the most religiously tolerant. Nations stuck in the medieval era had the ruler decide belief.

    The author might be more cautious in what he wishes for; In Europe where Christianity was in varying degrees integrated into the state the actual adhereance of its citizens declined far more than in the US. Making Christianity an explicit part of the state may result in the decline of the religious belief.

    Speaking of Christian influence, I’ve just started the Netflix docudrama “The Family” which purports to show the back channel influnce of certain evangelical leaders. Sort of an evangelical deep state. Anybody else watch it and wish to comment on its accuracy

    Like

  8. I have never heard of “Christian Nationalism” before But it describes my position. The US was founded as a Christian nation without apology.
    Christians are tolerant of other religions.
    But if you want to experience religious suppression, try Islam.

    Like

  9. Never heard of “the family” — I scanned the Atlantic review of it and don’t recognize any of the names.

    From what I have picked up, most of my Christian friends, fellow church members (and my former pastor and I think probably our current pastor) went with the “none of the above” option for president in 2016.

    Many of the surveys looking into the so-called “evangelical” voters for Trump show that a good number of those folks are not regular church attenders but are people who identify themselves with the “evangelical” term.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Interesting, Kizzie. So it sounds kind of like the show paints a conspiracy theory portrait of “evangelical/fundamentalist” Christians trying to take over the country?

    Like

  11. I watched 11/2 episodes so far. Reading Kizzie’s link I’m not sure we are watching the same show.

    The first episode recounts one man’s memories of living with a group of young men who acted as “interns” to people of influnce. The headship principle came up but I didnt find the tone sneering but rather puzzlement. It was simply outside of his experience. For secular liberals, exposure to conservative evangelicalism is an unusual experience.

    The second episode deals with the C street residence in which a group of Congressmen both D and R lived together and worked with Rev Coe.

    I didnt find it necessarily anti Christian rather it sought to.expose a part of Washington people may not know exists. To use current lingo a religious deep state. I do wonder about its accuracy as I do any accusation of a “deep state”.

    The reviewer’s statement that this would not have been produced fifteen years is hardly believable. The book is almost that old and magazine articles discussing C street were written at least decade ago. Either he’s playing victim or he’s a snowflake.

    The pacing is dull and slow but I will watch the rest. I was just looking for opinions here.

    Like

  12. Revisiting the ‘invasion’ and other terminology discussion (from World Magazine):

    https://world.wng.org/2019/08/troubled_waters

    Back-to-back mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, bring a tragic conclusion to a long summer

    by Jamie Dean

    _______________________________

    … After the bullets flew, so did the accusations: Some critics blamed President Donald Trump for the El Paso attack, citing his use of words like invasion to describe migrants heading toward the U.S. border.

    Others pointed out that the Dayton gunman may have supported Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., on Twitter—and no one is blaming the Democratic presidential candidate for the Ohio shooter’s attack.

    Still, a wise use of words is a constant Biblical theme. While the New Testament book of James doesn’t talk much about blame, it does talk about blaze. James writes of the tongue: “How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!”

    There are reasonable ways to talk about reasonable concerns over immigration, gun control, and other issues. But it’s best to avoid throwing flames, because we don’t know the flammability of those around us. That’s particularly important for public leaders reaching wide audiences. (Please see Marvin Olasky’s website-only column at wng.org/shootings.) …
    ____________________________

    Liked by 1 person

  13. And I’d posted the Olasky link last week, I think — or earlier this week — but he’d also hit on the same point:

    https://world.wng.org/2019/08/two_mass_murders

    Two mass murders
    Where do we go from here?
    ____________________________

    … A back-and-forth now about who turned debate into warfare is not helpful. It’s better to emphasize some areas where left and right can agree, and others where left and right can agree to disagree without creating enemies lists.

    First, can we agree not to encourage either “send her back” or “jail to the chief” chants? When tempted, watch Sinatra’s song on YouTube. Better yet, read Chapter 3 of James in the New Testament, where the apostle explains, “The tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! The tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness … a restless evil, full of deadly poison.” …

    … the Bible does feature an analysis of human nature that goes well with what history teaches us: From both we see we are sinful people who misuse weapons, but we also have sinful governments that slide into dictatorships. The two sides differ on whether a home with a gun in it is safer (by deterring criminals) or more dangerous (by mishaps, homicides, and suicides) than one without. But it’s clear that if every Eastern European Jew during World War II had had a gun and was willing to use it, Nazis would have had a much harder time killing 6 million of them. …

    … while that was an extreme situation, the Constitution does include a right to keep and bear arms precisely because the Founders feared tyranny, so any ban on all weapons should require a Constitutional amendment, not just legislative or judicial finagling. An originalist argument could be that the Founders did not know about AK-47s and the like, so a ban on them (allowing individuals to keep single shot rifles and handguns) could be constitutional. …

    …. James 3:8 summarizes the deeper problem: “No human being can tame the tongue.” We by nature are haters. Tongues sooner or later express what we think and feel. Happily, only a few turn murderous thoughts into murderous actions, but for them and all of us, the only lasting remedy is a heart change that only God’s grace, because of Christ’s sacrifice, will bring about.
    ______________________________

    Liked by 1 person

  14. And for the curious, here’s the Sinatra link he alluded to — 10 minutes, I couldn’t figure out the purpose at first but later in the link is the pertinent part

    Liked by 1 person

  15. I’m amused that HRW thinks “The Family” is a docudrama. That’s like saying “The Handmaiden’s Tale” is a docudrama.

    Mockudrama would be more accurate. 🙄

    Like

  16. I can see why it’s popular with the left though.

    It confirms their biases and preconceived notions. It’s mostly fiction really, with some known names thrown in to lend legitimacy, or so the writers think, but that doesn’t matter to the left.

    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/aug/15/the-family-netflix-powerful-sinister-christian-sect-trump

    “A clandestine religious sect secretly controls the US government! In an age when we are all grasping for outlandish solutions to what’s gone wrong, it is an unbeatable premise for a non-fiction Netflix five-parter. Of course, The Family doesn’t really demonstrate any such thing – but it does tell us a lot about a particular kind of elite mindset that has caused an awful lot of damage.

    The series profiles an American evangelical Christian organisation, sometimes dubbed “the Family” but more often known as the Fellowship – which presumably was felt to lack the connotations of death cults and organised crime that make for a juicy documentary title. For decades, the Fellowship was overseen by the mysterious Doug Coe: a series of amusingly Zelig-esque photographs of him lurking smoothly behind US presidents and foreign leaders confirms Coe (who did Netflix’s lawyers a favour by dying in 2017) as the most powerful guy you never heard of.”

    “The Fellowship has two signature moves. Its main gig is the National Prayer Breakfast (NPB), an annual invitation-only festival of speeches and meetings that has been addressed by every president since Dwight D Eisenhower. If you have measured out the Trump years in startling gaffes, the NPB is the one where Donald irrelevantly slagged off The Apprentice for tanking in the ratings. That was crass because the event is so reverently esteemed: The Family points out that it has achieved this status without most people, including many attendees, knowing who actually runs it.

    Even less is known about the luxurious residential properties in which politicians of the present or future are invited to live communally, helping each other to find Jesus. The Family’s star witness is Jeff Sharlet, the author of two books about his brief period as a resident of the pillared mansion in Virginia where the Fellowship hosts impressionable and (with the honourable exception of Sharlet) discreet young men.

    Enhanced by dramatic reconstructions, the opener tells Sharlet’s story, and it is here that The Family looks most like a febrile exposé of sinister deviancy, à la Wild Wild Country. Everything is shadowy and creepy, all conversations revolve around glassy-eyed invocations of Jesus, and there is one scene in which Sharlet undergoes a slightly violent initiation rite. Then an elder visits and holds a disturbing seminar that sets out what is really at play. It is made clear to Sharlet that the gang he has joined is all about power, based on a Bible reading that sees Jesus – and, in the Fellowship’s reading of its favourite scripture story, murderous home-wrecker David – as a sort of original alpha male, lending legitimacy to men who believe they have been chosen to be in charge. The faith and devotion are perfunctory, a means to an end, an excuse.

    The Family’s focus on the Fellowship hides what is really a portrait of the whole “Christian” right wing in the US – as well as the type of (white) man who has thoroughly infected western postwar politics. A stale whiff of viciously inadequate masculinity hangs over the whole show, from the young Fellows’ awkwardly enforced celibacy to the episode that sets out how Fellowship missionaries have been sent to less developed countries that might be vulnerable to campaigns against gay rights. As an LGBT activist in Romania puts it: “They have a purpose in their life now. To hate you.”

    ——————-

    Like I said. Mockudrama.

    Like

  17. Yes, it’s all quite sinister…. prayer meetings, accountability, christian counseling…..

    How horrible….. thank goodness Netflix is exposing them….. 🙄

    https://people.com/politics/why-the-family-netflix-series-fellowship-foundation/

    “What The Family grapples with and tries to illuminate is the same fundamental question that has hinged on the group’s intense secrecy for years: What do its members really want, and are they presenting their truest face to the world?

    The organization is ostensibly a kind of confederated network of Christian prayer groups dating back to the early 1900s that eschews traditional denominations and hierarchies in favor of trying to more closely follow Jesus’ teachings. It sponsors only one public activity: the annual National Prayer Breakfast, customarily attended by every president.

    “I wish I could say more about it,” President Ronald Reagan said in 1985, according to The New York Times, “but it’s working precisely because it is private.”

    The group has been known by multiple names, including The Fellowship, The Fellowship Foundation and International Foundation, and for decades it reportedly did not have any discernible footprint: no obvious spokesman, no website, no public office, no contact number. (A website now exists.)

    Over the years The Fellowship has cultivated deep and wide-ranging ties with America’s leading politicians, businessmen and other world leaders, who attended the annual prayer breakfast or became regular attendees of various prayer groups around the world — places where they could speak candidly and seek support from other members, though critics cast the gatherings as a nefarious mixing of religion and government with sometimes unsavory dealings with despots.

    Ed Meese, a former U.S. attorney general under President Reagan, told The New Yorker in 2010 that the Fellowship prayer group of which he was a part “has meant a great deal to me.”

    “All of us have had family problems, personal problems. It’s a place where you can discuss these problems. You come together in the name of Jesus, so you have a natural kind of bond,” Meese said. “And the group dynamics are such that you have total confidence that nothing you are going to say is going to make you vulnerable through your colleagues, which is rare in Washington.”

    ——

    ““My feeling is it’s some pretty dark times and — it’s not The Handmaid’s Tale, but there’s a dystopian future that looms near the horizon and is The Fellowship working toward that or working to keep us away from it?” Moss says. “I’ll trust the audience to make their own conclusions.”

    In a statement to PEOPLE, The Fellowship said it had been misunderstood by Netflix. (Past and present members participated in the series, after initial reluctance, according to Moss.)

    “Though the Netflix docudrama series mischaracterizes the work of the Fellowship and attempts to portray people of faith in a bad light, we are encouraged by how often viewers are introduced to, and challenged by, the person and principles of Jesus, which are at the core of our mission and message,” the group said. “Perhaps they will also better understand the integrity and transformational impact of this informal network to encourage everyone in a spirit of friendship and reconciliation to love God with all their heart, soul and mind, and to love their neighbor as themselves.””

    Like

  18. Well I’ll watched the rest and get back to you. Its basically the impression a complete outsider would have if exposed to evangelical political activist. Its not as if he’s right or wrong rather his filter or lens gives him an unexpected view.

    Like

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.