32 thoughts on “News/Politics 11-9-19

  1. First up today….

    How Many Americans Believe in God?


    “Though a 2018 Gallup poll found that U.S. church membership has reached an all-time low of 50%, and one in five Americans does not identify with any religion, most of the country still expresses belief in God. Exactly how large that majority is, however, depends on how nuanced the response options are.

    Gallup has asked this question three different ways in recent years, with belief varying across them from 87% to 64%.

    The highest level of belief (87%) comes from a simple yes/no question, “Do you believe in God?” which Gallup last asked in 2017.

    Belief drops to 79% when respondents are given three options, one being God is something they believe in. The rest are either not sure whether they believe in God or firmly say they do not believe in God.

    Belief in God appears even lower when isolating just those from the five-part question who say they are “convinced” God exists, 64%. While all three measures of belief have exhibited declines, this group’s drop has been the steepest.”


  2. The Democrats and their favorite terrorism sponsoring BFFs.


    “The Democrats and CAIR

    In 2018, Democratic lawmakers and a few Republicans openly supported the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), congratulating the organization on its 24th year of operation. Furthermore, sixteen likely Democrat presidential candidates are endorsing CAIR. For instance, “Elizabeth Warren sent in a video message threatening to cut off aid to Israel unless it surrenders to Islamic terrorists. Then she promised to divide Jerusalem, turning half the ancient holy city into a killing ground for the murderous terrorists already occupying Gaza and portions of the West Bank.”

    Thus, the majority of the 2020 Democrat presidential field have aligned with CAIR, an anti-American and anti-Israel organization. Moreover, it is now patently clear that the “Democratic party’s celebration of Linda Sarsour… exposes the poison” that has enveloped the party.

    Consequently, there are representatives of the United States Congress who are openly applauding an “entity of the Muslim Brotherhood linked to pro-Hamas operations in the U.S.”

    From its inception, CAIR has sought to “portray itself as a moderate, mainstream organization,” but nothing could be farther from the truth. Instead it “promotes a radical Islamic vision demonstrated by its co-founder Omar Ahmad” who has said

    Islam ‘isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran… should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.’ In a similar spirit, co-founder Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter in 1993: ‘I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.’ In 2003 Hooper stated that if Muslims ever become a majority in the United States, they will likely seek to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law, which they deem superior to man-made law.

    Ihsan Bagby, a former board member of CAIR, believes that Muslims “can never be full citizens of [America]… because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country.” Islamic supremacism as espoused by this group is taught in many American mosques which teach hatred of Jews and Christians. In fact, “Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance (CDT) called CAIR ‘the most accomplished fifth column’ in the United States since its desire is to ‘…spread Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook.'”

    According to Kamal Nawash, although CAIR condemns terrorism on the surface it “endorses an ideology that helps foster extremism,” because “almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states.”

    CAIR had been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged criminal conspiracy to support both Hamas and the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF).

    It would seem that the ongoing and deep-seated anti-American animus and acceptance of anti-Semitism by the Democratic Party is a direct outgrowth of their alignment with these jihadists. Consequently, it should not be a surprise that “[i]n a Twitter message that was posted on election night 2016, once it had become clear that Republican Donald Trump would defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton… Hussam Ayloush, the longtime head of CAIR’s Los Angeles office, wrote in Arabic: ‘Al-Shaab yureed isqat al-nizaam.’ This was a popular Arab Spring chant meaning, ‘The people wants to bring down the regime.’ “In other words,” writes Islam scholar Daniel Pipes, ‘Ayloush unambiguously and directly called for the overthrow of the U.S. government.'”

    CAIR follows the lead of the Muslim Brotherhood which emphatically asserts that “their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

    CAIR wages an unrelenting campaign to discredit its critics as anti-Muslim bigots. In addition, CAIR ardently supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

    Yet, in 2018 the following Democrats among others sent congratulatory letters to this group: Senator Richard Blumenthal, Sen. Kamala Harris, Rep. Keith Ellison, Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Rep. John Lewis, Rep. Alan Lowenthal, Rep. Adam Schiff, Rep. Eric Swalwell, and then candidate Rashida Tlaib.

    All of them possess an animus against President Trump. But most striking is that they are willing to be influenced by a group that wishes to destroy America physically and spiritually.

    And to Jewish Americans, what will it take to understand that a vote for any Democrat is actually a vote for your own demise? Will Jewish Democrats continue to vote for the party of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib? How will they rationalize why they march with anti-Semites Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory? Will they continue to support the Congressional Black Caucus even as it embraces the Louis Farrakhan, who calls Jews termites that should be exterminated?

    Will the anti-Semitism of the Democratic Party finally drive more American Jews away from the Democrats to the GOP?

    For those blinded by their visceral hatred of Donald Trump, beware of what Myron Magnet has written:

    Man is a believing animal. We live by some of those beliefs, made plausible by the labors of the good and the great to embody them, and of the wise to explain how they have created a freer, more prosperous, more just, and more fulfilling life for mankind. But other beliefs, the stock-in-trade of the world’s deluded or power-hungry demagogues and charlatans, will kill us. Our nation’s fate depends on relearning the difference.

    The Democratic Party has lost its collective mind with its radical transformation. Procedural rules are ignored. Subversion and corruption seem to ooze out of every Democratic maneuver to disenfranchise the American voter. This surely emboldens the Islamic jihadist foes who seek to eviscerate our constitutional republic.”


  3. Re: #1
    Some people think that “believe in God” is all that is required for salvation. As. in “He believes in God.” The concept of being “born again” is completely foreign to multitudes who don’t know and don’t seem to care..

    Not apparent, but directly related: I fear for the future of this nation.


  4. Very telling.


    “California Gov. Gavin Newsom blasted for skipping funeral of deputy allegedly killed by illegal immigrants”

    “The same day a federal grand jury indicted two illegal immigrants accused of murdering Deputy Brian Ishmael, El Dorado Sheriff John D’Agostini took aim at California’s drug and sanctuary policies, singling out Gov. Gavin Newsom for skipping his funeral in favor of a meeting with the state’s beleaguered power provider.

    Ishmael was laid to rest Tuesday, about two weeks after he responded to an alleged robbery.

    Officials say the incident was actually sparked by a spat among several men – at least two of whom were Mexican nationals illegally in the U.S. — involved in an illegal marijuana growing operation. When one of them came to believe he wouldn’t be paid a previously agreed-upon amount, that man called 911 and said he was being robbed, authorities said. Soon after Ishmael arrived on the scene, one of the men allegedly opened fire, hitting Ishmael above his protective vest. Ishmael died minutes later.”


  5. The mainstream media are circling the wagons.



  6. Cultists would probably call these folks The Deep State. Others would say these people signed up to be public servants of a constitutional republic not flunkies for a corrupt and imbecilic wannabe autocrat. It makes for an interesting debate.


  7. Well, last night I finally got around to finishing that Atlantic article mentioned the other day, then I read the Legal Insurrection piece about it. (I’ll share the links below for any who may wonder what I am talking about.)

    Although the reporter did seem to lean liberal, I did not read it as excusing the behavior of the thief, but showing her own reasoning for doing what she did/does. It was a longform article that set out to report what was happening on both sides – with the neighbors and with the thief. Conservatives have been complaining that reporters don’t report both sides of an issue, so I was put off by the Legal Insurrection writer’s accusations against the Atlantic writer. The LI writer even starts off saying that the author’s attitude is somewhat ambiguous (which I could agree with), but then changes course.

    AJ, you referred to The Atlantic as “leftist”, which I disagreed with – liberal-leaning yes, but often reporting issues from a decidedly more conservative perspective, as well as having interesting articles that are non-political. There may be some that are more liberal-leaning, but that doesn’t make them “leftist”, IMHO. But many would call Legal Insurrection “rightist”. I have sometimes gotten a bad feeling from the attitudes of the LI writers, so I approach an LI article with caution (but also with an open mind that it may have something to say).



    Liked by 1 person

  8. Yes, the mess we have now with partisan corners and bubbles. I wish someone could wave a wand and change that political/media landscape, but it’ll be a long, hard climb out of this era (if that is even possible; and only by God’s grace, really).

    God judges nations and ours may be ripe in the not-to-distant future.

    Our faith will be tested, persecution may even come, but our marching orders are ever the same: preach the word, in season and out of season, be salt and light to our neighbors. The mission field is all around us.

    Politicians, they’ll come and they’ll go, ruling and being removed alike by God’s sovereign will, the invisible hand that moves history in directions we aren’t able to fully grasp from our limited vantage point.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Well if you find LI warrants watching, yet The Atlantic doesn’t, then I suggest you evaluate who you trust. The Atlantic is well known to be left of center.



    You seem to too easily fall for what the “left” pushes, yet are way more critical of conservative sources. It’s fine to want to include everyone, and consider all sides, but you often fall more to the liberal side. This is also evident in many of the “libertarian” things you post. Much of it is the more left leaning libertarian views. Not judging, just pointing it out. This is evident on Facebook as well.

    We all have our biases and preferences, but your feelings, bad or good, should be irrelevant. Facts are what matters. Feelings just cloud the issues and people’s judgement.

    The Atlantic writer clearly indicated her support for the poor thief, and attempted to excuse her thieving ways with a sob story backstory all designed to make you empathize with the poor, down on her luck thief.

    ” Fairley said she has forgiven them for her chaotic early years in Potrero, when they were addicted to drugs and she witnessed abuse. (She told me she prefers not to talk about the painful particulars.) When Fairley was 5 years old, social workers whisked her and her siblings to a great-aunt’s, where she told me she had a sheltered childhood: therapy, church, road trips to Yosemite. In middle school, she started flourishing at basketball and earned a scholarship to a Catholic high school. But a knee injury shut down the tuition aid, she said, and a transfer to public school introduced her to a rough crowd. At 19, Fairley came out as gay and, more shocking to both her and her family, pregnant.

    Doctors started her on painkillers after complications giving birth to her son, and Fairley liked how “sociable” she felt when taking them. Since the pills were pricey, she turned to heroin and, later, meth. She’d been in legal trouble as a young teen—for swiping more than $400 from Walmart, a misdemeanor, while cashiering—but the drug use compounded her problems. Her older sister, Kai, told me that when Fairley was clean, she was “brighter, more alive.” In 2006, Fairley was convicted of a felony, for stealing more than $400 worth of gift cards while working at Macy’s. For a while, she and her son stayed at a girlfriend’s place and then a homeless shelter. In 2009, they landed a unit back in Potrero’s public housing, but the stability didn’t solve her problems. After her daughter’s birth, in 2010, Child Protective Services took both of her children because of her alleged drug use. Within a year, after she got clean and started trekking daily to a methadone clinic, she got her kids back.

    Her son was arrested as a teen and went to live in a group home, Fairley said, but she dreamed of her daughter having a “normal” life—with “no kind of abuse whatsoever,” she said. Fairley kept her home from sleepovers and escorted her to the park and corner store. When her daughter started kindergarten, in 2016, her teacher, Chloe Dietkus, noted that the girl was always dressed sharply and, with her silly bravado, easily made friends. “At the end of the day she’d always run over to her mom,” Dietkus said, and they’d walk home, “seeming happy.”

    Yet around that time, Fairley relapsed on drugs, and the deliveries that were dropped daily on her neighbors’ porches caught her attention. At that point, she didn’t know about the cameras or Nextdoor. In the months that followed, the police would find a cache of the neighbors’ belongings and mail in her possession. Her sister told me that Fairley generally sold the packages “for a little bit of nothing, just to get high,” or ate any deliveries that contained food. (”


    And of course, the sure sign you’re dealing with someone on the left…..

    The race card. The last refuge of the damned.

    “Even so, Sierra Villaran, a San Francisco deputy public defender who handled Fairley’s case early on, has seen how social media’s rabble-rousing still leads to profiling of minorities and the poor. One of her clients, a Latino man, was arrested after a resident mistook him for someone recorded by their Ring device. (He was later released.) Not only does an arrest go on an innocent person’s record and potentially subject her to the use of force, Villaran said, it makes the accused feel like the cops will take the word of accusers, who are usually wealthier, over their own. Neighborhood surveillance and social media aren’t “adding quality to their life, making them any more safe.”

    Back in Potrero Hill, a man mistook Fairley’s sister for Fairley herself, following her down the block and berating her as she passed out fliers. “He didn’t believe me,” said Kai, who was working for a community group at the time. “I was embarrassed, mostly.” She put her hand up in front of her face as he tried to take a photo of her. Friar, Nextdoor’s CEO, said that difficulty identifying people correctly is a human problem, not one Nextdoor invented, but the company has formed an anti-racial-profiling task force and continues to update the platform to encourage users to “get out of your bird brain—that immediate response—and into your cognitive brain, to pause and ultimately make a better decision.””


    It’s pretty obvious bias from the writer throughout the piece.


  10. Kizzie, I read the Atlantic article the other day; I don’t know if I got the link from here or not . . . but as much as I often like the Atlantic (and actually subscribed for a couple of years, though my subscription has lapsed), I definitely think that one was sympathetic to the thief. The writer spoke very disparagingly of the neighbors, and the art used hinted that they were all ganging up on her, too. The writer seemed to think the lady got way more “punishment” than she deserved (some of it actual time behind bars, but some extra things like losing her apartment and with it her possessions, and for a time at least losing her child/children), and seemed to think that the neighbors who lost stuff to the thief would be horrified if they knew how “harshly” she was punished. The writer even seemed to think the thief had a good point that she really couldn’t get a job, because she needed money too badly.

    All in all, yes, interview people on all sides, but you don’t have to be so “balanced” that you present the neighborhood thief as the victim.


  11. I really did not read it that way. Yes, I thought she was somewhat sympathetic to the thief, but I also detected some sympathy for the frustration of the neighbors. I didn’t think the writer was justifying her excuse about needing money, but was relaying what she had said.


  12. Some conservatives in my life think I am liberal, but the liberals think I am conservative. I think I am leaning more “moderate” or something. I don’t know what I call myself anymore, but I still feel that I am more basically conservative than liberal. Maybe it depends upon the issue.

    I just didn’t think the article was as leftist as it was portrayed. Liberal-leaning in places perhaps, but not leftist.

    The thing is, when a site leans (or is obviously) conservative or rightist, many conservatives are fine with the slant because they already agree with it. And vice versa for liberals/leftists. But we see and call out the slant (real, imagined, or slight) if it goes in the opposite direction.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Btw, as I read it, my sympathy was for the people of the neighborhood and their great frustration in the system not being able to stop her. I thought that frustration came through well in the article.


  14. Let’s not confuse someone’s opinion about an issue with someone’s opinion about an article about the issue. Another way to say it is not to confuse a position on an issue with an opinion about a specific argument.

    I for one tend to be more critical in this group of conservative pieces if I see flaws in them because I am conservative. I want our arguments to be clean, logical, and irrefutable. If I think they’re poorly made, I’ll say so. That doesn’t mean I don’t agree with the position.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. A few thoughts about The Atlantic piece and the Legal Insurrection response:

    1. The Atlantic piece was written by Lauren Smiley. She is a professional journalist. You can read about her on her LinkedIn page and elsewhere. https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauren-smiley-a8893b7

    2. The Legal Insurrection response was by a person who calls himself/herself: “New Neo”. Another regular contributor and editor of Legal Insurrection calls himself/herself: “Fuzzy Slippers”.

    3. I do not know why New Neo and Fuzzy Slippers use pseudonyms. However, since the founder of Legal Insurrection is a Cornell Law professor, my guess is that they use pseudonyms for the same reason that my NeverTrumper Southern Baptist lawyer friend from South Georgia calls himself “Atticus Finch”. I have sometimes thought that it would be better if I used a pseudonym, but I am just too old and ornery to care.

    4. Atticus Finch is not pretending to be a journalist of any type. Like me, he is just a conservative lawyer having fun on Twitter in his spare time.

    5. Individual journalists and publications and websites do have their biases, but journalists are professionals. If I am sick I will visit a doctor, not my neighbor who reads WebMD. If I have a tax question, I will consult with a CPA, not some self-proclaimed tax guru on the internet. Several years ago my 25 year-old nephew was the sports editor of a local rural/suburban newspaper. We took my mother to see many of the games he covered as a way to let her spend time with him. The nephew was young, but I soon learned that he knew more about Johnson County, Texas high school sports than anyone.

    6. Similarly, if I had a question about a local issue in DJ’s part of California, I would trust what she said. I would trust her not because of the excellent theology she displayed at 1:31, but because she is a professional journalist with expertise about the subject.

    7. We need to always have our antennae up for bias. The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, the NYT and the WP and many others are generally left of center. Fox News, Breitbart, The Federalist along with many minor sites like Legal Insurrection are in the tank for Trump. However, we need to respect journalists as professionals. Like all of us they can get in over their heads when writing about extremely complex issues like healthcare finance. However, Trump is really not that hard to figure out.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. It was bound to happen. I go to great lengths to defend professional journalists, and then The New York Times immediately commits the unforgivable sin of failing to capitalize ”Confederacy” in the fifth paragraph of this front page article.


  17. Matthew Continetti of National Review, a Virginia native, gives a different perspective on changes in his home state. He gets the Confederacy right, but is not old enough to remember the good old days. During the Reagan Era, nine of Virginia’s Congressmen and both of her Senators were conservative Republicans. It was a wonderful and beautiful place to live.

    Fortunately, Virginia’s representation in Statuary Hall has not changed.


  18. And sorry Ricky,

    After the garbage you’ve posted for the last nearly 4 years, you’re the last person I’d ask for advice on sources. You’ve been repeatedly wrong about every issue of importance, as have your “sources.”

    No thanks. I’ll pass.


  19. And VA. turned blue due to the spreading liberal rot from DC. It’s infested with trough feeding bureaucrats throughout the suburbs, as even the NYT map shows. Like a cancer, they’ve spread.

    It’s been a long time coming. It’s not surprising, and it has nothing to do with Trump. It has to do with the type of people in our govt’s employ more than anything. The swamp dwellers just expanded the swamp.


  20. Thank you, AJ. Love you all, too!

    Great point, Kevin!

    Last night after shutting down the laptop and going to bed, I was thinking about this whole mess of labeling people or ideas or articles as liberal or conservative, or leftist or rightist. Often these days if an idea or article or comment smacks of one side or the other, it is automatically dismissed. I see folks on both sides missing good points that their opponents are making because they can’t get past the labels.

    Also, there is a large spectrum of views within each label, which can cause others on the same political side to accuse someone of being on the opposite side for having a view on the opposite side of the same spectrum (if that makes sense).

    As for the things I post on Facebook, AJ’s comment had me thinking about that. The thing is, I have more conservative friends on Facebook, and at least a couple of them could be considered far-right. So I think I tend to share what may seem as liberal-leaning articles at times because I think they offer a perspective that many of my friends are not seeing.

    I have had a few of my conservative Facebook friends (a couple “real life” friends, and a couple only FB friends) thank me for offering these other perspectives.


  21. A while back I read something about how the principles of liberals and conservatives (or maybe more precisely, Democrats and Republicans) gradually switch. I wish I could remember the examples it gave. The one glaring example was the issue of free speech. It used to be the liberals standing up for free speech, and now it is the conservatives. Remember when the ACLU supported Nazis marching in Skokie, a highly Jewish community? Now many liberals are insisting they have no right to be heard, and advocate “punching Nazis.”

    I think there may have been a mention of support for free markets changing back and forth over the years, but I don’t remember the details. It was just very interesting that there is almost a “natural” polarity between the two sides, and when one side starts to shift a position, the other side shifts on it, too.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. The Dems have once again caught themselves in a web of lies, deceit, and collusion as part of this latest ‘impeachment’ hoax – even the anti-Trump media won’t be able to help them out of this mess.

    Let the circus begin (continue)…


  23. Yeah, Schifty says we have to hear from the whistleblower…..

    Until their story fell apart, now, not so much.

    The goal posts keep moving.


    Taylor an unbiased swamp denizen?

    Sure…… 🙄


    Sullivan now?


    👉 and 🤣😂🤣 time again.


  24. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-waters-fine-mr-bloomberg-11573256727


    (note: OPINION) 🙂

    The news that Michael Bloomberg might compete for the Democratic presidential nomination is causing consternation on the political left. But that’s all the more reason to welcome his candidacy to challenge a vulnerable President Trump next year.

    “Memo to Bloomberg: Democratic Voters Don’t Want More Candidates” blared a headline Thursday night on the left-wing Huffington Post urging the former New York Mayor to stay out. The piece was the first we saw of what will be many lecturing Democratic voters that they should be happy with their field and don’t need a billionaire. But if that’s true, then the party’s progressives have nothing to worry about.

    The truth they don’t want to admit is that the Democrats now leading in the primary polls have major vulnerabilities. …

    … Mr. Bloomberg also clashed with the teachers unions by promoting charter schools and teacher accountability in New York. And his stellar record in reducing crime, including support for such policies as stop-and-frisk, isn’t popular with the social-justice left.

    On the other hand, Mr. Bloomberg is no conservative. He is a down-the-line cultural liberal, he has become the leading national financier for candidates who support gun control, and he is a zealot on climate change who would regulate coal out of business (we’re not sure about natural gas). None of these would be obstacles in the Democratic primaries.

    The main reason to welcome Mr. Bloomberg into the race is to shake up what has become a stagnant Democratic contest and give voters another choice. He has the money to educate the public about the folly of Medicare for All and other progressive dreams. …

    … As is his habit, Mr. Trump dismissed Mr. Bloomberg’s chances on Friday, saying “there’s nobody I’d rather run against than Little Michael.” But behind that familiar bluster, Mr. Trump knows (or should know) that he is in real danger of losing re-election.

    Mr. Trump has never expanded his support beyond his base and by conventional measures for an incumbent he is the underdog. …


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.