The Jews are now being blamed for putting up posters of their civilian hostages, thus “baiting” people into revealing themselves as morally degenerates by ripping them down. https://t.co/N5po0S6GRz
TurboTax and H&R Block both do it free thru a govt program already if you make under 100K. So they’re lying yet again.
The IRS is building a free digital tax filing system so you won't have to pay for TurboTax etc. The GOP's offsets for the Israel war funds strips funding for it. pic.twitter.com/0a7nkVL7l4
A patriotic whistleblower told me DHS special agents are being pulled off investigating child trafficking to make sandwiches for illegal immigrants at the southern border. Secretary Mayorkas can’t deny it. Watch 👇 pic.twitter.com/9eOq4wPAWQ
Some actual truth leaked it’s way into MSNBCs reporting.
This isn't happening under Republicans though. It's happening in Democrat run cities and Democrat led campuses and with a Democrat in the White House. That question needs to be asked and answered. The right has a Candace Owens problem. The left has a much, much worse problem. https://t.co/e68iwfVgsa
If you have to wordsmith all the pertinent details out of your version of the story to push your breathless narrative…that should tell you something. So gross of you to ignore this girl's rape in the context of your "reporting" 🙄 https://t.co/vZ0pANuuQN
Hamas: "We will continue to kill Jews until Israel no longer exists."
Global Left: "So what you're really telling me is that you want a secular two-state solution where everyone lives in peace." pic.twitter.com/UdCQdh8LG3
Hamas leader says October 7, the torture and slaughter of Israeli families and children, is ”justified” and there will be more such attacks on Israel because their goal is to annihilate Israel. The Palestinian nation is one of “martyrs,” he says, proud to die for their cause. pic.twitter.com/Pg9GkhA3XJ
Bet this GrandMa won’t get 10 to 20 years, because she’s a Democrat.
Blinken's testimony interrupted multiple times by protesters calling for a ceasefire and an end to Israel's bombing campaign in Gaza pic.twitter.com/zvk6Sqq4IJ
Protesters have now completely derailed the Blinken/Austin hearing, chanting "ceasefire now" and "from Palestine to Mexico, all the walls have got to go" @DailyCallerpic.twitter.com/lt7FYltjT8
“With former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley on the rise and former President Donald Trump polling below 50% in Iowa, there are some anti-Trump Republicans and conservatives issuing a familiar cry: Non-Trump Republicans should consolidate behind a single candidate who can wrest the party back from Trump.
This call has been going out for a year.”
The thinking is that Trump can only win against a divided GOP field. This thinking isn’t based on actual polls or math but on hope and fear. Byron York pointed that out on Monday, and if you check out the latest Des Moines Register poll, the numbers tell a grim picture for the “anyone but Trump” crowd.
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is the first choice for 16% of Iowans in this poll. When they were asked for their second choice, 41% of DeSantis supporters named Trump. Do the math: 41% of 16% is about 6% or 7% — that’s the portion of the electorate Trump would get if DeSantis dropped out, according to this poll.
Add that 6% or 7% to Trump’s current 43%, and he’s within the margin of error of 50%. Basically, if DeSantis dropped out, Trump would have an absolute majority of Iowans in this poll.
Meanwhile, 27% of DeSantis’s supporters would tack to Haley as their second choice. This might be the “whoever can beat Trump” part of the GOP electorate. Multiplying 27% of 16%, and you get about 4 points more for Haley. If DeSantis dropped out, that would move Haley from 16% to 20%.
So that’s where we start if DeSantis drops out: Trump leading Haley 49% to 20%. It is an absolute fantasy to assume that Haley would gain the entirety of the remaining 30% in a head-to-head race. The only reason this fantasy is entertained is that the “anybody but Trump” contingent of conservatism is very overrepresented in the commentariat.”
You say underminer, I say traitorous anti-America first sellout.
“The Underminer
Mitch McConnell already undermined one Speaker of the House with his insistence on funding Ukraine. Senate Republicans speak out against his designs to make it two.”
“Mike Johnson had just become Speaker of the House, putting an end to the more than three weeks of the lower chamber being without a leader. With the speakership filled, there is much to be done, and not a lot of time to do it: The legislature has two weeks and change to pass the requisite appropriations bills and avoid a shutdown, even as the United States may be sleepwalking into starting another world war. The Louisianan Republican rose to the rostrum and delivered his first speech as Speaker of the House. About half way through the speech, Johnson told his House colleagues that “the first bill that I’m going to bring to this floor in just a little while will be in support of our dear friend Israel, and we’re overdue in getting that done.”
Some antennas perked up—was Johnson going to be a stalwart against another possible world war, or would he be its midwife? Yet what Johnson left out of his summary of the first bill he’d bring to the floor was crucial: He didn’t mention anything about simultaneously funding Ukraine. Johnson later confirmed that he’d be separating aid to Israel and Ukraine. “I told the staff at the White House today that our consensus among House Republicans is we need to bifurcate those issues,” Johnson told Fox News’ Sean Hannity.
While Johnson’s views on Ukraine are more in line with the rank and file House Republican, Johnson also told Hannity that “we have a responsibility—a stewardship responsibility—over the precious treasure of the American people, and we have to make sure that the White House is providing the people with some accountability for the dollars.” After the House spent three weeks searching for a speaker nominee that could court enough Republican votes to earn a majority on the floor, it’s no surprise that Johnson, who has objected to additional Ukraine aid in the past, basically represents the conference median with respect to Ukraine.
The fact that Johnson is even working with his conference in the first place is more than one can currently say of his Republican counterpart in the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Last week, McConnell endorsed President Joe Biden’s proposal for a jumbled $106 billion aid package. The $106 billion would be divided into five different buckets: $60 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion would go to Israel and so-called border security efforts apiece, $10 billion for general humanitarian relief, and $7 billion for the Indo-Pacific region. The funds for border security, Senator Rick Scott of Florida told The American Conservative, “are not really for border security. It’s money for sanctuary cities.”
“All it’s actually going to do is get us more migrants,” Scott added.
Just a month after his own Republican conference rejected McConnell’s plan to sneak $6 billion for Ukraine into the Senate’s version of the continuing resolution, the minority leader is yet again pushing a boondoggle worth billions.
During a phone interview, TAC asked Scott why McConnell would try to tie Ukraine funding to another spending bill after his previous effort failed. “I have no idea,” Scott told TAC. “It doesn’t make any sense to me.”
Though a lot of the Republican conference in the Senate maintains support for Ukraine, “I think we have a lot of questions on Ukraine,” Scott continued. “We want to know where this money is going, we want to know what the plan is, we want to know exactly what they need, and we want to know what Europe is doing to do their part.”
“If the Biden administration’s case for additional Ukraine aid is not strong enough to stand on its own, then packaging them is an insulting request to lay before Congress. It is unreasonable for the administration to exploit an aid package for Israel to siphon off billions of taxpayer dollars in yet another blank check for Ukraine,” Senator Mike Lee of Utah told TAC via email. Regarding the reception in the Republican conference for McConnell’s support for the Biden aid plan, Lee wrote, “A growing number of legislators recognize that bundling massive spending bills—for purposes foreign or domestic—is a gambit to prevent us from inspecting them too closely, or to attach unpopular measures to vital and necessary ones.”
Nevertheless, McConnell and his allies continue pushing for the package on Capitol Hill and beyond.
On Monday, McConnell and Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States Oksana Markarova made a joint appearance at the center that bears the Kentucky Senator’s name at the University of Louisville in an effort to drum up (or feign) some grassroots support for the war cause.
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, however, told TAC in a phone interview that McConnell’s maneuvering for Ukraine is “very unpopular in Kentucky”: “Spontaneously, people come up to me no matter which part of the state I’m in,” to say they’ve had enough of endless wars, Paul said.
“If I’m in eastern Kentucky, they come up to me and say, ‘we’ve got problems here at home,’” Paul continued. “We also have a lot of poverty in eastern Kentucky, and they just don’t like sending money overseas, even to countries that like us or that we’re allied with. If we send it, they want it to be paid for. They want to take it away from a wasteful part of the government—and believe me, they are like me in believing there’s a lot of waste. Having a speaker come to a McConnell-funded speech at U of L really doesn’t indicate any kind of grassroots support from Kentucky. I find no support for lumping them all together. I’ve had no one come up to me saying please, please, please give another 50 or 60 billion to Ukraine. I don’t find it at all. So I think the position is out of touch and doesn’t represent conservatives in Kentucky at all.”
That wasn’t going to stop McConnell from trying. It is “an especially critical moment in the history of our two countries,” McConnell said in his remarks introducing the ambassador.
For her part, Markarova gave McConnell the fireworks he wanted: “This new Hitler has to be stopped while we can still stop him in Ukraine,” Markarova told the audience. To be clear, she was talking about Russian President Vladimir Putin and not the Azov Battalion or other Ukrainian soldiers seen wearing Nazi symbols like the sonnenrad—a cancelable offense in the United States, but earns you billions in Ukraine. “Otherwise,” the ambassador continued, “this conflict will widen and all of us will have to fight.” So Ukraine might hope.”
—-
““I think Americans want Ukraine to win, but they also know that we have $33 trillion worth of debt, high inflation, and high interest rates,” Scott said. “But I think they want to make sure we’re being responsible with their dollars.” Though the American public may be supportive of both Israel’s and Ukraine’s causes, they need to “get their questions answered the right way,” the Florida Senator claimed.
Meanwhile, on Monday, Johnson unveiled his plan to provide aid to Israel: A $14.3 billion package offset by cuts to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which received a massive influx of funding from the Inflation Reduction Act. McConnell was quick to try and undercut the new speaker of the house, as was Senator Susan Collins of Maine who brokered the previous continuing resolution that included Ukraine-funding provisions. The pair’s insistence on Ukraine funding during the shutdown negotiations in September undermined then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, which resulted in a bad deal for Republicans and contributed to McCarthy’s ousting.
McConnell’s insistence on tying Ukraine funding to anything and everything “undermines Speaker Johnson’s position,” Paul told TAC.
“You know, recent events have shown that it’s difficult to become Speaker of the House, and it’s sometimes difficult to remain Speaker of the House,” Paul continued. “Johnson has outlined publicly that he’s going to do Israel aid alone, and he’s going to pay for it, and I’m supportive of that position. Lumping them all together in the kitchen sink, putting tens of billions of dollars for Ukraine, for Taiwan, for border enforcement is not a conservative notion.”
“McConnell has allied with Biden and Schumer on this, not with conservatives,” Paul added.”
—-
McConnell works for his defense industry donors, and the uni-party, not you.
“Donald Trump doesn’t know Thomas Robertson. But the former president’s fate appears inextricably tied to that of the former Army Rangerm, who was convicted last year for his involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021 protest at the U.S. Capitol.
That’s because the prosecutions of Trump and his supporters, including Robertson, have often depended on reimagining the law in novel ways.
To advance the narrative that Trump colluded with Russia, for example, the Department of Justice seized on the little-used Foreign Agents Registration Act to justify probes and wiretaps of Trump allies. In the Georgia election fraud case against Trump and numerous campaign advisers, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is using a law intended to combat organized crime, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, in what even her supporters describe as a stretch.
In Washington, D.C., prosecutors are using a financial crimes statute passed by Congress in 2002 in response to the Enron scandal to bring felony charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, including Trump and Robertson. Lawyers for both and for other Jan. 6 defendants argue the law is being misapplied. The controversy could soon wind up before the Supreme Court.
Defense attorneys say the government is using the power of law enforcement to misinterpret, and even weaponize, nebulous language in the legal code.
In three separate motions filed on Oct. 23, Trump’s lawyers repeatedly raised objections based on the “vagueness” factor of the four counts in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 criminal indictment against Trump. Those four charges are: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct, conspiracy against rights, and obstruction of an official proceeding.
“President Trump’s alleged conduct — publicly and politically disputing the outcome of the election, attempting to convince Congress to act, and allegedly organizing alternate slates of electors — falls outside the plain language of the charged statutes,” John Lauro, Trump’s lead attorney in the Jan. 6 case, wrote in a motion to dismiss the charges.
One of the key statutes in question is 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2), part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed by Congress to prevent fraudulent financial reporting by corporations. The statute was meant to close a loophole in other obstruction laws related to the destruction of evidence, but left open to interpretation the terms “corruptly” and “official proceeding” in the following passage – to the point where, defense lawyers claim, it can be used to criminalize political activity. The passage reads:
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
DOJ’s legal basis rests on the argument that the Joint Session of Congress held on Jan. 6 to debate and certify the 2020 election was an “official proceeding,” as opposed to a ceremonial gathering. Those who interrupted Congress, prompting a six-hour delay, or planned to disrupt it, committed that particular obstruction felony, prosecutors contend.
Federal prosecutors so far have charged more than 300 Jan. 6 defendants with obstruction under that statute. In August, Smith’s office handed down a 45-page indictment against Trump, claiming his attempts to persuade Vice President Mike Pence to reject some electoral college votes and organize alternate slates of electors, among other acts, also represented an attempt to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election.
Smith’s indictment is hardly the first time the DOJ sought to nab Trump on the obstruction count. It represents the culmination of a years-long effort dating back to 2017, when Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigated Trump for violating 1512(c)(2) as part of his probe into Russia’s role in the 2016 election.
The second volume of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election” enumerated multiple instances where Trump allegedly violated 1512(c)(2).
Mueller concluded that Trump’s behavior in office met the statute’s largely undefined language regarding obstruction. “Section 1512(c)(2) applies to corrupt acts — including by public officials — that frustrate the commencement or conduct of a proceeding, and not just to acts that make evidence unavailable or impair its integrity.”
Mueller, however, did not refer Trump to the Justice Department on the obstruction count even though he repeatedly suggested the then-president should be investigated accordingly. Attorney General William Barr disagreed with Mueller’s assessment and did not charge Trump.
But the government’s desire to broadly interpret the statute in Trump-related cases did not end there.
Within days of the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, a grand jury empaneled by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia started handing up indictments on the 1512(c)(2) offense. Jacob Chansley, the so-called “QAnon Shaman,” was the first protester charged for obstruction of an official proceeding, on Jan. 11, 2021.
Some of the accused never entered the Capitol or went inside after Congress recessed. Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, was in a Baltimore hotel on Jan. 6 following court orders to stay out of the nation’s capital. Trump himself never set foot on Capitol Hill that day.”
BREAKING: In Senate hearing, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas confirms over 600,000 known gotaways at the border in fiscal year 2023 while being questioned by @RogerMarshallMD. Mayorkas also repeatedly refused to answer Marshall's questions asking how many illegal immigrants have…
“BREAKING: In Senate hearing, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas confirms over 600,000 known gotaways at the border in fiscal year 2023 while being questioned by @RogerMarshallMD Mayorkas also repeatedly refused to answer Marshall’s questions asking how many illegal immigrants have ties to known terror groups, saying only that DHS takes “appropriate enforcement action” to any national security threats. Marshall also asked when and if DHS would provide the countries of origin of people arrested at the border on the FBI terror watchlist – Mayorkas responded that that data could be provided in an “appropriate setting” (non public).”
The government has wanted to shut down tax preparers for a while. They want to be the monopoly that gives out the bill and prepares your return with no reason to find extra deductions that could benefit the taxpayer and cut down the tax bill. Free tax prep by the ones who issue the bill means no accountability. It’s not free. It’s a farce and should be illegal. Free for the masses of people who are sitting ducks to be robbed in this sleasy manner.
Another good Gospel Coalition piece for our era in which we’re faced with so many claims and alternative “truths” :
___________________
Common Fallacies in an Age of Outrage
OCTOBER 23, 2023 | STEVE BATEMAN
~ In an online world of rampant disinformation, partisan manipulation, and systemic distrust, it’s increasingly difficult—but necessary—for Christians to follow Scripture’s injunctions to discern what’s trustworthy: “do not be deceived” (1 Cor. 6:9), “keep alert” (Eph. 6:18), “try to discern” (Eph. 5:10), “test everything” (1 Thess. 5:21), and “think” (2 Tim. 2:7).
What’s at stake?
First, the peace of the church. After four decades of pastoral ministry, I discovered that pandemics and presidential elections produce passionate opinions! Like many pastors, I received emails from church members with links to “well-researched” articles. I was encouraged to take greater or lesser stands on this or that. I was offered examples of high-profile pastors in other states who were courageous.
But these people I loved sent me articles that contradicted each other. It was logically impossible to agree with all of them. When I didn’t, some treasured friendships were strained. And many of us learned an important lesson: our unity largely depends on our ability to discern the truth.
The second thing at stake is our credibility. If we’re easily persuaded to believe falsehoods, why would unbelievers accept our claim that the gospel is true? Willful gullibility neglects our God-given responsibility to acquire the skills necessary to evaluate truth claims. This doesn’t mean we must be experts in every subject, but it does mean we practice strategic hesitation before accepting a claim as true and publicly endorsing it.
One critical skill for truth evaluation is biblical literacy. Along with our daily intake of news sources, we should be “examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things” are so (Acts 17:11). Scripture doesn’t speak directly to every headline, but when a sitting president defends same-sex marriage by saying, “Marriage is a simple proposition. Who do you love?” scriptural competence guards us from deception.
In addition to developing biblical literacy, we can ask ourselves if we’re falling for fallacies. Here are seven that are common in our public discourse.
1. ‘Hasty Conclusion’ Fallacy …
2. ‘Argument by Repetition’ Fallacy
3. ‘Ad Hominem’ Fallacy
This fallacy occurs if a debater attacks the person rather than the argument. When Jesus bested his critics in debate, they called him a demon-possessed Samaritan (John 8:48). Insults are the last resort of a man who has no argument. Politicians skilled at name-calling effectively persuade gullible voters while escaping the hard work of debating an opponent’s positions. Believing that a pastor with a record of gospel faithfulness is a “woke Marxist” just because another pastor called him that is inexcusably naive. Reputations are damaged and truth is eclipsed when believers fall for ad hominem arguments of the intellectually lazy.
4. ‘Double Standard’ Fallacy
A double standard means applying a standard differently in some cases to gain an advantage. In leadership, character matters. Church leaders must be “above reproach” before they can be entrusted with authority (1 Tim. 3:2). If they betray that trust, they should be held accountable. No leader is owed special treatment because he’s wealthy, well connected, or well known. The church must “keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality” (1 Tim. 5:21).
Similarly, when Christians are persuaded to excuse the faults of their political champions while criticizing similar faults in their political opponents, the unbelieving world will perceive inconsistency and partiality as willful gullibility. Apply the same standard equally to all.
5. ‘Suppressed Evidence’ Fallacy
This is concealing evidence unfavorable to your argument. … Christians can suppress evidence by failing to take advantage of a free press. Market competition between news sources guaranteed free by the First Amendment is a check and balance, making more facts (and fact-checking) available to truth-lovers. By selecting only sources that present “friendly facts,” we tend to confirm our bias and deceive ourselves. Further, over 80 percent of Americans get their news from a digital device—news that’s being manipulated by algorithms that trap readers in information silos. Read widely, not just deeply.
6. ‘Appeal to Celebrity’ Fallacy
Accepting a person’s claim because of his or her celebrity status, instead of the soundness of the argument … On the left, Rachel Maddow is a media celebrity with an engaging style that’s made her show a ratings success. When sued by another news organization for her on-air defamatory remarks, an appeals court dismissed the case, saying, “No reasonable viewer could conclude that Maddow implied an assertion of objective fact.” On the right, Tucker Carlson was also sued for defamation. In court, his lawyers didn’t dispute the plaintiff’s claim that Carlson presented fiction as fact. Their defense was that Carlson’s audience should be aware that “he is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal’ commentary.” The judge agreed and dismissed the case. Both celebrities are perceived by their followers to be reliable news sources, though neither seems to adhere to journalistic ethics. Both courts assume Americans are responsible for acquiring the skills necessary to evaluate truth claims. Unfortunately, all the evidence many Americans need is that Maddow or Carlson said it. …
7. ‘Appeal to Motive’ Fallacy
This is when someone dismisses a proposition by questioning the proposer’s motives. … When Christians summarily dismiss allegations against their favorite preacher or politician because the charges are made by a disgruntled former employee, a jealous denominational rival, a desperate political enemy, or a despised media source, they’ve fallen for the “appeal to motive” fallacy. Ignore the motive; investigate the message.
Reputation for Reasonableness
Only God knows the whole truth about every matter. More epistemic humility in our public assertions will serve us well, especially if even our fact-checking and critical thinking don’t lead us to the truth about the latest headline.
Paul instructed the Philippian believers to let their “reasonableness be known to everyone” (Phil. 4:5). Building a reputation of reasonableness makes us less gullible, and more persuasive, as we bear witness to the facts of the gospel.
Wandering Views 
The real Aj
The media sucks.
https://twitter.com/BecketAdams/status/1719527267087351974?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1719527267087351974%7Ctwgr%5E86944c6ad4ff065d0272a48d19d20e905d48fc33%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fjustmindy%2F2023%2F10%2F31%2Fclaire-goforth-kidnapped-posters-asking-for-it-n2389268
LikeLike
The real Aj
This is the way.
LikeLike
Hint:
TurboTax and H&R Block both do it free thru a govt program already if you make under 100K. So they’re lying yet again.
LikeLike
The real Aj
Disgusting abuse of taxpayer funds.
LikeLike
The real Aj
Some actual truth leaked it’s way into MSNBCs reporting.
LikeLike
The real Aj
The details they omit are the real story here. Bury that lede!
LikeLike
The real Aj
They’re just misunderstood….
Israel needs to continue the operation to take these people out.
LikeLike
Yep, just misunderstood….
LikeLike
So…. nothing. At all.
LikeLike
Insurrection!
Bet this GrandMa won’t get 10 to 20 years, because she’s a Democrat.
No indefinite detention for these clowns.
LikeLike
The real Aj
“Anti-Trump GOP hopes are currently based on fantasy math”
And sold out so-called principles….
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/anti-trump-gop-hopes-are-currently-based-on-fantasy-math
“With former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley on the rise and former President Donald Trump polling below 50% in Iowa, there are some anti-Trump Republicans and conservatives issuing a familiar cry: Non-Trump Republicans should consolidate behind a single candidate who can wrest the party back from Trump.
This call has been going out for a year.”
The thinking is that Trump can only win against a divided GOP field. This thinking isn’t based on actual polls or math but on hope and fear. Byron York pointed that out on Monday, and if you check out the latest Des Moines Register poll, the numbers tell a grim picture for the “anyone but Trump” crowd.
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is the first choice for 16% of Iowans in this poll. When they were asked for their second choice, 41% of DeSantis supporters named Trump. Do the math: 41% of 16% is about 6% or 7% — that’s the portion of the electorate Trump would get if DeSantis dropped out, according to this poll.
Add that 6% or 7% to Trump’s current 43%, and he’s within the margin of error of 50%. Basically, if DeSantis dropped out, Trump would have an absolute majority of Iowans in this poll.
Meanwhile, 27% of DeSantis’s supporters would tack to Haley as their second choice. This might be the “whoever can beat Trump” part of the GOP electorate. Multiplying 27% of 16%, and you get about 4 points more for Haley. If DeSantis dropped out, that would move Haley from 16% to 20%.
So that’s where we start if DeSantis drops out: Trump leading Haley 49% to 20%. It is an absolute fantasy to assume that Haley would gain the entirety of the remaining 30% in a head-to-head race. The only reason this fantasy is entertained is that the “anybody but Trump” contingent of conservatism is very overrepresented in the commentariat.”
LikeLike
You say underminer, I say traitorous anti-America first sellout.
“The Underminer
Mitch McConnell already undermined one Speaker of the House with his insistence on funding Ukraine. Senate Republicans speak out against his designs to make it two.”
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-underminer/
“Mike Johnson had just become Speaker of the House, putting an end to the more than three weeks of the lower chamber being without a leader. With the speakership filled, there is much to be done, and not a lot of time to do it: The legislature has two weeks and change to pass the requisite appropriations bills and avoid a shutdown, even as the United States may be sleepwalking into starting another world war. The Louisianan Republican rose to the rostrum and delivered his first speech as Speaker of the House. About half way through the speech, Johnson told his House colleagues that “the first bill that I’m going to bring to this floor in just a little while will be in support of our dear friend Israel, and we’re overdue in getting that done.”
Some antennas perked up—was Johnson going to be a stalwart against another possible world war, or would he be its midwife? Yet what Johnson left out of his summary of the first bill he’d bring to the floor was crucial: He didn’t mention anything about simultaneously funding Ukraine. Johnson later confirmed that he’d be separating aid to Israel and Ukraine. “I told the staff at the White House today that our consensus among House Republicans is we need to bifurcate those issues,” Johnson told Fox News’ Sean Hannity.
While Johnson’s views on Ukraine are more in line with the rank and file House Republican, Johnson also told Hannity that “we have a responsibility—a stewardship responsibility—over the precious treasure of the American people, and we have to make sure that the White House is providing the people with some accountability for the dollars.” After the House spent three weeks searching for a speaker nominee that could court enough Republican votes to earn a majority on the floor, it’s no surprise that Johnson, who has objected to additional Ukraine aid in the past, basically represents the conference median with respect to Ukraine.
The fact that Johnson is even working with his conference in the first place is more than one can currently say of his Republican counterpart in the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Last week, McConnell endorsed President Joe Biden’s proposal for a jumbled $106 billion aid package. The $106 billion would be divided into five different buckets: $60 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion would go to Israel and so-called border security efforts apiece, $10 billion for general humanitarian relief, and $7 billion for the Indo-Pacific region. The funds for border security, Senator Rick Scott of Florida told The American Conservative, “are not really for border security. It’s money for sanctuary cities.”
“All it’s actually going to do is get us more migrants,” Scott added.
Just a month after his own Republican conference rejected McConnell’s plan to sneak $6 billion for Ukraine into the Senate’s version of the continuing resolution, the minority leader is yet again pushing a boondoggle worth billions.
During a phone interview, TAC asked Scott why McConnell would try to tie Ukraine funding to another spending bill after his previous effort failed. “I have no idea,” Scott told TAC. “It doesn’t make any sense to me.”
Though a lot of the Republican conference in the Senate maintains support for Ukraine, “I think we have a lot of questions on Ukraine,” Scott continued. “We want to know where this money is going, we want to know what the plan is, we want to know exactly what they need, and we want to know what Europe is doing to do their part.”
“If the Biden administration’s case for additional Ukraine aid is not strong enough to stand on its own, then packaging them is an insulting request to lay before Congress. It is unreasonable for the administration to exploit an aid package for Israel to siphon off billions of taxpayer dollars in yet another blank check for Ukraine,” Senator Mike Lee of Utah told TAC via email. Regarding the reception in the Republican conference for McConnell’s support for the Biden aid plan, Lee wrote, “A growing number of legislators recognize that bundling massive spending bills—for purposes foreign or domestic—is a gambit to prevent us from inspecting them too closely, or to attach unpopular measures to vital and necessary ones.”
Nevertheless, McConnell and his allies continue pushing for the package on Capitol Hill and beyond.
On Monday, McConnell and Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States Oksana Markarova made a joint appearance at the center that bears the Kentucky Senator’s name at the University of Louisville in an effort to drum up (or feign) some grassroots support for the war cause.
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, however, told TAC in a phone interview that McConnell’s maneuvering for Ukraine is “very unpopular in Kentucky”: “Spontaneously, people come up to me no matter which part of the state I’m in,” to say they’ve had enough of endless wars, Paul said.
“If I’m in eastern Kentucky, they come up to me and say, ‘we’ve got problems here at home,’” Paul continued. “We also have a lot of poverty in eastern Kentucky, and they just don’t like sending money overseas, even to countries that like us or that we’re allied with. If we send it, they want it to be paid for. They want to take it away from a wasteful part of the government—and believe me, they are like me in believing there’s a lot of waste. Having a speaker come to a McConnell-funded speech at U of L really doesn’t indicate any kind of grassroots support from Kentucky. I find no support for lumping them all together. I’ve had no one come up to me saying please, please, please give another 50 or 60 billion to Ukraine. I don’t find it at all. So I think the position is out of touch and doesn’t represent conservatives in Kentucky at all.”
That wasn’t going to stop McConnell from trying. It is “an especially critical moment in the history of our two countries,” McConnell said in his remarks introducing the ambassador.
For her part, Markarova gave McConnell the fireworks he wanted: “This new Hitler has to be stopped while we can still stop him in Ukraine,” Markarova told the audience. To be clear, she was talking about Russian President Vladimir Putin and not the Azov Battalion or other Ukrainian soldiers seen wearing Nazi symbols like the sonnenrad—a cancelable offense in the United States, but earns you billions in Ukraine. “Otherwise,” the ambassador continued, “this conflict will widen and all of us will have to fight.” So Ukraine might hope.”
—-
““I think Americans want Ukraine to win, but they also know that we have $33 trillion worth of debt, high inflation, and high interest rates,” Scott said. “But I think they want to make sure we’re being responsible with their dollars.” Though the American public may be supportive of both Israel’s and Ukraine’s causes, they need to “get their questions answered the right way,” the Florida Senator claimed.
Meanwhile, on Monday, Johnson unveiled his plan to provide aid to Israel: A $14.3 billion package offset by cuts to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which received a massive influx of funding from the Inflation Reduction Act. McConnell was quick to try and undercut the new speaker of the house, as was Senator Susan Collins of Maine who brokered the previous continuing resolution that included Ukraine-funding provisions. The pair’s insistence on Ukraine funding during the shutdown negotiations in September undermined then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, which resulted in a bad deal for Republicans and contributed to McCarthy’s ousting.
McConnell’s insistence on tying Ukraine funding to anything and everything “undermines Speaker Johnson’s position,” Paul told TAC.
“You know, recent events have shown that it’s difficult to become Speaker of the House, and it’s sometimes difficult to remain Speaker of the House,” Paul continued. “Johnson has outlined publicly that he’s going to do Israel aid alone, and he’s going to pay for it, and I’m supportive of that position. Lumping them all together in the kitchen sink, putting tens of billions of dollars for Ukraine, for Taiwan, for border enforcement is not a conservative notion.”
“McConnell has allied with Biden and Schumer on this, not with conservatives,” Paul added.”
—-
McConnell works for his defense industry donors, and the uni-party, not you.
LikeLike
Julie Kelly nails it again.
“Untested Legal Imagination’s the Mother of Trump and Jan. 6 Prosecutions”
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2023/11/01/untested_legal_imagination_is_the_mother_of_prosecution_vs_trump_and_the_january_sixers_989276.html
“Donald Trump doesn’t know Thomas Robertson. But the former president’s fate appears inextricably tied to that of the former Army Rangerm, who was convicted last year for his involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021 protest at the U.S. Capitol.
That’s because the prosecutions of Trump and his supporters, including Robertson, have often depended on reimagining the law in novel ways.
To advance the narrative that Trump colluded with Russia, for example, the Department of Justice seized on the little-used Foreign Agents Registration Act to justify probes and wiretaps of Trump allies. In the Georgia election fraud case against Trump and numerous campaign advisers, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is using a law intended to combat organized crime, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, in what even her supporters describe as a stretch.
In Washington, D.C., prosecutors are using a financial crimes statute passed by Congress in 2002 in response to the Enron scandal to bring felony charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, including Trump and Robertson. Lawyers for both and for other Jan. 6 defendants argue the law is being misapplied. The controversy could soon wind up before the Supreme Court.
Defense attorneys say the government is using the power of law enforcement to misinterpret, and even weaponize, nebulous language in the legal code.
In three separate motions filed on Oct. 23, Trump’s lawyers repeatedly raised objections based on the “vagueness” factor of the four counts in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 criminal indictment against Trump. Those four charges are: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct, conspiracy against rights, and obstruction of an official proceeding.
“President Trump’s alleged conduct — publicly and politically disputing the outcome of the election, attempting to convince Congress to act, and allegedly organizing alternate slates of electors — falls outside the plain language of the charged statutes,” John Lauro, Trump’s lead attorney in the Jan. 6 case, wrote in a motion to dismiss the charges.
One of the key statutes in question is 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2), part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed by Congress to prevent fraudulent financial reporting by corporations. The statute was meant to close a loophole in other obstruction laws related to the destruction of evidence, but left open to interpretation the terms “corruptly” and “official proceeding” in the following passage – to the point where, defense lawyers claim, it can be used to criminalize political activity. The passage reads:
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
DOJ’s legal basis rests on the argument that the Joint Session of Congress held on Jan. 6 to debate and certify the 2020 election was an “official proceeding,” as opposed to a ceremonial gathering. Those who interrupted Congress, prompting a six-hour delay, or planned to disrupt it, committed that particular obstruction felony, prosecutors contend.
Federal prosecutors so far have charged more than 300 Jan. 6 defendants with obstruction under that statute. In August, Smith’s office handed down a 45-page indictment against Trump, claiming his attempts to persuade Vice President Mike Pence to reject some electoral college votes and organize alternate slates of electors, among other acts, also represented an attempt to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election.
Smith’s indictment is hardly the first time the DOJ sought to nab Trump on the obstruction count. It represents the culmination of a years-long effort dating back to 2017, when Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigated Trump for violating 1512(c)(2) as part of his probe into Russia’s role in the 2016 election.
The second volume of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election” enumerated multiple instances where Trump allegedly violated 1512(c)(2).
Mueller concluded that Trump’s behavior in office met the statute’s largely undefined language regarding obstruction. “Section 1512(c)(2) applies to corrupt acts — including by public officials — that frustrate the commencement or conduct of a proceeding, and not just to acts that make evidence unavailable or impair its integrity.”
Mueller, however, did not refer Trump to the Justice Department on the obstruction count even though he repeatedly suggested the then-president should be investigated accordingly. Attorney General William Barr disagreed with Mueller’s assessment and did not charge Trump.
But the government’s desire to broadly interpret the statute in Trump-related cases did not end there.
Within days of the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, a grand jury empaneled by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia started handing up indictments on the 1512(c)(2) offense. Jacob Chansley, the so-called “QAnon Shaman,” was the first protester charged for obstruction of an official proceeding, on Jan. 11, 2021.
Some of the accused never entered the Capitol or went inside after Congress recessed. Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, was in a Baltimore hotel on Jan. 6 following court orders to stay out of the nation’s capital. Trump himself never set foot on Capitol Hill that day.”
—-
Read the rest.
LikeLike
Biden’s invasion continues….
8 million they admit to, another 3 million who came in undetected, and more on the way.
“Largest Migrant Caravan in a Year Heads Toward U.S. Southern Border”
https://hotair.com/karen-townsend/2023/11/01/largest-migrant-caravan-in-a-year-heads-toward-u-s-southern-border-n589049
—
“BREAKING: In Senate hearing, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas confirms over 600,000 known gotaways at the border in fiscal year 2023 while being questioned by @RogerMarshallMD Mayorkas also repeatedly refused to answer Marshall’s questions asking how many illegal immigrants have ties to known terror groups, saying only that DHS takes “appropriate enforcement action” to any national security threats. Marshall also asked when and if DHS would provide the countries of origin of people arrested at the border on the FBI terror watchlist – Mayorkas responded that that data could be provided in an “appropriate setting” (non public).”
—-
Yes can’t have the public knowing….
LikeLike
The government has wanted to shut down tax preparers for a while. They want to be the monopoly that gives out the bill and prepares your return with no reason to find extra deductions that could benefit the taxpayer and cut down the tax bill. Free tax prep by the ones who issue the bill means no accountability. It’s not free. It’s a farce and should be illegal. Free for the masses of people who are sitting ducks to be robbed in this sleasy manner.
LikeLike
Another good Gospel Coalition piece for our era in which we’re faced with so many claims and alternative “truths” :
___________________
Common Fallacies in an Age of Outrage
OCTOBER 23, 2023 | STEVE BATEMAN
~ In an online world of rampant disinformation, partisan manipulation, and systemic distrust, it’s increasingly difficult—but necessary—for Christians to follow Scripture’s injunctions to discern what’s trustworthy: “do not be deceived” (1 Cor. 6:9), “keep alert” (Eph. 6:18), “try to discern” (Eph. 5:10), “test everything” (1 Thess. 5:21), and “think” (2 Tim. 2:7).
What’s at stake?
First, the peace of the church. After four decades of pastoral ministry, I discovered that pandemics and presidential elections produce passionate opinions! Like many pastors, I received emails from church members with links to “well-researched” articles. I was encouraged to take greater or lesser stands on this or that. I was offered examples of high-profile pastors in other states who were courageous.
But these people I loved sent me articles that contradicted each other. It was logically impossible to agree with all of them. When I didn’t, some treasured friendships were strained. And many of us learned an important lesson: our unity largely depends on our ability to discern the truth.
The second thing at stake is our credibility. If we’re easily persuaded to believe falsehoods, why would unbelievers accept our claim that the gospel is true? Willful gullibility neglects our God-given responsibility to acquire the skills necessary to evaluate truth claims. This doesn’t mean we must be experts in every subject, but it does mean we practice strategic hesitation before accepting a claim as true and publicly endorsing it.
One critical skill for truth evaluation is biblical literacy. Along with our daily intake of news sources, we should be “examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things” are so (Acts 17:11). Scripture doesn’t speak directly to every headline, but when a sitting president defends same-sex marriage by saying, “Marriage is a simple proposition. Who do you love?” scriptural competence guards us from deception.
In addition to developing biblical literacy, we can ask ourselves if we’re falling for fallacies. Here are seven that are common in our public discourse.
1. ‘Hasty Conclusion’ Fallacy …
2. ‘Argument by Repetition’ Fallacy
3. ‘Ad Hominem’ Fallacy
This fallacy occurs if a debater attacks the person rather than the argument. When Jesus bested his critics in debate, they called him a demon-possessed Samaritan (John 8:48). Insults are the last resort of a man who has no argument. Politicians skilled at name-calling effectively persuade gullible voters while escaping the hard work of debating an opponent’s positions. Believing that a pastor with a record of gospel faithfulness is a “woke Marxist” just because another pastor called him that is inexcusably naive. Reputations are damaged and truth is eclipsed when believers fall for ad hominem arguments of the intellectually lazy.
4. ‘Double Standard’ Fallacy
A double standard means applying a standard differently in some cases to gain an advantage. In leadership, character matters. Church leaders must be “above reproach” before they can be entrusted with authority (1 Tim. 3:2). If they betray that trust, they should be held accountable. No leader is owed special treatment because he’s wealthy, well connected, or well known. The church must “keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality” (1 Tim. 5:21).
Similarly, when Christians are persuaded to excuse the faults of their political champions while criticizing similar faults in their political opponents, the unbelieving world will perceive inconsistency and partiality as willful gullibility. Apply the same standard equally to all.
5. ‘Suppressed Evidence’ Fallacy
This is concealing evidence unfavorable to your argument. … Christians can suppress evidence by failing to take advantage of a free press. Market competition between news sources guaranteed free by the First Amendment is a check and balance, making more facts (and fact-checking) available to truth-lovers. By selecting only sources that present “friendly facts,” we tend to confirm our bias and deceive ourselves. Further, over 80 percent of Americans get their news from a digital device—news that’s being manipulated by algorithms that trap readers in information silos. Read widely, not just deeply.
6. ‘Appeal to Celebrity’ Fallacy
Accepting a person’s claim because of his or her celebrity status, instead of the soundness of the argument … On the left, Rachel Maddow is a media celebrity with an engaging style that’s made her show a ratings success. When sued by another news organization for her on-air defamatory remarks, an appeals court dismissed the case, saying, “No reasonable viewer could conclude that Maddow implied an assertion of objective fact.” On the right, Tucker Carlson was also sued for defamation. In court, his lawyers didn’t dispute the plaintiff’s claim that Carlson presented fiction as fact. Their defense was that Carlson’s audience should be aware that “he is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal’ commentary.” The judge agreed and dismissed the case. Both celebrities are perceived by their followers to be reliable news sources, though neither seems to adhere to journalistic ethics. Both courts assume Americans are responsible for acquiring the skills necessary to evaluate truth claims. Unfortunately, all the evidence many Americans need is that Maddow or Carlson said it. …
7. ‘Appeal to Motive’ Fallacy
This is when someone dismisses a proposition by questioning the proposer’s motives. … When Christians summarily dismiss allegations against their favorite preacher or politician because the charges are made by a disgruntled former employee, a jealous denominational rival, a desperate political enemy, or a despised media source, they’ve fallen for the “appeal to motive” fallacy. Ignore the motive; investigate the message.
Reputation for Reasonableness
Only God knows the whole truth about every matter. More epistemic humility in our public assertions will serve us well, especially if even our fact-checking and critical thinking don’t lead us to the truth about the latest headline.
Paul instructed the Philippian believers to let their “reasonableness be known to everyone” (Phil. 4:5). Building a reputation of reasonableness makes us less gullible, and more persuasive, as we bear witness to the facts of the gospel.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/fallacies-age-outrage/
-dj
LikeLiked by 1 person