All Posts (31009)
Never at the top of any Democrat president’s priority list, national defense took an especially precipitous plunge during the scumbag/liar-nObama administration’s so-called “sequestration” budget pogroms. Barack scumbag/liar-nObama insisted that national security be placed on the same level as prison work-release programs, food stamps, and other Democrat “pet rocks” — every dollar cut from a “social” good had to be matched with a dollar cut from national defense. Thus, defense suffer asymmetrically deep cuts. Of course, the NDSC cited lack of funding as a primary culprit to the current crisis — but it wasn’t the only one.
The report also noted that while the U.S. has been focused on fighting smaller, counterinsurgency conflicts and combating terrorism in hot spots abroad, “our enemies have developed new ways of defeating U.S. forces.” As a result, “America is losing its advantage in key war-fighting areas such as power projection, air and missile defense, cyber and space operations, anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare, long-range ground-based fires, and electronic warfare.” Punctuating the forest-for-the-trees loss of the Big Picture suffered by upper-echelon military strategists and policymakers, the report further observed, “Many of the skills necessary to plan for and conduct military operations against capable adversaries — especially China and Russia — have atrophied.” That’s putting it mildly.
Naturally, the Left totally miscasts both the issue and the solution. Sometimes, leftist rhetoric even seeps into otherwise conservative areas. The Daily Wire’s Joseph Curl, for instance, smugly explains that “so-called ‘entitlements’ … are actually the programs that make America America.” So socialist income-redistribution programs make America America? But, we are told, “Americans are right to be wary of the U.S. war operation” that — using the magical accounting method of “a new study” from that bastion of conservative thought, the Watson Institute at Brown University — cost $6 trillion since 9/11. In other words, throwing trillions at entitlement programs is fine, but spending to defend the nation? That’s another story!
To only slightly exaggerate, it seems the study’s numbers include anything even remotely “war-related,” including Grandma’s new dentures to replace the old ones she spit out in anger after watching TV and seeing all the horrible things our military is doing over there. Seriously, though: Their accounting wasn’t even close.
But why not, then? Shouldn’t we get to tally up the costs of all the addicts, convicts, and life-drop-outs the Left has foisted on America since LBJ’s failed “Great Society”? Wouldn’t we then have an apples-to-apples comparison of the so-called “real” costs between constitutional defense spending and the social programs that have raised our operating debt to $22 trillion and our unfunded liabilities to over $200 trillion? It’s also interesting to note how the Left can so skew its worldview as to lump its social-program costs into costs actually used to maintain national security. Perhaps these defense funds should be allocated to better purposes or used more efficiently, but defense spending is just that: Spending on defense.
The Pentagon recognizes the fiscal problems associated with accounting for global military operations in the context of the modernization and sustainment needs of a strong defense force. Accordingly, using an army of 1,200 auditors, it just completed its first-ever audit. Again, leftists were drawn to attacks on the character of the U.S. military like flies to poo. For example, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) declared, “The unchecked waste, fraud and abuse at the Pentagon is an insult to the American people.” No, the insult is a Democrat Party that would rather buy votes with redistributed income than defend our nation.
That the Department of Defense was willing to conduct an introspective into getting its house in order is worthy of praise, not condemnation. Such an audit was high on President Donald Trump’s “to-do” list and the fact he was able to convince the Pentagon to do it is also worth noting.
Finally, back to the report on American military readiness. It concludes with this ominous warning: “The costs of failing to meet America’s crisis of national defense and national security will not be measured in abstract concepts like ‘international stability’ and ‘global order.’ They will be measured in American lives, American treasure, and American security and prosperity lost. It will be a tragedy — of unforeseeable but perhaps tremendous magnitude — if the United States allows its national interests and national security to be compromised through an unwillingness or inability to make hard choices and necessary investments. The tragedy will be all the more regrettable because it is in our power to avoid it.”
Translation: We had better get our act together quickly or we may not have an act to get together at all. ~The Patriot Post
Getting Harder To Be Catholic
{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ President Trump, not necessarily the White House – but rather, President Trump, releases an absolutely pitch-perfect statement... that encapsulates the myriad of interests that have sought to exploit, manipulate, leverage and utilize the murder of Jamal Kashoggi. This entirely accurate and brutally honest statement by President Trump will drive the left-wing media, specifically WaPo, NYT and CNN, absolutely bananas: The world is a very dangerous place! The country of Iran, as an example, is responsible for a bloody proxy war against Saudi Arabia in Yemen, trying to destabilize Iraq’s fragile attempt at democracy, supporting the terror group Hezbollah in Lebanon, propping up dictator Bashar Assad in Syria who has killed millions of his own citizens, and much more. Likewise, the Iranians have killed many Americans and other innocent people throughout the Middle East. Iran states openly, and with great force, “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” Iran is considered “the world’s leading sponsor of terror.” On the other hand, Saudi Arabia would gladly withdraw from Yemen if the Iranians would agree to leave. They would immediately provide desperately needed humanitarian assistance. Additionally, Saudi Arabia has agreed to spend billions of dollars in leading the fight against Radical Islamic Terrorism. After my heavily negotiated trip to Saudi Arabia last year, the Kingdom agreed to spend and invest $450 billion in the United States. This is a record amount of money. It will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, tremendous economic development, and much additional wealth for the United States. Of the $450 billion, $110 billion will be spent on the purchase of military equipment from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and many other great U.S. defense contractors. If we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries – and very happy to acquire all of this newfound business. It would be a wonderful gift to them directly from the United States!...
by sundance{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ President Trump’s statement on Saudi Arabia is one of the most forthright explanations of foreign policy by a US President, ever... No obfuscation; no convoluted parseltongue; just plainly spoken brutal honesty. The Saudis may do bad things but they are better than their enemies, and our alliance with them is in our national interest. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivers a similar statement in his media press briefing today.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/11/20/secretary-of-state-mike-pompeo-holds-press-briefing-answers-questions-on-kashoggi-determinations/VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag4AR4l2bEk
.
{meforum.org} ~US President Donald Trump has nominated John Abizaid as ambassador to Saudi Arabia... The retired general has opposed the Iranian nuclear program but also urged Israeli restraint in confronting it. As an observer for the UN in 1985, Abizaid saw some of Hezbollah’s first terrorist attacks, and has spoken about the threat of terrorism in the region. His nomination comes at a crucial juncture for US-Saudi relations and also Riyadh’s role in the region. Abizaid will fill a spot that has been open for several years. A former US Central Command commander, Abizaid has a long background in the Middle East and its wars. Abizaid is of Lebanese descent and a fluent Arabic speaker. Retiring from the US military in 2007, he was the longest serving commander of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) at a time when the US was embroiled in a variety of wars in the region. This gives him an unprecedented view into the current US role, including the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, areas that Saudi Arabia also has an interest in. However, much has changed in the last decade, and Abizaid is coming to Riyadh at a unique time. He has viewed Iran’s nuclear program as a danger to the region, but also said in 2007 that the US could learn to “live with a nuclear Iran.” In comments to the Center for Strategic and International Studies that year, he noted that the US had learned to deal with a nuclear China and Russia...
{fdd.org} ~ Austria’s refusal to play host to a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) payment system that would circumvent U.S. sanctions... is the latest in a series of setbacks for EU states struggling to save the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. EU members appear to understand that playing host to the SPV increases their potential for exposure to U.S. secondary sanctions. Since the U.S. left the Iran nuclear deal in May, the EU has been scrambling to find creative ways to incentivize Iran to continue adhering to the accord. While EU leaders desired to have the SPV established by November, devising a sanctions-proof channel to clear trade and engage in bartering with Iran was much harder than anticipated. The value of the proposed European SPV is more symbolic than economic. EU leaders remain committed to sovereignty over their trade and security policies, yet there are three main impediments to the plan’s success: The power and reach of U.S. secondary sanctions. Risk aversion of banks and businesses toward an essentially illicit finance vehicle many European and multinational firms have already withdrawn from the Iranian market. The challenges of establishing a payment system that avoids the U.S. financial system altogether... https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2018/11/19/eu-still-struggling-with-payment-system-to-bypass-iran-sanctions/
Getting Harder To Be Catholic
![]() |
| Cardinal DiNardo |
![]() |
| Written under Henry Sire's pen name |
Humiliated by this action from The Dictator Pope (the title of Henry Sire’s devastating book on Pope Francis I just finished reading), Cardinal DiNardo moderated a debate over an obsequious motion that would only suggest the pope do these things. Unbelievably, even that vote failed 137-83. That means there are still 137 American bishops who think they can just drift along as they always have and ordinary Catholics in the pews will sit back and let them.
Does that mean nearly a quarter of US Bishops believe Pope Francis should resign? Do they also believe many of their fellow bishops and cardinals are lying? It appears that way. What does this say about the spiritual condition of the Catholic Church in the United States and around the world? Locally, Maine’s Bishop Robert Deeley and Manchester, New Hampshire’s Bishop Peter Libaski were among the 83 voting for an investigation, but sadly, neither voted in support of the Vigano testimony.
My wife and I attend mass at several different parishes depending on where we are on any given Sunday. Given the performance at last week’s bishops’ conference in Baltimore, I’m not inclined to raise my contribution anywhere in New England. Instead of money, some Catholics have begun putting a signed note in the box protesting both the pope and the USCCB. Maybe that will shake things up enough for real reform. Nothing else has worked.
by Anna Giaritelli
by Michael Cutler
by Daniel Greenfield
by J.E. Dyer
When challenged that this was the first step toward total confiscation, Swalwell insisted, “Wrong. Just assault weapons. Keep rifles, shotguns, pistols. Basically, the weapons that allow you to hunt, shoot for sport, and protect your house.” By the Left’s definition, “assault weapons” include many semiautomatic rifles. And as with nearly all Democrats these days, Swalwell reduces the Second Amendment to nothing more than hunting and home protection. Why the Founders went to such great lengths to codify a right to hunt alongside such essential liberties as free speech, religious liberty, and due process is never explained.
One of his critics fired back, “So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get.” Swalwell responded, “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes.”
That’s right — Swalwell suggested that if you don’t comply with a “voluntary” gun buyback, the government will nuke you. “Trust the government. But also, we’ll nuke you if you resist.”
Memo to Eric: The first shots of the first American Revolution were fired when the British government attempted to seize arms in Concord, Massachusetts. And that IS the reason the Second Amendment was written into our Constitution — to guarantee the citizens’ right to defend against government tyranny. Nevertheless, Swalwell insists, “You claiming you need a gun to protect yourself against the government is ludicrous.” Says the guy who threatened to nuke American citizens.
For the record, Swalwell is assuming our military would wage a war against the American people at his bidding. Think again. The first hill they will take if so ordered will be Capitol Hill. ~The Patriot Post
{restoreamericanglory.com} ~ A week after President Trump relieved Attorney General Jeff Sessions of his duties, he had the dirty cop-Mueller investigation in his sights on social media... blasting the inquiry as having “gone absolutely nuts” in the year and a half since its creation. “The inner workings of the dirty cop-Mueller investigation are a total mess,” the president wrote on Thursday. “They have found no collusion and have gone absolutely nuts. They are screaming and shouting at people, horribly threatening them to come up with the answers they want. They are a disgrace to our Nation and don’t care how many lives they ruin.” Trump followed that up with a second tweet focusing specifically on the special counsel himself. “These are Angry People, including the highly conflicted dirty cop-Bob Mueller, who worked for scumbag/liar-nObama for 8 years. They won’t even look at all of the bad acts and crimes on the other side,” he said. “A TOTAL WITCH HUNT LIKE NO OTHER IN AMERICAN HISTORY!” It’s not clear what inspired Trump’s latest broadside attack on the special counsel; it has been several weeks since the president last mentioned the witch hunt on social media. One possible culprit: Trump has reportedly been working with his lawyers on completing a list of written questions from dirty cop-Mueller. It’s possible that simply going over the questions riled his anger over what seems to be an unending investigation into his 2016 campaign...
Get ready to watch one of the most heart-wrenching pro-life ad campaigns you’ve ever seen.
It’s called “Endangered Syndrome,” and in it, children with Down syndrome dress up as endangered species—pandas, polar bears, and lions. Why?
Because like endangered animals, in many parts of the world, children with Down syndrome are becoming critically endangered, if not extinct. The point is simple—if we care so much about endangered animals, shouldn’t we also care about endangered humans, too?
In the U.S., at least 67 percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. In the U.K., that number is closer to 90 percent. In Denmark, it’s 98 percent.
In Iceland, the prospect of people with Down syndrome becoming extinct is not hypothetical. From 2004 to 2013, fewer than four babies with the disorder were born each year, according to the campaign. The abortion rate there for babies with Down syndrome is effectively 100 percent.
In 2017, CBS News infamously broadcasted a news report asking: “Is Iceland on track to eliminate Down syndrome?” The problem was, Iceland wasn’t eliminating Down syndrome; it was eliminating anyone who has it. ~The Patriot Post
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIYPwP5Nec4
https://patriotpost.us/articles/59535?mailing_id=3880&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3880&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=bodyby Nate Jackson: Nearly two weeks after Election Day, Democrats Stacey Abrams and socialist-Andrew Gillum conceded (socialist-Gillum for the second time after reneging) their respective races for governor, and Sen. scumbag-Bill Nelson has given in to mathematical reality in the Florida Senate race. Despite recounts (including by hand in the Senate contest), lawsuits, judicial activism, a serially corrupt Democrat election official in Broward County, and nonstop Leftmedia hoopla, all three Democrats failed in their attempts to steal election victories. But they did succeed in one critical goal: subverting election integrity in the minds of their constituents.
As we said Friday, Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election have nothing on Democrat schemes to undermine election integrity.
Clearly, Florida has some work to do to shore up election laws. But Georgia may be the more troublesome state. Abrams rose to prominence by running massive voter registration drives in order to flood Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s office with perhaps fraudulent registrations, only to cry racism when Kemp, who also happened to be her gubernatorial opponent, worked to sort it out.
That narrative is so key to her entire campaign that she isn’t going to let it go in defeat. She’s launching a political action committee called Fair Fight Georgia, which she will use to wage a legal battle. “Let’s be clear: This is not a speech of concession,” Abrams said. “In the coming days, we will be filing a major federal lawsuit against the state of Georgia for the gross mismanagement of this election and to protect future elections from unconstitutional actions.”
In her speech announcing she wouldn’t actually concede but rather found “no further viable remedy,” Abrams also expounded her narrative: “Trust in our democracy relies on believing that there are good actors who are making this happen. And [Brian Kemp] was a horrible actor who benefited from his perfidy. That’s problematic. … Will I say this election was not tainted, was not a disinvestment and a disenfranchisement of thousands of voters? I will not say that.” Abrams admonished her supporters not to give up just because the process was “as rotten and rigged as you’ve always believed.”
Furthermore, the abortion-supporting Abrams added, “Something being legal does not make it right.”
Georgia voters best prepare for future election cycles to replay this manufactured grievance, as Democrats work to rally their urban Atlanta base with fairy tales of voter suppression in hopes of turning the Peach State blue.
P.S. Remember when Democrats lambasted Donald Trump for musing that he might not accept the 2016 election results if scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton’s corruption and voter fraud won the day? Those same Democrats went on to create a two-year narrative of “Russian collusion” to undermine Trump’s victory. They’re using that playbook again in Georgia. “If [Abrams] had a fair election, she … would have won,” scumbag/liar-Clinton declared. As usual, scumbag/liar-Clinton’s account of What Happened isn’t exactly reliable. ~The Patriot Post
{foxnews.com} ~ Three Democratic senators on Monday filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of President Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker... as acting attorney general. Trump appointed to Whitaker to lead the Justice Department after Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced out of the role earlier this month. The senators who filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia are Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono. All three released fiery statements Monday. “Installing Matthew Whitaker so flagrantly defies constitutional law that any viewer of School House Rock would recognize it. Americans prize a system of checks and balances, which President Trump’s dictatorial appointment betrays,” Blumenthal said. "The stakes are too high to allow the president to install an unconfirmed lackey to lead the Department of Justice – a lackey whose stated purpose, apparently, is undermining a major investigation into the president,” Whitehouse said.lex Pappas... This is really getting out of hand. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democratic-senators-sue-to-block-appointment-of-matthew-whitaker-as-acting-attorney-general
by David Limbaugh
{townhall.com} ~ The Democratic Party's emerging radical bloc is alarming, but the leftist group's youthful intemperance could backfire and re-energize Republicans' 2020 electoral prospects.
Even before all the hanging chads and miraculously divined ballots have been examined in Florida, newly elected leftist commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is already engaging in activism in the halls of Congress. On Tuesday morning, the future representative from New York joined a protest organized by the Sunrise Movement outside the offices of Democratic leader sick-Nancy Pulosi to demand immediate action on climate change -- as if the dinosaur wing of the Democratic Party weren't sufficiently extremist on environmental issues.
commie-Ocasio-Cortez, who validates the maxim "youth is wasted on the young," is part of the Justice Democrats, which promoted leftist challengers during the 2018 Democratic primary cycle. The Sunrise Movement is demanding House support of a "Green New Deal," which contemplates forming a committee to write policies aimed at creating jobs by moving the nation off fossil fuels -- as counterintuitive as that may strike you.
Waleed Shahid, the Justice Democrats' communications director, insists that the Democratic Party's leadership must get serious about the climate and the economy. "Anything less is tantamount to denying the reality of climate change," said Shahid. "The hopeful part is that we're ushering in a new generation of leaders into the Democratic Party who understand the urgency and will help build a movement to create the political will for bold action." Yes, they must get moving before any more of scumbag-Al Gore's hysterical doomsday predictions fail.
The adage "with age comes wisdom" is biblically based and objectively observable -- except, perhaps, in the case of sick-Pulosi and her old-guard Democrats. They have invited all types of radicals into their coalition, so they can hardly complain when the fruit of their poisonous tree begins to blossom. Accordingly, sick-Pulosi pretended to support this presumptuous upstart's mini-rebellion.
"We are inspired by the energy and activism of the many young activists and advocates leading the way on the climate crisis, which threatens the health, economic security and futures of all our communities," said sick-Pulosi. "I have recommended to my House Democratic colleagues that we reinstate a select committee to address the climate crisis. ... We welcome the presence of these activists, and we strongly urge the Capitol Police to allow them to continue to organize and participate in our democracy."
Her groveling wasn't enough to pacify the implacable Justice Democrats, who tweeted: "Our response: Not good enough. sick-Pulosi is reinstating a 2007 committee tasked with investigating the harms of climate change. We don't need more investigation. We need specific plans matching the urgency and scale mandated by the UN's IPCC report on catastrophic climate change."
The good thing about cliches is that, usually based on human experience, they're often true. So, the current plight of the sick-Pulosi Democrats is that they have made their bed and now have to lie in it. For the next two years, they're going to be lying in the same bed as the rebels -- a bed that has two left sides.
The Democrats have lived by the sword of radicalism, embracing every last crazy idea of the extreme left and incorporating it into their agenda, and may they electorally die by that sword in 2020.
Democrats used to tack to the center during general election season, knowing America has been a center-right nation. But since scumbag/liar-nObama's presidency, they've begun playing their left hand more openly. In the bluest of areas, they can afford to reveal their outright socialism, which explains commie-Ocasio-Cortez's unapologetically socialist campaign message. In other venues, such as Arizona, their radicals have to feign centrism, which explains socialist-Kyrsten Sinema's chameleonic transformation to would-be centrist.
The developing schism in the Democratic Party is a positive sign for Republicans, who should greatly benefit from Democratic fissures, especially if they lead to the Democratic Party's moving even further to the left and exposing its radicalism.
Though the electoral demographics seem to be shifting leftward -- and though our public schools, universities and dominant media culture are indoctrinating more Americans every day -- it's unlikely the majority of the country will be comfortable with leftist extremism as soon as 2020.
But this is hardly something Republicans can rejoice over, because until they get their own act together, they won't be able to properly capitalize on intramural conflict among Democrats. But from my perspective, anything that awakens a complacent America to the existential dangers posed by the radical left, which increasingly controls the Democratic Party, represents cause for hope and optimism.
Be sure to Click LIKE at the bottom of this article, and share it everywhere!!
By Craig Andresen – Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio
Oh boy…Thanksgiving…according to most liberals, the most politically incorrect holiday
between Columbus Day and Christmas.
The first Thanksgiving was celebrated in 1621 at Plymouth Colony by the Pilgrims…that much pretty much everybody knows, but there’s a lot about that first celebration that nobody knows because only two accounts of it were ever written down.
Therefore, it falls to me to provide a bit of a history lesson which I am more than happy to undertake, so let’s get started with what little we actually know about that very first Thanksgiving…
To begin with…
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
{townhall.com} ~ Last week's surprise forced resignation of Jeff Sessions as attorney general of the United States set in motion a series of events that will soon resonate in all corners of the Department of Justice.
President Donald Trump has been steamed at Sessions ever since Sessions removed himself from supervision over the DOJ's investigation into whether a conspiracy existed between Russian agents and the Trump campaign in 2016 for the Russians to provide assistance to the campaign -- a felony.
Sessions' recusal was perfectly rational and ethically required; he had been a high-ranking official in the campaign and would probably be interviewed as a witness in the investigation. Because ethics rules prohibit DOJ officials from being witnesses in cases that they supervise, Sessions passed the case to his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, who promptly appointed former FBI Director dirty cop-Robert Mueller as special counsel to head the investigation.
When the special counsel began flexing his prosecutorial muscles a little too close to Trump Tower and the Oval Office for Trump's comfort, Trump's blood pressure rose, and he asked Sessions to sign and deliver an undated letter of resignation, which Sessions did. On Nov. 7, the day after the midterm elections delivered the House of Representatives comfortably to the Democrats, Trump released the still-undated letter, and Sessions was out of a job.
Then Trump began another legal firestorm by naming Sessions' chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker, acting attorney general. He did this even though the federal statutes governing succession in the DOJ state that upon a vacancy in the office of attorney general, the deputy attorney general -- in this case, the same Rod Rosenstein -- shall become the acting attorney general.
In bypassing Rosenstein for Whitaker, Trump has added to the woes he will face when the Democrats take control of the House in early January. That's because of lingering and now public doubts about Whitaker's professional qualifications for office and clear statutory language that makes him legally ineligible to be acting attorney general.
Here is the back story.
Every federal executive department, from Defense to Treasury to Justice, has a principal officer -- usually called the secretary but called the attorney general for Justice -- and a deputy. Neither position can be occupied without a presidential appointment and a Senate confirmation.
The main purpose of the deputy is to be ready to fill in for the principal when that office becomes vacant. Congress created the office of deputy attorney general for the express purpose of having a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed person in the wings should the attorney general's office fall vacant. On Nov. 7, the office fell vacant.
Should the president wish to bypass the deputy attorney general, he may do so, but he may only designate a person who already occupies a DOJ position that is presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed. Whitaker, Sessions' former chief of staff, was not in a presidentially appointed or Senate-confirmed job at the time Trump named him acting attorney general.
Whoever runs the DOJ has such vast power over its 90,000 employees, including the FBI -- not to mention that he or she is seventh in the presidential line of succession and has the unchecked power to commence criminal investigations, seek and obtain indictments, and terminate criminal investigations already begun -- that Congress passed statutes to ensure that no one could hold that job who has not been scrutinized by the rigors of Senate confirmation.
In Whitaker's case, that scrutiny -- if it were to happen -- would show a person whose legal thinking is so far outside the mainstream as to create material doubt about his professional qualifications. He recently offered public comments questioning the equality of the three branches of the federal government and challenging the constitutional power of the courts to engage in judicial review.
By saying the courts "are supposed to be the inferior branch" of the government, he has denied a fundamental principle of the Constitution -- a truism, if you will -- namely, that all three branches Congress, the president and the judiciary are coequal. And by questioning the power of the courts to review and void the unconstitutional behavior of Congress, the president and state and local governments, Whitaker has revealed an attraction to legal thinking that is profoundly at odds with 215 years of consistent American jurisprudence.
This is why you should care about who runs the Department of Justice. This is why the Constitution and federal law require that whoever is picked to run the DOJ be confirmed by the Senate. Because the Senate confirmation process is so rigorous, it exposes legal thinking on the part of the nominee, and if that thinking is at odds with basic American legal principles, the process gives senators the opportunity to challenge it.
Without the constitutionally and statutorily required Senate confirmation, a president could put any political hack he likes in charge of the DOJ and the FBI -- and thus all federal prosecutions and criminal investigations -- wreaking havoc on the rule of law.
Add to this, Whitaker will supervise the special counsel, whose current job is to investigate the president for potential criminal wrongdoing or impeachable offenses. It is contrary to the rule of law that the subject of a criminal investigation -- which Donald Trump currently is -- could select his own prosecutor.
The whole purpose of the rules and procedures of the special counsel is to keep that office insulated from the political process, immune from the political power of the people the office is investigating, and substantially within the professional judgment of politically independent prosecutors at the DOJ.
Litigation has been filed to remove Whitaker from the office he claims to hold. The courts have not done this before. The president should save them from this unpleasant but necessary task. Once Whitaker is removed, all of his official work will be void. Try putting that toothpaste back into its tube.
{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ Outgoing and retiring Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte... appears on Fox and Friends weekend to discuss the status of investigations into the DOJ and FBI corruption. Goodlatte notes the reason for former FBI Director scumbag-James Comey to refuse to testify to a closed session, and also outlines how the joint House Oversight and Judicary committee will turn over their investigative material to the Senate Oversight Ron Johnson and Senate Judiciary likely Lindsey Graham committees.
by Wesley Pruden
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ Americans are an impatient lot. Given a choice between corrupt and incompetent, we're likely to choose corrupt. But corrupt-and-incompetent is rarely a popular combination.
That was how the colorful and often corrupt machine bosses of the 20th century survived and prospered. It's a long list — Frank Hague in Jersey City, Ed Crump in Memphis, Thomas Michael Curley in Boston, Tom Pendergast in Kansas City, Tammany Hall in New York, Huey Long in Louisiana. Alas, we often don't get to choose.
The bosses survived because their fiefdoms worked. The garbage got picked up, the waterworks worked, the streets got paved, the sewers got laid, the poor usually got a turkey for Christmas, somebody remembered the orphans. Nobody minded much if an alderman or two prospered on his own. Even a mayor has to eat, and if he eats higher on the hog than he ought to, well, as long as it wasn't too high, who was going to say?
You might think that Brenda Snipes, who presides over the elections in Broward County, Florida, has a sugar daddy somewhere in the shadows. Florida can't seem to elect anyone without making a federal case of it, and this year it has not one but two federal cases, one to elect a new U.S. senator and one to elect a governor. Mzz Snipes is up to her ears in evidence in both of races.
The problem is that Florida is awash in votes, found and counted for delivery just when the Democrats need them. And when the Democrats need them, Broward County is the place to go to get them. Mzz Snipes apparently has so many votes, presumably Democratic votes, she doesn't know where to put them. One box was found stashed away in a storage room at an elementary school, and it was not even show-and-tell day. Another box was found in the trunk of a car at the Fort Lauderdale airport.
Mzz Snipes is by all accounts both corrupt and incompetent. This has made her nationally infamous. Jeb Bush, the former governor who appointed her, now wants to get rid of her.
But after she was appointed by him to succeed another corrupt supervisor, she won re-election four times. "There is no question that Brenda Snipes as the Broward County Supervisor of Elections failed to comply with Florida law on multiple counts," Mr. Bush says, "undermining Floridians' confidence in our electoral process. Supervisor Snipes should be removed from office following the recounts."
Mzz Snipes has a high opinion of herself, and operates more like Ed Crump or Boss Hague than a mere governor or mayor. She was ordered last week by Gov. Rick Scott to report all voting results on election day, as required by state law. She refused. When a judge duly ordered her to obey the governor, she refused to obey the judge, too.
Jeb Bush is entitled to revise the old folk wisdom, from once bitten twice shy; he has been bitten twice and he's likely to be shy for the rest of his life. He appointed Mzz Snipes to replace a supervisor, Miriam Oliphant, whom he had earlier appointed. She violated election law by destroying paper ballots after 12 months instead of the legally mandated 22 months. She posted some election results even before the polls closed. That's a no-no nearly everywhere.
Voting machines were supposed to make stealing an election foolproof. But a machine a man can make can be trifled with by another man. "Show me a voting machine and I can make it play 'Home on the Range,'" the late, great Earl Long, the once permanent governor of "the great 'stet' of Louisiana," famously said. And he probably could, too.
Getting voters to the polls has always been only half the battle. The other half is getting an honest count of the vote. Even when there is no evidence of rank incompetence, an honest count is necessary to make the system work they way it's intended to work. Big-city bosses have mostly gone away, leaving us all at the mercy of incompetents.
Unlike her predecessor, who was marched out of office without ceremony after she was suspended for "grave neglect, mismanagement and incompetence," Mzz Snipes appears to rely on both corruption and incompetence to get the job undone. The Miami Herald reported that an election worker found several bags of "uncounted early ballots" in the Broward County office.
Nobody could be sure where the uncounted bags came from, or where they were supposed to go. Mzz Snipes, meanwhile, mixed rejected and accepted provisional ballots all together. It's all the same. No favorites played here. We're all democrats.
Administration officials noted that the cable news network has more than 50 other journalists credentialed to cover the White House, adding that “no journalist has a First Amendment right to enter the White House.” Lawyers for the White House further argued, “The president is generally free to open the White House doors to political allies, in the hopes of furthering a particular agenda, and he is equally free to invite in only political foes, in the hopes of convincing them of his position. The First Amendment simply does not regulate these decisions. And the First Amendment does not impose stricter requirements when journalists, as a subset of the public, are granted or denied access to the White House.”
Once again, scumbag-Acosta and CNN have become the news rather than reporting the news. This is not how journalism is supposed to be done, and many Americans know it. A recent poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates found that 48% of voters found the mainstream media’s coverage of Trump to be “unfair, biased and disrespectful.” Jim McLaughlin noted, “Earlier in the year we found 77 percent can’t believe everything in the media. Only 14 percent did. So the partisan division has really hurt the media’s credibility and they may not recover from it without a major change in tone and substance.” He added, “The average American is much smarter than the media elites. … The American people have figured out that all too often what is supposed to be news, is just simply liberal opinion masquerading as so called journalism. President Trump continues to expose the bias in the media on a daily basis.”
A separate poll from YouGov found that 59% sided with the White House in its decision to revoke scumbag-Acosta’s press pass. Even former CNN host Larry King criticized his old employer for not being a “news network.” He showed little love for scumbag-Acosta, either: “To me, you know what this was? Eighth grade. It was the playground, ‘That’s my ball and I wanna play today on the team.’ It was childish. … It isn’t about you [scumbag-Acosta], it’s about him [Trump].”
Not long ago, our nation gave serious consideration to such issues. Both Republicans and even some Democrats warned about a society in moral decay.
Politico’s Tim Alberta writes, “From the 1960s through the turn of the century, pornography played a dominant role in the American political argument — its morality and legality, its restrictions and regulations, its implications and unintended consequences.”
Yet despite these efforts, and after President Ronald Reagan assembled a Presidential Commission on Pornography in 1985 to warn that the pornography industry’s “days are numbered,” the movement seems to have lost its punch. Politicians and even religious leaders are now reluctant to open up the discussion.
Certainly, the fight isn’t completely over. In 2015, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation hosted an anti-porn summit on Capitol Hill. The following year, Utah state senator Todd Weiler introduced a resolution calling pornography a “public health crisis,” and since that time, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas, Florida, and Kansas have introduced similar measures. Moreover, the Republican Party added to its 2016 platform the statement that “pornography has become a public health crisis that is destroying the lives of millions.”
Weiler, according to Alberta, “says American culture is past the point of no return when it comes to porn, and explains that he sponsored the measure for one reason — to start a conversation about protecting minors.” Weiler himself adds, “People sell all kinds of things on the Internet, but they don’t sell them to 15-year-olds because they would get in trouble — gun manufacturers, vaping companies, alcohol distributors. That’s not the case with porn websites.”
On the other hand, pro-pornography libertarian Elizabeth Nolan Brown writes at Reason, “Plenty of porn-adjacent panics have sprung up since the 1990s as well, and plenty of political effort has gone into fighting them. So, yes, we might have fewer federal obscenity prosecutions, but we also have many more federal sex crimes on the books overall and no shortage of activity on their behalf. Since 2000, we’ve seen an ever-escalating federal war on prostitution, all sorts of panic (and prosecutions) over teen sexting, and dozens of bills introduced (in Congress and statehouses) to revenge porn and sextortion.”
But the debate should be about more than merely stopping teens from sexting one another. American minds are inundated with pornography and experts in many fields of science and psychology know the damage that exposure can cause to our families and children. This includes increased stress on married couples that can lead to separation, divorce, or infidelity; a higher likelihood that a person may become addicted to porn; the degradation of women; the belief that emotion and commitment aren’t necessary in a relationship; an assumption that pornographic scenes are commonplace and acceptable; and a higher propensity to engage in casual sex that leads to sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
In 1996, Judge Robert Bork wrote a New York Times bestseller titled Slouching Toward Gomorrah in which he cautioned about the moral decline of our civilization. He was harshly criticized for suggesting that censorship of violence and graphic sex might have to be considered in the future to prevent irreversible moral decline. Today, many of his fears have come to fruition.
While censorship may not be the answer, we do need to rekindle a national discussion about morality. And we need to find ways to reverse the “anything goes” mentality and the moral relativism that has become the shameful norm in American society.
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/59522?mailing_id=3873&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3873&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=bodyby Marc A. Thiessen
{foxnews.com} ~ Florida’s long-time Democratic Sen. scumbag-Bill Nelson conceded Sunday to Republican challenger Rick Scott... in the hotly contested race to become the next U.S. senator to represent the Sunshine State. Scott was leading scumbag-Nelson by 10,000 votes in the race to become the next U.S. senator to represent Florida, official results showed Sunday. scumbag-Nelson, who served three terms in the U.S. Senate, met his match in Gov. Rick Scott. The victory will be Scott’s third close statewide win in less than a decade. The victory also marks the first time in more than a century that the Sunshine State has two Republican senators representing them in Washington. The state is scheduled to certify results in the race on Nov. 20. Election Day results showed scumbag-Nelson trailing Scott by more than 56,000 votes. Scott’s lead narrowed to 12,603 votes after a statewide machine recount. The new numbers triggered an automatic hand recount under Florida law. It’s unclear what scumbag-Nelson’s plans will be post-race. The 76-year-old was first elected to office in a state House district near Cape Canaveral in 1972. He’s served three terms in the Florida House, six terms in Congress and was Florida’s insurance commissioner after Hurricane Andrew swept the Miami area...
{economics21.org} ~ The overarching message of “The Opportunity Cost of Socialism”—a study recently released by the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)... is that the advocacy of socialism cannot reasonably be based on policy preferences; its attraction has always been grounded in a combination of wishful thinking and ignorance. For example, the new CEA study shows that the socialist approach to “single payer” health care advocated by many on the left would cost much more and deliver much less, resulting in the significant worsening of mortality and morbidity, not just higher taxes and reduced economic growth. One prominent opinion page editor described the CEA study’s conclusions to me as too obvious to warrant mention. That reaction reflects the problem the study seeks to remedy. Obvious facts about socialism are not discussed enough. Few people are willing to read 50-page studies like the CEA’s, and there has been very little media coverage of it—journalists or politicians who could summarize the CEA findings haven’t seen sufficient reason to do so or may themselves be among the uninformed advocates of socialism. That is too bad because the ignorant advocacy of socialism is currently a significant threat to our democracy. Socialism has existed in many forms which lie on a continuum, from the central planning nightmare of the USSR, to the Scandinavian democratic experiments of several decades ago. The idea that unites the various embodiments of socialism along that continuum is that economic freedom is counterproductive to the aspirations of humanity. It would be far better and fairer, socialists argue, for the state to distribute scarce resources rather than letting the market allocate goods and services by itself. Socialism seeks control of economic decisions, either through central planning or through expropriative taxation and regulation, in the interest of the common man. Socialism’s appeal has always been its false promise to create wealth better than capitalism can. Advocates of socialism promise great economic achievements, which they argue are worth the price of reduced individual economic liberty. It is worth remembering that Karl Marx regarded socialism as an economic necessity that would emerge out of the ashes of capitalism precisely because capitalism would fail to sustain wealth creation. Marx made many specific, and erroneous, predictions about capitalism, including its declining profitability and rising unemployment... https://economics21.org/socialism-opiate-corrupt-and-ignorant-calomiris/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=theinsider&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTkRZek5tUXhaV05pWmpnMyIsInQiOiJ0Qjd6cE5WREZyUU80SWxcLzdhcEhacUx1Vmk0cW5CZzF6dXBzUHZ4MjhNZE1wYndnQ3VQNk9rVjF0RzVURE5sdWIxQStlV25zUlR5eWJHZ3BNV2w1endHM1pKNjdpVmlhREg3dU84NFVFVU5pODJ1NWtiRnNrOUdsSnpoMytaaTMifQ%3D%3D
by Marc A. Thiessen
Republican Gov. Rick Scott leads Democratic Sen. scumbag-Bill Nelson by 12,562 votes in the Florida Senate race. A margin of victory that large has never be overturned in a recount. According to FairVote, the average vote shift in statewide general election recounts is a meager 282 votes. “The biggest swing came in Florida’s 2000 presidential election recount, when scumbag-Al Gore cut 1,247 votes off George W. Bush’s lead, ultimately not enough to flip the state to his column,” according to a FiveThirtyEight report on what FairVote found.
So even if Nelson were to swing 10 times as many votes in this recount as Gore did in 2000, he would still come up short. Democrats know that recounting the existing votes is unlikely to change the result. So Democrats have filed a series of lawsuits asking courts to change Florida elections laws after the fact. The result would be that they can count ineligible votes in the hope that these will provide the margin necessary to overcome Scott’s lead. For example, Florida statute mandates that, with the exception of overseas and military voters, vote-by-mail ballots are counted only if they are “received by the supervisor of elections not later than 7 p.m. on the day of the election.” But scumbag-Nelson has sued demanding that mail ballots that arrived after the 7 p.m. deadline to be counted as part of the recount.
Similarly, Florida law says mail and provisional ballots are counted only if the signatures on them match the signatures that elections offices have on record. If there is a signature mismatch, the voter is notified and can “complete and submit an affidavit in order to cure the vote-by-mail ballot until 5 p.m. on the day before the election” (emphasis added). But Democrats are asking a judge to throw that law out and count ballots with signatures that don’t match the voter signature on file.
Federal prosecutors are investigating charges that Florida Democratic Party officials urged voters to fix their ballots after Election Day, including evidence that they changed official state election documents to indicate that ballots could be returned after the polls had closed. Initial reports indicated this was limited to a handful of counties, but a new report in the Naples Daily News has uncovered emails showing that “Florida Democrats were organizing a broader statewide effort beyond those counties to give voters the altered forms” with the goal to “fix and submit as many absentee ballots as possible with the altered forms in hopes of later including them in vote totals if a judge ruled such ballots were allowed.”
Florida law also instructs the Department of State to “adopt specific rules … prescribing what constitutes a ‘clear indication on the ballot that the voter has made a definite choice.’” The Department of State has done so, providing clear standards for determining whether a voter intended to vote for a particular candidate. Now Democratic lawyers are asking a judge to order Florida to ignore this intent standard when reviewing “under votes,” so they can add ballots that do not qualify under Florida law.
While national Democrats sue in the courts to change election law after the election, local Democratic officials running the recount are accused of engaging in serious irregularities. According to the Tampa Bay Times, Democrat-leaning Broward County submitted vote totals that include ballots disqualified by the canvassing board, while Palm Beach was rebuked by a judge after it duplicated 650 ballots without submitting them to canvassing board.
There is also evidence that officials in Democrat-leaning Broward Country have been dragging their feet in carrying out the recount. Miami-Dade — the most populous county in the state — was halfway done with its entire recount by Monday morning and easily met the 3 p.m. Thursday deadline required by law. But by Monday evening, Broward County had not yet started its recount. And on Thursday, Palm Beach failed to meet the legal deadline.
These counties’ problems could have many different possible causes, including incompetence, or fraud, or both. But it’s fair to ask whether these Democratic counties are intentionally slow rolling the recount to delay final election results in the hopes that Democratic lawsuits will work and that a judge will allow them to count ineligible votes in violation of state law. As Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., explained, “That isn’t a strategy to win an election, that is a strategy to steal an election.”
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/59513?mailing_id=3873&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3873&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=bodyCelebrity Author Barry Donadio now working on releasing his second book in 2019 (photo by Matthew Abbott)
Barry Donadio is in the process of publishing his 2nd book in 2019. Keep your eyes on Donadio tries his hand at a fiction book this time around.
Barry Donadio gained fame when he published his book “TWA Flight 800 First Responder Witness Account” in September of 2013. Since then, he has been busy by entering politics and leading his private security and investigation firm. He has also sanctioned himself as an advocate for Miliatry Veterans and he is vocal with his support of the second amendment. He has recently focused on supporting the national pride of the United States of America and bringing all Americans together.
Donadio’s new book “That Day When Hell Froze Over” is a fiction that takes place over a thousand years ago in present day Afghanistan. It is a mystical story of warfare of that time with interesting characters. An elite force of Catholic Knights that are separate from the Knights Templar. They are ordered by the Pope to drive deep into enemy territory as far as modern day Iran. The Knights were the best trained and most disipline that the Vatican had. The Knights encounter many dangers along their expedition, the most dangerous group they encounter is a small group of female virgins from the region of Afghanistan. The Knights are forced to battle the dammed of Hell, including Satan himself. After some setbacks in battle against some of Satan’s demons, the Angel Gabriel appears and arms the Knights with modern weapons and the knowledge to use them. Satan becomes concern as his demons begin to fall in numbers.
Donadio plans to self publish his new book in the form of an ebook and paperback through is firm Public Security LLC. The book is expected to be released by the end of 2019, but it is likely that it will be released sooner. It will be able to be purchased on Amazon.
“That Day When Hell Froze Over”, has been assigned ISBN: 9781731512833
Keep updated by visiting Barry Donadio’s official website Barry Donadio’s Facebook page or his official Twitter page
#barrydonadio #donadio #book #thatdaywhenhellfrozeover #publicsecurityllc #amazon #catholic #knights #ebooks #2019 #newbooks
It’s an issue where thoughtful conservatives have long favored necessary reforms, but one that our previous president addressed by, for example, using his pen and his phone to commute the prison terms of 46 drug offenders. Unfortunately, Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s proposals muddied the waters by pulling in unrelated issues such as pre-K schooling and the restoration of voting rights for felons.
But thanks to a softening of public perception on crime, these reforms aren’t the “third rail” they once were. A simpler approach to prison reform, such as that advocated in a 2016 report by the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections, focuses more on rehabilitation and incentives to reduce a prison sentence through cooperative and contrite actions. But it must be combined with sentencing reform, lest the effects of good behavior be thwarted because a federal judge is forced to restore a draconian sentence, such as the Matthew Charles case we documented earlier this year.
In a bitter irony, it was about the time Matthew Charles was re-sentenced that the House passed the First Step Act by a bipartisan 360-59 vote. But as Reason’s C.J. Ciaramella wrote at the time, the bill was only half a loaf: “Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Republican point man on criminal justice reform, [said] the bill is dead in the water unless it includes major reforms to federal sentencing law as well.”
Fortunately, the Senate had a complementary sentencing reform bill already in the process, and over the interceding few months a deal was reached that includes these sentencing reforms in First Step. This revised proposal is a bill that President Donald Trump has already vowed to sign, and in the waning days of the 114th Congress he’s called on First Step to become a priority item. “So far, seven major police organizations, more than 2,700 faith and evangelical leaders, and hundreds of conservative organizations and leaders support this legislation,” said the White House in a press release.
Not that he’ll get any credit for something that would help blacks. The Left, after all, has to maintain the narrative that he’s “racist.”
But even with the support of the president and conservatives like Utah’s Sen. Mike Lee — the former assistant U.S. attorney recently pointed out abuses in the current systemas his reason for favoring the First Step proposal — the bill has some tough sledding ahead. “We don’t have a whole lot of time left,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “We need an actual proposal, then we would take a whip count, see where we stand, and then weigh it at that point against the other things that absolutely have to be accomplished.”
Despite the addition of sentencing reform to the original bill, it will be hard to convince politicians who prefer to keep the present system as a political cudgel while stoking the fires of race and class envy.
“Let’s just start with the hard truth about our criminal justice system,” complained probable 2020 presidential candidate Elizabeth dinky-Warren back in August. “It’s racist. It is. And when I say our system, I mean all the way. I mean front to back.” (In her case, criminal justice reform takes a back seat to “LGBTQ equality.”) Fellow far-left progressive senators (and potential 2020 candidates) lowlife-Kamala Harris and scumbag-Cory Booker also came out against reform, co-signing a letter from Sen. scumbag-Dick Durbin back in October calling First Step “a step backwards,” and warning that “the recidivism reduction plan that is the core of the bill could actually worsen the situation in our federal prisons by creating discriminatory non-evidence-based policies.” However, scumbag-Booker has since read the tea leaves and yesterday announced his support of the compromise bill.
With this Congress closing out its two-year run, and with Democrats poised to take control, this may be the last best opportunity for some sorely needed reform. ~The Patriot Post
However, in the race for governor, Republican Ron DeSantis maintained more than a 33,000 vote margin over Democrat socialist-Andrew Gillum after the machine recount, which is beyond the minimum threshold required for triggering a second hand recount. And yet socialist-Gillum still refuses to concede defeat. Why?
Then there’s the Georgia governor’s election, where Democrat Stacey Abrams has no chance of making up the deficit to Republican Brian Kemp, and yet she continues to press the courts to allow the counting of previously rejected ballots. She hopes find enough votes not to make up the mathematically insurmountable deficit to Kemp but to shrink his percentage down below 50% and thereby trigger a runoff.
It is highly unlikely that Democrats will succeed in their efforts to steal the elections in Florida and Georgia, so why all the lawsuits and delay tactics? It’s all designed to create a narrative for the future, while at the same time seeking to diminish the legitimacy of the vote if it goes the Republicans’ way. The narrative? The only reason Republicans won was because they suppressed the vote by refusing to accept “thousands” of votes and therefore they are a danger to the democratic process itself. Never mind that there is not a shred of evidence supporting this spurious accusation, and in fact, that Democrats were the ones caught engaging in lawless behavior. The mainstream media will happily “remind” voters come next election how Republicans sought to suppress the vote and the “will of the people” in Florida and Georgia, while conveniently ignoring Democrat shenanigans. Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election have nothing on Democrat schemes to undermine election integrity. ~The Patriot Post
Prompted by lowlife-Harris’s questions about Vitello’s years-old social media post about the Democrat Party being “liberalcratic” or “NeoKlanist,” here’s the relevant exchange:
Vitiello: “The Klan was what we could call today a domestic terrorist group.”
lowlife-Harris: “Why? Why would we call them a domestic terrorist group?”
Vitiello: “Because they tried to use fear and force to change the political environment.”
lowlife-Harris: “And what was the motivation for the use of fear and force?”
Vitiello: “It was based on race and ethnicity.”
lowlife-Harris: “Right. Are you aware of the perception of many about how the power and discretion at ICE is being used to enforce the laws? And do you see any parallels?”
Vitiello: “I do not see any parallels between sworn officers and agents…”
lowlife-Harris: “I’m talking about perception.”
Vitiello: “I do not see a parallel between what is constitutionally mandated as it relates to enforcing the law.
lowlife-Harris: "Are you aware that there’s a perception? Are you aware that there’s a perception?”
Vitiello: “I see no perception that puts ICE in the same category as the KKK…”
lowlife-Harris: “I’m not finished. I’m not finished. I’m not finished. Are you aware that there is a perception that ICE is administering its power in a way that is causing fear and intimidation, particularly among immigrants and specifically among immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America?”
Surely, lowlife-Harris just overlooked the fact that more than half of all Border Patrol agents are Hispanic or Latino.
The senator’s outrageous race-bait badgering is meant for two purposes: One, #Resistance cred for her 2020 presidential bid. Two, showmanship to create the perception of racist law enforcement she insists is already there.
To the extent that the perception of racism at ICE already exists, it is because Democrats have strategically fomented it for craven political gain. Democrats began a small movement to abolish ICE this past summer. While Harris stopped just short of fully jumping on that bandwagon, she attacked the agency anyway, saying, “We need to probably think about starting from scratch.” The abolition movement even led to multiple violent protests. Coincidentally we’re sure, this Demo trial balloon was followed by three caravans from Central America aiming to enter the U.S. illegally and then demand asylum.
lowlife-Harris wanted to know what Vitiello would do to fix the perception (she helped create). He responded that, for one thing, he’d defend the agency against “misleading rhetoric and misinformation.” That pretty well indicts every elected Democrat. ~The Patriot Post
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHAFD2vTT0E
https://patriotpost.us/articles/59528?mailing_id=3873&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3873&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=bodyby Caroline B. Glick
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ Israel’s security cabinet’s decision Tuesday afternoon to walk away from the war Hamas initiated Monday and to accept a “ceasefire” is frustrating and infuriating. Hamas shot nearly 500 projectiles into Israel in under 24 hours. It blew up a bus with a Kornet anti-tank missile. Sixty Israelis were wounded, several critically. One civilian was killed. Numerous homes were destroyed.
Israel has never experienced any rocket onslaught from Gaza remotely as intense as what Hamas and Islamic Jihad shot off on Monday and Tuesday. And yet, rather than respond with equal – or better yet – far greater force and teach Hamas and Islamic Jihad a lesson they would long remember, the security cabinet sufficed with a couple hundred pinpoint air attacks, and then accepted the IDF’s advice and opted for the ceasefire. In so doing, they left the residents of southern Israel virtual hostages of Hamas and Islamic Jihad who have retained the capacity to attack them at will.
Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman’s sudden resignation on Wednesday may help his little party Yisrael Beitenu get reelected to Knesset in the next elections. But if it does, then Liberman will have won his political survival at Israel’s expense. Hamas is entirely justified in presenting Liberman’s resignation as proof that it defeated Israel this week.
Winners don’t quit. Losers do.
But beyond being frustrating and infuriating, the cabinet’s decision is a cause for deep concern. Why did the cabinet opt to stand down in the face of Hamas’s unprecedented onslaught?
Leaving concerns about the prospect of war in the north with Iran, Hezbollah and Syria out of the picture for a moment, there are on the face of things, two basic explanations for the cabinet’s decision. First, maybe the Whats App jokes making the rounds are right. Maybe Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers are a bunch of stupid chickens. Liberman effectively accused them of stupidity and cowardice at his press conference Tuesday afternoon when he announced his resignation. But there is no evidence that Netanyahu is stupid. To the contrary. As for fear, there is ample evidence that if he and his ministers were fearful, they have good reason to be deeply worried.
This brings us to the second and more realistic reason to view the cabinet’s decision to stand down in the face of Hamas’s aggression as a bright red warning light. The source of that concern is the IDF’s General Staff.
Israel does not seek to overthrow the Hamas regime in Gaza. And for good reason. The price of a war to overthrow Hamas would be exorbitant both in terms of the human and monetary cost of war. And the return would be dubious at best. Israel doesn’t have an army big enough to spare three divisions to control a post-Hamas Gaza. The other option often touted by the far Left is that Israel pay the price of overthrowing Hamas and then hand Gaza over to the PLO. The PLO, though, is no less hostile than Hamas. Israel has no interest whatsoever in empowering the PLO by giving it Gaza.
Given the absence of a better alternative to Hamas in Gaza, rather than work to overthrow the terror regime, Israel has focused its efforts on keeping Hamas as weak as possible. And so, since Hamas took over Gaza in 2007, Israel’s effective strategy for dealing with the terror regime can be equated to mowing the grass. Every time Hamas becomes too powerful, Israel finds itself in another round of war with it. The purpose of Israel’s operations is to cut Hamas down to size and walk away, until the next round of war.
But this week, Hamas made clear that Israel needs to mow it down. A terror regime capable of sending 500 projectiles into Israeli territory in less than 24 hours and destroying a bus with an anti-tank missile is a terror regime that has become too powerful.
So why didn’t the cabinet order the IDF to mow the grass in Gaza? Why didn’t our leaders order the IDF to kill Hamas commanders Yahye Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh? Why didn’t they order the IDF to destroy the rocket launchers and the crews that operate them? Why didn’t they order the IDF to destroy Hamas’s bases and missile depots?
There are two possible explanations for their decision not to give these orders. Taken separately and together they point to an acute problem with the IDF’s senior ranks that requires immediate attention.
One explanation has been highlighted by retired senior IDF commanders and Yediot Aharonot’s military commentator Yossi Yehoshua. This explanation argues that the cabinet decision to stand down on Tuesday owed to the General Staff’s refusal to take the actions necessary to cut Hamas down to size. The General Staff’s refusal, they say, stems from the role lawyers are now playing in the IDF’s targeting decisions.
Since Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009, military lawyers have been attached to fighting units down to the battalion level. These attorneys are allegedly prohibiting required action by claiming that strategically significant and operationally vital actions like killing Hamas commanders and bombing rocket launching units constitute war crimes.
Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Eisenkot has demonstrated for years that he is willing to subordinate trigger pullers to attorneys who do not suffer the consequences of their lenient interpretations of the actions of Israel’s enemies. He elevated Military Advocate General Sharon Afeq to the rank of Major General. He supports indicting combat soldiers for alleged violent crimes on the basis of radical legal interpretations of actions in battle. The message Eisenkot has communicated to everyone from platoon leaders to division commanders is that they must subordinate their actions to the judgment of lawyers who have no command responsibilities.
It is important to point out that the “international law” being implemented by IDF commanders through military lawyers is not actually the law as written. It is a radical, ideological interpretation of general principles of international law.
For instance, there is no explicit, universally applied determination of what a “proportionate” response to aggression is. Everything is a judgment call. And the judgment that the IDF has internalized through its lawyers is the one pronounced by antisemitic UN agencies and antagonistic self-declared “human rights” organizations. Namely, that Israel is guilty until proven innocent.
Needless to say, the IDF’s internalization of this bigoted and deeply flawed interpretation of international law is causing grave damage to the IDF’s ability to defend the country from aggression.
The second, equally troubling explanation for the cabinet’s decision to stand down is that Netanyahu and his ministers don’t trust the IDF’s operational competence. For seven months, the IDF has failed to come up with ways to end Hamas’s operations along the border. The special forces operating in Gaza on Sunday were ambushed. Their cover was blown. And the IDF permitted a bus carrying 50 soldiers to enter a border area where it was entirely exposed to enemy fire. If this is how the IDF handles Hamas, how will it handle Hezbollah – which is 10 times more powerful?
What are we to make of the fact that all the security services and branches of the IDF unanimously supported standing down in the face of Hamas’s extraordinary aggression?
In other words, if Netanyahu and his ministers feared the outcome of a more forceful operations against Hamas and Islamic Jihad, their fears were well placed. Israel may be the innovation nation, but the IDF has failed to come up with innovative ways to deal with Hamas. To be sure, our special forces are undoubtedly exacting major blows at Hamas we never hear about.
But the fact is, the terror regime shot off 500 projectiles and blew up a bus with a missile in less than 24 hours. The border assaults have never stopped. You can’t fight a booby-trapped balloon with an F-35. Ceramic vests and Iron Dome batteries are no substitute for bold improvisation and ingenuity.
This then brings us to the question of what to do about Liberman’s vacancy at the Defense Ministry.
There are three possibilities for filling the vacancy. The first is that Netanyahu just adds defense to his collection of ministerial portfolios which currently includes the foreign ministry and the health ministry. The main problem with this option is that given the acuteness of the problem, the Defense Ministry requires a full-time minister. Netanyahu is already working 20 hours a day. He can’t and shouldn’t try to take this on.
The second possibility is that Netanyahu appoints Education Minister Naftali Bennett to replace Liberman as Bennett’s Bayit Yehudi Party is demanding. There are pluses and minuses to this option.
The main advantage of appointing Bennett is that he is the minister best suited to handle the challenge. Bennett understands the IDF’s weaknesses, particularly the General Staff’s lack of creativity and antiquated approaches to Israel’s innovative terrorist foes.
As Education Minister, Bennett has demonstrated a capacity to enact significant reforms and work cooperatively and productively with powerful people that do not share his ideological outlook. He is more likely to deliver the goods than any other minister in Netanyahu’s government.
The downside of appointing Bennett is that he is a politician and Israel is entering an election year. In election years, politicians have to be able to produce tangible results to voters. And it isn’t at all clear that Bennett will be able to do that. Indeed, he is just as likely to fail in his mission as succeed, particularly given that elections can be called at any minute. Taking the Defense Ministry is a major gamble for Bennett and his party.
The third possibility is that Netanyahu appoints a person to serve until the next government is formed who understands the problems that need to be solved. That person would be someone with no political aspirations. He needs to be willing to walk straight into a political buzz saw at home and abroad as he removes legal advisers from IDF divisions, brigades and battalions and orders commanders to get the job done.
This person needs to be willing to make a lot of people hate him as he cancels appointments of senior commanders and boots a lot of brass out of the IDF altogether.
What is clear enough is that Israel’s enemies are sitting on our borders – in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza – and they are watching us and our General Staff. H hour passed when the missile landed on the bus on Monday. If we aren’t prepared to mow the lawn in Gaza – and Lebanon – today, then we need to fix what is broken here at home today. Because tomorrow they will strike us again. And tomorrow we may not have the option of walking away.
Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter and Square, was not pleased with the proposition, pointing out the inherently uneven nature of the tax. He wrote, “We’re happy to pay our taxes. We just want to be treated fairly with respect to our peer companies, many of who are 2-10 [times] larger than us. Otherwise we don’t know how to practically grow in the city. That’s heartbreaking for us as we love [San Francisco] and want to continue to help build it.”
Even Mayor London Breed came out against Prop C, which would be the largest tax hike in San Francisco’s history, though her concern stems more from questions regarding the law’s legality. Breed wrote, “If it passes, Proposition C will likely immediately become part of an ongoing lawsuit to invalidate it. … The City could be left balancing its budget with a $300 million unknown baked in.”
According to California law, “special taxes” — taxes that fund a specific government program — must garner at least two-thirds of the vote in order to be legally instituted. Clearly, 60% of the vote is a sizable majority but it’s not two-thirds; thus, lawsuits are bound to be raised should the city go forward with the tax.
But the economic impact may be more damaging to the city in the long run. City economists estimate that Prop C would cost San Fran $200 to $240 million in GDP annually and 14,700 to 17,500 jobs over the next two decades. How exactly will that make the city any more able to deal with the problem of vagrants on the streets? How about ending government-financed welfare programs and encouraging private individuals, churches, and nonprofits to engage the problem instead? True generosity can never be achieved through confiscated and redistributed wealth.
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/59484?mailing_id=3871&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3871&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ Senator Lindsey Graham (U-DC) met with Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker earlier today and pauses to discuss with interested media... Graham confirms Whitaker is intent on allowing the dirty cop-Mueller investigation to come to its natural conclusion. Additionally, Graham discusses a potential for he and Whitaker to work together next year on issues vitally important to the institution. ie. do not expect any ‘spygate’ stuff being discussed at any time over the next several weeks. Additionally today, the Office of Inspector General, Michael Horowitz outlined departmental priorities for the DOJ in 2019. Which leans heavily toward the possibility the next DOJ-IG report will be a white-wash over the FISA abuse. Notably absent from the challenge priorities is any direct interest in eliminating corruption.
However, mathematician Nic Lewis discovered a discrepancy shortly after the study went public. Lewis wrote that “a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.” He went on to reveal, “Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.”
The authors, it turns out, acknowledged Lewis’s complaint. The Scripps Institute of Oceanography’s Ralph Keeling, a study partaker, responded, “When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there. We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.” He also stated, “Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean. We really muffed the error margins.”
While the acknowledgment is refreshing, Lewis remains circumspect. In an email to Reason magazine, he cautions:
In general terms, if [Keeling] is only saying that they acknowledge that their study underestimated the uncertainty in their ocean heat uptake estimate, that is not enough. They should also acknowledge that another consequence of their mishandling of the treatment of uncertainty was that their central estimate of ocean heat uptake was overstated by approximately 30%. … I would hope that Nature will have any changes made by the authors to their assumptions examined carefully by peer reviewers who are experts in the same field as [the authors] as well as by statistically expert peer reviewers. However, the failure of the original peer review and editorial process to pick up the fairly obvious statistical problems in the original paper do not engender confidence in Nature’s approach.
This is an important point. National Center for Atmospheric Research climatologist Gerald Meehl says, “This is how the process works. Every paper that comes out is not bulletproof or infallible. If it doesn’t stand up under scrutiny, you review the findings.” Fair enough. However, Lewis was able to discern the problem in “a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information.” This should create general alarm over other studies whose shaky underpinnings could be recklessly unseen or ignored. Indeed, few agenda-driven researchers are as deferential as Keeling. Either that, or the flaw was hidden in such plain sight that he had no choice but to accept correction. ~The Patriot Post








