|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 28, 2019 17:37:40 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/10/28/rankin-veteran-brother-not-shake-mcconnell-hand-cummings-funeral/The man who refused to shake the hand of Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell at the funeral of late Rep. Elijah Cummings has spoken out, defending his decision to snub the majority leader. Bobby Rankin, talking to the Washington Post on Monday, accused McConnell of withholding veteran aid to his deceased brother who died from cancer last October. (RELATED: Elijah Cummings’s Friend Snubs Mitch McConnell At Memorial Service) “When I saw Mitch McConnell, all I saw was my brother’s face,” Rankin said. “Elijah Cummings reached across party lines trying to help my brother get his military benefits, and Mitch McConnell was one of the persons he reached out to.” “I could not put my hands in the man’s hand who refused to help somebody who served his country. I couldn’t do it, because I was thinking about my brother,” he continued. Rankin can be seen skipping over McConnell as he goes down a line shaking hands with Senate Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. McConnell praised the late Baltimore representative in a speech during the funeral Friday. “He celebrated its victories, sought to advocate for its needs, and worked to heal its wounds,” McConnell said, according to Newsweek. “He knew there was only one reason why a son of sharecroppers, a child who had literally had to bear the injuries of bigotry, and segregation, could graduate from law school, and eventually chair, a powerful committee in Congress. “Only one reason, because principle leaders had fought to give kids like him a chance,” McConnell added. So is there truth to this story? I didn't know anything about it. Cummings was a crook and a piece of crap. I don't care what letter is by his name. Story from WaPo: www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/28/man-went-viral-after-snubbing-mcconnell-cummings-funeral-says-senator-reminded-him-brother/
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 28, 2019 17:40:02 GMT -6
WaPo back to defending the blown up ISIS leader
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 28, 2019 19:15:22 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/political/nytimes-columnist-blames-whiteness-two-indian-boys-racially-abusing-black-girls-newA New York Times columnist blamed “whiteness” for an alleged racist attack where two Indian students assaulted an African-American girl at a high school football game in New Jersey. Yes, really. The two 17-year-old Indian boys allegedly used racial slurs against a group of African-American girls and urinated on one during the game at Lawrence High School last Friday night.
Who’s to blame for the attack? White people, of course.
That’s according to New York Times columnist Nell Irvin Painter, who says that the Indian boys were “enacting American whiteness through anti-black assault in a very traditional way.”
“In doing so, the assailants are demonstrating how race is a social construct that people make through their actions. They show race in the making, and show how race is something we perform, not just something we are in our blood or in the color of our skin,” she added. www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/opinion/new-jersey-high-school-racism.htmlHow convenient. By making race a “social construct,” the racist actions of non-white people can still be blamed on white people. Incredible. “In the New Jersey incident, the heritage or skin color of the boys suspected of the assault doesn’t matter,” writes Painter. “What matters is that they were participating in this pattern and thus enacting whiteness in a very traditional way.” Her entire argument appears to stem from her claim that a football game is a “white space” and therefore white people are to blame for anything that happens there.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 28, 2019 23:15:21 GMT -6
Disgusting. The liberal Lexington Herald-Leader newspaper published a racist cartoon depicting Black Republican Daniel Cameron as a supporter of the KKK. This is liberal humor. If you are a minority and dare to leave the Democrat plantation mentality they will destroy you. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3789724/posts#comment
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 28, 2019 23:28:34 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/28/npr-praises-terrorist-baghdadi-he-was-a-real-leader-a-movement-weve-never-seen-before/The Washington Post is not alone when it comes to kind remembrances of the ISIS terrorist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who died igniting a suicide vest in a tunnel in northwest Syria on Saturday as U.S. troops closed in. During special coverage of President Donald Trump’s announcement on Sunday of the successful mission, National Public Radio (NPR) praised the man who was responsible for beheading three Americans and enslaving and killing an American woman. Host Lulu Garcia-Navarro led a roundtable discussion with NPR reporters Greg Myre, Tamara Keith and Daniel Estrin about Baghdadi’s death and asked them to tell listeners about the terrorist. www.npr.org/2019/10/27/773827531/special-coverage-trump-makes-announcement“He led a movement that we’ve never seen before,” Myre said. “ISIS had tens of thousands of members, fighters, coming in from all over the world.” “They controlled massive amounts of territory — in Eastern Syria and Western and Northern Iraq,” Myre said, adding ISIS had ”millions of people under their control.” “They administered cities, they collected taxes,” Myre said. “They had this incredible online recruit presence in terms of spreading propaganda; recruiting followers,” Myre said. “This is a guy that sort of emerged on the scene.” “And led this group that had done something we’d never seen before,” Myre said. “This isn’t the end of ISIS, but he was a real leader,” Myre said. “It’s not somebody that they can just appoint somebody else; take over, and the movement continues.” “His leadership was critical,” said Myre, who finally admitted that the terrorist’s death was “definitely a major blow to the Islamic State.” Estrin called the successful mission a “symbolic victory.” Meanwhile, Keith, who is a White House correspondent for NPR, claimed that Trump makes up U.S. foreign policy “on the fly” and the president’s announcement took the “focus away from the muddle and confusion” of his administration.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 1, 2019 13:21:30 GMT -6
On that note:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 2, 2019 4:15:51 GMT -6
amp.dailycaller.com/2019/11/01/writers-bash-obama-wokeWriters Bash Obama For Criticizing ‘Woke’ Social Justice Warriors Former President Barack Obama criticized “woke” social justice warriors Tuesday, saying that attacking people online because of their “flaws” isn’t actual activism. The comments sparked bipartisan support, with Republicans and Democrats alike praising the former president. However, some hit back at Obama, with an op-ed in The New York Times calling him a “boomer.” Writers bashed former President Barack Obama after he criticized “woke” social justice warriors during a speech Tuesday. Obama spoke at the Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago and hit back at alleged activists who attack other people on the internet because of their “flaws,” according to the former president. His comments saw bipartisan support, but some liberals disagreed with his thought that this rhetoric is “not activism.” Journalist Ernest Owens wrote that he “gasped” when he heard Obama’s comments and called the former president’s views that of a “boomer” in an op-ed featured in The New York Times Friday. “But the former president’s disdain for the kind of criticism that has become popular to dismiss as ‘cancel culture’ … is misguided,” Ernst wrote, adding: www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/opinion/obama-cancel-culture.htmlHis eagerness to dismiss one part of what happens when young people stand up for what they believe in as “casting stones” is a reminder of a largely generational divide about whether it’s impolite to speak out in favor of the most vulnerable among us and the world we’d like to live in. While there’s some debate about which generation Mr. Obama belongs to, he’s solidly in the older camp. Ernst wrote that boomers like Obama “are going to have to get over” the younger generation’s choice to use social media as a platform to discuss views. Ernst also noted that he has been one to “critique powerful people for promoting bigotry or harming others.” He added: I can assure you it wasn’t because they had “different opinions.” It was because they were spreading the kinds of ideas that contribute to the marginalization of people like me and those I care about. It was because I didn’t want them to have a no-questions-asked platform to do this. The op-ed also read that “Millennials and Gen-Zers are doing what we can to take down the Goliath many of our parents have been rightfully casting stones at for decades,” adding that the younger generation plans to “keep using” this method and platform to “democratize public debates.” Malaika Jabali, an activist and writer, also hit back at Obama for his comments on “woke” culture, writing that the president doesn’t understand that kids “want progress” in an op-ed published in The Guardian Friday. “The former president took black and progressive movements to task, without understanding his own failure to deliver change,” Jabali wrote. She gave examples of times when the former president “raised the amorphous specter of purity politics” without giving “much evidence that progressives, Black Lives Matter activists or young voters expect purity.” “As people demand universal policies for basic needs of shelter, food, freedom from police terror, and economic security, and when wealth inequality is the worst in a century, Obama has to reckon with his own questions,” Jabali wrote. “How is his form of calling out – scolding black, young and progressive movements – bringing about change? Is he part of the solution or part of the problem?” The activist called on Obama to help the “woke” culture instead of shutting it down. She ended the op-ed by alleging that “the normalization of genuinely leftwing policies is providing the hope and change Obama campaigned on,” and wrote that he can help achieve what he called for during his presidential campaigns. Obama said Tuesday that “This idea of purity and never compromise and you’re always politically woke, and all that stuff — you should get over that quickly” and said that “casting stones” won’t get a lot done. “Like, if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right, or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself,” Obama said. “That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get things done.” Others tweeted their concerns about the former president’s comments. Alexandra Halaby, a Palestinian-American researcher and political organizer, tweeted that he must hate “woke” people because it would take him “3 years” to apologize for all the deaths following U.S. drone strikes overseas. “If Obama apologized for 1 civilian drone victim every day, it would take him 3 years. No wonder he hates ‘woke’ people!” Halaby wrote. Jenn M. Jackson, a writer at Teen Vogue, suggested Obama “calling out ‘woke’ culture for not bringing about enough political change” was hypocritical. Bloomberg opinion writer Noah Smith also went after the president, although he appeared conflicted with Obama’s thoughts on “woke” culture. Smith wrote Thursday he agreed that “online dialogue is unhelpful and goofy,” but disagreed with the president overall. “On the other hand, I think that wokeness addressed some real thorny problems in our society that had previously been hard to address,” Smith tweeted. He gave examples of “less racist policing and reduced sexual harassment” as social issues that wouldn’t have changed “without wokeness, and without social media.” “Wokeness helped get at those problems. … Maybe I’m being whiggish here, but I think wokeness appeared because we needed it, or something like it,” the op-ed writer continued.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 2, 2019 7:19:30 GMT -6
Antifa thug goes to jail for six years. www.oregonlive.com/portland/2019/11/baton-attack-during-june-protests-in-downtown-portland-lands-man-in-jail-for-nearly-6-years.htmlA 24-year-old man who hit another man over the head with a baton in June during dueling downtown Portland demonstrations was sentenced Friday to nearly six years in prison.
Gage Halupowski pleaded guilty to second-degree assault in connection with the June 29 attack on Adam Kelly outside The Nines Hotel along Southwest Morrison Street. Halupowski was identified as one of several masked, black-clothed demonstrators seen on video hitting and pepper-spraying Kelly after he appeared to come to the aid of another man who’d been attacked during the protests, authorities said.
Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney Melissa Marrero said Halupowski hitting Kelly in the back of the head with an expandable baton was “completely unexplainable, completely unavoidable and didn’t need to happen.”
She said Kelly and Halupowski both were lucky that Kelly survived his injuries.
Defense attorney Edward Kroll said Halupowski made “a really terrible decision” and that Kelly didn’t deserve what happened to him, but the attorney believed the agreed-upon 70-month prison sentence was “one of the harshest sentences I’ve seen for someone with no criminal background and young age.”
Marrero disagreed with Kroll’s assertions, saying she felt the charges and sentence were appropriate based on the severity of Kelly’s injuries and Halupowski’s strike. She said first-degree assault, which carried a potential 90-month sentence, and riot charges were initially considered in the case.
The prosecutors also said another person has been indicted and more people are under investigation in the same attack and other incidents stemming from the June demonstrations.
“My office has individuals charged on both sides of the political spectrum,” Marerro said. “We are not picking sides based on political affiliation, political views or anything like that.”
Halupowski didn’t give any statements while in court Friday. Kelly sat in the gallery behind him. His bald head bore several scars. He declined to comment after the court hearing.
Additional charges of unlawful use of a weapon, attempted assault of a public safety officer and interfering with a peace officer were dropped as part of Halupowski’s plea deal.
Court documents show that a Portland police officer saw Halupowski hit Kelly, followed him and pointed him out to other officers who helped arrest him. He was accused of punching another officer in the arm while being taken into custody.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 2, 2019 7:23:33 GMT -6
Now, they are going to his house: www.thepostmillennial.com/watch-antifa-shows-up-to-andy-ngos-house-in-andy-ngo-masks-on-halloween/Unsettling security footage has appeared online of what appears to be six antifa grunts approaching journalist Andy Ngo’s door. (Disclosure: Andy Ngo is the editor at large for TPM.) The video, taken on Halloween by a home security system, shows a group of men approaching Ngo’s front door, each of them wearing hooded sweaters with print-out masks of Ngo’s face. According to Ngo, the 48-second long video is a shortened version of an encounter that lasted “several minutes.” “These 6 individuals wearing print-out masks of my face approached my family’s home last night, repeatedly rang doorbell, pounded on window, recorded footage of property & gestured at cameras. There were no candy bags. This follows their doxing of my elderly mom’s small business,” said Ngo in the tweet. In a comment to TPM, Ngo said that “This is the latest addition to a long list of antifa-related individuals doxing, threatening, and promising to hurt or kill me or my family.” Ngo also mentioned that police were called during the incident, but that the gang had fled before they had arrived. Ngo says police took a report, but was informed that people with masks “are hard, if not impossible to identify.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 2, 2019 12:07:49 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/california-referendum-has-led-to-more-shoplifting-report-saysFive years ago, California passed Proposition 47, a referendum that reduced various theft and drug possession crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. But in the years since the referendum passed, critics say the law has resulted in an increase of theft. Fox News reported that the referendum “effectively gives shoplifters and addicts the green light to commit crimes as long as the merchandise they steal or the drugs they take are less than $950 in value.” TOP ARTICLES 1/6 READ MORE Kamala Harris Slashes Her Entire New Hampshire Field Team “The decision to downgrade theft of property valued below the arbitrary figure from felony to misdemeanor, together with selective enforcement that focuses on more ‘serious’ crimes, has resulted in thieves knowing they can brazenly shoplift and merchants knowing the police will not respond to their complaints, say critics,” the outlet reported. One woman who spoke to Fox, Cassie, said she sometimes shoplifted diapers and formula for her children. “If my babies need diapers or formula, who is going to get that for me? No one. I have to do it,” she told the outlet. “They ain’t out here arresting people for [shoplifting] and everyone knows it.” The referendum has led to an increase in theft in the Golden State, with thieves brazenly stealing items in broad daylight. San Francisco now has the highest rate of property crime in the United States. Even worse, the shoplifting is not done solely by moms like Cassie, but by well-organized rackets. From Fox: Del Seymour, founder of the non-profit Code Tenderloin, told Fox News that fencers – often from Mexico and Guatemala – set up shop in the middle of the day and night around the city’s United Nations Plaza area. He said he’s also noticed that the stealers and dealers have gotten bolder by the day. The retail heists taking place, he said, aren’t some small-time operation but instead a sophisticated network of international dealers who cross the border to buy stolen goods. What’s worse is that a majority of the handoffs happen in view of San Francisco’s City Hall. “Of course it sends a message,” Seymour said. “They’re doing it right here in the open.” San Francisco isn’t the only city in the state struggling with increased theft. Business owners across the state have told various local media outlets that shoplifting has increased since prop 47 went into effect. Jassi Dhillon, who owns six 7-Eleven franchises, told NBC7 that shoplifters are hitting all six of his stores “every day, hour by hour.” He added that when he calls the cops on shoplifters, they have either already fled or don’t seem to care about the citation they receive. “It’s becoming a lifestyle for us now because we can’t do anything much except take the loss,” Dhillon said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 3, 2019 6:33:52 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/11/02/california-wildfires-blackouts/California Gov. Gavin Newsom railed against the state’s public utility company for blacking out large portions of the state, but some experts say regulators are partially to blame. Regulators in the state are too preoccupied with solar panels, climate change and keeping customers’ rates low to update old transmission lines that can create wildfires, experts say. Newsom, a Democrat, says he is considering taking over the utility company if it cannot get its finances together. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and other critics are blasting the public utility company responsible for rolling blackouts, but some experts argue regulators’ obsession with climate change is partially to blame. Newsom suggested Friday taking over Pacific Gas & Electric, a public utility company that shut off electricity recently to nearly 1 million customers to prevent potential wildfires. The California Democrat argued that PG&E’s greed and corruption are leading to the massive blackouts. “It’s about dog-eat-dog capitalism meeting climate change. It’s about corporate greed meeting climate change. It’s about decades of mismanagement,” Newsom told reporters on Oct. 25. He has not let up, telling reporters Friday that the financially strapped utility might be centralized if it can’t right its ship. The blackouts were intended to forestall wildfires, which have stymied the state for two years. This has led to a spotty success rate. PG&E told state regulators in an October filing that one of the utility’s snapped wires was found on a transmission tower near where the Kincade Fire began. That fire, which began on Oct. 23 and is currently 70% contained, charred 77,758 acres in Northern California. Other fires are also wreaking havoc. The Easy Fire and Maria Fire in Southern California, for instance, are charring 1,860 acres and 9,412 acres, respectively. A house burns during wildfires in San Bernardino, California, U.S., Oct. 31, 2019 in this screen grab obtained from a social media video. (Reuters) PG&E’s equipment is not responsible for all of the fires, but investigators found in 2018 that broken or fallen distribution lines caused 12 Northern California wildfires in the October 2017 Fire Siege. Yet experts say PG&E is not entirely to blame for the chaos. TOP ARTICLES 1/5 READ MORE Liz Cheney Demands Pelosi Stop ‘Selective Leaking’ Of Impeachment Testimony California’s wildfires are due to several factors, none of them pertaining to climate change, according to University of Washington climate scientist Cliff Mass. California is getting crowded, leading to higher probabilities of wildfires, he told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Poorly maintained electrical infrastructure” and strong, dry winds are playing a significant role, Mass said, adding: Anyone who is citing climate change as a major factor is merely shifting the blame. Rolling blackouts are a sensible solution given the dense population in large sections of California and the public utility’s rickety infrastructure, Mass noted. In fact, the massive blackouts likely helped reduce potential wildfires despite Kincade and others, he added. Other experts are making similar arguments. Regulators and consumer advocate groups were too preoccupied with other considerations to fireproof transmission lines, according to Ted Nordhaus, an environmental policy expert and director of research at the Breakthrough Institute. “To whatever degree PG&E prioritized profits over maintenance, it can’t account for failure to fire-proof transmission and distribution network. It just wasn’t priority for anyone, including regulators and consumer groups,” Nordhaus noted in a Twitter thread Monday. Regulators who control PG&E’s funding have focused on climate change and other things instead, he stated. (RELATED: Here’s What Wildfires Are Doing To California As Citizens Cope With Rolling Blackouts) The company spent more than half a billion dollars in 2018 on electric discounts for low-income citizens and another $125 million for efficiency upgrades, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board noted in an Oct. 25 editorial. PG&E has also used $7.5 billion in allowances since 2012 to pay for reduced emissions. California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference at the California State Capitol on March 13, 2019 in Sacramento, California. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference at the California State Capitol on March 13, 2019 in Sacramento, California. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) California lawmakers passed an ordinance in 2015 requiring utilities to pay $100 million annually on solar systems in low-income areas, The WSJ Editorial Board noted. That is in addition to the $2.2 billion in rebates the utilities must offer customers for rooftop solar installations. A ratepayer advocacy division within California’s Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is complicating matters. CPUC’s Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) argues against maintenance and safety expenditures to keep rates low for customers, according to an application PG&E made to CPUC in 2012 to increase rates. PG&E noted in the document that ORA’s other priorities are making it difficult to maintain current infrastructure. PG&E, which is bankrupt as a result of costs accrued as a result of deadly fires in 2018, is meanwhile under pressure to keep the lights on while at the same time monitoring old transmission lines that are susceptible to fire. The investor-owned public utility is still providing campaign cash to multiple California politicians, Republican and Democrat alike. Newsom and his allies, for instance, took $208,400 from PG&E during his run for governor in 2018, California’s ABC10 noted in a July investigation. PG&E gave the governor the maximum amount of $58,400 and gave another $150,000 to a political spending group supporting his candidacy. PG&E also donated more than $800,000 directly to candidate campaigns and another $3 million to political groups, which ultimately went back into candidates’ war chests, according to ABC10’s investigation, which relied on state records. Newsom’s office has not provided the DCNF a statement regarding the governor’s handling of the blackouts or wildfires. PG&E has also not responded to multiple requests for comment, nor has CPUC.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 4, 2019 8:33:22 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/bill-clinton-admits-he-chose-ruth-bader-ginsburg-due-to-her-abortion-stanceEven though the President of the United States is supposed to appoint Supreme Court Justices based on their judicial philosophy and not their politics, President Bill Clinton admitted this past week that he chose Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg due to her steadfast commitment to upholding abortion. Speaking at Georgetown University Law School on Wednesday, the president said that protecting Roe v. Wade played a significant role in his selection of Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. TOP ARTICLES 1/6 READ MORE Gabbard On Impeachment Inquiry ‘Yes’ Vote: I Did It For ‘Transparency’ “There is one thing that we did discuss, and I feel I should tell you, because it will illustrate why I thought I should appoint her,” Clinton said, as reported by ABC News. “Abortion was a big issue in 1992 — the right to choose, I was one of the first pro-choice Democrats to run since Roe v. Wade, who actually benefited from Roe v. Wade. Now, she didn’t have to say anything about this. She knew this perfectly well that I was under a lot of pressure to make sure I appointed someone who is Simon-pure, which I had said was important.” As noted by ABC News, almost no president has ever admitted to asking a potential Supreme Court nominee on how they would rule on an issue like abortion. In fact, when Justice Gorsuch was asked about such a meeting during his confirmation process, he said that would have “walked out the door” if President Trump pressed him to overturn Roe v. Wade. Former President Clinton said he inquired with Ginsburg about the issue of abortion and admitted that his pick was “clearly pro-choice” after nominating her. “I asked her the question and she talked about it just as if it was any other issue, no effect, this is what I think, this is why I think it. And she made a heck of a case,” Clinton said. National Review noted that Bill Clinton’s frank admission about how he selected Ginsburg suggests she may have lied during the U.S. Senate confirmation hearing when she said it was inappropriate for anyone to ask how a judicial nominee would rule on a specific case. “It is inappropriate, in my judgment, to seek from any nominee for judicial office assurance on how that individual would rule in a future case,” she said. “That judgment was shared by those involved in the process of selecting me. No such person discussed with me any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning my position on such case, issue, or question.” Ginsburg’s pro-abortion record on the Supreme Court is well-documented and often goes beyond legal jurisprudence and into ideological statements about sexism and gender politics, such as when she accused her male peers of sexism in the Hobby Lobby ruling. “Do you believe that the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision?” Katie Couric asked Ginsburg in light of the ruling. “I would have to say no,” she replied. “But justices continue to think and can change. I am ever hopeful that if the court has a blind spot today, its eyes will be open tomorrow.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 4, 2019 8:37:35 GMT -6
This would be hilarious if it led to her being booted out of the SCOTUS,(Video at link) : www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/is-bill-clinton-saying-that-justice-ginsburg-lied-to-the-senate/Is Bill Clinton Saying that Justice Ginsburg Lied to the Senate?By ED WHELAN October 31, 2019 11:48 AM At a Georgetown law school event yesterday with Hillary Clinton and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Bill Clinton revealed that he discussed Roe v. Wade with Ginsburg before nominating her to the Supreme Court in 1993 and that their discussion was important to “why I thought I should appoint her”:
[Ginsburg] knew this perfectly well, that I was under a lot of pressure to make sure I appointed someone who was simon-pure, which I had said I thought was important. But I was fascinated by a—either an article I had read or something I had read on Justice Ginsburg saying that she supported the result in Roe v. Wade but thought Justice Blackmun should have decided the case on the equal protection clause not the right to privacy. And I asked her the question and she talked about it just as if it was any other issue, no affect: “This is what I think, this is why I think it,” and she made a heck of a case.By “someone who was simon-pure,” Clinton clearly means someone who would surely support the proposition that the Constitution confers an expansive abortion right. (As a presidential candidate in 1992, he promised that he would appoint a Supreme Court justice who “believe[d] in the right to privacy and the right to choose.”) Clinton’s candid account of this conversation strikes me as rather difficult to reconcile with nominee Ginsburg’s sworn testimony to the Senate in 1993. The Senate questionnaire that Ginsburg completed included this question:
Has anyone involved in the process of selecting you as a judicial nominee (including but not limited to a member of the White House staff, the Justice Department, or the Senate or its staff) discussed with you any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning your position on such case, issue, or question? If so, please explain fully.
In response (see p. 108 of hearing record), Ginsburg wrote:
It is inappropriate, in my judgment, to seek from any nominee for judicial office assurance on how that individual would rule in a future case. That judgment was shared by those involved in the process of selecting me. No such person discussed with me any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning my position on such case, issue, or question.
But Clinton has just stated publicly that he did discuss Roe with her precisely in order to get the assurances he needed on her position on abortion. And he has further stated that Ginsburg “knew this perfectly well.”
In short, Clinton sure seems to be saying that Ginsburg lied to the Senate.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 4, 2019 15:29:17 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2019/11/04/research-finds-conservatives-are-more-happy-generous-and-purposeful-than-liberals/Research Finds Conservatives Are More Happy, Generous, And Purposeful Than Liberals Despite the left telling people otherwise, research finds conservatives have happier families, find more meaning in life, are generally happier overall, and donate far more money and time to the needy than their liberal peers do. Glenn T. StantonBy Glenn T. Stanton NOVEMBER 4, 2019 Who’s happier, finds more meaning in life, and is more generous to the poor — liberals or conservatives? Liberals, right? Garrison Keillor voiced the conventional wisdom: “Liberalism is the politics of kindness.” Liberals, Keillor and myriad others tell us, “stand for tolerance, magnanimity, community spirit, [and] the defense of the weak against the powerful.” In stark and horrifying contrast, the “people who call themselves conservatives stand for tax cuts, and further tax cuts, annual tax cuts, the only policy they know. [They] use their refund to buy a gun and an attack dog” to keep everyone away who is not like them. We all know it’s true, right? Well, not if you go by what serious scholars have found when they investigate this question. Conservatives have happier families, find more meaning in life, are generally happier overall, and donate far more money and time to the needy than their liberal peers. Also, it’s not just general conservatism per se that makes the difference. The more socially conservative people are, the happier and more content with life they are. And party affiliation matters significantly. Conservative Republicans outpace conservative, moderate, and liberal Democrats. When picking your neighbors, regardless of your politics or beliefs, conservative Republicans are who you want. Conservatives Are Satisfied with Their Family Lives New research released by the Institute for Family Studies (you should bookmark them!) demonstrates that conservatives tend to be much more “completely satisfied” with their family lives compared to their liberal friends and neighbors. Forty-one percent of both liberals and moderates report being “completely satisfied” with their family lives, while 52 percent of conservatives do. Conservatives are also vastly more likely than liberals to believe marriage is essential in creating and maintaining strong families. They are also much more likely to actually be married, 62 versus 39 percent, thus benefiting from all the ways marriage improves overall well-being and contentment, personal happiness, economic security, long-term employment, longevity, better physical and mental health, and more. These scholars explain that regardless of other basic life characteristics such as family income, marital status, age, educational attainment, race/ethnicity, and church attendance, being a conservative increases the odds of being “completely satisfied with family life” by 23 percent, a considerable positive impact given the centrality of these other life factors. Married men and women who believe “marriage is needed to create strong families” have 67 percent greater odds of being completely content with their own family life than married couples who do not believe this. This data demonstrates the real and positive consequences one’s beliefs have in establishing and maintaining family contentment, among the central and deepest parts of most people’s lives. Conservatives Are Happier than Liberals Second, a much larger body of research has long demonstrated that, all things being equal, conservatives tend to be happier overall than their liberal neighbors are. This is truer for social conservatives than for fiscal conservatives, and the more conservative a conservative is, the happier he or she seems to be. That’s not nothing. A massive study published earlier this year, involving five different data samples from 16 Western countries spanning more than four decades, adds more meat to this topic. These scholars from the University of Southern California found, as they put it, “In sum, conservatives reported greater meaning in life and greater life satisfaction than liberals.” Of course, both qualities are much deeper and richer than happiness itself. This was the robust and consistent finding in the 16 distinct countries examined. It was generally truer for social conservatives than their fiscal brethren, and the greater-meaning-in-life “slope spiked upward among individuals who were very conservative.” These scholars explain in their academic parlance that this was true for conservatives “at all reporting periods (global, daily, and momentary).” This is a significant finding. Conservatives experience greater meaning in life across their lives generally, but also daily and at most given moments throughout the day. The researchers conclude these findings are “robust” and that “there is some unique aspect of political conservativism that provides people with meaning and purpose in life.” Multiple studies consistently show this difference in overall happiness and contentment is not affected by whose party or ideological partisans are in the seats of power in the White House or Congress. It seems as if the beliefs themselves matter most. A good many studies in peer-reviewed journals have found the same thing over the last few decades, such as here, here, here, and this one. This last study, published in 2012 in the Journal of Research in Personality, explains the important specifics of greater happiness and meaning among conservatives: In four studies, conservatives expressed greater personal agency (e.g., personal control, responsibility), more positive outlook (e.g., optimism, self-worth), more transcendent moral beliefs (e.g., greater religiosity, greater moral clarity, less tolerance of transgressions), and a generalized belief in fairness, and these differences accounted for the happiness gap. Another very interesting angle on this topic comes from the folks at the Pew Research Center. They reported in 2010 that it wasn’t just conservatism where the happier folks are found. It’s political party identity as well. Republicans are the happiest, and conservative GOPers are happier than moderate or liberal ones. Conservative Republicans tend to be significantly happier than conservative Democrats, and moderate/liberal Republicans are happier than liberal Democrats. On top of this, Republicans’ much higher levels of happiness are constant across all income levels, including those earning less than $30,000 annually. So it’s not just the so-called money-grubbing fat cats. And remember, the social conservatives find more meaning in life than the fiscal folks. Money can’t buy happiness, but clearly ideology and party affiliation have something to do with it. Likewise, regular church attenders are nearly twice as likely to say they are “very happy” than those who seldom or never attend, and this is consistently well-founded in a vast body of literature. So church-going, Republican conservatives are just some of the happiest, most contented folks around. It is worth mentioning here that Pew says pet owners are no happier than non-pet people, and dog owners are no happier or sadder than cat owners. So there’s that. Leftist Media and Academia Tell the Public the Opposite Some liberals might argue that religious, conservative republicans are happier simply because they are mentally ill; they are disassociated with reality and just don’t know any better. They claim this is even demonstrated in scientific research. In fact, one article’s first line in reporting this research was quite blunt: “Anyone who’s wanted to dismiss Republican politics as straightforwardly mean now has some data to back them up.” Land’s sakes. Some research did appear to show this, and it got a great deal of press. Retraction Watch, however, tells us it had some serious mistakes in its calculations, and an erratum was published by the American Journal of Political Science. In fact, Retraction Watch reports, “The descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed.” The data shows a strong correlation between liberalism and psychoticism, not conservatism. This correction was not widely reported for some curious reason. Finally, if you had to guess who are more generous with their money and volunteering their time to help those in need, would you guess Democrats or Republicans? Of course, it’s Democrats. Republicans only care for themselves and their own pocketbook. In fact, don’t they want to actually punish the poor for not working hard enough? Well, you would be right if stereotypes were the arbiter of truth. But what does objective research tell us? There is no debate here. Conservative Republicans are consistently more generous than their Democratic neighbors. This is true among all income levels, including the wealthiest. Republican millionaires give more of their money away to the needy than Democratic millionaires. The data is so strong that even New York Times columnist Paul Sullivan admitted the “more Republican a county is, the more its residents report charitable contributions.” His colleague at the Times, Nicholas Kristof, who seldom has anything kind to say about Republicans, wrote a column some years ago entitled “Bleeding Heart Tightwads.” He laments that his clan doesn’t fare so well on kindness in the form of real dollars: Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates. Yes, Democrats rock the casbah at confiscating other people’s money for the poor. But ask them to give from their own pockets, and they are precisely what they falsely accuse Republicans of being: Scrooge McDuck. This remains true by another more everyday measure: tipping. Republicans give at least a 15 percent tip on their bill to food service workers 59 percent of the time, while Democrats do so at a more tightfisted 46 percent of the time. Who would you rather serve if you’re waiting tables to pay off your school loans? That would be those MAGA-hat-wearing people whom others are chasing out of your restaurant. Redistribution Isn’t Compassion In his excellent book “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism,” Arthur C. Brooks presents what he describes as “a large amount of data all pointing in the same direction.” What is that? He says, “People who favor government income redistribution are significantly less likely to donate to charity than those who do not.” He perceptively notes that for a certain type of ideological American, “political opinions are a substitute for personal checks, but people who value economic freedom, and thus bridle against forced income distribution, are far more charitable” to those in need. The Hoover Institution’s Peter Schweizer says the liberal’s approach to community charity could be summed up in this bumper sticker: “Think Globally, Sit on Your Butt Locally.” This is a chapter title in his powerful, omnibus case for the neighborly superiority of conservatives in his book, “Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less … and Even Hug Their Children More than Liberals.” Some liberals claim this greater charity among conservatives is simply because they seek the charitable deduction for tax avoidance, which ends up stiffing the poor. But conservative Republicans who take the standard deduction on April 15 still donate substantially greater sums of money compared to their liberal Democratic peers. Conservatives also donate much more of their time volunteering for charitable causes, which, of course, is a clear financial liability when they could be out working for pay. So when someone from the left tells you, like they often will, that Christian, conservative Republicans are cranky people, a scourge on society, you can kindly and happily let them know that if they ever find themselves in a bind, it’s precisely these folks they’ll want to call.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 5:09:16 GMT -6
Washington Post reporter failed miserably on this one:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 5:23:36 GMT -6
But it was all a hoax. Police now say the robbery was an “inside job” by illegal aliens worried they may be deported. mynorthwest.com/1582348/rantz-seatac-bobs-burgers-robbery-hoax/The reported Bob’s Burgers robbery and sexual assault that rocked SeaTac was a hoax, multiple law enforcement sources reveal to The Jason Rantz Show on KTTH. The purported victims claimed two men in masks tied them up on the evening of October 19. The victims said the thieves took jewelry and cash, before sexually assaulting two female customers. This didn’t happen. Instead, it was an “inside job” where the supposed victims thought this crime would prevent them from deportation. “It was over U-Visa applications,” according to the source. Those involved are suspected to be in this country illegally, though this isn’t checked by law enforcement due to sanctuary city, county, and state laws. My sources say everyone involved in the robbery — from the individuals tied up, to the person who made the 911 — knew it was a hoax, though it remains unclear how deep into the subterfuge everyone was clued in. Seattle police find suspected burglar in ceiling after bungled heist The case took considerable manpower to investigate.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 10:22:55 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/11/04/montgomery-county-backpedals-sanctuary-policy/Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich, a Democrat, has backpedaled on an executive order he signed several months ago that prohibited cooperation with ICE agents. The county executive will allow ICE agents to apprehend illegal aliens in his custody, but only in “identified areas” in the Montgomery County jail. The reversal is the latest move by Montgomery County’s government, which endured national criticism for its sanctuary policy amid a string of rape charges against illegal aliens within the jurisdiction. Following months of national media coverage over the handling of illegal aliens in his custody, Montgomery County, Maryland, Executive Marc Elrich has somewhat reversed a sanctuary policy he signed into law. Elrich will allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents the ability to access certain areas of the Montgomery County jail in order to apprehend illegal aliens, according to ABC7 News. A county spokesman confirmed to the local news outlet on Nov. 1 that correctional officers have been ordered to give ICE agents clearance to “identified areas” of the jail to “ensure that transfers are conducted in a safe environment.” News of the cooperation between Montgomery County and federal immigration authorities comes three months after Elrich signed an executive order that prohibited county officials from working with ICE. Elrich signed the “The Promoting Community Trust Executive Order” in July, which barred county police from asking an individual about their immigration status and largely prohibited them from cooperating with ICE agents. Montgomery County had already refused to honor ICE detainer requests, and the new order was the latest sanctuary measure enacted by a deep-blue locality revolting against the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration. Marc Elrich. Screen grab Marc Elrich is pictured. Photo: Screen grab/ YouTube/ montgomerycountymd However, Elrich’s order soon proved controversial. Authorities arrested numerous illegal aliens in Montgomery County — all of the arrests taking place just weeks after the order was signed — and charged them with rape or other sexual abuse crimes. The string of rape charges shined a national spotlight on the county’s policy toward criminal illegal aliens and its fraught relationship with the agency tasked with removing them. A public relations battle ensued between federal immigration authorities and Elrich’s office. Elrich said in a public statement issued in late August his office cannot honor ICE detainers unless they come with a judicial warrant. However, ICE and other immigration experts blasted that defense, noting that, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, ICE agents do not need a judge’s signature to issue such a warrant. “The public has been misled to believe that certain judges have the authority to sign a warrant for civil immigration violations — but no such judicial authority exists,” an ICE spokesperson said to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “This idea is a myth created by those who either oppose immigration enforcement efforts, are misinformed, or who do not understand how the immigration system works.” In a scathing response to national criticism, the Montgomery County Council in early September accused the Trump administration, conservative media, “Neo-Nazi sympathizers” and others of spreading “a lot of inaccurate information” about the county’s criminal justice process. Pro-ICE demonstrators held a rally in front of the Montgomery County office building on Sept. 13, demanding elected leaders end its sanctuary executive order. The rally, which drew counter-protesters, was held to highlight organizers’ argument that immigration enforcement helps keep communities safer. (RELATED: Trump Taps Chad Wolf As DHS Acting Secretary) It’s not clear if Elrich’s rollback of his sanctuary rules are sufficient enough for federal immigration authorities. ICE did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF. There are caveats to the renewed cooperation, however. Before arriving at the county jail, ICE must submit an immigration detainer and arrive before the wanted illegal alien is released. If, for some reason, ICE agents are not able to arrive on time, the individual is released into the public — even if the individual has been charged with murder, rape or other heinous crime.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 10:26:47 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/liberals-rip-nationals-player-for-wearing-maga-hat-at-wh-eventLiberals Rip Nationals’ Player For Wearing MAGA Hat At WH Event There was a time, not so very long ago, that when the president of the United States invited you to the White House, you went. Even if you disagreed with his politics. Even if you voted for the other candidate. Even if, frankly, you couldn’t stand the guy. He’s the president of the United States — elected by Americans — and it’s the White House, steeped in history and the very emblem of democracy. TOP ARTICLES 1/6 READ MORE New Docs Suggest Bannon May Have Given False Info To Mueller But not anymore. Nowadays, if you’re a supporter of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the dude in the White House prefers the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, well, you’re allowed to call him every name in the book. Then there’s Kurt Suzuki, a fourth-generation Japanese American born and raised in Maui. He bounced around in Major League Baseball for years before being picked up by the Washington Nationals — who promptly traded him again. But in 2018, the Nats re-signed the 36-year-old catcher, and this year, Suzuki battled through injuries to help the team win its first World Series (and he became the first Hawaiian-born player ever to hit a home run in the Series). ADVERTISEMENTSCROLL TO CONTINUE READING And when he was invited to the White House, he went. He even brought along a little something special. Trump, standing with the the team on the Truman Balcony of the White House on Monday, introduced Suzuki, saying he hit “an amazing three-run homer.” “Where’s Kurt? Where is he?” Trump asked, looking around. “C’mere,” he said, spotting him. “Say a couple words. C’mon.” Just then, Suzuki donned a “Make America Great Again” hat. Trump feigned shock, then embraced him. “I love him!” Trump said. “I love you all. I love you all. Thank you,” Suzuki said. With that much love floating around, it was time to cue the haters. Wajahat Ali, a New York Times contributing op-ed writer and CNN contributor, spewed some vitriol on Twitter. “They will never love you, Kurt Suzuki. They will never love you. Enjoy the hug and the delusion. Whatever makes you feel great,” he wrote on Twitter. They will never love you, Kurt Suzuki. They will never love you. Enjoy the hug and the delusion. Whatever makes you feel great. — Wajahat Ali (@wajahatali) November 4, 2019 Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote, “Very sad. I love Kurt Suzuki as a player. But he wore a MAGA hat to the White House, so I will not cheer him. Not quite as bad for Ryan Zimmerman, but his praise for Trump is hard to take.” Zimmerman, the outstanding first baseman who was instrumental in the Nats win, had committed the heinous crime of praising Trump for keeping the country safe and had presented the president with a team jersey. Very sad. I love Kurt Suzuki as a player. But he wore a MAGA hat to the White House, so I will not cheer him. Not quite as bad for Ryan Zimmerman, but his praise for Trump is hard to take. — Norman Ornstein (@normornstein) November 4, 2019 Soledad O’Brien, a former CNN anchor, said simply: “Pathetic.” Pathetic t.co/Et195Nl3Rw— Soledad O’Brien (@soledadobrien) November 4, 2019 Another wrote: “A lot of people are saying that Kurt Suzuki should be PERMANENTLY BANNED from major league baseball. I agree with them.” A lot of people are saying that Kurt Suzuki should be PERMANENTLY BANNED from major league baseball. I agree with them. #BanKurtSuzukiFromMLB. — mrbluesky (@mrblues50149766) November 5, 2019 But plenty of Twitterers came to Suzuki’s defense. “Ironic the party who claims ‘love over hate’ is at it again showing their hatred by chastising people who don’t conform to their beliefs,” wrote Andrew Pollack.”Thank you @kurtsuzuki for not caving into communist bullies & showing love for our president and country!” Ironic the party who claims “love over hate” is at it again showing their hatred by chastising people who don’t conform to their beliefs. Thank you @kurtsuzuki for not caving into communist bullies & showing love for our president and country! t.co/0SUixh3r7y— Andrew Pollack (@andrewpollackfl) November 5, 2019 Jordan Schachtel summed it up best. “Kurt Suzuki is a 4thGen Japanese-American. His relatives were prob living in the USA when Democrat pres FDR ordered the mass internment of Japanese-Americans. FDR, to this day, is idol-worshipped by Dem Party. Can’t say I’m shocked he’s a MAGA guy,” he wrote. Also, Kurt Suzuki is a 4thGen Japanese-American. His relatives were prob living in the USA when Democrat pres FDR ordered the mass internment of Japanese-Americans. FDR, to this day, is idol-worshipped by Dem Party. Can’t say I’m shocked he’s a MAGA guy. t.co/WgIvPg4hZH— Jordan Schachtel (@jordanschachtel) November 4, 2019
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 12:19:39 GMT -6
The organizers of the Academy Awards, also known as the Oscars, on Monday disqualified Nigeria’s first-ever entry in the International Feature Film category because, they say, it features too much dialogue in English, according to reports. “Lionheart,” made by actress-turned-director Genevieve Nnaji, who also stars in the movie, includes dialogue in the Igbo language of Nigeria — one of 500 languages spoken in the African country. “Lionheart has just under 12 minutes of dialogue that is in the Igbo language native to Southeastern Nigeria, while the rest of the 94-minute pic is in English,” according to The Hollywood Reporter. That violates an Academy rule that requires entries in the International Feature Film category to have “a predominantly non-English dialogue track.” But here’s the thing: English IS the official language of Nigeria (which is, when viewed from the United States, a foreign country). The country was, after all, colonized by the British (who also speak English). Nnaji ripped the decision. www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nigerian-2020-oscar-entry-lionheart-disqualified-having-predominantly-english-dialogue-1252354“This movie represents the way we speak as Nigerians. This includes English which acts as a bridge between the 500+ languages spoken in our country; thereby making us #OneNigeria,” she wrote on Twitter. “To @theacademy, You disqualified Nigeria’s first-ever submission for Best International Feature because its in English. But English is the official language of Nigeria. Are you barring this country from ever competing for an Oscar in its official language?” wrote actress Ava DuVernay, who starred in “Selma.” “It’s no different to how French connects communities in former French colonies. We did not choose who colonized us. As ever, this film and many like it, is proudly Nigerian,” Nnaji added. 2/2 It’s no different to how French connects communities in former French colonies. We did not choose who colonized us. As ever, this film and many like it, is proudly Nigerian. @theacademy t.co/LMfWDDNV3e— Genevieve Nnaji MFR (@genevievennaji1) November 4, 2019 Others also criticized the move. “Nigeria’s first ever entry to the Oscars has been disqualified for… wait for it… featuring too much English. So now we are getting penalised for having been colonised by Britain? Wow. Someone please give TheAcademy a history lesson,” wrote Afua Hirsch, the Wallis Annenberg Chair of Journalism at USC. Nigeria’s first ever entry to the Oscars has been disqualified for… wait for it… featuring too much English. So now we are getting penalised for having been colonised by Britain? Wow. Someone please give @theacademy a history lesson t.co/G3aZ0oBS7E— Afua Hirsch (@afuahirsch) November 5, 2019 “Colonialism really is a bitch,” wrote Franklin Leonard.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 15:28:46 GMT -6
Ok, this is hilarious: www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/11/05/dwts-viewer-meltdown-how-can-dems-win-in-2020-if-we-cant-even-vote-off-sean-spicer/#Viewers of Dancing with the Stars experienced a mass meltdown Monday night after former White House press secretary Sean Spicer lived to dance another week, forcing some to even question how Democrats will win in 2020 “if we can’t even get Sean Spicer off” the show. Spicer performed a jazz routine with Jenna Johnson, who filled in for Lindsay Arnold due to her mother-in-law’s untimely passing. The duo saw the lowest judges scores of the bunch– 20/30. Despite that, Spicer did not find himself in the bottom two. Rather, duos Kate Flannery and Pasha Pashkov and Ally Brooke and Sasha Farber landed in the bottom two, with Flannery ultimately going home. Judge Carrie Ann Inaba found the results “confusing and irritating.” The results indicate that, once again, conservative supporters are carrying Spicer through in an effort to send a message to leftists and Hollywood elites who insist on “canceling” conservatives out. Leftists on Twitter were not only perplexed but enraged by Spicer’s continued presence on the show prompting some, interestingly enough, to call for the end of the popular vote. “#DWTS Those results are BULLSHIT,” one angry Twitter user wrote, demanding the show to “cancel the public voting and make it about dancing, not popularity.” The voting process has to change with the judges at least voting only until semi finals. THEN the public can weigh in,” another concurred, claiming that it is “just not fair for a dancing contest.” “This isn’t funny. This isn’t cute. Whoever is voting for Sean spicer… you are garbage,” another assessed. “Sean Spicer is the .1 germ Lysol just can’t kill,” another lamented. “The Universe has many mysteries, but the greatest mystery of all time is why the FUCK Sean Spicer is still on #DWTS,” one user wrote. “I can’t stand #DWTS anymore!! Sean Spicer again??? Maga Twitter is keeping his ass there because they want to ‘piss the left’ off,” one added, urging DWTS to “never do this again.” Another angry viewer suggested that DWTS is “rigged,” while another sarcastically thanked “dumb Trump supporters” for keeping him on the show. “How are Democrats supposed to win in 2020 if we can’t even get Sean Spicer off Dancing with the Stars,” one tweeter asked. More reaction. Spicer’s stay on DWTS has generated outrage every week. Last week, his winning streak caught the attention of The Daily Show host Trevor Noah, who grumbled about Spicer — as well as his support from Breitbart — in an eight-minute segment. “I didn’t start this,” Spicer told Breitbart News Sunday in response to Noah’s rant. “I went on the show looking to have fun and do well, whatever. It was the left who boycotted me.” “They have come to believe that their viewpoint is the only viewpoint, and I would’ve assumed that the 2016 election was a wakeup call,” he added. As Spicer told Breitbart News Sunday, the left’s initial reaction to his participation in the shows “fired up” conservatives across America. The leftist rage also earned him support from high-profile supporters, such as Donald Trump Jr. and President Trump. “Guys get this going again for Spicy. The meltdown the Hollywood types keep having when he wins with your votes is soooo worth the time,” Don. Jr. said. “Get on it!!!”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 15:31:03 GMT -6
So now, they want to abolish the popularity vote from the people because Spicer keeps staying on DWTS. Lol. t.co/ray0AgpvfF
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 5, 2019 15:33:39 GMT -6
“The View” co-host Joy Behar told Democrats to continue and lie to the American people and don’t tell them you’re going to take their guns. Behar says to wait until you’re elected to take the guns away. ijr.com/behar-democrats-wait-after-election-guns-away/When it comes to pushing gun control on Americans, “The View” co-host Joy Behar has some advice for 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls.
During Monday’s segment of the show, Behar suggested that 2020 hopefuls not put a lot of focus on taking guns away from Americans until after the election, if they become president.
After co-host Meghan McCain discussed how O’Rourke’s stance on gun buyback received criticism from some Democrats, Behar said, “They should not tell everything they’re going to do. Like, if you’re going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected then take the guns away.”
“Don’t tell them ahead of time,” Behar added, prompting laughter. McCain, however, responded, “That’s what people like me think they’re going to do. […] So I appreciate his honesty.”
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Nov 5, 2019 18:12:46 GMT -6
So now, they want to abolish the popularity vote from the people because Spicer keeps staying on DWTS. Lol. t.co/ray0AgpvfFAnd use maybe an electoral system?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 9:59:12 GMT -6
Pelosi, Schiff and the Democrats block all funding for U.S. Border wall, yet provide funding for other nation's border security. Yes, the Democrats despise President Trump and American sovereignty that much: cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/house-votes-enhance-border-security-jordan-lebanon-egypt-and-tunisiaProvided further,” says the bill, “That these funds may be used in such amounts as the Secretary of Defense may determine to enhance the border security of nations adjacent to conflict areas including Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Tunisia resulting from actions of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Nov 7, 2019 15:38:52 GMT -6
So, the First Lady did this:
And there were protests for it:
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Nov 7, 2019 19:20:07 GMT -6
So, the First Lady did this: And there were protests for it: Employees of that very facility. And of course they are right as they are all educated professionals and she's just an escort.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Nov 7, 2019 19:26:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Nov 7, 2019 19:30:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Nov 7, 2019 19:51:11 GMT -6
Epic Fail: Mark Halperin’s Anti-Trump Book Bombs… Biglyfreebeacon.com/politics/mark-halperins-new-anti-trump-book-barely-sells-500-copies/lol Disgraced former MSNBC analyst Mark Halperin’s book How to Beat Trump: America's Top Political Strategists On What It Will Take sold 502 copies during its first week, according to NPD BookScan's Wednesday report. Not many Americans purchased Halperin's book this week despite the description on Amazon that claims, "more than 100 million anxious Americans want to know: how can Donald Trump be beaten in 2020 and evicted from the White House?" Just six reviews of the book have been posted to Amazon, one of which is titled "Write what you know, Mark." In it, user Ball Student wrote, "He'd be better off avoiding speculation and sticking to areas he has extensive experience in: groping female employees."Halperin has faced numerous allegations of sexual harassment and assault, and the news of his book contract with Regan Arts has drawn a substantial backlash. CNN reported that 12 women came forward publicly to accuse Halperin of sexual harassment or assault, which he denied. Journalist Emily Miller, who worked with Halperin at ABC News, criticized anyone aiding him because she said it undermines the victims who came forward. "Every person who’s helping him regain power and a public platform is complicit in re-traumatizing all the victims," Miller said. "Men like him don't change," she said. "He spent decades using his position of power in the media to sexually assault women. He hasn't even apologized to his victims." Former CNN producer Eleanor McManus, who also said she was victimized by Halperin, criticized Regan Arts for signing him to a book deal despite his refusal to apologize. "He has yet to take responsibility for his actions by apologizing to his victims or demonstrating genuine contrition," McManus said. "Giving him a book once again puts him in a position of authority and that is a slap to all the women that he has victimized." NBC News terminated Halperin in light of the allegations. He has since started his own political blog.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Nov 8, 2019 8:24:43 GMT -6
|
|