Ilhan Omar already alienating even anti-Trump journalists

Representative Ilhan Omar is going to need every media friend she can scare up in the wake of her disgraceful Jew-hating tweets (followed by phony apologies) and her demonstration of foreign policy ignorance yesterday in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. In truth, she has no justification for occupying that much sought-after seat that Nancy Pelosi gave her for unknown reasons. The Republicans, by kicking Rep. Steve King off his committee assignments, have made it awkward for Pelosi and the Dems to keep her in that plum assignment, while President Trump has demanded her resignation from Congress.


But instead of cultivating good relations with reporters, she committed an on-camera sin in the eyes of most working reporters, even those who, like CNN’s Manu Raju, are very anti-Trump.



Watch her ask Mr. Raju, “What is wrong with you?” when he dared ask her about this tweet:


 



 




Her natural ally did not take such treatment kindly on his Twitter feed:


 



 



 



 



 



 



Raju’s CNN colleague Brian Stelter rose to his defense, carefully couching his criticism of her with the comment that it “is a problem on both sides of the aisle”:


 



 



The resulting cascade of angry tweets vilifying him for daring to criticize her is not making Stelter into a friend either.


If a Trump-hater loses CNN….


Representative Ilhan Omar is going to need every media friend she can scare up in the wake of her disgraceful Jew-hating tweets (followed by phony apologies) and her demonstration of foreign policy ignorance yesterday in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. In truth, she has no justification for occupying that much sought-after seat that Nancy Pelosi gave her for unknown reasons. The Republicans, by kicking Rep. Steve King off his committee assignments, have made it awkward for Pelosi and the Dems to keep her in that plum assignment, while President Trump has demanded her resignation from Congress.


But instead of cultivating good relations with reporters, she committed an on-camera sin in the eyes of most working reporters, even those who, like CNN’s Manu Raju, are very anti-Trump.


Watch her ask Mr. Raju, “What is wrong with you?” when he dared ask her about this tweet:


 



 




Her natural ally did not take such treatment kindly on his Twitter feed:


 



 



 



 



 



 



Raju’s CNN colleague Brian Stelter rose to his defense, carefully couching his criticism of her with the comment that it “is a problem on both sides of the aisle”:


 



 



The resulting cascade of angry tweets vilifying him for daring to criticize her is not making Stelter into a friend either.


If a Trump-hater loses CNN….




via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Coup kook a choo: McCabe admits pushing 25th Amendment to remove Trump after Comey firing

Did the “highest levels” of the Department of Justice attempt to foment a coup d’etat in May 2017? Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe told Scott Pelley that he quarterbacked a meeting to discuss removing Donald Trump from office after the president fired James Comey. In the interview, which will air on 60 Minutes this Sunday, McCabe says that the participants in the meeting included Rod Rosenstein and other less-senior officers in the Department of Justice and got to the point of “counting noses” to see whether invoking the 25th Amendment would succeed:

“The most illuminating and surprising thing in the interview to me were these eight days in May when all of these things were happening behind the scenes that the American people really didn’t know about,” Pelley said on the show.

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” Pelley said. “These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what do with the president.”

That’s some kind of admission — and McCabe may not realize how that looks. In his book, he probably casts this as some kind of attempt to deal with a rogue president, likely with himself as a hero. However, I’m checking my copy of the Constitution and can’t quite find where it says that the Department of Justice and the FBI has any role in the 25th Amendment process for removing an incapacitated president. Here’s the text of the relevant portion of the amendment:

4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Talk about getting out over your own skis. “Principal officers of the executive departments” are the Cabinet officials themselves, not their subordinates. McCabe at the time was temporarily FBI director, an inferior officer to the Attorney General. So for that matter is Rod Rosenstein as a deputy AG. McCabe claims they were “counting noses” among the Cabinet members without ever bothering to raise the issue directly with any of them. The discussion McCabe describes would have been entirely inappropriate at best, not to mention constitutionally offensive and an abuse of power.

At worst … well …

Actually, yes. It’s the kind of admission that increases the perception of a “deep state” in the executive branch that considers itself the highest power in the land. It’s not up to “the highest levels of law enforcement” to remove an elected president, especially since Jeff Sessions was the highest level and apparently not part of this discussion. The only entity that can remove a president for misconduct is Congress, through impeachment and conviction. The 25th Amendment is strictly for incapacity, which does not include offending the sensibilities of law enforcement by firing an appointed inferior officer.

Also, McCabe shivs Rosenstein a bit as well. Rosenstein said last fall that any suggestion of wearing a wire when talking with the president was a jokeNuh-uh, McCabe told Pelley:

Pelley said McCabe confirms in their interview that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein considered wearing a wire in meetings with President Trump. Previously, a Justice Department statement claimed that Rosenstein made the offer sarcastically, but McCabe said it was taken seriously.

“McCabe in [the 60 Minutes] interview says no, it came up more than once and it was so serious that he took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss it,” Pelley told “CBS This Morning.”

At least we know for sure who sourced the NYT on the meeting last September. Melissa Schwartz denied that McCabe or anyone associated with him provided her the material, but who else had enough of an axe to grind to leak that story?

By the way, McCabe also takes credit for starting the obstruction probe against Trump. McCabe claims he wanted to lay down a marker in case Trump fired anyone else:

Former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe said he ordered an investigation into whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice as a way to preserve ongoing inquiries into Russian election meddling in case there was an effort to terminate them.

“I wanted to make sure that our case was on solid ground and if somebody came in behind me and closed it and tried to walk away from it, they would not be able to do that without creating a record of why they made that decision,” McCabe told Scott Pelley on “CBS This Morning” in an interview that aired Thursday.

At least that much was in McCabe’s authority. After this, though, it’s clear why McCabe needed to be fired, even apart from his other issues.

The post Coup kook a choo: McCabe admits pushing 25th Amendment to remove Trump after Comey firing appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

Air Force Academy Criticized For Inviting Chick-Fil-A Exec

Lighten up, Francis. Via Miami Herald: A group that advocates for religious liberty in the military says the U.S. Air Force Academy should cancel a planned speech by a Chick-fil-A executive. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation said Wednesday the company has a history of supporting anti-gay causes and that Rodney Bullard, a Chick-fil-A vice president […]

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

Huge: MSNBC Now Reporting Even Dem. Sources Indicate No Trump-Russia Conspiracy Evidence of a Direct Nature

For two years, the left, the establishment media, and those afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome have accused President Donald Trump of “Russian collusion.”

Despite ongoing revelations that it may have well been former first lady Hillary Clinton and her campaign that “colluded” with Russia, the accusations continued.

Even when special counsel Robert Mueller hit former members and associates of the Trump campaign with unrelated charges that made no mention of “collusion,” the accusations have continued, with Trump critics pointing to the developments as some sort of “proof.”

Even when Republicans who read unredacted documents questioned the validity of the claim against Trump, they were accused of being partisan and therefore unreliable.

Now we have something bipartisan in Trump’s favor to consider. And even establishment media is being forced to admit Trump may be innocent of the accusation of collusion.

TRENDING: Beto Forced To Pause After Trump’s Thunderous Crowd Noise Fills Anti-Trump Rally

The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee has found no “direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia,” reported NBC’s Ken Dilanian for MSNBC. He cited sources on both the Democrat and Republic sides of the political aisle.

Dilanian explained that even though the head of the committee, North Carolina’s Sen. Richard Burr, a Republican, had hinted at something similar the week before, Dilanian didn’t want a “partisan” opinion about a bipartisan investigation, so he checked with his own Democatic sources.

“What I’ve been doing since then is checking with my sources on the Democratic side to understand the full context of his remarks, because that was essentially a partisan comment from one side,” Dilanian said.

Do you believe Trump is innocent of “Russian collusion”?

“But this is a bipartisan investigation, and what I’ve found is that the Democrats don’t dispute that characterization.”

In other words, no direct evidence has been revealed in the investigation that points at a conspiracy between Trump and Russia.

Naturally, it won’t be that simple for Trump to be cleared. Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the intelligence committee’s vice chairman, disagreed with that assssment, according to the New York Post. Warner refused to give any specifics on why he disagreed.

“I’m not going to get into any conclusions I’ve reached because my basis of this has been that I’m not going to reach any conclusion until we finish the investigation,” he said. He added that there will be “a number of key witnesses to come back.”

Of course, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report is separate from the Mueller investigation, which has yet to be conluded.

RELATED: Chair of Intel Committee Beats Mueller to the Punch, Confirms They ‘Don’t Have Anything’ on Trump Collusion

What the Senate Intelligence Committee says, particulary when in favor of Trump’s innocence, may be largely brushed aside by those pushing the Russian collusion narrative. To them it is what Mueller says that matters.

That being the case, how will they react if he finds that Trump is innocent of the collusion accusation? Will they accept it or claim he was corrupted, blackmailed, or otherwise unreliable?

In the meantime, Trump and his supporters are celebrating the Senate Intelligence Committee’s conclusions.

Trump himself blared the news in a Twitter post on Wednesday:

Former Secret Service agent, author and conservative commentator Dan Bongino has been among those taking the news and running with it on social media. He particularly cited the work of anti-Trump author Seth Abramson.

It appears that the Russian collusion narrative is imploding. But what if the Mueller investigation also concludes there is no evidence that the Trump campaign worked with Russia? Even in the fall, before the midterm elections, the media had begun playing down what Mueller’s final report might hold.

So, if the Mueller investigation also ends up with nothing to back up the whole “collusion” story, will there be charges levied against those involved in “framing” Trump?

Not everyone believes justice will be done in that regard, but the president being cleared of any and all false allegations would be a step in the right direction.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Brentwood Tent City vs Brentwood Homeless Veterans

Brentwood Tent City vs Brentwood Homeless VeteransFellow Veterans and Friends of Veterans

This past Sunday exposed the extreme dichotomy of Veteran homelessness outside the VA in Brentwood and a community-gathering within Brentwood itself.

Directly outside the VA border fence on the sidewalk of San Vicente Boulevard leading into the community of Brentwood are numerous U.S. Military Veterans living homeless and hungry.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://canadafreepress.com/

ANTIFA THUG WORKED FOR CHIEF DNC TRAINER

ANTIFA THUG WORKED FOR CHIEF DNC TRAINER, Joseph AlcoffAn activist now charged with assaulting two U.S. Marines as part of an Antifa mob has ties to Heather Booth, a senior Democrat and chief DNC trainer who founded a training academy devoted to the teachings of the late pro-violence community organizing guru Saul Alinsky.

This is yet more proof that Antifa, the anti-fascist coalition that uses heavy-handed fascist tactics, is becoming closely integrated with the Democratic Party, many of whose activists support its goal of overthrowing the government of the United States by force. (I executive-produced a three-part documentary series, America Under Siege, about Antifa and other political actors.)

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://canadafreepress.com/

Here we go again: Omnibus spending bill drops hours before vote

Forty-eight hours before the government would have shut down, Congress produced the conference report containing the seven remaining funding bills for the FY2019 budget. And less than 20 hours after producing the 1,159-page monstrosity, both the House and the Senate are expected to pass the bill. Perhaps members will take a nap with it under their pillow to absorb it by osmosis.

Actually, it’s worse than that, says Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA). All he got was an hour to review one copy of the bill, and he says that makes him a no (via Twitchy):

Graves will likely remain in the minority, as the Washington Post reports. No one’s happy about the result, but their unhappiness is roughly equal, which is the closest Congress gets to bipartisanship these days:

The mood in the Capitol was less of enthusiasm than relief as negotiators finalized legislation that would end, for now, political brinkmanship over Trump’s demands for money for a southern border wall. Those demands produced the nation’s longest partial government shutdown before it ended late last month after 35 days.

The days of negotiations that followed produced a deal offering Trump less than a quarter of the $5.7 billion he wanted for barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. Nevertheless, Trump is expected to sign the bill — although the president has changed his mind at the last minute before, creating a level of uncertainty.

Lawmakers finalized the 1,159-page bill just before midnight Wednesday, and votes were expected in the House and the Senate on Thursday. The legislation is expected to pass. Trump said that he has to see the final deal before deciding whether he can support it, but he reiterated his insistence that regardless of what Congress does, the border wall will get built.

Even the “will he or won’t he?” game is being played half-heartedly. Trump could change his mind about signing off on the omnibus, but … he probably won’t. What would he gain at this point? Once again, Democrats and Republicans agreed on a bill, which means his refusal would put another shutdown on his shoulders. Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy wouldn’t have allowed this agreement to take place without Trump’s grudging buy-in this time around, so refusing to sign off on the bill might alienate Trump from the Capitol Hill Republicans he needs to get anything done in the next two years.

Besides, Trump did get some money explicitly assigned to border barriers, an improvement over the previous version that only had money set aside for “border security.” It might not be much, but it’s better than nothing:

Let’s just say it’s enough for Trump to save some face.

The Senate will take up the bill first, perhaps to give cover to other House members still on the fence, pun intended. If the Senate passes the bill with a veto-proof majority, it seems likelier that waverers will surrender to the inevitable and get in line. That could also signal to Trump that this battle is well and truly over and that it’s best to keep claiming victory rather than end up getting overridden by a bipartisan Congress. Expect this to end not with a bang, but hardly even a whimper.

The post Here we go again: Omnibus spending bill drops hours before vote appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

Legal Immigrant Angel Mom: Nancy Pelosi ‘Oughta Be Arrested’

WASHINGTON, DC — Legal immigrant Agnes Gibboney asked where was the protection for her son killed by an illegal alien as she stood in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office Wednesday.

Gibboney was one of many angel families turned away at Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office Wednesday despite their requests for meetings that were made ahead of their visit to her office.

“My parents legally immigrated here,” said angel mom Agnes Gibboney. “My parents wanted a good, safe place for my family and look and the safe place my only son, my first born was murdered.”

“Where is the protection?…Where is the sanctuary for my son?” Gibboney asked. “Who is to say that after this guy gets out next year, he’s not going to come after me or after any of my family? Or kill somebody else’s child?”

“I wouldn’t want to see that. I wouldn’t want his own family go through the hell I’ve been living with for almost 17 years,” she went on. “This is not fair.”

“This country, I took an oath when I became a citizen. Nancy Pelosi took an oath when she took office. She’s breaking her oath. She oughta be arrested,” said Gibboney. 

Capitol Hill Police showed up with a commanding presence while angel families were gathered in Pelosi’s office. Two of the officers entered the front office at one point, while several others stood at the ready outside the office where more angel families and supporters stood. Officers remained until angel families eventually departed the office.

Angel families held a press conference Wednesday with current and former elected officials, former heads of federal immigration law enforcement agencies, and other pro-border security groups. The families, who have had loved ones killed by illegal aliens, walked from their Capitol Hill event to Pelosi’s office. Several had requested meetings ahead of visiting Pelosi’s office, but received no response. Aides manning the front desks when angel families arrived would not give a timeline for when families could even meet with one of Pelosi’s staff.

Michelle Moons is a White House Correspondent for Breitbart News — follow on Twitter @MichelleDiana and Facebook

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

After Venezuela exchange, the case grows for throwing Ilhan Omar off the House Foreign Affairs Committee

The unfitness of Rep. Ilhan Omar for the House Foreign Affairs Committee has already been brought up based on her persistent anti-Semitism, her strange habit of repeating Russian propaganda, and her apparent abuse of U.S. immigration law. Now a new and very big reason has come up: Her cringe-inducing ignorance of actual foreign affairs. 


In a hearing on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Omar got her big moment to show her foreign policy chops, and started in by misstating the actual name of the State Department’s grizzled old special envoy for Venezuela, the well-known Elliott Abrams, calling him ‘Adams.’ Then, sneering and smiling weirdly, she brought up a tangled political controversy Abrams had been involved in, the Iran-Contra scandal, dating from before she was born and cited that as proof Abrams could not be “truthful.” After insulting her witness, she then insolently refused to allow Abrams to reply, and Abrams, who comported himself very professionally, accurately called that an attack.



Here’s a perfectly curated tweet with video from Scott Johnson of Power Line:


 



 



Mr. Adams [sic], in 1991 you pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress regarding your involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, for which you were later pardoned by President H. W. Bush. I fail to understand why members of this committee or the American people any testimony that you give today to be truthful.


If she claimed he couldn’t be truthful and insisted the whole declaration ”was not a question,” why was she asking him anything at all? You don’t talk to people you don’t think are truthful, nobody does. But there she was, carrying on after that attack when she should have departed the scene immediately.


Next up, she brought up the El Salvador wars of 40 years ago, sounding as though this was a place she had just heard about. (Notice she wasn’t particularly interested in Venezuela, the topic of the hearing). Here’s her amateur-hour “question,” as recounted by the Daily Beast:


 She quoted Abrams as having said years ago that U.S. policy in El Salvador had been a success. “Do you think the massacre was a fabulous achievement,” she asked.


“That is a ridiculous question,” Abrams retorted. He noted that after the election of Napoleon Duarte as president, every government since has been democratically elected, and he considers that a success.


After that, she slid into Russian propaganda talking points, warning that Venezuela’s democrats were going to stage massacres and she wanted to know if he’d be happy about those. Seriously, that’s straight from Russian propaganda talking points, derived from its Ukraine war, and Moscow could only be smiling.


Here’s Breitbart’s story about it:


Rep. Omar went on to suggest that Abrams would “support an armed faction within Venezuela that engages in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide” if he believed it would advance U.S interests, claiming that is what he did in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.


“I am not going to respond to that question,” a seemingly annoyed Abrams replied when asked if he would support such an armed group.


So after all that ignorant crap about El Salvador, blaming the U.S. for some decades-old civil war crime it had nothing to do with, we finally get to her issue about Venezuela: The horrible danger from … Venezuela’s opposition. Never mind the starvation, never mind the people fleeing, never mind the ruined institutions, never mind the dining out on zoo animals. In Omar’s addled mind, the big risk in that country is … Venezuela’s democrats.


Nobody in Venezuela’s legitimate government, run by President Juan Guaido, is talking massacre – or even throwing Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro in jail, actually, which shows the extent of Omar’s ignorance. The thrust of the talks in Caracas is how to get him out of there, with some Venezuelans saying a comfortable exile would be acceptable just to get him out over the alternative of leaving him in. The whole democracy movement in Venezuela has been an incredibly peaceful one, with gargantuan crowds of people and Venezuelan-led. It’s been marked by a focus on urging Venezuela’s military to abandon Maduro and join them. And the reason for the uprising is very serious: Millions of Venezuelans are starving, dying of disease, or fleeing for their lives. Armed revolt talk is not just a smear on Venezuela’s already abused democrats, in a place where gun ownership is illegal and troops are crying out for weapons, it’s not even possible. What Omar was doing was smearing Venezuela’s democratic opposition – which has already been jailed, tortured, and beaten (one of the top four opposition leaders, Maria Corina Machado, had her nose broken in the Venezuela assembly by socialist thugs). She was also repeating Russian propaganda points derived from its invasion of eastern Ukraine.


I heard this bizarre exchange and could only conclude that Congress had descended into something out of an old V.S. Naipaul book. A third world goophead [Naipauls’ word] of partial education and substandard literacy, enamored of some third world ideology or other, brimming with pride and victimhood, goes into a confusion-and-resentment laced rant against the perceived wicked super-power of America, all the while desperately seeking its benefits (and in her case, power) on the side. 


The Daily Beast’s Ron Radosh had a superb summary of just why that’s a problem:


Omar’s comportment at the hearing, as well as her obvious belief that the United States is an imperialist and reactionary nation that by its very nature abuses human rights, should alone be reason enough to have her removed before she can do real damage.


The case is growing for throwing this unfit person off that committee. She doesn’t belong there, and as Radosh notes, the more she opens her mouth, the more she damages the Democrats. She should be thrown off and given her some Play-Doh with which to work her issues out. Not even Democrats can afford this kind of idiocy.


The unfitness of Rep. Ilhan Omar for the House Foreign Affairs Committee has already been brought up based on her persistent anti-Semitism, her strange habit of repeating Russian propaganda, and her apparent abuse of U.S. immigration law. Now a new and very big reason has come up: Her cringe-inducing ignorance of actual foreign affairs. 


In a hearing on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Omar got her big moment to show her foreign policy chops, and started in by misstating the actual name of the State Department’s grizzled old special envoy for Venezuela, the well-known Elliott Abrams, calling him ‘Adams.’ Then, sneering and smiling weirdly, she brought up a tangled political controversy Abrams had been involved in, the Iran-Contra scandal, dating from before she was born and cited that as proof Abrams could not be “truthful.” After insulting her witness, she then insolently refused to allow Abrams to reply, and Abrams, who comported himself very professionally, accurately called that an attack.


Here’s a perfectly curated tweet with video from Scott Johnson of Power Line:


 



 



Mr. Adams [sic], in 1991 you pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress regarding your involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, for which you were later pardoned by President H. W. Bush. I fail to understand why members of this committee or the American people any testimony that you give today to be truthful.


If she claimed he couldn’t be truthful and insisted the whole declaration ”was not a question,” why was she asking him anything at all? You don’t talk to people you don’t think are truthful, nobody does. But there she was, carrying on after that attack when she should have departed the scene immediately.


Next up, she brought up the El Salvador wars of 40 years ago, sounding as though this was a place she had just heard about. (Notice she wasn’t particularly interested in Venezuela, the topic of the hearing). Here’s her amateur-hour “question,” as recounted by the Daily Beast:


 She quoted Abrams as having said years ago that U.S. policy in El Salvador had been a success. “Do you think the massacre was a fabulous achievement,” she asked.


“That is a ridiculous question,” Abrams retorted. He noted that after the election of Napoleon Duarte as president, every government since has been democratically elected, and he considers that a success.


After that, she slid into Russian propaganda talking points, warning that Venezuela’s democrats were going to stage massacres and she wanted to know if he’d be happy about those. Seriously, that’s straight from Russian propaganda talking points, derived from its Ukraine war, and Moscow could only be smiling.


Here’s Breitbart’s story about it:


Rep. Omar went on to suggest that Abrams would “support an armed faction within Venezuela that engages in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide” if he believed it would advance U.S interests, claiming that is what he did in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.


“I am not going to respond to that question,” a seemingly annoyed Abrams replied when asked if he would support such an armed group.


So after all that ignorant crap about El Salvador, blaming the U.S. for some decades-old civil war crime it had nothing to do with, we finally get to her issue about Venezuela: The horrible danger from … Venezuela’s opposition. Never mind the starvation, never mind the people fleeing, never mind the ruined institutions, never mind the dining out on zoo animals. In Omar’s addled mind, the big risk in that country is … Venezuela’s democrats.


Nobody in Venezuela’s legitimate government, run by President Juan Guaido, is talking massacre – or even throwing Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro in jail, actually, which shows the extent of Omar’s ignorance. The thrust of the talks in Caracas is how to get him out of there, with some Venezuelans saying a comfortable exile would be acceptable just to get him out over the alternative of leaving him in. The whole democracy movement in Venezuela has been an incredibly peaceful one, with gargantuan crowds of people and Venezuelan-led. It’s been marked by a focus on urging Venezuela’s military to abandon Maduro and join them. And the reason for the uprising is very serious: Millions of Venezuelans are starving, dying of disease, or fleeing for their lives. Armed revolt talk is not just a smear on Venezuela’s already abused democrats, in a place where gun ownership is illegal and troops are crying out for weapons, it’s not even possible. What Omar was doing was smearing Venezuela’s democratic opposition – which has already been jailed, tortured, and beaten (one of the top four opposition leaders, Maria Corina Machado, had her nose broken in the Venezuela assembly by socialist thugs). She was also repeating Russian propaganda points derived from its invasion of eastern Ukraine.


I heard this bizarre exchange and could only conclude that Congress had descended into something out of an old V.S. Naipaul book. A third world goophead [Naipauls’ word] of partial education and substandard literacy, enamored of some third world ideology or other, brimming with pride and victimhood, goes into a confusion-and-resentment laced rant against the perceived wicked super-power of America, all the while desperately seeking its benefits (and in her case, power) on the side. 


The Daily Beast’s Ron Radosh had a superb summary of just why that’s a problem:


Omar’s comportment at the hearing, as well as her obvious belief that the United States is an imperialist and reactionary nation that by its very nature abuses human rights, should alone be reason enough to have her removed before she can do real damage.


The case is growing for throwing this unfit person off that committee. She doesn’t belong there, and as Radosh notes, the more she opens her mouth, the more she damages the Democrats. She should be thrown off and given her some Play-Doh with which to work her issues out. Not even Democrats can afford this kind of idiocy.




via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Colorado moves to thwart the Electoral College

Somebody is still a little peeved about losing the 2016 presidential election, or so it seems. The “somebody” in question would be the Democrats in Colorado’s state government. They introduced a bill which has already passed the state Senate and it’s intended to assign all of Colorado’s electoral college votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. I wonder who they think that might benefit more? (CBS Denver)

Colorado could help change the way the nation elects presidents. Democratic lawmakers have introduced a bill that would support the winner of a national popular vote.

It has already passed the State Senate.

The debate over whether to get rid of the Electoral College heated up after the 2016 election, when Hillary Clinton won the national popular vote, but President Donald Trump won the electoral vote.

The attempts to justify this sort of end-around run at the Constitution would be hilarious if the subject weren’t so serious. One of the bill’s sponsors, Democratic Representative Emily Sirota, attempted to explain it this way. “It’s to make every vote count equally no matter where you live in the country, and we should elect the President as a nation, as a whole.”

That seems to be a popular line among supporters of such measures around the country, but it’s also blatantly untrue. How are you ensuring “every vote counts equally” if the votes cast by people who supported the loser of the national popular vote are simply erased? And in case Ms. Sirota hasn’t had time to read the Constitution yet, the founders went to great pains to craft a system where we specifically don’t elect presidents as a nation. In fact, a large amount of the effort expended in drafting the Constitution went to ensuring that each individual state had a say in the matter.

Thankfully, as with most of the rest of the states (plus the District of Columbia) that have enacted similar legislation, this law wouldn’t go into effect unless all of those states mustered a combined 270 electoral votes. And even if they manage to reach that unlikely target, court challenges based on such a plan being unconstitutional would likely either sink the effort or tie it up in the courts for a very long time.

The bottom line is that if you don’t like the Constitution, either work with like-minded citizens to try to change it or move to a country with a constitution more to your liking.

The post Colorado moves to thwart the Electoral College appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com