Posted on

The UN Must Have No Say On U.S. Sanctions Against Iran

The UN Must Have No Say On U.S. Sanctions Against Iran
United Nations Special Rapporteur Idriss Jazairy sharply criticized the Trump administration’s decision to reimpose sanctions against Iran after the withdrawal of the United States from the Iran nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”). “The reimposition of sanctions against Iran after the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, which had been unanimously adopted by the Security Council with the support of the US itself, lays bare the illegitimacy of this action,” Mr. Jazairy charged.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

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

Posted on

Dems blowing winnable races across the country

Interesting piece in the National Journal about how Democrats are failing to take full advantage of all their electoral advantages and may be blowing several winnable races across the country by nominating kooks and crazies.


They use as a case study the gubernatorial race in deep blue Maryland which pits GOP incumbent Larry Hogan against the former head of the NAACP Ben Jealous.



Hogan’s ability to build a broad coalition is testament to his engaging personality, record of economic growth during his tenure, and an eagerness to split from President Trump on myriad issues. But the governor’s commanding lead over Democrat Ben Jealous is also a product of the Democratic Party’s leftward lurch in Maryland, a dynamic that is replicating itself in other pivotal governors’ races across the country.


Democrats nominated Jealous, a former NAACP president, to face Hogan. He’s a dream candidate for progressives: a Bernie Sanders acolyte who advocates for single-payer health insurance, free college tuition, and the legalization of marijuana among other liberal priorities. He defeated a relatively moderate, business-friendly opponent in Prince George’s County executive Rushern Baker III, making the argument that the only way to defeat the popular Hogan was by rallying the base across a liberal state like Maryland.


So far, that strategy hasn’t panned out. Republican-aligned groups have spent millions tagging Jealous as an extremist, targeting his single-payer health care proposal. He dropped an expletive at a Washington Post reporter who asked if he was a socialist at a press conference. Public polls show his negatives unusually high for a first-time candidate, and he’s struggling to consolidate support in majority-minority Baltimore City and Prince George’s County. Jealous hasn’t raised money to match his national profile, and is running low on campaign cash, according to new campaign finance filings.


Hogan is an outlier for the GOP – a true moderate running in a heavily Democratic state. In fact, most Democrats running in blue states and blue districts are expected to win with relative ease.


And therein lies the Democrat’s problem. If they want to take control of the House and Senate as well as win more governorships, they are going to have to win in some red states and some red districts.


There are pluses and minuses this electoral season for Democrats. The pluses include running against a first term president – historically, a big advantage for the party out of the White House. Then there are more than 40 open seats, most of them in Republican districts, where the advantage of incumbency has been negated. Finally, the Republican party is in bad odor – even with many Republicans. This may tamp down GOP turnout in races where it is vital for  the base to rally behind the candidate.


But the Democrats are none too popular either. More to the point, they have nominated far left candidates in many red states and districts. While this may enthuse their base, it will cost them dearly with swing voters and disaffected Republicans. 


So the question of who controls the House next year may come down to how many voters in conservative districts will cast a ballot for a far left candidate? By definition, the liberal base vote in those districts is much smaller than the GOP base vote. They may have all the enthusiasm in the world to get out and vote, but the math is against the Democratic candidate.


Democrats could potentially pick up 30-50 seats, needing 24 to take control. But they won’t. If they manage to win the House, it will be by a far narrower margin than it could be, simply because they are running the wrong kind of candidates in many districts where a less radical Democrat would have a better chance of success.  


 


Interesting piece in the National Journal about how Democrats are failing to take full advantage of all their electoral advantages and may be blowing several winnable races across the country by nominating kooks and crazies.


They use as a case study the gubernatorial race in deep blue Maryland which pits GOP incumbent Larry Hogan against the former head of the NAACP Ben Jealous.


Hogan’s ability to build a broad coalition is testament to his engaging personality, record of economic growth during his tenure, and an eagerness to split from President Trump on myriad issues. But the governor’s commanding lead over Democrat Ben Jealous is also a product of the Democratic Party’s leftward lurch in Maryland, a dynamic that is replicating itself in other pivotal governors’ races across the country.


Democrats nominated Jealous, a former NAACP president, to face Hogan. He’s a dream candidate for progressives: a Bernie Sanders acolyte who advocates for single-payer health insurance, free college tuition, and the legalization of marijuana among other liberal priorities. He defeated a relatively moderate, business-friendly opponent in Prince George’s County executive Rushern Baker III, making the argument that the only way to defeat the popular Hogan was by rallying the base across a liberal state like Maryland.


So far, that strategy hasn’t panned out. Republican-aligned groups have spent millions tagging Jealous as an extremist, targeting his single-payer health care proposal. He dropped an expletive at a Washington Post reporter who asked if he was a socialist at a press conference. Public polls show his negatives unusually high for a first-time candidate, and he’s struggling to consolidate support in majority-minority Baltimore City and Prince George’s County. Jealous hasn’t raised money to match his national profile, and is running low on campaign cash, according to new campaign finance filings.


Hogan is an outlier for the GOP – a true moderate running in a heavily Democratic state. In fact, most Democrats running in blue states and blue districts are expected to win with relative ease.


And therein lies the Democrat’s problem. If they want to take control of the House and Senate as well as win more governorships, they are going to have to win in some red states and some red districts.


There are pluses and minuses this electoral season for Democrats. The pluses include running against a first term president – historically, a big advantage for the party out of the White House. Then there are more than 40 open seats, most of them in Republican districts, where the advantage of incumbency has been negated. Finally, the Republican party is in bad odor – even with many Republicans. This may tamp down GOP turnout in races where it is vital for  the base to rally behind the candidate.


But the Democrats are none too popular either. More to the point, they have nominated far left candidates in many red states and districts. While this may enthuse their base, it will cost them dearly with swing voters and disaffected Republicans. 


So the question of who controls the House next year may come down to how many voters in conservative districts will cast a ballot for a far left candidate? By definition, the liberal base vote in those districts is much smaller than the GOP base vote. They may have all the enthusiasm in the world to get out and vote, but the math is against the Democratic candidate.


Democrats could potentially pick up 30-50 seats, needing 24 to take control. But they won’t. If they manage to win the House, it will be by a far narrower margin than it could be, simply because they are running the wrong kind of candidates in many districts where a less radical Democrat would have a better chance of success.  


 




via American Thinker Blog

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

Posted on

If Obama AG Lynch Pushed Through Original FISA Warrant to Spy on Candidate Trump – Did AG Sessions or Rosenstein Renew it?

If Obama AG Lynch Pushed Through Original FISA Warrant to Spy on Candidate Trump – Did AG Sessions or Rosenstein Renew it?

Jim Hoft
by Jim Hoft
September 3, 2018

Guest post by Joe Hoft

TGP reported over the weekend that it appears that the reason there was no FISA Court hearing on the Carter Page FISA warrant was because Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch forced through the application per an obscure loophole in the law.

If this is correct, then did AG Sessions or Rosenstein push through any extensions after President Trump took office?

As reported previously by TGP – >

On Monday evening Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) revealed Congressional investigators have learned the FBI and DOJ previously leaked information to the press then used those same press stories as a separate source to justify seeking FISA warrants on Trump advisor Carter Page. They knew all along the story was bogus and planted the evidence in the liberal media.

On Friday conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch dropped another bombshell. The Justice Department admitted in a court filing that the FISA Court never held hearings on the FISA applications for former Trump advisor Carter Page.

Now it appears and is likely that the Obama administration bypassed the FISA Court to spy on the Trump campaign based on a story they knew to be false.

ImperatorRex on Twitter explained how the Obama administration went around the FISA Court to spy on the opposition party based on lies they helped push in the liberal fake news media.

To Recap:

If the above is true, then who authorized the renewals for the above mentioned request?  This is the largest political scandal in US history without a doubt – there’s no comparison!

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

via The Gateway Pundit

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

Posted on

Andrew Gillum ‘Deeply Appreciative’ of Money From George Soros, Tom Steyer

Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Florida Democratic gubernatorial nominee Andrew Gillum thanked left-wing billionaires George Soros and Tom Steyer for their support in funding his campaign, saying he is “deeply appreciative” of the money received. “You ran as an unabashed progressive Democrat. You’re for Medicare for all, you talk about getting rid of ICE and some things there, but I’m curious, one of the things, you were supported by two billionaires who came in and helped your campaign and largely your campaign early on was funded by them, George Soros and Tom Steyer. How do you square sort of a populist progressive campaign that wants to get big money, you know among other things, get big money out of politics, get dark money out of politics, and yet it’s billionaires that have to prop up your campaign?” host Chuck Todd asked. “Well, I’ll tell you I’m obviously deeply appreciative of Mr. Soros, as well as Mr. Steyer, both men who I’ve known them for some time,” Gillum replied. “But the truth is, Chuck, that our campaign was propped up by a lot of small contributions including my mother, who was on auto deduct of $20 a month into our campaign.” Gillum

via Breitbart News

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

Posted on

AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka flounders against Trump’s stellar record on labor

President Trump’s stellar economy nothing but hell on Democrats, and nowhere is it more hellish than in the offices of AFL-CIO union boss Richard Trumka, who for years has gotten the better of Republicans in claims to stand up for the conditions of the working man. Now Trump has come along, and things aren’t quite so easy.


Trumka was called to speak on Labor Day by Fox News’s Chris Wallace about one of his old bugaboos, NAFTA, and it’s obvious he doesn’t quite know what to say:



 



 


Did we just hear he said he WANTED more NAFTA? That trade pact he’s hated for years and often said he wanted scrapped? Suddenly, he wants NAFTA the way a free marketer does, given that the economies of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. are all “integrated?” Talk about singing soprano. Let’s see him try to sell that to the hardhats.


Then he gets even more Clinton-globalista, by saying he wants a deal that “works” for all the workers of the NAFTA area – Canadian workers, Mexican workers and American workers, not just American workers alone. As if what’s good for one in a trade pact scenario doesn’t mean some give-ups from another. Let’s see him try to sell that one to the Caterpillar-boot brigades, too.


It’s also interesting that, he ignores, (and to his credit, doesn’t lie about) President Trump’s stunning record on job creation and wages, talking about other stuff instead. “Those are good, but,” he admits. Then he broadly says that workers aren’t doing well, without bringing up specifics. It was obvious from the interview that he wanted that question to go away. Maybe that’s because he’s hearing from his own union members – who in an unrelated trade pact question in a poll put on by the AFL-CIO – cited jobs and wages as their two biggie issues.


Wallace then brings up local content and wage hikes, and how Trump’s renegotiated NAFTA pact raises those things in Mexico, just as the AFL-CIO wanted. He argues (after a softball save from Wallace about enforcement of the pact) that enforcement was, yeah, the issue. Without a scintilla of evidence, he says the whole local content and wage rise can’t be enforced. What part of ‘yes’ does he not understand?


Trumka let slip a little detail about how he was working with the USTR office for enforcement. When has any president allowed AFL-CIO that much input in the past? Again, he got all he wanted, and that leaves him up a tree, exposed as a Democrat operative in a business suit playing advocate of the working man. Success is a problem for him because it undermines Democrats.


It’s also significant that Trumka emphasized a lot that he was non-partisan, objective, a caller of “balls and strikes,” not a Democratic Party shill. Obviously, he’s a bit scared of his union members and all the good stuff President Trump has brought for them.


Which highlights what is really going on here: With Trump giving workers what they want, Trumka is increasingly irrelevant. That explains his sudden nice-guy persona, and his strangely shifting positions on NAFTA. For him, the game was never about the working man, it was about advancing the aims of the left. Now he’s in the uncomfortable position of being a successful union leader who got his workers the jobs and wage hikes they wanted, yet he can’t capitalize on it. His real game has always been getting votes for Democrats and everyone now knows it.


Trump is hell for this union boss, and Trumka’s floundering shows it.


 


Image credit: Linh Do, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0


President Trump’s stellar economy nothing but hell on Democrats, and nowhere is it more hellish than in the offices of AFL-CIO union boss Richard Trumka, who for years has gotten the better of Republicans in claims to stand up for the conditions of the working man. Now Trump has come along, and things aren’t quite so easy.


Trumka was called to speak on Labor Day by Fox News’s Chris Wallace about one of his old bugaboos, NAFTA, and it’s obvious he doesn’t quite know what to say:


 



 


Did we just hear he said he WANTED more NAFTA? That trade pact he’s hated for years and often said he wanted scrapped? Suddenly, he wants NAFTA the way a free marketer does, given that the economies of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. are all “integrated?” Talk about singing soprano. Let’s see him try to sell that to the hardhats.


Then he gets even more Clinton-globalista, by saying he wants a deal that “works” for all the workers of the NAFTA area – Canadian workers, Mexican workers and American workers, not just American workers alone. As if what’s good for one in a trade pact scenario doesn’t mean some give-ups from another. Let’s see him try to sell that one to the Caterpillar-boot brigades, too.


It’s also interesting that, he ignores, (and to his credit, doesn’t lie about) President Trump’s stunning record on job creation and wages, talking about other stuff instead. “Those are good, but,” he admits. Then he broadly says that workers aren’t doing well, without bringing up specifics. It was obvious from the interview that he wanted that question to go away. Maybe that’s because he’s hearing from his own union members – who in an unrelated trade pact question in a poll put on by the AFL-CIO – cited jobs and wages as their two biggie issues.


Wallace then brings up local content and wage hikes, and how Trump’s renegotiated NAFTA pact raises those things in Mexico, just as the AFL-CIO wanted. He argues (after a softball save from Wallace about enforcement of the pact) that enforcement was, yeah, the issue. Without a scintilla of evidence, he says the whole local content and wage rise can’t be enforced. What part of ‘yes’ does he not understand?


Trumka let slip a little detail about how he was working with the USTR office for enforcement. When has any president allowed AFL-CIO that much input in the past? Again, he got all he wanted, and that leaves him up a tree, exposed as a Democrat operative in a business suit playing advocate of the working man. Success is a problem for him because it undermines Democrats.


It’s also significant that Trumka emphasized a lot that he was non-partisan, objective, a caller of “balls and strikes,” not a Democratic Party shill. Obviously, he’s a bit scared of his union members and all the good stuff President Trump has brought for them.


Which highlights what is really going on here: With Trump giving workers what they want, Trumka is increasingly irrelevant. That explains his sudden nice-guy persona, and his strangely shifting positions on NAFTA. For him, the game was never about the working man, it was about advancing the aims of the left. Now he’s in the uncomfortable position of being a successful union leader who got his workers the jobs and wage hikes they wanted, yet he can’t capitalize on it. His real game has always been getting votes for Democrats and everyone now knows it.


Trump is hell for this union boss, and Trumka’s floundering shows it.


 


Image credit: Linh Do, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0




via American Thinker Blog

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

Posted on

Brutal! Author Ted Malloch Takes Down the Flailing New York Times

Brutal! Author Ted Malloch Takes Down the Flailing New York Times

Jim Hoft
by Jim Hoft
September 3, 2018

Guest post by Ted Malloch author of The Plot to Destroy Trump: How the Deep State Fabricated the Russian Dossier to Subvert the President

I grew up reading the New York Times as the paper of record because my social studies teachers in high school and college mandated it.

I stopped reading it years and years ago as it became overtly biased and predictably liberal.

The last few days, I have been in Asia and the hotel only had the NYT, so I had a quick read.

WOW!

This is not a real newspaper — it is a propaganda organ for the anti-American, post-modern radical who loathes Trump, any traditional values, the family, and what used to be referred to as, good taste.

The headlines were ludicrous — not journalism but outright attacks.

The photos were all of shaming, refugee suffering and Trump mockery. The so-called “far right” everywhere, especially in Germany, was excoriated because can you believe this—they are upset about immigration. What makes them “far” right? No answer was provided but neo-Nazi was used repeatedly to describe them. But the NYT far left view of the world was never named that.

On page one of the NYT now they have an “opinion” column with perspectives “in hopes of promoting constructive debate about consequential questions.” Except ALL the articles are from tell tale leftists. Where’s the debate? It is the same in our universities—this is diversity of opinion?

One article on Google said Trump’s “latest sputter” was the “equivalent that falls between clearing your throat of mucus and vomiting.” How profound!

There were loads of articles about damaging climate change and pending environmental disaster and the poor puffins that are suffering in Iceland, as well as racist chants about whites at public schools and blacks that “stupidly” like the economics of prosperity. Would they be better off unemployed or in chains?

A long tribute to a gay modern dance choreographer took up two central pages replete with multiple lewd photographs. He died it appears of renal failure caused by what? Don’t ask, for he “gave wings to modern dance.”

The international accounts were generally against America and capitalism for the most part. Well there were some advertisements for luxury goods. One long treatment was on the vanilla bean riches that are destroying Madagascar. I am sure the poverty stricken farmers there feel the same way.

Of course the St. John McCain funeral got the most attention as all the Establishment hailed their boy, failing to mention the same mainstream media excoriated him as an extremist and racist when he ran against the anointed one.

They praise him now because he came to love Obama, voted to keep Obamacare, and various liberal causes and was an ardent Never Trumper.

He was no maverick.

In truth, he was a warmonger globalist who never found a war he didn’t like. He was foul-mouthed, hot-tempered, and spiteful. May he rest in peace. His first wife, who he dropped when she was gravely ill and with child, did not have kind things to say about him. Surprisingly, that didn’t make it into the NYT.

But the NYT adores McCain now and wants to enshrine him. There were full texts of eulogies and pictures galore of the bipartisan liberal elites — Bush, Clinton and Obama all, including his Senatorial partner, Mrs. – Lindsey Graham.

There was plenty of Trump coverage in the NYT.

All of it negative. His tariffs won’t work, his loud rallies are for “deplorables,” and he planned to buy dirt on himself from the sensational National Enquirer. He must be impeached soon.

The business section of the NYT would better be called ‘anti-business’ for that is what it is. Big Tech is not biased in the least, we need a carbon-free future, and companies are evil, if they make a profit. God-forbid—oh, we don’t believe in God any longer.

The NYT opinion pages are a joke. One rant was on the religion of whiteness and another by an Obama sycophant on “we are not a ‘cabal’ just critics of Trump.” Plenty on Judge Kavanaugh and Guantanamo, which we all know, is blight on American history. We should love and applaud Islam and terrorism, especially when it sets out to kill all innocents and/or us.

The sports section in the NYT is less about scores and games than about politicization. The NFL again…on its knees, but there was an elitist story about the F1 race. Liberals like speed? Ironic how they attack oil and gas on one page and are fascinated by fast cars on another. It must be a cultural contradiction of post-modern liberalism.

Two other articles that caught my attention were on an actor who transcends genres and gender and another concerned about what will give our lives meaning?

The NYT still believes apparently in ‘meaning’. Living longer, healthier, happier lives they seem to think is a good thing. Maybe science can provide the answer? The NYT is disillusioned on that and seems to suggest nihilism as the better antidote.

My friends, after three days of reading the NYT, I am giving it up.

I suggest you do too.

Don’t buy it, don’t read it, and don’t advertise in it. It is most certainly, not “all the news that’s fit to print.”

The best use for the NYT today is what my family did on its farm with an outhouse decades ago. Use your imagination.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

via The Gateway Pundit

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