Fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe will appear on ’60 Minutes’ tonight in his first national interview since leaving the White House.
CBS News Correspondent Scott Pelley teased the interview on Thursday.
According to Pelley Andrew McCabe says the FBI and DOJ Democrats discussed wearing wires several times to spy on President Trump.
Andrew McCabe also told Scott Pelley he ordered an obstruction of justice probe into President Donald Trump after he fired FBI Director James Comey.
But this IS NOT what Andrew McCabe told Congress under oath!
Andrew McCabe spoke to the Senate Intelligence Committee the day AFTER he opened up an obstruction of justice investigation on Trump and two days after James Comey was fired.
Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe: “You know, it was completely within the President’s authority to take the steps that he did. We all understand that.”
Delusion and denial have sunk deep roots over at the Elizabeth Warren campaign.
Latest news is that the leftist senator, who claimed an Indian identity to claw her way into ivy league professorships via affirmative action, was interrupted by hecklers right out the gate in the opening days of her campaign.
Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren was heckled on stage during a campaign stop Saturday after her claims to be Native American.
A man holding a 1/2020th sign repeatedly called out: ‘Why did you lie?’ as she spoke as the event in Georgia.
She was forced to reply ‘be easy, be easy’ and the crowd booed as the man was led away. Chants of ‘Warren’ rung out in the hall as he held up his parody campaign sign at the event in Lawrenceville.
The 69-year-old Democrat told her supporters: ‘It’s ok, we’re good.’ She had appeared to have been trying to tell her backstory when she was interrupted.
Obviously, she’s trying to put on a brave face as she tries to steer the topic back to policy issues.
Like anyone wants to hear about that.
In the wake of her colossal temerity to claim American Indian status not just in law school directories, not just on her Texas bar card, not just in her bid to get coveted ivy league professorships both at Penn and Harvard, not just in her genetic test (which showed Latin American ancestry as low as 1/1024 percent), not just her absurd ‘apologies’ for the claim (which was really the stealing the opportunity from a real Native American scholar though she didn’t admit that much) , she’s pretty much defined herself. And that’s posing a problem for her campaign as she attempts to talk policy and predatory lenders in a bid to whip up support, reliving those Obama-era golden years.
When the reality now is that her candidacy demonstrates to voters just how easily gamed the affirmative action system actually is. And she has yet to address that issue.
Policy issues are hard to talk about for a general audience. But gaming the system isn’t, and that’s why the voters are glomming onto that one. Can she live it down by pretending to ignore it?
Not when there’s so much other fakery going on with Democrats in general, and the 2020 campaign amounts to a very crowded field.
Nigerians and fake nooses, MAGA hats and a #CraftyBeaver. #CowFarts and trains to Hawaii. A lying Senator saying she’s a Cherokee. A #HeelsUp Senator sleeping her way to the bottom. Congresswoman married her own brother? Governor in a KKK robe. Ah, #Democrats!!! Gotta love ‘em!
Call her campaign toast then. The hecklers show she’s not living this down, and she’s not living this down because she’s not admitted the truth about the reality – that she gamed the system for advantage.
Delusion and denial have sunk deep roots over at the Elizabeth Warren campaign.
Latest news is that the leftist senator, who claimed an Indian identity to claw her way into ivy league professorships via affirmative action, was interrupted by hecklers right out the gate in the opening days of her campaign.
Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren was heckled on stage during a campaign stop Saturday after her claims to be Native American.
A man holding a 1/2020th sign repeatedly called out: ‘Why did you lie?’ as she spoke as the event in Georgia.
She was forced to reply ‘be easy, be easy’ and the crowd booed as the man was led away. Chants of ‘Warren’ rung out in the hall as he held up his parody campaign sign at the event in Lawrenceville.
The 69-year-old Democrat told her supporters: ‘It’s ok, we’re good.’ She had appeared to have been trying to tell her backstory when she was interrupted.
Obviously, she’s trying to put on a brave face as she tries to steer the topic back to policy issues.
Like anyone wants to hear about that.
In the wake of her colossal temerity to claim American Indian status not just in law school directories, not just on her Texas bar card, not just in her bid to get coveted ivy league professorships both at Penn and Harvard, not just in her genetic test (which showed Latin American ancestry as low as 1/1024 percent), not just her absurd ‘apologies’ for the claim (which was really the stealing the opportunity from a real Native American scholar though she didn’t admit that much) , she’s pretty much defined herself. And that’s posing a problem for her campaign as she attempts to talk policy and predatory lenders in a bid to whip up support, reliving those Obama-era golden years.
When the reality now is that her candidacy demonstrates to voters just how easily gamed the affirmative action system actually is. And she has yet to address that issue.
Policy issues are hard to talk about for a general audience. But gaming the system isn’t, and that’s why the voters are glomming onto that one. Can she live it down by pretending to ignore it?
Not when there’s so much other fakery going on with Democrats in general, and the 2020 campaign amounts to a very crowded field.
Nigerians and fake nooses, MAGA hats and a #CraftyBeaver. #CowFarts and trains to Hawaii. A lying Senator saying she’s a Cherokee. A #HeelsUp Senator sleeping her way to the bottom. Congresswoman married her own brother? Governor in a KKK robe. Ah, #Democrats!!! Gotta love ‘em!
Call her campaign toast then. The hecklers show she’s not living this down, and she’s not living this down because she’s not admitted the truth about the reality – that she gamed the system for advantage.
On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” nationally syndicated conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said President Donald Trump was right to declare a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border to build a wall.
Limbaugh, “We have an emergency. This is an invasion. The very existence and definition of American culture, American society, the rule of law. Why does nobody talk about the fact that millions and millions and millions of people are breaking the law coming here illegally and that the Democrat Party wants that to happen?”
He added, “It is undeniable that we have a major immigration problem and a political party that needs a permanent underclass of voters that wants that parade of illegal people who are uneducated, don’t even speak the language, they want them here. It is a crisis.”
Rep. Ilhan Omar is an antisemite and, as the actions of the congressional Democratic leadership last week made clear, hating Jews is a perfectly acceptable position in today’s Democratic Party.
Consider the chronology of events. Last month, Rep. Steven King (R-IA) was stripped of his committee assignments following a statement he made to the New York Times where he seemed to legitimize white supremacism. (King insists his remark was deliberately taken out of context).
Last week, Rep. Omar tweeted another statement that was inarguably antisemitic. Omar argued that the only reason that Congressional Republicans seek to censure her and her colleague Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) for their anti-Jewish bigotry is because Jewish money dictates their actions.
That is, she defended herself against allegations of antisemitism by proving, yet again, that she is an antisemite.
The Congressional Democratic leadership responded to Omar’s statements not by censuring her, let alone stripping her of her committee assignments – including her membership on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Rather Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and their colleagues reacted to Omar’s presentation of further proof that she hates Jews and sees the world through the distorted lens of antisemitism by asking her to apologize.
That is, she was allowed to get away with it.
Indeed, when Omar was asked if she feared that her bigotry would cause her to be stripped of her committee assignments, she responded confidently, “Absolutely not.”
In the event, Omar issued a self-evidently fake apology, in which she effectively repeated the antisemitic slur that Jews dictate policy through the pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), for which she was apologizing. She then proceeded to re-tweet a post that backed up her contention that Jews control U.S. policy with their money.
What does the Democratic leadership’s decision to give her a pass for bigotry tell us about the nature of today’s Democratic Party?
Hoyer as well as Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Elliot Engel (D-NY)are strongly pro-Israel. Pelosi, while less outspoken, has never been a foe of the Jewish state or of American Jews who support Israel and seek to secure continued bipartisan support for a strong U.S. alliance with the Middle East’s only democracy.
And yet, all of these leaders gave a pass to a woman who effectively said that American Jews exert malign and all-powerful influence over the Congress with their “Benjamins,” (which we now all know, thanks to Omar’s slur, refers to $100 bills).
What gives?
To find the answer it is necessary to look in two directions – first to former president Barack Obama’s consigliere, Valerie Jarrett.
By all accounts, Jarrett is the closest person to the former president. As a practical matter, it is difficult to imagine that the views she expresses contradict those of the former president even if, from time to time, he strikes a more moderate public stance than Jarrett.
Jarrett is an outspoken supporter of Omar. In a series of tweets, Jarrett has not only supported Omar, she has gushed that Omar represents the future of the Democratic party. On January 3, when Omar was sworn into office, Jarrett tweeted, “You are the change in Congress we have been waiting for. Thank you Ilhan Omar for your willingness to jump with both feet into the arena! Many in the country are both counting on you and have your back!”
In other words, Omar – and Tlaib and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY), whom Jarrett alsosupports – are the legitimate heirs of Obama’s Democratic Party, as far as his closest and most powerful advisor is concerned. They aren’t marginal figures, radicals with no real links to the party’s power structures. Omar, as well as Tlaib and Cortez, reflect the interests and positions of the most powerful faction in the Democratic Party – the Obama faction.
When seen in this light, the congressional Democratic leadership’s decision to respond to Omar’s latest assault on Jewish Americans and the Jewish state by smacking her with a wet noodle indicates that they are mere figureheads. They have less power than Omar does. Because, as Jarrett told Omar the antisemite, Jarrett, (and by inference, Obama), has her back.
The other reason the Democratic congressional leadership may have chosen to give Omar a pass for her open hatred for Jews is found in the leadership dynamics of Jeremy Corbyn’s British Labour Party.
If Corbyn and his supporters were traditional Labourites, then common sense would have it that he would have been ousted by now.
Given British Prime Minister Theresa May’s incompetent handling of the Brexit negotiations with the European Union, and the disarray of the ruling Conservative Party, a traditional Labour leader could certainly have been expected to be leading May in opinion polls.
Yet, despite May’s unpopularity in her own party and among the general public, Corbyn is sinking like a stone in opinion polls. According to pollsters, anger among Labour voters over Corbyn’s refusal to forthrightly support remaining in the EU on the one hand, and concern over his antisemitism on the other, are the principle reasons that a mere 17 percent of British voters said they are satisfied with the Labour leader (down from 27 percent in December), and 72 percent said they are dissatisfied with his performance.
If Corbyn were a normal politician, and his supporters were standard political operatives, his unpopularity even in the face of May’s failed leadership would be sufficient cause for his fellow Labourites to oust him from power. But as Nick Cohen noted recently in the Spectator, Corbyn’s radical far left supporters’ “cult-of-personality” worship of “Jeremy” and their utter devotion to their far-left ideology, means that they are unwilling to abandon him.
With the blind support of his followers, over the three years since Corbyn seized the reins of the party, he and his supporters have achieved near-complete control over Labour’s party institutions. And so, Labour lawmakers who oppose Corbyn’s radicalism and would like to see him replaced by a more centrist, less anti-Jewish leader feel they have no hope of winning back their party. Their demoralization, and effective disenfranchisement, within Labour’s political machine mean that despite his failure, Corbyn is likely to retain his hold on the party for the foreseeable future.
Corbyn’s iron grip on power is relevant for the Democrats because it shows that once the hard left seizes a party, it is all but impossible to dislodge it, even if the public abandons it. Many commentators have argued in recent weeks that the bigotry and socialism of the likes of Omar, Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib are President Donald Trump’s best argument for reelection. All he has to do in 2020 is point to them to make the case that the Democrats must not be allowed to return to the White House.
While there is truth to this argument, it is equally true that the new crop of Democrats are powerful not despite their radicalism and bigotry, but because of their radicalism and bigotry. Their ideological alignment with Obama’s consigliere and key donor groups and the party’s activist grassroots means that moderate Democrats lack the power to stand up to them.
Indeed, whereas Pelosi, Schumer, Hoyer and their colleagues responded to Omar’s Jew-hatred by making angry noises, the Democratic presidential candidates were mum. More significantly, the Democrats seeking the presidential nomination are responding to the rising tide of hostility towards the Jewish state and American Jews who support Israel by aligning themselves with the anti-Israel voices in their party.
Similarly, aside from Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, all Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls have endorsed Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, despite the fact that its adoption would destroy much of the industrial base of the U.S. economy.
The implications of this state of affairs are fairly straightforward. Radical, socialist, antisemitic ideologues hold sway in today’s Democratic Party. That is why Pelosi gave Omar, an out-and-out Jew-hater, a spot on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and why she will not remove Omar from the committee even if Omar tweets and apologizes for anti-Jewish conspiracy theories all day and all night.
This is the reason that Ocasio Cortez may suffer no repercussions for nearly single handedly killing 25,000 jobs for New Yorkers by pushing Amazon to cancel its plan to set up its headquarters in New York City.
Barring any dramatic shift to the Right, if Democrats lose in 2020, like the Corbynized Labour Party, they will not change. And if they win in 2020, the U.S. will be governed by Jeremy Corbyn’s comrades.
Caroline Glick is a world-renowned journalist and commentator on the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy, and the author ofThe Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East. She is running for Israel’s Knesset as a member of the Yamin Hahadash (New Right) party in Israel’s parliamentary elections, scheduled for April 9. Read more at www.CarolineGlick.com.
On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” nationally syndicated conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe claim that Justice Department officials had discussions about the use of the 25th Amendment to remove President Donald Trump was a “silent coup.”
Limbaugh said, “These people are unelected. They took it upon themselves to overthrow the election results of 2016. Ignoring the potential real collusion and conspiracy between Democrats and Russians to undermine the Trump candidacy and the Trump presidency. The Mueller investigation, I believe is a cover-up of all of that. It is to distract everybody’s attention.”
He continued, “We’re losing sight of what happened. People unelected, simply ’cause they don’t like a guy’s hairstyle or like where he came from, decided the American people’s decision was invalid and began a systematic process to get him thrown out of office.”
He added, “This is a silent coup. These guys, if you ask me, ought to be the ones in jail. They ought to be the ones under investigation. What they have done working with agents from the Obama intelligence agencies is simply unprecedented. This is one of the greatest political hoaxes that has been perpetrated on the people of these countries.”
In a personal letter, President Donald Trump reached out this month to an Alabama supporter going through a trying time, and added his personal prayers for the woman’s well-being.
Rachel Robbins, 27, had been diagnosed with a cancerous brain tumor and had surgery to have the tumor removed on Feb. 1, according to Fox News. She was surprised to find that she had received a letter from the president and first lady Melania Trump.
“I was just amazed, honestly, I couldn’t believe it,” Robbins, a former staff member for the conservative law group Liberty Counsel, told Fox.
“I felt very honored that the president of the United States of America heard my story and was praying for me from the White House.”
It was Robbins’ childhood friend Cody Sanders, a speechwriter in the West Wing, who told the president about Robbins’ story. Robbins and Sanders attended First Baptist Church of Eufaula together when they were growing up.
Robbins, a nursing student at the University of South Alabama, got an MRI scan after experiencing symptoms for around a year.
Fox News reported that she had run seven miles and lifted weights the day before she learned that she had a malignant tumor larger than a lime in the back of her brain.
Dr. Nicholas Voss and his team at Flowers Hospital in Dothan, Alabama, fully extracted Robbins’ tumor during the surgery. She is still undergoing treatment and recovering.
“We recently learned of the courage and tenacity you have displayed during the course of your illness. We are keeping you and your loved ones in our prayers, and send our warmest wishes for a swift and full recovery,” the Trumps wrote in their letter to Robbins, dated Feb. 4.
“We hope that the love and support of friends and family strengthens and encourages you during this difficult time. We ask that God grant you comfort and strength as you continue this brave battle. Our thoughts and prayers are with you. Get well soon!”
Rachel Robbins, a 27-year-old former Liberty Counsel staff member and Covenant Journey alumni, recently received a surprise personal letter from President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump regarding her recent battle with a brain tumor.https://t.co/UGZvjOHj7Apic.twitter.com/tZWLGoxIzu
“I want to be a nurse first assist just like the nurses that helped me in my surgery,” Robbins said. “I would love to be an RNFA for Dr. Voss.”
Did Robbins’ faith inspire you?
Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said the president’s letter was a very special gift for Robbins.
“It is incredible that the president and the first lady would take the time to send a letter of encouragement to someone they have never met,” Staver said, according to Liberty Counsel.
“This letter is very special. In the din of political debate, very few people hear about touching stories like this one and the person touched by the family occupying the highest office in the land.”
Staver celebrated Robbins’ trust in God and asked for continued prayers for her.
“Rachel lights up a room with her smile. Her love for the Lord is evident. We have been praying for Rachel and we know many people around the world are lifting her up in prayer.
“We are asking people to continue to pray for Rachel and her family. No matter the circumstances, nothing is impossible for God. Throughout this process, Rachel has demonstrated an unusual peace and trust that only comes from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
French author Frédéric Martel alleges in a new book that Pope Francis had been informed that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had been having sexual relations with seminarians and priests but considered this fact “insufficient to condemn him.”
Mr. Martel, an openly gay man and LGBT activist, is the author of the upcoming book, In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy, to be released on February 21, the opening day of a major Vatican summit on clerical sex abuse.
In the new exposé, Martel accuses the Catholic Church of hypocrisy for opposing gay marriage and adoption when so many of its own clerics are active homosexuals.
In addressing the relationship between the pope and then-cardinal McCarrick, Martel seems to confirm an August 25, 2018 report from the former papal nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who said he had informed Pope Francis of McCarrick’s crimes in 2013, shortly after the pope’s election. The pope proceeded to lift sanctions that had been imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI, Viganò stated, and reinstated him in a position of influence in the Vatican.
On October 7, the prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation of Bishops confirmed allegations that Pope Benedict XVI had indeed curbed McCarrick’s activities due to concerns about his behavior.
“The former Cardinal,” wrote Cardinal Marc Ouellet, “had been requested not to travel or to make public appearances, in order to avoid new rumors about him.”
In a 2014 article in the Washington Post, journalist David Gibson said that McCarrick was “one of a number of senior churchmen who were more or less put out to pasture during the eight-year pontificate of Benedict XVI.”
This changed radically under Pope Francis, the article declared.
“But now Francis is pope, and prelates like Cardinal Walter Kasper (another old friend of McCarrick’s) and McCarrick himself are back in the mix, and busier than ever,” Gibson wrote.
“Francis, who has put the Vatican back on the geopolitical stage, knows that when he needs a savvy back channel operator he can turn to McCarrick,” Gibson wrote.
Observers have deemed Mr. Martel’s revelations about Pope Francis to be “friendly fire,” in the sense that throughout his book he adopts a positive tone toward the Francis papacy and would never intentionally hurt him.
During his four years of research for his book, Martel claims to have met with a number of Vatican officials, including Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro, the Director of La Civiltà Cattolica, on several occasions, and Martel includes an interview with Spadaro in his book, along with an interview with Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the director of the Vatican’s Synod office.
So far, Pope Francis has not responded to allegations that he had been informed of McCarrick’s misdeeds in 2013.
When journalists asked the pope whether these allegations were true and when he had learned the facts about McCarrick, the pope neither confirmed nor denied the report.
Francis encouraged journalists to investigate the case, but has persistently refused to answer their questions.
Pope Francis has convoked the presidents of all the world’s Catholic bishops’ conferences to come to the Vatican for a summit on clerical sex abuse. The 3-day summit will begin on February 21.
Though Israelis are scarcely surprised by the phenomenon of Palestinian terrorism, they were nonetheless sickened by the recent rape of a 19-year old girl, Ori Ansbacher, by Arafat Irfaiya, a 29-year old Palestinian Arab from Hebron.
Upon capture by Israeli forces, Irfaiya made plain the motive underlying his foul deed when he told his interrogators, “I entered Israel with a knife because I wanted to become a martyr and murder a Jew.”
Clearly unrepentant, Irfaiya, for good measure, smirked at TV cameras during his court remand hearing.
Irfaiya, who is connected to Hamas, the US- and EU-recognized Palestinian Arab terrorist group that calls in its Covenant for the global murder of Jews, was arrested in 2017 at the entrance to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount armed with a large kitchen knife, and had indicated that, if released, he would “come back here with a knife.”
Such murderous aspirations are endemic within Palestinian Arab culture, because youth are taught in Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority (PA)’s media, schools and youth camps to aspire to just such acts as a national and religious duty.
Examples include kindergarten graduation ceremonies in which youngsters put on plays about murdering Israelis; poem recitals about destroying Israel and its inhabitants’ public honoring by PA officials from Mahmoud Abbas down of youth who attempt to murder Jews; or PA TV inviting children to sing a song that urges Palestinians to seek “war” that will “smash and destroy” Israel; and so on.
Irfaiya has lived some 22 of his 29 years under PA jurisdiction, since much of Hebron came under PA control in 1997. It is therefore scarcely surprising that he should frankly aspire to Jew-murder.
Irfaiya’s case is exceptional, however, for one fact: the PA and the various Palestinian Arab terrorist groups, who normally are uninhibited in naming and claiming their murderers as heroes, have disowned Irfaiya on account of the fact that he raped his victim prior to murdering her. It is likely that they fear that the act of rape might discredit a murder that could otherwise be passed off at home and abroad as an legitimate act of “resistance.”
That is the term given to nationally and religiously-motivated murder in the macabre vocabulary of Palestinian Arab politics. Apparently, terrorists have their scruples when it comes to Jew-rape, just not for Jew-murder.
It therefore seems safe to assume that disavowal of Irfaiya’s raping of his victim is an act of PA damage control and nothing more. After all, it is unlikely that a society that spontaneously celebrates the news of Jews murdered in a terrorist outrage is going to be appalled at the rape of an Israeli woman.
In any event, Irfaiya is but one of hundreds of Palestinian Arab terrorists who routinely end up convicted and jailed by Israel, only for the PA to grant them a generous income whose size is proportionate to the number of Jewish lives they have snuffed out. Conversely, had they died committing their terrorist acts or in the course of seeking to evade apprehension by Israeli police, their families could rely on the PA to glorify their acts, to name schools and streets in their honor, and to provide them with stipends into the indefinite future, courtesy of the international taxpayers who provides the bulk of the PA budget.
In short, within the PA, a career in terrorism is the most honorable of callings. The recognition and honor it inspires are enormous, and the financial incentives and rewards are generous. In a society in which youth is taught to aspire, if need be, to a violent death in the course of murdering Jews, the disincentive of death and injury is not anything like the inhibitor one would expect it to be in the Western world.
As Western publics have learned in recent years, death in the cause of waging terrorist war on non-Muslims has attracted no shortage of Muslim men and women across the globe. The remarkable distinction in the Palestinian case is that acts of jihadist terrorism do not enjoy wall-to-wall public approval in other Muslim societies.
In the PA-controlled West Bank (Judea/Samaria) and Hamas-controlled Gaza, they do. Thus the absence of peace and thus, too, the durability of hostilities.
Morton A. Klein is National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). He was named one of the top five Jewish leaders in the U.S. by National Jewish weekly. Follow him @mortonaklein7 and ZOA.org.
Last week in Viareggio, Italy, the citizens paraded with a huge float depicting President Trump as Hercules. Looking at his many accomplishments against countless enemies and political opponents, the depiction was not inapt. Like Hercules, he defeated the Queen of the Amazons, and this week, he’s going on to clean out the Augean Stables. In this respect, he’s aided by the utter stupidity of his opponents.
A. The Green New Deal
For decades now, under the guise of environmental protection, the far left has tied down America’s economy. It’s been largely gradual, hidden in fancy language and supported by those little harmed by these restrictions. Last week, freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose previous experience was bartending, and Senator Ed Markey, whose commercial experience before entering the political ring was driving an ice cream truck, proposed a Green New Deal. Without reading it, all or most (I can’t keep track of all of them) of the announced Democratic presidential candidates endorsed it, to their subsequent embarrassment when the details they hadn’t bothered to read became known. Ocasio-Cortez kindly provided a FAQ cheat sheet, which revealed how insane the plan was. When the details were known, she withdrew it, offering up various versions of why it wasn’t the real Cliff’s Notes of the deal.
In any event, taking advantage of the opportunity to put the Democrats to the test, Senator majority leader Mitch McConnell announced he’d bring the resolution to the Senate floor for a vote, at which time cosponsor Ed Markey accused McConnell of “sabotage” and trying to “silence” voters.
Uh huh. Voting on the bill is “sabotage”. And if Trump were to sign it Pelosi would probably view it as an impeachable offense (mental incapacity?!?). What’s Markey’s message, “Stop me before I speak again”?
Now, let me have a To Be Fair moment: Markey might have envisioned committee hearings, expert testimony, and a chance to build public support for his pandering left-wing dreamscape. After which the bill would die in committee, where only a few sacrificial lambs from the Democratic side would have to stand and be slaughtered counted. But, ooops — now they will all have a chance at Auto-beclownment.
So, a possible dodge — Markey and the Dem Senate leadership could pull a page from the Mitch-Fu playbook and filibuster their own bill. Would that be even more embarrassing? Do these guys (and gals!) even know what embarrassment is anymore?
Buck Sexton had fun with this jiu-jitsu, too:
Cory Booker joined the Dem Weirdo Show this past week. Cortez-Markey’s plan to save the planet by eliminating airplane travel (about which even Hawaiian lefty Mazie Hirono had reservations absent a high speed over the ocean train rail to Hawaii) and killing cows wasn’t enough for him. He wanted us all to become vegans to sustain the planet. No meat, no eggs, just vegetables and fruit. (It boggles the mind to think how much farmland it would take to substitute vegetable protein for meat and eggs and where in the world all that fertilizer would come from.)
Newt Gingrich tweeted an observation: ”So Democrats can get the Vegan vote and Republicans can get everyone who goes to McDonald’s. Wendy’s Burger King, Arby’s, Chick-Fil-A, Outback, Ruth’s Chris, etc. etc.”
Cortez and Markey weren’t the only people upset people quoted them.
Andrew McCabe, who earlier in the week testified to his participation in an attempted coup to remove the president from office, later contested “his own words.”
Andrew McCabe now contests *his own words* admitting he attempted to launch a coup from inside of the administration. Also, DOJ internal probe found he lied under oath several times & sabotaged own FBI colleagues. McCabe belongs in a federal penitentiary.https://t.co/wFLUVP1VGw
This week after the conference committee on the border (and other spending) bill finished its opus: a 1,159-page report that lawmakers had about 40 hours to learn before the vote was taken. It was full of poison pills concerning the wall and border security in an obvious strategy to force the president to sign it or force the government to shut down in the absence of any spending authorization.’What he did instead was sign the bill over his own objections and declare that the situation at the border is a national emergency, which allows him to take affirmative measures to secure the border and to ignore the most onerous restrictions the conference committee had agreed to impose on his ability to restrict illegal entries into the U.S. from across the southern border.
To be sure, there will be a lot of leftist and media criticism and suggestions to the Democrats as to how to end-run it. To aid you in understanding the issue, I suggest this comprehensive article written five years ago in USA Today, which, I think, provides the clearest history of emergency proclamations.
In sum, at that point in time, there were already 30 stated separate emergency proclamations or executive orders in effect. Each gives presidents broad extraordinary powers including “seizing property, call[ing] up the National Guard and hir[ing] and fir[ing] military officers at will. “
Among the other powers are suspending environmental laws, bypassing federal contracting laws, and buying and selling federal property without competitive bidding.
(President Obama declared 13 national emergencies, of which 11 are still active. Bill Clinton used this authority 17 times; President Trump has used it only three times to date.)
In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act. Since then, presidents have declared “at least 53 states of emergency.”
If Congress doesn’t agree with the emergency power declaration, the 1976 Act provides a remedy — and I think it is the only remedy consistent with that act and the Constitution: passing a bill to rescind it, something Ocasio-Cortez has said she will try to do. (Speaker Pelosi talked earlier of seeking judicial relief, but it’s my opinion that the act, consistent with the separation of powers, provides the only route to overturn it.)’I do not see rescission passing muster in both houses of Congress, no matter how much the NYT and others wish that were so.
But should it, the president can veto it, and I doubt that the left has sufficient votes to overturn that.
The author of the USA Today article notes, “In 38 years, only one resolution has been introduced to cancel an emergency.” That occurred in 2005, when President George W. Bush declared an emergency post-Katrina, providing that reconstruction need not be done under the Bacon-Davis Act requiring workers to be paid prevailing wages. In that instance, President Bush revoked it within two months, so no resolution to revoke it was passed.
Apart from the likelihood that the act’s own provision on rescission provides the only relief, there’s a longstanding rule of law that one must avail oneself of all available remedies before seeking judicial relief, which means no reasonable court would entertain this until after a resolution to rescind was tried and failed. Moreover, it’s difficult to see how the House of Representatives would meet the legal hurdles of standing to pursue the claim.
The president has already been at work building portions of the wall. Bills are pending in four states to raise funds to build it. The Democrats’ latest cutie-pie candidate, Beto O’Rourke said, “Walls do not save lives; walls end lives,” reasoning that walls will only force illegals to take chances on entering in from more dangerous, remote places. Such is the brainpower of the left.
While Pelosi took off during the shutdown and later during the negotiations to vacation in luxury, Trump was hard at work, setting the table — that is, making Americans aware of the dangers inherent in the open borders policies. The Democrats fell into a trap by insisting on provisions in the compromise bill that no rational border-defender could agree to. I think they bid a low pair of cards against Trump’s royal flush, and they will lose.
Last week in Viareggio, Italy, the citizens paraded with a huge float depicting President Trump as Hercules. Looking at his many accomplishments against countless enemies and political opponents, the depiction was not inapt. Like Hercules, he defeated the Queen of the Amazons, and this week, he’s going on to clean out the Augean Stables. In this respect, he’s aided by the utter stupidity of his opponents.
A. The Green New Deal
For decades now, under the guise of environmental protection, the far left has tied down America’s economy. It’s been largely gradual, hidden in fancy language and supported by those little harmed by these restrictions. Last week, freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose previous experience was bartending, and Senator Ed Markey, whose commercial experience before entering the political ring was driving an ice cream truck, proposed a Green New Deal. Without reading it, all or most (I can’t keep track of all of them) of the announced Democratic presidential candidates endorsed it, to their subsequent embarrassment when the details they hadn’t bothered to read became known. Ocasio-Cortez kindly provided a FAQ cheat sheet, which revealed how insane the plan was. When the details were known, she withdrew it, offering up various versions of why it wasn’t the real Cliff’s Notes of the deal.
In any event, taking advantage of the opportunity to put the Democrats to the test, Senator majority leader Mitch McConnell announced he’d bring the resolution to the Senate floor for a vote, at which time cosponsor Ed Markey accused McConnell of “sabotage” and trying to “silence” voters.
Uh huh. Voting on the bill is “sabotage”. And if Trump were to sign it Pelosi would probably view it as an impeachable offense (mental incapacity?!?). What’s Markey’s message, “Stop me before I speak again”?
Now, let me have a To Be Fair moment: Markey might have envisioned committee hearings, expert testimony, and a chance to build public support for his pandering left-wing dreamscape. After which the bill would die in committee, where only a few sacrificial lambs from the Democratic side would have to stand and be slaughtered counted. But, ooops — now they will all have a chance at Auto-beclownment.
So, a possible dodge — Markey and the Dem Senate leadership could pull a page from the Mitch-Fu playbook and filibuster their own bill. Would that be even more embarrassing? Do these guys (and gals!) even know what embarrassment is anymore?
Buck Sexton had fun with this jiu-jitsu, too:
Cory Booker joined the Dem Weirdo Show this past week. Cortez-Markey’s plan to save the planet by eliminating airplane travel (about which even Hawaiian lefty Mazie Hirono had reservations absent a high speed over the ocean train rail to Hawaii) and killing cows wasn’t enough for him. He wanted us all to become vegans to sustain the planet. No meat, no eggs, just vegetables and fruit. (It boggles the mind to think how much farmland it would take to substitute vegetable protein for meat and eggs and where in the world all that fertilizer would come from.)
Newt Gingrich tweeted an observation: ”So Democrats can get the Vegan vote and Republicans can get everyone who goes to McDonald’s. Wendy’s Burger King, Arby’s, Chick-Fil-A, Outback, Ruth’s Chris, etc. etc.”
Cortez and Markey weren’t the only people upset people quoted them.
Andrew McCabe, who earlier in the week testified to his participation in an attempted coup to remove the president from office, later contested “his own words.”
Andrew McCabe now contests *his own words* admitting he attempted to launch a coup from inside of the administration. Also, DOJ internal probe found he lied under oath several times & sabotaged own FBI colleagues. McCabe belongs in a federal penitentiary.https://t.co/wFLUVP1VGw
This week after the conference committee on the border (and other spending) bill finished its opus: a 1,159-page report that lawmakers had about 40 hours to learn before the vote was taken. It was full of poison pills concerning the wall and border security in an obvious strategy to force the president to sign it or force the government to shut down in the absence of any spending authorization.’What he did instead was sign the bill over his own objections and declare that the situation at the border is a national emergency, which allows him to take affirmative measures to secure the border and to ignore the most onerous restrictions the conference committee had agreed to impose on his ability to restrict illegal entries into the U.S. from across the southern border.
To be sure, there will be a lot of leftist and media criticism and suggestions to the Democrats as to how to end-run it. To aid you in understanding the issue, I suggest this comprehensive article written five years ago in USA Today, which, I think, provides the clearest history of emergency proclamations.
In sum, at that point in time, there were already 30 stated separate emergency proclamations or executive orders in effect. Each gives presidents broad extraordinary powers including “seizing property, call[ing] up the National Guard and hir[ing] and fir[ing] military officers at will. “
Among the other powers are suspending environmental laws, bypassing federal contracting laws, and buying and selling federal property without competitive bidding.
(President Obama declared 13 national emergencies, of which 11 are still active. Bill Clinton used this authority 17 times; President Trump has used it only three times to date.)
In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act. Since then, presidents have declared “at least 53 states of emergency.”
If Congress doesn’t agree with the emergency power declaration, the 1976 Act provides a remedy — and I think it is the only remedy consistent with that act and the Constitution: passing a bill to rescind it, something Ocasio-Cortez has said she will try to do. (Speaker Pelosi talked earlier of seeking judicial relief, but it’s my opinion that the act, consistent with the separation of powers, provides the only route to overturn it.)’I do not see rescission passing muster in both houses of Congress, no matter how much the NYT and others wish that were so.
But should it, the president can veto it, and I doubt that the left has sufficient votes to overturn that.
The author of the USA Today article notes, “In 38 years, only one resolution has been introduced to cancel an emergency.” That occurred in 2005, when President George W. Bush declared an emergency post-Katrina, providing that reconstruction need not be done under the Bacon-Davis Act requiring workers to be paid prevailing wages. In that instance, President Bush revoked it within two months, so no resolution to revoke it was passed.
Apart from the likelihood that the act’s own provision on rescission provides the only relief, there’s a longstanding rule of law that one must avail oneself of all available remedies before seeking judicial relief, which means no reasonable court would entertain this until after a resolution to rescind was tried and failed. Moreover, it’s difficult to see how the House of Representatives would meet the legal hurdles of standing to pursue the claim.
The president has already been at work building portions of the wall. Bills are pending in four states to raise funds to build it. The Democrats’ latest cutie-pie candidate, Beto O’Rourke said, “Walls do not save lives; walls end lives,” reasoning that walls will only force illegals to take chances on entering in from more dangerous, remote places. Such is the brainpower of the left.
While Pelosi took off during the shutdown and later during the negotiations to vacation in luxury, Trump was hard at work, setting the table — that is, making Americans aware of the dangers inherent in the open borders policies. The Democrats fell into a trap by insisting on provisions in the compromise bill that no rational border-defender could agree to. I think they bid a low pair of cards against Trump’s royal flush, and they will lose.
Disgraced former Congressman — and convicted Federal sex offender — Anthony Weiner, was released from prison this morning after serving fifteen months for sexting a minor across state lines.
The New York Daily News reports that Weiner has left the minimum security facility he’s called home for the last year, the Federal Medical Center in Devins, Massachusetts, and is now “in a reentry center,” working to acclimate back to normal life on the outside.
It’s not immediately clear if Weiner is a free man, however. He is either in a halfway house, the outlet reports, or he is under house arrest. He is being closely monitored by the Federal Residential Reentry Management agency, according to the New York Post. He will not be officially released from Federal custody until mid-May, though he managed to “shave[] about three months off his sentence,” the Post says, due to his good behavior behind bars.
Additionally, the Post reports, Weiner will “spend three years on supervised release and will have to pay a $10,000 fine as well as register as a sex offender.”
Anthony Weiner has been in and out of trouble over his “sexting” problem since 2011, when he was first caught messaging a woman who was not his wife, photos of his private parts, using Twitter. After first claiming to be hacked, Weiner was forced to resign his office and begin a public “rehabilitation.”
A few short years later, Weiner made a second foray into the public eye, this time running for mayor of New York City. Like clockwork, though, Weiner was again revealed to have engaged in Twitter sexting, this time with a Democratic campaign worker in Ohio named Sydney Leathers. Weiner’s texts and direct messages revealed that he had not changed his ways since leaving Congress, and that he often used the bizarre and hilarious pseudonym, Carlos Danger, when communicating with women online.
In 2017, as his wife Huma Abedin, was serving as a top advisor for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Weiner was busted yet again, this time for sending lewd photos to a woman in North Carolina, who turned out to be 15 year old girl. “‘According to the feds, Weiner sent her ‘adult pornography’ and repeatedly convinced her to strip naked and fondle herself while he watched via Skype and Snapchat in February and March 2016,” the New York Post reported at the time.
Weiner’s laptop was seized and his communications investigated. Eventually, Federal agents charged Weiner with transmitting lewd content to a minor across state lines.
Abedin filed for divorce as soon as Weiner was officially convicted.
After pleading guilty to the Federal charge in the hopes of getting a reduced prison term, Weiner was hit with a sentence of 21 months in Federal prison. When he is released from Federal custody, he will have served two-thirds of that term in a facility, and around one third of that term at home, under Federal supervision.
security in an obvious strategy to force the president to sign it or force the government to shut down in the absence of any spending authorization.’What he did instead was sign the bill over his own objections and declare that the situation at the border is a national emergency, which allows him to take affirmative measures to secure the border and to ignore the most onerous restrictions the conference committee had agreed to impose on his ability to restrict illegal entries into the U.S. from across the southern border.