Monday, September 16, 2019
Are the Democrats Committing Electoral Suicide?
Article by Steven Green in "PJ Media":
Last Thursday's debate was supposed to be a boon for Democrats, but there are signs and signals everywhere that this is a party in trouble at the top -- and maybe everywhere else, too.
Presidential contender Marianne Williamson was locked out of the most recent debate, after appearing in the first two rounds, for not meeting the DNC's entry requirements. But she did watch, and concluded that "We might be in trouble here," based on what she saw -- or rather, didn't see. On MSNBC she said, "This president is not just a politician, he is a phenomenon. The Democrats are sharpening their knives and he will be bringing a gun to this battle."
I'm not sure Williamson and I watched the same debate, the debate in which the term "white supremacist" was freely thrown down at Trump by Joe Biden, the supposed moderate in the Dems' crowded field. Trump, who not only has Jewish grandkids but has worked closely with Don King and even with Al Sharpton, was called just about the worst possible thing in American politics, with zero evidence. And the rest of the candidates joined in the Bizarro World accusation. It isn't so much that the Democrats are bringing a knives to a gunfight; it's more like they're bringing kazoos to the symphony.
Jonathan Chait, another left-leaning writer, also noticed his party's predicament in his latest for New York magazine. Chait worries that Biden is the only candidate who might not be "too radical" to win in 2020, but that he might be "too old." Chait notes that "general election voters tend to punish more ideologically extreme candidates," but that the Democratic candidates are mistaken in their belief that primary voters are "ready to embrace socialism, or at least something close to it." The part of Chait's article that really caught my eye, however, is when he describes nearly two-dozen presidential contenders as "racing left, treating the consensus on progressive Twitter as though it were a simulacrum of the real Democratic Party."
It's one thing for Donald Trump to use Twitter to blast through the veil of political correctness that shades everything the Mainstream Media publishes. For Republican voters, and more than a few frustrated moderates and centrists Democrats, it's liberating. It's quite another thing when Democratic presidential candidates use Twitter to "embrace and extend" the political correctness (and the progressive radicalism) that infests left-wing Twitter -- and that the rest of the country has rightly tired of.
Meanwhile, the New York Times launched another assault on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Saturday night. The whole thing was so ill-fated, poorly-sourced, and just plain wrong that it's already backfiring. Right-leaning Twitter favorite John Ekdahl tweeted that this latest smear job was "the most politically clarifying event in my life, and it is why, as the New York Times seems intent on reminding us, I will crawl over broken glass to vote for a guy I don't particularly like next year." He voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson in 2016. Reading through the replies, the NYT's effort is backfiring so badly that it has people excited to give money and time to moderate GOP Senator Susan Collins, who usually generates less excitement than a prom punch bowl spiked with Demerol.
There's infighting on the Dem side, too. POLITICO's Sarah Ferris reported last night that moderate House Democrats are worried that the leadership might move ahead with impeachment -- and destroy their majority next year. Democratic Rep. Anthony Brindisi (N.Y.-22) warned, "It’s very frustrating for me — someone coming from a district that was one of the districts that helped get us into the majority — having so much focus on things like impeachment or other issues that are divisive." Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) took a look at an alarming internal poll showing that voters think the party is "prioritizing impeachment over other issues."
ASIDE: The one place where the Democrats are playing it smart is the Senate. They're making solid plays to flip Colorado and Arizona, and maybe enough seats to take control. Keep an eye on your local race if you have one this year, and maybe commit to doing some volunteer work.
And as we've seen over the last couple of months, Democratic presidential candidates are prioritizing racial division, socialized medicine, open borders, and health benefits for illegals over... well, pretty much every issue Americans actually care about.
Not that I want this to happen, but Trump ought to be beatable next year. The GOP is still in turmoil as its Great Realignment continues, and the vocal minority of NeverTrumpers have never been more vocal or Never-Trumpy. And even a Trump supporter like me must admit from time to time than his antics can just be exhausting sometimes. But as Victor Davis Hanson pointed out this weekend, the modern Democratic Party has become a "revolutionary Jacobin movement that believes socialism is our salvation, that identity politics is our creed, that gun confiscation is our duty, that the abrupt end of fossil fuels is coming very soon, that open borders is our new demography, and that the archetypical unmarried, childless, urban hipster is our model woke citizen."
The question voters must ask themselves is this: Do I want a president who has made strides on restoring economic and wage growth, who is confronting China on trade, standing up to the mullahs, wiping out ISIS, hitting back against stultifying political correctness, standing out of the way of American's unprecedented energy boom, securing the southern border, cutting taxes and regulations... but whose tweets annoy me sometimes. Or do I want a president who promises to undo literally all of that -- and more?
I keep saying that with the 24/7 air cover provided to them by the media, the schools, and our cultural "betters" in Hollywood and New York, all the Democrats have to do is not act crazy.
But they just can't help themselves, can they?
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/are-the-democrats-committing-electoral-suicide/
Nation's Murderous Psychopaths Undecided On Whether They’ll Follow New Gun Laws
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Democrats such as Beto O’Rourke have proposed a number of new gun laws, such as universal background checks, a ban on magazines that hold more than ten bullets, and possibly even a “mandatory buyback” of some weapons such as AR-15s. While these laws are likely to be a headache for law-abiding gun owners, the nation’s murderous psychopaths aren’t quite certain how the laws will affect them.
“The background check sounds concerning,” explained deranged murderer Steve Mason, known as “Murdering Steve” to his friends. “I would definitely fail it since I’m a well-known psychopath. But I’ve never actually purchased a gun through a gun-dealer; I just steal all my murder weapons. And so far no one has proposed a background check on theft, so I think I’m good.”
Jake Foster, who is planning a shooting spree, expressed similar concerns about the ban on “high-capacity” magazines. “Having to do a shooting spree and reloading after every tenth shot does sound irritating,” said Foster. “Despite the law, I might just use a high-capacity magazine anyway. I guess the question is whether I’m willing to deal with a possible fine on top of the multiple counts of murder.”
One law murderous psychopaths did seem excited about was the AR-15 buyback. “If they offer a lot of money for my AR-15, it could be pretty worthwhile,” said nutjob Craig McGee. “Then I can use that money to buy more guns just as lethal... but through the black market, of course. Gotta avoid those background checks.”
Trump awards Medal of Freedom to Mariano Rivera.
September 16, 2019
President Donald Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to record-setting reliever Mariano Rivera on Monday.
The longtime New York Yankees closer received the nation’s highest civilian honor two months after he entered Cooperstown as the first unanimously elected Hall of Famer.
“He is the most dominant relief pitcher in the history of baseball, and more than that, he has lived the American dream and shines as an example of American greatness for all to see,” Trump said.
Rivera, 49, racked up a record 652 saves over 19 seasons with the Yankees (1995-2013). He made 13 All-Star teams and won five World Series championships in the Bronx.
Born in Panama, Rivera became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2015. He currently serves as co-chair of the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition, and has served on the Opioid Drug Abuse Commission.
“I’m proud to be an American,” Rivera said during his brief remarks Monday. “For that, I thank God.”
Former Yankees manager Joe Torre joined members of Rivera’s family for the ceremony at the White House.
https://www.oann.com/trump-awards-medal-of-freedom-to-rivera/
President Donald Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to record-setting reliever Mariano Rivera on Monday.
The longtime New York Yankees closer received the nation’s highest civilian honor two months after he entered Cooperstown as the first unanimously elected Hall of Famer.
“He is the most dominant relief pitcher in the history of baseball, and more than that, he has lived the American dream and shines as an example of American greatness for all to see,” Trump said.
Rivera, 49, racked up a record 652 saves over 19 seasons with the Yankees (1995-2013). He made 13 All-Star teams and won five World Series championships in the Bronx.
Born in Panama, Rivera became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2015. He currently serves as co-chair of the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition, and has served on the Opioid Drug Abuse Commission.
“I’m proud to be an American,” Rivera said during his brief remarks Monday. “For that, I thank God.”
Former Yankees manager Joe Torre joined members of Rivera’s family for the ceremony at the White House.
Kamala has egg on her face …. again
Just a helpful tip for morons like Kamala Harris. Instead of uncritically believing an opinion piece in the New York Times the moment it drops, wait 24 hours for all the corrections to be issued. Then weigh in. Otherwise, you’ll end up with egg on your face.
Then again, I’m beginning to think Kamala likes getting egg on her face.
[This is where the twelve-year-old boys in adult male bodies insert a joke about goo on her face. I, however, will not do that.]
Egg on Her Face Harris made the same inept blunder over Jussie Smollett’s phony hate crime. Remember? She bought the story hook, line and sinker. And it made her look all kinds of dumb when it was revealed to be a hoax.
Now she’s at it again.
This time accepting as “fact” an unsubstantiated “story” in the New York Times about Justice Brett Kavanaugh that is just a retread of an unsubstantiated claim about SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh from a year ago.
Not long after the Times dropped this garbage piece, they were forced to issue a rather significant correction – namely that the supposed “victim” of this alleged “incident” has no earthly idea what the Democrat operative who made the claim is talking about.
[A big shout out to Mollie Hemingway for exposing the New York Times’ dishonesty.]
If only Kamala had taken a beat and waited, she wouldn’t have ended up with egg on her face … again.
But nope. The instant the crap story dropped, Kamala, as is her habit, jumped on it like white on rice.
Doubtful.
For Kamala, this has never been about facts or the truth. It’s all about confirmation bias.
Kamala, just like all the other prats who jumped onto this story like rabid weasels, will never tweet out so much as a whoopsie-daisy for getting this wrong.
Why should she?
The objective of this garbage “reporting” in the New York Times has been achieved. And no amount of corrections completely debunking its claims will change that.
Democrats – especially the idiot Senators running for President – would be wise to remember the fate of Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Donnelly. Those three Democrat Senators lost to a Republican challenger in 2018. Voters were disgusted by how Senate Democrats behaved during the Kavanaugh hearings and let them know at the polls.
Does Egg on Her Face Harris think flogging yet another unsubstantiated hit job against Justice Kavanaugh will help her win over voters in Iowa or South Carolina?
This is just more proof that Kamala Harris is not savvy enough to run a national campaign.
Now, to be fair, Kamala isn’t the only one with egg on her face.
Plenty of Senate Democrats, not to mention those nitwits in the so-called “Squad” are still today flogging this already debunked piece of fiction as “proof” that Kavanaugh lied and was “credibly” accused.
[“Credibly” accused? How is it “credible” when the “victim” has no memory of the alleged incident? That’s how stupid these idiots think voters are.]
Honestly, Kamala Harris is garbage. She doesn’t belong anywhere near the White House. In fact, she doesn’t belong in the United States Senate.
Nor do most of her Democrat colleagues.
New York Times Reveals Source On Kavanaugh Allegations Was Reputable Nigerian Prince
NEW YORK, NY—Many people criticized the New York Times' recent piece bringing to light new and recycled Brett Kavanaugh allegations, especially after the website issued a disclaimer admitting basically nobody remembered the alleged incident.
But the Times is standing by its story, going so far as to reveal its source: a reputable Nigerian prince who emailed the investigative reporters offering information in exchange for funds to be wired via MoneyGram.
"The Nigerian prince contacted us and said he had dirt on Kavanaugh, and who were we to question his story?" said Kate Kelly, one of the reporters who worked on the piece and new book on Kavanaugh. "Who do we look like, Dick Tracy? If Nigerian royalty contacts you asking for a million dollars and promises you information on Kavanaugh, you have to act on that kind of lead."
The Times reproduced the email the Nigerian prince sent them:
SUBJECT: I AM CONTACT YOU IN RESPECT OF FAMILY GOLD TREASURE FOR KAVANAH INFO
FROM: LEGITIMATENIGERIANPRINCEMAN
Dear sirs and/or madams,
My name is Bob Smith.I have very much need of reliable persons and it is my reason for contacting you today.I have a very big family treasure in the sum of $1,000,000 U.S. pounds and need this money extradited out of the country immediately.I hear you are in need of many information on Bret Kavanah the evil white devil judge.If you help me I am very willing to help you in return with money of a sizable nature.But first I require funds to come via wire and when wired money has come I will be able to leave my country and come to you with even more riches than your most wild imaginations can contain.Thank you for listening today but we will here from you soon.
HIS MAJESTY BOB SMITH
HIGHEST PRINCE OF NIGERIA AND COOL GUY
"As you can see," Kelly continued, "this was pretty well-researched and the source was pretty darn reputable."
Kevin McCarthy Does Not Believe James Comey Will Get Off
“We came the closest ever to this country having a coup
and now we need accountability.”
and now we need accountability.”
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) spoke to Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures” on a wide range of subjects. One issue they discussed was DOJ IG Michael Horowitz’ announcement on Friday that he had completed his investigation into the FBI’s alleged abuse of the FISA process. A draft of the report has been delivered to Attorney General William Barr. Before it can be released to the public, the DOJ must redact classified or sensitive information.
McCarthy said, “We came the closest ever to this country having a coup and now we need accountability. I respect this attorney general so greatly, that the way he has handled this, he believes in accountability, but more importantly, he believes in the rule of law.”
They spoke about the legal status of fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The news broke on Thursday that the DOJ had rejected McCabe’s appeal which indicated he would likely face indictment for lying under oath to investigators from the IG’s office on three occasions. However, a report in the Washington Post said that a grand jury had met and had declined to indict him. It’s unclear how they would have received information from a grand jury because of the stiff penalties for doing so. It was reported that McCabe’s attorney, Michael Bromwich, sent an email to US attorney Jesse Liu and several other DOJ officials to find out if that was true.
In light of that, Bartiromo asked McCarthy if we will see an indictment for McCabe.
“We will see an indictment here,” McCarthy said.
Bartiromo pressed him on the accountability of former FBI Director James Comey. “So far, anything about Jim Comey. He’s getting off?” The DOJ had declined to prosecute Comey for violating FBI rules and protocols which had been outlined by the IG in a brief report which focused solely on his handling of the President, and his leaking of the memos.
The more comprehensive IG report, which will be released as soon as it undergoes the DOJ’s redaction process, will deal with violations of the law, specifically, the FBI’s allegedly fraudulent application to the FISA Court and three renewal applications. The IG was especially concerned over the fact that the FBI presented the unverified Steele dossier as the basis of their application and used an article written by Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff, who had used Steele as his source.
McCarthy replied, “In the end, I do not believe that Jim Comey will get off.”
“A lot of people point to the CIA as being one of the masterminds, John Brennan. Are we going to see John Brennan come back and answer some questions,” Bartiromo asked.
McCarthy answered, “Anyone that has had any association with trying to create this coup should be held accountable.”
I’ve heard a lot of confident Republicans on talk shows echoing McCarthy’s sentiments.
Very soon, we’ll know for sure.
Leftists Won’t Be Going ‘Door-To-Door’ To Take Your Guns, Because They Won’t Have To
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
Texas State Rep. Briscoe Cain’s inflammatory Thursday night tweet at Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke lit a social media firestorm. Responding to O’Rourke’s oft-repeated “Hell yes, we're gonna take your AR-15” line, a phrase many would consider a threat in and of itself, Cain tweeted his own version of ‘come and take it’ right back at the former Texas congressman: “My AR is ready for you.” While gun grabbers were apoplectic about a perceived “threat” and Twitter obediently deleted the tweet for what it called a violation of its “rules for threats of violence,” Second Amendment supporters came to Briscoe’s defense, calling the phrase well within the bounds of First Amendment protected speech.
Inflammatory rhetoric on both sides notwithstanding, the incident does speak to the dire apocalyptic imaginings of both sides of the gun control issue. On the one hand, you’ve got leftists fantasizing about the prospect of unleashing hordes of gun-wielding jackboots into the homes of millions of ordinary, law-abiding Americans to search for and confiscate any weaponry that has since been deemed illegal. And if the occasional person who feels his rights have been unjustly violated and force is warranted fires back in the process and is killed, good riddance. They were just ‘Deplorables’ anyway. On the other hand, many people on the right believe that such a show of force from a gun-grabbing government would result in enough literal blowback from gun-wielding citizens that tyranny would be stopped cold in its tracks. Either that, or they are prying the guns from our “cold, dead hands.”
Both scenarios, of course, depend on a Democrat being elected president, Democrats taking over the Senate, and draconian gun ban laws being passed. All of which could happen, easily. What isn’t as likely to happen, however, minus some sort of Netflix-series-worthy cataclysmic event, is a scenario that involves gun-wielding government agents forcibly canvassing American homes in search of illegal weapons.
Even O’Rourke himself admitted as much, telling MSNBC host Joy Reid on Saturday that he has “confidence” in “the people of this country” to follow the law.
“Much like we don’t go door-to-door to enforce almost any law in the United States – in fact, I don’t think we do that for any law in the United States – this is not something that we would do,” O’Rourke said, responding at least in part to Briscoe’s assumed chain of events. “Others have said, you know, this is something we would fear if there were a mandatory buyback program. No, we expect people to follow the law. That’s certainly what I believe will happen.”
Many readers here won’t agree with what I’m about to write, but in this rare case I believe that Beto is most likely telling the truth. The imagined apocalyptic door-to-door weapons seizures that either lead to a totalitarian state or a hot revolution/civil war is unlikely to ever happen. That’s not, however, because leftists are good people and would never want gun owners to be harmed. Quite the contrary on all counts - Leftists are NOT good people and they DO want responsible gun owners to come to harm. They just know that, Eric Swalwell’s nukes notwithstanding, such an overreach too soon has a significant chance of going bad for them, and they’re more than willing to settle for the long game.
Make no mistake, the totalitarian state WILL happen, if Robert Frances and his ilk get their way, but it won’t happen with jackboots kicking in doors, at least not at first and not in significant enough numbers to overly alarm the rest of a sleeping populace. No, it will happen with the so-called “rule of law,” as law after law is passed to “stop” a media manufactured problem (statistics-wise) that can never entirely be stopped, yet will be emphasized nonstop every time it happens anywhere in America until they get what they want.
And even assuming you “defy” a law they’ve passed – which, granted, many currently do in heavy gun-controlled blue states – what long-term purpose will that serve? They may not physically have possession of your AR-15, or your handgun, or your scoped 30-06 semi-auto deer rifle, but what good are weapons when you’ll be prosecuted as a criminal for using them? People like Beto O’Rourke and their leftist cohorts may be evil, but they aren’t stupid. They know this, and so they can say they won’t go “door-to-door” with a straight face and a smarmy “I’m a reasonable person” grin, knowing full well the long-term ramifications.
Like the frog in boiling water, the totalitarian state will happen when leftists are able to use the law to make de-facto criminals out of everyone they hate. Then, whether the proverbial jackboots come to your home and beat down your door now or later, whether they arrest you in a grocery store parking lot or sleeping in your bed, whether they prosecute you for using an “illegal” weapon to defend yourself against a home invader or hunting for food, whether they take your guns via “voluntary” buyback because you’ve got a family and can’t afford to risk going to prison, or from your cold, dead hands, they’ll know they’ve won. Because they’re eventually going to get your guns, one way or another.
In other words, when it comes to gun legislation or really anything else,
don’t ever cede one lousy inch to evil, godless leftists.
Beto The Furry Is Less Amusing When He Calls For Violence Against American Citizens
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
The clownish antics of Tex Kennedy, that drunk driving furry and El Paso punchline, are much less funny now that he is promising to convert millions of Americans into felons and send armed government agents to their homes to steal their constitutionally-guaranteed property. Maybe he doesn’t know – whether due to pharmaceuticals or simply because he’s stupid – that two Democratic administrations ago, right up the road, the feds sent a bunch of armed men to take the forbidden guns of some people who were minding their own business and it turned out poorly. That debacle resulted in four dead ATF agents and over 70 dead civilians – including dozens of kids the feds burned alive.
Too bad that ridiculous dwarf George Stephoplatypus didn’t query The Waco Kid on how many Waco reruns he and his fascist friends are willing to accept to show us rubes who’s boss.
After all, that’s what this AR-15 immoral panic is all about. There are 20 million scary fake “assault weapons” out there in the safest of all possible hands – that of American citizens for use in defending themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution. How many of them were used this year by scumbags to hurt other people in the mass shootings that get exponentially more coverage than the blue city bloodbaths that are exponentially worse?
We had what? Two recent incidents? Two? In Chicago, two shooting incidents is a slow hour. Two in 20 million – I like those odds.
This dream of unleashing the cops (and who knows – the Army too?) on Normal Americans is designed to arouse the impotent urban libs who desperately want to flex their puny muscles and humiliate us by stripping us of that which makes us citizens and not serfs. Oh, and the fringe benefit is that we could no longer resist the kind of Cuban tyranny these creeps dream of imposing. For the elite left, gun bans are a twofer.
Oh, that’s crazy talk that is very crazy, you crazy person of craziness!
Really? As part of Scat Francisco’s continuing campaign to convert my novels into nonfiction, its local Politburo declared that the NRA is a “terrorist organization” and promised all sorts of nasty consequences for firearms dissenters. That’s right – a government body in a progressive cesspool explicitly outlawed a group of American patriots because the goosesteppers-by-the-Bay dislike these Americans’ political views. Since the Bill of Rights is now the Bill of Suggestions, what other thoughts and opinions will they outlaw? Christianity seems pretty unprogressive – how about banning that? Everyone but those insufferable pinko Unitarians are terrorists!
But hey, if we Normals disarm the elite will suddenly do a 180 and start totally respecting our civil rights.
“It’s true,” insists my pet unicorn, Chet. “It’s totally true!”
Beto, as if that’s his real name, got the fussies because someone from Texas named (of course) Briscoe Cain responded to the Fascist Furry’s threats to send armed people to steal his property by observing that his AR-15 would be ready and waiting. Whether or not this was an appropriate thing to say is not the point, which is why Drinky O’Runfromthescene and his media cheerleaders tried to make it the point. The point is that an awful lot of armed people – many of them vets – feel really strongly that sending folks with guns to rip away their Constitutional rights is a tyrannical act of war. And that reality has consequences most Americans are unwilling to accept to bring about the nation of defenseless sheep our alleged betters desire.
The harsh fact is that when you send people with weapons to steal other people’s stuff there’s a huge potential for violence – especially if 1) the intended victims strongly (and correctly) believe that they have the Constitutional right to do what they are doing, and because 2) by definition, the people being oppressed have guns. Eric Garner was just trying to peddle some loose cigs and the cops killed him – when you pass a law you resolve to use force to enforce it, and whenever you use force there’s a risk someone ends up in a body bag. Beto is willing to take that risk. Are you?
Of course, the elite and its media lackeys howl “YOU’RE ADVOCATING VIOLENCE” for even raising the manifestly obvious issue of the violence that would almost certainly result from a frontal assault on an actual provision of the Bill of Rights that actually exists, as opposed to some constitutional specter composed of penumbras, emanations and liberal preferences. It’s a lie, like everything liberals and their gimp media say. You are advocating violence when you propose to used armed force to attack American citizens in order to steal their property and freedom. Beto is advocating violence.
This is no hypothetical. It’s happened before.
Lexington and Concord.
Waco.
Ruby Ridge.
See the trend? When governments try to take Americans’ guns, people die. Maybe scary black guns scare you, but is that danger really what you want to sign on to?
Gun confiscation leads to violence – that’s not a hope but an observation, and an objective fact. Of course, the Democratic transcriptionists that comprise the mainstream media will try to drown out this essential critique of their plot with lies. Just wait for how they mischaracterize this column. They really think their own followers are dumb. It’s them accusing you of having a pro-burn agenda when you suggest they not lay their paws on a hot stove. Ditto the useless Fredocons, who will take a break from their multiple failed marriages, from advocating for wars you get to fight for them, and from bellying up to the Lido Deck buffet for their second breakfast carb download to parrot the party line of their liberal donor dommes. Apparently True Conservatism™ means ignoring inconvenient history if it might make people less likely to accept the preferred policy prescriptions of the tech Ernst Pierre Blofelds out in Silicon Valley stroking your checks.
The fact remains that the plan to take our guns – you know, the intention the Democrats kept denying having until The Waco Kid got off message in a play to break the one percent ceiling – will lead to dead Americans. That’s not a wish. That’s a warning. Beto advocates violence, while we say the violence he would inflict is unacceptable.
So, the question remains – a question our much-worse betters most definitely do not want you asking because its answer will make every Normal American less likely to support our garbage elite’s scheme. The question, you furry freak and all you bloodthirsty leftist Venezuelaphiles, is how many Americans are you willing to see die to realize your dream of an America composed of disarmed serfs?
My answer is, “None.” I am willing to accept precisely zero Wacos.
But I bet our elite’s answer is, “As many as it takes.”
China Blinks on Pork and Soybean Tariffs
Some news from the trade war front. China has decided to exempt pork and soybeans from future tariffs, giving a much needed reprieve to the agricultural sector in the United States. There was joking last week when China lifted tariffs on a few inconsquential items that it was an “olive twig,” but this move signals something bigger.
Via Reuters.
SHANGHAI (Reuters) – China will exempt some agricultural products from additional tariffs on U.S. goods, including pork and soybeans, China’s official Xinhua News Agency said Friday, in the latest sign of easing Sino-U.S. tensions before a new round of talks aimed at curbing a bruising trade war.The United States and China have both made conciliatory gestures, with China renewing purchases of U.S. farm goods and U.S. President Donald Trump delaying a tariff increase on certain Chinese goods.
This is likely happening for reasons related to China’s condition, not as a gesture of good will. China would like nothing more than to stick it to us but they rely on our agricultural products to keep their people from starving.
An outbreak of deadly African swine fever, which has cut China’s pig herd by a third since mid-2018, has propelled Chinese pork prices to record levels and left the country in need of replacement supplies from overseas. U.S. pork exports to China so far this year have largely fallen short of expectations.
That issue of diseases didn’t just come out of nowhere. It is a result of China sourcing unsafe Russian pork to try to replace what we were selling them. In other words, China needs us and they are starting to feel the pinch. Hence, they lifted these tariffs because they need the imports, not just to be nice.
It’s disappointing that just last week I saw some conservatives on Twitter snarking that Trump should retreat and declare victory. That’s short sighted and stupid. It’s exactly the kind of attitude that got Trump elected, i.e. the idea that Republicans aren’t willing to fight the tough battles. Trump is winning this trade war. For now, the U.S. has been largely left unscathed, with the markets already rebounding big after a scare a few weeks ago. The question is whether Trump can finish this before 2020. This isn’t something he’s going to want hanging over his head. That’s the only wildcard in this.
Goldman Sachs Analysis: Good Grief, Trump Might Be Serious About China
This is funny in so many ways; especially for CTH readers who have a far better-than-ordinary understanding of the big picture Trump goals around China.
(1) CNBC tweeted this story last night (note the date/time). (2) It is written exclusively from the perspective of the Goldman Sachs analysts who represent the U.S. multinational position. (3) However, the article was actually written on May 12, 13, 2019.
What is funny about CNBC pushing this story, NOW, is how the claims within the CNBC story can be fact checked; and their predictions are, well, absurd (especially in hindsight). Keep in mind this was written in May, and tweeted last night for some reason:
(Via CNBC) “Goldman Sachs said the cost of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump last year against Chinese goods has fallen “entirely” on American businesses and households, with a greater impact on consumer prices than previously expected.
The bank said in a note that consumer prices are higher partly because Chinese exporters have not lowered their prices to better compete in the US market.” (link)
This Goldman Sach’s claim –made in May– can now be reviewed for accuracy by actual results on import pricing assembled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in September:
As you can see, four months after the Goldman Sach’s claim, the results are entirely false. The price of imported goods has decreased; additionally, China has further devalued their currency since May, creating an even a larger price offset.
Further in the Goldman Sach’s claims:
“Goldman also said the risk of a final round of tariffs on the roughly $300 billion of remaining imports from China has now risen to 30%.”
In their May 2019 analysis, Goldman put the odds of President Trump following through on more tariffs at 30 percent. They really just don’t believe President Trump is committed to the China confrontation. From their analytical perspective, no U.S. President would ever go into a full economic confrontation with China. Remember, Goldman Sachs represents the majority opinion of the Wall Street ‘multinational’ community.
This analysis from Goldman Sachs underwrites the majority of their multinational investment planning and loans to multinational Wall Street corporations. Laughably, we know the end result is that Trump did execute more Chinese tariffs and the Goldman Sachs analysis was/is 100 percent wrong.
And here’s the kicker:
“Our baseline expectation is that the U.S. and China will strike a deal later this year. We think this would come in the form of a gradual, staggered reduction in tariffs on a last-in, first-out schedule,” the bank said.“There is, however, a risk of further escalation,” Goldman said. (link)
Again for emphasis, Goldman Sachs controls the investment direction for tens-of-billions for U.S. multinational corporations. The quotes and opinions above represent their outlook, their actual belief, and what they were selling their clients in May 2019.
- They were wrong about price impacts.
- They were wrong about Trump following through on additional tariffs.
- And it’s almost certain they are wrong about a pending deal before the end of this year. (It’s now mid September).
What’s the takeaway? Well first, Goldman Sachs controls hundreds-of-billions. Goldman is the predominant voice that all of the other Wall Street multinationals’ look toward. Goldman is the incubator for almost all of the financial experts at the Fed. Goldman is also the baseline for all of the main Wall Street pundits….
Goldman is also 100% demonstrably wrong.
If you wonder why the Federal Reserve looks like they are running around with one foot nailed to the floorboard… well, look no further than Goldman Sach’s analysis.
Second, think about what will happen when these multinationals finally realize that President Trump is serious; and there will be no U.S-China trade deal that retains any semblance of the current trade relationship (if at all).
As soon as these Wall Street knuckleheads wake up to reality (likely dragging, kicking and screaming will be involved), they will have to shift their investment planning and strategic advice to those who want loans and investment. When that happens a much larger portion of the “multinational” money starts flowing back into the United States, and is no longer “multinational”.
It’s just too darn funny not to point out…..
President Trump: U.S. not dependent on Middle Eastern oil and gas, but will help allies.
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 7:03 AM PT — Monday, September 16, 2019
President Trump said the U.S. doesn’t need Middle Eastern oil. This
comes as attacks on Saudi oil facilities shake the world market.In a tweet early Monday, the president pointed out how well the U.S. has done with energy production over the last few years. He also pointed out that the U.S. only has a “few” tankers in the region, but stands ready to help its allies.
Meanwhile, Yemen’s Houthi rebels have warned of more attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil supply. A spokesman for the group made the threat Monday, and warned foreigners to leave the area. This comes after the rebels claimed responsibility for drone attacks on Saudi Aramco oil facilities over the weekend.
President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Iran for the attack, and said the U.S. is “locked and loaded” in response. Energy Secretary Rick Perry condemned the assault at a conference in Vienna, saying this behavior is “unacceptable” and Iran must be held responsible.
SOURCE OANN
https://www.oann.com/president-trump-u-s-not-dependent-on-middle-eastern-oil-and-gas-but-will-help-allies/
Six Glaring Inconsistencies In Blasey-Ford’s Story
Elizabeth Vaughn reporting for RedState
As Dems Renew Calls For Kavanaugh’s Impeachment, The GOP Should Investigate These SIX Glaring Inconsistencies In Blasey-Ford’s Story
Christine Blasey Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, Pool)
Three recent books about the confirmation hearings of Justice Brett Kavanaugh have brought the case back into the spotlight. Sen. Kamala Harris has become the latest Democrat to call for Kavanaugh to be impeached. Just as it was last fall, there is no evidence to support this action. It’s all political theatre.
I think it’s time to put the focus back on his accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford. She made a very serious accusation against Kavanaugh with zero evidence. On top of that, there were glaring inconsistencies in her testimony and she was never asked to account for any of them.
After Kavanaugh was confirmed, some lawmakers said they would investigate Ford, but to my knowledge, no one ever has. I think it’s time they do.
I never believed Christine Blasey Ford (CBF). Nothing about her story ever rang true. Similar to the tales contained in Christopher Steele’s dossier, CBF spun an unverifiable story. She could not recall whose home she was at, how she had arrived or how she’d gotten home. She wasn’t even sure what year it occurred. Maybe 1982, she said during testimony. But she was very certain she had been sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh in the early 1980s. I believe she was deliberately vague because, in that way, her story could not be proven false.
Most of all, this type of crime is so inconsistent with the life that Brett Kavanaugh has lived that it is impossible to believe. Kavanaugh has shown no hint of disrespect toward women at any time in his life. He has undergone seven FBI background checks, including an extremely rigorous one prior to his position in the Bush White House, and no wrongdoing has been revealed.
Here are six areas that need to be examined:
1. It was said that CBF was a political animal, however, she scrubbed her social media history before she came forward with her allegations. Interestingly, the attorney who represented her in the case against Kavanaugh, Debra Katz, was recorded telling a group that part of her motivation was political. Katz said:
In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court. He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.
Could it be that this fragile, childlike, 51 year old woman was acting? She is certainly a political animal. Is it possible that, once CBF told her liberal friends she knew Kavanaugh from her high school days, the idea that she accuse him “anonymously” of sexual assault was conceived? Might she have been persuaded to write a letter to her congresswoman or to submit a “tip” to the Washington Post just to put the allegation out there, never dreaming that it would all culminate in a senate hearing aired on national television? It is certainly within the realm of possibility.
We need to find out more about CBF’s political history.
2. While researching their recent book entitled “Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court, journalists Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino interviewed several of CBF’s acquaintances. These women threw a little cold water on the poor little wounded victim image that CBD worked so hard to portray during her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It didn’t appear to her University of North Carolina classmate that CBF’s alleged 1982(ish) sexual assault affected her social life at all. According to the book:
Classmates were surprised by the media’s portrayal of her as an ingenue, which was very different from how they remembered her in junior high and high school. Female classmates and friends at area schools recalled a heavy drinker who was much more aggressive with boys than they were.‘If she only had one beer’ on the night of the alleged assault, a high school friend said, ‘then it must have been early in the evening.’ Her contemporaries all reported the same nickname for Ford, a riff on her maiden name and a sexual act.They also debated whether her behavior in high school could be attributed to the trauma of a sexual assault. ‘If it could, one of them said, then the assault must have happened in seventh grade.’
These women should be asked to testify. CBF needs to respond under oath.
3. A sworn letter from CBF’s ex-boyfriend of six years to the Senate Judiciary Committee claims:
- She never mentioned her fear of flying. They had flown many times together including on a small prop plane.
- Nor did she ever mention her fear of small spaces. She even lived in a 500 square foot apartment with a single exit at one time during their relationship.
- As a psychologist, she had some knowledge of how polygraph tests worked and he witnessed CBF coaching her close friend, who was applying to the FBI, on how to prepare for it. She was questioned by prosecutor Rachel Mitchell about this during her hearing and said she had no knowledge of polygraph tests, nor had she ever given anyone “tips” on how to take a test.
- He ended the relationship because CBF had been unfaithful.
- After they broke up, he removed her from a credit card they had shared, but she charged $600 worth of merchandise. He asked her about the charges and she denied them until he said he was going to contact the Fraud Prevention Department.
We need to research her travel history. This man’s references to her unfaithfulness and her use of his credit card after they had broken up speaks to her character. He needs to be questioned. Then she needs to be questioned.
4. The relationship between CBF and her life long friend, former FBI special agent Monica L. McLean, a liberal activist, must be investigated. I posted about this during the hearings. I wrote:
“This is the same Monica McLean who CBF once allegedly coached prior to an FBI preemployment polygraph test. McLean passed her test and remained with the FBI for 24 years, retiring in 2016.
The Conservative Tree House’s “Sundance,” believes that this woman orchestrated CBF’s case against Judge Kavanaugh. And his story is very convincing.
He reported that in (or around) 2003, McLean transferred to the Southern District of New York (SDNY), FBI New York Field Office. She worked as a Public Information Officer (PIO), side-by-side with SDNY Attorney General Preet Bharara.
Sundance points out that McLean’s PIO partner in New York, Jim Margolin, is still employed there and is coincidentally attached to the case against President Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen.
McLean, now currently retired, lists Rehoboth Beach, DE as her home address.
During her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, CBF stated that she had prepared her letter to Dianne Feinstein by herself in Rehoboth Beach, DE.
MITCHELL: The second is the letter that you wrote to Senator Feinstein, dated the — July 30th of this year.MITCHELL: Did you write the letter yourself?FORD: I did.MITCHELL: And I — since it’s dated July 30th, did you write it on that date?FORD: I believe so. I — it sounds right. I was in Rehoboth, Delaware, at the time. I could look into my calendar and try to figure that out. It seemed…MITCHELL: Was it written on or about that date?FORD: Yes, yes. I traveled, I think, the 26th of July to Rehoboth, Delaware. So that makes sense, because I wrote it from there.MITCHELL: Is the letter accurate?FORD: I’ll take a minute to read it.
Sure looks like CBF had spent the four days leading up to the July 30th letter to Feinstein visiting Monica McLean. Are we really to believe that McLean had no involvement? Sundance writes:
That would certainly begin to explain quite a bit about who exactly was handling Ms. Ford; and how there would be an intentional effort, from a subject matter expert, on how to best position the attack against Brett Kavanaugh.Who better to help scrub the internet history, and know what processes and people to enlist in such preparatory work, than a retired lawyer who worked deeply inside the FBI?Not only did Ms. McLean possesses a particular set of skills to assist Ms. Ford, but Ms. McLean would also have a network of DOJ and FBI resources to assist in the endeavor. A former friendly FBI agent to do the polygraph; a network of politically motivated allies?Does the appearance of FBI insider and Deputy FBI Director to Andrew McCabe, Michael Bromwich, begin to make more sense?Do the loud and overwhelming requests by political allies for FBI intervention, take on a different meaning or make more sense, now?Standing back and taking a look at the bigger, BIG PICTURE…could it be that Ms. McLean and her team of ideological compatriots within the DOJ and FBI, who have massive axes to grind against the current Trump administration, are behind this entire endeavor?Considering all of the embattled, angry, institutional officials (former and current); and considering the recently fired DOJ and FBI officials; and considering the officials currently under investigation; and considering the declassification requests which will likely lead to the exposure of even more corruption…Could it be that these elements wanted to do something, anything to get back at the executive branch; and possibly change the tide?If so, and I think the likelihood is pretty good, doesn’t everything known just easily reconcile if you think of Ms. Blasey-Ford as a tool for those ideologues?If Ms. Monica Lee McLean and her allies wanted to strike, she couldn’t be the visible face of the confrontation because she was retired FBI. It would be too obvious. She would need a patsy; a friend who could deploy the hit on her/their behalf. It would need to be someone she could shape, easily manage and guide etc. Someone who could be trusted, and at the same time would be trusting of them.It is quite likely Ms. McLean selected/recruited her life-long best friend, Ms. Blasey-Ford.
It’s a very plausible theory and one that actually explains a lot of the peculiarities in the case. It explains why none of the four named witnesses have any recollection of the evening. And because CBF makes no definitive statements about time, place, how she got there and home, the incident is impossible to prove or disprove.”
5. There is not one shred of corroborative evidence. None of the four witnesses she named as having been at the party have any memory whatsoever of it. I won’t repeat the long list of questions she can’t answer about the alleged assault.
If CBF had experienced a sexual assault and run past a group of four others down the stairs and out the door, someone would have noticed. Even if they had not, surely after a while, someone would say, where’s Christine?
Her memory is faulty. She says she heard Kavanaugh and Judge talking and laughing as they bounced off the walls on the way down the staircase, but when questioned further, she said she hadn’t actually heard them, but she assumed they had been talking.
CBF named former Holton-Arms classmate and “lifelong friend” Leland Ingham Keyser as the other young woman who was present at the party where she was sexually assaulted. Keyser then denied, in a sworn statement through her attorney, any recollection of this party. When questioned about Keyser’s denial, CBF said her friend probably didn’t recall being there because of her “poor health.”
Keyser has since spoken out publicly to say that although she suffers from a physical malady, which has required 14 surgeries to date, this has notaffected her memory. A close family member of Keyser’s spoke to Laura Collins of the Daily Mail and made the following points:
- She doubled down on the statements Keyser has already given to the Senate Committee in which she has denied all knowledge of the supposed party, the alleged assault or of Kavanaugh.
- The former pro golfer confirmed she couldn’t corroborate Ford’s story when she was interviewed by the FBI last Saturday.
- Her physical problems have had no effect on her memory.
- Contrary to CBF’s claims, the women are not close, they have been out of touch for years.
6. Falso in uno, falso in omnibus: There were many inconsistencies.
Her lawyers told us that she could not get to Washington in time for the original Monday hearing that Grassley had scheduled, explaining that due to her fear of flying and being in tight spaces without an immediate exit, a result of the sexual assault, she would be driving from California. Yet, she often flew to places like Hawaii, Costa Rica and the South Pacific for surfing vacations.
Note: She did end up flying to Washington. She testified that she’d “worked up the gumption” to fly. What a big girl.
Investigative journalist Paul Sperry points out, “Ford told The Washington Post she was upset when Trump won in 2016, because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick. But Kavanaugh wasn’t added to Trump’s list of possibles until November 2017, a full year later.”
CBF’s lawyers refused to turn over many key documents that Republicans had requested during the hearings, the most important being her therapy notes. If any of them had provided corroborating information, they would have been presented as “Exhibit A” by the Ford team. We can assume the documents were either damaging to Ford’s credibility (likely) or neutral (possible).
Let’s take a look at some of those documents.
Just for fun:
Below is the analysis of a body language expert that went viral during the hearings. The analyst indicates that CBF was “acting” during her testimony and says the only genuine emotion she displayed was “fear.” Who wouldn’t be afraid to perjure themselves in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on national television? Another interesting point made by the analyst was that CBF had no mucus or no tears.
If anyone is interested, here is the video: