MSNBC Tries Rehabbing Stacey Abrams But Instead Exposes Her Scam, and Dividing Trump Cabinet Fails Again

Brad Slager reporting for Townhall 

Presentation Paradox – MSNBC

• Oh dear, you probably should not have gone there…

Stacey Abrams made an appearance with Chris Hayes to clear up her name as it has been exposed that she was part of a group receiving USAID funds. Trump dropped her name during his Tuesday night speech to Congress, so Hayes dutifully brought Abrams on to spin her way out. Instead, she may have dug herself deeper in the hole.

After Hayes set the table to claim her program was saving money, Abrams explained her efforts were to set people up with appliances that were energy efficient and lowered electric bills. So she was doling out free refrigerators in choice locations, which sounds like some severe favoritism and vote purchasing.

Then she goes on to say that they wanted to expand this program into millionsof homes. Hayes wants to claim this saves money, yet with these green refrigerators costing in the $3,000 range, you are talking about billions of government dollars spent to hand out free refrigerators, as well as other appliances. And we are supposed to believe there would be no graft and influence involved in this scam.

Recommended

Prose & Contradiction – THE SUN

• Once again, a journalist denigrates his own profession to slam a Republican.

It was with great amusement that we watched the press attempt to insult the selection of Pete Hegseth to head the Defense Department. He was a decorated veteran with decades of experience, but he was unqualified for the role because he was described as being only a TV pundit – according to the TV pundits.

Now, we have another media member attempting a similar insult on JD Vance, and the rake stepping is a marvel. British media fixture Tom Newton Dunn is apparently bothered that the vice president invokes his military service. Dunn tries to diminish his record by saying that Vance “only” served for four years, and he was not technically in the field of battle, he was a lowly journalist…so says this British journalist.

Low-Octane Gaslighting – THE DAKOTA SCOUT

• Is an itemized list of your claims too much to ask?

Kristi Noem has sent out cease and desist letters to this local state paper, as well as other news outlets, repeating a claim on her use of government funds. This independent news outlet contends that as governor, Noem misappropriated public funds by ringing up charges totaling $650,000 over the span of years on a state-issued credit card. Noem, however, is battling back by explaining this was not abuse in the form of making personal purchases but was, in fact, official business expenses incurred by the entire office across a number of cards. The outlet remains defiant and published a new report with an even higher total, and explains itself by stating these were not for wardrobe or flower purchases but consisted mostly of official travel expenses and the cost for her security detail.

Artisanally-Crafted Narratives – THE NEW YORK TIMES / NBC NEWS

• They have failed at this tactic so far, so why not keep trying?

With the emergence of Elon Musk as a player in the Donald Trump administration, we have seen the media consistently making the effort to create internal drama and division between the two men. The ploy seems to be centered on the belief that Trump’s ego is so fragile that he will lash out at anyone making an incursion on his media attention, and so, desperate unfounded reports have been seen on the regular attempting to generate this conflict between them, or inside the White House staff. They keep failing. 

There has even been evidence of collusion in the media ranks, as seen when Time Magazine put Musk on the cover, shown sitting at the Resolute Desk, and then other outlets tried to drive a wedge based on that attempt. That effort has been tried once again.

The New York Times came out with a report, based on nameless sources (five people with knowledge of the events), that there was a tense-filled meeting in the Oval Office where Musk and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were verbally combating, requiring the president to step in and quell the anger. When the president was asked about this contentious meeting:

Reporting on the Mirror – CNN

• Could this be a sign that a dawning is coming over the network executives?

Over the past few weeks, we have covered how CNN has been going through a raft of changes. Layoffs, contracts being slashed, the lineup being juggled, and Jim Acosta being sent off have all signaled the problems at the distant third place news network as it slides further down in the ratings. That is why this latest announcement is all the more enlightening.

Over the past year, one of the few bright spots on CNN has been the rise of conservative pundit Scott Jennings. He sits on numerous panels and calmly eviscerates leftist talking points with aplomb and good humor. The network clearly recognizes that he is drawing in viewers with these regular battles, as well as delivering near-daily viral moments that are shared across social media, and as a result, he has been the recipient of a rarity at the network these days: He not only has renewed a contract but will be seeing a significant boost in pay as well.

Mark Carney wins race to replace Canada's Trudeau

 OTTAWA, March 9 (Reuters) - Former central banker Mark Carney won the race to become leader of Canada's ruling Liberal Party and will succeed Justin Trudeau as prime minister, official results showed on Sunday. 

Carney will take over at a tumultuous time in Canada, which is in the midst of a trade war with longtime ally the United States and must hold a general election soon.

Carney, 59, took 86% of votes cast to beat former Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland in a contest in which just under 152,000 party members voted.

Trudeau announced in January that he would step down after more than nine years in power as his approval rating plummeted, forcing the ruling Liberal Party to run a quick contest to replace him.

"Make no mistake, this is a nation-defining moment. Democracy is not a given. Freedom is not a given. Even Canada is not a given," Trudeau said.

"Now, as Canadians face, from our neighbour, an existential challenge, an economic crisis, Canadians are showing exactly what we are made of."

Carney, a political novice, argued that he was best placed to revive the party and to oversee trade negotiations with U.S. President Donald Trump, who is threatening additional tariffs that could cripple Canada's export-dependent economy.

Carney was the front-runner, with the most endorsements from party members and the most money raised among the four Liberal candidates.

Carney's win marks the first time an outsider with no real political background has become Canadian prime minister. He has said his experience as the first person to serve as the governor of two G7 central banks - Canada and England - meant he was the best candidate to deal with Trump.

During the campaign, Carney said he supported dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs against the United States and a coordinated strategy to boost investment. He has repeatedly complained that Canada's growth under Trudeau was not good enough.

The prospect of a fresh start for the Liberal Party under Carney, combined with Trump's tariffs and his repeated taunts to annex Canada as the 51st U.S. state, led to a remarkable revival of Liberal fortunes.

RALLY-AROUND-THE-FLAG MOMENT

At the start of 2025 the party trailed by 20 or more points but is now statistically tied with the official opposition Conservatives led by career politician Pierre Poilievre in several polls.

At a protest outside Canada's Parliament building in Ottawa on Sunday, dozens of Canadians held up signs protesting Trump with no reference to domestic politics.

"There is a rallying-around-the-flag moment that we would never have predicted a year ago," said University of British Columbia politics professor Richard Johnston. "I think it's probably true as we speak that the Liberals have been saved from oblivion."

Two Liberal Party sources said Carney would call an election in coming weeks.

Polls though indicate that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives would be able to form a majority government. An election must be held by October 20.

Carney could legally serve as prime minister without a seat in the House of Commons but tradition dictates that he should seek to win one as soon as possible.

In 1984, John Turner was not a legislator when he became prime minister after winning a Liberal leadership race.

Liberals sought to compare Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre to Trump in a recent advertisement. Poilievre in turn ramped up attacks on Carney on Sunday.

The Liberals "are going to pull a sneaky trick tonight," Poilievre said at a campaign rally. "They're going to try to get elected for a fourth term by replacing Justin Trudeau with his economic adviser, Mark Carney. ... Donald Trump will have a big smile on his face."

Carney has played down any role in advising Trudeau, noting his many global obligations left him with little time. Carney resigned all commercial posts after he launched his leadership bid in January.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-liberals-announce-trudeaus-successor-midst-us-trade-war-2025-03-09/

And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- March 9

 

EU and Ukraine: Stop Blaming Trump, Look in the Mirror

posted by Marc Weisman at American Thinker 

It is deeply ironic for European leaders to criticize Donald Trump for allegedly undermining President Volodymyr Zelensky as he seeks to create space for negotiations — especially given their own failure to prevent Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in the first place.  Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO membership, despite Russia’s explicit warnings, combined with the inability of President Joe Biden and European leaders to deter Vladimir Putin’s aggression, directly contributed to the war.  By ignoring Putin’s repeated signals that NATO expansion posed a “threat” to Russia’s security, Ukraine took a gamble — one that ultimately failed, as the West proved too weak to deter him.  Instead of condemning Trump for recognizing this reality and pushing for a negotiated peace, his efforts should be welcomed.

Trump’s Position: Acknowledging Reality

Despite claims to the contrary, President Trump has openly recognized Russia as the aggressor in the ongoing conflict with Ukraine.  In a recent interview, he stated, “Russia attacked,” clearly acknowledging Moscow’s role in initiating hostilities.  Unlike European leaders and many on the left in America, Trump also understands the sobering reality that achieving peace requires bringing both sides to the negotiating table — almost certainly involving Ukraine ceding some eastern territories.  Although no one wants Putin to benefit from launching a brutal invasion against his neighbor and former Soviet satellite, the blame rests squarely on the Biden administration and the European Union’s failure to prevent the war during the eight months of Russian military buildup on Ukraine’s border.  European leaders, so quick to criticize Trump for supposedly cozying up to Putin, should have considered the consequences of their collective weakness when they failed to act before the full-scale invasion began.

Expensive Stalemate

Despite the E.U. spending approximately $130 billion and the U.S. around $200 billion in military and financial aid, the war remains largely stagnant.  As of February 2025, Russia controls roughly 20% of Ukraine’s territory, primarily in the south and east.  Over the past month, Russian forces have gained an additional 130 square miles (about 336 square kilometers), advancing into areas like Pokrovsk. but at a staggering cost — over 420,000 Russian casualties in 2024 alone.

There is little reason to believe that in one year, or even three, Ukraine will reclaim its lost land through military action.  So what is the rationale for indefinitely funding this war?  The toll on human lives has been catastrophic, and the risk of escalation into a wider conflict — potentially between nuclear powers — only adds urgency to the need for diplomacy.  This is the core premise of Trump’s position: pushing for negotiations now rather than prolonging a war that continues to drain resources and lives with no clear path to victory.

Pre-War Deterrence: A Missed Opportunity

Prior to the invasion, several deterrence strategies existed but were rejected by the West:

• Provision of Military Equipment — Supplying Ukraine with advanced military assets, such as MiG fighter jets from Finland and Poland — aircraft that Ukrainian pilots were already trained to fly — could have enhanced its defensive capabilities and signaled a stronger commitment from Western allies.
• Economic Sanctions — Implementing comprehensive pre-emptive sanctions targeting key sectors of the Russian economy, particularly energy exports, might have exerted enough economic pressure to deter an invasion.  However, Western nations delayed decisive action, weakening the sanctions’ potential impact.
• International Diplomatic Isolation — A unified, global diplomatic effort to isolate Russia could have increased the political and economic costs of an invasion, potentially influencing Putin’s calculations.  Instead, Western leaders engaged in half-measures, emboldening Russian aggression.  Biden even went so far as to state that small Russian incursion into Ukraine may not require a U.S. response.
• The E.U. Failed to Boycott Russian Energy — Reports indicate that the European Union has spent more on Russian oil and gas than on financial aid to Ukraine.  According to the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), in the third year of the war, the E.U. paid approximately $23 billion for Russian fossil fuels, surpassing the $20 billion allocated for Ukraine’s financial support in 2024.

Big Talk, Little Action

European leaders now express strong rhetorical support for Ukraine, but their past inaction contributed to the crisis.  Their continued failure to offer a realistic path toward peace beyond funding the war only prolongs the suffering.

• French president Emmanuel Macron has insisted that Europe was “right to help Ukraine and sanction Russia three years ago and must continue doing so.”  Yet these weak sanctions did little to stop the war or weaken Russia’s resolve.
• Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni has warned of a “divided West” following Trump’s meeting with Zelensky, urging negotiations to prevent further discord among Western allies.  However, this unity should have been prioritized before the war began.
• British prime minister Keir Starmer has emphasized Europe’s responsibility for its own defense, proposing a U.K.-French ceasefire plan to the U.S. while pledging additional funds for Ukrainian air defense.  However, without a comprehensive diplomatic strategy, such actions remain piecemeal efforts.

Conclusion: A Preventable War, a Necessary Peace

The war in Ukraine is a stark reminder of the failures of weak Western deterrence and the complexities of international diplomacy.  Although alternative strategies could have prevented this conflict, the current priority must be securing a just and lasting peace — one that, realistically, will require Ukraine to cede some territory, a painful but unavoidable price that Ukraine will pay for its and the greater West’s missteps along the way.

As the saying goes, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”  Had European leaders and the Biden administration acted decisively before the invasion, this war might never have begun.  Now, as the conflict drags on with mounting casualties and economic costs, a new approach is urgently needed.

Donald Trump remains the only leader advocating for a pragmatic resolution — one that acknowledges the realities on the ground and prioritizes stopping the bloodshed over prolonging an unwinnable war.  While European leaders continue their posturing, Ukraine continues to suffer.  Without decisive leadership, this war will persist, draining resources, lives, and global stability.  The time for serious negotiations is now.

The Democratic Fork in the Road and the Woke Repudiation Imperative

posted by Josh Hammer at Townhall 

Yogi Berra, the mid-century New York Yankees Hall of Fame catcher known for his pithy and often humorous life observations, once famously quipped: "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." It was sound advice, perhaps, for a traveler on the go and in search of a quick meal. But the modern Democratic Party, rudderless and confused and reeling from a pitiful collective performance during Tuesday evening's presidential joint address to Congress, now confronts a fork in the road that's no joke.

On the one hand lies the path of least resistance: doubling down on the status quo -- the progressive culture-warring, woke/identity politics-driven agenda that has dominated the party ever since Barack Obama upset Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. On the other hand lies the more difficult but ultimately more promising path: repudiation of that post-2008 legacy and a conscientious return to a politics of the prudential center. Which path Democrats choose from here will go a long way toward determining their relevance as a national political party for the foreseeable future.

Obama's shocking upset over the madam-president-in-waiting was an inflection point for the institutional trajectory of the Democratic Party. Voters rejected the cultural centrism that was a Clinton-era hallmark in favor of the "hope" and "change" promised by Obama's "coalition of the ascendant." Initially, perhaps, that may have looked like a smart bet: Obama trounced John McCain in the 2008 presidential general election. But the one-time "coalition of the ascendant" transmogrified into an identitarian and deeply off-putting "coalition of aggrieved interests." Culturally militant wokeism eventually reached its pernicious apex during Joe Biden's presidency -- which saw the first explicitly "DEI" Supreme Court justice selection (Ketanji Brown Jackson, after Biden vowed to nominate a Black woman) and a DEI vice presidential running mate (Kamala Harris, after Biden was pressured to choose a Black woman).

This version of the Democratic Party, which featured the progenitor of wokeism, Obama himself, as the leading presidential campaign trail surrogate for Harris, was thoroughly rejected in November by the American people. It turns out that voters didn't really know what they were signing up for when they embarked on an extended political journey of "hope" and "change." They weren't interested -- and aren't interested -- in legitimizing the juvenile genital mutilation and chemical castration that has been euphemistically sold as "gender-affirming care." They weren't interested -- and aren't interested -- in assenting to wide-scale importation and resettlement of foreigners whose cultures and customs are antithetical to our own.

Some leading Democrats do finally seem to get the memo. Former Clinton strategist James Carville, for instance, has called for Democrats to distance themselves from the excesses of woke civilizational arson. But many others disagree. There is no indication at all, for instance, that the ladies of "The View" have done any introspection: Shortly after November's electoral shellacking, cohost Sunny Hostin attributed Harris' loss to Donald Trump to "racism" and "misogyny." Surveying the left-of-center punditocracy scene, it often seems that there are far more Hostin-like voices of escalation than there are Carville-like voices of sobriety.

Democratic elected officials are also deeply split. California Gov. Gavin Newsom made headlines this week by repudiating certain facets of wokeism during an interview with Charlie Kirk, but congressional Democrats attending Trump's joint address to Congress on Tuesday evening took the opposite approach, beyond refusing to applaud: Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.) obnoxiously heckled the president and was kicked out of the House chamber within the speech's first few minutes -- deservedly so. In general, their conduct was positively buffoonish.

In what world do Democrats think they do themselves any political favors with these antics and, more important, these underlying substantive political stances? One guest of Trump on Tuesday, Payton McNabb, is a female former high school athlete who was grievously injured during a match against a team with a biological male player. On this issue, recent CNN polling indicates that roughly four-fifths of Americans oppose biological male participation in female athletic competitions. Even Newsom, in his podcast episode with Kirk, called the practice "deeply unfair."

Newsom seems to be reading the tea leaves -- unlike congressional Democrats. There is a similar divide on the issue of illegal immigration and so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions; consider, for instance, New York City Mayor Eric Adams' high-profile flip on the issue, which has brought him into line with Trump.

To make matters even worse, a majority of Democratic elites too often now come across not merely as schoolmarmish and excessively self-righteous -- but as heartless and lacking compassion, to boot. Party leaders undoubtedly think of themselves as "compassionate," especially for those perceived as being "oppressed" (on the neo-Marxist intersectional scale of victimization status). But where is the compassion for McNabb? Where is the compassion for the family of Laken Riley, the Athens, Georgia, student whose life was tragically cut short by an illegal alien who never should have been on our soil?

In order to recover their standing and regain lasting relevance as an electorally feasible national political party, Democrats are going to have to repudiate the entirety of their post-2008/post-Obama cultural legacy. That is the simple truth. The American people want a stable pocketbook, a stable border and a stable world stage. They're not interested in the Obama-Biden-Harris Democratic Party's idiosyncratic conception of waging a culture war.

Are Democrats up to such a challenge? The intraparty civil war is on -- but I certainly have my doubts. Unless and until they do repudiate their cultural militance, however, Democrats will continue to flounder about in irrelevance. Perhaps they'll need to get their clocks cleaned at the ballot box a few more times. That wouldn't be the worst thing.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

'Ladies And Gentlemen, We Got Him': RFK Jr. Announces Seal Team Six Has Neutralized The Kool-Aid Man

 'Ladies And Gentlemen, We Got Him': 

RFK Jr. Announces Seal Team Six Has Neutralized The Kool-Aid Man

U.S.·Mar 9, 2025 · BabylonBee.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. — HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that Seal Tim Six conducted a daring overnight raid and has neutralized the infamous Kool-Aid Man.

The Kool-Aid Man did not go down easily, given his remarkable ability to run through walls without sustaining injury. However, his thick glass exterior ultimately proved no match for a rocket fired by an FGM-148 Javelin.

"He died like a dog," announced Kennedy. "There was artificial dye everywhere. Congratulations to the heroes of Seal Team Six for ridding the world of this highly synthetic monster."

Long-known for unexpectedly bursting into people's homes and forcing children to drink sugar and artificial dye, the Kool-Aid man had been labeled a high-priority target by Kennedy. "That's one down," said Kennedy, marking an "x" through a picture of the anthropomorphic pitcher. "Next up, Tony the Tiger. Childhood-onset diabetes isn't 'grrreat!' You're going down, pal."

At publishing time, Kennedy had reportedly put out a $100,000 reward for information leading to the capture or elimination of "Little Debbie."

https://babylonbee.com/news/ladies-and-gentlemen-we-got-him-rfk-jr-announces-seal-team-six-has-neutralized-the-kool-aid-man

So, That's Why a Horde of Top Dem Operatives Have Fled This Fundraising Operation

Matt Vespa reporting for Townhall 

Democrats running for office better be strategizing for money that might not be able to be deposited into their war chests because this organization might not exist soon. ActBlue is in total turmoil. Top staffers are leaving in droves, with their unions demanding some explanation for the dysfunction.

These aren’t 2024 election staffers either; these are longtime operatives who are fleeing for the hills. You could argue that Congress’ probe into the group might be the impetus, but it might be more. The New York Times shockingly covered this damaging story regarding Democratic Party fundraising, adding that no one they contacted would go on the record concerning ActBlue’s meltdown (via NYT): 

ActBlue, the online fund-raising organization that powers Democratic candidates, has plunged into turmoil, with at least seven senior officials resigning late last month and a remaining lawyer suggesting he faced internal retaliation. 

The departures from ActBlue, which helps raise money for Democrats running for office at all levels of government, come as the group is under investigation by congressional Republicans. They have advanced legislation that some Democrats warn could be used to debilitate what is the party’s leading fund-raising operation. 

The exodus has set off deep concerns about ActBlue’s future. Last week, two unions representing the group’s workers sent a blistering letter to ActBlue’s board of directors that listed the seven officials who had left. The letter described an “alarming pattern” of departures that was “eroding our confidence in the stability of the organization.” 

[…] 

According to the letter from the ActBlue unions, which has not been previously reported and was confirmed as authentic by three people briefed on its contents, the senior staff departures began on Feb. 21. That day, ActBlue’s customer service and partnerships directors, who had both worked at the group for more than a decade, left, according to the unions’ letter. 

“Now, my primary mission is rest,” Alyssa Twomey, ActBlue’s departing vice president for customer service, wrote on social media. “After 14+ years of living and breathing all things ActBlue, it’s time for a reset. I’m taking an intentional pause before setting course for my next adventure.” 

The next week, several other senior officials left, including the associate general counsel — who was the highest-ranking legal officer at ActBlue — the assistant research director, a human resources official, the chief revenue officer and an engineer who had spent 16 years building and maintaining the electronic pipes through which the group’s donations flow. 

As these people left, Zain Ahmad, who was the last remaining lawyer in the ActBlue general counsel’s office, wrote in an internal Slack message on Feb. 26 that his access to email and other internal platforms had been cut off and that other messages he had posted in Slack had been deleted, according to a screenshot obtained by The New York Times. Mr. Ahmad is now on leave from ActBlue, according to a person briefed on the group’s staffing. 

[…] 

The unions asked the board to hire an outside counsel to take “investigatory actions to better understand the current state of the organization and evaluate if our C.E.O. is doing her job in an appropriate, competent and responsible manner.” 

ActBlue’s chief executive, Regina Wallace-Jones, did not respond to requests for comment. Ms. Hughes, the spokeswoman for the group, did not comment on Mr. Ahmad’s claims of retaliation or the staff unions’ concern. 

Sounds like a toxic work environment, coupled with crippling incompetence. The current ActBlue crew claims they’re in a period of transition after the 2024 elections, but it goes beyond that. This is a Saturday Night Massacre of top staff. Congressional Republicans putting this group under the microscope doesn’t help, but the publication added that ActBlue has run afoul of many Democrats. The Biden campaign was the most prominent, and a tussle between the two camps occurred over the rates ActBlue was charging. 

Right now, no one is talking, and ActBlue is virtually adrift. That’s most Democrats these days.