Democratic precedential hopeful Senator Elizabeth Warren was once again reminded of her Faux Pas about here “alleged” Native American heritage at a recent campaign stop. It occurred during a Warren campaign rally in Georgia.
While introducing herself to a small crowd of only about 1,000 supporters in a Lawrenceville high school, a man shouted “Why did you lie?” Warren replied back “Be easy, be easy,” while the crowd chanted her name and clapped.
According to Fox News, the man was holding up a campaign sign that read “1/2020.” After his heckling of Warren, he was quickly escorted out of the building.
Warren released DNA results examining her possible Native American ancestry last year in response to criticism from Republicans and President Donald Trump.
Just a Fraction of the Truth
That DNA test revealed she could be anywhere between 1/64th and 1/1,204th Native American. In early February, she apologized to the Cherokee Nation for taking the test, which angered some tribal leaders who felt that being a part of the nation was rooted in centuries of culture and laws, not through DNA tests.
The incident in Georgia came just days after Warren suggested President Trump “may not even be a free person” in 2020.
Warren made that particular comment at the Veterans Memorial Building in Cedar Rapids in front of a crowd of a few hundred. The Massachusetts senator argued that Democrats should resist the urge to respond to “a racist tweet, a hateful tweet, something really dark and ugly” when choosing whether or not to spar with Trump.
“Are we going to let him use those to divide us?” Warren said, according to a report from the New York Times.
“By the time we get to 2020, Donald Trump may not even be president,” she continued. “In fact, he may not even be a free person.”
When asked to clarify her statements, Warren pointed to the multiple open investigations into the president, which includes the Russia probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and two additional investigations led by federal prosecutors in New York and Democrats who won back the majority in the House of Representatives this past November.
Warren’s comments came after President Trump took a jab at her on Twitter shortly after she announced her presidential campaign.
“Today Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to by me as Pocahontas, joined the race for President,” he tweeted. “Will she run as our first Native American presidential candidate, or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore?”
There is no part of our public policy establishment that is more demonized than THE LOBBYIST. Nary a kind word is said about them and they are virtually always portrayed as evil, conniving, ruthless, heartless, greedy, dishonest, corrupt … well, you get the idea. Just as Wall Street has become synonymous for banking, Madison Avenue for advertising and Broadway for theater, Washington’s K Street is the collective reference to lobbyists.
According to common lore, they influence our legislators against the interests of we the people. They are deemed to have powers over our legislators at all levels of government that would may Zeus look like a wimp in comparison. And the source of their power is money that puts lawmakers into indentured servitude.
This image of the lobbyist is contorted by left-leaning politicians, the news profession and the entertainment industry. This terrible image of lobbyist applies only to those who are not on the side of the left-leaning politicians, the news profession and the entertainment industry. The bull’s-eye in their target of wrath is the “corporate lobbyist” and organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA).
But, what about all those high-paid union lobbyists, the education associations and organizations like Planned Parenthood. These are among the highest-funded lobbying operations in the country. In an example of characteristic hypocrisy, the left spends billions of dollars on the very kind of lobbyists they eschew. If you hang around Capitol Hill even for a short time, you will discover that there are lobbyists representing every view in our remarkably diverse nation – and that is a good thing.
The genius of our Constitution is that it puts the power of governance in the hands of the people. It is our right and responsibility to elect our representatives and to let them know what we would like them to do. That is why our First Amendment is so important. It is why we can speak out against our government. It is why we are free to assemble – and free to influence our public officials. That all-important First Amendment states that we have the right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” And remember that virtually all legislation is a redress of some perceived grievance – a correction to a problem.
Obviously, tens of millions of us cannot give our opinion to our city council member, state legislators and members of Congress – much less all those mayors, governors and lesser officials. Individually, we have no opportunity to sit down with the President of the United States.
So, what must we do? We have to make our opinion known collectively as an “interest group” through organizations composed of and supported by like-minded people – and let the leaders of those groups press our case with all those government officials. And all those people who carry our water – so to speak — are called … lobbyists.
There are lobbyists on all sides of every issue. Without them, my voice and yours would not be heard and considered in the hall of government. Without lobbyists our Republic would not exist. Lobbying is unique to a free people living in a Republic. You can rest assured that authoritarian nations do not have a lot of lobbyists representing the views of the public.
Another lobbyist-related issue that gets a lot of attention is the money. Critics of lobbying – corporate lobbying in most cases — mount a double-pronged attack on the money. The first, is tied to campaign contributions – which are only indirectly related to lobbying. The vast majority of campaign contributions come through political action committees that are forbidden to lobby. And many organizations that provide information to public officials – all those foundations and think tanks you read about — are not allowed to give campaign contributions. That is also true of advocacy (lobbying) groups.
The distinction is determined by the Internal Revenue Service. An education-only group – designated as a 501(c)(3) – is tax exempt and can provide information to legislators, but not lobby. An advocacy group – 501 (c)(4) – can lobby but does not enjoy tax exemption and cannot donate to campaigns. Political Action Committees (PACs) can donate, but not lobby.
What makes lobbys, such as the NRA, Planned Parenthood or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), so powerful is not as much the money as their grassroots support among voters. This was noted by journalists Emma Green, writing in The Atlantic. She wrote, “What gives groups like the NRA or AIPAC clout on Capitol Hill are the supporters who stand behind them, and their passion for the issues these groups champion.”
The second assault on the money deals with the amount of cash spent by lobbyists on our public servants – you know, those fancy dinners where drinks flow like the Mighty Mississippi, Super Bowl tickets for the VIP boxes, gifts and other perquisites (perqs or perks, as we commonly refer to them) designed to circumvent legal limitations.
The image of a high-rolling lobbyist spending lavishly on members of Congress is iconic in movies and television shows, but it is an exaggerated imagery. For sure, some of that goes on as a normal course of business, but for the most part lobbying is issue-based and requires a lot of research, statistics and persuasive communication. There are a lot more meetings in congressional offices than there are dinners at the Mini Bar at José Andres – where the average dinner goes for around $390. But hey! It includes a glass of wine.
There is a bit of a canard in terms of the money. It is widely believed that the money buys the vote – that a legislator’s vote is purchased. To the extent that may happen with an occasional corrupt lawmaker, it is very rare – and criminal. Believe it or not, you cannot offer money to a legislator in return for a vote. Furthermore, campaign money cannot legally be requested or offered on government property.
The money goes to candidates and legislators who ALREADY support the position of the lobbyists representing an interest group. Did you ever see candidates who want to confiscate all guns get money from the NRA? Of course not. They get money from the anti-gun lobby. Duh!
Campaign money may help candidates get elected based on their platform, but even that is overstated. Incumbency is the primary reason politicians get re-elected – and where there is no incumbent, candidates with less resources often win. Trump won the presidency spending a lot less money than the Clinton campaign.
Lobbying is not the bane of democracy, it is essential to the existence of a republic. Lobbyists are the education arm of the legislature. They bring information and statistics that are otherwise beyond a legislator’s ability to research on the Internet. Lobbyists provide the facts and figures upon which legislators rely to make their decisions.
Lobbyists come with a point of view. But you can bet that the legislator will be presented with facts and figures that are a counterpoint. In many ways it is like a court-of-law in which the prosecution and defense present their best argument for the judge to decide.
The demonizing of lobbying and lobbyists is just another one of those mendacious left-wing narratives that is foisted on the public purely for political purposes. In singling out lobbyists who represent a more conservative viewpoint, the left – politicians and their media allies – are hypocritical, to say the least. Those who condemn lobbyists the most rely on them regularly. They are downright hypocritical … un-American.
So, there ‘tis.
From its introduction in Congress, the Affordable Care Act (nee Obamacare) has been the subject of controversy. It was sold to the public – and to a lot of members of Congress – on the improbable promises that all the uninsured would get good health coverage at a low cost – and any one could keep their doctor. None of that turned out to be true.
To make it even marginally viable, the law had to force everyone to purchase an Obamacare health plan or face a fine. The less they could afford, the worse the coverage and the higher the deductible. In some cases, the annual deductible was so high – up to $6000 dollars – that a healthy young person would have zero coverage for normal health needs – like a bout of the flu or a broken arm.
While it promised health coverage for all, it expanded to less than half of the estimated 30 million Americans without insurance. And the promise that you could keep your doctor was proven to be false as many doctors simply refused to take Obamacare patients. Why? Because many could not pay the deductible and Uncle Sam is a very slow payer. It is the same reason not every doctor will take Medicate and Medicaid patients.
No promise was more disingenuous than the assurance that premiums would be low and reasonable. Thanks to economist Robert Genetski, we can now know just how badly we the people were deceived by President Obama and his team of advisors. This was not a mistake or an unanticipated outcome. Obama’s senior advisor, Jonathan Gruber, later admitted that they had lied … yep, told a whopper … in order to get Obamacare passed.
Genetski recently did a formal economic analysis of Obamacare’s impact on insurance premiums. It is worse that we thought. The first paragraph of his report is a stunner. He reads:
“An analysis of health insurance premiums, out of pocket expenses and deductibles indicates the Affordable Care Act (aka, ACA or Obamacare) has added $10,000 a year or more to the average family’s cost of health insurance.”
The report went on to say:
“Once the ACA was fully implemented, its impact increased the total annual cost of health insurance to individuals by $3,400 to $4,400 and to families by $10,000 to $12,000.”
According to Genetski’s report, “The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates the average premium for the most popular individual Obamacare policy increased by 182% from 2013 to 2018.”
When Obamacare took effect in 2013, the average annual premium for a family was approximately $5,000. In a normal trajectory – not impacted by Obamacare – the 2014 average annual premium would have been in the $5,200 range. But because of Obamacare, it soared to $7,000 per year. If you look at 2018, the normal increase would have had the average family premium in the $6,200 range. But thanks to Obamacare, the 2018 figure is a whopping $14,000 per year.
Thanks to Democrat obstructionism and Republican ineffectiveness, the frequent promise to repeal and replace the Obamacare failed to be realized. The removal of the mandate requiring the purchase or facing a penalty was a step in the right direction. Despite the political fighting, Obamacare will be replaced some day because it is currently economically not viable or sustainable. It will crash at some point in the future – and then even its defenders will have to concede defeat
We were famously told by Speaker Nancy Pelosi that we would have to pass the legislation to see what is in it. We did and we can now see what is in it – and it is not a pretty picture.
So, there ‘tis.
Former Deputy FBI Director – and temporary acting Director – Andrew McCabe has broken his silence to explain who and why he initiated an obstruction of justice investigation against the President of the United States. According to him, he and others in the top ranks of the FBI – including Director James Comey, who had just been fired – were deeply concerned that President Trump had gained office with the conspiratorial assistance of the Russian government.
In out takes from his upcoming ABC’s 60 Minutes interview, McCabe branded himself as some sort of national patriot – defending the Republic from a presidential usurper. He confirmed that he wanted to launch the investigation in such a way that it could not be shut down for any reason. He alleges to have feared that Trump and others, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, would terminate the investigation quietly.
McCabe further underscored the claimed seriousness of their concerns by revealing that Rosenstein had discussed wearing a body wire to record Trump making incriminating comments. The group – dare I say, cabal – then supposedly discussed the possibility of using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.
As expected, the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement media jumped on this story as if it were gospel. They spun and spun the story to re-enforce the idea that the expressed concerns and fears McCabe alleged were real. According to the pandering press, McCabe & Co. were great Americans doing their job. Saving the Republic from an illegitimate President.
It is said that most often the simplest explanation is the correct one. In this case, the facts and history suggest a far simpler and far darker explanation. Though McCabe put his known actions in the most positive manner possible, he did admit that he and others were looking to bring down President Trump by alleging – concocting – a criminal case against him.
This has the stench of a palace coup, with several of the top leaders of the FBI as the coup-plotters. Among the most prominent besides McCabe would be the recently terminated James Comey, Special Agent Peter Strzok (and his paramour co-worker Lisa Page), Bruce Ohr (and wife Nellie) and a couple of lesser go-alongs.
There are a number of important facts that cast doubt on McCabe’s self-serving explanation. First and foremost is that he not only had motivation to lie about the events, but he is been proven to be a liar. It got him fired without pension from the FBI as an outcome of an internal Inspector General investigation.
McCabe is a disgruntled – to say the least – former employee, who has every motivation to get even with those who “done him wrong.” The fact that the eastern elitist media takes a disgruntled liar at face value says a lot about their journalistic ethics – or lack thereof.
We also have to remember that the plot to take Trump down did not commence with the firing of Comey. No. No. No. They were hell-bent on stopping Trump from being elected. They had all their eggs in the Hillary Clinton basket. Their animus against Trump was unconcealable. As The Hill wrote: “It is no longer in dispute that they (Strzok, Page and others) held animus for Donald Trump, who was a subject of their Russia probe, or that they openly discussed using the powers of their office to “stop” Trump from becoming president.”
It was after those text messages went public that Strzok was bounced from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team – and one can only wonder why Strzok was selected in the first place. Mueller most certainly must have known of his feelings about Trump in advance.
The interest in protecting Clinton was evident when Comey concluded an investigation and articulated a number of ethical and legal lapses on the part of candidate Clinton but recommended against criminal indictment and prosecution. Oh wait! Comey did more than recommend against prosecution – which was in and of itself an abuse of his authority – he actually decided she should not be prosecutor. He falsely and improperly assumed the role of the Department of Justice by saying that no prosecutor would pursue the case.
It is also noteworthy that Strzok — who had the lead in the Clinton investigation – who arbitrarily altered the final report to remove wording that would suggest criminality on the part of Clinton.
McCabe’s interest in Clinton was reflected in the fact that his wife was not only a Democrat candidate for the State Senate in Virginia but was closely tied to Clinton. In fact, Jill McCabe received approximately $500,000 though Clinton’s top fundraiser, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.
According to rumors, Comey’s skin in the game was to be retained as FBI Director AND the prospect of having his name replace the controversial and largely discredited J Edgar Hoover’s name on the FBI headquarters in D.C.
It was during the campaign that the bogus dossier surfaced alleging that Trump had been indiscreet in Moscow – salacious sex, of course – and that Vladimir Putin had the goods on him. The unsubstantiated dossier was obtained by the Clinton campaign from Russian sources through a former British intelligence agent Michael Steele — a fact that should have garnered the attention of the FBI as a case of Russian meddling in the American election, but strangely did not.
And how did that phony dossier get into the hands of the Trump adversaries in the FBI? Weeeell, it was provided to another member of the cabal, Special Agent Bruce Ohr. And from whom did he receive this fraudulent document? From his wife, Nellie, who worked for the consulting firm that fronted for the Clinton campaign and actually paid for the document.
The unsubstantiated – and later discredited – dossier was used by the FBI to intimidate Trump and eventually as a reason to seek surveillance warrants on Trump campaign in the person of Carter Page. It was an investigation in search of a crime by Trump.
In sworn testimony, Comey admitted that he had improperly – and perhaps illegally – leaked damaging information on Trump to a friend who was directed to get it to the friendly New York Times. Comey confirmed that his intent was to trigger the appointment of a special counsel to go after Trump.
We also have to keep in mind that all this Trump stuff was ancillary to the reasons for the Special Counsel. The primary purpose was to investigate the broad issue of Russia interference in the election. Initial findings suggested that Russia did interfere, but not just in favor of one side. For those with memories longer than the life span of a fruit fly, Russian social media activities were directed to help Clinton by hurting Trump, to help Trump by hurting Clinton and to spread general public consternation – especially in race relations. The subsequent focus on Trump and the Campaign was the product of the Resistance Movement and a dishonest and unfair news media – AND the effort of the cabal within the FBI.
Once Trump was elected, the conspiracy against him at the FBI did not cease – and that is the scary part. That is when politicization of the FBI in a campaign became the abuse of the FBI to unseat a duly elected President.
We know something was afoot – as they say in those old British detective movies – when Strzok assuaged his lovers concerns over the election of Trump by assuring here that “they” had an “insurance policy.” The plural “they” makes it clear that the cryptic “insurance policy” was the work of a conspiracy. And who those “they” may be has become clearer and clearer by their own Inspector Clouseau-style bumbling.
We have to address the fact that both Comey and McCabe have what is called “contemporary notes” supporting their position. These are said to be “strong evidence” by Democrats and the fawning news media. Really? Do you really believe that intelligence agents who are willing to prop up a phony dossier are not cleaver enough to salt the mine with phony reports? In view of all the actions and lies, it would be foolish to take those contemporary notes at face value.
Oh … then there is the issue of the 25th Amendment. It is being bantered about as evidence of the seriousness of the investigation into Trump. They say it was being seriously considered.
What utter nonsense.
Read the 25th Amendment. It does not remotely apply. It is designed to address the physical incapacitation of a President – you know, one who may be in vegetative state from a stroke. It requires the consent of the Vice President and the Cabinet.
The anti-Trump cabal in the FBI and the folks at the Department of Justice are all very smart lawyers. They know that the 25th Amendment is not at all applicable — and it is impossible to believe that they would engage in serious conversation of using it against Trump no matter how much they hated him and want him out. It is nothing more than another one of those phony narratives advanced for public consumption.
Not since old J. Edgar Hoover was blackmailing politicians – including presidents of the United States – and abusing the FBI to go after Martin Luther King, has the agency been so damaged by the misdeeds and misconduct of its most senior officials. At least Hoover was only blackmailing them. These characters were hoping to derail a presidential candidate, then overthrow an election.
So, there ‘tis.
President Donald Trump plans to declare a national emergency after Congress passed a government spending deal that provides further funding for border security. Speaking to NBC News, a Trump administration official confirmed that the president will announce around $8 billion for a border wall under executive actions, part of which will be an emergency declaration.
That figure includes $1.375 billion in the spending bill for fencing in Texas; $600 million from the Treasury Department’s drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion from a Defense Department drug interdiction program; and $3.5 billion from a military construction budget under an emergency declaration by the president.
The president will hold an event in the Rose Garden about the border at some time on Friday morning, the White House said.
“President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has stated before, he will also take other executive action — including a national emergency — to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement Thursday afternoon.
Democrats Would Take Legal Action
Trump plans to use a declaration of emergency to divert funding from multiple parts of the federal government to extend the border barrier, most notably the Defense Department, two senior administration officials and a congressional aide told NBC News.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in response that if Trump declares a national emergency, Democrats could consider legal action to stop him.
“That’s an option, and we’ll review our options,” Pelosi said. “But it’s important to note that when the president declares this emergency, first of all, it’s not an emergency. What’s happening at the border, it’s a humanitarian challenge to us. The president has tried to sell a bill of goods. But putting that aside, just in terms of the president making an end run around Congress, here he said let us respect what the committee will do, then walks away from it.”
Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., released a joint statement after the White House announcement vowing to defend the constitutional separation of powers.
“Declaring a national emergency would be a lawless act, a gross abuse of the power of the presidency and a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that President Trump broke his core promise to have Mexico pay for his wall,” their statement said.
Even some Republicans are not on board with the president decision. “I think it’s a dangerous step,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “One, because of the precedent it sets. Two, because the president is going to get sued and it won’t succeed in accomplishing his goal, and three, because I think Mrs. Pelosi will then introduce a resolution which will pass the House, then come over here and divide Republicans. So to me, it strikes me as not a good strategy.”
The bill that Trump is expected to sign, provides $1.375 billion for 55 miles of pedestrian and levee fencing in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, far short of Trump’s $5.7 billion request. It also would prohibit the use of a concrete wall or other Trump prototypes and specify that only “existing technologies” for fencing and barriers could be used.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who helped negotiate the deal, said he had told Trump and Vice President Mike Pence that the bill should be viewed as a “down payment” to fund border security.
President Trump has long taken an “only I can fix this approach” to crisis politics, and in this case, he seems to be ready willing and able to strike unilaterally to ensure his most quintessential campaign promise, and “build that wall!”
According to the Miami Herald, President Donald Trump is headed to Miami on President’s Day to speak about the ongoing turmoil in Venezuela — a move that many believe will embolden interim president Juan Guaidó and put further pressure on Nicolás Maduro to renounce his bid to maintain power and leave the embattled country
Trump is scheduled to speak at Florida International University, where he’ll reaffirm his support for Guaidó and, according to the Herald reporter David Smiley, hammer home his message that socialism is a scourge that has caused the economic collapse of the once prosperous nation.
The president will deliver his address at the university’s Modesto A. Maidique campus in Sweetwater, which is immediately south of Doral, home to the largest concentration of Venezuelans in the U.S.
Trump Ups the Pressure on Maduro
Trump, who is expected to travel to Mar-a-Lago ahead of the Holiday weekend, is looking to increase pressure on Maduro to leave Venezuela while extending an opportunity for military leaders to disobey the Venezuelan leader and allow aid into the country, the Herald report said. The timing is crucial as Trump and the administration seek to keep momentum building against Maduro.
“We have tremendous support all over South America, all over the world, really” [for our position on Venezuela], Trump said during a White House meeting with Colombian President Ivan Duque.
Trump and Duque are trying to figure out how to get tens of millions of dollars’ worth of aid from the United States into Venezuela that Guaidó promised would be delivered as of Feb. 23. The Maduro government has blocked a bridge connecting the once oil-rich nation to Colombia, and the humanitarian aid, requested by Guaidó, sits at the border.
Trump’s visit to Miami is a continuation of the aggressive stance his administration has taken towards Maduro, which began with a recent consultation with Miami congressional leaders. His appearance at FIU comes just two weeks after Vice President Mike Pence traveled to Doral to emphasize the Trump administration’s support for Venezuelans and Venezuelan exiles who’ve fled to the U.S.
One can see where mockingly wearing blackface can be seen as offensive to many people – black and white. Besides, any accusations of sexual assault – rape – must be taken seriously. Rape is among the most serious crimes while putting on blackface as a party costume is in very poor taste, but not a crime. Both activities, however, have resulted in calls for Virginia Governor Ralph Northam and Attorney General Mark Herring to step down because of their youthful antics in going to costume events in blackface. And Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax to resign after two women have accused him of sexual assault.
The fact that long ago youthful high jinx appears to be equated with Class A felony crime is a bit unsettling. But in these days of hyper-sensitive political correctness, that seems to be the case.
The charges against Fairfax need to be investigated and adjudicated if there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution. If true, the Lt. Governor will not only be compelled to resign. He has a good chance of landing in prison.
Still, all this has become a comic opera – a situation comedy that is a satire of itself. It would not take much-scripted exaggeration to become a sketch on Saturday Night Live, or a front-page piece in the satirical publication, The Onion.
That is not to say that the wearing of blackface is not a seriously offensive activity – even considering the times in which it occurred. Of course, it was meant to be funny at the time but still reflected a contemptuous mocking of black people. Those who were laughing at the time, were not guffawing in sympathy WITH black people, but at them.
While the long events may not be considered humorous by today’s standards, the way they were handled – and how they unfolded — is what evokes that special you-gotta-be-kidding laughter. It is pure situation comedy played out on the real stage of life.
First, for a progressive Democrat governor being caught in such a politically incorrect situation is the kind of irony that evokes a humorous response – cynical as it may be. The comedic level increases as Northam explains that one of the persons in the photo – the guy in blackface or the person concealed by the Ku Klux Klan hook – is him. He just does not know which one it is. That is a laugh line, for sure.
As if that is not enough, Northam next claims he is not sure the that either of them is him. What? He then goes on to claim that neither of them is him. Such public floundering is the essence of “pratfall” comedy, but at least he is finally off the hook. Right? On no. His disclaimer turns out to be a set up for even a funnier line.
Though he is not in the offensive photograph – as questionable as his claim may be – he then admits that he did do black face another time to imitate Michael Jackson – with gloves and all, as he put it. When a reporter asked if he could do Jackson’s iconic moon-walk, Northam clutches and looks over to his wife.
She advises him that performing in front of the press would be in bad taste. Well duh! Northam probably should have known that without outside counsel, but then again, he IS the guy who put on the blackface in the first place and now cannot recall when or why.
This was just about the time that it seemed Northam would be resigning under pressure from every Democrat member of the Virginia legislature and virtually every Democrat presidential candidate and prospective presidential candidate.
This would mean that Lt. Governor Fairfax — a black man – would be taking over. Oh, the irony of it all. Northam does black face and a black person is in line to take his place. But this production is far from over. That is when Fairfax gets hit with a credible accusation of sexual assault – and then, in accordance with the modern #MeToo culture, he gets hit with a second accusation.
Now it would appear that both the Governor and the Lt. Governor were going to have to resign – turning over the office to Attorney General Herring. But this comedic farce is not about to come to an end. Great humor is always full of surprises.
Weeell … this is where the Attorney General sheepishly admits that he ALSO donned blackface way back when. (We should pause here until the laughter subsides.) Herring gets hoisted on his own petard as the guy who demanded Northam resign for doing exactly what he has done.
With the prospect of the three top Virginia Democrats all leaving office, who – pray tell – would take over the governorship? It would be the Speaker of the House – and he is a Republican. This has now become a comedic melodrama par excellence.
Suddenly, the Democrats have a problem. All those calls for Northam, Fairfax and Herring to resign based on the self-proclaimed “high moral ground” are suddenly muted as high morality comes in conflict with political pragmaticism. Northam’s transgression against political correctness and racial tolerance that commenced this bit of political theater is suddenly downgraded from a mortal to a venial sin. And, suddenly Northam’s mandatory resignation is no long a requirement of contrition.
Northam again goes for humor when he explains that he will not resign because he feels that he is the one person who can lead Virginia into a new age of racial tolerance. Laughter continues as the curtain falls – assuming that is the end of the last act.
In the final irony, it is the black guy in the middle who is likely to be the only political casualty. The gods of Greek comedy could not have spun a better tale.
So, there ‘tis.
A second government shut down has been averted, at least for now. Congressional negotiators revealed that they have indeed reached “an agreement in principle” on border security funding that includes more than $1.3 billion for physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Democrats backpedaled on their demand to cap the number of undocumented immigrants that federal authorities could detain, which had been hanging up the talks, and in exchange, Republicans agreed to limit new border fencing to no more than 55 miles.
When asked if they had an agreement that President Trump would approve, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters: “We think so. We hope so.” Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., the chair of the House Appropriations Committee, declined to give details of the deal but said a final text could be released by Wednesday.
However, without “The Wall” whether the president signs off on the agreement remains to be seen.
The Deadline Approaches
The “agreement in principal” is only a first step. Now, Lawmakers have until 11:59 p.m. on Friday, February 15, to get the agreement through both houses of Congress and signed by Trump, before several Cabinet-level departments shut down and hundreds of thousands of federal workers are furloughed, in what would be the second partial government shutdown this year.
Rather than “The Wall” that Trump campaigned so vigorously on, sources tell Fox News the $1.3 billion can be used only for new construction that would cover approximately 55 miles of border territory in the Rio Grande Valley. The White House had requested $5.7 billion for the border wall and the administration had dangled the possibility that Trump would declare a national emergency and divert money from the federal budget for wall construction, but that move almost certainly would be challenged in Congress as well as in the courts.
The talks almost came to halt over the weekend with Democrats pushing to reduce the number of detention beds to be used by ICE to detain illegals caught in areas away from the border, a practice they called “harsh.” The Left wanted a cap of 16,500 such beds, to stem what they called “ICE overreach,” but the proposal soon hit a “Republican wall,” of its own, and was dropped from the final agreement.
Senator Shelby told reporters that the bed issue had been worked out, but declined to give details. “We think it’s going to work,” he said. “We had some hard negotiations.”
Sources told Fox News the agreement would provide enough money for 42,774 adult and 2,500 child beds with the goal of reducing that number to approximately 40,250 by the end of September. However, the White House has the ability to shift some money in the bill without congressional approval, in order to provide more money for the wall or more detention beds. With that in mind, sources tell Fox News the total number of beds could go as high as 52,000, though there is no technical limit on the amount.
Now, Trump will have to decide to sign the agreement, or whether he wants to stand against both parties in Congress, and whether he wants to shut down the government over the wall again, or divert funding for it by declaring a national emergency.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., kicked off her 2020 bid for the White House with a vow to combat global warming, and President Trump said: “Snow Kidding?”
The Democrat from Minnesota announced her campaign for the Democratic nomination in the middle of a snowstorm, which prompted Trump to tweet, “Well, it happened again. Amy Klobuchar announced that she is running for President, talking proudly of fighting global warming while standing in a virtual blizzard of snow, ice, and freezing temperatures. Bad timing. By the end of her speech, she looked like a Snowman(woman)!”
According to Fox News, Klobuchar previously endorsed the so-called “Green New Deal,” a massive Democratic legislative program that promises to combat climate change, in part through a massive influx in spending. Republicans have decried it as unrealistic.
Klobuchar Says Climate Change Legislation Will be Cornerstone of Campaign
In her announcement as a candidate for 2020, Klobuchar vowed to rejoin the 2015 Paris Climate agreement. The Trump administration had pulled out of the unpopular deal in 2017.
“The people are on our side when it comes to climate change,” Klobuchar told supporters. “Why? Because like you and I, they believe in science. That’s why in the first 100 days of my administration, I will reinstate the [Obama-era] clean power rules and the gas mileage standards and put forth sweeping legislation to invest in green jobs and infrastructure.”
Klobuchar later responded to Trump’s tweet by saying she was “looking forward to debating you about climate change (and many other issues). And I wonder how your hair would fare in a blizzard?”
Trump has used his Twitter account to lash into his would-be White House challengers quickly. Previously, when Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren formally launched her bid for the presidency, the president queried whether she would run “as our first Native American presidential candidate, or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore?
“See you on the campaign TRAIL, Liz!” Trump added in a further shot at Warren’s disputed claim to have Native American ancestry.
If nothing else, the 2020 race is going to make for some great tweets!
The defining political divide of our era, nationalism versus globalism continues to widen.
Chances are that you probably haven’t heard of the UN Migration Pact? If you haven’t, you’re likely not alonel but you may want to ask yourself just why. Not surprisingly, in most western countries, there’s been a virtual media black-out on the topic.
The UN Migration Pact is an alarming declaration to say the least. The pact is nothing less than a brazen attempt to expunge the idea of the traditional nation-state, and acts as a blueprint for a 3rd world invasion of into western countries. In short, the pact seeks to normalize mass migration, and to establish migration as a global human right. After it’s enacted migrants from all over the world will be able to go where they want, when they please, and for whatever reason.
The pact claims that 244 million people world-wide wish to migrate. The pact claims that it would make the migration of this 244 million people “orderly and safe”.
As of now they say that the contract isn’t legally binding; however, many of its critics say that the current form of the pact is a merely stepping stone towards implementing these policies as international law. The contract uses language like “we commit to” or “we agree on”.
Signatory nations will de facto hand over their sovereignty to the un-elected and unaccountable United Nations. Effectively, these signatory nations will be giving up their “nationhood”. As Trump has famously said, “Without borders, we don’t have a nation.” And, for the countries who signed the pact, they will no longer have borders.
Of the 193 member-states of the United Nations only eleven of them have outright rejected the pact. These countries include Australia, Switzerland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Austria, Croatia, Bulgaria, Israel and the United States. Scary, right? This piece of supranational legislation will drastically change our will world.
The UN Migration Envoy has commented that EU should do it’s best to “undermine” any national homogeneity.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley stated that the US has ceased negotiations on the pact to deal with migration because the global approach to the issue was “simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty. She couldn’t be more spot on – it’s not.
Just last month on the 10th and 11th of December, UN member states met in Marrakech, Morocco for the intergovernmental conference to sign and adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.
Behind this pact is the globalist theory that there are no national solutions anymore. The theory goes that if any solutions do exist, they only can only be brought about by global cooperation through supranational organizations like the UN.
It should be known that countries who did sign the pact didn’t hold a popular vote. The people were never asked whether or not they agree with the pact’s contents. This pact was essentially signed and accepted by unaccountable, globalist technocrats. So, it really isn’t a surprise that some of the heads of state who have signed the compact are facing extraordinary popular backlash because of it. France’s Macron and the prime minister of Belgium, who both signed the pact, have faced massive protests where the vast swaths of their people have denounced them treasonous and have called for them to step down.
Erasing national borders is plenty bad, but it gets worse.
Not only does the sinister UN Migration Pact seek to impose mass migration on the native populations of western countries, but it also seeks to silence any and all dissenting voices. The pact actively seeks to limit any speech that’s critical of migration. Under the heading Eliminating Discrimination, the pact aims to “stop all material support of media outlets that promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination toward migrants”. The means cutting off ways media outlets who are critical of migration are funded. Furthermore, and in true Orwellian fashion, the pact also states that it will “educate” media professionals on how to talk about migrants.
With over 78% of European citizens wanting tighter control of Europe’s external border, the only way this supranational agreement can be directly imposed on people of western nations is if the people aren’t completely aware of it. Unfortunately, because the mainstream media hasn’t been reporting on it, many remain in the dark about the UN Migration Compact. For it to be successful, the compact must remain hidden from popular view.
We should all work to bring this obscene attempt to impose a soft form of global governance the forefront of public consciousness before it’s too late.