All gloves were off in Houston last night, as the nearly 3 hour long Democratic debate, quickly turned into a slugfest between, former VP Joe Biden, and progressive Senators Bernie Saunders and Elizabeth Warren.
Long-simmering policy disputes between the top three contenders and a slew of other candidates exploded onto the stage during the third televised Democratic primary debate, as the candidates — often with loud and angry voices – duked it out on “Medicare-for-all,” immigration, and more.
Intermittent efforts by some candidates to show unity and keep the heat on President Trump repeatedly failed, with most striving instead to score an aggressive debate “moment” onstage in Houston.
Amid the verbal sparring, Pete Buttigieg offered an exit ramp from the feuding as he criticized the Democrats for “scoring points against each other” — prompting Julian Castro to interject, “That’s called an election!”
“Yeah, but a house divided cannot stand,” Amy Klobuchar retorted, to no avail. As the candidates continued to fight with each other, instead of taking jabs at Trump, it could only leave the President smiling.
The economy, which, thanks to Trump’s policies, has performed well by virtually all major metrics in the past year, went largely undiscussed during the raucous three-hour debate. And, even as House Democrats made a push towards potentially impeaching the President this week, that topic conspicuously did not come up either.
A Rumble From the Outset
A tone of conflict was set from the very start of the contentious debate, when Biden set the agenda by going after Warren directly, saying to her, “I know the senator says she’s for Bernie,” Biden said. “Well, I’m for Barack.”
He then tossed this barb at Sanders.
“For a socialist, you’ve got a lot more confidence in corporate America than I do,” Biden shot back at Sanders when the U.S. senator from Vermont suggested corporations would return the money they currently make on high insurance premiums if his sweeping plan were implemented.
Sanders responded by referring to cancer treatment, leading Biden to sharply reply, “I know a lot about cancer — it’s personal to me.” Brain cancer killed Biden’s son Beau four years ago.
These almost immediate clashes settled any questions about whether the top-tier candidates – meeting onstage for the first time – would be pulling any punches. Biden was clearly mindful that Warren has been surging in recent weeks and came out fighting to hold onto his frontrunner status, while several candidates continued to pile on Biden as they have at past debates.
But perhaps the night’s most heated exchange came between Biden and fellow Obama administration member Julian Castro, who tangled at length indirect and seemingly personal terms.
“I’m fulfilling the legacy of Barack Obama, and you’re not,” Castro said, referring to the millions of Americans who lack health coverage — leading Biden to respond, “That’ll be a surprise to him.”
Castro hammered Biden for claiming that individuals would not be required to buy into his health care plan in order to receive coverage.
“You just said two minutes ago they would have to buy in. Are you forgetting what you said two minutes ago?” Castro asked, a seeming pointed jab at Biden’s age. However, Biden did not say during the debate that individuals would have to buy in. Instead, Biden said that individuals would automatically be enrolled if they lost their jobs.
Joe’s Goofs and Gaffes
While Castro’s dig at Biden’s age may have seen meanspirited, the former VP was showing signs of wear during the almost 3 hours on his feet, and he did have his share of goofs and gaffes. He repeated more than once the inaccurate claim that children were not kept in cages under the Obama administration. In fact, the most widely circulated photo of children in cages in immigration detention centers, though falsely attributed to the Trump era, was taken during Obama’s presidency.
When asked how can school children be better informed and more articulate today, Biden said they should be sure to, “Play the radio. Make sure the television, excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the phone…”
But perhaps he “stepped in it” the worst time of the night, when he suggested that those who commit “white collar” crime, should never see the inside of a jail cell. “Nobody should be in jail for a non-violent crime,” Biden said. “When we were in the White House, we released 36,000 people from the federal prison system.”
As Biden continued to trip over himself, and the rest of the field ate each other up, or made outrageous statements like Beto O’Rourke’s, “yes, we are coming for you guns…” clearly, once again, he winner of the 3rd Democratic Debate, was Donald J. Trump!
A new poll has revealed that a two-thirds majority of Americans think that the United States government should not make cash reparation payments to the descendants of slaves.
According to the Gallup poll which was conducted in June and July, 67 percent of Americans opposed the idea of providing cash payments as a form of reparations to the descendants of slaves. The percentage of Americans who supported cash reparations stood at just 29 percent – up from 14 percent in 2002. The poll revealed that 73 percent of black Americans support cash reparations.
In June, the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held a hearing on reparation where the considered HR Bill 4 – a piece of legislation which calls for the establishment of an expert committee that would study the idea of reparations and make suggestions to lawmakers.
The sponsor behind the proposed bill is Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas. The legislation itself doesn’t propose how descendants of slaves would be compensated.
Democrats are starkly divided on the issue of reparations. While 49 percent of polled Democrats supported the idea of cash reparations, 47 percent opposed the idea. Democrats who support the idea is up nearly 100 percent from 2002, when just 25 percent supported it.
Independents, however, weren’t so keen on the idea, with 35 percent in support and 65 percent in opposition.
Among Republicans polled, just 5 percent were for reparations, up from 4 percent in 2002. Conversely, an astounding 92 percent of Republicans opposed the idea.
Lastly, the poll also revealed a bit of a racial divide on the issue. Among black Americans, 73 percent supported the idea, while just 16 percent of white voters supported it. Hispanics were more split down the middle, with 47 percent supporting the idea and 46 percent being against it.
As the 2020 Democratic hopefuls race to see who can give away more “free stuff” to their gullible base of millennial voters, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) just proposed a new $640 billion student college debt relief program that would also eliminate college tuition for all two and four-year public colleges.
The 2020 Democratic presidential candidate unveiled the ambitious policy proposal as she attempts to distinguish herself from the large and progressive Democrat field. Warren released the proposal ahead of a series of youth-oriented CNN town halls the other night with 2020 presidential candidates held at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire.
“It’s a problem for all of us,” Warren said, noting that student college debt has reached more than $1.5 trillion and affects more than 40 million Americans. “It’s reducing homeownership rates. It’s leading fewer people to start businesses. It’s forcing students to drop out of school before getting a degree.”
“Pocahontas” Pandering to Young Voters
Warren’s proposal was an obvious pander to the young voters ahead of the Town Hall, but it was also a major a slap in the face to those who have already struggled to pay off their student loans without government assistance. Not to mention it would be absurdly costly, but the Democrats, particularly Warren, Sanders and their progressive ilk, have yet to realize that “free” is never really free!
But, the proposal, while fiscally untenable, makes perfect pollical sense for Warren’s attempt to break out and grab the millennial vote. Most of her fellow candidates have been using the “Free College For All” rallying cry, but millennial’s, who make a huge percentage of the current democratic base, do not much care about “free college.” They themselves are already recent grads, and they are way too young to have college bound kids. But what they do have is a mountain of student loan debt, so promising to cancel all of their debt would have a huge impact on their finances.
Right now, more than a third of millennials have student loan debt, and studies have shown that the debt is leading them to delay major life decisions including purchasing a house, saving for retirement, and even getting married and having kids.
Who’s Going to Pay For It?
What Warren is proposing is to offer debt cancellation of up to $50,000 to more than 42 million people, or 95% of those with debt. She says that will completely wipe out debt for 75% of borrowers with student loans.
The question, as always, for the Progressives and their proposals is, “who’s going to pay for it?” And the answer, as usual, is “the wealthy.”
Warren has proposed an “ultra-millionaire tax” that would annually tax wealth above $50 million at an extra two percent with an additional one percent tax on wealth over $1 billion. She says this will pay for her tuition and debt relief plan. Not only is such a tax wildly unpopular, she has gone to this well before, and thinks this same tax will also pay for her “free” childcare proposal.
But aside from the cost, her plan would be tremendously unfair to those who have been struggling for years to pay off their student loans, or went to second choice schools, or cut their living expenses to the bare bones, to be responsible, and pay their debts.
Furthermore, even if she should by some stretch of the imagination, get the nomination and win the White House, a “wealth tax” never adds up to what those who propose such things think they will, and inevitably, such “free programs” wind up with an increased tax burden on the very people they are supposed to help – the middle class.
In order to head off the typical left-wing reaction that will arrive in the wake of this commentary – that any criticism of a minority is white racism — I think it is necessary for readers to understand that I have spent a life time in active support of equality for ALL people. I have worked in the inner cities in opposition to racism in education, housing, employment, policing, public safety, public services and anywhere else it is found. I despise racism of EVERY kind.
This means that I also call out minority racism. Yes, the so-called “people of color” – blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans – can also be racist or manifest racist beliefs in certain instances. Saying so is what will have the folks on the political-correct left calling me a racists. The kindest of them will say that I am a racist but do not realize the fact. Yep! They know better even though they do not know me and have not walked in my shoes.
You see, the radical liberal-set believes that it is not even possible for a member of a minority group to be racists. They say as much. That is because the world of the left is a place where fanciful beliefs and political advantage trump reality and common sense. That is why progressivism is more of a political religion than a social science.
According to the theory, minority folks cannot be racist because of what they call white privilege. Blacks are the victims of racism, therefore no one in the black community can be racist It is the unique sin of white folks. That is why they myopically see acts of racism only as the actions of whites against blacks.
Of course, to a rational person, with a mind that can grasp logic, racism is simply the hatred of a class of people because of their ethnicity. If a Chinese person hates Japanese as a people, that person is a racist. If a Hispanic person hates blacks that is racism. And if a black hates white people in general, that is also racism – not matter how many flawed self-serving theories are advanced.
What triggered this commentary was an incident in Georgia. As a child, I had traveled in a few southern states – although not Georgie – and saw the signs that read, “WHITES ONLY” or more directly “NO COLORED ALLOWED.” I recall seeing public rest rooms, drinking fountains and park benches labeled for whites or colored.
Thanks to the Internet I recently saw a sign that reminded me of those days of yore. The Bolton Street Baptist Church of Savannah, Georgia was the site of a political meeting regarding their upcoming mayoral election. There were two signs on the door. One read: “NO Audio or video recordings.” So much for transparency.
The second sign read: “NO Media (TV, radio, etc.). And then there was that last line: “Black Press Only!” – with that exclamation mark for emphasis. These were not some scribbled signs – the work of some malcontent racist. They were printed. They were the official statement of the organizers of the meeting – presumably the Trigon Group.
The meeting was to hear from Van Johnson, one of several black candidates opposing the incumbent white mayor of Savannah. When told by a white reporter that he was denied entrance to the meeting, Johnson apologized but said the sponsors had a right to determine who to allow into the meeting – an argument that ironically was used by white racists in the days of southern segregation.
Johnson gave an incredibly stupid solution. Perhaps he was just not thinking fast enough. He promised to hold a meeting for white reporters only – as if the best solution to black racism is white racism.
Yes, I called it black racism. That sign is racist to the core. No amount of left-wing political fantasizing or theory-posturing can change that basic fact. This kind of racist backwash against diversity and integration – two things most Americans value – is not a one off. We need to recall the trend on college campuses to create black-only events and assemblies. Blacks have been guilty of hate-crime attacks on whites – although that garners less attention from the liberal media.
For some reason, our friends on the left fail to see the irony and inconsistency in all of this. They are color blind to black racism. If they really want that dialogue on race that they so often say is needed – and I am a bit dubious because they seem to avoid it as much as possible — black racism needs to be part of the conversation. Having had many conversations on black racism with black people, I can attest to the fact that it is not as scary a subject as the left seems to think. In fact, there are a lot of black folks who will confirm the reality of black racism within their community.
While I do not believe racism is a dominant trait among the American people in general, it is still necessary to call it out when and where it rears its ugly head – as it did in Savannah, Georgia.
So, there ‘tis.
Post Script: If this were a video commentary, I would have to have Ray Charles singing “Georgia” as a closer.
One day after New York Attorney General Letitia James subpoenaed two banks for records related to four of Trump’s real estate projects and his failed bid to buy the Buffalo Bills, the president has fired back with a scathing tweet branding New York State and its Governor, Andrew Cuomo, “proud members of the group of PRESIDENTIAL HARASSERS.”
The new probe by the New York State Attorney General’s office appears to be civil and not criminal, however, the new requests add to Trump’s legal headaches from federal, state and congressional probes into his administration, campaign and businesses.
Not surprisingly, James and Cuomo are both Democrats.
Legitimate Investigation, or Witch Hunt
A person familiar with the matter says that Letitia James’ subpoenas have asked for loan applications, mortgages and other Trump financial records. The person, who gave this information to the Associated Press, wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. The move came after Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress last month that the president inflated his wealth in financial statements when trying to obtain funding.
Trump went on to say that in light of such “harassment,” it is “no wonder people are fleeing the state in record numbers.”
President Trump ended his response to Cuomo and James by declaring, “The Witch Hunt continues!” He’s used similar language to criticize the various ongoing investigations into his rise from businessman to president.
Cuomo Responds to Trump
Gov. Andrew Cuomo fired back at Trump’s accusations. Speaking to a gathering in Nassau County, Cuomo responded to what he called the president’s “conspiracy theory” that new State Attorney General Letitia James was personally instructed by his office to start an investigation of the president’s assets.
“The Attorney General of the State of New York is independently elected, I don’t control the Attorney General. She runs separately, Attorney General James, very qualified, great Attorney General. But he blamed me,” Cuomo said. He added that Trump is factually inaccurate in claiming in that tweet that people are leaving New York in “record numbers.”
The governor concluded his remarks on the president by pledging to “fight” Trump’s signature tax cuts “to the death.”
Interesting choice of words from a politician who supports infanticide. In January, Cuomo signed the so-called “Reproductive Health Act,” which allows a mother to abort a child practically up until the moment of birth.
A new poll may spell double-trouble for the second time around second place finisher, Senator Bernie Sanders. According to Fox News, a new poll suggests that two factors –his age and his self-identification as a “democratic socialist” could hurt the independent senator from Vermont if he ever reaches the 2020 general election.
The respected NBC News/Wall Street Journal public opinion survey tested 11 different presidential characteristics among registered voters nationwide. The most widely accepted – is an African American (87 percent said they were “enthusiastic” or “comfortable” with that characteristic), a white man (86 percent), a woman (84 percent), and gay or lesbian (68 percent).
The least popular characteristics? Being over the age of 75 (37 percent) and a socialist (25 percent).
Sanders – at 77 – is the oldest declared or potential presidential candidate in the 2020 field. And he’s been repeatedly labeled by Republicans as a socialist. So, to paraphrase that old gum commercial, that’s, “two, two, two flaws in one.”
Sanders Age is the Greater Negative Factor
Of the two problems, it seems that Sanders’ age is a more significant drawback. Looking at possible 2020 Democratic primary voters, the survey suggested that self-identifying as democratic socialist is less of a liability. Among registered Democrats only, those feeling favorable about the age characteristic remained low (36 percent). But those “enthusiastic” or “comfortable” with the socialist trait dramatically jumped to 47 percent.
The poll was conducted Feb. 24-27, after Sander’s Feb. 19 announcement that he was launching a presidential campaign. Nine-hundred adults – including 720 registered voters nationwide – were questioned by live operators. The survey’s sampling error was plus or minus 3.65 percentage points.
In an interview with CBS News as he announced his White House run, Sanders pushed back against concerns about his age, saying “you’ve got to look at the totality of a person. I have been blessed thank God,” Sanders highlighted, “with good health and good energy.”
And he added that he was “a cross-country runner, a long distance runner, when I was a kid, and I’ve been running hard, in a sense, since then.”
The senator also pushed back against being labeled a socialist by Republican President Trump.
“Bernie Sanders does not want to have the United States become the horrific economic situation that unfortunately currently exists in Venezuela right now,” he emphasized.
While the new poll raises some questions, the Vermont senator continues to score well in the latest 2020 Democratic primary polls. Thanks to his strong name recognition, Sanders places either first or second in recent national or early voting state surveys, along with former Vice President Joe Biden, who’s leaning toward a White House run.
However, the poll seems to suggest that many former Bernie supporters may no longer “Feel the Bern,” and instead feel that Sanders may just be a candle ready to burn out.
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?”
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.
European Girls in Vienna are Wearing Headscarves to Avoid Assaults by Male Muslim Migrants.
Marcus Franz, a physician and former MP from the conservative Austrian People’s Party created outrage on social media after he said the non-Muslim European girls in Vienna have started to wear Islamic headscarves to prevent street harassment and assault by male Muslim migrants.
During an appearance last week on OE24, a local Austrian television station, Franz stated, “Speak with women on the street, speak with children, speak with young girls. I know fathers who, when their daughters come home in the evening when they live in the problem area, give them headscarves so they won’t be recognized as Austrians. I know this personally, in the 15th district [of Vienna], this is a fact.”
The doctor and former MP went on to say that native Austrian women were afraid because of ‘permanent micro-aggressions’ and being sexually propositioned by Muslim men on the streets of Vienna. This is especially common in the districts where lots of migrants live.
Franz added that European girls who don’t wear Islamic headscarves were being “propositioned with unpleasant aggression and attitudes, and the girls and women, quite simply, are afraid.”
“You can see it in the population if you work in a social profession like me,” Franz remarked, adding, “We need to distinguish clearly between the settled population and those who have arrived more recently.”
This story shares unsettling similarities to how some native German girls who attend the schools with significant migrant populations have also been wearing hijabs to prevent harassment and aggressive behavior aimed at them.
In March of last year, a number of news outlets reported that the headmaster of school in Frankfurt, Germany, told a mother whose daughter was being aggressively bullied by Muslim students due to her blonde hair, Christianity, and because she didn’t wear a headscarf, to cover her up with a hijab to prevent the harassment.
“Your daughter does not have to say that she is German. Besides, you can give her a headscarf!” the headmaster told her.
The mother of the student told BILD, a German news outlet, that she was ‘forced to take her daughter out of school for her protection’ because the Muslim girls were bullying her to such a significant degree.
In late 2016, a UN-sponsored advertisement in Germany encouraged women to wear Islamic headscarves to show ‘tolerance.’ The German government used public funds to run the 18-second ad.
Many women in Sweden have also started to wear Islamic headscarves to avoid sexual harassment and assault. Sexual assaults in Sweden have skyrocketed since the migrant crisis began in 2015.
Migrant violence against women has spread like a like a plague throughout Europe since the EU first allowed an enormous influx of migrants from Northern Africa and the Middle East in 2015. Reports of sexual harassment and assault against European women are much higher in Western European countries where more migrants have been allowed in (i.e., Germany, Sweden, Austria).
Meanwhile, reports of the same nature are virtually non-existent in countries like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia (the Visegrád Group), where the governments have taken a hardline stance against mass migration from majority Muslim countries.
Perhaps the governments of Western Europe should be taking their cues from the Visegrád countries.