We are the drain the swamp people

• Isn’t racism sick and demented? Trump and his supporters are racist
  
• Loosely written Red Flag laws require mere accusations
• Red flag laws and aspects of enhanced background check legislation can have similar civil liberty implications
  
• Trump and Republicans give into the unreasonable emotions behind such laws at their political peril (Kurt Schlichter at Townhall)

“Trump said he had spoken with congressional leaders from both parties and asserted that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is “totally on board” with his plans to keep “sick and demented people” from buying firearms.”

Red Flags the new surrender color?

No danger in giving Democrat legislatures and judges control over your Second Amendment rights, right?

Or . . . should very careful thought be given to the usefulness and possible application of such laws?

And can you name more than half a dozen or so people in Congress who are capable of ‘careful thought’?  And for Democrats especially who all might that be?

According to Gasbag Beto (O’Rourke) Let’s Face It, It’s ‘Really Hard’ Not To Consider All Trump Voters Racists THAT”S YOU. And of course racists are as evil a thing as one can be and deplorable evil people should not have guns!!

———————–

I know of a guy in my neighborhood…he flies a US flag in front of his residence (even illuminates it at night). He’s retired, maybe 65-70. Watches a lot of cable news…seems to favor Fox. Have seen him on his front porch on his laptop.

He even walks his dog around the neighborhood wearing a MAGA cap. Nobody else in the neighborhood tries to make a ‘political statement’ like that.

The guy is weird.

I suspect he has at least one gun in his home, even though his young grandkids often visit there.

Think I oughta “say something, tell somebody”?

After all, if anything happens, with the ‘Red Flag’ law, I might be held responsible.

{ Is this scenario likely with any Red Flag Law Congress could possibly pass? }

————————–

Oh Democrats would not go that far… would they? And Republicans would be there to stop expansive language and interpretations . . . wouldn’t they?  No weak-hitters in Republican ranks right?

As we recall a local legislator once offered a vigorous repudiation of such laws when they are short on due process when one was being considered by the Iowa legislature. We believe his arguments then and what was done to him are relevant to the current frenzy for “red flag” laws. Indeed we “immortalized” some of that via the link just below our masthead titled Shameful.

That link has been present since the first months of this publication’s founding.  It describes just how certain Republican powers that be in this state, all claiming fidelity to the Second Amendment out of one side of their mouth, would engage in ruthless activity at the expense of the Second Amendment. So read that and then with a little salt and a touch of trepadation this:

Trump says ‘serious discussions taking place on background checks 
By Yaron Steinbuch at Hew York Post

President Trump said Friday that “serious discussions are taking place” among congressional leaders about background checks to keep firearms out of the hands of “mentally ill or deranged people” — though he insisted that the views of the National Rifle Association should be taken into account.

“Serious discussions are taking place between House and Senate leadership on meaningful Background Checks,” the president said on Twitter.

“I have also been speaking to the NRA, and others, so that their very strong views can be fully represented and respected. Guns should not be placed in the hands of mentally ill or deranged people,” he continued.

“I am the biggest Second Amendment person there is, but we all must work together for the good and safety of our Country. Common sense things can be done that are good for everyone!” the president added.

Trump later told reporters at the White House that he was looking for “very meaningful background checks” but was not considering a resurrection of an assault weapons ban. He said he also believes lawmakers will support “red flag” laws that allow guns to be removed from those who may be a danger to themselves and others.

“I see a better feeling right now toward getting something meaningful done,” Trump said when asked why the political environment was different now. “I have a greater influence now over the Senate and the House.”

Trump said he had spoken with congressional leaders from both parties and asserted that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is “totally on board” with his plans to keep “sick and demented people” from buying firearms.

“The Republicans are going to be great and lead the charge along with the Democrats,” he said.

In response, a McConnell spokesman said he had not yet endorsed any legislation, according to The Washington Post.

Speaking to reporters, the president said the NRA strongly supported him during the 2016 election and that he hoped the group can be persuaded of the wisdom of “very meaningful background checks.”

“I think in the end . . . the NRA will either be there or will be a little more neutral, and that’s OK, too,” said Trump, who referred to NRA members as “great patriots,” adding that he had spoken with the gun lobby’s chief executive Wayne LaPierre this week.

Trump acknowledged that there have been previous efforts to strengthen background checks “that went nowhere,” but, he added, “There’s never been a president like President Trump.”

His comments come a day after McConnell said he wants to consider background checks and other bills in the wake of two mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, that claimed 31 lives.

The GOP leader won’t be calling senators back to work early, as some are demanding, but he told a Kentucky radio station that the president called him Thursday morning and they talked about several ideas.

The president, he said, is “anxious to get an outcome, and so am I.”
“What we can’t do is fail to pass something,” McConnell said. “What I want to see here is an outcome.”

McConnell said he and the president discussed several ideas, including background checks and the so-called “red flag” laws that allow authorities to seize firearms from anyone considered a threat to themselves or others.

“Background checks and red flags will probably lead the discussion,” McConnell told Louisville’s WHAS-AM.

He noted “there’s a lot of support” publicly for background checks. “Those are two items that for sure will be front and center as we see what we can come together on and pass.”

Republicans have long opposed expanding background checks, and a bill passed by the Democrat-led House has stalled in the Senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the president assured them Thursday that he would review the House-passed bill that expands federal background checks for firearm sales.

Related reading:Kurt Schlichter at Townhall:

Trump Is Unlikely To Commit Political Suicide by Betraying Us On Guns 

Donald Trump is a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them. Like all of us, he is understandably horrified by the murder sprees of that progressive environmental eugenics weirdo and that member of Big Chief Warren’s tribe.* But Trump is also keenly aware that any betrayal of his supporters on a literally life or death issue like guns – if you’ve been listening to the left you have a good idea what miserable fate awaits you if you get disarmed and they take power – will result in his wholesale abandonment by his supporters. No, his base probably won’t go vote for the furry, or Doxxy Castro’s brother, or Gaffe-y McOldenheimer. His base will just stay home. Trump will lose, the GOP will lose the Senate, and the left will take over. And bad things will happen to the liberal elite’s enemies, not least of all to Trump and his family.

Trump understands this. And he understands that the media is trying to get him to alienate his own supporters. But so far, he has never stuck us in the back even after the garbage media eagerly reports on his conciliatory talk on subjects near and dear to us in the hopes that it means a betrayal is incoming. It never has been in the past. There’s no reason to believe he would sell us out now.

We would not forgive him. To go left on guns would be, at a minimum, political suicide.

Look, it’s right to be suspicious of all politicians, including Donald Trump. After all, we conservatives have been betrayed by our alleged leaders so often that Felonia Milhous von Pantsuits feels sorry for us over how often we’ve been cheated on by GOP pols cavorting with the Dems.

For years, our so-called champions rolled-over, gave-in and backstabbed us so consistently that, in deep desperation, we picked a New York reality TV star as the last, best hope for conservatism. And he’s delivered – most of those cruise-shilling hacks who lied to us for so long are either out of office, pretending to conform for fear of our vengeance, or are writing for whatever unread cheesy blog replaced the Weekly Standard.

Trump has always come through in the end, but on the way, his unique tactics can make us nervous. We worried that Trump was going to let them pull the amnesty wool over his eyes to get some kind of deal. That did not happen. People fretted that he would give away the farm to the pudgy Korean dictator. Trump has not. Trump’s style is to talk in a conciliatory manner and to speak nicely of his opponents during negotiations, but not to take a crummy deal.

The same is likely true now on guns. Trump is talking in a conciliatory way as a prelude to negotiations. But Trump has not said he would embrace a ban on so-called “assault weapons” – he understands that if he does so he might as well call a moving van. Nor did Cocaine Mitch – the Murder Turtle (his enemies bestow the greatest nicknames upon him) only observed that it would be “front and center” in the debate because that’s where the Democrats seeking to disarm us would put it. McConnell knows a sellout on guns makes him the minority leader; he’s not going to let those socialist creeps take our AR-15s.

Trump did mention improved background checks, and frankly, there is room for improvement. How many times have government incompetence let some leftist freak* who should have been barred by a conviction or mental instability buy a gun? Way too many. As for “red flag” laws, the idea of a process where a guy announcing his intent to go on a murder spree to, say, promote the Bernie Sanders agenda by attacking a baseball field full of Republicans,* is sensible in theory. But in practice, the due process considerations are essential – I mean serious due process guarantees, with teeth. Leftists have already promised to abuse these laws, so massive penalties for misuse of them to persecute political opponents must be part of the mix.

But any move toward the Democrat position that our basic gun rights are negotiable or that we can be disarmed in any way would be utterly unacceptable. And Trump knows this – he knows what we will and will not tolerate. He’s certainly not like the Fredocon GOP goofs who get MSNBC hits because they are eager to submit to the media’s narrative. He’s too smart to do exactly what the Democrats are using this furor to try to trick him into doing – create a rift between him and his base so one of the 272 pinko morons running for the Donkey nom can sneak in and win an election that right now is Trump’s to lose.

Trump does not want to lose.

Subsequent to this posting we also found this gem from Sheriff David Clark (ret) at Townhall:

Raising a Black Flag Against Red Flag Laws

0

0

• Cory Booker: “Bigotry Was Written Into Our Founding Documents”
• Cory Booker: “…without the truth there can be no reconciliation.”
• Veritas PAC: We sincerely doubt if this guy can handle the truth*

THIS IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION HAS DONE TO ME !! (apocryphal)

Where do you even start with this guy? He is so utterly wrapped up in hate, ingratitude, racism…Cory Booker is , so obviously, a tortured, demented soul

No gun purchases for him

It is chilling, indeed, that he is a member of the US Senate. Who, in private life, would ever hire this guy for anything. If one has a business, it would seem hardly safe to have him around customers, much less in close contact with fellow employees.

While he has, himself, declared that he has delusions…he calls them “spartacus moments”…there is no assurance that, given some bizarre stimulus, he could have a “George Hennard Moment”* (this is described below. Hennard perpetrated the infamous “Luby Cafeteria” massacre in 1991 in which he murdered 23 people and seriously injured 20 more. As he was killing, Hennard screamed: “This is what Bell County has done to me!”

Perhaps Cory’s fellow senators should keep that in mind when they hear Senator Booker so profoundly lament all the ills the founding of this nation has visited on him and his community”. )

We wish another Senator would ask Booker  ~~ what country was foundationally, in terms of governing documents, superior to the US back in 1787?  What African “country” did not enslave its rivals and sell them into slavery, to other Blacks, to Muslims, to Europeans, to the highest bidder? In what settled continent was slavery not practiced by indigenous peoples? Did African “nations” stop selling captured rivals after the US outlawed the slave trade (importation) in 1807, a year after England? What race never experienced slavery? Senator Booker do your ancestors include any who SOLD others into bondage or PARTICIPATED in the warring and capture of others to be sold as slaves at the behest of the tribal leadership? Where do you get your racial linked moral superiority?

Cory Booker: ‘Bigotry Was Written Into Our Founding Documents’

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Cory Booker (D.-N.J.) said in a speech at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C. on Wednesday that bigotry was written into the founding documents of the United States and that white supremacy has “always been a part of the American story.”

“Bigotry was written into our founding documents. Native Americans, in our Declaration of Independence, were referred to as savages,” Booker said. “In our Constitution, black people are fractions of human beings.

“White supremacy has always been a problem in our America story,” he said. “If not always at the surface, then looking not so far beneath it.”
Here is a transcript of the part of Booker’s speech where he says that “bigotry was written into our founding documents”:

“Bigotry was written into our founding documents. Native Americans, in our Declaration of Independence, were referred to as savages. In our Constitution, black people are fractions of human beings.

“White supremacy has always been a problem in our America story. If not always at the surface, then looking not so far beneath it.

“We have seen it from slave masters who stole and pillage black bodies for profit, to demagogues throughout generations who stoked racist and anti-immigrant hatred, often for votes, and then enshrined this bigotry into our laws.

“And, yes, racist violence has always been a part of the American story. Never more so than in times of transition and times of rapid social change. We have seen it from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement, from the summer of 100 years ago to Charlottesville, from the lynching of people of Mexican descent in Port Veneer, Texas, 101 years ago, to the massacred targeting LatinX people in El Paso, Texas, this last Saturday.

“To say this is to speak the truth plainly, because without the truth there can be no reconciliation.”

——————————–****************************——————————–
*George Hennard

On October 16th, 1991, George Hennard, of Bell County Texas, drove his pick-up truck through the window of a Luby’s Cafeteria. The carnage that followed later became known as the Luby’s Massacre. Hennard crawled out of the vehicle and screamed at the top of his voice: “This is what Bell County has done to me!” before shooting the man closest to him, who had come to assist with the crash. He then ordered everyone not to move, before systematically targeting and stalking women (against whom he was bitterly prejudiced) and shooting them at point blank range with his Glock pistol.   . . .

*Slavery in Africa

According to David Stannard’s American Holocaust, 50% of African deaths occurred in Africa as a result of wars between native kingdoms, which produced the majority of slaves. This includes not only those who died in battles, but also those who died as a result of forced marches from inland areas to slave ports on the various coasts. The practice of enslaving enemy combatants and their villages was widespread throughout Western and West Central Africa, although wars were rarely started to procure slaves. The slave trade was largely a by-product of tribal and state warfare as a way of removing potential dissidents after victory or financing future wars.

However, some African groups proved particularly adept and brutal at the practice of enslaving others, such as Oyo, Benin, Igala, Kaabu, Asanteman, Dahomey, the Aro Confederacy and the Imbangala war bands. By the end of this process, no fewer than 18.3 million people would be herded into “factories” to await shipment to the New World.

The kings of Dahomey sold their war captives into transatlantic slavery, who otherwise would have been killed in a ceremony known as the Annual Customs. As one of West Africa’s principal slave states, Dahomey became extremely unpopular with neighbouring peoples. King Gezo of Dahomey said in the 1840s:

The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth…the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery…

Related reading about the world involvement with slavery;

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-slavery-idusl1561464920070322

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=cio

http://www.realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/True_Negros/Assorted/The_History_of_Slavery.htm    (Ed note: this article seems to be written from a non”albino” perspective, and some of the perspectiuve is debatable, however it is not particularly flattering of any race as to moral superiority, with which we agree .  We would appreciate critiques of the article and indeed our ridicule of Cory Booker)

0

0

• As a certified Me Tooer Sen. Ernst is it simply a matter of always believing the accuser?
• Should not SOME corroboration be required?

The Truth About Gen. John Hyten 

We hope Senator Joni Ernst reads this piece in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal By Heidi Brown a retired U.S. Army major general, who served as director of global operations for U.S. Strategic Command. Senator Ernst chose, before (or in spite of) the evidence was all laid out to join the usual Democrat senators, Gillibrand, Warren, et al, who are quite anxious to use anything to undermine a President Trump nomination. Gen. Browns comments are forceful to say the least (see our bold emphasis to her comments).

“Hyten’s nomination was opposed by several of the women on the panel, including one Republican, Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa  . . .

a former reserve officer and survivor of a sexual assault while in college. Others voting no were two Democratic presidential contenders, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who has made military sexual misconduct one of her top issues in the Senate, and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, as well as Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, an Iraq War veteran who lost her legs when her helicopter was shot down.

“He got the backing, however, of other key woman on the panel, including Sen. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., who issued a lengthy statement in his defense during the hearing. McSally is a former fighter pilot who has publicly described her own sexual assault that occurred while she was in the military.

“The vote was 20-7, and Hyten’s nomination now goes to the full Senate for consideration, likely in September.”

(Recall an earlier post in this space when “Senator Joni” described her own sexual harassment ‘ordeals’…According to Ernst, in an interview with TIME, she endured “comments, passes, things like that”…that she was “able to say ‘stop!’ and ‘it simply stopped’. So anxious, it seems, is Ms. Ernst to get on the Democratic-inspired “MeToo” bandwagon that she is not willing to thoughtfully consider whether charges of sexual harassment are valid or not.)   DLH

By Heidi Brown
Air Force Gen. John Hyten is commander of U.S. Strategic Command and President Trump’s nominee to be vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Last week the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 20-7 to send his nomination to the floor—but not before it was clouded by allegations of sexual misconduct from a female subordinate.

Army Col. Kathryn Spletstoser’s accusations are graphic and nauseating. But they are discredited by evidence. I have reviewed the written record of the case, including a redacted report from the Army Inspector General Office, and spoken with people involved. I served at Stratcom headquarters in Omaha, Neb., with both Gen. Hyten and Col. Spletstoser, including at the time of one of the claimed assaults. While she confided in me over various issues, she never brought up an assault by Gen. Hyten.

In late 2017, Col. Spletstoser was accused of what the Army calls “toxic leadership”—intimidating, abusive and threatening behavior toward subordinates. In January 2018, Gen. Hyten approved an Army 15-6 investigation, which corroborated the charges. Col. Spletstoser was relieved of her position on Feb. 26, 2018.

Later that day, Omaha police were summoned to her home address. Their report states that “after a disturbance at the office,” Col. Spletstoser threatened that Gen. Hyten “[had] 24 hours to rectify the situation, or [she] was going to kill [herself]” (bracketed text in original). Officers took her to a clinic.

Beginning in June 2018, Col. Spletstoser launched a dizzying avalanche of charges against her superiors, including Gen. Hyten, his chief of staff, and officers who investigated her. Gen. Hyten told the Armed Services Committee that she made 34 different accusations against the Strategic Command hierarchy: 24 against the chief of staff, six against Gen. Hyten, two against his deputy commander, and two against the officer who investigated her. Charges ranged from conduct unbecoming an officer to misuse of a government cellphone. None of these accusations involved sexual misconduct. None were substantiated by the Army’s Inspector General Office, and the Pentagon’s Inspector General Office validated that conclusion.

Later, the Army Inspector General Office reported—with the accuser’s name redacted—that it “noted several inconsistencies between [Col. Spletstoser’s] recollection of events and other evidence and testimony. . . . The preponderance of the credible evidence and witness testimony contradicted [Col. Spletstoser’s] information.” By March 2019 Gen. Hyten, his staff and the Army investigator had been cleared of all charges.

Only in April, days after Gen. Hyten’s nomination to the Joint Chiefs, did Col. Spletstoser accuse him of sexual assault. Yet it was not the first time she had leveled such charges against a superior officer.

In 2009, after a commander gave her a modest rating on an Officer Evaluation Report, Col. Spletstoser appealed it and accused the commander of sexually harassing her throughout her tour of duty in Iraq. The Army Board for the Correction of Military Records wrote that “applicant’s scorched earth attack on the OER, much of which is patently specious, undermines her overall credibility. Tellingly, applicant has proffered not a single statement from a third party supporting her version of events.”

Similarly, after the allegations against Gen. Hyten, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations interviewed 53 witnesses in three countries and found insufficient evidence to justify Col. Spletstoser’s nine specific claims of sexual misconduct. What they did find was a host of verifiable contradictions of her account.

She claimed that damning evidence of Gen. Hyten’s misconduct would be proved by email correspondence. Investigators reviewed 195,000 unique emails preserved by Stratcom servers, and turned up nothing.

She claimed Gen. Hyten called her frequently after her dismissal. A review of phone records Col. Spletstoser provided found no calls between the two after her firing.
She said she did not want to travel with Gen. Hyten due to his unwanted sexual advances. But multiple witnesses claimed she became livid after Gen. Hyten told her she was prohibited from traveling with his detail until her toxic-leadership investigation was resolved. Her screams from his office were loud enough to alarm Gen. Hyten’s personal security detail, who rushed to the office.

As a critical link in America’s nuclear chain of command, Gen. Hyten is one of the most closely guarded officers in the country. He must be responsive within minutes to the president. His every movement is supervised, and when he stays in hotels, guards closely observe the door to his room. Col. Spletstoser claimed that one instance of abuse happened after Gen. Hyten asked her to remain in his room following a staff meeting. But his security chief told investigators he had no recollection of such a request and would have recalled “if she stayed in the room for any large amount of time.”

Sen. Martha McSally—who has said a superior officer raped her when she served in the Air Force—defended Gen. Hyten after she spent weeks reviewing his case. She was repaid with scorn and mockery on social media and in the press. Ms. McSally has my admiration for courageously standing up for the truth.

Col. Spletstoser maintains that her claims are true and that some have been corroborated. She has now demanded an opportunity to testify before the Senate. But Congress has wasted enough time on this petty theater. There must be consequences for dragging an innocent man and his family through hell. A thorough investigation found no evidence to corroborate her charges, multiple discrepancies and outright contradictions in her accusations, and a pattern of leveling specious charges throughout her career. For the good of the country, for the good of actual sexual assault survivors, and for the good of due process and other values we hold dear, the Senate should confirm Gen. Hyten as vice chairman.

For the same reasons, the Army should investigate Col. Spletstoser for perjury under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Related reading:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/07/31/senate-panel-advances-hytens-nomination-despite-sex-assault-allegation.html

Retired Major General: Sexual Assault Allegations Against Hyten Lack Merit

0

0

We are trying to win for world commerce. We can win because we have most of the cards.

Here we go again . . . the hand-wringing over Trump’s trade war with China (as if China has not been conducting and winning a guerrilla effort against us, gaining in so many ways for itself at our expense).

This article at The Resurgent by Steve Berman is infused with the hand-wringing sentiment.  We wonder if the free traders really want free trade and no tariffs anywhere (and negotiations and consequences to produce it) or are content with no tariffs by the US (they hurt us don’t you know) as certain countries with no good will towards us eat our lunch, sneaking it here and there.

Read his concerns:

Trump’s China Trade War Brings Terrible News for Farmers
China’s move creates a hidden tariff on U.S. agriculture that they aren’t paying. Does Trump think China will starve without American agriculture? The rest of the world will adjust, even if it means higher prices for China. I sure hope he wins soon, don’t you?

And kindly consider our response

If nothing else the lede makes a key point. The world will adjust. Who is selling to China – other members of the world. China is or will be paying more by directly blocking the US imports. But will the Chinese or the rest of the world be going without US ag products in perpetuity? Will China allow the game of buying from say Australia or Brazil or ACME Grain and Soybean Worldwide Inc. all of which had contracts to fulfill with others elsewhere? So then they either fill those with US grown ag products OR re-container the US products and ship them to China.

Assuming China wants to eat at the same level, and because it can’t make more land, equilibrium will largely be reached for US farmers because of the fungibility of world markets fostered by bulk transportation. China needs to be taught a lesson – want stable prices and supply . . . implement fair and honest trading practices. However undesirable, tariffs are open and honest compared to the costs surreptitiously imposed on US consumers and businesses, and our sovereignty, by China’s manipulative and thieving policies. There ultimately is a cost of China’s will to hegemony.

Side note

The Resurgent, is an offshoot of Redstate, both of which were started by Erick Erickson. It is good to know that Erickson a one-time anybody but Trump sort of conservative (he was part of “The Resistance”) who snidely denigrated Trump and his supporters at many a turn, has grown to appreciate Trump for what he has genuinely accomplished for conservatism.

As we have with some effort kept in touch with his transformation including noting some months ago that he  indicated he will vote for Trump and now we see this week he is saying he will donate (again) to Trump’s campaign in response to Democrat calumny and race-baiting (see link:  Hey Joaquin Castro, You Inspired Me to Donate More to Donald Trump).

Good for you Erick, we had our own concerns and even expressed snideness over Trump’s treatment of Ted Cruz, but got over them in the face of Hillary and with confidence in others who assured us about Trump, and after attending a rally and coming to understand Trump’s persona, in a matter of days.

0

0

• The real election interference and hacking
• Democrats tell us Hillary won the popular vote –  but Google and social media platforms delivered her that vote
• Their billionaire leaders used their resources to underhandedly manipulate people
  
• Revelations that should scare you
• Google will determine “fair’
• Fairness = “manipulate search results to get political agenda they want” 
• Google execs gave 100% to Hillary Clinton in 2016
• Manipulation was going on in 2016 sub rosa now it is announced policy complete with virtue signalling to the left
• Google executive remarks (Project Veritas expose) a lament to Democrats: Don’t break us up … you risk 4 more years of Trump
• Ted Cruz a champ
• Better idea – remove immunity provided them for being a supposed neutral platform – they are not – they are essentially a political action organization
• Links and clips

Watch: Ted Cruz Grills Google on Its Political Bias   (Breitbart)

Senator Ted Cruz Hammers Google: You ‘Control Our Discourse’  (Newsbusters)

Google Expert to Senator Cruz: 15 Million 2020 Votes At Risk   (clip one and two below)

Note these are YouTube posted videos –  because they show actual Congressional testimony they would be hard-pressed to censor them out.  However they have done just that to Project Veritas (no association whatever to us)  video expose of taped admissions from Google executives. Google Removes Project Veritas Video From YouTube.  However  see our posted excerpt (6 minutes of 25 plus) (third posted video below) but visit the Project Veritas site for the full presentation.

Big Tech’s biggest threat to democracy isn’t censorship or privacy: it’s election manipulation.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, “Google and Censorship through Search Engines,” Dr. Robert Epstein, who researches the impact of Google, informed the hearing that “upwards of 15 million votes” were in jeopardy in the 2020 election. During his testimony, Epstein told Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) that in 2016, Google gave at least 2.6 million votes to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, “through bias and search results.” He stressed that was the lowest number.

When questioned further by Cruz, Epstein gave a more concise answer: “The range is between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes depending on how aggressive they were in using the techniques that I’ve been studying, such as the search engine manipulation effect, the search suggestion effect, the answer bot effect, and a number of others. They control these and no one can counteract them. These are not competitive. These are tools that they have at their disposal exclusively.”

Cruz was shocked by this, responding, “If any headline comes out of this hearing, that should be it.”

Epstein further warned, “In 2020, you can bet that all of these companies are going to go all out, and the methods they are using are invisible, they’re subliminal, they are more powerful than most any effects I’ve ever seen in behavioral sciences and I’ve been in behavioral sciences for almost 40 years.”

Cruz reminded those at the hearing that Google’s parent company, Alphabet, was Clinton’s biggest corporate supporter in 2016. The company donated $1.6 million to the former Secretary of State, according to OpenSecrets.org.

The senator asked Epstein after his testimony if it was true that a “handful of Silicon Valley billionaires and giant corporations are able to spend millions of dollars, if not billions, collectively massively influencing the results of the elections.” Epstein gave the troubling answer, “Senator, with respect I must correct you. If Mark Zuckerberg chooses to send out a go vote reminder to just Democrats on election day, that doesn’t cost him a dime.”

Cruz voiced the fears of the GOP when it came to Big Tech, saying “we have no way of knowing if Google or Facebook or Twitter sends things to Democrats or Republicans or how they bias it because its a black box with no transparency or accountability whatsoever.”

Epstein suggested that Congress move to make Google’s search index public, which would simply reshape the company slightly and make its decisions to rank and order information more transparent.

Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden Cam   (excerpt)

Related reading: Beware of the Cloud   (American Spectator)

0

0

From the latest column by Clarice Feldmann regarding the Democratic ‘debate’

Can We Please Have Something Normal?   (pics not part of original*)

Mark Penn, former Bill Clinton pollster, as quoted:

“By the end of this endless debate, spooned out in one-minute dollops, I walked out with a $1,000-a-month check, an extra grand if I’m a female, untold reparations dollars if I am African American, Medicare from birth covering everything I’ll ever need until death, and the right to cross the border without any real penalty if I’m from another country. Prosecuting criminals of any kind generally got a thumbs-down, while white privilege made me immune from racist police who were painted as villains. And there will be no more pointless wars, carbon emissions will be zero by 2030, and it may take 10 years, but the government will run almost all health care.

While these same candidates earlier this week expressed outrage at President Trump for tweeting that Baltimore was a rat-infested mess, they all seemed to portray our entire country as in far worse shape than that Maryland oasis. America, it seems, is not the land of full employment, rising wages and decreased poverty. It’s not a country in which 90 percent have health insurance, almost everyone has a smartphone, and 64 percent own their home. It’s at heart a racist, misogynistic country dominated by fat cats and big corporations sucking the life out of us all. According to these candidates it’s a dark, dark place and, unless we usher them into office and save it through these programs and policies that start at a mere $30 trillion, America will continue to be a lost country.

Nearly every one of the candidates called for the impeachment of President Trump, and yet none of them called out a specific act that the president did to merit impeachment. They just said that former special counsel Robert Mueller outlined 10 of them and left it at that, ignoring that the Justice Department declared that these actions did not rise to obstruction of justice. Russia collusion as a theory has been abandoned.”

*Memes via HP

0

0

From what clips we watched and other reports and commentaries these posts seem to sum up the tone, texture and substance of this week’s Democrat nomination debates.

David Limbaugh at Townhall:

Democrats, in Showing Their Extremism, Do Nation a Favor

Daniel J Flynn at American Spectator:

48 Lines About 24 Women (and Men) … Running for President
Two lines per wannabe is probably two too many.

And our Illustrious DLH at V’PAC.com:

My pick as the most pandering, condescending, “I am so wise and virtuous” signaling, farcical statement of last night’s “debate”.

Gosh, I wish this posturing fool would get the Dem nomination!

Gillibrand Would Explain to White Suburban Women ‘What White Privilege Actually Is’ 

(CNSNews.com) – “What would you do for Baltimore and other cities that need help?” several Democrats were asked at Wednesday’s CNN-hosted debate.
When her turn came to answer that question, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) invoked her own “white privilege.”

So I don’t believe that it’s the responsibility of Cory and Kamala to be the only voice that takes on these issues of institutional racism, systemic racism in our country. I think as a white woman of privilege, who is a U.S. senator, running for president of the United States, it is also my responsibility to lift up those voices that aren’t being listened to.

And I can talk to those white women in the suburbs that voted for Trump and explain to them what white privilege actually is, that when their son is walking down a street with a bag of M&Ms in his pocket, wearing a hoodie, his whiteness is what protects him from not being shot.

When his — when her — when their child has a car that breaks down, and he knocks on someone’s door for help, and the door opens, and the help is given, it’s his whiteness that protects him from being shot. That is what white privilege in America is today.

And so, my responsibility’s to only lift up those stories, but explain to communities across America, like I did in Youngstown, Ohio, to a young mother, that this is all of our responsibilities, and that together we can make our community stronger.

Meme search — I’m sure we missed some but low on band width for this post:

0

0

• Political genius on both sides of the river
  
• Just a helpful recommendation from the V’PAC Think Tank:

Democrat Cheri Bustos represents the Illinois 17th CD which sits, in part, right across the river from V’PAC headquarters which is located in the Iowa 2nd CD now held by Democrat Dave Loebsack. They share a lot of media outlets so we see a lot of coverage of both. Well what there is of Loebsack but especially Bustos who spent much of her working career in the Quad Cities including being a reporter for a time at Lee Enterprises’ newspaper the  Quad City Times which reaches far into and also owns other newspapers in her district.

There has been a lot of fawning in local and national media, including by much of the Democrat Party apparat, and even in conservative quarters who have praised the supposed political acumen of Cheri Bustos because she won in a “Trump district”. The fawning was attached to stories about her being “forced” to fire white staff on the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee she heads and replace them with people of color. It is possible that the conservative fawning may have been a little strategic hyperbole in order sow discord.

However, we think that willingly, dutifully, and with a salute, firing people based on race, which Bustos has agreed to do, is also egregious racism on her part.  She should resign rather than be part of such a racist massacre.

But, in order to be helpful to Democrats who are perhaps a bit embarrassed by the harsh politics played by the Congressional Black Caucus, acute observers of the Democrat dynamics that we are, we humbly suggest the following: Before the people Bustos hired are given their walking papers, and made victims of racial prejudice, a group that Bustos hand-picked to facilitate her political genius (a quality of hers that everyone says is self evident) that they be given a lifeline in the person of Davida Loebsack.

Our scheme only requires two things. One – that Congressman Loebsack announces his womanhood and come out as LGBTQ with the “T” having the most cache (sachet?). While Congressperson Loebsack has announced his retirement from Congress to our way of thinking that just gives him more time to  devote to the cause.

Given her intransigence (as opposed to Loebsack’s newfound transigence) our scheme also  requires that Bustos be “show fired” for her lack of diversity in hiring (it is too early to talk of being ‘suicided’). Why is she allowed to hang on anyway?

The thing is there is plenty of genius in the Democrat Party! All it takes is the “genius” to win in a Democrat district!! Having a district handed to you as Bustos received  (see links below) in her case only verifies that such genius was preordained.

Now we are not trying to say Loebsack is as much a genius. But genius enough!

Loebsack’s Iowa 2nd, while Democrat majority, is a bit tougher than hers so he wasn’t smart enough to move across the river and run in the Illinois 17th. Remember the current commentariats refrain about Bustos and what passes for genius – A Democrat winning in a Democrat district (even if it happened to go for Trump out of disdain for the Hildabeast).

Never mind that Loebsack’s  Iowa 2nd District went for Trump substantially more than Bustos’ Illinois 17th,  where Trump barely won and Loebsack still won by 7 points in 2016 and “double digits” in 2018 in spite of it somehow being a Trump district. In Democrat think that is not as much genius as Cheri Bustos exhibited, by winning a more Democrat district when Trump barely squeaked by. But in this genius line of reasoning Loebsack still offers the Bustos admirers” winning” if not legs.

How would this work? Well our V’PAC  Non-Partisan Think Tank members inform us that in Democrat politics the LGBTQ card is superior to the race card. If Bustos is fired and Loebsack can be talked into going drag for the good of the party then it becomes a win – win – win –  win – win for Democrats.

How?  The Black Caucus still gets a scalp, the DCCC retains the Bustos original staff,  they get someone almost as “genius” as Bustos to lead it, they check the uppity Black Caucus and please the LGBTQ “sexionality“. As to the latter Loebsack need not worry about being exposed (only us if he is)  as no one may question announced sexuality in the Democrat Party.  Its a rule or something.

Tell us more about how Loebsack’s and Bustos’ genius compare?

We have heard ad nauseam about Cheri ~~ she’s one sharp cookie don’t you know. . .  but with no detail of course, how “she won reelection by double digits in a district that went for Trump,” Why she must have been a genius or a Svengali or something to pull that off!

It seems she has a better PR department than the Marine Corps.  Except hers is shall we say gifted if not stolen valor. Consider our comments, and check out the links and excerpts about her district’s political background and Loebsack’s.

Editorial in yesterday’s Washington Examiner:

Democrats just purged white party staffers, and it’s a bigger deal than anyone wants to admit

This  article about Cheri Bustos  (first appearing in Politico I believe)  seems intended as a hagiography but read it for insight into her “genius”

The Secret Weapon Democrats Don’t Know How to Use

This is more insightful: Informationcradle Political Bio of Cheri Bustos

In 2007, Cheri Bustos ran for the East Moline City Council seat from city’s 4th Ward. She won the Democratic primary with 45% of the vote and won the general election unopposed. In 2011, she won re-election unopposed. Before her elections, she served on East Moline’s Citizen Advisory Committee and the East Moline Plan Commission. In 2009, she worked as in the Athena Business Women’s Award. In February 2010, she secured at a state and federal money to purchase a $40,000 electronic welcome sign that was placed at the border of East Moline.
In August 2010, she was voted in the water and sewer rate hikes. In January 2011, she expressed interest in charging residents who do not recycle extra fees to lower the city’s landfill costs.

In April 2011, she was voted in a budget that was raised in property taxes 4.9% and raised garbage collection fees, saying, “these decisions have been made thoughtfully and thoroughly and during the course of 17 open and public budget sessions.” She also supported water and sewage increases. She has been criticized for voting for a $624,000 project to improve 10th Street in East Moline, which runs adjacent to Bustos’s house; the Schilling campaign dubbed it the “Bustos Parkway.” Schilling’s claim was called “reckless, irresponsible fiction” by the editorial board of the Quad-City Times. After being elected to a second term in May 2011, Bustos resigned in September 2011 to focus on her run for Congress.

In the 2012 elections, she was stated to be received in the endorsement of about two dozen unions active in the 17th Congressional district, including the Illinois AFL-CIO, AFSCME and the United Auto Workers. During the primary, Bustos received the endorsement of U.S. Senator Dick Durbin. Durbin asked state Senator Dave Koehler and George Gaulrapp to drop out of the race to clear the way for Bustos, who is a close family friend of Durbin. Durbin asked state Senator Dave Koehler and George Gaulrapp to drop out of the race to clear the way for Bustos, who is a close family friend of Durbin. Gaulrapp reported that during a meeting with Durbin about withdrawing, Durbin said that Bustos had babysat for his family and was a close friend. She won the Democratic primary on March 20, 2012, defeating Freeport Mayor George Gaulrapp and businessman Greg Aguilar 54%–26%-20%.

In the general election, Bustos was one of 39 candidates considered to be the most viable challengers against Republican incumbents to benefit from “Red to Blue” program offered by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. She was endorsed by the Quad-City Times for the general election. In November, she defeated incumbent Republican Bobby Schilling 53%–47%. She’d received a significant boost from redistricting, which replaced Quincy, Decatur and the district’s portion of Springfield with the more Democratic portions of Peoria and Rockford. She is the first Democrat to represent a significant portion of Peoria since 1927, and only the second Democrat since the 1850s to represent a significant portion of Rockford. After entering the House, she made national headlines by “interviewing colleagues and posting the short videos on her Snapchat account.”

During the 2014 elections, she was challenged by Schilling for re-election in 2014. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune editorial board in 2012, she expressed her support for legislation which would cut congressional pay by 10 percent. When asked by a member of the editorial board if she would voluntarily give up 10 percent of her pay should the legislation fail, Bustos said that she would. During the campaign in 2014, she stated: “When I was in Chicago, I said something that I shouldn’t have said, but I never said it on the campaign trail. I never made it as a promise to the people in the 17th Congressional District.” The Chicago Tribune endorsed Schilling for the general election.

As they did in October 2012, Bustos and Schilling agreed to debate at the WQAD-TV News 8 studio on October 9, 2014, with Good Morning Quad Cities anchor Jim Mertens serving as moderator. She successful defeated Schilling in the November 4 general election, 55%–45%. During the 2016 re-elections, she successful won to represent the House in the 2016 general election, defeating the Republican challenger Patrick Harlan, an insurance agent, truck driver, and local Tea Party activist. During a long profile, she was politically noted on May 12, 2017, where she was noted in 2016, she was the only Democrat to win a House seat by a more than 20-point margin in a district that Trump also won.

“If Democrats are going to wrest control of the House from Republicans, argue many party strategists, it’s going to happen in large part by doing more of whatever it is her doing three hours west of Chicago in her nearly 7,000-square-mile district of small towns and soybean fields,” stated Politico. Calling her “one of the party’s rising stars,” Politico quoted her as saying, “I’m a little bit of a different kind of Democrat.” During the 2018 elections, she was challenged by Bill Fawell, a real estate broker who has attracted media attention for his conspiracy claims that the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks were an inside job perpetrated by the United States Government. She was then re-elected with 61.9% votes of the final vote talled over Fawell’s 38.1%.

In other words she was well connected to Durbin who wired the initial nomination, benefited from redistricting, and continued to win in a Democrat district against — well note who she was up against in those double digit wins (bold above).  ABSOLUTE GENIUS!

Here are some charts that can be used to compare the genius margins of the two congressman running in Democrat districts.

Loebsack’s 2nd CD

Bustos 17th CD

Loebsack won by substantial margins in a district that was won by Trump by even more than Bustos district. (Trump barely won the 17th CD.)_ What makes Bustos such a guru? Shouldn’t the DCCC be led by Loebsack?

Pictographs of how the transition might go and also showing the interchangeability of the two.

What’s it mean for Bustos?  She’ll be OK, its still a one party state with Cook County in control. She will still have her district and probably Durban’s blessing for Senate when he retires . . .  Cheri is hoping soon before she has to daily do the Pelosi routine of cranking up the sardine key at the temples.

More of the genius of the two in pictures.  Seriously some of the articles point out the genius of Bustos campaigning.  Imagine campaigning in a grocery store or with veterans or farmers in the district!!  No other congressional candidates thought of such things. Pure genius on the part of both of them.

Ol’ Dave might not have the right skirt or the gams but the Party has lots of resources to help him in the transition

Congressional thighs and lows. Maybe Maxine et al are just jealous

all about exercising the leaverages of power

Related reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_17th_congressional_district

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa%27s_2nd_congressional_district

https://ballotpedia.org/Illinois%27_17th_Congressional_District_election,_2018

0

0

Trump Ally, Ex-Military Brass Sought Saudi Funds for Nuclear Plants

House Oversight Committee report says proponents got White House backing for plan
——
This Wall Street Journal story has it all:

“TRUMP ALLY”–

“SAUDI FUNDS”–

“NUCLEAR DEAL”–

“HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE” (THAT’S ELIJAH CUMMINGS, YOU KNOW)–

“REPORT DISCLOSES” (OOH, THAT’S SINISTER; WITHOUT ELIJAH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS ‘DEAL)–

“NEW DETAILS OF EFFORT TO TRANSFER SENSITIVE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY TO ‘THE KINGDOM’… ”
————

Thank God for Elijah Cummings. We might never have known about the very nefarious dealing going on between the “allies” of Donald Trump and the evil masters of the Saudi ‘Kingdom’!

The report prepared for the Cummings’ committee says, “The Trump administration has virtually obliterated the lines normally separating government policymaking from corporate and foreign interests…”

” The documents show the administration’s willingness to let private parties with close ties to the President wield outsized influence over U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia.”

Readers! This is BAD!

Or, is it?

In the 4th paragraph of this “blockbuster” story…after 156 words alerting the public to the furtive activities of those wily “Trump allies”, we learn this:

“The House report doesn’t accuse the consortium of breaking any laws.”

And, later in the story, this:

“The Saudi investment in the Westinghouse bid and in IP3 doesn’t appear to have ever been consummated.”

Wow! Hats off to Warren P. Strobel! He’s the crack Wall Street Journal ‘investigative’ reporter who broke this story!

No “Fake News” here!

Just… “No Real News”! DLH

——————————————–

0

0