We are the drain the swamp people

Major League Baseball (MLB)  Commissioner Rob Manfred kowtows to the most radical racist views of players and insults fans, again.*

“I have determined the best way to demonstrate our value as a sport is relocating this year’s All-Star Game and MLB Draft,” commissioner Rob Manfred said in a statement.

In other words “our value as a sport” is assuming our players (Houston Astros) are too stupid or morally compromised to resist cheating in sports  . . . or voting.

Joe Biden had a few days previously said he “strongly supported”  moving the All-Star game from Georgia.  Just wondering if Biden would strongly support and urge boycotts of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, China.

Professional sports has demonstrated a disdain for a large segment of its fan base, a contempt for America, and a complete estrangement from our nation’s traditions and values. 

At the NY Post:

MLB yanks All-Star Game out of Atlanta over Georgia’s new voting law

MLB is taking its ball and leaving Georgia.
The league announced on Friday that it is moving the 2021 All-Star Game out of Atlanta as backlash grows over a new Georgia law that is seen as an attack on voter access.

“I have determined the best way to demonstrate our value as a sport is relocating this year’s All-Star Game and MLB Draft,” commissioner Rob Manfred said in a statement.

“MLB fundamentally supports voting rights for all Americans and opposes restrictions to the ballot box.”

Manfred’s decision comes as a growing number of corporations, including Atlanta-based Delta and Coca Cola, have spoken out against the legislation that was signed into law last week.

Democrats and advocacy groups have argued that it disproportionately affects minorities. President Biden referred to it as “Jim Crow on steroids” in an interview with ESPN this week and said he would support Manfred if he decided to move the game.

“Over the last week, we have engaged in thoughtful conversations with clubs, former and current players, the Players Association, and The Players Alliance, among others, to listen to their views,” Manfred said.(The league added that it would continue with plans to celebrate the life and accomplishments of Braves legend Hank Aaron. The league did not announce where the Mid-Summer Classic, scheduled for July 13, would be taking place now.)

MLB backwards is BLM; And Major League Baseball, like Professional basketball (NBA) and football (NFL)) are indeed, backward…or certainly oblivious to the fact that they have become political organizations, supporting an ideology shared by no more than 50% of the American people , if that. ..and probably far less than 50% of the ‘fans’ who buy their tickets or watch their TV game broadcasts.

As a follower of a team that  has won genuine affection on the part of its fans for its players, I say ‘enough is enough’! And, I don’t think I’m alone.

Professional sports has demonstrated a disdain for a large segment of its fan base, a contempt for America, and a complete estrangement from our nation’s traditions and values.

{Sports is the place where people of all ‘color’ have capitalized on their hard work and opportunity to become wealthy and famous beyond their wildest dreams. Sports has shown the goodness and opportunity of America…the venue where fans idolize and celebrate their ‘heroes’ without regard to their color or ethnicity. It’s the place where ordinary Americans can enjoy a time away friom their everyday challenges and problems.

But now, the very people who benefit the most from the ‘games’ are willing to tell the people, the fans, who’ve made them rich, famous and loved, that if they don’t share their political beliefs and their contempt for America’s traditions, values, and beliefs, they can ‘go to hell!’.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s time to tell them where they can go…as far as baseball is concerned and their “All Star” game, that would be, Beijing…go there, and, good luck!}  dlh

*Memes with exception of  the first two below as seen at  TooAthletic.com and reference other Manfred calls.  Enabling and excusing cheating, hurting the little people.

0

0

What’s this “sh-thole country” thing?

Wasn’t President Trump excoriated for using that term to describe countries in which abject poverty, rampant crime, corrupt government oppression is the ‘standard’?

Now, we are told that people are understandably fleeing from countries where poverty is all-pervasive, crime is rampant, and the people are oppressed by their corrupt governments. And, they are fleeing to the United States where the Government, for the political benefit of the ruling Democrat party, is ‘welcoming’…inviting, in fact, them to come.

“Come one, come all…” is the message of the “Biden-Harris administration”.

“Enjoy the benefits of America. free education, free health care, free child care, (hopefully) ‘universal income’, without necessity to work…”

The American taxpayer is, or soon will be, required to pay for all this free stuff because, after all, Americans are told, “these people are fleeing from crime, corruption, and oppression” in their home ‘sh-thole countries’…just don’t call them ‘sh-thole countries”!

Its not about the people, it is about their preparation, politics, ethics.  The law abiding we welcome from any country whatever their race or ethnicity as long as they adhere to our ideals and laws. Otherwise  world without borders has the same result as an unregulated landfill in every neighborhood.

+1

0

• Biden Harris Border Policy not only treasonous
  

ABC NEWS video SHOWS SMUGGLERS DROPPING CHILDREN OFF 14 FOOT BORDER WALL 

This Is “Who We Are”!!

The “Welcome Mat” is out. The “Biden-Harris Administration” is inviting anyone who wishes to come to the United States…”enjoy our ‘freedom’, free education, free health care…luxurious hotel accommodations while you wait to be ‘settled’ near your fellow countrymen somewhere in the USA. No screening or identity verification necessary”

Even if it means handing over your children, even toddlers, to the Cartel’s smugglers…who collect anywhere from $3000 to $10,000 to literally ‘throw them over the border’, as this video so starkly shows.

“They just want a “better life” for their children, compassionate Americans are told.

Really…in every case?

The facts are, in many cases, the parents are willing to risk the lives of their children in the belief, broadcast widely by Joe Biden and many Democrats, that , if the kids make it to the US, the parents will then be able to join them and all will reap the fruits of American taxpayers’ “generosity”.

American parents, willing to risk the lives of their children for their own gain and benefit would be correctly seen as “unfit parents”, and possibly lose their parental rights, and even be jailed for ‘child abuse’. (It’s a “societal norm” thing, you know?)

0

0

Rita was all Hart with her “concession” statement

Uh, wait! No she didn’t. She ‘dropped her challenge’, according to the Wall Street Journal, in a way that bitter Democrats always do: In the now standard “Stacy Abrams way” Ms. Hart claimed she’d actually won the race for Iowa’s 2nd District congressperson if all the votes were counted…or at least the 21 ballots which had been thrown out but Hart decided would have swung the election in her favor.

“It was (the) toxic campaign of disinformation” around her challenge that prompted her to drop it, Hart said. (It had nothing to do, you understand, with the “increasing number of Democrats in competitive districts who were becoming increasingly uncomfortable” with the specious attempt Speaker Pelosi had chosen, according to the Journal article.

Ms. Hart disclosed that she was “saddened” that “some Iowans’ votes won’t count through no fault of their own.”

So, for the time being Democrats in Iowa’s 2nd District will have to be content that they at least have a “Stacy Abrams” Congressional Representative (I really did win, you know!). dlh

0

0

• The writing (vote tally) was on the wall
• Apparently Hart did not have the votes even in Zoe Lofgren’s committee
• Maybe some bile in this post, not unlike MMM is capable of, and Rita Hart
  

I was of the opinion that there would be enough Dem’s “taking a walk” on a floor vote or who would vote outright to seat Miller-Meeks should the House Administration committee under Zoe Lofgren (loaded with Dems well beyond their caucus ratio) issue a finding in favor of Hart.  Only a few Dems, maybe six would be needed to scuttle Hart’s chances.  The optics were just too much for a few not to see the light. A few even had the wits to say in recent weeks that they were unconvinced of the propriety of the challenge by Hart and admitted to the optics (more likely the most compelling reason).

Hart counted heads and issued her concession earlier today.

Having predicted the outcome we will also answer our posed question.  Miller-Meeks could not possibly be as bad as Jim Leach our former Republican congressman. His was a unique smarminess and treachery that only an Obama supporter who one time masqueraded as a Republican could muster. We pray MMM’s recent vote to support the Violence Against Women Act  was not a Leach maneuver (see previous related posts).  But then we sure as hell don’t hope she was sincere.  Oh well.

And henceforth we will “never-mind” that Miller-Meeks vilified Trump comparing him to mendacious Hillary in 2016 then, but after winning on his coattails  in 2020, in a monumental vote on January 6th sustained the most corrupt and most questionable election in US history, without insisting on due consideration of Constitutional delays, and arbitrarily approved, as in rubber stamped,  the hazarding of our Republic to the likes of a senile crook who is being puppet-mastered by people who want to destroy the American experiment in freedom.

But thank you for your service Madames et Monsieur Miller-Meeks,  Ernst and Grassley.  When push came to shove you folded quick and easy on the big one, a few flowery tut-tuts,  but were soon back to doing business in the swamp, keeping the country safe for ethanol and wind towers, placating your conservative base when you think it politically advantageous but lamenting how your hands were tied on the big-one.

Don’t worry readers, we understand that Republicans are still our hope for the future.  And we are grateful . . . not so much to those hired to do the right thing  . . . which they often rise to the occasion and do . . . but for that it could be much worse . . . we could have actually had Rita Hart in office.

OK enough of my release of a bit of bitterness.  Let’s move on to Hart’s.

Hart’s official statement via KWQC

WHEATLAND, Iowa (KWQC) – Rita Hart, who lost to Mariannette Miller-Meeks in the race for Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District seat by six votes in November, has conceded.

The Democrat released a statement Wednesday saying, “After many conversations with people I trust about the future of this contest, I have made the decision to withdraw my contest before the House Committee on Administration.”

She went on to say, “I am saddened that some Iowans’ votes will not count through no fault of their own.” . . .

What didn’t make it into the KWQC story about Hart’s concession statement was this, via the Washington Examiner:

“Despite our best efforts to have every vote counted, the reality is that the toxic campaign of political disinformation to attack this constitutional review of the closest congressional contest in 100 years has effectively silenced the voices of Iowans,” Hart said in a statement Wednesday. “It is a stain on our democracy that the truth has not prevailed and my hope for the future is a return to decency and civility.”

Advocating not for truth but her truth.  Priceless.

For the record, we suspect Hart is toast.  Dem’s will have to come up with somebody else to reclaim the seat. They think it belongs to them. And they are bitter.

0

0

• Her vote is blatantly inconsistent and not on an inconsequential matter.
• Why didn’t she explain to Dems that her states rights distortion regarding the electoral college resulting in getting rid of Orange Man and maybe the Republic, required her to oppose the Violence Against Women Act as written?
• As the bill moves to the Senate, Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley have the same issue
• We will not be surprised if Joni Ernst goes all MMM, but we hope not

Here we are getting around to fleshing out our criticism of Miller-Meeks as inconsistent and out of step, but at least not resident evil (post two days ago)

First of all the legislation in question, The Violence Against Women is not inconsequential, it is a huge power grab and precedent essentially federalizing aspects of domestic crime and punishment reserved to the states.

Analysis of such legislation is available at PJ Media and Heritage.org

The Real Reason Why 172 Republicans Opposed the Violence Against Women Act

Serious Flaws in the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Bill

Readers will understand that the constitutional subversion is real and the implications are beyond states’ rights and federalism impacting individual rights covered by the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th, 14th Amendments and more.

What does MMM not understand about our Constitution and how crime and punishment is largely left to the states?   The founders did so to control federal power. Does MMM not understand or appreciate that for example murder is a state crime, individual states are responsible for establishing the degree of criminality, the investigation and any trial and prosecution and in applying the punishment. Why are or should the matters addressed in the Violence Against Women Act be any different? Injecting a federal punishment, onus whatever into a domestic crime matter is an assault on states rights.

So her position regarding fealty to states rights pronounced in her statement about why she voted to rubber stamp electoral processes in all states (see earlier post) is at odds with the incredibly weak excuse to federalize domestic crime and punishment. Her vote is definitively inconsistent.

The out-of step part is evidenced not only by her minority position within the caucus as a whole on the matter but also as regards Republican women in the House.   Indeed Republican women opposed the legislation to the same degree as other Republicans so it was not a “women vote thing”.  Only four Republican women House members supported it including MMM.

Miller-Meeks should have been asking what do fellow caucus members and women Elise Stefanek, Claudia Tenny, Virginia Fox, Nancy Mace, Diana Harshbarger,
Beth Van Dayne, Cathy Rodgers,, Kay Granger, Carol Miller, Ashly Hinson, Debbie Lesko, Michelle Steel, Lauren Boebert, Kat Carmack, Marjorie Greene, Michelle Fischbach, Mary Miller, Lisa McClain, Ann Wagner, Vicky Harzer, Jackie Walorski, Viktoria Sparta, Yvette Herrell, Liz Cheney know about states rights and domestic violence and the Constitution that she does not?

The Republican men voting for it included the likes of Fred Upton  . . .  nuff said.

0

0

• private server conducting government business, revealing classified information; all OK with SCOTUS?!
• Royalty protect one another

SUPREME COURT DENIES BID BY JUDICIAL WATCH TO REQUIRE HILLARY CLINTON TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH ABOUT HER E-MAILS

By now, any conservative who thinks the Supreme Court is Anything More Than Another “Leftist-Liberal Washington Swamp Creature”, with a 6-3 liberal bias, is an unrealistic optimistic fool.

The reasons why this is such travesty of justice are too numerous to note here, but it should not be necessary for any reasonably intelligent American who has paid any attention at all.

—————

The Supreme Court on Monday denied a bid by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to uphold a court ruling requiring Hillary Clinton to testify under oath about her private email system.

The Supreme Court’s denial was unsigned and issued without comment.
In January Judicial Watch filed a petition for writ of certiorari (“cert petition”) with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to uphold a court ruling requiring Hillary Clinton to testify under oath about her private email system.

Hillary Clinton used a private email system to conduct official government business when she was the head of the Department of State.

Through many FOIA lawsuits, Judicial Watch revealed that many of Hillary Clinton’s emails contained classified material, including the name of a clandestine CIA agent.
Last March a federal court ordered a deposition of Hillary Clinton on her emails and Benghazi attack records in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

Hillary Clinton’s lawyers immediately filed an emergency appeal to stop her court-ordered email testimony.

Clinton’s team filed an emergency writ of mandamus to avoid testifying and the DC Court of Appeals granted her relief in August.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton released the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision:

Hillary Clinton ignored the law but received special protection from both the courts and law enforcement. For countless Americans, this double standard of justice has destroyed confidence in the fair administration of justice. Americans would never have known about Hillary Clinton’s email and related pay for play scandals but for Judicial Watch’s diligence. We expect that the Biden State and Justice Departments will continue to protect her and cover up their own misconduct as we press for additional accountability through the courts.

0

0

Frustrated Trump demands to know if Special Counsel Durham is still ‘living’ ‘Where’s Durham? Is he a living, breathing human being? Will there ever be a Durham report?’ Trump said

Last Summer Had One more Day To Go And Reports Suggested That Durham Was About To Issue Indictments…

“Former U.S. Assistant Attorney Andy McCarthy said Friday that the American public should watch for potential indictments stemming from Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation.”

TownHall

Durham indictments coming 

Gateway Pundit

This is a glimmer of hope that the bad guys might finally have their day – and that day is today.

Now our sources are wondering (somewhat tongue in cheek), does he even exist           dlh

American Thinker (excerpt)

For the past year and a half, conservatives were consistently assured that Durham would soon be handing down indictments. They’ll be coming next week…next month…in six months…. And always, thanks to organizations such as Judicial Watch, there’d be more incriminating FOIA-released information that Durham should already have found.

Then, the day before the election, a left-leaning magazine reported that Durham had found absolutely nothing. Considering the plethora of undisputed, publicly available information about lies and manipulation from government insiders (most of whom now are making bank working for left-leaning media or publishing books), this was surprising. And still, Durham continued as special counsel, a position he occupies to this day.

On Friday, Trump finally released a statement plaintively asking if Durham even exists: “Where Durham? Is he a living, breathing human being? Will there ever be a Durham report?”

Funny you should ask that, Mr. President, because a few weeks ago a site called We ♥ Trump posited that, while John Durham may once have existed, he doesn’t anymore:

I’m talking about why a man with such a storied and PUBLIC career does not have a single video existing of him anywhere online.

I’m not talking about videos about a certain topic or recent videos or videos of his personal life.

No, I’m saying not one single video of the man exists online!
Oh, and only 4-5 pictures exist of him.

That’s it.
A man who has led such a long and storied public career, and it’s as if he doesn’t actually exist.

Yes, I’ve read his bio.

Yes, I’ve seen his Wikipedia page.
Yes, I know he is the man who allegedly took down Whitey Bulger.
Yet not one single video can be found.
[snip]
Click into each one of those videos that shows up and you will find the same thing in each one.
You’ll see news anchors talking about John Durham with a still image of his face up on the screen….but nothing else.
No actual video of the man.
Not a video of him holding a press conference, or even some b-roll of him walking into a courthouse….nothing!
Notably, even Trump hasn’t met Durham. That was sold as a virtue – Durham is neutral – but now it’s easy to see it as part of a whole fake narrative about a non-existent investigation. There’s much more about this theory here.
Yes, this is a total conspiracy theory. Please be clear, though, that American Thinker and I are not asserting as fact that John Durham is a convenient government fiction covering Deep State activity. I am just relaying someone else’s observation that neatly ties in with Trump’s recent rhetorical question.
Of course, when it comes to conspiracy theories, if you had told me in January 2020 that America would turn into a weird police state, locked down over a virus that’s somewhat more serious than the flu, and that a senile, corrupt, old man with a penchant for fondling little girls, who campaigned either from his basement or before crowds of tens, would win the presidency with more votes even than Barack Obama, well, I would have laughed at that theory too.

0

0

The resident evil part would be closer to the persons of Rita Hart and the Democrat apparat supporting her. Our support of MMM does not absolve her of very serious apostasies that undermine what we presume to be genuineness in other policy areas. But if you have not noticed from our raison d’être, long set forth on our page bar under the moniker  about   “We will not hold back criticizing a “Republican” who . . . has done something to compromise Republican principles or other ethical values. We believe it is an ethically devoid thought that a Republican should be beyond reproach because they “won” the primary, or are in office, or may be helping other Republicans, that those factors require they be given a free pass on a significant matter.” 

So as regards our critique of MMM consistency we point out that MMM issued the following as part of her explanation for voting to accept the alleged validity of electoral college submissions regarding the 2020 presidential election: (bold our emphasis)

I have serious concerns about how elections were conducted in some states and outraged at abuses of the election systems in those states.  Such abuses undermine election integrity and trust in the system of that state, and more broadly those actions have affected the presidential election. I share the disappointment of millions of Iowans and Americans with the outcome of the presidential election results. I have suspicions about the integrity of the votes cast in several states, the mass mailing of ballots to every name on the voter rolls which are not up-to-date, the allegations of a lack of a chain of custody of their election materials, and the actions of elections boards and courts assuming authority beyond what is granted to them in a state’s constitution or by their legislatures.   . . .

Indeed the abuses were serious enough to subvert our constitutional republic and did not require rubber stamping through weak constitutional and historical analysis. She went on to maintain that:

I am also concerned about the effect that it would have on the rights of states and the precedent it would establish by putting power in the hands of whichever party controls Congress, and not in the hands of the people who reside in those states or the laws that have been enacted in those states through their legislatures.

As a Member of Congress who wants to limit the power of the federal government, I must respect the states’ authority here. I understand this decision will disappoint and anger my supporters, but I have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution above myself.

The above statement should have had implications for her vote, dramatically out of step with the Republican caucus including 87% of Republican women as regards the assault on states rights and other matters embodied in the Violence Against Women Act .  We will flesh that out a bit in the next day or two.

0

0