I was thinking;Since only 11 million people have Obama-Care, how will 24 million people die if it is repealed? Will an additional 13 million people be randomly shot?I was thinking;If Donald Trump deleted all of his emails, wiped his server with Bleachbit and destroyed all of his phones with a hammer, would the Mainstream Media suddenly lose all interest in the story and declare him innocent.I was thinking;If women do the same job for less money, why do companies hire men to do the same job for more money?I was thinking;If you rob a bank in a Sanctuary City, is it illegal or is it just an Undocumented Withdrawal?I was thinking;Each ISIS attack now is a reaction to Trump policies, but all ISIS attacks during Obama's term were due to Climate Change and a plea for jobs.I was thinking;After the London 'Lone Wolf' terrorist attack government officials arrested at least eight other 'Lone Wolves' who had conspired with the original 'Lone Wolf' in planning the 'Lone Wolf' attack. Why do they tell us even though all involved are Muslims, you can be assured, the 'Lone Wolf' attack has nothing at all to do with Islam, just like the other 1,000 plus 'Lone Wolf' attacks by Muslims, are completely unassociated with Islam.I was thinking;We should stop calling them all 'Entitlements'. Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, ad nausea are not entitlements. They are taxpayer-funded handouts, and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veterans Benefits are Entitlements because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.I was thinking;If Muslims want to run away from a Muslim country, does that mean they're Islamophobic?I was thinking;If Liberals don't believe in biological gender then why did they march for women's rights?I was thinking;How did the Russians get Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC to steal the Primary from Bernie Sanders? How did Russia get Donna Brazile to leak debate questions to Hillary Clinton in advance of the debates?I was thinking;Why is it that Democrats think Super delegates are fine, but they have a problem with the Electoral College?I was thinking;If you don't want the FBI involved in elections, don't nominate someone who's being investigated by the FBI.I was thinking;If Hillary's speeches cost $250,000 an hour, how come no one shows up to her free ones?I was thinking;The DNC is mad at Russia because they 'think' they are trying to manipulate our election by exposing that the DNC is manipulating our election.I was thinking;If Democrats don't want foreigners involved in our elections, why do they think it's all right for illegals to vote?
Showing posts with label DNC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DNC. Show all posts
Monday, July 23, 2018
Today's Random Thoughts
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
DNC Greedily Goes After Trump, Will It Backfire?
DNC Unknowingly Suicides with Trump Suit, Opens Door for Trump to Depose Hillary
Democrats, be careful what you wish for.
When the news broke Friday that the Democrat National Committee had filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump campaign for literally helping its candidate win an election, the party’s water-carriers in the media were full of intimations that it was the end of the Trump presidency.
But as the story settles in that the DNC is accusing Trump’s camp of being involved in the hacking of the DNC’s computer systems, some possibilities raised by the suit make it look like the worst potential move by Democrats since the party made Hillary Clinton its nominee in 2016.
In fact, it could be political suicide.
That’s not the spin in the liberal-loving media, of course.
USA Today published an Op-Ed from former DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile headlined, “Democrats Were Crime Victims. If Trump Won’t Protect Elections, We Will.”
PBS’ “NewsHour” interviewed a senior fellow at the liberal Brookings Institution and headlined the piece, “How the DNC Lawsuit Could Become a Powerful Tool.”
But conservative radio host Mark Simone is raising another possibility, and it’s one that could make any DNC lawsuit over the 2016 elections very uncomfortable for the party and its leaders.
“Of course the DNC lawsuit against Trump, Russia and Wikileaks was just a cheap Stormy Daniels PR stunt, but major Dems are furious at the DNC,” Simone wrote. “This lawsuit would allow Trump to do discovery, to depose and put under oath Hillary, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Obama and others.”
Now that’s a tantalizing possibility.
Naturally, a civil lawsuit would involve sworn depositions, and since Brazile herself has labeled Clinton’s campaign as being the real power behind the DNC at the time of the hacking, the former candidate for the presidency might become a prime candidate for close questioning.
And this time, the questions wouldn’t be softballs lobbed by FBI agents giving Clinton the kid-glove treatment because they thought she would win the White House.
And it isn’t just Hillary that could be on the spot.
Do you think this lawsuit will backfire on the Democrats?
And then there’s the grand-daddy deposition of them all. Former President Barack Obama was the de facto head of the Democrat Party during eight years in the White House. Trump campaign lawyers — and the American public — could finally get a chance to know what the former president knew and when he knew it when it came to Russia’s alleged “tampering” in the 2016 election.
Chances are, none of that would go well for Democrats.
From all public evidence, the Democrats’ claim of “Russian collusion” by the Trump campaign is just hot air. As New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin pointed out Sunday, the DNC’s own lawsuit is the strongest sign yet that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has come up empty thus far with ammunition against Trump.
The lawsuit is the DNC’s best chance of keeping the Russia story going for the midterm elections and the rest of Trump’s terms, but it’s also the best chance yet that some of their key players might get caught unwilling or unable to answer legitimate questions about Democrat behavior — and get caught doing it under oath.
While they might be wishing that the lawsuit keeps making news, the old saying is as true now as ever: be careful what you wish for.
What do you think?
Thursday, March 22, 2018
Ellison Should Be Removed
DNC Chair Panics as Truth About Farrakhan Relationship Goes National
- Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, deputy DNC chair, claimed on Sunday that he hasn’t met with Farrakhan since crossing paths with him at two 2013 meetings
- Ellison, a former Nation of Islam member, claimed for years that he cut all ties to Farrakhan since running for Congress in 2006
- Ellison disputed Farrakhan’s account that he and Indiana Rep. Andre Carson visited the hate group leader in his hotel room in 2015
- Carson has already confirmed his own presence at the 2015 meeting
Under fire over his ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, Democratic Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison claimed Sunday that he hasn’t attended any meetings with Farrakhan since 2013 and “never had” a relationship with him.
Farrakhan is a notorious anti-Semite and racist whose organization teaches that white people are inherently inferior to black people. Ellison, the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is a former Nation of Islam member who claimed when he first ran for Congress in 2006 that he had left Farrakhan in his past.
New reporting has shown, however, that Ellison attended multiple meetings with Farrakhan while in Congress. That includes a private visit to Farrakhan’s hotel room in 2015 with Democratic Indiana Rep. Andre Carson. Farrakhan referenced the meeting in a December 2016 Facebook video, and Carson has confirmed that he was present. When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Ellison about that meeting, the congressman did not deny that the meeting took place but instead lashed out at his critics.
Ellison lashed out at his critics again in a blog post on Sunday, claiming that he never had a relationship with Farrakhan and hasn’t met him since 2013, apparently contradicting Farrakhan and Carson’s accounts. Ellison did confirm his presence at two Farrakhan meetings that took place in 2013. Ellison claimed questions about his Farrakhan ties are “a smear by factions on the right who want to pit the Jewish community and the Black community against each other.”
“I do not have and have never had a relationship with Mr. Farrakhan, but I have been in the same room as him,” Ellison wrote. “About a decade ago, he and I had a brief, chance encounter in Washington, D.C. In 2013, I attended a meeting in New York City with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and nearly 50 others where I advocated for the release of an American political prisoner. I didn’t know Mr. Farrakhan would be there and did not speak to him at the event. Contrary to recent reports, I have not been in any meeting with him since then, and he and I have no communication of any kind.”
“But as the attacks on me and my fellow Black representatives in Congress intensify, I want to be clear: this is a smear by factions on the right who want to pit the Jewish community and the Black community against each other, and distract from the hatred and bigotry on display by the president and the white supremacists who stormed Charlottesville this summer with their anti-Semitic chants and Confederate flags. I declined to dignify questions raised about Mr. Farrakhan because I know they are inherently political, and are designed to separate me from people who I work with every day on issues of importance for Americans of all backgrounds,” Ellison continued.
“The critics will not be satisfied. They won’t be satisfied any more than President Obama’s production of his birth documents satisfied his critics, or Hillary Clinton’s eleven-hour testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi sated her detractors,” he added.
Ellison’s blog post comes as he is increasingly under fire over his ties to Farrakhan.
The Washington Post awarded Ellison “Four Pinocchios,” their worst possible rating, for claiming that his relationship with Farrakhan ended in 2006. The post cited The Daily Caller’s reporting in the fact-check.
Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis, who has repeatedly praised Farrakhan, compared Ellison’s relationship to Farrakhan to a fallen-away Christian’s relationship to Jesus in an interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation earlier this month.
“I don’t know that Keith knows Farrakhan as well as I do — in fact, I know he doesn’t,” Davis said. “I don’t think that Keith is no person who is super engaged with Farrakhan, he just happens to be a movement. Just like many of the folks who are Christians, they’re not super engaged with Jesus, but they say they Christians,” Davis said.
Women’s March organization, a prominent left-wing activist group, has come under fire as well after their leaders expressed support for Farrakhan.
The group’s co-president, Tamika Mallory, attended Farrakhan’s annual Saviour’s Day speech last month where he railed against Jews and white people. Mallory defended Farrakhan after suffering backlash by implying that religious leaders are supposed to consider Jews their enemies.
“If your leader does not have the same enemies as Jesus, they may not be THE leader!” Mallory wrote on Twitter. She has repeatedly declined to condemn Farrakhan.
Women’s March has lost supporters over the Farrakhan scandal, and several regional chapters have slammed the national organization for refusing to denounce him. The group’s social media director, Alyssa Klein, resigned over the group’s support for Farrakhan, the New York Post reports.
A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.
Saturday, March 17, 2018
Ellison Should Be Gone
Dershowitz: Democrats Have To Fire Ellison Over Farrakhan Lies
Come for the Democratic schadenfreude, stick around for … more Democratic schadenfreude. Liberal firebrand Alan Dershowitz demanded the firing of Rep. Keith Ellison as deputy chair of the DNC after lying about his contacts with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, on whom new scrutiny has been applied to his long history of anti-Semitic declarations. “He ought to be treated the way we treat David Duke,” Dershowitz demanded, adding, “If any Republican dared to meet with David Duke, that would be the end of their career. … We don’t have affirmative action when it comes to bigotry.”
Don’t hold your breath, Dersh:
Ellison has repeatedly stated that he cut off all contact with Farrakhan prior to 2006, when he began his career in electoral politics. His colleague, Rep. Andre Carson, contradicted those claims earlier this week. Peter Hasson reported for the Daily Caller that Carson said he continues to meet with Farrakhan, and so did Ellison as recently as 2015:
Democratic Indiana Rep. Andre Carson has confirmed that he took part in a private 2015 meeting with Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan and Democratic Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison.Ellison, deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), claimed repeatedly that his relationship with Farrakhan ended well before he first ran for Congress in 2006. New reporting has shown that Ellison repeatedly attended meetings with Farrakhan while in Congress, including privately visiting Farrakhan in his Washington, D.C., hotel room in 2015.
Last Friday, Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler gave Ellison four Pinocchios for his claims of severing the Farrakhan relationship:
Ellison repeatedly has danced around the question of his association with Farrakhan, including whether they have crossed paths since he publicly cut ties with the Nation of Islam in 2006. But he needs to provide a better explanation for what he was doing in Farrakhan’s hotel suite in 2016 and what they discussed. He cannot claim to have “disavowed” Farrakhan more than a decade ago while moving in the same circles and apparently having a friendly chat behind closed doors.Carson at least acknowledged he met with Farrakhan to discuss issues related to community concerns. Ellison is trying to have it both ways, publicly distancing himself while privately doing something else. He earns Four Pinocchios for suggesting his interactions with Farrakhan ended in 2006.
Desrhowitz is correct that not only is Farrakhan the same kind of bigot as Duke, he’s actually worse — in large part because of the Democratic Party. Republicans have disowned Duke repeatedly and Duke has no influence within it; as Dershowitz says, he’s “a joke.” Not so with Farrakhan, who continues to be engaged and sought after by Democratic officeholders like Carson and Ellison.
But it has been ever thus, and probably will be too. The national media doesn’t seem terribly interested in holding Democrats accountable for their own bigots, with notable exceptions like Jake Tapper and Kessler few and far between. Not even a bald-faced lie seems to interest the media when it comes from a high-ranking Democratic Party official and member of Congress. Besides, Democrats should fire Ellison and his boss Tom Perez for their disastrous leadership of the DNC, which has barely been able to keep pace with its debt since they took the helm, while the RNC far outstrips them in fundraising and infrastructure development. If Ellison ever gets canned, that’ll be the reason.
Stick around to the end for Dershowitz’ thoughts on Hillary Clinton’s latest excuse for losing in 2016, but don’t expect too much there, either. Rather than criticize Hillary, Dershowitz talks about trying to learn the proper lessons, and Pete Hegseth nearly jumps out of his chair to get a more direct reaction. Does Pete succeed? Alas, you’ll have to look for the rest of the segment on Fox News for that answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)