Government Lilliputians hard at work investigating President Donald J. Trump.
Democrats are concluding that Jon Ossoff’s disappointing loss to Karen Handel in the special election for Georgia’s 6th congressional district on Tuesday means they must move even further left, and reject calls for more civility.
That might seem odd, especially in the wake of last week’s shooting attack against Republican members of Congress, and given that Handel won partly by tying Ossoff to the left and to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
But Democrats are convinced that Ossoff fell short by moving towards the center after running as the darling of the “#Resistance” in the primary election in April, and by trying to convince moderate Republicans to cross over.
The Washington Post reports:
Indeed, more than 200 miles to the north, a dramatically underfunded Democrat, Archie Parnell, nearly pulled off an upset victory in a House seat that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee largely ignored. In Ossoff, Democrats hoped they had found a potential new path to defeating Republicans with a message of peace and civility. They calculated that the fiery rage, often associated with supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), would not win over moderate Republicans and centrists, whose support Ossoff needed to have any chance to win a district that Tom Price, the six-term congressman who is Trump’s health secretary, won by more than 20 percentage points in November.
So Ossoff chose the high priest route instead of the fierce warrior. It was civil disobedience rather than civil unrest. And he still lost, by an even wider margin than the almost forgotten Parnell.
The Post quotes Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee: “The best way for Democrats to maximize gains in 2018 – especially in purple and red districts – is to harness the power of the resistance and field candidates who proudly challenge power.” Continue reading at breitbart.com.
Jonathan Gruber is back and betting again on public ‘stupidity.’Senate Republicans continue to negotiate the details of their health-care reform, and one measure of progress is that their opponents are more manic and disingenuous. Progressives who used to deride the GOP for incompetence are now panicked that they may really succeed, and thus the faux tantrums.
The distortion du jour is that the GOP is operating “in secret.” This week Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused Republicans of working “behind closed doors, writing a bill they won’t let the public read. . . . Today, no Member of Congress can read the bill because we don’t know what it is.”
Despite Mr. Schumer’s bewilderment, he still knew enough to assert that the Senate bill will “greatly hurt the American people.” Well, which is it? And if Republicans are trying to suppress a public debate about repealing and replacing Obama Care, then they haven’t prevailed, either now or across the presidential campaign. Health care has been central to U.S. political debate for nearly a decade as Democrats created a new entitlement with little public support.
Compared to that effort, the Senate this time has been a model of deliberative democracy. On Dec. 19, 2009, a Saturday, then Majority Leader Harry Reid tossed the 2,100-page bill the Senate had spent that fall debating and offered a new bill drafted in an invitation-only back room. Democrats didn’t even pretend to care what was in it while passing it in the dead of night on Dec. 24, amid a snowstorm, in the first Christmas Eve vote since 1895.
Liberals excused this legislative sausage-making as the price of making history, which was an insult to sausages. MIT economist and ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber told an academic audience in 2014 that “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.” [Bold type: Mine]
Below: Jonathan Gruber being questioned by Rep. Trey Gowdy
Mr. Gruber has since re-emerged to complain of the current debate that “I’m just worried about the speed they’re moving at for what that implies, because it implies no effort to actually get this right.” The professor had apologized for what he called his “inexcusable” remarks in 2014 but he’s betting he can con Americans again.
The irony is that the GOP negotiations are so time-consuming because Senators are trying to improve the product as they build a consensus that can get 50 votes. They’re trying to answer the House bill’s critics on the left and right, not that they’ll get any credit.
One objection is that the House’s tax credits aren’t generous enough to help the working poor; the Senate is likely to increase their value. Another is that the House’s Medicaid expansion wind-down is too disruptive for Governors to manage; the Senate will probably create a longer off-ramp. When they reach an agreement, they’ll release the specifics. Read the rest of this article HERE.
Only in America!
To say the federal government is inefficient with time, money, and resources is an understatement. I hope you’re sitting down for this one.
For the last 17 years, thousands upon thousands of man hours have been spent — no, wasted on continuing preparations for the year 2000 when all the computers in the world were supposed to stop function and spiral us straight into the apocalypse. That, of course, didn’t happen. But why stop spending taxpayer dollars needlessly?
For almost two decades, federal employees have been filing reports on the Y2K bug. Some officials claim the amount of filings have decreased through the years, but the fact that they were still happening at all is reprehensible.
But thanks to the Trump administration’s attitude of “cleaning out our closets,” as Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney described it, the White House is “looking for stuff everyone agrees is a complete waste of time” and tossing it out for good. Continue reading at truthrevolt.org.
This is why the standard liberal motto — that violence is never legitimate, even though it may sometimes be necessary to resort to it — is insufficient. From a radical emancipatory perspective, this formula should be reversed: for the oppressed, violence is always legitimate (since their very status is the result of the violence they are exposed to), but never necessary (it will always be a matter of strategy whether or not use violence against the enemy).fffSlavoj Žižek, On Violence and Democracy
It did not take very long to get from “Punch a Nazi!” to “assassinate a congressman.”
A great deal of spittle has been deployed in the debate over whether or to what extent the Left’s recent indulgence of its penchant for violent rhetoric can be linked to the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise and other members of a Republican congressional baseball team by an angry Democratic activist and Bernie Sanders partisan. But the relevant question here is not violent rhetoric but violence itself. The violence at Berkeley and Middlebury did not lead to the shooting in Alexandria — they are part of the same phenomenon: The American Left has embraced political violence.
More precisely, the Left has embraced “anarcho-tyranny.” (Yes, I know what kind of man Sam Francis became; his phrase remains useful.) The anarcho part: Progressives including mainstream Democrats have embraced the sort of violence that has been directed against the likes of Charles Murray as an instrument of liberationist politics. Representative Val Demings, a Democratic congressman from Florida, shared her view that the riots greeting Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley were “a beautiful sight.” After a physical attack on white nationalist Richard Spencer, Jeremy Binckes of Salon wrote: “Maybe the question shouldn’t be, ‘Is it okay to punch a Nazi?’ but, ‘If you don’t want to be punched in the face, maybe you shouldn’t preach Nazi values to the public?’” A lively debate about the ethics of using violence to suppress certain political views ensued. Short version: Free speech did not experience a runaway victory. Read more at: nationalreview.com.
The First Flag Act declared that the new flag would have “13 stripes alternate red and white: that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.” Former President Woodrow Wilson wanted Americans to mark Flag Day to leave behind “every thought that is not worthy of our fathers’ first vows in independence, liberty, and right” and instead “stand with united hearts, for an America which no man can corrupt, no influence draw away from its ideals, no force divide against itself.” Crontinue reading at ibtimes.com.
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) June 11, 2017
James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials.
The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn’s alleged involvement with Russia–a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of “FBI senior leadership” unilaterally decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior.
The group decided that it could override standard FBI protocol and possibly legal obligations to report the incident because of its expectations that Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia matter, although that recusal would not come until weeks later. The Comey cabinet also decided that it wasn’t obligated to approach the acting Deputy Attorney General because he would likely be replaced soon.
“We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks later.) The Deputy Attorney General’s role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States Attorney, who would also not be long in the role,” Comey said. “After discussing the matter, we decided to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation progressed.”
According to three different former federal law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, there is no precedent for the director of the FBI to refuse to inform a Deputy Attorney General of a matter because of his or her “acting” status nor to use the expectation of a recusal as a basis for withholding information.
“This is an extraordinary usurpation of power. Not something you’d expect from the supposedly by-the-books guys at the top of the FBI,” one of those officials told Breitbart News. Continue reading at breitbart.com.
By Joseph Bast
It’s that time of year again, a holiday where you stand around the grill and patiently (or not) explain the truth to your liberal relatives and friends.
Mentioning an article that ran in the Washington Post in 1922, misreporting evidence of short-term weather variability in the Arctic as evidence of a long-term warming trend, is a good way to poke a stick in the eye of your global warming alarmist friends. A conversation starter!
The article illustrates a past case where (quoting Snopes, the liberal self-described fact checker) “current warming trends” were misinterpreted as being “indicative of long-term climatic changes rather than relatively short-term weather pattern variability.” Don’t oversell it! It doesn’t prove that people today who refer to warming in the Arctic region as proof of a long-term warming trend are necessarily wrong… only that they might be, that the mistake was made in the past (when man-made emissions could not have been a factor), and so the burden of proof rests on those who say this time is different. Continue reading this article at breitbart.com.